The evidence before the court is incontrovertible.
There's no need for the jury to retire.
In all my years of judging, I have never heard before
Of someone more deserving of the full penalty of law.
-PJ
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 ...
I’m with you, he’s not a party to the case. The only reason he had an advocate in the case because of the defense appeal.
The judge can’t appeal because he is not a party to the case.
This idiot reporter for the Wash Establishment Times is a moron and doesn’t know what he talking about.
“Judge Neomi Rao, a Trump appointee writing for the majority, just eviscerated his dissent so thoroughly that the en banc panel might say “why bother” and live with the 2-1 decision. “
that’s what i think too; i read the opinion and it’s definitive:
Sullivan has gone full Captain Ahab.
I have not followed this case closely.
If this decision stands, there will be at least one disturbing consequence...
Every federal defendant who has pleaded guilty will now ask, at least, for new discovery.
At worst, they will ask to withdraw their guilty plea.
Since 96% of federal inmates plead guilty to a reduced charge, this will create total chaos in the federal courts.
The evidence before the court is incontrovertible.
There's no need for the jury to retire.
In all my years of judging, I have never heard before
Of someone more deserving of the full penalty of law.
-PJ
I have not followed this case closely.
If this decision stands, there will be at least one disturbing consequence...
Every federal defendant who has pleaded guilty will now ask, at least, for new discovery.
At worst, they will ask to withdraw their guilty plea.
Since 96% of federal inmates plead guilty to a reduced charge, this will create total chaos in the federal courts.
You might want to familiarize yourself with this case. The D.O.J. vacated the case because the investigation and prosecution were corrupt. Furthermore convicts who plead guilty appeal their cases all the time. That is not nor will be anything new in federal courts.
He is formally a party. He is the defendant in Powell’s special legal suit filed with the appellate court. The appellate court ruled against him and ordered him to dismiss the Flynn prosecution.
My thought too
Bogus article, he simply has no standing to do so.
The judge can’t appeal because he is not a party to the case.
The judge is the defendant in the case that the appellate court ruled on. Technically, it’s not the same case as the Flynn prosecution. Flynn’s lawyer basically launched a separate case against the judge, asking the appellate court to order the judge to dismiss the Flynn case.
That remains to be seen...............
“The Lunatic Is On The Grass, The Lunatic Is On The Grass.....................”
I just put on Dark Side of the Moon for my afternoon listening pleasure.
Re: “Furthermore convicts who plead guilty appeal their cases all the time.”
I am hearing that for the first time.
Defendants who plead guilty swear - under penalty of perjury - that they have committed the crime they are charged with.
They also swear - under penalty of perjury - that they will not seek new discovery, appeal their case, or seek a new trial.
Perhaps you can give me a couple of current examples of defendants who are appealing their guilty pleas?
Thanks.
CACD FRAP Circuit Rule 40, Note (3)
(3) Writs. No mandate will issue in connection with an order granting or denying a writ of mandamus or other special writ, but the order or judgment granting or denying the relief sought will become effective automatically 21 days after issuance in the absence of an order or other special direction of this court to the contrary.
Apparently he can request that it be reviewed by the entire circuit - “en banc”. Since there are more rats on the entire circuit he might get what he wants.
Of course - this is insane and obvious to all what’s going on. The Obama persecution of Flynn.
CACD FRAP Circuit Rule 40, Note (3)
(3) Writs. No mandate will issue in connection with an order granting or denying a writ of mandamus or other special writ, but the order or judgment granting or denying the relief sought will become effective automatically 21 days after issuance in the absence of an order or other special direction of this court to the contrary.
There is a separate and longer time limit if a party decides to move for rehearing, 30 or 45 days (longer for the government). That limit is pointless here, because implemetation of the writ/order at 21 days frees Flynn.
The Circuit Court can order rehearing on its own, provided a majority of the active members chooses to do so. Sullivan and Lawfare can work with their cohorts (for example Wilkins) in the Circuit Court on that angle.
If the CADC decides to prolong Flynn's ordeal, it will do so in a way that preserves Fokker. No reversal needed. Make an exception, distinguish this case somehow. There is no such thing, really, as a rule of law that binds a court. Courts do what they will.
“I am confused. How is it the Judges place to appeal?”
Good question. The judge is neither of the litigants in the case, not the prosecutor nor the defendant; so from where comes Sullivan’s “right to appeal”?
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.