(06-20-2020 12:21 PM)ausowl Wrote: (06-14-2020 04:55 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: (06-14-2020 04:44 PM)tanqtonic Wrote: (06-12-2020 12:39 PM)GoodOwl Wrote: (06-12-2020 09:16 AM)tanqtonic Wrote: You really should look up Gleeson's past, dude.
Here is a starter course here, whack a mole.
First, he has already made very public statements on Flynn --- kind of disqualifies him at the start to act in the way that Sullivan tapped him for, but, we know Sullivan didnt tap him for that.
Not to mention that Sullivan is getting his ass spanked today at the Fed Circuit. It is fun listening to it. I can send you the live audio feed if you want.
Second, previously, in one case before him, he served as the advocate to higher authorities to get a sentence reduction for a convicted criminal. Actually advocated for the defendant. Then turned right around, and in the same case he acted as an advocate in, served as the actual sentencing judge.
Further, look at HSBC Bank USA, N.A., 863 F.3d 125, 136 (2d Cir. 2017).
There, as the trial judge, he did pretty much the same thing that Sullivan did by plopping himself into the middle of the propriety of a deferred prosecution agreement. Said he had all sorts of power to jump into the middle.
The Appellate Court there spanked him pretty hard for that.
If one bothers to look up his background -- he is an interventionist tool that many times simply makes up what he should do, even if it runs contrary to the written rules of evidence, procedure, or Judicial Canons for that matter.
You really should do a bit more than that surface crap like you do above. I would somewhat expect that from a Rice graduate.
So, how does a guy get away with that and still remain a judge? If you did equivalent misconduct in the private sector, you'd be canned quickly and probably blackballed in your industry as well.
Once a federal judge, the only ways out are death, resignation, retirement, or impeachment.
I can think of only 1 judge in the last 25 years who got spanked 'in the profession' -- The 5th Circuit ordered that Judge Sam Kent in Galveston had to have his docket 'restructured' and 'monitored'. He had 85 cases reassigned from his docket to others, and all of those cases had two specific attorneys on them.
If you ever want to get a rise from a Houston politician, one of those attorneys recently ran for mayor of Houston.
Of course, Kent was indicted 7 years later, and convicted. Only in prison was impeachment brought, but he resigned and the impeachment was dropped.
And in all honesty, Gleeson's first issue above is the most concerning -- his actions were absolutely violation of judicial ethics. In the second, he got simply got overrruled --the opinion is harsh though.
But he is a hero to AtEase.
Didn't Sullivan appoint Gleeson specifically because of the editorial? - to argue the contrary position.
But you hit the crux of the matter with that sentence. There is plenty of provision in the Code of Civil Procedure to appoint or listen to an amici.
There is zero provision in the Federal Code of Criminal Procedure to do anything of the sort at a trial court level. Zero. Nada. Zilch.
Second, Gleeson is probably the judge that has gone furthest off base in the area of self-appointing a judge to sua sponte review a criminal plea, a criminal plea agreement, or the executive power to simply drop a case. He is also the judge that got spanked the hardest for that. His spanking by the 6th Circuit is probably the second most important case in the issue of a Federal Court judge intervening on the power of power of the Executive Branch, excepting the Fokker case directly noted by the mandamus order.
In short, Sullivan even now is seriously off the reservation -- there is zero power for him to be appointing *any* amici absent any rule to allow him to do so, let alone one like Gleeson. It is bad enough to appoint an objective amici, i.e one that should be a balanced 'what guidance should we give the court.'
Appointing one that has the overt viewpoint of Gleeson is a double barreled no no...
In short, in his selection of Gleeson Sullivan has both preempted the position of the party in interest (the DOJ), and, when the party is the government he has actually caused a serious transgression on the power of a coordinate branch of the government.
Notwithstanding -- here is my prediction: The DC Circuit panel will rule against issuing the mandamus, as they noted that although Sullivan has scheduled a July 12(?) hearing, but has not ruled on the dismissal.
They are not going to preempt that hearing and will give Sullivan the opportunity to dismiss. I wouldnt be surprised if it isnt a 'silent' dismissal -- from the tenor of the panel, they could very easily put their say into the decision on what they would seem to expect of Sullivan in the upcoming hearing. For example, 'the time is not ripe for us to be issuing a mandamus when all the parties are uncertain that such a dismissal will not follow from the upcoming hearing.'
If Sullivan dismisses -- nothing else has to happen. In short they will punt to that hearing.
If Sullivan does not dismiss, and instead goes full bore forward with his 'unique' amici setup, or orders more evidence by the Flynn counsel and the DOJ, you will have *two* parties filing another mandamus right at the conclusion of that hearing --- Flynn *and* the United States.
You have to remember that the United States was not a named party in the current mandamus, they had a say as an interested party, but it was only Flynn who sparked the mandamus that will be decided in the next week.
