United States v. Karnezis et al., D. Or. No. 3:23-cr-00067, Doc. 152: Motion to compel (Williams), Mar. 16, 2026
Summary
Defendant's Motion to Compel Disclosure of Brady and Giglio Material, with Incorporated Memorandum of Law, Document 152 in Case 3:23-CR-00067-IM, filed 03/16/26 in the District of Oregon for defendant Fredrico Williams. The motion argues that the Superseding Indictment names Capital Plus Financial as the victim lender while the same Assistant United States Attorney, Meredith D.M. Bateman, prosecuted others tied to the “Blueacorn-Capital Plus pipeline”. It asks the Court to compel disclosure of Brady and Giglio material about Blueacorn, Capital Plus Financial and the parallel prosecutions, and to extend the motions deadline. Ernest Warren, Jr. signs as attorney for Williams.
Summary drafted by a model from the document's text below and checked by script against that text before publication. It is a navigation aid, not a reading of what the document proves. Where AI is used
Cite this document
“United States v. Karnezis et al., D. Or. No. 3:23-cr-00067, Doc. 152: Motion to compel (Williams), Mar. 16, 2026.”
Original at storage.courtlistener.com. Archived at Pandemic Darlings, https://pandemicdarlings.com/source-documents/united-states-v-karnezis-et-al-d-or-no-3-23-cr-00067-doc-152-motion-to-a92b19a320/
, SHA-256 4f156eea5385819399d80b169d504a91c32bd56febeb04a958fb4533fab38388.Full text
Case 3:23-cr-00067-IM Document 152 Filed 03/16/26 Page 1 of 24
Ernest Warren, Jr. OSB #891384
Warren & Sugarman
838 S.W. First Ave., Suite 200
Portland, OR 97204
Tel: (503) 228-6655
E-mail: e.warren@ernestwarrenlaw.com
Attorney for Defendant Fredrico Williams
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON
PORTLAND DIVISION
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ) Case No. 3:23-CR-00067-IM
)
Plaintiff, )
) DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO COMPEL
v. ) DISCLOSURE OF BRADY AND GIGLIO
) MATERIAL, WITH INCORPORATED
FREDRICO WILLIAMS, ) MEMORANDUM OF LAW
)
Defendant. ) Oral Argument Requested
___________________________________ ) Fed. R. Crim. P. 16; Brady v. Maryland,
373 U.S. 83 (1963)
TABLE OF CONTENTS
__________________________________________________________________________
Section Page
__________________________________________________________________________
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES ii
I. INTRODUCTION 1
II. FACTUAL BACKGROUND 3
Page 1-Defendant’s Motion to
Compel Disclosure of Brady and
Giglio Material, with Incorporated WARREN & SUGARMAN
Memorandum of Law Attorneys at Law
838 SW First Avenue • Suite 200 • Portland, Oregon 97204
Tel (503) 228-6655
ernestwarrenlaw.com
Case 3:23-cr-00067-IM Document 152 Filed 03/16/26 Page 2 of 24
Section Page
A. The Williams Indictment and Capital Plus as
3
“Victim”
B. The Blueacorn-Capital Plus Pipeline 4
C. Related Prosecutions by AUSA Bateman 6
D. The Car Ride Admission: “They Don’t Want
8
You — They Want Karnezis”
E. Discovery History and the Plea Offer 9
F. The Cobb Disparity 10
III. LEGAL STANDARD 11
A. Brady v. Maryland 11
B. Giglio v. United States 12
C. Materiality — Kyles v. Whitley 12
D. Government’s Ongoing Duty — Agurs 13
E. Timeliness of Disclosure 13
IV. ARGUMENT 14
A. The Blueacorn/Capital Plus Evidence Is
14
Exculpatory Under Brady
B. Cooperator Plea Agreements Are
17
Impeachment Evidence Under Giglio
C. The Government Has Actual and
18
Constructive Possession
D. Aggregate Materiality Under Kyles 20
E. The Plea Offer’s Blueacorn Omission
21
Demonstrates Deliberate Suppression
F. Jencks Act Integration 23
V. SPECIFIC DISCOVERY DEMANDED 24
VI. RELIEF REQUESTED 27
VII. CONCLUSION 28
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 29
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
Cases
Case Page(s)
Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963) 1, 11, 14, 21, 28
Giglio v. United States, 405 U.S. 150 (1972) 1, 12, 17, 28
Kyles v. Whitley, 514 U.S. 419 (1995) 12, 18, 20
Napue v. Illinois, 360 U.S. 264 (1959) 17
Page 2-Defendant’s Motion to WARREN & SUGARMAN
Compel Disclosure of Brady and Attorneys at Law
Giglio Material, with Incorporated 838 SW First Avenue • Suite 200 • Portland, Oregon 97204
Memorandum of Law Tel (503) 228-6655
ernestwarrenlaw.com
Case 3:23-cr-00067-IM Document 152 Filed 03/16/26 Page 3 of 24
Case Page(s)
Neder v. United States, 527 U.S. 1 (1999) 1, 14, 15
Smith v. Cain, 565 U.S. 73 (2012) 17
Strickler v. Greene, 527 U.S. 263 (1999) 11, 19
United States v. Agurs, 427 U.S. 97 (1976) 13
United States v. Bagley, 473 U.S. 667 (1985) 12, 20
United States v. Gaudin, 515 U.S. 506 (1995) 16
United States v. Olsen, 704 F.3d 1172 (9th Cir. 2013) 12, 13
United States v. Price, 566 F.3d 900 (9th Cir. 2009) 13
United States v. Sedaghaty, 728 F.3d 885 (9th Cir. 2013) 20
Wearry v. Cain, 577 U.S. 385 (2016) 12, 20
Statutes and Rules
Authority Page(s)
18 U.S.C. § 1343 (Wire Fraud) 1, 14, 15
18 U.S.C. § 1349 (Conspiracy to Commit Wire Fraud) 3, 6
18 U.S.C. § 1957 (Money Laundering) 3
18 U.S.C. § 3500 (Jencks Act) 23
18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(6) (Sentencing Disparity) 10
Fed. R. Crim. P. 16 1, 27
U.S. Const. amend. V (Due Process) 11
U.S. Const. amend. VI (Compulsory Process) 11
D. Or. LR 7-1(b) 1
Other Authorities
Authority Page(s)
H. Select Subcomm. on the Coronavirus
5
Crisis, The Rush to Lend (2022)
DOJ Press Release, Arizona Man and Co-
Defendants Facing Federal Charges 1, 6
(Sept. 9, 2024)
DOJ Press Release, Blueacorn Co-Founder
6
Sentenced to Ten Years (2024)
DOJ Press Release, Blueacorn Co-Founder
7
Nathan Reis Pleads Guilty (2025)
IRS-CI Press Release, Arizona Brothers
7
Plead Guilty (2025)
Page 3-Defendant’s Motion to
Compel Disclosure of Brady and
Giglio Material, with WARREN & SUGARMAN
Incorporated Memorandum of Attorneys at Law
Law 838 SW First Avenue • Suite 200 • Portland, Oregon 97204
Tel (503) 228-6655
ernestwarrenlaw.com
Case 3:23-cr-00067-IM Document 152 Filed 03/16/26 Page 4 of 24
I. INTRODUCTION
The government has built its case against Fredrico Williams on a paradox it hopes
no one will notice. Every count of the Superseding Indictment names Capital Plus
Financial as the “victim” lender — the institution supposedly defrauded by false
Paycheck Protection Program (“PPP”) applications. The government’s theory
requires the jury to believe that Capital Plus relied on the representations in those
applications when making lending decisions and that those false statements were
therefore “material” to the lender’s decision-making process.
But there is a problem the government does not want this Court — or the jury — to
see.
The same Assistant United States Attorney prosecuting Williams — Meredith D.M.
Bateman — has separately prosecuted the very people who ran Capital Plus and its
pipeline. AUSA Bateman personally signed the plea agreement of Eric Karnezis — a
referral agent who admitted to submitting at least 350 fraudulent PPP applications
“through Blueacorn, a lender service provider, to Capital Plus Financial,” with the
broader scheme encompassing approximately 1,300 applications and $178 million in
attempted funding. Karnezis Plea Agreement ¶ 7(b) (Jan. 25, 2025); DOJ Press
Release (Sept. 9, 2024). Eric’s twin brother, Anthony Karnezis, separately pled
guilty to conspiring to submit approximately 140 additional fraudulent PPP
applications through the same pipeline, resulting in approximately $3.9 million in
funded loans. Blueacorn’s co-founders — Stephanie Hockridge and Nathan Reis —
have been convicted for operating what congressional investigators called a “fraud
factory.” The House Select Subcommittee on the Coronavirus Crisis found that one
person reviewed 1.7 million PPP applications flowing through the Blueacorn-Capital
Plus pipeline. H. Select Subcomm. on the Coronavirus Crisis, The Rush to Lend
42-43 (2022).
Every application in Williams’s indictment flowed through this same pipeline: from
the applicant, through Blueacorn, to Capital Plus Financial. If Capital Plus had no
meaningful review process — if it approved virtually every application Blueacorn
forwarded — then false statements on those applications were not “material” to the
lender’s decision. See Neder v. United States, 527 U.S. 1, 16 (1999) (materiality is
an element of wire fraud that the government must prove beyond a reasonable
doubt).
The government possesses extensive evidence about the Blueacorn-Capital Plus
pipeline — evidence it obtained through its own parallel prosecutions. It has not
disclosed this evidence to the defense. Instead, it has done the opposite: Williams’s
plea offer (v.4, August 2025) deliberately omits the word “Blueacorn” from its
factual basis, even though the same AUSA included “through Blueacorn, a lender
service provider, to Capital Plus Financial” in co-defendant Bayless Cobb’s plea
agreement. The plea offer also contains a discovery waiver (paragraph 10) that, had
Williams signed it, would have permanently foreclosed any Brady challenge.
Perhaps most remarkably, during the car ride following Williams’s arrest on March
21, 2023, law enforcement agents told Williams directly: “They don’t want you —
they want Karnezis.” The government was already targeting the Blueacorn-Capital
Plus pipeline at the time it arrested Williams — yet it has never disclosed the
evidence that fatally undermines its theory of materiality.
Page 4-Defendant’s Motion to
Compel Disclosure of Brady and WARREN & SUGARMAN
Giglio Material, with Incorporated Attorneys at Law
Memorandum of Law 838 SW First Avenue • Suite 200 • Portland, Oregon 97204
Tel (503) 228-6655
ernestwarrenlaw.com
Case 3:23-cr-00067-IM Document 152 Filed 03/16/26 Page 5 of 24
The Due Process Clause does not permit the government to simultaneously
prosecute the Blueacorn-Capital Plus pipeline as a criminal enterprise and rely on
that same pipeline as a legitimate “victim” in Williams’s case — while concealing
the evidence that connects the two. Williams moves this Court to compel immediate
disclosure of all Brady and Giglio material related to Blueacorn, Capital Plus
Financial, and the government’s parallel prosecutions, and to extend the motions
deadline to allow the defense to incorporate this material into pretrial preparation.
This motion is supported by the Declaration of Counsel filed concurrently herewith,
which documents the defense’s prior discovery requests and the government’s
failure to produce the materials described herein.
II. FACTUAL BACKGROUND
A. The Williams Indictment and Capital Plus as “Victim”
On March 7, 2023, a federal grand jury in the District of Oregon returned a sealed
indictment against Fredrico Antoine Williams. ECF No. 1. The Superseding
Indictment charges Williams with Conspiracy to Commit Wire Fraud (18 U.S.C. §
1349) and substantive wire fraud counts (18 U.S.C. § 1343), as well as money
laundering (18 U.S.C. § 1957). ECF No. 31.
The central theory of the government’s case is that Williams participated in a
conspiracy to submit fraudulent PPP loan applications containing false statements
about the existence of businesses, gross revenues, payroll amounts, and the number
of employees. The Superseding Indictment names Capital Plus Financial as the
lender that approved and funded the loans at issue.
Under the government’s theory, Capital Plus Financial is the institutional victim —
the entity that relied on the representations in the PPP applications and was
defrauded. This framing is essential to the government’s case because wire fraud
requires proof that the false statements were “material” — that is, that they had “a
natural tendency to influence, or [were] capable of influencing, the decision of the
decisionmaking body to which [they were] addressed.” Neder, 527 U.S. at 16. If
Capital Plus did not meaningfully review or rely on the information in the
applications, the materiality element fails as a matter of law.
B. The Blueacorn-Capital Plus Pipeline
The Superseding Indictment does not mention Blueacorn, Inc. — the financial
technology company that served as the conduit through which all PPP applications
at issue were submitted to Capital Plus Financial. But the government’s own
evidence — obtained through parallel prosecutions — establishes the critical role
Blueacorn played.
The Pipeline. Every PPP application in Williams’s case followed the same path: the
applicant’s information was submitted through Blueacorn (a “lender service
provider”), which processed and forwarded applications to Capital Plus Financial
(an SBA-approved lender). Capital Plus then submitted the applications to the SBA
for guarantee and funding. This pipeline is described in the government’s own words
in co-defendant Cobb’s plea agreement:
Page 5-Defendant’s Motion to Compel WARREN & SUGARMAN
Disclosure of Brady and Giglio Attorneys at Law
Material, with Incorporated 838 SW First Avenue • Suite 200 • Portland, Oregon 97204
Memorandum of Law Tel (503) 228-6655
ernestwarrenlaw.com
Case 3:23-cr-00067-IM Document 152 Filed 03/16/26 Page 6 of 24
“Specifically, defendant conspired with applicants to gather and organize
fraudulent business information for defendant to submit or cause others to
submit at least 59 fraudulent PPP applications on behalf of the applicants
through Blueacorn, a lender service provider, to Capital Plus Financial, a
lender participating in the PPP, totaling approximately $9,976,803 in
attempted funding.”
Plea Agreement of Bayless Cobb, ¶ 7(b), ECF No. 12 at 3 (emphasis added). The
Karnezis plea agreement uses identical pipeline language:
“Specifically, defendant conspired with recruiters to gather false and
fraudulent business information from applicants for defendant to submit at
least 350 fraudulent PPP applications on behalf of the applicants through
Blueacorn, a lender service provider, to Capital Plus Financial, a lender
participating in the PPP.”
Plea Agreement of Eric Karnezis, ¶ 7(b) at 3 (Jan. 25, 2025) (emphasis added).
The “Fraud Factory.” The House Select Subcommittee on the Coronavirus Crisis
conducted an extensive investigation into the Blueacorn-Capital Plus pipeline. Its
findings were devastating:
• Blueacorn processed approximately 1.7 million PPP loan applications.
• Capital Plus Financial was Blueacorn’s exclusive SBA-approved lending
partner.
• One person was responsible for reviewing the applications flowing through the
pipeline.
• The system operated with “essentially no meaningful review” of individual
applications.
• Capital Plus approved “virtually every application” Blueacorn forwarded.
H. Select Subcomm. on the Coronavirus Crisis, The Rush to Lend: How the Push to
Quickly Distribute PPP Loans Created Opportunities for Fraud and Abuse 42-43
(2022).
These findings establish that Capital Plus Financial did not conduct individualized,
substantive review of the PPP applications it received through Blueacorn. A lender
that employs one reviewer for 1.7 million applications — approximately 4,657
applications per day, or one every 6.2 seconds of a 24-hour day — is not “relying”
on the representations in those applications in any meaningful sense. The false
statements alleged in the Williams indictment were not “material” to Capital Plus’s
lending decisions because Capital Plus was not making individualized lending
decisions.
C. Related Prosecutions by AUSA Bateman
The government’s parallel prosecutions — all led or joined by AUSA Meredith
D.M. Bateman — confirm that the Blueacorn-Capital Plus pipeline was itself a
criminal enterprise:
1. United States v. Stephanie Hockridge (Blueacorn Co-Founder)
Stephanie Hockridge co-founded and co-owned Blueacorn. She was convicted and
sentenced to 10 years in federal prison and ordered to pay $63 million in
restitution. The Department of Justice described Blueacorn’s operations as a
Page 6-Defendant’s Motion to WARREN & SUGARMAN
Compel Disclosure of Brady and Attorneys at Law
Giglio Material, with Incorporated 838 SW First Avenue • Suite 200 • Portland, Oregon 97204
Memorandum of Law Tel (503) 228-6655
ernestwarrenlaw.com
Case 3:23-cr-00067-IM Document 152 Filed 03/16/26 Page 7 of 24
scheme to fraudulently process PPP applications at massive scale. DOJ Press
Release, Blueacorn Co-Founder Sentenced to Ten Years in Prison for COVID-Relief
Fraud (2024).
2. United States v. Nathan Reis (Blueacorn Co-Founder)
Nathan Reis, the other co-founder and co-owner of Blueacorn, pled guilty in
August 2025 to conspiracy charges arising from the same scheme. The Karnezis
plea agreement identifies Reis as a co-conspirator with whom Karnezis “conspired
. . . to submit these fraudulent applications.” Karnezis Plea Agreement ¶ 7(c). AUSA
Bateman was involved in this prosecution.
3. United States v. Eric Karnezis (Referral Agent / Scheme Ringleader)
Eric Karnezis — Defendant No. 1 in Williams’s own case (No. 3:23-CR-00067-IM)
— served as a referral agent within Blueacorn’s “VIPPP” program, a personalized
service through which agents helped borrowers complete PPP applications. Karnezis
admitted to submitting at least 350 fraudulent PPP applications through
Blueacorn to Capital Plus. Karnezis Plea Agreement ¶ 7(b). The broader scheme
attributed to Karnezis encompassed approximately 1,300 fraudulent applications,
$178 million in attempted funding, approximately $105 million in funded loans,
and approximately $3 million in fees collected by Karnezis personally. DOJ Press
Release (Sept. 9, 2024); Karnezis Plea Agreement ¶¶ 7(f)-(g).
Critically, the Karnezis plea agreement was signed by AUSA Meredith D.M.
Bateman — the same prosecutor handling Williams’s case. Karnezis Plea
Agreement at 18 (signed Jan. 25, 2025). Karnezis pled guilty on March 25, 2025.
His sentencing is scheduled for June 15, 2026 — four months before Williams’s
trial.
The Karnezis plea agreement characterizes Williams as a “recruiter for defendant
[Karnezis] who was responsible for providing false and fraudulent business
information to defendant.” Karnezis Plea Agreement ¶ 7(d). Whatever the
accuracy of that characterization, it is the government’s own description of
Williams’s alleged role — and it places Williams far from the center of the scheme.
The government’s own evidence describes the Blueacorn-Capital Plus pipeline as a
criminal enterprise operated by others.
The digital evidence underscores this point. Every PPP application in this case was
electronically signed using Eric Karnezis’s DocuSign credentials (unique GUID),
and all submissions trace to Karnezis’s IP address — not Williams’s. Williams
did not electronically sign, submit, or transmit a single PPP application. The
government possesses the DocuSign metadata and IP logs establishing this fact —
evidence that is plainly exculpatory — yet has not disclosed it to the defense.
4. United States v. Anthony Karnezis (Eric’s Twin Brother)
Anthony Karnezis, Eric’s twin brother, was charged by criminal information and
pled guilty on March 26, 2025 — one day after his brother — to conspiracy to
commit wire fraud for his role in submitting approximately 140 fraudulent PPP
applications through the same Blueacorn-Capital Plus pipeline, resulting in
approximately $3.9 million in funded loans and approximately $957,000 in fees.
Anthony operated as a smaller-scale co-conspirator alongside Eric, using the same
VIPPP referral agent structure.
Page 7-Defendant’s Motion to WARREN & SUGARMAN
Compel Disclosure of Brady and Attorneys at Law
Giglio Material, with Incorporated 838 SW First Avenue • Suite 200 • Portland, Oregon 97204
Memorandum of Law Tel (503) 228-6655
ernestwarrenlaw.com
Case 3:23-cr-00067-IM Document 152 Filed 03/16/26 Page 8 of 24
The prosecution of both Karnezis brothers — in the same case as Williams —
further underscores the government’s knowledge that the pipeline itself was a
criminal operation. The government cannot claim that Capital Plus was an innocent
“victim” while simultaneously prosecuting the family of referral agents who
exploited Capital Plus’s complete absence of review procedures.
5. The Timeline of Dual Prosecution
The timeline underscores the government’s knowledge:
Date Event
March 7, 2023 Williams indictment sealed
Williams arrested; agents tell him “they
March 21, 2023
don’t want you, they want Karnezis”
23-count Superseding Indictment returned
August 21, 2024 (naming Eric Karnezis as Defendant
No. 1)
Eric Karnezis arrested by NCIS in Sedona,
September 5, 2024
Arizona
Eric Karnezis plea agreement signed by
January 25, 2025
AUSA Bateman
Anthony Karnezis charged by criminal
February 19, 2025
information
March 25, 2025 Eric Karnezis pleads guilty
March 26, 2025 Anthony Karnezis pleads guilty
Cobb plea agreement signed by AUSA
July 10, 2025
Bateman
Reis pleads guilty; Williams plea offer v.4
August 2025
issued (omitting Blueacorn)
Eric Karnezis sentencing (4 months
June 15, 2026
before Williams trial)
No Brady/Giglio disclosure to Williams
As of filing
regarding Blueacorn/Capital Plus
AUSA Bateman has been at the center of both prosecution tracks from the
beginning. She signed the plea agreements in which the Blueacorn pipeline is
explicitly described, and she is the lead prosecutor in the case where that same
pipeline is concealed. The government cannot credibly claim ignorance of this
evidence.
D. The Car Ride Admission: “They Don’t Want You — They Want
Karnezis”
On March 21, 2023, following Williams’s arrest, law enforcement agents transported
Williams by vehicle. During the car ride, agents made a statement directly to
Williams: “They don’t want you — they want Karnezis.”
Page 8-Defendant’s Motion to WARREN & SUGARMAN
Compel Disclosure of Brady and Attorneys at Law
Giglio Material, with Incorporated 838 SW First Avenue • Suite 200 • Portland, Oregon 97204
Memorandum of Law Tel (503) 228-6655
ernestwarrenlaw.com
Case 3:23-cr-00067-IM Document 152 Filed 03/16/26 Page 9 of 24
This statement is significant for three reasons. First, it establishes that the
government’s investigation of Eric Karnezis and the Blueacorn-Capital Plus pipeline
was already active at the time of Williams’s arrest. The government was targeting
the pipeline before it arrested Williams, yet it has never disclosed the evidence it had
already gathered. Second, the statement reveals the government’s own assessment of
where the true culpability lay — with Karnezis and the pipeline, not with Williams.
Third, and most fundamentally, it demonstrates that the government knew that
Capital Plus was not a genuine “victim” as early as the date of Williams’s arrest,
because agents were already pursuing Karnezis for fraud within the pipeline.
This contemporaneous admission by government agents is itself Brady material that
has never been formally disclosed or memorialized in any discovery production.
E. Discovery History and the Plea Offer
Prior Discovery Requests and Outstanding Items. Since counsel’s appointment,
the defense has made the following categories of discovery requests that remain
unfulfilled:
1. Brady/Giglio material related to cooperating witnesses — The government
has not produced plea agreements, cooperation agreements, proffer statements,
or debriefing memoranda for Eric Karnezis, Anthony Karnezis, Stephanie
Hockridge, or Nathan Reis, despite their direct relevance to Williams’s case.
2. Blueacorn/Capital Plus internal records — No records have been produced
regarding Capital Plus Financial’s internal review procedures, approval rates,
quality control protocols, or staffing for PPP application review — evidence that
goes directly to the materiality element of every charged count.
3. DocuSign metadata and IP records — The government has not produced the
DocuSign audit trails, GUID records, or IP address logs for the PPP applications
charged in the Superseding Indictment, despite the defense’s request for all
digital evidence related to the submission of applications.
4. Car ride documentation — No recordings, agent notes, FBI 302 reports, or
memoranda documenting the statements made to Williams during the March 21,
2023 car ride have been produced, including the agents’ statement that “they
don’t want you, they want Karnezis.”
5. Congressional investigation materials — No materials from the House Select
Subcommittee on the Coronavirus Crisis investigation of the Blueacorn-Capital
Plus pipeline have been disclosed, despite being in the government’s actual or
constructive possession.
6. Parallel prosecution files — No investigative materials, agent reports, or case
files from the Hockridge, Reis, Eric Karnezis, or Anthony Karnezis prosecutions
have been produced to Williams’s defense, despite being handled by the same
AUSA and investigating agencies.
The government has produced standard discovery materials — including the
interview transcript, financial records, and the Superseding Indictment — but has
made no specific disclosure of Brady material related to the Blueacorn-Capital Plus
pipeline, the congressional investigation, or the related prosecutions. This motion is
the defense’s first formal motion to compel such disclosure. Critically, the
Page 9-Defendant’s Motion to WARREN & SUGARMAN
Compel Disclosure of Brady and Attorneys at Law
Giglio Material, with Incorporated 838 SW First Avenue • Suite 200 • Portland, Oregon 97204
Memorandum of Law Tel (503) 228-6655
ernestwarrenlaw.com
Case 3:23-cr-00067-IM Document 152 Filed 03/16/26 Page 10 of 24
government’s Brady obligation is self-executing and does not depend on a defense
request. Brady, 373 U.S. at 87; Strickler v. Greene, 527 U.S. 263, 280 (1999). The
Declaration of Counsel filed concurrently herewith details the specific discovery
requests made and the government’s responses.
The Plea Offer and the Blueacorn Omission. On August 26, 2025, the government
extended its fourth plea offer to Williams (v.4). The factual basis of the plea offer is
notable for what it omits. The plea offer attributes all lending activity directly to
Capital Plus Financial, stating that false documents were submitted “to the Small
Business Administration (”SBA”) and Capital Plus Financial (a lender participating
in the PPP).” Plea Offer v.4, ¶ 7 at 3. Capital Plus is described as having “approved
and funded” each loan — suggesting active, direct lender decision-making.
The word “Blueacorn” does not appear anywhere in the plea offer.
The contrast with co-defendant Cobb’s plea agreement is stark:
Document AUSA Language
“through Blueacorn, a
Cobb Plea Agreement (ECF
Bateman lender service provider, to
No. 12)
Capital Plus Financial”
“through Blueacorn, a
Karnezis Plea Agreement Bateman lender service provider, to
Capital Plus Financial”
“to . . . Capital Plus
Williams Plea Offer v.4 Bateman Financial (a lender
participating in the PPP)”
The same AUSA, describing the same factual pipeline, used materially different
language in Williams’s plea offer — excising the intermediary (Blueacorn) that
would reveal Capital Plus’s lack of independent review. This omission was not
accidental. It was a deliberate choice to conceal the very evidence that undermines
the materiality element of every charged count.
The Discovery Waiver. The plea offer contains a particularly aggressive provision
in paragraph 10:
“Waiver of Full Discovery: As a material term of this offer and agreement,
defendant expressly accepts the USAO’s offer to make available the evidence
gathered in the investigation of this matter for on-site inspection and the
USAO’s production of limited discovery as of the date of this agreement in
full satisfaction of the United States’ discovery obligations in this case.
Defendant knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily waives his rights to
further production of evidence or information from the United States, even
though he may be entitled to such production under the Federal Rules of
Criminal Procedure, the discovery orders of the Court, and any prior
demands for discovery.”
Plea Offer v.4, ¶ 10 (emphasis added). Had Williams signed this plea offer,
paragraph 10 would have permanently foreclosed access to the Brady material
described in this motion. The government sought to characterize “limited discovery”
as “full satisfaction” of its obligations while simultaneously withholding evidence
Page 10-Defendant’s Motion to WARREN & SUGARMAN
Compel Disclosure of Brady and Attorneys at Law
Giglio Material, with Incorporated 838 SW First Avenue • Suite 200 • Portland, Oregon 97204
Memorandum of Law Tel (503) 228-6655
ernestwarrenlaw.com
Case 3:23-cr-00067-IM Document 152 Filed 03/16/26 Page 11 of 24
that Capital Plus — the named victim — was a complicit participant in a criminal
pipeline. The placement of this waiver in a plea offer that itself conceals the
Blueacorn connection reflects a pattern of deliberate suppression.
F. The Cobb Disparity
The disparity between Cobb’s plea terms and the government’s posture toward
Williams is itself relevant to the Brady analysis, as it reflects selective treatment that
the jury should have the opportunity to evaluate.
Factor Cobb Williams
Total Applications At least 59 Fewer
Total Attempted Funding ~$9,976,803 ~$2,145,462
~$4,417,640 (34
Total Funded Less
loans)
Offense Level 19 20 (per plea offer)
Recommended Variance -3 (downward) -2 (downward)
Money Laundering
No Yes
Charge
Yes (“through
Pipeline Acknowledged No (Blueacorn omitted)
Blueacorn”)
AUSA Bateman Bateman
Judge Immergut Immergut
Cobb — who processed 2.2 times the loss amount across nearly 59 applications —
received a lower offense level, a greater downward variance, and no money
laundering charge. In the same courtroom, before the same judge, prosecuted by the
same AUSA. The disparity is relevant under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(6) and also bears
on the question of whether the government’s withholding of Blueacorn evidence
from Williams’s case is part of a broader pattern of selective prosecution.
III. LEGAL STANDARD
A. Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963)
The Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment requires the government to
disclose evidence that is favorable to the accused. Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83,
87 (1963). This obligation applies to evidence that is exculpatory — tending to show
the defendant’s innocence — and to evidence that is impeaching — tending to
undermine the credibility of government witnesses. Id.; Giglio v. United States, 405
U.S. 150, 154 (1972).
The Supreme Court has established a three-part test for Brady violations: (1) the
evidence at issue must be favorable to the accused, either because it is exculpatory
or because it is impeaching; (2) the evidence must have been suppressed by the
WARREN & SUGARMAN
Page 11-Defendant’s Motion to Attorneys at Law
Compel Disclosure of Brady and 838 SW First Avenue • Suite 200 • Portland, Oregon 97204
Giglio Material, with Incorporated Tel (503) 228-6655
Memorandum of Law ernestwarrenlaw.com
Case 3:23-cr-00067-IM Document 152 Filed 03/16/26 Page 12 of 24
government, either willfully or inadvertently; and (3) prejudice must have ensued —
that is, the evidence must be “material.” Strickler v. Greene, 527 U.S. 263, 281-82
(1999).
Suppression of favorable evidence violates due process “irrespective of the good
faith or bad faith of the prosecution.” Brady, 373 U.S. at 87. The government’s
intent is irrelevant; the constitutional violation lies in the nondisclosure, not the
motive.
B. Giglio v. United States, 405 U.S. 150 (1972)
Giglio extended Brady’s disclosure obligation to impeachment evidence, including
any “understanding or agreement as to a future prosecution” between the
government and its witnesses. Giglio, 405 U.S. at 154-55. The government must
disclose all plea deals, cooperation agreements, immunity agreements, and any other
benefits conferred upon witnesses. Id. The Ninth Circuit has held that Giglio
material is “per se material” when the testimony of the witness whose credibility
would be impeached is central to the government’s case. United States v. Olsen, 704
F.3d 1172, 1182 (9th Cir. 2013) (Kozinski, C.J., dissenting from denial of rehearing
en banc).
C. Materiality — Kyles v. Whitley, 514 U.S. 419 (1995)
Evidence is “material” under Brady if “there is a reasonable probability that, had the
evidence been disclosed to the defense, the result of the proceeding would have been
different.” United States v. Bagley, 473 U.S. 667, 682 (1985). A “reasonable
probability” is one “sufficient to undermine confidence in the outcome.” Id.
Critically, materiality is assessed in the aggregate: “[T]he question is not whether
the defendant would more likely than not have received a different verdict with the
evidence, but whether in its absence he received a fair trial, understood as a trial
resulting in a verdict worthy of confidence.” Kyles v. Whitley, 514 U.S. 419, 434
(1995). The court must assess the cumulative effect of all suppressed evidence, not
evaluate each piece in isolation. Id. at 436-37; Wearry v. Cain, 577 U.S. 385, 394
(2016) (per curiam).
D. Government’s Ongoing Duty — Agurs
The government’s obligation to disclose Brady material is “ongoing.” United States
v. Agurs, 427 U.S. 97, 107 (1976). The duty extends beyond materials in the
prosecutor’s personal possession to include evidence “known to the others acting on
the government’s behalf in the case, including the police.” Kyles, 514 U.S. at 437. In
the Ninth Circuit, the prosecution team includes “both investigative and
prosecutorial personnel involved in the case.” United States v. Price, 566 F.3d 900,
910 (9th Cir. 2009).
E. Timeliness of Disclosure
Brady material must be disclosed in time for effective use at trial. Id. When evidence
is relevant to pretrial motions — as the evidence here is relevant to challenges to the
materiality element, Franks challenges to the affidavit, and sentencing disparity
arguments — disclosure must be made sufficiently in advance of the applicable
Page 12-Defendant’s Motion to WARREN & SUGARMAN
Compel Disclosure of Brady and Attorneys at Law
Giglio Material, with Incorporated 838 SW First Avenue • Suite 200 • Portland, Oregon 97204
Memorandum of Law Tel (503) 228-6655
ernestwarrenlaw.com
Case 3:23-cr-00067-IM Document 152 Filed 03/16/26 Page 13 of 24
motions deadline to permit meaningful incorporation. With a motions deadline of
July 10, 2026 and a trial date of October 27, 2026, the need for immediate disclosure
is acute.
IV. ARGUMENT
A. The Blueacorn/Capital Plus Evidence Is Exculpatory Under
Brady (Materiality Element)
The evidence the government has withheld goes directly to an element of the
charged offenses — materiality — making it among the most powerful categories of
Brady material recognized by law.
1. Wire fraud requires proof of material false statements.
Wire fraud under 18 U.S.C. § 1343 requires the government to prove that the
defendant used false statements that were “material” — that is, statements having “a
natural tendency to influence, or . . . capable of influencing, the decision of the
decisionmaking body to which [they were] addressed.” Neder v. United States, 527
U.S. 1, 16 (1999). The Supreme Court has held that materiality is an element of the
offense that must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt. Id. at 20, 25. Moreover,
materiality is a question for the jury, not the court. United States v. Gaudin, 515 U.S.
506, 509 (1995).
2. Capital Plus had no meaningful review process.
The evidence from the government’s own prosecutions and from congressional
investigations establishes that Capital Plus Financial did not conduct individualized
review of PPP applications. One person was assigned to review 1.7 million
applications. H. Select Subcomm. on the Coronavirus Crisis, The Rush to Lend
42-43 (2022). Karnezis alone submitted at least 350 fraudulent applications through
the pipeline — resulting in at least $60 million in funded loans — demonstrating
that Capital Plus approved applications at industrial scale without meaningful
scrutiny. Karnezis Plea Agreement ¶¶ 7(b), 7(f).
3. If Capital Plus did not rely on the representations, the statements were not
“material.”
The materiality element requires that the false statements were capable of
influencing the lender’s decision. If Capital Plus’s review process consisted of a
single reviewer processing thousands of applications per day through what was
essentially an automated approval pipeline, then false statements about the existence
of businesses, gross revenues, payroll amounts, and the number of employees were
not capable of influencing Capital Plus’s lending decisions — because Capital Plus
was not making individualized lending decisions.
This is not a close question. A lender that employs one reviewer for 1.7 million
applications is not “relying” on representations in any individual application. The
government’s own evidence proves that Capital Plus was a rubber stamp, not a
decision-maker.
Page 13-Defendant’s Motion to
Compel Disclosure of Brady and WARREN & SUGARMAN
Giglio Material, with Incorporated Attorneys at Law
Memorandum of Law 838 SW First Avenue • Suite 200 • Portland, Oregon 97204
Tel (503) 228-6655
ernestwarrenlaw.com
Case 3:23-cr-00067-IM Document 152 Filed 03/16/26 Page 14 of 24
4. The Blueacorn/Capital Plus prosecutions establish the pipeline was criminal
from the lender side.
The significance of the Hockridge, Reis, and Karnezis prosecutions extends beyond
the review-process evidence. These prosecutions establish that the Blueacorn-
Capital Plus pipeline was itself a criminal enterprise operated by individuals who
profited from processing fraudulent applications. Hockridge was sentenced to 10
years and $63 million in restitution. Karnezis collected $3 million in fees for
submitting 350+ fraudulent applications. The pipeline operators were not victims —
they were perpetrators.
The government cannot simultaneously prosecute the pipeline operators for running
a fraud factory and prosecute Williams for using that same fraud factory while
claiming the fraud factory was an innocent “victim.” This is not a matter of
prosecutorial discretion; it is a matter of logical and legal consistency. Evidence that
the “victim” was a knowing participant in the fraud is exculpatory under Brady
because it negates the materiality element, undermines the government’s victim
narrative, and provides the jury with a fundamentally different understanding of the
charged conduct.
5. DocuSign metadata and IP records are exculpatory.
The government possesses digital evidence that further undermines its case. Every
PPP application at issue was electronically signed using Eric Karnezis’s unique
DocuSign GUID — not Williams’s. Every submission traces to Karnezis’s IP
address — not Williams’s. Williams did not electronically sign, submit, or transmit a
single PPP application. This metadata is squarely exculpatory: it establishes that
Karnezis — not Williams — was the individual who actually executed and
submitted the applications through the Blueacorn-Capital Plus pipeline. The
government’s failure to disclose these records is a Brady violation.
6. This evidence directly negates an element of every charged count.
Evidence that negates an element of the offense is the highest category of
exculpatory evidence. Unlike impeachment evidence, which merely weakens the
government’s proof, element-negating evidence means the government cannot prove
its case. The Blueacorn/Capital Plus evidence negates the materiality element of
every wire fraud count and the underlying wire fraud for the money laundering
counts. This Court should compel its immediate disclosure.
B. Cooperator Plea Agreements and Proffer Materials Are
Impeachment Evidence Under Giglio
The government has obtained plea agreements and cooperation from multiple
individuals whose testimony could be central to Williams’s trial. Under Giglio, the
government must disclose all benefits, agreements, and understandings it has with
these individuals:
1. Bayless Cobb — Co-defendant who pled guilty on July 10, 2025. His plea
agreement explicitly names Williams as a co-conspirator. If called as a government
witness, Cobb’s cooperation agreement, the benefits he received (3-level downward
variance, no money laundering charge), and any proffer or debriefing statements are
Giglio material.
WARREN & SUGARMAN
Page 14-Defendant’s Motion to Attorneys at Law
Compel Disclosure of Brady and 838 SW First Avenue • Suite 200 • Portland, Oregon 97204
Giglio Material, with Incorporated Tel (503) 228-6655
Memorandum of Law ernestwarrenlaw.com
Case 3:23-cr-00067-IM Document 152 Filed 03/16/26 Page 15 of 24
2. Eric Karnezis — Referral agent and scheme ringleader (Defendant No. 1) who
pled guilty on March 25, 2025. His plea agreement details the mechanics of the
Blueacorn pipeline and characterizes co-conspirators’ roles. Karnezis’s cooperation
agreement, any statements he has made about the pipeline’s operations, Capital
Plus’s review procedures, or the relative roles of co-conspirators, and the benefits he
has received or expects to receive at his June 15, 2026 sentencing are Giglio
material.
3. Anthony Karnezis — Eric’s twin brother who pled guilty on March 26, 2025, to
conspiracy to submit approximately 140 fraudulent PPP applications through the
same pipeline. Any cooperation agreement, proffer statements, debriefing memos,
and sentencing recommendations are Giglio material. Anthony’s characterization of
the pipeline’s operations and his brother’s role — as well as any statements
regarding Williams — are directly relevant.
4. Stephanie Hockridge — Blueacorn co-founder convicted and sentenced to 10
years. Any statements Hockridge has made about Capital Plus’s role, Blueacorn’s
processing procedures, or the lack of meaningful review are both Brady material
(exculpatory as to materiality) and Giglio material (impeachment of the
government’s “victim” narrative).
5. Nathan Reis — Blueacorn co-founder who pled guilty in August 2025 and was
sentenced to 10 years. The Karnezis plea agreement identifies Reis as a co-
conspirator. Any cooperation agreement, proffer statements, or debriefing memos
are Giglio material.
Under Giglio and Napue v. Illinois, 360 U.S. 264 (1959), the government may not
present testimony from cooperating witnesses without disclosing the full scope of
benefits those witnesses have received. This includes formal plea agreements,
informal understandings, sentence recommendations, and any “understanding or
agreement as to a future prosecution.” Giglio, 405 U.S. at 154-55. The government’s
failure to disclose these materials — particularly where the cooperators’ testimony
would directly bear on the materiality element and the nature of the Blueacorn-
Capital Plus pipeline — violates Giglio. See Smith v. Cain, 565 U.S. 73, 76 (2012)
(undisclosed impeachment evidence of key witness required reversal).
C. The Government Has Actual and Constructive Possession of This
Evidence
1. AUSA Bateman personally prosecuted both tracks.
AUSA Meredith D.M. Bateman signed the Cobb plea agreement (ECF No. 12),
signed the Karnezis plea agreement (Jan. 25, 2025), and is the lead prosecutor in
Williams’s case. She has personal, actual knowledge of every fact contained in those
plea agreements — including the Blueacorn pipeline description, Capital Plus’s role,
Karnezis’s 350 fraudulent applications, and the $60 million in fraudulently funded
loans. There is no need to invoke constructive possession doctrine; AUSA Bateman
actually possesses this information.
2. Under Kyles, the prosecution team’s knowledge is imputed to the
government.
Page 15-Defendant’s Motion to WARREN & SUGARMAN
Compel Disclosure of Brady and Attorneys at Law
Giglio Material, with Incorporated 838 SW First Avenue • Suite 200 • Portland, Oregon 97204
Memorandum of Law Tel (503) 228-6655
ernestwarrenlaw.com
Case 3:23-cr-00067-IM Document 152 Filed 03/16/26 Page 16 of 24
Even setting aside AUSA Bateman’s personal knowledge, the Brady obligation
extends to evidence “known to the others acting on the government’s behalf.” Kyles,
514 U.S. at 437. The FBI and IRS agents who investigated the Blueacorn-Capital
Plus cases are part of the prosecution team. Any evidence those agents gathered
about Capital Plus’s review procedures, Blueacorn’s processing system, or the
pipeline’s criminal operations is constructively in the government’s possession. The
government “has a duty to learn of any favorable evidence known to the others
acting on the government’s behalf in the case.” Id.
3. SBA Office of Inspector General materials are in constructive possession.
The SBA-OIG has investigated Capital Plus Financial and the PPP fraud pipeline
extensively. Under Kyles and Strickler v. Greene, 527 U.S. 263, 280-81 (1999),
materials in the possession of federal agencies acting on the government’s behalf in
the investigation or prosecution are subject to Brady disclosure. The government
cannot compartmentalize its knowledge by pointing to bureaucratic divisions
between the USAO, FBI, IRS, and SBA-OIG when the same AUSA is coordinating
prosecutions across the same conspiracy.
4. The car ride statement confirms pre-existing knowledge.
The agents’ statement to Williams during the car ride on March 21, 2023 — “they
don’t want you, they want Karnezis” — demonstrates that the investigation of
Karnezis and the Capital Plus pipeline was already underway at the time of
Williams’s arrest. The government had already identified its true target — and the
evidence it was gathering about that target was Brady material from day one of
Williams’s case. The government’s failure to disclose this evidence for nearly three
years is constitutionally inexcusable.
D. Aggregate Materiality Under Kyles
Even if the Court were to conclude that any single piece of the withheld evidence is
not independently sufficient to establish materiality, the cumulative effect of the
suppressed evidence compels disclosure. Kyles, 514 U.S. at 436-37; Wearry, 577
U.S. at 394. Consider the aggregate impact:
1. Blueacorn’s review failure — One reviewer for 1.7 million applications means
Capital Plus conducted no individualized review. This negates the materiality
element.
2. Capital Plus auto-approval — Applications were approved at industrial scale
(1,300 by Eric Karnezis alone = $105 million funded; his twin brother Anthony
submitted 140 more). Capital Plus was not relying on individual representations.
3. Pipeline prosecutions — Hockridge (10 years, $63M), Reis (10 years), Eric
Karnezis (1,300 apps, $105M funded, $3M in fees), and Anthony Karnezis (140
apps, $3.9M funded) establish the pipeline was criminal at every level. The
“victim” was a participant.
4. The car ride admission — Agents told Williams the real target was Karnezis,
proving the government knew the pipeline — not Williams — was the primary
threat.
Page 16-Defendant’s Motion to WARREN & SUGARMAN
Compel Disclosure of Brady and Attorneys at Law
Giglio Material, with Incorporated 838 SW First Avenue • Suite 200 • Portland, Oregon 97204
Memorandum of Law Tel (503) 228-6655
ernestwarrenlaw.com
Case 3:23-cr-00067-IM Document 152 Filed 03/16/26 Page 17 of 24
5. The Blueacorn omission in the plea offer — Deliberate excision of the
pipeline intermediary from Williams’s factual basis, while including it in Cobb’s
and Karnezis’s.
6. The discovery waiver — Paragraph 10 would have foreclosed all future Brady
challenges, suggesting the government knew it had unfulfilled disclosure
obligations.
7. Cobb disparity — 2.2x the loss, more applications, lower offense level, greater
variance, no money laundering charge — same AUSA, same judge.
Taken together, this evidence does not merely “undermine confidence in the
outcome” — it obliterates the government’s theory. The government cannot prove
materiality if the lender had no review process. It cannot prove Capital Plus was a
“victim” if its own insider was convicted of running the fraud from the inside. It
cannot claim ignorance when the same AUSA prosecuted both cases. Under Kyles,
Bagley, and Wearry, this evidence is material as a matter of law. See United States v.
Sedaghaty, 728 F.3d 885, 900 (9th Cir. 2013) (applying aggregate materiality
analysis).
E. The Plea Offer’s Blueacorn Omission Demonstrates Deliberate
Suppression
The most striking evidence of the government’s suppression is hiding in plain sight:
the side-by-side comparison of how AUSA Bateman described the same factual
pipeline in different documents.
The Cobb plea agreement (signed by Bateman) describes the pipeline in full:
applications were submitted “through Blueacorn, a lender service provider, to
Capital Plus Financial.” ECF No. 12 at 3.
The Karnezis plea agreement (signed by Bateman) uses identical language:
applications were submitted “through Blueacorn, a lender service provider, to
Capital Plus Financial.” Karnezis Plea Agreement ¶ 7(b).
Williams’s plea offer v.4 (from Bateman’s office) omits the intermediary entirely:
applications were submitted “to . . . Capital Plus Financial (a lender participating
in the PPP).” Plea Offer v.4, ¶ 7.
This is not a stylistic variation. The Blueacorn reference is substantive — it
identifies the conduit through which applications flowed and, more importantly, it
points to the entity whose lack of review procedures undermines the materiality
element. Its omission from Williams’s plea offer was a deliberate act of concealment
by a prosecutor who included that same language in every other plea document she
signed in this conspiracy.
The pattern extends further. The discovery waiver in paragraph 10 — which
characterizes the government’s “limited discovery” as “full satisfaction” of its
obligations and forces Williams to waive his right to “further production of evidence
or information . . . even though he may be entitled to such production” — would
have permanently sealed the door on any Brady challenge. The government sought
to have Williams waive his rights to evidence the government was actively
withholding. This is not mere hardball negotiation; it is a due process violation.
Page 17-Defendant’s Motion to WARREN & SUGARMAN
Compel Disclosure of Brady and Attorneys at Law
Giglio Material, with Incorporated 838 SW First Avenue • Suite 200 • Portland, Oregon 97204
Memorandum of Law Tel (503) 228-6655
ernestwarrenlaw.com
Case 3:23-cr-00067-IM Document 152 Filed 03/16/26 Page 18 of 24
This Court need not speculate about the government’s intent. The documentary
evidence speaks for itself: the same prosecutor described the same pipeline
differently depending on whether disclosure would help or hurt the government’s
case against Williams. When the pipeline description was benign (in Cobb’s and
Karnezis’s pleas, where it documented their conduct), Bateman included it. When
disclosure would have revealed that Capital Plus was not a legitimate victim (in
Williams’s plea offer), Bateman excised it.
This pattern is precisely the type of Brady suppression that courts have condemned
as undermining the fairness and integrity of the criminal justice system. See Brady,
373 U.S. at 87 (“Society wins not only when the guilty are convicted, but when
criminal trials are fair; our system of the administration of justice suffers when any
accused is treated unfairly.”).
F. Jencks Act Integration (18 U.S.C. § 3500)
In addition to the constitutional mandates of Brady and Giglio, the Jencks Act
requires the government to produce, upon motion, any “statement . . . of the witness
in the possession of the United States which relates to the subject matter as to which
the witness has testified.” 18 U.S.C. § 3500(b). This obligation extends to:
1. Statements by Bayless Cobb — including proffer session transcripts,
debriefing memos, FBI 302 reports, and any prior testimony regarding the
Blueacorn pipeline, Capital Plus review procedures, or Williams’s role.
2. Statements by Eric Karnezis — including all debriefing materials, 302 reports,
and statements regarding the pipeline’s operations, Blueacorn’s processing
system, Capital Plus’s review procedures, and any characterizations of the roles
of co-conspirators.
3. Statements by Anthony Karnezis — including all debriefing materials, 302
reports, proffer statements, and any testimony regarding his brother Eric’s
operations, the VIPPP referral agent structure, and the roles of co-conspirators
including Williams.
4. Statements by Stephanie Hockridge — including any statements made during
cooperation regarding Blueacorn’s application processing, Capital Plus’s
approval procedures, and the absence of meaningful review.
5. Statements by Nathan Reis — including proffer materials, cooperation
statements, and any testimony regarding the Blueacorn-Capital Plus
relationship.
6. Any other government witness who may testify about Capital Plus as a
“victim,” the PPP application process, or the lending pipeline.
While the Jencks Act technically requires production only after a witness has
testified on direct examination, courts routinely order earlier disclosure when the
material overlaps with Brady/Giglio obligations. Given the motions deadline of July
10, 2026 and trial date of October 27, 2026, Williams requests that the Court order
production of Jencks material concurrently with Brady/Giglio material to permit
effective trial preparation.
WARREN & SUGARMAN
Page 18-Defendant’s Motion to Attorneys at Law
Compel Disclosure of Brady and 838 SW First Avenue • Suite 200 • Portland, Oregon 97204
Giglio Material, with Incorporated Tel (503) 228-6655
Memorandum of Law ernestwarrenlaw.com
Case 3:23-cr-00067-IM Document 152 Filed 03/16/26 Page 19 of 24
V. SPECIFIC DISCOVERY DEMANDED
Williams requests the Court to order the government to produce the following
categories of Brady, Giglio, and Jencks material:
Category 1: Blueacorn/Capital Plus Internal Records
1. All internal review procedures, guidelines, and quality control protocols used by
Capital Plus Financial for PPP loan applications received through Blueacorn,
Inc.
2. Approval and denial rates for PPP applications processed through the
Blueacorn-Capital Plus pipeline, including aggregate statistics and any sampling
or audit data.
3. Any internal audits, compliance reviews, risk assessments, or quality assurance
reports conducted by or on behalf of Capital Plus Financial regarding its PPP
lending operations.
4. The identity, job title, and responsibilities of the reviewer(s) assigned to review
PPP applications received from Blueacorn, including any staffing records,
workload data, or productivity metrics.
5. Any communications (internal emails, memoranda, reports) between Capital
Plus Financial personnel regarding the volume, quality, or review of PPP
applications received through Blueacorn.
6. Any communications between Capital Plus Financial and Blueacorn,
Inc. regarding application processing, review standards, approval criteria, or
fraud detection.
Category 2: Related Prosecution Materials
1. Complete plea agreements, including all attachments, addenda, and side
agreements, for Bayless Cobb, Eric Karnezis, Anthony Karnezis, Stephanie
Hockridge, and Nathan Reis.
2. All cooperation agreements, proffer letters, queen-for-a-day agreements, and
immunity agreements entered into between the government and any cooperating
witness in the Blueacorn/Capital Plus prosecutions.
3. FBI 302 reports, DEA-6 reports, and any other agent reports from debriefing
sessions with Cobb, Eric Karnezis, Anthony Karnezis, Hockridge, Reis, or any
other cooperating witness regarding the Blueacorn-Capital Plus pipeline, Capital
Plus review procedures, or Williams’s role.
4. All proffer session notes, transcripts, and recordings involving Cobb, Eric
Karnezis, Anthony Karnezis, Hockridge, or Reis.
5. Grand jury testimony transcripts (if applicable) for Cobb, Eric Karnezis,
Anthony Karnezis, Hockridge, and Reis, to the extent they concern the
Blueacorn-Capital Plus pipeline or Capital Plus’s review procedures.
Page 19-Defendant’s Motion to WARREN & SUGARMAN
Compel Disclosure of Brady and Attorneys at Law
Giglio Material, with Incorporated 838 SW First Avenue • Suite 200 • Portland, Oregon 97204
Memorandum of Law Tel (503) 228-6655
ernestwarrenlaw.com
Case 3:23-cr-00067-IM Document 152 Filed 03/16/26 Page 20 of 24
Category 3: Congressional and Regulatory Materials
1. All materials obtained by the government from the House Select Subcommittee
on the Coronavirus Crisis regarding Blueacorn, Inc. and Capital Plus Financial,
including exhibits, testimony transcripts, and staff reports.
2. SBA Office of Inspector General reports, audit findings, and investigative
summaries regarding Capital Plus Financial’s PPP lending operations and its
relationship with Blueacorn, Inc.
3. Any regulatory actions, consent orders, sanctions, enforcement actions, or
supervisory letters issued against Capital Plus Financial or Blueacorn, Inc. by
any federal or state regulatory agency.
4. Communications between the SBA, FDIC, or any other regulatory body and
Capital Plus Financial regarding PPP lending practices, application review
standards, or fraud detection.
Category 4: Agent Investigation Files
1. FBI and IRS case files, investigative summaries, and agent reports for the
related Blueacorn/Capital Plus investigations, to the extent they contain
information relevant to Capital Plus’s review procedures, Blueacorn’s
processing system, or the pipeline’s criminal operations.
2. Any agent reports, memoranda, or communications identifying systemic fraud
at Blueacorn or Capital Plus Financial — including any reports prepared before
Williams’s arrest on March 21, 2023.
3. Communications between prosecution teams in the Williams case and the
Blueacorn/Capital Plus cases, including any coordination memoranda, task force
materials, or inter-agency briefings.
Category 5: Impeachment Materials
1. Prior inconsistent statements by any government witness regarding Capital Plus
Financial’s review procedures, lending decisions, or the role of Blueacorn in the
application pipeline.
2. Any benefits, considerations, promises, or inducements made to cooperating
witnesses beyond those documented in formal plea agreements, including
informal understandings, sentencing recommendations, or assistance with other
pending matters.
Category 6: DocuSign and Digital Submission Records
1. All DocuSign records, metadata, audit trails, and envelope data for every PPP
application at issue in this case, including the unique GUID (Global Unique
Identifier) associated with each electronic signature, the IP address from which
each application was submitted, timestamps, and device identifiers.
Page 20-Defendant’s Motion to
Compel Disclosure of Brady and
Giglio Material, with Incorporated WARREN & SUGARMAN
Memorandum of Law Attorneys at Law
838 SW First Avenue • Suite 200 • Portland, Oregon 97204
Tel (503) 228-6655
ernestwarrenlaw.com
Case 3:23-cr-00067-IM Document 152 Filed 03/16/26 Page 21 of 24
2. Any analysis, report, or summary prepared by the government, FBI, IRS, or any
investigative agency identifying the DocuSign credentials and IP addresses
associated with the submission of the PPP applications charged in the
Superseding Indictment, including any analysis distinguishing submissions by
Eric Karnezis from submissions by other co-conspirators.
3. DocuSign business records, subpoena returns, or certifications obtained by the
government from DocuSign, Inc. regarding the accounts, GUIDs, and
submission activity of Eric Karnezis, Anthony Karnezis, or any other individual
who electronically signed or submitted PPP applications at issue in this case.
Category 7: Arrest and Transportation Records
1. All recordings (audio, video, body-worn camera), agent notes, reports
(including FBI 302s), memoranda, and GPS or transport logs from Williams’s
arrest and post-arrest transportation on March 21, 2023, including any
documentation of statements made by agents to Williams during the car ride —
specifically the statement “they don’t want you, they want Karnezis.”
2. Any agent communications (emails, text messages, radio transmissions) on or
around March 21, 2023, referencing Williams, Karnezis, Capital Plus, or the
Blueacorn pipeline investigation.
Category 8: Sentencing and Disposition Materials from Related
Cases
1. All sentencing memoranda, government sentencing recommendations, 5K1.1
motions, and sentencing hearing transcripts in the cases of Hockridge, Reis, Eric
Karnezis, Anthony Karnezis, and Cobb, including any government assessments
of culpability, loss calculations, or victim impact statements referencing Capital
Plus Financial. This demand includes the materials to be filed in connection
with Eric Karnezis’s sentencing currently scheduled for June 15, 2026.
2. All versions of plea offers extended to co-defendants Cobb, Eric Karnezis,
Anthony Karnezis, Hockridge, and Reis, including draft versions and redline
changes, to the extent they reveal the government’s evolving characterization of
the Blueacorn-Capital Plus pipeline and Capital Plus’s status as “victim” or
participant.
VI. RELIEF REQUESTED
Defendant Fredrico Antoine Williams respectfully requests that this Court:
1. Order immediate disclosure of all Brady and Giglio material described in this
motion, including all materials in the government’s actual or constructive
possession relating to Blueacorn, Inc., Capital Plus Financial, and the related
prosecutions of Hockridge, Reis, Eric Karnezis, Anthony Karnezis, and Cobb.
WARREN & SUGARMAN
Page 21-Defendant’s Motion to Attorneys at Law
Compel Disclosure of Brady and 838 SW First Avenue • Suite 200 • Portland, Oregon 97204
Giglio Material, with Incorporated Tel (503) 228-6655
Memorandum of Law ernestwarrenlaw.com
Case 3:23-cr-00067-IM Document 152 Filed 03/16/26 Page 22 of 24
2. Order the government to certify in writing, under the obligations of Brady v.
Maryland and Kyles v. Whitley, that it has disclosed all exculpatory and
impeachment evidence known to any member of the prosecution team,
including FBI agents, IRS agents, and SBA-OIG personnel involved in the
investigation.
3. Order production of a privilege log identifying any responsive materials
withheld under any claimed privilege, with sufficient detail to permit the Court
to assess the applicability of the privilege.
4. Extend the motions deadline (currently July 10, 2026) by sixty (60) days to
allow the defense to review the produced materials and incorporate them into
remaining pretrial motions, including any Franks motion challenging the
probable cause affidavit’s omission of the Blueacorn connection.
5. Order the government to identify all cooperating witnesses and co-defendants
who may testify at trial, with full disclosure of all cooperation agreements,
benefits, and inducements.
6. Reserve the defense’s right to file supplemental motions based on the materials
produced in response to this motion, including supplemental Brady motions,
Franks motions, and motions challenging the sufficiency of the indictment.
7. Schedule an evidentiary hearing if the government disputes the materiality of
the requested materials, at which the defense may present testimony and
evidence regarding the significance of the Blueacorn-Capital Plus evidence.
8. Preserve the defense’s right to move for dismissal under Brady if the
government has destroyed, failed to preserve, or continues to withhold material
exculpatory evidence.
9. Order production of all materials identified in Section V within fourteen (14)
days of the Court’s order, with the government to provide a certification of
completeness upon production.
VII. CONCLUSION
The government has constructed a wire fraud case that requires the jury to believe
Capital Plus Financial was a legitimate victim that relied on the representations in
PPP loan applications. But the government’s own prosecutions prove otherwise.
Capital Plus was not a careful lender deceived by false applications — it was a node
in a criminal pipeline that approved virtually every application it received.
Blueacorn’s co-founders have each been sentenced to a decade in prison. Eric
Karnezis — Defendant No. 1 in this very case — submitted 1,300 fraudulent
applications totaling $178 million through the pipeline, collecting $3 million in fees;
his twin brother Anthony submitted 140 more. One person reviewed 1.7 million
applications.
Page 22-Defendant’s Motion to
Compel Disclosure of Brady and
Giglio Material, with Incorporated
Memorandum of Law
WARREN & SUGARMAN
Attorneys at Law
838 SW First Avenue • Suite 200 • Portland, Oregon 97204
Tel (503) 228-6655
ernestwarrenlaw.com
Case 3:23-cr-00067-IM Document 152 Filed 03/16/26 Page 23 of 24
The government possesses all of this evidence. AUSA Bateman personally signed
the plea agreements that detail the pipeline’s operations. She personally prosecuted
the Capital Plus insider. And yet, in Williams’s case, she has disclosed none of it —
choosing instead to present a plea offer that erases Blueacorn from the factual record
and includes a discovery waiver that would have permanently barred this challenge.
Brady v. Maryland was decided sixty-three years ago. Its holding is straightforward:
the government must disclose evidence favorable to the accused. The evidence
described in this motion does not merely favor Williams — it dismantles an element
of every charged count. The government’s silence demands judicial intervention.
Williams respectfully requests oral argument on this motion.
Dated: March 10, 2026
Respectfully submitted,
WARREN & SUGARMAN
/s/ Ernest Warren, Jr., OSB No. 891384
838 SW 1st Avenue, Suite 200
Portland, Oregon 97204
Telephone: (503) 228-6655
Email: e.warren@ernestwarrenlaw.com
Attorney for defendant Fredrico Williams
Page 23-Defendant’s Motion to
Compel Disclosure of Brady and
Giglio Material, with Incorporated
Memorandum of Law
WARREN & SUGARMAN
Attorneys at Law
838 SW First Avenue • Suite 200 • Portland, Oregon 97204
Tel (503) 228-6655
ernestwarrenlaw.com
Case 3:23-cr-00067-IM Document 152 Filed 03/16/26 Page 24 of 24
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I Ernest Warren, Jr., hereby certify that, on March 16, 2026, I made service of
Defendant’s Motion to Compel Disclosure of Brady and Giglio Material, with
Incorporated Memorandum of Law enclosed herein with the Clerk of the U.S. District
Court, District of Oregon in the attached matter upon the parties listed below by notice of
electronic filing using the CM/ECF PACER Electronic Filing System as follows, and
filed the original with the Court on the date listed below:
AUSA Meredith Bateman
United States Attorney's Office
1000 SW Third Avenue, Ste. 600
Portland, OR 97204
Ph: 503-727-1000
Email: Meredith.Bateman@usdoj.gov
DATED this 16th day of March, 2026.
WARREN & SUGARMAN
/s/ Ernest Warren, Jr., OSB No. 891384
838 SW 1st Avenue, Suite 200
Portland, Oregon 97204
Telephone: (503) 228-6655
Email: e.warren@ernestwarrenlaw.com
Attorney for defendant Fredrico Williams
Page 24-Defendant’s Motion to
Compel Disclosure of Brady and
Giglio Material, with Incorporated
Memorandum of Law
WARREN & SUGARMAN
Attorneys at Law
838 SW First Avenue • Suite 200 • Portland, Oregon 97204
Tel (503) 228-6655
ernestwarrenlaw.com
File and source
- File
- 152-compel.pdf
- Size
- 1,889,304 bytes
- SHA-256
- 4f156eea5385819399d80b169d504a91c32bd56febeb04a958fb4533fab38388
- Our copy
- 152-compel.pdf
- Original
- storage.courtlistener.com