Appeals Court Orders Lawless Lunatic Emmet Sullivan To Explain His Erratic Actions in Flynn Case

I'm not sure if it's just routine to give a hearing about this kind of a motion, or if this indicates the court is taking it seriously.

I have a feeling it's the latter, because it's my (limited) understanding that appeals courts are very, very relunctant to take any appeals, but are especially reluctant to take interlocutory appeals, appeals about matters regarding a case short of final disposition (that is, over rulings made during a case, rather than after the thing is finally disposed of).

But I'm not sure. It might be that they're obliged to look at an appeal claiming judicial bias. But I don't think that can be the case, because pretty much every single scumbag prison lawyer eventually demands his judge be replaced.

Anyway, we'll now get to see this lunatic submit his explanations to the court as to why he believes he has hitherto undreamed-of powers to bring charges himself and appoint his own private prosecutor.

He will have every Democrat-donating lawyer in America helping him write his reply.

[A] federal appeals court Thursday accepted Michael Flynn's request to have the district judge overseeing his case removed and has ordered that judge to explain why he has gone to such great lengths to avoid the Justice Department's request to dismiss the case.

A special three-judge panel has been appointed to review the matter. A June 1 deadline has been set to respond to the request.

The motion to dismiss Sullivan as having taken off his judicial robes to act as an active litigant in the case was said by Flynn's lawyers to be as like "an umpire who has decided to steal public attention from the players and focus it on himself. He wants to pitch, bat, run bases, and play shortstop."

This recent piece from shipwreckedcrew at RedState says that the DC Circuit has recently made several rulings about the powers the deranged megalomaniac Sullivan is claiming, and those rulings all say he can't do what he's trying to do.

[T]he answer to the question before Judge Sullivan is quite simple, and it was provided by the Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit just four years ago in its decision in the case of United States v. Fokker Services.

There will be efforts to "distinguish" Fokker -- to say it's not a sufficiently similar case to control the outcome here -- and efforts to point to other decisions in the DC Circuit or other Circuit Courts of Appeal which point in a different direction for an answer to the Rule 48(a) question. But that's all a distraction and a waste of time because Judge Sullivan cannot escape Fokker. A District Court judge in the District of Columbia is obligated to follow the rulings of the Circuit Court for DC -- he does not have a choice. He cannot "dissent" and reach a decision based on his own views. He might not like or agree with the outcome that is dictated by the Fokker case, but in order to respect the oath of his office, he is duty-bound -- bound by the Constitution -- to respect and apply the law as it is established by a court of a higher status than the Court he presides in.

Update: Sydney Powell seems to think the appeals court is taking this very seriously indeed.

Appeals Court Orders Lawless Lunatic Emmet Sullivan To Explain His Erratic Actions in Flynn Case&bodytext= I'm not sure if it's just routine to give a hearing about this kind of a motion, or if this indicates the court is taking it seriously. I have a feeling it's the latter, because it's my (limited) understanding...&topic=world_news"> posted by Ace at 04:47 PM

| Access Comments