Will County Judge Brian Barrett told Assistant State’s Attorney Dant Foulk Wednesday Foulk to sit down, calling Foulk’s attempt to appeal a ruling, which threatened to halt a case first filed against two New Lenox business owners in 2023, “a wrench thrown into the cogs of justice.”

Barrett said the state cannot file an appeal every time they get a ruling that they do not want, calling the state’s continued delays “devious,” “ridiculous,” “absurd” and an abuse of the law.

The exchange was a part of the final forfeiture case filed in 2023 against Greta Keranen and Jeffrey Regnier, owners of Kee Firearms and Kee Construction in New Lenox.

The defendants’ attorneys have said the case has been repeatedly delayed, and Will County Judge David Carlson, similar to Barrett, expressed frustration in December 2023 when prosecutors submitted records nearly 10 months after the charges were filed.

“At this point, plainly, this is an action of the state to prevent the court from ruling, to prevent the citizens from the United States of America and state of Illinois from proceeding and getting their day in court,” Barrett said Tuesday.

The case before Barrett involves the final two cars the state seized as a part of investigating the New Lenox business owners for money laundering, which prompted a series of criminal and civil cases that have been debated since 2023.

The couple was found not guilty of certain criminal charges in November. Foulk, one of the main county prosecutors on money laundering and civil forfeiture cases, said previously the outcome of the civil cases could have an impact on the interpretation of civil forfeiture law.

Most recently, Barrett ordered the state to return two cars and investment accounts seized by the state as a part of investigations in a related forfeiture case. Will County returned the property, which Regnier claimed were damaged, Dec. 12, after an Illinois Appellate Court denied the state’s attempt to appeal Barrett’s order.

Barrett said previously he hoped to wrap up the final case by Wednesday.

But the trial quickly hit a snare Tuesday after the state brought Paul Yaras with the Illinois Department of Revenue to present expert testimony on the business owners’ tax returns.

Barrett ruled the presentation of the tax returns violated confidentiality provisions in state law that prohibit the disclosure of tax returns by the Revenue Department except as authorized by law. Barrett said the state did not have court order to obtain the records.

Foulk argued the state obtained the records during a previous investigation and said because the state already had them, they could use the records as a part of money laundering investigations on a separate case.

Foulk cited an attorney general opinion from 1978 that stated tax statutes should not prohibit the Department of Revenue from disclosing tax returns to authorized employees of the state’s attorney’s and attorney general’s offices because those records are necessary to carry out their duty to prosecute tax actions.

But Barrett said the opinion was only persuasive and did not apply in every situation.

“The idea that you get to use people’s tax records basically turns it into a surveillance state,” said defense attorney Frank Andreano. “We don’t live in a surveillance state where prosecutors and police can just look through your financial records for any reason they want.”

Following this ruling, Foulk said prosecutors planned to appeal Barrett’s ruling, a move that would postpone the trial.

Foulk argued Barrett was suppressing evidence by preventing the state from presenting certain tax returns and Illinois Department of Revenue testimony.

“We were prepared to go to trial, that’s why our witness was here this morning,” Foulk said.

Barrett told Foulk the documents were not “some ancient document or artifact” that required the appellate’s ruling, and said his decision did not substantially impair the prosecution. He said his ruling was only an enforcement of confidentiality law.

Barrett said while the case may still end up at the appellate court, as the state has consistently appealed his decisions, he asked them to finish this case before doing so.

Keranen, one of the defendants, was questioned by the state Tuesday about the revenue and state of her company, Kee Construction.

The case is scheduled to continue at 9:30 a.m. Jan. 7.

awright@chicagotribune.com

https://www.chicagotribune.com/2026/01/06/will-county-judge-criticism-kee-forfeiture/