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

[Luke]

Wow, Christine Scott is really motivated. But Bob, I think I see the problem -- Christine's brief is ONLY 982 pages. If it really had been 1000 everything would have been different. She sure spent time on it, flipped through some quickly and doesn't seem to be copypasta. And her request is so reasonable.

christine scott.PNG (224.01 KiB) Viewed 2130 times

Here's a new DENINED for the Fogbow Files:

Denied.JPG (126.27 KiB) Viewed 2130 times

[Ben-Prime]

Loy's pulling a Taitz and stalking politicians.

Ramaswamy wisely says nothing of substance.

I mean, in fairness, I don't think Ramaswamy *can* say anything of substance, ever. I believe he is congenitally and, indeed, constitutionally unable to do so.

[bob]

I accidentally overwrote my prior post about Christine Scott. But:

"For completeness": In re Christine Scott, 11th Cir. Case No. 23-13411, filed Oct. 17, 2023.

Stopped-clock Tracy Beanz had noticed the clerk kicked back a deficiency letter:

There's no indication so far that Scott has cured these deficiencies.

[bob]

Raland's opening brief in the 10th.

The government's response.

Very by-the-numbers; avoids the temptation to point out how Raland is.

[bob]

Grifter gotta.

[bob]

Raland filed his reply in the 10th Circuit:

Now we wait for the inevitable affirmance.

If Raland is lucky, the 10th will deny and then SCOTUS will deny before the 2024 election.

Executive summary of the reply: "Mah First Amendment!"

Raland also included an unauthorized, irrelevant, unintentionally hilarious affidavit: You apparently violate the U.S. Constitution whenever you disagree with Raland J. Brunson.

[northland10]

Raland filed his reply in the 10th Circuit:

Now we wait for the inevitable affirmance.

If Raland is lucky, the 10th will deny and then SCOTUS will deny before the 2024 election.

Executive summary of the reply: "Mah First Amendment!"

Raland also included an unauthorized, irrelevant, unintentionally hilarious affidavit: You apparently violate the U.S. Constitution whenever you disagree with Raland J. Brunson.

Somebody also just recently ran the docket and docs on Pacer so they show up in CourtListener (not sure why we get the 10th and not some other circuits on CourtListener).

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

Raland does need to pay attention to his cut and paste. From his reply brief:

Screenshot 2023-12-15 153425.jpg (120.62 KiB) Viewed 1723 times

He, or maybe the court, fixed the 10th case number but the trial court case is his first one, well sort of since that one was 1:21-CV-00111. The case he is appealing now is 1:23-CV-00042. He has Orly-like attention to detail.

[scirreeve]

Raland is a busy boy. He has been trying to be a pretend attorney for Paul-Kenneth: House of Cromar too. Judge isn't allowing it.

Mean Judge won't let Paul-Kenneth: House of Cromar use pretend attorneys. 1 of them is Ammon Bundy's former campaign manager and another is 1 of the Brunson Bros. Jail can read their mail and listen to calls even if he now calls them "assistants of counsel".

[bob]

It hasn't hit CourtListener yet, but 10th affirmed the dismissal of Raland Brunson's suit against three SCOTUS justices.

Onto SCOTUS for one last grift.

[realist]

It hasn't hit CoyrtListener yet, but 10th affirmed the dismissal of Raland Brunson's suit against three SCOTUS justices.

Onto SCOTUS for one last grift.

I'm shocked!!

[northland10]

It hasn't hit CourtListener yet, but 10th affirmed the dismissal of Raland Brunson's suit against three SCOTUS justices.

Onto SCOTUS for one last grift.

I just checked the 10th Circuit website yesterday. I guess I was almost correct in the timing.

Here it is from the 10th
https://www.ca10.uscourts.gov/sites/ca1 ... 997600.pdf

[bob]

I just checked the 10th Circuit website yesterday. I guess I was almost correct in the timing.

If Raland moves quickly, he could get his cert. denial by June.

But the pro-girft move would be to slow walk the cert. petition, so that the denial won't drop until October.

[Luke]

It hasn't hit CoyrtListener yet, but 10th affirmed the dismissal of Raland Brunson's suit against three SCOTUS justices.

Onto SCOTUS for one last grift.

I'm shocked!!

Me too also! We dodged a bullet. But another SCOTUS Grand Slam may be coming so we're not out of the woods yet!!

[scirreeve]

Raland still trying to be a pretend lawyer for Paul-Kenneth: House of Cromar. He is going to subpoena himself. This is from a motion for continuance that Raland wrote last week but was filed by Kenny - they both signed it.

Capture.JPG (34.62 KiB) Viewed 733 times

[bob]

Grifter gotta.

[northland10]

Oooh wow, may have a NEW SCOTUS case . This is BREAKING!!!

I hope they remember to say the same thing next month. Their marks don't need to know that they have until early May to file their writ petition.

[bob]

This is giving me some CPAC vibes: Taitz, Zullo, Gallups, etc., would suggest that they were invited, but really they just bought a ticket like every other rube.

Tickets start at $1000 per person for this Lake event, so I doubt any of the Brunson marks will be attending.

Bonus:

SPECIAL GUESTS

ROSEANNE BARR

JIM BREUER

COLBY COVINGTON

CHAD PRATHER

... and Puppet Show.

[Volkonski]

Since today is April 1st I checked. Apparently that is real.

Please join us at Mar-a-Lago for an evening

of fun and laughs with

KARI LAKE

CANDIDATE FOR THE U.S. SENATE, ARIZONA

along with Special Guest comedians
ROSEANNE BARR

JIM BRUER

CHAD PRATHER

They are sure to inspire and lift us with patriotism and humor!

KARI LAKE RECEPTION

WEDNESDAY, APRIL 3, 2024

5:30 -7:30 PM

THE MAR-A-LAGO CLUB

PARTICIPATION LEVELS:

SEA LEVEL EXPERIENCE | $100,000 PER COUPLE

2-night stay at Mar-A-Lago, private dinner at Mar-A-Lago following reception with Kari Lake and special guest, photo with Kari Lake and Roseanne Barr, private yacht experience with Kari Lake and special guest (includes lunch), golf for 2 at Trump International Golf Course, and private cocktail reception

LAKE LEVEL EXPERIENCE | $50,000 PER COUPLE

Private Dinner at Mar-A-Lago following reception with Kari Lake and special guest, photo with Kari Lake and Roseanne Barr, private yacht experience with Kari Lake and special guest (includes lunch), and private cocktail reception

CANYON CO-CHAIR | $25,000 PER COUPLE

Picture with Kari Lake and Roseanne Barr, private yacht experience with Kari Lake and special guest (includes lunch), and private cocktail reception

COPPER CO-HOST | $13.200 PER COUPLE

Picture with Kari Lake & special guest, autographed book, and private cocktail reception

SEDONA SPONSOR | $6.600 PER COUPLE

Autographed book and private cocktail reception

ATTENDEE | $1,000 PER PERSON

FOR QUESTIONS, OR TO RSVP, CONTACT CAROLINE WREN AT CAROLINE@KARILAKE.COM OR 512-771-9915

TO CONTRIBUTE BY CHECK, PLEASE MAKE PAYABLE TO

KARI LAKE VICTORY FUND

4040 E CAMELBACK #103

PHOENIX, AZ 85018

[RTH10260]

"plans to speak if he is available, FYI."



IFF he is not in jail

[Slim Cognito]

Or sundowning big-time.

[Sam the Centipede]

Since today is April 1st I checked. Apparently that is real.

Please join us at Mar-a-Lago for an evening of fun and laughs with
KARI LAKE RECEPTION
WEDNESDAY, APRIL 3, 2024
5:30 -7:30 PM
THE MAR-A-LAGO CLUB
PARTICIPATION LEVELS:

SEA LEVEL EXPERIENCE | $100,000 PER COUPLE

2-night stay at Mar-A-Lago, private dinner at Mar-A-Lago following reception with Kari Lake and special guest, photo with Kari Lake and Roseanne Barr, private yacht experience with Kari Lake and special guest (includes lunch), golf for 2 at Trump International Golf Course, and private cocktail reception

Well, I guess at that price I could be persuaded to go, maybe.

Whhhaaattt?!?!?! I have to pay them? That's not how much they'll pay me to endure that torture and torment and cleanse my soul afterwards?

[Suranis]

What the heck is a "Private Yacht Experience" and why does Kari need a "special guest" to provide it?

[RTH10260]

Isn't Bannon a part time owner of a superyacht ?

[bob]

Oooh wow, may have a NEW SCOTUS case . This is BREAKING!!!

Raland's cert. petition (Case No. 23-1073) hit SCOTUS' docket.

(Waiver of) Response due May, 2, 2024. Raland should have his denial before the end of this term. (And, if the past is prologue, denial of rehearing petition over the summer.)

The only question is whether SCOTUS will outright deny or whether at least four justices recuse themselves. (If at least four justices recuse, there's no quorum, which is an automatic denial.)

I presume the three justices named as defendants will recuse. I would not be surprised if all nine recused.

[northland10]

Oooh wow, may have a NEW SCOTUS case . This is BREAKING!!!

Raland's cert. petition (Case No. 23-1073) hit SCOTUS' docket.

(Waiver of) Response due May, 2, 2024. Raland should have his denial before the end of this term. (And, if the past is prologue, denial of rehearing petition over the summer.)

The only question is whether SCOTUS will outright deny or whether at least four justices recuse themselves. (If at least four justices recuse, there's no quorum, which is an automatic denial.)

I presume the three justices named as defendants will recuse. I would not be surprised if all nine recused.

I just checked earlier today. Bob beats me by being belated.

They have not posted the petition yet so I cannot see their brilliance. I'm sooooooo sad.