NSFW Anon Archived Techno Fog: Judge Sullivan has previously stated that amicus briefs are NOT allowed (QRV)
submitted ago by 3817386?
Posted by: 3817386?
Posting time: 8 months ago on
Last edit time: never edited.
Archived on: 8/11/2020 10:00:00 AM
Views: 424
SCP: 100
100 upvotes, 0 downvotes (100% upvoted it)
~91 user(s) here now
Subverse anonymized: usernames are hidden and votes don't count.
NSFW: Yes
Authorized: No
Anon: Yes
Private: No
Type: Default
NSFW Anon Archived Techno Fog: Judge Sullivan has previously stated that amicus briefs are NOT allowed (QRV)
submitted ago by 3817386?
view the rest of the comments →
[–] 23794789? [S] 0 points 1 point 1 point (+1|-0) ago
KEK! Even better ... DOJ never provided any facts to present to the court (how Flynn's actions impacted any legal proceeding) for the court to rule on. Corrupt attorneys trying to thread the needle on that one should be glorious.
[–] 23794841? ago
Considering Flynn was actually a cooperating witness in the other FARA case, I agree, they would have nothing. The only other case that would apply, the fake investigation of Trump, is one they can't admit was actually open on the day of the interview.
[–] 23795082? [S] 1 point 2 points 3 points (+3|-1) ago (edited ago)
You still around? I figured out how Sullivan MIGHT be wearing a white hat. Don't even want to post it as a new thread, on the off chance I'm right. Don't want to even "put it out there." It would be an absolute bombshell, if you understand what it is -- which I'm sure you will.
Look up the term "Fraud on the Court." Any misrepresentation of an officer of the court (all bar attorneys are officers of the court, even for cases in which they are not involved).
If Sullivan is setting a trap for DS lawyers to make material misrepresentations, this might apply. Could lead to disbarment of DS lawyers. Now, that would be an interesting twist. Not saying I think that is what's going on, but an interesting tangent to consider.