In their December 30, 2022 article, Adam Carter & Tracy Beanz pooh-poohed the Brunson case #22-380 at the Supreme Court, with a very well written and highly slick produced, clever arguments — complete with impressive video clips, pics and images.
Adam Carter & Tracy Beanz are highly intelligent to be sure. (Find the Carter/Baenz article at: https://www.uncoverdc.com/2022/12/30/the-truth-about-the-brunson-case/ ) The Brunson Brothers SCOTUS Telegram channel reported it at:
https://t.me/BrunsonBrothersSCOTUS/244
https://t.me/BrunsonBrothersSCOTUS/245
However, despite the Carter/Beanz article’s clever approach, they were no match for Deron Brunson’s clean, clear, simple and measured but firm reply. No pictures or videos needed! Truth rings clearly. Please note that since this exchange SCOTUS Conference of January 6th, decided and notified public on January 9 2023 that they would not hear the case. Brunsons left nothing to chance and are preparing their request for Reconsideration within 30 days. They are determined to hold ALL officials — including SCOTUS — to their Oath to protect and defend the Constitution from “enemies foreign and domestic”. At their Telegram their explanation included:
“To our Patriotic followers:
We told you we were prepared for a denial, this battle has only just begun!…” (read the entire message at: https://t.me/BrunsonBrothersSCOTUS/299 )
Read Deron Brunson’s rebuttal here:
Dear Adam Carter & Tracy Beanz
In regard to your article dated December 30, 2022, titled “The Truth About the Brunson Case”, it seems that you purposely ignored the following controlling points in order to sustain your captured title. This is flawed reporting and not acceptable.
1. SCOTUS has laid out its rule requirements that must be met before it will grant a writ. Addressing the contents of a writ in Brunson’s case, are Rules 11 and 12. These two rules note that a writ will be granted for compelling reasons, for such conflicts between appellate courts over the same important matter, or where there is a serious question of law. These are just a few examples that are neither controlling nor do they measure the Court’s discretion nor indicate the reasons for the court’s consideration.
Adam and Tracy, you do not know the mind of SCOTUS in relation to the Brunson case and you have acted as if you do.
“The Truth About the Brunson Case”?
Before making such a claim you should have contacted me. Your claim is not true and effectively gives aid and comfort to an enemy of the United States of America.
2. Brunson’s writ points out that the purpose of war is to put into power its victor. Brunson also points out that a rigged election accomplishes the same thing, only there is not an immediate loss of life and property. A rigged election IS an act of war. Brunson’s writ further alleges that the respondents refused to investigate the allegations that the 2020 presidential election was rigged.
All the respondents have taken the required oath to support and defend the Constitution of the United States of America against all enemies, foreign and domestic, and as such, they are liable for consequences when they violate the Oath of Office. Their refusal to do an investigation into the allegations of a rigged election gave aid and comfort to this enemy that has waged war under the guise of a ‘fair’ election. This is an act of treason. Adam and Tracy, this is a very strong and serious reason, our national security, compelling SCOTUS to grant Brunson’s writ. How did you miss this point?!
3. SCOTUS is also bound by its oath of office. With this oath, they are BOUND to stop a war when given that opportunity. Brunson’s case gives SCOTUS that opportunity.
Adam and Terry, what makes you think you know what powers SCOTUS has and, does not have, under the Brunson’s case?
4. Brunson’s writ alleges “Due to the uniqueness of this case, the trial court does have proper authority to remove the Respondents from their offices under 18 U.S. Code § 2381 which states “Whoever, owing allegiance to the United States, levies war against them or adheres to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort within the United States or elsewhere, is guilty of treason and shall suffer death, or shall be imprisoned not less then five years and fined under this title but not less than $10,000, and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States.”
Adam and Terry, what you have said in your article is not factual.
5. Again, under war powers (look them up yourself) SCOTUS, under Brunson’s case, has the power to remove the respondents from office and completely adjudicate the case to end the war. Adam and Terry, Isn’t it a simple conclusion that anybody, I mean ANYBODY, who is found to be in a position to stop a war against America and refuses to do so can be found guilty of treason? Think about it!!
I do not feel compelled to continue further at this time in pointing out how false your story is. I feel that what I have pointed out is enough to help stop you from producing such articles.
We invite you to retract your claims.
You should be strongly promoting Brunson’s case in the name of justice and freedom and pray that SCOTUS removes the respondents from office for giving aid and comfort to an enemy of the Constitution of the United States thus ending this war. Which side are you on?
Deron Brunson
______________________
Attention Carter/Baenz:
Monuments are never built to the Critics – Just for the Patriot Heroes
Not that Deron needs any help, but to us, “Barbie & Ken” Cromar of Cedar Hills Utah, neighbors and supporters of the Brunson case at the US Supreme Court, the Carter/Beanz arguments are circular and dead-ends. It’s almost as if they are jealous that they were “out-Lawyered” by some non-lawyers. For example, we are not aware of anyone filing a now historic SCOTUS Rule 11 filing basing their arguments on a significant national emergency regarding risk to an election by foreign enemies.
A few examples of some of their fatally flawed ideas include:
1. The Brunson case was deemed “frivilous” by the 10th Circuit – therefore Carter/Beanz infer that if SCOTUS were to deny Hearing the Brunson case (which happened since the article and Deron Brunson’s response) that it would be because Raland Brunson v Alma Adams et al, was “frivilous”. The well-meaning but conflicted Adam Carter/Tracy Beanz wrote:
“Merits Of The Case
“We have read the lawsuit filed by the Brunson brothers. In our honest opinion, it does not seem to have any basis in constitutional law. Frankly speaking—as found by the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals in their dismissal—it’s “frivolous.”
In our situation, “Barbie & Ken vs Goliath lRS”, non-attorneys, we are on a collision course with the Supreme Court ourselves, after suffering through 18 court cases for 61-months, and most recently had had our Habeas Corpus case denied by the Utah Appellate & Utah Supreme Court. We are that much closer to US Supreme Court. Along the way, we have been amazed and amused by how regularly the term “friv0lous” is by opposition counsel when they have NO answer to our LAWFUL premises and arguments. The term is thrown around more as a “shut up” on the playground when the bully isn’t smart enough to come up with an intelligent answer. So, instead of providing an explanation of what “isn’t frivolous” or the “correct” interpretation, the courtroom bullies just attempt to dismiss by calling “stupid!” — which in the “honorable” courtroom vernacular the equivalent for “stupid” is to declare someone’s argument “frivolous”. Those declarations of “FRIVOLOUS!” (STUPID!) without offering any sort of legal explanation whatever.
We began to consider it “a Win” and their admission conceding defeat, each time they would declare “frivilous”! Carter/Beanz seem to have fallen into the same trap of admitting Brunsons case has merit because they rely on the 10th Circuit Court’s magical wave of the hand and declaration of “frivilous” to assume it so, — though neither the 10th Circuit nor Carter/Beanz could possibly explain why in legal terms that they’re going to call the Brunsons “stupid” (friv0lous).
2. To make our next point we do so with a couple of questions: a. ) what case of Constitutional significance and historical value have you ever argued before SCOTUS? and, b.) have you Carter/Beanz ever seen or argued at SCOTUS the Constitutionally fundamental issue of violation of Oath of Office addressing protecting the Constitution from “enemies…Domestic”? Surely you can’t possiblly believe that in today’s boiling pot of money, power, corruption, intrigue, weaponization of IRS, FBI, CIA etc, that there is NOT a hint of “domestic enemies” roaming the streets of Washington DC, the Halls of Congress? Why haven’t you Carter/Beanz seeing “domestic enemies” not reported such misprision of felony and misprison of treason to the appropriate authories as required by law to protect the nation and the Constitution your oath as an attorney requires? WHY?
And now that four brothers – fearing for the future of their nation – thankfully void of the burden of the BAR club membership and go-along-to-get-along institutionalized complicity – NOW complain when someone with much more bravery and honor and love of country steps forward demanding that “servants” in We the People’s government are actually HELD TO THEIR OATH OF OFFICE. If you can’t answer that question, — and you can’t — you’ve made ours and the Brunson Brothers’ case for us.
The Carter/Beanz position comes from one in a conflict of interest as the practice law is parasitic in nature, and money motivated — and like prostitutes ever willing to “take a position” for money, and it doesn’t necessarily matter which side, so long as the check clears the bank. In other words, it appears that Carter/Beanz cannot take a 100% altruistic position that they are fighting regarding this SCOTUS issue to help save the Republic but rather to collect their next check. Maybe I’m wrong, but until Carter/Beanz can point to their own heroic actions to hold official to their Oath of Office, Please sit down and stop being “frivolous”. Thank you!
3. Last example from the Adam Carter/ Tracy Baenz article, the confess that:
“Now we will be the first to admit our constitutional processes are not functioning as our founders intended. We are only speaking to how the system was designed to function.”
Again, you make our point for us. It’s easy for Carter/Beanz to point and ridicule those far more courageous and honorable than themselves. They are right that “our constitutional processes are not functioning as our founders intended”, which is reasonable to concludes means that the Constitutional oaths of office are NOT being upheld and those violating their Oaths are being allowed to wreck havoc and destroy the nation with impunity. Again, IF you can’t make a real difference by keeping your Oaths to protect the Constitution from “enemies…domestic”, then stop being “frivolous” and get out of the way of those who intend to honor the countless lives sacrificed in blood to protect and defend the Constitution.
Suggestion: Please Don’t Mess With Deron Brunson
He paid the price to learn what he knows, and his education bought and paid for in “the books”, late nights, and battles in court, — and was NOT purchased from an over-priced cookie-cutter, precedent-centric legal education rather than foundational Constitutional -centric LAW upon which the courts of this land are supposed to operate.
Carter/Baenz, how will you feel about your snarky and petty article if and when history proves that indeed Chinese operatives both “foreign and domestic”, traitors amongst us actually plotted to destroy this nation, — but people like the Brunson Brothers stood up and helped carry off the Constitution triumphantly in the face of almost certain discussion – while you were cashing your weekly check?
The slick Adam Carter / Tracy Baenz article here…
The Emperor Has No Clothes
see… https://jonmcnaughton.com/the-emperor-has-no-clothes/
