Posted on 06/25/2020 9:10:19 AM PDT by Red Badger
A federal judge late Wednesday halted all proceedings in the case against President Trump’s first national security adviser Michael Flynn.
U.S. District Judge Emmett Sullivan issued a one-page order hours after a federal appeals court ordered him to dismiss the case saying he overstepped his authority by keeping it alive.
The move buys Judge Sullivan some time while he decides whether to appeal the 2-1 decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit. Judge Sullivan could appeal the case to the en banc appellate court or the U.S. Supreme Court.
It is also possible one of the appellate court judges could request en banc hearing even if Judge Sullivan doesn’t.
“In light of the Opinion and Order issued by the Court of Appeals on Mr. Flynn’s petition for writ of mandamus, the deadlines and hearing date set forth in the Minute Order of May 19, 2020 are hereby stayed,” Judge Sullivan wrote in the order.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtontimes.com ...
And how would being “embarrassed” effect him?
He wouldn’t lose any salary, he wouldn’t lose his position, he’s at the pinnacle of the legal profession - a federal judge. He’s that for life. Maybe he won’t be considered for a higher federal judgeship but only a GOP would do that. A Rat administration would handsomely reward him - Supreme Court nomination maybe ?
He is running a huge risk to his reputation if he seeks an en banc.
In criminal practice writs are not rare, but are seldom granted.
Please don’t confuse your google search with my law degree.
There is a reason that Respondent is used instead of Defendant. They may be apparently similar but they re neither the same nor or equivalent. The only similarity is that a response is required.
On one hand you have Judge Sullivan’s right to appeal. OTOH exercising that right to appeal would certainly make Judge Sullivan look much more like Captain Ahab than like a neutral judge of Flynn’s case.So it would seem that vindication of a Sullivan appeal would require a Solomic “splitting the baby” - i.e., vindicating Sullivans’ appeal and simultaneously removing Sullivan from Flynn’s case.
Skin in the game = caught his pud in the wringer.
Plus until the case is dismissed Flynn in under a gag order
I don't think he is, but as a practical matter, that's a "technicality." It's prudent to hold one's tongue until out of the clutches of the oppressor.
The judge's position could become greatly affected if the appeals court simply granted any petition to remove him from a case, granted any petition for a new trial, and reversed any and all orders issued by that judge.
GEEZE KC tell us how you really feel LOL, LOL !!!
Thank you for confirming that there are exactly zero defendants who are currently appealing their guilty plea.
https://abcnews.go.com/US/case-settled-1989-central-park-jogger-believes-person/story?id=63077131
You need to get out more and read the news. Also Flynn was never sentenced or convicted. The DOJ dropped the case. The appeals court also ruled in Flynn’s favor.
Re: “Flynn was never sentenced or convicted.”
I thought that was obvious.
Flynn pleaded guilty, under penalty of perjury.
He renounced - explicitly, under oath, and under penalty of perjury - every path to a trial or an appeal.
Judge Sullivan actually threatened Flynn with a perjury charge.
My original statement stands - if Sullivan cuts Flynn free, the legal and ethical foundation for a guilty plea - past and present - will collapse.
It’s also possible for the Chief Justice to move to remove the judge from the case. He did it once before with another judge from the DC circuit. I don’t remember the circumstances
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.