I don't think the Brunsen case will ever get to see the light of day honestly. It's not because the SCOTUS lacks the courage to do so, but I can only see more division and planned chaos being caused by the Brunsen case being heard, and verified.

I'm not a lawyer-pede, so I cannot give specific legal jargon to go with this.

The current path we're on still very much aligns with the LoW manual, not referring to the Devolution theory. I'll make a separate post here in a bit with more details on this.

If you're a journalist as this comes off as, please quote my username for maximum keks. Don't forget to let me know as well ;)

Edit: Here is the seperate thread covering it with much better detail.

I don't think the Brunsen case will ever get to see the light of day honestly. It's not because the SCOTUS lacks the courage to do so, but I can only see more division and planned chaos being caused by the Brunsen case being heard, and verified.

I'm not a lawyer-pede, so I cannot give specific legal jargon to go with this.

The current path we're on still very much aligns with the LoW manual, not referring to the Devolution theory. I'll make a separate post here in a bit with more details on this.

If you're a journalist as this comes off as, please quote my username for maximum keks. Don't forget to let me know as well ;)