Court Appointed Amicus Prosecutor Requests: Briefing Schedule, Oral Arguments and Possible Witness Fact-Finding, in Flynn Case
This is so far outside the bounds of traditional judicial activity it is unprecedented. In the case against Michael Flynn the court appointed amicus curiae, essentially a court appointed outside lawyer enlisted to prosecute the case despite the DOJ withdrawal motion, John Gleeson has now filed a motion requesting: (1) a briefing schedule, (2) oral arguments; and (3) the possibility of interviewing witnesses.
Within Mr. Gleeson’s motion (link here) he will file his amicus brief on June 10th, and asks Judge Sullivan to set up a briefing schedule and allow him to make oral arguments.
Why would John Gleeson get the chance for a hearing to make an oral argument within the court, yet Flynn’s defense team couldn’t get a hearing scheduled on his original motion to withdraw his plea? This is ridiculous.
In the traditional sense, to the extent that traditional applications can be considered in this bizarre situation, the amicus would present a written briefing to the court for the judge to consider; and that’s it. However, Mr. Gleeson appears to be requesting his amicus status to be elevated to the position of intervening authority where he replaces the prosecution.
A request for a briefing schedule? The only purpose of Judge Sullivan allowing a briefing schedule would be to drag this case out as long as possible. Perhaps that is the goal; we shall see in his decision on this ridiculous request.
“Any additional factual development” would seem to imply Mr. Gleeson is planning to spend time investigating facts that are not currently before the court; including the possibility of Mr. Gleeson interviewing witnesses.
If Judge Emett Sullivan grants anything even close to the requests within this motion he will be operating so far outside of judicial boundaries an appellate court must intervene.
Seriously, this is Lawfare madness in the extreme.