↓
 
Home » More on the time frame for Judge Sullivan’s response

More on the time frame for Judge Sullivan’s response

The New Neo Posted on by

An update:

…[B]ased on the decision of the DC Court of Appeals, and the 21 day period under the Rules of Appellate Procedure before a “Mandate” issues from the Appeals Court to the District Court, Judge Sullivan has until July 14, 2020 to dismiss the case against Gen. Flynn himself. If Judge Sullivan does not act on or before July 14, then the case will be automatically dismissed by the District Court upon the Order of the Appeals Court. At any time during that 21 day period it could be announced that there has been a vote taken on a request for the case to be reheard en banc — which means by the whole court. As I understand the process, a request for such a vote to be taken, and the outcome of such a vote, would be announced at the same time. In other words, we won’t even know that such a vote was called for until we are told what the outcome of the vote might be. So the fact that we haven’t not heard about such a vote being called does not mean that no such request has been made. We have another seven days to wait.

The Appellate Rules require that a majority of the full time members of the Court — not Senior Status judges — must vote in favor of rehearing a case en banc for such a hearing to take place. There are currently seven judges on the Court appointed by Democrat Presidents, and four appointed by GOP Presidents. With 11 judges, it would take a vote from six of them to rehear the matter. But one of the Democrat appointed Judges is Chief Judge Sri Srinivasan, who wrote the opinion in the Fokker Services case that was relied upon by Judge Rao in ruling that the DOJ motion to dismiss Gen. Flynn’s case must be granted. In what was likely a tactical error, Judge Wilkins who dissented in the decision on Gen. Flynn’s case called the Fokker Services case “dicta” with regard to the key passages that Judge Rao relied upon. It must have stung Judge Srinivasan for another member of the Circuit to make such a belittling comment about Judge Srinivasan’s legal analysis as set forth Fokker Services. Since it would be Judge Srinivasan’s decision in Fokker Services that would be undermined by a decision reversing the panel, its quite likely that Judge Srinivasan is a vote against en banc review. In addition, the internal dynamics of a relatively small appeals court are such that other Democrat appointed judges might not want to put themselves in the position of potentially having to side against Judge Srinivasan by rehearing the Gen. Flynn case, when the ultimate outcome of the case is simply not that important “in the grand scheme of things.” If just one Democrat appointed judge feels that way, then there are not 6 votes to rehear the case en banc.

That’s complicated, but it seems to boil down to this: if nothing is announced by the end of the 14th, the case will probably be dismissed automatically. But it’s up in the air till then. And if the court does vote to hear it en banc, the decision could go against Flynn, if the Democrat-appointed judges follow strict political party lines (which they often do).

If the ruling went against Flynn, such a decision would be an especially egregious case of going against the settled law in order to effect a political end. But the temptation to do it would be great, in order to continue to stick it to Flynn, silence him, and continue the “narrative” that it’s Barr’s actions that have been politically motivated.

And, since most of America is unaware of the details of the case and how Flynn was mistreated and framed, it would probably work. I hope the judges show more integrity than that. But recent trends make it a very real question as to whether they will.

Comments

More on the time frame for Judge Sullivan’s response — 20 Comments

  1. “I hope the judges show more integrity than that. But recent trends make it a very real question as to whether they will.” – Neo

    That’s a very discouraging statement, because it is manifestly true.
    However, we should always have hope.

  2. Reality often triumphs over hope. As it should. Reality is real, hope is internal and emotional.

  3. when the ultimate outcome of the case is simply not that important “in the grand scheme of things.”

    It is certainly important in grand scheme of things. Just a little thing called integrity, or justice or fairness. Kind of a Golden Thread going through American Justice system. But that does seem to be lost now, “in the grand scheme of things”.

  4. The sickening thing about this whole judicial fiasco is that it never should have come to this.

    But when it did—and political tribalism was allowed to make a mockery of the US Judicial system—it should not have been allowed to continue.

    It has been claimed that Sidney Powell was “blindsided” by Judge Sullivan.

    It’s more accurate to say that he’s succeeded in blindsiding (or rather, been allowed to blindside) the entire US Judicial system.

    To be sure, there are some (or more than some) who believe that this is a good thing.

  5. I am shocked by people who are shocked at the level of corruption that flows from the district of criminals. To me it’s a well, duh.

  6. I decided a long time ago that the legal system in this country is corrupt and dishonest. If you recall the Watergate scandal, some republican operatives broke into the DNC headquarters in the Watergate building and planted bugs. They were caught by the local police and the case was quickly solved. The democrats controlled the congress and managed to get Archibald Cox appointed as special prosecutor. He promptly hired almost 100 investigators and lawyers. Now, why do you need 100 people to investigate a case that has already been solved? Because they were using the special prosecutor law as a general warrant and bill of attainder to get President Nixon. The democrats kept the investigation going for 3 years and managed to panic enough republicans into joining them so Nixon was forced to resign. It was a de facto coup carried out by the lawyers and judges aided by the media. There is a book on this.
    https://geoffshepard.com/

  7. “At any time during that 21 day period it could be announced that there has been a vote taken on a request for the case to be reheard en banc — which means by the whole court.”

    And if such a vote were taken in favor of Judge Sullivan, what ‘case’ would be re-heard then? Would it include all the additional exculpatory evidence? Drip….Drip…Drip

  8. Another factor arguing in favor of the en banc district court not to hear an appeal is the drip drip drip of exonerating evidence (ala the handwritten notes from the day after). Who wants to be the judge that rules to in effect railroad an innocent person to a non traditional trial. Then suddenly more evidence comes out of an illegal plot which may end up with indictments of the principle characters relating to the matter you ruled on. In Washington DC there may be no sense of shame but can be ridiculed for being part of a clown car prosecution.

    If there is more evidence to be released I am sure that the judges buddies in DOJ or Congress will alert them that it is problematic to continue the case.

  9. Now, why do you need 100 people to investigate a case that has already been solved? Because they were using the special prosecutor law as a general warrant and bill of attainder to get President Nixon.

    The burglars in question included the chief of security at the Committee to Re-elect the President. Supervising him while the burglary was in progress was the general-counsel to the Committee to Re-elect the President. The Committee’s deputy director and director were broadly familiar with what Gordon Liddy’s crew was up to. In the intervening years, Liddy has said that one of the objects of the burglary was to search for and steal documentation which had damaging information about Maureen Biener, who later married John Dean; he’s insisted that Dean was well aware of what they were doing and was badgering them for the goods. Dean was in charge of the counsel’s office at the Nixon White House. Another figure who was somewhat familiar with Liddy’s doings was Gordon Strachan, HR Haldeman’s secretary. You’ll recall HR Haldeman was Richard Nixon’s chief of staff.

  10. John Dean was indeed involved in the break in and he was looking at possible prosecution, jail time, and disbarment. Dean was trying to hide his part in the break in and realized it wasn’t going to work. That’s why Dean dumped Nixon and joined the democrats and started singing like a canary. Dean didn’t just sing, he also composed. Dean committed a number of felonies but was never prosecuted. I found it amusing that the democrats had Dean out for a photo op when they were working on impeaching Trump. They thought that a known liar and felon would help their case. He did say what they wanted to hear.

  11. No petition for rehearing or rehearing en banc was filed as of this morning (according to the court docket). Any petition for rehearing or rehearing en banc filed now would be timebarred. So it’s essentially over. The mandate issues in 6 days. Case dismissed shortly thereafter.

  12. Vlad – “Any petition for rehearing or rehearing en banc filed now would be timebarred. So it’s essentially over.”

    Please define “timebarred”. Thanks

  13. No petition for rehearing or rehearing en banc was filed as of this morning (according to the court docket).

    So we’d know if one were filed? Or is shipwreckedcrew referring not to a a petition from Sullivan but to a request from one of the appellate judges for a vote? Could one of the judges ask for a vote without a petition from Sullivan?

  14. That’s why Dean dumped Nixon and joined the democrats and started singing like a canary.

    Dean’s discussions with Glanzer, Silbert, et al in early 1973 concerned the cover-up.

    Again, real crimes were committed and among the people who were fully aware of them was John Mitchell.

  15. Art Deco: Aside from our occasional, semi-invigorating duels, I am impressed that you have done your share of research on Watergate.

    However, my usual complaint remains: What are your sources?

  18. UndercoverHuber tweets:
    Sullivan heard the Bat Signal, suits up and asks for en banc review (a re-hearing of the case by full DC Circuit). Calling Rao’s majority opinion “couched” is not going to go over well…
    Quote Tweet

    Techno Fog
    @Techno_Fog
    · 8h
    Flynn update:

    Judge Sullivan refuses to give up – and asks the DC Circuit for a rehearing (en banc) on the dismissal of the Flynn case.

    Allegation: the DC Circuit granting of mandamus “threatens the orderly administration of justice.”
    [See petitioners exhibit, attached in original Tweet]
    ==========

    In other words, Sullivan’s hired guns are claiming that the three member panel is obstructing justice.

    It seems, depending on how the full Circuit Court regards this case — as an ordinary criminal case deserving quick and routine dispatch, or else a political test case of something more (why????) — shall decide if Robert’s SCOTUS gets another whack at abusing Gen. Flynn, Trump, and us Delorables or not.

    https://twitter.com/JohnWHuber/status/1281309060642607107

    One Peggy adds:
    “Everyone knows everyone else, and everyone has something to hide.”

    Dan Bongino

  20. Sullivan v Flynn is at the very heart of the Deep State’s resistance to American democracy.

    It’s incumbent on Durham to make haste in turning the tables.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

HTML tags allowed in your comment: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>

↑