Scumbag Judge finally dismissed Flynn case.

WTF's Avatar
  • WTF
  • 12-09-2020, 09:53 AM
how can one be a judge and be a prosecutor eodem tempore? Originally Posted by nevergaveitathought
Do you really want to know? You'll to be able to do 3 things
1 Open a link

2 Read

3 Comprehension

https://reason.com/2020/05/17/why-do...-of-court/?amp



.
Do you really want to know? You'll to be able to do 3 things


. Originally Posted by WTF
if I wanted to play with a prick, I'd play with my own
bambino's Avatar
if I wanted to play with a prick, I'd play with my own Originally Posted by nevergaveitathought
His doesn’t work.
dilbert firestorm's Avatar
His doesn’t work. Originally Posted by bambino

looks like his chud is in fine form.
WTF's Avatar
  • WTF
  • 12-09-2020, 10:50 AM
Do you really want to know? You'll to be able to do 3 things
1 Open a link

2 Read

3 Comprehension

https://reason.com/2020/05/17/why-do...-of-court/?amp



. Originally Posted by WTF
if I wanted to play with a prick, I'd play with my own Originally Posted by nevergaveitathought
Hell I knew #3 would be difficult for ya but I had no idea #1 was too!

Here let me help you're good for nothing little prick.



In fact, the "principal object" of Rule 48(a)'s "leave of court" requirement was not to protect the interests of individual defendants, but rather to guard against dubious dismissals of criminal cases that would benefit powerful and well-connected defendants. In other words, it was drafted and enacted precisely to deal with the situation that has arisen in United States v. Flynn: its purpose was to empower the Judiciary to limit dismissal in cases where the district court suspects that some impropriety prompted the Executive's decision to abandon a case.




.
LexusLover's Avatar

berating someone who doesn’t have a chance to appeal and doing it outside actual sentencing is appalling and virtually unheard of
Originally Posted by nevergaveitathought
Says who?
Says who? Originally Posted by LexusLover
well I have to admit, I heard professor turley say just about that same thing
Yssup Rider's Avatar
His doesn’t work. Originally Posted by bambino
And you know this because ...

bambino's Avatar
And you know this because ...

Originally Posted by Yssup Rider
Olivia Howard told us and WTF admitted it. Now, quit stalking me.
Yssup Rider's Avatar
Quit your bellyaching, bud. I’ve got every right to post in this thread.

Go pound sand. And the RTM button, love chunks!
WTF's Avatar
  • WTF
  • 12-09-2020, 03:41 PM
Olivia Howard told us and WTF admitted it. Now, quit stalking me. Originally Posted by bambino
I said it didn't work with her. Wouldn't work around your gay ass either.

That be a far cry from it not working. But hey if talking about my dick gets you off....have at it.
WTF's Avatar
  • WTF
  • 12-09-2020, 03:44 PM
I woke before 4 am this morning

surfed the tv channels as I laid there alone

there was tmc with a 1930's "a tale of two cities" starring ronald coleman, an interesting movie and apropos in our world today, so I watched it beginning to end this morning

the left's second favorite revolution of all time (the first favorite occurring in 1917) with its perverted laws passed with retroactive application or acts under no law at all and its kangaroo tribunal

our future, what? Originally Posted by nevergaveitathought
No God Damn wonder you're waking up alone!


.
WTF's Avatar
  • WTF
  • 12-09-2020, 03:45 PM
Gentlemen above - i agree - Sullivan behaved in a completely 'partial' fashion for the prosecution - as his DPST masters dictated.Sullivan was part of the prosecution team against Flynn - clearly and factually - and not 'impartial' as a Judge should be.

). Originally Posted by oeb11
WTF are you yacking about?

In fact, the "principal object" of Rule 48(a)'s "leave of court" requirement was not to protect the interests of individual defendants, but rather to guard against dubious dismissals of criminal cases that would benefit powerful and well-connected defendants. In other words, it was drafted and enacted precisely to deal with the situation that has arisen in United States v. Flynn: its purpose was to empower the Judiciary to limit dismissal in cases where the district court suspects that some impropriety prompted the Executive's decision to abandon a case.
bambino's Avatar
Quit your bellyaching, bud. I’ve got every right to post in this thread.

Go pound sand. And the RTM button, love chunks! Originally Posted by Yssup Rider
Your file is already open. Watch you’re step.
bambino's Avatar
WTF are you yacking about?

In fact, the "principal object" of Rule 48(a)'s "leave of court" requirement was not to protect the interests of individual defendants, but rather to guard against dubious dismissals of criminal cases that would benefit powerful and well-connected defendants. In other words, it was drafted and enacted precisely to deal with the situation that has arisen in United States v. Flynn: its purpose was to empower the Judiciary to limit dismissal in cases where the district court suspects that some impropriety prompted the Executive's decision to abandon a case. Originally Posted by WTF
WTF are you yapping about. He dismissed the case.