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

[Volkonski]

Elect Trump Speaker.

Convince God to take Biden and Harris into Heaven.

[bob]

I did not bother with the video so I am not sure of their real plan.

It is a Brunson, so of course a step involves SCOTUS ruling in their favor and removing Biden and Harris.

There were no ... details about how SCOTUS would (or even could) rule on a twice-dead case.

[johnpcapitalist]

I did not bother with the video so I am not sure of their real plan.

Perhaps it's something like "say anything at all to stay in the public eye since we can see the end of the gravy train from our previous Supreme Court legal grift. That way, we can buy time to stay relevant and keep those sweet, sweet donations flowing in."

[noblepa]

1. Elect Trump as Speaker
2. Install Trump as SPeaker
3. Introduce and vote for articles of impeachment of Biden and Harris
4. Senate votes to remove both Biden and Harris after a trial.

All in 24 hours. An impressive feat for a do-nothing Congress.

They probably think that Trump could call a joint meeting of Congress to have a redo on the election.

I did not bother with the video so I am not sure of their real plan.

In that video, he says that the Brunson case gives the Supreme Court the authority to remove the president and vice president, which would automatically make the speaker the new president.

Unfortunately, if memory serves, SCOTUS has not actually even HEARD the Brunson case. IIRC, they have denied cert. at least twice.

Also, I don't see how even SCOTUS could give itself the power to remove a sitting president. Did I miss something when I read the Constitution? It is also true that, even if SCOTUS had such a power, they could not excercise it without giving the pres and veep a little think called "due process", as in some sort of trial. Oh wait, that IS in the Constitution. Its called the impeachment process. As has been pointed out, that takes considerably more than 24 hours.

[northland10]

In that video, he says that the Brunson case gives the Supreme Court the authority to remove the president and vice president, which would automatically make the speaker the new president.

Unfortunately, if memory serves, SCOTUS has not actually even HEARD the Brunson case. IIRC, they have denied cert. at least twice.

In both Brunson cases, the court denied cert and denied a rehearing. These caseS are no more. They've kicked the bucket, they've shuffled off their mortal coil, run down the curtain and joined the bleedin' choir invisible!! THESE ARE AN EX-CASE!

Raland has his stupid case against the three liberal SCOTUS ladies to kick them off the court, investigate them for treason, and give Brunson $3 Billion. It is in the appeals court and they have not filed a Rule 11 SCOTUS petition, or they have not filed proof of service so it is sitting in some pending box.

Also, I don't see how even SCOTUS could give itself the power to remove a sitting president. Did I miss something when I read the Constitution? It is also true that, even if SCOTUS had such a power, they could not excercise it without giving the pres and veep a little think called "due process", as in some sort of trial. Oh wait, that IS in the Constitution. Its called the impeachment process. As has been pointed out, that takes considerably more than 24 hours.

It's even more confusing how a case filed against three justices, originally in a Utah state court, could result in the removal of Biden and Harris since they are not parties, nor is there a request for SCOTUS to accept their prior petition (the rest of the justices are not party to the case).

Also, I'm unclear as to how a Utah state court could remove SCOTUS justices (and $3 billion is slightly higher than $75,000). Even the Federal District Court would have some difficulty in removing SCOTUS justices.

But, of course, the Constitution supports them because WE THE PEOPLE and TREASON. They used the magic words. They win.

For those who want to again see their greatness in noodle-fighting the treasonous termagants of the topmost tribunal, here is his original complaint.

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap ... 26.1.1.pdf

There is also the initial court record filed in the appeals, which shows the magistrate's report and recommendation (though Raland said "their judge" will eventually rule in their favor). They have not filed their initial brief yet.
https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap ... 4813.1.pdf

[Foggy]

treasonous termagants of the topmost tribunal

[bob]

(Grift) game respects game.

[bob]

Teh Facebook:

We're not trying to overturn the election. We are wanting everyone to keep their oath of office. That's all.

My dude, have even read your own lawsuits?

[Sam the Centipede]

My dude, have even read your own lawsuits?

Perhaps Brunson has learnt something from Teh Fogbow?

We don't read his crap because you do that for us …
… maybe Brunson has worked out "I don't need to read my crap because bob will read it for me"?

[Luke]

It's so ridiculous. I get the mark's hopium and cope, but Flynn & T**** know damn well this is a joke.

Brunson.PNG (205.36 KiB) Viewed 1469 times

"Truth in Media" should be sued for false advertising.

Truth In Media @Truth_InMedia
The Brunson brothers once played their horns to save our souls…

They’ve now put them down to defend our rights.

On this episode of “The Rest of the Story” with @laralogan, watch the four brothers as they try to convince the Supreme Court that Congress has committed treason.

2 million views.

[bob]

I get the mark's hopium and cope, but Flynn & T**** know damn well this is a joke.

But they're all on the same team. It costs nothing to retweet small fishes who also tout the big lie. Probably results in more donations for everyone in the ecosystem.

[Luke]

True. And the GOP state parties are broke. Continuing to grift the marks for election denialism will be terrific for their 2024 campaigns. So there's that.

How do we connect the Brunsons with Taitz? She must be seeing the huge press the Brunsons are getting... this could be her meal ticket back from Siberia!

[Sam the Centipede]

True. And the GOP state parties are broke

That's good to hear! If Trump-oriented crap draws funds away from the less insane parts of the Republican party, that's definitely an upside. Republicans need to attract the uninformed middle ground, who might not understand just how pervasive assholery is in their party. Trump probably already has all the support he's going to get. mmore funds just pay for more lawyers and hire of Trump-branded venues, and I suspect many Trumpists given the choice between a Democrat and a non-Trumpist Republican might say "naah, not gonna vote", which is effectively a half-vote for the Dems.

[Luke]

It's true! What a shame.

When Jeff DeWit took the reins of the Arizona Republican Party in January, the party had more than $152,000 in its federal campaign account. Seven months later, the AZGOP has burned through more than 90% of those cash reserves and doesn't have enough money to pay its bills.Sep 15, 2023

'Inevitable they'll go broke': The AZGOP's financial situation ...
By: Jim Small - September 15, 2023 8:00 am

https://www.azmirror.com/blog/inevitabl ... ts%20bills.

[bob]

Raland's opening brief in the 10th.

Nothing, like you've seen before.

Raland doesn't think oral argument is necessary; so he's correct in that one regard.

[chancery]

I got about two pages into it.

[Sam the Centipede]

Based on my very cursory reading of about 3 pages, Brunson appears to be arguing that he must be allowed to sue/appeal without the permission of the government because he is petitioning the government via his courtly paper-tossing.

This non-lawyer is unimpressed. Petitioning the government surely means asking nicely or campaigning for something one desires. Trying to drag the government into court and demanding things (I can't remember what Brunson wants) with a judge adjudicating is not petitioning.

But perhaps that's an old birther or sovcit tactic??

There's probably more crap in the binful of verbiage, but I lost interest.

[bob]

Based on my very cursory reading of about 3 pages, Brunson appears to be arguing that he must be allowed to sue/appeal without the permission of the government because he is petitioning the government via his courtly paper-tossing.

This non-lawyer is unimpressed. Petitioning the government surely means asking nicely or campaigning for something one desires. Trying to drag the government into court and demanding things (I can't remember what Brunson wants) with a judge adjudicating is not petitioning.

In the district court, he premised his case on breach of contract: By paying SCOTUS' filing fee, the three justices* were obligated to provide him with a hearing and reasoned decision. And because they didn't, Raland believes he's entitled to eleventy gazillion dollars.

On appeal, now he's saying suing justices is protected First Amendment activity.


* Why not all nine is a mystery.

[Sam the Centipede]

Thanks bob. I suspect neither you nor any member of the Fogbar have tried those arguments in court. And I think I know why!

[northland10]

Thanks bob. I suspect neither you nor any member of the Fogbar have tried those arguments in court. And I think I know why!

I have not tried to use them in court, or any other argument in court for that matter since I am on the Beer Snob IANAL end of the FogBar.
Those IAAL who think bars are for attorneys and not drinking good beer are confused.

[RTH10260]

You are clearly a card carrying member of the British B.A.,R.

[bob]

This would be really impressive considering the Brunsons file in Utah, which is part of the 11th Circuit, and Gorsuch is that circuit's justice.

[Ack; I accidentially overwrote my own post about Christine Scott. ]

[northland10]

This would be really impressive considering the Brunsons file in Utah, which is part of the 11th Circuit, and Gorsuch is that circuit's justice.

Utah is in the 10th, though it is still Gorsuch.

For once I get to correct Bob's typo.

Clarence is the circuit justice for the 11th in the Southeast.

[bob]

Loy's pulling a Taitz and stalking politicians.

Ramaswamy wisely says nothing of substance.

[pipistrelle]

"rears old"?