Posted on 05/13/2020 8:44:10 PM PDT by 11th_VA
A three-judge federal appeals court said Tuesday the DOJ’s settlement with Fokker Services B.V. for alleged sanctions violations could go ahead after a district court judge rejected the arrangement as “anemic.”
The U.S. Court of Appeals in Washington, DC said prosecutors and not judges make decisions to enter into deferred prosecution agreement with corporate defendants.
In February 2015, federal district court judge Richard Leon refused to approve the settlement. He said the proposed $21 million penalty was “grossly disproportionate to the gravity of Fokker Sercvices’ conduct in a post-911 world.”
Holland-based Fokker Services admitted in a 2014 plea deal that it made more than 1,100 illegal shipments of aircraft parts, technology, and services worth $21 million to Iran, Sudan, and Burma.
In the settlement, Fokker agreed to forfeit $10.5 million and pay a civil fine of $10.5 million.
The settlement included an 18-month deferred prosecution agreement. Fokker Services promised to enhance its trade sanctions compliance.
In his February 5, 2015 opinion (pdf), Judge Leon said:
In my judgment, it would undermine the public’s confidence in the administration of justice and promote disrespect for the law for it to see a defendant prosecuted so anemically for engaging in such egregious conduct for such a sustained period of time and for the benefit of one of our country’s worst enemies.
Fokker appealed Judge Leon’s ruling.
Tuesday’s appellate opinion (pdf) written by Circuit Judge Sri Srinivasan said, “The Constitution allocates primacy in criminal charging decisions to the Executive Branch.”
(Excerpt) Read more at fcpablog.com ...
The case further held:
The Constitution allocates primacy in criminal charging decisions to the Executive Branch. The Executive's charging authority embraces decisions about whether to initiate charges, whom to prosecute, which charges to bring, and whether to dismiss charges once brought. It has long been settled that the Judiciary generally lacks authority to second-guess those Executive determinations, much less to impose its own charging preferences.
Amen!
Victory!
So potentially, Emmett (The Klown) Sullivan’s decision is NOT Final???
WooHoo!!!
It’s either over or a Constitutional Crisis ...
Chief Justice Ginsberg just issued an order on exactly this topic.
In particular Ginisberg made clear that as the neutral party the judge cannot take an interest in or prosecuted case that the DOJ will not prosecute.
On May 7 2020 AJ Ginsburg writing for the court in a 9-0 decision in UNITED STATES v. SINENENG-SMITH reversing the 9th circus stated
Instead of adjudicating the case presented by the parties, however, the court named three amici and invited them to brief and argue issues framed by the panel, including a question never raised by Sineneng-Smith: Whether the statute is overbroad under the First Amendment. ....
The Nation’s adversarial adjudication system follows the principle of party presentation. Greenlaw v. United States, 554 U. S. 237, 243. “In both civil and criminal cases, . . . we rely on the parties to frame the issues for decision and assign to courts the role of neutral arbiter of matters the parties present.” Id., at 243
Even more damning in this case is what Ginsburg wrote in the cited Greenlaw case where she said:
“[o]ur adversary system is designed around the premise that the parties know what is best for them, and are responsible for advancing the facts and arguments entitling them to relief.” (Scalia, J., concurring in part and concurring in judgment). As cogently explained:
“[Courts] do not, or should not, sally forth each day looking for wrongs to right. We wait for cases to come to us, and when they do we normally decide only questions presented by the parties.Counsel almost always know a great deal more about their cases than we do, and this must be particularly true of counsel for the United States, the richest, most powerful, and best represented litigant to appear before us.
And Ginsburg continues in Greenlaw: This Court has recognized that “the Executive Branch has exclusive authority and absolute discretion to decide whether to prosecute a case.” United States v. Nixon, 418 U. S. 683, 693 (1974)
So holdeth Ginsburg and her colleagues.
In this case, the United States has withdrawn from prosecution and sought to dismiss.
Judge Sullivan cannot continue a prosecution in place of the DOJ.
Sullivan is a good example of Deep State slime. He presided over the Senator Ted Stevens conviction. The prosecution team committed all kinds of felonies (falsified 302, perjury, obstruction of justice). He held them in contempt of court. Penalties? None.
I’ll take “What is ‘OVER’ for $10000, please Alex
The DOJ motion to dismiss was the end. Sullivan’s function under Fokker is merely ministerial - dismiss the case.
Yes, but this won’t stop the Judge. His scheme is to make Trump Pardon Flynn and keep this crap sandwich stirred up until the election. Justice is not blind. Anymore, She’s a corrupt politician.
The agenda appears to be Sullivan trying to bait my President into a pardon for Flynn so the fifth column enemy, the dnc whoredom media, can pillory him for pardoning an innocent man, er, a man the left and dnc insist is guilty of something heinous with Russia. I am learning to hate the left and the dnc even more, but not as much as I hate the ‘fifth column, enemy whoredom of the dnc’ media. By November I would like to see Flynn reinstated as DNI. Time to bayonet these lying bastards.
Last week the Supreme Court ruled unanimously against this type amicus brief.
Sullivan forgot that judges don’t prosecute.
This also underscores why the treason trials will have to go before a military tribunal.
Thanks for that additional post ... Flynn’s attorney should just call it in and say it’s over
Can Emmett (The Klown) Sullivan be charged with obstruction of justice???
Sullivan has been checkmated ... I don’t see it coming to that
That would be GREAT
But I have heard that General Flynn is under a gag order while the case is still open.
Perhaps that is Emmett (The Klown) Sullivan’s angle
Let’s ask AndyJackson
Judge Sullivan must have been one of those whose admission to law school was based on the color of his skin
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.