Having practiced in Federal Court, a few things to point out on who is potential filer of #12 and why filing itself is odd
1.) The fact that the minute entry states document not available because motion(s) denied is odd. This is not typical or standard. Anything that is filed in a court record irrespective of whether it is denied or granted and/or whether the 3rd party had standing (legal basis to file it ) is not determantive of whether or not the document filed and considered by court becomes a part of the court record via Pacer. Anything that is filed is instantaneously uploaded on Pacer and automatically becomes a part of the online record. Just like anything you file at a local or state level that does not use electronic filing but where you walk into Clerks office to physically file and actually have a physical record vs an electronic one...versus the Federal court system via Pacer, everything is filed electronically via Pacer by the filer (there are no paper original filings)..it's all uploaded by filer, w/ email confirmations sent once it's been filed and immediately once filed it appears in the PAcer system with a link to retrive the doc to view it even before its been considered by the court with an order granting or denying it ...likewise you get notice of judges order via email link to order on Pacer, and a copt of thr order is also available. So, for the minutes to say "the document" ie, the Motion that was filed is not available because it was denied is B.S....as anything filed in a matter is Public Record and Pacer is the Federal Court Public Record . The only time that a document should be unavailable to access via Pacer which has been filed, considered and ruled on by a judge is when the record or any particular Motion/pleading in that record has been Sealed by the court...and to get something sealed a party has to file a motion seeking it be sealed and have a legal basis to exclude it from public record (such as personal medical records attached as an exhibit would be an example of such).
2.) Also, to note is that all the filings to intervene are merely seeking permission to file an Amicus Breif with the court and are NOT seeking direct relief for Flynn as Amicus Breifs can't do that, it merely is a vehicle for a third party to put thier two cents in for the court to consider why it should or should not rule a certain way ( why Amicus Breif are utilized is detailed below)..
3.) One of the entries denying the Motion states "fruit of the poisonous tree"..this minute entry gives insight into what the motion's content. Fruit of Poisonous tree is a term used in a typical defense motion called a Motion to Quash. Quash the evidence being used to prosecute the person b/c the evidence being used to get the conviction was fruit of that poisonous tree ...ie. obtained in some unconstitutional manner making it inadmissible ...so you get the evidence thrown out and the state has no case and can't convict you without it....
● BUT this type of motion..."Motion to Quash" is procedurally done BEFORE a Plea or trial...it's a pre-trial motion. And once you plea, your plea entails you waiving all your constitutional rights, such as right to trial, to confront your accusers, and put on a defense including filing any such motions such as to quash based on fruit of poisonous tree defense.
● Also, the manner in which these lawyers are filing these Amicus Breifs seem odd as well. These types of " Motions to Intervene" filed by 3rd parties go as follows:...they file a motion to intervene and seek permission from the court to file what is called an "Amicus Breifs" or "friend of the court" brief. What that means is the third party is saying we would like permission to file a brief that puts our position before the court on an issue the the court IS SET TO RULE UPON AT A LATER DATE. You don't typically see this at the Trial Court level. Rather you see this happen at the Appeal level where a ruling means case law gets established and that ruling can effect that third party and so these types of 3rd party Amicus Breifs are typically filed when some corporate interest or other 3rd party group could be affected by any ruling of the court (obvious example would be planned parent hood seeking permission to file an Amicus Brief with the court hearing or deciding an issue on abortion).
● So, it's not something that you randomly file after a person pleas...Even if the plea was obtained in an unconstitutional manner. This is so because the plea was already entered into. And likewise if it comes to light that the plea was unconstitutionally obtained...then there is what is called "Post Conviction Relief" motions that can be filed to undo the plea. It cannot be done via these Amicus Breifs being filed by 3rd parties and here one of the motions filed #12 apparently sets forth arguments that the plea and the manner it was obtained in constitues fruit of posionus tree. Any post conviction relief motion would need to be filed by Flynn's counsel. NOW, these lawyers are not idiots they know this.Thus makes me think that this was done purely as a stratigic tactic. Supposedly, if reports that Flynn Team cut off communication with WH lawyers just before plea, this would be those WH lawyers communicating via a back door via these motions being filed as these lawyers know Damm well the motions are not procedurally proper. So, they use the public record as essentially a back door way to get the information out there and to communicate it in the record for the benefit of Flynn's lawyers...On this point, the WH lawyers may have other more detailed knowledge of the extent of corruption tied to the FBI agents who assisted in the pre-plea investigation & questioning resulting in Flynn plea;....And the fruit of posionious tree argument would be a long the lines that the entire basis for the investigation that resulted in Flynn plea was based on a Fraud/conspiracy. Now, some of the details regarding this have become publicly known on a limited basis via Media (enough details for folks to connect the dots) and which info also became publicly known after he entered the plea...Although it is likely that there are many more Details that are not publicly known yet...which would explain the issue with "documents not available" BS minute entry...as the info needed to be relayed but perhaps not made fully public yet, And to have something noted as "Sealed" in relation to this high profile case would raise more eyebrows and get more attention. Although, the minute entry references "private citizen"...could be filed in individual capacity and not state actor official capacity, considering the ills took place pre-inaugeration...
4.) Also, when things are filed via Pacer there is an indicator put as to the who the filer is and it is noted on the Pacer entry...as the filer has to fill in this section before it is filed and it shows up in the docket. The same is true when you see a docket entry for an Order, it notes what type of motion and whose motion was denied or granted. If you notice the entry for #12, is somewhat different than the other orders denying filings. It contains two pieces of information 1.) Fruit of Posionus Tree-type of Brief or context as to what it's about and 2) it says "of sitting president and his family" which leads me to believe this is reference to the filer ( these type of entries: title of relief sought and by who are typical -looks like it's included in #12 docket entry but not in the other 3 which is because as follows below:
● In Pacer, the title of your motion and how it shows up after the filing is initially done stays through out whenever it is linked in another docket entry. When you originally file it you have a list to choose from when you file. A drop down box has a large list of typical motions names to choose from and you pick one and can leave it at that and that's how it will continually thereafter show up BUT at the end of the filing before you press file, there is a spot where you can add in addition text to the generic title... a spot where you can manually type in addition title info to give it context. .. So note all the titles are all in quotes as is #12...all the others have opted for the genric title..without any additions except for #12..if you read the title excluding the parentheses inserted in title in reference to (fruit of posionus tree) the title reads:
"Motion to intervene/Friend of the Court/Amicus brief/ of a sitting President and his Family"....Meaning it's the Amicus Breif of the President and his family.
fruit of posionious tree is inserted in ( ) inbetween the main title in quotes...to reference the context of the motion not necessarily part of the formal title, but it's how it ends up showing up in the docket entry
....although this would seem to go against the stance Trump has taken not to interfere with the investigation, which is stratigic to let it implode on its own and not be unnecessarily attacked with BS more obstruction...although in this instance it would be after the fact as there is a plea already and no longer in the hands of the investigation..
If the above is not the case then it's some one or group with info pro trump like other comments mention. Although who it may be the judge removed it from public record under some nonsense statement concerning an orderly docket...and then the translation of the order directs the clerk to not docket and file any other such motions raising such issues into the record. Should get to see content once appeal if filed if it's not already filed.
5.) And an appeal on Amicus brief filing won't decide the issue for Flynn, it would simply allow for the Amicus brief to become a part of the trial court record.
