Posted on 05/02/2020 2:52:04 PM PDT by weston
I’m sure he would love to.
That is so disturbing. The suspect is a resident of the nursing home too, now a resident in jail.
I’ll say it again, Trump needs to have a MI rally in a week or two.
Is Washington state diligent about clearing out the voter rolls of people who have moved, died or not voted in a certain number of cycles? Maryland is notorious for not clearing out the voter rolls, at least not of Democrats
As always, a straight party line vote.
Unless Mitt voted “no”, I haven’t seen the actual tally.
Thanks.
Thanks!
1) The wording of the DC Circuit's order directing Judge Sullivan to personally respond to @SidneyPowell1's writ shows it is deeply troubled by Judge Sullivan's actions. #appellatetwitter pic.twitter.com/pnIpMnZMTx— John M. Reeves (@reeveslawstl) May 21, 2020
2) The Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure govern the filing and disposition of writs in the federal appellate courts.
3) These are DIFFERENT from the rules Judge Sullivan relied on to justify appointing amicus to oppose the DOJ's motion to dismiss.
4) Rule 21(b)(1) allows the DC Circuit to deny the writ petition outright, without asking for a response. This is what happens with the vast majority of writ petitions.
5) If the appellate court instead orders a response under Rule 21(b)(1), it shows it is concerned and wants to hear more about the matter.
6) By obtaining an order for a response, @SidneyPowell1 has already cleared a huge hurdle.
7) If the DC Circuit ordered a response and did nothing else, that alone would be a huge deal. But the DC Circuit didn't stop there.
8) Rule 21(b)(4) states that the appellate court "may invite or order the trial-court judge to address the petition or may invite an amicus curiae to do so."
9) The appellate court is not REQUIRED to order the trial-court judge to address the matter--it has the authority to do so, but doesn't need to exercise it.
10) Even if it wants to hear from the trial judge, the appellate court can simply "invite"--that is, request, or ask--the trial judge to respond. It does not have to ORDER the judge to respond.
11) And even if the appellate court orders the trial court judge to respond, it can avoid requiring the judge to personally defend the action under challenge by appointing a lawyer as amicus curiae to defend the judge's actions.
12) This is what the DC Circuit did in the Fokker case--the main case @SidneyPowell1 relies upon in her writ. See the highlighted portion of the fourth image below.
13) In Fokker, the DC Circuit said, "Because both parties seek to overturn the district court's denial of their joint motion to exclude time, we appointed amicus curiae to present arguments defending the district court's action."
14) The DC Circuit, in ordering Judge Sullivan to respond to @SidneyPowell1 's writ petition, could have easily appointed a lawyer as amicus to do so.
15) Note that an amicus appointed by the DC Circuit to defend Judge Sullivan would have had a job entirely different from John Gleeson's job as amicus appointed by Judge Sullivan to oppose the DOJ's motion to dismiss.
16) Had the DC Circuit appointed amicus, that lawyer's job would have been to present legal arguments defending Judge Sullivan's refusal to grant the DOJ's dismissal motion, NOT legal arguments purporting to show why the DOJ's motion should not be granted.
17) But the DC Circuit did not appoint a lawyer as amicus to defend Judge Sullivan's actions, unlike in Fokker.
18) Instead, the DC Circuit ordered Judge Sullivan to PERSONALLY respond and defend his actions, without an amicus attorney to do it for him.
19) This means that Judge Sullivan (and presumably his clerks) will have to PERSONALLY submit written briefing trying to legally justify his refusal to dismiss the Flynn case.
20) The DC Circuit is thus making Judge Sullivan--a lifetime federal judge--publicly and directly explain to them his actions.
21) In short, of all the options available to the DC Circuit for ruling on @SidneyPowell1 's writ, the DC Circuit, chose the most extreme, rare, and drastic of them.
22) It has ordered (not requested) Judge Sullivan to personally (and not through appointed amicus) respond and defend his actions to them.
23) This promises to be anything but dull going forward.
END
Here's an interesting picture that deserves an explanation--Amy in the Ukriane with Yovanovitch/Sen. No Name/Sen. Linda Graham/Poroshenko.
Thanks, good post.
@charliekirk11
· 4m
Democrats are the party of closed churches and open borders.
Yes,lol.
POTUS a was following federal gurus lines not her suggestions. She only that powerful in her own mind.
Bet the farm that 100% of those nursing home deaths had a shortage of
vitamin D in their system.
Excellent LG...thanks for all your hard work presenting this to us. I really appreciate it!
That is very interesting.
When does he take over? Will RG have any more responsibilities?
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.