Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Hunter's Campfire Judge Emmet Sullivan Delays Dropping Michael Flynn Case - To Allow Amicus Briefs

Look for Flynn to have a stroke or some such. Think William Casey. The US government is the biggest organized crime syndicate in the history of the world.

Actually, he should resign from the bench...

The judge will most assuredly get smacked down. He doesn't care. It's a political stall tactic.

Yep, he doesnt want Flynn back and spilling the beans on Zero and Hillbiotch without a cloud over him.

How, who and what is going to "smack him down"?

Has Judge Amy Berman Jackson been smacked down yet. What she did to Roger Stone is prolly worse than what Sullivan is doing here.

I listened to Levin last night on the Sirius. He had a 15 minute segment on Judge Sullivan.
Now, I am not a Philadelphia lawyer but Levin is and he is sharp as a tack. He said that it is not legal to file Amicus briefs in a criminal case. He said this is widely accepted case law. He called Judge Sullivan incompetent and stupid.

Levin didn't say it but I will, this guy is an Affirmative Action judge. Probably got in to law school due to affirmative action, in the first place. His law school grades were probably not too good but the professors gave him a pass.

Clinton appointee. LIB DEM. What more do you need to know?

Emmet Gael Sullivan (born June 4, 1947) is a United States District Judge of the United States District Court for the District of Columbia.[2]

He earned his undergraduate and law degrees from Howard University. He worked in private practice for more than a decade at Houston & Gardner, becoming a name partner in 1980. He was appointed to the bench of the Superior Court of the District of Columbia in 1984 by President Ronald Reagan, to the District of Columbia Court of Appeals as an Associate Judge in 1992 by President George H. W. Bush and to the federal bench in 1994 by President Bill Clinton.

Sullivan presided over the 2008 trial of U.S. Senator Ted Stevens, who was convicted of seven felony ethics violations in October. During the trial, the judge refused requests by the defense for a mistrial to be declared, after information was revealed that the prosecution had withheld exculpatory Brady material.[5][6] Eight days after the guilty verdict, Stevens narrowly lost his reelection bid.[7] As more evidence of prosecutorial misconduct became known in early 2009, Judge Sullivan held four prosecutors in civil contempt of court.[8] On April 1, 2009, following a Justice Department probe that found additional evidence of prosecutorial misconduct, the Department of Justice recommended that Stevens' conviction be dismissed.[9] On April 7, 2009, Sullivan set aside the conviction and appointed a lawyer to investigate the prosecution team for criminal contempt.[10] Subsequently, one of the four prosecutors held in contempt committed suicide.[11] Ultimately, Sullivan dismissed the civil contempt charges,[12] and no additional charges were brought against the prosecutors.[13]

Yes, that releases Flynn, but it doesn't solve the problem of another liberal judge acting as if he's above the law, which of course, this one does.

MM

I've seen some stupid things in my career but a Judge asking third parties for their opinions on such a matter is about the limit.

Earlier in the case, however, Sullivan wrote of similar amicus brief requests: "The Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure do not provide for intervention by third parties in criminal cases ... Options exist for a private citizen to express his views about matters of public interest, but the Court's docket is not an available option," adding "the docket is the record of official proceedings related to criminal charges brought by the United States against an individual who has pled guilty to a criminal offense" and "for the benefit of the parties in this case and the public, the docket must be maintained in an orderly fashion and in accordance with court rules."

Sidney Powell, filed a six-page motion Tuesday evening slamming the decision, writing: "This Court has consistently — on 24 previous occasions — summarily refused to permit any third party to inject themselves or their views into this case," adding "the proposed amicus brief has no place in this court."

Sidney needs to take His Honor(less) to the woodshed............................

Just when you think you've seen it all; if the Godfather was still around, he could make him an offer he couldn't refuse.

MM

How do you propose she do that?

Flynn deserves and needs exoneration, not a pardon. He did not break laws, the prosecution did and the FBI did.

All involved in the Stevens case need hanging. We got Begich for 6 years because of their criminal acts. And how is it Sullivan ends up in two of the biggest witch hunt trials (replete with douchebaggery) with essentially the same outcome.

Everyone should be able to read that sign.

Even in civil cases, at the district court level, amicus briefs are not generally accepted. Last year I had a federal district court in Arizona refuse to accept an amicus brief I filed even though it was directly on point and provided the court with important background information on the question in the case. So yes, amicus briefs are not only not typically accepted in criminal cases, they are almost always rejected in civil cases at this level.

What Judge Sullivan is doing is not supported by the rules of procedure and not supported by logic, since an amicus brief is supposed to provide the court with new and relevant information, something that can't exist in a case that the DOJ is trying to drop. This is a clear attempt to create a public distraction that the media will glom onto to create echos of Hussein Obama's talking points about the rule of law and precedent.

So if this Judge intends to create a trial by media, I'm talking to some other lawyers right now about flooding the court with pro-Flynn amicus briefs. The only way this Judge is going to back down is if he sees that he'll have so many briefs supporting Flynn that he has to shut down all amicus briefs or be shown to be discriminating against parties. If nothing else, we will at least get a counterpoint on the record. My plan is to draft an amicus brief that attacks the politicization of the court and repeats the truth about how this entire case was a fraud on the court meant to destroy a man's life. I am trying to get at least a dozen other lawyers to submit their own briefs along the same lines.

By pointing out his screw ups to the higher court.

Counselor: Did you miss this part of the story? I am guessing you and your buds briefs won't see the light of day "It is important to note that Judge Sullivan in his order gave full discretion on which amicus briefs to approve to himself, which means he may likely approve ones critical to AG Bill Barr and General Flynn." It is good to be king - no?

The point is that we need to have so many pro Flynn amicus briefs submitted that the bias of the judge will be empirically demonstrated when he accepts the anti Flynn amicus briefs and rejects the pro Flynn briefs.

District court judges always have discretion on whether to accept Amicus briefs, so there is no relevance to the fact that this judge is reserving a right all district court judges have.

It is important to have this kind of evidence on the record so the appeals court, or even the supreme court, can toss out all amicus briefs later on.

Impeach the scumbag. He is an embarrassment to the entire judicial system. Incompetent lawyers who can't make the cut in private practice become prosecutors- - - - -prosecutors become "judges". Once they start down the slippery slope of being parasites on the public purse, we end up being "judged" by the least competent people in the legal system. Isn't the whole system the classic application of the "Peter Principle"? - - - - -Someone rises to his "level of incompetence" and stays there, or they make a lateral transfer to a career where even less competence is required to move up the "chain of command"!
Jerry