Billy the Bagman's duplicity has convinced Trump supporters, but will it convinced the judge?

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

The difference being that the prosecution is trying to pull out. So, without these arguments in this case, there won't be any adversarial case presented to the prosecution's motion. It's an important difference. Don't count on the editorial pages of Forbes and the WSJ to point this out.

So? Mandamus is against the judge, not the opposing party.

.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

For the first time ever, the judge will take up the role of prosecutor.

100% wrong. Thus, the amicus brief.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

So? Mandamus is against the judge, not the opposing party.

Actually, no. It argues against other arguments, not against a party. And yes, the decision will be made on whether the actions are appropriate. Which is precisely what my post spoke to.

 

[AzogtheDefiler]

"It is unclear whether Sullivan publicly laid out this guidance because he anticipated outside parties would want to file amicus briefs, because he wanted to encourage the filing of amicus briefs or because someone had already tried to file an amicus brief. (CNN noted earlier Tuesday that there is a docket entry in the Flynn case for which the underlying filing has not been made public.)

But regardless, the order suggests that Sullivan is not going to be wrapping up the case up ASAP, as he intends to provide an opportunity for the filing of friend-of-the-court briefs."

It Doesn’t Sound Like Flynn’s Judge Is Done With His Case Just Yet

After days of silence, the federal judge overseeing Michael Flynn’s criminal case...

talkingpointsmemo.com

You’re BWK

 

[OKTexas]

The law requires a plea be INFORMED and VOLUNTARY, Flynn's was neither.

Flynn was both, as he acknowledged in his signed confession.

I'm sure you'll be there to share Kleenexes with Sullivan when he dismisses the case.

Here's a SCOTUS cases to back up my assertion for your reading pleasure. Note it was 9-0 decision written by Ginsberg.

The unanimous opinion of the Court, written by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, held that the Circuit Court had committed an abuse of discretion by overstepping its bounds by "drastic departure from the principle of party presentation constituted an abuse of discretion", instead of "adjudicating the case presented", as established in Greenlaw v. United States (554 U.S. 237 (2008)).[2] Ginsburg wrote: "In the ensuing do over of the appeal, counsel for the parties were assigned a secondary role . . . Courts are essentially passive instruments of government. They do not, or should not, sally forth each day looking for wrongs to right. They wait for cases to come to them, and when cases arise, courts normally decide only questions presented by the parties .

United States v. Sineneng-Smith - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

.

That precedent has already been addressed and rejected as inapplicable by Sullivan since there have been no misdeeds by the prosecutors. Only false accusations made by Flynn's attorney, ones Billy the Bagman tried and failed to substantiate in his explanation for dropping charges against a confessed liar.

As I predicted the defense has already gone to the appellate court for a writ of mandamus. We'll see if they buy Sullivan bucking the supremes and the DC court of appeals, I don't think they will.

.

The difference being that the prosecution is trying to pull out. So, without these arguments in this case, there wouldn't be any adversarial case presented to the prosecution's motion. It's an important difference. Don't count on the editorial pages of Forbes and the WSJ to point this out.

You obviously don't understand the role of the courts even though I've posted the supreme court decision regarding them. The courts are supposed to be NEUTRAL, they have no dog in the fight. When they forget their role our justice system breaks down.

This is how RGB put it, writing for a unanimous decision of the court, just this month:

Courts are essentially passive instruments of government. They do not, or should not, sally forth each day looking for wrongs to right. They wait for cases to come to them, and when cases arise, courts normally decide only questions presented by the parties .

United States v. Sineneng-Smith - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

.

 

[OKTexas]

So? Mandamus is against the judge, not the opposing party.

Actually, no. It argues against other arguments, not against a party. And yes, the decision will be made on whether the actions are appropriate. Which is precisely what my post spoke to.

You should shut up before you display your ignorance further. You obviously have no clue what a writ of mandamus is or it's purpose.

.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

Actually, no. It argues against other arguments, not against a party.

It is an action to ask the higher court to order the lower court to do a certain action. Thus, "mandamus."

The prosecutor has no dog in this fight except to support the decision of the judge. They are not even doing that.

.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

So? Mandamus is against the judge, not the opposing party.

Actually, no. It argues against other arguments, not against a party. And yes, the decision will be made on whether the actions are appropriate. Which is precisely what my post spoke to.

You should shut up before you display your ignorance further. You obviously have no clue what a writ of mandamus is or it's purpose.

.

He got his law degree out of a cracker jack box.

.

 

[Billy000]

Republicans wouldn’t give a shit about Flynn’s prosecution if he wasn’t tied to Trump. It’s part of their cultist nature to defend anyone in Trump’s circle regardless of the circumstances.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

Republicans wouldn’t give a shit about Flynn’s prosecution if he wasn’t tied to Trump. It’s part of their cultist nature to defend anyone in Trump’s circle regardless of the circumstances.

Especially given that Flynn is a life-long Democrat.

But to be fair, the prosecution of Flynn was done for no other reason but to get at Trump. Of course Trump supporters are going to defend Flynn. To do so is to support of Trump.

I am not surprised you can't connect the dots.

.

 

[Billy000]

Republicans wouldn’t give a shit about Flynn’s prosecution if he wasn’t tied to Trump. It’s part of their cultist nature to defend anyone in Trump’s circle regardless of the circumstances.

Especially given that Flynn is a life-long Democrat.

But to be fair, the prosecution of Flynn was done for no other reason but to get at Trump. Of course Trump supporters are going to defend Flynn. To do so is to support of Trump.

I am not surprised you can't connect the dots.

.

I connected the dots before you made your useless reply idiot.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

Republicans wouldn’t give a shit about Flynn’s prosecution if he wasn’t tied to Trump. It’s part of their cultist nature to defend anyone in Trump’s circle regardless of the circumstances.

Especially given that Flynn is a life-long Democrat.

But to be fair, the prosecution of Flynn was done for no other reason but to get at Trump. Of course Trump supporters are going to defend Flynn. To do so is to support of Trump.

I am not surprised you can't connect the dots.

.

I connected the dots before you made your useless reply idiot.

Mad?

.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

The courts are supposed to be NEUTRAL, they have no dog in the fight.

Correct. Which is why the request for an amicus brief. The court isn't making the arguments. The only position the court has taken is that it should hear an adversarial argument to the bizarre motion filed by the prosecution. So you haven't actually made any good point, there.

Know what else Sullivan could do? He could hold hearings forcing the prosecution to connect all the dots on precisely how the decision to dismiss was made, who made it, and to determine whether or not their has been corrupt influence on the decision.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Especially given that Flynn is a life-long

Until he wasn't. Until he became a foreign agent for Turkey and a big Putin booster. Now Flynn is a Trumper. Wait, same thing, really.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

Correct. Which is why the request for an amicus brief.

WHY DOES THE COURT NEED THAT SHIT?? There is no case and controversy. Both parties to the action have agreed to dismiss the case. There is no controversy. The court acting on its own to continue a controversy that no longer exist is acting in extra-judicial fashion and is something the higher court can stop.

Don't sit there and pretend like you know what the **** you're talking about. You need to go back to law school.

.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

WHY DOES THE COURT NEED THAT SHIT??

Third time:

Because the judge regards the motion as a bit bizarre (because it is), and he feels the court needs to hear an adversarial argument against the motion. When defense makes bizarre motions, the prosecution is always there to argue against. No such adversary exists, here.


You don't have to guess "why". You can literally read the judge's own explanation, you know.

 

[Billy000]

Republicans wouldn’t give a shit about Flynn’s prosecution if he wasn’t tied to Trump. It’s part of their cultist nature to defend anyone in Trump’s circle regardless of the circumstances.

Especially given that Flynn is a life-long Democrat.

But to be fair, the prosecution of Flynn was done for no other reason but to get at Trump. Of course Trump supporters are going to defend Flynn. To do so is to support of Trump.

I am not surprised you can't connect the dots.

.

I connected the dots before you made your useless reply idiot.

Mad?

.

Nah, just stating the obvious but believe what you want I guess lol

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

Because the judge regards the motion as a bit bizarre (because it is), and he feels the court needs to hear an adversarial argument against the motion. When defense makes bizarre motions, the prosecution is always there to argue against. No such adversary exists, here.

You've seen a recent supreme court case under similar circumstances were such action is deemed inappropriate (thanks to The Duke). Can you show me a case where a judge has ever, ever, EVER done such a thing when both the prosecution and defense agree to dismiss a case under allegations of prosecutorial misconduct?

And, tell me again (for the first time) how mandamus is not the appropriate action.

.

 

[OKTexas]

The courts are supposed to be NEUTRAL, they have no dog in the fight.

Correct. Which is why the request for an amicus brief. The court isn't making the arguments. The only position the court has taken is that it should hear an adversarial argument to the bizarre motion filed by the prosecution. So you haven't actually made any good point, there.

Know what else Sullivan could do? He could hold hearings forcing the prosecution to connect all the dots on precisely how the decision to dismiss was made, who made it, and to determine whether or not their has been corrupt influence on the decision.

Your ignorance is on display again, an amici curiae has no standing to argue a damn thing in a criminal case. In fact the guy Sullivan appointed, wrote an opinion 8 years ago stating that fact. Funny how judges allow politics to change their opinions when they have acute TDS.

.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

You've seen a recent supreme court case under similar circumstances were such action is deemed inappropriate

Except, it was for the defense, not a motion by the prosecution to dismiss after a guilty plea that reeks of possible impropriety. This difference is important. Second, the precedent of which you speak is merely a case of the amici in one case being deemed inappropriate. That does not mean all are.