Brunson Brothers Make History - The FULL Story

The KUWL Report | Substack ^ | William Quinn & Robert Cunningham

[RobaWho]

Why is the “secret” Brunson v Adams lawsuit officially scheduled for a US Supreme Court Hearing being met with defeating silence from America’s so-called media elite?

This Civil Lawsuit was proactively hand-selected by the US Supreme Court in October of 2022, was written and filed by a band of brothers (an actual band of trumpet playing brothers) without attorney representation, and seeks the most historic and consequential judicial remedy in American history. Why no coverage?

This video explores the WHY Questions that aren’t being asked - but should be. The links below provide factual “receipts” available for all to see - including America’s biased media.

Imbedded video & extensive linking available at link.

[Fury]

It’s okay. You keep thinking that.

Let me know if there’s any examples of a federal civil officer being removed from office other than by conviction in an impeachment (other than being removed by the President in the case of a cabinet official being dismissed, etc)

[Dr. Franklin]

In life it is better to have a straw than no straw. (especially for malts)
Pardon my optimism.

Yes, it's better to light a candle than to curse the darkness. This case making conference at SCOTUS is some small hope, but it is small. However, remaining willfully ignorant about fundamental legal doctrines like personal jurisdiction is not at all helpful to the cause.

[philman_36]

However, remaining willfully ignorant about fundamental legal doctrines like personal jurisdiction is not at all helpful to the cause.

Still casting aspersions I see. You should step up your game.

[philman_36]

Let me know if there’s any examples of a federal civil officer being removed from office other than by conviction in an impeachment... They usually quit before they get impeached.

It's gonna be another bad day for you.
House Practice: A Guide to the Rules, Precedents and Procedures of the House]

A Member of Congress is not a ``civil Officer'' within the meaning of the impeachment provisions of the Constitution. 3 Hinds Sec. Sec. 2310, 2316. The contention that a Senator was not a civil officer within the meaning of the impeachment provisions of the Constitution was sustained by the Senate in 1799. The Senate dismissed impeachment charges brought to its bar by the House, finding that an impeachment of a Senator was beyond its jurisdiction. 3 Hinds Sec. 2318; Sec. 4, infra.

[Fury]

It's gonna be another bad day for you.

Not likely. I never wrote that Members of Congress could removed via conviction in an impeachment trial. They can only be removed via expulsion with a 2/3 vote.

Do better.

[Dr. Franklin]

You should step up your game.

No, you first.

[philman_36]

Where was the original lawsuit filed? State Court. Where did it get moved to? Federal Court.

Personal Jurisdiction in Federal Courts

Personal Jurisdiction, or in personam jurisdiction, refers to the power of a court to hear and determine a lawsuit involving a defendant by virtue of the defendant’s having some contact with the place where the court is located.

[philman_36]

Do better.

It's hard to fly with the eagles when you're surrounded by buzzards.

[philman_36]

My game is prime.
I note that you never did get back with me on subject matter jurisdiction.

[Dr. Franklin]

I note that you never did get back with me on subject matter jurisdiction.

There would be no point. You don't know how much you don't know.

[Degaston]

In your reply you completely ignored the implications that there has been no “Call for Response” made on this Petition. And as far as I can see on this thread, nobody has provided any examples of any Petition like this one that was anywhere but the Dead List.

What you are talking about is the process for Petitions that are on the Discuss List. That’s irrelevant on this Petition since its obvious that its on the Dead List. Cases on the dead list are automatically denied certiorari when their scheduled “conference date” comes up.

At any point in the process (until the Conference Date) some Justice can ask to have a Petition that’s on the Dead List be put on the Discuss List. But then the Court Clerk will put out a “Call for Response” and provide adequate time (with a rescheduling of the Conference Date likely if this request for Discuss List comes a good while after the Petition was reviewed by the Pool) for the party(s) who originally waived their right to respond to then produce a Response.

So, go look at the precedent set on the last 100,000 Petitions filed the past few decades and see for yourself. If you find any Petition out there that is like the Brunsons that wasn’t on the Dead List at this stage then this discussion can continue. If not it’s dead like the Brunsons’ Petition is on the Dead List and any more discussion is just a bunch of timewasting noise.

https://libguides.law.umich.edu/scotus

[philman_36]

You don't know how much you don't know.

Cheap snipes? Nothing changes with you.

[philman_36]

...and any more discussion is just a bunch of timewasting noise.

Yet you're wasting your own time with noise. Amazing!

[philman_36]

In your reply you completely ignored the implications that there has been no “Call for Response” made on this Petition.

From YOUR link...

Petitioning to be Heard

• Petition for Writ of Certiorari
  • Appealing litigants file a brief called a “petition for writ of certiorari” asking the Court to hear their case.
• Responses to Petitions for Writ
  • Non-filing party has three options in response to a Petition for Writ of Certiorari
    • Acquiesce. Non-filing party can agree that the Court should grant cert and hear the case 
    • Waive its right to file a response
    • File a Brief in Opposition
• Reply Brief
  • The petitioner has the opportunity to rebut the Brief in Opposition by filing a reply brief.
• Amicus Briefs​
  • Outside parties (amici curiae) who agree with the petitioner may file amicus briefs at this stage, supporting the petitioner’s request for review.

[philman_36]

WAIVER
The Government hereby waives its right to file a response to the petition in this case, unless requested to do so by the Court.
ELIZABETH B. PRELOGAR Solicitor General Counsel of Record

Sounds like a response to me.

Note she said "The Government", not "The Respondents".

"The government" isn't the object, individuals IN the government are the object.

[Dr. Franklin]

That’s irrelevant on this Petition since its obvious that its on the Dead List.

Anything on the conference list at SCOTUS is not dead, and can't be on a "dead list" before the end of the conference.

[Dr. Franklin]

Cheap snipes?

No, if the shoe fits, wear it.

[philman_36]

Yep, cheap snipes.

[Dr. Franklin]

Yes. I can’t believe they declined to hear it, and act on it. If they had, we might not be in the current mess.

I can opine on what judges should have done, and why, but they can be quite unpredictable. SCOTUS refused to hear a case between the states, which it was required to hear. Now we are left with this unprecedented case. The whole "standing" issue needs to be fixed by statute or constitutional amendment. Otherwise, things could get unpleasant.

[Dr. Franklin]

Yep, cheap snipes.

If the shoe fits, wear it.