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: carranza2 who wrote (715428)	5/19/2020 7:10:09 PM
From: LindyBill	1 Recommendation Recommended By pheilman_ Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 794210

I read that the arguement against filing this motion is that you get the Judge mad at you. In this case, he is already mad.

To: carranza2 who wrote (715428)	5/19/2020 7:52:20 PM
From: Sdgla	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 794210

The judge clearly crossed the rubicon into prosecutor .. I agree with Alan Smithee that he should be removed from the bench. Who makes the final call (writ of mandanomous & removal from the case) and when ?

To: carranza2 who wrote (715428)	5/20/2020 7:20:36 AM
From: Tom Clarke	2 Recommendations Recommended By alanrs Thomas M. Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 794210

Is it hyperbole if it's true? This is great. "Petitioner, through no fault of his own, has been drawn into a Kafkaesque nightmare that is a cross between The Trial and In the Penal Colony. He has been subjected to deception, abuse, penury, obloquy, and humiliation. Having risked his life in service to his country, he has found himself the target of a political vendetta designed to strip him of his honor and savings, and to deprive the President of his advice. He has been dragged through the mud and forced, through coercion and the artful withholding of information crucial to his defense, to confess to a crime he did not commit— indeed, to a crime that could not exist. Having at last, through the relentless determination of his current counsel, brought the truth to light, he now learns that the judge who is charged with adjudicating his case impartially has, in Judge Posner’s words, decided to “play... U.S. Attorney." Then she goes on to call Sullivan corrupt and dumb as a post. "Second, the reputation of the judiciary is in jeopardy. As the Chief Justice memorably stated at his confirmation hearings, the function of a judge in our system of government is to “call balls and strikes, and not to pitch or bat.” The district judge in this case has abandoned any pretense of being an objective umpire going so far as to suggest that a criminal defendant who succumbs to a coerced and unfair plea bargain should be prosecuted for contempt. In the midst of a national election season, with unprecedented acrimony on all sides of the civic debate, the district judge has dragged the court into the political hurricane—cementing the notion that judges are politicians in robes who use their authority to thwart what they consider the “corruption,” “impropriety,” and “improper political influence” of another one of the political branches. Confidence in the rule of law, and the willingness of federal judges to administer it impartially, will continue to erode, if this Court fails to put a swift end to this spectacle. IV. The Court Should Order this Case Re-Assigned to Another District Judge The district judge’s manifest confusion about the facts of this case, accusing General Flynn of treason and having “sold out his country,” and his punitive intentions are well documented. Following Petitioner’s first sentencing hearing on December 18, 2018, headlines such as these appeared: Stephanie Kirchgaessner, 'I can’t hide my disgust, my disdain’: judge lambasts Michael Flynn, THE GUARDIAN (Dec. 18, 2018, 5:26 PM) Shannon LaFraniere and Adam Goldman, ‘Not Hiding My Disgust’: Judge Rebukes Flynn, Then Delays Sentencing, N.Y. TIMES (Dec. 28, 2018) "

To: carranza2 who wrote (715428)	6/1/2020 8:30:02 PM
From: carranza2	11 Recommendations Recommended By AJ Muckenfus Bruce L burlegoat D. Long lightshipsailor and 6 more members Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 794210

FINALLY! The DOJ’s brief to the Court of Appeals (signed by the Solicitor General, no less) makes the obvious point that has been bothering me...no one has argued until now that Sullivan has no jurisdiction because once the DOJ moved to dismiss the charges against Flynn, there no longer existed a case or controversy that a court is empowered to resolve. A simple but obvious point that wasn’t getting made. See p. 14 of the DOJ’s brief. scribd.com And the Brief filed by Sullivan’s lawyers is trash, really bad. Because it is hard to defend the indefensible. scribd.com Made my day.