MINUTE ORDER as to MICHAEL T. FLYNN. Given the current posture of this case, the Court anticipates that individuals and organizations will seek leave of the Court to file amicus curiae briefs pursuant to Local Civil Rule 7(o).
There is no analogous rule in the Local Criminal Rules, but "[the Local Civil] Rules govern all proceedings in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia." LCvR 1.1.
"An amicus curiae, defined as friend of the court,... does not represent the parties but participates only for the benefit of the Court." United States v. Microsoft Corp., No. 98-cv-1232(CKK), 2002 WL 319366, at *2 (D.D.C. Feb. 28, 2002) (internal quotation marks omitted).
Thus, "[i]t is solely within the court's discretion to determine the fact, extent, and manner of the participation." Jin v. Ministry of State Sec., 557 F. Supp. 2d 131, 136 (D.D.C. 2008) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted).
"'An amicus brief should normally be allowed when a party is not represented competently or is not represented at all, when the amicus has an interest in some other case that may be affected by the decision in the present case,
(though not enough affected to entitle the amicus to intervene and become a party in the present case), or when the amicus has unique information or perspective that can help the court beyond the help that the lawyers for the parties are able to provide.
Otherwise, leave to file an amicus curiae brief should be denied.'" Id. at 137 (quoting Ryan v. Commodity Futures Trading Comm'n, 125 F.3d 1062, 1064 (7th Cir. 1997)); see also LCvR 7(o). Although there is no corollary in the Local Criminal Rules to Local Civil Rule 7(o),
a person or entity may seek leave of the Court to file an amicus curiae brief in a criminal case. See Min. Order, United States v. Simmons, No. 18-cr-344 (EGS) (D.D.C. May 5, 2020); cf. United States v. Fokker Servs. B.V., 818 F.3d 733, 740 (D.C. Cir. 2016)
(appointing amicus curiae in a criminal case). As Judge Amy Berman Jackson has observed, "while there may be individuals with an interest in this matter, a criminal proceeding is not a free for all." Min. Order, United States v. Stone, No. 19-cr-18 (ABJ) (D.D.C. Feb. 28, 2019).
Accordingly, at the appropriate time, the Court will enter a Scheduling Order governing the submission of any amicus curiae briefs. Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on 5/12/2020. (lcegs3)
Judge Sullivan is crossing all the T’s and dotting all the I’s and is setting the stage to rain down hellfire on the prosecutors in this trial. He’ll hold a must watch hearing and Van Grack and company better wear asbestos
The clown show trying to compare this case to the Stevens case remember this.

Stevens was dead when his case was tossed. There was no threat of fallout with him.

Gen Flynn is very much alive so let it play out and then if I’m wrong I’ll be the first to admit it
Also Stevens was convicted by the Dubya Bush administration and the case was tossed by Holder.

Completely different scenarios
Okay I have been bombarded with DM's and Tweets telling me I'm out of my tree, out of my mind, they want to quote fear porn pundits and tweeters, so let me make m stand here and now and we will see what happens in the end, but I will attempt to explain my position
On Dec 18th 2018 at the General's sentencing hearing, that basically ended up triggering this extended delay in the Flynn case, ended up being the demise of Covington, and opened the door to the General hiring Sidney Powell a five months later.

So let's look at that hearing
People love to harp on the whole Sullivan accused Flynn of Treason. Actually he didn't. He brought up a hypothetical and then forced Van Grack to actually defend against it on the record.

There are people saying that violated Rule 11 but I disagree.

So let's review it.
Here starting on page 35 of the transcript Sullivan ventures off into the unknown.

I've color coded it for emphasis the pinks and purples are important
At the very mention of the possibility that Flynn sold out his country, Van Grack is forced to defend Flynn, the person he's supposed to be prosecuting!

Notice how slick that is, I personally think it's genius

Van Grack pushes back strongly at any suggestion of this
Sullivan takes the possibility of Treason or the Logan act for a full lap around the courtroom, and Van Grack has to knock it down multiple times saying it was never a consideration.

All the Prosecution was seeking was the 1001 charge against Flynn
IMHO right there is where Sullivan opened the door to make the prosecutions case vulnerable to being tossed.

As Andy McCarthy and others have all said, in order for a 1001 charge to be viable it has to be "material" in how it affects and ongoing criminal investigation.
So with Van Grack making it plain that no other charges or investigations were affected (i.e Logan Act, Treason, Obstruction, Collusion, etc) what is the basis to charge Flynn with 1001?

Answer: None
Sullivan forced Van Grack to say it on the record, and literally defend Flynn against the mere assumption of any other wrong doing. Even the extreme hypothetical hyperbole of Sullivan.

After a short recess Sullivan explained he was never accusing Flynn, just asking questions!
Pure Genius!

Covington lawyers sat there like a bump on a log and were ready to let their client get railroaded, and Sullivan force the prosecution to defend the accused and blew up it's own case.

This triggered a long sentencing delay.
Flynn fired Covington and hired my brilliant friend Sidney Powell, the rest is what you see now. They case blown up, and Sidney forced the DOJ to produce not only documents that clear Flynn but implicated wrongdoing all the way to Barry's oval Office.
Pure Genius.

Now in case there were any more bullshit political volleys from the swamp left in their bag of tricks, Sullivan invited all of them into the "Kill Box"

Come on down with your political bullshit amicus and be ready to defend it.

Get your Popcorn ready
Sidney has now filed a motion to strike as a good defense attorney should

Now sit back and watch
They can file a stack of amicus briefs that is higher than the Capitol Dome, it doesn't change the facts of the case.

There are more moving parts to this than just a simple dismissal.
This first amicus proposal has been filed

MINUTE ORDER as to MICHAEL T. FLYNN. On May 11, 2020, Chambers received proposed amici curiae's "Notice of Intent to File Motion for Leave to File Brief as Amicus Curiae or Application Under Local Rule 57.6" and "Statement of Interest."
In light of the Court's forthcoming Scheduling Order governing the submission of any amicus curiae briefs, leave to file the submission by proposed amici curiae is DENIED.
The Clerk of Court is directed not to docket the filing submitted by proposed amici curiae. Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on 5/13/2020. (lcegs3)
You can follow @RoscoeBDavis1.
Tip: mention @twtextapp on a Twitter thread with the keyword “unroll” to get a link to it.

Latest Threads Unrolled: