RedState Legal Analyst "Shipwreckedcrew:" Emmit Sullivan's Response to the Court of Appeals Is Deranged, Doesn't Cite Any Authority for His Actions, Just Tells Them To Let Him Do Whatever He Wants

Emmet Sullivan has submitted the reply he used taxpayer funds to pay a high-price lawyer to write for him. You can read it here.

I'm sure the Twitter Circle-Jerk of Experts will tell us what a tremendous piece of lawyering Sullivan has submitted.

Making my way through the Sullivan filing.

30,000 Foot Observation and why I think this is not a serious effort to prevail:

1. The Cir. Ct. did not ask for an explanation from Sullivan because they were intrigued by his approach and the just wanted to know more about it.

That is: the Circuit Court was not asking him, "Hey, buddy, this is interesting, can you tell us more?!"

They were saying: DEFEND YOUR ACTIONS. CITE LAWS. SHOW YOUR WORK.

As we'll see, Sullivan decided he couldn't defend his actions and so decided to ignore the orders of the court.

2. The question they asked him to address was pointed, and their reference to Fokker [which recently held that Sullivan had no discretion in this situation but to dismiss] told him where he should focus his attention.

3. But what he has done is basically said "Regardless of what Fokker says in terms of limiting my discretion, I've got a plan and you folks in the Cir. Ct need to just stay out of the way until I'm done. And he tells them all about his big plan and why he's in this position."

Obviously, that's a paraphrase, but even the lawyerly-sounding version of that will not sound good. It will sound like an act of contempt by a judge against the Circuit Court that is his boss.

4. If the Cir. Ct. was just intrigued and was simply expressing its curiosity about what he had in mind when it issued its Order to him, then his response might elicit a response along the lines of "Great -- can't wait to see what comes from your plan."

5) But given their "inquiry", the more likely response to exactly what Sullivan has set forth is "That's what we were afraid of, and we're not interested in what that kind plan might turn up because there's no legal basis for you to do what you propose to do.

Sullivan looks like John Forbes Nash from "A Beautiful Mind" who just can't help by continue to try to convince people in his life that the figments of his imagination are real, and if he just explains it with more earnestness they'll come around and see what he sees.

"Shipwreckedcrew" also claims that Emmet Sullivan has included a falsehood in his reply:

I'm going to resist the urge to blast out on the Sullivan filing in the Flynn case.

But I would note that Beth Wilkinson made a bald face false statement on Page 1 where she says Judge Sullivan found Flynn's statement to be material.

Among the final comments he made at the Dec. 18 hearing was for the attorneys to prepare before the next hearing to answer his questions about "how" the statements were material, because he still didn't understand that issue.

For him to say "I found them material" while having said "I don't understand how they are material" is judicial misconduct -- no way around it. He can't make a determination on a factual element of a criminal offense and profess to not understand what he's just done.

Yes, he never did schedule that hearing, and he never ruled about it. This is either a lie, or complete stupidity from an obviously-unqualified "judge."

I skimmed the reply myself -- shipwreckedcrew is right about Sullivan just saying "Splunge" to the court's actual question. He basically just asks a series of rhetorical questions -- which frankiy, do sound like those of a raving paranoid -- and postualtes that only his Freelance Sleuthing can get to the bottom of this mystery. And in response to the court's question, "Where the fuck do you think you get this power from?," he seriously answers, "The court (you) will really really find my Investigations into this Nefarious Scheme helpful, so let me do what I do."

Among the questions this lunatic incompetent keeps asking is Why did Flynn swear under oath he committed the crime when I asked him if he did?

He knows the answer, but he prefers to leave it a mystery so that the rhetorical question suggests something insidious.

The actual answer is, "Michael Flynn said he had committed the crime of making a false statement when you demanded he do so, immediately after threatening him with a count of treason."

Something this lunatic incompetent had to later apologize for.

But he really wants to know why Flynn reversed himself on his decision to withdraw his guilty plea and instead reaffirm it? Becuase you threatened to put him in jail for treason if he exercised his right to withdraw the plea.

This isn't a mystery, you arrogant, useless check-that-box know-nothing.

This is not going to work. This seems, as someone said, like a "last will and testament" -- when this lunatic incompetent is slapped around and slapped down, he'll point to this daffy filing and say, "See? My personal creation of the Emmett Sullivan Detective Agency would have gotten to the truth, so They couldn't allow it."

What the fuck ever, cretin. YOLO, you stupid, incompetent diversity-slot motherfucker.

Update: UndercoverHuber's repsonses to the ravings of this lunatic incompetent are worth reading.

posted by Ace at 08:31 PM

| Access Comments