Judicial Lawlessness: A Nationwide Crisis
Part 1: Judge Emmet Sullivan Wears No Clothes
posted on May 30, 2020 by Lisa Siegel Belanger, J.D.
destination2justice.com/d2j-blog/
FULL ARTICLE HERE:
@TamraLeigh_llc @ThyConsigliori @GenFlynn @BarbaraRedgate @SidneyPowell1
Prevalent judicial lawlessness affects us all—it happens to the rich, the poor, all socioeconomic groups; it makes no difference the color of one’s skin, religion, age, gender or political party.
destination2justice.com/free-marvin/fe…
Attorney Sidney Powell’s bravery is not just a blessing for General Flynn and his family, but also for America.
As shown above, in Judge Sullivan’s own words, he stated that the specific purpose of appointing an “amicus curiae” is to “present arguments in opposition to the government’s motion to dismiss.”
Red Flag of “Amicus Curiae” Appointment by Its Own Definition
As specifically defined in the federal statute 50 U.S.C. Sec. 1803(4), the “duties of an “amicus curiae” is set forth as
(2)(A), the amicus curiae shall provide to the court, as appropriate—
(A) legal arguments that advance the protection of individual privacy and civil liberties;
(B) information related to intelligence collection or communications technology; or
Judge Sullivan made no bones about his intention for retired Judge to play the role as a “special prosecutor”.
Red Flag by DOJ’s well-founded and substantiated grounds for dismissal
. . . the Government has concluded that the interview of Mr. Flynn was untethered to, and unjustified by, the FBI’s counterintelligence investigation into Mr. Flynn . . .
•The prosecution does not have sufficient evidence to charge General Michael Flynn for the original charges brought (lying to the FBI); and
•That the investigation of General Flynn was not only baseless, but was, in fact, unlawful FBI conduct.
The REAL rationale for Judge Sullivan not denying the DOJ’s Motion to Dismiss
It is very evident from a professional legal examination that Judge Sullivan deliberately chose to not deny the DOJ’s motion—
Denying the DOJ’s motion would have meant that it would have been directly appealable as a matter of right by General Flynn and the DOJ.
sidneypowell.com/wp-content/upl…
"Brief for Judge Emmet Sullivan In Response to Order". . .the court did not ask for a brief.
Given the above thread, it reminds of that old joke: how many lawyers does it take to screw in a light bulb. . .