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

[Luke]

LOVE seeing Bob's tweets and even Foggy has jumped in the pool to rub some MAGA's faces in the water.


Too also:





Here's the kind of BS being posted on Telegram. RattleTrap 1776 with 118,999 followers:

The respondents (Congress) couldn't respond because they're all under a MO and COG. 

The solicitor general waived this to SCOTUS. Plus SCOTUS receives on average 8,000 petitions. 

And to think I'm supposed to not say anything and let Americans buy into more false hope... would be violating my Oath.

For the comments and emails I received about “this can wake up Americans and get them involved… or let us Americans have this moment to have hope the election will be overturned.”

Slap in the face to a Veteran’s Oath especially one that knows the Laws and Orders and Operation.

What an insult to Military Intelligence and all personnel on this Biblical and Monumental Operation.

You don’t wake up Americans with false information, false hope, and misinformation for the umpteenth time.

Learn the Laws and Orders.

That’s how you wake up. That’s how you learn. 

Those who are still falling for this after knowing and hearing of the Military Operation and COG should be ashamed. 

And for all of you who just want “My President back!” at any cost without ANY integrity of the very systems the Military has been and are cleaning out… you’re still part of the problem not the solution. 

And you’re showing it by reposting, sharing and commenting on things such as this case. 

DJT is doing everything via the integrity of the Laws and Orders that back the Constitution.

Everyone who claims to support DJT needs to adhere to what’s going on under his command.

He federalized the National Guard to Active Duty via Executive Order 13912 and he is the only who can terminate 9 National Emergencies via 50 US Code 34.

Stop worrying and complaining about the timeline. They’re getting this correct for Military Tribunals.

Live your life because life goes on. Learn how to apply the Blueprint to your family, friends, neighbors, community, town, city, and state.

That’s how you get involved and be a part of this. Learn the Operation and Blueprint.

You can’t be all “we have it all, we’ve caught them all” one day… then “Brunson is gonna put my President back in the next.”

The Military doesn’t need help from the civilian sector like this.

Anyone who says misinformation and disinformation is needed from the podcast level or civilian is a fool

It’s all open source information via Laws and Orders. 

Learn them the correct way to save yourself from let downs. 

But if you don’t want to listen to someone who cares about you… 

Get your “$1.00” ready… cause they and the for brain podcasters will spin some new false narrative to blow dust straight up your fart box … for you to help them make a crap ton of at the expense of your emotions, again.

Those who spin Drama

Those who slander with “big words” and take something offensive

If they get offended over facts mission accomplished.

They prove why I’m here

https://t.me/rattletrap1776

[realist]

Who is this rattletrap1776 moron?

[northland10]

All Brunson has to say is that SCOTUS did not disagree so his argument stands.

[bob]

All Brunson has to say is that SCOTUS did not disagree so his argument stands.

I've seen his supporters say exactly that. Often while vowing a future case that'll get it correct. (When not predicting military action.)

Everything old is new again.

[SuzieC]

Oh, so no need to worry. The military has got this. Military tribunals are being set up as we speak.

What is COG?

[bob]

What is COG?

I want to say "continuity of government" (i.e., the measures the federal government will take in case of an emergency to ensure its continued existence and operation), but I'm not fluent in poot.

[Phoenix520]

That sounds about right in the context.

[Suranis]

Could be this

https://www.britannica.com/topic/council-of-governments

council of governments
United States body for regional planning
Alternate titles: regional council
By Antonio Vlassis Article History

council of governments (COG), also called regional council, in the United States, type of regional planning body that exists throughout the country. A COG is an association that consists of elected public officials who come from the major local governments within an urban or metropolitan area. COGs were developed during the 1970s and ’80s as an appropriate tenet of public governance concerning local and regional issues. Their purpose is to establish a consensus about the needs of an area and the actions needed to solve local and interlocal problems.

COGs are voluntary associations that represent governments, but they are not governments themselves. They are voluntary because local units cannot be forced to join these associations and can resign at any time. The council membership is drawn from the county, city, and other government bodies within its area. Councils of governments lack general government authority in that they are not directly elected, they do not have direct taxation powers, and they do not have police powers or regulatory authority.

COGs were created in order to develop consensus regarding metropolitan or regional needs and actions to be taken in solving area problems. COGs benefit the state by planning, coordinating, and overseeing the administration of state and federal programs, assisting local governments in handling tasks set by state regulations, providing a flexible network for effective regional action, and fostering cooperation that helps avoid duplication of efforts and thus helps take advantage of economies of scale. A typical council is defined to serve an area of several counties and addresses issues such as regional planning, water use, pollution control, and transportation. Nevertheless, the nature and extent of the programs vary, depending on local needs and the priorities of the board that governs the operation of the individual council.

In 1960 there were only a half-dozen voluntary regional councils of elected officials. In the late 1960s and early 1970s, emphasis was increasingly placed on the need for long-range planning and closer coordination of program activities by governments at all levels. Federal requirements for planning in areas such as transportation, the environment, and human services furthered this need. The establishment of COGs emerged as the preferred approach to this need in many areas. Therefore, the number of COGs soared to more than 660 by 1980 as a result of federal requirements and massive increases in federal aid to state and local governments between 1957 and 1977. Most regional planning commissions were converted to COGs during this period. With the advent of the Ronald Reagan administration and, over time, the reduction in federal aid to local governments, the number of COGs decreased significantly.

To conclude, these councils consist of elected officials drawn from local governments in metropolitan areas—or, in some cases, for more rural areas, they constitute a public attempt of local or regional governance—in the United States, developed in order to efficiently resolve local problems and to satisfy the regional needs increase in the 1970s. They are multicounty planning-and-development agencies serving different areas of their states. However, these regional bodies have provided a small measure of regional political leadership and policy-making authority.

[bob]

"For completeness": CNN: Supreme Court declines to hear another longshot 2020 election fraud challenge

The Supreme Court declined Monday to hear another longshot case alleging the 2020 election was fraudulent brought by a Utah man seeking to have hundreds of elected officials removed from office, including President Joe Biden and Vice President Kamala Harris.

The case had been dismissed by lower courts for various reasons, including a lack of jurisdiction. But it became a right-wing talking point in the run-up to the two-year anniversary of the January 6, 2021, insurrection because the justices discussed whether to hear it during their previously scheduled closed-door conference on the day of the anniversary.

That happenstance timing was the result of the US solicitor general’s decision last year to waive the government’s right to respond in the matter on November 23, automatically putting it on the list for last Friday. The solicitor general’s decision to stay out of the case signaled a belief that it would not be seriously considered by the justices.

“This was a frivolous lawsuit that never came within a light year of actually getting the court’s attention,” said Steve Vladeck, a CNN Supreme Court analyst and professor at the University of Texas School of Law.

Former Arkansas Republican Gov. Mike Huckabee incorrectly wrote in a Substack post in December that the court “has agreed to a hearing” in the case and laid out the remedies being sought by Raland Brunson, the man who brought the case, which included reinstating Donald Trump as president.

“The only reason why it was on anyone’s radar is because former Gov. Huckabee claimed that there was some deep substantive significance in the fact that the justices were considering it at their January 6 conference,” Vladeck said.

Kudos to the copy editor who added "another" to the headline.

[cjroberts]

I've been having fun with delusional Freepers on this one as it hit my radar about a month ago.

[Luke]

Are freepers crying as hard as MAGAt tweeters? It's epic, they are going out of their minds but think the "Motion for Reconsideration" is the silver bullet. I haven't even been mean, just factual. One woman was going on and on about how wrong it was SCOTUS didn't have a jury. Overall, a shocking lack of knowledge of civics.


Posting a clip of MQG saying Biden was elected legitimately and anything else is a "silly question" might not have endeared me to them as much as I'd hoped.

[cjroberts]

The freepers are a mixed bag. The reality to crazy ratio has improved since the birther years. The Petition for Reconsideration has been mentioned. The true believers thought this case was getting special (positive) attention by being set for conference. No matter how patient one is explaining baseline SCOTUS procedure, that kind of stupid rarely gets fixed. They will never learn that Lucy is an unreliable holder.

[northland10]

The freepers are a mixed bag. The reality to crazy ratio has improved since the birther years. The Petition for Reconsideration has been mentioned. The true believers thought this case was getting special (positive) attention by being set for conference. No matter how patient one is explaining baseline SCOTUS procedure, that kind of stupid rarely gets fixed. They will never learn that Lucy is an unreliable holder.

Are these newer Freepers? One would hope that after all the birther cases, they might have just the smallest sense about how the whole petition thing works.

Okay, that was sort of a silly statement by me.

[northland10]

What is COG?

I want to say "continuity of government" (i.e., the measures the federal government will take in case of an emergency to ensure its continued existence and operation), but I'm not fluent in poot.

Possibly Commonwealth Observer Group? We may not be in the British Commonwealth but silly details like that has never been a barrier to conspririnuts.

Another choice is Cranky Old Git.

Who is this rattletrap1776 moron?

Either someone who breathed in too much chemtrails to show they are real, or a troll.

[bob]

BIIIIIIIIIINGO!!!!!

[scirreeve]

I first heard about this case 3 or 4 months ago. There is a sovcit website that was tracking the Barbie and Ken Cromar sovcit case. It pivoted to the Brunsons a couple of months ago. Whoever runs this stoopid website says Kenny and Loy Brunson were formerly neighbors (before Kenny lost his house cuz sovcit reasons). By neighbors they say they lived 7 houses away but they were/are buddies. Kenny lost his house and is now a fugitive but keeps popping up on sovcit podcasts supporting the Brunson Bros. Here is the site but I would encourage everyone to not click on it cuz it is just sovcit crazy shit. Fun fact - cRyan, Shawna, and Brand Nu showed up at Kenny's house with gunz before Kenny got arrested and kicked out of the house he no longer owns. http://www.cedarhillscitizens.org/

[northland10]

I took a look at the beginning of the brief,he lost me in the questions presented when he, in 4 paragraphs, appeared to actually present a question.

A serious conflict exists between decisions rendered from this Court and lower appeal courts, along with constitutional provisions and statutes, in deciding whether or not the trial court has jurisdiction to try the merits of this case.

This case uncovers a serious national security breach that is unique and is of first impression, and due to the serious nature of this case it involves the possible removal of a sitting President and Vice President of the United States along with members of the United States Congress, while deeming them unfit from ever holding office under Federal, State, County or local Governments found within the United States of America, and at the same time the trial court also has the authority, to be validated by this Court, to authorize the swearing in of the legal and rightful heirs for President and Vice President of the United States.

In addition there are two doctrines that conflict with each other found in this case affecting every court in this country. These doctrines are known as the doctrine of equitable maxim and the doctrine of the object principle of justice. Equitable maxim created by this court, which the lower court used to dismiss this case, sets in direct violation of the object principle of justice also partially created by this Court and supported by other appeal courts and constitutional provisions.

These conflicts call for the supervisory power of this Court to resolve these conflicts, which has not, but should be, settled by this Court without delay.

Is there an actual "question" in there? The third paragraph, which would be called the third sentence since the second paragraph is a 109-word sentence, starts hinting at some cause or something. However, nothing in this reads like a "question" that I would normally expect in a SCOTUS petition.

IANAL, so I don't know exactly how this is wrong; however, unlike Brunson, if I were stupid enough to go pro se, I would figure out the best way to present my argument (and will have looked at other petitions, to see how they do it, which I have). It has always amazed me how these loons will ignore any sort of advice (verbal or written somewhere) that might help them better craft an argument. It is as though their fundamental belief that government, and any of their adversaries, are hopelessly corrupt, so to follow any suggestions that help them focus their argument is to be ignored. Actual thoughts on better ways to present an argument or learn about a subject are elitist. They won't do that.

388 respondents. What better way to say this i a loon who has no clue what he is doing and is unwilling to listen to anybody but his chemtrailed addled brain cells.

Respondents were properly warned and were requested to make an investigation into a highly covert swift and powerful enemy, as stated below, seeking to destroy the Constitution and the United States, purposely thwarted all efforts to investigate this, whereupon this enemy was not checked or investigated, therefore the Respondents adhered to this enemy. Because of Respondents intentional refusal to investigate this enemy, Petitioner Raland J Brunson (“Brunson”) brought this action against Respondents because he was seriously personally damaged and violated by this action of Respondents, and consequently this action unilaterally violated the rights of every citizen of the U.S.A. and perhaps the rights of every person living, and all courts of law.

After this, I showed myself out.

[northland10]

Last December, in Lancaster County, NE (the county with Lincoln), during the public comment of their normal commissioner meeting, there was this:

6) PUBLIC COMMENT Those wishing to speak on items relating to County business not on the agenda may
do so at this time.
Penny Stephens, Lincoln resident, expressed concerns about Nebraska’s elections and voting machine tampering. Stephens provided Petition 22-380 document that was files with the U.S Supreme Court (Exhibit 3).

Brad Reinke, Lincoln resident, provided information from the Heritage Foundation (Exhibit 4) and presented a six minute video of the findings of 2020 election problems. The link that was provided by Reinke (https: //rumble.com/vyn7nm-6-minute-overview-of-undeniable-2020-election-fraud-in-nebraska.html) [NL10, I broke the link]

Susan Kess, Lincoln resident, voiced concerns with Nebraska’s election and of voting machine tampering.

Yep, they included the Brunson's petition in a public comment at a county commissioner meeting. The rest of the meeting covered things like roads and such.

On a side note, I see brother Loy is a perennial candidate. He managed 1.92% of the GOP convention vote versus Mike Lee's 70%.

[bob]

I don't know if Vladeck is accurate (about being the last rehearing petition granted), but his linked order list shows rehearing was granted because there was a recent change in law.

Which is consistent with Vladeck's point: only something extraordinary, like a very recent change in law, would warrant SCOTUS' granting a rehearing petition and then granting cert.

[scirreeve]

So loud shofars won't do it? That seims to be their current strategy.

[RTH10260]

I guess the Shofar will bring the Walls of Jericho built around the Supreme Court tumbling down

[Suranis]

12 hours of Shofar play. Not my thing, but it takes all types.



Any griftees reading this, its free so sit back, relax and listen. And at the end, the case will still be dead as dead, but at least you will have listened to some unusual music. And that is never a bad thing.

[Luke]

This is the lunatic who posted private text messages with Kari Lake and keeps saying if they just use him, he'll get Kari the WIN. Think he's a SovCit too, but that's Scir's department Anyway, he's having a "Brunson Case Scholarly Review" Twitter Speace at 7:15pm (idk if that's Eastern or MT). Fogbowzers should visit to learn some scholaring.

[Foggy]

12 hours of Shofar play. Not my thing, but it takes all types.

Yes, very relaxing. Where am I?

[bob]

Also "for completeness": Newsweek: Trump Attorney Sides With Supreme Court Knocking Down Case to Reinstate Him:

Jenna Ellis, a former senior legal adviser to former President Donald Trump, on Monday voiced support for the U.S. Supreme Court's decision to decline hearing a lawsuit that sought to remove President Joe Biden from office and reinstate Trump.

The lawsuit, Brunson v. Adams, argued that lawmakers had violated their oaths of office by allegedly failing to investigate foreign election interference that allegedly rigged the election against former President Donald Trump.

* * *

Ellis, who hosts the syndicated Jenna Ellis in the Morning show on American Family Radio as well as The Jenna Ellis Show podcast on Salem Media, further explained her position on the lawsuit in an email to Newsweek.

The Supreme Court does not have the constitutional power to adjudicate or arbitrate every dispute, only what is legally categorized as a 'justiciable' issue. Justiciablity concerns the limits on the judicial branch to exercise its authority over a matter. In this instance, the court system does not have the power or authority to determine whether a member of Congress is sufficiently exercising legislative oversight[.] Similarly, for example, the judiciary doesn't have the power or authority to determine whether a president is exercising sufficient executive authority.

There is no constitutional requirement as a matter of law that members of Congress must conduct certain investigations or oversight. This is a matter of policy and discretionary. Whether the Congress 'should' investigate a matter or 'failed' to is a political question, not an appropriate one for the judiciary.

I understand that many Americans are frustrated with Congress for its lack of oversight and investigation into the 2020 presidential election; however, the proper remedy is not for the judiciary to determine to expel members based on political policy determinations, and the obvious reason is that any person could then ask the judiciary to expel a member for 'failing' to conduct investigations on any other political issues, which would only further weaponize and politicize the court system—exactly what the political question doctrine is designed to avoid. The remedy is for the People to vote out members whose legislative actions they disagree with (thereby 'expelling' them) at the ballot box.

Blind nuts finding a broken clock and all that.