Flynn application for writ of mandamus against Judge Sullivan


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.


17 thoughts on “Flynn application for writ of mandamus against Judge Sullivan”

  1. Ohhhhh….

    .It’s not so much the repeated  disappointment,  as the HOPE, that’s wearing me down.

    God bless you, Sidney, and prosper your endeavor.   We who are about to die, etc…..

  2. See the post by Margot Cleveland:

    She quotes from an amicus brief from fifteen state attorneys general who object to the judge acting as a prosecutor:

    Our Constitution vests the ‘executive power … in a President of the United States’. . . That power includes the power to prosecute. But, just as important, it includes the power not to prosecute. The judiciary has only the ‘judicial [p]ower,’ which includes only the power to resolve cases and controversies. Judges have no share of the executive power, and thus no say in the decision whether to prosecute. . . .This Court may not order the commencement of any prosecution, and therefore may not order the continuation of what it could not initiate. The Court should grant the United States’ motion without delay and without irrelevant or personal comment.

  3. MJBubba:
    “The Court should grant the United States’ motion without delay and without irrelevant or personal comment.”

    I assume that is a reference to one or both of Sullivan’s prior noteworthy rants: the rant about treason; and the rant accusing Powell of plagiarism.

  4. Just heard Sidney Powell on Rush’s show- she intends to go direct to the Supreme Court if the DC appeals turns it down.

    Sullivan probably does not want that visibility. Neither does the appeals court.

    My guess is Sullivan gets a phone call and told to quietly knock the crap off.

  5. Judges like Sullivan ought to pause and recall how the common law arose (from it, our present statutory/administrative legal Frankenstein monster arose, BTW). The rule of law developed in large measure because battered, bruised and otherwise exhausted people realized (over dead bodies of family, friends and acquaintances in many instances) that writs in the form  “The Crown v. Loxley” proved superior to the regular workings of pitchforks, pikes and torches. Sullivan and his ilk ought to remember that atavism remains an antidote of last resort to unbridled progressivism.

  6. civil westman:
    …the regular workings of pitchforks, pikes and torches. Sullivan and his ilk ought to remember that atavism remains an antidote of last resort to unbridled progressivism.

    Yeah. These progs need to keep that in mind because if they don’t, the torches, pitchforks, and pikes are waiting in the wings.

    The correct order is torches & pitchforks, then pikes.

  7. Sullivan brief:


    Starr et al. for Flynn:

    Tribe et al. for Sullivan:

    Ex-judges for Sullivan:

  8. I became too disgusted to read further after the display of the total perversion of a system originally designed to be just. The authors, whose self-promotion is breathtaking, gloss so smoothly over the fact that Flynn was brutally coerced (like most defendants nowadays, in the marvelous system of “justice” the authors purport to be so very anxious to preserve) to plead guilty, lest not only he, but also his family be ruined by the Obama-inspired misdeeds of the Dep’t of Justice. This is a stunning inside picture of just how corrupt our formerly-decent system has become. It needs to be blown up or burned down and started over. Reform is no longer possible. Despicable.

    Being scholars of the law, they know that a bedrock judicial principle is that some matters are “non-justiciable”, most especially political matters. The prosecution persecution of Flynn was, in all actuality, a political matter (an obvious and crass attempt to overturn the election of Trump). Being a political matter, it is entirely appropriate that the remedy be political. It is Judge Sullivan who is being entirely political. Here, a change of administration has, thank God, changed the makeup of the Dep’t of Justice. There can be no doubt as to the demise of the rule of law in light of the Obama Justice Dep’t.’s response to a mountain of Clinton felonies. As if that isn’t enough to prove the point, multiple lower court rulings against lawful Trump executive orders (compare their non-response to Obama’s far more egregious ones!) made a complete mockery of separation of powers. As I said, the entire structure has become corrupt. Reform is impossible. It must come down.

  9. 10 Cents:
    CTLaw, what does this all mean?

    I’m liking the DoJ position more. I have problems with each of Flynn’s, Sullivan’s, and the DoJ’s briefs. Sullivan’s and the Tribe et al. are intellectually dishonest.

    Sullivan should lose merely for abuse of the term “unprecedented”.

    Whichever way this goes, I worry it will injure the law.

    I believe courts have an independent role in maintaining the integrity of the process.

    This includes preventing the courts from being used to further sham litigation. But it also should extend to preventing sham non-litigation. Imagine Flynn was guilty as hell but discovered the government had framed John Doe. Flynn colluding with the government to get his charges dropped in exchange for not revealing the framing of Doe would be troubling.

    Flynn is close to pushing for a per se rule that I have trouble with. As I have noted before, the real problem here is Sullivan’s bias. I would have preferred removal of Sullivan for bias.

    But that brings us back to Sullivan. In my world, he could have kept the case open for a broader investigation on his part. But his obsession with finding novel ways to go after Flynn and Powell while ignoring government malfeasance destroys that.

  10. There is also a brief from seven senators.  Here is an article coauthored by Mollie:

    In an amicus brief filed with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia, Sen. Tom Cotton (R-Ark.) blasted the refusal of Judge Emmet G. Sullivan to grant the Department of Justice’s motion to dismiss charges against Flynn. Sens. Mike Braun (R-Indiana), Kevin Cramer (R-North Dakota), Ted Cruz (R-Texas), Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa), Rick Scott (R-Florida), and Mitch McConnell (R-Kentucky) also signed the brief.


Leave a Reply