‘Russian Troll Farm’ Calls Mueller’s Bluff and Will Challenge Him in Court

Wiki
image_pdfimage_print
Special counsel Robert Mueller likely assumed the alleged ‘Russian troll farm’ he brought charges against in his quest to embarrass President Trump would never appear in court. Why should they? Because they are Russian nationals with immunity from extradition, there is no way to force them to take on the expense or risk losing the case.  Mueller was caught off guard, however, when lawyers for the Russian company accused of being a troll actually appeared in court and delivered a slew of discovery requests. This prompted Mueller’s team to ask for a delay, which was denied by Judge Dabney Freidrich, a Trump appointee. [This could become very interesting.] -GEG

Special counsel Robert Mueller likely assumed the alleged “Russian troll farm” he brought charges against would never appear in court as all the accused are Russian nationals with zero fear of extradition.

He was wrong.

Not only did accused firm Concord Management and Consulting hire two American lawyers to show up in court in DC, but they started filing tons of discovery requests.

Mueller’s team seems to have panicked and requested the case be delayed, but on Saturday evening, U.S. District Court Judge Dabney Friedrich denied their request.

From Politico:

In a brief order Saturday evening, U.S. District Court Judge Dabney Friedrich offered no explanation for her decision to deny a request prosecutors made Friday to put off the scheduled Wednesday arraignment for Concord Management and Consulting, one of the three firms charged in the case.

[…]On Friday, Mueller’s prosecutors disclosed that Concord’s attorneys, Eric Dubelier and Kate Seikaly, had made a slew of discovery requests demanding nonpublic details about the case and the investigation. Prosecutors also asked a judge to postpone the formal arraignment of Concord Management set for next week.

The prosecution team sought the delay on the grounds that it’s unclear whether Concord Management formally accepted the court summons related to the case. Mueller’s prosecutors also revealed that they tried to deliver the summonses for Concord and IRA through the Russian government, without success.

“The [U.S.] government has attempted service of the summonses by delivering copies of them to the Office of the Prosecutor General of Russia, to be delivered to the defendants,” prosecutors wrote. “That office, however, declined to accept the summonses. The government has submitted service requests to the Russian government pursuant to a mutual legal assistance treaty. To the government’s knowledge, no further steps have been taken within Russia to effectuate service.”

Mueller’s team sent a copy of the formal summons to Dubelier and Seikaly and asked them to accept it on behalf of Concord Management, but Dubelier wrote back on Monday saying that the government’s attempt to serve the summons was defective under court rules. He did not elaborate.

[…]In their request on Friday to put off the arraignment, prosecutors included the extensive demands for information that the lawyers for Concord Management have set forth since they stepped forward last month.

“Until the Court has an opportunity to determine if Concord was properly served, it would be inadvisable to conduct an initial appearance and arraignment at which important rights will be communicated and a plea entertained,” attorneys Jeannie Rhee, Rush Atkinson and Ryan Dickey wrote. “That is especially true in the context of this case, which involves a foreign corporate defendant, controlled by another, individual foreign defendant, that has already demanded production of sensitive intelligence gathering, national security, and foreign affairs information.”

The Mueller team proposed that both sides file briefs in the coming weeks on the issues of whether Concord has been properly served.

In a blunt response Saturday morning, Concord’s attorneys accused Mueller’s team of ignoring the court’s rules and suggesting a special procedure for the Russian firm without any supporting legal authority.

“Defendant voluntarily appeared through counsel as provided for in [federal rules], and further intends to enter a plea of not guilty. Defendant has not sought a limited appearance nor has it moved to quash the summons. As such, the briefing sought by the Special Counsel’s motion is pettifoggery,” Dubelier and Seikaly wrote.

The Concord lawyers said Mueller’s attorneys were seeking “to usurp the scheduling authority of the Court” by waiting until Friday afternoon to try to delay a proceeding scheduled for next Wednesday. Dubelier and Seikaly complained that the special counsel’s office has not replied at all to Concord’s discovery requests. The lawyers, who work for Pittsburgh-based law firm Reed Smith, also signaled Concord intends to assert its speedy trial rights, putting more pressure on the special counsel’s office to turn over records related to the case.

Read full article here…

Related Post

Visit our Classified ads.

Check out our Classified ads at the bottom of this page.

Recent stories & commentary

Freedom

Michigan Passes Law Against Cyberbullying

January 16, 2019 Metro Times 0

Some critics have argued that the definitions of cyberbullying are not as clear cut as they may sound and that clever attorneys could interpret them in such a way as to violate the First Amendment or to imprison someone for merely hurting others’ feelings.

Classifieds

For classified advertising rates and terms, click here. The appearance of ads on this site does not signify endorsement by the publisher. We do not attempt to verify the accuracy of statements made therein or vouch for the integrity of advertisers. However, we will investigate complaints from readers and remove any message we find to be misleading or that promotes anything fraudulent, illegal, or unethical.

Leave a Reply

avatar
  Subscribe  
Notify of