https://www.reuters.com/articl...l-case-idUSKBN1JB215

A U.S. District Court judge ruled on Friday that a Russian company charged with meddling in the 2016 U.S. presidential election is not entitled to review grand jury materials and gave the two sides 10 days to agree on rules for sharing evidence.

Lawyers for the Russian company, Concord Management and Consulting LLC, had last month asked the judge for permission to review the instructions provided to the grand jury, arguing the case was flawed because there was no evidence the company knowingly and “willfully” violated American laws.

District Judge Dabney Friedrich denied that request, saying it was not clear the issue would be critical to the defense, which has indicated it plans to file a motion to dismiss the case, and that she considered it an unjustified step.

“Breaching the secrecy of the grand jury is not an easy thing to do,” Friedrich said at the hearing.

After ruling on the request to review grand jury materials, Judge Friedrich turned her focus to the question of how much evidence Concord Management could share with other defendants, including Prigozhin, who has not appeared in court.

Mueller’s team had sought a protective order to prevent any co-defendant of Concord from gaining access to evidence until they appear in court, arguing providing that information could tip off individuals and entities that are “continuing to engage” in similar attempts to disrupt the U.S. electoral system.

Concord, on the other hand, has sought for permission to share the evidence more widely, including with Prigozhin.

Friedrich ordered Mueller’s office and Concord to come up with an agreement by the end of Friday to begin the sharing of evidence - a process known as discovery - on less sensitive documents. The judge gave the two sides 10 days to hammer out a protective order governing all materials in discovery.

“We’ve got to get discovery going,” Friedrich said.

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

I have been worried that the trial will occur after the November election, but hopefully the issues of discovery will happen over the next couple months. Mueller's hand may be forced just based on discovery.

As I understand it, this Prigozhin character is the principal owner of Concord.

How does one prepare a defense without the involvement of the principal owner, presumably the most knowledgeable about company activities, certainly the one who must decide various tactics, strategies etc.?

You can litigate, at least in civil cases, against a very large organization, say a big bank, without the CEO’s knowledge, let alone involvement, but Concord is not that big, I think, not that many layers of management etc.

I guess there isn't much time in a Leftist revolution to play chess.

Prigozhin is one of the named individuals in the indictment.

Wiki says Prigozhin founded Concord Management and Consulting, but since 2011 his mother was listed as owner.

Concord Management and Consulting owns 50% of LLC Megaline.

Megaline received most of the capital construction contracts for the Russian military in 2016

tangled web

https://www.washingtonpost.com...m_term=.d1362280b9e7

A federal judge has approved a request to tightly control how evidence is shared with a Russian company accused of funding an Internet trolling operation to mislead American voters in the 2016 election.

U.S. District Judge Dabney L. Friedrich of the District of Columbia said Friday that federal prosecutors gave “ample good cause” that identifying sources in the probe could tip off Russian intelligence and other foreign services to ongoing national security investigations and undermine efforts to protect future elections from similar interference.

Friedrich barred the U.S.-based attorneys for Concord Management and Consulting, which was indicted in February along with 13 Russian individuals and two other companies from sharing sensitive case materials from any foreign national without court approval.

In a seven-page opinion, Friedrich ruled, “Concord’s right to prepare and present a full defense at trial does not depend on Prigozhin having access to sensitive discovery materials, at least not at this early stage of the prosecution.”

The judge said the issue could be revisited after a trial date is set.

Prosecutors warned that Concord’s requests would reveal government investigative techniques and identify cooperating individuals and companies as well as personal information of U.S. identity theft victims whose data was used in the plot.

They said Prigozhin was using a company with minimal business in the United States as a stalking horse to compromise the investigation while evading criminal prosecution himself, and they proposed he appear in court as a condition to access materials.

Friedrich barred any individual or entity, including Prigozhin or any other foreign national other than Concord’s defense team with the Reed Smith law firm, from accessing sensitive materials without her approval. Sensitive data, the order said, must be stored in a U.S. office of the firm, reviewed only when a designated firm employee is present and “not disclosed, transported or transmitted outside of the United States.”

Friedrich said Concord’s attorneys may later ask to disclose sensitive evidence at its offices to others, including potential witnesses, their counsel and defense team vendors, by submitting their names outside of the presence of prosecutors to an independent, court-appointed “firewall attorney” nominated by the U.S. government, who could alert the judge to any government concerns.

Prosecutors have told Concord’s lawyers that they plan to turn over voluminous records, much of it related to hundreds of fake social media accounts but also some that includes “uncharged co-conspirators.”

Mueller's battle w Concord Management is still playing out in court

15 Oct 2018

https://www.wsj.com/articles/l...-up-crime-1539633257

A lawyer for a Russian company indicted by Special Counsel Robert Mueller continued his lonely legal assault on Mr. Mueller’s office Monday, saying it was prosecuting a “made-up crime” that the “real Department of Justice” would never have charged.

In a feisty, hourlong presentation in court, the lawyer for the firm, Concord Management and Consulting LLC, urged the judge to dismiss the indictment, saying the allegations didn’t fit the relevant statute and the legal theory could make a criminal out of anyone who posted a political message on the internet under a pseudonym.

“The special counsel’s office said we interfered with an election,” said the lawyer, Eric Dubelier. “There is no such crime.”

The Concord case involves an indictment Mr. Mueller’s office obtained in February against three Russian companies and 13 Russian citizens. They are accused of conspiring against the U.S. through a widespread effort to invent fake social media personas and wield divisive social and political issues with an intent to “sow discord” in the U.S.

sounds a bit like Fusion GPS and Christopher Steele who used fake anonymous sources to spread a fabricated story over Yahoo News, NYT, Wash Post, CNN, etc

The indictment alleges that the scheme hurt the lawful functions of three government agencies, including the Federal Election Commission, which regulates money spent on campaigns, and the Justice Department, which administers the Foreign Agents Registration Act. That law requires agents of foreign governments to register their activities.

“They don’t have the evidence to charge” a substantive violation of the law, he said, his voice rising, so they “circumvent those requirements and make up a new crime.”

U.S. District Judge Dabney Friedrich appeared to listen closely to Mr. Dubelier’s arguments, but ultimately didn’t appear to be ready to dismiss the case, at least at this stage.

“I’ll give it to you, Mr. Dubelier, this is an unprecedented case,” Judge Friedrich said, adding that the government would have a “heavy burden at trial.”

When Judge Friedrich asked Mr. Mueller’s team who would be responding to Mr. Dubelier’s argument Monday, and learned that Mr. Kravis would be making the government’s case, she replied, “Lucky Mr. Kravis!”

At the end of the hearing, Judge Friedrich said she would consider Mr. Dubelier’s arguments but rejected a separate request by Concord for access to government documents about the investigation in an effort to show that Mr. Mueller’s team had engaged in “selective prosecution.”

Judge Friedrich previously denied a request by Concord to dismiss the indictment on the basis that Mr. Mueller didn’t have proper authority to bring the case. In that effort, Mr. Dubelier accused Mr. Mueller of filing charges against Concord only to “justify his own existence” and of engaging in “pettifoggery.”

This has the fingerprints of Andrew Weissman all over it.

Weissman was the Enron task force lawyer who “made up” the indictment of Arthur Andersen the CPA which was instantly out of business upon conviction. That indictment was later dismissed but the conviction was dismissed by a unanimous Supreme Court.

quote:

On May 31, 2005, in Arthur Andersen LLP v. United States, the Supreme Court of the United States unanimously reversed Andersen's conviction because of serious errors in the trial judge's jury instructions.[2] The Supreme Court held that the instructions were too vague to allow a jury to find that obstruction of justice had occurred. The court found that the instructions were worded in such a way that Andersen could have been convicted without any proof that the firm knew it had broken the law or that there had been a link to any official proceeding that prohibited the destruction of documents. The opinion, written by Chief Justice William Rehnquist, also expressed skepticism of the government's concept of "corrupt persuasion"—persuading someone to engage in an act with an improper purpose without knowing that the act is unlawful.

Link

Mueller and his team aren’t stupid, but they are reckless. In his haste to bring down President Trump, Mueller has blindly charged, stumbled, and bumbled his way into a mess. If this country had a free press, this whole charade would be hounded into oblivion, instead, it will continue until it peters out on page 37 of the NYT

quote:

Originally posted by TMats:
Mueller and his team aren’t stupid, but they are reckless. In his haste to bring down President Trump, Mueller has blindly charged, stumbled, and bumbled his way into a mess. If this country had a free press, this whole charade would be hounded into oblivion, instead, it will continue until it peters out on page 37 of the NYT

Arrogance breeds recklessness and acts of utter stupidity. In my mind, the question is what made Mueller believe he could get away with such a Soviet-style abuse of justice?


On a related note, President Trump has great taste in judges:

quote:

Originally posted by JALLEN:
More and more these days, it seems like press releases are more important than pleadings.

Whoever on the Special Counsel’s staff had this bright idea may be in for some tough sledding, and lots of elevator riding as (s)he is now designated the “run down for coffee and pastries duty officer.”

And yet none of the press seems to notice. Where are the articles in WaPoNYTimes? Heck, Not even on FoxNBCBSABCNN.

quote:

Mueller and his team aren’t stupid, but they are reckless.

I disagree. It seems to me that government lawyers aren't as smart as they think they are, else they would be in private practice doing to government lawyers what these guys in private practice did to them and making millions doing it.

This whole "special counsel" is an embarrassment to the profession that is already embarrassing enough.

RMD

several on the Mueller team were in private practice before May 2017

Their salaries (adjusted to yearly)

Mueller $2.4 Million

James Quarles $4.1 Mil

Jeannie Rhee $1.4 Mil

Aaron Zebley $1 Mil

In addition to his firm income, Mueller drew tens of thousands of dollars from paid speaking engagements in recent years, talking to groups such as Goldman Sachs, Citi and Ford Motor Co. For one speech, to the Mexican bank Banamex, he made $52,000

Those on the team who had come from private practice represented a wide range of clients. Notably, Zebley represented Justin Cooper, a former Clinton aide, and Rhee represented the Clinton Foundation.



https://www.washingtonpost.com...m_term=.5b46eefc7591

seen at CT

Judge Friedrich wrote an order directing the govt to submit a supplemental brief about the defense Motion to Dismiss

Order here:

https://www.documentcloud.org/...Reset-Deadlines.html

The order is dated 18 Oct 2018. The govt is directed to file its clarifying position by 23 Oct 2018.

This saga is great. I’m looking forward to the government’s response on the 23rd.

The response from Mueller is here:

http://www.courthousenews.com/...to-Concord-claim.pdf

Mueller argues that the Court does not have to assume that Concord had a legal duty to report expenditures or register as a foreign agent

Mueller also argues that the Court does not have to assume that Concord violated FECA or FARA by failing to report expenditures or by failing to register.

Mueller: " it is sufficient that Concord and its co-conspirators agreed to engage in conduct that violated these legal duties."

"The government is not required to prove that the conspirators actually violated FECA or FARA"



xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

I am afraid I am not knowledgeable enough to critique the Mueller response. I do hope that the charges are dismissed because I believe Mueller has gone on a vast witch hunt in a vendetta against President Trump.

A vast witch hunt while ignoring, and even hiding, the illegal and dishonorable acts of the FBI and DoJ to frame President Trump. That is where a conspiracy exists.

quote:

Originally posted by sdy:
several on the Mueller team were in private practice before May 2017

Their salaries (adjusted to yearly)

Mueller $2.4 Million

James Quarles $4.1 Mil

Jeannie Rhee $1.4 Mil

Aaron Zebley $1 Mil

In addition to his firm income, Mueller drew tens of thousands of dollars from paid speaking engagements in recent years, talking to groups such as Goldman Sachs, Citi and Ford Motor Co. For one speech, to the Mexican bank Banamex, he made $52,000

Those on the team who had come from private practice represented a wide range of clients. Notably, Zebley represented Justin Cooper, a former Clinton aide, and Rhee represented the Clinton Foundation.

Clearly they weren't bright enough to recognize what a good thing they had or Mueller sings a sweet siren's song!

RMD

If they had nailed President Trump, what would have happened to their salaries ?

doubled ?
tripled ?
x 10 ?

It was a few years ago that I saw a set of interviews w former prosecutors who were on SC teams. Most of them said they recognized the opportunity to make the big time by bringing in high level convictions.

Peter Strzok even told Lisa Page if she got on Mueller's team, she could later leave govt and make $ 500k to $ 600k a year in white collar defense.

quote:

Originally posted by rduckwor:

quote:

Originally posted by sdy:
several on the Mueller team were in private practice before May 2017

Their salaries (adjusted to yearly)

Mueller $2.4 Million

James Quarles $4.1 Mil

Jeannie Rhee $1.4 Mil

Aaron Zebley $1 Mil

In addition to his firm income, Mueller drew tens of thousands of dollars from paid speaking engagements in recent years, talking to groups such as Goldman Sachs, Citi and Ford Motor Co. For one speech, to the Mexican bank Banamex, he made $52,000

Those on the team who had come from private practice represented a wide range of clients. Notably, Zebley represented Justin Cooper, a former Clinton aide, and Rhee represented the Clinton Foundation.

Clearly they weren't bright enough to recognize what a good thing they had or Mueller sings a sweet siren's song!

RMD

Actually the ONLY reason they were paid those salaries was their access and contacts list with people in government, DNC, and media. Because we know a press release or planted story is much more powerful than the rule of law.

As we await Judge Friedrich's reaction to the Mueller supplemental brief on 23 Oct, wanted to point out another coincidence in the cast of players.

https://www.law.com/nationalla...eturn=20180924122521

Judge Dabney Friedrich of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia had sent a letter to the Senate Judiciary Committee vouching for Brett Kavanaugh.

“… I dated Brett Kavanaugh in 1998. To the extent the attached letter is referring to me as the ‘friend [who] was dating him,’ the allegations it makes are both offensive and absurd,” Friedrich wrote in a letter to Mike Davis, a chief counsel for Senate Judiciary Chairman Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa.

“At no time did Brett ever shove me against a wall, including in an ‘aggressive[] and sexual[]’ manner. When we dated, Brett always treated me with the utmost respect, and we remain friends to this day,” Friedrich continued.

She added, “I have never observed (nor am I aware of) Brett acting in a physically inappropriate or aggressive manner toward anyone.”

Friedrich, a President Donald Trump appointee, was confirmed to the district court in December. A former federal prosecutor and Senate lawyer, she is overseeing a number of cases related to special counsel Robert Mueller III’s probe, including one brought against Russian troll farm Concord Management.

quote:

Originally posted by sdy:
As we await Judge Friedrich's reaction to the Mueller supplemental brief on 23 Oct, wanted to point out another coincidence in the cast of players.

https://www.law.com/nationalla...eturn=20180924122521

Judge Dabney Friedrich of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia had sent a letter to the Senate Judiciary Committee vouching for Brett Kavanaugh.

“… I dated Brett Kavanaugh in 1998. To the extent the attached letter is referring to me as the ‘friend [who] was dating him,’ the allegations it makes are both offensive and absurd,” Friedrich wrote in a letter to Mike Davis, a chief counsel for Senate Judiciary Chairman Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa.

“At no time did Brett ever shove me against a wall, including in an ‘aggressive[] and sexual[]’ manner. When we dated, Brett always treated me with the utmost respect, and we remain friends to this day,” Friedrich continued.

She added, “I have never observed (nor am I aware of) Brett acting in a physically inappropriate or aggressive manner toward anyone.”

Friedrich, a President Donald Trump appointee, was confirmed to the district court in December. A former federal prosecutor and Senate lawyer, she is overseeing a number of cases related to special counsel Robert Mueller III’s probe, including one brought against Russian troll farm Concord Management.

Another good story ruined by an eye witness!