Flynn attorney files emergency appeal to shut down Judge Sullivan's orders, boot him

[TheLiquidGuy]

Again you are totally getting the law incorrect.



The rules are well settled by case law. There is an easy way to know whether evidence was withheld. Does the Defense have it or not. If no, it was withheld. Whether that withholding was inadvertent or prosecutorial misconduct is a separate issue.

His pursuit of "amicus" focused not on the exculpatory evidence, but whether the DoJ had the unilateral right to withdraw from the case. And many people want to know why he even called for an amicus when the federal rules of criminal procedure do not provide for amicus briefs at the trial level- they do for the appellate level. In fact, the ex-judge who wrote the amicus ruled years ago that it was improper to use amicus at a criminal trial. All of this is detailed with links in my early posts on the topic.



The question is not whether the prosecution had the evidence. The question is whether the government had the evidence, and the answer to that is absolutely it did. Prosecutors have a duty to search out all evidence the government has that is relevant to his case. It typically isn't hard, because when procedures are followed everything is tracked in a case file. But when procedures are not being followed, because the government is up to no good, evidence gets "misfiled."



This is incorrect. Again, the question is what evidence the Government had that was not disclosed, not the evidence that the prosecutor knew about.

I and others have explained to you the two guilty pleas and why they are of little importance here. Cases get dismissed often even when everyone knows the defendant did it, if the government is caught in unethical behavior.

I dont really know what all this new evidence is.

But it seems like you are saying that even if the government legitimately “misfiled” evidence, then they acted unethically and the case must be dismissed. Is that correct?

[Peter1469]

I dont really know what all this new evidence is.

But it seems like you are saying that even if the government legitimately “misfiled” evidence, then they acted unethically and the case must be dismissed. Is that correct?

The case "must" be dismissed because the DoJ is no longer prosecuting it. Withholding Bradey material is a valid reason for the DoJ to take that action.

And you have been participating in the threads and posts that discussed all of this.

[TheLiquidGuy]

The case "must" be dismissed because the DoJ is no longer prosecuting it.

That’s for the full court to decide, not you or me.

Withholding Bradey material is a valid reason for the DoJ to take that action.

Fine, but they need the leave of the court. If the court believes there is political influence the court may have a reason to deny leave. The higher court will ultimately decide if Sulivan deserved all the nasty names you guys have called him. If they determine that he was correct to deny that leave will you encourage your friends here to apologize to him? Or will you start insulting the whole panel? I say that, not knowing or believing how they will decide.

[hanger4]

That’s for the full court to decide, not you or me.


Fine, but they need the leave of the court. If the court believes there is political influence the court may have a reason to deny leave. The higher court will ultimately decide if Sulivan deserved all the nasty names you guys have called him. If they determine that he was correct to deny that leave will you encourage your friends here to apologize to him? Or will you start insulting the whole panel? I say that, not knowing or believing how they will decide.

Who's going to prosecute if the prosecution say they will no longer prosecute the case ??

[stjames1_53]

Who's going to prosecute if the prosecution say they will no longer prosecute the case ??

why...............Barrister TLG, of course.. Who else is more qualified?

[MisterVeritis]

That’s for the full court to decide, not you or me.


Fine, but they need the leave of the court. If the court believes there is political influence the court may have a reason to deny leave. The higher court will ultimately decide if Sulivan deserved all the nasty names you guys have called him. If they determine that he was correct to deny that leave will you encourage your friends here to apologize to him? Or will you start insulting the whole panel? I say that, not knowing or believing how they will decide.

Judges have no article II authority. None.

[Peter1469]

That’s for the full court to decide, not you or me.


Fine, but they need the leave of the court. If the court believes there is political influence the court may have a reason to deny leave. The higher court will ultimately decide if Sulivan deserved all the nasty names you guys have called him. If they determine that he was correct to deny that leave will you encourage your friends here to apologize to him? Or will you start insulting the whole panel? I say that, not knowing or believing how they will decide.

The full panel may enforce the mandamus. Sullivan can't prosecute a case. He is a judge.

[TheLiquidGuy]

The full panel may enforce the mandamus. Sullivan can't prosecute a case. He is a judge.

I didn't say he could prosecute.
My concerns are (1) the honor of the judge that you all have derided simply because you don’t like his ruling as well as (2) the unacceptable special treatment for friends of the president..

There is good reason to suspect political influence. That influence must not be allowed to prevail. Prosecutors have resigned over this. Barr has been asked to resign by Prosecutor associations. A judge associations has convened “emergency” meeting over Barr’s questionable conduct. There are plausible threads of logic that point to preferential treatment. Flynn may or may not be guilty of lying to the FBI. We know he lied to government about it, including Mike Pence. It doesn't seem far fetched he would have continued lying. But even if he is innocent, can we allow this case to get special treatment and move on without ameliorating the system in it’s wake?

[stjames1_53]

I didn't say he could prosecute.
My concerns are (1) the honor of the judge that you all have derided simply because you don’t like his ruling as well as (2) the unacceptable special treatment for friends of the president..

There is good reason to suspect political influence. That influence must not be allowed to prevail. Prosecutors have resigned over this. Barr has been asked to resign by Prosecutor associations. A judge associations has convened “emergency” meeting over Barr’s questionable conduct. There are plausible threads of logic that point to preferential treatment. Flynn may or may not be guilty of lying to the FBI. We know he lied to government about it, including Mike Pence. It doesn't seem far fetched he would have continued lying. But even if he is innocent, can we allow this case to get special treatment and move on without ameliorating the system in it’s wake?

so, we can ignore true justice because it is inconvenient............so now, as your case falls apart, you move the goal posts against Pence.......................

[Peter1469]

I didn't say he could prosecute.
My concerns are (1) the honor of the judge that you all have derided simply because you don’t like his ruling as well as (2) the unacceptable special treatment for friends of the president..

There is good reason to suspect political influence. That influence must not be allowed to prevail. Prosecutors have resigned over this. Barr has been asked to resign by Prosecutor associations. A judge associations has convened “emergency” meeting over Barr’s questionable conduct. There are plausible threads of logic that point to preferential treatment. Flynn may or may not be guilty of lying to the FBI. We know he lied to government about it, including Mike Pence. It doesn't seem far fetched he would have continued lying. But even if he is innocent, can we allow this case to get special treatment and move on without ameliorating the system in it’s wake?

First the political interference was an illegal soft coup attempt.

Second, I think Sullivan permanently tarnished his reputation over this case. I think he is corrupt.