Appeals court judges push back at request to dismiss Michael Flynn case

Gleeson's manifesto(not a report) won't be allowed into the record for the simple fact that he was never a party to the case in the first place.

That's why they discussed the actual record as the basis for proceeding. There won't be false charges against the DOJ. That speculation will return back to op-eds not in distinguished courtrooms.

Likewise the cruel, unusual and blatantly political (Obama called for it) perjury "charges" are also irrelevant as again, they aren't part of the court record.

Sullivan has two questions in front of him that he tried to avoid ruling on. Essentially now he has to.

 

After his hearing, he will rule.. he would have by now, if Flynn didnt try this end run..

 

That's Wilkinson's false argument and it ignores that Sullivan called for his "friend of the court" as well as the false perjury charges being the basis for the writ of Mandamus.

Flynn as the defendant responded, he never initiated. If Sullivan had ruled, the case would be over, he was the one who implictedly accused the DOJ, then sought in my view(after goading from Obama) for cruel and unusual punishment via perjury. Even Turley felt his actions were out of line.

We came close, way too close to a judge gaining prosecutorial power. Whether you believe it or understand it, that the district court rejected this idea is good for the health of our system

 

It's not a lock Sullivan would have ruled by now, but it's more likely he would have than it stands today.

Sullivan is not remotely seeking prosecutorial power, nor will that be granted. That is so far from the realm of what this case is about, it boggles the mind.

Perjury is not off the table either, nor should it be.

 

I do hope you are not herding me into the 'left cats?'

 

Cite me where the motion to dismiss has been rejected.

 

Sullivan is practicing judicial activism. The charges against Flynn are absurd.

 

If the shoe fits then yes. If not then no need to worry.

 

As I've previously stated, the district court has reaffirmed the record. In so doing, it unilaterally rejected Sullivan's power play. Everything that Sullivan did outside of regular order in the last two or three months is being negated by the district court.

The only issue is, the district court does not want to use Mandamus to resolve Sullivan's folly. That there is folly, is of no doubt. Even Bush Lawyer to his credit acknowledges that but argues that DOJ action warrants it. Case law and history disagrees. And so does the district court.

It's one thing to have a slanderous allegation in a newsletter, it's another thing entirely to bring it into a Courtroom without any sort of evidence whatsoever.

Not only that, but the "honorable" Judge Sullivan not only couldn't bring himself to utter the ridiculous accusations himself, he used Gleeson as a stand in for his argument, not merely just as a replacement prosecutor.


There are many things legally wrong with Gleeson's presence here, I described some of them in previous post on this and other threads pertaining to the case.

The biggest being Gleeson's manifest bias. Even presuming a court has the power to appoint a prosecutor (and it doesn't) name a case where a prosecutor makes outside remarks that are detrimental to the defendant before being appointed to the case and then accepting said appointment.

You won't find one, it doesn't exist. Prosecutors, whether they're at the state or federal level avoid those type of blantant conflict of interest statements so as to avoid what will be Powell's next move if the district court had allowed such a farce: A motion for a new trial.

Whether you like how the information had gotten to the defendant or not, the fact is that information had been submitted to the record. I also believe for this same reason Powell has withheld some pieces of exculpatory evidence from submission for the possibility of arguing for a new trial.(And this is a completely legit defense tactic. So long as the defendant understands what's happening)

But the kicker is Gleeson's presence. There's not a Courtroom in America that would accept these actions, far worse than any corrupt behavior that Barr has falsely been accused of.

Because of how inappropriate his appointment was, a motion for a new trial would almost certainly be granted.

So, what does this all mean? It means either Sullivan rules according to the actual record or this case stretches way into 2021.

 

I don't think you can make a motion for a new trial if you never had a first trial... Flynn did move to withdraw his guilty plea in January, but I don't think Sullivan got to rule on that either, because the DOJ stepped in with their unusual request.

That's the point... Flynn's team has done everything to NOT allow Sullivan to do his job here. I don't believe Sullivan has made a single ruling on this case in 2020.

Gleeson's filing will be judged perfectly acceptable and Sullivan will give it appropriate counter-weight to whatever the DOJ says in the hearing.

But I believe in early 2021, if he loses, Trump pardons Flynn and this is sorta over.

 

Let me try to state it this way:There is nothing the defense did or filed that prevented Judge Sullivan from issuing any rulings. All of Jensen's documentation follows the Brady Order that Sullivan instated at the very beginning of HIS appointment. The defense filing a Motion to Dismiss is a perfectly legitimate motion that can be accepted or declined.

It's the DOJ who then took the separate step of filing a motion of withdrawal which the Flynn team accepted, because why wouldn't you? It was Sullivan's response to the DOJ motion that created the current situation.

The DOJ motion isn't unusual, and that's why they joined the writ of Mandamus because Sullivan pulled this stunt out of his ass instead of ruling as he should have.

And while I'm at it, I want to take more swings at Wilkinson's flimsy argument. If she wants to argue that Sullivan would have ruled, why did he essentially ignore the DOJ motion and the legal reasoning therein?

However, it's not that they've completely ignored it because Gleeson (as his legal stand in, as stated totally improper and unprecedented) is/was set to argue against it. This is where I make my ultimate point: If you recognize an argument as legitimate enough to contest, that means that the argument is on solid legal ground.

That isn't the same thing as saying it's right (nor am I saying that it's wrong). Just that there's a basis for the argument.

And because there's a basis, the court cannot assert without proof that there's an ulterior motive. The Court has to accept that basis on face value

Now, to further this argument does that mean that the court has to rule in favor of any side that brings a motion? Of course not, the court has in it's sole possession the right to try the case and issue rulings and orders. But(and this is the crux of the issue) only the DOJ(and/or the primary plantiff) has the right to litigate the case it brought.

There is no legal ground for Gleeson or anyone else to step into a case where they weren't on the initial file. Sullivan created the mess, not the plantiff or the defendant in this case. Now the district court has to resolve the issue while not wanting to grant a Mandamus.

 

Your first sentence is so freaking silly, that I didn't bother reading the rest... We must be discussing 2 different Michael Flynn cases...

https://www.axios.com/michael-flynn...uit-0be806b0-ff0e-4cc6-ae92-54e968caeb5b.html

 

Not at all, the very same case it's just that I have a firmer grasp on the DOJ argument and I'm not possessed by "orange man bad" to flop so terribly as a judge.

Thanks for linking to this because I can make this utterly obvious: If Sullivan had called for a hearing, without the intrusion there wouldn't have been a writ of Mandamus. It's Gleeson's presence that's the major violation here.

 

Well, that's at least a better argument than Flynn hasn't prevented Sullivan from ruling, if still not wrong...

The funny thing is that Gleeson's filing has now been read by everybody... Even if for some reason it cannot formally be entered in the hearing proceeding, Sullivan knows exactly what it says. There's nothing to prevent him from ruling following Gleeson's logic (including perjury) and claiming it as his own.

 

As I mentioned before: In the record and Gleeson will never be recognized by the district court, watch them leave that portion of the 2-1 ruling in tact.

There isn't a perjury charge in the initial record so there isn't one for Sullivan to consider. He can only consider the 1001 charge that was in the initial record.

Now if he wants, he can hold Flynn in contempt of court for changing his plea which would be equally ridiculous (For all the same reasons Turley mentioned about the Gleeson farce. Namely that a defendant shouldn't be punished for exercising his or her legal rights in court, no matter how tedious the process.) But at least it would actually be in his domain to do so, even if abusive and Powell would contest.

But what Sullivan cannot do is press separate charges and have someone litigate the case on his behalf. The only argument that Wilkinson has presented is that he hasn't carried out his abusive posture even though he literally hand picked someone to do exactly that.

It takes a suspension of disbelief to agree with Wilkinson, that's why the middle ground was offered.

Whether people like it or not, the district court will remedy Sullivan's gross outreach and misconduct, it just won't issue a Mandamus to do it.

 

Hold it right there pardner!!! I cannot say there has been folly. I have said that Sullivan is entitled to exercise his discretion under 48A, and that will involve being assured there has been no skullduggery going on.

Exactly my point about the suggestions of a non-voluntary plea.

Not a Prosecutor, an Amicus. An elephant is not the same animal as a giraffe no matter how hard you keep calling the giraffe an elephant.

So, you accept that Trump is biased, Fox is biased, Flynn's own Attorney is biased? Further, please cite these alleged remarks made by Gleeson.

So, of course when Barr makes public statements outside the Judicial System that is okay, even though he is the Grand Poohbar of Prosecutors?

I have no idea what you are saying.

Not a Courtroom in America, ey? Except in the Superior Courts where it happens regularly.

I reckon any option for a motion for re-trial has long lapsed.

Yes.

 

No. They ran off to that Panel seeking Mandamus which tied Sullivan's hands.

This re-writing of recent events has me intrigued. Sullivan had two current and unresolved 'motions' before him, the attempt to recant the plea and the dismissal motion bu DOJ

There was no stunt pulled out of anywhere. I believe it was 100% prudent and appropriate for Amicus to be appointed, as without Amicus, 'you' would be arguing that Sullivan truly was adopting two roles, active participant in the arena taking a stand one sidfe or the other, and ultimate Judge of the dog fight he out himself in. Gleeson is not there to take a route he expects the Judge wants him to take. He is there to present 'neutral' submissions on the issues before the Judge.

Fact is, whether you like it or not, Sullivan has not yet even considered the two 'motions' before him.

A total misconstruction of the role of Amicus.

I have no idea what you are referring to.

True to some extent, but not the entire truth. No Court rubber stamps a request to withdraw a guilty plea (especially when made under oath twice) or a dismissal motion made despite those guilty pleas, and see 48A.

The 'mess' (to use your term) was 100% at the feet of Flynn and the DOJ, except IMO it was not actually a mess. It became a mess when Flynn went off and prompted Mandamus when that was NEVER a remedy THEN available to him. We are now going through the process of clearing up that mess created by Flynn, his Attorney, the DOJ and that 3 Judge DC Panel. Ultimately, it will be back to where we started.......Sullivan to rule on the two Motions, (plea recant and dismissal.)

 

Because I'm typing on a phone, I'm going to have to leave the quote in full and also summarize my arguments.

Let's start with Gleeson's comments, they were made in an op-ed prior, read that again: Prior to being appointed. Sullivan then later appoints him to pursue a perjury charge that not only wasn't in the initial record, but coincidentally were comments made by former President Obama.

You'd have to ignore these 'coincidences' to say that there isn't manifest bias against defendant Michael Flynn. Even Wilkinson doesn't have the guts to argue that there isn't bias. She merely argued that he would rule according to the letter of the law.

Problem with that is he ordered that no amicus would be allowed 27, twenty seven times. If you're going to hold Flynn to account for pleaing twice, what does that say about Judge Sullivan? Does a judge have a higher moral authority that he gets more opportunities to change his mind?

No, that cannot be how justice works. Acknowledging the flaws of man, we hold that a judge merely presides over a trial, the prosecutor prosecutes, the defendant is entitled to representation as well as a fast and speedy trial and that it's a trial of his or her peers.

Like it or dislike it my Australian friend, that's the basic gist of the American Justice System and in asserting that he has privileges not ordained in his role as Judge that the defendant doesn't, doesn't morally fly in my view.

So in view of his own actions (and lack of actions in failing to sentence Flynn) he doesn't get to argue that Flynn already pled guilty twice.

Of course, he also doesn't get to ignore the filings by both the defendant and the DOJ establishing their separate motions.

In short, Sullivan has failed to show or even demonstrate cause for falsely accusing the DOJ of improper conduct and thus any basis for his amicus.
It's very simple, if he didn't allow an amicus, he simply could've held a trial in absentee, reviewed the facts and made a decision. Of course, given the DOJ filing in support, I do believe that the DOJ would have attended and answered questions of it.

So even the stand in prosecution has lost its purpose. As you said, we're right back where we started but now Sullivan is essentially on thin ice.

 

Flynn appealed because Sullivan chose to request an illegal hearing asking questions previous SC rulings have said are illegal. There was no need to wait until Sullivan held the illegal hearing before requesting the appeal.

That would be ridiculous. When two parties to a criminal case want the charges dropped, the charges get dropped. End of story.

 

@Americann

Can you please give me the link to that 'op-ed.' I do suspect you have not read Gleeson's filing. It is here. Please read it as I have. You will see that contrary to your assertion, as Amicus, he was asked to review whether a charge of contempt for perjury could be made. He concluded it could, but urged Sullivan NOT to take that route!

https://pacer-documents.s3.amazonaws.com/36/191591/04517871052.pdf

I do not understand your reference to 27 times.

 

That's true, but he did say that Sullivan should consider Flynn's perjury when considering the eventual sentence..

Lots of options, should Sullivan ever get the stick back... Does this sound right to you?

Deny Motion/No Criminal Perjury - Gleeson
Deny Motion with Criminal Perjury - Too Much
Accept Motion with Criminal Perjury - One way out? Although Trump can still unethically pardon this as well...
Accept Motion/No Criminal Perjury - Not enough

 

Yes, he did say that, and fair enough too.

I am ruthless on stuff like this. I detest situations where little people get beaten up by criminal processes but the powerful always seem to have back doors, and/or political push back. Fuq Three Star General Flynn. He lied. He cosied up to Russia and also with Turkey (with Turkey, to his and its personal profit.) He was undermining due international political process in the transition period. He lied about doing so, including to Pence. Ultimately, he admitted under oath that he did so. Then he claimed to the Court that when he admitted his guilt under oath, he was again lying, but this time it is perjury. He is not your average 'defendant.' He held high positions of National trust, a man of assumed integrity given his military rank etc. He betrayed that heritage.

Motion to dismiss denied. Motion to recant plea denied. Maximum prison term for the offences with which he is charged. Also asked to show cause why he ought not be done for contempt via perjury to the Court. If convicted of that, maximum prison term.

And........a comment in open Court that the conduct of the DOJ and Defence (both teams) be investigated by the appropriate authorities (including Bar Associations.)

Let's really 'drain the swamp,' ey?

Then, let's see what Trump does.....if he can do anything after 3rd November.

 

Except there's no evidence that he did anything illegal in regards to Turkey. In fact the case against his partner was thrown out due to lack of evidence.

Furthermore Brady evidence was withheld from Flynn because it was detrimental to the prosecution's case. That is a HUGE nono.

 

Really? What is this then?

https://www.wsj.com/articles/former...icted-on-foreign-lobbying-charges-11563916773

Flynn was NOT a registered foreign agent at the time. Well after the event, he did register.

I have seen that claimed, and I have seen that it was waived by Flynn and his Attorney at the time. Ultimately, it had no bearing on the guilt or innocence of Flynn on the lying charge. It is crazy to assert otherwise when Flynn himself swore under oath it had zero impact, and ALSO because he entered a plea of guilty under learned advisement and oath.

 

No, the last DOJ was the most politicized, Obama turned every part of the government into a political attack machine. Flynn changed his plea when he got a new lawyer and not one from a law firm tied to high level Democrats. After she turned up prosecutor misconduct, she had Flynn withdraw his plea. Never has a prosecutor withdrawn a charge and the judge refuse to accept it. But, that's the banana republic Obama and his DNC traitors have turned this country into.