Brunson v. Adams As Predicted

Brunson v. Adams

— As Predicted

Brunson v. Adams as predicted - the spacecapn blog
Credit: trekandphoto (Adobe Stock)

In a case that some believed would create world altering changes, the United States Supreme Court made a very predictable decision and denied the Petition for Writ of Certiorari. Ultimately, there was little to distinguish it from any number of cases that are received by SCOTUS, put on the calendar, and dismissed at conference. Most cases received by the court follow that same course.  It was the expectations and hype by the right wing fringe that made it a little out of the ordinary.

Kerry Cassidy (tracked on this blog as KerryWatch) hoped it to lead the way to the restoration of Trump. Before the decision, she noted sources who told her that Clarence Thomas “is the ONLY working Supreme Court Justice” and that if this was true, “consideration of the Brunson case falls on ONE PERSON.” While she acknowledged that it was rather hard to believe,  it “would mean the WHITE HAT MILITARY has taken control of the Supreme Court and removed the other 8 justices without the public knowing.”   

“THE QUESTION IS… if Clarence Thomas is the ONLY REMAINING JUSTICE… then WTF is making him rule like a team of 9 Deep State Justices said to be in Guantanamo? . . . It would appear TREASON is the name of the game.”  – Kerry Cassidy, writing after the Brunson was rejected.

On Project Camelot she stated that the case could set the scene for “a surprise vote to consider the case which will require the military to keep order during the litigation or whatever form the trial would take…

Some were treating the case as if being calendared amounted to a grant of review or something extraordinary. Former Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee stated:

“The Supreme Court has agreed to a hearing for a case that could conceivably — PLEASE consider this the longest of long shots — overturn the election of 2020, throw out all the legislators who voted to certify the results and leave them ineligible to run for office ever again, even for town. In fact, the Supreme Court has expressed enough interest in this case that it has instructed the Clerk of the Court to reach out to the plaintiffs to help them present their case.

As I first wrote, a conference on a certiorari petition is not discretionary. The clerk of the court’s office had apparently contacted the plaintiffs and asked them to include additional documentation, such as the decisions of the lower court. That seemed more extraordinary to them than it did to me.  The clerk will often assist pro se parties in ensuring that cases are properly filed.

Support for the brunsons
Credit: Brunson Twitter Post

On the eve of the conference, the plaintiffs appeared on the Patriot Roundtable and noted that three amicus briefs had been presented to the court. They did not mention that all the briefs were done by the leading organizer of the New California State and the New Nevada State, who has a penchant for writing “odd briefs.”  In any event, the court had already declined to consider the arguments.

According to Loy Brunson, they (and presumably the court) received over 50,000 letters of support.  Some of us had interpreted the Solicitor General’s waiver of a response to be about their view that the case was meritless. Loy Brunson equated it with an admission of guilt.

Loy was very optimistic at the time of the roundtable interview.  He believed that God had guided the case and that it was already miraculous.  Loy hoped that the House of Representatives would elect Trump as Speaker and the court would use his case to remove the Democrats from power, allowing Trump to return to power. But if the unthinkable happened and he lost the case, he vowed to file motions for reconsideration.  He will truly need a miracle — or more than a miracle — for that to succeed.[1] Rehearing following a denial of a petition is “limited to intervening circumstances of a substantial or controlling effect or to other substantial grounds not previously presented.”  Rule 44. This rule contemplates a new development in the law itself, not simply dissatisfaction with the … Continue reading

Others were more realistic.  Eric Erickson (no relation) pointed out in the Conservative Conversation that even if the Brunsons had a valid legal argument there were other considerations that would estop them from prevailing — not the least of it would be the complications that would result from an illegitimate president appointing one of the members of the court.  

Brunson v adams supporters
Although Erickson recognized that the petition had no merit, he found it refreshing that a case challenging so much, based on nutty reasoning , could at least get a hearing.  Perhaps that reminder is the important thing about the case.

It was not a complicated issue. Even former Trump legal advisor Jenna Ellis pointed out that issue in Brunson — whether Congress properly investigated the election — is not something the court can address. The court is not the arbiter of how someone does his or her job.

The delusion runs deep, however. I have no doubt that the case will be cited as an example of Washington corruption. Some have written that the case proves the Constitution is no longer in force. Yet that does not change the fact that the case simply had no merit

The Brunsons hoped for a miracle. Sometimes God is silent for a reason.



0n January 26, 2013, the Supreme Court received a petition for rehearing file by the Brunsons. It needs very little comment. The grounds for reconsideration are very narrow. There have been no intervening circumstances under Rule 44 and the petition adds nothing.  

Brunson again argued that the 2020 election was a serious breach of national security that amounted to an act of war. As unlikely as that is to compel the court to change their minds, there is a certain mystery to this paragraph:

“We the People” have declared that the Constitution was established to secure the “Blessings of Liberty” and have joined with Brunson on a large scale with their souls and prayers that this Court will grant this petition. Google “Raland Brunson” or “Brunson case” and see how much this case brings hope across the globe. Facebook, YouTube, Twitter and other social giant platforms worked vigorously to keep this case from becoming popular.

Misplaced hope, the role of social media, and the lack of popularity of a case do not add up to a miracle. It is set for conference on February 17th. The Brunsons continue to present the case as something “accepted” by the court — there is no special magic to this. It was properly filed and is being conferenced. This does not mean the case will even be discussed by the justices. This time will be no different than last time.


Spacecapn blog - captain mark richards - saucer



1 Rehearing following a denial of a petition is “limited to intervening circumstances of a substantial or controlling effect or to other substantial grounds not previously presented.”  Rule 44. This rule contemplates a new development in the law itself, not simply dissatisfaction with the decision denying certiorari.  It is very limited and almost never granted.