Anonymous ID: 149dd2 Dec. 22, 2023, 1:23 p.m. No.20116160   ๐Ÿ—„๏ธ.is ๐Ÿ”—kun

>>20116122

>'โ€ฆ would render all of his legal acts void.'

Seems like a bit of a stretch. The filing argues Smith 'lacks authority to seek certiorari on behalf of the United States' in his petition to the USSC.

 

"Either way, if he is an officer, Smith is a superior officer. He has no superior supervising or directing him as required by Edmond or Free Enterprise Fund v. Public Company Accounting Oversight Board, 561

U.S. 477 (2010). Attorney General Garland does not supervise or direct him, as he said he would not when Smith was appointed Special Counsel. And Smith has, without the participation of the Solicitor General, filed a petition in this Court on behalf of the United States. He is prosecuting a former President, the first time that has happened in our Nationโ€™s history. Smith is purporting to exercise at least as much power as a U.S. Attorney, and arguably more.

That is the hallmark of a superior officer, who must be appointed as such. The absence of such an appointment means that Smith lacks authority to seek certiorari on behalf of the United States. And that is a powerful, sufficient reason to deny his petition."

 

https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/23/23-624/293864/20231220140217967_US%20v.%20Trump%20amicus%20final.pdf