Flynn is a defendant without a prosecutor and litigation now without any controversy between the actual parties to the case. Instead of promptly granting dismissal as required as a matter of law, judge sullivan denied two defense motioning opposing any amicus at all, appointed mr. Gleeson to usurp the job of prosecutor, and went forth to right theening wrotes he perceived. To right the wrongs he perceived. The job of the United States attorney is otherwise occupied. In adding these unconstitutional burdens of process to punish Michael Flynn, judge sullivan discarded any semblance of the unbiased, impartial adjudicator this court extolled in the 2019 chapter of that case saga. As a cornerstone of any system of justice worth the label. Four rulings are required to conclude this novel article three excess. Judge sullivans petition for rehearing must be flatly denied with clear language that a judge has no injury and no standing to seek relief of this courts rulings. Because judge sullivan
We will and with a brief rebuttal from mr. Flynns counsel and the council of United States. Please proceed. Thank you chief judge, may it please the court, general flynn is a defendant without a prosecutor, and litigation without controversy between the parties to the case. Instead of granting dismissal as required as a matter of law, John Sullivan denied defense motions, appointed mr. Gleason to usurp the job of the prosecutor, raised perjury but as iter his head, was noted, the job of United States attorney is occupied. Adding the unconstitutional burdens of process to punish michael flynn, John Sullivan discarded any semblance of the adjudicator. As a cornerstone of any system of justice worth the label. Required. Gs are judge sullivans position for rehearing must be flatly denied with language that a judge has no injury or standing to seek relief in this court. Sullivan has invested himself in the prosecution of general flynn, it is mandated disqualification for the glaring appeara
To see whether he would defer. Were no rule 48, the government could stop pursuing the case and send a letter to the court and that would be done and that would be effective in ending, even though there was a plea that was accepted. Mr wall i think so because there would no longer be any article three between parties and authority beyond rule 48 for the District Court to keep it alive. That seems to me at least as important or more important on the criminal side where you are not just talking about an adversarial contest between private parties, youre talking about a contest between a private that is in and a branch of government private citizen and a branch of government. The district is not explaining how it can keep alive a controversy that is not over the executives objection. If the rule 48 has been granted, then what is the purpose of allowing unnecessary proceedings to play inside that . If the court thinks there are no harms to the executives. I think this has been clarifying,
One of the worlds most valuable tech firms, apple, is heading to court in a bid to overturn a multi billion dollar tax bill in back taxes in ireland as part of a landmark case in the eus crackdown on tax avoidance by multinational companies. Three years ago, the European Commission ruled apple received illegal state aid from ireland when it effectively paid only a 1 tax on its profits. The commission ordered ireland to collect 14 billion in taxes from the firm, and apple is appealing against it. But its not the only tech giant under the spotlight. Last week, google paid 1 billion to settle a french investigation into whether it had underpaid taxes. The Search Engine giant pays little tax in many European Countries because it reports almost all of its sales in ireland. In a bid to close tax loopholes, france earlier this year passed a new Digital Services tax, meaning large multinationals will have to pay a 3 tax on sales generated in france. The European Competition commissioner, margr
Please call the role. [roll call] [roll call] thank you both. Good evening ladies and gentlemen. I would like to welcome all of you here this evening for the special joint hearing hosted by the Human Rights Commission. I would like to welcome our human rights of commissioners. Thank you for joining us this evening, on behalf of my colleagues we are delighted to be cohosting this hearing with you. We look forward to a good, and open conversation this evening. We have some excellent speaker testimony that we are looking forward to gathering. We very much look forward to hearing from members of the community on the issue of the border crisis, our first order of business to are there any announcements . Thank you. Office of Civic Engagement and veterans affairs. To members of the public, this is special joint meeting at the San Francisco immigrant rights commandant commission on the Human Rights Commission cosponsored by yee and ronan. Please silence all cell phones so speakers are commiss