Category Archives: Court of Appeals

Trump Ordered Assange Arrest?, Assange extradition hearing Sept 21, 2020, Journalist Cassandra Fairbank testimony, Learned Oct 2018 from Arthur Schwartz?

Trump Ordered Assange Arrest?, Assange extradition hearing Sept 21, 2020, Journalist Cassandra Fairbank testimony, Learned Oct 2018 from Arthur Schwartz?

“Replying to this last point, the prosecution pointed out that a Grand Jury against Assange had been established by Obama and there was no indication the investigation had been closed. Feldstein agreed, the “Obama administration was very eager to file charges against Assange and they conducted a very aggressive investigation.” All of which speaks for the point that Assange is being sought for political reasons—motivations which are common to the whole American ruling class. It was current Democratic Party presidential candidate Joe Biden who branded the WikiLeaks publisher and journalist a “high-tech terrorist.””…Laura Tiernan and Thomas Scripps, Sept 9, 2020

“Why John Brennan, Peter Strzok and DOJ Needed Julian Assange Arrested”…The Conservative Treehouse November 3, 2019

Assange testimony requested in Rich v Butowsky et al  August 24, 2020”…Citizen Wells

 

From the Julian Assange extradition hearing today September 21, 2020 via Consortium News.

“11:48 am EDT:  Journalist Cassandra Fairbank testified that President Donald Trump had personally ordered Julian Assange’s arrest from the Ecuadorian embassy in London in April 2019.

Fairbanks said she learned in October 2018 directly from Arthur Schwartz, a Trump backer and member of the president’s inner circle that, the U.S. would have Assange taken from the embassy; that he would only be charged with the Chelsea Manning leaks and not for Vault 7 or DNC email releases; that the U.S. would again go after Manning to testify against Assange; that Richard Grenell, then U.S. ambassador to the Germany and later director of national intelligence, had worked out a deal with Ecuador to hand Assange over, that the order to get Assange had come directly from Trump and that the U.S. would not seek the death penalty to make extradition possible.

All of these things came true, Fairbanks’ testified. Armed with this information she traveled to London from Washington and met with Assange at the embassy where she revealed these details to him.

Upon return she says she was contacted by Schwarz who was furious because he learned of her informing Assange, evidently through surveillance at the embassy.  When she tweeted about this Grenell contacted her employer at The Gateway Pundit and tried to have her fired. A panicked Schwarz informed her that there was an investigation into who leaked this information to her.

Her testimony was read by defense lawyer Edward Fitzgerald after the government objected. But defense argued that hearsay rules do not apply to political testimony, which bolstered the defense argument that Assange’s prosecution is political and therefore violates the U.S.-UK extradition treaty.”

https://consortiumnews.com/2020/09/21/live-updates-assange-hearing-day-ten-fairbanks-testifies-trump-ordered-assange-arrest/

 

More here:

https://citizenwells.com/

http://citizenwells.net/

Assange extradition prosecution pushed by deep state Obama holdovers, Glenn Greenwald: Rice, Brennan, Comey and Clapper exposed by Assange and Snowden

Assange extradition prosecution pushed by deep state Obama holdovers, Glenn Greenwald: Rice, Brennan, Comey and Clapper exposed by Assange and Snowden

“Replying to this last point, the prosecution pointed out that a Grand Jury against Assange had been established by Obama and there was no indication the investigation had been closed. Feldstein agreed, the “Obama administration was very eager to file charges against Assange and they conducted a very aggressive investigation.” All of which speaks for the point that Assange is being sought for political reasons—motivations which are common to the whole American ruling class. It was current Democratic Party presidential candidate Joe Biden who branded the WikiLeaks publisher and journalist a “high-tech terrorist.””…Laura Tiernan and Thomas Scripps, Sept 9, 2020

“Why John Brennan, Peter Strzok and DOJ Needed Julian Assange Arrested”…The Conservative Treehouse November 3, 2019

“Assange testimony requested in Rich v Butowsky et al  August 24, 2020”…Citizen Wells

 

Where there is smoke there is fire.

So it is with the deep state Democrats, the left.

They are absolute masters of diversions.

Almost the entire period of the Trump Presidency, they have diverted attention away from the DNC leaks and what they revealed.

We now know beyond a shadow of a doubt that the narrative of the Russian hack and collusion is false, fabricated by the deep state.

The last remaining piece of the puzzle is who did it.

Julian Assange is the one person who knows for sure where he got the data.

A mountain of circumstantial evidence points to Seth Rich.

At least 4 prominent court cases have been dragging on and have issued requests for testimony from Julian Assange.

High powered law firms have aided the Rich family.

The obvious intent is to drag this also past the election cycle.

Ellen Ratner, former journalist who met with Julian Assange, was told it was an inside job. She has finally responded after 6 subpoena attempts with sealed documents.

See a trend?

So who is pushing the control of, the extradition, the prosecution, the persecution of Julian Assange?

We were told the Obama Administration dropped this effort.

But we have also witnessed the Obama Administration appointed or controlled DOJ officials who are anti Trump and beholden to the deep state.

Here are just 2 for starters.

Megan Brown.

From CBC May 10, 2017.

“Megan Brown, a Washington lawyer who formerly worked at the Department of Justice and also with Rosenstein, believes the main challenge will be intense confirmation hearings she expects will take an “extraordinarily political and partisan” tone.
Although the future of the Trump-Russia probe itself could be thrown into question, Brown is nevertheless confident the Department of Justice will proceed with the investigation “without improper influence or any unnecessary delay” due to a change at the top of the bureau.”

From the US v Assange Affidavit in support of a Criminal Complaint and Arrest Warrant December 21, 2017.

“I, Megan Brown, make this affidavit in support of a criminal complaint”

“I am a Special Agent with the Federal Bureau ofInvestigation (FBI) and have
been so employed since February 2011.”

“The facts in this Affidavit are based on my personal observations, information
obtained from other agents and witnesses, my training and experience, and my review ofrecords, reports, articles, and websites.”

https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.vaed.384245/gov.uscourts.vaed.384245.2.0_3.pdf

Tracy Doherty-McCormick.

From the Washington Post April 20, 2017.

“Assistant U.S. Attorney Tracy Doherty-McCormick, who examined the case under the Obama administration, also has been working on the matter in recent weeks, officials said.”

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/justice-dept-debating-charges-against-wikileaks-members-in-revelations-of-diplomatic-cia-materials/2017/04/20/32b15336-2548-11e7-a1b3-faff0034e2de_story.html

Tracy Doherty-McCormick’s name is prominent on the legal filings in this case.

https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/14488287/united-states-v-assange/

Glenn Grenwald nails it on a recent Tucker Carlson interview.

Tucker investigates why ‘DOJ is pursuing Julian Assange aggressively’

Some of Glenn Greenwald’s statements:

“He exposed the lies that James Clapper told”
“and obviously this isn’t coming from President Trump.”
“This is coming from people who work in the CIA, who work in the Pentagon…who believe they’re a government unto themselves”
“They’re punishing Julian Assange and trying to punish Edward Snowden for informing the public about things they have a right to know about the Obama Administration.”
“The only people who would be angry would be Susan Rice, John Brennan, Jim Comey and James Clapper because they’re the ones who both of them expose.”

 

More here:

https://citizenwells.com/

http://citizenwells.net/

 

 

 

John Gleeson Flynn reply brief September 11, 2020, What level of quid pro quo is Gleeson receiving to promote this level of outrageous unconstitutional attack?

John Gleeson Flynn reply brief September 11, 2020, What level of quid pro quo is Gleeson receiving to promote this level of outrageous unconstitutional attack?

“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

 

From the

REPLY BRIEF FOR COURT-APPOINTED AMICUS CURIAE

filed by John Gleeson September 11, 2020.

“To describe the Government’s Motion to Dismiss as irregular would be a study in understatement. In the United States, Presidents do not orchestrate pressure campaigns to get the Justice Department to drop charges against defendants who have pleaded guilty—twice, before two different judges—and whose guilt is obvious. And the Justice Department does not seek to dismiss criminal charges on grounds riddled with legal and factual error, then argue that the
validity of those grounds cannot even be briefed to the Court that accepted the defendant’s guilty plea. Nor does the Justice Department make a practice of attacking its own prior filings in a case, as well as judicial opinions ruling in its favor, all while asserting that the normal rules should be set aside for a defendant who is openly favored by the President

Yet that is exactly what has unfolded here. There is clear evidence that the Government’s Motion to Dismiss the case against Defendant Michael T. Flynn rests on pure pretext. There is clear evidence that this motion reflects a corrupt and politically motivated favor unworthy of our justice system. In the face of all this, the Government makes little effort to refute (or even address) the evidence exposing its abuses—and the arguments it does advance only further
undermine its position. Instead, the Government invokes a parade of false formalities that would reduce this Court to a rubber stamp. The Government’s motion should therefore be denied.”

Read more if you can stomach it:

https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.dcd.191592/gov.uscourts.dcd.191592.243.0_6.pdf

John Gleeson was appointed as a district judge by Bill Clinton.

That speaks volumes.

One has to wonder though, What level of quid pro quo is Gleeson receiving to promote this level of outrageous unconstitutional attack?

 

 

More here:

https://citizenwells.com/

http://citizenwells.net/

 

 

 

 

Assange hearing and testimony update September 8, 2020, UK & US courts, Seth Rich trials, US narrows espionage charge to only naming informants

Assange hearing and testimony update September 8, 2020, UK & US courts, Seth Rich trials, US narrows espionage charge to only naming informants

“Why John Brennan, Peter Strzok and DOJ Needed Julian Assange Arrested”…The Conservative Treehouse November 3, 2019

“Re: Seth Rich, keep an eye on the National Security Division of the Justice Department. As you can see from the federal complaint, the NSD ignored a FOIA request that I filed back in 2018 for records about Seth Rich. And look at Paragraph 16, plus Exhibit 8. I think NSD is playing a bigger role in the “Russian hacking” narrative than most of us understood. By sending Seth Rich records there, it’s easier to keep things classified. So why would a “street robbery” investigation need to be classified?”…Attorney Ty Clevenger July 22, 2020

“Assange testimony requested in Rich v Butowsky et al  August 24, 2020”…Citizen Wells

 

From Consortium News September 8, 2020 UK lunch break.

“US Tries to Narrow its Espionage Charge to Only Naming Informants; Defense Quotes Indictment to Prove Otherwise

Julian Assange was also warned by Judge Baraitser that he would be removed if he makes another outburst. U.S. crimes abroad on display.”

“Prosecution had tried to establish on cross that Assange is not being charged with publishing classified information, but only publishing names of informants, which happened to be in classified documents.

There is no specific U.S. statute against revealing informants names, as there is regarding the names of covert government agents, as readers will recall in the Valerie Plame case.  But James Lewis QC for the prosecution argued that informant names are national defense information and thus protected by the Espionage Act.

This is a sleight of hand and speaks to the public relations nature of the U.S. case. Lewis on the one hand argues Assange is not being charged with publishing, but only with publishing documents with informants’ names. That is an appeal to First Amendment concerns. But that is still a charge of publishing classified information, even if restricted to those with informant names.

The U.S. appeal to the public is to depict Assange as an ogre who doesn’t care for human life, while at the same time portraying the United States as being concerned for a free press.

Lewis read from the book by David Leigh and Luke Harding, Wikileaks: Inside Julian Assange’s War on Secrecy, in which the authors say that Assange was unconcerned about revealing the names of informants, and quotes from a dinner in which Assange was alleged to have said that informants deserved it, if they were killed.

Lewis asked the defense witness Smith if he agreed with Leigh about this or with Assange?  It was a below-the-belt question, which Smith evaded by returning to a point he repeatedly made that Lewis, as a British lawyer, didn’t know how U.S. trials are conducted the way Smith, an American lawyer, does.

Smith said it doesn’t matter what’s in an indictment, because other evidence is routinely introduced at American trials.”

Read more:

https://consortiumnews.com/2020/09/08/live-updates-assange-hearin-day-two-us-tries-to-narrow-its-espionage-charge-to-only-naming-informants-defense-quotes-indictment-to-prove-otherwise/

Julian Assange testimony is requested in active US lawsuits.

Here is one.

From Rich v Fox News Network.

“Fox News seeks testimony in response to the following specific questions:
1) What was Mr. Assange’s role (if any) in the establishment of WikiLeaks?
2) What was Mr. Assange’s role (if any) in connection with the activities of WikiLeaks in 2016?
3) In 2016 and 2017, what role (if any) did Mr. Assange have regarding the content of WikiLeaks’ Twitter postings?
4) What was Mr. Assange’s involvement (if any) in WikiLeaks’ July 22, 2016 release of emails and documents from the Democratic National Committee (DNC), as referenced at https://wikileaks.org/dnc-emails/?
5) When were those emails and documents provided to WikiLeaks?
6) How did WikiLeaks obtain the DNC emails and documents?
7) Which individual(s) and/or entit(y/ies) provided the DNC emails and documents to WikiLeaks?
8) Which individual(s) and/or entit(y/ies) obtained those materials from the DNC?
9) Describe any role played by Seth Rich to your knowledge in obtaining those materials and/or providing them to WikiLeaks.
10) To your knowledge, has WikiLeaks ever offered a reward for information related to a murder that occurred in the United States other than in relation to the murder of Seth Rich? If so, on how many occasions?
11) Why did WikiLeaks provide a reward for information related to the murder of Seth Rich?
12) Has Mr. Assange ever communicated with Seth Rich in any manner?
13) If so, what was the content of the communications?
14) If Mr. Assange himself has not communicated with Seth Rich, is Mr. Assange aware as to whether any person affiliated with WikiLeaks ever communicated with Seth Rich in any manner?
15) If so, (a) who communicated with Seth Rich? And (b) what, to Mr. Assange’s knowledge, was the content of such communication(s)?
16) Has Mr. Assange ever communicated in any manner with another member of the Rich family, including (but not limited to) Aaron Rich, Joel Rich, or Mary Rich?                                                                                                                                     17) If so, what was the content of those communications?
18) To Mr. Assange’s knowledge, has any other person affiliated with WikiLeaks ever communicated in any manner with a member of the Rich family?
19) If so, (a) who communicated with the Rich family? And (b) what, to Mr. Assange’s knowledge, was the content of such communication(s)?
20) To Mr. Assange’s knowledge, did any individual(s) and/or entit(y/ies) affiliated with the Russian Federation (including, but not limited to, the FSB, SVR, GU (or GRU), FSPSI, or any other intelligence service) play any role in obtaining and/or providing to WikiLeaks the 2016 DNC emails released by WikiLeaks?”

Read more:

https://citizenwells.com/2020/08/28/julian-assange-testimony-letters-rogatory-issued-august-27-2020-in-rich-v-fox-network-to-be-served-on-julian-assange-in-the-united-kingdom/

 

More here:

https://citizenwells.com/

http://citizenwells.net/

 

 

 

 

 

Flynn case update minute order Sept 6, 2020, General Flynn, Government and  Court-appointed amicus curiae deliver documents by September 10, Signed by Judge Sullivan

Flynn case update minute order Sept 6, 2020, General Flynn, Government and  Court-appointed amicus curiae deliver documents by September 10, Signed by Judge Sullivan

“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

 

From United States v Michael Flynn September 6, 2020.

“MINUTE ORDER as to MICHAEL T. FLYNN. It is hereby ORDERED that by September 10, 2020, the Government shall deliver to Chambers three printed courtesy copies of 198 the Government’s motion to dismiss and 227 the Government’s response to Court-appointed amicus curiae. The Court-appointed amicus curiae shall deliver to Chambers three printed courtesy copies of 225 amicus brief. Mr. Flynn shall deliver to Chambers three printed courtesy copies of 228 Mr. Flynn’s brief in opposition to amicus, 231 Mr. Flynn’s supplement, and 237 Mr. Flynn’s second supplement. The parties may deliver their courtesy copies via overnight mail or by hand delivery to the Courthouse loading dock located at the corner of 3rd and C Streets, N.W. The courtesy copies must include the headers added by the Case Management/Electronic Case Files (CM/ECF) System and be submitted in binders, three-hole punched, with single-sided pages. All exhibits shall be tabbed and indexed for ease of reference. The parties shall deliver to Chambers three courtesy copies of any future filing, including exhibits, in connection with 198 the Government’s motion to dismiss. Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on 9/6/2020. (lcegs3)”

https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/6234142/united-states-v-flynn/?page=3

 

More here:

https://citizenwells.com/

http://citizenwells.net/

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”

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

 

From

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
v.
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.”

https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.dcd.191592/gov.uscourts.dcd.191592.238.0_3.pdf

 

More here:

https://citizenwells.com/

http://citizenwells.net/

 

 

 

Fake Russian and DNC leak narratives still impede truth in Seth Rich and Flynn cases, Judge Sullivan, DC Appeals Court, FBI, UK, Ellen Ratner stonewall justice

Fake Russian and DNC leak narratives still impede truth in Seth Rich and Flynn cases, Judge Sullivan, DC Appeals Court, FBI, UK, Ellen Ratner stonewall justice

“Ellen Ratner can confirm that the Saturday before the Election 2016, she met with Wikileaks founder Julian Assange for 3 hours. He told her that Russia did not “hack” the DNC, it was from an internal source.”...Ellen Ratner’s attendance at Embry University symposium on November 9, 2016

“Why John Brennan, Peter Strzok and DOJ Needed Julian Assange Arrested”…The Conservative Treehouse November 3, 2019

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

 

It is coming to a head.

The truth about the fake Russian Narrative and the leak of DNC data during the 2016 election cycle.

The final pieces of the puzzle are in reach.

The dark forces of the Democrat Deep State are resisting with all their might.

The General Michael Flynn case should have already been dismissed.

We know the truth and are waiting on Durham indictments.

In the recent DC Appeal Court decision in the Flynn motion for Writ of Mandamus, 2 non Clinton Obama justices dissented and revealed the impartiality of Judge Sullivan. This also revealed the efforts of the deep state.

Letters Rogatory have been sent to the UK requesting the testimony of Julian Assange in at least 2 Seth Rich cases.

Ellen Ratner, who met with Julian Assange in 2016 and stated that he said the DNC leaks were an inside job, filed a motion under seal to file document(s) under seal. This was after numerous attempts to serve a subpoena on her.

The dark force Democrat Deep State is desperate to stop these revelations before the 2020 election.

They will do anything.

Their mantra: The end justifies the means.

 

More here:

https://citizenwells.com/

http://citizenwells.net/

Flynn en banc Mandamus hearing denial Judge Rao dissent exposes Judge Sullivan’s partiality, “whether his conduct gives the appearance of partiality, that doubt is gone.”

Flynn en banc Mandamus hearing denial Judge Rao dissent exposes Judge Sullivan’s partiality, “whether his conduct gives the appearance of partiality, that doubt is gone.”

“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

 

From the Dissenting Opinion of Judge Rao in the General Michael Flynn hearing for Writ of Mandamus before the US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia August 31, 2020.

“The trial judge’s attempted use of Rule 35 is not the first
time he has acted as if he were a party. At his option and with
the appellate court’s approval, Rule 21, as noted earlier, allows
the subject judge to participate in a mandamus proceeding
either directly or by amicus.
5 But Rule 21 leaves no room for
the judge to retain private counsel as was done here. See FED.
R. APP. P. 21(b)(4). A party, not a judge whose action is under
mandamus review, retains private counsel. As the Advisory
Committee Notes on Rule 21(b) make clear, “[b]ecause it is
ordinarily undesirable to place the trial court judge, even
temporarily, in an adversarial posture with a litigant, the rule
permits a court of appeals to invite an amicus curiae to provide
a response to the petition.” FED. R. APP. P. 21(b) advisory
committee’s note to 1996 amendment (first emphasis added).

And his earlier sua sponte appointment of amicus to
oppose the government’s motion to dismiss, although
apparently allowed, is further indication that he has from the
outset appeared to view his role in adjudicating the
government’s motion to dismiss as one that requires outside
support—as if he were a priori antagonistic to the relief both bona fide parties seek.6 Even more telling of apparent
partiality, the trial judge ordered amicus to opine on whether
Flynn had committed perjury and should be held in criminal
contempt. Order Appointing Amicus Curiae at 1, United States
v. Flynn, No. 17-cr-00232 (D.D.C. May 13, 2020), ECF No.
205. That direction indicates that, even if compelled to grant
the motion to dismiss, the trial judge intends to pursue Flynn
on his own.

But it is the trial judge’s conduct since the government’s
May 2020 motion to dismiss, weighed in light of his earlier
conduct, that delivers the coup de grâce to the last shred of the
trial judge’s appearance of impartiality. In other words, if there
was any doubt up to this point whether his conduct gives the
appearance of partiality, that doubt is gone. Granted, the panel
majority opinion resisted Flynn’s request that a different judge
be assigned to this case. See In re Flynn, 961 F.3d at 1223.
That decision rested primarily on the fact that Flynn’s request
centered on the trial judge’s in-court statements, which are
almost always insufficient on their own to warrant
reassignment, and the fact that the trial judge was simply
directed to grant the government’s motion to dismiss. See id.
But the trial judge’s “extreme” conduct throughout this case,
culminating in his decision to ignore the writ and instead seek
en banc review, demonstrates a “clear inability to render fair
judgment.””

““Unbiased, impartial adjudicators are the cornerstone of
any system of justice worthy of the label.” In re Al-Nashiri,
921 F.3d at 233–34. If the trial judge continues to preside over
this case, I submit our system is not so worthy because his
conduct has undermined the appearance of impartiality. My
colleagues in the majority disagree and I am frankly dismayed
by their endorsement of the trial judge’s conduct, especially
after the government’s motion to dismiss. Granted, all
members of the en banc court weigh that conduct in light of
their own experience and notions of impartiality, while, at the
same time, applying § 455(a)’s “objective” standard of “a
reasonable and informed observer.” Microsoft Corp., 253 F.3d
at 114. Although, for them, the exact tipping point at which
the appearance of impartiality is lost is unknown, I am certain
that such a point exists and that the trial judge has passed it. To
protect Flynn’s rights as a criminal defendant, the
government’s interest in controlling its prosecution and the
integrity of the United States District Court for the District of Columbia,9 I believe the trial judge, by his conduct manifesting
the appearance of glaring partiality, has disqualified himself. I
would order the reassignment of this case to a different trial
judge for dismissal.”

Read more:

https://www.cadc.uscourts.gov/internet/opinions.nsf/777940F1C81FD47E852585D5005DADCB/$file/20-5143.pdf

 

More here:

https://citizenwells.com/

http://citizenwells.net/

 

 

 

 

 

Flynn Writ of Mandamus denied by US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia August 31, 2020, “we trust and expect the District Court to proceed with appropriate dispatch”

Flynn Writ of Mandamus denied by US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia August 31, 2020, “we trust and expect the District Court to
proceed with appropriate 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

“Ms. Sines’s testimony flatly contradicts the FBI’s claims that (1) it did not investigate matters pertaining to Mr. Rich; (2) it did not examine his computer; and (3) it conducted a “reasonable” search but could not locate any records or communications about Mr. Rich. Specifically, Ms. Sines’s testimony flatly contradicts the affidavit testimony of FBI Section Chief David M. Hardy.”…Attorney Ty Clevenger March 29, 2020

“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

 

From the US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia August 31, 2020.

“For the foregoing reasons, the Petition for a writ of
mandamus is denied. As the underlying criminal case resumes in the District Court, we trust and expect the District Court to proceed with appropriate dispatch.”

“KAREN LECRAFT HENDERSON, Circuit Judge, with whom
RAO, Circuit Judge, joins, dissenting: The Court today denies
Michael Flynn’s mandamus petition on the ground that he has
an adequate remedy at law. It also declines to reassign this case
to a different trial judge. I dissent as to the majority’s merits
holding for the reasons stated in the majority opinion in In re
Flynn, 961 F.3d 1215, 1219 (D.C. Cir. 2020), vacated, reh’g
en banc granted No. 20-5143, 2020 WL 4355389 (D.C. Cir.
July 30, 2020); further, I join Judge Rao’s dissent herein. As
to the majority’s decision not to reassign, my colleagues set an
impossibly high bar for a trial judge’s impartiality to
“reasonably be questioned,” 28 U.S.C. § 455(a), and seem
content to read that subsection out of the United States Code,
even as they infuse Rule 48(a)’s “with leave of court” clause
with enough force to upend our entire system of separated
powers. Because I believe the trial judge’s conduct patently
draws his impartiality into question—and because I believe
§ 455(a) has teeth—I dissent and write separately to explain
why the trial judge is disqualified from further participation in
this case.”

“RAO, Circuit Judge, with whom HENDERSON, Circuit
Judge, joins, dissenting: The Department of Justice has moved
to dismiss the criminal charges against General Michael Flynn,
but the district court insists on further factfinding to scrutinize
the motives and circumstances behind the Department’s
decision. While a district court plays a limited role in granting
“leave of court” to an unopposed motion to dismiss, it is long
settled that a district court cannot supervise the prosecutorial
decisions of the Executive Branch. In our system of separated
powers, the government may deprive a person of his liberty
only upon the action of all three branches: Congress must pass
a law criminalizing the activity; the Executive must determine
that prosecution is in the public interest; and the Judiciary,
independent of the political branches, must adjudicate the case.
The Constitution divides these powers in order to protect
individual liberty from a concentration of government
authority.
In Flynn’s case, the prosecution no longer has a prosecutor.
Yet the case continues with district court proceedings aimed at
uncovering the internal deliberations of the Department. The
majority gestures at the potential harms of such a judicial
intrusion into the Executive Branch, but takes a wait-and-see
approach, hoping and hinting that the district judge will not
take the actions he clearly states he will take. While mandamus
remains an extraordinary remedy, it is appropriate here to
prevent this judicial usurpation of the executive power and to
correct the district court’s abuse of discretion. I respectfully
dissent.”

https://www.cadc.uscourts.gov/internet/opinions.nsf/777940F1C81FD47E852585D5005DADCB/$file/20-5143.pdf

 

More here:

https://citizenwells.com/

http://citizenwells.net/

 

Acting solicitor general Jeff Wall reveals Atty Gen Barr dropped Flynn prosecution based on “lots of information, some of it is public and some is not.”

Acting solicitor general Jeff Wall reveals Atty Gen Barr dropped Flynn prosecution based on “lots of information, some of it is public and some is not.”

“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

“Ms. Sines’s testimony flatly contradicts the FBI’s claims that (1) it did not investigate matters pertaining to Mr. Rich; (2) it did not examine his computer; and (3) it conducted a “reasonable” search but could not locate any records or communications about Mr. Rich. Specifically, Ms. Sines’s testimony flatly contradicts the affidavit testimony of FBI Section Chief David M. Hardy.”…Attorney Ty Clevenger March 29, 2020

“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

 

Acting solicitor general Jeff Wall made the following statements today, Tuesday, August 11, 2020, in the General Flynn appeal before the US Court of Appeals in Washington DC.

“We gave three reasons,”  “One of them was that the interests of justice were no longer served by the prosecution. The attorney general made that judgment on the basis of lots of information, some of it is public and some is not.”

“Under the circumstances we went further than we thought we were obligated to,”

“To drive that point home, the attorney general sees this in the context of public information from other cases.”

“I just wanted to make clear that it may be possible that the attorney general had before him information that he was not able to share with the court,”

“and so what we put in front of the court were the reasons that we could, but it may not be the whole picture available to the executive branch.”

Listen to the oral arguments here:

 

The statements, I believe, stand on their own.

 

More here:

https://citizenwells.com/

http://citizenwells.net/