Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:No. It proves that Sullivan is focused on justice.
Good for him.
Do you mean the justice of exculpatory evidence not being shared with thf defendant?
Nope. Not talking fairy tales. I’m talking about holding a confessed traitor to account.
DP. What traitorous activities did he confess to?
Anonymous wrote:
As Judge Sullivan notes, he is forced to grant a motion he had "not yet resolved, based on alleged harms to a party that did not seek mandamus, and in reliance on arguments never presented to the district court."
As such, totally predictable and normal he would ask for this review. And most likely, it will be granted and then the full District will overturn the 2-1 ruling.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:No. It proves that Sullivan is focused on justice.
Good for him.
Do you mean the justice of exculpatory evidence not being shared with thf defendant?
Nope. Not talking fairy tales. I’m talking about holding a confessed traitor to account.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:No. It proves that Sullivan is focused on justice.
Good for him.
Do you mean the justice of exculpatory evidence not being shared with thf defendant?
Anonymous wrote:No. It proves that Sullivan is focused on justice.
Good for him.
Anonymous wrote:This....doesnt say what Flynn defenders think it says.