Flynn brief US Court of Appeals July 20, 2020, Attorney Powell: “district court has hijacked and extended a criminal prosecution for almost three months for its own purposes”

Flynn brief US Court of Appeals July 20, 2020, Attorney Powell: “district court has hijacked and extended a criminal prosecution for almost three months for its own purposes”

“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

“her client was “totally set up” because he threatened to expose wrongdoing by top intelligence officials in the Obama administration.

“He was going to audit the intel agencies because he knew about the billions Brennan and company were running off the books,” Powell said, referring to former CIA Director John Brennan.”…Sidney Powell, Vickie McKenna Show

“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


From the brief filed by Attorney Sidney Powell at the US Court of Appeals District of Columbia July 20, 2020.


“No federal circuit has countenanced rehearing of a mandamus on
petition by a district judge. Judge Sullivan has no cognizable interest in
the case. Rehearing should be denied because the panel properly applied
the longstanding use of mandamus to which General Flynn is clearly
entitled “to confine an inferior court to a lawful exercise of its prescribed
jurisdiction or to compel it to exercise its authority when it is its duty to
do so.” Roche v. Evaporated Milk Ass’n, 319 U.S. 21, 26 (1943). Here, it
is both.

Rehearing is not warranted under Fed. R. App. P. 35(a)(1) because
there is no conflict with any decision. The opinion is not only consistent
with—but required by—United States v. Fokker Servs. B.V., 818 F.3d 733
(D.C. Cir. 2016), and United States v. Ammidown, 497 F.2d 615 (D.C. Cir.
1973). Ammidown recognizes the responsibility of the Executive Branch
to determine “the public interest” to justify dismissal. Id. at 620. Only
the prosecutor is “in a position to evaluate the government’s prosecution
resources and the number of cases it is able to prosecute.” Id. at 621.
Dismissal is required upon the Government’s statement of reasons. As
the Second Circuit wrote when reversing then Judge Gleeson for selfaggrandizing his role in reviewing a deferred prosecution agreement, to do otherwise would turn “the presumption [of regularity] on its
head.” United States v. HSBC Bank USA, N.A., 863 F.3d 125, 136 (2d
Cir. 2017).

The district court exceeded its constitutional authority by
appointing amicus to work against General Flynn after the parties
agreed to dismissal. The Constitution and all precedent applying or
analyzing Fed. R. Crim. P. 48(a) mandate dismissal on the robust
substantive motion of the government—every case. Even if this were an
issue of first impression, this Court has held that “mandamus is
appropriate” where there is “a substantial allegation of usurpation of
power.” In re Sealed Case No. 98-3077, 151 F.3d 1059, 1067 (D.C. Cir.
1998) (citing Schlagenhauf v. Holder, 379 U.S. 104, 111 (1964)); see Ex
parte Peru, 318 U.S. 578, 587 (1943) (“delay and inconvenience of a
prolonged litigation [must] be avoided by prompt termination of the
proceedings in the district court”). The district court’s delay here has
extended this litigation and impaired General Flynn’s freedom for an
additional ten weeks so far.”

“The district court has hijacked and extended a criminal prosecution
for almost three months for its own purposes. For these reasons and
those in Flynn’s Petition and Reply, and the arguments and briefs of the
Government, this Court should deny rehearing and issue mandamus to
dismiss with prejudice instanter.”


More here:



2 responses to “Flynn brief US Court of Appeals July 20, 2020, Attorney Powell: “district court has hijacked and extended a criminal prosecution for almost three months for its own purposes”

  1. “For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places.”…Ephesians 6:12

  2. CW…….
    ……..Every time I look at photographs of so called COURT OFFICIALS, which includes judges, all I see is cheap looking bleached blond child prodigies who are usually juris impaired and sit picking their noses, with blank staring facial expression as adjudication goes on. Others in the same vane sit, often wild eyed, bald headed geezers who would throw their own mother in jail if the price was right. As for Flynn it is probable that if the BS continues his attorney will have to file a civil suit against Sullivan because he probably is still the driving force behind all of the crapola.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s