The Comey and Flynn Drama continues. Pardon on the way?

[Phase2]

Somebody please rep DD for invoking Arnold Horshack!

Epstein's mom gave him an absence note and some rep.

 

[DoggyDaddy]

Epstein's mom gave him an absence note and some rep.

Thanks guys!

 

[jamil]

You have a specific example?

Do you ONLY get your news from CNN?

 

[chipbennett]

And now, the plot thickens, again. The en banc oral arguments will include whether Sullivan should be removed for impartiality, and whether, by petitioning for en banc hearing, Sullivan has made himself a party, and thus must be recused.

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1CKdyag-RhjQvtMuirc1KapD_pO3XTH43/view

IANAL, but I have a working theory (based on all of my prior NAL assertions that either a) Sullivan has no standing to petition for en banc hearing because he is not a party to the extant case/controversy before the court, or b) if, by becoming a litigant in the mandamus hearing Sullivan has been made a party, then he must recuse because he is now an adversarial party to the defendant and therefore can by definition no longer act impartially.

So, what I suspect the DCA en banc might do:

1) DENY mandamus to order dismissal (REVERSING the panel decision)
2) GRANT mandamus to vacate the extra-prosecutorial discovery hearing Sullivan scheduled (UPHOLDING the panel decision) - or DENY as moot (since that hearing has already been vacated - though the amicus brief was still filed, IIRC)

And most importantly:

3) GRANT mandamus to reassign the case to a judge other than Sullivan (REVERSING the panel decision)

I think DCA wants to be rid of this matter. They don't want to reinforce the panel decision, but they also (and moreso) don't want to overturn or even whittle into the controlling precedent decision written by their chief justice. So, I think they're positioning themselves to be able to put an end to Sullivan's madness without addressing any of the underlying, material issues. They can simply find that either he is acting impartially or else that he has been made a de facto "party" - and in either case, cannot proceed as judge in the underlying case/controversy. That would leave DCA only one option: to reassign the case to another district judge, with direction to act on the pending motion to withdraw.

 

[chipbennett]

Shipwreckedcrew (RedState) has a very good write-up.

 

[BugI02]

And now, the plot thickens, again. The en banc oral arguments will include whether Sullivan should be removed for impartiality, and whether, by petitioning for en banc hearing, Sullivan has made himself a party, and thus must be recused.

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1CKdyag-RhjQvtMuirc1KapD_pO3XTH43/view

IANAL, but I have a working theory (based on all of my prior NAL assertions that either a) Sullivan has no standing to petition for en banc hearing because he is not a party to the extant case/controversy before the court, or b) if, by becoming a litigant in the mandamus hearing Sullivan has been made a party, then he must recuse because he is now an adversarial party to the defendant and therefore can by definition no longer act impartially.

So, what I suspect the DCA en banc might do:

1) DENY mandamus to order dismissal (REVERSING the panel decision)
2) GRANT mandamus to vacate the extra-prosecutorial discovery hearing Sullivan scheduled (UPHOLDING the panel decision) - or DENY as moot (since that hearing has already been vacated - though the amicus brief was still filed, IIRC)

And most importantly:

3) GRANT mandamus to reassign the case to a judge other than Sullivan (REVERSING the panel decision)

I think DCA wants to be rid of this matter. They don't want to reinforce the panel decision, but they also (and moreso) don't want to overturn or even whittle into the controlling precedent decision written by their chief justice. So, I think they're positioning themselves to be able to put an end to Sullivan's madness without addressing any of the underlying, material issues. They can simply find that either he is acting impartially or else that he has been made a de facto "party" - and in either case, cannot proceed as judge in the underlying case/controversy. That would leave DCA only one option: to reassign the case to another district judge, with direction to act on the pending motion to withdraw.

Shipwreckedcrew (RedState) has a very good write-up.

Chip, thanks for making it easier to follow the twists and turns of this

You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to chipbennett again.

****

 

[SheepDog4Life]

Yes, thanks Chip!

Perhaps I read too much into it, but it appears to me that the DCA is more or less saying, if you are really going to put this turd sandwich on our table, we are "inviting" you to personally come and eat... every... bite... of it.

You couldn't do it the easy way... here's the hard way.

28 U.S.C. Sec. 455(a)

(a)Any justice, judge, or magistrate judge of the United States shall disqualify himself in any proceeding in which his impartiality might reasonably be questioned.

He'll "get" to defend his actions and comments in this case... wow, what a list... 20 minutes isn't enough just for the free-form accusation of treason.

And, after that, somehow with a straight face:

28 U.S.C. Sec. 455(b)(5)(i)

(b)He shall also disqualify himself in the following circumstances:
(5)He or his spouse, or a person within the third degree of relationship to either of them, or the spouse of such a person:
(i)Is a party to the proceeding, or an officer, director, or trustee of a party;

... he'll get to argue, in front of the appeals court, how he's not a party... to his own appeal... that he is at that very moment... arguing.

 

[KellyinAvon]

Chip, thanks for making it easier to follow the twists and turns of this

You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to chipbennett again.

****

Got him!

 

[KellyinAvon]

Anybody else wondering who has what on this judge?

 

[Phase2]

Anybody else wondering who has what on this judge?

Nothing needed. He is doing his part as a member of the #Resistance.

 

[chipbennett]

Yes, thanks Chip!

Perhaps I read too much into it, but it appears to me that the DCA is more or less saying, if you are really going to put this turd sandwich on our table, we are "inviting" you to personally come and eat... every... bite... of it.

You couldn't do it the easy way... here's the hard way.

28 U.S.C. Sec. 455(a)


He'll "get" to defend his actions and comments in this case... wow, what a list... 20 minutes isn't enough just for the free-form accusation of treason.

And, after that, somehow with a straight face:

28 U.S.C. Sec. 455(b)(5)(i)


... he'll get to argue, in front of the appeals court, how he's not a party... to his own appeal... that he is at that very moment... arguing.

The part that doesn't make much sense, though, is why they didn't just deny the petition outright. If they didn't want the turd sandwich, they could have just rejected it. I'm not sure why they're taking it up - unless they are just so pissed at Sullivan for putting them in this position that they are going to let him hang himself in oral argument.

 

[chipbennett]

Nothing needed. He is doing his part as a member of the #Resistance.

There is rumored to be quite a bit on him, particularly involving his son, and how he has played the system to protect that son from criminal charges.

 

[OakRiver]

The part that doesn't make much sense, though, is why they didn't just deny the petition outright. If they didn't want the turd sandwich, they could have just rejected it. I'm not sure why they're taking it up - unless they are just so pissed at Sullivan for putting them in this position that they are going to let him hang himself in oral argument.

Does Judge Sullivan have to give the oral arguments himself? Rumor is that a lot of his decisions are penned by his clerks.

 

[chipbennett]

Does Judge Sullivan have to give the oral arguments himself? Rumor is that a lot of his decisions are penned by his clerks.

During oral arguments before the panel, Sullivan's counsel argued for him. I don't know that he was even present. I expect that same counsel will be present at oral argument before en banc.

 

[actaeon277]

Too bad they couldn't declare they are so sick of him being so blatant, and remove him from office.

 

[SheepDog4Life]

The part that doesn't make much sense, though, is why they didn't just deny the petition outright. If they didn't want the turd sandwich, they could have just rejected it. I'm not sure why they're taking it up - unless they are just so pissed at Sullivan for putting them in this position that they are going to let him hang himself in oral argument.

Majority on the panel didn't address the disqualification/removal portion of the appeal, because they didn't have to... they could simply address the law, order the dismissal of charges, and keep the embarrassment of a federal judge to a minimum.

At least a couple of those entertaining allowing this circus to continue must have thought that the en banc would be limited to the law only, as the panel did... oh no, no, no... nicey nice is over, we will need to address the entire petition... no glossing over the removal portion of the request.

If the majority wants to let the circus continue, a majority of the judges will have to put their stamp of approval on a trial judge accusing a defendant of treason to get there.

 

[KellyinAvon]

There is rumored to be quite a bit on him, particularly involving his son, and how he has played the system to protect that son from criminal charges.

The reason I threw it out there was that this is the same judge who stopped DoD's anthrax vaccine program in 2004 because it violated informed consent. I'd received only one shot (vice six) when it stopped. My short-term memory hasn't been right since and I can't imagine how bad it would be after all six shots.

Put another way, I was a fan of Judge Sullivan up until this Flynn Charlie Foxtrot. It struck me as really strange this was the same judge. Having dirt on someone's son and getting Dad to play ball seems to be a common theme here.

 

[chipbennett]

The reason I threw it out there was that this is the same judge who stopped DoD's anthrax vaccine program in 2004 because it violated informed consent. I'd received only one shot (vice six) when it stopped. My short-term memory hasn't been right since and I can't imagine how bad it would be after all six shots.

Put another way, I was a fan of Judge Sullivan up until this Flynn Charlie Foxtrot. It struck me as really strange this was the same judge. Having dirt on someone's son and getting Dad to play ball seems to be a common theme here.

Sidney Powell, Flynn's attorney, literally wrote a book in which she praised Sullivan in 2014. He is acting contrary to his demeanor from 2014. Worse, he is acting contrary to his own orders in this very case (such as requesting an amicus brief when he has, nearly dozens of times prior, denied them - rightly, because the court has no procedures for allowing amicus briefs in a criminal prosecution).

 

[KellyinAvon]

Sidney Powell, Flynn's attorney, literally wrote a book in which she praised Sullivan in 2014. He is acting contrary to his demeanor from 2014. Worse, he is acting contrary to his own orders in this very case (such as requesting an amicus brief when he has, nearly dozens of times prior, denied them - rightly, because the court has no procedures for allowing amicus briefs in a criminal prosecution).

I've seen her interviewed a number of times. I remember making remarks that this wasn't the same judge she remembered from other cases (Ted Stevens?)

 

[chipbennett]

I've seen her interviewed a number of times. I remember making remarks that this wasn't the same judge she remembered from other cases (Ted Stevens?)

Yes, exactly: Ted Stephens.