Seriously, You dont know what you're talking about. All Supreme Court cases begin as a Writ of Certorari. This Brunson case has been distributed for Committee, which means the Court is not guaranteed to decide the case, but at least two Justices want to take up the case.
Thanks for speaking your mind. You're entitled to your opinion, but as you can see in the report, I am not making stuff up. On the contrary, I'm just pointing out the obvious. Full report forthcoming, I would be happy to walk you step by step through my analysis. There are many layers of deception and the veneer of legitimacy is enticing -- however the "case" does not exist.
It is a petition and it will not be heard, regardless of the rumors about what two justices *might* want to take up. As for whether or not all cases "begin as a Writ of Certorari" as you claim, I would say 1) if all cases begin that way, then why does Cornell Law School state that it is "meant for rare use" ?; and 2) the point is irrelevant either way, as the petition still has no legal teeth and will inevitably be dismissed like the rest of Brunson's so-called "cases" have been.
As for his legal precedent on the "doctrine of the object principle of justice" and the "doctrine of equitable maxim" -- both of these precedents he claims (on pg18) are defined in a separate SCOTUS petition, namely "docket No. 18-1147" -- which, for the record, was a petition submitted by his brother Deron G. Brunson against a "Bayview Loan Servicing" in an apparent mortgage delinquency dispute -- and "docket No. 18-1147" DOES NOT 1) define either one of his alleged precedents, or 2) support Raland's supposed "case" in anyway whatsoever.
The Brunson case in not wrong in premise, and the quoting of the Constitution and Amendments is accurate, however, when Brunson makes claim to the "doctrine of the object principle of justice", this does not exist in the legal cannon -- meaning it does not exist in prior legal documents. Feel free to present any evidence to the contrary. I will outline all of this and more in the full report.
That might be a good time to muster some curiosity and reexamine the evidence. :)
You are dead wrong. This case has also been looked at and analyzed by other very reputable law scholars and they have no derogations regarding. You say you’d bet all your money that you’re right. You don’t need to do that since you probably have very little anyway but I challenge you to commit to quitting your third-rate program when proven wrong.
Feel free to cling to the illusions, or stay curious and consider the facts at hand, your choice. The Brunsons have a long track record of being dubious characters and have been dismissed by courts numerous times for filing nonsensical petitions. To quote the Supreme Court of Utah:
“[Brunson], who has evidently represented himself through all four cases related to this foreclosure, has a ninth-grade education. His first complaint was rife with all sorts of shortcomings … [Brunson’s] long and complicated series of litigation has never featured a single legally cognizable claim. His redundant claims have been rejected by no fewer than three trial courts and two appellate courts..."
Today's report outlines this and many other holes in the story. Stay curious!
You're off track and wanting us to look at him, and judge him by his looks and money? You didn't even bring up the MAIN point in the case. CONgress was supposed to look at the election when it's under dispute, and they didn't. Undeniable. I don't know if there is a law or rule requiring it. Doesn't really matter. The election wasn't properly certified, approved or voted on like it was supposed to be. Again undeniable. So what's the solution? You didn't mention the different options they gave the court either. Not a very thorough or on topic job by you Luke. Over half the article was off topic, listening to yourself talk. Good luck!
Thanks for speaking your mind. I do not disagree with the main point in the case, or the fact that congress violated their oaths, etc -- the premise is indeed undeniable. However, Brunson v Adams is not going to force SCOTUS to hear this case (that is false hope), and Brunson himself is a shady character who is deceitful and dishonest in his petition (as outlined more thoroughly in today's report). As far as "look at the guy" -- I maintain this is a valid criticism, do to the most often accurate assessment that can be made by direct observation. For example: Is this person happy, sad, or mad? The same also applies to: Is this person kind and trustworthy, or this is person concealing ill intent and about to rob me? It's not infallible, and I don't advocate judging a book by its cover, but in the case of Brunson, one look at the guy and it becomes very difficult to take the man serious -- and that is a conclusion reached long before I uncovered his other well-documented shenanigans.
Seriously, You dont know what you're talking about. All Supreme Court cases begin as a Writ of Certorari. This Brunson case has been distributed for Committee, which means the Court is not guaranteed to decide the case, but at least two Justices want to take up the case.
It isnt a "psy-op" You're making things up.
Thanks for speaking your mind. You're entitled to your opinion, but as you can see in the report, I am not making stuff up. On the contrary, I'm just pointing out the obvious. Full report forthcoming, I would be happy to walk you step by step through my analysis. There are many layers of deception and the veneer of legitimacy is enticing -- however the "case" does not exist.
It is a petition and it will not be heard, regardless of the rumors about what two justices *might* want to take up. As for whether or not all cases "begin as a Writ of Certorari" as you claim, I would say 1) if all cases begin that way, then why does Cornell Law School state that it is "meant for rare use" ?; and 2) the point is irrelevant either way, as the petition still has no legal teeth and will inevitably be dismissed like the rest of Brunson's so-called "cases" have been.
As for his legal precedent on the "doctrine of the object principle of justice" and the "doctrine of equitable maxim" -- both of these precedents he claims (on pg18) are defined in a separate SCOTUS petition, namely "docket No. 18-1147" -- which, for the record, was a petition submitted by his brother Deron G. Brunson against a "Bayview Loan Servicing" in an apparent mortgage delinquency dispute -- and "docket No. 18-1147" DOES NOT 1) define either one of his alleged precedents, or 2) support Raland's supposed "case" in anyway whatsoever.
The Brunson case in not wrong in premise, and the quoting of the Constitution and Amendments is accurate, however, when Brunson makes claim to the "doctrine of the object principle of justice", this does not exist in the legal cannon -- meaning it does not exist in prior legal documents. Feel free to present any evidence to the contrary. I will outline all of this and more in the full report.
That might be a good time to muster some curiosity and reexamine the evidence. :)
You are dead wrong. This case has also been looked at and analyzed by other very reputable law scholars and they have no derogations regarding. You say you’d bet all your money that you’re right. You don’t need to do that since you probably have very little anyway but I challenge you to commit to quitting your third-rate program when proven wrong.
Feel free to cling to the illusions, or stay curious and consider the facts at hand, your choice. The Brunsons have a long track record of being dubious characters and have been dismissed by courts numerous times for filing nonsensical petitions. To quote the Supreme Court of Utah:
“[Brunson], who has evidently represented himself through all four cases related to this foreclosure, has a ninth-grade education. His first complaint was rife with all sorts of shortcomings … [Brunson’s] long and complicated series of litigation has never featured a single legally cognizable claim. His redundant claims have been rejected by no fewer than three trial courts and two appellate courts..."
Today's report outlines this and many other holes in the story. Stay curious!
https://www.thetorchreport.com/p/tr-261-the-brunson-v-adams-psyop#details
You're off track and wanting us to look at him, and judge him by his looks and money? You didn't even bring up the MAIN point in the case. CONgress was supposed to look at the election when it's under dispute, and they didn't. Undeniable. I don't know if there is a law or rule requiring it. Doesn't really matter. The election wasn't properly certified, approved or voted on like it was supposed to be. Again undeniable. So what's the solution? You didn't mention the different options they gave the court either. Not a very thorough or on topic job by you Luke. Over half the article was off topic, listening to yourself talk. Good luck!
Thanks for speaking your mind. I do not disagree with the main point in the case, or the fact that congress violated their oaths, etc -- the premise is indeed undeniable. However, Brunson v Adams is not going to force SCOTUS to hear this case (that is false hope), and Brunson himself is a shady character who is deceitful and dishonest in his petition (as outlined more thoroughly in today's report). As far as "look at the guy" -- I maintain this is a valid criticism, do to the most often accurate assessment that can be made by direct observation. For example: Is this person happy, sad, or mad? The same also applies to: Is this person kind and trustworthy, or this is person concealing ill intent and about to rob me? It's not infallible, and I don't advocate judging a book by its cover, but in the case of Brunson, one look at the guy and it becomes very difficult to take the man serious -- and that is a conclusion reached long before I uncovered his other well-documented shenanigans.