Billy the Bagman's duplicity has convinced Trump supporters, but will it convinced the judge?

[Fort Fun Indiana]

an amici curiae has no standing to argue a damn thing in a criminal case

Says who? Says which court?

In fact the guy Sullivan appointed, wrote an opinion 8 years ago stating that fact

Can you link me to that? That would be interesting to read. By the way, even if he stated it, it's an opinion, not a fact.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

This is the garbage being fed to our right wing friends. Look at this idiot headline from the NY Post:

Former judge named to oversee Flynn case already made up mind, op-ed suggests

First, he isn't overseeing Flynn's case. Judge Sullivan is. He is the one hearing arguments.

Second, it is literally going to be the "former judge's" (Gleeson's) job to argue against the prosecution's motion. "Has his mind made up!!!".... millions of dummies read this and clutch their pearls. Yes kiddos, welcome to court. The sides argue against each other, here.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

Except, it was for the defense, not a motion by the prosecution to dismiss after a guilty plea that reeks of possible impropriety. This difference is important. Second, the precedent of which you speak is merely a case of the amici in one case being deemed inappropriate. That does not mean all are.

Why don't you tell us why the difference is important. It still involves a judge asking for further action when both parties have agreed to dismiss the case. It doesn't matter removed for the dismissal.

Why don't you tell us why an amicus is appropriate in this case when the parties have agreed to dismiss it.

.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.usatoday.com/amp/5212869002
"Faced with no dispute between the parties, Sullivan decided to create a contested case by inviting in third parties to create a conflict and now is suggesting that he may substitute his own criminal charge rather than let Flynn walk free. In the past, I have publicly praised Sullivan. However, this is fast becoming a case of gross judicial overreach as the court appears to assume both judicial and executive powers. Sullivan can disagree with the exercise of prosecutorial discretion, but he cannot substitute his own judgment for it."

.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Why don't you tell us why the difference is important.

I already did. About 4 times. Because nobody exists to make an adversarial argument against a prosecutorial motion (besides the judge). And this is a sensitive case with oddities. Unlike when the defense makes a motion, and the prosecution always exist to argue against. So he is going to hear arguments on it from the prosecution and from a friend of the court.

If the judge just rapped his gavel and made his own arguments and denied the motion, he would leave too much room for appeal and accusations that he did not dot all his i's and cross all his t's. You would be wailing about that. You know you would. Unlike when the defense makes a motion, and the prosecution always exist to argue against.

These are the simple arguments I have read that make sense. And then there is the stench of possible corruption, which is something the judge is considering. He is also considering perjury.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Faced with no dispute between the parties,

Yes, you will have that, when the defense agrees with the prosecution's motion to let them off. Every time. The dispute isn't between the parties, it is between the prosecution and the court, as the case has been adjudicated. So the judge is now going to hear arguments on it.

 

[OKTexas]

an amici curiae has no standing to argue a damn thing in a criminal case

Says who? Says which court?

In fact the guy Sullivan appointed, wrote an opinion 8 years ago stating that fact

Can you link me to that? That would be interesting to read. By the way, even if he stated it, it's an opinion, not a fact.

It's not my job to educate your ignorant ass, but here ya go commie.

U.S. District Court Judge Emmet Sullivan disregarded two controlling precedents from higher courts with his decision to appoint John Gleeson as amicus curiae in the U.S. v. Michael Flynn case this week. Judicial conduct similar to J. Sullivan’s in these prior, far less politically charged cases was roundly and unanimously condemned by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, D.C. Circuit Judge Sri Srinivasan, and their colleagues across the ideological spectrum. So, whether or not one agrees with the Department of Justice’s call to drop its charges against President Trump’s former National Security Advisor, Gen. Michael Flynn, there should be widespread agreement that J. Sullivan has veered way out of line.

Judge Sullivan Disregards Two Controlling Precedents By Appointing Amicus In Flynn Case

Whether or not one agrees with DOJ’s call to drop its charges against former National Security Advisor Michael Flynn, there should be widespread agreement that Judge Emmet Sullivan has veered way out of line. His appointment of John Gleeson as amicus ignores two controlling higher court precedents.

www.forbes.com

.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

The dispute isn't between the parties, it is between the prosecution and the court

You think the dispute is between the court and prosecution?

I am floored by your ignorance.

.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Judicial conduct similar to J. Sullivan’s in these prior, far less politically charged cases was roundly and unanimously condemned by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, D.C. Circuit Judge Sri Srinivasan, and their colleagues across the ideological spectrum.

Right, but the differences may end up being more important than the similarities. 6 times now I have said this.

there should be widespread agreement that J. Sullivan has veered way out of line.

Welp, there isn't. Is this middle school-level persuasive essay supposed to make me drop my panties? It doesn't.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

Because nobody exists to make an adversarial argument against a prosecutorial motion

And therefore, there is no controversy. The judge is creating a controversy by asking to further a dead case with commie amici.

Do you think you are a lawyer or something?

.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

Right, but the differences may end up being more important than the similarities.

WHICH ARE WHAT, COUNSELOR?

.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

You think the dispute is between the court and prosecution?

Yes. The case has already been adjudicated. As you, yourself pointed out, there is no dispute between the parties. So a friend of the court will argue against the prosecution's argument. This isn't complicated, really. Is it?

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

And therefore, there is no controversy.

False. I say there is. So I guess we are even. The judge seems to agree with me to the point of calling in a friend of the court.

hey, you seem to LOVE talking about "precedent". You're a regular legal expert. Say... could you point me to a precedent for feds dismissing a case based on a doubt they could prove the charges in court.... after the defendant pleaded guilty?

Just one such precedent will do. Should be a snap for you, right? I can't seem to find any. But maybe you will succeed where I have failed.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

WHICH ARE WHAT, COUNSELOR?

You have got to be kidding. Please go back a bit and read the thread. i think I posted it 5 times.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

Yes. The case has already been adjudicated. As you, yourself pointed out, there is no dispute between the parties. So a friend of the court will argue against the prosecution's argument. This isn't complicated, really. Is it?

The prosecution has no argument before the court. There is no longer a case before the court. There is no controversy. They have no case to prosecute.

The judge does not have the right to continue a case. It is non-discretionary. The prosecution has exclusive authority on who it prosecutes. It is not the judges decision. The judge must dismiss it.

Where did you go to law school, motherfucker?

.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

WHICH ARE WHAT, COUNSELOR?

You have got to be kidding. Please go back a bit and read the thread. i think I posted it 5 times.

No, you must be kidding.

The party bringing an action decides it no longer wants to proceed, and you are telling me that the court has the authority to keep the case alive?

Go back and read Ruth Bader Ginsberg's opinion.

.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

False. I say there is. So I guess we are even. The judge seems to agree with me to the point of calling in a friend of the court.

To do WHAT? Prosecute Flynn because the government wants to quit?

This is new.

.

 

[OKTexas]

Judicial conduct similar to J. Sullivan’s in these prior, far less politically charged cases was roundly and unanimously condemned by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, D.C. Circuit Judge Sri Srinivasan, and their colleagues across the ideological spectrum.

Right, but the differences may end up being more important than the similarities. 6 times now I have said this.

there should be widespread agreement that J. Sullivan has veered way out of line.

Welp, there isn't. Is this middle school-level persuasive essay supposed to make me drop my panties? It doesn't.

Well child you can bet your ass that if Sullivan manages to ignore precedents he will be reversed. He should be disbarred.

.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

To sum up this bullshit argument, the judge decided that he could not grant an unopposed motion to dismiss because he needed somebody to oppose it.

.

 

[OKTexas]

And therefore, there is no controversy.

False. I say there is. So I guess we are even. The judge seems to agree with me to the point of calling in a friend of the court.

hey, you seem to LOVE talking about "precedent". You're a regular legal expert. Say... could you point me to a precedent for feds dismissing a case based on a doubt they could prove the charges in court.... after the defendant pleaded guilty?

Just one such precedent will do. Should be a snap for you, right? I can't seem to find any. But maybe you will succeed where I have failed.

Holder dismissed the case against the black panthers after the government had gotten a default judgement. Didn't see you shedding tears about that one.

.