Become a part of one of the fastest growing adult communities online. We have something for you, whether you’re a male member seeking out new friends or a new lady on the scene looking to take advantage of our many opportunities to network, make new friends, or connect with people. Join today & take part in lively discussions, take advantage of all the great features that attract hundreds of new daily members!
Pandering, patronizing Elitism 9500- Nothing cogent or constructive to reply
Typical of Socialists regurgitating their Marxist memes.
Become an adult - and debate issues some day.
First, the majority undermined this Court’s consistent interpretation of the mandamus standard by forcing the district court to grant a motion it had not yet resolved, based on alleged harms to a party that did not seek mandamus, and in reliance on arguments never presented to the district court. Any one of these rulings would constitute an unwarranted dilution of the requirement that a petitioner lack adequate alternative remedies. Taken together, they threaten to turn mandamus into an ordinary litigation tool. Second, the panel undercut Supreme Court and Circuit precedent in holding that the separation of powers precluded the district court from inquiring into the government’s Rule 48 motion. The Supreme Court’s decision in Rinaldi v. United States, 434 U.S. 22 (1977) (per curiam), recognized a district court’s ability to hear an unopposed Rule 48 motion. Moreover, no Circuit precedent establishes the type of clear and indisputable right necessary to authorize the panel’s resolution of that constitutional question. That is especially so given the Supreme Court’s recent admonition that separation-of-powers questions are fact- and context-specific. See Seila Law LLC v. CFPB, ___ S. Ct. __, slip op. 2, 16–18 (June 29, 2020). Mandamus is not the place to make new law. Third, the panel contravened Supreme Court and Circuit precedent in precluding the district court from appointing an amicus and scheduling a hearing. The Supreme Court and this Court have employed those practices to resolve cases where the parties agreed and the ultimate outcome was predictable. The panel cited no law precluding district courts from similarly considering both sides of an issue before deciding it.
Flynn’s lawyers have fought tooth and nail against Sullivan’s appointment of an amicus curiae to argue against the Department of Justice’s motion to dismiss. The 2-1 panel decision was a boon for them, but there’s no guarantee the full D.C. Circuit will view the case the same way.
Will Barr testify before the case is dropped? Separation of powers is still under question. He might hang Flynn with what he says if the case is still open.
Will Barr testify before the case is dropped? Separation of powers is still under question. He might hang Flynn with what he says if the case is still open.
Flynn still not off the hook.
don't get yer hopes up Yves. we all knew Sullivan had the option to request a hearing by the full board. they also don't have to .. they can decline letting the original ruling stand. Sullivan doesn't have anywhere to go if they don't hear his appeal in the full court. Sullivan might press an appeal up to possibly the supreme court but there is no guarantee they would take the appeal. given the fact that when the DOJ recommends dismissal there is no prosecution anymore, where does Sullivan go? Sullivan can't charge Flynn. with no DOJ backing him, Sullivan's ass is hanging out in left field. worst case he could be removed from the bench for going way beyond his scope of authority.
Sullivan is continuing the case as a prosecutor - not a judge independent of the defense v prosecution.
When he refused to allow The Justice Dept to drop the case - he became Counsel for Prosecution.
he is prosecuting Flynn to further bankrupt him and destroy his life and finances . - a burden sullivan is well aware of. It is a judicial punishment from the bench.
Sullivan should be taken off the Bench and disbarred.
9500- still thinking you channel YSL and other old dead white guys
Is that not inherently Racist of U to only channel White guys - where is your 'Diversity"?????
don't get yer hopes up Yves. we all knew Sullivan had the option to request a hearing by the full board. they also don't have to .. they can decline letting the original ruling stand. Sullivan doesn't have anywhere to go if they don't hear his appeal in the full court. Sullivan might press an appeal up to possibly the supreme court but there is no guarantee they would take the appeal. given the fact that when the DOJ recommends dismissal there is no prosecution anymore, where does Sullivan go? Sullivan can't charge Flynn. with no DOJ backing him, Sullivan's ass is hanging out in left field. worst case he could be removed from the bench for going way beyond his scope of authority.
I posted it a couple of times before and won't bother again but the SC with no less than an opinion by the Notorious RBG has already spoken on this matter and said that a judge does not have the authority to go searching for a prosecutable offense. If the defendant and the DOJ both decide to drop the case, Sullivan has no choice ( though he doesn't seem to know it ) but to dismiss.
Two of the three Appeals court judges understood this while the 3rd said he thought that the court should have waited for Sullivan to finish his case but the SC ruling clearly said that Sullivan does not have the authority by law to continue the prosecution. I can't imagine the full court would see it any different than the 2 judges saw it.
I posted it a couple of times before and won't bother again but the SC with no less than an opinion by the Notorious RBG has already spoken on this matter and said that a judge does not have the authority to go searching for a prosecutable offense. If the defendant and the DOJ both decide to drop the case, Sullivan has no choice ( though he doesn't seem to know it ) but to dismiss.
Two of the three Appeals court judges understood this while the 3rd said he thought that the court should have waited for Sullivan to finish his case but the SC ruling clearly said that Sullivan does not have the authority by law to continue the prosecution. I can't imagine the full court would see it any different than the 2 judges saw it.
oh he knows alright, if he doesn't he isn't much of a judge is he? Sullivan has made this a political matter and he'll appeal to the full board. if his appeal is upheld Flynn will appeal that. the point for Sullivan is tie this up as long as possible .. or until Nov 3rd which is his purpose.
oh he knows alright, if he doesn't he isn't much of a judge is he? Sullivan has made this a political matter and he'll appeal to the full board. if his appeal is upheld Flynn will appeal that. the point for Sullivan is tie this up as long as possible .. or until Nov 3rd which is his purpose.
Sullivan is nothing but a political hack trying to help steer the train wreck called democRAT party
don't get yer hopes up Yves. we all knew Sullivan had the option to request a hearing by the full board. they also don't have to .. they can decline letting the original ruling stand. Sullivan doesn't have anywhere to go if they don't hear his appeal in the full court. Sullivan might press an appeal up to possibly the supreme court but there is no guarantee they would take the appeal. given the fact that when the DOJ recommends dismissal there is no prosecution anymore, where does Sullivan go? Sullivan can't charge Flynn. with no DOJ backing him, Sullivan's ass is hanging out in left field. worst case he could be removed from the bench for going way beyond his scope of authority.
I already conceded the case will be dropped, MAGA guuurl. I just want to hear Barr before the case is dropped.
Some legal experts have said the government’s obligations to turn over potentially useful evidence to the defense are not as sweeping as the defense has suggested. For instance, the defense may not be entitled to all relevant documents as long as they’re told of the gist of what’s in them. And it’s unclear whether the views of prosecutors on potential weaknesses of the case would be considered exculpatory, as opposed to the observations of the agents who actually interviewed Flynn.
Date and time stamp.
Okay, now. Now. Okay this time seriously.
After his trial, Stone raised allegations of juror misconduct and tried to get the verdict dismissed. Jackson entertained the motion, even holding a hearing in which she brought back members of the jury for questioning, but she ultimately rejected Stone's bid for a new trial and sentenced him to more than three years in prison.
Bull shit! The whole damn politically partisan investigation was based on POLITICAL opposition research -- bogus in both origin and substance -- bought and paid for by Team hildebeest.
Earlier this week, the UK High Court ordered Mr Steele to pay damages of $23,000 each to two Russian businessmen that he claimed had made payoffs to Vladimir Putin in the 1990s.
Judge Mark Warby said that Mr Steele had not take [sic] reasonable steps to verify the allegations.
Mr Steele had accused Petr Aven and Mikhail Fridman of facilitating the transfer of large amounts of money to Mr Putin when he was deputy mayor of St Petersburg.
[/URL] 
