[Hostage]

https://twitter.com/SidneyPowell1/status/1263557289950228481

One of the better comments at the source:

"tommylotto says: May 21, 2020 at 5:45 pm Interesting situation. On most writs, the real party in interest is one of the parties to the case. So, the judge does not have to respond. He can allow the real party in interest take the laboring oar in opposing the writ. Not this time, defense and prosecution agree. Sullivan is going to have to put pen to paper and give an accounting. He cannot farm it out to amicus, because that is part of the conduct that is being challenged."

[Rockingham]

Previously:

? “... or they will respond to the petition on the judge’s behalf using lawyers on staff”

That would have the DOJ responding against themselves. Does not compute.

Let’s take the discussion over here as this was posted first.

My comment:

The United States Department of Justice and the judge would formally be parties, albeit both potentially represented by attorneys working for the same organization. In practice, the apparent conflict is excused on the basis of the attorneys being administratively separate and isolated from potential political pressures.

[treetopsandroofs]

I’d put money against FraudCo’s Judgie Sullivan doing as ordered.