SCOTUS Rules Against the Improper Use of Amicus Briefs

[Rightguide]

Sullivan needs to be retired:


Supreme Court Ruled Unanimously Last Week Against Improper Use of Amicus Briefs; Relevant for Flynn Case

By Joel B. Pollak13 May 2020

The U.S. Supreme Court ruled unanimously last week against the improper use of amicus briefs by judges to shape a court case as they wish — which is what Judge Emmet G. Sullivan is doing, critics say, in the ongoing Michael Flynn case.

On Tuesday, Judge Sullivan announced that he would accept amicus briefs about whether he should grant the Department of Justice’s (DOJ) motion to dismiss the case against Flynn. On Wednesday, Sullivan went a step further, appointing retired judge John Gleeson as amicus curiae (“friend of the court”) to argue against dismissal, and to argue Flynn be held in criminal contempt.

(Gleeson had already expressed his views in an op-ed in the Washington Post on Monday, attacking the DOJ’s motion.)

But last week, in the case of U.S. v. Sineneng-Smith, the Supreme Court held that the Ninth Circuit acted improperly by appointing three amici and directing them to brief issues that the judges wanted to consider — but the litigants had not raised.

Rest here:

https://www.breitbart.com/crime/202...-against-improper-use-of-amicus-briefs-flynn/

 

[HisArpy]

That case is sufficient grounds to request an emergency Writ and have it granted.

 

[Rightguide]

That case is sufficient grounds to request an emergency Writ and have it granted.

I suggested last night they go to the DC Circuit and ask for a writ of mandamus against Sullivan's order.

 

[tog18]

Its different cause he is BLACK

 

[Rightguide]

That case is sufficient grounds to request an emergency Writ and have it granted.

His actions are in opposition to both the SCOTUS and the case law of the DC Circuit Court.

 

[HisArpy]

His actions are in opposition to both the SCOTUS and the case law of the DC Circuit Court.

Judges often make the wrong call. However, Sullivan has an entire cadre of legal researchers and the ability to do research for himself if necessary to rule on a simple motion to dismiss from the prosecutor's office.

Further, the evidence and facts in the case indicate that Flynn's previous legal team committed malpractice via ineffective assistance of counsel. That alone is sufficient to grant the motion to withdraw the plea. It's not like this is novel law, everything being asked for is well established in the rules of procedure.

The Seneneg-Smith case is recent controlling case law directly on point. If Sullivan doesn't know about it, he's inept. Or being willfully blind, which is worse than inept because it shows that he knows he is doing wrong but doesn't care because his personal desires are outweighing his responsibilities to be a neutral arbiter of the law.

Sullivan's prior comments show that he's biased against the defendant. His current order further indicates that he is incapable of making a rational decision in this case. At the very least he should recognize that and voluntarily recuse himself.

He won't.

 

[tog18]

he called Flynn a traitor and had to take it back

he is a THUG and #TDS

 

[Rightguide]

Judges often make the wrong call. However, Sullivan has an entire cadre of legal researchers and the ability to do research for himself if necessary to rule on a simple motion to dismiss from the prosecutor's office.

Further, the evidence and facts in the case indicate that Flynn's previous legal team committed malpractice via ineffective assistance of counsel. That alone is sufficient to grant the motion to withdraw the plea. It's not like this is novel law, everything being asked for is well established in the rules of procedure.

The Seneneg-Smith case is recent controlling case law directly on point. If Sullivan doesn't know about it, he's inept. Or being willfully blind, which is worse than inept because it shows that he knows he is doing wrong but doesn't care because his personal desires are outweighing his responsibilities to be a neutral arbiter of the law.

Sullivan's prior comments show that he's biased against the defendant. His current order further indicates that he is incapable of making a rational decision in this case. At the very least he should recognize that and voluntarily recuse himself.

He won't.

I posted the other day that if both parties have an agreement to dismiss under rule 48 there is no controversy and therefore no case, and as the DC Circuit has held in a broadening of the Rinaldi decision, thus leaving no "substantial role" for the court.

 

[Rightguide]

he called Flynn a traitor and had to take it back

he is a THUG and #TDS

That was wildly outrageous and insulting conduct on the part of the judge.

 

[tog18]

he is a THUG and #TDS

 

[schism666]

isn't amicus dead

 

[InsightRiot]

I had to look up the definition of amicus.

 

[HisArpy]

I had to look up the definition of amicus.

Well, now you can just go wash your mouth out with soap.

 

[Wrong Element]

isn't amicus dead

Old school reference. That guy was like a pre-evolved version of Eyer.

Sullivan's prior comments show that he's biased against the defendant.

People who plead guilty aren't "defendants" any more, counselor.

 

[HisArpy]

Old school reference. That guy was like a pre-evolved version of Eyer.






People who plead guilty aren't "defendants" any more, counselor.

Trust me, yes they are. It's a legal "term of art".

Your personal machinations otherwise have no standing.

 

[Rotadom]

Trust me, yes they are. It's a legal "term of art".

But has zero legal standing and doesn't make them defendants again.

 

[Rightguide]

Trust me, yes they are. It's a legal "term of art".

Your personal machinations otherwise have no standing.

Mr. Element is, in fact, always wrong.

 

[tog18]

https://www.forbes.com/sites/walter...ng-guilty-a-new-report-says-yes/#b0bd6e151937

 

[HisArpy]

But has zero legal standing and doesn't make them defendants again.

Sure counselor, whatever you say.

But, before you draft that legal brief, you should review the rules of court first.

 

[Pookie]

Trust me, yes they are. It's a legal "term of art".

Your personal machinations otherwise have no standing.

Only if "term of art" somehow means "appellant".

 

[HisArpy]

Only if "term of art" somehow means "appellant".

That's on appeal. What about during the trial court phase? You know, where Flynn's case is right now.

 

[Pookie]

That's on appeal. What about during the trial court phase? You know, where Flynn's case is right now.

He's a convicted felon back in court, not a defendant.

 

[Rotadom]

Sure counselor, whatever you say.

But, before you draft that legal brief, you should review the rules of court first.

Great! I'm in a learning mood so please link me to the rules of court for this specific term. Thanks!

 

[HisArpy]

He's a convicted felon back in court, not a defendant.

Applying a biased label because you think it means something is worthless because "convicted felon" is not a party to any judicial proceeding. At trial the term is "the Defendant". Even "the accused" is improper.

On appeal, the proper term to use is either appellant or respondent.

Failure to use the correct terminology can get you sanctioned by the court.

Great! I'm in a learning mood so please link me to the rules of court for this specific term. Thanks!

If you want to act like you're a lawyer, then research the FRCP. You know, do the shit that lawyers do when they're not posting on porn boards.

You can go here to "learn".

https://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frcrmp

It's just some light reading that shouldn't take you more than, say, 2 or 3 years. Don't forget to also read every precedent and citation so that you get the full "learning experience" you paid for. Have fun!



For those who don't necessarily want to "learn", here's the short on-point version:

Rule 32. Sentencing and Judgment
(i) Sentencing.
(1) In General. At sentencing, the court:
(A) must verify that the defendant...


(j) Defendant's Right to Appeal.
(1) Advice of a Right to Appeal.
(A) Appealing a Conviction. If the defendant ... was convicted, after sentencing the court must advise the defendant of the right to appeal the conviction.
(B) Appealing a Sentence. After sentencing—regardless of the defendant's plea—the court must advise the defendant of any right to appeal the sentence.


https://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frcrmp/rule_5

For your own good, please don't try to practice law at home without a law license. That mistake could result in you becoming "the defendant".

 

[thehaircutgirl]

He's a convicted felon back in court, not a defendant.

get it now?