Not sure which is more alarming. That our system allows for the possibility of actually indicting someone or something that doesn't exist, or the fact that our Special Counsel actually did indict a fictional entity.Attorney Eric Dubelier speaks on behalf of Concord Management. When discussion turns to the question whether he represents Concord Catering (another charged Russian entity), Dubelier states: “I think we’re dealing with the government having indicted the proverbial ham sandwich. That company didn’t exist as a legal entity during the time period alleged by the government.”Dubelier, however, is big about it. “If at some later time [the government] shows me that it did exist, we would probably represent them. But for the purpose of today, no, we do not.”
Starting to wonder if "special" has a alternate meaning in the case of Robert Mueller.
61 comments:
I read that seperate from here. So he has filed process on wrong people and wrong non-existence at the time Company. This is what the Left believes is "Highly Competent"?
Doesn't matter. He got the headline. Indictments!
Yeah, but indicting a nonexistent (at the time) company is a bad look.
Mueller's had a bad week.
"That company didn’t exist as a legal entity during the time period alleged by the government.”
Awkward.
Nice copyright violation.
Don't worry about it.
Obviously James never grasp the meaning of the fair use doctrine.
"Obviously James never grasp the meaning of the fair use doctrine."
OR...
Getting unfriended and blocked by CH on Facebook is STILL stinging Roger's ass.
the alky is laying low these days, now that you mention it. he may have discovered that the sane among us are actually enjoying the trump presidency with all of its 'winning bigly' and all.
President Trump Bold move to help WP afford his wife's Medicine.
Dubelier didn't make much sense. Of course Concord Catering exists, he just phrased it that way because they aren't on trial so it doesn't matter if he misstates it. Secondly it's not up to the Prosecution to convince Dubelier of anything for him to take a client - that's mainly up to the client.
Whether it actually existed "as a legal entity" at the time would be a possible defense IF they were being tried. Russian media thought that they existed. It is an open question.
You don't even know what Trump is proposing with pharmaceuticals, and none of it would be to my benefit.
Dubelier didn't make much sense. Of course Concord Catering exists
Dubelier states: “I think we’re dealing with the government having indicted the proverbial ham sandwich. That company didn’t exist as a legal entity during the time period alleged by the government.”
Well, I had not trouble making sense of it and I don't think anyone else with a functional command of English had any trouble either.
US Democrats and Palistine
nomadics are mad at President Trump.
Numbskull
You don't even know what Trump is proposing with pharmaceuticals."
But your out of hand against it, typical.
Isreal gets a US President to back them.
The Lost Years, fading so Bigly.
I DO know what he's proposing, and I know that it won't be of any benefit to me. It's that YOU, personally, have no idea. As you proved with that little snark, thinking I meant that it's unknown.
"Dubelier didn't make much sense."
LOL. Sure.
Have you ever heard of any prosecutor having to convince a defense lawyer of - anything - before the defense lawyer would represent his client? It was just a quip for Debelier to sound like a smart-ass.
Maybe, he was making a sarcastic reference to Mueller wanting to prove that his real client had be served. That at least would be kind of a funny zinger, in a legal geeky sense. But it's not something to take seriously.
"he just phrased it that way because they aren't on trial so it doesn't matter if he misstates it."
So, according to WP Concord Catering isn't on trial, lol.
Apparently the judge thinks they are...
I think the trial is United States v. Concord Management and Consulting LLC, Case Number 1:18-cr-00032-DLF and the Defendant INTERNET RESEARCH AGENCY LLC., et al refers to those who are represented in the trial.
Good Lord WP, it specifically names Concord Catering.
https://www.scribd.com/document/371674609/Internet-Research-Agency-Indictment#download&from_embed
https://lawandcrime.com/high-profile/is-robert-muellers-russian-troll-farm-indictment-falling-apart/
"refers to those who are represented in the trial."
Duh.
Like the lawyer said...
"If at some later time [the government] shows me that it did exist, we would probably represent them. But for the purpose of today, no, we do not.”
So, according to WP Concord Catering isn't on trial, lol.
you know, from a practical perspective it could be that they're not. think about it. mueller's M.O. has been not to really prosecute anyone, but to simply lead them down the path of financial ruin.
the only scalp of value to mueller from a prosecutorial perspective is trump's. everyone else is simply collateral damage. they don't necessarily need to go to jail, they just need to be banished to the poor house.
"you know, from a practical perspective it could be that they're not. think about it. mueller's M.O. has been not to really prosecute anyone, but to simply lead them down the path of financial ruin."
Which is why Mueller "indicted" them and every other ham sandwich.
In other words, the initial post was about indictments.
WP argues they aren't on trial.
At first, I didn't catch his attempt to turn it into a runaway troll train.
Indictment lists them, and a number of individuals. You should look at the trial documents to see who is being tried.
It is possible to prosecute foreign individuals (and maybe corporations), without them showing up at court or being represented, but those require special circumstances and procedures as far as I know.
Do you folks believe that all of the individuals named in the indictment are on trial in this prosecution, and all of the corporate entities? Or just those which have representation and have entered a plea?
The way this relates to the indictment, which everyone is so worried about, is the Defense Attorney's quip that Concord Catering doesn't exist. I'm pointing out that his quip is basically irrelevant, since they aren't represented at the trial.
The Judge asked about Concord Catering since he ruled that the court is basically taking Debelier's word for it that he's representing Concord Management. That's fine - courts do that - but it raises the question whether he's also representing the other entity that hasn't necessarily been properly served. He would need to enter a plea for Concord Catering. That's the reason for his asking, not "the Judge thought so" or whatever you meant by that.
Do you folks believe that all of the individuals named in the indictment are on trial in this prosecution, and all of the corporate entities? Or just those which have representation and have entered a plea?
i don't believe that any of them are really on trial or ever will be.
the indictments themselves were for show. had mueller been in serious pursuit of these guys the indictments would've been sealed, those named would've been pursued until they were apprehended, and only then would the public have been told.
there was never anything serious about these indictments. not the crimes alleged nor the people named. this was ALL political theatre, and mueller couldn't even get THAT right.
To be clear, when an attorney makes a sarcastic quip about an entity that he's not representing, not present or represented, and not (AFAIK) being tried at that time, it's kind of silly to take what he said as established fact. IMO.
Happy #MothersDay! Planned Parenthood is proud to celebrate mothers in the U.S. and around the world. We're committed to fighting for a world where all mothers can live healthy lives, and raise their children in peace.
—Planned Parenthood
yet the alky would have us believe that it is trump's tweets that are unhinged.
Trump receiving kudos from none other than chuck schumer.
Oh dear!
Well according to Judge Ellis this is a real trial with a represented defendant, who is entitled to the whatever evidence the prosecution has against them. If the trial phase doesn't happen, (my prediction) it will be because the defense withdraws in protest of something. Perhaps if or when the FBI provides them with redacted documents.
"there was never anything serious about these indictments. not the crimes alleged nor the people named. this was ALL political theatre, and mueller couldn't even get THAT right."
Feeding the troll, eh.
LOL.
Good Lord WP, it specifically names Concord Catering. "
WP , JD.
Missed it.
Willie Brown black liberal Trump Hater admits, Dems have no plan economically for Americans.
"Robert Jeffress says, 'You can't be saved by being a Jew,' and 'Mormonism is a heresy from the pit of hell' He's said the same about Islam. Such a religious bigot should not be giving the prayer that opens the United States Embassy in Jerusalem," Mitt Romney said.
You can judge Trump by the company he keeps.
You know President Trump won bigly in Israel when knicker wearing jane runs in breathlessly.
James' sudden love for Mormons is certainly ironic if not downright amusing.
You know President Trump won bigly in Israel when knicker wearing jane runs in breathlessly.
You can judge Trump by the company he keeps.
Well if that's the case I wonder what it said about Hillary Clinton who hobnobbed with Harvey Weinstein and the anti-semite Linda Sansaul who's BFF is Louis Farrakhan?
John 8:7
According to Jane, this is the oice of Obimbo.
"Sen. Barack Obama's pastor says blacks should not sing "God Bless America" but "God damn America."
The Rev. Jeremiah Wright, Obama's pastor for the last 20 years at the Trinity United Church of Christ on Chicago's south side, has a long history of what even Obama's campaign aides concede is "inflammatory rhetoric," including the assertion that the United States brought on the 9/11 attacks with its own "terrorism."
I'm not going into indictment vs who is on trial, since that is "legal" reasoning. You can believe they're the same if you want, KD & Loretta, but you're two steps behind in the discussion. KD.
According to Jane, this is Hillary's Voice.
"During the speech in Chicago, Farrakhan made several anti-Semitic comments, including, "the powerful Jews are my enemy.".
WP, it means a lot to you and almost nothing to me.
Do you have a Blue Waive Story for us?
The wave is more of a waive.
An indictment (/ɪnˈdaɪtmənt/ in-DYT-mənt) is a formal accusation that a person has committed a crime. ... Historically, in most common law jurisdictions, an indictment was handed up by a grand jury, which returned a "true bill" if it found cause to make the charge, or "no bill" if it did not find cause."
Means enough for you to post some obnoxious opinion, but not enough for you to check whether you're looking like a fool first. Fine with me, nobody else cares about your opinion either so next time I won't bother.
I don't agree with Mormons on many things, but I've never said they were going to hell. I have never defended Farrakhan or Rev. Wright.
But you CAN judge Trump by this bigot.
Federal Criminal law. Rule 7.
Mueller failed to comply.
"Cornell Law SchoolSearch Cornell
Toggle navigation
Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure › TITLE III. THE GRAND JURY, THE INDICTMENT, AND THE INFORMATION › Rule 7. The Indictment and the Information
Rule 7. The Indictment and the Information
(a) When Used.
(1) Felony. An offense (other than criminal contempt) must be prosecuted by an indictment if it is punishable:
(A) by death; or
(B) by imprisonment for more than one year.
(2) Misdemeanor. An offense punishable by imprisonment for one year or less may be prosecuted in accordance with Rule 58(b)(1).
(b) Waiving Indictment. An offense punishable by imprisonment for more than one year may be prosecuted by information if the defendant—in open court and after being advised of the nature of the charge and of the defendant's rights—waives prosecution by indictment.
(c) Nature and Contents.
(1) In General. The indictment or information must be a plain, concise, and definite written statement of the essential facts constituting the offense charged and must be signed by an attorney for the government. It need not contain a formal introduction or conclusion. A count may incorporate by reference an allegation made in another count. A count may allege that the means by which the defendant committed the offense are unknown or that the defendant committed it by one or more specified means. For each count, the indictment or information must give the official or customary citation of the statute, rule, regulation, or other provision of law that the defendant is alleged to have violated. "
ETTE , T Storm watch.
No moral compass Jane rule.
Wright who married the obimbo's does not speak for Barrack and Jew Hater Farrakhan does not speak for Hillary.
But,.....
WP:
according to the indictment:
Beginning as early as 2014, Defendant ORGANIZATION began operations to interfere with the U.S. political system, including the 2016 U.S. presidential election. Defendant ORGANIZATION received funding for its operations from Defendant YEVGENIY VIKTOROVICH PRIGOZHIN and companies he controlled, including Defendants CONCORD MANAGEMENT AND CONSULTING LLC and CONCORD CATERING (collectively “CONCORD”). Defendants CONCORD and PRIGOZHIN spent significant funds to further the ORGANIZATION’s operations and to pay the remaining Defendants, along with other uncharged ORGANIZATION employees, salaries and bonuses for their work at the ORGANIZATION.
So the Judge was not asking some irrelevant question. According to the indictment the company the attorneys represented (Concord Management) and the company in question (Concord Catering) were owned by the same people and were engaged in the same activities. In fact that they were listed collectively together as "Concord".
So it would be perfectly logical for the Judge to wonder if the attorneys are representing both companies, since they are owned by the same people and accused of the same wrong doing and listed "collectively" in the indictment.
To Repeat: Mueller's own indictment lists the two companies "collectively" as engaged in the same wrongdoing.
Sorry WP... but this isn't a semantic issue here. This isn't tricky lawyering on the part of defense. There would be every reason in the world for the Concord attorneys to want to coordinate their defense of both companies, if in fact there actually were two companies. In fact, I would think these attorneys could face some form of retribution or rebuke from the Judge if they outright misrepresented their position here. There is simply no real logical reason for anyone to believe that they are openly "lying" to try to make Mueller look bad (which seems to be your argument).
The fact that the Russian media wrote about a company is irrelevant, unless you are willing to concede that Mueller used "media reports" to write his indictment.
I understand how badly you would like to give Special Counsel every benefit of the doubt. But at this point, the original allegations suggesting that he took a magazine article and turned it into the indictment in question is looking (at this point) as the most likely reason why this whole situation happened. Everything points to Mueller being unprepared to prosecute this case.
Certainly conventional wisdom of the legal community could end up being wrong. But at this point, until there is evidence that Mueller has a real prosecution case that he can win at trial, we sort of have to stick with the fairly obvious C.W.
Right, it's not a semantic issue and I don't know why you're treating it as such.
There are no semantics in these questions, and unfortunately nothing that you wrote there added to the answers. The questions are, DID Concord Catering exist when they were indicted, and I'd like to know, ARE they specifically being prosecuted in this trial? You don't have to go all-out redefining words in CH-style to address those questions.
If Russian media were writing about Concord Catering over the past decade, then obviously the company DID exist in that period. We know in fact that it was owned by Concord Management for example. The defense attorney added some qualifier (as a legal entity) and who really knows what he meant by that. You? I doubt it, because you haven't mentioned it.
Bottom line is, Defense comes off the cuff with a wise-crack way of answering the question, are you representing him. Nothing after his "No" actually means anything in the trial. It really is silly for you to take that wise-crack as established fact.
The fact that the Russian media wrote about a company is irrelevant, unless you are willing to concede that Mueller used "media reports" to write his indictment.
well, they used clinton funded oppo research to file a FISA warrant application, so i suppose anything is possible.
The problem that I see is when people, including you, blindly accept whatever a personal attorney says as fact, even going so far as pretending that it is "conventional wisdom of the legal community". Good lord, you're quick to buy into the ax-grinding.
I'm not giving Mueller or anyone else the benefit of the doubt in the courtroom. I'm just observing how things really are. It should be obvious to you and anyone else that Concord Catering existed, possibly not with the same papers of incorporation (whatever that is in Russia) that they have now, but of course they existed. They are sanctioned by Congress. If they're brought into a US courtroom they'll be tried. These are facts, not benefit of doubts.
well, they used clinton funded oppo research to file a FISA warrant application, so i suppose anything is possible." RRB
Comey said he was not sure about that.
Unbelievable
"I'm just observing how things really are."
WP...
The term legal entity is not all that confusing. By simple definition, it is precisely the question of whether or not Concord Catering existed as it's own legal business (and specifically have it's own liability).
If Concord Catering was an actual Subsidiary company of Concord Management, it would still be a legal entity, in that it would legally be responsible for it's own taxes, own business ID, and would have it's own criminal and civil liability.
On the flip side, if Concord Catering was just a branch (or department) of Concord Management, then it would not be a company on it's own and would not have any legal liability on it's own.
Obviously the Judge took the indictment to read that Concord Catering was being listed on the indictment separately as a legal company (capable of being criminally charged). The indictment certainly lists them separately as a defendant, and accuses them separately in the explanation of what happen.
So are you suggesting that the Judge (in this case) didn't understand the indictment or would otherwise be confused by the legal definition of what would constitute a legal entity?
At the end of the day...
You would rather make a supposition that neither the Judge or the Attorneys for Concord had a proper understanding of the indictment, or the laws surrounding who or what can be indicted.
All for the sake of not admitting that it's possible that Mueller made a mistake?
The Russians Try to Call Mueller’s Bluff, File Request to View Secret Grand Jury Info
Attorneys for an alleged component of Russian trolling efforts during the 2016 presidential election are demanding that special counsel Robert Mueller be forced to reveal the grand jury instructions used in count one of the government’s indictment against Concord Management and Consulting LLC.
The nine-page motion (plus supporting documents) filed with the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia relies upon Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 6(e)(3)(E)(ii) which provides:
The court may authorize disclosure—at a time, in a manner, and subject to any other conditions that it directs—of a grand-jury matter…at the request of a defendant who shows that a ground may exist to dismiss the indictment because of a matter that occurred before the grand jury.
The motion further specifies that Concord Management is requesting a private “inspection of the legal instructions provided to the grand jury regarding Count One of the Indictment…in order to determine whether the instructions provided could support a motion to dismiss Count One of the Indictment.”
This is the proverbial put up or shut up motion.
I'm not arguing with your fake legal definitions CH.
Bottom line, Concord Catering did exist, and were sanctioned by Congress, and have liability for whatever actions they have taken.
All your twisting around amounts to semantics, to try to justify a simple jibe by a lawyer which didn't matter.
Post a Comment