I'd love to see Loose Cannon gone, but can any random group make that request?

They have to make a motion for the court to accept the brief, to be filed along with the brief itself. The rule is here: https://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frap/rule_29

They will raise money off it. They know it will go nowhere.

That individual was not represented by a lawyer. He represented himself, made no end of mistakes, and got the results which happens when you do that. The reply said the outcome of the motion would be good no matter what. What does that mean?

…. Not to be able to hold ANY elected position in the United States.
The effort will be a good one whatever the outcome

The page that has a summary (with the links to the PDFs) is that first link in the OP comments.

https://www.citizensforethics.org/legal-action/legal-complaints/amicus-judge-aileen-cannon-must-be-reassigned-in-trump-case/

(you can scroll down on that page to the "buttons" labeled "Read the brief." and "Read the motion." and click)

district court. How we have fallen when republicans come into power.
Another old myth shot down, the law and order party.

Just a wild guess on my part. It could antagonize the Loose Cannon and set her off, to the detriment of the prosecution.

to Smith and the case. I think its time someone said something.

First, if Cannon was going to get mad at Smith, she's probably already mad at him for appealing this decision, as well as her earlier ones. I don't see this filing from CREW as likely to make much difference either way.

Second, this brief was filed by an outside group. There's no indication that Smith was involved in any way. It would therefore be extremely childish to hold this against him. Very few people would be that childishly petty, so the risk seems pretty low to me.

Third, if this effort from CREW is successful and the 11th circuit, which is probably already tired of her shenanigans (cannonigans? ) takes her off the case, it won't matter what she thinks.

Personally, I think the possible benefits of this outweigh what I feel is a relatively small risk.

"Childish" comes with the package. But I hope you're right.

Under the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure, an amicus curiae may file its brief only by leave of court or if the brief states that all parties have consented to its filing. The CREW Brief does not indicate that either the government or the defense have consented to its filings. Where that is the case, the 11th Circuit has a track record of denying the requested leave to file. The most recent data I could find indicated that motions for leave to file where the parties haven't consented is denied more than half the time. In this instance, when the petition addresses an issue not raised by the government in its brief and seeks an action not sought by the government, it seems pretty likely that the 11th Circuit isn't going to accept the brief. Again, just a prediction on my part, but one that is consistent with the 11th Circuit's previous decision rejecting petitions filed seeking Cannon's disqualification.

See https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=18949244

How dare I question the propriety of our mighty justice system, under which all are equal and truth is the only standard?

So I expect that the same people will now scold CREW for raising the same objections.

I think the 11th Circuit will deny CREW's motion for leave to file its amicus brief, particularly since it goes beyond the issues raised by Smith in his appeal and seeks an action he has chosen not to seek.

I admit that I initially thought that you were, but you're not.

You bring an informed critique of events that simply lacking from the scolds' screeds.

Keep on doing what you're doing!