Posted on 06/02/2020 7:16:30 PM PDT by MarvinStinson
General Michael Flynn filed a petition for writ of mandate requesting that the Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit order Judge Emmet Sullivan to dismiss Flynn's case, in the face of Sullivan's refusal to do so. On Monday, as the appellate court requested, both Judge Sullivan and the Department of Justice filed briefs defending their positions. Sullivan's was a disaster.
The fact that Judge Sullivan even had to file a brief is unusual. In the ordinary situation, while a writ of mandate requests an order that a judge do or undo something, the "real party in interest" is the party who sides with the judge's original position. That party writes the brief.
In this case, however, both parties are on the same side, and the judge stands opposite them. The appellate court, therefore, ordered the judge to file a brief defending his position, and it expressly added that he must do so in light of United States v. Fokker Servs. B.V. (D.C. Cir. 2016) 818 F.3d 733, the pre-eminent D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals case regarding motions to dismiss.
Sullivan apparently felt he was not up to the task of explaining his own legal analysis, so he hired one of Washington's fixers: Beth Wilkinson. He should have saved his money. Wilkinson's brief (which you can read here) is a joke. Additionally, Wilkinson has abandoned any pretense that Sullivan is impartial. This is an attack brief against Flynn.
The brief's main failing is that it pretends that, because the Fokker decision gives the trial court some discretion (as even the Department of Justice conceded), that means that under the "unique facts of this case," Sullivan has full discretion to review the request for dismissal.
Wilkinson and her team are being dishonest. On the matter at issue here, Fokker is unambiguous:
(Excerpt) Read more at americanthinker.com ...
Wait until the mask is ripped off the Kenyanesian Usurpation and you finally see that ALL of our elected AND appointed cooperated to violate the Constitution.
Obama is NOT a natural born citizen.
Obama was PRECISELY who the founders were excluding.
Yep
Yep
Judge Sullivan is no judge, though he holds the title.
He’s a partisan hack, given the position of judge to advance the agenda of the democratic party. He’s part of the deep-state, as are many more judges given the position by democrat administrations. “Judge” Sullivan might as well be Nancy Pelosi or Chuck Schumer or Jerry Nadler or Adam Schiff, or Biden or Obama or the DNC (collectively).
He has no real reason for what he’s doing against Flynn. He’s there to carry on the obstruction against Trump initiated by the Obama administration.
It’s very useful for everyone to read the Sullivan brief, Beth Wilkinson et al and compare it with the brief prepared by the Solicitor General of the U.S. on behalf of the Government.
The Government brief is a real argument. It is based on the U.S. Constitution, the Fokker decision, the law and relevant other decisions. The argument is quite clear and easily understood.
The Wikinson brief is a mess. It starts with an argument that the opinions of career prosecutors may not be overruled by their superiors in the DOJ. This would probably come as a surprise to the Attorney General. The rest of the brief doesn’t get any better, throwing everything up against the wall hoping that something will stick. Lacking any legal argument, they are pounding the table.
Damn! Wish I was current with my bar dues.
Your Honor? Objection! Fokker!
;-)
I’ve written a few appeal briefs, and Sullivan’s is a joke. My favorite part is where he makes the argument that the case should not be dismissed because the Court of Appeals would “benefit from his careful analysis”. That’s a winner. I’m sure that the panel will be so grateful for Sullivan’s offer of fatherly advice they’ll let him continue. What is he thinking?
I suspect these “protests” are distraction and redirection from the unmasking of Deep State coup perpetrators.
So? That tidbit is not at issue in the case at hand. The judge cannot make a prosecutorial decision. It is forbidden by the Constitution.
He’s thinking he has to keep Flynn under that gag order as long as possible.
But the plea was a deal that may not have been the crime he committed. Isn’t it understandable that the judge would be frustrated? I’m frustrated because after all the hearings we are no closer to the truth then when we started. Maybe the prosecution is throwing the case on purpose.
Flynn’s gag order remaining active is paramount to keeping the deep state cabal in place thus keeping the public focus off of the Hag, Joe Biden, the Obozo and their cabal from being exposed for their crimes against the US and the American people. Judge Sullivan is as criminal and guilty as are all those involved in the coup against Trump. It’s all about the timing!
I think that’s all correct, plus Sullivan has a kid who is a scumbag, and that’s how they’re controlling him.
The prosecution defrauded the court by claiming Brady compliance. The interview in question had no legal predicate. The government is moving to dismiss with prejudice.
Sullivan can be as frustrated as he wants, but he is NOT allowed to be both judge and prosecutor.
The legal system has three sides. Defendant and prosecution are the litigants. The judge is the supposedly impartial arbiter between the litigants. No matter how much the judge dislikes the approach of the prosecutor, they cannot take over that role. Period.
The presiding circuit court just ruled in Fokker on this specific issue - and Sullivan is dead wrong.
Unless this translates to a Trump victory and a Congress majority for the GOP in both chambers, whooptie-do.
Thank you for the explanation. I gain more from a few minutes on Free Republic then days of MNM.
It’ll take years to fully realize the destruction that Omamba heaped on our nation. What we see is but the tip of the iceberg
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.