Flynn Case: Supreme Court precedent may apply
Ruling addresses biases third party appointed by Court an amicus curiae', and the fact that the appointed third party addressed things not in the original court filings for the defense.
On May 7, 2020 The US Supreme Court overruled the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals case.
(Reuters) - The U.S. Supreme Court on Thursday threw out a lower court ruling that had invalidated a decades-old federal law defended by President Donald Trump's administration that makes it a felony to encourage illegal immigration.
That was a win for Potus and our Country however it may prove critical as a precedent in Flynn's case. The unaminous decision specified judicial errors/misconduct in two specific instances and actions which parallel in many respects the arguably illegal conduct of Judge Sullivan.
1) In upholding the U.S. law, the high court also chastised the 9th Circuit judges for “drastically” veering from established judicial norms.
a) The justices found that the 9th Circuit had based its decision on an issue never presented in the California case
b) The lower court’s reversal wasn’t based on arguments presented by her defense but instead by third-party arguments submitted to the appeals court.
c) In the opinion released Thursday, Justice Ginsberg noted that the free speech and petition claims were never raised by the woman but by witnesses assembled by the 9th Circuit panel
(Similar to Sullivan asking now to hear a brief on 'Perjury' from a third party.)
2) Court introduce third party politically biased activists which is not consistent with Courts requirement to remain impartial.
“Instead of adjudicating the case presented by the parties, the appeals court named three amici and invited them to brief and argue issues framed by the panel, including a question Sineneng-Smith herself never raised earlier: ‘Whether the statute of conviction is overbroad … under the First Amendment,’” Ginsburg wrote.
Lawyers for the parties to the appeal were assigned a secondary role, Ginsburg said. The three amici appointed to brief and argue were the circuit’s Federal Defender Organizations (as a group), the Immigrant Defense Project, and the National Immigration Project of the National Lawyers Guild. The panel identified three issues for the briefing and gave amici 20 minutes to argue and 10 minutes to Sineneng-Smith’s counsel.
The court, in another unusual move, issued an addendum identifying cases from 2015 to 2020 in which the justices called for supplemental briefing or appointed an amicus curiae. Ginsburg, in a footnote, wrote: “None of them bear any resemblance to the redirection ordered by the Ninth Circuit panel in this case.”
In the addendum, the court highlighted cases where it sought supplemental briefing to decide whether a controversy existed to support review in the first place; to determine whether a case could be resolved more narrowly than the question presented; and whether a constitutional issue was implicated by the question presented, among other reasons.
https://welovetrump.com/2020/05/11/sorry-democrats-encouraging-illegals-to-stay-in-the-us-is-a-crime-supreme-court-unanimously-rules-2/
https://libertyunyielding.com/2020/05/10/bombshell-supreme-court-rules-encouraging-illegal-aliens-to-remain-in-u-s-is-a-crime/
https://www.bizpacreview.com/2020/05/09/supreme-court-unanimously-rules-encouraging-illegal-immigrants-to-stay-in-us-is-criminal-918870
https://www.nytimes.com/reuters/2020/05/07/world/asia/07reuters-usa-court-immigration-speech.html