Posted on 05/13/2020 6:20:58 PM PDT by kevcol
A federal judge late Wednesday suggested he may pursue contempt charges against former national security adviser Michael Flynn for perjuring himself by abandoning an earlier guilty plea to a charge of lying to the FBI.
U.S. District Judge Emmet Sullivan also tapped a retired federal judge to argue against the Justice Department’s motion to drop the charges against Flynn.
.
.
.
Judge Gleeson will argue “whether the court should issue an Order to show Cause why Mr. Flynn should not be held in criminal contempt for perjury.”
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtontimes.com ...
He slammed the prosecutors pretty hard in the case against Stephenson (sp?) who was a Republican.
He seems pretty arrogant, as in his initial statement to Flynn about treason, followed by a partial apology when he realized he’d gone too far. But, I think that after accepting a plea, he’s reluctant to reverse himself.
But, he is also a Democrat appointee, as you say. Usually that wins out.
Can’t say it’s never happened, but I’ve never heard of it, or of the process the judge is trying to put in place - bringing in another judge to argue for this.
Judge Sullivan can hold Flynn in contempt, if he wants. He can deny the DOJ request to drop the case.
But I don’t think either step will withstand an appeal.
The judge seems to want to create a weird record of arguments before him, to support what he wants to do.
He doesn’t need a retired judge to argue these decisions, he has law clerks to advise him so he can decide things himself.
You’re seeing an angry and partisan judge lashing out and I think making a fool of himself.
At this point, I suspect Barr and Sydney Powell are each in their offices deciding the best way to demolish the nonsense Judge Sullivan is spouting.
I think they’ll first tell him this is an egregious violation of Flynn’s due process rights.
After that, I think they’ll seek an emergency appeal before submitting to this clown show.
Even if they don’t get the appeal, Sullivan is erecting a house of cards that will never stand up against Flynn.
An agreement signed under force or fraud is invalid. And in this case there was both.
[He slammed the prosecutors pretty hard in the case against Stephenson (sp?) who was a Republican.]
LOLZ POW, zing, Oof.
Self-consciously Black government authoritarians and cultural leaders is a place where Dunning Krueger often shines brightly.
He’s a Democrat. He wants his pound of flesh.
GO TIME? Do I need popcorn or a bowl of Cheerios?
This silly, vindictive judge has the legal authority to sentence Flynn to the max for Perjury and Criminal Contempt.
And a Democrat House would never impeach over it.
However, nothing stops AG Barr from filing a Judicial Misconduct Complaint with the Circuit Court’s chief judge, which would signal a future GOP House to impeach.
And nothing stops the US DOJ from refusing any further court proceedings by this judge...all future cases.
And nothing stops POTUS from issuing a full pardon.
I have confidence this will work out as it should...IMO, it’s when, not if.
“You’re out of order! You’re out of order! The whole trial is out of order! They’re out of order!”
“...This is why the original defense lawyers and prosecutors kept the “side deal” off the books and hid it from the judge. This is a violation of the courts rules and procedures and also goes to incompetence and self dealing of the Covington law firm.”
*********************************************************
It was at best MALPRACTICE and it well could have been even worse... illegal COMPLICITY WITH THE PROSECUTION.
Put the word out that the judge is planning to release information that will put Hillary Clinton behind bars.
[captain_dave #6] He should not be held in contempt for perjury because his plea was made under duress. He was mentally tortured, financially ruined, and threats were made against his son.- - - - - - - - - -
[Alberta's Child #19] If that's the standard you hold, then I'd say you can abrogate just about any contract that has been signed by any party in the history of mankind.
"I am demanding to have my real estate contract from five years ago terminated. I only signed it because my wife said she loved the house, and she threatened to leave me if we didn't buy it."
If you don't plead guilty, we will charge your son and put him in jail.
Arthur Linton Corbin, Corbin on Contracts, One Volume Edition, West Publishing, 1952,
§ 146, Voidable or Unforceable Promises as a Consideration
"Another type of exception is a promise voidable for fraud, duress, or illegality."
§ 228. Contracts Voidable for Fraud, Duress, or Mistake.
"An executory promise that has been induced by fraud or duress, or in certain kinds of cases by mistake, are unenforceable against the promisor."
Kaplan v. Kaplan, 25 Ill. 2d 181 (1962)
Duress has been defined as a condition where one is induced by a wrongful act or threat of another to make a contract under circumstances which deprive him of the exercise of his free will, and it may be conceded that a contract executed under duress is voidable. (Shlensky v. Shlensky, 369 Ill. 179; 12 I.L.P., Contracts, sec. 126; Restatement *186 of Contracts, § 492.) Acts or threats cannot constitute duress unless they are wrongful; however, the rule is not limited to acts that are criminal, tortious or in violation of a contractual duty, but extends to acts that are wrongful in a moral sense. (Restatement of Contracts, § 492, Comment g.) At common law duress meant only duress of the person, that is a threat to life, limb or liberty, and the threat must have been of a nature as to create such fear as would impel a person of ordinary courage to yield to it. (Illinois Merchants Trust Co. v. Harvey, 335 Ill. 284; 17A Am. Jur., Duress and Undue Influence, sec. 10.) Under modern views and developments, however, duress is no longer confined to situations involving threats of personal injury or imprisonment, and the standard of whether a man of ordinary courage would yield to the threat has been supplanted by a test which inquires whether the threat has left the individual bereft of the quality of mind essential to the making of a contract. (Decker v. Decker, 324 Ill. 457; Slade v. Slade, 310 Ill. App. 77; 17A Am. Jur., Duress and Undue Influence, sec. II.) Any wrongful threat which actually puts the victim in such fear as to act against his will constitutes duress and, according to some authorities, a threat of personal or family disgrace may be of such gravity as to deprive the person threatened of the mental capacity necessary to execute a valid contract. (Tallmadge v. Robinson, 158 Ohio St. 333, 109 N.E.2d 496; Fox v. Piercey, 119 Utah 367, 227 P.2d 763; Coleman v. Crescent Wire Cable Co. 350 Mo. 781, 168 S.W.2d 1060.) Generally, as stated in 17A Am. Jur., Duress and Undue Influence, sec. II, p. 573, "the threat must be of such nature and made under such circumstances as to constitute a reasonable and adequate cause to control the will of the threatened person, and must have that effect, and the act sought to be avoided must be performed by the person while in that condition * * *."
True, and when the judge asks the defendant under oath whether he's guilty it means something.
When I see the DOJ or Flynn make those arguments I'll take them seriously.
Ok, but that was looong ago. Likely Sullivan was wet behind the ears and wanted to look like a real judge?
People change over time. In politics they form alliances around the grift networks that pop up and down around them. Maybe Sullivan was corrupt from the getgo but it’s more likely he was corrupted along the way.
This would make Sullivan a complaining witness subject to cross examination.
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.