Appeals court judges push back at request to dismiss Michael Flynn case

Discussion in 'Current Events' started by Bush Lawyer, Aug 11, 2020.

  1. Bush Lawyer

    Bush Lawyer Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2018
    Messages:
    15,037
    Likes Received:
    9,495
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    [​IMG]

    Ummmmm....the Appellate Court was constituted by TEN Judges. And, if it was the case that Sullivan had no function after the DOJ moved to dismiss, why did the DOJ not just up and leave Sullivan's Court, as it is obvious your position is then he had no role, nothing to do after DOJ moved to dismiss. Nah, they did not do that because they know Sullivan DOES HAVE a role under 48A to ensure there is no corruption afoot that he is being asked to become a party to. After all it is not as though it is not COMPLETELY obvious that THE most powerful political figure in the USA (POTUS) had been declaring Lynch innocent, and has been totally politicising the Flynn case.
     
    Egoboy and PARTIZAN1 like this.
  2. struth

    struth Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2018
    Messages:
    33,519
    Likes Received:
    17,956
    Trophy Points:
    113
    they did...it was Flynn that took it up because Sullivan wouldn’t do his job and illegal appointed some outside source
     
  3. Bush Lawyer

    Bush Lawyer Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2018
    Messages:
    15,037
    Likes Received:
    9,495
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Hang on. At that stage, he was still in the process of the sentencing of a person who had just entered a plea of guilty, under oath. At that stage, there was no motion to dismiss, and no recant of the plea.

    At that point, the DOJ was holding hands with Defence Counsel at their end of the Bar table, and he, Sullivan still had a function under 48A. So, he appointed an Amicus (to represent 'the People') something which is a matter of course in the Superior Courts and something which nothing prevents him from doing.

    I agree that the case has been politicised, and that is not at the feet of Sullivan. That started with Trump and is going on even right now with Flynn's Counsel conducting the case in front of the inciting cameras of Fox.


    Yes, and I expect SCOTUS will not treat Flynn kindly either.
     
    Cubed and PARTIZAN1 like this.
  4. Bush Lawyer

    Bush Lawyer Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2018
    Messages:
    15,037
    Likes Received:
    9,495
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Complete rubbish.
     
  5. struth

    struth Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2018
    Messages:
    33,519
    Likes Received:
    17,956
    Trophy Points:
    113
    no it’s true. they didn’t take it the circuit
     
  6. PARTIZAN1

    PARTIZAN1 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 10, 2015
    Messages:
    46,841
    Likes Received:
    18,955
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    I hope you are correct. Criminals require punishment and Flynn is guilty and he admitted it by pleading guilty and I do not be
    Ieve there was usdue pressure.

    Bottom line is. Art is a political whore and Trump's personal lawyer.
    Barr cannot be trusted to do anything .egally. .
     
  7. Bush Lawyer

    Bush Lawyer Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2018
    Messages:
    15,037
    Likes Received:
    9,495
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male

    They did not just pick up their papers and leave Sullivan's Court after the DOJ moved the dismissal. They stayed expecting him to rubber stamp. He did not do that. He adjourned, and THEN, after the adjournment, Flynn prompted the doomed mandamus action.
     
    Last edited: Aug 12, 2020
  8. struth

    struth Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2018
    Messages:
    33,519
    Likes Received:
    17,956
    Trophy Points:
    113
    yeah Flynn did it not the DoJ. Flynn. did it because the judge wouldn’t do his job.

    Frankly at this point it’s silly the DOJ is not going to prosecute because the evidence doesn’t support the charge
     
  9. Bush Lawyer

    Bush Lawyer Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2018
    Messages:
    15,037
    Likes Received:
    9,495
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Flynn moved for mandamus, ambushing Sullivan, who had not even considered the dismissal motion/48A, at that stage. It was Flynn who (temporarily) STOPPED Sullivan from doing his job. Flynn should have waited until Sullivan had fully considered the dismissal motion, and then, if Sullivan dismissed, it is over. If Sullivan dismissed the dismissal motion, THEN it was open to Flynn to appeal that decision. Flynn (and his new gung-ho Lady Lawyer) has stuffed this up, NOT Sullivan.
     
    Egoboy likes this.
  10. yardmeat

    yardmeat Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 14, 2010
    Messages:
    56,163
    Likes Received:
    30,631
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Where is there any reason to believe that he didn't do what he's admitted to doing?
     
  11. yardmeat

    yardmeat Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 14, 2010
    Messages:
    56,163
    Likes Received:
    30,631
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Be admitted to the charges. That's pretty damn good evidence.
     
  12. struth

    struth Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2018
    Messages:
    33,519
    Likes Received:
    17,956
    Trophy Points:
    113
    yeah sullivan didn’t rule on the motion has he should have he continued it and illegally appointed someone
     
  13. struth

    struth Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2018
    Messages:
    33,519
    Likes Received:
    17,956
    Trophy Points:
    113
    nah he took a plea and then withdrew it different then a confession. Now the evidence has finally all come to light and there is no crime

    a dem DA got the Central Park 5 to confess...doesn’t mean they did it
     
    Last edited: Aug 12, 2020
  14. Egoboy

    Egoboy Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2017
    Messages:
    44,763
    Likes Received:
    32,099
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    This guy seems to think the appeals court will deny the mandamus, but leave Sullivan little wiggle room.

    But I'm pretty sure they'll say he can still hold a hearing on the matter..

    https://www.yahoo.com/news/litman-michael-flynns-latest-day-210242258.html

    Gleeson's brief was pretty powerful and makes infinite more sense than anything Flynn's people have been crapping out... If you cannot use 'leave of court' for this case, it's a pretty useless phrase.

    I still think it's possible the timeline is there to keep this unresolved until after the inauguration of Biden, in which case it's probably moot.
     
  15. Bush Lawyer

    Bush Lawyer Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2018
    Messages:
    15,037
    Likes Received:
    9,495
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    48A's 'leave of the Court' is there. It has meaning. It means that 'just because you ask me to dismiss, is not enough by far. You have to convince me that I ought to exercise my discretion to grant you leave. That will encompass you being able to convince me that this motion to dismiss is based on something of significant judicial substance and is way beyond merely POTUS wishing to/trying to muscle me to assist his powerfully connected mate Flynn.'
     
    Egoboy likes this.
  16. mdrobster

    mdrobster Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 11, 2011
    Messages:
    34,177
    Likes Received:
    12,803
    Trophy Points:
    113
    My money is on Trump granting him a pardon.
     
  17. Cubed

    Cubed Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Mar 28, 2012
    Messages:
    17,964
    Likes Received:
    4,953
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Problem with pardons is that means the individual can't cite 5th amendment if subpoenaed. That's why Stones sentence got commuted
     
    mdrobster likes this.
  18. Egoboy

    Egoboy Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2017
    Messages:
    44,763
    Likes Received:
    32,099
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    100% agree...and since Sullivan has been the judge on this case since day 1, it's gotta be a hard sell, IMHO... I certainly haven't seen any public evidence that would warrant this dismissal...
     
  19. mdrobster

    mdrobster Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 11, 2011
    Messages:
    34,177
    Likes Received:
    12,803
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Thanks for the info !!!
     
    Cubed likes this.
  20. PPark66

    PPark66 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 7, 2018
    Messages:
    3,416
    Likes Received:
    2,314
    Trophy Points:
    113
    First, competently present evidence of the “railroad job” to the judge during the trial.

    Second, as alluded yesterday if Barr possesses evidence no one has seen present it to the judge in closed session.

    I’m still can’t wrap my head around the notion it would “harm” the DOJ if they had to present evidence to support their claim.
     
  21. Kal'Stang

    Kal'Stang Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 3, 2015
    Messages:
    16,389
    Likes Received:
    12,962
    Trophy Points:
    113
    1: He was only waiting to sentence based upon another case in which Flynn might testify. That particular case got thrown out of the courts.
    2: It does not matter if he recanted his plea of guilty. The prosecution dropped the case. They even gave Sullivan an 81 page report as to why. Sullivan ignored it. In fact a defendant could have been sentenced and already be in prison and the prosecution can STILL drop the case and let the defendant go free.

    Rule 48A is there to protect the defendant. It is to be used by the court when there are excessive delays in things like constant late filings by the prosecutor, bringing a defendant to trial etc etc. Never has it been used when both the prosecutor and the defendant agreed that the charges should be dismissed. Rule 48. Dismissal

    The reason that Sullivan appointed an Amicus is because the prosecutor dropped the case. A case can't go on without a prosecutor pressing for the charges. So Sullivan appointed an Amicus to continue to press the charges AND look into pushing for additional charges of perjury. That is not what an Amicus is for. An Amicus is to provide factual information regarding a case currently before the court. By ordering the Amicus to look into pressing additional charges Sullivan put the Amicus in the role of a Prosecutor, not an Amicus. That is beyond Sullivan's power because only the executive branch of the law may appoint a prosecutor. Not a judge.

    Flynn's counsel is doing their job. And they are doing what every other lawyer does. Including talking to the media. Sullivan is the one going outside of his power. Sullivan is the one that won't dismiss the case despite every precedent set. Including by SCOTUS who ruled against another court that was doing the same thing that Sullivan is doing right now on May 7 in a 9-0 decision regarding appointing an Amicus. LINK: UNITED STATES v. SINENENG-SMITH

    According to US v Sineneng-Smith and LINK: UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v FOKKER SERVICES B.V, they're going to treat him far better than Sullivan. And will no doubt take Sullivan to task. Along with the rest of the judges that I have no doubt are going to rule in Sullivan's favor in this en banc idiocy. Here's something you should read: Judge Sullivan Disregards Two Controlling Precedents By Appointing Amicus In Flynn Case That this will even have to go to SCOTUS is idiocy considering the May 7 ruling in US v Sineneng-Smith.

    And yeah, I know you're betting on a Biden win hoping that a new AG will take up the fight against Flynn again. But there's a problem with that. If they do then all the dirty laundry is going to be brought forth front and center. Including all the misconduct that has been exposed by Flynn's new legal team. The new AG will not want that. Neither will Biden or Kamala. They won't be touching this case. Not if Kamala actually has any brains.
     
    glitch likes this.
  22. Kal'Stang

    Kal'Stang Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 3, 2015
    Messages:
    16,389
    Likes Received:
    12,962
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Except that Sullivan appointed an Amicus. An Amicus that he charged with arguing in a prosecutorial role. Further delaying what has already been going on for years. Sullivan very easily filed a hearing date/time to hear the motion to dismiss and asked all the questions he needed to ask there and then ruled on the dismissal. Instead he kept delaying and delaying. That is why Flynn's attorney's filed for mandamus. Inaction (delaying a hearing to hear the dismissal in this case) can be considered an action in a court of law. (I got that from listening to the almost 4 hour hearing in front of the full court)
     
  23. Kal'Stang

    Kal'Stang Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 3, 2015
    Messages:
    16,389
    Likes Received:
    12,962
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I also wish to put forth this video that talked about that whole "well he pled guilty twice!" arguments that are so prevalent on this forum.

     
  24. Bush Lawyer

    Bush Lawyer Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2018
    Messages:
    15,037
    Likes Received:
    9,495
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    I seriously doubt that, to be polite. Why do you have pardons when POTUS could simply direct his AG to drop a case on a convicted, sentenced and imprisoned person?





    It is not ONLY there to protect a Defendant. It is also there to protect 'you the People' from skullduggery going on between POTUS and his AG/DOJ (which is part of the Executive Branch) to assist say, a powerful and politically connected Defendant.

    Gleeson is not a Prosecutor. He is Amicus. I disagree with your comments and I have already stated my reasons.





    If that Lady Lawyer tried her media crap down here, she would be disbarred. It is inappropriate to try these matters in the Nothing Court of Public Opinion. That Lawyer is killing her own client's chances, aggrandising herself, and Fox is giving here a leg's up in that regard.



    Both cases were referred to in the DC Appelate Court, and had zero apparant impact on the Ten Judges.

    You totally misunderstand me. I WANT all the 'dirty laundry' exposed....ALL of it and that is what Sullivan too wants. It is his Court, and he clearly will not rubberstamp corruption.
     
  25. Kal'Stang

    Kal'Stang Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 3, 2015
    Messages:
    16,389
    Likes Received:
    12,962
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Because thousands of cases cannot be handled by the POTUS alone.



    Yes, actually it is. You have swallowed the leftist BS on this. Due to the separation of powers the courts cannot second guess the executive branch on these matters. The judicial branch is not an investigatory branch. They cannot try to bring in facts in question not already brought to them in a case. That is for the legislative branch to investigate. That is how our system is set up. It may not be in yours. But it is in ours. As Judge Srinivasan stated in Fokker: "[A]uthority over criminal charging decisions resides fundamentally with the Executive, without the involvement of—and without oversight power in—the Judiciary.” “In vacating the district court order, we have no occasion to disagree (or agree) with that court’s concerns about the government’s charging decisions in this case. Rather, the fundamental point is that those determinations are for the Executive—not the courts—to make." <--- From a link from Forbes that I provided in the post you quoted.

    He was called an Amicus. But what he was ordered to do was the job of a prosecutor. You can disagree all that you wish. But plain fact of the matter is that here in the US an Amicus is summoned to bring forth facts on what is before the court and ONLY what is before the court at the time they were summoned. They are not to decide whether to push forward with a case because the only ones that can do that is the executive branch. Nor are they to decide if another charge be added to someone, again, that is an executive branch decision.

    Well, we're not talking about Australia now are we? This is the US we're talking about. And in the US Free Speech means that a defendants lawyer can go before The People and speak on the case all that they want. And it happens a lot here.

    Except that it did. In Fokker alone the lower court was ordered to grant the mandamus. Which was against what they wanted.

    Then get the legislative branch to do it. That is their job. Not the courts. As Ruth Ginsburg said: “Courts are essentially passive instruments of government. They do not, or should not, sally forth each day looking for wrongs to right. They wait for cases to come to them, and when cases arise, courts normally decide only questions presented by the parties.” <--- again, taken from the link that I provided you from Forbes.
     

Share This Page