Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Robert Schunk
I disagree with Mark Levin in that the judge must entertain the motion to dismiss the case now before it, which remains before it until it has been dismissed or otherwise disposed of. Any Application for Writ of Prohibition must fail as the court of original jurisdiction (i.e.,Judge Sullivan's court) retains jurisdiction until the case has been dismissed or otherwise disposed of. (Besides, it was the prosecution that chose the court upon which he serves as one of the judges as the venue in the first place!)
Mr. Levin rightfully accuses the FBI of police misconduct during their investigation of Mr. Flynn, yet this is far from Judge Sullivan denying him due process of law before his court.
My one point of agreement with Mr. Levin is that Judge Sullivan erred in appointing a strawman counsel to draught a brief opposing the motion, as it's properly the role of the judge himself with or without the assistance of his law clerks to consider causes for dismissing the motion.
|
I appreciate your points concerning Mr. Levin.
Regarding General Flynn, I’ve heard some mention the government threatened pressure/prosecution of his son and Flynn’s agreement to plea deal halted that......does General Flynn now have recourse?
It will be interesting to see how this plays out!