In an extraordinarily rare action, the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia has ordered the dismissal of the case against former National Security Adviser Michael Flynn. The mandamus order could well be unique and was based on clear disagreement with the actions of U.S. District Court Judge Emmet Sullivan along many of the lines that I previously discussed in columns (here and here and here and here and here). Short of an order to remove Sullivan, this is the most stinging possible rejection of the prior orders and conduct by the Court. I have a column in USA Today on the decision.
The three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit voted 2-1 that the case should be immediately dismissed — cutting off the upcoming hearing planned by the Judge Sullivan. The panel criticized the appointment of former judge John Gleeson to argue for prosecution . . . against the prosecutors. Sullivan’s orders were described as “irregular” and potentially damaging to the system of justice.
Many former prosecutors and academics insisted that Sullivan’s orders were entirely appropriate and that he should reject the motion and refuse to dismiss the case. Indeed, the media published few dissenting views. Indeed, UCLA Law Professor and former U.S. Attorney under Bill Clinton, Harry Litman insisted that I was “a very lonely voice in the wilderness” in academia in contesting the use of an outside lawyer make arguments in a criminal trial case that neither the defense nor the prosecution supported. While some of us gave detailed reasons why Sullivan’s orders contradict governing case law, these objections were dismissed and even recast as nefarious. In the Washington Post, Randall D. Eliason wrote that “the strident opposition by Flynn and his supporters to the court gathering more information suggests that they have something to hide. Let’s hope Judge Sullivan gets to the bottom of it.”
Now it appears that commentators are attacking the fact that two of the three judges (Neomi Rao and Karen L. Henderson) were Republican appointees. It is not relevant that dissenting Judge Robert Wilkins is an Obama appointee. Only the motivations of the majority are placed into question. This is coming from many of the same people who (correctly) criticized President Trump for dismissing opinions as the work of Democratic or Obama judges. That attack however seems entirely permissible when judges rule in favor of the Administration.
Judge Sullivan can seek an en banc review. Some judges would likely feel uncomfortable to ordering the dismissal rather than allowing Sullivan to reach that conclusion on his own. This is a rare and controversial move. I was expecting a remand with stern language on the law governing these decisions. Many judges likely agree with the concerns over Sullivan’s actions and the arguments raised by Gleeson. However, the mandamus issue could be something that other judges want to review. The issue for Judge Sullivan is whether such an appeal advances any substantive legal purpose. The law in this area is very clear on the deference afforded to the government. Despite Gleeson’s filing, it was absurd to argue that Sullivan should send a person to jail when the prosecutors are denying the basis for the crime. Now two judges have expressed such disagreement with his measures that they are ordering a dismissal rather than let Sullivan proceed with a hearing. There comes a time when the judicious course is to end the controversy, particularly when the ultimate conclusion was never in serious doubt. Otherwise, the trial court seems to eager to hold a hearing that will shed more heat than light.
Here is the opinion: Flynn Decision
Important issue. Extremely important. Typically, I am in favor of judicial review whatsoever, surly, when dealing with prosecution. Yet, this case is more than bit different:
Typically, as noted by the majority, when there is suspicion of harassment or clear abuse of power, harming defendant, then, judicial review is warranted, taking over the “presumption of regularity”. I quote the opinion:
” Our precedents emphatically leave prosecutorial charging decisions to the Executive Branch and hold that a court may scrutinize a motion to dismiss only on the extraordinary showing of harassment of the defendant or malfeasance such as bribery—neither of which is manifest in the record before the district court.”
And it does continue further:
” To suggest that judicial dismissal of an improper prosecution is analogous to the judicial continuation of an improper prosecution turns the separation of powers on its head ”
End of quotation:
So, in that case, the dismissal of the prosecution, turns or play in favor of the defendant. Typically, abuse of power, may hurt the defendant, and that is the essential. Here, it does dismiss the case against him, while the district judge, wanted to assume, the power of one inquisitor (not a judge). But, finally the Q is back to the issue, why ? simply because, the defendant, acted in the public domain, so, public interest must be in play here. But, the latter can be said also on private individual of course. Public interest, always should stand on justice and prosecuting offenders, for punishing them.
Yet, here, it is about, not continuing prosecution, but stopping them.
This represents, more than bit different balance I must admit.
Thanks
Kyle Cheney: “INTERESTING: Gleeson was due to file a brief in the Flynn case today, and notes in a filing that the Appeals Court order doesn’t take effect for 21 days. But he wants clarification so as not to disrespect the Appeals Court decision.”
https://twitter.com/kyledcheney/status/1275838908979277825
I said earlier that the brief of this rabid turd would not be given any credence and would likely go straight to garbage.
I think I did say that they might accept it but it would go into the stack for garbage. Looks like it wasn’t important enough even to make it to the ‘put in garbage’ stack.
MINUTE ORDER from Judge Sullivan: “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.”
Right Decision by the Appeals Court – throw the book at Sullivan and he deserves it. But, I suspect Sullivan is going to be a FOOOOOOL & STUBBORN and awaiting orders from the DEM’s and the Washington Elite but suspect he will appeal it and when he loses again he will try the Supreme Court which will shoot him down 9 – 0 – or 7 to 2 – he will ruin his good name only to try and protect the DEM’s and Washington Elite.
A SMACKDOWN to Judge Emmett and one of his “crazy days.” Exactly as predicted. Senior status judge?
Bravo to the Court for putting an end to this political charade.
The bat signal has gone out to Obama appointees on the DC Circuit to force an en banc rehearing.
From the ruling: “A hearing may sometimes be appropriate before granting leave of court under Rule 48; however, a hearing cannot be used as an occasion to superintend the prosecution’s charging decisions, because “authority over criminal charging decisions resides fundamentally with the Executive, without the involvement of and without oversight power in the Judiciary.” Fokker Servs., 818 F.3d at 741. The district court’s orders appointing an amicus, and scheduling the proposed hearing therefore constitute clear legal error.”
CLEAR LEGAL ERROR
WE BEEN SAYIN THAT BUT Seth-Peter, COMMIT AND BOOK– have maintained the opposite.
shoots their credibility to hell; but we can see that they never slow down due to errors and mistakes. let me zero in on that for a second:
Republicans could learn a thing or two from them! Just keep hammering your points and don’t worry too much about being wrong. New content rules and quantity over quality.
Democrats are perpetually more effective at mass media communications.
Trump’s a fibber? Yeah, maybe so, and he’s got the expert simple and effective communications style of a lifelong Democrat. It’s part of why they hate his guts!
Kurtz– Yes we have been saying that but the Women’s Studies grads think they know more than the lawyers.
“WE BEEN SAYIN THAT BUT Seth-Peter, COMMIT AND BOOK– have maintained the opposite.
shoots their credibility to hell; but we can see that they never slow down due to errors and mistakes. let me zero in on that for a second”
**********************
Naw they never had any.
From the CADC’s Handbook: “In the absence of a request from a party, any active judge of the Court, or member of the panel, may suggest that a case be reheard en banc. If a majority of the active judges who are not recused agree, the Court orders rehearing en banc.”
https://www.cadc.uscourts.gov/internet/home.nsf/Content/VL%20-%20RPP%20-%20Handbook%202006%20Rev%202007/$FILE/Handbook20191201a.pdf – p. 60
It seems likely that there will be a request for an en banc rehearing (e.g., from Wilkins), though that doesn’t guarantee that the court will agree to it.
If the current opinion stands, Flynn may be in greater jeopardy come January (if Biden wins in Nov.). There’s no reason for Trump to pardon Flynn now, and Flynn’s plea bargain allowed him to avoid being charged with other crimes, such as his false FARA filings. The CADC ruling doesn’t apply to those, only to the crimes he was charged with in this case, so Flynn might face additional charges in a few months. But the first question is whether CADC chooses to rehear the writ case en banc.
ANy intellectually curious person realized early on the motives of the residue and dregs from the Obama administration. The fake news and those we know lied to the US for 1000 days like Comey, Brennan, Clapper, S. Rice, S. Powers, Schiff, Schumer, etc. used targeted political smear campaigns to try to influence justice. What’s sick is how many Americans (many on this page) were fooled by these truly amoral people. Flynn should sue all of those who lied in public then under oath admitted to their lies – it’s called defamation.
I’d love for Flynn to be questioned under oath about any claims he thinks are defamatory.
You don’t quote any lies.
And we would love for Obama to be questioned under oath.
Obama wasn’t in SBG’s list, so Obama doesn’t seem relevant to SBG’s claim. Not sure what context you imagine he’d be questioned.
If we’re simply posting desires, I’d love for Trump to be questioned in person (not via written questions) under oath. He ran away from doing that during the SCO’s investigation, and Mueller indicated that Trump lied in his written testimony. Trump is facing more than one lawsuit where he may ultimately be questioned in person.
You guys were wrong. Eat crow now
Kurtz, I made no predictions and in fact stated the likelihood, given one Trump appointee and a Republican who had so far ruled for Trump on a number of issues, that the panel would find for Flynn. However, I am right on the meaning of Rule 48, as is Wilkenson, and the majority is wrong. I hope the court in banc will agree and this farce for cronyism overturned.
“https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3599674
From the dissent, and grossly ignored by the majority. :
“See, e.g., In re Richards, 213 F.3d 773,
786–87 (3d Cir. 2000) (“Rule 48(a) . . . also permits courts
faced with dismissal motions to consider the public interest in
the fair administration of criminal justice and the need to
preserve the integrity of the courts.”); United States v. Cowan,
524 F.2d 504, 509–13 (5th Cir. 1975) (concluding that Rule
48(a)’s “history . . . belies the notion that [the Rule’s] only
scope and purpose is the protection of the defendant. . . . [I]t
[is] manifestly clear that the Supreme Court intended to clothe
the federal courts with a discretion broad enough to protect the
public interest in the fair administration of criminal justice”).
In the same vein, numerous federal appellate courts have
recognized that a court in receipt of an unopposed Rule 48(a) ”
The public has nor reason to believe in “fair administration of criminal justice” after this power play.
If you think I said something wrong, just quote it or link to it.
I’m not going to play your game where you lump me in with some unnamed “guys” and claim we were wrong about something you don’t specify.
And if I said something that turns out to be wrong, it’s not reason to “eat crow.” (Do you “eat crow” when you’re wrong?) Personally, I expect that everyone sometimes makes mistakes, and as long as the person is honest about their mistake, it’s not a big deal. The problem is that some people are too weak to admit their mistakes.
“If you think I said something wrong, just quote it or link to it.”
Just look at any of your posts. Pretty much all b.s.
No further citation needed.
So you won’t provide any actual evidence by quoting or linking to a comment; you simply don’t like what I wrote and instead choose to beg the question. Got it.
Those who have a past track record of accuracy have earned credibility.
Those who have a past track record of error have lost credibility.
There is a price to be paid for selling the Trump Russia Collusion Delusion.
Can I watch them swallow the feathers?
ANy intellectually honest and curious person…What’s sick is how many Americans (many on this page) were fooled by these truly amoral people.
Agreed SBG. And you’ll see them respond on this post, asking for evidence that they myopically will never see and ignorantly never accept.
There are not enough “intellectually curious” people. The “narrative” that began during the Obama administration continues, and many Americans are still oblivious to the shenanigans that have occurred over the past several years. Perhaps it would not be too difficult for Flynn, a public figure, to establish “actual malice” in a defamation suit (New York Times v. Sullivan). Who knows? I certainly don’t know. Kudos to Sidney Powell!
Flynn should sue all of those who lied in public then under oath admitted to their lies – it’s called defamation.
_____________________________________________________________________________________
The only person that caused the prosecution of Flynn was Flynn himself.
Without Flynn’s help there was no case. The FBI agents that interviewed Flynn are on the record as saying “they believed Flynn was not lying.” There are only 3 people who heard what Flynn said in the FBI interview and in the phone calls to Kislyak. Two of the three people who had personal knowledge of the know the facts say that Flynn was not lying. Only Flynn claimed he was lying.
Its only because Flynn himself contradicted the assessment made by the FBI that it was possible to prosecute and convict Flynn of lying to the FBI.
Hot Damn! Sometimes the good guys win!
Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter
And sometimes they don’t.
You are right. Sometimes the bad guys win. Obama had two terms and left the country in a race-baiting mess.
….and GWB left things in fine shape.
Not really, Anonymous. Would you like to retract that?
Of course, you’re entitled to your opinion.
No, I don’t want ‘to retract that.’
For those who need to have it spelled out:
….and GWB left things in fine shape. /sarc
ALL ROADS LEAD TO OBAMA
Strzok Notes:
“Is there anything I shouldn’t be telling transition team?”
– Barack Obama
“Kislyak calls but appear legit.”
– James Comey
“‘VP’ mentioned the ‘Logan Act’ during the meeting,…”
– Joe Biden
“…the “7th floor [is] involved,”
– Peter Strzok
___________
Former FBI director James Comey told President Obama that the 2016 conversations between Russian ambassador Sergey Kislyak and incoming national-security adviser Michael Flynn were not criminal in nature, according to notes from former agent Peter Strzok released by Flynn’s legal team. The page of notes was taken by Strzok appears to describe a January 5, 2017 meeting of President Obama, Vice President Joe Biden, and national security officials. This meeting occurred amid accusations that incoming Trump administration officials had colluded with Russian operatives. Strzok was not present at the meeting, and it is unclear what record of the meeting he consulted in taking the notes.
Strzok writes that “P,” presumably President Obama, asked, “Is there anything I shouldn’t be telling transition team?”
Strzok records that “D,” or Director Comey, responded “Kislyak calls but appear legit.”
In transcripts of conversations between Flynn and Kislyak released on May 29 of this year, Flynn is recorded asking the Russian ambassador not to escalate tensions in response to U.S. sanctions. Those sanctions were implemented by the Obama administration following reports that Russia attempted to interfere in the U.S. general election.
Strzok’s notes also indicate that “VP” Biden mentioned the “Logan Act” during the meeting,…
While the FBI had monitored Flynn’s conversations with Kislyak, the agency moved to close the case on January 4, 2017, indicating it had found “no derogatory information” on Flynn. However, that same day Strzok intervened to keep the case open. Strzok told an unknown individual that day that the “7th floor [is] involved,” apparently referring to senior FBI leadership at the bureau’s headquarters.
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
“We will stop him.”
– Peter Strzok to FBI paramour Lisa Page
“[Obama] wants to know everything we’re doing.”
– Lisa Page to FBI paramour Peter Strzok
_________________________________
The Obama Coup D’etat in America is the most egregious abuse of power and the most prodigious criminal act in American political history.
The co-conspirators are:
Bill Taylor, Eric Ciaramella, Rosenstein, Mueller/Team, Andrew Weissmann, Comey,
Christopher Wray, McCabe, Strozk, Page, Laycock, Kadzic, Yates, Baker, Bruce Ohr,
Nellie Ohr, Priestap, Kortan, Campbell, Sir Richard Dearlove, Steele, Simpson,
Joseph Mifsud, Alexander Downer, Stefan “The Walrus” Halper, Azra Turk, Kerry,
Hillary, Huma, Mills, Brennan, Gina Haspel, Clapper, Lerner, Farkas, Power, Lynch,
Rice, Jarrett, Holder, Brazile, Sessions (patsy), Nadler, Schiff, Pelosi, Obama,
James E. Boasberg et al.
Split decision. Judge was a Trump appointee. Billy Barr once again serving as Trump’s fixer, trying to get off someone who pleaded guilty, twice, admitted he was guilty, and was convicted, in exchange for dismissal of other felonies. Well, the majority of Americans will have their say in November.
And that tells the whole story.
Let’s say it’s you who the DoJ is going after. They defraud you into a guilty plea, based on withholding exculpatory evidence. You aren’t guilty, but can’t risk a long prison sentence, and already know how corrupt your prosecutor is. You know he’ll defraud the Judge and Jury if it comes to that.
Then, through better legal representation, and some anti-corruption efforts inside the DoJ driven by the IG, you obtain evidence of the prosecutorial fraud used to nudge you into a guilty plea.
Is it your position that, having entered your guilty plea, you’re now stuck with it and should be sentenced?
In Dec. of 2018, while Flynn was still represented by Covington, Judge Sullivan asked Flynn, “Are you satisfied with the services provided by your attorneys?” and Flynn responded under oath “I am.” Strange that you suggest he was “defraud[ed] … into a guilty plea.” Do you think Flynn was lying?
Trump said “I had to fire General Flynn because he lied to the Vice President and the FBI.” Was Trump lying about why he fired Flynn? Pence said “I knew that he [Flynn] lied to me, and I know the president made the right decision with regard to him.” Were Trump and Pence lying about Flynn having lied to Pence?
None of this has any impact on Flynn’s conviction. Flynn was innocent.
I am still waiting for your quotes of Flynn that made him guilty as charged. You said they were there over and over again but you lied. Those words did not exist.
What a heinous small person you are. You would convict another based on lies just because it suited your political agenda.
I’ve come to realize all of the trolls here are all heinous and small people, if not in fact, the same dang person. Their posts always appear in clusters, and somehow they are available to comment at the crack of dawn when Professor Turley first pushes the posts out. I am beyond grateful for the actual meaningful discussion that goes in spite of them, and I grant them their freedom to post even though I personally think they are tool/s. Jonathan deserves a medal as far as I’m concerned.
James, I think you’re right that they are all the same person. Except Natacha. That one is a fat-shaming thing all on its own.
I am still waiting for your quotes of Flynn that made him guilty as charged.
_______________________________________________________________
Flynn was not guilty of lying to the FBI (according to the FBI) but he was charged and found guilty based solely on the lies that Flynn told to the court.
” found guilty based solely on the lies that Flynn told to the court.”
Let’s hear quotes of the lies in context. They have to exist on the court record otherwise he couldn’t be found guilty “solely on the lies that Flynn told to the court.” You can’t and neither can any of your twins produce such quotes and that is why Flynn is innocent.
Let’s hear quotes of the lies in context. They have to exist on the court record
__________________________________________________________________________
Of course they exist and you have been shown the “Statement of Offense” repeatedly
Flynn is innocent because he did not lie to the FBI and the agents that interviewed Flynn are on the record stating that Flynn did not lie. But that was not presented to the court. The DOJ. Flynn’s lawyers and Flynn himself told the court that Flynn had in fact lied to the FBI and the FBI statements that cleared Flynn were not presented to the court as evidence.
I am waiting for the quote or are you going to dance?
The statement of Offense can be found here:
https://www.justice.gov/file/1015126/download
On January 24, 2017, Flynn agreed to be interviewed by agents from the FBI. During the interview, Flynn falsely stated that he did not ask Russia’s Ambassador to the United States to refrain from escalating the situation in response to sanctions that the United States had imposed
“I make this statement knowingly and voluntarily and because I am, in fact, guilty of the crime charged. No threats have been made to me nor am I under the influence of anything that could impede my ability to understand this Statement of the Offense fully. I have read every word of this Statement of the Offense, or have had it read to me. Pursuant to Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 11, after consulting with my attorneys, I agree and stipulate to this Statement of the Offense, and declare under penalty of perjury that it is true and correct.” – signed Michael T Flynn
“The statement of Offense can be found here:”
I know where the statement of offense can be found. The problem is the words don’t exist and that is why you dance and write lengthy posts saying nothing responsive.
Flynn’s yielding after being bankrupted and threatened by incarceration of his son is not what he was tried for. I guess this means Flynn did not lie. This supposed lie is a forced confession much like the confessions seen under Stalin and Mao.
“The statement of Offense can be found here:”
I know where the statement of offense can be found. The problem is the words don’t exist
__________________________________________________________________________
The words exist. The words say that Flynn made False statements to the FBI and Flynn swore under oath that the words are true and correct.
_______________________________________________________
Flynn’s yielding after being bankrupted and threatened by incarceration of his son is not what he was tried for.
________________________________________________________________________
That is your made up story which the facts do not support.
The FBI look at Flynn’s lobbying for Turkey and found nothing illegal there.
There would be no prosecution at all without Flynn’s help.
I suspect you hope Americans won’t have their say in November. Hence the big push for mail in voting to facilitate fraud. Wouldn’t surprise me if they were filled out in a Macedonian or Russian voter fraud farm.
“the big push for mail in voting to facilitate fraud”
LOL.
Donald Trump voted by mail. Was that fraud?
Melania Trump voted by mail. Was that fraud?
Mike Pence voted by mail. Was that fraud?
Ivanka Trump and Jared Kushner voted by mail. Was that fraud?
Kayleigh McEnany voted by mail. Was that fraud?
[Do you want me to give more examples of specific Republicans voting by mail?]
The military often vote by mail. Is that fraud?
Republicans tell their voters “Voting by mail is an easy, convenient and secure way to cast your ballot.” Are they encouraging fraud?
Apparently voting by mail is fine when Republicans do it, but if Democrats do it, it’s “fraud.”
I have the exact same concern, as I’m sure do many of us. Sure seems like the media is cooking up a ‘second wave’ of the virus to coincide with the BLM BS, although their protests are STILL apparently a perfectly acceptable risk. At some point the rest of us must simply say, ‘No.’. Dem governors are filling in the blanks of what Pelosi failed to achieve at the federal level in regards to the mail in votes. Still, the Flynn dismissal is tiny cause for some hope, in my opinion.
Quite sad to see what this patriot was put through while politicians go unscathed.
There were some commentators who thought that the Court would slightly more than advise Sullivan to dismiss the case. Do you really think Sullivan has the cojones to ask for an en banc?
I think Sullivan might be urged to press for en banc to try to keep this alive until the election. Whoever is pulling his strings does not have interests at heart. He will be mocked in law school courses for a good while.
Sullivan doesn’t have to ask. The DC Circuit itself can choose to rehear if any of its members requests it and enough of the members agree.
Do you really think Sullivan has the cojones to ask for an en banc?
It’s likely his cojones rest in hands elsewhere and have been squeezed to get it this far. So it wouldn’t be surprising if they were squeezed for an en banc. I mean seriously, it’s not as though he has a reputation to preserve at this point.
Olly– Good comment!
Time for JT to gloat and showboat just a little Right Jonathan. This proves once again that Barr s justice department is corrupt as hell We have justice in America but only for the well connected white men Hopefully Flynn is now broke and the lawyers are well paid
Vinny, Why reduce it to race? It seems to be mostly by party…
Judge Sullivan’s behavior raises serous questions as to his fitness for office. He should have done a “Sirica in Watergate” and conducted his own investigation into the circumstances which led to Flynn’s unlawful, improper FBI interrogation at the White House (ordered by Comey after a White House meeting with Obama, Biden, Comey and Sally Yates in which Obama directed pursuit of Flynn and Biden suggested using the Logan Act to get Flynn), the ensuing unlawful surveillance of Flynn by the FBI and his unwarranted indictment by DOJ which knew then that Flynn had not broken the law. Instead Sullivan hung onto the case and compounded the abuse of law.
Why? What does Sullivan seek to hide? Why are Obama, Biden, Comey, Yates and now Sullivan so Hell-bent on destroying Flynn?
We will not know for awhile, still.
Judge Sullivan will seek a rehearing en banc and play out this apparent conspiracy further. The DC Circuit is an Obama Circuit, so the the 2-1 panel vote today may well be reversed and the conspiracy may very likely not end until SCOTUS rules. Then Flynn will be set free to do whatever it is that the Democrats, including Judge Sullivan, are so intent on stopping.
From the dissent, and grossly ignored by the majority. :
“See, e.g., In re Richards, 213 F.3d 773,
786–87 (3d Cir. 2000) (“Rule 48(a) . . . also permits courts
faced with dismissal motions to consider the public interest in
the fair administration of criminal justice and the need to
preserve the integrity of the courts.”); United States v. Cowan,
524 F.2d 504, 509–13 (5th Cir. 1975) (concluding that Rule
48(a)’s “history . . . belies the notion that [the Rule’s] only
scope and purpose is the protection of the defendant. . . . [I]t
[is] manifestly clear that the Supreme Court intended to clothe
the federal courts with a discretion broad enough to protect the
public interest in the fair administration of criminal justice”).
In the same vein, numerous federal appellate courts have
recognized that a court in receipt of an unopposed Rule 48(a) ”
The public has nor reason to believe in “fair administration of criminal justice” after this power play.
“this power play.”
What you have done is shown the minority opinion.
In no way does that mean there was a power play. It means the majority opinion differed from the minority. Where is your proof? If you base your proof on who appointed the justice then one could argue that the minority was acting in a political way. When one looks at the Supreme Court many of the justices appointed as conservatives have acted as liberals. The reverse is not true.
The only legitimate reason a court should reject both parties’ motion to dismiss, is if there is evidence of a fraud on the court, or some illegal coercion going on between the parties. In those cases there is a subversion of the fundamental process that would make the proceeding a sham.
Anything else is irrelevant; the controversy is between the parties, or not, and if not the court has no standing to interject itself.
The trial is in sentencing phase and the court’s domain. The court has an interest in maintaining fairness and the absence of corruption, and Rule 48 was written largely to address that.
https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3599674
So far, Book, your legal opinions haven’t been worth a damn.
Who Flung foo?
King Fu?
Kung Foo?
Why has JT been silent on this?
https://lawandcrime.com/high-profile/in-scathing-letter-more-than-80-percent-of-active-faculty-at-bill-barrs-law-school-call-for-his-censure-and-resignation/
This has been news for a couple of days so far.
Doesn’t JT teach at George Washington University?
His silence is deafening.
Olaf agrees with slavery. Majority rule means 51% can enslave the other 49%.
Does that mean that you, Allan are for minority rule? (as opposed to majority rule)
Which one? How many percent?
Olaf, That means you don’t understand the Constitutional Republic you live under. You need to take a civics course. Neither 51% majority rule which can make slaves out of the 49% or the a tyranny of the minority 49% is what we are supposed to be living under. I realize these things are new to you. I refer to America as a Constitutional Republic because it is a Republic that functions under a Constitution. You should read the Constitution as well and the Declaration of Independence. If you want a free course on the Constitution I will send you a link. The professors give multiple lectures and even have quizes you can take to evaluate what you have learned. They will provide you with supplementary reading if you choose. You can probably even ask questions if you wish.
I read this letter under the headline “DC Alligators Decry Loss of Habitat!”
Rare and special.
Appellate courts always look at mandamus with a jaundiced eye.
But this case was so out of the ballpark, so was the appellate response.
If Sullivan seeks en banc review, I think he will be burying himself even deeper in the loss of judicial respect and reputation.
Instead of licking his wounds and slinking back to pro forma work, he will forever be branded as suspect in all his decisions.
It can be reheard en banc without Sullivan requesting it.
My guess is that CADC will choose to rehear it en banc.
My guess is that CADC will not hear it en banc sua sponte.
Maybe Sullivan will be an idiot, and try for en banc.
If we simply wait, we’ll find out which of us is correct.
Professor– You were right all along.
Are you sure about that, Young?
For the most part.