It's pretty convoluted. The pleading Bernie sent was a draft of the one his lawyers told him they would be filing the next day. They did file it publicly initially. It included a declaration by his lawyer with 10 exhibits. Then the Judge  instructed them not to file it publicly, so on 9/23, they moved to withdraw the public filing.

Bernie never got the exhibits, according to his lawyers, only the pleading. By the time they moved to withdraw it, Bernie had already sent it (without exhibits) to the other lawyer.

The protective order refers to discovery and documents in the case other than pleadings, i.e., Jencks, Giglio, and the like. Bernie didn't send that, he didn't have copies to send. The Government is now saying that because the pleading discussed Jencks, Giglio, witness names, etc., that's a violation of the protective order amounting to criminal contempt. I think that's a stretch.

(I was on PACER one night around 9/22 - 9/23 checking the filings in his case, and his lawyers' motion and the exhibits were available and I downloaded most of them. So I know what's in them. I didn't write about them on TL then and certainly won't now that they have been withdrawn from the docket. But strangely enough, on 10/21, after the Court revoked Bernie's bail, it allowed the Government's motion to revoke Bernie's bond, and his lawyers' response, with a host of exhibits that include the sealed motions in limine and supporting documents, and Bernie's and his lawyer's affidavits as to what happened and when (with minor redactions) and what the other lawyer wrote and his email to the Washington Times, to be posted publicly and they are still up on PACER now.)

I think what this is really about is that the non-official lawyer posted allegations on websites that there had been prosecutorial misconduct and that he sent an email to the Washington Times with the (now)non-public pleading and his allegations. The AUSAs said the material was defamatory and false. While Bernie and his lawyers say they didn't know the other lawyer was going to do that, and Bernie's lawyers told the other lawyer not disseminate anything, Bernie knew the guy had written similar things in the past and told the court he agreed with some of the allegations.

The other lawyer was volunteering his time as a fellow "patriot". He would send Bernie's lawyers his thoughts on the case and he was consulting with Bernie about possible 1983 actions and possible withdrawal of his Bronx plea and stuff like that.

So the bond was revoked because the Judge agreed with the Govt that Bernie's actions were likely a new crime committed while on bond (criminal contempt for violating the non-disclosure order)but the Govt hasn't charged him with criminal contempt and the protective order talks about non-public documents rather than pleadings. It's not clear that a pleading discussing non-public information is a violation of the protective order. Nor is the order clear that sharing something with a lawyer advising him on matters related to the criminal case but not a counsel of record in the criminal case is a violation. The lawyer had been advising him for months and had talked to his counsel of record and they had sent him publicly filed pleadings before.