Flynn Petition for a Writ of Mandamus granted in part June 24, 2020 US Court of Appeals DC, “order the district court to grant the government’s Rule 48(a) motion to dismiss the charges against Flynn”

Flynn Petition for a Writ of Mandamus granted in part June 24, 2020 US Court of Appeals DC, “order the district court to grant the government’s Rule 48(a) motion to dismiss the charges against Flynn”

“Immediately after President Trump won election, opponents inaugurated what they call ‘The Resistance’ and they rallied around an explicit strategy of using every tool and maneuver to sabotage the functioning of the executive branch.” …Attorney General Barr

“Instead of doing so, the government has continued to defy its
constitutional, ethical and legal obligations to this Court and to the defense, and to hide evidence that it knows exonerates Mr. Flynn. As is the essence of the problem here, instead of protecting its citizens, the “government” is protecting its own criminal conduct and operatives.”…Attorney Sidney Powell October

“The FBI clearly has records pertaining to Seth Rich, and it has withheld those
records in bad faith.”…Attorney Ty Clevenger October 11, 2019

From the US Court of Appeals DC, June 24, 2020.

On Emergency Petition for a Writ of Mandamus

Decision

“Because this is not the unusual case where a more
searching inquiry is justified, and because there is no adequate
remedy for the intrusion on “the Executive’s long-settled
primacy over charging decisions,” Fokker Servs., 818 F.3d at
743, we grant the petition for mandamus in part and order the
district court to grant the government’s Rule 48(a) motion to
dismiss the charges against Flynn.

We deny Flynn’s petition to the extent he seeks
reassignment of the district judge. This case does not meet the
“high bar” for reassignment, id. at 751, which would be
appropriate only if the district judge’s conduct was “so extreme
as to display clear inability to render fair judgment,” Liteky v.
United States, 510 U.S. 540, 551 (1994). Flynn focuses
primarily on comments the district judge made at sentencing,
but “judicial remarks during the course of a trial that are critical
or disapproving of, or even hostile to, counsel, the parties, or
their cases, ordinarily do not support a bias or partiality
challenge.” Id. at 555; see also In re Barry, 946 F.2d 913, 914
(D.C. Cir. 1991) (“[A] trial judge is entitled to form his own judgment as to the conduct of a defendant and to take that
judgment into account in sentencing.”). In light of these
precedents, the district judge’s conduct did not indicate a clear
inability to decide this case fairly. We decline to reassign the
case to a new judge simply to grant the government’s Rule
48(a) motion to dismiss.”

Read more:

https://www.cadc.uscourts.gov/internet/opinions.nsf/79798A0FA0633B7985258591004DD3E7/$file/20-5143-1848728.pdf

More here:

https://citizenwells.com/

http://citizenwells.net/