>>4867836 lb
>never saw this in prior filings always a state owned corp. not a state
>IMO this is not truly a state actor rather this is a new approach by the state owned corp trying to persuade SCOTUS by doubling down on this connection and boot strap up to get immunity
>do not think it will work
Maybe you saw this in #6212.
Someone posted a little bit of the appeal and there was a sentence where Petitioner's lawyers decided to refer to the foreign corporation as Country A:
>>4866510 pb
>>4866096 pb
Notables from Super Secret Mueller? subpoena case
'''" we will refer to Petitioner—a wholly owned agency or instrumentality of a
foreign state—as "Country A." '''
not just a Country…
a wholly owned agency or instrumentality of a foreign state
" Country A is immune from American criminal
proceedings and because American courts have no
subject-matter jurisdiction over criminal proceedings
against Country A, the Court's jurisdiction is limited
to "correcting the error of the lower court[s] in
entertaining the suit." "
'''"With its decision below, the D.C. Circuit became
the first appellate court in American history to
exercise criminal jurisdiction over a foreign state. "'''
"If left to stand, the ruling would wreak havoc
on American foreign policy—possibly alienating U.S.
allies, undermining diplomatic efforts, and inviting
reciprocal treatment abroad for American agencies
and instrumentalities. "
-
-
*
-
I see where by referring to the petitioner as Country A it helps them advance the argument that forcing the GJ testimony might undermine foreign policy.
Since we are not privileged to know the petitioner's identity, we really do not know if it's just a foreign corporation or really an instrumentality of a foreign government as asserted.
This case is very interesting, fren!