Posted on 05/13/2020 7:45:01 AM PDT by knighthawk
Former U.S. Attorney Brett Tolman thought he had "seen everything" over the course of his career until a federal judge opened the door Tuesday for legal experts and other outside parties to oppose the Justice Department’s motion to drop the case against former national security adviser Michael Flynn.
Appearing on "Fox & Friends," Tolman said he believed Judge Emmet Sullivan's decision was "outrageous" and that the Washington D.C. judge had turned himself into an "activist," willing to set aside rules, ethics, and precedent in favor of partisanship.
Although Sullivan did not directly address the Justice Department's motion to drop the charge against Flynn, in his order Sullivan announced he would set a schedule for outside parties to present arguments about the government’s request to dismiss the case.
(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...
If there is no case, there is no point of a judge being involved. What ever he does means absolutely nothing. It’s dead.
Sullivan’s call for amicus briefs is a “help me, Mr. Wizard” cry out to the Lawfare crowd to give him some excuse - any excuse - to screw Flynn over in spite of all the known facts aligning to set Flynn free.
Instead of adjudicating the case presented by the parties, however, the court named three amici and invited them to brief and argue issues framed by the panel, including a question never raised by Sineneng-Smith: Whether the statute is overbroad under the First Amendment. ....
The Nation’s adversarial adjudication system follows the principle of party presentation. Greenlaw v. United States, 554 U. S. 237, 243. “In both civil and criminal cases, . . . we rely on the parties to frame the issues for decision and assign to courts the role of neutral arbiter of matters the parties present.” Id., at 243
Even more damning in this case is what Ginsburg wrote in the cited Greenlaw case where she said:
“[o]ur adversary system is designed around the premise that the parties know what is best for them, and are responsible for advancing the facts and arguments entitling them to relief.” (Scalia, J., concurring in part and concurring in judgment). As cogently explained:
“[Courts] do not, or should not, sally forth each day looking for wrongs to right. We wait for cases to come to us, and when they do we normally decide only questions presented by the parties.Counsel almost always know a great deal more about their cases than we do, and this must be particularly true of counsel for the United States, the richest, most powerful, and best represented litigant to appear before us.
And Ginsburg continues in Greenlaw: This Court has recognized that “the Executive Branch has exclusive authority and absolute discretion to decide whether to prosecute a case.” United States v. Nixon, 418 U. S. 683, 693 (1974)
So holdeth Ginsburg and her colleagues.
In this case, the United States has withdrawn from prosecution and sought to dismiss.
This seems to me the equivalent of the judge taking the role of prosecutor, using these “friends of the court” as his agents. He no longer can pretend to be impartial.
This is not a civil case. This is a federal criminal case.
Judge Sullivan should not be entertaining let alone allowing third parties in.
There’s no transcript of the judge that I can find, but according to some sources he said he was concerned about how this case may impact the election. As a judge, that is not his sworn duty, He should be impeached, for political partisanship, at this point.
This is not a civil case. This is a federal criminal case.
Judge Sullivan should not be entertaining let alone allowing third parties in.
...
Already in this case Sullivan turned down all 24 friend of the court requests for that reason. His reversal is suspicious.
Both Sineng-Smith and Greenlaw were criminal cases.
Among other things, including getting Flynn free and Sullivan set straight by the Supremes, we need to get beyond this case so Sidney Powell can move on to representing Dr. Judy Mikovits.
Flynn’s lawyer should demand the judge immediately recuse himself for this outrageous act.
“I thought I’d ‘seen everything”
You can only say that if you never looked at the facts
There is a case. The Justice Dept has asked for it to be dismissed. The judge has to agree to rule that.
Sullivan has been compromised. It happened shortly before he accused Flynn of being a traitor.
He should step forward, confess to what they have on him, and recuse himself. He might have to resign, but this is too important. Roberts should also do the right thing.
If we can find out what the deep state has on these two judges, we should publicize it, and it will lose all power.
Now that is interesting.
Maybe the Dems could put the Flynn case on the ballot in the next election.
In a constitutional USA, this judge would be impeached by now.
Most of DC and its judges are enemies of USConstitution.
Fat chance that the Traitordemonicrats in the House will impeach Sullivan.
But, but, but... Chief Justice Roberts says there are no Republican or Democrat judges. I’m sure Roberts thinks it’s a mere coincidence that Sullivan, in committing such a ridiculous outrageous rape of justice, is a Clinton appointee.
Just another stall tactic that will be slapped down.
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.