Flynn Petition for a Writ of Mandamus granted in part June 24, 2020 US Court of Appeals DC, “order the district court to grant the government’s Rule 48(a) motion to dismiss the charges against Flynn”
“Immediately after President Trump won election, opponents inaugurated what they call ‘The Resistance’ and they rallied around an explicit strategy of using every tool and maneuver to sabotage the functioning of the executive branch.” …Attorney General Barr
“Instead of doing so, the government has continued to defy its
constitutional, ethical and legal obligations to this Court and to the defense, and to hide evidence that it knows exonerates Mr. Flynn. As is the essence of the problem here, instead of protecting its citizens, the “government” is protecting its own criminal conduct and operatives.”…Attorney Sidney Powell October
“The FBI clearly has records pertaining to Seth Rich, and it has withheld those
records in bad faith.”…Attorney Ty Clevenger October 11, 2019
From the US Court of Appeals DC, June 24, 2020.
On Emergency Petition for a Writ of Mandamus
Decision
“Because this is not the unusual case where a more
searching inquiry is justified, and because there is no adequate
remedy for the intrusion on “the Executive’s long-settled
primacy over charging decisions,” Fokker Servs., 818 F.3d at
743, we grant the petition for mandamus in part and order the
district court to grant the government’s Rule 48(a) motion to
dismiss the charges against Flynn.
We deny Flynn’s petition to the extent he seeks
reassignment of the district judge. This case does not meet the
“high bar” for reassignment, id. at 751, which would be
appropriate only if the district judge’s conduct was “so extreme
as to display clear inability to render fair judgment,” Liteky v.
United States, 510 U.S. 540, 551 (1994). Flynn focuses
primarily on comments the district judge made at sentencing,
but “judicial remarks during the course of a trial that are critical
or disapproving of, or even hostile to, counsel, the parties, or
their cases, ordinarily do not support a bias or partiality
challenge.” Id. at 555; see also In re Barry, 946 F.2d 913, 914
(D.C. Cir. 1991) (“[A] trial judge is entitled to form his own judgment as to the conduct of a defendant and to take that
judgment into account in sentencing.”). In light of these
precedents, the district judge’s conduct did not indicate a clear
inability to decide this case fairly. We decline to reassign the
case to a new judge simply to grant the government’s Rule
48(a) motion to dismiss.”
Read more:
More here:
Citizen WElls 
“Under the separation of powers established by the Constitution, criminal charges are brought by the executive branch and adjudicated by the judiciary. Thus, any actual prosecution of Flynn under federal statutes for perjury would have to be brought by the Department of Justice.”…Attorney Leslie McAdoo Gordon
CW……. Your comment of 12:25 says exactly what SHOULD have resulted from the writ. Sadly having denied part of the writ clearly shows that the courts are still trying to protect Emmet Sullivan. Lets see if he tries this a SECOND TIME. If he does it is time to move it all to the SCOTUS. Mr. Sullivan will NOT be protected there. He should also be put under a surety bond…….which he would forfeit it he attempts to again override orders from above. In truth he SHOULD BE RE ASSIGNED. In the lower courts when a judge is either proven INCOMPETENT, or openly hostile towards anyone in a case before him/her it justifies a change of venue.