US and Flynn joint motion to expedite Sept 4, 2020, “The United States and General Flynn agree that this Court should resolve the pending motion to dismiss with dispatch”
“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
“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
On Judge Sullivan: “if there was any doubt up to this point whether his conduct gives the appearance of partiality, that doubt is gone.”...Judge Rao dissenting opinion
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
MICHAEL T. FLYNN
JOINT STATUS REPORT AND MOTION TO EXPEDITE
BY THE UNITED STATES AND GENERAL MICHAEL T. FLYNN
September 4, 2020.
“The United States of America and General Michael T. Flynn respectfully file this joint brief court’s minute order. On August 31, the D.C. Circuit, sitting en banc, denied General Flynn’s petition for a writ of mandamus. See In re Flynn, No. 20-5143, slip op. On September 1, this Court issued a minute order directing the parties “to file a joint status report with a recommendation for further proceedings by no later than September 21, 2020” proposing “a
briefing schedule regarding the deadlines for (1) the government and Mr. Flynn to file any surreply briefs; and (2) the government, Mr. Flynn, and the Court-appointed amicus curiae to file a consolidated response to any amicus brief of non-Court-appointed-amicus curiae.” It is not necessary, however, for this Court to wait until September 21 to proceed with this case. The Court
instead may, and should, set a schedule to resolve this case as soon as possible.
This Court’s minute order observes that, under D.C. Circuit Rule 41(a)(3), the order denying mandamus relief “will become effective automatically 21 days after issuance”—here, on September 21. This Court, however, need not await the effectiveness of the denial of mandamus to proceed with this case. The pendency of mandamus proceedings in the court of appeals does not, on its own, deprive the district court of its continuing jurisdiction over a case or operate as a
stay of proceedings in the district court. Indeed, in this very case, the Court allowed briefing on the government’s motion to dismiss to continue while General Flynn’s petition for mandamus was pending before the court of appeals panel. See ECF Nos. 211-234. Accordingly, the Court need not wait for the issuance of the court of appeals’ mandate or for the formal termination of appellate court proceedings before deciding the government’s motion to dismiss.
In addition, the D.C. Circuit’s decision indicates that proceeding now is appropriate. In its opinion denying the petition for a writ of mandamus, the D.C. Circuit stated: “As the underlying criminal case resumes in the District Court, we trust and expect the District Court to proceed with appropriate dispatch.” Slip Op. 17-18. The United States and General Flynn agree that this Court
should resolve the pending motion to dismiss with dispatch. It is not necessary to delay further proceedings until September 21, and any delay would harm both the government, which must expend resources on a case that it has determined should be dismissed, and General Flynn, who faces impairments on his liberty and the cloud of a pending prosecution that the Executive Branch
seeks to end.”