#Brunson v. Adams - MAGAts Version of Birthers Hopium / ReVote2017 SCOTUS Case

[bob]

Yahoo!: NBA playoffs: Knicks advance past Sixers as Jalen Brunson does something not seen since Michael Jordan.

Some Brunson news that I can use!

[Sam the Centipede]

I was thinking "I don't remember what this case claims to be about." On the basis that others might be thinking the same, here's a extracts from a reality-based Salt Lake Tribune piece quoted in an earlier post by Luke:

The suit, which leans on baseless claims of fraud in the 2020 elections, seeks to kick President Joe Biden, Vice President Kamala Harris and nearly 400 members of Congress out of office and reinstate Donald Trump to the White House.
[…]
The lawsuit claims members of Congress violated their oaths of office by allegedly failing to investigate and covering up evidence of foreign election interference that rigged the election against Donald Trump.
[…]
The complaint asks that the 387 members of Congress who voted to certify Biden’s election be immediately thrown out of office and barred from ever running again. Biden and Harris would also be removed from the White House and banned from running, as would former Vice President Mike Pence.

The article also describes how the nutters demand Trump be declared President, bypassing completely the prescribed order of succession. So that shows the limit of the nutters' respect for the constitution, no, it's all about Trump worship. Of course there is also a demand for a large fleet of golden ponies in damages. Well, don't ask, don't get!

[northland10]

I was thinking "I don't remember what this case claims to be about." On the basis that others might be thinking the same, here's a extracts from a reality-based Salt Lake Tribune piece quoted in an earlier post by Luke:

The suit, which leans on baseless claims of fraud in the 2020 elections, seeks to kick President Joe Biden, Vice President Kamala Harris and nearly 400 members of Congress out of office and reinstate Donald Trump to the White House.
[…]
The lawsuit claims members of Congress violated their oaths of office by allegedly failing to investigate and covering up evidence of foreign election interference that rigged the election against Donald Trump.
[…]
The complaint asks that the 387 members of Congress who voted to certify Biden’s election be immediately thrown out of office and barred from ever running again. Biden and Harris would also be removed from the White House and banned from running, as would former Vice President Mike Pence.

The article also describes how the nutters demand Trump be declared President, bypassing completely the prescribed order of succession. So that shows the limit of the nutters' respect for the constitution, no, it's all about Trump worship. Of course there is also a demand for a large fleet of golden ponies in damages. Well, don't ask, don't get!

That was the earlier case(s). The current case is against the 3 female liberal justices (and 100 Jane Does though not part of the appeal) who Raland Brunson claimed voted to deny their cert petition thus denying their God-given right to petition the government.

Of course, their pony is that Trump begins POTUS again because of a ruling, which they will not get.

This one has been a huge fail for many reasons:

1. You can't sue judges for rulings
2. They sued SCOTUS justices in the Utah STATE court (removed to the federal court by the defendants).
3. We do not know who voted yes or no to the denial of Raland's earlier case.
4. They only sued 3 female justices, which would not even make a majority of those who voted yes, if it were not unanimous, which we do not know.

[Sam the Centipede]

Wow! Shows how out of touch I am (or was!).

Thanks for the correction.

[bob]

It will probably get distributed for the 23 May conference since there was an explicit waiver of a response (distribution is next Wednesday) but sometimes the printed instructions and schedule is not always followed.

It was distributed to the May 23 conference. Meaning May 28 is when SCOTUS will announce the petition's death.

Betting window is open as to denial or dismissal (due to lack of quorum)!

[bob]

Grifters gotta.

[bob]

USA Today: Knicks star Jalen Brunson fractures hand as injuries doom New York in NBA playoffs.

[RTH10260]

Stop lobbing balls in the courts of law

[bob]

Stop lobbing balls in the courts of law

I would search the bird site for chatter about the Brunsons, and was pleased when most people talked bout the basketball star. A breath of sanity.

[bob]

With the three sued justices not participating, the six remaining justices denied cert. in Raland's latest.

On to the inevitable rehearing petition.

[bob]

Newsweek: Every Liberal Supreme Court Justice Sits Out Decision in Rare Move.

It is rare because it is rare for someone to be so dumb as to sue judges over an adverse ruling. A judge's recusal where they are a party (even an unwilling one) is common.

N.b.:

Every liberal U.S. Supreme Court justice sat out of a decision this week in a rare move for the nation's highest court.

On Tuesday, Supreme Court Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, and Ketanji Brown Jackson sat out of a decision in Brunson v. Sotomayor, et al. Each of the three liberal justices was named as a defendant in the case. They did not provide a specific reason for sitting out and are not required to do so.

The case was brought by Raland Brunson, who attempted to challenge the results of the 2020 presidential election and named the three justices as defendants for denying a writ of certiorari in a previous appeals case.

Newsweek reached out to the Supreme Court via email for comment.

The justices' absence comes days after Sotomayor delivered a speech at Harvard in which she revealed that some past cases had made her emotional.

Notice what the article "forgets" to mention: the cert. denial. Or that this was just a routine conference case, and not oral arguments.

Other clickbaters are doing similar tricks.

[northland10]

Why is Newsweek even reporting on this?

[bob]

Why is Newsweek even reporting on this?

Since being sold, Newsweek has become little more than your average clickbait farm.

The Epoch Times also covered this "historic" case. 'nuff said.

[bob]

The Epoch Times also covered this "historic" case. 'nuff said.

This is an example of the Epoch Times' spin:


It is a BIG DEAL that three justices (who were sued) recused themselves.

No mention of the unbroken record of failure on lawsuits' "merits."

[bob]

I've been seeing this occasionally:

Loy Brunson's failsuit went to a SCOTUS conference on Thursday, June 6, 2023.

[Lansdowne]

Or to be more accurate Thursday June 22nd, 2023.

I keep seeing suggestions that all kinds of things will happen on the 6th phrased like
"this has been building for weeks and finally our D-Day will be on June 6th".
From people who clearly have no idea what the actual D-Day was, whose 80th anniversary is being marked this Thursday.

Just like the Iraqi Dinar gurus who decided Iraq's bid to join WTO had been accepted after 20 years of waiting, and that accession would be on Thursday May 9th. This was confirmed for certain because the WTO website said their HQ in Switzerland would be closed on that day for "Ascension Day", so they decided to refer to Iraq joining as "Ascension" instead of"accession".
Which of course was the last event needed for the Dinar to immediately become 500,000 per cent more valuable.

[northland10]

That Dr. Kia (the actual video is from her) is quite the quack.

Apparently, Raland's recent failure was a case against Bidenn, not the 3 justices who recused.

The elections were already thrown out but we just don't realize it yet or something. Clarence Thomas ruled in secret or something.

Oh yeah, Dinars.

[northland10]

On a related note, Brunson's rehearing petition has to get in and be distributed by tomorrow to make the final conference. So, it looks like it will be a Midsummer's Night Denial.

[scirreeve]

DOJ is sick and tired of Raland pretending to be an attorney in the US v. Cromar case.

Capture.JPG (58.13 KiB) Viewed 639 times

Lot of attention to pretend attorney Raland in this court doc. https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/67 ... -v-cromar/

[northland10]

DOJ is sick and tired of Raland pretending to be an attorney in the US v. Cromar case.

Apparently, the defendant is unconcerned with previous courtroom success as a measure of who should advise him.

[chancery]

The government also has critical policy concerns about the precedent that would be set by allowing an individual such as Brunson to play lawyer during a federal criminal trial. The government is unaware of such a practice being embraced by the courts. Such a step would no doubt serve as precedent for future pro se tax defiers and sovereign citizens to request “assistants [sic] of counsel” from any manner of individuals, regardless of legal training or acumen. Such a practice would seriously dilute the institution of professional legal representation and materially erode the line between legal counsel and the menagerie of hucksters and misguided ideologues found on Defendant’s most recent witness list. Bench Memorandum at 8.

[northland10]

Spoiler alert... any of Brunson's prior help was not all that helpful.

From the docket

06/04/2024 299 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Howard C. Nielson, Jr. Jury Trial as to Paul Kenneth Cromar completed on 6/4/2024. Jury returns to continue deliberations at 10:00 am. A note was received at 1:15 pm. The parties reconvened in the courtroom and addressed the note. Jurors received Final Instruction No. 15A.

At 2:54 pm, a note was received stating they have reached a verdict. Parties were contacted and all parties reconvened in the courtroom. The jury was brought into the courtroom at 3:15 pm. The court asks if the jury has reached a unanimous decision. The foreman states they have. The court reads the verdict. The Defendant asks for the jury to be polled. The jury is polled, thanked for their service, and dismissed.

For the reasons stated on the record, the court ruled as follows: 249 Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction as to Paul Kenneth Cromar is denied as to count #1 and denied as moot as to count #2; 250 Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction as to Paul Kenneth Cromar is denied as to count #3 and denied as moot as to count #2; 281 Motion to Dismiss as to Paul Kenneth Cromar is denied as to count #3 and denied as moot as to count #2; 296 Motion for Directed Verdict as to Paul Kenneth Cromar is denied as to count #1 and denied as moot as to count #2; 297 Motion for Directed Verdict as to Paul Kenneth Cromar is denied as to count #3 and denied as moot as to count #2; To the extent 295 is intended as a new motion for discovery, it is DENIED as untimely. No written order to follow
The Defendant is remanded to the USMS.
Court is adjourned.

Attorney for Plaintiff: Meredith Havekost, Patrick Burns. Attorney for Defendant: Paul Kenneth Cromar, Pro Se. Court Reporter: Teena Green, Michelle Gonsalves. (Time Start: 10:00, Time End: 3:45, Room: 7.300.)(mlp) (Entered: 06/06/2024)

From the DOJ

Former Utah Movie Producer Found Guilty of Tax Crimes

A federal jury convicted a Utah man yesterday of tax evasion and forcibly retaking property that had been seized by the government to pay his outstanding tax debt.

According to court documents and evidence presented at trial, Paul Kenneth Cromar owned a home in Cedar Hills, Utah, and operated Blue Moon Productions LLC, a freelance film and media production company. From 1999 through 2005, Cromar did not file any federal income tax returns or pay any tax. In 2007, the IRS conducted an audit and assessed him with $703,266.96 in taxes, interest and penalties. After Cromar failed to make any payments towards his outstanding debt, the government filed a civil suit in federal court to foreclose on his home to satisfy his outstanding tax debt.

After several court proceedings in which Cromar participated, a federal judge ordered that his home be sold at auction and the proceeds used to pay off some of the taxes he owed. Cromar then attempted to stop the sale by filing bogus documents on the property’s title and with the IRS, intimidating potential purchasers or investors for the home and harassing IRS personnel by filing frivolous lawsuits against them personally.

see more at:
https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/former-u ... tax-crimes

[northland10]

Here is some fun from the case.

Here is Cromar's witness list. Some were not used and some excluded but Richard Mack and Ryan Bundy were witnesses in the trial (though Richard Mack was a character witness, not a fact witness).
https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap ... .252.0.pdf

The ones that testified (Shawna Cox was on the list but appears to have not testified).

Defendant calls Daniel Brough. Witness sworn and testified. Witness thanked and excused.
Defendant calls William D'Angelo. Witness sworn and testified. Witness thanked and excused.
Defendant calls Kaye Fugal. Witness sworn and testified. Witness thanked and excused.

Defendant calls Richard Mack. Witness sworn and testified. Witness thanked and excused.
Defendant calls Sam Bushman. Witness sworn and testified. Witness thanked and excused.
Defendant calls Tom Scambos. Witness sworn and testified. Exhibit 145 admitted. Witness thanked and excused.
Defendant calls Ryan Bundy. Witness sworn and testified. Witness thanked and excused.
Defendant calls Michael Eddington. Witness sworn and testified. Witness thanked and excused.
Defendant calls Danielle D'Angelo. Witness sworn and testified. Witness thanked and excused.

Mr. Cromar called Wendy Leatham. Witness sworn and testified. Mr. Cromar offered Exhibit 200. No objection. Exhibit admitted. Witness excused.
Mr. Cromar called Ron Gibson. Witness sworn and testified. Witness excused.
Mr. Cromar called John Ruzicka. Witness sworn and testified. Witness excused.
Mr. Cromar called Gordon Mella. Witness sworn and testified. Witness excused.
Mr. Cromar recalled Nathan Dorius. Witness sworn and testified. Witness excused.

Mr. Cromar rested at 3:26 p.m. Government rested the case in its entirely. Mr. Cromar also rested his case in its entirely.

This is a fun little entry

Comes. now, Paul-Kenneth: Cromar¹, defendant in-error, "Ken", Sui Juris [pro se], a redblooded American, a sovereign anointed son and heir to God, who hereby respectfully presents this WRIT OF MANDATE Defendant's TECHNICAL ASSISTANTS MUST REPAIR GOVERNMENT'S LAPTOP PROGRAMS LICENSING, related to a trial ambitiously scheduled for May 21, 2024, as provided hereunder:

1 See footnotes 1-4, 7-8, from Defendants Motion to Dismiss (docket #70) and also as, of yet unrebutted Defendant's AFFIDAVIT (docket #71) for jurisdictional and definition of terms. Note: An unrebutted affidavit stands as fact. Also, Defendant elected to proceed only under Constitutional Common law (see docket #25).

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap ... .212.0.pdf

This filing has a the 13 stars flag so it must be extra powerful. I did not bother with all the zidbits.
https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap ... .265.0.pdf

The docket. Someone purchased a few more docs on it. If there is one that is of interest but not available, someone may be persuaded to get it too.
https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/67 ... er_by=desc

[scirreeve]

LOL - I saw that Mr. Land Patent (Ron Gibson) was on the witness list but he actually testified. Sovcit shit show.

[northland10]

Raland's slipping. In the past Brunson cases, they had filed for a rehearing around 7 days after the order denying cert. We are already over 14 days now and nothing, though there could be delays for reasons. They still have a week and change to hit the deadline.

In the real world, you would not file a petition for rehearing unless you had something "new" that changed the circumstances. In the crazy world, a rehearing is just another chance to ask for more cash from the rubes.