mr. gleason. sidney: that's the -- judge garland: that's the amicus question, what about the dismissal of the case? sidney: in that motion around docket 200 we requested again the dismissal be granted. judge garland: so the panel just had bad luck? sidney: it was my failure to point out to the panel that that previous motion had been granted but we corrected that in our opposition to the petition for rehearing. case in whichl the defendant and all the constitutional rights are supposed to benefit the defendant area judge garland: -- defendant. judge garland: we have lots of cases where we have reversed a district court error in a criminal case, but there was no ability for that defendant to do anything but appeal the condition, they could not mandamus the court. imagine of the supreme court had decided a fourth amendment case, clearly applicable to that defendant and in that defendant's favor, and then the district court ruled the other way. the defendant would still have to appeal, even that the

mr. gleason. and there are circumstances now under which judge sullivan can continue on this case, because his bias demands his disqualification. the very appearance of bias is enough to demand his disqualification, and here we have a long history of decisions made on the basis of extrajudicial compact and the -- extra to show extrajudicial contact, and the blistering op-ed in the washington post which led him to amicus he appointed. he even waived the requirement of local counsel and added additional perjury and contempt charges over general flynn's head. the perjury is now teed up for additional punishment at the recommendation of the amicus. judge sullivan has failed to follow the mandamus itself for 15 days and took the unprecedented step of seeking rehearing by filing his own petition in this court when he has absolutely no standing to do so. taking on the mantle of an active litigant has to disqualify him from proceeding any further in this case if all the things that happened before were no

mr. gleason said that won't be required. there is nowhere anywhere in the record that suggests that would be anything judge sullivan intends to do at a hearing. thank you.nd: judge srinivasan: judge griffith? : are you telling us those questions won't be asked at the hearing. he say you don't want to forecast the hearings, maybe you should. are you telling us those lines of inquiry will not be pursued? judge griffith: -- mrs. wilkinson: i can't tell you exactly what won't be pursued because the briefing is not completed and judge sullivan has not decided all of the questions he may or may not ask even during the oral argument that could address the question that he has. when the issue was raised about the acting u.s. attorney signing the pleading by itself, the government answered saying that was signed off by the entire department of justice and that answers the question. the court may disagree but there is no need to pursue that but there -- the government has explained and answered that question. if all of these pleadings

mr. gleason. already, weou said stand on our file. we will say no more. thehe court thinks that basis again, we will take our appeal. with that process not protect you against any separation of powers injury? mr. wall: i don't think it would. two point. one, as you know, these are exceptionally normal rules. it is a very high hurdle. only when you have clear evidence of an unconstitutional motive. we are talking about the process for the government to avoid injury. i am talking about the process for the government to avoid injury. if you ignore arguments and you feel like you don't have to answer, you can refuse to answer. they are not relevant. they are not legally relevant, we will not address them. you did not say that to the district court. mr. wall: my first point is probing the executive in the way that armstrong allows is a very narrow option. -- exception. judge millett: i'm talking about the process that was in the government's position in the lower court in armstrong. the process was used there and it can be used here to avoid any harm. no one m

mr. gleason to usurp the job of the prosecutor, raised the sort of perjury and contempt charges over flynn'sead and sallied forth to right the wrongs he perceived. -- the job ofoted the united states attorney is otherwise occupied. in adding these unconstitutional burdens of process to punish michael flynn, judge sullivan discarded any semblance of the unbiased impartial adjudicator this court extolled in the 2019 chapter of that case saga. as a cornerstone of any system of justice with the label. host: barbara mcquade, some legal terms there but among the things, she said general flynn is a defendant without a prosecutor. in our legal system, how can a case keep going if the justice department a longer wants to prosecute that case? guest: ordinarily it is the prosecutor who has sole discretion, and for good reason. it is good to know resources, priorities and other factors, but the caselaw law that was relied upon in one of the key pieces of language in that case is that the prosecution is entitled to a presumption of regularity in the absence of evidence to the contrary. in this case it is

mr. gleason to usurp the job of ther, prosecutor, racist sort of perjury and contempt charges over flynn's head and impermissibly sallied forth the rights he perceived. the judge noted in the united states the job of united states attorney is otherwise occupied. and adding these unconstitutional burdens of processedn, to michael flynn judge silva discarded any influence of on biased this court extolled in the 2019 chapter of that case saga. as a cornerstone of any system of justice worth the label. >> barbara mcquade there are some legal terms in there. among the things, general flynn is a defendant without a prosecutor. and our legal system how can a case keep going if the justice department no longer wants to prosecute that case? >> ordinarily it is almost the full decision-maker it's his full discretion. they will know their resources, their priority and many other factors. but the case law was services more the key pieces as they're entitled to a presumption of regularity in the absence of evidence to the contrary. this case is very unusual evidence you have a case you have very strong

mr. gleason has no valid role here whatsoever. it is the process, itself since may 7th, that is been part of the abuse of the general flynn has suffered. these are completely unprecedented proceedings and the reason they are' is because they should never havehe happen. mandamus does not need to have an order to seek review of it very purpose and existence is to correct the patient power or the district judge exceeding his authority which hehe did. the very minute he appointed mrs case and the role of a prosecutor essentially when the executive branch in its sole discretion decided this case should never have been brought to begin with. he has been through this for almost four years now. as cost him millions of dollars, had to sell his house because of it. and been called the trader and treasonous for absolutely no reason. not any of this should've happened. so it is imperative that this court restores the rule of law. an issue the writ of mandamus to compel the judge to grant the motion to dismiss and to disqualify judge sullivan.

mr. gleason to usurp the job of the prosecutor, raised the sort of perjury and contempt charges over flynn'sd and sallied forth to right the wrongs he perceived. -- the job ofoted the united states attorney is otherwise occupied. in adding these unconstitutional burdens of process to punish michael flynn, judge sullivan discarded any semblance of the unbiased impartial adjudicator this court extolled in the 2019 chapter of that case saga. as a cornerstone of any system of justice with the label. host: barbara mcquade, some legal terms there but among the things, she said general flynn is a defendant without a prosecutor. in our legal system, how can a case keep going if the justice department a longer wants to prosecute that case? guest: ordinarily it is the prosecutor who has sole discretion, and for good reason. it is good to know resources, priorities and other factors, but the caselaw law that was relied upon in one of the key pieces of language in that case is that the prosecution is entitled to a presumption of regularity in the absence of evidence to the contrary. in this case it is f