Sullivan thread / En Banc speculation / Con law speculation

First part may be rehashing for some.

The executive branch clearly has power over charging decisions (including withdrawal). Sullivan was making the argument that after a guilty plea, the court has more authority.

Clearly, he was full of shit and lost, resulting in an order to dismiss. Now lets examine a few things. The Flynn mandamus (petition to the 3 judge higher court) is different than an appeal. While most mandamus issues can be solved through appeal, it is an option, and is to be

used to prevent something from happening that could cause harm that could not be reversed on appeal. In this case, it meant that the court had to order the case dismissed (consistent with the law) to stop the Judge from doing something that could infringe on executive power

(separation of powers issue). We have what's called the Party Presentation Principal. Which basically means, a Judge doesn't get to turn prosecutor. He is impartial, and his role is to defend the rights of the Defendant. Judge Sullivan was completely DISREGARDING this in his

attempt to get in the way of the Government's motion to dismiss.

Now, there has been talk about this case going En Banc (Full panel, more judges than before). Whether Sullivan requests it, or the court will just do it, or whether he has standing is being discussed. This seems..

like a red herring. Why is that? Well, Sullivan DOES have the right to request En Banc. HOWEVER. That is only based on the Flynn mandamus to the higher court, in which he lost. Of course he can request En Banc for that. But mandamus is still NOT an appeal. What does this mean?

Before we get to that, why did the AC intervene like they did? Normally, they would want to take their sweet time, refuse to rule based on a trivial process issue that needs correcting (Government should have filed mandamus, not defense). Instead, they ordered him to dismiss.

While technically the granting of dismissal was based on Sullivan being on a path to violate the Separation of powers, all the lawyers/judges familiar with how these things work, could see Sullivan's INTENT as clear as day, even if I can't easily convey it to you all.

Again, what PROMPTED the mandamus was Sullivan DISREGARDING the Party Presentation Principal. The LAW clearly says to DISMISS. Which is what the court ordered him to do. Now my point. Sullivan could have asked or pressured people in his court for whatever explanation or documents

a LONG time ago. He had all the time in the world, and all the reasons. He managed to ask about Treason. He didn't pressure anyone for an explanation as to why this case is languishing with a guilty plea for years. He didn't push on what happened with Contreras. He didn't light

a fire under anyone to compel document production or explain any papers. He could have. I don't think he wanted to.

So, inherent and explained in the Majority opinion is Flynn's right to a speedy trial (Speedy trial act). It is explicitly tied in to Sullivan's failed 48(a) arg.

So, you have these Judges looking at this. & They're thinking "You're claiming this is about holding a hearing and asking some questions. But you didn't care for several years. So, it seems like you're STALLING."

So this is why they felt the need to order him. He actively showed

he is out to ignore the law. The Judges see it. He doesn't care about the PPP. Sullivan further shows his intent to ignore the law, because it's been a few days and he still hasn't dismissed. He technically has 3 weeks to do so. Perhaps he is trying to

find a way to throw another wrench in the works, or simply has no room to maneuver. So, back to En Banc. Granting En Banc makes NO SENSE and is tantamount to violating Flynn's right to a speedy trial. Because his En Banc request is only made possible by the mandamus

that is BASED ON HIM NOT DISMISSING. The Judges are thinking "The end result is DISMISSAL. Your hearing and questions do not matter. So DISMISS and stop stalling."

It's like, de-ja-vu. WE JUST WENT THROUGH THIS AND HE LOST. What the fuck is the point of this? The law is clear.

Now lets move to something a little different. Based on the same exact logic that the Judges made, which is that YES, technically, the DoJ should have filed (process issue), we have a PRESSING issue that needs to be addressed. Again, Sullivan is so off the rails, and the law is

so clear (Yes, technically there is a grey area that hasn't been decided, which is why the AC slapped Sullivan down for trying to overreach and claim some of that power pie. but that's not relevant for this) that we are going to order him to dismiss, (normal would be warning him

to do the "right" thing on his own - they just can't trust that he will in this case). Now lets bring in Strzok. His notes being released after the order to dismiss is NOT a coincidence at all. Strzok was REMOVED from the case, along with Contreras recusal. What I am seeing...

is that just like how Mueller needed to finish what he was doing to clear the way of conflicts for other legal wheels to start moving forward, the Flynn case needed to be adjudicated before things like the Strzok notes could be brought to light. & Just like the Judges ordered to

dismiss because its inevitable and the law, it seems the DoJ is acting as if the case is "officially over", and is not letting off-the-rails-Sullivan to obstruct the wheels of justice any longer, just because he may not follow it, and the law is clear.

Now a final part on Sullivan +Strzok. Now, I am kind of going out on a limb, and it may be a step too far. The best thing Sullivan can do right now is dismiss and disappear into the abyss. Now, I find it hard to believe Sullivan is pulling a stunt like this to...what..try and

prosecute Flynn for Perjuring himself in a guilty plea, or to force the DoJ to prosecute someone, or some crazy shit like that. I am of the opinion that he is STALLING. The prosecution (I mean Van Grack and friends not the withdrawal people) didn't want this to end. How on earth

do you have a guilty plea survive that long without sentencing? This is not normal. & Sullivan should have wanted to get to the bottom of it. It seems to me, effectively, not dismissing the Flynn case = No Strzok notes, no exposure, etc. Was the prosecution colluding with

Sullivan? I mean, it happened once before in this case. @MagaKarma1 @SidtheKidd87 @DawsonSField @McAdooGordon @SidtheKidd87