Who is it? Any speculations?

14 December 2018, 04:17 PM

Mystery Mueller subpoena

14 December 2018, 04:27 PM

pianojuggler

I'll put a nickel on Junior.

18 December 2018, 06:50 PM

Bernard

Apparently it's an unidentified foreign corporation and they lost in court today...

quote:
The court held the Corporation in contempt, imposing a fixed monetary penalty to increase each day the Corporation fails to comply.

According to twitter tweets.

I suspect it's a bank.

18 December 2018, 06:59 PM

jon-nyc

Deutschebank.

18 December 2018, 09:19 PM

QuirtEvans

quote:
Originally posted by jon-nyc:
Deutschebank.

Nope.

quote:
The ruling offers the intriguing detail that the entity fighting the Mueller subpoena is a foreign government-owned company

Probably a government-owned Russian bank. Isn't VTB government-owned?

18 December 2018, 11:20 PM

Bernard

I understand Rachel Maddow (I don't watch her) has reported several times on Bank of Cyprus. Perhaps?

http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-ma...s-some-explaining-do

https://www.washingtonpost.com...m_term=.9801f930c960

quote:
The chairman of the Bank of Cyprus is the former CEO of Deutsche Bank...

Ha.

24 December 2018, 08:29 AM

wtg

quote:
Chief Justice John Roberts on Sunday issued a temporary pause on an order holding an unnamed, foreign government-owned company in contempt over a mystery court case related to special counsel Robert Mueller's investigation.

The order puts on hold the contempt citation issued by a DC federal judge against the company related to a grand jury subpoena it received, but only long enough for the justices to decide whether they want to intervene in the case.

https://www.cnn.com/2018/12/23...-subpoena/index.html

24 December 2018, 09:37 AM

Piano*Dad

As Quirt notes, the company is more than just "foreign owned." It's partly or wholly a part of the government.

That leads to interesting sovereignty issues. But, from a Politico story ...

quote:
The three-judge D.C. Circuit panel rejected the firm’s argument that its status as an extension of a foreign government makes it immune from grand jury subpoenas. The judges also said they were not persuaded by the firm’s claims that complying with the subpoena would be violating the law in the company’s home country.

This would seem to preclude Deutsche Bank.

24 December 2018, 10:34 AM

Cindysphinx

What is the national bank of Russia?

24 December 2018, 01:14 PM

QuirtEvans

quote:
Originally posted by Piano*Dad:
As Quirt notes, the company is more than just "foreign owned." It's partly or wholly a part of the government.

That leads to interesting sovereignty issues. But, from a Politico story ...

quote:
The three-judge D.C. Circuit panel rejected the firm’s argument that its status as an extension of a foreign government makes it immune from grand jury subpoenas. The judges also said they were not persuaded by the firm’s claims that complying with the subpoena would be violating the law in the company’s home country.

This would seem to preclude Deutsche Bank.

It's also got to be a bank that does business here. I'm still guessing VTB or another Russian-owned bank, but a Cypriot government-owned bank isn't a bad guess either.

24 December 2018, 03:20 PM

Piano*Dad

There is a fundamental principle of the WTO called National Treatment.

That means, very simply, that any company operating legitimately in your country must be subject to the same rules. For instance, the US couldn't subject BMW in South Carolina to more onerous national pollution standards or accounting processes than we put on Ford in Detroit or Ohio. The purpose is to ensure that countries do not use policy to discriminate between domestically owned firms and wholly owned subsidiaries of foreign companies operating legally in the US. Same rules apply to all.

What this company seems to be claiming is that they can NOT be subject to the same rules as American firms. They get SUPERIOR treatment. Ah, NO.

08 January 2019, 05:10 PM

Bernard

SCOTUS rules in Mueller's favor.

08 January 2019, 06:04 PM

QuirtEvans

quote:
Originally posted by Bernard:
SCOTUS rules in Mueller's favor.

No, not really, although it will likely lead to that.

They denied the request to stay the daily fines while an appeal is underway. There were no recorded dissents to that order.

Under the circumstances, the mystery corporation is unlikely to win before the Supreme Court.

08 January 2019, 06:11 PM

Bernard

quote:
Originally posted by QuirtEvans:
quote:
Originally posted by Bernard:
SCOTUS rules in Mueller's favor.

No, not really, although it will likely lead to that.

They denied the request to stay the daily fines while an appeal is underway. There were no recorded dissents to that order.

Under the circumstances, the mystery corporation is unlikely to win before the Supreme Court.

This article (I should have linked it in the first place) clearly says,

quote:
The Supreme Court on Tuesday left in place a lower-court order requiring an unnamed foreign-owned corporation to comply with a subpoena said to be part of special counsel Robert S. Mueller III’s investigation of Russian interference in the 2016 election.

https://www.washingtonpost.com...m_term=.c04378c943dc

08 January 2019, 06:25 PM

QuirtEvans

quote:
Originally posted by Bernard:
quote:
Originally posted by QuirtEvans:
quote:
Originally posted by Bernard:
SCOTUS rules in Mueller's favor.

No, not really, although it will likely lead to that.

They denied the request to stay the daily fines while an appeal is underway. There were no recorded dissents to that order.

Under the circumstances, the mystery corporation is unlikely to win before the Supreme Court.

This article (I should have linked it in the first place) clearly says,

quote:
The Supreme Court on Tuesday left in place a lower-court order requiring an unnamed foreign-owned corporation to comply with a subpoena said to be part of special counsel Robert S. Mueller III’s investigation of Russian interference in the 2016 election.

https://www.washingtonpost.com...m_term=.c04378c943dc

Yes. The article also says:

quote:
Earlier Tuesday, the corporation’s lawyers indicated that they plan to continue fighting the subpoena, asking the Supreme Court to review the merits of the decision by U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit.

* * * *

The company’s lawyers appealed the decision to the Supreme Court. Late last month, Roberts, who receives emergency petitions from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, put the order and the fines on hold until the justices could consider the matter.

The CNN story is somewhat clearer. Here is the headline:

quote:

Supreme Court says mystery company must pay fines while it challenges Mueller-related subpoena

https://www.cnn.com/2019/01/08...tery-case/index.html

The CNN story goes on to say:

quote:
The court's order restores a daily fine the company will face that had been put on hold by Chief Justice John Roberts while the full court considered the issue. It is an apparent loss for the company and marks the full court's first foray into the Mueller probe.

The order will put pressure on the company to turn over information to the grand jury or otherwise cooperate with Mueller as contempt fines continue to accumulate.

The company will have to pay $50,000 a day until it complies by turning over information, the DC Circuit said in an opinion published Tuesday. Those fees haven't yet piled up, but will begin now since the Supreme Court declined earlier Tuesday to freeze the fees.

There were no noted dissents in the high court's two-sentence order.

In a separate filing, the company has asked the court to review its case on the merits. The court has yet to rule on that request.