🤔⚖️🏛 The Truth About the Brunson Case 🤔⚖️🏛
(www.uncoverdc.com)
You're viewing a single comment thread. View all comments, or full comment thread.
Comments (87)
sorted by:
Agreed. Multiple people are making arguments against the Brunson SC case, and they all seem logical, except for a few small details.
WHY did the SC initially accept the Brunson case under Rule 11? Why did the SC accept the case at all?
WHY did the SC help to expedite the Brunson case and ask them to add more findings to it before it was submitted?
WHY did the SC ask the Brunsons to rush the submission of their case as soon as possible?
WHY did the SC accept the case to be voted on in conference immediately after it was submitted, and schedule the conference vote for ... Jan 6th?
Bottom line: if the critics are correct, the Brunson case should never have been accepted for a conference vote in the first place. The SC had multiple opportunities to easily ignore the case and just let it die. If the case has no merit, that would have been the logical and expected outcome.
Instead, the SC did the opposite at every stage of its progress. Why did the SC do all of those "illogical" things for a case that has no merit? If the critics are correct, then the behavior of the SC throughout this entire process makes no sense at all.
Edit: I forgot one - why did the solicitor general take over for all 388 defendants, and then immediately waive their right to contest the case for all of them? That was very interesting all by itself.
Agreed. The fact that it’s confusing to us tells me that it is accomplishing (at least one of) its goal(s)……to confuse the public.
Also, why are so many law experts supporting this case?
Check this video of a constitutional law expert explaining the complaint filed in the Brunson case in detail:
https://rumble.com/v235yf8-constitutional-law-part-ii-the-brunson-brothers-lawsuit-before-the-supreme-.html
Also, read this article from a professor teaching constitutional law:
https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2022/12/tim-canova-supreme-court-considers-case-seeking-overturn-2020-presidential-election/
Tim Canova is the 'guest post' Wow! He is the (formerly a Democrat) who ran against DWS in the primary a few years back now. I know this from my Bernie days. He knows how rotten our elections are. I take it as a good sign if he is somehow connected
Put them down on the list of people not to call when you want some legal advice. These people are not “experts” if they are finding merit here. I have no idea who that geezer is in the first video. I couldn’t get more than about 15 minutes in without falling asleep. He says absolutely nothing substantive here. His opening comments are asinine. “Lawyer vs. Attorney” and all this “constitutional mandate to investigate” is all bullshit. This guy couldn’t even find a place to put his camera where it didn’t show all this hoarding and shit everywhere…we are supposed to listen to him??
The second guy actually thinks this was accepted under rule 11. It wasn’t. Also nothing substantive in what he says. It’s all platitudes focused on righteous anger about unresolved election fraud. That isn’t a legal argument or a constitutional one.
You're probably right. You seem to know alot. What do you mean by it wasn't accepted under rule 11. Do you mean..."yet"...and that its that still to be determined?
Original jurisdiction cases as listed in article III of the constitution are rare. They happen, but the majority of cases that SCOTUS hears come from their appellate jurisdiction. Cases start at the district court level, and then advance to the circuit courts of appeals, and can be reviewed by SCOTUS. They get about 12,000 or so requests a year; of which they only hear about 100-120. Basically, less than 1% of petitions for writs of certiorari are granted. The rest are not heard.
Just about every state supreme court has the ability to take a case from the state appellate courts and hear it directly. They also have a process where the appellant can request the state supreme court hear it, bypassing the appellate court. The criteria for granting this varies by state.
SCOTUS rule 11 (not to be confused with civil procedure rule 11 which is sanctions) provides a framework to bypass the circuit appellate court and go directly to them. I cannot recall the last time I ever saw them grant this. It is not unheard of but it is rare.
No, they won't accept it under rule 11 because it isn't necessary. The 10th circuit ruled. You can't bypass the 10th circuit now; they already are on the record. Now it is on appeal from the 10th circuit.
There is a shocking disconnect here with basic fundamentals in our legal system. People aren't all lawyers. But high school civics should have taught people how this works. To believe all the stuff being said about this case, you would have to believe that the SCOTUS clerk's office act as gatekeepers to prevent or allow petitions for writs of certiorari to be filed. And that in this position, they magically know the most intimate details of your case out of the hundreds of thousands of active state and federal cases; so they can simply block you from the e-file system because they don't need to be briefed on the reasons you want the court to grant the writ. They are omniscient. They already know if your case is bunk or would be a viable appeal.
Bottom line is that in no court system ever are you pre-judged by the court on unfiled pleadings or petitions. The only way that any court will hear your case is if you file it. Unless you are a known abuser of the legal system (there are a few, but not many) court clerks simply accept your filings; presuming there are no deficiencies in what is required - filing fees, proper formatting (margins, word count etc), and the correct forms.
On the rule 11 issue, Brunson and others are basically acting as though the clerk letting them file under rule 11 is somehow the court accepting this. That is simply nonsense. How the hell could they decide this if they know nothing about the case and you didn't file the paperwork to ask them? A helluva lot of cope is going around that "well ya, they did, but then the 10th circuit ruled so it got changed..." Really? Where is the order granting their appeal under rule 11? It doesn't exist. Hence, never happened.
Essentially, because the SCOTUS clerk's office assisted them in filing their appeal, that is bizarrely being interpreted as some kind of sign that this case is going to be heard. Their job is to help people file. And unlike your local state or federal district court clerk's office, this is a fairly prestigious job. They don't staff it with apparatchiks that hate life and their job. So they are helpful. Not assholes. Every single case that gets heard or declined to be heard goes through this exact process with filing, conference, etc...and somehow because this is going through the same process as literally every single other case, people have been attributed unwarranted meaning to this. They will never tell you to fuck off, you are wasting everyone's time before ever seeing your filings. Ever.
This is seriously laughable. This guy is unhinged.
People need to quit reading his hyperbole and editorializing. This has nothing to do with what his claims for relief are. I broke this down in here in another reply and also linked his complaint. You should read that. Absolutely none of what he is saying in what you just linked has anything to do with his 6 claims for relief.
I agree with your assessment of this case...Also, the Brunson Case INVOLVES NATIONAL SECURITY..The above link to the URL AND READING it does NOT cover the National Security issue and ALSO the Solicitor General NOT going to INTERFERE or STOP any proceeding(s). She SIGNED AWAY her right to REPRESENT THE GOVERNMENT...
NOTE: I do wish people would look at things in light of what has taken place with the Brunson Case...The court PUTTING the case on the docket means they, SCJs will DISCUSS the merits...AND ALSO THE RAMIFICATIONS...
IF THE CASE MOVES FORWARD, IT WILL BE UP TO THE US MARSHALS SERVICE AND THE MILITARY...The REASON: to keep people from howling at the moon when their congcritters are lead away...AND ELECTIONS ARE RE-DONE!!!!
President Trump said on the night leaving the SCIF: "WE CAUGHT THEM ALL, WE'LL SEE WHAT HAPPENS."!!!
This is a 'petition for a writ of certiorari' scheduled for a conference on Jan. 06. No one knows if it will be even heard less require the votes to proceed and schedule for oral arguments. In the article it states only 20-25% of the petitions distributed for a given conference are actually discussed”. The other 75-80% of petitions are denied and discarded—likely without the justices ever reading them or even being aware they exist.
I hope the Brunson petition is indeed considered and survives conference.
Ok…with all due respect here…where the hell did you come up with this? Did every Brunson case cheerleader here fail civics? Every single case that pays the filing fee and submits all required paperwork “gets on the docket.” That is not remarkable. Nor does SCOTUS “hear the merits” of any case. That is simply not true either.
How does one file an appeal of a federal case? Can you just file an appeal because you didn’t like the outcome? No. You need a reason to appeal. What error(s) did the court make in your case? In Brunson’s case, they never got to any of the merits. Was dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. What is on appeal is whether any of the causes of action stated in the initial complaint have federal court subject matter jurisdiction. IF they actually wasted their time hearing this case, that is the ONLY issue they would look at. Merits are irrelevant to why they are before this court.
No. Government waived their right to respond to the petition for certiorari. Nobody is going to waste time replying to a bullshit lawsuit with no merit. That is a waste of valuable lawyer work. This case speaks for itself…its bs. It will get dismissed without needing the government to explain why it should be.
"SIGNED AWAY" is used as a SYNONYM for "HAS WAIVED"!!!
Happy New Year!!!!!!!😎😎😎😎😎
Except you take it a bridge too far. Waiving a right to respond to a writ is not the same as declining to represent the government. It is simply declining to respond to the petition. That person is still attorney of record for the government. You can bet if this magically gets out of conference with 4 votes, there will be someone from the DOJ representing the government.
Another thing that makes no sense....when the SC dismissed the Texas v. PA case based on "standing", which is as transparently corrupt a reason as it gets, IMHO. Texas, as well as all the others who joined the case, certainly DID have standing to bring the case. Could the real reason be that the timing wasn't right to rule on the merits?
All the cases that have failed as a result of 'lack of standing', isn't it time to ask SCOTUS 'then what and who does have standing?
Without the current level of PAIN that ALL are experiencing, We would have WON the battle but lost the WAR because the next election would have been tightened up and the Fake News would have the TRUMPET.
Yes, it was a bogus dismissal for “standing.” But that case isn’t comparable to this Brunson case. The TX v PA case was an original jurisdiction case. State v. State can go straight to SCOTUS under article III. SCOTUS can rule on the merits in an original jurisdiction case.
Basically the SC punted and argued it was a State right issue. But you bring up a fair point that when there are disputes between States that is when the SC has to step in and NOT punt.
Overturning of Roe shows the current temperament of the court can lead it to make what may seem to be profound revisions to former doctrine.
Full agreement with MI-vet.
I do not think that we are in well charted constitutional waters. I think we are in an unprecedented situation in an unprecedented time.
World civilization is in the balance and to a large and real extent that means it is in the hands of the SCOTUS.
There is also the important fact that they also have taken an oath to support and defend the constitution - which has been egregiously violated. Will they continue that? Or will they rectify it.
The justices have a choice to make. That individual choice will be revealed in the nuances of their reasoning as they write down their opinions.
The consequences will be immense. Will there be civil war? Possibly.
If Brunson is found to be without merit by SCOTUS the US will be very close to utter failure and on the brink of chaos.
Anons have suggested that civil war may be avoided by a GREAT REVEAL that would shock the middle and lower levels of America into a wakefulness that would make civil war unnecessary. I would have to see that actually operate to believe it. Even with informed people we would still need a mechanism to effect the vast changes that are necessary. Real elections would be almost two years away and knowing there is cheating happening does not stop cheating.
The entirety of government needs to be cleaned. The congress, all the agencies, all the states, the judges, the DAs and the animal control officers. All of it.
Big tech needs to be cleaned by people of good character - like Elon.
Then the military, too.
So will the SCOTUS find in favor of Brunson?
Their first decision is not even a week away.