Quashing the Russian Indictment

[lorne]

Now judge Dabney is in on the quashing. In her opinion & order released July 1, she says MUELLER's indictment of a Russian troll farm "does not link the defendants to the Russian government," and "alleges only private conduct by private actors."

"It is significant and prejudicial that the government itself drew a link between these defendants and the Russian government," adding "In short, the Court concludes that the government violated Rule 57.7 by making or authorizing the release of public statements that linked the defendants' alleged activities to the Russian government..."

https://www.rt.com/usa/463880-judge-mueller-concord-russiagate/

[lorne]

Boy, reading some of the history of MUELLER's prosecution of LaRouche and what jumps out is the similarities to the targeting of TRUMP and Concord Management some 35 years later. Have a look:

https://larouchepac.com/20190514/background-larouche-case-fraudulent-prosecution-lyndon-larouche

Meaning he could no longer be ignored. Admittedly this is the defendant's side of the story but accepting just half of it is still quite an indictment of the federal judiciary. I believe we can count on this, if David or the suitors ever gain traction (a following) then what we have here is a blueprint for a similar defamation campaign and targeting by the deep state.

[lorne]

Yep, FRIEDRICH and witness HOGAN both with invalid oaths.

Before Russiagate, you may recall MUELLER's first show trial was to put the late Lyndon LaRouche in jail on bogus nonsense.

https://youtu.be/MG0VmjX8M-c

LaRouche believed the US was controlled by the City of London

https://larouchepac.com/20180503/empire-based-london-wont-give-they-must-and-can-be-defeated

[David Merrill]

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.



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

[David Merrill]

Here is the rejection letter from the same DoJ, anyway:





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



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!

[David Merrill]

We (brain trust) acquired a default on Dabney's oath:



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









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:

[David Merrill]

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.

[David Merrill]

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.

[lorne]

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:https://www.theautomaticearth.com/20...ted-the-truth/

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

https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2019-05-13/barr-appoints-us-attorney-investigate-fbidoj-spying-trump-has-investigated-fbi

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

[David Merrill]

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.

[marcel]

The government filed a 5 page Memo in Opposition yesterday:

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

[marcel]

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.


Docs 117, 118 and 119 are blue-ink originals; return of service.

[David Merrill]

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.

[David Merrill]

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.

[David Merrill]

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!




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?

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?