Appeals court denies Michael Flynn and Justice Department's effort to end his case

[OpportunityCost]

You must mean my observation about the Rowers and Michael Flynn that Flynn is second only to Trump in your hierarchy to support absolutely and to defend to the death.

And what I term as the Trump Triumph of The Will campaign of 4 years and dozens of threads started to save Flynn and to spring Flynn from his guilt using the same arguments repeatedly no matter how much the arguments are shot down and through. I speak of course of your keep Flynn alive campaign of going on four years to spring Flynn of all charges and to murder the system of justice in the United States doing it.

The Rowers see Flynn as the key guy to use to murder Justice in America by strangling her with her own blindfold. The Flynn case is that big to PutinTrump & Rowers. It's plain as the Rowers nose up Putin's arse.

This is why your commentary is lightweight, you have nothing but the smear. No facts to add, no insight just the same insipid, propagandized bull**** that you always sling.

 

[OpportunityCost]

And for those who really want to learn the legal facts that apply to Flynn's case here is an article (written at a time much earlier than Flynn's case) which explains why the burden of proof shifts after the defendant pleads guilty. The side which tries to withdraw the plea is the one which must make its case in court, and it must make a strong case to convince the judge


https://scholarlycommons.law.northwestern.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=7096&context=jclc

Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology

Fall 2001

A Change of Heart or a Change of Law -
Withdrawing a Guilty Plea under Federal Rule of
Criminal Procedure 32(e)


Some relevant excerpts:

Our criminal justice system is awash in plea bargaining. Because of the overwhelming number of criminal cases processed
through plea bargaining, courts are unquestionably reluctant to
permit defendants to withdraw from their plea agreements once
approved by the court.For if such agreements are readily open
to second-guessing by defendants, the purpose of plea bargaining-the efficient adjudication of criminal cases-would be severely undermined.

...

WITHDRAWING A GUILTY PLEA'
Under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 32(e), a defendant does not have an absolute right to withdraw his or her guilty plea prior to sentencing. Instead, a court will permit a defendant to withdraw a guilty plea prior to sentencing only "if the defendant shows any fair and just reason."

To determine whether a defendant has met this standard, courts have developed a four-part balancing test: "(1) whether defendant established a fair and just reason to withdraw his plea; (2) whether
defendant asserts his legal innocence of the charge; (3) the length of time between the guilty plea and the motion to withdraw; and (4) if the defendant established a fair and just reason
for withdrawal, whether the government would be prejudiced."A
Each of these factors poses a potential pitfall for the defendant
seeking to withdraw a guilty plea.

Beyond requiring an assertion of innocence, courts also
demand that defendants take prompt action to make that assertion. The longer the wait to bring a motion to withdraw a plea,
the less likely a court will be to grant the motion.0 Courts view
timeliness as a rough proxy for the strength of the reason to
withdraw the guilty plea. If a defendant had been truly mistaken in entering the plea, the defendant would move quickly to
withdraw it. The longer the defendant waits to withdraw the
plea, the less likely the decision was made in error. The longer
the defendant waits, the more likely the defendant's motion is
based on strategic reasons unrelated to whether the defendant
properly entered into the plea agreement.


The longer the delay, the more likely the defendant has gained a tactical advantage at the government's expense.
A finding of prejudice, however, will not automatically result in the denial of the defendant's motion. Instead, such a finding heightens the defendant's burden to withdraw the plea, requiring the defendant's justification for the withdrawal to meet "exceptionally high standards.""'



So, again if I see again a claim that Flynn does not have the burden of proof after pleading guilty without any legal evidence, I must only conclude that there is no reason to have any farther conversation with people who do not want to substantiate their beliefs on evidence and legal reasoning!

You haven't noticed, but criteria 1, 2 and 4 have easily been met. Again you spout crap you looked up but do not understand or read to understand.

 

[pamak]

You haven't noticed, but criteria 1, 2 and 4 have easily been met. Again you spout crap you looked up but do not understand or read to understand.

You have not noticed but you said just a couple of posts above that

Originally Posted by OpportunityCost
..

The burden of proof does not shift to Flynn. That's flatly false. I don't know where you got that idea but its simply not true.

I just demonstrated with evidence that you try to make comments about a legal case without understanding basic things around the legal process of withdrawing a plea deal

And you also failed to see that

1 the judge has already rejected Flynn's claims

2. You just make claims without support

If you do not have arguments and knowledge of basic legal facts to support your claims, then I am not interested in your beliefs.

 

[OpportunityCost]

You have not noticed but you said just a couple of posts above that



I just demonstrated with evidence that you try to make comments about a legal case without understanding basic things around the legal process of withdrawing a plea deal

And you also failed to see that

1 the judge has already rejected Flynn's claims

2. You just make claims without support

If you do not have arguments and knowledge of basic legal facts to support your claims, then I am not interested in your beliefs.

At no point does the burden of proof shift. If you can't tell the difference between burden of proof and a 4 point test, I don't know why you are even bothering to post that. Judicial tests are to demonstrate a basis for the motion to change the plea, burden of proof is an entirely different discussion and has a specific legal definition and usage and element tests are not it.

You are using layman's terms and misapplying them.

 

[pamak]

At no point does the burden of proof shift. If you can't tell the difference between burden of proof and a 4 point test, I don't know why you are even bothering to post that. Judicial tests are to demonstrate a basis for the motion to change the plea, burden of proof is an entirely different discussion and has a specific legal definition and usage and element tests are not it.

You are using layman's terms and misapplying them.

You are wasting my time because you just present claims without making any argument.

When you actually manage to learn how to make an argument based on legal evidence come back to me

 

[pamak]

At no point does the burden of proof shift. If you can't tell the difference between burden of proof and a 4 point test, I don't know why you are even bothering to post that. Judicial tests are to demonstrate a basis for the motion to change the plea, burden of proof is an entirely different discussion and has a specific legal definition and usage and element tests are not it.

You are using layman's terms and misapplying them.

For those who can read basic English

from the same link I posted earlier

https://scholarlycommons.law.northwestern.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=7096&context=jclc

Page 274



Under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 32(e), a defendant does not have an absolute right to withdraw his or her
2 guilty plea prior to sentencing. Instead, a court will permit a
defendant to withdraw a guilty plea prior to sentencing only "if
the defendant shows any fair and just reason."' 3



3... The burden is placed on the defendant to set forth a fair and just reason. See Burnett,
671 F.2d at 712.

 

[Tangmo]

This is why your commentary is lightweight, you have nothing but the smear. No facts to add, no insight just the same insipid, propagandized bull**** that you always sling.

If you can't deal with so many of my posts and my perspectives then you can continue to bitch and wail or you can move on and over 'em.

Because you can't possibly think you are going to "correct" my posting. Or "straighten" me out.

So I'll tend to leave this where it is for the time being at least pending anything that might be particularly egregious, harmless as your posts are.

 

[Tangmo]

You are wasting my time because you just present claims without making any argument.

When you actually manage to learn how to make an argument based on legal evidence come back to me

Every Flynn thread over the past four years of dozens of threads puts us talking to a pile of rocks.

 

[Athanasius68]

Again, you do not know that. But you do know because of official documents that we have documents signed by Flynn which summarize the interview

Prior to Mr. Flynn signing the Plea Agreement, the
government, on November 22, 2017, provided Mr. Flynn’s attorneys with the FBI’s FD-302 (dated February 15, 2017)summarizedMr.Flynn’sJanuary24,2017FBIinterview

Flynn signed them and pleaded guilty. So, again the burden of proof is on the side which wants to withdraw a plea deal.

We do know that because we know that the FBI does not record interviews. They use the 302s.

The DOJ is dropping the charges. No need for a plea deal.

 

[Athanasius68]

Nobody argues that a judge ha the authority to force the DOJ to prosecute anybody.

then the debate is moot. The DOJ does not wish to charge Mr. Flynn.

The point is that AFTER A PLEA DEAL, the judge has the authority to make decisions regarding the dropping of charges even when the government and the defedant agree to let the charges go. And this is based on the concept that a judge can have the authority to protect his court from corrupt deals between a prosecutor working for a thug politician and a defedant who was hired by a politician to commit a crime.

The role of the judge is to protect the rights of the accused already burdened from the awesome power of the state.
The role is not to be adding to the burden of the accused.
The prosecutor seeks to drop the charges.
There is no basis for thinking there is a "corrupt" deal occurring with that decision.

And in any case, Flyn has the legal right to challenge the prosecutor to show in court the evidence and reasoning for their sudden change of heart.

Yes-- because that right protects the accused.
Flynn has no objection to the charges being dropped-- he might fare better with a straight up acquittal on appeal-- politically certainly Trump would-- but there should be no politics in the DOJ.

 

[OpportunityCost]

For those who can read basic English

from the same link I posted earlier

https://scholarlycommons.law.northwestern.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=7096&context=jclc

Page 274



Under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 32(e), a defendant does not have an absolute right to withdraw his or her
2 guilty plea prior to sentencing. Instead, a court will permit a
defendant to withdraw a guilty plea prior to sentencing only "if
the defendant shows any fair and just reason."' 3



3... The burden is placed on the defendant to set forth a fair and just reason. See Burnett,
671 F.2d at 712.

Of which I have already given you several. Repeating your talking points is stupid and pointless.

Irreconcilable differences with defense
DOJ Mandamus filing outlines investigative and prosecutorial malfeasance---withholding exculpatory evidence is just a warm up
DOJ wishing to drop the damn charges---derp!

Your not even trying to reason you are just googling things and treating them as iron clad proof you are right when the criteria they outline have been met.

 

[OpportunityCost]

We do know that because we know that the FBI does not record interviews. They use the 302s.

The DOJ is dropping the charges. No need for a plea deal.

Like I keep saying he doesn't know the case and just keeps googling things to try to make him knowledgeable when its plain he doesn't know what he's talking about.

 

[pamak]

We do know that because we know that the FBI does not record interviews. They use the 302s.

The DOJ is dropping the charges. No need for a plea deal.

Then the procedure in Flynn's case does not show any "broken link" as some people want to argue. There were two agents present and the 302 has been submitted to court

I responded to the burden of proof to show that people here make claims without knowing basic facts about how a withdrawal from a plea deal works. So, your point that the DOJ is dropping the charges is irrelevant.

The latter is a different issue but even in this case, the judge has the legal right to hear a justification from the DOJ which has to make its case in court

 

[pamak]

Like I keep saying he doesn't know the case and just keeps googling things to try to make him knowledgeable when its plain he doesn't know what he's talking about.

I notice that you still have the nerve to talk after it was shown to you that the defense has the burden of proof. Your point that the 4 point test is different from the burden of proof shows that you make things up. She with the point that supposedly there is a broken link in the FBI's interview even though the procedure that was followed was standard.

In short, you make things up....

 

[pamak]

Of which I have already given you several. Repeating your talking points is stupid and pointless.

Irreconcilable differences with defense
DOJ Mandamus filing outlines investigative and prosecutorial malfeasance---withholding exculpatory evidence is just a warm up
DOJ wishing to drop the damn charges---derp!

Your not even trying to reason you are just googling things and treating them as iron clad proof you are right when the criteria they outline have been met.

I just showed to you that when you say things like

Originally Posted by OpportunityCost

...
If you can't tell the difference between burden of proof and a 4 point test, I don't know why you are even bothering to post that. Judicial tests are to demonstrate a basis for the motion to change the plea, burden of proof is an entirely different discussion and has a specific legal definition and usage and element tests are not it.

you show that you are completely incapable of making any judgement about legal affairs because you do not understand that it is the defense which has the burden to convince the judges that the 4 point test is satisfied.

From the same link

https://scholarlycommons.law.northwestern.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=7096&context=jclc


Instead, a court will permit a defendant to withdraw a guilty plea prior to sentencing only "if the defendant shows any fair and just reason."' To determine whether a defendant has met this standard, courts have devel- oped a four-part balancing test: "(1) whether defendant estab- lished a fair and just reason to withdraw his plea; (2) whether defendant asserts his legal innocence of the charge; (3) the length of time between the guilty plea and the motion to with-
draw; and (4) if the defendant established a fair and just reason for withdrawal, whether the government would be prejudiced."

So, it is obvious that you talk like a clueless partisan who just repeats his claims without basing them on any reasonable thinking or argument. mf you even have the nerve to type the word reason after showing compete inability to form ANY argument about any of your claims. So, you are dishonest too!

 

[OpportunityCost]

I just showed to you that when you say things like



you show that you are completely incapable of making any judgement about legal affairs because you do not understand that it is the defense which has the burden to convince the judges that the 4 point test is satisfied.

From the same link

https://scholarlycommons.law.northwestern.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=7096&context=jclc


Instead, a court will permit a defendant to withdraw a guilty plea prior to sentencing only "if the defendant shows any fair and just reason."' To determine whether a defendant has met this standard, courts have devel- oped a four-part balancing test: "(1) whether defendant estab- lished a fair and just reason to withdraw his plea; (2) whether defendant asserts his legal innocence of the charge; (3) the length of time between the guilty plea and the motion to with-
draw; and (4) if the defendant established a fair and just reason for withdrawal, whether the government would be prejudiced."

So, it is obvious that you talk like a clueless partisan who just repeats his claims without basing them on any reasonable thinking or argument. mf you even have the nerve to type the word reason after showing compete inability to form ANY argument about any of your claims. So, you are dishonest too!

To which I reply, Flynn has met the prongs of the 4 point test. As demonstrated to you repeatedly.

 

[pamak]

then the debate is moot. The DOJ does not wish to charge Mr. Flynn.



The role of the judge is to protect the rights of the accused already burdened from the awesome power of the state.
The role is not to be adding to the burden of the accused.
The prosecutor seeks to drop the charges.
There is no basis for thinking there is a "corrupt" deal occurring with that decision.





Yes-- because that right protects the accused.
Flynn has no objection to the charges being dropped-- he might fare better with a straight up acquittal on appeal-- politically certainly Trump would-- but there should be no politics in the DOJ.

Answering in sequence...

No, the debate is not moot because the judge can STILL force the DOJ to give an explanation in front of the court about its decision and there is still the issue of dismissing the case with or without prejudice which affects the ability of the government reopening the case if say a new AG takes over after the election. Barr wants to dismiss the case and make sure that it cannot reopen in the future.


The role of the judge is also to protect his branch from corrupt deals between the government and the defense , so he cannot be just a rubber stamp for whatever the AG brings to his table. This is why BY LAW, the judge has to approve the deal to drop charges


I did not say that Flynn objects to the judges and you confuse two cases: the one where Flynn tried to argue in front of the judge (BEFORE the DOJ showed a desire to drop the charges) which failed because Flynn has the burden of proof and did not convince the judge and the second case which is the current one where the DOJ stepped in to help Flynn and filed a motion to dismiss the charges. O course Flynn has no objection to the charges being dropped. Nobody says otherwise =, so no reason to state the obvious! As for the view that politics should not be involved, talk to Barr who found only political appointees to sign the motion to dismiss.

 

[OpportunityCost]

I notice that you still have the nerve to talk after it was shown to you that the defense has the burden of proof. Your point that the 4 point test is different from the burden of proof shows that you make things up. She with the point that supposedly there is a broken link in the FBI's interview even though the procedure that was followed was standard.

In short, you make things up....

Its standard procedure for one agent to modify the 302 repeatedly and text someone without knowledge of the case that he is struggling to keep the other agents' voice in the edited 302s? That's a funny SOP.

 

[pamak]

To which I reply, Flynn has met the prongs of the 4 point test. As demonstrated to you repeatedly.

to which I replied that this is just a claim with no argumentation to support it

and in fact, even in your claim you did not say that Flynn met all 4 requirements.




from your previous post

You haven't noticed, but criteria 1, 2 and 4 have easily been met. Again you spout crap you looked up but do not understand or read to understand.

 

[pamak]

Its standard procedure for one agent to modify the 302 repeatedly and text someone without knowledge of the case that he is struggling to keep the other agents' voice in the edited 302s? That's a funny SOP.

There were TWO agents present in the interview and Strozk has not been charged with falsifying the 302 Nor did I see the second agent testifying against him or questioning the accuracy of the 302. There has also been a Mueller investigation (Mueller was not part of Comey'e team) and an Inspector General report and none of them found any issue with the 302.
Here is Mueller submitting the reduced version

https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/5633260/12-17-18-Redacted-Flynn-Interview-302.pdf


If Barr thinks that the non-reduced version exonerates Flynn, he can submit it to Sullivan!

 

[Tangmo]

The Rowers are compelled to spring Flynn and to support Flynn as much as they support Trump.

This means to never falter, never to ease up and never quit. It means to say anything to keep it going until Flynn is sprung. Indeed, only Trump is more important than Flynn.

It could seem ironic that Flynn never loses his utility to PutinTrump & Rowers, ie, no matter how long it goes on and no matter the setbacks, and no matter that Flynn is out of action throughout his vicissitudes, Flynn remains both valuable and precious to PutinTrump & Rowers.

The reason is that Flynn is the means and the vehicle by which justice in the United States is to be destroyed with DisBarr as the chief principal on the inside. Barr becoming AG gave new life to the Trump Triumph of The Will campaign to mangle and strangle justice in the USA. It is unrelenting.

 

[BlueTex]

Brutal...


Court-appointed adviser blasts 'corrupt' DOJ move to drop Flynn case - POLITICO

 

[pamak]

The Rowers are compelled to spring Flynn and to support Flynn as much as they support Trump.

This means to never falter, never to ease up and never quit. It means to say anything to keep it going until Flynn is sprung. Indeed, only Trump is more important than Flynn.

It could seem ironic that Flynn never loses his utility to PutinTrump & Rowers, ie, no matter how long it goes on and no matter the setbacks, and no matter that Flynn is out of action throughout his vicissitudes, Flynn remains both valuable and precious to PutinTrump & Rowers.

The reason is that Flynn is the means and the vehicle by which justice in the United States is to be destroyed with DisBarr as the chief principal on the inside. Barr becoming AG gave new life to the Trump Triumph of The Will campaign to mangle and strangle justice in the USA. It is unrelenting.

We are at a point where people try to make America "Great Again" by providing a president the legal power of hiring a crook to do his dirty business and then using an AG to shield the crook from legal consequences even when the crook commits an obvious crime and admits guilt. The saying about shooting somebody on 5th avenue applies to Flynn too. And the danger in having the DOJ prevail is that it will become a precedent and inspiration for other "Flynns" and "Barrs" in the future.

 

[OpportunityCost]

Brutal...


Court-appointed adviser blasts 'corrupt' DOJ move to drop Flynn case - POLITICO

Gleeson also argued that Flynn should be punished for additional “perjurious” statements during earlier proceedings in the case, such as asserting in court under oath that he wasn’t coerced into pleading guilty. He has since claimed prosecutors threatened to prosecute his son, Michael Flynn Jr., if he didn’t plead guilty — a contention DOJ has rejected.

You cannot be charged with perjury for changing your plea. Gleeson is tipping his hand on his bias. And the threats to prosecute Flynn's son are a matter of record now. Odd that Politico left that detail out. Its brutal all right, brutally biased.

 

[OpportunityCost]

There were TWO agents present in the interview and Strozk has not been charged with falsifying the 302 Nor did I see the second agent testifying against him or questioning the accuracy of the 302. There has also been a Mueller investigation (Mueller was not part of Comey'e team) and an Inspector General report and none of them found any issue with the 302.
Here is Mueller submitting the reduced version

https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/5633260/12-17-18-Redacted-Flynn-Interview-302.pdf


If Barr thinks that the non-reduced version exonerates Flynn, he can submit it to Sullivan!

Because, conveniently, the original can no longer be found. Barr did submit the discrepancies to the appeals court. If you read the filings you might already know that.