Brunson v. Adams As Predicted


Brunson v. Adams

— As Predicted. And Predicted.

The Long and Winding Road to Nowhere

Raland’s Rehearing      Second Try / Fake News

Loy Brunson Steps Up      Raland’s Encore    Over and Over

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 he filed in Act One, a petition for writ of certiorari asking the Supreme Court to hear the case. The story continues below as it unfolded.

 

Raland’s First Act Concludes 

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.  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 by the right wing fringe that made it a little out of the ordinary.

Kerry Cassidy (tracked on this blog as KerryWatch) hoped it 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 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 - 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 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.


Rehearing:

On January 26, 2023, 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 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.

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. Misplaced hope, the role of social media, and the lack of popularity of a case do not add up to a miracle.

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

It does not take much insight to know this time around will be no different than last time.

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 some 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 and predicted that the Democrats would try to stack the court.

As one person wrote on Twitter the day before the decision:  “One last chance to Save America (and maybe end WWIII?)”  After the denial was published, others wrote that the military is the only way.

Loy hoped for a million letters to the court.  There were 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 asserted was quickly defused.

They state that they are moving on to Plan C. The Brunson brothers have another case in lower courts that they are sure to trumpet about (pun intended since they continue their trumpet playing).  Loy states that there is new urgent information for another rehearing petition “that will be granted” and his own separate case is 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.” I suppose they are preparing the papers right now.

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 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 is the gift that keeps on giving. Truth Channel [edited to remove the all caps] on NewsTreason states, “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 are claiming there is a magical 10 day period that can 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.

Is this fake news or a poor attempt at comic relief? As Raland stated, the court’s order that the petition for rehearing is denied remains unchanged. There is no mechanism to change it.

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

The end of the end: brunson v. Adams


The Other Brunson Case

The case that sought review in the Supreme Court was officially filed by Raland Brunson.  In addition to that action, there is a case still pending in the district court filed by Loy. Brunson v. Adams, Case No. 2:21-cv-00175-RJS-CMR(Brunson II). It was actually filed first, and is headed for the same result.

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

What is 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 will be denied, it is virtually guaranteed that people will continue to assert that Brunson II is about to do . . . about to do something.  The motto of Q is that no matter how many times they are wrong, they can still be wrong again.  The Brunsons seem determined to prove this ad infinitum.

The Brunsons looked in the wrong place.  The true people who violated their oaths are those who supported insurrection.

Loy Brunson’s notice of appeal to the 10th Circuit was filed on April 4, 2023 (Case no. 23-4042).


Raland’s Encore Performance

Brunson playing to the court
Brunson Playing to the Court

Raland Brunson has proven 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.

The suit has elements of Sovereign Citizen doctrines, Mormonism, and Raland’s own flair to return to the themes that have been 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 alleges that he “received his rights by our divine Creator and the Constitution is 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 claims the Judicial Act of 1925, giving the court discretion not to accept cases, is unconstitutional.  He then reasons 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 asks that the justices be removed and for damages of $3,108,000,000.

Raland is 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 claim to have 18 cases headed to the Supreme Court, calls Raland’s “law strategy seems quite well thought out, reasonable, rational, and by this Editor’s estimation — brilliant!”

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

I agree with Raland that the three defendants are probably not aware of the case. However, although I have my theories, it seems strange that the three alone must face the lawsuit, since all if the court rejected Raland’s original petition without a dissent. In any case, they did not “lawyer up.”  A case was filed and it was routinely put on the desk on of a government attorney.

The case has been assigned to a magistrate who has issued a scheduling order. As these things go, It should not take long to dismiss it once it is addressed. It has the same problems as the original petition with the added wrinkle of attempting to sue some of the justices for performance of their duties.

Raland does not know for certain how any of the justices voted.  Moreover, although Brunson rejects the idea of judicial immunity, it still applies. The court also is not about to declare that they have no discretion to determine the cases they will accept. Although 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. That might actually help Biden to pack the court. It might be worth given the Brunsons their millions if Congress decided they needed to get started with that right away.

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

In the end it did not take long for the US Attorney to file a motion to dismiss based on sovereign immunity and basic tort law.  They are right

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

Raland also invokes 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. 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 claims “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 do not bother him.

On May 30, 2013, 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.

 



Over and Over

“I said over and over and over again, This dance is gonna be a drag.” Bobby Day lyrics, performed by the Dave Clark 5 without trumpets.

Bunson v. Adams
Over and over and over again, the same song is repeated. Here, the 10th Circuit had not yet received the record on appeal when Loy filed a new petition for certiorari with the Supreme Court. (Case No. 22-1028, filed April 24, 2023). He referred to it as an emergency petition under Rule 11,  but the fact that it was filed does not mean the court has accepted it on that basis.

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 have repeatedly dismissed the Brunson actions with no dissent.

The petition makes the same basic claims that have been alleged over and over again. It claims that 388 defendants, including the current administration and former Vice-President Pence, “waged a covert domestic war against the United States of America.” It alleges 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 use a number of questions expressing his view of what the law should be but nothing shows that his case has merit. He mistakenly ignores the the court’s previous denial of Raland’s petition, but the court will have no such amnesia.  He presents no argument that a different result should be reached.

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.[2] A potentially entertaining development is that Paul Preston and New California State tried to file an amicus brief. Preston attempted to file an amicus in Raland’s case but filed too late. Here, his brief was returned to correct certain things, but he could well again miss out if the court … Continue reading

Loy and his supporters have presented this as a victory, but it is the normal course of business for handling a frivolous petition. Nothing more should be read into the action of the Court or the State other than that a petition was received and filed.  I feel safe in predicting that the Brunson dance is not going to go anywhere.

 

Spacecapn blog - captain mark richards - saucer

6/1/2013


Notes:

Notes:
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 A potentially entertaining development is that Paul Preston and New California State tried to file an amicus brief. Preston attempted to file an amicus in Raland’s case but filed too late. Here, his brief was returned to correct certain things, but he could well again miss out if the court decides the petition sooner rather than later.