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 ...
With that statement, you’ve shown you have absolutely ZERO credibility to even be posting on this case, zeestephan. You state at the outset you haven’t been following the case but you then put your fingers to your keyboard and pontificate on something you KNOW NOTHING ABOUT. Ignorance is strong in you. . . and you should not say anything at all without eliminating that condition before writing.
You forgot Alcee Hastings.
No. You are incorrect.
The Petition Filed by flynn names the judge as the Respondent not the defendant.
The court responded thru his attorney.
But the court is not a party to the lawsuit of which the Petition is based.
In a writ lawsuit, the defendant is called respondent
The court responded thru his attorney.
As defendants always do. No party responds on their own. Even lawyers when they’re sued are represented by other lawyers
The judge is the defendant in this writ lawsuit. But because it’s a writ lawsuit - a type of lawsuit that has special terminology - it’s called “respondent”. Same difference. The writ lawsuit was filed against him
I’ve had my law license for 30 years, how about you?
I read yesterday that only a defendent or prosecution can appeal a case, the Judge has no standing to appeal.
That may be true, but it will take time for the fake appeal to be disposed of by the higher court. That’s all this is, a stalling tactic to keep the case alive for another three months, at least till the elections.................
Judge Sullivan is personally under an order from the CADC. He's the one who would advance an objection asserting that the order directed to him is improper.
Not an appeal at this stage. The next step would be a rehearing by the same court, but the entire panel. That rehearing can happen even with no request from Sullivan. The CADC has the power to rehear the case on its own volition.
Sullivan and his handlers may also petition SCOTUS to hear the case.
I don't think Sullivan or Wilkins or Lawfare expects to win on the merits. The point is to delay and to create a narrative that will be the prominent one in the popular press. It is necessary to bury the narrative that prosecution of Flynn was in any way improper. Any bogus narrative will do. Shampeachment was based on bogus law, appointment of Mueller was based on bogus law, and so on. On the "big/political" cases, we really are a banana republic.
Thanks for your input on the 21 Day Rule. I was hoping for 5 days or something like that. I really fear that we have not heard the last from Judge Sullivan.
Writ lawsuits are specialized and rare. Not surprised that many lawyers aren’t familiar with the terminology
“ the respondent (in a petition for writ) is equivalent to a defendant in a lawsuit”
https://dictionary.law.com/Default.aspx?selected=1828
Typically, in a mandamus suit against a trial court judge, the suit is nominally against the judge, but actually against the "real party in interest." The "real party in interest" is just that, the party whose side the judge took in the ruling for which reversal by writ of mandamus is sought.
The real party in interest defends the mandamus suit, and the judge goes about his/her business. Where a judge would not typically be allowed to accept free legal services, and would at a minimum have to disclose them as a gift, if a law firm defended him without charge in a divorce, or foreclosure, the law recognizes that although the judge is nominally sued personally, the real party in interest is the real defendant in the mandamus, and the legal services are actually rendered on its behalf, not the judges.
Since both sides are in agreement that the prosecution should be dismissed, you have the ummm, 'unusual' spectacle of a judge personally defending his actions in the court of appeals. If he loses, may he appeal that decision, of have his ummm, 'amicus' do it for him?
I dunno.
You have to keep in mind what the issue is. The issue isn't dismissal. The issue was the judge's conduct. He is a party to that.
Does this mean that an Umpire can appeal even after the game is over and he’s been ordered to leave the field?
Or Wilkins. Flynn got a lucky draw on the panel. Could just as easily gone the other way, rule of law and all that.
Judge Emmett sullivan is an egotistical slob. He was appointed by Bill Clinton. He obviously has democratic leanings, to go after Michael Flynn like he has. He won’t take this to the Supreme Court because he knows he would get trounced and embarrassed.
(...snicker....)
Leni
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.