🤔⚖️🏛 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:
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.
Curious to hear your thoughts on this reply by Deron Brunson…
Dear Adam Carter & Tracy Beanz,
In regards to your article dated December 30, 2022 titled "The Truth About the Brunson Case" which is misnomer at best, it seems you purposely ignored the following controlling points in order to sustain your captured title. This is bad reporting and shouldn't ever be tolerated, in addition this article specifically follows as being an act of treason for the following reasons.
Deron Brunson
Thanks for that. Wish someone with legal knowledge had posted it sooner. Perhaps they did, but it got buried under everyone's wishful thinking.
I see. It has seemed like many are misinterpreting. So the conference on the 6th is just the process. Nothing positive or negative.
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.