Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Politics for Pros- moderated -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Sdgla who wrote (715408)	5/19/2020 3:39:57 PM
From: LindyBill	2 Recommendations Recommended By Bearcatbob pak73 Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 794206

Writ of Mandamus I thought she would file one today. Michael Flynn's lawyers file petition to force judge to dismiss charges Lawyers for former national security adviser Michael Flynn filed a writ of mandamus petition to the U.S. Court of Appeals in D.C. on Tuesday that would compel U.S. District Judge Emmet Sullivan to immediately grant the Justice Department's motion to dismiss charges. Why it matters: Sullivan moved to put the DOJ's motion on hold last week to hear from outside parties that may seek to intervene through an amicus brief. He also appointed a retired judge to recommend whether Flynn should face a criminal contempt charge for perjury after he twice declared under oath that he had lied to the FBI before attempting to withdraw his guilty plea in January. What they're saying: "A district court cannot deny the government’s motion to dismiss because the judge has 'a disagreement with the prosecution’s exercise of charging authority,' such as 'a view that the defendant should stand trial' or 'that more serious charges should be brought,'" Flynn's lawyers argue. "Nor should a court second-guess the government’s 'conclusion that additional prosecution or punishment would not serve the public interest.' ... The district court has no authority to adopt the role of prosecutor or change the issues in the case by inviting or appointing amici to perform the investigation or prosecution that the court deems appropriate."

To: Sdgla who wrote (715408)	5/19/2020 3:57:07 PM
From: Bill	Respond to of 794206

Outstanding.

To: Sdgla who wrote (715408)	5/19/2020 6:32:52 PM
From: carranza2	4 Recommendations Recommended By Bruce L garrettjax pheilman_ Pogeu Mahone Read Replies (4) \| Respond to of 794206

I thought the tone of the brief was a bit too starchy, too many superlatives and therefore hyperbolic. What some appellate lawyers call 'gorilla language' which is often ineffective. Having said that, Powell's one of the premier appellate lawyers in the land, so she knows what she's doing. One small quibble which might not be so small: she only referred to a "case or controversy" (which is jurisdictional requirement, the failure of which calls for automatic dismissal of the case) once. She really did not otherwise develop the argument. On reflection, the case or controversy argument is really a question of mootness because once the dispute ends, there is nothing left to decide. It seems obvious and simple to me. Quoting from a pretty good synopsis of the point: law2.umkc.edu "The case-or-controversy limitation on the judicial power also generally prevents a federal court from deciding a question that once affected the rights of litigants, but no longer does. Moot, and therefore non-justiciable, cases include challenges to convictions after the convicted defendant has died, challenges to the legality of a war that has ended, and challenges to restrictions placed on a business that has since closed." In Flynn's case, the DOJ no longer has a criminal controversy with him, and Flynn has no dispute with the DOJ, so the dispute is therefore moot - the parties agree that the case should be dismissed. Seems rather simple to me. The requirement under Criminal Rule 48 (a) that the judge grant leave is wrong. Jurisdiction - the power to hear the case - ceases to exist once the parties agree. There may be a few ministerial acts the judge can act on, such as a return of property, payment of filing fees, etc., but there is n o way that he constitutionally keep the main dispute - Flynn's alleged criminal liability - alive.