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.

[Robert DeLong]

In my opinion, the fact that it wasn't brought in the D.C. District Court was either intentional brilliance or a divine act, for it would have been shot down faster than the ink had dried on the paper.

Perhaps you learned nothing with regards to the cases Durham brought against Michael Sussman & Igor Danchenko? No case involving Trump will be won there, no matter how strong the evidence may be.

So, they bypassed the one court system that should be abolished quite frankly, and achieved getting it before the U.S. Supreme Court to be considered by them to be heard in their court.

Besides that, the scene of the crime was hardly limited to D.C. It may have been hatched there, but it was carried out well beyond the borders of D.C. Across state lines, and quite possibly across our nations borders and into the borders of foreign adversaries to coordinate with foreign actors to make the theft possible.

I mean, look at J6 and the political prisoners who have been denied their rights to a speedy trial by juries of their peers even for simple charges such as trespassing and parading. There have even been allegations of brutality & torture inflict on these same people, and nothing has been done in the form of an investigation. They will never receive fair trials where justice is supposedly blind, and only that evidence that is presented to the courts is to be considered. In reality they have been subjected to kangaroo courts rife with proprietorial misconduct. They deny them even basic rights, such as discovery by their defense attorneys.

[Dr. Franklin]

In my opinion, the fact that it wasn't brought in the D.C. District Court was either intentional brilliance or a divine act, for it would have been shot down faster than the ink had dried on the paper.

Which would have accelerated the path to SCOTUS...

Perhaps you learned nothing with regards to the cases Durham brought against Michael Sussman & Igor Danchenko? No case involving Trump will be won there, no matter how strong the evidence may be.

I don't think the facts of this case are in dispute. It's all in the Congressional record. Without a factual dispute, the legal issues get decided on appeal, ultimately at SCOTUS.

So, they bypassed the one court system that should be abolished quite frankly, and achieved getting it before the U.S. Supreme Court to be considered by them to be heard in their court.

Which was brilliant, but if jurisdiction is lacking they are at the mercy of SCOTUS to transfer venue to D.C.

Besides that, the scene of the crime was hardly limited to D.C. It may have been hatched there, but it was carried out well beyond the borders of D.C. Across state lines, and quite possibly across our nations borders and into the borders of foreign adversaries to coordinate with foreign actors to make the theft possible.

Essentially, for all practical purposes, this a quo warranto action against the hundreds of congresscritter respondents who violated their oaths of office. D.C. is the statutory venue for such an action, and nowhere else.

I mean, look at J6 and the political prisoners who have been denied their rights to a speedy trial by juries of their peers even for simple charges such as trespassing and parading. There have even been allegations of brutality & torture inflict on these same people, and nothing has been done in the form of an investigation. They will never receive fair trials where justice is supposedly blind, and only that evidence that is presented to the courts is to be considered. In reality they have been subjected to kangaroo courts rife with proprietorial misconduct. They deny them even basic rights, such as discovery by their defense attorneys.

Ultimately, that reflects on the indifference of SCOTUS to the blatant disregard for the constitutional rights of the accused. Habeas corpus writs can issue directly from SCOTUS, although that never happens anymore. SCOTUS is more interested in "setting policy" through its discretionary certiorari jurisdiction than ensuring justice through its original jurisdiction. See Texas v. Pennsylvania. None of that grants a court in Utah jurisdiction over events in D.C.

[Mr. K]

right next to the part that says the VP certifies the results.

[Dr. Franklin]

Don’t misunderstand me. I strongly believe the case should be heard. I’ve requested cert on two cases in which my constitutional rights were blatantly violated. Was denied cert both times.

SCOTUS was originally intended to keep the lower courts in line and enforce the rule of law. It has evolved into a policy making body that then declines to enforce its policies when judges ignore them. SCOTUS has taken the attitude of "Let them eat cake!" to the common folk.

[WASCWatch]

One of the worst decisions was to create out of thin air prosecutors civil immunity for prosecutors and judges, especially for orosecutors.

Only in very rare exceptions are prosecutors held accountable for their blatant abuses of the rights of private citizens. Even when caught, they rarely get more than a slap on the wrist, even when their victims have spent decades in prison for wrongful convicts because the prosecutors withheld evidence that was helpful to thr defendant or even proved the defendant was innocent.

[philman_36]

BTTT

[philman_36]

BTTT

[Dr. Franklin]

One of the worst decisions was to create out of thin air prosecutors civil immunity for prosecutors and judges, especially for orosecutors.

Only in very rare exceptions are prosecutors held accountable for their blatant abuses of the rights of private citizens. Even when caught, they rarely get more than a slap on the wrist, even when their victims have spent decades in prison for wrongful convicts because the prosecutors withheld evidence that was helpful to thr defendant or even proved the defendant was innocent.

Jefferson wrote, “In questions of power, let no more be heard of confidence in man, but bind him down from mischief by the chains of the constitution.” Immunity for those who break the guarantees of the constitution certainly creates mischief. Immunity for prosecutors and, more recently police, lets them aggressively push the bounds of the law in their favor, and also encourages lying, perjury, etc. Immunity for judicial decisions has a stronger foundation. However, immunity did not apply when the prerogative writs were issued. In such case, the judge was the defendant for failing to perform the clerical duties of the office, and liable for the costs of the action. Such willful malfeasance and nonfeasance, is the larger problem, particularly obstructing appellate review of decisions which are willfully erroneous.

[philman_36]

BTTT

[WASCWatch]

Awesome post. Only change I would suggest is to replace clerical duties with “ministerial duties’ which are required action for which there is no discretion.

[philman_36]

BTTT

[spacejunkie2001]

You’re plugged into this Brunson case pretty good. What’s your high level take on whether it goes anywhere or not?

[Dr. Franklin]

You’re plugged into this Brunson case pretty good. What’s your high level take on whether it goes anywhere or not?

I think they've stumbled upon an argument that at least one justice at SCOTUS thinks has some merit. I think the case was filed in the wrong court. The lower court likely only has jurisdiction over those congresscritters from that state. It needed to have been filed in D.C. for proper jurisdiction over them all, and venue should be transferred there. Despite the national security arguments, SCOTUS is in no rush to hear the case. Nothing has been expedited, and that buys time for the lower court to act. If the lower court acts, SCOTUS is less likely to hear the case. All now depends on four justices at SCOTUS wanting to hear this case. That is the bottom line.

[spacejunkie2001]

and we’ll know their willingness to hear the case on 1/6? If it was filed in DC originally it would have been tossed immediately, right? I think I read that. To transfer it there is there more likelihood it WON’T be tossed?

[Degaston]

Can anyone provide links to any Supreme Court dockets where there was a “call for response” made on case more than 12 days after a “DISTRIBUTED for Conference” result within a week from a “Waiver of right of respondent” filing and then that case resulted in oral arguments before the Supreme Court?

Short answer: This petition of the Brunsons is almost certainly “dead listed” and will be automatically in the DENY pile at this scheduled Conference session. It’s impossible for anyone to advocate with any credibility that this petition is going anywhere (except DENIAL) if they don’t provide these links.

This petition filing was submitted, response waived, put in the “dead listed” right away after the cert pool review, and no indication that there has been any “call for response” that could possibly put it on the “discuss list” where cases still have less than a 10% chance of getting approved for court review. It’s been almost 2 weeks now since it got added to the “Distributed for Conference” list and still no “call for response”.

“The Government hereby waives its right to file a response to the petition in this case, unless requested to do so by the Court.”
https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/22/22-380/247457/20221123155305329_Waiver%20Letter%20-%2022-0380.pdf

Nov 23 2022 Waiver of right of respondent United States to respond filed.
Nov 30 2022 DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 1/6/2023.

https://www.supremecourt.gov/search.aspx?filename=/docket/docketfiles/html/public/22-380.html

Any case not appearing on the discuss list is “dead listed” for denial without a conference vote. Only 15 percent to 30 percent of circulated petitions appear on the discuss list .... the Court does not include any petition on the “discuss list” until a response has been filed Thus, if the [any justice] believes that, despite a waiver of a brief in opposition, the petition should be included on a discuss list for a conference vote, he or she will ask the Clerk to “call for a response.”

https://www.mayerbrown.com/en/perspectives-events/publications/1999/01/opposing-certiorari-in-the-us-supreme-court

[Degaston]

If there is at least 1 Justice seriously wanting to hear the Case then we would have seen a “Call for Response” by now.

So, what’s your take now with there being no “Call for Response”?

[Dr. Franklin]

If there is at least 1 Justice seriously wanting to hear the Case then we would have seen a “Call for Response” by now.

No, one justice is required to put the case on the list for discussion at a conference of the justices. That has been done. All will need read the brief and discuss it at conference. It requires four justices to want to hear the case. If this gets four votes at conference, the writ of certitorari will issue to hear the case. Then each side must submit briefs on the merits of the case.

[philman_36]

If the lower court acts, SCOTUS is less likely to hear the case.

Ummmm...the 10th DID make a decision on the case.

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT

That's why Rule 11 was no longer needed. The 10th ruled AFTER the Rule 11 motion was already sent in.

If you had listened to any of the interviews you would know that.

[philman_36]

Somebody is really sweating this case.

You can deny it, but the obvious is obvious.

[philman_36]

The Rules...
RULES OF THE Supreme Court of the United States

Rule 11. Certiorari to a United States Court of Appeals Before Judgment
A petition for a writ of certiorari to review a case pending in a United States court of appeals, before judgment is entered in that court, will be granted only upon a showing that the case is of such imperative public importance as to justify deviation from normal appellate practice and to require immediate determination in this Court. See 28 U. S. C. § 2101(e).