A Writ of Mandamus

Tom Paine 1949

Platinum Member
Joined
Mar 15, 2020
Messages
702
Reaction score
529
Points
873
"Why on earth he lied I have no idea."
Please read my post #13 ...
Like I said, I really don’t give a damn why he lied, or perjured himself and “didn’t” lie. He was an unprincipled coward, promoting his boss’s even more unprincipled partisan destruction of our nation’s political life. Even Flynn’s boss Trump abandoned him ... until it served his political interest to bring him back. But consistency means nothing to Trump. He is also a coward and an opportunist without the slightest regard for legality, who thinks he can commit any crime and not be prosecuted for it. I believe in following the law. But then this case is not really about the law, is it?
 
OP
task0778

task0778

Gold Member
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Mar 10, 2017
Messages
5,315
Reaction score
1,545
Points
290
Location
Texas hill country
"Why on earth he lied I have no idea."
Please read my post #13 ...
Like I said, I really don’t give a damn why he lied, or perjured himself and “didn’t” lie. He was an unprincipled coward, promoting his boss’s even more unprincipled partisan destruction of our nation’s political life. Even Flynn’s boss Trump abandoned him ... until it served his political interest to bring him back. But consistency means nothing to Trump. He is also a coward and an opportunist without the slightest regard for legality, who thinks he can commit any crime and not be prosecuted for it. I believe in following the law. But then this case is not really about the law, is it?
Your TDS bias is noted. Actually, this case is entirely about the law, which says for a person to commit the crime of lying to the FBI the law has to be material to a legitimate investigation, which in this case did not exist. I don't understand why this is so hard to accept, recent documents show that the FBI closed the Flynn investigation. For purely political reasons, Strzok reopened it. Ergo, whatever Flynn said in that interview DOES NOT MATTER. It's not actionable, unless you are a TDS progressive liberal democrat who is out to get Trump or any of his associates by any means fair or foul, lawful or not.

Moreover, the law requires certain standards be met for a prosecution to be legal. Information surfaced within the last month or so that shows the FBI violated those standards with respect to the Flynn investigation and prosecution. Hence Barr dropped the case, as he should when proper procedures and protocols are not met that ensure an individual is treated fairly and impartially. In Flynn's case, that didn't happen.

"promoting his boss’s even more unprincipled partisan destruction of our nation’s political life."

For someone on the Left to say that is the heighth of hypocrisy. From even before Trump was elected the Democrats have unscrupulously tried every way possible to get Trump. To deny that is to deny reality. You don't like him, I get that. I don't particularly like his personality or character myself, but the ends to which the democrats have gone to de-legitimize the President of the United States, is astounding. The Flynn case is just one example.

The truth is that Judge Sullivan overstepped his authority. He has no business trying to engineer a perjury charge against anybody, only the Executive Branch is authorized to investigate and bring charges against somebody. So a Writ of Mandamus is entirely appropriate.
 

Tom Paine 1949

Platinum Member
Joined
Mar 15, 2020
Messages
702
Reaction score
529
Points
873
I hate Trump but quite rationally. If I had TDS I would have voted for Hillary here in Florida where the election was supposed to be close. I didn't because I despise what she represented also. Your TDS charge shows you are thinking of this as a party partisan yourself.

What is a "legitimate investigation" in a case where there were serious concerns among at least many prominent national security agencies and leading officials? All Flynn had to do was tell the truth, and that would have ended matters. He didn't do that. Was he feeling guilty about something? I don't know, and don't care.

You want to know what a dastardly political prosecution is ... one really raising important questions of law? Check out the pursuit of Wikileaks founder Julian Assange! There is an ugly political case prosecuted by BOTH Obama AND the Trump administration that violates basic rights, that involves extraterritorial renditiion of a journalist and freedom of speech!

How about investigating and prosecuting the murderous lying swine who got us into the second Iraq War and occupation? Now there is a worthwhile "legal" investigation that should be prosecuted.

All the rest of this crap is just partisan political bickering. I don't like it, but these folk are all pushing the limits, talking about "legal precedent" and "conservative interpretation of law" while in fact turning the country into a Banana Republic. The Trump people and their pompous "legal defenders" are among the very most guilty of this!
 
OP
task0778

task0778

Gold Member
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Mar 10, 2017
Messages
5,315
Reaction score
1,545
Points
290
Location
Texas hill country
I hate Trump but quite rationally. If I had TDS I would have voted for Hillary here in Florida where the election was supposed to be close. I didn't because I despise what she represented also. Your TDS charge shows you are thinking of this as a party partisan yourself.

What is a "legitimate investigation" in a case where there were serious concerns among at least many prominent national security agencies and leading officials? All Flynn had to do was tell the truth, and that would have ended matters. He didn't do that. Was he feeling guilty about something? I don't know, and don't care.

You want to know what a dastardly political prosecution is ... one really raising important questions of law? Check out the pursuit of Wikileaks founder Julian Assange! There is an ugly political case prosecuted by BOTH Obama AND the Trump administration that violates basic rights, that involves extraterritorial renditiion of a journalist and freedom of speech!

How about investigating and prosecuting the murderous lying swine who got us into the second Iraq War and occupation? Now there is a worthwhile "legal" investigation that should be prosecuted.

All the rest of this crap is just partisan political bickering. I don't like it, but these folk are all pushing the limits, talking about "legal precedent" and "conservative interpretation of law" while in fact turning the country into a Banana Republic. The Trump people and their pompous "legal defenders" are among the very most guilty of this!
"I hate Trump but quite rationally." Yeah, sure. The screed you posted in #21 indicates otherwise.

"What is a "legitimate investigation" in a case where there were serious concerns among at least many prominent national security agencies and leading officials?"

As noted in the Horowitz Report, the grounds for starting an FBI investigation is appallingly low. But as noted earlier, the Flynn investigation was closed, due to a lack of evidence, ANY evidence against Flynn. But when it was later re-opened, presumably by the Trump-hating Strzok, there was absolutely no basis at all to do that, and so at that point it was no longer a legitimate investigation. Flynn never should have been interviewed in the first place, and according to the law NOTHING he said in that interview had any material value. Which means under the law he should not have been charged with lying. I've said this before, and I don't understand why you still don't get it. In this country we are not supposed to go after somebody just because we don't like his boss. I know you don't like that, but the justice system should not be weaponized against a political foe. The democrats did that, big time.

NOW - about those other cases, Assange, Iraq, and so on, that's off-topic. Start your own thread if you want to, but past investigations and prosecutions have nothing to do with Flynn.
 

Tom Paine 1949

Platinum Member
Joined
Mar 15, 2020
Messages
702
Reaction score
529
Points
873
NOW - about those other cases, Assange, Iraq, and so on, that's off-topic. Start your own thread if you want to, but past investigations and prosecutions have nothing to do with Flynn.
There’s the difference between us. Flynn is free as a bird. He will be wined and dined, turned into a new Oliver North, maybe run as a Republican rich man’s candidate in the future, certainly upheld as a “poor victim” of “deep state” government overreach — he is what you obsess about. Partisan politics. I worry about real victims of judicial overreach, incarceration and war. But you are right. All this is off topic. I will get around to raising these issues elsewhere.
 
Last edited:

PoliticalChic

Diamond Member
Joined
Oct 6, 2008
Messages
94,163
Reaction score
28,145
Points
2,260
Location
Brooklyn, NY
A federal criminal case has only two parties, the defendant and the federal prosecutors, for very fundamental reasons. The enforcement of federal law is a function of only the executive branch under Article 2 of the Constitution. The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure enable some interested parties to intervene to protect their interests in civil cases. There is no analogous provision in the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, again, because the prosecutor stands for all the public and its interests.

Sullivan has appointed former U.S. district court judge John Gleeson to oppose the Justice Department’s motion to dismiss and, reportedly, to argue that Sullivan should hold Flynn guilty of perjury for falsely confessing to crimes he didn’t commit. That is unconstitutional under the controlling precedents because it violates the Separation of Powers doctrine of constitutional law which mandates that the power of one branch of government cannot be seized and used by another branch. In other words, it is unconstitutional — and, thus, illegal — for Sullivan to appoint Gleeson to stand in the place of the federal prosecutors in the Flynn case and pursue Flynn for alleged perjury.
.
.
The law doesn’t provide a remedy for every wrong, but there is a remedy available to the Justice Department — not to Flynn — to correct Sullivan’s outrageous conduct. It’s called a writ of mandamus and should be filed by DoJ forthwith to block Gleeson’s participation and compel dismissal of the charges against Flynn. (Flynn can appeal to a higher court.)

A writ of mandamus, under Title 28 U.S. Code Section 1651. According to the Department of Justice’s manual:

Mandamus is an extraordinary remedy, which should only be used in exceptional circumstances of peculiar emergency or public importance. LaBuy v. Howes Leather Co., 352 U.S. 249 (1957); United States v. McGarr, 461 F.2d 1 (7th Cir. 1972). The All Writs Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1651(a), confers the power of mandamus on federal appellate courts. LaBuy v. Howes Leather Co., supra. Mandamus may be appropriately issued to confine an inferior court to a lawful exercise of prescribed jurisdiction, or when there is an usurpation of judicial power.
The Oxford English Dictionary defines the verb “usurp” to mean taking a position or a power illegally or by force. By refusing to dismiss immediately the charges against Flynn and appointing Gleeson to take the place of the federal prosecutor, Sullivan is guilty of a usurpation of judicial power. The proper remedy is for DoJ to file a writ of mandamus against Sullivan with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit.


Mandamus: Mandamus ( /ˈmænˈdeɪməs/; lit. 'we command') is a judicial remedy in the form of an order from a court to any government, subordinate court, corporation, or public authority, to do (or forbear from doing) some specific act which that body is obliged under law to do (or refrain from doing), and which is in the nature of public duty,...

IOW, The DC Court of Appeals tells Sullivan that he can't do that. The Judicial Branch should not be in the business of looking for a crime to charge somebody with. Actually, no agency or gov't entity should be doing that, our justice requires the crime to be committed first, THEN you go looking for who did it. In this case, there was no crime.

Someone must have been listening to you!



"Congratulations are in order to General Michael Flynn and his attorney, Sidney Powell, for filing with the federal appeals court in Washington D.C. an emergency petition for a writ of mandamus. It’s an extraordinary writ — but one of the most venerable in American and Anglo-Saxon law. Their aim, sketched in crystalline prose, is to rescue the general from which the petition calls a “Kafkaesque nightmare.” We certainly wish them luck.

What her petition seeks is an order from the United States Circuit Court of Appeals for the D.C. circuit ordering the district court to grant immediately the government’s motion to dismiss the case against General Flynn, undoing his guilty plea. The filing reprises the way the government entrapped the general and got him to plead guilty to a crime he didn’t commit. And, in fact, for deeds that in the circumstances weren’t a crime.

The petition for the writ of mandamus also takes on the errors of the district judge, Emmet Sullivan, for issuing an order inviting amicus briefs and appointing a former judge to take on the case against the government."
 
OP
task0778

task0778

Gold Member
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Mar 10, 2017
Messages
5,315
Reaction score
1,545
Points
290
Location
Texas hill country
A federal criminal case has only two parties, the defendant and the federal prosecutors, for very fundamental reasons. The enforcement of federal law is a function of only the executive branch under Article 2 of the Constitution. The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure enable some interested parties to intervene to protect their interests in civil cases. There is no analogous provision in the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, again, because the prosecutor stands for all the public and its interests.

Sullivan has appointed former U.S. district court judge John Gleeson to oppose the Justice Department’s motion to dismiss and, reportedly, to argue that Sullivan should hold Flynn guilty of perjury for falsely confessing to crimes he didn’t commit. That is unconstitutional under the controlling precedents because it violates the Separation of Powers doctrine of constitutional law which mandates that the power of one branch of government cannot be seized and used by another branch. In other words, it is unconstitutional — and, thus, illegal — for Sullivan to appoint Gleeson to stand in the place of the federal prosecutors in the Flynn case and pursue Flynn for alleged perjury.
.
.
The law doesn’t provide a remedy for every wrong, but there is a remedy available to the Justice Department — not to Flynn — to correct Sullivan’s outrageous conduct. It’s called a writ of mandamus and should be filed by DoJ forthwith to block Gleeson’s participation and compel dismissal of the charges against Flynn. (Flynn can appeal to a higher court.)

A writ of mandamus, under Title 28 U.S. Code Section 1651. According to the Department of Justice’s manual:

Mandamus is an extraordinary remedy, which should only be used in exceptional circumstances of peculiar emergency or public importance. LaBuy v. Howes Leather Co., 352 U.S. 249 (1957); United States v. McGarr, 461 F.2d 1 (7th Cir. 1972). The All Writs Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1651(a), confers the power of mandamus on federal appellate courts. LaBuy v. Howes Leather Co., supra. Mandamus may be appropriately issued to confine an inferior court to a lawful exercise of prescribed jurisdiction, or when there is an usurpation of judicial power.
The Oxford English Dictionary defines the verb “usurp” to mean taking a position or a power illegally or by force. By refusing to dismiss immediately the charges against Flynn and appointing Gleeson to take the place of the federal prosecutor, Sullivan is guilty of a usurpation of judicial power. The proper remedy is for DoJ to file a writ of mandamus against Sullivan with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit.


Mandamus: Mandamus ( /ˈmænˈdeɪməs/; lit. 'we command') is a judicial remedy in the form of an order from a court to any government, subordinate court, corporation, or public authority, to do (or forbear from doing) some specific act which that body is obliged under law to do (or refrain from doing), and which is in the nature of public duty,...

IOW, The DC Court of Appeals tells Sullivan that he can't do that. The Judicial Branch should not be in the business of looking for a crime to charge somebody with. Actually, no agency or gov't entity should be doing that, our justice requires the crime to be committed first, THEN you go looking for who did it. In this case, there was no crime.

Someone must have been listening to you!



"Congratulations are in order to General Michael Flynn and his attorney, Sidney Powell, for filing with the federal appeals court in Washington D.C. an emergency petition for a writ of mandamus. It’s an extraordinary writ — but one of the most venerable in American and Anglo-Saxon law. Their aim, sketched in crystalline prose, is to rescue the general from which the petition calls a “Kafkaesque nightmare.” We certainly wish them luck.

What her petition seeks is an order from the United States Circuit Court of Appeals for the D.C. circuit ordering the district court to grant immediately the government’s motion to dismiss the case against General Flynn, undoing his guilty plea. The filing reprises the way the government entrapped the general and got him to plead guilty to a crime he didn’t commit. And, in fact, for deeds that in the circumstances weren’t a crime.

The petition for the writ of mandamus also takes on the errors of the district judge, Emmet Sullivan, for issuing an order inviting amicus briefs and appointing a former judge to take on the case against the government."
The next question is whether the DC Court of Appeals will grant the Writ of Mandamus. IMHO, it's hard to justify on any lawful grounds what Sullivan has done, although the DCCA has more liberal judges than conservatives. So, they may just drag their feet on the issue and do nothing, which is SOP for the democrats when they know they're going to lose. Which they will if it ever gets to the SCOTUS. I feel bad for Flynn, he's getting screwed by our judicial system for purely political reasons.

If he DCCA does not grant the Writ, the SCOTUS surely will because Judge Sullivan has absolutely stepped over the line that is supposed to separate the Judicial Branch of gov't from the Executive. Will the democrats delay this nonsense until the election, hoping that Biden wins? If that is the plan, will it hurt them come election day? Certainly should, it's hard to see how helpful it is for the Dems to keep this story alive and well, and more information is coming and none of it will be good for Sullivan and the Dems.
 

PoliticalChic

Diamond Member
Joined
Oct 6, 2008
Messages
94,163
Reaction score
28,145
Points
2,260
Location
Brooklyn, NY
A federal criminal case has only two parties, the defendant and the federal prosecutors, for very fundamental reasons. The enforcement of federal law is a function of only the executive branch under Article 2 of the Constitution. The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure enable some interested parties to intervene to protect their interests in civil cases. There is no analogous provision in the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, again, because the prosecutor stands for all the public and its interests.

Sullivan has appointed former U.S. district court judge John Gleeson to oppose the Justice Department’s motion to dismiss and, reportedly, to argue that Sullivan should hold Flynn guilty of perjury for falsely confessing to crimes he didn’t commit. That is unconstitutional under the controlling precedents because it violates the Separation of Powers doctrine of constitutional law which mandates that the power of one branch of government cannot be seized and used by another branch. In other words, it is unconstitutional — and, thus, illegal — for Sullivan to appoint Gleeson to stand in the place of the federal prosecutors in the Flynn case and pursue Flynn for alleged perjury.
.
.
The law doesn’t provide a remedy for every wrong, but there is a remedy available to the Justice Department — not to Flynn — to correct Sullivan’s outrageous conduct. It’s called a writ of mandamus and should be filed by DoJ forthwith to block Gleeson’s participation and compel dismissal of the charges against Flynn. (Flynn can appeal to a higher court.)

A writ of mandamus, under Title 28 U.S. Code Section 1651. According to the Department of Justice’s manual:

Mandamus is an extraordinary remedy, which should only be used in exceptional circumstances of peculiar emergency or public importance. LaBuy v. Howes Leather Co., 352 U.S. 249 (1957); United States v. McGarr, 461 F.2d 1 (7th Cir. 1972). The All Writs Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1651(a), confers the power of mandamus on federal appellate courts. LaBuy v. Howes Leather Co., supra. Mandamus may be appropriately issued to confine an inferior court to a lawful exercise of prescribed jurisdiction, or when there is an usurpation of judicial power.
The Oxford English Dictionary defines the verb “usurp” to mean taking a position or a power illegally or by force. By refusing to dismiss immediately the charges against Flynn and appointing Gleeson to take the place of the federal prosecutor, Sullivan is guilty of a usurpation of judicial power. The proper remedy is for DoJ to file a writ of mandamus against Sullivan with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit.


Mandamus: Mandamus ( /ˈmænˈdeɪməs/; lit. 'we command') is a judicial remedy in the form of an order from a court to any government, subordinate court, corporation, or public authority, to do (or forbear from doing) some specific act which that body is obliged under law to do (or refrain from doing), and which is in the nature of public duty,...

IOW, The DC Court of Appeals tells Sullivan that he can't do that. The Judicial Branch should not be in the business of looking for a crime to charge somebody with. Actually, no agency or gov't entity should be doing that, our justice requires the crime to be committed first, THEN you go looking for who did it. In this case, there was no crime.

Someone must have been listening to you!



"Congratulations are in order to General Michael Flynn and his attorney, Sidney Powell, for filing with the federal appeals court in Washington D.C. an emergency petition for a writ of mandamus. It’s an extraordinary writ — but one of the most venerable in American and Anglo-Saxon law. Their aim, sketched in crystalline prose, is to rescue the general from which the petition calls a “Kafkaesque nightmare.” We certainly wish them luck.

What her petition seeks is an order from the United States Circuit Court of Appeals for the D.C. circuit ordering the district court to grant immediately the government’s motion to dismiss the case against General Flynn, undoing his guilty plea. The filing reprises the way the government entrapped the general and got him to plead guilty to a crime he didn’t commit. And, in fact, for deeds that in the circumstances weren’t a crime.

The petition for the writ of mandamus also takes on the errors of the district judge, Emmet Sullivan, for issuing an order inviting amicus briefs and appointing a former judge to take on the case against the government."
The next question is whether the DC Court of Appeals will grant the Writ of Mandamus. IMHO, it's hard to justify on any lawful grounds what Sullivan has done, although the DCCA has more liberal judges than conservatives. So, they may just drag their feet on the issue and do nothing, which is SOP for the democrats when they know they're going to lose. Which they will if it ever gets to the SCOTUS. I feel bad for Flynn, he's getting screwed by our judicial system for purely political reasons.

If he DCCA does not grant the Writ, the SCOTUS surely will because Judge Sullivan has absolutely stepped over the line that is supposed to separate the Judicial Branch of gov't from the Executive. Will the democrats delay this nonsense until the election, hoping that Biden wins? If that is the plan, will it hurt them come election day? Certainly should, it's hard to see how helpful it is for the Dems to keep this story alive and well, and more information is coming and none of it will be good for Sullivan and the Dems.


And remember what I said about the Leftists simply ignoring it.

We'll see.
 

Skull

Silver Member
Joined
Jun 9, 2016
Messages
591
Reaction score
168
Points
90
Location
California
The Dems ploy may be to hope Trump becomes impatient and pardon's Flynn. Then they can hyperventilate about the Prez's lawless, dictatorial nature.
 

PoliticalChic

Diamond Member
Joined
Oct 6, 2008
Messages
94,163
Reaction score
28,145
Points
2,260
Location
Brooklyn, NY
"Appeals Court Orders Judge Emmet Sullivan To Explain His Actions In Michael Flynn Case
“ORDERED, on the court’s own motion, that … the district judge file a response addressing petitioner’s request that this court order the district judge to grant the government’s motion to dismiss”

The Court’s mention of Fokker may be significant, as it was one of the main cases cited by Flynn in his Emergency Petition for Mandamus (pdf.), including the following:

The district court’s failure to grant the Government’s Motion to Dismiss defies this Court’s binding precedent in United States v. Fokker Servs., B.V., 818 F.3d 733, 740 (D.C. Cir. 2016).
* * *
This Court has held that the discretion of the Justice Department under Rule 48(a) is predominant, while the role of the judge is ministerial: “[D]ecisions to dismiss pending criminal charges … lie squarely within the ken of prosecutorial discretion” and “‘at the core of the Executive’s duty to see to the faithful execution of the laws.’” Fokker Servs., 818 F.3d at 741 (citation omitted)
* * *
A district court cannot deny the Government’s motion to dismiss because the judge has “a disagreement with the prosecution’s exercise of charging authority,” such as “a view that the defendant should stand trial” or “that more serious charges should be brought.” Fokker Servs., 818 F.3d at 742-43. Nor should a court second-guess the Government’s “conclusion that additional prosecution or punishment would not serve the public interest.” Id. at 743…."
 
OP
task0778

task0778

Gold Member
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Mar 10, 2017
Messages
5,315
Reaction score
1,545
Points
290
Location
Texas hill country
"Appeals Court Orders Judge Emmet Sullivan To Explain His Actions In Michael Flynn Case
“ORDERED, on the court’s own motion, that … the district judge file a response addressing petitioner’s request that this court order the district judge to grant the government’s motion to dismiss”

The Court’s mention of Fokker may be significant, as it was one of the main cases cited by Flynn in his Emergency Petition for Mandamus (pdf.), including the following:

The district court’s failure to grant the Government’s Motion to Dismiss defies this Court’s binding precedent in United States v. Fokker Servs., B.V., 818 F.3d 733, 740 (D.C. Cir. 2016).
* * *
This Court has held that the discretion of the Justice Department under Rule 48(a) is predominant, while the role of the judge is ministerial: “[D]ecisions to dismiss pending criminal charges … lie squarely within the ken of prosecutorial discretion” and “‘at the core of the Executive’s duty to see to the faithful execution of the laws.’” Fokker Servs., 818 F.3d at 741 (citation omitted)
* * *
A district court cannot deny the Government’s motion to dismiss because the judge has “a disagreement with the prosecution’s exercise of charging authority,” such as “a view that the defendant should stand trial” or “that more serious charges should be brought.” Fokker Servs., 818 F.3d at 742-43. Nor should a court second-guess the Government’s “conclusion that additional prosecution or punishment would not serve the public interest.” Id. at 743…."
"A district court cannot deny the Government’s motion to dismiss because the judge has “a disagreement with the prosecution’s exercise of charging authority,”

It's hard for me to see how this can mean anything other than WTF were you thinking? I don't know if Sullivan is going to fight this all the way to the last day, but it doesn't look like he has a legal leg to stand on. This was a travesty of justice from the very start and Sullivan is now a part of that travesty.
 
OP
task0778

task0778

Gold Member
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Mar 10, 2017
Messages
5,315
Reaction score
1,545
Points
290
Location
Texas hill country
The Dems ploy may be to hope Trump becomes impatient and pardon's Flynn. Then they can hyperventilate about the Prez's lawless, dictatorial nature.
That might be one of their goals, but honestly whose mind is going to change over this? Trump supporters are going to say he did the right thing, and the anti-Trumpers are going to bitch about double standards and breaking the rule of law. As if Obama wasn't 10 times worse than what they claim about Trump.
 
Joined
Aug 15, 2017
Messages
21,330
Reaction score
4,176
Points
290
Location
Tejas
A federal criminal case has only two parties, the defendant and the federal prosecutors, for very fundamental reasons. The enforcement of federal law is a function of only the executive branch under Article 2 of the Constitution. The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure enable some interested parties to intervene to protect their interests in civil cases. There is no analogous provision in the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, again, because the prosecutor stands for all the public and its interests.

Sullivan has appointed former U.S. district court judge John Gleeson to oppose the Justice Department’s motion to dismiss and, reportedly, to argue that Sullivan should hold Flynn guilty of perjury for falsely confessing to crimes he didn’t commit. That is unconstitutional under the controlling precedents because it violates the Separation of Powers doctrine of constitutional law which mandates that the power of one branch of government cannot be seized and used by another branch. In other words, it is unconstitutional — and, thus, illegal — for Sullivan to appoint Gleeson to stand in the place of the federal prosecutors in the Flynn case and pursue Flynn for alleged perjury.
.
.
The law doesn’t provide a remedy for every wrong, but there is a remedy available to the Justice Department — not to Flynn — to correct Sullivan’s outrageous conduct. It’s called a writ of mandamus and should be filed by DoJ forthwith to block Gleeson’s participation and compel dismissal of the charges against Flynn. (Flynn can appeal to a higher court.)

A writ of mandamus, under Title 28 U.S. Code Section 1651. According to the Department of Justice’s manual:

Mandamus is an extraordinary remedy, which should only be used in exceptional circumstances of peculiar emergency or public importance. LaBuy v. Howes Leather Co., 352 U.S. 249 (1957); United States v. McGarr, 461 F.2d 1 (7th Cir. 1972). The All Writs Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1651(a), confers the power of mandamus on federal appellate courts. LaBuy v. Howes Leather Co., supra. Mandamus may be appropriately issued to confine an inferior court to a lawful exercise of prescribed jurisdiction, or when there is an usurpation of judicial power.
The Oxford English Dictionary defines the verb “usurp” to mean taking a position or a power illegally or by force. By refusing to dismiss immediately the charges against Flynn and appointing Gleeson to take the place of the federal prosecutor, Sullivan is guilty of a usurpation of judicial power. The proper remedy is for DoJ to file a writ of mandamus against Sullivan with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit.


Mandamus: Mandamus ( /ˈmænˈdeɪməs/; lit. 'we command') is a judicial remedy in the form of an order from a court to any government, subordinate court, corporation, or public authority, to do (or forbear from doing) some specific act which that body is obliged under law to do (or refrain from doing), and which is in the nature of public duty,...

IOW, The DC Court of Appeals tells Sullivan that he can't do that. The Judicial Branch should not be in the business of looking for a crime to charge somebody with. Actually, no agency or gov't entity should be doing that, our justice requires the crime to be committed first, THEN you go looking for who did it. In this case, there was no crime.
I disagree that only the justice department has mandamus as a remedy. Flynn also has an interest in the judge granting the motion and would also have standing and be entitled to mandamus relief.

Otherwise, I agree with your post.

.
 
OP
task0778

task0778

Gold Member
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Mar 10, 2017
Messages
5,315
Reaction score
1,545
Points
290
Location
Texas hill country
A federal criminal case has only two parties, the defendant and the federal prosecutors, for very fundamental reasons. The enforcement of federal law is a function of only the executive branch under Article 2 of the Constitution. The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure enable some interested parties to intervene to protect their interests in civil cases. There is no analogous provision in the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, again, because the prosecutor stands for all the public and its interests.

Sullivan has appointed former U.S. district court judge John Gleeson to oppose the Justice Department’s motion to dismiss and, reportedly, to argue that Sullivan should hold Flynn guilty of perjury for falsely confessing to crimes he didn’t commit. That is unconstitutional under the controlling precedents because it violates the Separation of Powers doctrine of constitutional law which mandates that the power of one branch of government cannot be seized and used by another branch. In other words, it is unconstitutional — and, thus, illegal — for Sullivan to appoint Gleeson to stand in the place of the federal prosecutors in the Flynn case and pursue Flynn for alleged perjury.
.
.
The law doesn’t provide a remedy for every wrong, but there is a remedy available to the Justice Department — not to Flynn — to correct Sullivan’s outrageous conduct. It’s called a writ of mandamus and should be filed by DoJ forthwith to block Gleeson’s participation and compel dismissal of the charges against Flynn. (Flynn can appeal to a higher court.)

A writ of mandamus, under Title 28 U.S. Code Section 1651. According to the Department of Justice’s manual:

Mandamus is an extraordinary remedy, which should only be used in exceptional circumstances of peculiar emergency or public importance. LaBuy v. Howes Leather Co., 352 U.S. 249 (1957); United States v. McGarr, 461 F.2d 1 (7th Cir. 1972). The All Writs Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1651(a), confers the power of mandamus on federal appellate courts. LaBuy v. Howes Leather Co., supra. Mandamus may be appropriately issued to confine an inferior court to a lawful exercise of prescribed jurisdiction, or when there is an usurpation of judicial power.
The Oxford English Dictionary defines the verb “usurp” to mean taking a position or a power illegally or by force. By refusing to dismiss immediately the charges against Flynn and appointing Gleeson to take the place of the federal prosecutor, Sullivan is guilty of a usurpation of judicial power. The proper remedy is for DoJ to file a writ of mandamus against Sullivan with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit.


Mandamus: Mandamus ( /ˈmænˈdeɪməs/; lit. 'we command') is a judicial remedy in the form of an order from a court to any government, subordinate court, corporation, or public authority, to do (or forbear from doing) some specific act which that body is obliged under law to do (or refrain from doing), and which is in the nature of public duty,...

IOW, The DC Court of Appeals tells Sullivan that he can't do that. The Judicial Branch should not be in the business of looking for a crime to charge somebody with. Actually, no agency or gov't entity should be doing that, our justice requires the crime to be committed first, THEN you go looking for who did it. In this case, there was no crime.
I disagree that only the justice department has mandamus as a remedy. Flynn also has an interest in the judge granting the motion and would also have standing and be entitled to mandamus relief.

Otherwise, I agree with your post.

.
It gets a little murky with respect to a WoM. That has to come from the DC Court of Appeals, they decide whether or not to order Sullivan to do (or undo) something. Flynn and his lawyers can ask the DCCoA to issue the WoM, but it's not mandatory that the DCCoA has to do it. Flynn has the right to appeal whether Sullivan ends up doing, with or without the WoM, but they can't do a WoM themselves. The WoM is supposed to be a last resort kind of thing, where there's no other remedy. Flynn has a remedy under the law, he can appeal to the next higher court. Which means he may or may not be entitled to Mandamus relief.
 

PoliticalChic

Diamond Member
Joined
Oct 6, 2008
Messages
94,163
Reaction score
28,145
Points
2,260
Location
Brooklyn, NY
"Appeals Court Orders Judge Emmet Sullivan To Explain His Actions In Michael Flynn Case
“ORDERED, on the court’s own motion, that … the district judge file a response addressing petitioner’s request that this court order the district judge to grant the government’s motion to dismiss”

The Court’s mention of Fokker may be significant, as it was one of the main cases cited by Flynn in his Emergency Petition for Mandamus (pdf.), including the following:

The district court’s failure to grant the Government’s Motion to Dismiss defies this Court’s binding precedent in United States v. Fokker Servs., B.V., 818 F.3d 733, 740 (D.C. Cir. 2016).
* * *
This Court has held that the discretion of the Justice Department under Rule 48(a) is predominant, while the role of the judge is ministerial: “[D]ecisions to dismiss pending criminal charges … lie squarely within the ken of prosecutorial discretion” and “‘at the core of the Executive’s duty to see to the faithful execution of the laws.’” Fokker Servs., 818 F.3d at 741 (citation omitted)
* * *
A district court cannot deny the Government’s motion to dismiss because the judge has “a disagreement with the prosecution’s exercise of charging authority,” such as “a view that the defendant should stand trial” or “that more serious charges should be brought.” Fokker Servs., 818 F.3d at 742-43. Nor should a court second-guess the Government’s “conclusion that additional prosecution or punishment would not serve the public interest.” Id. at 743…."
"A district court cannot deny the Government’s motion to dismiss because the judge has “a disagreement with the prosecution’s exercise of charging authority,”

It's hard for me to see how this can mean anything other than WTF were you thinking? I don't know if Sullivan is going to fight this all the way to the last day, but it doesn't look like he has a legal leg to stand on. This was a travesty of justice from the very start and Sullivan is now a part of that travesty.


I believe Sullivan knew he that what he was doing was contrary to the law and to logic.....he was burnishing his Liberal creds.

...his anti-Trump creds.
 

CrusaderFrank

Diamond Member
Joined
May 20, 2009
Messages
111,595
Reaction score
22,457
Points
2,220
Location
Location, location
A federal criminal case has only two parties, the defendant and the federal prosecutors, for very fundamental reasons. The enforcement of federal law is a function of only the executive branch under Article 2 of the Constitution. The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure enable some interested parties to intervene to protect their interests in civil cases. There is no analogous provision in the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, again, because the prosecutor stands for all the public and its interests.

Sullivan has appointed former U.S. district court judge John Gleeson to oppose the Justice Department’s motion to dismiss and, reportedly, to argue that Sullivan should hold Flynn guilty of perjury for falsely confessing to crimes he didn’t commit. That is unconstitutional under the controlling precedents because it violates the Separation of Powers doctrine of constitutional law which mandates that the power of one branch of government cannot be seized and used by another branch. In other words, it is unconstitutional — and, thus, illegal — for Sullivan to appoint Gleeson to stand in the place of the federal prosecutors in the Flynn case and pursue Flynn for alleged perjury.
.
.
The law doesn’t provide a remedy for every wrong, but there is a remedy available to the Justice Department — not to Flynn — to correct Sullivan’s outrageous conduct. It’s called a writ of mandamus and should be filed by DoJ forthwith to block Gleeson’s participation and compel dismissal of the charges against Flynn. (Flynn can appeal to a higher court.)

A writ of mandamus, under Title 28 U.S. Code Section 1651. According to the Department of Justice’s manual:

Mandamus is an extraordinary remedy, which should only be used in exceptional circumstances of peculiar emergency or public importance. LaBuy v. Howes Leather Co., 352 U.S. 249 (1957); United States v. McGarr, 461 F.2d 1 (7th Cir. 1972). The All Writs Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1651(a), confers the power of mandamus on federal appellate courts. LaBuy v. Howes Leather Co., supra. Mandamus may be appropriately issued to confine an inferior court to a lawful exercise of prescribed jurisdiction, or when there is an usurpation of judicial power.
The Oxford English Dictionary defines the verb “usurp” to mean taking a position or a power illegally or by force. By refusing to dismiss immediately the charges against Flynn and appointing Gleeson to take the place of the federal prosecutor, Sullivan is guilty of a usurpation of judicial power. The proper remedy is for DoJ to file a writ of mandamus against Sullivan with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit.


Mandamus: Mandamus ( /ˈmænˈdeɪməs/; lit. 'we command') is a judicial remedy in the form of an order from a court to any government, subordinate court, corporation, or public authority, to do (or forbear from doing) some specific act which that body is obliged under law to do (or refrain from doing), and which is in the nature of public duty,...

IOW, The DC Court of Appeals tells Sullivan that he can't do that. The Judicial Branch should not be in the business of looking for a crime to charge somebody with. Actually, no agency or gov't entity should be doing that, our justice requires the crime to be committed first, THEN you go looking for who did it. In this case, there was no crime.
This is when Hillary lost!!! Can you imagine what they would have gotten away with had she won?

The tree of Liberty is withered nearly dead
 
OP
task0778

task0778

Gold Member
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Mar 10, 2017
Messages
5,315
Reaction score
1,545
Points
290
Location
Texas hill country
A federal criminal case has only two parties, the defendant and the federal prosecutors, for very fundamental reasons. The enforcement of federal law is a function of only the executive branch under Article 2 of the Constitution. The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure enable some interested parties to intervene to protect their interests in civil cases. There is no analogous provision in the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, again, because the prosecutor stands for all the public and its interests.

Sullivan has appointed former U.S. district court judge John Gleeson to oppose the Justice Department’s motion to dismiss and, reportedly, to argue that Sullivan should hold Flynn guilty of perjury for falsely confessing to crimes he didn’t commit. That is unconstitutional under the controlling precedents because it violates the Separation of Powers doctrine of constitutional law which mandates that the power of one branch of government cannot be seized and used by another branch. In other words, it is unconstitutional — and, thus, illegal — for Sullivan to appoint Gleeson to stand in the place of the federal prosecutors in the Flynn case and pursue Flynn for alleged perjury.
.
.
The law doesn’t provide a remedy for every wrong, but there is a remedy available to the Justice Department — not to Flynn — to correct Sullivan’s outrageous conduct. It’s called a writ of mandamus and should be filed by DoJ forthwith to block Gleeson’s participation and compel dismissal of the charges against Flynn. (Flynn can appeal to a higher court.)

A writ of mandamus, under Title 28 U.S. Code Section 1651. According to the Department of Justice’s manual:

Mandamus is an extraordinary remedy, which should only be used in exceptional circumstances of peculiar emergency or public importance. LaBuy v. Howes Leather Co., 352 U.S. 249 (1957); United States v. McGarr, 461 F.2d 1 (7th Cir. 1972). The All Writs Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1651(a), confers the power of mandamus on federal appellate courts. LaBuy v. Howes Leather Co., supra. Mandamus may be appropriately issued to confine an inferior court to a lawful exercise of prescribed jurisdiction, or when there is an usurpation of judicial power.
The Oxford English Dictionary defines the verb “usurp” to mean taking a position or a power illegally or by force. By refusing to dismiss immediately the charges against Flynn and appointing Gleeson to take the place of the federal prosecutor, Sullivan is guilty of a usurpation of judicial power. The proper remedy is for DoJ to file a writ of mandamus against Sullivan with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit.


Mandamus: Mandamus ( /ˈmænˈdeɪməs/; lit. 'we command') is a judicial remedy in the form of an order from a court to any government, subordinate court, corporation, or public authority, to do (or forbear from doing) some specific act which that body is obliged under law to do (or refrain from doing), and which is in the nature of public duty,...

IOW, The DC Court of Appeals tells Sullivan that he can't do that. The Judicial Branch should not be in the business of looking for a crime to charge somebody with. Actually, no agency or gov't entity should be doing that, our justice requires the crime to be committed first, THEN you go looking for who did it. In this case, there was no crime.
This is when Hillary lost!!! Can you imagine what they would have gotten away with had she won?

The tree of Liberty is withered nearly dead
All this shit would still be going on. Whoever the GOP's nominee is would be getting the very same treatment, every gov't agency would be looking for any means fair or foul to discredit the GOP and their supporters. The 2016 election could have been a real disaster had it gone the other way.
 

Tom Paine 1949

Platinum Member
Joined
Mar 15, 2020
Messages
702
Reaction score
529
Points
873
I hate Trump but quite rationally. If I had TDS I would have voted for Hillary here in Florida where the election was supposed to be close. I didn't because I despise what she represented also. Your TDS charge shows you are thinking of this as a party partisan yourself.

What is a "legitimate investigation" in a case where there were serious concerns among at least many prominent national security agencies and leading officials? All Flynn had to do was tell the truth, and that would have ended matters. He didn't do that. Was he feeling guilty about something? I don't know, and don't care.

You want to know what a dastardly political prosecution is ... one really raising important questions of law? Check out the pursuit of Wikileaks founder Julian Assange! There is an ugly political case prosecuted by BOTH Obama AND the Trump administration that violates basic rights, that involves extraterritorial renditiion of a journalist and freedom of speech!

How about investigating and prosecuting the murderous lying swine who got us into the second Iraq War and occupation? Now there is a worthwhile "legal" investigation that should be prosecuted.

All the rest of this crap is just partisan political bickering. I don't like it, but these folk are all pushing the limits, talking about "legal precedent" and "conservative interpretation of law" while in fact turning the country into a Banana Republic. The Trump people and their pompous "legal defenders" are among the very most guilty of this!
NOW - about those other cases, Assange, Iraq, and so on, that's off-topic. Start your own thread if you want to ....
I took your advice. Here is a new OP I did on lawbreaking, conspiracy and persecution perpetrated against Julian Assange, founder of WikiLeaks: How Pompeo’s CIA spied on Julian Assange
 

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Top