SERIOUS problems with the Flynn dismissal filing

[CatWoman]

Link to tweet

?s=20

[SheltieLover]

1. K&R!

[iluvtennis]

2. Ditto. nt

[Karadeniz]

3. Jeez...Barr said history is written by the winners. He's not as smart as he thinks. History knows

He shut down the Iran Contra affair...history knows Bush lied about WMD's...history knows he lied about Mueller s findings...we know Nixon was a traitor to keep Vietnam going...Bush politicized his DoJ. History will remember his tainted term.

[farmbo]

4. Probably grounds for disbarment of the "Lawyer" involved...

...and CERTAINLY a justification for Judge Sullivan to call an Evidentiary Hearing into the entire Barr shit show before he decides to dismiss this case.

[former9thward]

5. Said no attorney who practices in the federal courts

Technical mistakes and typos in motions are made all the time and judges don't have the vapors over it. If Judge Sullivan wants to look at the basis of the motion that is his business but who wrote this motion would not be it.

[Ms. Toad]

10. thank you.

Last edited Mon May 11, 2020, 12:39 AM - Edit history (1)

I said pretty much the same thing to people who were all excited about it yesterday.

[CatWoman]

31. LOL!!!!

you were saying?

[Ms. Toad]

32. . . . Reads order thoroughly and dilgently

looking for acknowledgement that the judge is pissed that that the motion bore the wrong attorney number and was not admitted to practice before the court. It's got to be buried here somwhere.

Surely you wouldn't be mocking me because the court issued an order on an entirely different basis than the "SERIOUS problems you were pointing out that the attorney number was wrong, or that the attorney who signed it wasn't admitted to the court." - an order based on things on which I had offered absolutely no opinion. That would be quite rude.

Upon consideration of the entire record in this case, it is hereby

ORDERED that the Court exercises its inherent authority to appoint The Honorable John Gleeson (Ret.) as amicus curiae to present arguments in opposition to the government’s Motion to Dismiss, ECF No. 198, see, e.g., United States v. Fokker Servs. B.V., 818 F.3d 733, 740 (D.C. Cir. 2016); Jin v. Ministry of State Sec., 557 F. Supp. 2d 131, 136 (D.D.C. 2008); it is further

ORDERED that amicus curiae shall address whether the Court should issue an Order to Show Cause why Mr. Flynn should not be held in criminal contempt for perjury pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 401, Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 42, the Court’s inherent authority, and any other applicable statutes, rules, or controlling law.

Hmmm maybe it's in yesterday's order:

MINUTE ORDER as to MICHAEL T. FLYNN.

Given the current posture of this case, the Court anticipates that individuals and organizations will seek leave of the Court to file amicus curiae briefs pursuant to Local Civil Rule 7(o). There is no analogous rule in the Local Criminal Rules, but “[the Local Civil] Rules govern all proceedings in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia.” LCvR 1.1. “An amicus curiae, defined as friend of the court… does not represent the parties but participates only for the benefit of the Court.” United States v. Microsoft Corp., No. 98-cv-1232(CKK), 2002 WL 319366, at *2 (D.D.C. Feb. 28, 2002) (internal quotation marks omitted).

Thus, “it is solely within the court’s discretion to determine the fact, extent, and manner of the participation.” Jin v. Ministry of State Sec., 557 F. Supp. 2d 131, 136 (D.D.C. 2008) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). “‘An amicus brief should normally be allowed when a party is not represented competently or is not represented at all, when the amicus has an interest in some other case that may be affected by the decision in the present case (though not enough affected to entitle the amicus to intervene and become a party in the present case), or when the amicus has unique information or perspective that can help the court beyond the help that the lawyers for the parties are able to provide. Otherwise, leave to file an amicus curiae brief should be denied.'” Id. at 137 (quoting Ryan v. Commodity Futures Trading Comm’n, 125 F.3d 1062, 1064 (7th Cir. 1997)); see also LCvR 7(o).

Although there is no corollary in the Local Criminal Rules to Local Civil Rule 7(o), a person or entity may seek leave of the Court to file an amicus curiae brief in a criminal case. See Min. Order, United States v. Simmons, No. 18-cr-344 (EGS) (D.D.C. May 5, 2020); cf. United States v. Fokker Servs. B.V., 818 F.3d 733, 740 (D.C. Cir. 2016) (appointing amicus curiae in a criminal case). As Judge Amy Berman Jackson has observed, “while there may be individuals with an interest in this matter, a criminal proceeding is not a free for all.” Min. Order, United States v. Stone, No. 19-cr-18 (ABJ) (D.D.C. Feb. 28, 2019).

Accordingly, at the appropriate time, the Court will enter a Scheduling Order governing the submission of any amicus curiae briefs.

Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on 5/12/2020. .

What am I missing?

In all seriousness - neither today's order, nor the one issued yesterday, even mentioned the incorrect attorney number or admission to the court. Not even to tell the attorney to fix the problem.

So still, not a serious problem. Not even with two orders on unrelated matters.

[Tweedy]

12. ??

Are you certain?

No-one from Justice signed this motion who was admitted to practice law in this courthouse.

Judges don't lose sleep over errata, no doubt. Human beings make mistakes.

In this instance, no admitted attorney signed the motion. Ergo, there is no legally valid motion until "the error" (if it is one) is corrected with an amended motion.

I have argued before the Federal Bench, although not on the East Coast. I am not admitted to any federal bench outside of my state. Therefore, I have no legal right to practice law in those districts.

It is not difficult to gain admittance either. So, what gives? Justice has made no effort to correct it, either.

[farmbo]

16. Ouch...Sorry Dude.

Last edited Mon May 11, 2020, 08:38 AM - Edit history (1)

Using your ex- supervisor’s bar number on a pleading because you’re not registered in that District Court— in the absolute highest profile case on Judge Sullivan’s docket— is not, as you say, a mere ‘typo’.
Unless he was in the case ’pro hac vice’ or has his admission paperwork already filed with the Clerk, it’s a serious Rule 11 violation.
Read the rule. The Judge can order a Show Cause Hearing against him and his “firm”; which in this case is the DOJ.

[StarfishSaver]

24. Thank you

[live love laugh]

28. 💯💯💯

[StarfishSaver]

18. The judge will take a close look to see if this is a technical mistake/typo or something else

Signing a pleading under another attorney's bar number is not a common thing.

[bucolic_frolic]

6. Identity Theft

and impersonating a lawyer

[Tweedy]

7. So many problems--

There is also the fact that this Judge rejected the DOJ's arguments in full when those arguments were presented by Flynn's lawyers.

Flynn foreswore the right to be called General when he signed on with Turkey to kidnap an American person and yet, accepted the position of National Security Adviser.

Flynn is about as close to a traitor as you can get these days under our laws.

But the clown car that used to be our Justice Department cannot be bothered to pursue justice because our president will throw a hissy fit if they do.

At least, no-one is tossing our doctors out of windows for asking for PPE. Otherwise, it gets harder to differentiate our country from Putin's Russia by the day.

Our president is a clueless, sadistic fool sadly for all of us and the entire world. Bill Barr claims to be deeply religious, too; yet, that claim is as much "performance art" as Mr. Trump's Howard Hughes germaphobia affectations.

[OMGWTF]

13. Beautifully stated. Germaphobes don't "raw dog" pornstars. Liars gotta lie.

[Tweedy]

15. Looks like our president is stage IV pathological, too

[keithbvadu2]

21. Flynn knows: it's good to have friends.

[arthritisR_US]

25. This is a truly brilliant post. You've nailed

every issue right on the fecking head. Nicely done, thank you and I hope the masses read this post.

[NoMoreRepugs]

8. What's the big deal?? BillyBoy will force it down everyone's throats.

[Ms. Toad]

11. It's really not.

It's a clerical that is easily fixed, if anyone cares to make them fix it.

[Ms. Toad]

9. Not really.

Almost certainly a clerical oversight.

The attorney can file to practice in the court pro hac vice (such motions are routinely granted). It is supposed to happen before you file the first document - but it isn't a disaster if you don't.

As to the bar # - when a case is initiated it is pretty standard practice to create a template that includes a signature block. Every document filed in the case starts wtih the same template.

Bar numbers are less available to the secretarial staff who almost certainly formatted the document. Likely they subbed in the name, with the intention of replacing the bar number later. It never got done. Even though the attorney who signed it should have checked, I'd venture that no more than 10% of attorneys check to ensure that the 8-ish digit number next to their name is actually correct.

(I practiced in a very small firm, using sneakernet well into the 20teens - and we used templates for our cases. It is even more automated at most larger, more computer-savvy firms. Yes - attorneys are obligated to read everything and are responsible for everything they sign. But most read the content, not the template - and especially not the signature block (since it is one of two parts of the template that is identical on every single document filed). This is really not a big deal. When opposing counsel did such things and we caught it we had internal debates about even raising it to the court. It is so trivial that it will be fixed and life will move on - it was only if we were annoyed enough about the other side's tactics that we would risk making the judge angry to raise such a trivial matter.)

[Tweedy]

14. True

But the signing attorney is not admitted to practice law in that courtroom.

This one is wholly separate from templates and secretaries.

You are right, though. It is easily fixed. Wonder why nobody from Justice is fixing it.

[Ms. Toad]

19. That's the first issue I addressed -

It is pretty trivial to be admitted pro hac vice (for this case only) in a federal court. It is supposed to be done ahead of the first document being filed, but I can tell you from experience it frequently is papered over after the fact.

I've been admitted pro hac vice in a half-dozen federal districts (always before I filed the first document), but some of my opposing counsel have not always been so careful. It's a formality, really. (Practicing law without a license is serious, but once you are licensed - but once you are licensed, obtaining admission pro hac vice for a particular case is mostly a matter of filing the right paperwork.)

[StarfishSaver]

17. That is so raggedy

I can't imagine any lawyer with the least bit of experience, integrity or self-respect who would - "accidentally" or otherwise - sign and file a pleading under another attorney's bar registration number.

[Ms. Toad]

20. I'd guess at least 90% of attorneys

don't bother to read the signature block on documents they file closely enough to notice if the block contained the wrong number.

The signature block (including the number) are routinely added to every document in the case by the clerical staff. Yes, attorneys are supposed to read them - but most attorneys spend their time reviewing the body of the document, not the signature block.

[StarfishSaver]

22. I don't know what attorneys you know

But every attorney I've ever worked with paid close attention to what they're signing, especially if it's being filed in court, and would definitely notice if the wrong Attorney Registration Number was above the signature line. My number is imprinted on my brain and I wouldn't miss seeing the wrong number above my signature.

[Ms. Toad]

23. I am an attorney,

and have worked with lots of them. I also worked as a judicial attorney which gave me the opportunity to review the work of hundreds of attorneys who participated in the appeals being heard by the court during the two years I worked there.

The signature block is typically inserted in the document by clerical staff (and the same block is automatically added to every document in the case - futher that block is typically pulled from a standard template that is used in multiple cases). It's not typically reviewed much more than letter head is reviewed, because it is not typed fresh every time a document is created.

I'm not saying that attorneys should not review it (or that they aren't under an ehtical obligation to review it). But the reality is that once the case is set up, most don't carefully review the content of the template - they review the portions of the documents that change from filing to filing.

The bar number was not above the signature line (which would have stood out, since that would be just bizarre) Without even confirming the number I would have epected any attorney to notice and reject a document with any bar number above the signature line. That wasn't the case here (from any of the reports I've read). It was - as is standard - below the signature line - along with the other identifying information.

[Solomon]

26. I am an attorney as well and i definitely

would have noticed a wrong bar number whether it was above or below the signature line. Never ever made that mistake in 40 years of practicing.

[Ms. Toad]

27. So you are among the relatively few, in my experience, who are

Reading papers carefully enough to notice such a thing. I fall in that category, as well.

So let's go the next step.

Let's say you didn't, and further, you forgot to file your pro hac vice motion, what is likely to happen to you?

Lose your licence?
Rule 11 sanctions?
Or you get told to correct the mistake and file again?

There are a lot of people going nuts over this, as if it is a death knell. it's not. At most, it is a minor delay, if it delays things at all.

[live love laugh]

29. Seems like a distancing tactic they hoped nobody would notice.

The pleading stinks to high heaven and that “error “ was an escape hatch. No more. At least they are going to have to own this thing. It’s going to be interesting to see what other errors they find now that responsibility can be traced. Who’s going to fall on the sword by signing correctly?

[bucolic_frolic]

30. Um .... isn't this a form of forgery?

using the credentials of another person?