Posted on 07/09/2020 2:51:14 PM PDT by EyesOfTX
In possibly the single most predictable move in the long and sordid history of corrupt federal judges in America, District Court Judge Emmet Sullivan’s taxpayer-funded lawyer filed a request today for an en banc hearing before the DC Circuit Court of Appeals.
From a story at Law&Crime.com:
U.S. District Judge Emmet Sullivan, through his counsel Beth Wilkinson, has asked for U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit to rehear his case against the immediate dismissal of the Michael Flynn prosecution.
The Thursday petition for rehearing comes after a three-judge panel on the D.C. Circuit granted Flynn’s petition for writ a mandamus on June 24, directing Sullivan to dismiss the case.
“The panel majority granted the extraordinary writ of mandamus to prevent the district court from receiving adversarial briefing and argument on a pending motion. The opinion is couched as a fact-bound ruling based on ‘the record before the district court,’” the Sullivan petition for rehearing began. “It in fact marks a dramatic break from precedent that threatens the orderly administration of justice.”
[End]
That last sentence is laughably absurd that it is hard to believe a competent lawyer actually wrote it. The only “dramatic breaks from precedent” in this case wer Sullivan’s decision to refuse to grant the government’s motion to dismiss it due to rampant misconduct and hiding of exculpatory documents by the FBI and the DOJ’s own prosecutors, followed by Sullivan’s hiring of a) an ex-federal judge to write an amicus brief supporting Sullivan’s absurd decision-making and b) a defense lawyer to represent him, a sitting federal judge, before the Court of Appeals.
It is notable that today’s request for en banc by Sullivan’s lawyer comes a bare week before Sullivan was to have held a hearing to consider dismissing the case based on the order two weeks ago by a 3-judge panel of the DC Circuit that he do so. It is also notable that none of the 11 judges on the DC Circuit Court itself took the initiative to request an en banc, something any one of them could have done had they felt the order by the 3-judge panel was in error.
That fact, along with the utterly absurd reasoning put forth by his own lawyer likely means Sullivan has little chance of actually prevailing in his en banc quest. Sidney Powell will rip Ms. Wilkinson and silly attempt to put lipstick on this legal pig to shreds.
But the strategy here is painfully obvious: This is just the next step in Sullivan’s desperate effort to delay any final dismissal of the Flynn case until after the November 3 election. Can anyone doubt that, after he pretty much inevitably loses this appeal at before the Circuit Court that he and his taxpayer funded lawyer will then file a similar motion to have the case heard before the U.S. Supreme Court, which does not convene again until the first Monday in October?
Sullivan is an utterly corrupt tool of the Deep State. He and his Lawfare lawyer know he is in the wrong here, and that he cannot ultimately prevail based on legal arguments. This is just one more attempt to delay the inevitable, so that Flynn can be prevented from publicly revealing all he knows about the negotiations of the Iran Deal and other wrongdoing during the Obama administration before November.
What a circus.
That is all.
See post 20.
“Under the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure, a trial court judge is not even allowed to respond to a petition for mandamus unless invited to do so by the court of appeals.”
Great point! It just shows the depth of Sullivan’s criminality that he even responded to the petition despite being legally prohibited from doing so.
Obviously, if he was given permission to do so, instead of breaking the law like he did, then he would be entitled to ask to appeal. Only a great and insightful lawyer could see the subtle circumstance: if the court did not give you permission to respond to the petition in the first place (is that even allowed? I doubt it!) then you certainly cannot ask for a further appeal.
Curious, can Sullivan be prosecuted for responding to the petition in the first place? Some corrupt official on the court let that happen. Let’s hope the corruption is ended by the court telling him to stop breaking the law!
Federal Judges can be impeached. This one should be.
Please explain
Like I posted. on Politico today they said Sullivan is not allowed to do this. He decided to be “creative”. But Wilks or another D.C circuit judge still can. If they dont act then case automatically dismissed July 15th.
Sullivan can not request en banc.
Sullivan is not a party to the case. Therefore, he has no standing to ask for an en banc review, nor to appeal to SCOTUS.
The correct response by the appeals court is that neither the judge’s lawyer nor the judge have any standing.
Oh. Thanks for the explanation. I’m never very good at figuring out the legalities of these things.
As a former judge himself, Gleason, unlike Wilkerson, would know that this was not permitted.
And the cherry on top is that he is asserting that the Court (him in this case, but in principle any other Federal judge) has the RIGHT to order an adversarial proceeding after the adversaries have withdrawn, with new adversaries chosen by him alone.
Because the government is so out of control, it would not surprise me if the DC circuit endorsed such a notion, but it obviously smashes down the wall separating judicial from executive functions, and could be considered part of the coup because it could only happen with President Trump in the White House.
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.