June 16, 2020

Definition of “LAW OF THE LAND”:
United States Constitution

NOT 9 people donned in black robes & gavels in hand, who literally SIT on the bench of the Supreme Court of the United States.























D2J JUNE 13, 2020 Posting 

My reply to Andrew McCarthy’s of Fox News article (Link Below)



Andy, considering the fact that Judge Sullivan is the CHAIR of the D.C. Judicial Nomination Commission and in light of Judge Henderson’s vigorous advocacy on behalf of Judge Sullivan during oral argument aka Kabuki Theater. . . ya think??

Oh my  @ThyConsigliori . . . did I read: “the law requires”???  When the “LAW” start’s being applied please wake me. . .

Hmmm. . . Attorney Powell filled motions to withdraw General Flynn’s “guilty” plea on January 14, 2020 & January 29, 2020. . .please enlighten me Andy as to more than 3-months of Judge Sullivan (Chair of D.C. Judicial Nomination Commission’s) pontification process.

Is it that for over 3 months that Judge Sullivan has been in the midst of writing another 92-paged “memorandum & order” trampling any semblance of the U.S. Constitution. . .

I personally don’t believe in coincidences. I know. . . I’m such a “conspiracy theorist”. . .one that forms solid conclusions based on INDISPUTABLE EVIDENCE. . .

on that note, let’s talk time line. . . upon General Flynn’s filings of his motions to withdraw the “guilty” plea by the end of January 2020. . . we’ll sing that song: As Time Goes BY. . .more than 3 months pass. . .

which .Judge Sullivan in his filed response to D.C. Court of Appeals ADMITS HE DELIBERATELY has stalled ruling on General Flynn’s motions to withdraw “guilty plea”. ..funny, MISSING from the June 12, 2020 Kabuki Theater. . oops. . I mean oral argument: HIS REASONS FOR STALLING

I digress. .so more than 3 months pass. . .Judge Sullivan has an epiphany on MAY 13, 2020. . .let’s see. .hmm. .what would have triggered Judge Sullivan to suddenly do something. . OH YES. . .that’s right the DOJ filed its motion to dismiss on MAY 7, 2020 followed by. . .

Ret. Judge Gleeson must have had a premonition because on MAY 11, 2020 (just 2 days before Judge Sullivan’s Order appointing GLEESON), the Washington Post PUBLISHES MR. AMICUS CURIAE’s OP-ED on the FLYNN case (Link below). .ain’t that a hoot?!

Link to view OP-ED

Any wonder why the D.C. Court of Appeals DELIBERATELY CHOSE to “hear” a monumental case be conducted via teleconference (AUDIO ONLY). . . a coincidence: indisputable proof that D.C. Court of Appeals has previously used ZOOM–NOT! See You Tune link:

Link for June 12, 2020 audio of D.C. Court of Apeals






D2J’s Live-Tweeting Thread of June 12, 2020 

The D.C. Court of Appeals oral argument specific to General Flynn’s petition for mandamus

2 mins and counting. . oral argument link below:


Audio only = cowardice

Jurisdiction: Court of Appeals Playbook. They use this usually as a loophole not to take action.

Judge Wilkins: right out the gate. . .going to bat for Judge Sullivan.

Independent evaluation?? How bout back in JANUARY 2020?!! DELAY: consciousness of guilt by Judge Sullivan.

If the D.C. 3-judge panel were on VIDEO. . .it be a whole different ballgame.

Message to Judge Wilkins: did you read Judge Sullivan’s brief?? HE HAS [HIS] MIND ALREADY [MADE]  UP!!


Alternative avenue!! OMG. B.S.

Could this mindset have anything to do with Judge Sullivan being Chair of the D.C. Judicial Nomination Commission. . . do bears poop in the woods!

I was just about to say. . .are there any other judges there. . .

Did I have a crystal ball on June 10 2020 D2J posting. . .NO. They are just so translucent!!

Judges interrupting. . .what else is new

These judges “don’t understand” . . .LMAO

Leave it to these “judges” not to care about judicial abuse!

Sidney, take it one step further. . they NEED TO LEAVE THE BENCH! PERIOD!

Finally!! What about the “amicus”??? Should have been FIRST QUESTION!

OMG!! Cut Folks. . .you have to understand how lame these judicial questions are. They’re all about looking for the loophole as to why the D.C. Court does not have to hear this case. he Simon Says B.S.!!

Again: Judge Sullivan–Chair of the D.C. Judicial Nominating Commission

These judges don’t care about justice.

I find it interesting–NOT–that the D.C. Court of Appeals has yet to publicly acknowledge Judge Sullivan’s “role” as Chair of the Judicial Nomination Commission.

“AMICUS” OP-ED MAY 11 2020 in Washington Post!! Sullivan Order: MAY 13, 2020!!

Excuse me. . .Judge. . .are you asking questions or ASSERTING YOUR DEFENSE VIA STATEMENT OF JUDGE SULLIVAN?!

Is there a 3rd judge somewhere?? [Me referring to Judge Rao]

Asking contention, judge?? READ THE BRIEF. This called tapdancing by the judges. . .running down the time.

Were the judges not prepared before this hearing??? Or just like the playbook: they know the result and just finding a way to back into it.

Get me my barf bag. . .D.C. panel wants to distinguish the [U.S. v Fokker]  case.


NOT WITH ALL DUE RESPECT! They deserve none!


That is not seeking ADVICE!! It’s called lawless retaliation!

Judge Henderson: “abstract”. . .LMAO


Judge Sullivan already made his decision: his June 1, 2020 filing!

Obviously, Judge W is the heavy in this decision.

Judges letting the DOJ counsel run his mouth to run down the time clock.

Whether [Fokker] case is binding???? Really???

Never ever concede!!!! Rule 101

This appellate counsel for the “DOJ”–YOU’RE FIRED

Judge W. . .going a bit far afield are we???

Judge W giving us a case lecture. . .what a “use” of time??? WTH

Was this DOJ “appellate counsel” used to throw this. . .

Judge H: “presumption of regularity” . . . you mean like the good ol’ club??

Judge H very concerned with “regularity”. . . people who know me. . .you know what’s I’m thinking. . . she could do a commercial.

If only. . .IF ONLY I WERE THERE TO ANSWER that question: “what does leave of court mean” . . . great topic for D2J blog article.

OMG. . .Judge W just went the racial card route?!!!

Thank you Judge W for being a walking-board of your true intentions.

Is there a distinction between oral argument and judicial commentary . .

Giving a lecture on what the harm is for dismissing the motion!! Isn’t this supposed to be about JUDICIAL QUESTIONING?!!!!!

Judge Henderson. . .WOW. . .She just stepped off the cliff. . . “for all we know, Judge Sullivan may come back and rule the Amicus is over the top”. . . she can say such a thing because this is AUDIO ONLY. I’d like to see her on video saying that!!


See I’m so disgusted. . .my numbering got messed up!!!
I’ll keep going with the “new” numbering . . it’ll stay with the theme of this dog & pony show. . messed up.

Here’s the new lingo “Regular Order”. . .is that like New World Order. .

Isn’t that the whole problem of this case and every other: “Regular Order”. . . judicial lawlessness is a nationwide crisis: http://destination2justice.com

Please Attorney Wall: SHUT UP. GET OUT.

Judge R, What great judicial thought process. . .on & off the table. . .how Freudian.

How many time is Attorney Wall going to say: I agree with you judge. . .On purpose?

Attorney Wall, NEWS FLASH. . .the HARM is to GENERAL FLYNN!! You fool.

Attorney Wall: “Judge Henderson, I’ll take 1 more stab. . .” . . .exactly, you’re stabbing THE PETITIONER General Flynn!!

Now the fun begins!! “Counsel” for Judge Sullivan. .

** Gee. . .if this were video. . .would she be reading from her script????

DISINGENUOUSNESS TO THE NTH DEGREE!! Thank goodness for the signed filing by Attorney Wilkerson.

Cat got Judge W’s tongue???

This gives a WHOLE new meaning to softball by the 3-judge panel.

Judge W. . .that feigned attempt of a question re as to what Faulkner stands for is side-splitting funny.

Writing on the wall. . .this judicial inquiry of Judge Sullivan’s counsel is absolutely the worse hand puppet show ever.

Ya see. . .Judge Sullivan’s counsel: “like Mr. Wall said. . . “


Let’s all pretend like there was no filing by Judge Sullivan. . . what filing???

Of course: “Presumption of regularity”. . .is that in the minutes of the Judicial Nomination Commission meetings with Judge Sullivan as Chair??

OMG. . .Judge Sullivan’s counsel just said that “withdrawal of guilty plea” isn’t at issue here re petition for mandamus???? ARE YOU FOR REAL??? Counsel, turn to page, under introduction of YOUR OWN FLIPPEN BRIEF!!

Does Attorney Wilkerson sound constipated. . .or is just my hearing?

Judge W just woke up.

AGAIN. . .”THIS WHITE DEFENDANT. . .” Race card baiting


There just went [my]  breakfast. .

Now, exactly, how is RACE involved in this case?!!!!!

RED TY!! Judge Sullivan’s attorney reads the real issue: Judge Sullivan acting as a PROSECUTOR!!!!HERRING. . .,Hey look over there. . .

Attorney Wall, STFU

Did I just hear Judge Henderson say: “self-correction”?????


No more questions. . . .Exactly, but I HAVE A LOT OF STATEMENTS that need to be heard.

















Posted June 11, 2020 by Lisa Siegel Belanger, J.D.

Oral Argument Scheduled for Friday, June 12, 2020

Topic: General Flynn’s petition for mandamus surrounding judicial lawlessness by       Judge Emmet G. Sullivan

15 minutes presenting a case during oral argument goes by like a blink of the eye. I always wondered how 15 minutes to “discuss” serious subject matters facilitates the pursuit of justice. Answer: it doesn’t–TRUTH: Just optics.

Lesson learned from 24 yrs in the court swamp                                                                             (state, federal, civil, criminal, trial, appellate):

Judges already have their minds made up as to their desired result. Modus operandi: know the end result, back into it.  Sometimes, they get it right. Most times, they don’t.

Forget about supposed “R” & “D” designations. It doesn’t make 1 bit of difference. (Chief Justice John Roberts: textbook example).

Like many things in life, these people who don black robes and carry gavels, only care about 1 person: him/herself.

No matter who the judge is, he/she has an underlying self-serving agenda. PERIOD.

There’s no doubt in my mind from reading the words written by our Founders that they are rolling over in their graves given the judiciary branch has morphed into tyranny. Our Founders specifically expressed.

Here’s my number 1 tip regarding tomorrow’s “oral argument” before the D.C. Court of Appeals: Take it with a grain of salt.

Remember: Judge Emmet G. Sullivan is CHAIR of the
D.C. Judicial Nomination Commission.


TIP 2: oral arguments are nothing more than Kabuki theater.

The key focal point to pay attention for tomorrow’s argument: the questions asked by the D.C. Court of Appeals 3-judge panel–as well as, paying attention to questions that should be asked but that are not.

This is will be vey disappointing if this is restricted to audio only–especially considering D.C. Court of Appeals has used zoom before: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC0vcI3ebjJE1g5hNT3UmltA/featured




Judge Emmet Sullivan Wears No Clothes
by Lisa Siegel Belanger, J.D.

Posted June 10, 2020

They say: Timing Is Everything

Let’s review again the federal statute 50 U.S.C. Sec. 1803(2) that sets forth the explicitly stated purpose of a court appointing an “amicus curiae:

(A) shall appoint an individual who has been designated under paragraph (1) to serve as amicus curiae to assist such court in the consideration of any application for an order or review that, in the opinion of the court, presents a novel or significant interpretation of the law, unless the court issues a finding that such appointment is not appropriate.

Key words set forth in 50 U.S.C. Sec. 1803(2) as to the role of a court-appointed amicus curiae:


Let’s break this down even further . . .


Where it is long-established that court rules are mandated to comport with the guaranteed cornerstone due process requirements of “fair and impartial” trier of fact under the 5th & 14th Amendments of the U.S. Constitution, it would be outright obscene for anyone to even suggest that the language—“to assist the court”—in any stretch of the imagination means that it is kosher for the court appointment to already have a PREDETERMINED JUDGMENT.


Well-established, Judge Sullivan appointed Ret. Judge John Gleeson on May 13, 2020 to act as “amicus curiae” —meaning the “amicus curiae” would AFTER such appointment “assist” in making a thorough & good faith examination of facts & law.

Again, a PREDETERMINED JUDGMENT contravenes any true meaning of: “in the consideration of”.


Below, again, is Judge Sullivan’s court-order appointing Ret. Judge John Gleeson as “amicus curiae”:


Above the exact wording of Judge Sullivan’s May 13, 2020 Order shows that the only “NOVEL” issue is Judge Sullivan—Chair of the D.C. Judicial Nomination Commission” (https://jnc.dc.gov/page/jnc-members…) trying to desecrate the U.S. Constitution with explicit intent by seeking:

•for a judge to usurp the role of a prosecutor; and

•to use a court-appointed “amicus curiae” to be the specific tool to carry out blatant lawless retaliation.

I submit, in my professional opinion having 24 years in the court swamp as an appellate practitioner, there is absolutely nothing novel about a defendant seeking to withdraw a “guilty plea” based on having been lawlessly procured as a result of government extortion.

Here’s a contest—caption this:

Judge Sullivan & his counsel state on page 32 of Judge Sullivan’s filed response to the D.C. Court of Appeals that:

“Judge Sullivan will not blindly accept Judge Gleeson’s recommendations.”

Folks, you can’t make this sh*t up!!

Did counsel forget to go back and proofread the filed response submitted to the D.C. Court of Appeals?? I read the filed response (WITH my glasses on) and there isn’t one page absent of blaring statements showing Judge Sullivan has ALREADY DETERMINED A FINDING OF GUILT.

Judge Sullivan & his counsel are correct about one thing. . .Judge Sullivan isn’t blindly doing anything—he’s doing it with HIS EYES WIDE OPEN.

I want to know WHY “everybody” has been so quiet like church mice about the fact that Ret. Judge John Gleeson wrote an OP-ED in the WASHINGTON POST ON MAY 11, 2020 (2 days prior to Judge Sullivan’s May 13, 2020 Order Appointing Mr. OP-ED himself).


Saying it all is the title alone of the May 11, 2020 OP-ED by Ret. Judge John Gleeson in the Washington Post: “The Flynn case isn’t over until the Judge says it’s over”.

It only took 2 days for Judge Sullivan to appoint Ret. John Gleeson???

“Little known fact”: both Judge Sullivan (https://jnc.dc.gov/biography/honorable-emmet-g-sullivan ) & Ret. Judge Gleeson of Debevoise & Plimpton (https://debevoise.com/johngleeson?tab=Biography ) have held longtime high official positions with the Judicial Conference Committee.

Here are some highlights from Ret. Judge Gleeson’s
May 11, 2020 OP-ED in the Washington Post:

• Off the bat Ret. Judge Gleeson describes himself as having “served as a U.S. district judge for the Eastern District of New York and chief of the Criminal Division.”

  • Direct quote 1 from Op-Ed

The Justice Department’s move to dismiss the prosecution of former national security adviser Michael Flynn does not need to be the end of the case — and it shouldn’t be.

  • Direct quote 2 from Op-Ed

Prosecutors deserve a “presumption of regularity” — the benefit of the doubt that they are acting honestly and following the rules. But when the facts suggest they have abused their power, that presumption fades If prosecutors attempt to dismiss a well-founded prosecution for impermissible or corrupt reasons, the people would be ill-served if a court blindly approved their dismissal request.

  • Direct quote 3 from Op-Ed

[ ] it also protects the judiciary itself from becoming a party to corruption.

  • Direct quote 4 from Op-Ed

Fortunately, the court has many tools to vindicate the public interest. It can require the career prosecutor to explain why he stepped off the case, as another federal judge recently did when the Trump administration attempted to replace.  It can appoint an independent attorney to act as a “friend of the court,” ensuring a full, adversarial inquiry, as the judge in the Flynn case has done in other situations where the department abdicated its prosecutorial role.

  • Direct quote 5 from Op-Ed

Flynn’s guilt has already been adjudicated. So if the court finds dismissal would result in a miscarriage of justice, it can deny the motion, refuse to permit withdrawal of the guilty plea and proceed to sentencing.

Forgive me folks for repeating myself: YOU CANNOT MAKE THIS SH*T UP!!

From Judge Sullivan’s Response Brief:

The question before the Court is whether it should deploy “one of the most potent weapons in the judicial arsenal,” Cheney v. U.S. Dist. Court, 542 U.S. 367, 380 (2004), to prevent the district court from considering a pending motion.

Talk about smoke bombs. . .Here’s THE REAL bottom-line issue:

Per Judge Sullivan’s OWN words in his MAY 13, 2020 Order he wants to use the “amicus curiae” not to advise him but rather to SUBSTITUTE AS THE PROSECUTOR!!!










Judge Emmet Sullivan Wears No Clothes
by Lisa Siegel Belanger, J.D.

Posted on June 9, 2020


As shown in said Order, Judge Sullivan, relies on 18 U.S.C. Section 401 for purported “authority” to pursue “criminal contempt” proceedings against General Flynn.Image

As shown in said Order, Judge Sullivan, relies on 18 U.S.C. Section 401 for purported “authority” to pursue “criminal contempt” proceedings against General Flynn.

8 U.S.C. Section 401 states:

Power of court –
A court of the United States shall have power to punish by fine or imprisonment, or both, at its discretion, such contempt of its authority, and none other, as—

(1) Misbehavior of any person in its presence or so near thereto as to obstruct the administration of justice;

(2) Misbehavior of any of its officers in their official transactions;

3) Disobedience or resistance to its lawful writ, process, order, rule, decree, or command.

As shown above, the statutory language of 18 U.S.C. Section 401 plainly and unambiguously states that the supposed misconduct must specifically pertain to “contempt of [the Court’s] authority.”

Therefore, a generalized claim of purported “perjury” is in no manner whatsoever valid to pursue “criminal contempt” proceedings—creating to the Nth degree. constitutional due process violations of inadequate notice of charged misconduct.

Existing case law declares that 18 U.S.C. Section 401—cited by Judge Sullivan—is NOT intended as a catch-all to penalize for a claimed general commission of “perjury”. Bloom v. State of Illinois,          391 U.S. 194 (1968).

Bloom v. Illinois and later reaffirming cases establish proper application of 18 U.S.C. Section 401 requires Judge Sullivan to have set forth IN his MAY 13 2020 Order specific acts on which he relied to pursue “criminal contempt” re “perjury” IN DIRECT RELATION TO THE COURT.

As shown in the Order itself, Judge Sullivan failed to provide ANY information in that regard. As a matter of law, to allege the general term “perjury” is by no means adequate—and to reiterate such omission is unconstitutional of exponential proportions.

To reiterate, Judge Sullivan’s after-thoughts set forth in his filed response to the D.C. Court of Appeals are entirely irrelevant. Such claims were needed in the May 13, 2020 Order. Period. Judge Sullivan’s failure to do so de facto renders his Order fatally defective.

Of significance, SCOTUS emphasized in Bloom v. State of Illinois that 18 U.S.C. Section 401 is NOT to be used as “unbridled power to punish summarily for contempt.”

Discussing Mens Rea
They say: Timing Is Everything (Act 1)

Judge Sullivan’s chosen timing to issue his May 13, 2020 Order is a major lynchpin in showing that it is in fact a sham. As previously discussed, a key factor in relation to timing of the Order is Judge Sullivan’s frame of mind. That in reality: it is lawless retaliation.

With regard to established frame of mind, throughout Judge Sullivan’s filed response to the D.C. Court of Appeals, he blares his being specifically disgruntled as a result of the claimed supposed audacity of General Flynn to withdraw his “guilty plea”.

The over-the-top tone of arrogance exhibited in Judge Sullivan’s filed response is astounding. The lack of self-awareness could be humorous, but more so it’s appalling.

On page 1 of Justice Sullivan’s filed response to the D.C. Court of Appeals, he states and I quote:

“It is unusual for a criminal defendant to claim innocence and move to withdraw his guilty plea after repeatedly swearing under oath that he committed the crime.”

On pages 6 thru 10, Judge Sullivan and his counsel rant about the back-bending lengths that he supposedly took to make sure General Flynn had understood that by agreeing to the plea that it was: “knowingly, voluntarily, intelligently and with fulsome and satisfactory.”

In my professional time in the court swamp, I don’t think I’ve ever read or heard such a dramatic “plea colloquy”—almost Shakespearean-like. (OMG).

In fact, the HUGE RED FLAG WAVING is Judge Sullivan quoting himself (on page 8 of his filed response) as saying to General Flynn during the colloquy:

“I cannot recall any incident in which the Court has ever accepted a plea of guilty from someone who maintained that he was not guilty, and I don’t intend to start today.”

I submit that very quote by Judge Sullivan expresses he had a hunch (at the very least) that General Flynn was extorted into copping a plea.

It sticks out like a sore thumb–there’s no logical reason for him saying such a thing other than thinking General Flynn was innocent.

Conveniently Judge Sullivan and his counsel omitted from the filed response the established well-known info that the govt threatened General Flynn to indict his son. (Gen Flynn’s declaration https://bit.ly/3fcQMeV).

Also, conveniently left out in Judge Sullivan’s filed response is to address General Flynn’s filings showing he was sabotaged by his own former counsel. Filings viewable at: https://www.sidneypowell.com/the-michael-t-flynn-case

Further exuding umbrage to the 10th power for General Flynn daring to withdraw his “guilty plea” is on page 8:

“After being placed under oath again, Mr. Flynn confirmed that (1) he did not wish to “challenge the circumstances” surrounding his FBI interview by pleading guilty he would be giving up “forever” his right to challenge that interview; (3) he knew at the time of his interview that lying to the FBI was a crime; and (4) he was “satisfied with the services provided by [his] attorneys.”

Now throw in the timing factor–

in Judge Sullivan’s filed response, he makes irrefutable admissions of being aware of General Flynn’s filed sworn statements on January 14, 2020 & January 29, 2020 (pages 11-14)—sworn statements on which Judge Sullivan hinges his belated CYA claim.

Therefore, Judge Sullivan was fully aware of General Flynn’s filed sworn statements back in January 2020, yet Judge Sullivan fails to even address the fact that he waited more than 3 MONTHS to file his Order—that’s because there is NO legitimate justification.

Further magnifying the illegitimacy of the delayed May 13, 2020 Order is the befuddling admission by Judge Sullivan that he DELIBERATELY WITHHELD ruling on General Flynn’s motion to withdraw guilty plea—which he sworn statements were part of those filings!!

Nowhere in Judge Sullivan’s filed response does he say WHY he waited MORE THAN 3 MONTHS to pursue criminal contempt proceedings–not to mention his admitted deliberate stalling to rule on Ge

Judge Sullivan’s filed response after all shows his already made rulings regarding: criminal contempt and withdrawal of guilty plea.

Really?? What was the hold-up?? (pun intended) As shown, he knew what he rulings would be.

Conveniently, on pages 6 thru 10, Judge Sullivan and his counsel list out specific “reasons” for Judge Sullivan having already conclusively determined that General Flynn has supposedly “made materially false statements” . . .

Now, let’s think. . .hmm…during that 3-month time period, what significant event happened just prior to the May 13, 2020 Order. . .oh, that’s right. . .on May 7, 2020, the DOJ filed its MOTION TO DISMISS CHARGES AGAINST GENERAL FLYNN.

(intermission ACT 2 to follow)

Judicial Lawlessness: National Crisis

Judge Emmet Sullivan Wears No Clothes
by Lisa Siegel Belanger, J.D.

Posted June 8, 2020 (HAPPY BIRTHDAY DAD)

Further dissection of Judge Sullivan’s filed specific statement:

Further dissection of Judge Sullivan’s filed statement w/ Court of Appeals:

“It is unprecedented for an Acting U.S. Attorney to contradict the solemn representations that career prosecutors made time and again, and undermine the district court’s legal and factual findings”

As a veteran* practitioner of the law, I have no true words to adequately express the height of disingenuous emanating from Justice Sullivan’s assertion that HE as a judge made “legal & factual findings” regarding a “guilty plea”.

(*And I do not use “veteran” lightly)

The ONLY way that a trial judge makes “legal & factual findings” is through a FULLY litigated process: A TRIAL. De facto, there was NO trial.

For Judge Emmet Sullivan to even put in writing—and worse THROUGH COUNSEL—the notion that “the district court” made “legal and actual findings” at a plea proceeding is a sham, in and of itself.

It tickles my funny bone that Judge Sullivan did not have the fortitude (and I’m sure you all know the descriptor I really mean) to explicitly make attribution using his personal name—Judge Sullivan’s “legal and factual findings”.

Please note: there are many, many references made in Judge Sullivan’s filed response specifically using his own “name”: Judge Sullivan.  But here, he wants to refer to himself as the “district court”. Very apt that “district court” is in all small letters—rightfully so.

1st portion of Judge Sullivan’s May 13, 2020 Order:
Misuse of court process:


As seen from the language Judge Sullivan used in this 1st portion of the Order, he outwardly and unapologetically declared that his objective—in no uncertain terms—is so he, as judge, can take over the role as prosecutor; a blatantly expressed intention to completely ouster the DOJ of its designated prosecutorial role.

In Judge Sullivan’s own words, he conveys a no-holds barred intent to invalidate the DOJ’s motion to dismiss via his “amicus curiae” appointment—doing so with such magnitude as if he wrote it in neon lights on a blazing billboard.

The function of a trial judge is to ensure the administration of the process is fair & impartial. The key concept being: a procedural role. Not a litigator!
(Grand Jury Proceedings: The Prosecutor, the Trial Judge, and Undue Influence, 39 U. Chi. L. Rev. 761 [1972])

In Justice Sullivan’s own written words, he is anything other than fair and impartial; and even more so, his own words bolster improper motives.

What is so bizarre is Judge Sullivan’s citing to a case that actually NEGATES his judicial action!!

Judge Sullivan cited the U.S. v. Folker case which states:

“[T]he ‘leave of court’ authority gives no power to a district court to deny a prosecutor’s Rule 48(a) motion to dismiss charges based on a disagreement with the prosecution’s exercise of charging authority.”

As seen from Judge Sullivan’s own filed response with the D.C. Court of Appeals, he thinks the U.S. Folker case advocates for a judge to not be a rubber-stamper.  #ConfusionOnTheBrain

The detailed rantings by Judge Sullivan and his counsel in his filed response claiming that the DOJ’s motion to dismiss arose from nefarious conduct appears to be a CYA move. No where in the May 13, 2020 Order did Judge Sullivan articulate any mention of such claim.

I suggest the lack of any mention of DOJ misconduct in his May 13. 2020 Order speaks volumes.

If this weren’t such a travesty of justice, such judicial conduct would be comedic.

Is the dog chasing its tail or the tail chasing the dog–the very basis of the DOJ’s motion to dismiss is because of the 3-year hell of government misconduct.

To sum up: the U.S. Constitution precludes a trial judge from usurping the role of the DOJ.


Judicial Lawlessness: Nationwide Crisis

D2J BLOG Thread Part 2:
Judge Emmet Sullivan Wears No Clothes
by Lisa Siegel Belanger, J.D. (*actively licensed)
Posted on June 7, 2020

In Part 1 of my D2J blog article Judge Emmet Sullivan Wears No Clothes, I explain how and why Judge Sullivan’s court order appointing Ret. John Gleeson as “amicus curiae” is in fact a sham—       I specifically, walk the reader through 50 U.S.C. Sec. 1803(4), the federal statute that defines the scope and purpose of an “amicus curiae”.

In the midst of preparing this follow-up legal road map for nonlawyers as to the real deal regarding Judge Sullivan’s issued May 13, 2020 Order, it has become one hell of a long & winding road. So, I’m thinking that you folks would probably prefer this info disected vs H-Bomb.

Again, the federal statute defining role of “amicus curiae” states:

(2)(A), the amicus curiae shall provide to the court, as appropriate—

(A) legal arguments that advance the protection of individual privacy and civil liberties;

(B) information related to intelligence collection or communications technology; or

(C) legal arguments or information regarding any other area relevant to the issue presented to the court.

The legal analysis provided in Part 1 makes it so that nonlawyers don’t have to break a sweat trying to decipher unnecessary and pretentious legalese to understand how and why Judge Sullivan’s Order constitutes blatant abuse of judicial power; it lays out real information showing that Judge Sullivan has no adequate legal or factual basis to even have issued such an order from the get-go.

Here, in Part 2, I’ll explain further overwhelming evidence that General Flynn’s case is a posterchild for translucent judicial thuggery—so much so that the commonly used phrase Kangaroo Court is in all capitals: KANGAROO COURT.

Based on publicly known established facts about the General Flynn case, when examined from a context of totality of the circumstances, it substantiates the solid conclusion: Judge Sullivan issued his May 13, 2020 Order w/ premeditated intent to carry out unlawful retaliation; specifically, motivated by his self-admitted and manifested umbrage that General Flynn has pursued the withdrawal of his guilty plea and the DOJ’s follow-up motion to dismiss charges against General Flynn.

Review firsthand Justice Sullivan’s filed response with the D.C. Court of Appeals here:


This ongoing thread will take you step-by-step showing solid info supporting the conclusion that Judge Sullivan has committed obstruction of justice pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1505 via his issuing his May 13, 2020 Order appointing Ret. Judge John Gleeson as “amicus curiae”.

As the lyrics go in Bruno Mars’s song called Uptown Funk: Don’t believe me. . . just watch—however, here, slight modification needed:

Don’t believe me . . . just read.


Judge Sullivan’s self-incriminating statement of disgruntled mindset when issuing his May 13, 2020 Order

Right off the bat—and through counsel, Justice Sullivan states on page 1 of his filed response with the D.C. Court of Appeals, under the heading “Introduction”, second sentence, he states:

“It is unprecedented for an Acting U.S. Attorney to contradict the solemn representations that career prosecutors made time and again, and UNDERMINE the district court’s legal and factual findings, in moving on his own to dismiss the charge years after . . . “

Given the tone through the language used in that literal introduction of Judge Sullivan’s filed response, no one can tell me that he’s not pissed off.  Judge Sullivan’s unequivocal statement blares his de facto mindset regarding the DOJ’s motion to dismiss; he explicitly describes his feeling of being “undermined”.

No one can tell me that Judge Sullivan’s outright statement that the DOJ “undermined” him expresses anything less than outrage. “Undermined” is a commonly well-established expression of feeling duped; an expression used when someone feels he/she has just been screwed over.

There is no doubt, amongst reasonable minds, that Judge Sullivan was (and still is) over-the top boiling angry as a result of the DOJ’s filing its motion to dismiss charges against General Flynn.

And don’t tell me that Judge Sullivan did not read the filing before being submitted to the D.C. Court of Appeals. Judge Sullivan’s filed response is in no uncertain terms deemed statements made by HIM.



Judicial Lawlessness: A Nationwide Crisis

Part 1: Judge Emmet Sullivan wears no clothes

I might be the only accredited (juris doctorate) legal professional who will not sugar coat Judge Emmet Sullivan’s over-the-top abuse of power in his issuance of his May 13, 2020 order in the General Michael Flynn case entitled: “Order Appointing Amicus Curiae”.

In this debut article, I’ll delve into how and why Judge Sullivan’s conduct is literally judicial thuggery. As indicated, this is Part 1 of an unlimited series of articles dedicated to empowering We The People in combatting judicial abuse of power. The irrefutable fact is that the judicial thuggery displayed in the General Flynn case is far from an aberration; that, in actuality, the General Flynn case is the poster child for systemic judicial thuggery that occurs day-in and day-out throughout the courts nationwide—all courts (civil, criminal, bankruptcy, land, probate, divorce, etc.).

As an actively licensed Massachusetts attorney of 24 years, admitted to practice before the U.S. Supreme Court, I have personally and professionally battled—and continue to do so—in the guerilla warfare of judicial tyranny. I’m here to inform everyday citizens what the reality is: Judge Emmet Sullivan’s conduct in the General Flynn case is business as usual and long-embedded for more than three (3) decades.

The very purpose for my writing this article is to have everyday Americans fully grasp the systemic, devastating prevalence of judicial abuse of power—and to fully understand that judicial abuse most certainly can happen to them.

From the very first day of admittance to the Massachusetts Bar, my legal career has been focused on protecting the average citizen’s constitutional rights; and, particularly, for the past nine (9) years, my focus has been exposing judicial lawlessness as an attorney whistleblower—with the past three (3) years, the Massachusetts Board of Bar Overseers (BBO) lawlessly and maliciously persecuting me. (Details of the BBO Witch Trial are viewable at: http://www.destination2justice.com/retaliation-by-ma-board-of-bar-overseers).

My knowledge and experience in the subject matter of systemic judicial lawlessness has reached global audiences since the recent March 11, 2020 release of my featured narrative role in Alex Gibney’s one-hour documentary called: Guardian Inc (Episode of Dirty Money Season 2).  https://youtu.be/vZm6WuAfjiw

Why all Americans should care about Judge Sullivan’s abuse of power:

Prevalent judicial lawlessness affects us all—it happens to the rich, the poor, all socioeconomic groups; it makes no difference the color of one’s skin, religion, age, gender or political party.

Nationwide documented court records overwhelmingly establish that systemic judicial abuse of power has irreparably devastated countless citizens and their loved ones; public officials having no lawful basis ripping families apart, hastening death of loved ones, deliberately causing financially ruin—decades of endless inhumane acts and it still continues. https://stopguardianabuse.org https://www.destination2justice.com/free-marvin/federal-civil-action-2015

The harsh reality is that many people don’t realize it until they personally end up in the court system, whether it be of a civil and/or criminal nature. By the time the average person wakes up to the reality of being trapped in a rigged system, it’s often too late.

Visualize this reality: you suddenly trip into quicksand, your own lawyer is standing there on solid ground, looking at you straight in the eye, hands in their pockets, not even offering to throw you a rope.

The General Flynn case: a wake-up call for America

Attorney Sidney Powell’s bravery is not just a blessing for General Flynn and his family, but also for America.

As a whistleblower exposing judicial corruption, I am forever grateful that Attorney Powell stepped in as counsel for General Flynn when she did; that in so doing, she courageously and with fortitude, single-handedly exposed the heinous government frame-up of General Flynn and the sabotage by his former attorneys.

There are no adequate words to express the extraordinary significance of Attorney Powell’s actions as true legal counsel—actions by legal counsel that is essentially nonexistent in the “legal profession”; such absence being the core reason for absolute thriving judicial tyranny.

It is my sincere hope that after people read this article, it will have a lasting impact that motivates citizens to become civically engaged; speaking up, demanding justice for all (even if he/she hasn’t yet personally suffered at the hands of judicial abuse).

Best explaining the sorely needed collective voice of We The People in demanding real oversight and accountability for judicial misconduct is the below meme:















(From social media of Mary Ellen Joy Belding)

To that effect, it is equally important to highlight the exceptional efforts of Pasquale Scopelliti and Tamara Leigh with https://www.pardonflynnnow.com. Together they have spearheaded the most powerful force for bringing forth justice through, as what I have coined: The Court of Public Accountability.

The events that led to the DOJ filing a motion to dismiss the criminal matter against General Flynn is what every citizen should recognize as a true testament to the well-known adage: sunlight is the best disinfectant and that We The People, indeed, do have the power to restore law and order in this country.

Judge Sullivan’s Order: Literal Judicial Thuggery

“Some will rob you with a six-gun, and some with a fountain pen”
– Woodie Guthrie





















Here’s the real skinny behind Judge Sullivan’s court order

As shown above, in Judge Sullivan’s own words, he stated that the specific purpose of appointing an “amicus curiae” is to “present arguments in opposition to the government’s motion to dismiss.”

In no uncertain terms, Judge Sullivan, himself, blatantly and flagrantly expressed that he already determined that he vehemently rejects the DOJ’s motion to dismiss. Therefore, in reality, such expressed definitive position would compel any “reasonable and ordinary” judge to formalize such conclusion in an official denial of the DOJ’s motion. What is so astounding is Judge Sullivan’s outright admission to his predisposition!

Red Flag of “Amicus Curiae” Appointment by Its Own Definition

As specifically defined in the federal statute 50 U.S.C. Sec. 1803(4), the “duties of an “amicus curiae” is set forth as:

(2)(A), the amicus curiae shall provide to the court, as appropriate—
(A) legal arguments that advance the protection of individual privacy and civil liberties;
(B) information related to intelligence collection or communications technology; or
(C) legal arguments or information regarding any other area relevant to the issue presented to the court.

As laid out by the above statutory definition of amicus curiae, a person does not need to have a law degree to understand that, in plain English, Judge Sullivan had no legitimate intention of having retired Judge John Gleeson act in the true capacity as an “amicus curiae”.

By stating the “appointment” was specifically “to present arguments in opposition of the government’s Motion to Dismiss” is unethically and intellectually dishonest. The above statutory definition unambiguously and completely contradicts Judge Sullivan’s stated purpose for “appointing” retired Judge John Gleeson .

Judge Sullivan makes no bones about his intention for retired Judge John Gleeson to play the role as a “special prosecutor”. Obviously, Judge Sullivan couldn’t come right out and call the appointment what it really is because he full well knows how absurd (even to a nonlawyer) that would look for a special prosecutor to be appointed to derail the prosecuting party (the DOJ)!

Red Flag by DOJ’s well-founded and substantiated grounds for dismissal

Without even needing to go through the history of what has happened in the General Flynn case, all one has to do to see the over-the-top judicial lawlessness is to examine Judge Sullivan’s “Order Appointing Amicus Curiae” (image above) in relation to the Department of Justice’s (DOJ) Motion to Dismiss

With the link provided, you all can read the DOJ’s motion to dismiss with your own eyes


On page 2 of the DOJ’s Motion to Dismiss, it states:

After a considered review of all the facts and circumstances of this case, including newly discovered and disclosed information appended to the defendant’s supplemental pleadings, ECF Nos. 181, 188-190,1 the Government has concluded that the interview of Mr. Flynn was untethered to, and unjustified by, the FBI’s counterintelligence investigation into Mr. Flynn—a no longer justifiably predicated investigation that the FBI had, in the Bureau’s own words, prepared to close because it had yielded an “absence of any derogatory information.” Ex. 1 at 4, FBI FD-1057 “Closing Communication” Jan. 4, 2017 (emphases added). The Government is not persuaded that the January 24, 2017 interview was conducted with a legitimate investigative basis and therefore does not believe Mr. Flynn’s statements were material even if untrue. Moreover, we [do] not believe that the Government can prove either the relevant false statements or their materiality beyond a reasonable doubt.

As shown by the above direct quote from the DOJ’s motion, it sums up the crux of the irrefutable justified grounds necessitating a judge’s required allowance of the DOJ’s motion to dismiss. Specifically, the above quote—substantiated by the facts laid out in the rest of the DOJ’s motion—says in non-legalese:

• The prosecution does not have sufficient evidence to charge General Michael Flynn for the original charges brought (lying to the FBI); and

• That the investigation of General Flynn was not only baseless, but was, in fact, unlawful FBI conduct.

And that, my fellow Americans, is in the DOJ’s own words! (As a side note: usually, when a prosecutor does not have sufficient evidence to prove its case, the caption of the motion is usually: a nolle prosequi—a formal notice of abandonment by the prosecutor its action).

The REAL rationale for Judge Sullivan not denying the DOJ’s Motion to Dismiss

It is very evident from a professional legal examination that Judge Sullivan deliberately chose to not deny the DOJ’s motion—and that was because his intention was to specifically evade personal accountability.

Denying the DOJ’s motion would have meant that it would have been directly appealable as a matter of right by General Flynn and the DOJ.

Keeping in mind the who-knows-what is going on behind the scenes with Judge Sullivan and the DOJ—remember previously, the DOJ was adamant in its reluctance to end this charade in the first instance.

It would have been far too apparent for the DOJ to not directly appeal an outright denial of its motion to dismiss; which speaks volumes since the DOJ has yet to file its position regarding the writ of mandamus filed by Attorney Powell on behalf of General Flynn—and I’d bet that the DOJ doesn’t file anything given the irony of the Court of Appeals having expressed in its Order that the DOJ was not required to file any pleading; that a filing is at the DOJ’s pleasure. https://sidneypowell.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/05/DC-CIR-FULL-ORDER.png

Furthermore, it is a well-known “little fact” in the legal arena that a writ of mandamus is a procedural avenue having slim odds of being granted—
then add into the equation Judge Sullivan’s own written bio published on the Judicial Nominating Commission’s website https://jnc.dc.gov/biography/honorable-emmet-g-sullivan

Is it really any wonder that Judge Sullivan decided to play the odds and use diversionary tactics rather then the  normal course of denying the motion?

Where legal analysis can get a bit dry and boring, I’ll spare you (for now) a detailed blow-by-blow of the unconstitutional nature of Judge Sullivan’s own admission of trying to indirectly play prosecutor in a black robe through a retired judge henchman.

The next blog installment: how Judge Sullivan intended to use the “amicus curiae” as an attempt to lawlessly punish General Flynn for the government filing its motion to dismiss—Judge’s Sullivan’s second prong of his order for the “amicus curiae” to help him “decide” whether there needs to be an Order for Show Cause of “criminal contempt for perjury”.