
Margaret Davidson from Aberdeen fell and broke her thigh when she was shooing away seagulls as they searched for food and tore open rubbish bags outside her accommodation, she died five days later
from Daily Star - Latest News https://ift.tt/2TYmrsa
WASHINGTON — A federal judge on Monday defended his decision not to quickly approve the Justice Department’s request to dismiss its own criminal case against former Trump administration national security adviser Michael Flynn, saying that the department’s reversal was unusual and he wanted to consider the request carefully before ruling on it.
The brief from U.S. District Judge Emmet Sullivan offers the most detailed explanation for his refusal to immediately sign off on the department’s decision to drop its case against Flynn, who pleaded guilty as part of special counsel Robert Mueller’s Russia investigation. It raises the prospect for a drawn-out clash between two branches of government over whether a judge can be forced to unwind a guilty plea at the Justice Department’s behest.
Flynn’s attorneys have urged the Washington-based federal appeals court to order Sullivan to grant the department’s request. But Sullivan laid out in detail his reasons for his concern as he urged the appeals court to stay out of the case until he has a chance to study the dismissal request, which he said he may ultimately grant.
“The question before this Court is whether it should short-circuit this process, forbid even a limited inquiry into the government’s motion, and order that motion granted,” lawyers for Sullivan wrote. “The answer is no.”
The Justice Department, in its own brief Monday, said Sullivan has no authority “to stand in the way of a dismissal the defendant does not oppose.” It urged the appeals court to force him to drop the case.
“Far from authorizing further proceedings at the district court’s behest, the Constitution requires the court to honor the Executive’s unopposed decision to drop the pending charges, and precludes the case from proceeding to sentencing in the absence of a live controversy,” lawyers for the department wrote.
Flynn admitted lying to the FBI about having discussed sanctions during the presidential transition with the then-Russian ambassador, a topic recently released transcripts of the call show the men talked about in detail. But the Justice Department said last month that the FBI should never have interviewed Flynn in the first place and that the communication he had with the ambassador was entirely appropriate.
Flynn enjoys strong support from Trump and conservative media, but the decision to drop the case outraged former law enforcement officials who were involved in the investigation as well as many Democrats.
Rather than grant the request, Sullivan appointed a retired federal judge, John Gleeson, to argue against the Justice Department’s position and to consider whether Flynn could be held in criminal contempt for perjury since he had previously pleaded guilty under oath to lying and was now saying otherwise. He also invited outside parties to weigh in.
In their brief Monday, Sullivan’s lawyers cited what they said were numerous irregularities about the case, noting that “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.”
Beyond that, they said that “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 two different federal judges accepted the defendant’s plea.”
The judge’s brief also noted that the Justice Department’s motion to dismiss the case was not signed by any of the career prosecutors involved in the case, and cited “minimal legal authority” for its positions.
Though Sullivan may ultimately grant the Justice Department’s motion, he was duty-bound to seriously consider the significant legal issues that the case raised, the brief said.
Bandcamp have announced today (Tuesday, 2nd June) that they will be donating 100% of their sales on Friday, 19th June to the National Association for the Advancement of Coloured People’s Legal Defense Fund (NAACP).
“The recent killings of George Floyd, Tony McDade, Sean Reed, Breonna Taylor, Ahmaud Arbery and the ongoing state-sanctioned violence against black people in the US and around the world are horrific tragedies,” the website said in a press statement.
“We stand with those rightfully demanding justice, equality, and change, and people of color everywhere who live with racism every single day, including many of our fellow employees and artists and fans in the Bandcamp community.”
“So this coming Juneteenth (June 19, from midnight to midnight PDT) and every Juneteenth hereafter,” the statement continued, “for any purchase you make on Bandcamp, we will be donating 100% of our share of sales to the NAACP Legal Defense Fund, a national organization that has a long history of effectively enacting racial justice and change through litigation, advocacy, and public education.”
“We’re also allocating an additional $30,000 per year to partner with organizations that fight for racial justice and create opportunities for people of color.”
This follows Bandcamp’s recent efforts to support artists struggling through the COVID-19 pandemic by waiving all revenue shares on the first Friday of the past few months, giving artists 100% of their own sales.
Read Bandcamp’s full statement on their donation to the NAACP Legal Defense Fund here.
Music Feeds stands in solidarity with those working tirelessly to demand change, justice and an end to systematic racism and police brutality. Both overseas and here at home. #BlackLivesMatter
Below is a list of places advocating for said change that we hope you can learn more about, and to donate to if you’re able.
Donate to the Aboriginal Legal Service NSW/ACT
The post Bandcamp To Donate 100% Of Sales On June 19 To NAACP’s Legal Defense Fund appeared first on Music Feeds.