The transcript of the oral arguments from the August 11th DC Circuit Appeals court has been released. [pdf available here].  The DC Circuit held a full panel hearing to decide the outcome of the unopposed DOJ & defense motion to drop the case against Michael Flynn.

You will remember Judge Sullivan injected himself into the case by approving an amicus to argue against dismissal; this led to a request by the Flynn defense for a writ of mandamus overriding Judge Sullivan.  Initially a three judge panel agreed with the writ giving Sullivan 30 days to dispose of the case; however, Sullivan appealed to the full panel (en banc).  The first appellate court ruling was stayed, and the full panel heard oral arguments earlier this month.  That transcript is below.

The panel of appellate judges included Judge Srinivasan, Judge Henderson, Judge Rogers, Judge Tatel, Judge Garland, Judge Griffith, Judge Millett, Judge Pillard, Judge Wilkins and Judge Rao.  However, with Judge Griffith retiring at the end of this month, it is likely the ruling will be announced very soon; could be this week.

Regardless of what decision is reached, the announcement should be anticipated prior to Judge Griffith being replaced by recently confirmed Trump nominee Judge Justin Walker.  That means we could see a decision announced this Friday, or by next Friday at the latest.

The judges could remove Judge Sullivan and reassign the case. In that event it’s likely the next judge would simply accept the motion to dismiss.  However, the DC circuit could also deliver a ruling that allows Sullivan to retain the final disposition with strong guidance on any subsequent activity.

(more…)

..”If the public are bound to yield obedience to laws to which they cannot give their approbation, they are slaves to those who make such laws and enforce them.”..  ~Sam Adams

The power of government comes from the people; or as we say in the U.S. “from the consent of the governed.” When people lead, the politicians are forced to follow. Without implied consent the municipal or state government has no power. None.

The power of the local, regional or state authority comes from the expressed consent of the people. As soon as the majority of people deny that consent, those officials and state authoritarians lose all of their power.  Yes, it really is that simple.

Those who construct the systems of control need to weaponize fear. Fear of arrest; fear of losing a business; fear of losing liberty or financial security. Local, regional and state officials rely on fear. As soon as We The People are no longer fearful, the control ends.

The overwhelming majority of dictates around COVID-19 mitigation are not laws. There was no debate; no input from representative government; and no option for the public to weigh-in on the decisions.

All unilateral rules are arbitrary, and despite many proclamations to the contrary, they rely upon voluntary compliance. As soon as citizens no longer voluntarily comply, the term of the rules has expired.  Liberty is inherent. The removal of liberty requires consent.

REMINDER – When I share the message “live your best life”, it is not without purpose. Every moment that we allow the COVID and leftist onslaught to deter us from living our dreams, is a moment those who oppose our nation view as us taking a knee.

Do not allow this effort to succeed.

You might ask yourself how can I, one person, a flea looking into a furnace, retain an optimistic disposition while all around me seems chaotic and mad.

That’s the point; it ‘seems’ chaotic and mad because it has been created to appear that way. There are more of us than them; they just control the systems that allow us to connect, share messages, and recognize the scale of our assembly.

(more…)

Sidney Powell did an excellent job today representing the interests of her client Michael Flynn at the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.  Every client should be so fortunate. Following the hearing, Ms. Powell appears with Lou Dobbs to discuss the overall issues.

The Great Lou Dobbs represents the voices of millions in this interview as he shares his own perspective of outrage at the ongoing case.  Terrific interview:

(more…)

Today the United States Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit held a full panel hearing to decide the outcome of the unopposed DOJ and defense motion to drop the case against Michael Flynn.

Panel Judges include Judge Srinivasan, Judge Henderson, Judge Rogers, Judge Tatel, Judge Garland, Judge Griffith, Judge Millett, Judge Pillard, Judge Wilkins and Judge Rao.

The arguments spanned approximately four hours. Margot Cleveland has a solid breakdown of the arguments – SEE HERE – Full audio below:

(more…)

As you absorb just how far the communists running Nashville Tennessee have gone in this story, it is worth remembering this is the same city where people were picked up off the street and forced into involuntary internment/quarantine camps in May.  One man jumped the fence and escaped the detention camp. The Nashville police hunted him down and recaptured him.  [BACKSTORY] Think about this people !!

In the latest development a non-domiciled Nashville citizen named Joseph Bryant (61) was arrested for refusing to wear a face mask outside.  His bail is set at $500 and he has a bond hearing today.  Again… THINK ABOUT THIS: This is Democrat Mayor John Cooper.

NASHVILLE, Tenn. (WKRN) — A 61-year-old man was arrested Wednesday night after police said he repeatedly violated a Nashville public health order requiring masks to be worn in public.

(more…)

The full bench of the DC Circuit Court of Appeals in Washington DC has agreed to consider whether judge Sullivan should be forced to dismiss a felony charge against Michael Flynn.  The insanity continues.

Everything about this case has been bizarre including Judge Sullivan’s refusal to accept the unopposed motion to dismiss the case. Now the full DC Circuit panel will hear arguments about why Sullivan should be allowed to continue the case without DOJ prosecution.

It appears the court has pinned their en banc acceptance on the notion that Judge Sullivan had yet to issue a final ruling prior to the writ of mandamus (asking the appeals court to intervene).  The panel is asking the DOJ and Flynn defense to explain why “no other adequate means to attain the relief” is possible, if Sullivan has yet to rule.

Oral arguments are scheduled for August 11, 2020.

(more…)

Devin Nunes and John Solomon appear on Fox News to discuss the latest release from the Senate Judiciary Committee that outlines intentional fraud by various DOJ and FBI officials to manufacture FISA surveillance against the Trump campaign/administration.

As Mr. Nunes outlines, the time for indictments is now here. The evidence is overwhelming.   Information without action is antithetical to its purpose.

(more…)

The DC circuit court has requested a response from Michael Flynn’s counsel (and/or DOJ), by July 20th, regarding the petition filed by Judge Emmet Sullivan for a full panel en banc review of the mandamus order.  The prior mandamus order required Sullivan to accept the unopposed motion to dismiss the case. [pdf here]

Notably the court is not permitting a re-response from Sullivan (implying they have enough information) only a brief reply from Sidney Powell, and inviting a brief response from the DOJ as appropriate.  In the interim the writ of mandamus (Rao order) is stayed until the court decides whether to grant the en banc review.

In short: •Petition response (from Powell and/or DOJ) requested by July 20th. •No counter petition allowed. •Judge Rao mandamus order stayed. •Court *may* consider (vote on) en banc review pending petition response.

Apparently stall tactics are all the rage amid a political judiciary that is collapsing from a quickly metastasizing cancer inside the third branch of government.

Today the Supreme court blocked in part, and punted in part, on three cases related to the resistance effort to gain the private financial records of President Trump.  The bottom line is that none of the decisions today will likely be resolved before the November election.

♦ In the Trump -v- Vance case, a subpoena by a Manhattan district attorney, the justices (by a vote of 7-2) rejected the president’s claim that he is immune from state grand jury proceedings while he is in office. However, the decision in that case does not mean  financial records the grand jury seeks will be turned over.  As Amy Howe notes: “the court sent the case back to the trial court and agreed that the president could still argue that complying with this subpoena would interfere with his ability to do his job.”

This was the case outcome that likely frustrated President Trump the most because it forces him to continue fighting, and spending, against Lawfare resistance activists in state courts as accusations are brought by politically motivated state prosecutors.

♦ In the Trump -v- Mazars case, which is a combination of two rolled-up cases combining different legislative efforts (congressional subpoenas) to gain Trump’s financial records, the justices (again 7-2) sent the combined cases back to lower courts after highlighting that legislative subpoenas must be made for a “valid legislative purpose” not for law enforcement.  This aspect is based on the clear separation of powers in the constitution.

(more…)

Judge Emmet Sullivan is refusing to accept the three-judge appeals court ruling – which granted a writ of mandamus and instructed Sullivan to dismiss the Flynn case per the DOJ and Flynn defense unopposed motion. Today Judge Sullivan is asking the Full DC Circuit Court panel to conduct an en banc rehearing of the issues. [pdf here]

There is no guarantee the full DC Circuit will agree to the en banc request. However, given the nature of the court, it should be anticipated. What really appears to be the undiscussed background is an effort to keep dragging this issue out as long as possible. This is beyond judicial activism running amok, we have now entered the realm of judicial weaponization.

The Lawfare resistance was strongly advocating for this judicial approach. However, what we can infer from the need for Sullivan to trigger the en banc request is that no individual circuit court judge was going to do it independently (sua sponte) which was an option.

It appears Sullivan waited to see if one of them would; then, after a period of time where he identified no circuit judge would independently put himself/herself into the spotlight, Sullivan makes the en banc request himself.  The panel will likely accept the request.

Sullivan’s en banc petition essentially says his requests to have an outside amicus brief the court -on all the reasons not to accept the unopposed motion to dismiss- as commonplace; and he decries the DC appeals court mandamus decision as “a dramatic break from precedent that threatens the orderly administration of justice.”  [I think he’s stalling.]

Here’s the full filing outlining the position of Judge Sullivan:

(more…)