Talk:Emmet G. Sullivan

Moving into prominence

Judge Sullivan moves into prominence as he orders former secretary of state, Hillary Rodham Clinton, to comply and explain the path of national secrets going from her home server, under penalty of perjury. -- Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 01:35, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Because of his prominence in that case, and the Flynn case, somebody should flesh out his biography. For example, he was in law school at the height of the Vietnam War, so what did he do about conscription? His political views back then would also be germane because of his eventual appointment by Bill Clinton, who himself wrestled with the question of whether and how to avoid the draft. In other words, arguably the most crucial public issue of this judge's young life involved this, and the article should delve into that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.152.216.213 (talk) 00:54, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

This IP editor's complaint has nothing to do with Sullivan's history. It's an attack on him and I don't see the relevance. Putting entirely speculative questions about his history and trying to associate his decisions with his supposedly sharing some far-fetched conspiratorial history with Clinton is nothing short of ridiculous. I don't know if the appropriate thing to do is to remove the stupid post or to archive it. I don't think it should remain, in any circumstance. It's been here for five months when five minutes would have been far too long. Activist (talk) 20:27, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

The website of American Inns of Court relates that when he matriculated at Howard University in 1964, "The Vietnam War was underway so Sullivan enrolled in the ROTC program. When he graduated from Howard, he had not planned his next step after fulfilling his military obligation." Since Sullivan earned his J.D. in 1971, it seems likely he entered law school directly after receiving his B.A. in 1968. This suggests that completing the undergraduate ROTC program, perhaps in conjunction with continuing service as a commissioned reserve officer, may have exempted him from conscription. NedFausa (talk) 01:53, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Emmet G. Sullivan. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080618003116/http://www.dcd.uscourts.gov:80/sullivan-bio.html to http://www.dcd.uscourts.gov/sullivan-bio.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.pegc.us/archive/OK_v_Bush/govt_resp_to_GK_20060815.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:42, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

Notable cases section needs expansion

All the cases in this section seem to need substantial expansion. Resolutions of the cases are not shown, including the reversal of a jury verdict and suicide by a prosecutor held to account by this judge. I've done so in the most recent case that has come to national attention, where Sullivan has indicated his response to the U.S. Department of Justice's ignoring an order may be met by him with a contempt charge against the sitting U.S. Attorney General. However my edits have been minimized. I'm going restore my edits once more and hope this issue can be resolved on this Talk page. When I have some time I will expand the description of the Stevens case. Activist (talk) 21:10, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

Some of these cases certainly need additional information about Sullivan's role in them. I rewrote the description of the Stevens case to include a sourced summary of Sullivan's role in this case, including (as you noted) the suicide of one of the prosecutors that Sullivan had held in civil contempt. But notice that the one common thing about all of this material is the judge's involvement. The datails of the case are merely cursory. That's why I edited out some of the information that you added to the current ACLU case, and the only reason that I didn't revert your re-addition of that extraneous material is that I didn't want this to turn into an edit war.

For any other editors who may be viewing this, I'm going to show the two different versions of the blurb on the current ACLU case. First, here's Activist's version:

"According to the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), a woman and her child fled domestic abuse in El Salvador to seek asylum in the U.S. However the mother was removed from her detention facility and likely put on a plane on August 9, 2018, despite Justice Department promises that she and others would not be deported before the judge could rule on their cases. Sullivan demanded, “Turn that plane around.” He threatened to hold those responsible for the removal in contempt of court, starting with Attorney General Jeff Sessions, if the situation was not rectified. A Department of Homeland Security official stated, "We are complying with the court's requests...the plaintiffs will not disembark and will be promptly returned to the United States." An ACLU suit challenged a recent decision by Sessions to make it nearly impossible for victims of domestic violence and gangs to qualify for asylum in the U.S. The lawsuit claims the woman and her young daughter came to the U.S. from El Salvador after twenty years of spousal abuse and her receiving death threats from a violent gang."

Now here's my edit, which Activist reverted:

"In a 2018 case, a woman and her child who requested asylum in the U.S. due to domestic violence in El Salvador were deported before Judge Sullivan could rule on their cases. Sullivan threatened to hold the Justice Department officials responsible for their removal in contempt of court if the situation was not rectified. A Department of Homeland Security official stated, "We are complying with the court's requests...the plaintiffs will not disembark and will be promptly returned to the United States.""

Basically, the fact that the ACLU is a plaintiff in the case and the issues that the ACLU lawsuit raises are not germain to an encyclopedia biography on Emmet Sullivan. They could be placed in an article about Jeff Sessions or the ACLU or immigration disputes in general, but they are not relevant to the biography of the judge, at least until he actually rules on the case (and then WP:RECENTISM argues against making them too prominent). To me, this doesn't seem to be a close call. What is relevant to the biography now is a cursory description of the situation and that Sullivan ordered the return of the plaintiff and threatened to hold DOJ officials in contempt.

On the other cases listed, I agree that there obviously needs to be more work done on Sullivan's entry to flush out the details, but as the Stevens case shows, that work will take time (which I frankly do not have), and such work needs to limit the discussion in those cases to the same points as the Stevens case: a minimal discussion of the issues, Judge Sullivan's involvement and rulings, and the ultimate disposition.- AyaK (talk) 06:55, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

"Judicial conduct" disputed section

On July 3, 2019, after Sullivan received a message regarding a July 12, 2019 event co-sponsored by the Federal Judicial Center, the research and education agency of the judicial branch of the U.S. government, he forwarded the email via "Reply all" to about 45 judges and their staffs to alert them to an upcoming climate change seminar. His note said only "just FYI." Within an hour, Senior Appeals Court Judge A. Raymond Randolph of the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit replied with a response to Sullivan and all those who had been copied on the forwarded email. He questioned Sullivan's ethics and recommended that he get "back into the business of judging, which are what you are being paid to do. As a former chairman of the federal judiciary's ethics committee, I think you have crossed the line. Should I report you? I don’t know." Characterizing Sullivan's first message as having subjected "our colleagues to this nonsense," Randolph suggested that he had breached judicial decorum: "The jurisdiction assigned to you does not include saving the planet. A little hubris [sic] would be welcomed in many of your latest public displays. The supposedly science and stuff you are now sponsoring is nothing of the sort." Sullivan responded to Randolph and all who had been copied: "I sincerely regret that you were offended by my email! I merely forwarded an email announcing a seminar sponsored in conjunction with the support of the Federal Judicial Center. I have no stake in that seminar." Two other judges defended Sullivan to those copied on the exchange, one writing to explain the purpose of the Center's presentation and noting that a board chaired by Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. had approved the event. The second characterized Randolph's outburst as "accusatory" and "quite disturbing."

There has been a dispute over the content above, from the article. The dispute appears to be between Activist, NuclearWarfare, and NedFausa.

Note: a very similar section appears at A. Raymond Randolph#Federal judicial service. X1\ (talk) 00:24, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

References

IMO this should be left out. It's a tempest in a teapot, from a year ago, apparently covered by only one report in one source. I'd have to see a lot more evidence that this is a significant aspect of his biography. -- MelanieN (talk) 21:32, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

Removal of Supreme Court decision from Flynn section

While the unanimous USSC decision on May 7, 2020 (Ginsburg for the court, Thomas concurring), may have some bearing on this case in the future, I'm removing the following text because it should not be part of this article unless it is covered by RSS, and perhaps also, introduced into the pleadings and/or hearing that Sullivan has scheduled. This is the text that I've removed.

Interestingly, Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg issued an opinion reasserting the party presentation principle and that the court must render its decisions based on arguments presented by the actual parties. "In short: '[C]ourts are essentially passive instruments of government.' They 'do not, or should not, sally forth each day looking for wrongs to right. [They] . . . decide only arguments presented by the parties'" (internal citations omitted).

References

Activist (talk) 13:58, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

What jumps out about the removed text is its first word: "Interestingly…" To whom? Rendered in Wikipedia's voice, this violates WP:NPOV. Moreover, directly citing the court's decision in an unrelated case violates WP:NOR and, by interpreting it as relevant to this BLP, violates WP:PRIMARY. The disputed text should not be restored. NedFausa (talk) 15:13, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

This should not be in the article. It was a comment in an unrelated case. Putting it here is argumentative and WP:SYNTH. -- MelanieN (talk) 19:23, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

WP:COATRACK and Michael Flynn section

I don't believe anything more than a short sentence or two should be allocated to Sullivan presiding over some action against Michael Flynn. This seems 99% WP:COATRACK, and this expanded content is way off-topic and does not belong here. At a quick glance, it would seem to be roughly the same content that appears in the article about Flynn in this section. If the action is genuinely notable, it should have its own page - but this vast amount of extended content does not belong here, and I propose that it should be removed. Nick Moyes (talk) 23:14, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

@Nick Moyes:Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Law#Does_U.S._v._Flynn_merit_a_page 168.215.97.5 (talk) 15:03, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

Nick Moyes: when you referred to "this vast amount of extended content," the Michael Flynn section consisted of 885 words. In response to your criticism, I trimmed that section to 427 words—a reduction of more than 50%. I look forward to your feedback. NedFausa (talk) 02:05, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

Thank you, NedFausa. I have added a few things that were necessary to put Sullivan's numerous actions and rulings in context. And I'm going to remove the "off topic" tag. The idea that this massively reported, complex, years-long case, and Sullivan's part in it, could be summarized in "a sentence or two" is unrealistic. -- MelanieN (talk) 03:37, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

It could be watered down easily to the following:

===US v Flynn===

Main article: Michael T. Flynn

Since December 7, 2017, Judge Sullivan has presided over the criminal matter of retired General Michael Flynn, the former national security adviser to Donald Trump after Judge Contreras recused himself. Flynn previously plead guilty on December 1, 2017 pursuant to a plea bargrain.Judge Sullivan deferred sentencing several times. But in June, 2019, Flynn changed attorneys and moved to withdraw his plea on January 14, 2020. On May 7, 2020, the Department of Justice (DOJ) moved to drop all charges against Flynn. In response, Judge Sullivan placed a hold on the DOJ's motion and appointed retired US District Court Judge Gleeson to formally oppose the DOJ's motion and opine on whether Judge Sullivan could charge Flynn with contempt for perjury. On May 13, Sullivan Flynn's attorney challenged Sullivan's decision by filing a writ of mandamus in the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals. On May 21, 2020, citing US v Fokker Servs, BV, 818 F.3d 733 (DC Cir 2016), the D.C. Circuit ordered Judge Sullivan to respond to the writ of mandamus by June 1, 2020, and invited the government to respond within the same 10-day period.

168.215.97.5 (talk) 16:04, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

Sources

Thanks for your thoughtful and well-sourced proposal. But I think it leaves out way to much about Sullivan's own involvement and actions in the case. This article is about him, after all. When a judge has been in charge of a complicated, high-profile case for multiple years, it is not unreasonable to think that the section about his work on the case might involve several paragraphs. -- MelanieN (talk) 16:29, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

This particular case is fairly complex and involved. It really should be its own page, with a minimal reference to it here. Also, as it is a subheading of "Notable cases," the subheading should be the case name. 168.215.97.5 (talk) 16:37, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

I really don't understand what you are considering to be important vs. disposable. You mentioned that Flynn's initial guilty plea was done somewhere else, but you left out the important fact (very relevant to this biography) that he repeated his guilty plea before Sullivan and that Sullivan grilled him about it to make sure he meant it. You left out Sullivan's rejection of Flynn's arguments, before he withdrew his plea, claiming prosecution malfeasance and FBI misconduct; that's important. And yet the least important/most in-the-news item in this case - the writ of mandamus filed against him and the Court's response - gets about a quarter of the whole item in your version. You even insisted on restoring the precedent for the court's response, after I removed it as TMI. Maybe we can work out some compromise wording here (hopefully with input from other people. But IMO this trim leaves out too much about what is probably the most important, and most high profile, case in his career. As for the case needing its own article: maybe so, but no-one has seen fit to start one. And even if it had its own article, the item here would not be "a minimal reference"; it would have to report what was important about Sullivan's input. -- MelanieN (talk) 18:57, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

Thanks to both of you for your thoughts on this case. I should mention, however, that in September/October 2008, Sullivan handled the extremely high profile case of Senator Ted Stevens, who was convicted on seven felony counts of failing to disclose gifts. The Bush DOJ opted to try him in D.C. because there was no way the prosecution could have empaneled a jury that didn't hang or even acquit Stevens, despite his long history of favoritism towards friends, ex-clients, and contributors. Alaskans were mostly of the belief that Stevens was working in their interests, thanks to dining on the scraps that fell off the table. Stevens was indicted in late July 2008, if memory serves, and demanded a speedy trial. He was the ex-U.S. attorney for Alaska and had to know that finding a free courtroom and a free judge within that narrow time frame would be extremely difficult. Sullivan and the courtroom had become unexpectedly free, however, and the case proceeded. In their rush to assemble a complex case for court, the prosecutors made insufficient disclosures of Brady material, and the trial was somewhat chaotic. One prosecution witness who clearly was incapable of giving coherent testimony because he was visibly terminally ill, was sent back to Alaska without taking the stand. His departure was presented as conspiratorial by the defense on appeal. Stevens didn't have a good defense, but he would have only had to convince one juror to reject a guilty verdict, and he would have been home free, through his election for his 7th full term. He even called Colin Powell to be a character witness, likely to appeal to the D.C. jury pool. The guilty verdicts came in about eight days before election day and he lost by under 4,000 votes. Sullivan set aside the decision later as the chaos was aired. Eric Holder declined to try him again. Ironically, Sidney Powell wrote a book, "Licensed to Lie," in which she praised Sullivan for his handling of the case, which also included the Enron case where she was co-counsel for a defendant on appeal. She maintained that Stevens was "innocent," despite his opinion in a wiretapped conversation with the giver of the gifts on the day of the latter's arrest, that they might have to "pay a fine, do a little time," again if memory serves. Most of the current media seems to have overlooked that ironic history, although the Washington Post did have a good article on it. One of the most unfortunate events of that situation is that a prosecutor hung himself in his basement in despair regarding the long delay in the resolution of questions about his actions in the case. Activist (talk) 02:01, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

There's now a draft U.S. v Flynn page

Just giving people a heads up that work has now started on a draft for the US v Flynn page, and editors who've contributed to the text about the case here may wish to contribute there. Some of the content will be split from a portion of the article on Michael Flynn (see the talk page for the draft for more info), and once there's sufficient text at Draft:United_States_v._Flynn, people may want to trim some of the text about the case on Sullivan's page, which would address the WP:COATRACK issue. If any content is copied from here, see the Wikipedia expectations re: copying content from one page to another; in particular, when copying content, it's important to include something in the edit summary along the lines of “Copied content from Emmet_G._Sullivan; see that page's history for attribution.” -- FactOrOpinion (talk) 16:07, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

Now that US v Flynn has its own page, I propose cropping the section here as follows:

US v Flynn

Main article: United States v. Flynn

On December 7, 2017 the case of United States v. Michael Flynn, the former national security adviser to Donald Trump, was randomly assigned to Judge Sullivan after District Court Judge Rudolph Contreras recused himself. On December 1, 2017, and prior to Judge Contrera's recusal, Flynn plead guilty to one count of lying to the FBI. After Judge Sullivan was assigned to the matter, he accepted Flynn's guilty plea. Judge Sullivan deferred sentencing several times. During these deferments, Flynn changed legal counsel and on January 14, 2020, he moved to withdraw his guilty plea. Prior to deciding this motion, on May 7, 2020, the Department of Justice (DOJ) filed a motion pursuant to Rule 48(a) to dismiss all charges against Flynn. On May 12, Sullivan announced that he would place a hold on the DOJ's move to drop charges against Flynn, and on May 13, he appointed retired federal judge and former federal prosecutor John Gleeson as amicus to formally oppose the DOJ's motion, and to research whether Judge Sullivan could hold Flynn in contempt for perjury because Flynn previously plead guilty and now moved to withdraw the same. Sullivan also scheduled a hearing on the DOJ's motion for July 16, 2020.

On May 19, 2020, Flynn filed a writ of mandamus petition with the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals, asking that Judge Sullivan be ordered to drop the charges, vacate Gleeson's amicus appointment, and - alternatively - to remove Judge Sullivan from the case. On June 24, 2020, in a 2-1 decision, the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals panel granted Flynn's petition for writ of mandamus, ordering Judge Sullivan to dismiss the case, and vacated Gleeson's appointment as moot. In response to the higher court ruling, Judge Sullivan issued an order canceling the July 16 hearing date, but did not address the DOJ's motion further.

The media has regularly included the presidents who have nominated the two judges who dissented from this opinion. Some stories have noted who appointed the third judge in the initial three-judge panel. This information is notable, relevant and germane, and Wikipedia is not censored. Please stop deleted these properly sourced edits. Thank you. Activist (talk) 08:16, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

Activist: on August 31, 2020, you added content related to an en banc decision by the 11-member U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit. You identified the presidents who appointed two of the judges, without explaining how that influenced their adjudication of this case. You did not identify the presidents who appointed the other nine judges. That violates WP:UNDUE and should not be restored in its original form. NedFausa (talk) 14:42, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

References

NedFausa I'm extensively reworking the article's lede and Justice Department's motion for coherence and providing the extensive background and rationale which you requested. I believe I've addressed all your concerns. I am not speculating, as with the scenarios presented about why Sullivan may not have fought in Viet Nam. Activist (talk) 13:13, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

Normal English vs. legalese?

We have had a tendency to cloak the information here in technically correct legal language which may not be clear to many readers who are not attorneys. IMO the recent material about the appeals court decision was expressed in such legalistic language that the effect of the actual decision was unclear. In particular I thought the description of the outcome as On June 24, 2020, in a 2-1 decision, the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals panel granted Flynn's petition for writ of mandamus. would be unclear to many lay people, so I added granted Flynn's petition for writ of mandamus, ordering Judge Sullivan to dismiss the case. That hasn't been reverted so I guess it was acceptable.

I also changed The decision also vacated Judge Sullivan's amicus appointment on mootness grounds., which is the exact language from the order, to the IMO more understandable The decision also vacated Judge Sullivan's appointment of Gleason, saying it was moot. My edit summary was can we please speak normal English here instead of legalese? That change got reverted by User:168.215.97.5 back to the "amicus" and "mootness" language, with a humorous and IMO good humored edit summary[1] spoofing legalese. They also added some additional information which I am OK with. So I guess my only question is, would people prefer "vacated the amicus appointment on mootness grounds" or "vacated the appointment of Gleason, saying it was moot"? And in general, how do people feel about using precise legal language instead of, or in addition to, summaries/translations for the benefit of lay people? -- MelanieN (talk) 19:02, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

Editor's repeated deletions

Removal of the names of makers of appointments to the D.C. bench is a problem. Wikipedia readers shouldn't have that info withheld. Both major media and legal profession media have regularly noted that the judges who sided with Flynn's most recent attorney were appointed by Trump (Neomi Reo) and Bush 45 (Karen Henderson). The subject would not have been consistently mentioned if reporters and observers wondered how in the world the two in the majority on the three judge panel came to their decision and their subsequent dissent. Many had speculated that Henderson, based on her questions at the initial hearing, would side with Sullivan.[2]

"DC Circuit Didn't Sound Eager to Force Dismissal of Case Against Michael Flynn I don't see why we don't observe regular order and allow him to rule," Judge Karen LeCraft Henderson said at one point during Friday's hearing in the D.C. Circuit. Flynn's lawyer, Sidney Powell, argued there was no longer any case or controversy, and the trial judge must dismiss the case against Flynn, at the request of the Trump Justice Department. When she didn't, they mentioned the identies of their presidential nominators to the Circuit to explain what they seemed to feel was otherwise bizarre. This is the NPR take on it, i.e.

In June, a three-judge appellate panel sided with the Justice Department in a 2-1 ruling. But Sullivan asked for a rehearing by the full bench, resulting in Monday's decision, which effectively voids the earlier ruling. The dissenters in Monday's ruling are the same two Republican appointees — Karen Henderson, appointed by President George H.W. Bush, and Trump appointee Neomi Rao — who sided with the Justice Department in June. [3]

Now to use the explanatory term favored by the legal profession, res ipsa loquitur or, "the thing speaks for itself." I should note also that the two prevailing judges on the panel, and dissenters on the en banc decision, reversed their position in their opinions. In the first, they found that Sullivan should not be removed as the hearing officer. In the en banc decision the same two said that he should be removed.

Rao participated in the May 2020 appeal of Judge Emmett Sullivan's actions appointing amicus curiae in response to the Department of Justice moving to dismiss charges in United States v. Flynn.[4]

[5][6] [7]

[8]

Activist (talk) 15:22, 3 September 2020 (UTC)