Paul Manafort sues Mueller and the DoJ

a reply to: luthier

Really? A verbal consent, and not a written lawful order?

That would be remarkably unusual.

a reply to: luthier

Not really... what you posted was 600.4 B. As I stated only part A is authorized. In investigations like this verbal directives are not good enough. It must be documented as the SC law requires. It is also why there is a motion to suppress evidence. Items not listed in the search warrant were seized, creating a problem for Mueller. That is also the reason the SC appointment is being challenged. No crime is listed to justify the investigation as the SC law requires.

In the legal realm verbal directives are a problem and are not used. It must be documented for the simple fact a defendant's legal team can challenge it. It is a lot like the saying "pics or it didn't happen". One inconsistent statement between investigators and the prosecutor during court proceedings with regards to verbal directives can destroy the prosecutors case. Remember all the defense has to do is get one person in the jury to doubt evidence or testimony for a favorable verdict.

Only 600.4 part A applies - general jurisdiction.

a reply to: Xcathdra

How is only part A authorized. That is ridiculous.

Text(ii) any matters that arose or may arise directly from the investigation; and

Also from the regulations.

“No creation of rights.” Section 600.10 provides that “[t]he regulations in this part are not intended to, do not, and may not be relied upon to create any rights, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or equity, by any person or entity, in any matter, civil, criminal, or administrative.”

Firstly, you have no idea what has been discussed written or not between rodstein and Mueller.

Secondly it's absolutely wishful thinking that rodstein is completely inept at his job.

He obviously knows what the charges and investigation are around manafort. A grand jury provided warrants, it's all been reviewed.as he literally stated under oath. The judicial oversight also has not brought up that mueller is out of bounds.

And there is literally nobody predicting that manafort has a solid case. Even judicial watch is giving a tepid response.

It seems like your making things up at this point.

Go ahead and prove only A applies.


Now we have trey gowdy even questioning people like nunes.

I think this is all absolutely predictable when people are trying to discredit an investigation.

I think manafort probably has less than a 1 percent chance of not having this dismissed.

We’ve had ongoing discussion about exactly what is within the scope of his investigation. And, to the extent there was any ambiguity about it, he’s received my permission to include those matters within his investigation.

Also not clear that it was regulatory and not statutory from which mueller was appointed.

originally posted by: luthier
How is only part A authorized. That is ridiculous.

No it is not ridiculous but a fact. As I stated if you read the order Rosenstein put together authorizing the special counsel it specifically lays out his jurisdiction as CFR 600.4 (A). That means Mueller only has original jurisdiction. There is nothing else in the document that specifies section B or C.

originally posted by: luthier
Firstly, you have no idea what has been discussed written or not between rodstein and Mueller.

and since the special counsel document doesnt list any other jurisdictions except A then he is restricted to A. They are not going to use a verbal agreement and I dont know how to get you to understand that. In the legal realm it does not happen.

originally posted by: luthier
Secondly it's absolutely wishful thinking that rodstein is completely inept at his job.

Yeah because human beings who go into government work are all perfect and make no mistakes.

originally posted by: luthier
He obviously knows what the charges and investigation are around manafort. A grand jury provided warrants, it's all been reviewed.as he literally stated under oath. The judicial oversight also has not brought up that mueller is out of bounds.

The very fact Manaforts lawyer is using that legal challenge tells me there are no documents authorizing anything other than section A - general jurisdiction. Had there been authorization it would have been provided to Manaforts lawyers during the discovery motion. If the document exists and they failed to disclose it to Manaforts lawyers it deleves into potential Brady violations.

originally posted by: luthier
And there is literally nobody predicting that manafort has a solid case. Even judicial watch is giving a tepid response.

The part you seem to be missing is the fact is it is a valid legal argument. If it was not it would not be using this avenue of approach.

originally posted by: luthier
It seems like your making things up at this point.

You really need to knock that crap off. This would be one of those moments where your comment is out of bounds and does nothing but try to bait me into a pissed off response. I know what I am talking about. You can either refute my argument or you can drop the point if you cant but stop with the bs attack.

originally posted by: luthier
Go ahead and prove only A applies.

I already did. You ignored it because you do not understand, respectfully, how to properly read legal documents.

originally posted by: luthier
Now we have trey gowdy even questioning people like nunes.

And since Gowdy is head of Government oversight and reform it is within his jurisdiction to keep tabs on what he is doing. Since Nunes is the chair of his own committee he has his own authority and jurisdiction.

originally posted by: luthier
I think this is all absolutely predictable when people are trying to discredit an investigation.

The way the investigation came about and what it has accomplished so far it undermines itself.

originally posted by: luthier
I think manafort probably has less than a 1 percent chance of not having this dismissed.

and as I pointed out there are more than just a dismissal outcome. There are other possible outcomes that range from affecting then entire special counsel appointment down to getting a ruling that only applies to Manafort / Paige down to the court refusing the challenge and siding with the special counsel. As I also stated this is not the only challenge made. Motions to suppress evidence have been filed wit the trial judge which also has a good chance of succeeding on constitutional violation grounds.

We will try this again. I noted the specific part where his authority is restricted to section A ONLY.

a reply to: Xcathdra

Text(ii) any matters that arose or may arise directly from the investigation;

Oops missed that one seems to mirror b

We’ve had ongoing discussion about exactly what is within the scope of his investigation. And, to the extent there was any ambiguity about it, he’s received my permission to include those matters within his investigation.

And there you have a sworn testimony.


And then

Equitable restraint doctrine

“No creation of rights.” Section 600.10 provides that “[t]he regulations in this part are not intended to, do not, and may not be relied upon to create any rights, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or equity, by any person or entity, in any matter, civil, criminal, or administrative.”

So unlike your attempt to simplifythis argument in reality manafort has a massive task ahead of him.

One which he is likely to loose.

By the way anyone can file a lawsuit. And his lawyer doing so has absolutely zero to do with its probability of winning.

And see my argeuemt several posts back you ignored...

Texty virtue of the authority vested in me as Acting Attorney General, including 28 U.S.C. §§ 509, 510, and 515, in order to discharge my responsibility to provide supervision and management of the Department of Justice.”

a reply to: luthier

Right.. Mueller is restricted in his jurisdiction to section A only. You need to understand what was being discussed the last several pages. The SC law requires a crime in order to justify the investigation under law. That crime must be listed in the authorizing document and it is not (collusion is not a crime).

The jurisdiction must also be spelled out and in this case it was - section A only. If additional jurisdiction was authorized it would either be included in the authorizing document OR would be listed in a secondary authorization. Since the legal action was filed it tells us there is an administrative legal problem. Since one of the challenges is the SC overstepping his jurisdiction it tells us authorization was not provided for any other section other than part A (general jurisdiction).

Your post regarding the acting attorney general has no impact / bearing on the current situation with the special counsel. I ignored it because of that reason - its not relevant.

As for filing a lawsuit you would be incorrect. There is a legal term called "standing". It means in order to challenge a law / action taken under color of law in federal court the person wanting to file the suit has to be an injured party to those actions (injured party does not solely mean physically injured).
Standing

Overview

Standing, or locus standi, is capacity of a party to bring suit in court.


Standing in State Court

At the federal level, legal actions cannot be brought simply on the ground that an individual or group is displeased with a government action or law. Federal courts only have constitutional authority to resolve actual disputes (see Case or Controversy).

In Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife (90-1424), 504 U.S. 555 (1992), the Supreme Court created a three-part test to determine whether a party has standing to sue:

The plaintiff must have suffered an "injury in fact," meaning that the injury is of a legally protected interest which is (a) concrete and particularized and (b) actual or imminent
There must be a causal connection between the injury and the conduct brought before the court
It must be likely, rather than speculative, that a favorable decision by the court will redress the injury

These are the facts.

If you dont like them then their is nothing I can do for you. The facts cannot be simply ignored because you dont like the reason or because you are not understanding the situation.

As I said before this is in fact a straight forward challenge and the questions before the court are -
* - was the SC properly constituted under the special counsel law.
* - Did the SC exceed his jurisdiction.

Based on available evidence the answer to those questions is no, the SC was not properly constituted and yes, the special counsel exceeded his jurisdiction.

Since there is no point in continuing to argue this we will just have to wait and see what the court says.

a reply to: Xcathdra

Lol,

Right.

If you think that these are the facts. Then you don't really understand how trials actually work..

If this is dismissed it means your so wrong it doesn't even deserve a trial.

That I'd my and nearly every prosecutor or prior federal judge I have seen give analysis. I am not even talking law professors.

Being around high level lawyers for my past 24 years I have sole sensee of the law.

One it's certainly not simple like you present it..

Two on record I am saying dismissed. Which means your not only wrong if that happens. But VERY WRONG.

I provided plenty of evidence. The only thing left is to wait and see..

a reply to: luthier

and since no trials have occurred it tells me you dont know what is going on. You have provided no evidence. What you have done is provide information that doesnt apply. You compounded that error by continuing to use the information as if it applies while ignoring facts. I linked you to the Rosenstein memo and jurisdiction yet you refuse to believe it. Anyone of the lawyers you spent time around can tell you what it means when a specific section is spelled out.

Like I said the challenge is valid and based on law and will be heard. Maybe have one of those lawyers explain the letter and legal challenge to you so you can better understand it.

But you keep digging your hole.

Manafort sues to challenge Mueller's mandate in Russia probe

Manafort acknowledged in his complaint that his foreign business dealings have been of interest for years to federal prosecutors. He said he met voluntarily with Justice Department prosecutors and FBI agents in July 2014, or three years before Mueller's appointment, to discuss his "offshore political consulting activities." He said that during the interview, he discussed in detail his activities in Ukraine, his relationships with diplomats in Kiev and his offshore banking in Cyprus.

But, Manafort said, "those alleged dealings had no connection whatsoever to the 2016 presidential election or even to Donald Trump. Nor were they uncovered in the course of the Special Counsel's probe into President Trump's campaign."

Manafort's lawyer had asked Rosenstein in September to say whether he had granted Mueller the authority to investigate Manafort for potential tax and other white-collar crimes dating back a decade. But according to the complaint, Rosenstein has not responded to that request.

Yet another professional opinion from a former federal judge and law professor.

insider.foxnews.com...


Another for case dismissed. And the wrong court.

originally posted by: luthier
Yet another professional opinion from a former federal judge and law professor.

insider.foxnews.com...


Another for case dismissed. And the wrong court.

Reread the article. It says why he went to a different judge. He wants to be able to question the prosecutor. I stand by my view as you stand by yours.

Like I said we wait until we get an outcome.

a reply to: Xcathdra

Reread what. He certainly says why he went to a different judge and he also says why it will be quickly dismissed because of it.

But yes. Only time tell. The video is also helpful.

originally posted by: luthier
a reply to: Xcathdra

Reread what. He certainly says why he went to a different judge and he also says why it will be quickly dismissed because of it.

But yes. Only time tell. The video is also helpful.

He went to a different judge so he could interview the prosecutor.

a reply to: Xcathdra

I think in the article it says intimidate the prosecutor.

Which he says also doesn't work, is frowned apon, and will be thrown out.

"You do not try and drag is another judge on a civil case so that you can interrogate the prosecutor."

He said Manafort's "frivolous" case will quickly be dismissed, and he remains in serious legal jeopardy.

a reply to: luthier

Read it again... It says interrogate.

a reply to: Dfairlite

The complaint has merit. Interesting days.

a reply to: Xcathdra

Read it again it says frivolous.

a reply to: tadaman

The idea has merit. The complaint not so much.

Interesting turn:

DOJ asks judge to toss lawsuit from Paul Manafort

The government says in a court filing Friday that a judge should throw out that suit. Justice Department lawyers say federal courts are prohibited from interfering with ongoing criminal prosecutions — and that Mueller's been operating properly and not exceeded his authority.

This coming from the DoJ.

a reply to: Liquesence

An interesting yet flawed argument from the DOJ. The motion challenges the legality of the special counsel in addition to its jurisdiction. As for criminal prosecution the court has to settle if the basis for the special counsel is legal. They are skipping over than in their argument to dismiss.

a reply to: Xcathdra

DOJ says its lawful. I'll take the DOJ and FBI, knowing the full extent of statute and details of the investigation.

The special council is legal and within its jurisdiction, including the powers granted to it by statute and DAG Rosenstein, and which includes what crimes are discovered throughout the course of the investigation.

Reuters

Justice.gov

28 CFR 600.4

The Order