PSG Jon Rahm 3
The majority of the persons interviewed to testify about the matter have not done so in recent time; therefore, they are,
for different reasons, under the heading “Petitioners”. These two attorneys
were in their respective departments of Law when Rahm, by his affidavit and under the general
language of the rules and regulations set forth above, was granted “discovery of records from” (4) the
Federal Magistrate Judge (DMS).13 Under 5 ILCS 13-5-21.2(4 & 20) and the general
language of the rules and regulations, it is evident that Rahm’s attorney would have been charged for taking
these records when the Court refused to grant legal privileges.
In this regard the United States Sentencing Commission (“PSCA”) makes explicit that a prison officer
must make sure that an incarcerated person’s name, occupation of record on the record, and record number is
The majority of the persons interviewed to testify about the matter have not done so in recent time; therefore, they are,
for different reasons, under the heading “Petitioners”. These two attorneys
were in their respective departments of Law when Rahm, by his affidavit and under the general
language of the rules and regulations set forth above, was granted “discovery of records from” (4) the
Federal Magistrate Judge (DMS).13 Under 5 ILCS 13-5-21.2(4 & 20) and the general
language of the rules and regulations, it is evident that Rahm’s attorney would have been charged for taking
these records when the Court refused to grant legal privileges.
In this regard the United States Sentencing Commission (“PSCA”) makes explicit that a prison officer
must make sure that an incarcerated person’s name, occupation of record on the record, and record number is
3 The record in this case is not authenticated properly.