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

[bob]

The Brunsons (and others) had asked for prayers to guide SCOTUS.

WRONG; SCOTUS' denial was part of the heavenly plan all along.

[bob]

[realist]

She was, and likely still is, one of the medical anti-vaxxers, among other stupid things.

https://www.aflds.org/citizen-corps

[bob]

She was, and likely still is, one of the medical anti-vaxxers, among other stupid things.

Oh, yeah.

The Brunsons are moving up in the griftosphere. Nothing breeds success like failure!

[Luke]

Yeah -- Dana H. Granberg-Nill, MD - Family Medicine Doctor in Kansas City, MO, America's Frontline Doctors, pal of Simone Gold -- clearly a bullseye expert for Loy's case.

[bob]

"For completeness," an updated explainer:

[johnpcapitalist]

The Brunsons (and others) had asked for prayers to guide SCOTUS.

WRONG; SCOTUS' denial was part of the heavenly plan all along.

I am not sure I get this. I read the tweet as saying that this guy is celebrating the failure of the Brunson's suit because he thinks God should have overturned the election result and restored Trump directly without human help. Or am I missing something?

[Slim Cognito]

I couldn't get that far.

[bob]

I am not sure I get this. I read the tweet as saying that this guy is celebrating the failure of the Brunson's suit because he thinks God should have overturned the election result and restored Trump directly without human help. Or am I missing something?

Basically, God alone will restore the former president, and not mere humans and their institutions.

More basically, it is a "when we lose we win" coping mechanism. A divine "trust the plan."

I would have inquired further, but the coward blocked me.

[Suranis]

I doubt it means anything but this is the passage he is referring to, in context.

24Therefore Daniel went to Arioch, whom the king had appointed to destroy the wise men of Babylon, and said to him, “Do not execute the wise men of Babylon! Bring me before the king, and I will give him the interpretation.”

25Arioch hastily brought Daniel before the king and said to him, “I have found a man among the exiles from Judah who will tell the king the interpretation.”

26The king responded to Daniel, whose name was Belteshazzar, “Are you able to tell me what I saw in the dream, as well as its interpretation?”

27Daniel answered the king, “No wise man, enchanter, medium, or magician can explain to the king the mystery of which he inquires. 28But there is a God in heaven who reveals mysteries, and He has made known to King Nebuchadnezzar what will happen in the latter days. Your dream and the visions that came into your mind as you lay on your bed were these:

29As you lay on your bed, O king, your thoughts turned to the future, and the Revealer of Mysteries made known to you what will happen. 30And to me this mystery has been revealed, not because I have more wisdom than any man alive, but in order that the interpretation might be made known to the king, and that you may understand the thoughts of your mind.

31As you, O king, were watching, a great statuec appeared. A great and dazzling statue stood before you, and its form was awesome. 32The head of the statue was pure gold, its chest and arms were silver, its belly and thighs were bronze, 33its legs were iron, and its feet were part iron and part clay.

34As you watched, a stone was cut out,d but not by human hands. It struck the statue on its feet of iron and clay, and crushed them. 35Then the iron, clay, bronze, silver, and gold were shattered and became like chaff on the threshing floor in summer. The wind carried them away, and not a trace of them could be found. But the stone that had struck the statue became a great mountain and filled the whole earth.

36This was the dream; now we will tell the king its interpretation.

37You, O king, are the king of kings, to whom the God of heaven has given sovereignty, power, strength, and glory. 38Wherever the sons of men or beasts of the field or birds of the air dwell, He has given them into your hand and has made you ruler over them all. You are that head of gold.

39But after you, there will arise another kingdom, inferior to yours.

Next, a third kingdom, one of bronze, will rule the whole earth.

40Finally, there will be a fourth kingdom as strong as iron; for iron shatters and crushes all things, and like iron that crushes all things, it will shatter and crush all the others. 41And just as you saw that the feet and toes were made partly of fired clay and partly of iron, so this will be a divided kingdom, yet some of the strength of iron will be in it—just as you saw the iron mixed with clay. 42And as the toes of the feet were partly iron and partly clay, so this kingdom will be partly strong and partly brittle. 43As you saw the iron mixed with clay, so the peoplese will mix with one another, but will not hold together any more than iron mixes with clay.

44In the days of those kings, the God of heaven will set up a kingdom that will never be destroyed, nor will it be left to another people. It will shatter all these kingdoms and bring them to an end, but will itself stand forever. 45And just as you saw a stone being cut out of the mountain without human hands, and it shattered the iron, bronze, clay, silver, and gold, so the great God has told the king what will happen in the future.

The dream is true, and its interpretation is trustworthy.”

Of course, it does not matter. He just did a word search for "destroy" in the Bible and picked out a half sentence that he could twist to spin whatever he wanted. As you can see, trying to tie this to Trump is complete freaking nonsense.

[northland10]

She was, and likely still is, one of the medical anti-vaxxers, among other stupid things.

Oh, yeah.

The Brunsons are moving up in the griftosphere. Nothing breeds success like failure!

But their latest failure creates a great grift,

The petition for a writ of certiorari before judgment is denied.

This means they will grant the petition after the 10th Circuit deals with it. Send lots of money. Their win is coming.

[bob]

But their latest failure creates a great grift,

The petition for a writ of certiorari before judgment is denied.

This means they will grant the petition after the 10th Circuit deals with it. Send lots of money. Their win is coming.

They're already touting their soon-to-be-filed rehearing petition.

The winning cert. petition after 10th's affirmance is (to steal from Pat G.) Plan BBQWTF.

[bob]

Sit down: Jefferson never said that.

[bob]

The magistrate has issued the recommendation for the government's motion to dismiss Raland's second lawsuit.

It isn't free yet on CourtListener. But I presume the recommendation is to dismiss.

[keith]

26The king responded to Daniel, whose name was Belteshazzar, “Are you able to tell me what I saw in the dream, as well as its interpretation?”

I don't get this sentence. Never have. I mean I get that some King wants his dream interpreted, but who the heck is he asking to do it?

Is Belteshazzar some wizard Daniel has brought to see the King? (No, lines 24 and 25 explain that Arioch is bringing Daniel before the King).

Is Belteshazzar Daniel's surname?

Is Belteshazzar the name of the King?

Just who the heck is this Belteshazzar when they are at home?

[much ado]

26The king responded to Daniel, whose name was Belteshazzar, “Are you able to tell me what I saw in the dream, as well as its interpretation?”

I don't get this sentence. Never have. I mean I get that some King wants his dream interpreted, but who the heck is he asking to do it?

Is Belteshazzar some wizard Daniel has brought to see the King? (No, lines 24 and 25 explain that Arioch is bringing Daniel before the King).

Is Belteshazzar Daniel's surname?

Is Belteshazzar the name of the King?

Just who the heck is this Belteshazzar when they are at home?

It is a poorly translated verse. Belteshazzar is the name of the king. He wants Daniel to interpret his dream.

ETA: Oops. All wrong. Here is a better translation...

The king asked Daniel (also called Belteshazzar), “Are you able to tell me what I saw in my dream and interpret it?”

Wikipedia...

Belshazzar appears as a central character in the story of Belshazzar's feast in the Biblical Book of Daniel, recognized by scholars as a work of historical fiction. Daniel's Belshazzar is not malevolent (he, for instance, rewards Daniel for his interpretation of "the writing on the wall"), but in later Jewish tradition Belshazzar was presented as a tyrant who oppresses the Jewish people.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Belshazzar

[MN-Skeptic]

This article explains the Daniel / Belteshazzar name thing -

Why did Nebuchadnezzar change Daniel’s name to Belteshazzar?

[northland10]

The magistrate has issued the recommendation for the government's motion to dismiss Raland's second lawsuit.

It isn't free yet on CourtListener. But I presume the recommendation is to dismiss.

I heard someone was busy and did not get around to it until now.

Also, you presume correctly.
https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap ... 6.18.0.pdf

[northland10]

Well if we are going to discuss Belshazzar, then maybe some William Walton.

Belshazzar's Feast

[Sam the Centipede]

Also, you presume correctly.
https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap ... 6.18.0.pdf

It's sad that these dismissals are necessarily for lack of jurisdiction so (if I have understood correctly) the dismissal is "without prejudice" essentially because the case should not have come to the court at all, so the court should have no opinion on it.

But it would be better if courts could issue a decision along the lines of "yeah, we don't have jurisdiction but you brought this to our attention, so we're telling you you're an asshole, and recommending the next court kick your ass into orbit."

Due process, it's a bitch.

[northland10]

Question from an IANAL to those in the know (Bob, Chancery, et al.).

The Federal Court magistrate recommended dismissal due to the state court lacking subject-matter jurisdiction (in legal language instead of just telling Brunson to f*** off). Since I tend to have trouble telling the difference between subject-matter jurisdiction and personal jurisdiction, I was wondering about what would happen if they had filed initially in federal court (or if he tries that next). Would that dismissal also be for subject-matter jurisdiction, personal jurisdiction (assuming the obvious that the defendants won't waive it), or something like failure to state a claim (which I suppose is jurisdictional as well)?

[W. Kevin Vicklund]

Question from an IANAL to those in the know (Bob, Chancery, et al.).

The Federal Court magistrate recommended dismissal due to the state court lacking subject-matter jurisdiction (in legal language instead of just telling Brunson to f*** off). Since I tend to have trouble telling the difference between subject-matter jurisdiction and personal jurisdiction, I was wondering about what would happen if they had filed initially in federal court (or if he tries that next). Would that dismissal also be for subject-matter jurisdiction, personal jurisdiction (assuming the obvious that the defendants won't waive it), or something like failure to state a claim (which I suppose is jurisdictional as well)?

Any of the above, though I think it's unlikely that it would be for personal jurisdiction. You just can't tell from the recommendation.

[bob]

But it would be better if courts could issue a decision along the lines of "yeah, we don't have jurisdiction but you brought this to our attention, so we're telling you you're an asshole, and recommending the next court kick your ass into orbit."

Those who serially file in federal court can be put on a vex vit list, to prevent serial filings.

But the Brunson Grifters like to file in state court, which the feds remove to federal court. So they could argue they didn't avail themselves of the federal courts, meaning they shouldn't be punished by the federal courts.

And it is doubtful the feds will seek to have them designated as vex lits in the state court system.

[bob]

Loy, predictably, filed a rehearing petition.

It is even more of an angry screed than their usual rants.

Because this is just a PFR, SCOTUS can deny it at any time; no need to wait for the fall's long conference.

[Reality Check]

Loy, predictably, filed a rehearing petition.

Well he cited Rule 44 in the conclusion. He just failed to explain how he met it in the rest of his pile of