It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Paul Manafort sues Mueller and the DoJ

page: 11
23
<< 8  9  10    12  13  14 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 4 2018 @ 10:21 AM
link   

originally posted by: Xcathdra
a reply to: shooterbrody

It is not so much of a lawsuit than it is a review. The authority of a government entity is being challenged, which makes it civil since no criminal acts are being alleged against the government. They are asking a judge to review the special counsels mandate and determine if it is valid under federal law.


It's literally a filed civil compliant. It's not a motion in the criminal court.

Maybe you should at least read the document.




posted on Jan, 4 2018 @ 10:25 AM
link   
I hope Manafort files for malicious prosecution too.



posted on Jan, 4 2018 @ 10:25 AM
link   
a reply to: neo96

Maybe he can also get on judge Judy.



posted on Jan, 4 2018 @ 10:27 AM
link   
a reply to: Xcathdra



His legal team cant file for dismissal until the complaint is reviewed and ruled on by a judge.


You can file a motion at any time. What you should be saying is that it will not be considered until the original complaint is reviewed by the courts.

In fact, most court filings are done online these days and you can begin filing motions as soon as a case number is setup.



His motion is just that, a judicial review of Muellers / Rosensteins authority.


This is not a motion in the same case. This is a separate lawsuit, a civil suit, in a different jurisdiction.



As for it being an odd move - not really and these types of motions occur frequently.


BS. It is not common practice to counter or question criminal proceedings by opening civil suits in separate jurisdictions .



posted on Jan, 4 2018 @ 10:28 AM
link   
a reply to: Xcathdra

I don't disagree that they are asking a judge to review the SC standard,scope,and boundries with respect to this mess of an investigation, but they are asking for relief as is done in a lawsuit. If they get the relief they are asking for there will be no need to separately set aside the indictment against Manafort.



posted on Jan, 4 2018 @ 10:31 AM
link   
a reply to: introvert

Bingo.


It's also a civil complaint where he is the plaintiff in a new lawsuit. Not a motion for review.



posted on Jan, 4 2018 @ 10:37 AM
link   
a reply to: luthier

You can't do that.
You've left zero room for your being wrong, unless you'd like to correct the record and say that while you think it's a long shot, it's possible it moves forward. But then you'd be on the same page as me, someone you've said is going to blame the deep state or Obama.

It's almost like you're trying to create a division.



posted on Jan, 4 2018 @ 10:43 AM
link   
a reply to: Dfairlite

How so...

I could be wrong.

However I am.not wrong that

1. This is a complaint in a civil court (plaintiff) separate from the criminal case where he is the defendant

2. This is not only unusual it's frowned apon by the courts and seen as an attempt to undermine a current case in another court.

3. That he could have filed a motion in the criminal case for several things including dismissal if he was confident it would work

4. If he is guilty another prosecutor can pick up the case anyway.

5. This is a hail Mary that even Aaron Rodgers would have trouble with.

But yes there is always some probability of success.
edit on 4-1-2018 by luthier because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 4 2018 @ 10:54 AM
link   

originally posted by: luthier
a reply to: Xcathdra

He didn't file a motion. He filed a civil complaint.

Do you know the difference. He is the plaintiff..

His charges which he was put under house arrest for and have been reviewed are in a criminal court.

Do you have any knowledge of the US courts at all.



Do you?

The criminal aspect of his case is not what is being challenged. The authority of the special counsel is.



posted on Jan, 4 2018 @ 10:55 AM
link   

originally posted by: luthier

originally posted by: Xcathdra
a reply to: shooterbrody

It is not so much of a lawsuit than it is a review. The authority of a government entity is being challenged, which makes it civil since no criminal acts are being alleged against the government. They are asking a judge to review the special counsels mandate and determine if it is valid under federal law.


It's literally a filed civil compliant. It's not a motion in the criminal court.

Maybe you should at least read the document.


He is asking for injuctive relief. It is NOT criminal.



posted on Jan, 4 2018 @ 10:56 AM
link   
a reply to: Xcathdra

I do in fact.

As I have clearly shown..

However if you' re as ignorant to believe that a prosecutors authority can not be challenged with a motion in criminal court I just called your bluff as a Leo with court experience.
edit on 4-1-2018 by luthier because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 4 2018 @ 10:56 AM
link   
Parallel casing is not uncommon, nor is it frowned upon by the US legal system...which loves to use it. For some departments, this is the primary setup used for prosecution. Hi IRS!

It is a low risk, high reward, mid game play. Not a hail Mary of any kind.



posted on Jan, 4 2018 @ 10:59 AM
link   

originally posted by: peck420
Parallel casing is not uncommon, nor is it frowned upon by the US legal system...which loves to use it. For some departments, this is the primary setup used for prosecution. Hi IRS!

It is a low risk, high reward, mid game play. Not a hail Mary of any kind.



BS.

Criminal courts do not like being held up with frivolous lawsuits.

And it's a huge hail Mary. You would be hard pressed to find any reputable legal expert of any party to say it isn't a long shot.

insider.foxnews.com...

This pretty much sums it up.


edit on 4-1-2018 by luthier because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 4 2018 @ 11:00 AM
link   

originally posted by: Xcathdra

originally posted by: luthier

originally posted by: Xcathdra
a reply to: shooterbrody

It is not so much of a lawsuit than it is a review. The authority of a government entity is being challenged, which makes it civil since no criminal acts are being alleged against the government. They are asking a judge to review the special counsels mandate and determine if it is valid under federal law.


It's literally a filed civil compliant. It's not a motion in the criminal court.

Maybe you should at least read the document.


He is asking for injuctive relief. It is NOT criminal.


You are really that dense.

I just said it's a civil case. Where he is the plaintiff in a complaint. Not a motion.



posted on Jan, 4 2018 @ 11:03 AM
link   

originally posted by: introvert
You can file a motion at any time. What you should be saying is that it will not be considered until the original complaint is reviewed by the courts.

In fact, most court filings are done online these days and you can begin filing motions as soon as a case number is setup.

Why file a motion to the criminal judge when the basis for the motion resides in the special counsels authority or lack of and is contingent on an administrative review?

Cart before the horse comes to mind by filing a motion before a ruling on authority is resolved.



originally posted by: introvert
This is not a motion in the same case. This is a separate lawsuit, a civil suit, in a different jurisdiction.

Yet related. His team is saying the special counsel / rod rosenstein violated the special counsel requirements. The actions of Mueller / Rosentein are not criminal but they are administrative.



originally posted by: introvert
BS. It is not common practice to counter or question criminal proceedings by opening civil suits in separate jurisdictions .

Speaking of BS. You guys are getting hung up on the word civil. You need to move beyond that and understand what is being requested by defense and why in addition to how those requests are assigned and resolved by the different court sections.



posted on Jan, 4 2018 @ 11:06 AM
link   

originally posted by: Xcathdra

originally posted by: introvert
You can file a motion at any time. What you should be saying is that it will not be considered until the original complaint is reviewed by the courts.

In fact, most court filings are done online these days and you can begin filing motions as soon as a case number is setup.

Why file a motion to the criminal judge when the basis for the motion resides in the special counsels authority or lack of and is contingent on an administrative review?

Cart before the horse comes to mind by filing a motion before a ruling on authority is resolved.



originally posted by: introvert
This is not a motion in the same case. This is a separate lawsuit, a civil suit, in a different jurisdiction.

Yet related. His team is saying the special counsel / rod rosenstein violated the special counsel requirements. The actions of Mueller / Rosentein are not criminal but they are administrative.



originally posted by: introvert
BS. It is not common practice to counter or question criminal proceedings by opening civil suits in separate jurisdictions .

Speaking of BS. You guys are getting hung up on the word civil. You need to move beyond that and understand what is being requested by defense and why in addition to how those requests are assigned and resolved by the different court sections.


Lol, to all of that absolute garbage.

Civil and criminal courts are two entirely different jurasuctions with different rules.

There are several motions to challenge Mueller authority (prosecution) in criminal court.

And genius it's not the defense in the civil case. He is the plaintiff of a lawsuit...



posted on Jan, 4 2018 @ 11:06 AM
link   

originally posted by: shooterbrody
a reply to: Xcathdra

I don't disagree that they are asking a judge to review the SC standard,scope,and boundries with respect to this mess of an investigation, but they are asking for relief as is done in a lawsuit. If they get the relief they are asking for there will be no need to separately set aside the indictment against Manafort.


If the judge rules for Manafort then everything Mueller and his team did becomes null and void, including all charges in criminal proceedings.

The ruling on the injunctive relief request directly impacts the criminal proceedings.



posted on Jan, 4 2018 @ 11:08 AM
link   

originally posted by: Xcathdra

originally posted by: shooterbrody
a reply to: Xcathdra

I don't disagree that they are asking a judge to review the SC standard,scope,and boundries with respect to this mess of an investigation, but they are asking for relief as is done in a lawsuit. If they get the relief they are asking for there will be no need to separately set aside the indictment against Manafort.


If the judge rules for Manafort then everything Mueller and his team did becomes null and void, including all charges in criminal proceedings.

The ruling on the injunctive relief request directly impacts the criminal proceedings.


And another prosecutor picks up the case...



posted on Jan, 4 2018 @ 11:10 AM
link   

originally posted by: Xcathdra

originally posted by: shooterbrody
a reply to: Xcathdra

I don't disagree that they are asking a judge to review the SC standard,scope,and boundries with respect to this mess of an investigation, but they are asking for relief as is done in a lawsuit. If they get the relief they are asking for there will be no need to separately set aside the indictment against Manafort.


If the judge rules for Manafort then everything Mueller and his team did becomes null and void, including all charges in criminal proceedings.

The ruling on the injunctive relief request directly impacts the criminal proceedings.

I agree, but even if the judge rules for manafort the govenment will appeal so I do not see this coming to any kind of quick resolution and possibly ending up to be decided by the SCOTUS.



posted on Jan, 4 2018 @ 11:13 AM
link   
a reply to: shooterbrody

You don't see it being dismissed?

Because every legal expert on either side I have read does..


Just FYI I don't agree that these kind of prosecuting tools should be legal. But they are. And it's pretty common.
edit on 4-1-2018 by luthier because: (no reason given)




top topics



 
23
<< 8  9  10    12  13  14 >>

log in

join