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

[northland10]

Is the 10th even slower than the 9th? Oh wait, if it was the 9th you would have said it won't be tossed until 2026.

[bob]

Is the 10th even slower than the 9th? Oh wait, if it was the 9th you would have said it won't be tossed until 2026.

2025.

The 10th is quicker than the 9th, but 2024 is "only" 9 months away. It took the 10th 8 months to toss Rayland's case.

And Loy said he wants to play around in SCOTUS with a Rule 11 application; that could slow things down.

[Luke]

This lady has fallen for every scam, lie and grift, it's pretty impressive she fell for ALL of them.

One of her solutions is to make Corn Chowder for all the Supreme Court Justices. No, really. She says if you really want someone to listen to you, feed them.

Theresa Doherty @TMBD34736
Trump won. Voter fraud nationwide. Where is SCOTUS when we need them? Love Florida. Love cruising and wine. Mike Lindell is right.

Gosh, can't wait for 4/20.

[bob]

At least Raland certainly has learned his lesson:

Rayland Brunson v. Sotomayor, Kagan, and Jackson. (D. Utah Case No. 23-42, removal from Second Judicial District Weber County Case. No. 23090136.)

"Funny" how the grifters are suing only the justices nominated by a Democratic president.

I haven't read the complaint (no one has uploaded it to RECAP yet.) But the title sheet lists it as a breach-of-contract case; I can only image the contract they believe they entered into.

Despite suing most of Congress and now three sitting justices, I expect they will receive no sanctions, no vex-lit list; just a quiet denial.

And the grift keeps on churning.

[northland10]

At least Raland certainly has learned his lesson:

Rayland Brunson v. Sotomayor, Kagan, and Jackson. (D. Utah Case No. 23-42, removal from Second Judicial District Weber County Case. No. 23090136.)

"Funny" how the grifters are suing only the justices nominated by a Democratic president.

I haven't read the complaint (no one has uploaded it to RECAP yet.) But the title sheet lists it as a breach-of-contract case; I can only image the contract they believe they entered into.

Despite suing most of Congress and now three sitting justices, I expect they will receive no sanctions, no vex-lit list; just a quiet denial.

And the grift keeps on churning.

"Somebody" just did.

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

Removal
https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap ... 26.1.0.pdf

Docket
https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/67 ... sotomayor/

[northland10]

He wants $2.9 Billion because SCOTUS denied the petition and apparently the Constitution requires all petitions to be read and discussed.

Oh yeah, they got paid for denying his petition so it is super bad, but apparently, it is only 3 he cares about.

He wants $10M from each for other stuff so $3.1B tax free because, um.. Constitution, I guess.

[W. Kevin Vicklund]

[bob]

"Somebody" just did.

Thanks, somebody!

The breach of contract is as expected: their throwing paper at SCOTUS was the contract, which SCOTUS these three justices breached by denying it (ob. "without hearing it").

Brunson also is suing for emotional distress, fraud, and conspiracy. "Treason" also appears repeatedly.

Where's Klayman when you really need him?

I find it "interesting" that Rayland again first filed in state court. You would have thunk the grifters would have learned by now that, when suing federal officials, you sue them in federal court.

[bob]

Brunson Grifters' latest web site: enoughisenough.me:

Raland J Brunson v. Sotomayor, Kagan & Jackson
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Join the letter campaign!
We want a ton of letters to show up at the Federal Court.
We want the court to know that "We The People"
want this lawsuit against these three Justices to be heard!

Raland J Brunson is currently suing 3 Justices of the Supreme Court of the United States to have them removed from office. It was originally filed in State Court and the Defendants moved it to Federal Court where it currently is.

Raland is suing the three that he felt most confident that voted against hearing his case.

Updates of this case will be posted below.

About the letter-writing campaign:

Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, and Ketanji Brown Jackson all voted against the hearing of Raland's US Supreme Court Case #22-380.
We have created a letter that will be sent on your behalf.

If you are willing pay for the postage and handling, we'll make sure the court gets it!

Yes! We want the Federal Court flooded with letters from "We The People."

We believe that if the Court gets enough letters, they will give this case the attention it deserves!

The sample letter:

I have reason to believe that the defendants of this case, Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, and Ketanji Brown Jackson, who are current Justices of the Supreme Court of the United States, broke their oath of office by voting against hearing the Raland J Brunson's case docket #22-380 of the US Supreme Court.

This case, docket #22-380 is about Pres. Biden, V.P. Harris and then V.P. Mike Pence, and 385 members of congress who thwarted the proposed investigation into the allegations that there was interference in the 2020 Presidential election.

I urge you to give these defendants an opportunity to explain and defend themselves as to why they thought it was important to vote against the hearing of the said Raland J Brunson case.

And, of course: send money.

[RTH10260]

Can attorneys be reprimanded for organizing influence campaigns for their own court case?

[bob]

Can attorneys be reprimanded for organizing influence campaigns for their own court case?

It depends; possibly.

But: there are no attorneys involved with this grift.

[bob]

In case you had doubt whether they were :

While Plan D is in motion, let me tell you about...
Plan E!!
It took two months of preparation and with the help of my younger brother Deron, I was able to successfully file a law suit against three of the members of the US Supreme Court Justices. They were legally and officially served March 17, 2023.

* Elena Kagan
* Sonia Sotomayor
* Ketanji Brown Jackson

I'm accusing them of aiding and supporting enemies of the United States Government by refusing to protect the constitution by denying my petition regarding the allegations that there was interference in 2020 Presidential Election. My three defendants knew full well regarding the allegations, and for reasons that they need to explain, denied my petition. They are guilty of misprision of treason, which is "the deliberate concealment of one's knowledge of a treasonable act or a felony."

As of a few days ago, and in response to my lawsuit against them, they (like anyone else being sued) had to secure attorneys to represent them. They had no choice but to lawyer up, because by themselves, a US Supreme Court Judge does not have the power of influence over a lower court (unless an application for a temporary stay order is filed by a losing party regarding a decision made in the Federal Court, which of course, has nothing to do with the action of this case). Let me repeat. My defendants by themselves cannot and do not have any influence over a lower court. None. They are individuals who have to defend themselves, and in response to my action they acted accordingly. They lawyered up, and by doing so submitted to the future judgment of my local US District Court.

I want them to either grant me a hearing or be removed from office. Now, does my judge have the power to remove them from office? Yes, he actually does. So far there is nowhere in the rules, or statutes, or the Constitution that shows or indicates that my defendants have to be impeached first. In my study of law and how our government is structured, there is no legal power other than congress doing a majority vote that can stop the judicial branch from removing my three defendants from office. But, what if I prevail with my Federal Court Judge? My three defendants can appeal it. What if I win in the appellate court? They can appeal it to the US Supreme Court.

This means if I lose I can also appeal it. All the way to the US Supreme Court. What happens when it gets there? Clarence Thomas and colleagues will then have the opportunity (if they want) to grant me a hearing, and if I prevail, they could, with a court order, have them removed from office. Who and what power can stop them? An executive order from the U.S. President? No. Judges have often stopped Executive Orders. What about the DOJ? No again. They are also part of the executive branch. Outside of the rule that comes from the majority vote of congress, there is nothing more powerful in this country than a court order.

What's my next step?

Deron and I are now preparing an offer. A settlement offer that by law, must be delivered to my three defendants personally through their legal counsel. (This is pretty cool because I now have a direct path of communication to my defendants.) Anyway, my offer is going to be this: If they can acquire the vote of another associate Justice, which will give me the four needed votes, and grant me a hearing, I will drop my case against them!

[bob]

Raland J Brunson v. Sotomayor, Kagan & Jackson

RIP: The district court dismissed it today.

The dismissal order isn't (yet) on CourtListener.

Edit: The government moved to dismiss.

[northland10]

Raland J Brunson v. Sotomayor, Kagan & Jackson

RIP: The district court dismissed it today.

The dismissal order isn't (yet) on CourtListener.

Somebody's ears are burning.

I was going to say, "that was quick" but the docket entry was the motion to dismiss not an order.

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap ... 26.7.0.pdf

Updated Docket.
https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/67 ... er_by=desc

[bob]

I was going to say, "that was quick" but the docket entry was the motion to dismiss not an order.

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap ... 26.7.0.pdf

Yeah; it was updated to reflect it is just a motion.

[northland10]

I was going to say, "that was quick" but the docket entry was the motion to dismiss not an order.

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap ... 26.7.0.pdf

Yeah; it was updated to reflect it is just a motion.

I heard somebody reran the docket in Pacer, just a rumor, but something I heard, so might be true, but truer if I read it on Twitter.

[bob]

Brunson drew Howard Nielson, a judge nominated by TFG, who was confirmed 51-47.

It'll be especially delicious when he dismisses the case.

[northland10]

The Panel for his last appeal was Trump, GW Bush, and Reagan.

When this does not pan out, he will have failed with Trump, Bush, Reagan, and Obama. Maybe he will get luck and succeed with Biden and Clinton ones. However, The 10th has only 1 Biden judge and all the Clinton ones are on senior status so might only get one of them.
There is still a Carter on senior status and a GHW Bush.

[Luke]

Bring Royce Lamberth and his "not tilting at windmills" comment back! That's really when I started following birthers, that was so funny.

This is beautiful, how will they spin this? Talk about not even getting to the gate, much less getting out of it:

Removal.JPG (101.05 KiB) Viewed 1100 times

Added the docket for Brunson v. Sotomayor (1:23-cv-00042) to https://www.protopage.com/birthers for easy lookup.

[Luke]

Think Foggy would buy this documentary for us all to watch?

Released today: Flight of the Brunson Brothers!

FLIGHT OF THE BRUNSON BROTHERS- Release date APRIL 20 2023- Good Lion TV

COMING APRIL 20TH: Flight of the Brunson Brothers
(https://www.goodlion.tv/)This fight is not about reinstating Donald Trump, it's about taking America back! The Brunson Brothers engineered a case to sue the United States congress for not upholding their constitutional oath when a little over two years ago, its members openly stated the election needed to be investigated, and yet, 380+ members ignored their oath and certified the 2020 fraudulent presidential election.

WARNING: Four guys playing Flight of the Bumblebee on their trumpets.







Here's a guy not understanding what it's about





"GoodLion TV" is $4 a month. https://www.goodlion.tv/. What the heck does this mean??? "ALL GOOD LION FILMS & VOICE NARRATION ARE TUNED TO 432 HZ THIS MAKES DIFFICULT INFORMATION EASIER TO DIGEST"

And still going... Any day now.

5 days ago
RALAND BRUNSON- BIG NEWS- BREAKING - Debbie Faris 4 15 2023

Debbie Faris talks to Raland Brunson about the SCOTUS Petition and the NEW EFFORTS in the Fight to hold 3 Lib members to their CONSTITUTIONAL OATH. April 14 2023: Breaking news from Raland Brunson, the Brunson v. Adams et al SCOTUS case 22-380 originator. He is now suing three Supreme Court Justices and here are his thoughts, shared publicly for the first time. Raland wants our participation, go to www.EnoughIsEnough.me to download the letter to Utah Federal Judge #BrunsonCharge #LetsGoBrunson $2.00 and they send it out for you.

COMING APRIL 20TH: Flight of the Brunson Brothers
(https://www.goodlion.tv/) This fight is not about reinstating Donald Trump, it's about taking America back! The Brunson Brothers engineered a case to sue the United States congress for not upholding their constitutional oath when a little over two years ago, its members openly stated the election needed to be investigated, and yet, 380+ members ignored their oath and certified the 2020 fraudulent presidential election. Juan worked on this project. Good Lion Films releases new " FLIGHT OF THE BRUNSON BROTHERS" Nick Alvear Directs please join his channel for more great content subscribe to GoodLion.tv only $4.00/mth well worth the investment!

[pipistrelle]

it's about taking America back!

From? Russia?

[johnpcapitalist]

Think Foggy would buy this documentary for us all to watch?

Released today: Flight of the Brunson Brothers!

What the heck does this mean??? "ALL GOOD LION FILMS & VOICE NARRATION ARE TUNED TO 432 HZ THIS MAKES DIFFICULT INFORMATION EASIER TO DIGEST"

This fight is not about reinstating Donald Trump, it's about taking America back!

Note the move in the goalposts. It most certainly was all about "reinstating" Donald Trump and installing him as dictator. Look at any of their fundraising messages. Now, because that is looking increasingly less likely (and because Trump is officially running in 2024, which he couldn't do if he won in 2020), they have to change the grift to a more nebulous aim... So the Brunson idiots are planning to stay in the right-wing grift game for a long time to come.

Regarding the "A=432" business, there has been a movement for a while to change the common tuning standard for musical instruments from the current A=440 hertz to this slightly different number. Some music theorists believe things sound better that way. I am not musical and I can't hear the difference between the two tones. IIRC, A=432 is a function of some other note (maybe C in the octave below) being 256 hertz, an exact power of two.

Where this gets creepy (and why this TV channel is pushing the idea) is that some people believe that A=432 is somehow magically found in nature and thus A=432 music has mystical healing properties. Another component of the conspiracy is that Goebbels mandated A=440 in Germany to subjugate the population because it made them more nervous. A good article debunking a lot of the conspiracy nonsense is here: https://jakubmarian.com/the-432-hz-vs-4 ... cy-theory/.

At one point, political conspiracy cult leader Lyndon LaRouche had a front group called the "Schiller Institute," which (among other things) tried to get legislation introduced to mandate A=432 tuning. Setting followers this sort of task is a cult control tactic. If you set your followers a Sisyphean task that has no chance of being adopted, you'll get them to sink increasing effort into achieving an impossible task and thus cut them off from family more and turn them into more devoted followers. Scientology has many such impossible tasks, and most other cults have at least a few.

[Foggy]

Oh man, that is so cool, a whole new conspiracy theory based on music!

I'ma sing all my A's at 432, just because.

[Volkonski]

Standard pitch has risen slowly over time. The pitch for the treble clef A on the 2nd space was 415 Hz in the medieval and baroque periods. Mrs. V has both 415 pitch recorders and 440 pitch recorders.

I have an old pocket size music dictionary copyrighted 1909 that defines standard pitch as 435.

In the 1930s and 40s the Boston Symphony tuned to 444 because their conductor liked the slightly more brilliant sound.

You can buy recorders now pitched to 442.

[tek]

Off Topic

I sing all my As somewhere between 350 and 500Hz. Sometimes in the same note.