Russian Company Charged by Mueller Loses Bid to Dismiss Charges
"The appointment does not violate core separation-of-powers principles," U.S. District Judge Dabney Friedrich wrote on Monday, rejecting a motion from defense lawyers at Reed Smith. "Nor has the special counsel exceeded his authority under the appointment order by investigating and prosecuting Concord."
August 13, 2018 at 09:56 AM
3 minute read
A federal judge on Monday rejected a Russian firm's bid to escape charges brought by the special counsel, denying a challenge to the appointment of Robert Mueller III to lead the investigation into Moscow's meddling in the 2016 presidential election.
In a 41-page opinion, Judge Dabney Friedrich, a Trump administration nominee to the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, struck down each of the arguments Concord Management and Consulting raised to contest Mueller's authority.
“The appointment does not violate core separation-of-powers principles,” Friedrich wrote. “Nor has the special counsel exceeded his authority under the appointment order by investigating and prosecuting Concord.”
Concord Management and Consulting was among the 16 Russian defendants charged with defrauding the federal government in an effort to sow discord within the U.S. electorate. So far, it is the only one of the 16 defendants that has answered to the special counsel's charges in Washington federal court.
Represented by defense lawyers from Reed Smith, Concord Management and Consulting argued that Mueller's had been unlawfully appointed by Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein, who took charge of the investigation into Russia's campaign interference following the recusal of U.S. Attorney General Jeff Sessions.
Concord also had challenged the indictment on the grounds that the investigation went outside the special counsel's mandate to probe “the Russian government's efforts to interfere in the 2016 presidential election,” along with links between that government and the Trump campaign.
Rejecting that argument, Friedrich found that the appointment handed the special counsel broader authority. She said the appointment order “does not limit the Special Counsel to investigating individuals and entities that are part of the Russian government. Rather, the special counsel may investigate the Russian government's interference “efforts,” which involved non-governmental third parties.”
Friedrich noted Rosenstein has the power to rescind at will the regulations that are allowing Mueller to lead the special counsel investigation. Rosenstein has given no indication that he intends to do so. Still, Friedrich wrote, “as a result, the special counsel is effectively removable at will, subject to the acting attorney general's plenary supervision, and thus an inferior officer.”
Friedrich joins the growing number of judges who have upheld Mueller's appointment and investigation as lawful. Chief Judge Beryl Howell of the DC District Court, overseeing the Mueller grand jury in Washington, recently rejected a challenge to Mueller's authority. She ordered a witness, Andrew Miller, an aide to Trump confidant Roger Stone, to testify at the grand jury. Friedrich, in her ruling, pointed to Howell's July 31 decision.
We've posted Friedrich's ruling below:
Read more:
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllPaul Weiss’ Shanmugam Joins 11th Circuit Fight Over False Claims Act’s Constitutionality
‘A Force of Nature’: Littler Mendelson Shareholder Michael Lotito Dies At 76
3 minute readUS Reviewer of Foreign Transactions Sees More Political, Policy Influence, Say Observers
'Unlawful Release'?: Judge Grants Preliminary Injunction in NASCAR Antitrust Lawsuit
3 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Call for Nominations: Elite Trial Lawyers 2025
- 2Senate Judiciary Dems Release Report on Supreme Court Ethics
- 3Senate Confirms Last 2 of Biden's California Judicial Nominees
- 4Morrison & Foerster Doles Out Year-End and Special Bonuses, Raises Base Compensation for Associates
- 5Tom Girardi to Surrender to Federal Authorities on Jan. 7
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250