Fogbow

Estiveo wrote: ↑Thu Jul 11, 2024 3:35 pm

bob wrote: ↑Thu Jul 11, 2024 3:08 pm Facebook comments:

Rob Morton wrote:Funny, I saw you were under a NDA.

Left my comment there, awaiting a response.
Estiveo_20240711_123349.jpg

Saw that one. I left a few there as well. All factual. Today I clicked on notifications that people had responded to some of my responses. I went ther and made an additional response to a nutjob. Shortly after that I received another notification of a response to one of my comments and discovered when I clicked on the link I've been blocked. On any and all Brunson Facebook pages.

Like birthers, they can't handle the truth. Gotta keep the grift going.

They didn't block me, but my comment has mysteriously disappeared.

Estiveo wrote: ↑Fri Jul 12, 2024 2:42 pm They didn't block me, but my comment has mysteriously disappeared.

I'm SHOCKED!!

Bleacher Report: Jalen Brunson, Knicks Reach $157M Contract Extension; Was Eligible for $269M in 2025.

Brunson news that I can actually use!

bob wrote: ↑Fri Jul 12, 2024 5:28 pm Bleacher Report: Jalen Brunson, Knicks Reach $157M Contract Extension; Was Eligible for $269M in 2025.

Brunson news that I can actually use!

Christmas The December holidays came a little earlier than expected:

Brunson rehearing DENNIED.

There are (finally!) officially no more Brunson cases pending.

2020 is SAFE.

bob wrote: ↑Mon Jul 22, 2024 4:27 pm Christmas The December holidays came a little earlier than expected:

Brunson rehearing DENNIED.

There are (finally!) officially no more Brunson cases pending.

2020 is SAFE.

But what if they appeal to the Intergalactic Space Court?

Ben-Prime wrote: ↑Mon Jul 22, 2024 5:36 pm But what if they appeal to the Intergalactic Space Court?

:

Raland wrote:2nd Petition for a Hearing DENIED.

I'm only allowed two petitions, so my case against the 3 Justices is now in the hands of their possible future considerations (all cases in the U.S. Supreme Court that have been denied can be recalled by the Justices at any time).

It's been a four and a half year battle and we want to thank all of you for your amazing and diligent support during that time.

God bless all of you.

Are we sure he even wrote that? I don't see a plea for money at the end.

bob wrote: ↑Mon Jul 22, 2024 4:27 pm Christmas The December holidays came a little earlier than expected:

Brunson rehearing DENNIED.

There are (finally!) officially no more Brunson cases pending.

2020 is SAFE.

Finally a stake hammered through the heart of the horse [expletive deleted].....

bob wrote: ↑Mon Jul 22, 2024 5:46 pm

Ben-Prime wrote: ↑Mon Jul 22, 2024 5:36 pm But what if they appeal to the Intergalactic Space Court?

:

Raland wrote:2nd Petition for a Hearing DENIED.

I'm only allowed two petitions, so my case against the 3 Justices is now in the hands of their possible future considerations (all cases in the U.S. Supreme Court that have been denied can be recalled by the Justices at any time).

It's been a four and a half year battle and we want to thank all of you for your amazing and diligent support during that time.

God bless all of you.

Maybe Brunson read the first and maybe paragraph or so of this article.
https://scholarship.law.wm.edu/cgi/view ... ular_media

It ain’t over till it’s over.

Truer words were never spoken, and yet the question remains: When, exactly, is it over? Perhaps the safest answer, when it comes to
litigation, is “never.” Even a years-old judgment could, in unusual circumstances, be reopened.1 Nonetheless, it is usually safe to say that a case
has run its course – that the advocate has exhausted the possibilities for further review – once the United States Supreme Court has
denied a petition for certiorari. But it’s not always over yet, even once the Supreme Court has denied a petition for certiorari.

Reading further, they would have realized it was about petitions for rehearing.

They would have to skip this part:

To close, a note of caution: The petition for rehearing after denial of certiorari should not be a routine part of your practice.

It is part of Klayman's routine practice.

While, in theory, I suppose it could be possible SCOTUS could re-open, Raland did not give a specific case where this actually happened, so, I will assume he is just making things up (not my job to "do my own research" to figure out if his claim holds water). It would be easier to go the Rule 60 route, but the result would be the exact same.

northland10 wrote: ↑Mon Jul 22, 2024 7:58 pm While, in theory, I suppose it could be possible SCOTUS could re-open, Raland did not give a specific case where this actually happened, so, I will assume he is just making things up (not my job to "do my own research" to figure out if his claim holds water).

Yeah; that's not a thing.

I mean, sure, yeah, the conservative six could call an impromptu conference, vote to amend the rules, vote to reopen Wong Kim Ark, vote to vacate the original ruling, and vote in a new ruling. Sure; yeah; in theory. That never has happened, and it would upend much of how the world expects courts to work.

* * *

Facebook comments:

Donna Patrick wrote:You ran a good Grift. Maybe the Cult will send you more $$$ if you cry Rigged.

Raland Brunson wrote:The donations we received helped me pay off some of the expenses that were incurred during this legal battle, as well as property damages that came about by people such as yourselves.

I did not see any other comment by any of the Brunsons.

bob wrote: ↑Mon Jul 22, 2024 10:57 pm That never has happened, and it would upend much of how the world expects courts to work.

I like your optimism bob! This Supreme Court? Don't give them ideas!

Are they claiming they were vandalized?

pipistrelle wrote: ↑Tue Jul 23, 2024 7:38 am Are they claiming they were vandalized?

Not expressly!

It was vaguely worded, which the Brunsons often do when churning their grift.

"Roy Munson"?

bob wrote: ↑Wed Jul 24, 2024 1:30 am

► Show Spoiler

Not going to comment on Daddy-Daughter camping.

You know when two accounts are mostly numbers they are Real People.

pipistrelle wrote: ↑Wed Jul 24, 2024 8:06 am You know when two accounts are mostly numbers they are Real People.

I considered whether that account was fake. But there many photos of the same guy in the feed.

So despite Raland's (mostly) acknowledging it is over, and Loy's moving on to new giftts, this zombie won't die; e.g.:

Nb.: The conspiracy has expanded to now include a sekrit ruling (from a sekrit location ).

Troll account.

Went to his page.

Couldn't help it, I'm overtired I replied to Andromeda11711:

Luke Johnson @Orly_licious Now
That's great news! My uncle is having a big birthday and loves President Trump. Could you please get some autographed presidential swag for him? It would mean the world to him.

SCOG (Supreme Court of Grok) has spoken.

It is hi-larious the dO-YOuR-oWN-reSEArch!!!1! "researches" by just GIGO'ing chatbots.

Brooke is quite a piece of work.