OrlyTaitzEsq.com

TaitzReport.com

Defend Our Freedoms Foundation (DOFF)
29839 Santa Margarita Pkwy, Ste 100
Rancho Santa Margarita CA, 92688
Copyright 2014

Review of Politics, Economics, Constitution, Law and World Affairs by Attorney and Doctor Orly Taitz


If you love your country, please help me fight this creeping tyranny and corruption.
Donations no matter how small will help pay for airline and travel expenses.





The articles posted represent only the opinion of the writers and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Dr. Taitz, Esq., who has no means of checking the veracity of all the claims and allegations in the articles.
Mail donations to:
Defend Our Freedoms Foundation, c/o Dr. Orly Taitz
29839 Santa Margarita Pkwy, Ste 100
Rancho Santa Margarita, CA 92688.
Contact Dr. Taitz at
orly.taitz@gmail.com.
In case of emergency, call 949-683-5411.

When the people fear their government, there is tyranny.
When the government fears the people, there is liberty.
-- Thomas Jefferson

During times of universal deceit, telling the truth
becomes a revolutionary act.  -- George Orwell

First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they
fight you, then you win.  -- Mahatma Gandhi

Based on the Fokker precedent, Judge Sullivan has no legal right to refuse to dismiss the case when the prosecution wants to dismiss the case

Posted on | May 14, 2020 | 2 Comments

Under the Fokker Case that just came out 2 years ago, the DC Circuit which governs Judge Sullivan made it very clear if the government wants to dismiss a case you cannot, the District Court cannot refuse to do so because he doesn’t like the government’s theory. Because he thinks the government should continue the case.  And it doesn’t matter if the defendant has pled or not.

DC Circuit’s prior decision on Fokker case PROHIBITS Judge Sullivan to refuse to dismiss the case after prosecution stated that they want to dismiss.

I believe there will be a writ of mandate to the DC circuit. It is absolutely shocking, the level of bias against Flynn in unprecedented. Judge Sullivan read an article about Flynn’s case by  Gleason. Gleason is clearly biased against Flynn. Gleason has zero standing to be in the case at all, to argue anything at all, and Sullivan bringing him in the case shows an unprecedented level of bias against the defendant by a judge. This is the same judge who previously baselessly accused Flyn of treason, but later retracted his statement after an outcry.

Since the Arthur Andersen prosecution in which thousands of innocent workers lost their jobs, the Department of Justice (DOJ) has increasingly turned to deferred prosecution agreements (DPAs) to avoid the collateral consequences of a corporate criminal conviction.1.SeeBrandon L. Garrett, Too Big to Jail: How Prosecutors Compromise with Corporations 41, 44, 55 (2014). In a DPA, the government agrees to dismiss filed charges if a corporation complies with negotiated conditions that are aimed at punishing the misconduct and allowing the corporation to demonstrate rehabilitation. Traditionally, judicial scrutiny over the DPA’s terms has been “essentially nonexistent.”2. Mike Koehler, Measuring the Impact of Non-Prosecution and Deferred Prosecution Agreements on Foreign Corrupt Practices Act Enforcement, 49 UC Davis L. Rev. 497, 505 (2015) (citing U.S. Gov’t Accountability Office, GAO-10-110, Corporate Crime 8, 25 (2009)); see also U.S. Gov’t Accountability Office, supra, at 25 (reporting, based on a survey of twelve U.S. district and magistrate judges who handled cases involving a DPA, that judges “were generally not involved in the DPA process”). However, three recent district court decisions have attempted to assert a more substantive role for the court — declaring that an Article III judge is not a “potted plant”3. United States v. HSBC Bank USA, N.A., No. 12-CR-763, 2013 WL 3306161, at *5 (E.D.N.Y. July 1, 2013); see also United States v. Saena Tech Corp., 140 F. Supp. 3d 11, 33 (D.D.C. 2015) (quoting HSBC Bank, 2013 WL 3306161, at *5). or “rubber stamp”4. United States v. Fokker Servs. B.V., 79 F. Supp. 3d 160, 164 (D.D.C. 2015). when reviewing DPAs. The D.C. Circuit subsequently curtailed these efforts in United States v. Fokker Services B.V.,5. 818 F.3d 733 (D.C. Cir. 2016). in which it held that to preserve “the Executive’s long-settled primacy over charging,”6.Id. at 743. a court is not authorized to reject a DPA based on a finding that the “charging decisions” and “conditions agreed to in the DPA” are inadequate.7.Id. at 747. By ostensibly precluding judicial review of a DPA’s negotiated terms, the D.C. Circuit overcorrected and reinforced the executive branch’s unchecked discretion over DPAs by reassuring prosecutors that future courts will rubber stamp such agreements.

The Harvard article continues noting the Judge in the Fokker case stated that:

…as a matter of established law, the judiciary is not to second-guess the Executive’s decisions of “whether to initiate charges, whom to prosecute, which charges to bring, and whether to dismiss charges.” 

Sol Weisenberg discussed this matter on Laura Ingraham show. Weisenberg is the former Whitewater prosecutor.

Category: Uncategorized

Comments

2 Responses to “Based on the Fokker precedent, Judge Sullivan has no legal right to refuse to dismiss the case when the prosecution wants to dismiss the case”

  1. taino21
    May 15th, 2020 @ 7:04 am

    Impeach the douche bag! Those in power don’t care about the rule of law, but, want to preach it to everyone else!

  2. taino21
    May 15th, 2020 @ 7:09 am

    Just like the douche bag who presided over Roger Stone trial. She should’ve been appalled and furious that the prosecution had hidden exculpatory evidence and prosecuted a case based on a crime that never happened yet, she disregarded the rule of law. Tar and feathers, must we go back to those days?

Leave a Reply