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.
And another prosecutor picks up the case...
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.
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.
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.
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...
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...
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.
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?
originally posted by: luthier
a reply to: Xcathdra
Nope,
The feds will appeal and use a different prosecutor.
Oh boy,..
That is your take...
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.
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.
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.
originally posted by: shooterbrody
a reply to: Xcathdra
I agree.
Do you not think the government would appeal a manafort win?
originally posted by: introvert
Authority can be resolved in the same courts.
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.
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.
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.