We Knew It Was Coming

[HisArpy]

I know enough to understand the judge doesn’t have to ask how high when Barr says jump.

You don't know crap. You SAY you do, but it's painfully obvious that you don't. Instead you shoot off your mouth with inane statements that MAKE NO SENSE and which also completely disregard the rules, maxims, and precedents of law.

 

[Rightguide]

I know enough to understand the judge doesn’t have to ask how high when Barr (Trump) says jump.

Here's why he has to allow the dismissal:

https://forum.literotica.com/showpost.php?p=92310607&postcount=171

 

[Adre]

Here's why he has to allow the dismissal:

https://forum.literotica.com/showpost.php?p=92310607&postcount=171

Unlike Matlock you at least provide information rather than an ad hominem attack. But I note you say you “think” he has to grant it. So you’re not sure. Whereas the notorious knowitall Matlock is 100% certain he is right, because he knows all.

 

[Rightguide]

Flynn's lawyers filed a brief in opposition to allowing Amici to file briefs in the case.

Sullivan has put the case on indefinite hold while he creates guidelines for an amici briefing schedule.

If he doesn't reverse himself, I suspect that Flynn's lawyers will file an emergency writ with the appeals court to block the proposed outside interests and force a dismissal.

He'll be looking at an ethics charge, He denied defense requests to allow amicus curiae to be filed in favor of Flynn when he thought they might be favorable to him,saying, "[o]ptions exist for a private citizen to express his views about matters of public interest, but the Court's docket is not an available option."

 

[Adre]

You don't know crap. You SAY you do, but it's painfully obvious that you don't. Instead you shoot off your mouth with inane statements that MAKE NO SENSE and which also completely disregard the rules, maxims, and precedents of law.

You seem upset. Did you find out you’re not essential?

(Which we knew was bullshit from the jump.)

 

[HisArpy]

Unlike Matlock you at least provide information rather than an ad hominem attack. But I note you say you “think” he has to grant it. So you’re not sure. Whereas the notorious knowitall Matlock is 100% certain he is right, because he knows all.

No one is REQUIRED to spoon feed you information.

Please try and keep up with the rest of the class.

 

[HisArpy]

You seem upset. Did you find out you’re not essential?

(Which we knew was bullshit from the jump.)

Oh lookie, the "you sound upset/triggered/weaksauce" deflection.

 

[Conager]

Gee, an independent minded judge. Wouldn’t want one of those now would we. At least someone still believes in the separation of the Executive and Judicial.

How much more wrong could this statement be?

At issue is exactly that. Sullivan is straying into the executive branch. No judge is permitted to pursue a prosecution. Thst is the sole purview of the State through the executive branch.

 

[Rightguide]

Unlike Matlock you at least provide information rather than an ad hominem attack. But I note you say you “think” he has to grant it. So you’re not sure. Whereas the notorious knowitall Matlock is 100% certain he is right, because he knows all.

Because as he has shown, his actions at times defy logic. I posted the opinion of an attorney with over 40 years experience in the courtroom say he has never seen a judge fail to allow with a rule 48 motion. Judge Sullivan allowed the dismissal of the Ted Stevens Case om a rule 48 motion. Federal Courts superior to Sullivan's have established rule 48 motions are entirely within the discretion of the Executive branch denying any "substantial role" for the court.

 

[Adre]

How much more wrong could this statement be?

At issue is exactly that. Sullivan is straying into the executive branch. No judge is permitted to pursue a prosecution. Thst is the sole purview of the State through the executive branch.

There’s a fucking guilty plea, Perry Mason. He ain’t “pursuing” anything.

 

[Conager]

He can force the State to go forward. Flynn pleaded guilty, and there's been a sentencing memo already submitted. He can tell the Gov to show up or be sanctioned.

At that point Sullivan can accept the plea and sentence Flynn. This punts the political / legal football to the appeals court to vacate and remand for dismissal. It also allows Sullivan to "ignore" the misconduct. This disposes of the case and gets it out of his courtroom while simultaneously getting HIM out of the spotlight.

The amici ploy is an attempt to delay the case until after the election. Which is why I see an emergency writ being filed in the near future.

He (reluctantly) allowed discovery after-the-fact for Brady material. I say that set the clock back and the case is open.

I guess with the way you outline did perhaps he can just say well I wanted that information so that I could consider it for sentencing but sorry you already pled guilty; your plea has been accepted and you are now sentenced to, whatever.

If he was feeling clever he could probably leave the guilty plea and suspense sentence. Leaving Flynn a felon with no jail time.

Which gets reversed on prosecutorial misconduct and ineffective (likely colluding since they like that word) counsel.

 

[Adre]

Because as he has shown, his actions at times defy logic. I posted the opinion of an attorney with over 40 years experience in the courtroom say he has never seen a judge fail to allow with a rule 48 motion. Judge Sullivan allowed the dismissal of the Ted Stevens Case om a rule 48 motion. Federal Courts superior to Sullivan's have established rule 48 motions are entirely within the discretion of the Executive branch denying any "substantial role" for the court.

Maybe this judge has detected the stink of politics in this DOJ decision. Maybe his standards force him to look a little deeper. You know, maybe he’s not a fucking flunky like Barr.

 

[Conager]

There’s a fucking guilty plea, Perry Mason. He ain’t “pursuing” anything.

So?

The defendant has withdrawn his plea. The defendant was illegally coerced to make the plea. The elocution was invalid because it was factually untrue.

 

[Adre]

So?

The defendant has withdrawn his plea. The defendant was illegally coerced to make the plea. The elocution was invalid because it was factually untrue.

Oh, the I take it all back defense. Show us where this is provided for.

 

[Conager]

Maybe this judge has detected the stink of politics in this DOJ decision. Maybe his standards force him to look a little deeper. You know, maybe he’s not a fucking flunky like Barr.

The stink was in the prosecutorial misconduct, which is not by anyone in dispute here. Brady material which indisputably should have been included was not. Further, under oath, the previous prosecutor who has excused himself, had assured the court that no such Brady material existed which is obviously not true.

 

[Conager]

Oh, the I take it all back defense. Show us where this is provided for.

See US V. Flynn

 

[HisArpy]

There’s a fucking guilty plea, Perry Mason. He ain’t “pursuing” anything.

This is a court of law, not a star chamber. Upon a satisfactory showing of evidence that the plea was wrongfully procured, the court may allow a defendant to withdraw his plea as if it were never made.

 

[HisArpy]

See US V. Flynn

Actually it's Brady v. Maryland, 373 US 83 (1970).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brady_v._Maryland

 

[Conager]

I dunno, Adre is invoking the powerful "no take backs" provision of the constitution, where a flawed prosecution must go forward even if you can show that the prosecution beat a confession and plea out of the obviously guilty defendant.

 

[Conager]

Actually it's Brady v. Maryland, 373 US 83 (1970).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brady_v._Maryland

For now, counselor! ~grin~

 

[SpeareChucker]

I dunno, Adre is invoking the powerful "no take backs" provision of the constitution, where a flawed prosecution must go forward even if you can show that the prosecution beat a confession and plea out of the obviously guilty defendant.

lol

 

[Conager]

Actually it's Brady v. Maryland, 373 US 83 (1970).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brady_v._Maryland

Interesting rabbit hole.

It references Bagley narrowing the reach, and even there it applies, clearly:

"If there is a reasonable probability that, had the evidence been disclosed to the defense, the result of the proceeding would have been different. A 'reasonable probability' is a probability sufficient to undermine confidence in the outcome."

 

[Adre]

Squanto stops in to display his legal wisdom: An emoji and juvenile text speak. Thanks for your contribution.

 

[HisArpy]

Interesting rabbit hole.

It references Bagley narrowing the reach, and even there it applies, clearly:

"If there is a reasonable probability that, had the evidence been disclosed to the defense, the result of the proceeding would have been different. A 'reasonable probability' is a probability sufficient to undermine confidence in the outcome."

[Adre mode on]

"But he pled guilty!!"

[/adre mode]

 

[HisArpy]

Squanto stops in to display his legal wisdom: An emoji and juvenile text speak. Thanks for your contribution.

Welp, at least "squanto" understands that when the government browbeats someone into a confession, it's not a "real" confession.

Please try and keep up.