Brunson v. Adams: The Full Story

Brunson v. Adams

The Long and Winding Road to Nowhere 

The Full Story of the Case that Sought to Overturn an Election 

Raland’s Rehearing       Second Try / Fake News

Loy Brunson Steps Up       Raland’s Encore Against Three Justices

Loy Asks the Supremes To Take It

Lara Logan and the Rest of the Story

Scott Confuses Things

Until recently, the Brunson Brothers were known only as a trumpet playing quartet from Utah. That changed when Raland and Loy filed federal actions alleging that Congress had failed to investigate claimed election irregularities. Raland’s case moved quicker through the lower courts and in Act One he filed a petition for writ of certiorari asking the Supreme Court to hear the case. The story continues below as it unfolded.  The only case that is active is Raland’s “encore” against three of the  justices.


Raland’s First Act Concludes 

Brunson v. Adams: the full story - the spacecapn blog
Credit: trekandphoto (Adobe)

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. US Supreme Court, Case No. 22-380. 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 that made it a little out of the ordinary.

Kerry Cassidy (tracked on this blog as KerryWatch) hoped the Brunson case would 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 case was rejected.

On Project Camelot she stated there could be “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. . . .”

Even some less flamboyant commentators treated the Brunson case as if being calendared amounted to a grant of review. 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 earlier 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 the Brunsons than it did to me. The clerk will often assist pro se parties in ensuring that cases are properly filed.

Support for the brunsons - brunson v. Adams
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 in a miraculous way. Loy hoped that the House of Representatives would elect Trump as Speaker and the court would use the Brunson case to remove the Democrats from power, allowing Trump to return. But if the unthinkable happened and he lost the case, he vowed to file motions for reconsideration. He truly needed 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 decision … 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 faulty reasoning, could at least get a hearing. Perhaps that reminder is the important thing about the Brunson case.

It was not a complicated matter. Even former Trump legal advisor Jenna Ellis pointed out that the 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 had no doubt that the case would be cited as an example of Washington corruption. Indeed, some wrote that the case proved the Constitution is no longer in force. Yet that does not change the fact that it simply had no merit.

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


On January 26, 2023, the Supreme Court received a petition for rehearing file by the Brunsons. It needed very little comment. The grounds for reconsideration are very narrow. There were no intervening circumstances under Rule 44 and the petition added nothing substantial to what was already presented.

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.

Runson case trollsEven as it was set for conference on February 17th, the Brunsons continued to advance an unreal scenario. They presented the case as something “accepted” by the court — there was no special magic to this. It was properly filed and set conference in the normal course along with thousands of others. This did not mean the case would even be discussed by the justices. Misplaced hope, the role of social media, and the seeming popularity of a case did not add up to a miracle.

Despite this, the Bronson case continued to attract attention with people claiming the court had agreed to hear the case again and set a trial. Those who are loudest in denouncing “fake news” are the quickest to spread it.

It did not take much insight to know the second time around would be no different than the first.

As Predicted Again

Once again, there were no surprises in the Brunson case. The Supreme Court denied the petition for rehearing. There are those who said the case had the potential to overturn the 2020 Presidential election and reinstate Trump. They were wrong. It had no potential.

“To the surprise of exactly no one who understands what they’re talking about, the frivolous rehearing petition from SCOTUS’s denial of the frivolous cert. petition trying to “reinstate” President Trump was denied this morning without comment.” – Steve Vladeck

In the days leading to the decision there had been numerous posts misunderstanding the importance of a case being calendared by the court on its docket for a conference. Some stated that Brunson was the last chance for the court to be a credible institution. Trump mentioned the case in a Truth Social post. Even a few from major media gave it a look.

Loy Brunson appeared on the David Rodriguez podcast – a Kerry Cassidy favorite – to compare the case to a nuclear bomb. He stated that even before the case was brought even the court did not realize the power they had. Loy predicted that the Democrats would try to stack the court in response.

The day before the decision, a Twitter post described it in almost apocalyptic terms: “One last chance to Save America (and maybe end WWIII?)” After the denial was published, others wrote that the military was the only way.

Loy hoped for a million letters to the court. There were even tweets urging people to flood the court with letters that were posted after the petition was denied. There are reasons why social media is not the best way to obtain news or analysis, but for now the bomb that Loy advanced was quickly defused.

The Brunsons stated that they were moving on to Plan C. The brothers also had another case in lower courts that they were sure to trumpet about (pun intended). Loy stated that there was new urgent information for another rehearing petition “that will be granted” and his own separate case was proceeding with service being ordered on all the parties. Indeed, up until the latest decision Loy Brunson angrily asserted that even state courts could prosecute congressional representatives for treason. He said that “both barrels are loaded.”

As a note to Loy, those of us who have seen the decisions of this court in the past term, know that the court is well aware of their power. But the whole thing reminded me of my death row clients who would use their time to construct a bizarre legal theory that they wanted me to validate. Too much time and too much anger is rarely a good combination.

Meanwhile, the Brunson case was the gift that kept on giving. Truth Channel [edited to remove the all caps] on NewsTreason stated, “I think the Brunson case (1 of them) were handled a year ago leading to the unreported SCOTUS decision on 2020. I think the ongoing Brunson Chatter is playing out for optics for da sleepy heads.” Of course!

Others claimed there was a magical 10 day period that could change the whole thing. Sometimes the only thing left to do is to sigh.

The Final Act

Brunson v. Adams the end result illustrated
Rule 44 Illustrated


On March 3, Loy Brunson announced that they finished a second petition for rehearing. Raland Brunson acknowledged he had never heard of a second rehearing petition being accepted. There is good reason for that. Under the court’s Rule 44, ”The Clerk will not file consecutive petitions.”

This should be the final act, at least of this particular case, but why let reality get in the way when people can continue to make things up. On March 8, Twitter posts and other social media claimed “SCOTUS has accepted the Brunson case in a 5-4 decision, and will hear it. SCOTUS will rule on the merits of the case, not the posturing of it.”
Fake news that brunson v. Adams would be heard by the supreme court

According to one so-called report the court “received notice they could have committed Misprision. The US military is said to have visited the court and the justices agreed to hear the case in full.

Was this a genuine piece of fake news or a poor attempt at comic relief? As Raland Brunson stated, the court’s order that the petition for rehearing was denied remains the last word. There is no mechanism to change it. Where do people get their ideas and decide to post obvious falsehoods?

According to Raland, the court informed him that the case was closed and no new petitions would be accepted. i predicted it, again. But it was an easy prediction since reading the court rules gave away the outcome.

The end of the end: brunson v. Adams

Loy Brunson’s Case

The case that first was advanced to the Supreme Court was officially filed by Raland Brunson. His brother Loy had earlier filed an identical action in the district court. Brunson v. Adams, Case No. 2:21-cv-00175-RJS-CMR.

On January 6, 2023, the Magistrate recommended that Loy’s case be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. The reasoning tracked that used to deny Raland.

Fin facts about raland and loy brunson

What was it about January 6? SCOTUS conferenced Raland’s case for that day, which was also when the Magistrate filed the recommendation in Loy’s case. It is a date that will long be remembered as an attempted insurrection. Did any of the courts choose the date on purpose or was it a series of coincidences? Certainly MAGA and Q have built conspiracies on things that are far more coincidental.

The District Court dismissed the case on March 20. Apart from the certainty that all subsequent petitions would be denied, it remained a virtual guarantee that people would continue to assert that the latest Brunson casewasabout to do . . . about to do something. The motto of MAGA and Q is that no matter how many times they are wrong, they can still be wrong again. The Brunsons seemed determined to prove this ad infinitum.

The Brunsons looked in the wrong place. The true people who violated their pledge of allegiance were those who supported insurrection.

Raland Sues Three Justices: An Encore Performance

Brunson playing to the court
Brunson Playing to the Court

Meanwhile, Raland Brunson proved to be the consummate professional by initiating an encore that even took his brothers by surprise! On March 17, 2023, Raland filed a new case against Justices Sotomayor, Kagan, and Jackson. (Brunson v. Sotomayor, et. al.)

As of April 2, 2024, this is the only Brunson action still pending in any court.

The complaint alleged the justices were liable for breach of contract, intentional infliction of emotional distress, fraud, and civil conspiracy.

The suit had elements of Sovereign Citizen doctrines, Mormonism, and Raland’s own flair to return to the themes that were rejected time after time.

“We the People” created our Government, therefore “We” are the creators of our Government. . . . And whenever Government acts in ways that is contrary to our God- given rights as referred in the Declaration of Independence, then “We” have the right “to abolish it, and to institute new Government” that will be subject to “We” as their employers and rulers.

He contended that he “received his rights by our divine Creator and that the Constitution was set in place to protect these rights. Therefore, “We the People” are the master, ruler or employer of our government.”

The U.S. Constitution was written with honor, respect and recognition of our Lord Jesus Christ as memorialized in Article VII Clause 3 which states, “ . . . in the Year of our Lord . . .”

The Prophet Isaiah 30: 9, of the King James version of the Holy Bible states, “That this is a rebellious people, lying children, children that will not hear the law of the Lord.”

The “law of the Lord” spoken of by Isaiah is the U.S. Constitution as claimed by George Albert Smith, a former president of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints.

Raland claimed the Judicial Act of 1925, giving the court discretion not to accept cases, was unconstitutional. He then reasoned that because the court rejected his petitions for certiorari and rehearing, the named justices violated the law and their sworn duty. They fraudulently kept the filing fees and inflicted emotional distress. Therefore Brunson asked that the justices be removed and he be awarded damages of $3,108,000,000.

Essentially, Brunson argued that because he lost the defendants failed to “protect Brunson’s right to be heard” and that they did not “vindicate Brunson.” The court is not there to rubber stamp a claim. That he lost does not mean he was not heard. The case is nonsensical.

Raland was said to believe that the justices “likely HAVE NO IDEA that they’ve been served by Raland Brunson. . . . But somebody is taking this seriously as Justices Sotomayor, Kagan and Jackson have all three have “lawyered-up.”

Cedar Hills Citizens, who claimed to have 18 cases headed to the Supreme Court, called Raland’s “law strategy . . . well thought out, reasonable, rational, and by this Editor’s estimation — brilliant!”

This blog had other words for it, but the action spoke for itself. There is a reason why it might not the best idea to file “stealth” actions without seeking some critical review.

It seemed strange that the three alone must face the lawsuit, since the court as a whole decided not to hear Raland’s original petition, without a written dissent. Raland does not know how any of the judges responded to his petition or voted in conference. He only knows the result.

I agreed with Raland that the three defendants were probably not aware of the case. However, they did not “lawyer up.” A case was filed and it was routinely put on the desk of a government attorney.

The court then assigned the case to a magistrate. This site predicted it would not take long to dismiss it once it was addressed. It had the same problems as the original petition with the added wrinkle of attempting to sue some of the justices for performance of their duties.

Although Brunson rejected the idea of judicial immunity, it still applied. The court also was not about to declare that they have no discretion to determine the cases they will accept. Their work would be impossible.

If they did find that the court must fully address all cases that are filed with them, the number of justices would have to increase substantially. In an ironic twist, that might have helped Biden to pack the court.

As mentioned above, the case reminded me of the kind of action that is filed by prisoners who have too much time in their hands. I could only hope that Raland is a better trumpet player than a legal scholar.

The US Attorney filed a motion to dismiss based on immunity and basic tort law. They were right.

Free documentRaland‘s opposition to dismissal stated that the constitution does not protect traitors. (Raland charges for a copy but Pacer undercuts him and I am making all briefs available here for free!)

Raland also invoked a higher authority. “Isaiah prophesied the coming forth of the Constitution, he also warned of serious consequences that follow when the Constitution is violated.”

While I would not argue with Isaiah, I do not believe that Brunson’s interpretation of the constitution or the biblical prophecies apply.  His definition of a traitor seems to be those who disagree with him; my definition would be engaging in an insurrection. Raland recommends a self help legal book that taught him how to win cases, but given his track record it was not money well spent.

Raland claimed “he is suing the three who have the biggest track record of violating and disregarding their oath of office.” Apparently the ethical concerns with some of the other justices did not bother him. Perhaps Raland thought that if he sued the full court it might be difficult to achieve a quorum should the justices recuse themselves.

On May 30, 2023, the defendants filed a reply that pointed out that Raland offered no authority for his claims and that his argument would upend the judicial system. Raland was incredulous. The US attorney pointed out that “We didn’t quote any decisions from other courts that would support the idea that you can sue the special people. In other words, the U.S. Constitution, the Supreme Law of the land is not as strong as a decision that comes from the lower courts.” He did not appreciate that authority was needed in addition to his unique understanding of the Constitution.

Raland apparently was worried that any delay migh hurt his chances for the Frivolous Case of the Year and filed a motion for a decision on June 15, 2023. The court reached a decision on August 11, 2023, and denied the claim.

Raland’s Appeal

Raland appealed. (10th Cir. Case No. 23-4108.) His opening brief argued that he had the right to sue for redress of his grievances and that the justices had violated their oaths of office.

“The serious nature of Brunson’s claims against the Appellees borderline acts of treason, and what develops from this case may be a precursor to treason against the Appellees, and misprision of treason against certain individuals of the judicial branch of Government. that this case touches.”

The problems with the complaint were not addressed in any meaningful way. Raland did not explain why the three justices can be sued or why the court’s decision not to grant certiorari should be equated with an act of treason. It again came down to Raland losing in the original case, but this does not give rise to a new cause of action. There were many problems – both substantive and technical – with his brief, but it is enough to say that the appeal will not succeed.

On November 21, the US Attorney filed her response to Raland. There were no surprises and none were needed. It is not that hard to defend against a frivolous suit so the issues were very straightforward.

Raland filed a reply brief on December 11, 2023. He again maintains that the three justices violated his First Amendment rights to petition for redress of grievances, when the court as a whole rejected certiorari. As discussed above, the unsigned order of a court has nothing to do with the First Amendment, let alone give rise to an action against three members of the court. Raland was simply upset that he lost.

As his attached affidavit states:

In my said petition I referenced the Congressional Record, giving all of [the court] full awareness of this serious offense. This Congressional Record made each member of the U.S. Supreme Court fully aware of the offense against me, and yet they denied me of a hearing, breaking their oath of office.

If that gave rise to a successful cause of action for $3 Billion, my office would have had no budgetary problems and private attorneys would take these cases.

More fun facts about the brunson case

As expected the 10th Circuit denied the suit on Feb. 9, 2024. The court found it had no jurisdiction to hear the case and that sovereign immunity applied. Raland filed a petition for certiorari in the United States Supreme Court, docketed on April 2, 2014. (Case No. 23-1073). Raland generally argues that there can be no protection for treason and that immunity is unconstitutional. It is a big leap to equate the court’s decision not to grant certiorari in his original case with allegations that the three named justices committed treason.

It will be interesting to see whether this petition will get the same social media attention that the Brunsons original actions achieved. Given the frivolous nature of the action it is hard to imagine that it will attract much support but perhaps his followers should not be underestimated. I expect at least some people will be excited that the Court “accepted” the case — but the only thing he had to do for that was to pay the filing fees and hope that there will be a judicial quorum.

For the case to proceed there must be a quorum of at least six justices. If the three named justices recuse themselves, the remaining six justices constitute a quorum. However, the same facts apply to all the judges and Brunson cannot show how the individual justices might have voted in conference.  There is nothing to distinguish the justices from each other. If any of the others recuse themselves the case will be dismissed under 28 U.S.C. § 2109. This may be the most likely outcome to affirm the integrity of the court.

Meanwhile, the 1776 Restoration Movement mockumentary asks a good question:

A good question

Loy Asks the Supremes to Take It


Bunson v. Adams
Loy Brunson filed a notice of appeal on April 4, 2023. However, the 10th Circuit had not even received the record on appeal when Loy took matters into his own hands and filed a new petition for certiorari with the Supreme Court. (Case No. 22-1028, dated April 24, 2023). He referred to it as an emergency petition under Rule 11.

Rule 11 allows certain cases to go forward without exhausting the lower courts. It has historically been used only in the rarest and most compelling circumstances. Although it has been used more in recent years, it still requires both an imperative public importance and the need for urgent action. If these conditions were met here, it would have been recognized long ago. Instead courts repeatedly dismissed the Brunson actions with no dissent.

Signed copy from lot for a price
For a Price


The petition repeated the same basic claims that were alleged over and over again. It claimed that 388 defendants, including the current administration and former Vice-President Pence, “waged a covert domestic war against the United States of America.” It alleged that when Chuck Schumer warned about possible consequences of the court’s decisions, “How could words like these not be a direct threat against the Justices of this Court, knowing full well, that Schumer, as an enemy of the Constitution, could assemble Congress and make this threat a reality?”

Loy posed a number of questions expressing his view of what the law should be but nothing showed that his case had merit. At bottom, the court has no power to remove elected officials.

As a practical matter, however, Loy mistakenly ignored the the court’s previous denial of Raland’s petition. Not laying out all the history made it appear that Loy was playing a game by trying to hide relevant information. The court had no such amnesia. At bottom, Loy presented no argument that a different result should be reached.[2] Paul Preston and New California State filed an amicus brief in support of Brunson. The brief adds little in substance. It made a novel statement that the court should accept the claims of election denier Andy Biggs as true, even though Brunson did not claim that as fact. It wanted the court to … Continue reading

Not surprisingly on May 24, 2023, the Solicitor General waived the right to file a response. This is typically done when a petition presents no arguable claim.

Loy and his supporters presented this as a victory, but it is the normal course of business for handling a frivolous petition. Nothing more should have been read into the action of the Court or the State other than that a petition was received and filed.

Matt kane, the flame, bronson livesIn typical Brunson fashion it was maintained that docketing means the court “accepted it as a Rule 11 petition.” It was asserted that this is the first time the court has acted under Rule 11 since the 1970s. (Matt Kane, The Flame, June 2023.) As has been explained, a case is placed on the docket when it is filed, no acceptance of a legal theory is implied. Moreover, Rule 11 has been used more frequently than Kane maintained — although by definition it should be rare. Although the truth might have helped Loy claim that the procedure confirms to precedent, the error made it appear to be more dramatic. After all, it is a show even if the blind are leading the blind.

There was no reason not to invoke Rule 11. There was no factual dispute. The circuit courts already rejected the argument in the first Brunsoncaseand it was inconceivable that waiting for a new ruling would change anything. Loy was going to file for cert on way or the other. The petition might as well be denied sooner rather than later, although if I were the court I would preclude any further petitions. In any event, I felt safe in predicting that the Brunson dance was not going to go anywhere.

The case was set for conference on June 22. The quick turn around was not a good thing for the Brunson case. Conferencing did not even mean the case would be discussed. The court considers many cases at conference and most are denied without comment.[3] There was a lot of misunderstanding of how the court uses the term “conferencing.” It only means that the case will be decided. In most situations the court simply adopts a clerk’s memo without discussion. These are automatically denied. The majority of the cases that are discussed are also … Continue reading

The comments about this case were the most interesting thing. There were some I did not understand, but perhaps they forgot to mention the details to me when I became a “foreign agent.” From Ninos Corner on Rumble:

  • The reason why these lawyers and attorneys are not doing something like this is because they are foreign agents. A BAR card is not a license to practice law. You dont need a license to practice law. Brunson’s case may prove that. If they added the original 13th Titles of nobility amendment to the case it would really put them on the hot seat.
  • june 22 2023================17
  • The reason lawyers aren’t involved is because their part of the BAR ASSOCIATION , which stands for British Accredited Registry !! which is not are 1776 conditional republic ! they have no jurisdiction !
  • Me thinks that some Military Powers very likely had some influence on the Court, telling them Okay Guys, it’s Go Time on the Brunson Case!!
  • They won’t act if you used codes and statutes in your case. Hopefully you filed it Sui Juris. If not, it’s a no go.

Twitter began catch up:

  • And on June 21 (summer solstice) [Trump] will be 77 years and 7 days. 777. The day after that on the 22nd SCOTUS has conference on the Brunson case.”
  • Also, June 22, 2023- Date of Brunson Case Conference
    & Date DJT’s contract ends with Truth Social. Coincidence?
    Something big about to happen on June 22, 2023?

I sometimes wonder why so many self-described patriots and constitutionalists want the military to step in and cease constitutional protections — or threaten to take matters into their own hands. Perhaps these comments offer an unintended explanation.

Brunson cases deniedIn any event Loy’s petition was denied without comment as part of the general list of the daily dispositions announced on June 26. The court denied rehearing as part of the order list filed on August 21, 2023.

The first response by some of Loy’s supporters was bizarre. Juan Savin maintained it was put on a secret docket and the court is holding it it such a way that they can pull the rabbit out of the hat on a moment’s notice, releasing the decision at a future date. He falsely asserted that it was decided by a clerk and not the court. My advice is not to trust someone who is consistently wrong.

Others attributed the case to “Lloyd” and maintained that there was a separate Brunson case before the court.

There was nothing unusual about the court’s decision. It is normal for the court to issue routine disposions and orders when not in general session. The justices still work during that time. For those of us who are bound by reality, the Supreme Court’s denial ended the present case. It is not possible to file further actions.

Lara Logan and the Rest of the Story


And the rest of the story
On September 29, Lara Logan released an episode of The Rest of the Story (a title made famous by the late Paul Harvey) that focused on the Brunsons. Logan was once a rising star at CBS News before leaving to produce podcasts focusing on election denial and anti-vaccine misinformation. Mike Lindell funded some of her projects so perhaps it was not surprising that she eventually met up with the Brunsons.

The show was advertised by Truth in Media as showing how “The Brunson brothers are still battling in the highest court in the land. And there’s every good reason to believe that, with their horns, their heads and—maybe most importantly, their hearts—the walls of injustice will come-a-tumblin’ down.” (Emphasis added.) Repeatedly asking the court to take a case and being summarily rebuffed each time does not constitute much of a battle or threaten the walls of justice. Posting this claim after the petition was denied was particularly sloppy and had nothing to do with truth.

During the video, the Brunsons acknowledged that they have lost a few battles, but asserted that they were still in the fight. Raland and Loy were said to have no fear because they do not have families to protect. They reminded their audience that Moses also lost before he prevailed. In contrast, however, the Brunsons repeatedly lost without prevailing.

They urged people to read the complaints before deciding if their cases were frivolous. I read all their cases and posted all the relevant links above. And yes, their cases are frivolous.

There was no real purpose for their actions and no reasonable likelihood of success. Filing identical petitions is frivolous. Trying to file a second petition for rehearing in the same case was frivolous. When the last case against the three justices was announced, I believed Raland filed it simply because he had lost his other actions and wanted some fun. He had not even discussed it with his brothers. In other words, frivolity.

Lara largely focused on the brothers personal story and how their trumpet playing caught the attention of Liberace and others, eventually including a performance at the Reagan White House. Unfortunately, she failed to tell the rest of the story and did not explain the status of their cases.

Through Lara Logan’s inaccurate and incomplete reporting and the way the Brunsons still ask for money and letters on their websites, people were led to believe that the Brunsons had an active case in the Supreme Court and predicted that the justices would soon rule in their favor. This led to even more falsehoods.

X Examined


X proved it be a reliable source of misinformation. The ultimate winner may be the quote attributed to Benjamin Fulford, whoever he is.

Benjamin fulford wins the brunson case prize

People cited Loy’s early statements from July that he expected a ruling in October — which he never updated. Some maintained that Trump would become Speaker of the House and the court would then use the Brunson case to clear the way for his presidency. Others misinterpreted the courts “shadow docket” and thought it could rule on a matter without it being on the current docket.

Even the shadow docket still needs a case that has been filed and is pending before the court. There is nothing would allow the Brunson cases to be brought back after they were twice denied. The court’s decisions on the main Brunson cases are final. Cases that are final are final.

If Truth in Media has concern for the truth, this should be explained. The Brunson case still attracts interest (and donations) in part because so many people do not understand the court and repeat false information without even looking at the court’s docket. Delusion runs deep.

Even as late as December, 2013, people wrote about how they have read the Brunson web page and are waiting for the decision. The Brothers abdicated their responsibility to inform their followers about the case — something that is either irresponsible or fraudulent.

Scott Confuses Things


Thomas, the brunsons, and more
If the fate of the nation is in Thomas’s hands, we are all in trouble.


Some confused the Brunsons with a case filed by Christine Scott that seeks to set aside all 2020 and 2022 elections over perceived wrongs in Florida.

Scott first gathered attention when she filed cases stemming from trespassing convictions. She was gathering signatures on private property to try to get on the ballot and refused to leave when asked. She asserted that Florida should expand its interpretation of the state constitution to protect her actions. When Florida courts rejected that argument she responded by filing a suit against virtually everyone in state government.

Christ’s scott - the 2022 election
Using QAnon Slogan in 2020

Scott is named as a vexatious litigator in Florida and her actions have been routinely denied in both state and federal courts. (See, e.g., Scott v. Florida, Case No: 2:22-cv-203-JLB-NPM.)

In 2023, she filed an “emergency writ” of mandamus in the 11th Circuit. She was ordered to file a corrected writ to comply with court rules, which she then did. The suit was filed in the 11th circuit “through” Justice Thomas. Although her allegations were directed to the election equipment and “corruption” by DeSantis and Florida officials, she named the United States and every state a defendant.

Scott alleges there is a credible threat to her freedom, liberty, pursuit
of happiness and other civil rights by foreign and domestic enemies
attempting to overthrow the government of United States of America,
Florida, and every other state of the union, which individually and
accumulatively threaten the sovereignty of the state and country
within which Scott resides and within which her rights are protected.

She alleged “The 49 counties that used ES&S [voting machines] had an accumulative of 7,200,354 ballots cast, which equals a combined 180,008,850 votes cast.” Other claims focused on DeSantis and the state legislature. She did not explain why alleged corruption in Florida gave her standing in California. Nevertheless she asked for $17 trillion in damages and sought martial law until there was a new election without voting machines.

Fake news about the scott writ


Despite addressing the petition to Thomas, Scott had nothing pending in the United States Supreme Court.Some wrongfully claimed that Clarence Thomas could unilaterally decide the case and set aside the entire election.[4] Under Supreme Court rule 22, an application can be submitted to an individual justice if there is authority for such a decision. Generally, this includes matters such as an extension of time or a stay. It does not allow a justice to otherwise intervene in cases or to unilaterally set aside an … Continue reading

As usual, people acted as if the court “accepting” a case was a victory. It was simply docketed in the normal course of business. Still, the headlines were misleading because Scott’s motion to proceed without paying filing fees remained pending.

On Jan. 4, 2024, the circuit court found that Scott’s writ was frivolous and denied her motion to proceed without paying filing fees. It held that she was trying to evade the rules for certiorari and requested relief — the nullification of elections, declaration of martial law, and a 17 trillion dollar award for damages — that went beyond the power of a writ of mandamus.

Thomas does not yet hold our fate in his hands.




Brunson v. Adams is a MAGA illusion.

For those keeping score the score is 0-4 against both of the Brunsons in the Supreme Court, with one foul ball for Raland’s second request for a rehearing that was returned to him by the clerk because he had run out of options.

The only Brunson action remaining is Raland’s suit against the three justices. This page will continue to monitor the status of that case so that people can know the rest of the story. Don’t expect either Lara Logan or the Brunsons to tell you that.








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.
2 Paul Preston and New California State filed an amicus brief in support of Brunson. The brief adds little in substance. It made a novel statement that the court should accept the claims of election denier Andy Biggs as true, even though Brunson did not claim that as fact. It wanted the court to grant the petition without further argument and then warns that failure to grant certiorari will “rend the nation more than it is already rent.” It could be argued that granting the petition, labeling opponents as treasonous, and overturning democracy would do much more than that.
3 There was a lot of misunderstanding of how the court uses the term “conferencing.” It only means that the case will be decided. In most situations the court simply adopts a clerk’s memo without discussion. These are automatically denied. The majority of the cases that are discussed are also denied. That the court set Brunson for conferencing does not mean they attached any special importance to it.
4 Under Supreme Court rule 22, an application can be submitted to an individual justice if there is authority for such a decision. Generally, this includes matters such as an extension of time or a stay. It does not allow a justice to otherwise intervene in cases or to unilaterally set aside an election.