Brunson Updates & SCOTUS Deetz

Revelations and Clarifications

Standard preamble: (1) These are our opinions and nothing more. We could be wrong about every single assertion we make. Deal with it. (2) Do your own research and come to your own conclusions like a functional adult.

---

In 2024: Military Killdozer and 2024, Trump and Datefagging, we made assertions about two cases before the Supreme Court (SCOTUS) and made predictions based on the disposition of those cases and what we thought SCOTUS might do.

Since then, we’ve come across new information (to us, at least) and have done some research that gives us a better view of the likelihood of these predictions.

In this article, we will note changes in what we predict due to the above and clarify why.

The net result of these changes is nearly identical to what we’ve said before, but we want to clarify in the interests of full disclosure, correcting errors and being generally honorable meatbags.

Brunson 22-380 Is Indeed Dead!

Today on https://ralandbrunson.com, we found the following event listed in Raland Brunson’s timeline of events. We deduce by the dates in the timeline that this is SCOTUS’s 22-380 case.

Before today, we weren’t aware of this. We’re not sure when this was added to the website and it could have been there for the past year, but it is indeed pretty clear. (We assume the Brunson’s aren’t lying, although given the absurdity of everything these days, who can tell?) For anyone who has told us this case was dead as a result of seeing this website, you were right and we were wrong.

In the absence of super-secret fuckery, then 22-380 is completely off the table and we’ll ignore it from here on.

Well, that sucks.

But 22-1028…

We believe 22-1028 may not be dead. We aren’t sure, but we havent’t found absolute evidence for it being dead. It is quite possible that 22-1028 is also dead.

But the world we live in currently is a very chaotic place where bizarre and improbable things are happening every day. If a powerful faction is orchestrating a movie (we think they are), then the plot twists and turns will have been scripted to be as unpredictable as possible. Who would have thought Biden would be an actor?

Joseph Robinette Biden (upper left) and at least four actors playing the role of Joe Biden, the idiot. You are watching a movie, folks.

We reason that the script for this movie must resolve all of the major problems. Therefore, we reason that something must happen that ties up all of the corrupt problems. We further reason that the military is the only faction that can resolve all of these problems with the following characteristics: (a) 100% non-partisan, (b) 100% legal, and (c) highly unexpected.

On the surface and making assumptions based on historical norms, a normal person and even a legal expert would say that 22-1028 case must be closed. Indeed, everyone in the information space is saying exactly this. However, we have not been able to prove this with a high level of certainty. Is this Brunson case the unexpected plot twist that unwinds this whole mess? We think it could be. Note that we are merely saying this appears to be possible; not that we give it any stated level of likelihood. If SCOTUS rules on it, then it will have been 100% certain. This challenges many people’s sensibilities.

The 22-1028 case has all of the hallmarks of an extremely unlikely pathway that all of the media and pundits tell us cannot happen. Except…we think it can. This attribute should not be misunderstood.

If an impossible thing happens, then it was actually certain and you were wrong.

The 22-1028 appears to be the only case which may be at issue (although there is another recent case they have filed that we haven’t fully analyzed yet.) 22-1028 is arguably nastier in its claims compared to 22-380, referencing violation of oath of office, treason, waging war against the United States, and more. In our opinion, it doesn’t appear to matter much if 22-380 is closed because 22-1028 would cause exactly the same outcome.

22-1028 is not stated as closed on the SCOTUS docket. However, it doesn’t look like SCOTUS is marking newer cases as closed even though they are. For example, 22-380 does not show as closed either, but the Brunsons say they received a letter stating it is closed. Older cases do show as closed on their dockets, but none of the newer cases do. Is SCOTUS leaving this vague in order to cause confusion? Possibly — we don’t know. Many claim the case is closed but we have not found any concrete evidence to substantiate these claims.

To clarify what constitutes a closed case or a dead case — we have done some digging on the Surpreme Court to make sure we’re not making assumptions that are unfounded. From our reading of the Constitution, the federal laws regarding the Supreme Court and the Federalist Papers on the judicial branch, it is our opinion that the inner operations of the Supreme Court are vague, not interfered with by statue in any explicit way and almost completely up to the whim of SCOTUS at the moment they decide to do anything with a case. They may intentionally do this to avoid restricting their own power. The language in the SCOTUS rules is often vague and the analysis of legal experts almost always includes vague language. It almost seems like SCOTUS has protected its ability to do whatever it wants, although its historical behavior has been fairly consistent within certain procedures. During these tumultuous times, we feel it unwise to assume SCOTUS will always do what they’ve done in the past, especially with a case as consequential as 22-1028.

We believe that we are in very unpredictable times with issues that are obviously unprecedented in importance and consequences. We think we could suddenly be facing situations where SCOTUS could suddenly find it prudent to do things completely differently than they have been done before. This is why we consider it possible that SCOTUS might do unexpected things.

May we all be aware of our frailties.

The media space and social media is full of people, pundits and even “experts” saying there is no way SCOTUS can or will rule on any Brunson case, that the cases are frivolous, that the Brunsons are grifters, etc. This may indeed be the case. HOWEVER, given the above paragraphs, we see that there is a possibility that a ruling on 22-1028 would be a pathway to a brilliantly constructed resolution to most of the problems we face. We cannot find any hard evidence that SCOTUS cannot rule for Brunson with the case 22-1028. To the contrary, everything we’ve seen leads us to believe that it is 100% within their power to do so. (If you have hard evidence to the contrary, please leave it in the comments below.)

Why We Brunson At All

The reason has to do with macro patterns and how this all fits into our understanding of the last several hundred years. Part of this is the Pershivelt Theory. If you haven’t read this, please do.

So here are some reasons with brief explanations:

The cases are exquisitely crafted. The structure of 22-380 and 22-1028 are common sense and pierce directly at the heart of the issue. The cases are understandable by a sixth grader with some minimal explanation. In our view, these cases were written as a showcase of how the justice system should work. It is exactly the kind of thing we expect from those running this operation.

It is absurd they haven’t been ruled on. Because the cases are so clear, any common man should be utterly disgusted that neither case was heard and ruled on for Brunson.

The cases were accepted pro-se. The cases were filed pro-se, meaning the Brunsons are not represented by separate attorneys. They stand before the court as individuals. This is not just very rare, but improbable to the extreme. It is very rare that a pro-se case reaches the Supreme Court, although it has happened before.

All of the pundits hate it. In a psyop, there are operators everywhere telling people what to think. They’re nasty and absolutely relentless about it! Someone really doesn’t want anyone to think SCOTUS would ever rule on them. When those in control of information dissemination want people unaware of what’s going to happen, they mislead. We can’t find a reason to believe SCOTUS cannot rule on Brunson and yet every single source says they can’t. Hm… Interesting, no? If you wanted to hide the future, would you not lie about it? When everyone is looking one direction, we look carefully for alternate possibilities.

Just look at the Brunsons! Four self-educated (accomplished) trumpeteers, most easily seen playing the William Tell Overture. They just coincidentally decided to make it a hobby to file pro-se cases that pierce at the heart of the problems with the country. What are the odds? Would it not make for a great plot line to spice up a blockbuster movie? We think it would.

Triggering the military is necessary. We do not believe the multitudinous mountain of corruption and problems can be solved without the military becoming directly involved and essentially gutting the federal government, and 100% legally. In order for this to happen, there must be a legal trigger. The Brunson case(s) (including 22-1028) would be such a trigger. If not for the Brunson case, then how? We have not been able to come up with a trigger that is even close to the precision as the Brunson cases. Every other mechanism we’ve considered is riddled with problems. While a ruling on the Brunson cases would be shocking and unprecedented, it would be clean and swift. Because this point is so complicated, we’ll unpack it below.

Regarding SCOTUS “Power”

The Supreme Court doesn’t actually have any power to enforce any of its rulings or will to act. The executive branch must carry out the will of SCOTUS or law and order disappears. This is stated in Federalist #78.

In my previous article 2024: Military Killdozer, I stated that SCOTUS would order the military to keep law and order. This was an overstatement (and I apologize) since 22-1028 does not ask for this as relief. However, it can suggest that the ruling results in a constitutional crisis that must be addressed, and military action may be the only way to address it. The military would certainly be aware of this would have no choice but to decide whether or not to honor the SCOTUS decision. Same outcome, but definitely not an order.

The mechanics of this constitutional crisis and how it relates to the military is complicated, so we’ll unpack it below.

Military Issues

The enforcement of all SCOTUS rulings are a responsibility of the Executive branch of government. However, if SCOTUS rules in favor of Brunson, the result would be an Executive branch with no President or Commander in Chief. Both the civilian side of government and the military would be without a civilian executive. This, by itself, is irreconcilable under civilian law.

However, there is another corpus of law at issue: The Law of War. Completely coincidentally, for the first time in history in 2015, the Dept. of Defense published The Law of War. This was first published on June 12, 2015 — four days before Trump announced his candidacy for President. (We do not think the timely publication of this document was accidental — we believe it was published specifically because of this scenario, or some other bizarre scenario that we haven’t figured out yet.)

If at some point, SCOTUS has ruled that Biden is not a legitimate President and the entire line of 18 people in the line of succession is incapable of becoming POTUS (they would), then there can be no legal President under the law. Oops.

We fully expect the Biden administration to ignore the SCOTUS ruling with word salad about how SCOTUS doesn’t have the ability to make this ruling or some other bullshit reasoning.

By ignoring the ruling, they would, by law under the Constitution, be illegally controlling the government of the United States, if the commanders in the military choose to agree with SCOTUS! Under the Law of War section 11.2.2, the Biden administration would become an enemy of the state. We believe it very likely that in this case, regardless of the Constitutional problem of not having a Commander in Chief, the military will consider the Biden administration an enemy of the state.

Biden & Co. suddenly becoming an enemy of the state? Ohhh myyy…

Note: The military has procedures for instantly advancing subordinates into higher command positions when commanders are incapacitated during duty. We see no reason why this same logic would not apply to the position of Commander in Chief. In the absence of a Commander in Chief, the military will endure.

It is a good thing the US military doesn’t have this problem.

Consider these two options the military commanders will face:

• Consider Biden to be Commander in Chief, despite being found to have violated his oath of office

• Consider Biden to be the enemy because he was found to have violated his oath of office

The military takes their oaths to the Constitution very seriously. For the military, the oath is a life or death proposition. Each member of the military knows that their oath is worth their own blood to defend.

This is why we believe the military will consider Biden an enemy in this case. Violating his oath of office essentially makes Biden a tyrant. As such, how could he be trusted as Commander in Chief?

This is the trigger we speak of when we talk about the military stepping in to preserve law and order. Something has to cause it. In this situation, we believe the military would step in and remove the enemy, by force, if necessary.

Painful Pondering

As an outside possibility, it is possible that all nine supreme court Justices resign after this ruling. This would cause one HELL of a storm and stoke the fire under military’s ass. If it wouldn’t be clear enough with the ruling alone, it will be crystal clear if the Justices all resign. This would essentially remove the remaining leg of the government in a single event and would be begging for military intervention to enforce law and order. Also, there is no Constitutional provision allowing for new Justices without a POTUS, which wouldn’t exist…

Precipice, anyone?

We see the military as a caretaker who would enforce law and order and cede control after the 2024 election. (Note that enforcing law would involve gutting most of the federal government.)

After the election, this leaves Trump with the ability to appoint all new Justices and completely repopulate SCOTUS after he’s elected.

Have fun thinking about this one.

Wake up today, they said. It’ll be a good day, they said.

Conclusion

IF the Brunson 22-1028 case is dead, then none of the above can happen — at least not in a way we can think of. The problem is, we’re not 100% convinced it is actually dead. Will SCOTUS pull a rabbit out of their ass and show the world that they can rule on it? Maybe. Time will tell.

If SCOTUS doesn’t rule on 22-1028, we have no idea how this shit-show is going to get resolved. For this reason, 22-1028 looks like an elephant in the room.

We screwed up by stating that SCOTUS would order the military to act — they cannot. However, the net result is essentially the same: The military will be the only faction who could possibly correct this mess.

Were the military to not defend their oaths and the oaths of all government officials, then their entire institution might as well be meaningless, in our opinion.

Finally, here’s a photo of rhinos mating:

Can’t those zebras see this is an intimate moment? Rude.

Meanwhile…think Trump (and buy Psychostick merch):

- sapioplex &

JFAnon