Brunson Brothers Make History - The FULL Story

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

[Dr. Franklin]

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.

Well thank you for finally posting a link to the Tenth Circuit's decision. Reading that, instead of simply claiming a lack of jurisdiction over most of the parties, they decided to base their decision upon 1) the usual lack of "standing" and 2) sovereign immunity, and the lack of a coherent argument addressing that basis in the appellate brief by Mr. Brunson. It looks like typical hostility towards a pro se claim: the peasants are revolting so throw this case out of court. So, the Tenth Circuit used legal technicalities to avoid addressing national security, and the death of the Republic which are at issue in the case.

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

I am a visual learner. None of what was posted on GP made reference to the actual decision in the District Court or the Tenth Circuit, or a reasonable legal analysis of the case. I did listen to one interview, which didn't quite address the basis of decision below. I don't have time to listen to them all.

[Dr. Franklin]

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?

Well it got tossed immediately where it was filed, and probably would have been tossed in most every federal circuit for the same or similar reasons: lack of standing, and/or sovereign immunity. Any federal court could have just decided to transfer the case to D.C. to gain jurisdiction over all defendants. By using the basis they did, the lower courts tossed the case rather than adjudicating any of the claims raised. SCOTUS may well find national security, and election hacking are serious enough issues that the Brunson has a case, even if the venue needs to be changed.

[philman_36]

Well thank you for finally posting a link to the Tenth Circuit's decision.

You don't know how to look that up for yourself?! 10th Circuit Brunson v Adams. Amazing!
All that talking, half informed, and now with more info you're fire and brimstone.
Rightly so, I might add.

[philman_36]

I am a visual learner. None of what was posted on GP made reference to the actual decision in the District Court or the Tenth Circuit, or a reasonable legal analysis of the case.

You're KILLING me, Smalls!

2022.10.25 DCC Meeting - Challenging the Immunity of Congress (Brunson himself - 1:02:57 - all covered)

Rumble - Search results for: brunson v adams

Bitchute - brunson v adams

And that's just two platforms.

[meadsjn]

D. C. was the "scene of the crime", and all present that day can reasonably expect to answer for that act in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia.

Not so. There were multiple scenes of the crimes, in multiple states.

The State Legislatures have authority over election processes in the various states. State courts and bureaucrats usurped the legitimate authority of the Legislatures by changing or ignoring laws on the fly.

What are the four scenarios where the Supreme Court has original jurisdiction?

For federal courts, original jurisdiction is granted in disputes involving maritime law, United States law, cases concerning citizens of different states, cases involving different state governments, disputes where the United States is a party, and in cases between foreign nations and ambassadors.

[philman_36]

...even if the venue needs to be changed.

Always back to that. You want it to be tried in a corrupt cesspool
of a District that will never render true Justice.
Amazing!

[Dr. Franklin]

Always back to that. You want it to be tried in a corrupt cesspool of a District that will never render true Justice. Amazing!

It's not where I want it tried. It's about which court is the proper venue to try the matter for jurisdictional purposes. Look up forum non conveniens to understand the issue.

[philman_36]

The Oath of Office The Thread By Which The Constitution Hangs L. A. Brunson (11:21)

Mentioned in the first video.

[philman_36]

It's about which court is the proper venue to try the matter for jurisdictional purposes. Look up forum non conveniens to understand the issue.

You're speaking of a Sua Sponte Action?
forum non conveniens
Sua Sponte Action
Further, a court will typically only invoke forum non conveniens sua sponte if it meets a 2-step test:
the court is a seriously inappropriate forum
there is a substantially more appropriate court that is available for the plaintiff's claim

What Court would be more appropriate than the Supreme Court?

[Degaston]

You wrote: one justice is required to put the case on the list for discussion at a conference of the justices. That has been done.

My response: Then where is the Clerk’s “Call for Response”? Without that the only discussion that’ll take place about this Petition at the Conference will be to have it and the rest of the ones in the Dead Listed pile sent back to the Clerk’s office to be officially DENIED. I’m not saying that you are incorrect. I am not making any claims on anything about the merits of this Petition. I’m just pointing out that if you don’t have any evidence of at least a “Call for Response” by now then its obviously Dead Listed.

[philman_36]

Personally, IMO, this is why it belongs with the Supreme Court.

Subject matter jurisdiction
The power of a court to adjudicate a particular type of matter and provide the remedy demanded.

[philman_36]

There’s a difference between us. I give you my argument, you make me go look yours up.

[philman_36]

Your pessimism is impressive.

[Dr. Franklin]

Personally, IMO, this is why it belongs with the Supreme Court.

This should have been addressed in Texas v. Pennsylvani but wasn't. Now we are grasping at straws that SCOTUS will finally address the matter from a pro se filing.

Subject matter jurisdiction The power of a court to adjudicate a particular type of matter and provide the remedy demanded.

The issue here is Personal Jurisdiction
Why should a Senator from Haiwaii consent to be sued in Utah state court for an act committed, or not committed in Washington, D.C.? The court in Utah lacks personal jurisdiction over him. Yet, the U.S. District Court for D.C. has such jurisdiction under a tort theory of jurisdiction. Enough about the case is novel that there was no reason to try to reinvent the laws of personal jurisdiction as well.

[Dr. Franklin]

You're speaking of a Sua Sponte Action? forum non conveniens Sua Sponte Action Further, a court will typically only invoke forum non conveniens sua sponte if it meets a 2-step test: the court is a seriously inappropriate forum there is a substantially more appropriate court that is available for the plaintiff's claim

This isn't a typical case. The proper venue for the action is in D.C.

What Court would be more appropriate than the Supreme Court?

Unless SCOTUS is willing to recognize that this case falls under its original jurisdiction, (again I note the POTUS must be a "consul" under the original meaning of the word), then we are left with the case falling under the appellate jurisdiction of SCOTUS. In that case, SCOTUS can not adjudicate any more than what is first done in a U.S. District Court, although it can retain jurisdiction for prompt review of the lower court.

[Dr. Franklin]

There’s a difference between us. I give you my argument, you make me go look yours up.

I didn't need to look it up. You did. Don't take things so personally. I am trying to educate you.

[Degaston]

I will eat my words if the Supreme Court conference outcome is a 9-0 ruling in favor of the Brunsons on January 6th that includes their assertion that their case is so strong that they didn’t even need to bother with oral arguments.

In all honesty I do find the Brunsons’ cheerleaders are really making themselves look non-credible in their continued cheerleading when they ignore the question about whether the Clerk has made any “Call for Response” on this Petition. That would be their strongest argument right now.

I really haven’t read the details on that website because the intro said something about a decision of the Supreme Court to have a hearing and then the link to its docket just showed that that the Petitioned had been submitted and that no actual hearing had been scheduled. Those embellished claims were a huge red flag that I might have stumbled on to some clickbait or some other time waster. That’s why I haven’t read the details on that website. All I really know on this is that the website’s content has some exaggerated and misleading claims and that we have some folks on FR who seem so determined to ignore reality and demonstrate that they are willfully choosing to be delusional.

What I have read up on are the procedures of the Supreme Court. And all indications are that this Petition is Dead Listed. And without there being some actual “Call for Response” from the Court Clerk then there is no other realistic future for this Petition.

[philman_36]

I will eat my words if the Supreme Court conference outcome is a 9-0 ruling in favor of the Brunsons on January 6th that includes their assertion that their case is so strong that they didn’t even need to bother with oral arguments.

MY, what big stipulations you have.

I would say that an 8-0 outcome would be more likely with Brown recused.
See? You're already out of eating your words as your stipulation isn't met.

[Fury]

A kook petition.

The remedy they allude to is not within the purview of SCOTUS.

They must have missed the day they talked about law school on a TV law drama.

[philman_36]

And all indications are that this Petition is Dead Listed.

Thanks for sharing, and pushing, your opinion.