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

[bob]

Of course:

[much ado]

Does anyone here have information about how the staff of the Supreme Court actually handles letters from the public urging some action. Is their receipt recorded in any way? Are they just tossed, unrecorded, into the recycle bin?

Are there any figures about how many such letters are received each year by the Court?

[northland10]

Being a government office, I suspect they may keep everything that comes through the door, but miscellaneous letters like those, if kept, may likely be recorded and plopped into the "thank you for sharing" file never to be seen again until it's time to toss based on the retention schedule.

Serious third-party statements about a case are part of petitions to submit an amicus curiae brief. Sorry lawyers if I didn't get the wording correction.

[pipistrelle]

“further weaponizing”

[bob]

Does anyone here have information about how the staff of the Supreme Court actually handles letters from the public urging some action. Is their receipt recorded in any way? Are they just tossed, unrecorded, into the recycle bin?

I presume there are clerks whose duties include screening mail.

I presume "interesting" (i.e., threat-y) letters are retained. And I assume, after further screening for possibly relevant content, letters are otherwise just tossed (eventually).

Nobody is dumping a sackful of randos' pleas on the chambers' floors.

[noblepa]

Does anyone here have information about how the staff of the Supreme Court actually handles letters from the public urging some action. Is their receipt recorded in any way? Are they just tossed, unrecorded, into the recycle bin?

I presume there are clerks whose duties include screening mail.

I presume "interesting" (i.e., threat-y) letters are retained. And I assume, after further screening for possibly relevant content, letters are otherwise just tossed (eventually).

Nobody is dumping a sackful of randos' pleas on the chambers' floors.

And the court will not be swayed by a letter-writing campaign. That is one of the principle justifications for life tenure for federal judges. They need not worry about being re-elected, so, in theory, they are free to follow the law and the Constitution as they see it, unfettered by worries about public opinion.

I don't think that we want a judiciary that checks the direction of the political winds.

[humblescribe]

I believe that Thomas gets the old mailbag each morning and reaches in to sample the day's post. Rumor has it that he uses much of what he reads from his fan club to formulate his opinions and dissents.

Keep those cards and letters coming!

[Dave from down under]

And don't forget to send your $$ to the grifte... urr.. patriots!

[much ado]

Does anyone here have information about how the staff of the Supreme Court actually handles letters from the public urging some action. Is their receipt recorded in any way? Are they just tossed, unrecorded, into the recycle bin?

I presume there are clerks whose duties include screening mail.

I presume "interesting" (i.e., threat-y) letters are retained. And I assume, after further screening for possibly relevant content, letters are otherwise just tossed (eventually).

Nobody is dumping a sackful of randos' pleas on the chambers' floors.

And the court will not be swayed by a letter-writing campaign. That is one of the principle justifications for life tenure for federal judges. They need not worry about being re-elected, so, in theory, they are free to follow the law and the Constitution as they see it, unfettered by worries about public opinion.

I don't think that we want a judiciary that checks the direction of the political winds.

Yes, of course, I agree.

But some unfortunate person or persons must be tasked with going through them. My question was if anyone ACTUALLY KNOWS what is done with them. Are they simply recycled immediately? Are they put into mounds of storage boxes until a certain amount of time has elapsed? Does anyone bother to count or weigh them? Evidently nobody knows. We only guess.

[northland10]

some jerk
@t_f_bow
Replying to
@TomFife

@Orly_licious
and 6 others
Yes, really: reality isn't determined by liking tweets.

The petition's denial order will be published tomorrow.

Original White Guy
@TomFife
Replying to
@t_f_bow

@Orly_licious
and 6 others
Liking tweets, how shallow. Correct me here but either you have inside knowledge the general public has not yet been provided regarding a soon-to-be released SCOTUS decision? Or you made up your "fact"? So, you're a fact-challenged, self-identified fraud or a leaker? Which is it?

How many times have we been accused of having inside information or of being a leaker just because we pointed out the obvious, which was based on knowledge and experience about how the law and SCOTUS actually worked? I lost count a decade ago.

Like Bob said (or maybe it was some jerk, I keep losing track of which is which), the whole thing is soooooo birther-esque.

Original White Guy.. yeah, I always respect the opinion of somebody with that handle.

[Luke]

Exactly, Northland. Had another who kept shouting the same thing over & over. But strangely, when Bob and I were proven right, the little goobers didn't want to discuss it anymore. Sad!

I have a feeling Scir knows who this guy is and is embarrassed about it. DavidJose seems like a SovCit, he talks big (with a high pitched voice) all the time about what a superb "lawyer" he is. He seems like a total loser and the people chiming in on his space seem to believe the knee-high BS he's put himself in. Usually, Twitter Spaces can be listened to later (archived). If you can stand it, there are some funny clueless things. Only made it to when he asked some doll who sounded like Tracy Fair to read the petition, including all 300+ names of Congresspeople.

DavidJose @RealDaveCares4u Christian Law Fighter, looking to help the people be free and know their power, by God. Buckeye, AZ
Joined October 2022 876 Following 3,733 Followers

Tonight, he's doing a Twitter Space about Brunson. At one point, almost as a throwaway, he asked listeners to "remind him" to let the Supreme Court know that "sovereign immunity" doesn't exist. He sez that since We The People gave the government sovereign immunity, We The People are also sovereign. He said it would take "35 seconds" to set them straight. The Space has been nifty like that. He brags about all the cases he's won (but doesn't name them). He publicly shared some private texts he had with Kari Lake on Twitter and her War Room account was mad as hell about it.

[northland10]

This interview is like SNL. Raland Brunson is literally giggling through it, showing wonder at how three broke trumpet players might have grabbed the brass ring. BUT they have their PLAN B... if it's denied, they're going for a Motion For Reconsideration! Apparently, they have another Federal case that didn't go anywhere so their PLAN C is revive that case and send it to SCOTUS. Rev Dr Laity Esq would have tears in his eyes.

The other case is probably the one from brother Loy.

https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/59 ... n-v-adams/

It was taking longer because it is up to the 4th amended complaint. The report and recommendation docketed last Friday.

Wait for it....

Lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Plaintiff lacks standing.

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap ... 69.0_1.pdf

Sherries's letter, just received yesterday ought to change everything.
https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap ... 7.70.0.pdf

[scirreeve]

Exactly, Northland. Had another who kept shouting the same thing over & over. But strangely, when Bob and I were proven right, the little goobers didn't want to discuss it anymore. Sad!

I have a feeling Scir knows who this guy is and is embarrassed about it. DavidJose seems like a SovCit, he talks big (with a high pitched voice) all the time about what a superb "lawyer" he is. He seems like a total loser and the people chiming in on his space seem to believe the knee-high BS he's put himself in. Usually, Twitter Spaces can be listened to later (archived). If you can stand it, there are some funny clueless things. Only made it to when he asked some doll who sounded like Tracy Fair to read the petition, including all 300+ names of Congresspeople.

DavidJose @RealDaveCares4u Christian Law Fighter, looking to help the people be free and know their power, by God. Buckeye, AZ
Joined October 2022 876 Following 3,733 Followers

Tonight, he's doing a Twitter Space about Brunson. At one point, almost as a throwaway, he asked listeners to "remind him" to let the Supreme Court know that "sovereign immunity" doesn't exist. He sez that since We The People gave the government sovereign immunity, We The People are also sovereign. He said it would take "35 seconds" to set them straight. The Space has been nifty like that. He brags about all the cases he's won (but doesn't name them). He publicly shared some private texts he had with Kari Lake on Twitter and her War Room account was mad as hell about it.

LOL - sadly I do. Sovcit weirdo of course.

[scirreeve]

David is live now - I'm not gonna watch more of this sovcit nonsense - he is also out of frame. David Jose is buddies with David Straight - a notorious sovcit grifter.

Capture.JPG (60.33 KiB) Viewed 1216 times

[bob]

How many times have we been accused of having inside information or of being a leaker just because we pointed out the obvious, which was based on knowledge and experience about how the law and SCOTUS actually worked? I lost count a decade ago.

* * *

Original White Guy.. yeah, I always respect the opinion of somebody with that handle.

That guy spent the better part of Sunday calling some jerk* a liar for "knowing" SCOTUS would deny on Monday, and then defended the use of "liar" with ontological tripe about no one "knowing" the future.

And sit down: Dude's also a birther.


*

[Maybenaut]

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.

In the end things didn’t go so well for Vladek or his clients Briggs and Collins. The CAAF reconsidered Briggs in light of Mangahas* and overturned his conviction, and overturned Collins’ conviction as well. Although the government didn’t appeal Mangahas — apparently because the number of people who could have been impacted by it was infinitesimally small — they did appeal Briggs and Collins, apparently because the number was actually larger than the government thought. The Supreme Court said Mangahas was wrongly decided, and restored Briggs’ and Collins’ convictions.

*Mangahas was a convoluted decision having to do with the interpretation of the Statute of Limitations in the military. It would have applied only to rape cases occurring prior to 1996.

[noblepa]

I presume there are clerks whose duties include screening mail.

I presume "interesting" (i.e., threat-y) letters are retained. And I assume, after further screening for possibly relevant content, letters are otherwise just tossed (eventually).

Nobody is dumping a sackful of randos' pleas on the chambers' floors.

And the court will not be swayed by a letter-writing campaign. That is one of the principle justifications for life tenure for federal judges. They need not worry about being re-elected, so, in theory, they are free to follow the law and the Constitution as they see it, unfettered by worries about public opinion.

I don't think that we want a judiciary that checks the direction of the political winds.

Yes, of course, I agree.

But some unfortunate person or persons must be tasked with going through them. My question was if anyone ACTUALLY KNOWS what is done with them. Are they simply recycled immediately? Are they put into mounds of storage boxes until a certain amount of time has elapsed? Does anyone bother to count or weigh them? Evidently nobody knows. We only guess.

For some reason, the final scene of "Raiders of the Lost Ark" keeps running through my head.

[bob]

For some reason, the final scene of "Raiders of the Lost Ark" keeps running through my head.

Having been to more than one deep-storage facility, you are ... not off.

But even they are periodically purged of old materials.

[Luke]

Highest Regards @7sTrick

#brunsonvadams was my last hope for a political solution.

Catch you on the flip side.

Take care of you and yours.

God Bless and good luck.
2:35 AM · Jan 13, 2023

Five10x @five10x Jan 12
Loy Brunson is requesting continued support through writing letters to #SCOTUS for next try of #BrunsonvAdams petition.

Five10x @five10x Jan 11
#America write letter in support of #BrunsonvAdams. Template here:
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1vpq ... SZ2oA/edit#

#NukeMAGA @JOHNMCC38341506 Jan 12
Replying to @Sportz_DC
Yes. What is taking so long? Really a Military Tribunal needs to be convened. Indict/Investigate for Treason. #BrunsonBrothers

Mostly, the dead-enders aren't even talking about it anymore. After being SO SURE, now most just act like it never happened and moved on to the new Outrage du Jour.

But the Epoch Times won't let failure slow them down:

Utah Brothers Prepare Next Move After Supreme Court Turns Down Case Seeking to Overturn 2020 Election
By Zachary Stieber January 12, 2023 Updated: January 12, 2023

Petitioners in a case that would remove President Joe Biden from office if successful are preparing to return to the Supreme Court with what they hope is a stronger case after the nation’s top court turned down a request to review lower court decisions rejecting the effort. “We’re not discouraged,” Deron Brunson, one of the brothers who brought the case, told The Epoch Times during a break on putting the finishing touches on a petition for rehearing. That document will ask the Supreme Court to reconsider its stance on the case. “If you feel like the petition didn’t grab their attention, you go back and request a rehearing,” Brunson said. “You revisit your claims but make them clearer and stronger.” The petitioners plan to have the petition filed by Jan. 16.
***
‘Pretty Confident’
Deron Brunson said the family remains confident, as they expected the lower courts to rule against them. They were disappointed that the first bid to the Supreme Court didn’t work, but are taking advantage of the rules that now allow a petition for hearing. Justices “like to look at something that’s substantial, or very controlling,” Deron Brunson told The Epoch Times. The petition will focus on key questions such as whether a rigged election is an act of war, whether members of Congress failed to abide by their oath when certifying the 2020 election without investigating reports of election fraud, and whether the oath of office is binding, or whether some form of punishment—such as whether the Supreme Court can remove members—can be imposed. “It’s a first impression, so we’re hoping the Supreme Court will say, ‘yeah, we want to address that,'” Deron Brunson said. “We’re giving them a chance to write out a lot about this, that will affect America forever.”

Improved Position
The writ of certiorari, or request to review the lower court decisions, “may not have been strong enough,” Deron Brunson acknowledged. “So I’m making it strong enough, to put the questions to them.” “We’re hoping this will catch their attention, and it should,” he added. Addressing the ideal end results of the case, the Utah man said that Biden would be removed if the election were determined to have been rigged, and Trump would be inaugurated because in general, in elections where fraud is found, the position “goes to the next person who would have won.” That would be “very, very exciting,” Deron Brunson said. The case “would go down in history” and “build a legacy for Supreme Court justices.” Steve Vladeck, a professor at the University of Texas School of Law, said justices won’t accept the petition for rehearing, pointing to how U.S. lawyers waived their right to file an argument with the court and how no justices asked them for a response. “There is a 0% chance that a petition for reconsideration will be successful. Not 0.1%; not 0.01%; not 0.001%—0,” Vladeck wrote on Twitter.

Not All Members
The suit doesn’t name all members of Congress in power at the time of the certification. Members like Rep. Andy Biggs (R-Ariz.), who outlined allegations of fraud from state Sen. Kelly Townsend, were excluded, along with other members who supported investigating the allegations. Since the case was filed, another election has come and gone. New members were sworn into office in January. Those members would not be removed, Deron Brunson said. They “won’t be touched,” he said.

https://www.theepochtimes.com/utah-brot ... 78089.html

[Foggy]

“If you feel like the petition didn’t grab their attention, you go back and request a rehearing,” Brunson said. “You revisit your claims but make them clearer and stronger.”

That's exactly right. You don't need any new facts or new law or anything like that. Obviously, the petition for rehearing is not intended for those things. Instead, in a petition for rehearing, you are supposed to make the exact same arguments as you made in the petition for certiorari, but make them a lot clearer and stronger, just like Brunson says.

A good way to start is, "Now listen here, MORONS:"

That conveys, from the very outset, that you are really serious.

That's how you grab the court's attention at the very beginning.

I would give more practice tips, but ... these guys have it in the bag.

[Suranis]

The legal system is like a safe. If you fail to break into it the first time you weaken it and fill it with cracks so its easier to break in the next time.

[jemcanada2]

“If you feel like the petition didn’t grab their attention, you go back and request a rehearing,” Brunson said. “You revisit your claims but make them clearer and stronger.”

That's exactly right. You don't need any new facts or new law or anything like that. Obviously, the petition for rehearing is not intended for those things. Instead, in a petition for rehearing, you are supposed to make the exact same arguments as you made in the petition for certiorari, but make them a lot clearer and stronger, just like Brunson says.

A good way to start is, "Now listen here, MORONS:"

That conveys, from the very outset, that you are really serious.

That's how you grab the court's attention at the very beginning.

I would give more practice tips, but ... these guys have it in the bag.

Actual footage of Foggy demonstrating his method of argument. I say!

[p0rtia]

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.

Note that MTQ didn't say "Biden was elected legitimately." She said "Of course Joe Biden is president." This is a fine line that MAGAts draw. Stefanik does it to. Yes, they acknowledge that he is serving as president, but they will never ever say the words "legitimately elected." Drives me nuts when supposed news folk let this pass. Perhaps they are put off by the aggressive "What a stupid question" comments that the MAGAts use to deflect.

[noblepa]

Note that MTQ didn't say "Biden was elected legitimately." She said "Of course Joe Biden is president." This is a fine line that MAGAts draw. Stefanik does it to. Yes, they acknowledge that he is serving as president, but they will never ever say the words "legitimately elected." Drives me nuts when supposed news folk let this pass. Perhaps they are put off by the aggressive "What a stupid question" comments that the MAGAts use to deflect.

These weren't supposed news folk. They were Fox News.

[p0rtia]

Note that MTQ didn't say "Biden was elected legitimately." She said "Of course Joe Biden is president." This is a fine line that MAGAts draw. Stefanik does it to. Yes, they acknowledge that he is serving as president, but they will never ever say the words "legitimately elected." Drives me nuts when supposed news folk let this pass. Perhaps they are put off by the aggressive "What a stupid question" comments that the MAGAts use to deflect.

These weren't supposed news folk. They were Fox News.

I don't watch Faux News. And I hear the "Of course he's president" left on the table repeatedly. Stefanik says this repeatedly and no one follows up. Believe me, this is
standard fare on what passes for MSM.