Okay, this is hilarious! Peter Strzok's attorney is telling Judge Sullivan that @SidneyPowell1 is violating a court order by filing these additional disclosures. 1/
2/ NOPE! The court order was to not file supplements to "pending motions," which were motions to withdraw and motion for dismissal b/c of prosecutorial misconduct. The government's motion to dismiss was not filed until later! And even Sullivan wouldn't dare say you can't file
3/ relevant evidence to that motion. But what makes it even richer?
4/ Strzok knew of the Sullivan's standing order to turn over evidence and also that if there was a debate on materiality, it had to be presented to Judge Sullivan. But did Strzok's attorney send a note to Sullivan saying "hey, you should know we didn't think he was lying" and
5/5 "we're concerned that Van Quack hasn't turned over the documents that confirm that." UNREAL!
OMgosh...post-script: Strzok's attorney calls the documents "Brady production." Ummm, nothing like admitting government violated the standing order!!!!
And I have no idea how the dates were added, but assume someone was taking notes and accidently copied wrong document, was it Jensen's team, or Powell's (if true),but really, maybe Sullivan should look at the "mistake" made by the Special Counsel's office: thefederalist.com/2020/06/01/new…
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
🔥My thoughts below were stream of conscious but after processing, I think it is a huge "discovery" I noted: In short, attorney originally referred to father of 2 year old as husband of mother but in court documents only called him "partner." 1/
2/ Under Louisiana law, if parents are NOT married at time of birth, then mother has all custodial and parental rights. Dad has to prove fatherhood (here proven by birth certificate) AND then obtain legal custodial/parental rights via court proceedings.
3/ So, if they weren't married as seems likely given court documents did not refer to him as husband, it seems very unlikely dad had any legal parental or custodial rights to 2 year old which would mean he couldn't give them to a Provisional Custodian.
🚨🚨🚨District court entered injunction barring Trump Administration from taking steps to implement president's determination that unions no longer represent certain employees based on federal statute Trump invoked: 1/
🚨Yet another effort to interfere in Trump Administration's management of agencies filed today regarding DHS's terminations of employees. Lawsuit filed by three organizations seeks, among other things: 1/
🚨🚨🚨BREAKING: Court unseals procedure for Alien Enemies Act removals, explaining notice & process. 2 key points: First, notice is given in native language, so did ACLU mislead court by focusing on written notice being only in English? 1/
2/ Notice provided, as Declaration states, is more than provided in expedited removal cases. THIS point was made in appeal filed in 10th Cir. earlier. Given Courts have held less process is due in other situations, where not dealing w/ terrorists, hard to say not enough here.
3/ Returning to first point: How much of ACLU's claim that notice was given only in English drove SCOTUS to interfere when there was NO decision by lower court? And did ACLU know notice provided in native language? I'd wager they did & misled court.
Thanks to @Philippicae for tagging me on just filed appeal by Trump Administration in 10th Circuit challenging Colorado district court ruling in Alien Enemy Act case. 1/
3/ First, the two named plaintiffs are NOT being detained under Proclamation and have not been found to be members of tDa. As such, they cannot challenge the Proclamation or their detention under habeas on that basis. Court should have dismissed lawsuit.