Replies

The case the USSC ruled on last week was slightly different, in that the 9th Circuit used amici to PROSECUTE an active case before it PRIOR TO A VERDICT.

The reason there were nine votes to overrule was because the State, or the plaintiff and their attorneys in a civil case, are the only ones with standing to appear before the court and structure their case.

In the Flynn case, the judge is taking the position that the prosecution case is over, that a verdict (through a plea agreement) has been reached, and that the State has lost discretion as a result.

This is wrong as a matter of law, there is a ton of precedent for the prosecution to withdraw charges after a verdict and even to release long-imprisoned persons subsequently shown to be innocent.

But what these events are REALLY all about is the true government continuing to refuse to allow Donald Trump to function as President - in this case with Judge Sullivan as its functionary.

This case will be 5-4 when it arrives at the Supreme Court and Roberts's vote is uncertain.

The coup has really been quite successful. I do not believe that an Article III court will ever act against any of the conspirators. And furthermore, "Obama" has been activated by his controllers to step out in front and openly lead the resistance, with unknown consequences. 2000 "former DOJ officials" were found to sign a seditious letter in 24 hours. Do you doubt that there are 2000 military officers (or "former officers") prepared to act at a moment's notice?

Donald Trump failed to take control of his government, admittedly from ignorance and in the face of bipartisan resistance backed by threats of removal. Could anyone working on behalf of the people have done better? Probably not.

But Obama and his controllers, slipstreaming behind Judge Sullivan, are about to cross the Rubicon.

The coup will now be put down by force or it will prevail.

Actually those cases were also post verdict appeal cases, but that is irrelevant. The case is not over until Judge Sullivan has passed final judgment. Rule 2 of the Criminal Rules of Procedure: Rule 2. Interpretation These rules are to be interpreted to provide for the just determination of every criminal proceeding, to secure simplicity in procedure and fairness in administration, and to eliminate unjustifiable expense and delay.

He still has jurisdiction. He must determine a just outcome. The government has already moved to dismiss the indictment on well documented grounds of prosecutorial misconduct, demonstrating that there was no case to prosecute. Those are well established grounds for dismissal.

Per Zokker, he has no choice but to dismiss the indictment. As for the rule 42 stuff - he has determined himself to consider prosecution of Flynn AFTER he government has confessed its own eggregious misconduct.

The judge is no longer remaining a neutral arbiter. He has inserted himself into the case and become his own prosecutor - exactly what all the cited cases say he is not allowed to do.

Under Zokker he has exactly one choice. Dismiss.