Jump to content
MidnightMax

D.C. Circuit Orders Judge Sullivan to Respond to Flynn Mandamus Petition

Recommended Posts

Note that the precedent you cite had to do with a case that had not been decided.  In this case Flynn plead guilty twice in open court and once in a written confession.

apples and oranges

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
49 minutes ago, MidnightMax said:

Hey SHITSTAINS, it's OVER and just a matter of semantics before GEN. FLYNN is a FREE MAN, with NO CRIMINAL RECORD and WORKING IN THE TRUMP ADMINISTRATION!!!

 

SUCK ON IT, LOSERS!!!

 

 

 

Is Judge Emmet Sullivan’s collusion cameo nearing its end?

 

Today, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, on its own motion, ordered Judge Sullivan to respond within ten days to the petition for a writ of mandamus filed by Michael Flynn. Earlier this week, Flynn’s counsel, Sidney Powell, filed the petition for that extraordinary writ, asking the appellate court to instruct Sullivan to grant the Justice Department’s motion to dismiss the case against Flynn.

 

That was after Judge Sullivan not only declined to grant the prosecution’s motion, but (a) invited non-parties to intervene in the case by filing amicus briefs (transparently, to make arguments that he somehow has authority to deny DOJ’s motion); and (b) appointed one amicus, former federal judge John Gleeson, as a quasi-prosecutor to make arguments that prosecutors are declining to make in favor of entering a judgment of conviction and sentencing Flynn.

 

As I noted yesterday, Sullivan’s encouragement of amicus briefs, which are not authorized in criminal cases, flies in the face of Sullivan’s own very firm orders previously declining to permit amicus briefs in Flynn’s case — some two dozen times by Ms. Powell’s count.

 

The appointment of Gleeson is equally astonishing and offensive to the principle of courts as impartial arbiters. Gleeson — who worked at the U.S. attorney’s office for the Eastern District of New York with Loretta Lynch (later President Obama’s attorney general) and Andrew Weissmann (chief prosecutor on the Mueller probe that brought the Flynn case — and now a Biden for President fundraiser) — has co-written a Washington Post op-ed portraying the Justice Department’s dismissal motion as an abuse of power.

 

The three-judge appellate panel that is considering the mandamus petition and that ordered Judge Sullivan to respond includes Judge Karen LeCraft Henderson, who was appointed to the D.C. Circuit by President George H. W. Bush (after being named to the district court by President Reagan); Judge Naomi Rao, who was appointed by President Trump; and Judge Robert L. Wilkins, who was appointed by President Obama.

 

It is apt to get Judge Sullivan’s attention that the only case the panel cited is United States v. Fokker Services B.V. In that 2016 ruling, the D.C. Circuit granted a writ of mandamus against a district judge who refused to dismiss a case (on a deferred prosecution arrangement) because the judge thought the Justice Department was letting the defendant off too easily. The Fokker Court explained that, under Rule 48(a) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, a judge has no power to deny a motion to dismiss charges. The D.C. Circuit there elaborated that decisions to dismiss pending charges “lie squarely within the ken of prosecutorial discretion,” and that judges may not substitute their view that a defendant should be prosecuted in place of the Justice Department’s determination that a case should be dropped.

 

The D.C. Circuit’s order that Judge Sullivan must respond cites Rule 48(a), along with Fokker.

 

The panel’s order invites the Justice Department to weigh in, but does not require it to do so. The Justice Department did not join in Flynn’s motion for a writ of mandamus. DOJ has made clear its view that the Flynn case should not have been charged and should be dropped; it has taken no position on whether mandamus is warranted to achieve that result.

Well @slideman? @IcebergSlim?

 

Sup? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
55 minutes ago, slideman said:

Note that the precedent you cite had to do with a case that had not been decided.  In this case Flynn plead guilty twice in open court and once in a written confession.

apples and oranges

 

So.... we're to accept your version over that of a district court which just bitch-slapped an anti-Trump activist judge?

 

 

 

 

 

 

Wait.....

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

giphy.gif

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
38 minutes ago, SixShooter said:

 

So.... we're to accept your version over that of a district court which just bitch-slapped an anti-Trump activist judge?

 

 

 

 

 

 

Wait.....

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

giphy.gif

did you read ANY of the primary documents?

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
56 minutes ago, IcebergSlim said:

I don't read unsourced crap... 

You don’t read anything that doesn’t fit your narrow irrational ideology. 

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Str8tEdge said:

You don’t read anything that doesn’t fit your narrow irrational ideology. 

Edge,

 

I just tore you one on another thread for shit like this.....

 

 

  • IDIOT! 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, IcebergSlim said:

Edge,

 

I just tore you one on another thread for shit like this.....

 

 

You think you did but I consider the source. 😁

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, MidnightMax said:

Hey SHITSTAINS, it's OVER and just a matter of semantics before GEN. FLYNN is a FREE MAN, with NO CRIMINAL RECORD and WORKING IN THE TRUMP ADMINISTRATION!!!

 

SUCK ON IT, LOSERS!!!

 

 

 

Is Judge Emmet Sullivan’s collusion cameo nearing its end?

 

Today, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, on its own motion, ordered Judge Sullivan to respond within ten days to the petition for a writ of mandamus filed by Michael Flynn. Earlier this week, Flynn’s counsel, Sidney Powell, filed the petition for that extraordinary writ, asking the appellate court to instruct Sullivan to grant the Justice Department’s motion to dismiss the case against Flynn.

 

That was after Judge Sullivan not only declined to grant the prosecution’s motion, but (a) invited non-parties to intervene in the case by filing amicus briefs (transparently, to make arguments that he somehow has authority to deny DOJ’s motion); and (b) appointed one amicus, former federal judge John Gleeson, as a quasi-prosecutor to make arguments that prosecutors are declining to make in favor of entering a judgment of conviction and sentencing Flynn.

 

As I noted yesterday, Sullivan’s encouragement of amicus briefs, which are not authorized in criminal cases, flies in the face of Sullivan’s own very firm orders previously declining to permit amicus briefs in Flynn’s case — some two dozen times by Ms. Powell’s count.

 

The appointment of Gleeson is equally astonishing and offensive to the principle of courts as impartial arbiters. Gleeson — who worked at the U.S. attorney’s office for the Eastern District of New York with Loretta Lynch (later President Obama’s attorney general) and Andrew Weissmann (chief prosecutor on the Mueller probe that brought the Flynn case — and now a Biden for President fundraiser) — has co-written a Washington Post op-ed portraying the Justice Department’s dismissal motion as an abuse of power.

 

The three-judge appellate panel that is considering the mandamus petition and that ordered Judge Sullivan to respond includes Judge Karen LeCraft Henderson, who was appointed to the D.C. Circuit by President George H. W. Bush (after being named to the district court by President Reagan); Judge Naomi Rao, who was appointed by President Trump; and Judge Robert L. Wilkins, who was appointed by President Obama.

 

It is apt to get Judge Sullivan’s attention that the only case the panel cited is United States v. Fokker Services B.V. In that 2016 ruling, the D.C. Circuit granted a writ of mandamus against a district judge who refused to dismiss a case (on a deferred prosecution arrangement) because the judge thought the Justice Department was letting the defendant off too easily. The Fokker Court explained that, under Rule 48(a) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, a judge has no power to deny a motion to dismiss charges. The D.C. Circuit there elaborated that decisions to dismiss pending charges “lie squarely within the ken of prosecutorial discretion,” and that judges may not substitute their view that a defendant should be prosecuted in place of the Justice Department’s determination that a case should be dropped.

 

The D.C. Circuit’s order that Judge Sullivan must respond cites Rule 48(a), along with Fokker.

 

The panel’s order invites the Justice Department to weigh in, but does not require it to do so. The Justice Department did not join in Flynn’s motion for a writ of mandamus. DOJ has made clear its view that the Flynn case should not have been charged and should be dropped; it has taken no position on whether mandamus is warranted to achieve that result.

I can just imagine the swearing in of witnesses in Sullivan's court with Gleeson at the helm. "Do you swear to tell half-truths and nothing but half-truths so help you  <blank>."

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, IcebergSlim said:

There's no question..

The source incapable of assessing intellect? 
 

In glad we agree. 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, slideman said:

Note that the precedent you cite had to do with a case that had not been decided.  In this case Flynn plead guilty twice in open court and once in a written confession.

apples and oranges

The order stands - I'll accept the judgment of the circuit court over yours. The guilty pleas were coerced and will be meaningless in a matter of days.

 

The tide is turning, ladies.

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
58 minutes ago, Cannonpointer said:

The order stands - I'll accept the judgment of the circuit court over yours. The guilty pleas were coerced and will be meaningless in a matter of days.

 

The tide is turning, ladies.

WTF is wrong with these idiots. Some things are more important than partisan politics, namely constitutionally protected rights. 

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, MidnightMax said:

Hey SHITSTAINS, it's OVER and just a matter of semantics before GEN. FLYNN is a FREE MAN, with NO CRIMINAL RECORD and WORKING IN THE TRUMP ADMINISTRATION!!!

 

 

 

Hey. Dumbass, that's what he was before he lied to the FBI, the VP, and got fired.

 

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, MidnightMax said:

Hey SHITSTAINS, it's OVER and just a matter of semantics before GEN. FLYNN is a FREE MAN, with NO CRIMINAL RECORD and WORKING IN THE TRUMP ADMINISTRATION!!!

 

SUCK ON IT, LOSERS!!!

 

 

 

Is Judge Emmet Sullivan’s collusion cameo nearing its end?

 

Today, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, on its own motion, ordered Judge Sullivan to respond within ten days to the petition for a writ of mandamus filed by Michael Flynn. Earlier this week, Flynn’s counsel, Sidney Powell, filed the petition for that extraordinary writ, asking the appellate court to instruct Sullivan to grant the Justice Department’s motion to dismiss the case against Flynn.

 

That was after Judge Sullivan not only declined to grant the prosecution’s motion, but (a) invited non-parties to intervene in the case by filing amicus briefs (transparently, to make arguments that he somehow has authority to deny DOJ’s motion); and (b) appointed one amicus, former federal judge John Gleeson, as a quasi-prosecutor to make arguments that prosecutors are declining to make in favor of entering a judgment of conviction and sentencing Flynn.

 

As I noted yesterday, Sullivan’s encouragement of amicus briefs, which are not authorized in criminal cases, flies in the face of Sullivan’s own very firm orders previously declining to permit amicus briefs in Flynn’s case — some two dozen times by Ms. Powell’s count.

 

The appointment of Gleeson is equally astonishing and offensive to the principle of courts as impartial arbiters. Gleeson — who worked at the U.S. attorney’s office for the Eastern District of New York with Loretta Lynch (later President Obama’s attorney general) and Andrew Weissmann (chief prosecutor on the Mueller probe that brought the Flynn case — and now a Biden for President fundraiser) — has co-written a Washington Post op-ed portraying the Justice Department’s dismissal motion as an abuse of power.

 

The three-judge appellate panel that is considering the mandamus petition and that ordered Judge Sullivan to respond includes Judge Karen LeCraft Henderson, who was appointed to the D.C. Circuit by President George H. W. Bush (after being named to the district court by President Reagan); Judge Naomi Rao, who was appointed by President Trump; and Judge Robert L. Wilkins, who was appointed by President Obama.

 

It is apt to get Judge Sullivan’s attention that the only case the panel cited is United States v. Fokker Services B.V. In that 2016 ruling, the D.C. Circuit granted a writ of mandamus against a district judge who refused to dismiss a case (on a deferred prosecution arrangement) because the judge thought the Justice Department was letting the defendant off too easily. The Fokker Court explained that, under Rule 48(a) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, a judge has no power to deny a motion to dismiss charges. The D.C. Circuit there elaborated that decisions to dismiss pending charges “lie squarely within the ken of prosecutorial discretion,” and that judges may not substitute their view that a defendant should be prosecuted in place of the Justice Department’s determination that a case should be dropped.

 

The D.C. Circuit’s order that Judge Sullivan must respond cites Rule 48(a), along with Fokker.

 

The panel’s order invites the Justice Department to weigh in, but does not require it to do so. The Justice Department did not join in Flynn’s motion for a writ of mandamus. DOJ has made clear its view that the Flynn case should not have been charged and should be dropped; it has taken no position on whether mandamus is warranted to achieve that 

 

 

No problem. With the petition, Flynn has just admitted to perjury on top of the charges he is waiting to be sentenced on.

 

The judge should dismiss the current case without prejudice, and he can be recharged next year when the new administration comes in, and be charged with perjury, and thrown in jail without bail right now.

 

Works for me.

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, slideman said:

Note that the precedent you cite had to do with a case that had not been decided.  In this case Flynn plead guilty twice in open court and once in a written confession.

apples and oranges

 

 

 

Note that the DC Circuit Court just told SULLIVAN to RESPOND WITHIN 10 DAYS of they would act. Which means REMOVING HIM from the case and DISMISSING IT as it should have been last week!!!

 

We call what YOU CLAIM, SOUR GRAPES!!! Suck on it SHITSTAIN.

 

FLYNN "confessed" based on the LIES told to his attorney by the PROSECUTION. WE HAVE EVIDENCE OF THE LIES and the LIARS who made them. He did NOTHING WRONG to warrant a plea. See how this works, SHITSTAIN??? It's called MISCARRIAGE OF JUSTICE based on a ILLEGAL INVESTIGATION AND PROSECUTION!!!
 

But I forget that you SHITSTAINS support that kind of activity as long as it "Gets Trump", right???

 

It's for that very reason that SHITSTAINS like you are COWARDS AND TRAITORS and need to be exterminated like the vermin you are.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, skews13 said:

 

 

No problem. With the petition, Flynn has just admitted to perjury on top of the charges he is waiting to be sentenced on.

 

The judge should dismiss the current case without prejudice, and he can be recharged next year when the new administration comes in, and be charged with perjury, and thrown in jail without bail right now.

 

Works for me.

 

Pssssst. You can't commit perjury if the basis for a plea deal was a LIE AND ILLEGAL ATTEMPT TO PROSECUTE!!!

 

You would make a very bad attorney, little SHITSTAINette.

 

Oh, and a DISMISSAL is WITH PREJUDICE so it can't be brought before the court EVER again.

 

See how this works???

 

Oh, and you will get NO NEW ADMINISTRATION with Groper Joe as your "guy".

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, IcebergSlim said:

did you read ANY of the primary documents?

Funny how alleged libs will trash civil rights and the legal process to get what they want.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, MidnightMax said:

Hey SHITSTAINS, it's OVER and just a matter of semantics before GEN. FLYNN is a FREE MAN, with NO CRIMINAL RECORD and WORKING IN THE TRUMP ADMINISTRATION!!!

 

SUCK ON IT, LOSERS!!!

 

 

 

Is Judge Emmet Sullivan’s collusion cameo nearing its end?

 

Today, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, on its own motion, ordered Judge Sullivan to respond within ten days to the petition for a writ of mandamus filed by Michael Flynn. Earlier this week, Flynn’s counsel, Sidney Powell, filed the petition for that extraordinary writ, asking the appellate court to instruct Sullivan to grant the Justice Department’s motion to dismiss the case against Flynn.

 

That was after Judge Sullivan not only declined to grant the prosecution’s motion, but (a) invited non-parties to intervene in the case by filing amicus briefs (transparently, to make arguments that he somehow has authority to deny DOJ’s motion); and (b) appointed one amicus, former federal judge John Gleeson, as a quasi-prosecutor to make arguments that prosecutors are declining to make in favor of entering a judgment of conviction and sentencing Flynn.

 

As I noted yesterday, Sullivan’s encouragement of amicus briefs, which are not authorized in criminal cases, flies in the face of Sullivan’s own very firm orders previously declining to permit amicus briefs in Flynn’s case — some two dozen times by Ms. Powell’s count.

 

The appointment of Gleeson is equally astonishing and offensive to the principle of courts as impartial arbiters. Gleeson — who worked at the U.S. attorney’s office for the Eastern District of New York with Loretta Lynch (later President Obama’s attorney general) and Andrew Weissmann (chief prosecutor on the Mueller probe that brought the Flynn case — and now a Biden for President fundraiser) — has co-written a Washington Post op-ed portraying the Justice Department’s dismissal motion as an abuse of power.

 

The three-judge appellate panel that is considering the mandamus petition and that ordered Judge Sullivan to respond includes Judge Karen LeCraft Henderson, who was appointed to the D.C. Circuit by President George H. W. Bush (after being named to the district court by President Reagan); Judge Naomi Rao, who was appointed by President Trump; and Judge Robert L. Wilkins, who was appointed by President Obama.

 

It is apt to get Judge Sullivan’s attention that the only case the panel cited is United States v. Fokker Services B.V. In that 2016 ruling, the D.C. Circuit granted a writ of mandamus against a district judge who refused to dismiss a case (on a deferred prosecution arrangement) because the judge thought the Justice Department was letting the defendant off too easily. The Fokker Court explained that, under Rule 48(a) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, a judge has no power to deny a motion to dismiss charges. The D.C. Circuit there elaborated that decisions to dismiss pending charges “lie squarely within the ken of prosecutorial discretion,” and that judges may not substitute their view that a defendant should be prosecuted in place of the Justice Department’s determination that a case should be dropped.

 

The D.C. Circuit’s order that Judge Sullivan must respond cites Rule 48(a), along with Fokker.

 

The panel’s order invites the Justice Department to weigh in, but does not require it to do so. The Justice Department did not join in Flynn’s motion for a writ of mandamus. DOJ has made clear its view that the Flynn case should not have been charged and should be dropped; it has taken no position on whether mandamus is warranted to achieve that result.

The sickness of the Democrats is out of control, they all cheer putting a American General in prison for political gain. Democrats need removed from anything to with Governing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh, and MORON SHITSTAINS, for the RECORD, the DC Court REQUIRING an answer from the judge is a STRONG INDICATION that the FIRST HURDLE of proving your Writ has merit has been crossed. The DC Court said "this has merit" and needs to be REVERSED as the PETITIONER has made it's case that the JUDGE IS GRANDSTANDING!!!

 

MOST of these types of "writs" are never acted on and totally dismissed.
 

ROFLMAO!!!
 

YOU SHITSTAINS are in for a RUDE LEGAL AWAKENING!!!
 

 

Are you "woke" yet???

 

Bwahaahaaahaaaaahahahahahahahahahahaha

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


No holds barred chat

You don't have permission to chat in this chatroom
×
×
  • Create New...