- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Did Robert Mueller make a huge mistake indicting foreign companies?
Posted on 5/11/18 at 10:35 am to AggieHank86
Posted on 5/11/18 at 10:35 am to AggieHank86
quote:
Do you contend that any of the foreign defendants HAVE been served with the Summons?
Were you one of the many who ever contended these were meaningful in any way, shape or form, without that or otherwise? Do you contend that the defendants can't waive that requirement if they so desire?
1
Posted on 5/11/18 at 10:36 am to moneyg
quote:
Do you contend that any of the foreign defendants HAVE been served with the Summons?
Yes. So does the judge. Why? Because they hired lawyers who showed up to defend them. Makes sense to me.
Your point where you state that it might not actually be them could be very valid. Is there an article I can read about the uncertainty of who these lawyers are actually representing?
Also, you're saying that July is too hopeful? That if these lawyers are actually representing the defendants, this might not really shake out until WAY later?
This post was edited on 5/11/18 at 10:44 am
Posted on 5/11/18 at 10:44 am to Y.A. Tittle
quote:Nothing but your last sentence is intelligible, so I will address it first.quote:Were you one of the many who ever contended these were meaningful in any way, shape or form, without that or otherwise? Do you contend that the defendants can't waive that requirement if they so desire?
Do you contend that any of the foreign defendants HAVE been served with the Summons?
Yes, a defendant of course can waive Summons and make an appearance. An individual defendant would have to appear in court in person at his arraignment, allowing to Court to confirm his identity and to either take him into custody, set bail, or otherwise take steps to assure that the defendant will remain subject to the Court’s jurisdiction during pendency of the case.
None of that applies to a corporate defendant, which is why Mueller faces a problem in this case regarding the need to confirm that the ACTUAL Concord is present and is subjecting itself to jurisdiction (and potential punishment).
I THINK your initial sentences relate to the value of the original indictment, I doubt that Mueller had any realistic belief that the Russian government would serve the indictments/summonses upon the defendants.
Posted on 5/11/18 at 10:48 am to AggieHank86
quote:
Nothing but your last sentence is intelligible
Well, you seemed to have gotten the gist of everything, either way.
Posted on 5/11/18 at 10:50 am to SlowFlowPro
It has already been a shite show for a solid year.
Posted on 5/11/18 at 10:57 am to BaylorTiger
quote:No. The Judge has expressed no opinion, because the arraignment was only before Magistrate. Even the Magistrate did not say that the defendant had been served. He MAY have indicated that the voluntary appearance makes this question moot ... but the shoddy reporting and lack (so far) of a transcript make this impossible to address at the moment.quote:Yes. So does the judge. Why? Because they hired lawyers who showed up to defend them. Makes sense to me.
Do you contend that any of the foreign defendants HAVE been served with the Summons?
quote:I have seen no reporting on the issue, but I suspect the OSC will be filing a brief before Wednesday.
Your point where you state that it might not actually be them could be very valid. Is there an article I can read about the uncertainty of who these lawyers are actually representing?
quote:Absolutely. There will be plenty of activity behind the scenes. As the parties file briefs, we may even see some of it, but July-09 is just a time when the parties will give the Judge a report about the progress thay are making on the case, and at which they MAY start discussing a potential trial date ... probably in late Fall at the earliest.
Also, you're saying that July is too hopeful? That if these lawyers are actually representing the defendants, this might not really shake out until WAY later?
Posted on 5/11/18 at 10:59 am to SlowFlowPro
Mueller will probably order a raid of the offices of the lawyers who were retained by and appeared obo concord. “Collusion” with the colluders.
Posted on 5/11/18 at 11:05 am to SlowFlowPro
Well if you do that you have to be prepared for discovery and he was not. So if this was a private case he most likely would get fired for that.
Posted on 5/11/18 at 11:14 am to ninthward
This just doesn't seem like it's going to play out as a loss. Timing, uncertainty, etc.
He got the headline and he's going to have to make a move before this even hits a head.
Little egg on the face but long term this peters out into nothing.
He got the headline and he's going to have to make a move before this even hits a head.
Little egg on the face but long term this peters out into nothing.
Posted on 5/11/18 at 11:15 am to AggieHank86
quote:
I doubt that Mueller had any realistic belief that the Russian government would serve the indictments/summonses upon the defendants
Why? Are they not a party to The Hague Convention?
Posted on 5/11/18 at 11:19 am to AggieHank86
quote:
Absolutely. There will be plenty of activity behind the scenes. As the parties file briefs, we may even see some of it, but July-09 is just a time when the parties will give the Judge a report about the progress thay are making on the case, and at which they MAY start discussing a potential trial date ... probably in late Fall at the earliest.
Unless the defendant demands a speedy trial as required under Section 3161. Then it will be in July.
Posted on 5/11/18 at 11:28 am to BBONDS25
quote:Well, Russia is a signatory. But since 2003, the Russian Central Authority has refused to execute Hague Requests submitted by US litigants.quote:Why? Are they not a party to The Hague Convention?
I doubt that Mueller had any realistic belief that the Russian government would serve the indictments/summonses upon the defendants
Here is an interesting article about potential work-arounds for that problem.
There certainly exist valid questions as to why the OSC did no start with those work-arounds in February, given that Russia has a policy of not complying with requests under the Convention.
This post was edited on 5/11/18 at 11:40 am
Posted on 5/11/18 at 11:37 am to BBONDS25
quote:We will see. All the competent reporting says that the July-09 setting is a Status Conference.
Unless the defendant demands a speedy trial as required under Section 3161. Then it will be in July.
Recall that the Speedy Trial deadlines are suspended by pretrial motions, and I suspect that the judge anticipates a flurry of them.
Posted on 5/11/18 at 11:48 am to AggieHank86
quote:
We will see. All the competent reporting says that the July-09 setting is a Status Conference
I'm sure it is. I doubt the trial has been calendared.
Posted on 5/11/18 at 11:51 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
that worthless PR stunt (indicting foreign nationals and companies that would never appear) may end up forever tarnishing the SC
I hope you're not suggesting it wasn't tarnished before.
Posted on 5/11/18 at 11:55 am to SlowFlowPro
This is the part I love the most and something I hadn't considered until you posted it. Very good point. Mueller is going to eviscerate himself with this.
Is there a mechanism for 'in camera review' for discovery? Don't think I've heard of that before. Not that it would really matter. Russia would capture the info no matter what, upon inspection of it.
quote:
hell, once they get delivered the evidence, in Russia, they can share everything with Putin and his cronies. i don't see a legal mechanism that will allow the defendant due process that won't also permit the information being transmitted to Russia. once it's there, we can't do anything about it
Is there a mechanism for 'in camera review' for discovery? Don't think I've heard of that before. Not that it would really matter. Russia would capture the info no matter what, upon inspection of it.
Posted on 5/11/18 at 12:00 pm to VOR
quote:
It tightened the screws on suspected wrongdoers and defendants.
How so? They just put Mueller's nuts in a vice.
Posted on 5/11/18 at 12:03 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
am i missing something?
This investigation was pretty straight forward like any other criminal prosecution. It's not like they relied on CIA assets.
They served warrants on bank records, ISPs and Facebook. The fear isn't that Mueller doesn't want sources and methods exposed in this case, it's that he may have a very weak one. A lot of these prosecutions of foriegn entities occur in obsentia.....meaning they go unchallenged.
Mueller shite his pants when council for the defense actually showed up and insisted on a speedy trial.
Posted on 5/11/18 at 12:16 pm to AggieHank86
quote:
Do you contend that any of the foreign defendants HAVE been served with the Summons?
One thing confuses me here. From what I understand, Mueller seized assets from Concord. That attorney, Lebelier (?), represents Concord. How could service not be recognized or be in question?
Posted on 5/11/18 at 12:20 pm to BaylorTiger
quote:
This just doesn't seem like it's going to play out as a loss. Timing, uncertainty, etc.
He got the headline and he's going to have to make a move before this even hits a head.
Little egg on the face but long term this peters out into nothing.
It's far worse than this.
Page 3 of 5
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News