For the exact same reason McCarthy is being humiliated, Trump won't get in. Just need 4 naysayers and it's over. (1) Crenshaw; (2) Bacon; (3) Scalise; (4) McCarthy pretty much ends that idea. And there is a much longer list of sellouts than those 4.
I'm already on the record about what a joke this case is. However, for the sake of entertaining this post, the answer is no. For a multitude of reasons.
-
SCOTUS doesn't rule on a case during conference; they decide whether they will hear it. Then it is set for oral arguments a few months into the future if they will hear it.
-
Even if they would magically rule on it at conference, none of what everyone has said is the issue on appeal. This case isn't about treason, aid and comfort to the enemy, or any of that crap. It is 6 claims for relief: (a) promissory estoppel; (b) promissory estoppel; (c) breach of duty; (d) intentional infliction of emotional distress; (e) fraud; (f) civil conspiracy. The trial court, affirmed by the appellate court, kicked this case out before being heard for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. IF they were to rule in his favor, all that would happen is "yes, there is subject matter jurisdiction, this case is remanded back to the district court for proceedings in accordance with this opinion." And it starts over back in district court.
Well, in this context, you are correct. But you should see some recent remarks she made re: ballot harvesting and early voting. Something like "vote with the system and rules we have not what you wish we had." Or plainly to me "knock off this election day voting stuff cuz it is getting too hard to cheat. Please vote early and by mail so we have some time to figure out the number we need to put the fix in. Thx."
There is no doubt that McCarthy is swamp. But something is off with Cawthorn too. At least McCarthy got thoroughly embarrassed and had to cave after the last 2 days.
This is fake news. That man cannot possibly get wood.
Hey now…”2 more weeks” is quite viable over here. Occasionally some need reminders.
They care. But they can't let the 2 party illusion get destroyed. But they will happily shit all over him and embarrass the entire republican party if they can get a different swamp rat like scalise over the finish line. But if the alternative is MAGA they will stick together.
I will make a prediction I am happy to eat crow if wrong - McCarthy will have to coerce and bribe enough to prevail tomorrow. And he will do it.
This is a bad idea all around for him. He would be a mortally wounded/lame duck before even starting. For the good of the party, he shouldn’t even be up for a vote tomorrow. But he will be.
The swamp cannot chance a non rat get in that position. And they thought they had this in the bag even to the point where McCarthy had already moved into the office. This is a bad place for anyone operating with the interests of their constituents in mind. And that is what we are all going to see plain as day tomorrow. The swamp will rear its ugly head for everyone to see. Because anyone else would not have stayed on for rounds 2 and 3 of the shit show.
I am just as prone to clinging to my internal biases as anyone else. But perhaps there is a difference in that I am aware that this occurs. And I always seek to step away from that when trying to reason through something. Sometimes I am better at it than other times.
Just as stereotyping serves a function, so does your internal confirmation bias. It helps parse through complex reasoning in an expedient and efficient fashion. And it is mostly reliable. But in this climate, "mostly" isn't close to reliable enough. You have to do your best to discard assumptions and only work with what you can demonstrably prove - either through direct evidence, or deductive reasoning.
The older I get, the more I am willing to accept things I do not like. And much of this I would credit to the last 5-6 years of eye opening revelations. I come from a place where I am tired of being lied to, and sick of living in make believe magic world of larps and bullshit. I want to know reality; even if it sucks. This has made me extremely reluctant to just "accept" things without evidence. Which is why I delved into this Brunson case.
To me, it appears to be an obvious grift. It should cause all of these more prominent figures who are promoting it to lose credibility. After all, if one could read his complaint in the entirety and come away with the thought that there is viability here, what amount of complete bs won't you accept? The alternative is that they never bothered to read it at all. Either way, its a problem.
Most concerning to me is the behavior of this guy after Tracy Beanz wrote that piece on how bad the case is. He actually responded with a statement essentially saying that questioning this case is treason...really? People like that should be ignored immediately and no time spent on hearing their thoughts. That is insane and should alarm everyone.
Would wholeheartedly agree on restoring ourselves to our Creator. Easier said than done. Sometimes I feel these earthly truth pursuits are in conflict with this need.
Good post here, fren. Hope your new year goes great!
Curious your thoughts on how useful an online class is for these types of things. It has been AGES since I last took cpr and first aid. I've never taken aed training. First aid can probably be easily taught in videos. But CPR and AED? Those seem like you need hands on experience. I suppose a video is better than nothing, but is it realistic to think a video is adequate substitute for in person practice?
More like someone ratted out their next plane larp false flag
I am unsure what it could be given that its the AG’s office. You’d think it’d be the SOS office if it were “influencing” the election or “overturning” the election. And why subpoena unless they didn’t want to respond to a phone call or email request? And if they didn’t want to respond, that makes it even more of a bizarre thing.
The one mystery to me from 2020 (among many, but this one is top of my list) has to do with the GA AG. Where the hell is that person? I don’t even know their name and I cannot recall them ever speaking up during that time or even afterwards. That person doesn’t exist as far as I am concerned…that’s how completely hidden under a rock they were during the aftermath of the election.
Didn’t Kroger lose some kind of jab mandate lawsuit recently? Maybe I am mistaking them for someone else.
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 am trying to tell people to quit reading all of his hyperbole. It is not of consequence to his claims for relief. In responding to u/OGpat I go through this. 6 claims for relief are in the complaint, all of them dead on arrival. Feel free to read that reply for more detail.
- Promissory Estoppel
- Promissory Estoppel
- Breach of duty
- intentional infliction of emotional distress
- fraud
- civil conspiracy
He simply does not state a viable claim with what is included here.
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.
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.
Correct. Standard operating procedure.
Not only is the confirmation bias at new heights; the leftist mantra of plugging your ears and saying "la la la la la I can't hear you la la la la la" followed by insults such as doomer, shill, etc are also at new heights. Apparently there are a sizable number of people who come here to find truth who simultaneously do not want to hear the truth.
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.
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.
Dude seriously you are the full of shit guy. You don’t even know how the court takes cases. It’s like I spell this out and you pretend I didn’t. I will hold your hand like a small child while you cope through this process:
- File appeal petition for writ of certiorari
- Case gets sent to conference
- Justices vote whether to grant or deny the writ of certiorari; need 4
This happens with EVERY SINGLE FUCKING CASE EVERY SINGLE FUCKING TIME no matter how hard you cope and shoot the messenger for telling you this.
If this got accepted under rule 11, go find the order of the court doing so. You won’t be able to. CUZ IT DIDNT FUCKIN HAPPEN IT WAS A LARP.
Just for the record EVERY SINGLE CASE GOES TO CONFERENCE unless you didn’t submit all the documentation and pay the fees, no matter what you say. You’re clueless.
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.
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...
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.
She SIGNED AWAY her right to REPRESENT THE GOVERNMENT
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.
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.
https://twitter.com/POTUS/status/1611106287512703003