Reposted by Arkancrow
Lycéens si vous êtes placés en garde à vue, pour vous souvenir de vos droits, un seul mot pour se rappeler de ces derniers:
AMIS
A- comme avocat, vous pouvez demander à vous entretenir avec un avocat.
Arkancrow
@arkancrow.eurosky.social
533 followers 557 following 5.9K posts
Father of 2. 🚩 Seeker of truth. 🚩 Geek.
![Personal life
Yudkowsky is an autodidact.[23] He dropped out of middle school due to chronic health issues,[24] and did not attend high school or college.[25] He is Jewish and was raised as a Modern Orthodox Jew, but is now secular.[26][27]](https://cdn.bsky.app/img/feed_thumbnail/plain/did:plc:jf6nw2xaut7cutftulr2chg3/bafkreieytqlmridsrpbjkgybkqs7nllec2lk7omdt7psknd5o44y27ku2m)
![The Government’s motion does not explain its motivations for seeking dismissal of the
indictment and thus fails to meet Rule 48(a)’s procedural requirement. The sole explanatory
sentence in the motion reads: “The government has determined in its prosecutorial discretion that dismissal of this criminal case is in the interests of justice.” ECF 207 at 1. But that is the kind of
“conclusory statement by the prosecutor” that the Court of Appeals has said is insufficient to justify
a Rule 48(a) motion. Ammidown, 497 F.2d at 620; see also Adams, 777 F. Supp. 3d at 208 (“[A]
district court abuses its discretion if it does not articulate its reasons for granting or denying leave,
and it cannot discharge its duties properly unless the underlying motion accurately states the
government’s reasons for dismissal.”). The Court will therefore deny the Government’s motion
without prejudice. The Government is free to submit a renewed motion that complies with Rule
48(a)’s requirements.2
2 If the Government does submit a renewed motion, that motion should also address the relevance
of United States v. Thorpe, 148 F.4th 768 (D.C. Cir. 2025), cert. denied, 146 S. Ct. 1459 (2026).
There, the Court of Appeals held that the “plain meaning of Rule 48(a), understood in light of the
common law and against the backdrop of constitutional separation of powers, is that the
government may dismiss a prosecution only while the prosecution is pending.” Id. at 776. That
decision noted that, “[o]nce the court has entered judgment, the prosecution comes to an end, and
the government loses its ability to dismiss the charges,” “unless the judgment is vacated by some
other means.” Id. at 774. Although the Supreme Court vacated the judgment of the Court of
Appeals affirming Bannon’s conviction, the judgment of this Court has not been vacated. The
Government should therefore explain whether Thorpe bars this Court from dismissing the
indictment under Rule 48(a).](https://cdn.bsky.app/img/feed_thumbnail/plain/did:plc:bbp2b224lro3bfnzcqwwnkfo/bafkreig2apyjzp3ce3caxkray6xtvrmidzuqsxbkrcsngq7taz7nuhtszm)