How long will they take to make some sort of ruling?

Larry S Ross said:

---

How long will they take to make some sort of ruling?

---

With that poor of an effort, not to mention insulting the DC Circuit panel like that, I'd wager not long. Could be days or maybe a week but not much longer. The authorities cited can be swatted away by a third year law student, they are so weak.

What is your take Judge Sullivan having an attorney respond for him when he was instructed to respond; is that an issue that will be frowned upon by the superior court?

will25u said:

---

Are we still thinking DOJ will join the defenses mandamus? They did say they were going to... Cutting it a little close to the bell.

---

I'm guessing they were ready to file today, but maybe they're working in a response to shipwrecked's point:

Quote:

---

I would note that Beth Wilkinson made a bald face false statement on Page 1 where she says Judge Sullivan found Flynn's statement to be material.

---

Not a lawyer. Can they force Sullivan to retire or impeach him after this horse**** with Flynn??

So wasn't Sullivan supposed to personally write his explanation, instead of his lawyer?

Infuriating how blatantly corrupt this charade has become. I hope they come down on his sorry ass hard or the justice system is a complete joke.

Matt Hooper said:

---

What is your take Judge Sullivan having an attorney respond for him when he was instructed to respond; is that an issue that will be frowned upon by the superior court?

---

Uh, YEAH! Sullivan flipping the bird to the DC Circuit Court will most definitely not be well-received. His attitude is that he is above them and untouchable by them. That's akin to a lawyer standing before a federal judge and telling him/her they have no authority over their courtroom.

Matt Hooper said:

---

What is your take Judge Sullivan having an attorney respond for him when he was instructed to respond; is that an issue that will be frowned upon by the superior court?

---

She addressed that; the circuit allowed him to retain counsel.

(but) It's not a close case folks; this is over. I hope they order him to dismiss it with prejudice immediately. It's in no way 'special' vs. the precedents.

nortex97 said:

---

Matt Hooper said:

---

What is your take Judge Sullivan having an attorney respond for him when he was instructed to respond; is that an issue that will be frowned upon by the superior court?

---

She addressed that; the circuit allowed him to retain counsel.

(but) It's not a close case folks; this is over. I hope they order him to dismiss it with prejudice immediately. It's in no way 'special' vs. the precedents.

---

I loved the argument that the DC Circuit court's own precedents don't apply to the federal district courts within their district. News to me. Likely news to the DC Circuit, too. LOL.

Can Sullivan be held in contempt given his response to the circuit? I mean, what an arrogant SOB. Which brings me back around to, I wonder what "they" have on him. Clearly "they" don't want this case to go away, or free General Flynn for....whatever his next career move is.

Tailgate88 said:

---

Can Sullivan be held in contempt given his response to the circuit? I mean, what an arrogant SOB. Which brings me back around to, I wonder what "they" have on him. Clearly "they" don't want this case to go away, or free General Flynn for....whatever his next career move is.

---

He can be but I doubt they go there. I think there will be a harshly worded and short opinion that takes the case away from him on remand and the successor judge ordered to dismiss the case.

aggiehawg said:

---

nortex97 said:

---

Matt Hooper said:

---

What is your take Judge Sullivan having an attorney respond for him when he was instructed to respond; is that an issue that will be frowned upon by the superior court?

---

She addressed that; the circuit allowed him to retain counsel.

(but) It's not a close case folks; this is over. I hope they order him to dismiss it with prejudice immediately. It's in no way 'special' vs. the precedents.

---

I loved the argument that the DC Circuit court's own precedents don't apply to the federal district courts within their district. News to me. Likely news to the DC Circuit, too. LOL.

---

I've not heard that one before. The crew of federal judges I practice in front of work the opposite way: they make decisions that they believe to follow what the 5th Circuit instructs and then invite counsel/parties to check their homework where they deem appropriate.

blindey said:

---

aggiehawg said:

---

nortex97 said:

---

Matt Hooper said:

---

What is your take Judge Sullivan having an attorney respond for him when he was instructed to respond; is that an issue that will be frowned upon by the superior court?

---

She addressed that; the circuit allowed him to retain counsel.

(but) It's not a close case folks; this is over. I hope they order him to dismiss it with prejudice immediately. It's in no way 'special' vs. the precedents.

---

I loved the argument that the DC Circuit court's own precedents don't apply to the federal district courts within their district. News to me. Likely news to the DC Circuit, too. LOL.

---

I've not heard that one before. The crew of federal judges I practice in front of work the opposite way: they make decisions that they believe to follow what the 5th Circuit instructs and then invite counsel/parties to check their homework where they deem appropriate.

---

Section entitled "This Court's Precedents Do Not Preclude Judge Sullivan's Assessments of the Government's Motion."

Umm, yeah they actually do.

To an outsider the judge and now his council seem to acting like law students who haven't passed he bar.

I know if in my profession if I blatantly didn't follow the guidelines and rules governing us I would be fired and never given a reference again. Likely stripped of certifications and blackballed by the state organization.

Does Flynn have any recourse to go after the judge after this is all over??

No, he does not.

Oh boy. Pretty saucy.

https://www.politico.com/f/?id=00000172-716b-d526-a77e-f9ef46250000

They did wait until the end of day to file.

VegasAg86 said:

---

So, Flynn didn't lie to Pence when he said he didn't discuss sanctions, right? They discussed the expulsion of the diplomats, which wasn't part of the sanctions. Another talking point gone?

---

Semantics ... technically, expulsions were a part of the election meddling sanctions. Not to be confused with multiple other sanctions not having to do with the election.

https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1267554357496745985.html

Quote:

---

One thing that has always troubled me about Flynn's argument that the Court has no discretion is that Rule 48 seems to explicitly give the Court discretion.

Other lawyers set me straight, please.

---

Goes back to the legislative history of the words "leave of court" were added to Rule 48. SCOTUS added the language but no actual reason was given at that time. Subsequently, the language has been interpreted to allow the federal court to stop an abusive prosecutor from dismissing a case that was not going well for them, only to refile a criminal case. And that was to protect the defendant's rights from prosecutorial misconduct and bad faith.

Here, the DOJ motion to dismiss is with prejudice so there is no chance there will be be another criminal case filed. The defendant is protected. Thus any inquiry as to why DOJ moved to dismiss is unnecessary for the protection of the defendant.

Granted Sullivan has the authority to hold a hearing and question DOJ prosecutors as to the specifics of their filing, had he so chosen. But he does not have the authority to appoint an amicus curiae to essentially present the case against an unopposed motion to dismiss. Which is the dubious course he chose.

rosco511 said:

---

Thus, the discretion is in place to be used to protect the defendant, not the government.

---

Exactly.

Justice System...what a totally useless institution it has become. Corrupt to the core by those who swear to uphold the law.

I'd go on, but I'm TOO PIZZED to discuss its dismal failings!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! A complete JOKE

will25u said:

---

https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1267554357496745985.html

---

The government counter's the "mandamus isn't proper" argument with this:

Quote:

---

The only distinction between the cases is that, in Fokker and In re United States, the district court had entered an order denying the motion, while here the district court has entered an order providing for further proceedings and contemplating additional, court-initiated criminal charges. That distinction makes no legal difference. This Court has emphasized the "settled constitutional understandings under which authority over criminal charging decisions resides fundamentally with the Executive, without the involvement ofand without oversight power inthe Judiciary." Fokker, 818 F.3d at 741 (emphasis added). Courts have "no power" under Rule 48(a) "to scrutinize and countermand the prosecution's exercise of its traditional authority over charging and enforcement decisions." Id. at 742-743 (emphasis added). Indeed, the threat of intrusive judicial proceedings and criminal chargesand potentially even evidentiary proceedings if the court-appointed amicus has his wayonly makes the separation-of-powers problem worse. The district court plans to subject the Executive's enforcement decision to extensive judicial inquiry, scrutiny, oversight, and involvement. Under the Supreme Court's and this Court's precedents, it is clear and indisputable that the district court has no authority to embark on that course.

---

JJMt said:

---

Would we like this result if Trump's DOJ starts a criminal prosecution against Comey who then pleads guilty but is not yet convicted, Trump loses, and then the Biden DOJ moves to dismiss the case against Comey on a purely political basis?

---

1st, do you believe the new DOJ lawyers are doing this on political basis?

I think most would disagree with the DOJ, but no one would support a rouge judge prosecuting the case on his own.