White Collar Crime Prof Blog

Where We Are Now In The Michael Flynn Case

           The full United States Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit yesterday granted Judge Emmet Sullivan’s Motion for Rehearing En Banc, vacating a decision by one its three-judge panels, and will soon decide whether to grant General Michael Flynn’s Petition for a Writ of Mandamus against Judge Sullivan. Flynn seeks the Writ of Mandamus in order to force Judge Sullivan to immediately grant the Department of Justice’s May 7, 2020 Motion to Dismiss the criminal case against him, a motion consented to by Flynn. Regardless of the full Court’s ultimate ruling on the mandamus issue, DOJ’s Motion to Dismiss will have to be granted sooner or later under governing legal precedents. No federal appellate court has ever sustained a district court’s refusal to grant an unopposed government motion to dismiss an indictment.

        There are two separate but related legal issues at stake before the Court of Appeals. First, does the law require Judge Sullivan to grant DOJ’s Motion to Dismiss in the absence of a grave constitutional issue, reducing Sullivan’s function to a ministerial one? Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 48(a) requires “leave of court” when the government moves to dismiss an indictment, but an abundance of federal case law holds that the district court’s role is in fact quite limited when the government moves to dismiss a criminal case and the defendant consents. Second, is mandamus the appropriate remedy for Flynn given that Judge Sullivan has yet to rule on DOJ’s Motion to Dismiss? Mandamus is an extraordinary remedy, typically reserved for situations where the remedy provided at law is inadequate. Judge Sullivan had not yet ruled on DOJ’s Motion to Dismiss when Flynn filed his Petition for a Writ of Mandamus. Why didn’t Flynn just wait for Judge Sullivan to rule and for DOJ to appeal Sullivan’s order if he denied the motion?

        The DOJ has argued that Judge Sullivan’s: 1) appointment of retired federal judge John Gleeson as an amicus, or friend of the court, for the specific purpose of opposing DOJ’s Motion to Dismiss; and 2) Judge Sullivan’s indication that he intends to examine closely DOJ’s motives in filing the Motion to Dismiss, will themselves be an improper intrusion into Executive Branch functions, in violation of Separation of Powers. Flynn has argued that these same factors, along with Sullivan’s setting of a drawn out briefing schedule, harms him financially and reputationally by delaying the immediate relief he is entitled to.

        What is likely to happen next?

        Argument before the Court sitting En Banc has been set for August 11, but the Court wants no further briefing. The Court’s Order states that the parties “should be prepared to address whether there are ‘no other adequate means to attain the relief’ desired. Cheney v. U.S. Dist. Court for D.C., 542 U.S. 367, 380 (2004).” Cheney is a key Supreme Court case involving the intersection of Separation of Powers and Mandamus case law. In other words, the key issue before the full D.C. Circuit is whether mandamus is premature. Should Judge Sullivan have been allowed to hold a hearing and make a ruling before Flynn went to a higher court seeking mandamus relief or did the very mechanisms set in place by Sullivan create an improper intrusion into Executive Branch matters and a harmful delay in the relief to which Flynn was entitled?

        Even if the Court of Appeals ultimately holds that mandamus is premature, expect the full Court to set clear standards as to what Judge Sullivan can and cannot do (and how long he can take) in ruling on DOJ’s Motion to Dismiss. And make no mistake about it. The DOJ’s Motion will ultimately be granted.

(wisenberg)

Court Refuses to Tolerate "Retaliation" Against Micheal Cohen

Check out - Tom McParland, 'It's Retaliation': US Judge Orders Michael Cohen Released From Prison, Finding Free Speech Rights Were Curtailed, law.com -

"U.S. District Judge Alvin K. Hellerstein of the Southern District of New York said in a hearing that in his 21 years on the bench, he had “never seen” a clause requiring that a candidate for home confinement agree not to speak to the media, and he roundly rejected the government’s claims that Cohen’s jailing was the result of his failing to cooperate with the terms of his release."

(esp)

New Filings in Flynn Mandamus Action

Michael T. Flynn's Opposition to Rehearing En Banc has been filed today in the United States Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit. This is in opposition to Judge Emmet G. Sullivan's Petition for Rehearing En Banc, filed on July 9. The Department of Justice was invited by the Court to respond and did so today in the United States' Response to the Petition for Rehearing En Banc.

Both Flynn and DOJ argue that Sullivan lacked standing to file the Petition for Rehearing, as he is not a party and there is no longer a case or controversy. Apparently only one federal judge in history has filed such a petition and it was denied. DOJ's brief also argues in detail, quite effectively I think, that the panel's decision granting mandamus does not conflict with: D.C. Circuit precedent; precedent in other circuits; or Supreme Court precedent. 

DOJ also responds directly and succinctly to Judge Sullivan's argument that mandamus was premature, because he had not yet held a hearing or made a ruling on DOJ's Motion to Dismiss. Flynn therefore had an effective remedy on appeal from any adverse ruling. This argument ignores the continuing harm to the Executive Branch's interests occasioned by the judge's dilatory behavior:

"That objection misses the point: at stake is not mere consideration of a pending motion, but a full-scale adversarial procedure spearheaded by a court-appointed amicus hostile to the government’s position raising factual questions, relying on extra-record materials, probing the government’s internal deliberations, and second-guessing core prosecutorial judgments.... Accordingly, while the panel specifically recognized that '[a] hearing may sometimes be appropriate before granting leave of court under Rule 48,' it determined that the hearing contemplated by the district court here would 'be used as an occasion to superintend the prosecution’s charging decisions' and would cause 'specific harms.' "

My prediction is that Judge Sullivan's Petition for Rehearing En Banc will be denied.

(wisenberg)

Robert Mueller Speaks Out!

We are finally seeing former Special Counsel Robert Mueller defending his investigation.  Check out his op ed:

Robert Mueller: Roger Stone Remains a Convicted Felon, And Rightly So, Wash Post

(esp)

Commentary - Trump v. Mazars, Trump v. Deutsche Bank, Trump v. Vance

The Supreme Court issued two opinions on the last day of the Court, all pertaining to the non-release of taxes and documents of President Trump. The questions presented (here) had different entities seeking business records or tax returns of the President for oversight or investigations. Some points from the Mazars/Duetsche Bank cases:

1. A president contesting demands for presidential documents is not typically a problem because the president usually works it out with the legislature. 
2. There is a lot of history of "negotiation and compromise - without the involvement of this Court - until the present dispute."
3. We're not going to use the typical standards when documents of the President are subpoenaed.
4. A four-part test should be used: (a)"First, courts should carefully assess whether the asserted legislative purpose warrants the significant step of involving the President and his papers." (b) "Second, to narrow the scope of possible conflict between the branches, courts should insist on a subpoena no broader than reasonably necessary to support Congress's legislative objective." (c) "Third, courts should be attentive to the nature of the evidence offered by Congress to establish that a subpoena advances a valid legislative purpose." (d)"Fourth, courts should be careful to assess the burdens imposed on the President by a subpoena."
5.  "When Congress seeks information 'needed for intelligent legislative action,' it 'unquestionably' remains 'the duty of all citizens to cooperate."

In a 7-2 opinion, the Court sent it back to the lower court to rule consistently with this opinion. 

The Vance case was also 7-2. This case also provides enormous historical information and analysis: 

1. "Beginning with Jefferson and carrying on through Clinton, Presidents have uniformly testified or produced documents in criminal proceedings when called upon by federal courts.  This case involves - so far as we and the parties can tell - the first state criminal subpoena directed to a President."
2. There is no need to use a heightened standard here to protect the President, "the public interest in fair and effective law enforcement cuts in favor of comprehensive access to evidence."
3. He could still challenge the subpoena just like everyone else could do so. 
4. "Two hundred years ago, a great jurist of our Court established that no citizen, not even the President, is categorically above the common duty to produce evidence when called upon in a criminal proceeding .... the President is neither absolutely immune from state criminal subpoenas seeking his private papers nor entitled to a heightened standard of need."

Justice Kavanaugh, with who Justice Gorsuch joined concurring stated, "In our system of government, as this Court has often stated, no one is above the law."

One last point - many say that the public will not see the documents and taxes of President Trump prior to the next election. That depends on whether the President continues this fight to keep the public and an investigating state from receiving these items. The Court has ruled in these two cases and given an opportunity to the President to comply with what every President has done in the past - provide the materials. The question is - will he? 

(esp)

Judge Sullivan Requests Rehearing En Banc in Flynn Case

The Flynn case has proved to be interesting, with first a guilty plea by Flynn, and then the government trying to dismiss the case.  Prior posts are here, here, here, here, here, here, here, and here.   The latest is that Judge Emmet G. Sullivan has filed a Petition for Rehearing En Banc.  The issues include that "the panel opinion conflicts with the Supreme Court's Decision in Rinaldi v. United States," and that it "conflicts with this Court's mandamus precedents."  This could prove some interesting legal questions for the full DC Circuit Court of Appeals to hear.  Full brief available here (law.com)

(esp)

Trump v. Mazars, Trump v. Deutsche Bank, Trump v. Vance

These cases come at it from different angles, but all involve subpoenaed records of Donald Trump.  In the Mazur case the U.S. House Committee on Oversight and Reform issued a subpoena to Trump's accounting firm and some of his businesses for financial records. In the Deutsche Bank case the Committee on Financial Services and the Intelligence Committee also issued  subpoenas for records from President Trump and his businesses.  The issue before the Court was "whether three committees of the House of Representatives had the constitutional and statutory authority to issue subpoenas to their-party custodians for the personal records of the sitting President of the United States?  In the Vance case it is the N.Y. District Attorney attempting to get financial records of  President Trump and a business - the records being in the hands of an accounting firm. The question before the Court was "whether  this subpoena violates Article II and the Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution."

And the winner is: Depends.

Mazur/Deutsche Bank here

Vance here

Commentary to follow.

(esp)

NY Department of Financial Services and Deutsche Bank - Jeffrey Epstein

The NY Department of Financial Services entered into a Consent Order with Deutsche Bank AG (NY Branch) and Deutsche Bank Trust Company America with the Bank agreeing "to pay $150 million in penalties" "for significant compliance failures in connection with the Bank's relationship with Jeffrey Epstein and correspondent banking relationships with Danske Bank Estonia and FBME Bank."  The press release notes that "[t]his agreement marks the first enforcement action by a regulator against a financial institution for dealings with Jeffrey Epstein." "

"Superintendent Lacewell said. 'In each of the cases that are being resolved today, Deutsche Bank failed to adequately monitor the activity of customers that the Bank itself deemed to be high risk. In the case of Jeffrey Epstein in particular, despite knowing Mr. Epstein’s terrible criminal history, the Bank inexcusably failed to detect or prevent millions of dollars of suspicious transactions.'" 

It is a fascinating consent decree with details of alleged suspicious banking activities. One item stated in the Consent decree is "[t]he interpretation was exemplified by a later email exchange in March of 2017, when a member of the transaction monitoring team responded to an alert about payments to a Russian model and Russian publicity agent, stating, '[s]ince this type of activity is normal for this client it is not deemed suspicious.'"

In the Consent decree one sees a good number of unnamed individuals (Co-conspirator 1, 2, and 3; US Bank -1; Relationship Manager -1; Executive -1 and 2; AML Officer -1 and 2; Coverage Team Member -1; Accountant -1; AML Compliance Director-1; Attorney -1; Offshore Company -1). 

(esp)    

Supreme Court Accepts Cert on Redaction Issue in Mueller Report

Will the Court allow the release of the redactions in the Mueller Report?  The issue accepted by the Supreme Court is  "[w]hether an impeachment trial before a legislative body is a 'judicial proceeding' under Rule 6(e)(E)(i)?   

The briefs on the Cert Petition are:

Government Brief  on Petition for Cert here

House Judiciary Committee Brief here

DOJ Reply Brief here

(esp)

Short Take: Flynn and FARA

A frequent accusation hurled at the Michael Flynn camp is that Flynn’s plea deal was a tremendous boon to him, because Flynn faced possible charges, or, in the words of Lawfare’s Ben Wittes, “massive criminal liability”, for failing to register as a foreign agent for Turkey, during the transition period, in violation of the Foreign Agents Registration Act (“FARA”).

This argument is absurd. For openers, almost nobody faces massive criminal liability under FARA. It has a five year statutory maximum and would, in Flynn's case, probably be scored under Section 2B1.1 of the Sentencing Guidelines. (This is because FARA has no Guideline section attached to it and 2B1.1, is "the most analogous" offense Guideline.) And no amount of monetary loss would be factored in. Thus, even a defendant in Flynn's shoes who went to trial and got convicted could easily receive a Guidelines range of 0-6 months. 

Second, it is not at all clear that Flynn was an agent of Turkey during the transition period or that he could have been successfully convicted as such pursuant to FARA. Flynn severed his ties with Turkey shortly after Trump won the election. His partner in Flynn Intel Group (Bijan Rafiekian) was tried and convicted in the Eastern District of Virginia for conspiring to violate FARA (by submitting a materially false FARA filing ) in relation to a transaction that Flynn himself participated in. (Indeed, the government's Statement of the Offense in U.S. v. Flynn included allegations of false statements by Flynn in connection with the very project at the heart of Rafiekian's case.) The highly respected trial judge, Anthony Trenga, however, threw out the jury's verdict after trial based on insufficient evidence, ruling that no rational juror could have found Flynn’s partner guilty. See U.S. v. Rafiekian Opinion Granting Rule 29 Motion. That ruling is currently being appealed by the DOJ at the Fourth Circuit.

Third, the DOJ itself told Judge Trenga that Flynn was not a co-conspirator with his Rafiekian. The DOJ tried to reverse its position on this point when Flynn moved to withdraw his DC plea, but Trenga was having none of it.

Thus, there is no indication that Flynn feared going to trial under 18 U.S.C. Section 1001 or FARA. His original lawyers didn't see a crime. Flynn had a good chance to win and the downside was small, which is quite rare in federal prosecutions. But the government threatened to charge Flynn's son. It’s as simple as that. Then the prosecutors left that key condition out of Flynn’s written plea agreement, so that this part of the deal wouldn’t necessarily have to be revealed as Giglio to future defendants who Flynn might be called to testify against. That's how the sausage is sometimes made in white collar cases. But let's not pretend anything other than his son's fate was at stake for General Flynn. Either a guilty plea or a guilty jury verdict would have been equally devastating for Flynn's reputation. 

(wisenberg)

White Collar Briefly MiniPod - Six Podcasts on White Collar Crime

Co-sponsored with the ABA's Global Anti-Corruption Committee, Perkins Coie's Markus Funk, Chelsea Curfman, and Kevin Feldis  have released a podcast series (six so far) as follows:

Introducing the White Collar Briefly MiniPod

They include candid conversations with a variety of special guests, including:

· American “book of the year” author, editor, screenplay writer and publisher Dave Eggers- see here

· Joel Esquenazi (defendant in the high-profile U.S. v. Esquenazi FCPA case)- see here

· Molson Coors’ Global Ethics & Compliance Chief Caroline McMichen see here

· Chicago-based U.S. District Judge Virginia Kendall - see here

· University of Colorado COO (and former GC) Patrick O’Rourke - see here

· Avanos Medical Deputy GC Ross Mansbach - see here

(esp)

Disparity in White Collar and Non-White Collar Compassionate Release

There appears to be a growing economic disparity between those benefitting from compassionate release and those who are not being heard. Paul Manafort and others are being sent home due to COVID19 concerns. The latest is former judge Michael Conahan, who was allegedly involved in a scheme involving kickbacks from juvenile facilities.  See Michael R. Sisak & Michael Balsamo, AP, Kids-for-cash judge released from prison over virus concerns 

Many of the individuals receiving this relief should in fact be released.  Our prisons could certainly use some social distancing, not to mention the fact that we are country with exhorbitant prison populations.  But how about some parity in this relief?

(esp) 

Judiciary Hearing - Stone Case & Antitrust - Politics Does Not Belong in DOJ

This is one of the saddest hearings I have heard in a long time - "special treatment" clearly entered into decisions at the Department of Justice.  We heard a member of congress tapping on the table to interfere with our ability to hear what the speaker was saying. But despite this conduct by a member of the House, we eventually did get to hear from civil servant witnesses - who risked their careers to come forward with important information concerning improper influence being used in the DOJ.  

Two AUSAs testified to influence beyond the merits being considered in matters in the DOJ. And it is not limited to just one area - testimony is that it happened with the Stone case, and happened in Antitrust.  Politics did enter into DOJ years back.  For example, there was an investigation in June 2008 of allegations of politicized hiring in the Department of Justice Honors Program and Summer Law Intern Program here.  But one would have hoped that lessons would have been learned from this past conduct.  It is more disturbing to hear that Presidential tweets are factoring into conduct at the DOJ.

Thank you John Elias and Aaron Zelinsky for coming forward - "the truth still matters." 

(esp) 

Commentary on Flynn Decision - What Should Judge Sullivan Do Now?

The opinion of the DC Circuit Court can be found here - Download Flynn opinion 

Some thoughts - 

1.  Bottom line is that the decision in a 2-1 vote that the Flynn case should be dismissed.

2. Rule 48 plays a crucial role in the decision - " Whatever the precise scope of Rule 48's 'leave of court' requirement, this is plainly not the rare case where further judicial inquiry is warranted."

3. The court rejects Flynn's request to seek reassignment of the district judge. 

4.  The court relies heavily on the Fokker decision.

5.  Much of the decision (7 pages) is spent on responding to the dissent. 

6. The court states - "This is not a case about whether 'a district judge may even hold a hearing on a Rule 48(a) motion. . . .  Rather, it is about whether, after the government has explained why a prosecution is no longer in the public interest, the district judge may prolong the prosecution by appointing an amicus, encouraging public participation, and probing the government's motives." 

The dissent - 

1.  This is first time granting a mandamus without first giving the lower court a chance to rule. - "Flynn fails to carry his burden, and especially given that the District Court has yet to rule on the motion to dismiss, the writ should not issue to compel the District Court to grant the motion."

2. The court is using dicta from the Fokker case, which creates a split with other Court of Appeals.  

3. "Both this Court and the Supreme Court regularly permit the participation of amici in the criminal context, however, and there is no readily apparent reason why, in appropriate circumstances, a district court might not exercise its inherent power to do the same - especially in the absence of any authority expressly prohibiting it."

So what happens now?

Will  Judge Sullivan ask for an en banc review of this decision?  Will he conduct an inquiry as he did in the Ted Stevens case?  And are there other options here?  Stay tuned. 

(esp)

Amicus Briefs in Flynn Case - And Opinion by DC Circuit Court

It started with a Motion to Dismiss the Flynn case here. Sol Wisenberg posted here some of the filings in the Circuit Court, and here some of the filings in the District Court.   Here are some additional amici briefs that raise some interesting points.  And the court's opinion is here - Download Flynn opinion. 

Amicus Brief for the States of Ohio, Alabama, Alaska, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Indiana, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Texas, Utah and West Virginia as Amici Supporting the Petitioner - Download Amicus - states for petitioner

Amicus Brief of Lawyers Defending American Democracy, Inc. - In Opposition to the Petition for a Writ of Mandamus - Download Amicus - ldad amended (1)

Corrected Brief of Watergate Prosecutors as Amici Curiae in Support of Respondent - Download Amicus - watergate prosecutors corrected

Corrected Brief of Amicus Curiae John M. Reeves in Support of Granting Mandamus in Favor of Petitioner Michael T. Flynn and Respondent the United States - Download Amicus - john reeves for petitioner corrected 

(esp)

 

DC Circuit Rules in Flynn Case - Dismiss Case

Harper Neidig, Appeals court orders judge to dismiss Flynn charges, The Hill.

Commentary to follow.

(esp) 

Politics in DOJ- The Stone Case

Karoun Demirjian, Matt Zapotosky & Rachael Bade, Prosecutor to tell Congress of pressure from ‘highest levels’ of Justice Dept. to cut Roger Stone ‘a break’, Wash Post here (check out the opening statement of Aaron Zelinsky).

(esp) 

U.S. v. Michael Flynn: The Responses to Gleeson's Amicus Brief in Judge Sullivan's Court

Attached are the separate Responses of Michael Flynn and the Department of Justice to former federal judge John Gleeson's Amicus Brief in U.S. v. Flynn.  A copy of Gleeson's Brief is also attached for ease of reference. Keep in mind that all of these papers were filed in Judge Emmet Sullivan's court, rather in the DC Court of Appeals which is hearing General Flynn's Petition for Writ of Mandamus against Judge Sullivan. This is because it was Judge Sullivan who decided to appoint an amicus and set a lengthy briefing schedule instead of granting the Motion to Dismiss outright or simply holding a hearing in the first place.

The DOJ Response, in addition to demolishing Gleeson's legal arguments, puts more stress than before on the Interests of Justice rationale for moving to dismiss the case against General Flynn. I'll be commenting on that in the next few days. DOJ also goes out of its way to oppose the Flynn camp's position that there was prosecutorial misconduct connected to the prosecution. DOJ rejects this out of hand, both with respect to all of the older exculpatory materials and the information discovered, declassified, and turned over by U.S. Attorney Jeffrey Jensen within the last two months. DOJ in fact turned over a significant amount of exculpatory material prior to General Flynn's guilty plea. Of course, we still have the mystery of the missing original draft 302, which has not been explained to my satisfaction by the Fan Belt Inspectors. 

As noted, the Jensen documents were not turned over until very recently, but there is no indication that any prosecutor knew, much less received, these items. That's important, because these items unmistakably lend further support to the view that Flynn's January 24 statements to FBI Special Agents were not material to the FBI's Crossfire Hurricane investigation. This makes the items Brady in my view. But DOJ still has its institutional interests to protect. And it has historically been in the forefront of seeking to limit the reach of Brady. 

More to come on all of this.

Brief for Court Appointed Amicus John Gleeson

Gov. Response to Gleeson Br.Final

FLYNN OPPOSITION TO GLEESON FILING v.25

(wisenberg)

The Flynn Plea Agreement: A Pernicious Paragraph

One of the ironies of high-profile, criminal investigations of public officials, particularly Special and Independent Counsel investigations, is the outrage expressed by certain segments of the populace upon discovering the existence of very common law enforcement techniques. Hence the outrage among President Clinton's supporters when they learned that Linda Tripp secretly tape-recorded her "best friend" Monica Lewinsky at the behest of Ken Starr's prosecutors. Hence the outrage, among Trump's supporters,  when they discovered that FBI officials wanted to catch General Flynn in a lie and threatened his son with prosecution in order to coerce a guilty plea. "That happens all the time," say the know-it-all criminal law cognoscenti who fellow-travel with one side or another, as well as their minions who parrot the party line to the faithful. Except in the case of Judge Starr. Almost nobody was on our side, parroting our points. Except the courts. Most of the time. But I digress.

Our subject today is a nasty little paragraph inserted into General Flynn's plea agreement by Bob Mueller's staff. I first started noticing this provision 5 or 6 years ago in some of the plea offers that came my way, depending on which U.S. Attorney's Office I was dealing with at the time. It has shown up more often since then, but is far from universal. It can be found in most or all of the Mueller team's plea agreements. It is typically found in Paragraph 9(F) within the Waivers section. It states as follows: "Your client agrees to waive all rights, whether asserted directly or by a representative, to request or receive from any department or agency of the United States any records pertaining to the investigation or prosecution of this case, including and without any limitation any records that may be sought under the Freedom of Information Act, 5 U.S.C. Section 552, or the Privacy Act, 5 U.S.C. Section 552(a), for the duration of the Special Counsel's Investigation." The limiting of the waiver to the duration of the investigation is not a feature I have previously encountered.

Although the waiver does not mention Brady material on its face, it clearly applies to requests for exculpatory records. (As I noted here recently, it was after General Flynn’s case was transferred to Judge Sullivan’s court, and Sullivan entered his broad standing Brady Order, that Mueller’s team appears to have provided voluminous additional discovery to Flynn’s lawyers.) Prosecutors have a constitutional duty to turn over exculpatory information to the defense even if defense counsel does not request it. But case law holds that more detailed, specific defense requests create a greater prosecutorial obligation. In my view, this paragraph forces defense counsel to breach his or her ethical duties to the client to vigorously demand Brady material as well as mitigating information required under state ethical rules and the McDade Amendment. The Department of Justice should put a stop to this and prohibit all such provisions from being part of its plea agreements. This includes FOIA requests, which serve to ensure, post-judgment, that the government's Brady obligations have been met.  Here is the Flynn Plea Agreement.

(wisenberg)

 

 

Michael T. Flynn Petition for Writ of Mandamus: Case Materials

Reply briefs were filed yesterday in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit in In re: Michael T. Flynn. Oral arguments are set for tomorrow morning, June 12. Attached here are; Flynn's Emergency Petition for Writ of Mandamus; the D.C. Circuit's  highly unusual May 21, 2020 Order requiring Judge Emmet Sullivan to respond to the Petition's argument that Sullivan is obliged to grant DOJ's Motion to Dismiss the Flynn Indictment with prejudice; Judge Sullivan's June 1, 2020 Brief in Response to the Court of Appeals Order; Flynn's June 10 Reply Brief; DOJ's June 10 Reply Brief; and a further Response Brief on behalf of Judge Emmet G. Sullivan. Enjoy!

In re Micheal Flynn Petition for a Writ of Mandamus

U.S. Court of Appeals Order Directing Judge Sullivan to Respond to Michael Flynn's Emergency Petition for a Writ of Mandamus

Brief for Judge Emmet Sullivan in Response to DC Circuit Court Order

DOJ DC Circuit Reply to Sullivan Response on Flynn Petition for Mandamus

Flynn DC Circuit Reply to Sullivan Response on Flynn Petition for Mandamus

Judge Emmet Sullivan's 6-10-2020 Response to the other briefs

(wisenberg)