Corrupt Judge Sullivan, Who Previously Threatened to Jail Michael Flynn for Treason When He Moved to Withdraw His Guilty Plea, Now Invites Leftwingers Who Want Flynn Jailed To Submit Their Own Motions As To Why Flynn Should Still Be Sentenced.

Sullivan is saying that there is no actual real court case here because there are not opposing parties in the action -- he is claiming that Barr, due to politics, is on Flynn's side, and you can't have a court hearing with two parties who agree. You need to bring in other parties -- through the amicus curae ("friend of the court") process.

And he's inviting Adam Schiff to file an amicus brief and become, in essence, the actual party opposed to Flynn.

Because Barr is -- there is no way around this insinuation -- is corrupt and his filings must be ignored by the court as rigged or fraudulent.

I suppose a less dramatic reading would be, "Sullivan sees that Flynn and the DOJ both agree that no crime has been committed here, and, for the sake of due diligence, is seeking out a third party who disagrees to give the court a dissenting view."

But then --

Remember, this guy threatened to charge Flynn with a charge he was never before charged with, treason, if he persisted on withdrawing his guilty plea.

And he's not done yet.

Also note, he admits that the Local Rules (which govern his court and therefore govern him) do not give him any power to do this, but he just says LEEEEROY JENKINS! and writes up the order anyway.

Tar, feathers. A rail and a town to ride it out on.

Some assembly required.

Update: AlextheChick Explains:

123 Can someone please explain this in English to a non-lawyer?

From the beginning. It seemed like we jumped in in the middle here.
Posted by: chique d' Epstein didn't off hisself at May 12, 2020 07:16 PM (9hauA)

I'll start at the beginning of the end - appropriate disclaimer, I have never done anything Federal criminal law and I'm going off memory for some of this so go lick that salt lick over there for what I am typing.

The baby steps version:

The prosecutor files criminal charges. Those charges then go before a judge. It is the judge who is in charge of the management of the case, not the prosecutor. Since a guilty plea was entered, that means there is no fact finding part of the case (juries find facts, judges apply the law), so all that is left is for the judge to apply the law.

The rules and precedent permit the withdrawal of a guilty plea. However, such a withdrawal is constrained to certain circumstances in order to streamline the judicial process. You can't just say I'm withdrawing that plea and it's withdrawn. The judge has to approve it. What Powell has been fighting with Sullivan about is that Sullivan refuses to grant that withdrawal.

Somewhat similar is that the DOJ cannot just walk into a courtroom and say "our bad" and drop the case. The judge must approve the motion to dismiss the case. Now, by rule and precedent, the judge has basically no discretion there. While it is the judge's case to manage, it is the DOJ who presents the prosecution. When the DOJ says yeah, there's nothing to prosecute, the judge is required to sign an order saying motion granted.

Sullivan has not done that. Not only that, he is now doing something that I had no idea was permissible in criminal cases and that is asking for amicus (friend of the court) briefs as to why that shouldn't be allowed. At least that's what it looks like.

Maybe this is permissible but I've never heard of it but, again, not even close to my area of expertise.

An intervenor is a person or entity that is not a party to a case but who has an interest in the case and this is permitted to intervene (join in) the case as a party. That is not permissible in criminal cases. We do not have private Federal criminal prosecutions.

So, the tl;dr is that Sullivan is just making shit up here and is refusing to grant the motion to dismiss to be an asshole to Flynn and to tell Barr to kiss his ass.

Posted by: alexthechick - Ragebunny. Hopping all around.

posted by Ace at 07:06 PM

| Access Comments