Page 3 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 43

Thread: Quashing the Russian Indictment

  1. #21
    When loading my Android I noticed something cool!

    The pdf files work great but when I "Save As" jpg the R4C Summonses decode improperly. I experimented a bit and believe this is spyware encrypted into the pdf file by the PACER Tech, at that stage of publication. More recent devices will not detect any protocol errors. It is likely so DoJ investigators can easily find where the pdf files are being made available, like right here on StSC.

    Maybe the Russians are doing it?

    I even went back to the pdf that was not R4C'd and re-saved it jpg. And it comes up fine on the Android still. So it is not something that changed with my devices.

    Last edited by David Merrill; 05-08-19 at 04:44 PM.

  2. #22
    Why aren't the trolls weighing in on this?

    We have 3 summons, one each to:
    Internet Research Agency - doc 124 - REFUSED
    Concord Catering - doc 125 - REFUSED
    Concord Management - doc 126 - REFUSED

    The process server, Eric J. Reese, declares to have "executed and returned this summons" and "I delivered a copy of the summons to SERGEI PTOR OF THE PROSECUTOR GENERAL'S OFFICE OF THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION on..." The date is blank on 124 & 125. The only summons with a date is doc 126 for Concord Management, the only party to appear and answer.

    So does the server bring the original and a copy, or just the original and ask to use Sergei's copier to make defendants copy? Because they're exactly alike except for color vs B&W.
    And notice each summons has strikeout lines that are initialed on the left by what appears to be S-squiggle. And the refusals appear to be initialed by that same S-squiggle. I think that is Sergei Ptor initialing; who may not even be authorized to receive service.

    Name:  original.jpg
Views: 176
Size:  29.4 KB
    Docs 117, 118 and 119 are blue-ink originals; return of service.
    Last edited by marcel; 05-09-19 at 01:46 AM.

  3. #23
    The government filed a 5 page Memo in Opposition yesterday:

  4. #24
    My guess is the Russian Federation has as much interest in keeping the "prosecution" looking alive as TRUMP does, being that he is unimpeachable. He is not even the President.

    There is nothing happening because Dabney is not a federal judge. And she was allegedly appointed by a fraud for a President (2017). The "defendants" are actors, but prepaid. Everybody thinks TRUMP is President. Dinner theater.

    P.S. At a glance, I do not see the USA continuing any prosecution. More, the USA is behaving the defendant now.
    Last edited by David Merrill; 05-10-19 at 03:46 PM.

  5. #25
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2015
    Yeah, with the prosecution releasing prohibited information and opinions regarding the guilt of the accused and the evidence is indication this case is more about PR, spin and propaganda than justice. Manufacturing a false narrative (Russia bad, Trump bad). What we're finding out is ... the FBI was spying on the Trump campaign, and Russia didn't "hack" the election. And even if the allegations are true, all we have is a little campaign advertising by some Russians. Nevermind moving the needle, a paltry $100k spent isn't even enough to wake the needle. And someone points out:
    we have -at least- 4 major omissions in the Mueller investigation and report:

    1) the Mueller report failed to consider whether the dossier authored by former MI6 spy Christopher Steele was Russian disinformation (and Steele was not charged with lying to the FBI).

    2) Mueller’s portrayal of Maltese professor Joseph Mifsud as a Russian agent – when available evidence suggests he may have been a Western agent.

    3) Mueller declined to talk to the VIPS, who offered evidence that the DNC servers were not hacked but content was copied onto a disk at the server’s location

    4) Mueller refused to hear Julian Assange, who offered evidence that it was not the Russians that had provided WikiLeaks with the emails.

    and we have AG BARR appointing DURHAM to investigate FBI spying:

    On May 15th Concord attorney Eric DUBELIER filed 11-page REPLY IN SUPPORT OF ITS MOTION...

  6. #26
    I visited today:

    Poor Dabney; this looks like Russia is pretty confident about the felony witness/jury tampering accusations. Rough! Having to prosecute the DoJ like that.
    Attached Images Attached Images
    Attached Files Attached Files

  7. #27
    Quote Originally Posted by lorne View Post

    On May 15th Concord attorney Eric DUBELIER filed 11-page REPLY IN SUPPORT OF ITS MOTION...
    Thanks! The actual Doc is more like 200 pages. Lots of email and Tweets...

    I am hopeful we will be seeing Dabney's DoJ default here soon - on the FOIA Request for her oath of office. I really do enjoy reader participation. It tells me that I am not the only one learning from source materials, and it tests my interpretations too.

  8. #28
    We (brain trust) acquired a default on Dabney's oath:

    Name:  FOIAONLINE request Dabney Langhorne FRIEDMAN default s.jpg
Views: 114
Size:  110.9 KB

    In a panic attack the Chief of the response staff delivered:

    Attachment 5478

    Name:  Oath Dabney (2).jpg
Views: 115
Size:  132.9 KB

    Name:  Oath Dabney (3).jpg
Views: 109
Size:  124.6 KB

    Name:  Oath Dabney (4).jpg
Views: 110
Size:  154.5 KB

    I say 'panic attack' because within an hour an email rejection without any signature was sent. Just the sort of thing that only makes sense among a lot of shouting and firing, things being thrown - stuff like that.

    Continued next post:

  9. #29
    Here is the rejection letter from the same DoJ, anyway:

    Attachment 5482

    Name:  Oath Dabney DoJ refusal (2).jpg
Views: 115
Size:  104.6 KB

    Spouting "special circumstances" yet in the wake of delivery.

    Name:  oath.gif
Views: 107
Size:  103.1 KB

    Her witness, Thomas HOGAN shows no more promise of being bonded...

    So looking over her behaviors, she is busy defending the Department of Justice against Concord's motion for an order to show cause why the DoJ should not answer for felony jury/trial tampering - the Mueller Report! But then, without a bond it makes sense that she would turn Defense Attorney for the DoJ as pet "judge" of a non-President/businessman.

    You can't make this stuff up!

  10. #30
    Examining Docs 136 and 138 it looks like we have frightened the USA into looking for a restraining order against CONCORD. Looking above. the cat is already out of the bag.

    Name:  Doc 138 Notice ex parte Restraining Order.jpg
Views: 97
Size:  169.5 KB

    It looked very slippery of Dabney to be defending the USA!

    Attachment 5498
    Attached Files Attached Files

Posting Permissions

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