Everybody else in this case is being paid by the government, except my client's defense team. The toll it takes on a defendant to go through this is absolutely enormous, and it's not justified by this case. This is the most impressive motion to dismiss I've ever seen in decades of practice and the most well documented. In fact, in Judge Leon, I think it was a two page motion to dismiss, pursuant to which he dismissed three defendants for the government, after guilty pleas just a couple of years ago, and to force in the United States…the government dismissed, and Judge Posner wrote that decision explaining how the Special Prosecutor's position had to be vacated and the motion to dismiss had to be granted on mandamus.
Here, Sidney Powell makes the point that the defendant is still being punished by the government, for a crime that he never committed.
We have Judge Sullivan, who is an old hand. He's a excellent trial judge. Judge Henderson makes this point. What is she thinking? I think that we now know that Judge Sullivan is largely ignorant of the law, beyond partisan and has been gleefully jumped into doing what the Coup d'Etat cabal could not do.
And now we have a couple of examples of Ms. Wilkinson pounding the table. That's what lawyers do when they don't have either the law or the facts on their side. But, she is representing the Judge, not the adversaries. That's because the adversaries are now on the same side and only the corrupt judge is trying to continue the punishment.
But here, in this unusual circumstance where both parties agree, all the District Court did was appoint an amicus to present arguments in opposition to the government's motion to dismiss. And we…we know, because at least some time has passed, that the amicus filed that brief and did not ask for any witnesses, did not request any fact finding, so to go to Judge Henderson's point about the regular order, if this court doesn't step into the fray and allows the District Court to do its job, it may well be that the court reads both sides, both briefings, asks the government's question and grants a motion to dismiss.
Here, Ms Wilkinson admits that the court has stepped in to act as the prosecutor, because the court is not happy with the decision of the prosecution. Something that the court cannot do.
No, I think it I mean, I think, as Mr. Wall stated, there's an inherent power, and it occurs at the District Court level, not frequently, for the court to appoint an amicus but it needs advice or legal briefing on an issue. But here it's even more important because there's you need an adversarial briefing. The government and Mr. Flynn are aligned.
The craziest argument in the entire proceeding. She is saying that since both sides now agree, the court must argue the former prosecution side. After all, LTG Flynn has been well framed and he needs to remain framed.
In addition to my earlier post, I ought to predict what will happen and when. Judge Rao and Judge Wilkins will vote 1-1 on the motion to dismiss (the mandamus). The swing vote is Judge Henderson. I don’t way she is going to go, but I am going to predict that she will vote with Rao and therefore, the writ will be granted and the insanity will end.
Before reading this transcript, I would have predicted that the writ would not be granted. That’s because I have only heard from the talking heads and even the conservative ones think that the Appeals Court Panel will allow Sullivan to proceed with the Inquisition. While Judge Henderson stepped up to defend Judge Sullivan, she did really not defend Ms. Wilkinson position and I think that she was listening very carefully to Sydney Powell’s points. The facts and the law (includiing specifically on the Constitution) is on Flynn’s side. Pounding was all that Wilkinson could do and that’s what she did. The Appeals Court Panel will issue their decision before the end of June.