Michael Flynn motion to compel data of Joseph Mifsud Blackberries, Attorney Sidney Powell filing October 15, 2019, Exculpatory evidence of Russians false claims
“Given the material defense counsel has requested, which remains outstanding, Mr. Van Grack’s denial that further Brady material exists is patently absurd. It demonstrates arrogance and utter contempt for the letter and the spirit of this Court’s explicit order, the rule of Brady v. Maryland, and the protections guaranteed to defendants by the U.S. Constitution.”…US v. Flynn motion to compel production of Brady Material
“McCabe had a role in crafting the “insurance policy” in the event Mr. Trump was elected. Expect to find Comey a part of that also.”…Attorney Sydney Powell
“We are being lied to on a scale unimaginable by George Orwell.”…Citizen Wells
MOTION TO PRODUCE NEWLY DISCOVERED BRADY EVIDENCE
AND BRIEF IN SUPPORT THEREOF
in United States v. Michael Flynn
“Michael T. Flynn (“Mr. Flynn”) requests the government be ordered to produce evidence that has only recently come into its possession. This evidence includes the data and metadata of the following two devices:
Product 9900 Bold
SIM Card ID 89441000302074582859
Product Classic SQC100-1
SIM Card ID 89441000300487623120
The defense requested this information initially by email to Mr. Van Grack and Ms. Ballantine on Friday, October 11, 2019. The government did not reply to the email of October 11, but it did reply in response to the notice of our Motion on October 15, 2019.
This information is material, exculpatory, and relevant to the defense of Mr. Flynn, and specifically to the “OCONUS LURES” and agents that western intelligence tasked against him likely as early as 2014 to arrange—unbeknownst to him—“connections” with certain Russians that they would then use against him in their false claims. The phones were used by Mr. Joseph Mifsud.
Mr. Flynn is entitled to this information under Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83, 87 (1963). Brady’s mandate is fundamental to Due Process and crucial to ensure that prosecutors fulfill their obligation to seek justice rather than convictions. The rule of Brady does so “[b]y requiring the prosecutor to assist the defense in making its case,” and in that respect “the Brady rule represents
a limited departure from a pure adversary model.” United States v. Bagley, 473 U.S. 667, 675 n.6 (1985). The government “may not knowingly use false evidence, including false testimony, to obtain a tainted conviction.” Napue v. People of State of Ill., 360 U.S. 264, 269 (1959). This Court’s Standing Order also requires that the government produce this information to Mr. Flynn.”