Paul Manafort sues Mueller and the DoJ

originally posted by: luthier
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?

Because as I stated, and you ignored, District judges deal with day to day operations of the courts (overseeing cases) and Magistrates deal with challenges / motions / issues that come up in those cases on the criminal side.

Magistrates deal with BOTH civil and Criminal.

The question before thew court is -
Did Mueller / Rosenstein act outside the boundaries of the special counsel requirements.

You do not ask the trial judge to rule on something like this because of the impact it would have beyond the case he is currently overseeing. You want a judge who is not in a position where he would have to recuse himself from other criminal cases that might be linked to the overall topic that was directly affected by the trial judges ruling.

originally posted by: Xcathdra
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??

Really? So far you are batting zero with legal arguments with me.

There is literally nobody giving this weight...

The supreme court cannon on down.

It the real courts generally you have to argue the court is denying your relief...not file in the same district without that argument.

First thing the judge will say is why didn't you file in the trial court...

You can quote me on that.

Now what is his argument?

a reply to: Xcathdra

Funny you won't answer what chance you give this.

Probably because your wrong so frequently.

originally posted by: Xcathdra

originally posted by: luthier
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?

Because as I stated, and you ignored, District judges deal with day to day operations of the courts (overseeing cases) and Magistrates deal with challenges / motions / issues that come up in those cases on the criminal side.

Magistrates deal with BOTH civil and Criminal.

The question before thew court is -
Did Mueller / Rosenstein act outside the boundaries of the special counsel requirements.

You do not ask the trial judge to rule on something like this because of the impact it would have beyond the case he is currently overseeing. You want a judge who is not in a position where he would have to recuse himself from other criminal cases that might be linked to the overall topic that was directly affected by the trial judges ruling.

And with this complete load of crap I have to withdraw. It's pointless.

You literally make stuff up with partial facts on a regular basis.

Almost like you Google your information and try and understand it on the spot.

But hey let's compare notes when the judge decides if this should go through or not..

I am willing to say it's DOA

So far you won't make a call..

a reply to: luthier

In all honesty, I'd say neither of you really know and have simply dug your heels in for the sake of having someone to argue with on ATS today.



In the end, at least one of you will be wrong. And it won't matter at all.

Federal Magistrate Judge

These are officers of the district court who are appointed by a majority vote of the active judges of that court. These judges serve a term of 8 years, and are given duties by the district court judges. Magistrate judges issue search warrants, set bail, and do other preliminary things in criminal cases. They may also be designated to help with several of the steps in the judicial process that occur before the actual trial is held in both civil and criminal cases. They can also preside over civil trials if all the parties consent.

Federal District Judge

The primary function of the federal judges is to resolve matters brought before the United States federal courts. Most federal courts in the United States are courts of general jurisdiction, meaning that they hear both civil and criminal cases falling within their jurisdiction. District Court judges are recognized as having such authority as is needed to dispose of matters brought before them, ranging from setting the dates for trials and hearings to holding parties in contempt or otherwise sanctioning them for improper behavior.

People need to get over the word civil.

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan
a reply to: luthier

In all honesty, I'd say neither of you really know and have simply dug your heels in for the sake of having someone to argue with on ATS today.

In the end, at least one of you will be wrong. And it won't matter at all.

True but one of us gets to at least learn something.

a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

This may be true.

However my track record on legal debates isn't so bad.

It would be a challenge to find a single person former judge, prosecutor, or defense attorney who thinks this has a significant chance of not being dismissed. From the cannon reasons down to procedure.

I wouldn't bet against those odds. But it is possible it moves forward and makes its way to the bench of scotus where scalia was the sole dissent on the subject.

originally posted by: Xcathdra

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan
a reply to: luthier

In all honesty, I'd say neither of you really know and have simply dug your heels in for the sake of having someone to argue with on ATS today.

In the end, at least one of you will be wrong. And it won't matter at all.

True but one of us gets to at least learn something.

And I do apologize for getting rude. Too much coffee I guess. It was uncalled for. I will try and be better.

Don't get me wrong...its interesting reading.

I just wanted to douse you with water.

a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

Thank you. I certainly needed it.

Maybe it's being stuck inside for weeks in a polar vortex. Sometimes I really miss Texas...

a reply to: luthier

Scalias dissent was based on the Special Prosecutor law and not whats in place today and revolved around its constitutionality via a separation of powers violation.

This challenge is not based on separation of powers and instead challenges its authority and legality under the law. Collusion is not a crime in the Federal body of law (criminal) and therefore does not meet the criteria for the establishment of a special counsel. By extension they argue that any cases that arise from the initial investigation are tainted because there was no legal grounds to initiate the investigations in the first place.

Its why its referred to as a fishing expedition. Rosenstein / Mueller created a situation where a non existent crime was used to justify investigating individuals that have nothing to do with the original non existent crime.

Given the fact Manaforts team can argue that their client was charged with a financial crime from a decade ago that has no relation to the present day reasons given to start the investigation is a very good argument indeed.

originally posted by: luthier

originally posted by: Xcathdra

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan
a reply to: luthier

In all honesty, I'd say neither of you really know and have simply dug your heels in for the sake of having someone to argue with on ATS today.

In the end, at least one of you will be wrong. And it won't matter at all.

True but one of us gets to at least learn something.

And I do apologize for getting rude. Too much coffee I guess. It was uncalled for. I will try and be better.

Dont take offense to this but you and I are very very similar in pushing our view points to excess. It is easy to get pissed and come across as such in the forums (never mind the fact its difficult at times to get tone and context out of typed instead of spoken speech).

So my apologies as well.

If it helps if we start to get on each others nerves send a private message or just ask for clarification in the thread. I have that agreement with a couple people on this site for the exact same reasons we have here.

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan
Don't get me wrong...its interesting reading.

I just wanted to douse you with water.

Or in other words -

originally posted by: Xcathdra
a reply to: luthier

Scalias dissent was based on the Special Prosecutor law and not whats in place today and revolved around its constitutionality via a separation of powers violation.

This challenge is not based on separation of powers and instead challenges its authority and legality under the law. Collusion is not a crime in the Federal body of law (criminal) and therefore does not meet the criteria for the establishment of a special counsel. By extension they argue that any cases that arise from the initial investigation are tainted because there was no legal grounds to initiate the investigations in the first place.

Its why its referred to as a fishing expedition. Rosenstein / Mueller created a situation where a non existent crime was used to justify investigating individuals that have nothing to do with the original non existent crime.

Given the fact Manaforts team can argue that their client was charged with a financial crime from a decade ago that has no relation to the present day reasons given to start the investigation is a very good argument indeed.

In your opinion.

However an investigator may want to know how relationships are connected, for instance does he owe a large debt or favor to a person from the past. Is there a history of crime,

Now Mueller was clearly given authority by Rod. Clear as day to go after any crimes uncovered. As you know federal prosecutors are allowed to do this to encourage testimony.

The argument is rodstein has disobeyed the doj regulations the three the govern the special council..

However that is a very hard argument based on the vagueness of the regulations and also Manafort has no idea how he fits into the whole case and neither do we...


The cannon is pretty clear about the case regardless of your view on it.. there are a few that apply.

With rod supporting this with testimony it's very very difficult. Much more so then your letting on..

People pretend these guys are idiots. They are far from that. Mueller has a stellar reputation besides the current partisan talks. Not only as a prosecutor but as one of the longest fbi directors in history.

Manafort has a very different reputation.

Now again do I think prosecutors should have Mueller power is another thing entirely. I am more on board with judge napelitano there but like him it really doesn't matter since it's the precedent and would need to be addressed before a complaint.

When people say I am guilty but the wrong cops got me they can be indicted again. Regardless of the case being "thrown out".

It also isn't a strong argument. And it seems that is also the opinion of any legal expert with a good reputation I can find as well.

originally posted by: Xcathdra

originally posted by: luthier

originally posted by: Xcathdra

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan
a reply to: luthier

In all honesty, I'd say neither of you really know and have simply dug your heels in for the sake of having someone to argue with on ATS today.

In the end, at least one of you will be wrong. And it won't matter at all.

True but one of us gets to at least learn something.

And I do apologize for getting rude. Too much coffee I guess. It was uncalled for. I will try and be better.

Dont take offense to this but you and I are very very similar in pushing our view points to excess. It is easy to get pissed and come across as such in the forums (never mind the fact its difficult at times to get tone and context out of typed instead of spoken speech).

So my apologies as well.

If it helps if we start to get on each others nerves send a private message or just ask for clarification in the thread. I have that agreement with a couple people on this site for the exact same reasons we have here.

Thank you.. I will try to be better..and truly do appreciate your accepting my apology.

originally posted by: luthier
a reply to: shooterbrody

I just got a text that's all, and have spent the entire holiday talking about this.

It was known man fort was planning on this.

Sounds to me like you live with a bunch of liberals and are cooking up ideas in your own heads. More of a group-think. Sorry, the investigation isn't going anywhere. It's a horse and pony show.

a reply to: TheGOAT

I live with my wife and three kids..

An independent, a libertarian and 3 kids apolitical

It does sound like you are a trump supporter though. Which of course would provide confirmation bias.

originally posted by: luthier

originally posted by: Xcathdra

originally posted by: luthier

originally posted by: Xcathdra

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan
a reply to: luthier

In all honesty, I'd say neither of you really know and have simply dug your heels in for the sake of having someone to argue with on ATS today.

In the end, at least one of you will be wrong. And it won't matter at all.

True but one of us gets to at least learn something.

And I do apologize for getting rude. Too much coffee I guess. It was uncalled for. I will try and be better.

Dont take offense to this but you and I are very very similar in pushing our view points to excess. It is easy to get pissed and come across as such in the forums (never mind the fact its difficult at times to get tone and context out of typed instead of spoken speech).

So my apologies as well.

If it helps if we start to get on each others nerves send a private message or just ask for clarification in the thread. I have that agreement with a couple people on this site for the exact same reasons we have here.

Thank you.. I will try to be better..and truly do appreciate your accepting my apology.

No worries it happens (usually a lot on my part lol).

This is linchpin -
28 CFR 600.1 - Grounds for appointing a Special Counsel.

The Attorney General, or in cases in which the Attorney General is recused, the Acting Attorney General, will appoint a Special Counsel when he or she determines that criminal investigation of a person or matter is warranted and -

(a) That investigation or prosecution of that person or matter by a United States Attorney's Office or litigating Division of the Department of Justice would present a conflict of interest for the Department or other extraordinary circumstances; and

(b) That under the circumstances, it would be in the public interest to appoint an outside Special Counsel to assume responsibility for the matter.

While the conflict of interest portion is met in section B the elements of the main section are NOT met. Collusion is not a crime and because its not a crime the basis for the special counsel violates the law. This law requires the elements in both sections to be met in order for it to be lawful.





Sections II and III are contingent on section I - collusion with Russia.

a reply to: luthier

I can agree with all of the above.