<FLYNN DC CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEAL>

The D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals is hearing an "en banc" (all of judges together) to revisit the Circuit's decision, led by Judge Rao, on the Writ of Mandamus - forcing Judge Sullivan to stop the Amicus Curiae having Judge Gleason...

YO. There's perhaps an Occam's Razor thing here:

Any time prosecutors or defense are nine or ten layers into the bureaucratic minutia, somebody's probably off base.

Here's the deal: Mike Flynn is a treasonweasel who pleaded guilty to lying. Barr's trying to un-not-undo that.

Question to Flynn's attorney Powell (can't tell which judge): Has there ever been a case where there's Mandamus (order from a higher court to a judge to do a job properly under the law) *before* that judge has even ruled on a motion?

Powell: "Whatever, this is bad"

Powell: Judge Sullivan is biased for not doing exactly what Bill Barr wanted. Also, he violated the principle of Hey Not Fair by appointing an Amicus Curiae who's prosecuted the Mob.

Therefore, he should be stopped from doing that thing he hasn't finished doing yet. ()

Q: Mandamus is usually where a lower court has kept the government from doing something it's allowed do.

Powell: This is not fair because the judge didn't do what Bill Barr wanted, which is intrusive, and not fair, and no extra Mob prosecuting/convicting judges. Ugh!

TATEL: We could hear this case en banc sua sponte (of our own will) so why does it matter if Judge Sullivan made the petition?

POWELL: Umm... *shrugs*?

GARLAND: Normally, mandamus isn't for stopping a judge before he/she makes a decision. Isn't this weird, then?

POWELL: He's already made a decision! Because he's not doing exactly what we want! Technically, Mike Flynn and Bill Barr are the judges!

POWELL: This is a criminal case. All the rights go to the defendant.

GARLAND: Yeah. That's called an appeal. Not mandamus versus a judge. The judge still gets to do his job.

POWELL: Yeah, but Bill Barr's technically in charge. Of the universe.

POWELL: Judge Sullivan keeps trying to prosecute this case that Flynn pleaded guilty to!

GARLAND: Mm. Cool story.

Q: So, a judge can't even appoint an Amicus to think about a decision?

POWELL : I demand a Writ of Habeus No Fairicus. It's like super ministerial and stuff.

Q: A judge isn't a clerk. They...judge stuff. Don't you think? So why can't he think about a decision for a bit, have an Amicus Curiae?

POWELL: No, he could maybe chat about it in chambers. The way we want. But DO A COURT THING? IN COURT? THIS DEFENDANT IS BEING HARASSED!

Q: Dude, you have a super strong case under Rule 48a, right?

POWELL : Absolutely! We're awesome!

Q: So then won't you win on appeal?

POWELL: JUDGES AREN'T ALLOWED TO JUDGE WHEN BILL BARR DOESN'T LIKE IT!

POWELL: There's a motion to dismiss trampling on the power of adding on someone to prosecution in addition to the agglomeration of powers of trampling powers...

Q: Uh. You've never heard of appointing an amicus?

POWELL: LEAVE MIKE FLYNN ALONE!

Q: Where was your separation of powers argue...before this?

POWELL : THERE WAS AN EMAIL, AND THE "SO-CALLED WATERGATE PROSECUTORS"...

Q: Dude. Cut it out. Where. Was. Your. Separation. Of. Powers. Argument?

POWELL: Our original opposition was a Writ of Stop Doing Things We Don't Like.

Q: Yes or no? Where was that argument before?

POWELL: Usurpation.

Q: You've mentioned that a court can't appoint an amicus. What's the law, dude?

POWELL: There's no rule LEAVE MIKE FLYNN ALONE!

Q: Where's the rule?

POWELL: I don't know.

Q: SCOTUS does it.

POWELL: Um. Yeah. I guess it does. ()

Q: Can courts use Rule 48a to keep prosecutors from interfering in the court's process?

(EG Note: That is literally why Rule 48a exists, so nobody, say, bribes a prosecutor later to save someone who pleaded guilty, or similar)

POWELL: NO THAT IS TOTES UNFAIR.

Q: There has been an example of an amicus being appointed to hear the government out when it wants to bypass Rule 48a and has some reasons?

POWELL: Dude, that's like, 20 years old.

( OMG that's all she has?)

POWELL: Dude, we filed, like, 100 pages. We have reasons, and filed other stuff, like a Writ of Treason Is Fine.

Q: Well. Then the judge would probably love your case.

POWELL: LET MIKE FLYNN RUN FREE. AMICUS IS LATIN FOR BAD. ALSO, THE JUDGE IS BIASED AND BAD.

Q: So, in your world, everyone must agree with you, all parties, plus all judges.

POWELL : Yes. Because Bill Barr. And not because we'll all be going to prison from this dumpster fire.

Q: God save your soul.

RAO: What is the most a District court judge can do around a Rule 48a thing?

POWELL: Extremely limited. Because. Because the prosecutor gets to make decisions. Like a judge. Because.

Q: Let's say this is just the 48a motion. And, for the purposes of argument, the mandamus thing. Can't the judge schedule a hearing to just check he/she understands without someone filing a writ of mandamus?

POWELL: Sure?

Q: You keep saying there's bias. Even the panel of the Circuit Court didn't say that. Do...you want us to...reverse them?

POWELL: No, maybe, yes, perhaps if you find more of what I like and less of what we don't Watergate Prosecutors Abuse Leave Britney Alone.

Q: Did you actually argue bias before the panel?

POWELL: HE DIDN'T DO WHAT BILL BARR WANTED IMMEDIATELY. That is bias. It bad.

Q: In a 48a amicus hearing, can the District Court ask the government *if it was lied to?*

POWELL: *screams internally* Yes? *screams internally*

WALL (DO-Barr-J): Leave Mike Flynn alone, because separation of powers. Immediately.

SRINIVASAN: Does the District Court know everything it needs to such that Mandamus is the only option?

WALL: Fokker. Separation of powers. Constitution.

SRINIVASAN: But dude. They had a lot of hearings before they even make that decision in Fokker. Here you're asking to go to Mandamus before any of those hearings are allowed to proceed.

(Precedent here: https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/cadc/15-3016/15-3016-2016-04-05.html)

ROGERS: So is the District Court biased for asking for Amicus, which it has a right to do? Because that's what is saying for Lt. Gen. Flynntelligence.

WALL: No, no there's no bias. There's just, um, an appearance issue. Of. Yeah.

ROGERS: Why should we consider, as suggests, harm to the Government since it didn't even file Mandamus? I mean, they're talking about giving it to another judge...

WALL: Well, this is very special. It's OK to ask some questions, but not all questions.

WALL: They're asking why we didn't charge Flynn under FARA for being a Turkish agent while becoming APNSA. And...that has nothing to do with this!

TATEL: You know there's no precedent where a case has gotten mandamus before a decision has been made, right?

WALL: Sort of.

TATEL: You're arguing confidentiality in the Executive. But court's have evaluated explanations from prosecutors before. Why...can't they do that here?

WALL: Well, Fokker said they can't second guess the government's decision.

GARLAND: Do you think the appellate court doesn't have the sua sponte on its own to revisit this en banc?

WALL: Naww, you cool. I didn't mean it like that.

GARLAND: So it's cool if our Circuit sits en banc without asking pretty please?

WALL: Oh, absolutely.

Yeeeeah. Huh. https://twitter.com/joshgerstein/status/1293199235408523271

GRIFFITH: What would the Government permit from Judge Sullivan in terms of hearings to understand the motion?

WALL: Maybe nothing. Or maybe something.

GRIFFITH: Right. What? On this case. What kind of hearing?

WALL: Something?

MILLETT: Yeah, like Griffith I'd like to know what the government thinks the court would be allowed to do. Also, the AG is involved in this, right?

WALL: Yup.

MILLETT: Yeah. That's weird.

MILLETT: Anyhow, can a judge have a hearing to learn about a decision to dismiss a case if something weird happened that the judge should know about, like being the government being lied to? Powell says that should be cool, just go home.

WALL: Yes.

(EG Note: next up at bat is Beth Wilkinson for Judge Sullivan, who's got major experience in national security cases, getting the death penalty for Timothy McVeigh's partner, taking down Noriega...that kinda thing. )

PILLARD: The independence and integrity of the court is at stake here. Here, the District judge was *skeptical of taking a plea from this guy to begin with." And the government agreed. And now you're saying, "Actually, never mind!" And you're gonna block him from doing anything?

PILLARD: What self-respecting District judge wouldn't get the most information to be able to make the best decision. There's no discovery order here. They're just making arguments before the judge. So what is the problem you have here?

WALL: Well, Barr is un-not-undoing the thing it did. Sullivan didn't even warn us that he was appointing that judge who strikes fear in the heart of Mobsters. Not even a text! Or a DM! So...mandamus is appropriate, because Sullivan should stop. Immediately.

PILLARD: Bullshit.

PILLARD: Sullivan could have a sentencing hearing on Flynntelligence tomorrow if wanted. But you guys want to erase all that and get us to force him to drop the whole thing.

WALL: Well, Fokker. Constitution. Separation of power. Fokker. It's not Rule 11. Fokker.

PILLARD: You're entirely full of shit. This isn't actually like Fokker, because you're trying to stop the thing from even happening. And this is why Rule 48a exists. Don't you think?

WALL: This history is unclear. Constitution. Cheney. Fokker.

PILLARD: Well, if the arguments are so strong, have the damn hearing.

WALL: He's trampling on the executive power to Not Make Bill Barr Answer Questions He Doesn't Like. That's, like, a Federalist Paper or something.

PILLARD: Nice try.

(EG Note: Reminder - this is a case over an obvious, piddly little case of Flynntelligence lying about talking to the Russian ambassador. The FBI had the transcript. He lied. They showed him the transcript. He lied. They charged him. THIS. ISN'T. THE. BAD. STUFF. HE. DID.)

(THIS. ISN'T. ABOUT. ANY. OF. FLYNN'S. CRIMES. LIKE. CONSPIRACY. TO. EXFILTRATE. NUCLEAR. TECHNOLOGY. So...bear that in mind.)

ACTUAL EXPERT - DO NOT READ THIS THREAD WITHOUT CHECKING WITH ACTUAL PROSECUTOR/EXPERT FROM THIS VERY DISTRICT https://twitter.com/glennkirschner2/status/1293202073895481344

BETH WILKINSON FOR JUDGE SULLIVAN:

YO, THE JUDGE AIN'T EVEN DONE WITH HIS JOB YET AND THEY'RE STOPPING HIM.

WTF IS UP WITH THESE IDIOTS?

A Writ of Mandamus is on its face stupid:
- The judge could dismiss, which is what Flynn wants
- There's no harm to anyone in asking
- Judge Sullivan isn't even a party! SCOTUS already answered this one

SRINIVASAN: Is there anything a judge could do in a case like this to require mandamus?

WILKINSON: Yeah...if they forced the AG to appear directly, or something extreme. Maybe. But the Government would have to argue that and still wait for an answer!

SRINIVASAN: They could just wait for a decision and appeal.

WILKINSON: Yup.

SRINIVASAN: What about Cheney?

WILKINSON: That was different. Gov't asserted executive privilege and gave the judge a chance to change his ruling. That didn't happen here.

WILKINSON: Government has already answered a bunch of questions, haven't claimed executive privilege. They just don't like answering *uncomfortable* questions. So...it's very different from Cheney. Can't claim harm from questions when you've *already answered questions.*

TATEL: You claim mandamus is inappropriate because they're not letting him do his job yet. Can a judge deny a Rule 48a motion? Because if there isn't, this hearing isn't really necessary, maybe.

WILKINSON: Yup, it's a narrow window. But take the hypotheticals about bribery...

TATEL: I'm listening. Sounds quite limited.

WILKINSON: The judge making sure he has all the facts from lawyers wouldn't be an *error* by the judge, and not a case for mandamus.

(EG Note: For mandamus against a judge, you're forcing her/him to do or not do a thing that the law says they MUST. It must be a duty of public nature and *the duty must be imperative and should not be discretionary.* Wilkinson argues this is at the judge's discretion.)

GRIFFITH: Won't they have some questions at this hearing?

WILKINSON: Who knows? They're not even finished. They haven't even heard arguments.

THE D.C. CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS HAS BEEN CUT OFF

PANIC ENSUES! EVERYBODY PANIC!!!! PANIC!!!!!

(Man, COVID sucks. Basically, even the high courts have the same damn A/V problems all of our meetings now have. )

https://twitter.com/glennkirschner2/status/1293224443347697665

https://twitter.com/glennkirschner2/status/1293235099148988418