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

[Athanasius68]

The LAW disagrees because it STILL requires leave of court" (that is permission) and past cases have affirmed that judges have the right to question even deals between the prosecution and the defendant that come to court!

Have you actually read anything from the court files or no?

Do not waste everybody's time here with just claims if you are not familiar of every side's argumentation related to the motion to dismiss the charges.

See next post

The purpose as described above is to ensure the rights of the defendant are protected. Flynn has no objection to the dropping of charges. At that point there is nothing for a judge to do except the ministerial work required to close things out.
A law that says the judiciary has the authority to direct the Executive to prosecute is unconstitutional-- the judiciary has no authority to order a prosecution. And Congress has no authority saying it can.

 

[OpportunityCost]

Importantly, you seem to have missed a core matter.

The appeals court ruled against Barr, 8-2. The court crushed him.

Sullivan can proceed based on legal grounds and legal principles and processes. Almost all your posts are old hat pre the 8-2 ruling by the appellate court. Your posts are no better than smoke signals while others are using cellphones.

We will see if Sullivan decides to listen to how they appeals court told him how to proceed. I doubt he will, Gleeson's first filing throws a lot of shade on that.

 

[pamak]

The purpose as described above is to ensure the rights of the defendant are protected. Flynn has no objection to the dropping of charges. At that point there is nothing for a judge to do except the ministerial work required to close things out.
A law that says the judiciary has the authority to direct the Executive to prosecute is unconstitutional-- the judiciary has no authority to order a prosecution. And Congress has no authority saying it can.

You do not address legal evidence I presented which show legal precedents with decisions which recognize the right of the judge to scrutinize and even reject an agreement even when the prosecutor and the defedant come to the court with a deal/

I am not interested in the claims you keep repeating. I am only interested in your arguments for supporting such claims. Now, do you have any legal argument to refute what I posted that is

U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit - 497 F.2d 615 (D.C. Cir. 1974)



...

A distinctly different situation is presented when the defendant concurs in the dismissal but the court is concerned whether the action sufficiently protects the public. As to this, while there is a paucity of authority, some principles do emerge. First, Rule 48(a)'s requirement of judicial leave, theretofore known in state practice, gives the court a role in dismissals following indictment.9 Second, in the exercise of its responsibility, the court will not be content with a mere conclusory statement by the prosecutor that dismissal is in the public interest, but will require a statement of reasons and underlying factual basis.10 Third, the court does not have primary responsibility, but rather the role of guarding against abuse of prosecutorial discretion.

...

We start with the presumption that the determination of the United States Attorney is to be followed in the overwhelming number of cases.

...

On the other hand, we do not think Rule 48(a) intends the trial court to serve merely as a rubber stamp for the prosecutor's decision. We agree that 'the judge should be satisfied that the agreement adequately protects the public interest'. Newman, supra, at 136; The Challenge of Crime in a Free Society: Report of the President's Commission on Law Enforcement & Administration of Justice 118 (1966).



...

The requirement of judicial approval entitles the judge to obtain and evaluate the prosecutor's reasons. That much, indeed, was proposed by the Advisory Committee, and the Supreme Court's amendment obviously did not curtail the proposed authority of the judge. The judge may withhold approval if he finds that the prosecutor has failed to give consideration to factors that must be given consideration in the public interest,factors such as the deterrent aspects of the criminal law.

If you cannot refute the above (which applies when the defendant CONCURS (agrees) with the prosecutor's deal , then you should admit that the statements you repeat are not grounded on past legal decisions and do not represent the legal reality. And again, we have passed the stage of prosecuting anybody. The court can simply refuse to have the guilty plea withdrawn and continue with determining the penalty for the crime to which Flynn plead guilty! Or Flynn may decide to alter the motion and dimiss the case without prejudice ( which will permit future prosecutors to reopen the case. There are different options for the judge other than the one Barr wants.

 

[pamak]

Correction in the last paragraph of the previous post

....or SULLIVAN may decide to alter the motion and dimiss the case without prejudice ( which will permit future prosecutors to reopen the case. There are different options for the judge other than the one Barr wants. I can add that if Sullivan determines that the deal is corrupt, he may also count on the fact that there are elections soon which may bring a change in the DOJ leadership and delay the legal process (even by involving the Supreme Court) until a new administration comes to power which will hopefully change the government position regarding Flynn.

I do not know what Flynn will do at the end. What I do know is that there is a strong legal argument based on past legal decions of the same appelate court which reviews Sullivan's decision which says

The judge may withhold approval if he finds that the prosecutor has failed to give consideration to factors that must be given consideration in the public interest,factors such as the deterrent aspects of the criminal law.

 

[Athanasius68]

[

QUOTE=pamak;1072624828]You do not address legal evidence I presented which show legal precedents with decisions which recognize the right of the judge to scrutinize and even reject an agreement even when the prosecutor and the defedant come to the court with a deal/

There is no "deal." The prosecutor is saying he is dropping the charges.
The defendant has no objection.

I am not interested in the claims you keep repeating. I am only interested in your arguments for supporting such claims. Now, do you have any legal argument to refute what I posted that is

Article 3 sec 3 of the constitution.
enforcing the law is an executive right-- not judicial.

 

[pamak]

[

There is no "deal." The prosecutor is saying he is dropping the charges.
The defendant has no objection.



Article 3 sec 3 of the constitution.
enforcing the law is an executive right-- not judicial.

Again, you do not address my legal evidence!



From the court decision:

A distinctly different situation is presented when the defendant concurs in the dismissal

Do you understand that Flynn concurs with the dimissal of charges?

Stop wasting my time with your nonsense and address my legal evidence.

And until a court overrules the above decison, the position is that the above decion is based on the US Constitution!

And I did not say that the judge can enforce the law. What the judge can do is to interpreter the law and say that according to the law, the motion to dimisss the case should be denied and procceed with the penalty, or he can modify the dismissal and dismiss the case without prejudice instead of dismissing it with prejudice as Barr wants. What the Executive branch can do is a different issue. In reality, Barr may decide to act outside of law, and refuse to imprison Flynn or he can use his minions and even ignore a SCOTUS decision but all such decisions come with a political cost.

 

[Athanasius68]

Again, you do not address my legal evidence!



From the court decision:

A distinctly different situation is presented when the defendant concurs in the dismissal

Do you understand that Flynn concurs with the dimissal of charges?

Stop wasting my time with your nonsense and address my legal evidence.

And until a court overrules the above decison, the position is that the above decion is based on the US Constitution!

And I did not say that the judge can enforce the law. What the judge can do is to interpreter the law ans say that according to the law, the motion to dimisss the case should be denied and procceed with the penalty, or he can modify the dismissal and dismiss the case without prejudice instead of dismimising it with prejudice as Barr wants. What the Executive branch can do is a different issue. If Barr wants to act outside of law, he can refuse to imprison Flynn or he can use his minions and even ignore a SCOTUS decision but such decisions come with a political cost.

Yes-- Flynn agrees with the DOJ decision to dismiss the charges.
Case dismissed.
Sullivan is fighting this.

 

[pamak]

Yes-- Flynn agrees with the DOJ decision to dismiss the charges.
Case dismissed.
Sullivan is fighting this.

According to the court case I cited, the case is not dismissed just because the DOJ wants it.

Because as I showed multiple times citing from within that decision (and Sullivan was not involved in that decision) , EVEN when the

"defendant concurs in the dismissal..."

...

"The judge may withhold approval if he finds that the prosecutor has failed to give consideration to factors that must be given consideration in the public interest,factors such as the deterrent aspects of the criminal law.






Now, stop acting like a stubborn child repeating what you want to believe and start acting like an adult having a debate where you need to address the legal evidence that your opposition brings!

 

[Athanasius68]

According to the court case I cited, the case is not dismissed just because the DOJ wants it.

Because as I showed multiple times citing from within that decision (and Sullivan was not involved in that decision) , EVEN when the

"defendant concurs in the dismissal..."

...

"The judge may withhold approval if he finds that the prosecutor has failed to give consideration to factors that must be given consideration in the public interest,factors such as the deterrent aspects of the criminal law.






Now, stop acting like a stubborn child repeating what you want to believe and start acting like an adult having a debate where you need to address the legal evidence that your opposition brings!

I did-- Article 3 Sec 3 of the US Constitution gives the authority to enforce the law to the executive.
That trumps a Congressional statute.
Lets put it this way-- if the judge refuses to give permission for the prosecutor to dismiss charges, what happens? The prosecutor is compelled to prosecute? But how can that be when its the executive who has the Constitutional authority to make that decision?

 

[pamak]

I did-- Article 3 Sec 3 of the US Constitution gives the authority to enforce the law to the executive.
That trumps a Congressional statute.
Lets put it this way-- if the judge refuses to give permission for the prosecutor to dismiss charges, what happens? The prosecutor is compelled to prosecute? But how can that be when its the executive who has the Constitutional authority to make that decision?

But a legal decision for a penalty is NOT THE SAME AS ENFORCING THE PENALTY!

You insult people's intelligence with such claims!

And no, you did not address the legal evidence I brought because you did not attack that evidence! You just ignored it!

 

[Athanasius68]

But a legal decision for a penalty is NOT THE SAME AS ENFORCING THE PENALTY!

You isult people's intelligence with such claims!

Its the job of the executive to enforce the law-- to martial the evidence-- to bring forth the charges-- to make the arguments in court.
That's enforcing the law.

 

[pamak]

Originally Posted by Athanasius68

...Lets put it this way-- if the judge refuses to give permission for the prosecutor to dismiss charges, what happens? The prosecutor is compelled to prosecute? But how can that be when its the executive who has the Constitutional authority to make that decision?

Sullivan cannot compell the govenrment to do anything! This applies even when a criminal is sentenced. The prisons are not controlled by judges, plus a president can always pardon a convicted fellon. But that is not the point. The point is that the judge can still act in a way to signal that if Flynn is left off the hook, then this is because the Executive branch chose to ignore the Judicial branch's decicion and not because it got the approval of the Judicial branch.

And I pointed the other possibility also of having Sullivan agree to drop the case but modifying it so that a future prosecutor can reopen it. So, what Barr can do in such scenario?

Your turn to answer!

 

[pamak]

Its the job of the executive to enforce the law-- to martial the evidence-- to bring forth the charges-- to make the arguments in court.
That's enforcing the law.

I did not say otherwise. But this does not change what I said aboutn the interpretation of the law which is the prerrogative of the Judicial branch and as I showed, the judicial branch has interpreted the law in the following way

Even when



"defendant concurs in the dismissal..."

...

"The judge may withhold approval if he finds that the prosecutor has failed to give consideration to factors that must be given consideration in the public interest,factors such as the deterrent aspects of the criminal law.

And until you attack this legal evidence I bring, it still stands. Ignoring it and talking about the constitution does not refute the legal interpretation of the law I bring which is constitutional as long as the legal opinion has not been overturned by another court!

 

[Tangmo]

We will see if Sullivan decides to listen to how they appeals court told him how to proceed. I doubt he will, Gleeson's first filing throws a lot of shade on that.

No matter how you slice it it's still baloney.

Judge Sullivan was appointed or advanced by Republican and Democratic Party Potus. He's been a judge for decades while you continue to slice PutinTrump baloney.

DisBarr has to be perspiring heavily given the appellate court en banc voted 8-2 against everything he filed with 'em. Barr with his Writ of Mandamus was entirely a Hail Mary heave.

 

[OpportunityCost]

I did not say otherwise. But this does not change what I said aboutn the interpretation of the law which is the prerrogative of the Judicial branch and as I showed, the judicial branch has interpreted the law in the following way

Even when



"defendant concurs in the dismissal..."

...

"The judge may withhold approval if he finds that the prosecutor has failed to give consideration to factors that must be given consideration in the public interest,factors such as the deterrent aspects of the criminal law.

And until you attack this legal evidence I bring, it still stands. Ignoring it and talking about the constitution does not refute the legal interpretation of the law I bring which is constitutional as long as the legal opinion has not been overturned by another court!

The deterrent? For what? Being Republican? You have been presented with a similar trial, same scheme, same charges in regards to FARA being insufficient as a matter of law to prosecute, as in motion to dismiss. You have been presented with the multitude of credibility issues with Strzok, Pientka, Comey, Priestap, and others pushing this prosecution in the FBI and its just overzealous political prosecution. You know it, you cant admit it, but you know it.

 

[OpportunityCost]

No matter how you slice it it's still baloney.

Judge Sullivan was appointed or advanced by Republican and Democratic Party Potus. He's been a judge for decades while you continue to slice PutinTrump baloney.

DisBarr has to be perspiring heavily given the appellate court en banc voted 8-2 against everything he filed with 'em. Barr with his Writ of Mandamus was entirely a Hail Mary heave.

You are right, your posts arte absolutely baloney.

 

[OpportunityCost]

Sullivan cannot compell the govenrment to do anything! This applies even when a criminal is sentenced. The prisons are not controlled by judges, plus a president can always pardon a convicted fellon. But that is not the point. The point is that the judge can still act in a way to signal that if Flynn is left off the hook, then this is because the Executive branch chose to ignore the Judicial branch's decicion and not because it got the approval of the Judicial branch.

And I pointed the other possibility also of having Sullivan agree to drop the case but modifying it so that a future prosecutor can reopen it. So, what Barr can do in such scenario?

Your turn to answer!

You never get the ****ing point. Judges are there to moderate a controversy between 2 parties. There is literally nothing for Sullivan to moderate---as both sides have reached an agreement. This ****ing farce is no more than liberal judges trying to grab more power away from the executive branch absolute power to prosecute crimes.

 

[pamak]

The deterrent? For what? Being Republican? You have been presented with a similar trial, same scheme, same charges in regards to FARA being insufficient as a matter of law to prosecute, as in motion to dismiss. You have been presented with the multitude of credibility issues with Strzok, Pientka, Comey, Priestap, and others pushing this prosecution in the FBI and its just overzealous political prosecution. You know it, you cant admit it, but you know it.

When they say ""The judge may withhold approval if he finds that the prosecutor has failed to give consideration to factors that must be given consideration in the public interest,factors such as the deterrent aspects of the criminal law", they talk about the deterrant that a punishment has when people break the law. In Flynn's case, it is lying during a counterintelligence investigation

 

[pamak]

You never get the ****ing point. Judges are there to moderate a controversy between 2 parties. There is literally nothing for Sullivan to moderate---as both sides have reached an agreement. This ****ing farce is no more than liberal judges trying to grab more power away from the executive branch absolute power to prosecute crimes.

You just cannot read...

Judges are also responsible for protecting the judicial branch and acting like a check to corrupt AGs of the executive branch.

"The judge may withhold approval if he finds that the prosecutor has failed to give consideration to factors that must be given consideration in the public interest,factors such as the deterrent aspects of the criminal law.

I know that Trump has spoiled his supporters with his constant pursue of some form of absolute immunity and abuse of executive power but there are still checks and balances in this republic and judges paly an important role

 

[Tangmo]

You are right, your posts arte absolutely baloney.

Here again is what I wrote after my Baloney Detector activated:

Judge Sullivan was appointed or advanced by Republican and Democratic Party Potus. He's been a judge for decades while you continue to slice PutinTrump baloney.

DisBarr has to be perspiring heavily given the appellate court en banc voted 8-2 against everything he filed with 'em. Barr with his Writ of Mandamus was entirely a Hail Mary heave.

It's all a part of the Trump Triumph of The Will campaign of 4 years and dozens of threads to try to spring Flynn thereby destroying justice in the United States. This case is high stakes which is why you Triumph guys are unrelenting despite having the SOS all the time. Your first rule is to say anything and to say it each time.

 

[OpportunityCost]

Here again is what I wrote after my Baloney Detector activated:

Judge Sullivan was appointed or advanced by Republican and Democratic Party Potus. He's been a judge for decades while you continue to slice PutinTrump baloney.

DisBarr has to be perspiring heavily given the appellate court en banc voted 8-2 against everything he filed with 'em. Barr with his Writ of Mandamus was entirely a Hail Mary heave.

It's all a part of the Trump Triumph of The Will campaign of 4 years and dozens of threads to try to spring Flynn thereby destroying justice in the United States. This case is high stakes which is why you Triumph guys are unrelenting despite having the SOS all the time. Your first rule is to say anything and to say it each time.

More nazi reference bull****. Original you aren't.

 

[OpportunityCost]

You just cannot read...

Judges are also responsible for protecting the judicial branch and acting like a check to corrupt AGs of the executive branch.

"The judge may withhold approval if he finds that the prosecutor has failed to give consideration to factors that must be given consideration in the public interest,factors such as the deterrent aspects of the criminal law.

I know that Trump has spoiled his supporters with his constant pursue of some form of absolute immunity and abuse of executive power but there are still checks and balances in this republic and judges paly an important role

Considering the filings and the corruption looking to be on the part of the previous DOJ prosecution, I think you are the one that cant read, take off your partisan blinders.

 

[OpportunityCost]

When they say ""The judge may withhold approval if he finds that the prosecutor has failed to give consideration to factors that must be given consideration in the public interest,factors such as the deterrent aspects of the criminal law", they talk about the deterrant that a punishment has when people break the law. In Flynn's case, it is lying during a counterintelligence investigation

A case which the DoJ cannot prove due to credibility issues with the principle agents in the case and breaks in the evidence chain. Not to mention Flynn being cleared at the time the questioning was done.

The deterrent appears to be don't be a Republican public official that pisses off a Democratic administration.

 

[Tangmo]

More nazi reference bull****. Original you aren't.

I refer to the Flynn Fanatics who say anything because they have nothing to say.

It is vacuous, ie, the Rowers say anything while saying nothing except what they've said already for 4 years over dozens of threads.

This side is posting to a pile of rocks necessary as it is to do.

 

[Athanasius68]

[

QUOTE=pamak;1072625444]Sullivan cannot compell the govenrment to do anything!

Then the debate continues to be moot-- the government does not wish to prosecute.

But that is not the point. The point is that the judge can still act in a way to signal that if Flynn is left off the hook, then this is because the Executive branch chose to ignore the Judicial branch's decicion and not because it got the approval of the Judicial branch.

the only party ignoring anyone is the judiciary ignoring the executive's decision to drop charges.
And Flynn is not being "let off the hook." The DOJ is arguing that the new evidence released shows they cannot prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Flynn broke the law.

And I pointed the other possibility also of having Sullivan agree to drop the case but modifying it so that a future prosecutor can reopen it. So, what Barr can do in such scenario?

I would imagine Flynn would then not consent to the dropping of charges.
As it would be pointless.