Paul Manafort sues Mueller and the DoJ

a reply to: luthier

And another prosecutor picks up the case...

What case?
The case the fbi and doj DID NOT decide to file in 2014 when Manafort voluntarily discussed this issue with them?
Where was the indictment then? What is different now? Why won't the judge let anyone involved speak with the press?

originally posted by: luthier
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.

You dont actually.

District judges deal with day to day operations of the federal courts, presiding over criminal cases etc. However when it comes to conflicts / filing certain motions (whether it is civil or criminal) it is the purview of the federal magistrate judges.

The federal courts are divided with their own areas of jurisdiction.

As wwe see in this case.

a reply to: luthier
Ah, I should take your word just because?

Does that mean I should ignore the actual legal documentation stating otherwise? I don't know...tough call, I heard those folks over at the Supreme Court just make stuff up on whims. And we all know about the internet, if it is stated there, it must be true!

a reply to: Xcathdra

Lol,

So you don't know he can file a motion in the criminal court to challenge Mueller authority.

Good to know.

What is your assessment of the probability he will win this lawsuit?

originally posted by: luthier

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.

and as I said learn the difference between a district judge and a magistrate and what their respective areas are in the federal court system.

Again since you cant seem to grasp this -
Challenging the authority of the special counsel is NOT a criminal matter (it is administrative).

originally posted by: luthier
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.

I do not see it being dismissed. I think the suit brings legitimate questions. Manafort may not ultimately win. but I think it will be heard.

originally posted by: luthier

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...

Not in the federal system. Magistrates deal with both entities for motions and other relief requests.

originally posted by: luthier

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...

Nope -

If manafort wins the entire prosecutions / investigations are done and over with.

originally posted by: shooterbrody

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.

In which case I would imagine the prosecutions would come to a temporary stop until a higher court gets involved.

a reply to: Xcathdra

Nope,

The feds will appeal and use a different prosecutor.

Oh boy,..

That is your take...

originally posted by: luthier
a reply to: Xcathdra

Lol,

So you don't know he can file a motion in the criminal court to challenge Mueller authority.

Good to know.

What is your assessment of the probability he will win this lawsuit?

as I said learn how the federal system works. This filing is handled by the magistrate and not the district judge.

Dont get pissy with me because you dont know how our system works.

a reply to: Xcathdra

I agree.
Do you not think the government would appeal a manafort win?

originally posted by: luthier
a reply to: Xcathdra

Nope,

The feds will appeal and use a different prosecutor.

Oh boy,..

That is your take...

Another prosecutor is pointless while the situation is being appealed. You cant just assign a new prosecutor since the courts are saying (if they rule for manafort) the SC had no legal authority to start with.

You do understand this right? If a court says Muellers authority was incorrectly applied the judge can end it right there or he can issue a stay on his own ruling pending appeal. It would allow for the investigation to continue however the legalities involved in that are problematic since warrants / subpoenas stil have to be issued.

The government wont go forward while the decision is pending since it could conceivably impact any and all other cases that might be linked solely by the investigation itself.


Manaforts legal argument is in fact valid and is in fact based on the law.

a reply to: Xcathdra

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.

Authority can be resolved in the same courts.

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.

Ok. We are just making clarifications. Some of your comments make it seem that you do not know what you are really talking about. That's why we are clarifying the simple stuff you seem to be misunderstanding.

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.

I understand just fine. They are trying to use an injunction to call in to question the SC's constitutional authority.

Fine. Let them try. They have a rough fight ahead of them to prove that.

That is still not a valid defense against the charges they have been accused of.

Seems to me they are trying to play legal games instead of refuting the charges they face.

a reply to: Xcathdra

Right.

Now your using irrelevant fact to prop up your paper argument.

There are several motions in a criminal case to not only dismiss the case but limit or throw away evidence that was not obtained properly.

If Mr manafort had any confidence he would not have filed a complaint in a civil court...he would have filed a motion...

The motion you keep wrongfully referring to is a civil complaint where he is asking for damages and to limit the scope of Mueller investigation.

However Mueller has been granted the authority by the doj under three regulations.

So it's imo a few weeks away from a quick dismissal.

What is your prediction?

a reply to: introvert

Courts, investigators, and prosecutors usually love when felons say it was the wrong cops that caught me.

It worked real well for Capone..

originally posted by: shooterbrody
a reply to: Xcathdra

I agree.
Do you not think the government would appeal a manafort win?

That would be up to Rosenstein since he is in charge of the Russia investigation and by extension whats going on now. The other factor is Rosenstein would need to figure out how likely an appeal would be to succeed. Since there is no case law on special counsels under the current rule its iffy. Manaforts legal brief raises the legal issues raised from the last special counsel however those arguments were based on the law that was in place then (that is not in place now).

Finally it would throw a massive wrench into the gears of the russia investigation as a whole. They might try to find a way to compartmentalize a negative ruling by dropping Manafort / Paige / Popadapolis charges and complying with any criteria the courts would place on the special counsel in order to make it legal under the current rules.

Either way a win for Manafort would place the entire russia probe in jeopardy.

a reply to: Xcathdra

So why is he asking another judge from the same district court to give him relief that is availible from the trial judge?

What has he listed as damages or bad faith from that court to support his lawsuit?

originally posted by: introvert
Authority can be resolved in the same courts.

Not when the federal courts have a clear line drawn on who handles cases and who handles challenges / motions, as our Federal system does.

originally posted by: introvert
Ok. We are just making clarifications. Some of your comments make it seem that you do not know what you are really talking about. That's why we are clarifying the simple stuff you seem to be misunderstanding.

I have not misunderstood anything.

originally posted by: introvert
I understand just fine. They are trying to use an injunction to call in to question the SC's constitutional authority.

Fine. Let them try. They have a rough fight ahead of them to prove that.

The argument is actually sound and if they win then the rough fight comes to an end for the special counsel.

originally posted by: introvert
That is still not a valid defense against the charges they have been accused of.

Seems to me they are trying to play legal games instead of refuting the charges they face.

There is actually -
1 - The special counsel acted outside of the laws / rules for special counsels.
2 - Evidence was improperly obtained (items seized outside the scope of the search warrant and the seizure and use of documents in violation of attorney client privilege.
3 - The use of the dossier to obtain FISA warrants.
4 - Leaks of secret information pertaining to the cases in question.
5 - Violations of the FISA law by having that info leaked to the public as well.

I would not say legal games but I get what you are saying. We use an adversarial legal system and its incumbent on the prosecution to prove their case beyond a reasonable doubt (for criminal) and its incumbent on the defense to achieve the best possible outcome for their client. To that end defense will try unique legal challenges to obtain that.

However in this case the argument by manaforts lawyers are based on the law and if the SC / Rosenstein violated it.

Pretty straight forward matter of law.

a reply to: luthier

When you learn how this all works come back and rejoin the conversation. Thus far all you are doing is randomly attacking people and ignoring the facts.

What part of areas of responsibility are you not grasping??