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: 7
25
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 3 2018 @ 06:35 PM
link   

originally posted by: Vector99
a reply to: Liquesence




Mueller was granted authority to investigate criminal activity if uncovered, even if outside the scope of the original investigation.

And that is not legal.


Yeah, you missed the SCOTUS case I linked to. Which says it pretty much is.

Morrison v. Olson
edit on 3-1-2018 by Liquesence because: (no reason given)




posted on Jan, 3 2018 @ 06:37 PM
link   
a reply to: luthier

Actually, the criminal judge won't care at all. I agree that this is likely a stunt, but not for publicity. They're trying to get discovery is the most likely reason.



posted on Jan, 3 2018 @ 06:39 PM
link   
a reply to: Liquesence

It was found legal under a statute that has since expired. It may not be legal anymore.



posted on Jan, 3 2018 @ 06:40 PM
link   

originally posted by: projectvxn
You folks should read that link.

Preferably before making assumptions.

This lawsuit has legs.


I cannot say whether or not it has legs, but it does make some very interesting points.



posted on Jan, 3 2018 @ 06:41 PM
link   

originally posted by: Liquesence

originally posted by: Vector99
a reply to: Liquesence




Mueller was granted authority to investigate criminal activity if uncovered, even if outside the scope of the original investigation.

And that is not legal.


Yeah, you missed the SCOTUS case I linked to. Which says it pretty much is.

Morrison v. Olson

I purposely ignored it.

Eventually, the law establishing the independent counsel expired at midnight on June 30, 1999.

link



posted on Jan, 3 2018 @ 06:41 PM
link   
a reply to: Vector99

I don't plan on a Google statute war with you.

If he was confident he would file a motion in the criminal court with his current assigned judge to stop the case or add restriction.

The civil court will take slightly longer to get to the docket.

The method of interjection between a trial is to file a motion.



posted on Jan, 3 2018 @ 06:43 PM
link   
To add to what I just posted, I find it just as interesting that Manafort took the civil suit course and did not use this, as far as I know, as reason to dismiss the charges he faces.



posted on Jan, 3 2018 @ 06:45 PM
link   
a reply to: introvert

Mueller is immune from this lawsuit. There are no legs, just desperation from Manafort. His lawsuit will be thrown out.



posted on Jan, 3 2018 @ 06:47 PM
link   
a reply to: luthier

So basically you have no idea and don't want to do the research. Got it.



posted on Jan, 3 2018 @ 06:48 PM
link   
a reply to: Swills

If he was just suing Mueller you'd be correct. But he's suing the DoJ and Rosenstein. They were included for a reason and that reason is to get around prosecutorial immunity.



posted on Jan, 3 2018 @ 06:49 PM
link   
a reply to: introvert

Because his motives are not just to get his own case dismissed.



posted on Jan, 3 2018 @ 06:49 PM
link   
a reply to: luthier

They might have done that as well. Looking up "Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief" every case I find is civil, leading me to believe that is why it was filed in civil court.



posted on Jan, 3 2018 @ 06:52 PM
link   
a reply to: Vector99

I've reached out to a few of my lawyer friends, we'll see what they say. Maybe they'll confirm what luthier is saying, maybe not. Either way, I'll post it here when I hear back.



posted on Jan, 3 2018 @ 06:52 PM
link   

originally posted by: Vector99

originally posted by: Liquesence

originally posted by: Vector99
a reply to: Liquesence




Mueller was granted authority to investigate criminal activity if uncovered, even if outside the scope of the original investigation.

And that is not legal.


Yeah, you missed the SCOTUS case I linked to. Which says it pretty much is.

Morrison v. Olson

I purposely ignored it.

Eventually, the law establishing the independent counsel expired at midnight on June 30, 1999.

link


I know you ignored it. It was inconvenient for you, because it was replaced by the Office of Special Counsel, whose duties are legally the same.

SCOTUS and 28 U.S. Code Chapter 40 - INDEPENDENT COUNSEL.



posted on Jan, 3 2018 @ 06:57 PM
link   

originally posted by: Dfairlite
a reply to: introvert

Because his motives are not just to get his own case dismissed.


That does not make much sense.

How do you know what his motives are and what is his goal?



posted on Jan, 3 2018 @ 06:58 PM
link   

originally posted by: Vector99
a reply to: luthier

They might have done that as well. Looking up "Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief" every case I find is civil, leading me to believe that is why it was filed in civil court.



www.lawfirms.com...



posted on Jan, 3 2018 @ 06:58 PM
link   
a reply to: Dfairlite

And you think the DOJ isn't also immune? Come on man! When this gets thrown out what will you say then?



posted on Jan, 3 2018 @ 07:10 PM
link   
a reply to: Swills

I have never said it won't get thrown out. I simply pointed out that they went beyond the prosecutor to get around prosecutorial immunity.



posted on Jan, 3 2018 @ 07:15 PM
link   
link

Explanation from the actual law

And



ROSENSTEIN: I know what [Mueller’s] doing. I'm properly exercising my oversight responsibilities, and so I can assure you that the special counsel is conducting himself consistently with our understanding about the scope of his investigation.

]
edit on 3-1-2018 by luthier because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 3 2018 @ 07:21 PM
link   

originally posted by: Liquesence

originally posted by: Vector99

originally posted by: Liquesence

originally posted by: Vector99
a reply to: Liquesence




Mueller was granted authority to investigate criminal activity if uncovered, even if outside the scope of the original investigation.

And that is not legal.


Yeah, you missed the SCOTUS case I linked to. Which says it pretty much is.

Morrison v. Olson

I purposely ignored it.

Eventually, the law establishing the independent counsel expired at midnight on June 30, 1999.

link


I know you ignored it. It was inconvenient for you, because it was replaced by the Office of Special Counsel, whose duties are legally the same.

SCOTUS and 28 U.S. Code Chapter 40 - INDEPENDENT COUNSEL.

No, I ignored it because the ruling you referred to was regarding the office of independent counsel which no longer exists as of 1999.

The office of special counsel is not the same, and the scotus ruling would not apply to it. Also the office of special counsel is much more regulated and restricted than it's predecessor.




top topics



 
25
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join