Dec 16, 2022 • 28M

TR 261 - The Brunson v. Adams PSYOP

This special report exposes EXACTLY why this exciting Supreme Court "case" is NOT what it appears to be --- do not be deceived!

2
 
0:00
-27:36
Open in playerListen on);
Resistance is the spice of life. We need to talk about what's really going on. It's time to face what we're up against. There's a small group of people trying to take over the world by luring the fools into traps. Don't be fooled! Listen to The Torch Report daily to get the "truth you can trust" and stay wise to all the lies! The Torch Report = Intelligent perspectives for curious people. You'll want to SUBSCRIBE so you don't miss out and please don't forget to share!
Episode details
2 comments

Here we go.

Yesterday, I set about making a video to walk everyone step by step through my research into the Brunson v. Adams case, but it ended up being waaaay too long. There is a lot of information, and there are seemingly endless subtleties, so I’m going to outline the most glaring discrepancies here, and record a highlights reel tomorrow.

Let’s take it point by point:

  1. The first distinction to be made, is that Brunson v. Adams is NOT a Supreme Court “case” — it is a petition that will very likely be dismissed and therefore not be heard by SCOTUS. This was the fate of the many other petitions that have been filed by prominent attorneys, including Trump’s own legal team and others. Are we to believe that Raland Brunson, who is not a lawyer and is of dubious character, is going to succeed where other well funded top-tier legal teams have failed? Do you believe that?

  2. Claiming that Brunson v. Adams has any chance whatsoever at removing a sitting president from office, and further expunging over 300 members of congress and federal officials for failing to uphold their oaths of office, is an extraordinary claim. Such a claim would naturally require extraordinary evidence. The only evidence that exists in this “case” is that Brunson is deceitful and dishonest.

  3. The petition itself is full of fluffy legalese. When the average everyday American reads a legal document, their eyes gloss over. That’s unfortunate, because in this case many of the words and phrases Brunson threads together amount to little more than mindless jabber and poor grammar. I offer this excerpt as an example:

    …read it slowly, then re-read it again, slowly. Now consider the language being used. Is the sentence structure correct? Do these sentences actually make sense? Or, are they just a bunch of words strung together in a nice sounding but nonsensical way? The truth is, these sentences are not coherent. They point toward psychosis (meaning Brunson likely cannot distinguish between what he thinks he is saying and actual reality). 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. Any claim he could have raised in prior cases is now precluded by res judica.”

    In other words, this guy is a quack and the courts are tired of his quackery.

  4. It is critically important to realize that this “doctrine of the object principle of justice” is NOT actually a legal precedent. Look it up. If it were a legal doctrine, it would be found all over in legal literature, but it is not. It doesn’t exist outside of a closed-loop reference to a different Bronson brother’s petition to dismiss a case regarding the foreclosure of his million dollar property (more on that in a minute).

    1. Raland Brunson asserts that these supposed “doctrines” are defined in a certain “docket No. 18-1147” which is linked below. He makes this claim on page 8, which offers another example of his jabber and hubris:

    2. FOR THE RECORD, this “docket No. 18-1147” —which Raland Brunson claims fully explains this made up “doctrine of the object principle of justice”—was filed by Deron G. Brunson, Raland’s brother, dated May 15th, 2019. The document absolutely does NOT explain these made up doctrines (these words are not even in the document). The proof of this can be found in the document itself, which is available on the Supreme Court website here:

      https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/18/18-1147/100493/20190521130904076_00000001.pdf

      Docket No. 18-1147 is not a Supreme Court case. This is another Brunson petition, which like all the others, was DENIED. Brunson filed an appeal and was subsequently DENIED again. All related documents can be found here.

      Keep in mind that every citizen has a “right” to petition the court—and there is nothing stopping anyone from doing so, even without a lawyer, as in the case of both Brunsons. However, petitioning the court does not mean that it becomes a case. Any petition may or may not be validated, or may simply be dismissed by the court. None of the Brunson cases have ever been validated. They have all been dismissed, and they will continue to be dismissed, precisely because they are full of gibberish and lack legal precedent.

    3. Just to drive the point home, take note of how these so-called “doctrines” do not pull up in any Supreme Court cases, or in the Library of Congress, or in any law dictionary that I was able to find:

      ***IF the “DOCTRINE OF THE OBJECT PRINCIPLE OF JUSTICE” was an actual legal doctrine, it would be readily available for research and study, and it would be cited in numerous documented cases—which it is not.

      FURTHERMORE, if you were inclined to search even further for this phrase, you would find that the only reference for this “doctrine” is in Brunson and his brother’s petitions, and in certain media outlets that were duped into quoting these petitions. All articles that surface when looking for these “doctrines” ultimately refer back to the Brunson brother’s petitions, which creates a circular reference that is entirely void of legal validation.

      In other words, the Brunsons made up their own doctrine and are now petitioning the Supreme Court to arrest the sitting president based on this made up doctrine. Do you really think the SCOTUS is going to be moved?

I am not persuaded. Though Brunson v. Adams stirs the patriot’s soul with its lofty goal of restoring justice throughout our land, and though Brunson rightly points out the Constitutional rights that would restore such justice, this petition is problematic for the reasons explained above, as well as the fact that it fails to provide the extraordinary evidence needed to support such an extraordinary claim.

Think about it.

Let’s let the logical mind prevail, shall we? We can see that this case will be dismissed before it is ever heard, can we not? We know that top-notch attorneys working for a duly elected President petitioned the court and failed, and that Brunson, who has no lawyer and wrote the petition (which is full of gibberish) for himself, has also failed and been dismissed each time he’s petitioned the court; therefore, there is no reason to believe that the Supreme Court is going to hear this case, correct?

Logically speaking, those forces who foisted the sock-puppet upon us are not simply going to let some disgruntled peasant ruin their plot—especially given that this particular peasant is prone to making up his own legal terms and demanding that the Supreme Court treat his delusions of grandeur like the law of the land.

It’s laughable, really, and sad.

Now let’s look at the weird stuff.

The fact that Brunson predicated the precedent of his petition on a doctrine that his brother conjured out of thin air should be enough to make people pause and think.

The fact that Raland filed this “historic” petition from rent-a-box mailing address at the local UPS Store (while claiming the address was an apartment) should raise a brow:

But the fact that really sets Brunson v. Adams apart as a psyop is found in the nitty gritty details of the case laws they’ve quoted. Here’s where it gets deep.

Ironically — and surely not coincidentally — the cases referenced in both of the Brunson brother’s petitions actually refer back to court decisions that are frequently cited in feminist and LGBTQ related cases. They cite, for example:

What does any of this have to do with election integrity and the petition to remove the president and expunge hundreds of people in congress? Isn’t it strange that all of these cases cited as precedent are related to the progressive agenda?

It’s almost as if Brunson was some kind of leftist lunatic spewing out quasi-plausible legalese—allegedly to address election integrity—but only had the bandwidth to reference familiar progressive court cases to try to gain support for his outrageous claims.

In today’s day and age, who knows.

Regardless, Brunson is clearly a confused individual. Why else would he, of all the cases that could have been used to establish precedent, cite the following cases:

  • American Bush v. City Of South Salt Lake .... 5, App. 16

    • A case where a strip club and adult novelty stores were found in violation of city ordinances. They sued for damages and lost.

  • Carey v. Piphus, 435 U.S. 247 …. App. 21

    • A case where two male juveniles got suspended for smoking pot and wearing an earring, which was against school policy. They sued for damages and lost.

Friends, it just goes on and on.

MOVING ON.

Let’s look at a few other clues that indicate something strange is going on here.

Consider this excerpt from a petition filed by Deron Brunson in 2019:

Bizarre features like this are riddled throughout Brunson’s petition, which makes the following completely outrageous statements all the more laughable:

Two things here:

  1. Brunson claims that “The Object Principle of Justice” is the supreme law of the land, which is farcical on it's face, and as we’ve seen, is just something he made up.

  2. Also note that this is the exact same language used by Raland Brunson in the 2022 petition that aims to arrest the president.

Brunson, as if not having heard enough of his own hubris, goes on:

“In addition, under the guidance of The Object Principle of Justice, it would dispel the bad labeling of judges and attorneys. No longer would "We the People . ." be faced with either losing their moral sense of justice or losing respect for our judicial system. The bells of justice would ring louder, greater, more effectively than ever before while attorneys and judges would be revered like never before seen.”

Again, we see the same language being used, and once more we see the deranged pontificates of a lunatic trying to justify the delusional premise of his fantasy.

Brunson was petitioning the court for a restraining order against the mortgage company that was trying to foreclose on a million dollar mortgage loan that Brunson evidently could not afford, according to legal documents:

What we find here is a motive to make money. If there was any doubt about this financial motivation, consider that Brunson has requested over TWO BILLION dollars in relief, tax free no less:

Brunson appears to be a gold digger. This may account for the fact that the Brunsons are now fundraising and feasting on the goodwill of the American people, exploiting the fact that our country is in crisis and many people are desperate to do something that might restore the rule of law in an otherwise lawless situation.

What do you believe?

Do you believe that Brunson v. Adams is going to be heard by the Supreme Court and used to oust Joe Biden, inaugurate Donald Trump, and make Raland Brunson a billionaire in the process?

Or do you believe that these guys might be shysters trying to dig themselves out of a financial hole created by their default on a million dollar mortgage?

Look at the face. Read the demeanor. Use your head. Trust your instinct.

You don’t have to agree with me. Just be honest with yourself.

Is this the guy who's going to save our country?

Or is this just another psyop distraction that is keeping American patriots from paying attention to what’s really going on? You decide.

As important and “historic” as Brunson v. Adams is, please share this with a friend!

Share

PS: Don’t forget, now it’s easy to catch up on previous episodes by listening to The Torch Report on iHeart Radio, Spotify, Google Podcasts, or Apple iTunes —enjoy!