Lawfag recap of BRUNSON case
Facts (LAWFAG REMARKS ALL IN CAPS)
Brunson filed a pro se (NO LAWYER) civil action in Utah state court against hundreds… (… means I skipped some stuff) He alleged that before accepting the electoral votes on January 6, 2021, defendants intentionally refused to investigate evidence that the November 2020 presidential election was fraudulent (OF COURSE THIS IS TRUE)
Defendants…filed a motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction failure to state a (VALID) claim….The action (WAS) dismissed for two reasons: (1) Brunson lacked …standing and (2) sovereign immunity barred the claims (THIS NEXT IS IMPORTANT) who were sued in their official capacity only. (WHAICH MEANS THEY IMMUNE AND THE COURT HERE NOTES THERE WERE OTHER GROUNDS FOR DISMISSAL THEY DIDN’T EVEN GET TO)
Brunson filed a timely objection (BUT)… did not address the (LEGAL ARGUMENTS WHICH SUPPORTED THE DISMISSAL – THIS WAS FATAL BECAUSE THE COURT RULED THAT) …”he had “waived any objections to [those] conclusions.”
Brunson… (ARGUED) …that the district court’s judgment is invalid because it fails to set forth the legal basis for the judgment. (THE COULRT STATED THAT) This argument is frivolous. (THIS IS ACCURATE BRUNSON CONFUSED THE JUDGMENT AND THE OPINION WHICH IS A LEGAL TECHNICALITY)
(THE COURT OBSERVED THAT) Although Mr. Brunson’s objection was timely, he did not specifically challenge the…standing analysis. The firm waiver rule therefore applies unless the interests of justice dictate otherwise. ( “INTEREST OF JUSTICE” IS A COMMON LEGAL “SAFETY NET” THEY COULD USE BUT DID NOT AND USUSALLY DO NOT BECAUSE THEY ARE FAGGOT ALTHOUGH THEY DID SAY THAT…) Brunson makes no effort to explain why he failed (AND THIS) weighs against invoking the exception. (MEH)
“The district court did not plainly err in concluding Mr. Brunson lacked standing” (AND THAT) “none of his supporting authorities suggests that allegations of fraud, acts of war, or the violation of allegedly “inherent unalienable (God-given) rights,” id., relieve a plaintiff from demonstrating Article III standing
Finally, Mr. Brunson (ARGUMENT ON IMMUNITY ARE) …insufficient to meet this court’s requirements for developing an argument on appeal…. Thus, (EVEN IF WE DIDN’T FIND HE WAIVED IT IN THE COURT BELOW) we conclude Mr. Brunson has waived appellate review of the sovereign-immunity basis for dismissal due to insufficient argument (OK ANONS HE MISSED HIS SECOND CHANCE TO PRESENT AN ARGUMENT ON IMMUNITY)
So that’s it – I see no way this case is any different than many others which are thrown out, and in fact has even more reasons because Brunson failed to even present a substantive legal argument at the trial court and again on appeal. I suspect that is not due to incompetence but to the fact there are really no legal arguments which support his standing or any penetration of immunity. You cant argue shit that don’t exist. His case is a broad principle based TRUTH and FACTS that routinely gets ignored by our faggot courts and that is the system,
All that said – and as I posted before, this case has some very odd steps in the process – it is on the docket and appears to set for argument AND the DOJ did a Brinson – they WAIVED briefing – WTF that is odd – and it means they are 100% confident it will get thrown out – so IMO the ONLY possible way this can have any impact is if its part of the plan and they whole thing is s set up – however this seems like a long shot but WTF knows these days – enjoy the movie I guess…
Heres the case cite
https://www.ca10.uscourts.gov/sites/ca10/files/opinions/010110749788.pdf