Page 2 of 5 FirstFirst 1234 ... LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 43

Thread: Quashing the Russian Indictment

  1. #11
    One of the govt 9 attorneys withdrew, that leaves 8. Still an active case. Did you see Concord's latest filing? Wants AG Barr and Mueller held in contempt.

    "Motion to show cause why Attorney General William Barr (“AG Barr”) and Special Counsel Robert S. Mueller III (“SC Mueller”) should not be held in contempt for violating United States District Court for the District of Columbia Local Criminal Rule 57.7, by releasing prohibited information and opinions regarding the guilt of the accused and the evidence in the above-captioned pending...."


    https://www.courtlistener.com/docket...ch-agency-llc/

  2. #12
    Quote Originally Posted by marcel View Post
    One of the govt 9 attorneys withdrew, that leaves 8. Still an active case. Did you see Concord's latest filing? Wants AG Barr and Mueller held in contempt.

    "Motion to show cause why Attorney General William Barr (“AG Barr”) and Special Counsel Robert S. Mueller III (“SC Mueller”) should not be held in contempt for violating United States District Court for the District of Columbia Local Criminal Rule 57.7, by releasing prohibited information and opinions regarding the guilt of the accused and the evidence in the above-captioned pending...."


    https://www.courtlistener.com/docket...ch-agency-llc/
    The USA has "Withdrawn" according to the docket report. It looks like you may have found a link spinning things?

    At first I was fishing for the key documents, reluctant to blow $11 for a settled matter. Then I realized that the lengthy exhibits must be the entire Meuller Report, which I am very interested in having on disk at least. As well as Doc 1, the original indictment.

    So far it looks like Concord (Internet Research Agency) is counterclaiming in criminal charges that MEULLER was not to have published a Report prior to trial. But this was over from very early on. I sent out the amicus brief around 3/20/18 and on 4/14/18 the Summons was Refused. So MEULLER really had no choice but to try spinning the Dems into an effective impeachment of a non-President.

    Now Concord is saying that they Appeared Voluntarily so to hang MEULLER out to dry for a federal felony trial tampering - The Meuller Report. Clever!!

    Run out the timely clock on the R4C and then turn on MEULLER for revenge. Vengence for attacking our Russian Mobster CEO Donald John TRUMP.

    I am not uploading all 427 Pages but will likely add the Meuller Report - I am sure it is on exhibit. Or at least the high points finding of fact against MEULLER.
    Attached Images Attached Images
    Attached Files Attached Files

  3. #13
    P.S. Thanks for the link - It looks like the Court Listener enjoys putting a spin on things as much as any News. It is all in competition with social media for the attention and therefore no more valuable to me, than social media.

  4. #14

  5. #15
    Quote Originally Posted by xparte View Post
    Amicus curiae is "Friend of the Court" and presented to point out the law. Or a point of law. - That there was no judge on the matter. watching the docket and Concord filed a sealed writ of mandamus, ghosting authorities is a science amici curiae vs amicus briefs. The crown is so enamored at the Amicus curiae practice of law fantasy, .sealed writs for inferior friends docking judicial remedy civil or criminal without the benefit of full judicial process,.its just offshore fog maritime layer effect at the BARR reality just becomes a fog“. Its a honored position exposing fraud on any judicial fog.
    Feathers

    I am as you say, "Dissappointed" with CONCORD as an artificial person. It seems small to quash the prosecution, and allow MEULLER a year to writhe only to try prosecuting him. - Hang him out to dry.

    Maybe MEULLER needs to Refuse for Cause Dabney Langhorne FRIEDRICH and see if she will redact her oath before allowing the clerk to publish it on PACER, like Timothy BURGESS did a couple years ago.

    Attachment 5432

    Last edited by David Merrill; 05-05-19 at 08:34 AM.

  6. #16
    Maybe I only glanced, or possibly copied the typo but I called Dabney, Daniel on the Amicus Curiae Doc. I wonder why I am tickled that she dated Brett Michael KAVANAUGH. You have to love the Russian strategy though; get the Federal Judge to start defending a party in the case.

    This reveals a lot about TRUMP appointed "Judges" too. I am starting to think Deep State is a new Thing. I would love somebody here to post the DoJ's response to requesting the FOIA Dabney Langhorne FRIEDRICH oath and Commission Affidavit.



    Name:  Doc 3 Certificate of Mailing Memorandum_Page_28.jpg
Views: 44
Size:  91.7 KB

    I suppose what captures my imagination is how beautiful I find her, in spite of "Dabney" that I always associated with a boy name.

    Name:  Confirmation photo.jpg
Views: 46
Size:  28.5 KB

    But what you are looking at there is how her former boyfriend Brett Michael KAVANAUGH has signed a properly formed oath, and then we inquire only to find it is a carefully laid trick to lure me into inviting him as "judicial oversight" to watchdog a wayward bond-dodging American judiciary!

    Inquiry into KAVANAUGH's Witness, Andrew McCleod KENNEDY reveals that he must have a SO HELP ME GOD. "OATH" too. And so I begin to wonder about TRUMP's personal attorney:

    Name:  Attorney Search Rudolph William GIULIANI #1080498.jpg
Views: 42
Size:  114.5 KB

    And where the real Animal House is? Is that Deep State is the NEPHALIM or what?
    Last edited by David Merrill; 05-06-19 at 06:34 PM.

  7. #17
    Like I said:

    Name:  Final Response (4 22 19)s_Page_1.jpg
Views: 43
Size:  125.1 KB

    Name:  Final Response (4 22 19)s_Page_2.jpg
Views: 42
Size:  209.6 KB

    Patrick decided to publish my fuller Bible interpretation, unsigned. They put his filing at the end so to pretend it was a mistake and send it back, causing delays. I am tickled that it came up on PACER as Doc 32!
    Attached Images Attached Images
    Last edited by David Merrill; 05-06-19 at 08:34 PM.

  8. #18
    Thank you in advance. So far I am not holding my breath.


    Name:  www.foiaonline s.jpg
Views: 39
Size:  134.0 KB

    I have taken a close look and believe I interpret things correctly.

    Name:  Doc 118 Summons Returned no R4C_Page_1.jpg
Views: 41
Size:  155.4 KB
    Name:  Doc 118 Summons Returned no R4C_Page_2.jpg
Views: 42
Size:  173.1 KB

    On April 2, 2019 the Summons was finally Returned to the Court by the Process Server; but without any Refused Markings. No R4C.

    Attachment 5449
    Attachment 5450

    Then 10 days later the same Doc is filed again with R4C, but no FILED marking? The R4C was the next day after the process server received the Summons - 4/4/18. My Amicus notice was around 3/20/18 so they had plenty of warning that FRIEDRICH was no real judge.

    I am think that I heard it incorrectly on TV - Dabney L. as Daniel? I wonder if this is keeping her awake at night?

  9. #19
    Here is what I mean:


    That says the Summons has been Returned unexecuted! But it was Returned executed on 4/2/19. Then the R4C was returned on 4/12/19 and so the Summons was "reverse-executed" by Dabney Langhorne?

    Smooth!

    Attachment 5455
    Attachment 5456

    No wonder Rudolph William is landing in the middle of the mess? This is happening in the White House? In the Oval Office? Meetings between KAVANAUGH, FRIEDRICH, KENNEDY, GUILIANI and TRUMP?? All planning and managing risk?



    Name:  Rudolph William GUILIANI.jpg
Views: 42
Size:  4.9 KB


    Docs 126 and 124 look pretty identical. From the beginning there has been egregious error and attempts to correct. Ever since the writ of mandamus followed my Amicus Curiae.

    What do you all think of that Motion to Show Cause?
    Last edited by David Merrill; 05-07-19 at 10:22 AM.

  10. #20
    Looking at the Docket Entry #127 as acknowledgement of one attorney withdrawing then, is unrealistic in my opinion with all the markings and the Amicus Curiae considered. Somebody at the Russian Embassy knew to immediately R4C and apparently pass it immediately to the process server to return to the court. After nearly a year, the process server returned a forged (without the R4C) Summons to the court, so the Russians (IRA) returned their copy of the R4C to the court ten days afterward, terminating the case within the year time limit.

    It even looks to me like MEULLER (DoJ) et al were hoping that by cutting it close, the Russians might not catch the Return and miss the deadline. I suspect that during those ten days, the Russians were wording the criminal counterclaim Motion to Show Cause, out of anger.
    Last edited by David Merrill; 05-07-19 at 03:36 PM.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •