Thread by @TPCLJ

#JudicialLawlessness
#NationwideCrisis

1/ D2J BLOG Thread Part 2:
Judge Emmet Sullivan Wears No Clothes
by Lisa Siegel Belanger, J.D. (*actively licensed)
June 7, 2020

@TamaraLeigh_llc @ThyConsigliori
@GenFlynn @BarbaraRedgate @realDonaldTrump

2/ In Part 1 of my D2J blog article Judge Emmet Sullivan Wears No Clothes, I explain how and why Judge Sullivan’s court order appointing Ret. John Gleeson as “amicus curiae” is in fact a sham—

3/ I specifically, walk the reader through 50 U.S.C. Sec. 1803(4), the federal statute that defines the scope and purpose of an “amicus curiae”.

Here is Part 1
👇

https://twitter.com/TPCLJ/status/1267490831696527361?s=20

4/In the midst of preparing this follow-up legal road map for nonlawyers as to the real deal regarding Judge Sullivan's issued May 13, 2020 Order, it has become one hell of a long & winding road. So, I'm thinking that you folks would probably prefer this info disected vs H-Bomb.

5/ So, my thought is to make this one ongoing thread from hereon.

6/ Again, the federal statute defining role of "amicus curiae" states:

(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;

7/ Statute cont'd:

(B) information related to intelligence collection or communications technology; or

(C) legal arguments or information regarding any other area relevant to the issue presented to the court.

8/ The legal analysis provided in Part 1 makes it so that nonlawyers don’t have to break a sweat trying to decipher unnecessary and pretentious legalese to understand how and why Judge Sullivan’s Order constitutes blatant abuse of judicial power;

9/ It lays out real information showing that Judge Sullivan has no adequate legal or factual basis to even have issued such an order from the get-go.

10/ Here, in Part 2, I’ll explain further overwhelming evidence that General Flynn’s case is a posterchild for translucent judicial thuggery—so much so that the commonly used phrase Kangaroo Court is in all capitals: KANGAROO COURT.

11/ Based on publicly known established facts about the General Flynn case, when examined from a context of totality of the circumstances, it substantiates the solid conclusion: Judge Sullivan issued his May 13, 2020 Order w/ premeditated intent to carry out unlawful retaliation;

12/ specifically, motivated by his self-admitted and manifested umbrage that General Flynn has pursued the withdrawal of his guilty plea and the DOJ's follow-up motion to dismiss charges against General Flynn.

13/ Review firsthand Justice Sullivan’s filed response with the D.C. Court of Appeals here: bit.ly/2XASYXA.

14/ This ongoing thread will take you step-by-step showing solid info supporting the conclusion that Judge Sullivan has committed obstruction of justice pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1505 via his issuing his May 13, 2020 Order appointing Ret. Judge John Gleeson as "amicus curiae".

15/ As the lyrics go in Bruno Mars’s song called Uptown Funk: Don’t believe me. . . just watch—however, here, slight modification needed:

Don’t believe me . . . just read.

16/
TOPIC A:

Judge Sullivan’s self-incriminating statement of disgruntled mindset when issuing his May 13, 2020 Order

17/ Right off the bat—and through counsel, Justice Sullivan states on page 1 of his filed response with the D.C. Court of Appeals, under the heading “Introduction”, second sentence, he states:

18/ "It is unprecedented for an Acting U.S. Attorney to contradict the solemn representations that career prosecutors made time and again, and UNDERMINE the district court’s legal and factual findings, in moving on his own to dismiss the charge years after . . . "

19/ Given the tone through the language used in that literal introduction of Judge Sullivan’s filed response, no one can tell me that he’s not pissed off.

20/ Judge Sullivan’s unequivocal statement blares his de facto mindset regarding the DOJ’s motion to dismiss; he explicitly describes his feeling of being “undermined”.

21/ No one can tell me that Judge Sullivan’s outright statement that the DOJ “undermined” him expresses anything less than outrage. “Undermined” is a commonly well-established expression of feeling duped; an expression used when someone feels he/she has just been screwed over.

22/ There is no doubt, amongst reasonable minds, that Judge Sullivan was (and still is) over-the top boiling angry as a result of the DOJ’s filing its motion to dismiss charges against General Flynn.

23/ And don’t tell me that Judge Sullivan did not read the filing before being submitted to the D.C. Court of Appeals.

Judge Sullivan's filed response is in no uncertain terms deemed statements made by HIM.

24/ Coming soon:

Topic B: Other Important damning evidence presented in Judge Sullivan’s filed response

25/
D2J BLOG THREAD SERIES:
Judge Emmet Sullivan Wears No Clothes
by Lisa Siegel Belanger, J.D.

June 8, 2020 (HAPPY BIRTHDAY DAD)

Further dissection of Judge Sullivan’s filed specific statement:

@TamaraLeigh_llc @ThyConsigliori
@GenFlynn @BarbaraRedgate
@realDonaldTrump

26/ Further dissection of Judge Sullivan's filed statement w/ Court of Appeals:

“It is unprecedented for an Acting U.S. Attorney to contradict the solemn representations that career prosecutors made time and again, and undermine the district court’s legal and factual findings"

27/ As a veteran* practitioner of the law, I have no true words to adequately express the height of disingenuous emanating from Justice Sullivan’s assertion that HE as a judge made “legal & factual findings” regarding a “guilty plea”.

*And I do not use "veteran" lightly

28/ The ONLY way that a trial judge makes “legal & factual findings” is through a FULLY litigated process: A TRIAL. De facto, there was NO trial.

29/ For Judge Emmet Sullivan to even put in writing—and worse THROUGH COUNSEL—the notion that “the district court” made “legal and actual findings” at a plea proceeding is a sham, in and of itself.

30/ It tickles my funny bone that Judge Sullivan did not have the fortitude (and I’m sure you all know the descriptor I really mean) to explicitly make attribution using his personal name—Judge Sullivan’s “legal and factual findings".

31/ Please note: there are many, many references made in Judge Sullivan’s filed response specifically using his own "name": Judge Sullivan.

But here, he wants to refer to himself as the “district court”. Very apt that “district court” is in all small letters—rightfully so.

32/ D2J BLOG THREAD SERIES:
Judge Emmet Sullivan Wears No Clothes
by Lisa Siegel Belanger, J.D.

June 8, 2020 Afternoon Edition

DISSECTING 1ST PORTION OF
JUDGE SULLIVAN'S MAY 13, 2020 ORDER:

@TamaraLeigh_llc @ThyConsigliori
@GenFlynn @BarbaraRedgate
@realDonaldTrump

33/

1st portion of Judge Sullivan’s May 13, 2020 Order:
Misuse of court process

34/ As seen from the language Judge Sullivan used in this 1st portion of the Order, he outwardly and unapologetically declared that his objective—in no uncertain terms—is so he, as judge, can take over the role as prosecutor;

35/ a blatantly expressed intention to completely ouster the DOJ of its designated prosecutorial role.

36/ In Judge Sullivan’s own words, he conveys a no-holds barred intent to invalidate the DOJ’s motion to dismiss via his “amicus curiae” appointment—doing so with such magnitude as if he wrote it in neon lights on a blazing billboard.

37/ The function of a trial judge is to ensure the administration of the process is fair & impartial. The key concept being: a procedural role. Not a litigator!

(Grand Jury Proceedings: The Prosecutor, the Trial Judge, and Undue Influence, 39 U. Chi. L. Rev. 761 [1972])

38/ In Justice Sullivan’s own written words, he is anything other than fair and impartial; and even more so, his own words bolster improper motives.

39/ What is so bizarre is Judge Sullivan's citing to a case that actually NEGATES his judicial action!!

40/ Judge Sullivan cited the U.S. v. Folker case which states:

"[T]he '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."

41/ As seen from Judge Sullivan's own filed response with the D.C. Court of Appeals, he thinks the U.S. Folker case advocates for a judge to not be a rubber-stamper.

#ConfusionOnTheBrain

SMH

42/ The detailed rantings by Judge Sullivan and his counsel in his filed response claiming that the DOJ's motion to dismiss arose from nefarious conduct appears to be a CYA move. No where in the May 13, 2020 Order did Judge Sullivan articulate any mention of such claim.

43/ I suggest the lack of any mention of DOJ misconduct in his May 13. 2020 Order speaks volumes.

If this weren't such a travesty of justice, such judicial conduct would be comedic.

44/ Is the dog chasing its tail or the tail chasing the dog--the very basis of the DOJ's motion to dismiss is because of the 3-year hell of government misconduct.

45/ To sum up: the U.S. Constitution precludes a trial judge from usurping the role of the DOJ.

46/ D2J BLOG THREAD SERIES:
Judge Emmet Sullivan Wears No Clothes
by Lisa Siegel Belanger, J.D.

June 9, 2020

DISSECTING 2nd PORTION OF
JUDGE SULLIVAN'S MAY 13, 2020 ORDER:

@TamaraLeigh_llc @ThyConsigliori
@GenFlynn @BarbaraRedgate
@realDonaldTrump

47/ Portion 2 of Judge Sullivan’s May 13, 2020 Order:
Misuse of court process

48/ As shown in said Order, Judge Sullivan, relies on 18 U.S.C. Section 401 for purported “authority” to pursue “criminal contempt” proceedings against General Flynn.

49/ 18 U.S.C. Section 401 states:

Power of court -
A court of the United States shall have power to punish by fine or imprisonment, or both, at its discretion, such contempt of its authority, and none other, as—

50/ 18 U.S.C. Section 401 cont'd

(1) Misbehavior of any person in its presence or so near thereto as to obstruct the administration of justice;

(2) Misbehavior of any of its officers in their official transactions;

51/ 18 U.S.C. Section 401 cont'd

3) Disobedience or resistance to its lawful writ, process, order, rule, decree, or command.

52/ As shown above, the statutory language of 18 U.S.C. Section 401 plainly and unambiguously states that the supposed misconduct must specifically pertain to “contempt of [the Court’s] authority.”

53/ Therefore, a generalized claim of purported “perjury” is in no manner whatsoever valid to pursue “criminal contempt” proceedings—creating to the Nth degree. constitutional due process violations of inadequate notice of charged misconduct.

54/ Existing case law declares that 18 U.S.C. Section 401—cited by Judge Sullivan—is NOT intended as a catch-all to penalize for a claimed general commission of “perjury”. Bloom v. State of Illinois, 391 U.S. 194 (1968).

55/ Bloom v. Illinois and later reaffirming cases establish proper application of 18 U.S.C. Section 401 requires Judge Sullivan to have set forth IN his MAY 13 2020 Order specific acts on which he relied to pursue “criminal contempt” re “perjury” IN DIRECT RELATION TO THE COURT.

56/ As shown in the Order itself, Judge Sullivan failed to provide ANY information in that regard. As a matter of law, to allege the general term “perjury” is by no means adequate—and to reiterate such omission is unconstitutional of exponential proportions.

57/ To reiterate, Judge Sullivan’s after-thoughts set forth in his filed response to the D.C. Court of Appeals are entirely irrelevant. Such claims were needed in the May 13, 2020 Order. Period. Judge Sullivan's failure to do so de facto renders his Order fatally defective.

58/ Of significance, SCOTUS emphasized in Bloom v. State of Illinois that 18 U.S.C. Section 401 is NOT to be used as “unbridled power to punish summarily for contempt.”

59/ D2J BLOG THREAD SERIES:
Judge Emmet Sullivan Wears No Clothes
by Lisa Siegel Belanger, J.D.

June 9, 2020 Evening Edition

Discussing Mens Rea
They say: Timing Is Everything (Act 1)

@TamaraLeigh_llc @ThyConsigliori
@GenFlynn@BarbaraRedgate
@realDonaldTrump

60/ Judge Sullivan’s chosen timing to issue his May 13, 2020 Order is a major lynchpin in showing that it is in fact a sham. As previously discussed, a key factor in relation to timing of the Order is Judge Sullivan's frame of mind. That in reality: it is lawless retaliation.

61/ With regard to established frame of mind, throughout Judge Sullivan's filed response to the D.C. Court of Appeals, he blares his being specifically disgruntled as a result of the claimed supposed audacity of General Flynn to withdraw his “guilty plea”.

62/ The over-the-top tone of arrogance exhibited in Judge Sullivan's filed response is astounding.. The lack of self-awareness could be humorous, but more so it's appalling.

63/ On page 1 of Justice Sullivan’s filed response to the D.C. Court of Appeals, he states and I quote:

"It is unusual for a criminal defendant to claim innocence and move to withdraw his guilty plea after repeatedly swearing under oath that he committed the crime."

64/ On pages 6 thru 10, Judge Sullivan and his counsel rant about the back-bending lengths that he supposedly took to make sure General Flynn had understood that by agreeing to the plea that it was: “knowingly, voluntarily, intelligently and with fulsome and satisfactory.”

65/ In my professional time in the court swamp, I don’t think I’ve ever read or heard such a dramatic “plea colloquy”—almost Shakespearean-like. (OMG).

66/ In fact, the HUGE RED FLAG WAVING is Judge Sullivan quoting himself (on page 8 of his filed response) as saying to General Flynn during the colloquy:

67/

"I cannot recall any incident in which the Court has ever accepted a plea of guilty from someone who maintained that he was not guilty, and I don’t intend to start today."

68/ I submit that very quote by Judge Sullivan expresses he had a hunch (at the very least) that General Flynn was extorted into copping a plea.

It sticks out like a sore thumb--there's no logical reason for him saying such a thing other than thinking @GenFlynn was innocent.

69/ Conveniently Judge Sullivan and his counsel omitted from the filed response the established well-known info that the govt threatened General Flynn to indict his son. (Gen Flynn's declaration bit.ly/3fcQMeV).

70/ Also, conveniently left out in Judge Sullivan's filed response is to address General Flynn's filings showing he was sabotaged by his own former counsel. Filings viewable at sidneypowell.com/the-michael-t-…

71/ Further exuding umbrage to the 10th power for General Flynn daring to withdraw his “guilty plea” is on page 8:

"After being placed under oath again, Mr. Flynn confirmed that (1) he did not wish to “challenge the circumstances” surrounding his FBI interview . .cont'd

72/ Cont'd quoted from page 8

2) by pleading guilty he would be giving up “forever” his right to challenge that interview; (3) he knew at the time of his interview that lying to the FBI was a crime; and (4) he was “satisfied with the services provided by [his] attorneys.”

73/ Now throw in the timing factor--

74/ in Judge Sullivan’s filed response, he makes irrefutable admissions of being aware of General Flynn’s filed sworn statements on January 14, 2020 & January 29, 2020 (pages 11-14)—sworn statements on which Judge Sullivan hinges his belated CYA claim.

75/ Therefore, Judge Sullivan was fully aware of General Flynn’s filed sworn statements back in January 2020, yet Judge Sullivan fails to even address the fact that he waited more than 3 MONTHS to file his Order—that’s because there is NO legitimate justification.

76/ Further magnifying the illegitimacy of the delayed May 13, 2020 Order is the befuddling admission by Judge Sullivan that he DELIBERATELY WITHHELD ruling on General Flynn’s motion to withdraw guilty plea—which he sworn statements were part of those filings!!

77/ Nowhere in Judge Sullivan’s filed response does he say WHY he waited MORE THAN 3 MONTHS to pursue criminal contempt proceedings--not to mention his admitted deliberate stalling to rule on General Flynn's motion to withdraw his plea.

78/ Judge Sullivan's filed response after all shows his already made rulings regarding: criminal contempt and withdrawal of guilty plea.

Really?? What was the hold-up?? (pun intended) As shown, he knew what he rulings would be.

79/ Conveniently, on pages 6 thru 10, Judge Sullivan and his counsel list out specific “reasons” for Judge Sullivan having already conclusively determined that General Flynn has supposedly “made materially false statements” . . .

80/

Now, let’s think. . .hmm…during that 3-month time period, what significant event happened just prior to the May 13, 2020 Order. . .oh, that’s right. . .on May 7, 2020, the DOJ filed its MOTION TO DISMISS CHARGES AGAINST GENERAL FLYNN.

(intermission ACT 2 to follow)