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.
SCOTUS has laid out their rule requirements that must be met before they will grant a writ. Addressing the contents of a writ in Brunson's case, if followed Rule 11 and 12.
These two rules note that a writ will be granted for compelling reasons, or for such conflicts between appellate courts over the same important matter, or where there is a serious question of law. These are just a few examples that are neither controlling nor do they measure the Court's discretion or indicate the reasons for the courts consideration. Adam and Tracy, you do not know the mind of SCOTUS in relation to the Brunson case and you acted like you do. "The Truth About the Brunson Case"? Before making such a "wild' claim you should have contacted me. Your claim is a false, and seriously gives aid and comfort to an enemy of the United States of America as noted below.
Brunson's writ points out that the purpose of war is to put into power its victor.
Brunson also points out that a rigged election accomplishes the same thing, only there is not an immediate loss of life and property. A rigged election is an act of war. Brunson's writ further alleges that the respondents refused to investigate the allegations that the 2020 presidential election was rigged. All the Respondents have taken the required Oath to support and defend the Constitution of the United States of America against all enemies, foreign and domestic, and as such they are liable for consequences when they violate the Oath of Office. Their refusal to do an investigation into the allegations of a rigged election gave aid and comfort to this this enemy that has waged war under the guise of a 'fair' election. This is an act of treason. Adam and Tracy, this is a very strong and serious reason affecting our national security compelling SCOTUS to grant Brunson's writ. How did you miss this point, unless you did NOT care for the truth!
SCOTUS is also bound by their oath of office. With this oath they are BOUND to stop this war when given that opportunity. Brunson's case gives SCOTUS that opportunity.
Adam and Terry, what makes you think you know what powers SCOTUS has and does not have under Brunson's case? This truth you ignored and made false claims!!
Brunson's writ alleges Due to the uniqueness of this case, the trial court does have proper authority to remove the Respondents from their offices under 18 U.S. Code § 2381 which states "Whoever, owing allegiance to the United States, levies war against them or adheres to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort within the United States or elsewhere, is guilty of treason and shall suffer death, or shall be imprisoned not less than five years and fined under this title but not less than $10,000; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States." A court adjudicating that the Respondents, who have taken the Oath of Office, to be incapable of holding their offices or who have adhered to a domestic enemy, means nothing without such removal of office." SCOTUS has the powers to remove ALL the respondents from office under
Brunson's case. Adam and Terry, again you both lied. This is serious. 5. Again, under war powers (look them up yourself) SCOTUS, under Brunson's case, has the power to remove the respondents from office and completely adjudicate the case to
end the war. Adam and Terry, Isn't it a simple conclusion that anybody, I mean ANYBODY, who is found to be in a position to stop war against America and refuses to
do so can be found guilty of treason? Think about it!! I do not feel compelled to continue further at this time in pointing out how false your story is. I feel what I have pointed out is enough to help stop you from producing such articles, which and also invites you to retract your claims, otherwise it could be said by the two of you that you both have given aid and comfort to an enemy as stated above. If anything you should be found strongly promoting Brunson's case in the name of justice and freedom and pray that SCOTOS removes the respondents form office for giving aid and comfort to an enemy of the Constitution of the United States thus ending this war. Which side are you on? My record shows by way of your article that you are on the side of giving aid and comfort to an enemy of
the Constitution of the United States which is act of treason.
It is precisely because these people are off their rockers that it is impossible to cut through all of this hyperbole and get to the actual legal arguments. This lawsuit is literally fabricating a bogus legal argument and cloaking it in everyone’s righteous outrage about fraudulent elections. Just because this guy says “hey do something about this fraud” doesn’t mean that this is viable. And pointing this out is not “dooming.” I wouldn’t be surprised to find out this dude also makes “sovereign citizen” claims elsewhere.
And lots of people are saying he isn’t saying the election was fraudulent or Biden didn’t win. WTF? Read the complaint. All he does his talk about how Biden won fraudulently.
Let’s start with his complaint. It’s 101 pages of utter gibberish with a 20 something page complaint and an attached exhibit of the congressional record. It is filled with a lot of true facts. It is also filled with a lot of editorializing. Because he has no idea what he is doing, he acts as though these facts support his causes of action. And people are reading that without getting to his claims for relief. Which is what matters. What cause of action do you have here, Brunson?
Claims:
I. Promissory Estoppel - (p.15)
This is unintelligible. It talks about treason and the right to vote. As if there was some kind agreement between him and all of these members. Promissory estoppel arises out of contract law. It has nothing to do with “right to vote” and “treason” or any of the other buzz words he drops in here. This claim is bogus.
II. Promissory Estoppel - (p.17)
Pretty much same thing as count 1. Trying to have some kind of contract law principles applied to treason. This claim is also bogus.
III. Breach of duty - (p. 18)
In a best case scenario, the only person with a “duty” will be his senators and his congressman. The rest owe no duty to him. They don’t represent him or his interests. But that assumes there is some duty. There is not. Nobody’s congressman has a legal “duty” to anyone. Simply taking an oath of office doesn’t give rise to the entirety of the government having a duty to Brunson. This claim also fails.
IV. Intentional infliction of emotional distress - (p.19)
Seriously? This idiocy pretty much speaks for itself and I won’t waste time explaining the obvious.
V. Fraud - (p. 20)
First, this is just some generalized grievance about the bullshit we all know happened. He starts by claiming fraud in the inducement. But its all based on this bogus theory that the oath of office is some how an agreement with him. Which it isn’t.
This guy doesn’t even understand he does not have any right to vote for president at all. He has a privilege to do so. Because Utah’s legislature affords him this privilege. They can take it away too. Utah could simply vote to have the legislature choose presidential electors and not the public at large. As a lot of states early in our republic used to do.
VI. Civil conspiracy - (p.23)
You need underlying tortious acts to allege civil conspiracy. None of his other 5 counts are viable. Accordingly, this one is also dead.
He actually cites a criminal statute about treason as a basis some court has ability to remove all of these people in his civil case. Uh…what? No.
He demands absurd amounts of money, without any hint of how he has incurred damages of this amount. I am assuming he intends this money to go to him. But even if they are fines, you need a basis for this. You can’t just make the shit up out of thin air.
Your claim is a false, and seriously gives aid and comfort to an enemy of the United States of America as noted below
Is this some kind of Eric Cartman “respect muh authoritay!” comment? Or “Don’t you dare question Alexander Vindman’s patriotism!” type of complete diversion from the issue? He’s basically saying that calling this LARP suit a LARP is also treasonous. Jesus. How unhinged is this guy?
The bottom line is that calling the 2020 election bullshit treason, an act of war, giving aid and comfort to the enemy - whether it is true or it isn’t - doesn’t magically breathe life into claims for relief 1 thru 6. It just doesn’t. Those claims aren’t viable. No matter how outrageous those people acted on Election Day through January 6.
That’s why this is one of two things: (1) a retard; or (2) a grifter. Zero reason anyone should pay attention to this suit. It will fail because it should. It is awful. No amount of sprinkling treason/act of war/aid and comfort/wtf ever mustard on his counts 1 thru 6 shit sandwich make it not a shit sandwich.
This lawsuit is literally fabricating a bogus legal argument and cloaking it in everyone’s righteous outrage about fraudulent elections.
People who fail to recognize this sort of thing are a BIG problem for us. There are so many inthe patriot and truther community that are completely tied up with their own emotional attachment that they fail to see how much they are NOT applying objective, reasoned analysis.
cloaking it in everyone’s righteous outrage that's the clincher.
Whether the case has any merit or not is one thing, but the fact of certain people's attachment to it and emotionally driven (ie.e highly biases) promotion of it are a big red flag for me.
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
It is precisely because these people are off their rockers that it is impossible to cut through all of this hyperbole and get to the actual legal arguments. This lawsuit is literally fabricating a bogus legal argument and cloaking it in everyone’s righteous outrage about fraudulent elections. Just because this guy says “hey do something about this fraud” doesn’t mean that this is viable. And pointing this out is not “dooming.” I wouldn’t be surprised to find out this dude also makes “sovereign citizen” claims elsewhere.
And lots of people are saying he isn’t saying the election was fraudulent or Biden didn’t win. WTF? Read the complaint. All he does his talk about how Biden won fraudulently.
https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.utd.126764/gov.uscourts.utd.126764.6.1.pdf
Let’s start with his complaint. It’s 101 pages of utter gibberish with a 20 something page complaint and an attached exhibit of the congressional record. It is filled with a lot of true facts. It is also filled with a lot of editorializing. Because he has no idea what he is doing, he acts as though these facts support his causes of action. And people are reading that without getting to his claims for relief. Which is what matters. What cause of action do you have here, Brunson?
Claims:
I. Promissory Estoppel - (p.15)
This is unintelligible. It talks about treason and the right to vote. As if there was some kind agreement between him and all of these members. Promissory estoppel arises out of contract law. It has nothing to do with “right to vote” and “treason” or any of the other buzz words he drops in here. This claim is bogus.
II. Promissory Estoppel - (p.17)
Pretty much same thing as count 1. Trying to have some kind of contract law principles applied to treason. This claim is also bogus.
III. Breach of duty - (p. 18)
In a best case scenario, the only person with a “duty” will be his senators and his congressman. The rest owe no duty to him. They don’t represent him or his interests. But that assumes there is some duty. There is not. Nobody’s congressman has a legal “duty” to anyone. Simply taking an oath of office doesn’t give rise to the entirety of the government having a duty to Brunson. This claim also fails.
IV. Intentional infliction of emotional distress - (p.19)
Seriously? This idiocy pretty much speaks for itself and I won’t waste time explaining the obvious.
V. Fraud - (p. 20)
First, this is just some generalized grievance about the bullshit we all know happened. He starts by claiming fraud in the inducement. But its all based on this bogus theory that the oath of office is some how an agreement with him. Which it isn’t.
This guy doesn’t even understand he does not have any right to vote for president at all. He has a privilege to do so. Because Utah’s legislature affords him this privilege. They can take it away too. Utah could simply vote to have the legislature choose presidential electors and not the public at large. As a lot of states early in our republic used to do.
VI. Civil conspiracy - (p.23)
You need underlying tortious acts to allege civil conspiracy. None of his other 5 counts are viable. Accordingly, this one is also dead.
He actually cites a criminal statute about treason as a basis some court has ability to remove all of these people in his civil case. Uh…what? No.
He demands absurd amounts of money, without any hint of how he has incurred damages of this amount. I am assuming he intends this money to go to him. But even if they are fines, you need a basis for this. You can’t just make the shit up out of thin air.
Is this some kind of Eric Cartman “respect muh authoritay!” comment? Or “Don’t you dare question Alexander Vindman’s patriotism!” type of complete diversion from the issue? He’s basically saying that calling this LARP suit a LARP is also treasonous. Jesus. How unhinged is this guy?
The bottom line is that calling the 2020 election bullshit treason, an act of war, giving aid and comfort to the enemy - whether it is true or it isn’t - doesn’t magically breathe life into claims for relief 1 thru 6. It just doesn’t. Those claims aren’t viable. No matter how outrageous those people acted on Election Day through January 6.
That’s why this is one of two things: (1) a retard; or (2) a grifter. Zero reason anyone should pay attention to this suit. It will fail because it should. It is awful. No amount of sprinkling treason/act of war/aid and comfort/wtf ever mustard on his counts 1 thru 6 shit sandwich make it not a shit sandwich.
People who fail to recognize this sort of thing are a BIG problem for us. There are so many inthe patriot and truther community that are completely tied up with their own emotional attachment that they fail to see how much they are NOT applying objective, reasoned analysis.
cloaking it in everyone’s righteous outrage that's the clincher.
Whether the case has any merit or not is one thing, but the fact of certain people's attachment to it and emotionally driven (ie.e highly biases) promotion of it are a big red flag for me.
Interesting. TY
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.
Correct. Standard operating procedure.