GOOD NEWS: Legal Analysis Shows the DC Circuit Court Took the Most Extreme, Rare and Drastic Measures Possible Against Rogue Judge Sullivan in General Flynn’s Case

The self proclaimed Appellate Practitioner, and Founder and Member of Reeves Law LLC, John M. Reeves, released a series of tweets this week that show the actions of the DC appellate court in the General Flynn case are not mild reactions to attorney Sidney Powell’s recent request.

John M. Reeves shared the following 23 tweets thread on Twitter concerning General Flynn’s case in the Washington DC Circuit Court:

1) The wording of the DC Circuit’s order directing Judge Sullivan to personally respond to @SidneyPowell1‘s writ shows it is deeply troubled by Judge Sullivan’s actions. #appellatetwitter
2) The Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure govern the filing and disposition of writs in the federal appellate courts. #appellatetwitter
3) These are DIFFERENT from the rules Judge Sullivan relied on to justify appointing amicus to oppose the DOJ’s motion to dismiss. #appellatetwitter
4) Rule 21(b)(1) allows the DC Circuit to deny the writ petition outright, without asking for a response. This is what happens with the vast majority of writ petitions. #appellatetwitter
5) If the appellate court instead orders a response under Rule 21(b)(1), it shows it is concerned and wants to hear more about the matter. #appellatetwitter
6) By obtaining an order for a response, @SidneyPowell1 has already cleared a huge hurdle. #appellatetwitter
7) If the DC Circuit ordered a response and did nothing else, that alone would be a huge deal. But the DC Circuit didn’t stop there. #appellatetwitter
8) Rule 21(b)(4) states that the appellate court “may invite or order the trial-court judge to address the petition or may invite an amicus curiae to do so.” #appellatetwitter
9) The appellate court is not REQUIRED to order the trial-court judge to address the matter–it has the authority to do so, but doesn’t need to exercise it. #appellatetwitter
10) Even if it wants to hear from the trial judge, the appellate court can simply “invite”–that is, request, or ask–the trial judge to respond. It does not have to ORDER the judge to respond. #appellatetwitter
11) And even if the appellate court orders the trial court judge to respond, it can avoid requiring the judge to personally defend the action under challenge by appointing a lawyer as amicus curiae to defend the judge’s actions. #appellatetwitter
12) This is what the DC Circuit did in the Fokker case–the main case @SidneyPowell1 relies upon in her writ. See the highlighted portion of the fourth image below. #appellatetwitter
13) In Fokker, the DC Circuit said, “Because both parties seek to overturn the district court’s denial of their joint motion to exclude time, we appointed amicus curiae to present arguments defending the district court’s action.” #appellatetwitter
14) The DC Circuit, in ordering Judge Sullivan to respond to @SidneyPowell1 ‘s writ petition, could have easily appointed a lawyer as amicus to do so. #appellatetwitter
15) Note that an amicus appointed by the DC Circuit to defend Judge Sullivan would have had a job entirely different from John Gleeson’s job as amicus appointed by Judge Sullivan to oppose the DOJ’s motion to dismiss. #appellatetwitter
16) Had the DC Circuit appointed amicus, that lawyer’s job would have been to present legal arguments defending Judge Sullivan’s refusal to grant the DOJ’s dismissal motion, NOT legal arguments purporting to show why the DOJ’s motion should not be granted. #appelatetwitter
17) But the DC Circuit did not appoint a lawyer as amicus to defend Judge Sullivan’s actions, unlike in Fokker.
18) Instead, the DC Circuit ordered Judge Sullivan to PERSONALLY respond and defend his actions, without an amicus attorney to do it for him. #appellatetwitter
19) This means that Judge Sullivan (and presumably his clerks) will have to PERSONALLY submit written briefing trying to legally justify his refusal to dismiss the Flynn case. #appellatetwitter
20) The DC Circuit is thus making Judge Sullivan–a lifetime federal judge–publicly and directly explain to them his actions. #appellatetwitter
21) In short, of all the options available to the DC Circuit for ruling on @SidneyPowell1 ‘s writ, the DC Circuit, chose the most extreme, rare, and drastic of them. #appellatetwitter
22) It has ordered (not requested) Judge Sullivan to personally (and not through appointed amicus) respond and defend his actions to them. #appellatetwitter
23) This promises to be anything but dull going forward. #appellatetwitter

(Here is the thread from the thread reader)

In summary, General Flynn, his family, his attorneys and all of America, have reason to rejoice today as the actions of the DC court are the most extreme, rare and drastic measures they could have taken with Judge Sullivan in the Flynn case.  Judge Sullivan is ordered to explain to the Circuit Court personally why he took the actions he took, and in 10 days, ahead of the Sullivan scheduled Gleeson amicus oral arguments of July 16.

The DC appellate judges involved are Henderson, Robert L. Wilkins and Rao.

Things are finally looking up for General Flynn.

But why would Obama go to such extremes to get General Flynn in the first place?  There must be some really bad actions that need covering up.



Photo of author
Joe Hoft is a Radio Host at, Author, Former International Corporate Executive in Hong Kong for a Decade, and a Contributor at TGP since 2016. Joe is the author of five books, including his new bestseller, "The Steal: Volume II - The Impossible Occurs" which addresses the stolen 2020 Election and provides an inventory of issues that prove that the 2020 Election was uncertifiable and never should have been certified for Joe Biden.

You can email Joe Hoft here, and read more of Joe Hoft's articles here.


Thanks for sharing!