The government may, with leave of court, dismiss an indictment, information, or complaint.
A request for leave of court is considered as an implied admission of jurisdiction of the court.
It’s just that simple. No Constitutional violation whatsoever. They asked. He said, “no”. We’re done.
I may be ignorant, but I tend to think the appellate judges are going to throw THIS out as interfering while the case is ongoing. IANAL of course. Would a lawyer respond to my assumption that the appellates will get pissed off being told what they have to do. (to protect the dignity of the court! The guy pleaded guilty twice to ‘this’ judge!
I can’t remember what movie that’s from, but it made me laugh, thanks.
“The power to prosecute belongs to the Executive, not the Judiciary,” the DOJ wrote…"
And it would seem to me, tho IANAL, that once a plea is entered, the prosecution is finished. Barr and his lackeys are truly trying to rewrite the Constitution to their liking…we are living in dangerous times.
It’s from Zappa’s song “Cosmik Debris” on the Apostrophe album. It’s a classic.
It’s Frank Zappa’s “Moving to Montana”. https://youtu.be/Ialhaxhr7iA
@teenlaqueefa Also a callback on Apostrophe, iirc.
The actual Constitution
Republican Constitution
Trump’s constitution
Note to the hapless Schumer and his hapless Dem cronies in the Senate: if there’s something you don’t like (say, McConnell ramming through justices), find a potentially justiciable or at the very least arguable point (say, there is a pandemic happening) and throw a spanner in the works by taking the guy to court. Never mind if you think you won’t win. Then appeal the adverse judgment. Then appeal it again, to the Supreme Court if necessary. That is the kind of litigation strategy that is on view here: launch an unprecedented appeal against a judge’s decision to request an amici (which itself is not unprecedented, as the brief on his behalf shows: in the Arpaio case, the judge requested an amici to help him with the question of whether Arpaio’s pardon was lawful).
Edit: For example, this just in:
https://twitter.com/DavidColeACLU/status/1267597725773770752
Republicans are evil; unforgivably, they are also more determined.
“The power to prosecute belongs to the Executive, not the Judiciary,” the DOJ wrote,
Lovely. Except the prosecution’s over. He’s been convicted after pleading guilty. Your part’s over, Mr. Barr. Go the fuck away.
Pull fire alarms in the building if ya hafta!!
Barr is lying again! He really means he (Barr) is violating the US Constitution!
With a
Pair of heavy-duty
Zircon-encrusted tweezers in my hand
Every other wrangler would say
I was mighty grand
By myself I wouldn’t
Have no boss,
But I’d be raisin’ my lonely
Dental Floss
Raisin’ my lonely
Dental Floss
Raisin’ my lonely
Dental Floss
All hail the late Frank Zappa
That felt good, thank you.
“The power to prosecute belongs to the Executive, not the Judiciary,” the DOJ wrote, arguing that the federal rules of criminal procedure required Sullivan “to grant the government’s motion to dismiss the indictment with prejudice because that motion was unopposed.”
And… the fucking Executive did prosecute. For three years. Until they decided not to, at which point the four >>>FOUR<<< prosecutors quit in one day. When you bring a case before a judge, for 3 years, you don’t get to back out just cause the mook in the AG seat changed assprint.
Wait a minute, lemme sterilize 'em
Gimme your lighter
Can’t tell between the asswipe stains.
“The power to prosecute belongs to the Executive, not the Judiciary,”
But…doesn’t the power to accept a Guilty plea belong to the Judiciary?
If the reagan/bush hack, the trump hack, and obama appointee wanted to do that, then they could have simply declined to hear it, with the 99.9% expected reasoning that there’s nothing being asked of us that couldn’t be brought to us via appeal post-sentencing, which is the normal route.
“Gonna raise it up, and gonna wax it down…”
Strange, why are my “Rick Roll detectors” going off?
Technical explanation here:
