Comments

You have commented 339 times on Rantburg.

Your Name

Your e-mail (optional)

Website (optional)

	My Original Nic Pic-a-Nic Sorry. Comments have been closed on this article.
Foto

Submit your comments on this article

Home Front: Politix

Appeals court orders judge Emmett Sullivan in Flynn case to explain actions

2020-05-22

[JustTheNews] A federal appeals court Thursday has agreed to hear a request from Michael Flynn's legal team to remove the district judge overseeing his case, and has also ordered the judge to explain his controversial and unorthodox conduct in handling it.

Judge Emmett Sullivan has been given a June 1 deadline to respond. The government has also been invited to "respond in its discretion" during that window.

Flynn's legal team had filed a request on Tuesday asking the appeals court to remove Judge Emmett Sullivan from the case, claiming the judge was biased against the defendant. Following the Justice Department's request earlier this month to dismiss the case against Flynn, Sullivan had appointed retired federal Judge John Gleeson to file an amicus curiae brief arguing in favor of not dropping the case against the general.

Flynn's lawyers sharply criticized Sullivan's handling of the case.

"The district judge's latest actions - failing to grant the Government's Motion to Dismiss, appointing a biased and highly-political amicus who has expressed hostility and disdain towards the Justice Department's decision to dismiss the prosecution, and the promise to set a briefing schedule for widespread amicus participation in further proceedings - bespeaks a judge who is not only biased against Petitioner, but also revels in the notoriety he has created by failing to take the simple step of granting a motion he has no authority to deny," the Tuesday petition read.

It accused Sullivan of being "an umpire who has decided to steal public attention from the players and focus it on himself. He wants to pitch, bat, run bases, and play shortstop."
If an appeals court is ordering a judge to explain his actions, they are really fucking serious about this. Hopefully Sullivan gets thrown off the bench soon.

Related: Courtesy of Mercutio, an interesting discussion on the subject from Legal Insurrection

Posted by:DarthVader

#10 As a Twitter thread from an appellate court laywer found by John Sexton explains: Yes, it's a huge deal.

Most of the thread is below, but here are the main points:

1. The appellate court could have just dismissed this motion out of hand, which they do most of the time. (As I noted, when you're dealing with a jailhouse lawyer's frivolous filings, it's only a matter of time before he cries prejudice and demands a new judge.)

They did not do this, obviously. They're taking this seriously. That fact means that this motion has already cleared a "huge hurdle" -- the appellate court accepts that this is serious matter requring their attention and not just a desperate last-chance gamble.

2. They could have politely "invited" Sullivan to file a reply with the court. Which is friendly and collegial.

They did not. They "ordered" him to. Which is unfreindly and reminds Sullivan who the ranking officers are here.

3. They could have asked an amicus -- a friend of the court; a respected lawyer or judge or legal commentator -- to file a reply on Sullivan's behalf and thereby spare him the indignity of having to, effectively, defend himself and act as his own lawyer.

They did not do that. They insisted that Sullivan himself reply.

This all seems like good news.

The three judges on this panel were appointed by Reagan, Obama, and Trump.

From Ace of Spades

Posted by: DarthVader 2020-05-22 21:17

#9 Sullivan knows better, a person has to wonder why he did this.

Posted by: JohnQC 2020-05-22 17:36

#8 Sullivan doesn't have a legal rationale for his extral-judicial actions. If things go as they should, he will get a legal slap-down in his future.

Posted by: JohnQC 2020-05-22 17:33

#7 Well, the explanation might be interesting.

"I, uh, well, ya know, erm... ... ... Mommy..."

Posted by: M. Murcek 2020-05-22 15:07

#6 Well, the explanation might be interesting.

Posted by: Abu Uluque 2020-05-22 12:35

#5 ^The moment Dems are back in power, all these Trump appointed judges go Flynn route.

Posted by: g(r)omgoru 2020-05-22 08:49

#4 ...yes. For the last hundreds years the judiciary as granted itself powers and purview that is not in the Constitution or granted by the legislative branch. It's all pretense. Or an awareness that if he can do it, then all those Trump 'young' appointed judges can play the same game for a long time to whomever follows.

Posted by: Procopius2k 2020-05-22 07:05

#3 If an appeals court is ordering a judge to explain his actions, they are really fucking serious about this.

It's, IMO, a case of "We have to keep up the pretenses".

Posted by: g(r)omgoru 2020-05-22 05:33

#2 Rolled over

Posted by: Frank G 2020-05-21 17:29

#1 Somebody should the the Appeals Court about the 1,100 former prosecutors who think Flynn should be fried! Or maybe that'll be Sullivan's defense.

Posted by: Bobby 2020-05-21 17:18

00:00