Hello There, Guest! (LoginRegister)

Post Reply 
Womp Womp
Author Message
rath v2.0 Offline
Wartime Consigliere
*

Posts: 35,648
Joined: Jun 2007
Reputation: 992
I Root For: Three Floyds
Location: ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ

Donators
Post: #41
RE: Womp Womp
Good Lord that brief reads like it’s written by an advocate for the prosecution.
06-01-2020 03:18 PM
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
UofMstateU Online
Legend
*

Posts: 27,086
Joined: Dec 2009
Reputation: 2124
I Root For: Memphis
Location:
Post: #42
RE: Womp Womp
Huber has a summary of it. One issue that Sullivan keeps bringing up is Turkey, something in which this case wasnt even about. Its almost like Sullivan has been briefed on details that arent a part of the record.

Also, material facts stated in Sullivans summary are just flat out wrong, and Huber goes over those.


06-01-2020 03:21 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
JMUDunk Online
Rootin' fer Dukes, bud
*

Posts: 22,760
Joined: Jan 2013
Reputation: 1113
I Root For: Freedom
Location: Shmocation
Post: #43
RE: Womp Womp
(06-01-2020 12:09 PM)rath v2.0 Wrote:  Any judge who hires an outside private attorney to write his or her statement of rationale for actions taken during a matter is de facto not qualified for the bench they occupy.

Wondered about that. Isn't this just the kind of decisions a judge is charged with doing? If not, why is he there?
06-01-2020 03:40 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
rath v2.0 Offline
Wartime Consigliere
*

Posts: 35,648
Joined: Jun 2007
Reputation: 992
I Root For: Three Floyds
Location: ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ

Donators
Post: #44
RE: Womp Womp
(06-01-2020 03:40 PM)JMUDunk Wrote:  
(06-01-2020 12:09 PM)rath v2.0 Wrote:  Any judge who hires an outside private attorney to write his or her statement of rationale for actions taken during a matter is de facto not qualified for the bench they occupy.

Wondered about that. Isn't this just the kind of decisions a judge is charged with doing? If not, why is he there?

Only reason I can think of is he doesn’t want to have his own signature on that silly brief.

Massive prosecutorial and investigative misconduct proven and admitted to.

Charges now dropped.

Prosecution representing the people request that case be fully dismissed.

Judge now acting as prosecutor dragging it out for political purposes.

So much for justice system reform.
06-01-2020 04:00 PM
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Owl 69/70/75 Offline
Just an old rugby coach
*

Posts: 66,205
Joined: Sep 2005
Reputation: 1781
I Root For: RiceBathChelsea
Location: Montgomery, TX

DonatorsNew Orleans Bowl
Post: #45
RE: Womp Womp
If I were sitting on the appellate bench, my opinion would direct Judge Sullivan to complete remedial courses in constitutional law, criminal procedure, and ethics from an accredited law school, and to recuse himself from any further cases until he had completed those.
06-01-2020 07:42 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Redwingtom Offline
Progressive filth
*

Posts: 37,230
Joined: Dec 2003
Reputation: 636
I Root For: B-G-S-U !!!!
Location: Ann Arbor, MI
Post: #46
RE: Womp Womp
Gleeson's Amicus Curiae is out. As expected, he totally agrees with Sullivan.

Quote:The Government seeks leave of court to dismiss its false statements charge against Defendant Michael T. Flynn. See ECF No. 198. Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 48(a) controls that request.

Under Rule 48(a), the Government’s motion should be denied on two separate grounds.

First, “the requirement of judicial approval entitles the judge to obtain and evaluate the
prosecutor’s reasons.” United States v. Ammidown, 497 F.2d 615, 620 (D.C. Cir. 1973). Here,
the Government’s statement of reasons for seeking dismissal is pretextual. The Government
claims there is insufficient evidence to prove materiality and falsity, but even giving it the benefit
of every doubt—and recognizing its prerogative to assess the strength of its own case—this
contention “taxes the credulity of the credulous.” Maryland v. King, 569 U.S. 435, 466 (2013)
(Scalia, J., dissenting). The Government’s ostensible grounds for seeking dismissal are
conclusively disproven by its own briefs filed earlier in this very proceeding. They contradict
and ignore this Court’s prior orders, which constitute law of the case. They are riddled with
inexplicable and elementary errors of law and fact. And they depart from positions that the
Government has taken in other cases. While Rule 48(a) does not require the Government to bare
its innermost secrets, it does require a statement of its reasons for dismissal. See Ammidown, 497
F.2d at 620 (explaining that this requirement “prevent[s] abuse of the uncontrolled power of
dismissal previously enjoyed by prosecutors”). Leave of court should not be granted when the
explanations the Government puts forth are not credible as the real reasons for its dismissal of a
criminal charge.

Second, the Court should deny leave because there is clear evidence of a gross abuse of
prosecutorial power. Rule 48(a) was designed to “guard against dubious dismissals of criminal
cases that would benefit powerful and well-connected defendants.”3
In other words, the rule empowers courts to protect the integrity of their own proceedings from prosecutors who
undertake corrupt, politically motivated dismissals. See id.; see also Ammidown, 497 F.2d at
620-622. That is what has happened here. The Government has engaged in highly irregular
conduct to benefit a political ally of the President. The facts of this case overcome the
presumption of regularity. The Court should therefore deny the Government’s motion to
dismiss, adjudicate any remaining motions, and then sentence the Defendant.

The Court has also asked me to address whether it should issue an order to show cause
why Flynn should not be held in criminal contempt for perjury. Flynn has indeed committed
perjury in these proceedings, for which he deserves punishment, and the Court has the authority
to initiate a prosecution for that crime. I respectfully recommend, however, that the Court not
exercise that authority. Rather, it should take Flynn’s perjury into account in sentencing him on
the offense to which he has already admitted guilt. This approach—rather than a separate
prosecution for perjury or contempt—aligns with the Court’s intent to treat this case, and this
Defendant, in the same way it would any other.

Quote:For the foregoing reasons, the court-appointed amicus curiae respectfully submits that the
Government’s motion to dismiss should be denied and no Order to Show Cause why Flynn
should not be held in criminal contempt should issue.
https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov....23.2_3.pdf
(This post was last modified: 06-10-2020 12:25 PM by Redwingtom.)
06-10-2020 12:24 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
gdunn Offline
Repping E-Gang Colors
*

Posts: 18,796
Joined: Oct 2011
Reputation: 1257
I Root For: Southern Miss
Location: In The Moment

Survivor Champion
Post: #47
RE: Womp Womp
Gleeson is on hold. Sullivan is having to defend himself right now. Gleeson is not on the board. Sorry.. Womp Womp.

The fact that when the government drops the charges, it's done. For a JUDGE to act as a prosecutor and try to re-open the case is not within his scope.

Sorry.
06-10-2020 12:27 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
CardinalJim Offline
Welcome to The New Age
*

Posts: 9,102
Joined: Apr 2004
Reputation: 921
I Root For: Louisville
Location: Planet Red
Post: #48
RE: Womp Womp
Smell of fear is strong around this Judge.
06-10-2020 12:31 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Native Georgian Online
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 22,744
Joined: May 2008
Reputation: 646
I Root For: TULANE+GA.STATE
Location: Decatur GA
Post: #49
RE: Womp Womp
Sullivan = Edgar Bergen.
Gleeson = Charlie McCarthy.

Sullivan/Gleeson obviously needed to throw their bucket of slime before Friday when the Appellates will drop the hammer on this whole farce.
06-10-2020 05:42 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
olliebaba Online
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 20,775
Joined: Jul 2007
Reputation: 1236
I Root For: Christ
Location: El Paso
Post: #50
RE: Womp Womp
(06-10-2020 05:42 PM)Native Georgian Wrote:  Sullivan = Edgar Bergen.
Gleeson = Charlie McCarthy.

Sullivan/Gleeson obviously needed to throw their bucket of slime before Friday when the Appellates will drop the hammer on this whole farce.

We hope...no telling though. We're in strange times and nothing is for certain. I sure would hate for Sullivan to win and then have to go through this Shiff again.
06-10-2020 06:20 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Native Georgian Online
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 22,744
Joined: May 2008
Reputation: 646
I Root For: TULANE+GA.STATE
Location: Decatur GA
Post: #51
RE: Womp Womp
(06-10-2020 06:20 PM)olliebaba Wrote:  
(06-10-2020 05:42 PM)Native Georgian Wrote:  Sullivan = Edgar Bergen.
Gleeson = Charlie McCarthy.

Sullivan/Gleeson obviously needed to throw their bucket of slime before Friday when the Appellates will drop the hammer on this whole farce.

We hope...no telling though. We're in strange times and nothing is for certain. I sure would hate for Sullivan to win and then have to go through this Shiff again.
I get what you’re saying. But I really do believe that this time, were on solid ground. The law is just overwhelming obvious. And if the Appellates weren’t going to do this (grant the writ), why bother with the written briefs and oral argument? It would be 1,000x easier to just say “Talk to us after Sullivan enters his Order.” That’s what they do with virtually every other case.
06-11-2020 08:42 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
gdunn Offline
Repping E-Gang Colors
*

Posts: 18,796
Joined: Oct 2011
Reputation: 1257
I Root For: Southern Miss
Location: In The Moment

Survivor Champion
Post: #52
RE: Womp Womp
(06-11-2020 08:42 AM)Native Georgian Wrote:  
(06-10-2020 06:20 PM)olliebaba Wrote:  
(06-10-2020 05:42 PM)Native Georgian Wrote:  Sullivan = Edgar Bergen.
Gleeson = Charlie McCarthy.

Sullivan/Gleeson obviously needed to throw their bucket of slime before Friday when the Appellates will drop the hammer on this whole farce.

We hope...no telling though. We're in strange times and nothing is for certain. I sure would hate for Sullivan to win and then have to go through this Shiff again.
I get what you’re saying. But I really do believe that this time, were on solid ground. The law is just overwhelming obvious. And if the Appellates weren’t going to do this (grant the writ), why bother with the written briefs and oral argument? It would be 1,000x easier to just say “Talk to us after Sullivan enters his Order.” That’s what they do with virtually every other case.

Two similar cases that have already went this route, one was decided 9-0 in the SCOTUS with Ginsberg stating that politics shouldn't control the court room and the other was the Fokker case.

Basically once the prosecution drops the case, it's over, for the Judge to take matters into his own hands by doing this, he opened a can of worms. He went outside his scope and he'll probably be put back in place.

I'm sure if I misspoke Owl will correct me.
06-11-2020 09:16 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
olliebaba Online
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 20,775
Joined: Jul 2007
Reputation: 1236
I Root For: Christ
Location: El Paso
Post: #53
RE: Womp Womp
I wish that people would stop using went for gone, and other words like was. I even see it among the educated. Why is it. For instance, "I wish that I had went to college". There's others that I can't remember that are so irritating that it's like fingernails on a chalkboard. STOP IT!

Ok, rant over, but...STOP IT.
06-11-2020 07:11 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Browning Hall Away
1st String
*

Posts: 1,185
Joined: Nov 2008
Reputation: 163
I Root For: Tigers
Location: World Wide Web
Post: #54
RE: Womp Womp
(06-11-2020 07:11 PM)olliebaba Wrote:  I wish that people would stop using went for gone, and other words like was. I even see it among the educated. Why is it. For instance, "I wish that I had went to college". There's others that I can't remember that are so irritating that it's like fingernails on a chalkboard. STOP IT!

Ok, rant over, but...STOP IT.

All one can do is enthusiastically nod in agreement.
06-11-2020 08:38 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
tanqtonic Online
Heisman
*

Posts: 8,311
Joined: Nov 2016
Reputation: 340
I Root For: rice
Location:
Post: #55
RE: Womp Womp
(06-10-2020 12:24 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  Gleeson's Amicus Curiae is out. As expected, he totally agrees with Sullivan.

Quote:The Government seeks leave of court to dismiss its false statements charge against Defendant Michael T. Flynn. See ECF No. 198. Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 48(a) controls that request.

Under Rule 48(a), the Government’s motion should be denied on two separate grounds.

First, “the requirement of judicial approval entitles the judge to obtain and evaluate the
prosecutor’s reasons.” United States v. Ammidown, 497 F.2d 615, 620 (D.C. Cir. 1973). Here,
the Government’s statement of reasons for seeking dismissal is pretextual. The Government
claims there is insufficient evidence to prove materiality and falsity, but even giving it the benefit
of every doubt—and recognizing its prerogative to assess the strength of its own case—this
contention “taxes the credulity of the credulous.” Maryland v. King, 569 U.S. 435, 466 (2013)
(Scalia, J., dissenting). The Government’s ostensible grounds for seeking dismissal are
conclusively disproven by its own briefs filed earlier in this very proceeding. They contradict
and ignore this Court’s prior orders, which constitute law of the case. They are riddled with
inexplicable and elementary errors of law and fact. And they depart from positions that the
Government has taken in other cases. While Rule 48(a) does not require the Government to bare
its innermost secrets, it does require a statement of its reasons for dismissal. See Ammidown, 497
F.2d at 620 (explaining that this requirement “prevent[s] abuse of the uncontrolled power of
dismissal previously enjoyed by prosecutors”). Leave of court should not be granted when the
explanations the Government puts forth are not credible as the real reasons for its dismissal of a
criminal charge.

Second, the Court should deny leave because there is clear evidence of a gross abuse of
prosecutorial power. Rule 48(a) was designed to “guard against dubious dismissals of criminal
cases that would benefit powerful and well-connected defendants.”3
In other words, the rule empowers courts to protect the integrity of their own proceedings from prosecutors who
undertake corrupt, politically motivated dismissals. See id.; see also Ammidown, 497 F.2d at
620-622. That is what has happened here. The Government has engaged in highly irregular
conduct to benefit a political ally of the President. The facts of this case overcome the
presumption of regularity. The Court should therefore deny the Government’s motion to
dismiss, adjudicate any remaining motions, and then sentence the Defendant.

The Court has also asked me to address whether it should issue an order to show cause
why Flynn should not be held in criminal contempt for perjury. Flynn has indeed committed
perjury in these proceedings, for which he deserves punishment, and the Court has the authority
to initiate a prosecution for that crime. I respectfully recommend, however, that the Court not
exercise that authority. Rather, it should take Flynn’s perjury into account in sentencing him on
the offense to which he has already admitted guilt. This approach—rather than a separate
prosecution for perjury or contempt—aligns with the Court’s intent to treat this case, and this
Defendant, in the same way it would any other.

Quote:For the foregoing reasons, the court-appointed amicus curiae respectfully submits that the
Government’s motion to dismiss should be denied and no Order to Show Cause why Flynn
should not be held in criminal contempt should issue.
https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov....23.2_3.pdf

I guess you dont know Gleeson's background, do you? 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.

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 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.
06-11-2020 10:17 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
gdunn Offline
Repping E-Gang Colors
*

Posts: 18,796
Joined: Oct 2011
Reputation: 1257
I Root For: Southern Miss
Location: In The Moment

Survivor Champion
Post: #56
RE: Womp Womp
(06-11-2020 07:11 PM)olliebaba Wrote:  I wish that people would stop using went for gone, and other words like was. I even see it among the educated. Why is it. For instance, "I wish that I had went to college". There's others that I can't remember that are so irritating that it's like fingernails on a chalkboard. STOP IT!

Ok, rant over, but...STOP IT.

Sorry ollie.
06-12-2020 06:41 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
MileHighBronco Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 23,291
Joined: Mar 2005
Reputation: 293
I Root For: Broncos
Location: Forgotten Time Zone
Post: #57
RE: Womp Womp
Typical leftist activist judge.......

Quote:Even without the op-ed, Gleeson’s position was 100 percent foreseeable. He was a left-wing judge whose attitude towards crime depends on the identity of the alleged criminal. He favored leniency for street criminals but, it now seems, favors toughness for political enemies.

Also, as Bill Otis says, Gleeson has no appreciation of the distinction between judge and advocate. Thus, op-ed or not, he was always the perfect candidate to advise Judge Sullivan, who clearly wants to assume the role of advocate in the Flynn case.

In an article called “Defense Lawyer in a Robe,” Bill quoted the New York Times as follows:

Francois Holloway has spent nearly two decades of a 57-year sentence in a federal prison, for serious crimes that no one disputes he committed. There were armed carjackings, and his participation in an illegal chop shop, where stolen cars would be dismantled and sold for parts.

But the fairness of the mandatory sentence has been a matter of dispute, not only for Mr. Holloway, but also for a surprising and most effective advocate: the trial judge, John Gleeson.


Let that sink in. Judge Gleeson was an advocate for the defendant in a case before him. He thus violated the fundamental principle that a judge cannot decide a case in which he has been, much less in which he actively remains, an advocate.

As Bill explained:

It’s one thing for a trial judge, during the trial, to make it decently clear he finds one side more persuasive than the other. This is not recommended practice, but it often happens.

But it’s another for the judge, years after the case is over and the government’s position fully vindicated by the higher courts, including the Supreme Court, to use his office to go backdoor to achieve the outcome one side — the armed felon’s side — has wanted all along.


Yet, that’s what Gleeson did. Again, from the New York Times:

As Mr. Holloway filed one motion after another trying to get his sentence and his case re-evaluated, Judge Gleeson, of Federal District Court in Brooklyn, began to speak out against those mandatory sentences that he believed were unduly harsh. Mr. Holloway’s 57-year term was more than twice the average sentence in the district for murder in 1996, the year he was sentenced.

More recently, Judge Gleeson began his own campaign on Mr. Holloway’s behalf, writing to Loretta E. Lynch, who is the United States attorney for the Eastern District of New York, to request that she vacate two of Mr. Holloway’s convictions.


Thus, Gleeson waged his own campaign, using his office and his power, to browbeat the local prosecutor, who regularly appears in his court, into asking for charges to be dropped against a repeat, armed felon whom the prosecutor’s office properly convicted at a trial many years before. Gleeson then granted the request for a reduced sentence for which he had tirelessly advocated.

As Bill put it:

Having blackjacked the US Attorney into going along with a legally baseless motion to vacate two convictions whose validity is not even questioned (so as to get to the desired dumbed-down sentence), Gleeson then goes ahead and presides over the hearing himself.

[Y]ou might think Gleeson would have at least the decency to allow a different judge to decide the motion to vacate.

Wrongo. Gleeson’s whole gig might get spoiled if a judge who hadn’t prejudged this ginned-up motion — you know, a neutral judge — were able to decide it. So he put it on his own docket to insure that no hint of neutrality crept in.

Who is John Gleeson?
06-12-2020 05:29 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Native Georgian Online
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 22,744
Joined: May 2008
Reputation: 646
I Root For: TULANE+GA.STATE
Location: Decatur GA
Post: #58
RE: Womp Womp
Well, it’s been a week since the Appellate panel instructed Sullivan to dismiss the case. He can legitimately delay doing so for a while longer, though not indefinitely.

Last Wednesday and Thursday, Twitter (and all anti-Trump media, generally) were filled with Lawfare-ish articles about how shocking/bad/awful/partisan the Appellate panel’s decision was. And how it is virtually automatic/guaranteed/inevitable for the full DC Appellate Court to hold an “en banc” hearing and overrule it. That might still possibly happen. But so far it hasn’t been requested, even though it could’ve been requested at any moment since the opinion was published Wednesday morning, a week ago.
07-01-2020 07:55 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Owl 69/70/75 Offline
Just an old rugby coach
*

Posts: 66,205
Joined: Sep 2005
Reputation: 1781
I Root For: RiceBathChelsea
Location: Montgomery, TX

DonatorsNew Orleans Bowl
Post: #59
RE: Womp Womp
(07-01-2020 07:55 AM)Native Georgian Wrote:  Well, it’s been a week since the Appellate panel instructed Sullivan to dismiss the case. He can legitimately delay doing so for a while longer, though not indefinitely.
Last Wednesday and Thursday, Twitter (and all anti-Trump media, generally) were filled with Lawfare-ish articles about how shocking/bad/awful/partisan the Appellate panel’s decision was. And how it is virtually automatic/guaranteed/inevitable for the full DC Appellate Court to hold an “en banc” hearing and overrule it. That might still possibly happen. But so far it hasn’t been requested, even though it could’ve been requested at any moment since the opinion was published Wednesday morning, a week ago.

Looks like they have 14 days to request an en banc hearing.
07-01-2020 09:05 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Native Georgian Online
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 22,744
Joined: May 2008
Reputation: 646
I Root For: TULANE+GA.STATE
Location: Decatur GA
Post: #60
RE: Womp Womp
(07-01-2020 09:05 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  Looks like they have 14 days to request an en banc hearing.
True, but the mere act of requesting such a review doesn’t take a lot of effort. If they plan to do it, what are they waiting for? The only strategic answer I can come up with is they simply want to delay and drag this process out as long as possible, in the hopes that a Biden-led DOJ will withdraw the Motion to Dismiss next year. If so, that would greatly add to the perception that the prosecution of this case is nothing more than an anti-Trump vendetta.
07-01-2020 11:11 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply 




User(s) browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)


Copyright © 2002-2020 Collegiate Sports Nation Bulletin Board System (CSNbbs), All Rights Reserved.
CSNbbs is an independent fan site and is in no way affiliated to the NCAA or any of the schools and conferences it represents.
This site monetizes links. FTC Disclosure.
We allow third-party companies to serve ads and/or collect certain anonymous information when you visit our web site. These companies may use non-personally identifiable information (e.g., click stream information, browser type, time and date, subject of advertisements clicked or scrolled over) during your visits to this and other Web sites in order to provide advertisements about goods and services likely to be of greater interest to you. These companies typically use a cookie or third party web beacon to collect this information. To learn more about this behavioral advertising practice or to opt-out of this type of advertising, you can visit http://www.networkadvertising.org.
Powered By MyBB, © 2002-2020 MyBB Group.