Fogbow

northland10 wrote: ↑Fri Jun 14, 2024 7:38 pm 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.

Grifters gotta, so the inevitable rehearing petition.

A dumb false story about SCOTUS' erecting fencing yesterday circulated in the nutjob sphere, and every erupted on the bird site, predicting a running in this case. (Which is still very D - E - D.)

* * *

There's also a video circulating with Loy talking about the fantasy to abolish the income tax. And grievance petitioning? (Sounds like the usual anti-Fed word salad.)

Added to our Court Docket Protopage: Brunson UPL US v. Cromar, 2:23-cr-00159

https://protopage.com/birthers#Carroll%2C_Brunson


Added a few tweets:

Luke Johnson @Orly_licious 37s
Thanks to Raland Brunson: Utah "Movie Producer" SovCit Paul Kenneth Croner Found Guilty of Tax Crimes. @BrunsonSCOTUS' "advice" helped send him to jail. Brunson FAIL on our Court Docket Protopage: US v. Cromar, 2:23-cr-00159. h/t @scirreeve @t_f_bow https://protopage.com/birthers#Carroll%2C_Brunson

Luke Johnson @Orly_licious 36s
At Fogbow, we've followed dead-end lunatics Loy & Raland Brunson since FAILED #BrunsonvAdams. Join us at https://thefogbow.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=1923 to mock and laugh at these incompetent liars and grifters. Brunson Bros should have stuck with playing their trumpets.

https://x.com/Orly_licious/status/1803197184847790365


* Foggy, if you get a chance to re-add the Tweet link in messages so they post nicely it would be great.

Meanwhile, the usual nutters are on fire for the Brunson Grifters.

They've convinced themselves that SCOTUS secretly ruled in favor of the Brunsons, will install the 2020 loser as president, and will be handing down its historic ruling ... any day now.

Enquiring non-law-ya mind has question: is a secret SCOTUS ruling A Real Thing? I mean, does it happen, has it happened, could it happen?

Obviously it's not A Real Thing in any birther dreamworld nonsense. Just curious about what happens sane reality world.

Wouldn't you like to know?

Sam the Centipede wrote: ↑Fri Jun 21, 2024 2:50 pm Enquiring non-law-ya mind has question: is a secret SCOTUS ruling A Real Thing? I mean, does it happen, has it happened, could it happen?

No.

Courts will occasionally seal portions of a docket, and very rarely most of a docket, i.e., In re Grand Jury [REDACTED] or [REDACTED] v. [REDACTED].

Too also: The FISA court operates mostly in secret. But there are parameters to even that, oversight, breadcrumbs to follow, etc.

But (putting FISA aside) rule without telling anyone they are hearing a case? Or rule but not tell anyone they ruled? No no no no no no no no. And no.

bob, I thought that would be the reality but with the accumulated talent on tap here it seemed prudent to confirm. Thanks for delivering!

As you say, sealing bits of the paperwork to preserve confidentiality is acceptable, but how a secret ruling could work (outside secret criminal trials in totalitarian countries where the target is imprisoned without public explanation) is baffling.

Birthers are idiots and fantasists.

I figure they refer to the conference as a "secret meeting" since they don't hear arguments or have a "trial" for every petition.

Every petition must me heard in open court, or at least the ones of vital national impotence, like the Brunson ones.

northland10 wrote: ↑Fri Jun 21, 2024 6:19 pm I figure they refer to the conference as a "secret meeting" since they don't hear arguments or have a "trial" for every petition.

Oh no.

The nutters are firmly convinced SCOTUS already ruled in favor of the Brunson Grifters. All that's left to do is pick out the drapes for the new Oval Office.

From what I can discern, somebody somewhere likely said something was once pending at a conference, and that spiraled on the nutter telegraph to mean covert courts and sekrit rulings. Mind you, these are the same people who last year also believed there was a 5-4 ruling in favor of the Brunsons. "Fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, we don't get fooled again!"

All of which explains why there's security fencing around SCOTUS now.*


* There isn't, but the nutters also believe that. I even saw one chastizing people for not believing the totally-out-of-someone's-ass lie that there is.

Grifters gotta, so the inevitable rehearing petition.

The rehearing petition was distributed on Thursday, so I presume the denial will be published sometime during the end of July.

bob wrote: ↑Sat Jun 29, 2024 2:32 pm

Grifters gotta, so the inevitable rehearing petition.

The rehearing petition was distributed on Thursday, so I presume the denial will be published sometime during the end of July.

I seem to be missing the part about intervening circumstances. They point out the standard for rehearing and say this is such a case, but then they never actually mention any intervening circumstances.

but its grounds shall be limited to intervening circumstances of a substantial or controlling effect or to other substantial grounds not previously presented.

I don't think Marbury would be considered intervening circumstances and neither is the 9th amendment. At least the NY State Rifle & Pistol Association was closer, but that decision was still before Raland filed this case in the state court. Too also, all three areas he covers were already covered in the original petition.

The part about the clerks being culpable is new, so at least he has that. He doesn't, as is his way of providing any legal authority for that claim. That does not surprise me because the Brunson legal authority is whatever tey say it is.

This is Loy's latest grift: Throwing paper at Congress.

Admittedly, this is better than frivolous lawsuits, as judicial resources are scare, whereas Congress is used to cranks' seeking redress.

Right off the bat:

The Federal Reserve System (TFRS) is a privately owned non-profit corporation. It is not part of the US Treasury nor is it part of any other official US government agency.

This old chestnut?

At his website are all the details, but all you really need to know:

Your $4.00 minimum gift will make it possible for us to send Your Letter!

Still wrong, but at least acknowledging there will be a summer decision, and that there'll only be two bites at this apple.

They know they'll be mocked and laughed at so they have that post set to

Who can reply?
Accounts @DanielsKel39191 follows or mentioned can reply

Amazing there are still dead-enders pumping this grifting loser. Still amazed that Roodles, DJT & other high-profile people promoted this trash. Guess I shouldn't be, but this was really the bottom of the barrel.

Luke wrote: ↑Sun Jul 07, 2024 7:46 pm They know they'll be mocked and laughed at so they have that post set to

Who can reply?
Accounts @DanielsKel39191 follows or mentioned can reply

Amazing there are still dead-enders pumping this grifting loser. Still amazed that Roodles, DJT & other high-profile people promoted this trash. Guess I shouldn't be, but this was really the bottom of the barrel.

Any ID with that many numbers is a bot (likely one of many controlled by a person).

Raland is learning; he's no longer saying the clerks will decide deny his rehearing petition.

Because I serve to live:

So according to some rando quoting his anonymous weird rando friend SCOTUS actually ruled* in favor** of "Brunson" (presumably Raland) in 2022, BUT the military stepped in and said, due to national-security concerns, the ruling's release has to be delayed. So we're waiting for the military to greenlight the ruling's release.



I believe this rando is goldbug Jim Willie, and the interviewer is Nino Rodriguez.

* Later, the rando said the SCOTUS justices who ruled in favor now are under continuous military "protection" (which they don't like). Creating the inference it was not a unanimous decision.

** Recall, dear reader, the district court dismissed the complaint due to lack of jurisdiction, and the appellate court affirmed the dismissal; there was no discussion about the substance of the claim. So even if SCOTUS did favorably rule, that would just undo the dismissal; there would still need to be hearings, evidence, etc.

There you go bob, using facts. What have facts to do with the protecting of liberetardy, prevention of usurperation, white supremacy – oh, did I say that or loud? – and FREEEEEDUUUMMB!!

Facebook comments:

Rob Morton wrote:Funny, I saw you were under a NDA.

Raland Brunson wrote:If I was or wasn't my response would be the same: I know nothing.

bob wrote: ↑Thu Jul 11, 2024 3:08 pm Facebook comments:

Rob Morton wrote:Funny, I saw you were under a NDA.

Raland Brunson wrote:If I was or wasn't my response would be the same: I know nothing.

Left my comment there, awaiting a response.

bob wrote: ↑Thu Jul 11, 2024 3:08 pm Facebook comments:

Rob Morton wrote:Funny, I saw you were under a NDA.

Raland Brunson wrote:If I was or wasn't my response would be the same: I know nothing.

I approve if this message.

TL;DRL (it is a phone "interview").

Random sampling: Raland is .