Category Archives: Federal Court

Lin Wood responds to ad hominem attacks in legal docs Liberte v Reid Jan – Feb 2021, Wood: “credible evidence” GA officials Pence Rosenstein Roberts, No retraction demands

Lin Wood responds to ad hominem attacks in legal docs Liberte v Reid Jan – Feb 2021, Wood: “credible evidence” GA officials Pence Rosenstein Roberts, No retraction demands

“Ad Hominem: This fallacy occurs when, instead of addressing someone’s argument or position, you irrelevantly attack the person or some aspect of the person who is making the argument. The fallacious attack can also be direct to membership in a group or institution.”…Dept. of Philosophy, Texas State

“in phone conversation in 8/19, Justice John Roberts stated that he would make sure “the mother f#*ker would never be re-elected.” Roberts engaged in phone conversations with Justice Stephen Breyer discussing how to work to get Trump voted out.”...Attorney Lin Wood

“And why is Fox News working so hard to kill this story? I wish I could say more “about Fox’s behind-the-scenes treachery — and someday hopefully I will — but rest assured that Malia Zimmerman’s May 17, 2017 story about Mr. Rich was fully vetted by senior Fox management. I repeatedly encouraged Fox’s attorneys to postpone settlement discussions with Seth Rich’s parents until I obtained the FBI records (my client, Ed Butowsky, was a co-defendant with Fox), but Fox was hellbent on settling the case in October / November. That’s around the time Rupert Murdoch publicly joined forces with Joe Biden. Fox had a very strong defense, yet it rolled over and played dead, settling the lawsuit and then firing Ms. Zimmerman. Sooner or later, the full story will come out, and it will be very ugly for Fox News and the Murdoch family.”...Attorney Ty Clevenger

 

Highly irregular.

Used often in Perry Mason episodes and if ever appropriate in a real court case, I would think in the following.

From

ROSLYN LA LIBERTE,
Plaintiff,
v JOY REID

US District Court Eastern District NY

And in particular, the ad hominem attacks against Attorney Lin Wood in an attempt to remove his Pro Hac Vice admission in the case.

From the transcript of teleconference proceedings January 11, 2021.

Attorney Reichman for the defense:

MR. REICHMAN: Your Honor — I’m sorry.
There is another matter that we’d like to bring to the
Court’s attention, and it involves Mr. Wood,
plaintiff’s lead counsel. Over the weekend, we have
come across some very disturbing information about the
conduct of Mr. Wood. I’m sure you’re aware that since
the election, Mr. Wood has been actively engaged in attempting to overturn the election results. All of
those cases have been dismissed. There have also been
sanctions and disqualification motions filed.
MR. WOOD: I have not been sanctioned.
MR. REICHMAN: Now Mr. Wood —
THE COURT: One at a time.
MR. REICHMAN: — has taken an even far
darker turn. He is actively and has actively supported
the insurrection against our government and called for
the execution of the Vice President.
MR. WOOD: Oh, nonsense.
MR. REICHMAN: He’s been permanently barred
from Twitter and his recent attempt to submit a post on
Parler calling for the Vice President’s execution was
not permitted. In fact, the posting of his tweet on
Parler was one of the reasons cited by Apple and Google
to ban Parler from their platforms. The right to
appear pro hac vice in this District is a privilege and
not a right, and we believe there are at least three
reasons why that privilege should be revoked by the
Court.”

Read more:

https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nyed.422819/gov.uscourts.nyed.422819.64.13.pdf

Attorney Reichman’s accusations are extensive.

From Attorney Lin Wood’s response February 9, 2021.

“I have also received credible evidence of serious wrongdoing by high-ranking
government officials which I have brought to the attention of the public and to federal law enforcement officials. The evidence of wrongdoing includes evidence of potentially serious crimes perpetrated by the Chief Justice of the United States Supreme Court.”

“I exercised my right of free speech and did urge attendees to consider engaging in acts of non-violent freedom of assembly and the right to publicly protest acts and inactions by the Georgia Governor and Secretary of State. I am in
possession of credible evidence supporting criminal acts by these Georgia officials.”

“I am in possession of credible evidence to support my statements about Pence and Rod Rosenstein, as well as information about the death of Seth Rich.”

“I have credible evidence to support the truth of my description of Former Vice President Pence as a traitor.”

“I have turned over whistleblower evidence to the United States Secret Service related to Former Vice-President Mike Pence and other high-ranking government officials. If desired by this Court, I am prepared to file that evidence along with a considerable amount of evidence of election fraud. I am not doing so at this time as I do not believe those issues are relevant to the
present motion which I believe is nothing more than an effort to smear my reputation and interfere with Plaintiff’s Constitutional right to counsel of her choice.”

“I have not received a retraction demand from Justice Roberts or his counsel and he has not made any claim to date that my posts are false and defamatory. Former Vice President Mike Pence or Rod Rosenstein have not sent retraction demands or claims that my posts of and concerning them are false and defamatory.”

Read more:

https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nyed.422819/gov.uscourts.nyed.422819.66.3.pdf

What is significant about the above aside from the extensive efforts to discredit Wood?

  1. Attorney Lin Wood stated in court documents that he has proof and will furnish it upon request.
  2. Attorney Wood stated he has received no retraction demands.

Truth is often stranger than fiction.

Stay tuned.

 

More here:

https://citizenwells.com/

http://citizenwells.net/

https://mewe.com/i/citizenwells

https://gab.com/citizenwells

https://rumble.com/user/CitizenWells

 

 

Advertisement

Trump Motion to Intervene Texas v Pennsylvania et al Dec 9, 2020, Attorney John Eastman, Bill of Complaint in Intervention against PA et al

Trump Motion to Intervene Texas v Pennsylvania et al Dec 9, 2020, Attorney John Eastman, Bill of Complaint in Intervention against PA et al

“We discovered that these systems are subject to different types of unauthorized manipulation and potential fraud,”  “There is a reason that Texas rejected it,”...Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton

“Trump’s not gonna win. I made f*cking sure of that!”...Eric Coomer, executive with Dominion Voting Systems

” This must be about stopping Trump”…Gabriel Sterling , GA election official

 

From the Donald Trump 

Motion to Intervene in

STATE OF TEXAS,
Plaintiff,
v.
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA
STATE OF GEORGIA, STATE OF MICHIGAN,
STATE OF WISCONSIN

And

Bill of Complaint in Intervention

“Our Country is deeply divided in ways that it arguably has not been seen since the election of 1860.There is a high level of distrust between the opposing
sides, compounded by the fact that, in the election just held, election officials in key swing states, for apparently partisan advantage, failed to conduct their state
elections in compliance with state election law, in direct violation of the plenary power that Article II of the U.S. Constitution confers on the Legislatures of
the States. Indeed, a recent poll by the reputable Rasmussen polling firm indicates that 47% of all Americans (including 75% of Republicans and 30% of Democrats), believe that it is “likely” or “very likely” the election was stolen from the current incumbent President.1”

“In the 2020 election, under the guise of responding to the COVID-19 pandemic, election officials in several key states, sometimes on their own and sometimes in connection with court actions brought by partisan advocates, made a systematic effort to weaken measures to ensure fair and impartial elections by creating new rules for the conduct of the elections—rules that were never approved by the legislatures of the defendant states as required by Article II of the
United States Constitution. These new rules were aimed at weakening, ignoring, or overriding provisions of state law that are aimed at ensuring the integrity of the voting process.

As more particularly alleged in the Bill of Complaint filed by the State of Texas, for the first time in history, these officials flooded their States with millions of ballots sent through the mail, or placed in drop boxes, with little or no chain of custody and, at the same time, intentionally weakened or eliminated the
few existing security measures protecting the integrity of the vote—signature verification and witness requirements.”

https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/22/22O155/163234/20201209155327055_No.%2022O155%20Original%20Motion%20to%20Intervene.pdf

 

More here:

https://citizenwells.com/

http://citizenwells.net/

 

 

Texas v Pennsylvania et al US Supreme Court states must respond by 3 PM Dec 10, Allen West: LA AL AR FL KY MS SC SD likely to join, Sekulow explains

Texas v Pennsylvania et al US Supreme Court states must respond by 3 PM Dec 10, Allen West: LA AL AR FL KY MS SC SD likely to join, Sekulow explains

“We discovered that these systems are subject to different types of unauthorized manipulation and potential fraud,”  “There is a reason that Texas rejected it,”...Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton

“Trump’s not gonna win. I made f*cking sure of that!”...Eric Coomer, executive with Dominion Voting Systems

” This must be about stopping Trump”…Gabriel Sterling , GA election official

 

From the US Supreme Court.

Dec 07 2020 Motion for leave to file a bill of complaint filed.
Motion for Leave to File a Bill of ComplaintCertificate of Word CountProof of Service
Dec 07 2020 Motion to expedite filed by plaintiff Texas.
Main Document
Dec 07 2020 Motion for preliminary injunction and temporary restraining order or, alternatively, for stay and administrative stay filed by plaintiff Texas.
Main DocumentProof of ServiceOther
Dec 08 2020 Response to the motion for leave to file a bill of complaint and to the motion for a preliminary injunction and temporary restraining order or, alternatively, for stay and administrative stay requested, due Thursday, December 10, by 3 pm.

https://www.supremecourt.gov/search.aspx?filename=/docket/docketfiles/html/public/22o155.html

From 

STATE OF TEXAS,
Plaintiff,
v.
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, STATE OF
GEORGIA, STATE OF MICHIGAN, AND STATE OF
WISCONSIN

“MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION
AND TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER OR,
ALTERNATIVELY, FOR STAY AND
ADMINISTRATIVE STAY”

“CONCLUSION
This Court should first administratively stay or
temporarily restrain the Defendant States from
voting in the electoral college until further order of
this Court and then issue a preliminary injunction or
stay against their doing so until the conclusion of this
case on the merits. Alternatively, the Court should
reach the merits, vacate the Defendant States’ elector
certifications from the unconstitutional 2020 election
results, and remand to the Defendant States’
legislatures pursuant to 3 U.S.C. § 2 to appoint
electors.
December 7, 2020 Respectfully submitted,
Ken Paxton*
Attorney General of Texas”

https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/22/22O155/163052/20201208133328638_TX-v-State-MPI-2020-12-07%20FINAL.pdf

Attorney Jordan Sekulow explains.

 

Landry: Louisiana Is Joining Texas’ 2020 Election Lawsuit

“Millions of Louisiana citizens, and tens of millions of our fellow citizens in the country, have deep concerns regarding the conduct of the 2020 federal elections. Deeply rooted in these concerns is the fact that some states appear to have conducted their elections with a disregard to the U.S. Constitution. Furthermore, many Louisianans have become more frustrated as some in media and the political class try to sidestep legitimate issues for the sake of expediency.

Weeks ago, on behalf of the citizens of Louisiana, my office joined many other states in filing a legal brief with the United States Supreme Court urging the Justices to look into the conduct of the election in Pennsylvania where their state court ignored the U.S. Constitution in regard to the conduct of the election. The U.S. Constitution in Article 1, Section 4, states plainly: “The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature …” The power for the conduct of federal elections is held by the State Legislatures in each state. In states like Pennsylvania, the judicial branch attempted to seize control of these duties and obligations and to set their own rules. These actions appear to be unconstitutional. If it is unconstitutional for Pennsylvania to take this action, it is similarly unconstitutional for other states to have done the same.

Only the U.S. Supreme Court can ultimately decide cases of real controversy among the states under our Constitution. That is why the Justices should hear and decide the case which we have joined representing the citizens of Louisiana.

Furthermore, the U.S. Supreme Court should consider the most recent Texas motion, which contains some of the same arguments.

Louisiana citizens are damaged if elections in other states were conducted outside the confines of the Constitution while we obeyed the rules.”

https://thehayride.com/2020/12/landry-louisiana-is-joining-texas-2020-election-lawsuit/

 

 

More here:

https://citizenwells.com/

http://citizenwells.net/

 

 

 

Michael Flynn motion to disqualify Judge Sullivan October 7, 2020,  Judge Sullivan: “cast an intolerable cloud of partiality over his subsequent judicial conduct”

Michael Flynn motion to disqualify Judge Sullivan October 7, 2020,  Judge Sullivan: “cast an intolerable cloud of partiality over his subsequent judicial conduct”

“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 October 7, 2020.

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 455(a), (b)(1), and (b)(5)(i), General Michael T. Flynn
moves to disqualify Judge Emmet G. Sullivan from further participation in this case. At least by the time of his failure to follow the mandamus of the D.C. Circuit panel and his decision with his own retained counsel to take the unprecedented and improper step of filing his petition for rehearing en banc, Judge Sullivan “cast an intolerable cloud of partiality over his subsequent judicial conduct” and “risk[ed] [] undermining the public’s confidence in the judicial process.” In re Al Nashiri, 921 F.3d 224, 237, 239 (D.C. Cir. 2019). ““[A]ll that must be demonstrated to compel recusal,” then, is “a showing of an appearance of bias…sufficient to permit the average citizen reasonably to question a judge’s impartiality.”” Id. at 234. Judge Sullivan satisfied that standard when he actively litigated against General Flynn. He has since far exceeded it—rising to the level of demonstrating actual bias. The
court’s contempt and disdain for the defense was palpable throughout the hearing on September 29, 2020, including when defense counsel made an oral motion for his immediate disqualification, which he refused to allow even to be fully stated for the record. Hr’g Tr., United States v. Flynn, No. 17-232, (D.D.C. Sept. 29, 2020) at 64-65 (hereinafter “Hr’g Tr. 09-29-20”). Accordingly, the defense files this motion to confirm the oral motion made at the hearing.”

https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.dcd.191592/gov.uscourts.dcd.191592.261.0_1.pdf

 

More here:

https://citizenwells.com/

http://citizenwells.net/

 

 

 

 

Joel and Mary Rich v Fox News et al, “Fox defendants’ motion to dismiss Plaintiffs’ claims for conspiracy and aiding and abetting IIED…is granted”

Joel and Mary Rich v Fox News et al, “Fox defendants’ motion to dismiss Plaintiffs’ claims for conspiracy and aiding and abetting IIED…is granted”

“The left, the Democrats, the Deep State. Obama holdovers employing high powered law firms and corrupt judges have done their best to hide and obfuscate the truth surrounding the DNC leaks and possible involvement by Seth Rich.”…Citizen Wells

“With the clearly unethical and most likely criminal behavior of the upper management levels of the Department of Justice (DOJ) and the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) exposed by Chairman Devin Nunes of the House Intelligence Committee, there are two complementary areas that have been conveniently swept under the rug. The first deals with the murder of the  Democratic National Convention (DNC) staffer Seth Rich, and the second deals with the alleged hacking of the DNC server by Russia.”...Admiral James Lyons

“Who murdered Seth Rich and why?”…Citizen Wells

 

From Joel Rich and Mary Rich

v

Fox News Network, Malia Zimmerman and Ed Butowsky

September 25, 2020.

“Fox defendants’ motion to dismiss Plaintiffs’ claims for conspiracy and aiding and abetting IIED , (ECF No. 102), is granted”

https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.490098/gov.uscourts.nysd.490098.208.0.pdf

This case had been returned to this lower court on appeal.

From Citizen Wells July 14, 2019.

“This is possibly the most unreported important news story I have ever encountered.

Joel and Mary Rich lost their lawsuit against Fox News in 2018 and on September 27, 2018 filed an appeal.

First, their lawsuit results.

From the Federalist Papers.

“Fox News Wins Seth Rich Lawsuit; Judge Dismisses

A New York City judge dismissed a lawsuit filed by the parents of murdered Democratic National Committee staffer Seth Rich on Thursday that asserted Fox News Channel colluded with the White House to propel a false, politically-biased narrative about Rich’s death.”

“It is understandable that plaintiffs might feel that their grief and personal loss were taken advantage of, and that the tragic death of their son was exploited for political purposes,” but Fox evidently did not intend to inflict emotional distress, Judge George Daniels wrote in his decision.””

https://citizenwells.com/2019/07/14/joel-and-mary-rich-v-fox-news-appeal-seth-rich-murder-investigations-and-reporting-appeal-of-richs-failed-lawsuit-almost-unreported/

 

More here:

https://citizenwells.com/

http://citizenwells.net/

 

Amy Coney Barrett President Trump pick for SCOTUS, Judge U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, Clerked for Justice Antonin Scalia

Amy Coney Barrett President Trump pick for SCOTUS, Judge U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, Clerked for Justice Antonin Scalia

“I made it absolutely clear that I would go forward with a confirmation process as [Senate Judiciary] chairman, even a few months before a presidential election, if the nominee were chosen with the advice, and not merely the consent, of the Senate, just as the Constitution requires,” ..Joe Biden, Georgetown Law School 2016

“When there is a vacancy on the SCOTUS, the President is to nominate someone, the Senate is to consider that nomination … There’s no unwritten law that says that it can only be done on off-years. That’s not in the Constitution text.”...Barack Obama 2016

“Even if President Trump wants to put forward a name now, the Senate should not act until after the American people select their next president, their next Congress, their next Senate,”...Joe Biden 2020 

 

The NY Times is calling it:

“President Trump has selected Judge Amy Coney Barrett, the favorite candidate of conservatives, to succeed Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg and will try to force Senate confirmation before Election Day in a move that would significantly alter the ideological makeup of the Supreme Court for years.

Mr. Trump plans to announce on Saturday that she is his choice, according to six people close to the process who asked not to be identified disclosing the decision in advance. As they often do, aides cautioned that Mr. Trump sometimes upends his own plans.

But he is not known to have interviewed any other candidates and came away from two days of meetings with Judge Barrett this week impressed with a jurist he was told would be a female Antonin Scalia, referring to the justice she once clerked for. On Friday night, Judge Barrett was photographed getting out of her car outside her home in South Bend, Ind.

“I haven’t said it was her, but she is outstanding,” Mr. Trump told reporters who asked about Judge Barrett’s imminent nomination at Joint Base Andrews outside Washington after CNN and other news outlets reported on his choice.

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/09/25/us/politics/amy-coney-barrett-supreme-court.html

From The University of Notre Dame Law School.

“The Honorable Amy Coney Barrett was confirmed as a judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit in October 2017. She is a Notre Dame Law School alumna and has taught as a member of the Law School’s faculty since 2002.

Judge Barrett teaches and researches in the areas of federal courts, constitutional law, and statutory interpretation. Her scholarship in these fields has been published in leading journals, including the Columbia, Virginia, and Texas Law Reviews. From 2010-2016, she served by appointment of the Chief Justice on the Advisory Committee for the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure. She has been selected as “Distinguished Professor of the Year” by three of the Law School’s graduating classes.

Judge Barrett earned her B.A. in English literature, magna cum laude, from Rhodes College, where she was elected to Phi Beta Kappa and, among other honors, was chosen by the faculty as the most outstanding graduate in the college’s English department. She earned her J.D., summa cum laude, from Notre Dame, where she was a Kiley Fellow, earned the Hoynes Prize, the Law School’s highest honor, and served as executive editor of the Notre Dame Law Review.

Before joining the Notre Dame faculty, Judge Barrett clerked for Judge Laurence H. Silberman of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit and for Associate Justice Antonin Scalia of the U.S. Supreme Court. As an associate at Miller, Cassidy, Larroca & Lewin in Washington, D.C., she litigated constitutional, criminal, and commercial cases in both trial and appellate courts. Judge Barrett has served as a visiting associate professor and John M. Olin Fellow in Law at the George Washington University Law School,  as a visiting associate professor of law at the University of Virginia and is a member of the American Law Institute (ALI).”

Read more:

https://law.nd.edu/directory/amy-barrett/

Lawyer and law clerk endorsement letter:

https://law.nd.edu/assets/253073/amybarrettscotus.pdf

 

More here:

https://citizenwells.com/

http://citizenwells.net/

 

 

 

 

 

General Flynn dismissal filing Sept. 24, 2020, Third supplement , New documents reveal “outrageous, deliberate misconduct by FBI and DOJ”

General Flynn dismissal filing Sept. 24, 2020, Third supplement , New documents reveal “outrageous, deliberate misconduct by FBI and DOJ”

“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 September 24, 2020 filing by Attorney Sidney Powell in the US v Michael Flynn case.

THIRD SUPPLEMENT IN SUPPORT OF AGREED DISMISSAL.

“Late last night, the Government produced yet another tranche of
documents—its fifth production of exculpatory evidence since April of 2020, and its third since filing its massive Motion to Dismiss. ECF Nos. 198, 231, 237. According to the Government’s production correspondence: “The documents include handwritten notes of former Deputy Assistant Director Peter Strzok (23501 & 23503) and former Deputy Director Andrew McCabe (23502); and internal text messages between FBI analysts who worked on the Flynn matter (23504- 23516); . . . additional text messages between former DAD Strzok and Lisa Page (23516-23540).” The 41 pages of additional evidence demonstrate (i) his innocence; (ii) the absence of any crime; (iii) government misconduct in the investigation of General Flynn; and (iv) continuing prosecutorial misconduct in the suppression of evidence favorable to the defense in violation of Brady v. Maryland and this Court’s Brady order. ECF No. 20.

These documents provide information long known to the agents and others at
the highest levels of the Department of Justice and the FBI; information long
concealed by the Special Counsel and FBI. This evidence shows outrageous,
deliberate misconduct by FBI and DOJ—playing games with the life of a national
hero. It negates multiple essential elements required for the prosecution of a false statement offense and any “offense” even considered in relationship to Flynn Intel Group’s review of open source information regarding Fethullah Gulen and the Muslim Brotherhood.

This remarkable new production shows that in August of 2016, the FBI
analysts discussed the preference of some agents for a Clinton Presidency—a known quantity—“instead of a wild card like [T]rump.”

In messages exchanged on the FBI’s “Lync” messaging system in October of
2016, FBI employees exchanged messages about the “Crossfire Road Show,” stating that they were “interested to see how this all plays out.” They knew exactly how bad it was: “I’m tellying man, if this thing ever gets FOIA’d, there are going to be some tough questions asked.””

Read more:

https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.dcd.191592/gov.uscourts.dcd.191592.248.0_2.pdf

 

More here:

https://citizenwells.com/

http://citizenwells.net/

 

 

 

 

 

Flynn appeal rehearing en banc oral arguments listen live August 11, 2020, US Court of Appeals DC District, Judges Srinivasan, Henderson, Rogers, Tatel, Garland, Griffith, Millett, Pillard, Wilkins, Rao

Flynn appeal rehearing en banc oral arguments listen live August 11, 2020, US Court of Appeals DC District, Judges Srinivasan, Henderson, Rogers, Tatel, Garland, Griffith, Millett, Pillard, Wilkins, Rao

“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

“I repeatedly asked U.S. Attorney John Durham and DOJ Inspector General Michael Horowitz to investigate whether Mr. Hardy lied under oath, and in an April 22, 2020 letter Mr. Horowitz wrote that he referred my complaint to the FBI’s Inspection Division. Was Mr. Hardy forced out?”…Attorney Ty Clevenger July 22, 2020

 

From the US Court of Appeals DC District July 30, 2020.

“In re: Michael T. Flynn,
Petitioner
BEFORE: Srinivasan, Chief Judge, and Henderson, Rogers, Tatel, Garland,
Griffith, Millett, Pillard, Wilkins, Katsas*, and Rao, Circuit Judges
O R D E R
Upon consideration of the petition for rehearing en banc, the responses thereto, and the vote in favor of rehearing en banc by a majority of the judges eligible to participate, it is ORDERED that this case be reheard by the court sitting en banc. It is FURTHER ORDERED that the court’s order filed June 24, 2020, be vacated. It is FURTHER ORDERED that oral argument before the en banc court be heard at 9:30 a.m. on Tuesday, August 11, 2020. The parties should be prepared to address whether there are “no other adequate means to attain the relief” desired. Cheney v. U.S. Dist. Court for D.C., 542 U.S. 367, 380 (2004).
A separate order will issue regarding the allocation of oral argument time.”

“Tuesday, August 11, 2020 9:30 A.M. USCA Courtroom 31”

Judges Srinivasan, Henderson, Rogers, Tatel, Garland, Griffith, Millett, Pillard, Wilkins, Rao

Listen live:

https://www.cadc.uscourts.gov/internet/sixtyday.nsf/mastercalendar?SearchView&query=(%5BEntryDate%5D%3E=08/11/2020%20AND%20%5BEntryDate%5D%3C=08/11/2020)&tab=1&SearchMax=1000

 

 

More here:

https://citizenwells.com/

http://citizenwells.net/

General Flynn case amicus brief filed by Trey Gowdy et al May 28, 2020, “court lacks discretion to deny a rule 48 motion to which the defendant consents”

General Flynn case amicus brief filed by Trey Gowdy et al May 28, 2020, “court lacks discretion to deny a rule 48 motion to which the defendant consents”

“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

And I’ve now found a witness who says the original 302 did in fact say that Flynn was honest with the agents.”...Attorney Sidney Powell

“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 23, 2019

 

From the

BRIEF OF FEDERAL PRACTITIONERS AS AMICI CURIAE

filed by Trey Gowdy May 28, 2020.

“INTEREST OF AMICI CURIAE
Amici curiae are a bipartisan group of attorneys with extensive experience in
the federal court system, including many who practice criminal law in this and
other federal courts. Some were prosecutors, government attorneys, or judges.
They have an interest in: (1) the proper application of Fed.R.Crim.P 48 in light of
Separation of Powers principles, and (2) the potential triggering of a contempt
proceeding for perjury in cases where a client moves to withdraw a guilty plea or
in cases, civil or criminal, where a client provides testimony which a court may
consider to be false.

“ARGUMENT
I. THE COURT LACKS DISCRETION TO DENY A RULE 48 MOTION
TO WHICH THE DEFENDANT CONSENTS
The issue presented in this case is whether the court has discretion to deny a
motion to dismiss to which the defendant consents, as Gen. Flynn has done here.
The answer is no. Rule 48 must be construed in light of the Constitutional
separation of powers. The D.C. Circuit has done so and has concluded that “the
‘leave of court’ authority gives no power to a district court to deny a prosecutor’s
Rule 48(a) motion to dismiss charges based on a disagreement with the
prosecution’s exercise of charging authority.” U.S. v. Fokker Services B.V., 818
F.3d 733, 742 (D.C. Cir. 2016).

“Rule 48 provides that “[t]he government may, with leave of court, dismiss
an indictment, information, or complaint.” “The words ‘leave of court’ were
inserted in Rule 48(a) without explanation.” Rinaldi v. United States, 434 U.S. 22, 29 n. 15 (1977).3”

“A. The constitutional separation of powers precludes a court from
overriding a prosecutor’s decision to dismiss a prosecution.
Since its 1977 decision in Rinaldi, the Supreme Court has ruled that “an
agency’s decision not to prosecute or enforce, whether through civil or criminal
process, is a decision generally committed to an agency’s absolute discretion.”
Heckler v. Chaney, 470 U.S. 821, 831 (1985). The Court has cautioned that “the
decision to prosecute is particularly ill-suited to judicial review. Such factors as the strength of the case, the prosecution’s general deterrence value, the Government’s enforcement priorities, and the case’s relationship to the Government’s overall enforcement plan are not readily susceptible to the kind of analysis the courts are competent to undertake.” Wayte v. United States, 470 U.S. 598, 607 (1985).
These decisions effectively overrule Cowan and Ammidown.”

Read more:

https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.dcd.191592/gov.uscourts.dcd.191592.212.4_1.pdf

Exhibit A
List of Amici Curiae
1
Dan Backer Federal trial and appellate lawyer
Roy Barrera, Jr. Federal trial and appellate lawyer
Robert J. Bittman Federal trial and Appellate lawyer
Former Deputy Independent Counsel – Whitewater
John Stuart Bruce Federal trial and appellate lawyer
Former (The) United States Attorney, EDNC
Jackie Bennett Federal trial lawyer
Former Deputy Independent Counsel – Whitewater
Former DOJ Attorney (Public Integrity Section)
Former Assistant United States Attorney, SDIN
Margot Cleveland Retired career federal law clerk (7th Circuit)
Ronald D. Coleman Federal trial and appellate lawyer
Eric Evenson Former Assistant United States Attorney, EDNC
Former Chief – Organized Crime/Drug
Enforcement Tas Force, EDNC
Jack C. Frels Former Assistant United States Attorney, SDTX
Former Chief – Criminal Division, SDTX
Former Assistant United States Attorney, WDTX
Former Chief OCDETF/Narcotics Section, WDTX
Chris K. Gober Federal trial lawyer

Steven D. Gordon Federal trial and appellate lawyer
Former Assistant United States Attorney, DDC
Former Chief of Felony Trial, DDC
Trey Gowdy Former Assistant United States Attorney, DSC
Robert Harvey Federal trial and appellate attorney
Former Judge Advocate General, USN
Kenneth Julian Federal criminal trial attorney
Former Assistant United States Attorney, CDCA
Former Deputy Chief, CDCA
Joseph T. Knott, III Federal trial and appellate lawyer
Former Assistant United States Attorney, EDNC
Douglas McCullough Retired Judge, NC Court of Appeals
Former Assistant United States Attorney, EDNC
Former Acting United States Attorney, EDNC
Marina Medvin Career criminal defense attorney
John M. Reeves Federal trial and appellate lawyer
Former Missouri Assistant Attorney General
Wayne A. Rich, Jr. Former (The) United States Attorney, SDWV
Former Principal Deputy Director of the Executive
Office of the United States Attorneys
Former Military Judge, Col USMCR (ret.)

John P. Rowley, III Federal trial and appellate lawyer
Former Assistant United States Attorney, EDVA
Kevin H. Sharp Federal trial and appellate lawyer
Former United States District Judge, MDTN
William Shipley Federal criminal trial and appellate lawyer
Matthew H. Simmons Federal trial and appellate lawyer
Kenneth W. Starr Former Solicitor General of the United States
Former Independent Counsel – Whitewater
Carla Kerr Stearns Federal trial and appellate lawyer
William A. “Bill” Webb Mediator
Former United States Magistrate Judge, EDNC
Former (The) Public Defender, EDNC
Former Chief, OCDETF, EDNC
Former Assistant United States Attorney, EDNC
Former Assistant United States Attorney, WDPA
Solomon L. Wisenberg Federal trial and appellate lawyer
Former Deputy Independent Counsel – Whitewater
Former Assistant United States Attorney, WDTX
Former Chief -Financial Institution Fraud, WDTX
Former Assistant United States Attorney, EDNC

Ronald G. Woods Former (The) United States Attorney, SDTX
Former Assistant United States Attorney, SDTX
Former Special Agent, FBI

https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.dcd.191592/gov.uscourts.dcd.191592.212.1_1.pdf

More here:

https://citizenwells.com/

http://citizenwells.net/

 

Sidney Powell Writ of Mandamus US v Michael Flynn May 19, 2020, “seeks an order directing the district court to grant the Justice Department’s Motion to Dismiss its criminal case”

Sidney Powell Writ of Mandamus US v Michael Flynn May 19, 2020, “seeks an order directing the district court to grant the Justice Department’s Motion to Dismiss its criminal case”

“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

And I’ve now found a witness who says the original 302 did in fact say that Flynn was honest with the agents.”...Attorney Sidney Powell

“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 23, 2019

 

From the Sidney Powell 

EMERGENCY PETITION FOR A WRIT OF MANDAMUS

Filed May 19, 2020.

“This petition seeks an order directing the district court to grant the
Justice Department’s Motion to Dismiss its criminal case against former
National Security Advisor to President Trump, Lieutenant General Michael
T. Flynn (Ret.) (“Motion to Dismiss”). ECF No. 198. The Government moved
to dismiss the Information charging a violation of 18 U.S.C. §1001 after an
internal review by United States Attorney Jeffrey Jensen unearthed stunning
evidence of government misconduct and General Flynn’s innocence.

This Court has jurisdiction pursuant to the All Writs Act, which
authorizes federal courts to issue writs “in the aid of their respective
jurisdictions and agreeable to the usages and principles of law.” 28 U.S.C.
§1651(a). The district court’s failure to grant the Government’s Motion to
Dismiss defies this Court’s binding precedent in United States v. Fokker
Servs., B.V., 818 F.3d 733, 740 (D.C. Cir. 2016). The district court’s sua
sponte appointment of an amicus to oppose the Government’s motion and
its Minute Order to issue a schedule for additional amici are at loggerheads
with the unanimous Supreme Court opinion in United States v. SinenengSmith, No. 19–67 (U.S. May 7, 2020).

RELIEF SOUGHT
Petitioner respectfully requests that this Court order the district court
immediately to (1) grant the Justice Department’s Motion to Dismiss; (2)
vacate its order appointing amicus curiae; and (3) reassign the case to
another district judge as to any further proceedings.

ISSUE PRESENTED
Whether the district court exceeded its authority and egregiously
abused its discretion by failing to grant the Government’s Motion to Dismiss
the Criminal Information and, instead, appointing an amicus to oppose the
motion and to propose contempt and perjury charges against General Flynn,
while inviting additional amici.”

Read more:

https://sidneypowell.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/05/Petition-filed.pdf

More here:

https://citizenwells.com/

http://citizenwells.net/