I posted some thoughts about the Brunson case this morning. I feel this Brunson case leaves the SC with only one option, drain the swamp. I have thought about the case further and I wanted to share more thoughts. Here was my post from this morning.
https://greatawakening.win/p/16ZX3LVYrQ/the-brunson-sc-case-ties-the-han/
Here is an interview with Lloyd Brunson, he gives a brief review of the Brunson case and how it has moved through the courts. He explains some legal hurdles they needed to overcome.
https://greatawakening.win/p/16ZX3KMc6y/loy-brunson-david-nino-rodriquez/c/
The 10th circuit appeals court was sitting on the case for 4 months. (Trying to stonewall) The Brunson's used rule 11 of the SC and named the case a national emergency which bypassed the 10th circuit court and moved the case to the SC.
When the 10th circuit realized they were being bypassed, they immediately ruled on the case. I imagine they realized the case WAS a national emergency and it could be looked at as a failure on their part to stonewall this case with it being a national emergency, placing national security at risk.
This case reveals how our government ignored evidence of electoral fraud that brought in alternate electors on Jan 20th 2021 to certify Trump as the winner. Democrats realized these alternate electors could expose the vote fraud if they were given a chance to speak. So, Nancy Pelosi turned the Jan 20 rally into a "insurrection", giving the democrats reason to bypass the 10 day period to weed out bad electors.
It is obvious to most sane people the Jan 6th committee was nothing more than an attempt to hide their own crimes, blame Trump for the event of that day, which they failed to do.
I am sure the SC knows the truth, Pelosi and others orchestrated Jan 20th fake insurrection in effort to bypass the alternate electors. Does the SC uphold the Constitution or give Nancy a get out of jail free card for her treason?
Since Jan 20th 2021, several courts have ruled in favor of the Trump admin, agreeing that last-minute maneuvers by Democrat officials to circumvent state legislatures was illegal. This is what the alternate electors would have argued.
https://headlineusa.com/courts-admit-voting-irregularities/
Given that several courts have ruled illegality occurred and Nancy Pelosi pulled a false flag event to prevent the evidence being revealed, what will the SC do with the Brunson case? They throw the case out and let the country burn or they drain the swamp. What was Trump's stated mission? Drain the swamp!!!
I should have touched on "timing" in my original post. Remember, it is believed that the removal of Biden and Trump return needs to coincide with the 2-year mark, January 20th 2023. After this date, Trump's return gives him 6 years in the Oval office, if it happened sooner, Trump would not be a candidate in 2024. We should take his announcement as a 2024 candidate; he is gunning for the 6 more years.
I have always felt that the court rulings claiming no standing was forced on these courts. By who? Q and the military. Why? Timing! Given that the electoral fraud was cause for national security, judges would have been sworn to secrecy. Made to sign non-disclosure agreements, national security is at risk.
As Brunson says in the interview above, this is a national security case, the SC decision could be made under sealed proceedings. The SC may have already ruled and we have not been informed of their decision yet. Thus, possibly removing the ability of anyone attempting to blackmail our SC justices. I think I have heard the house is in recess till Jan 3rd. They have no privilege from arrest. The 385 have already been subpoenaed, could the SC be calling them in as we speak to give testimony. It is a possibility.
Stay safe my frens!!!
WWG1WGA!!!
^this
They won’t hear the case. It is a bad case anyway. People are all caught up in the hyperbole about “national security” and demands to throw bums out of Congress. This gets people excited. Except people seem to have forgotten how the legal system works. And something stinks about the PR push we are getting. The causes of action in the complaint are not appropriate for what they are trying to do. Suing in tort for these kinds of government fuckery are exactly how they end up getting kicked out in the first place. Government consents to be sued in limited circumstances; and this isn’t one of them. The Federal Tort Claims Act doesn’t slam the door on these guys - just requires a much better argument than advanced here. And it is a big obstacle to move…the district court didn’t feel persuaded. Based on the filings I read, I wasn’t persuaded either. If you were smart, you would avoid this dilemma altogether and use theories exclusively outside the FTCA.
Sitting on a case for 4 months is not long in the legal world. Lawyers wait a lot longer than that for appeals to be decided every single day in this country. My state Supreme Court sat on one of my cases for 6 months before rendering an opinion. It was a GED level case I shouldn’t have had to appeal, and should have taken them 10 minutes and 2 pages to write. Instead it took 6 months and I got 18 pages of pure trash w/ remand to the same district court that fucked up in the first place…
Forget all of the hype in this case for a minute. What is the procedural posture of this case? It is on appeal from a 12(b)(1) dismissal at the district court level. What is rule 12(b)(1)? It is one of the essential elements that must be met for a court to hear your case: subject matter jurisdiction. The district court held that there was no subject matter jurisdiction; without which they lack authority to hear the case. When you get dismissed under 12(b)(1) it is typically early in the litigation process, and no decisions on the merits have been made. The trial court has not heard any evidence at all about this case.
When you appeal, you need a basis for this; not liking the outcome is insufficient. The trial court must have erred in their decision in some manner. Whatever basis you are alleging as grounds for your appeal is the “issue” (or “issues”) on appeal. In this case, the issue on appeal is that the district court erred in finding a lack of subject matter jurisdiction. What does this mean? It means that an absolute best case scenario is SCOTUS hearing this case and finding that the district court does in fact have subject matter jurisdiction. Then this case goes back to the district court for further proceedings. Which would most likely end up in a 12(b)(6) dismissal for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted in the district court. It does not end up in SCOTUS throwing out Congress or granting any relief in plaintiff’s complaint. Our system doesn’t work like that; SCOTUS doesn’t have original jurisdiction over this matter; and SCOTUS hasn’t tried a case in like 80 years.
Brunson case goes to conference at SC on Jan 6th
https://www.supremecourt.gov/search.aspx?filename=/docket/DocketFiles/html/Public/22-380.html
What were you saying?
The shills are burning accounts trying to insist this case is a "nothingburger".
The SC accepted the case under Rule 11 for national emergencies. That obviously means the SC clerk and others accepted the premise that it constituted a national emergency.
The SC clerk then asked that the case include additional pleadings and that its submission be made as soon as possible. Only after this happened did the 10th Circuit court finally make their own ruling.
As you have pointed out with your link, the case is now scheduled for a conference vote on Jan. 6th (ironic date, no?).
Aside from that, I hope we finally find out what went on during Jan 6th 2021. We know vaguely that the DS/cabal had something nasty planned. The "insurrection" of peaceful protesters derailed those plans in some way... but the whole thing turned into a giant mess for President Trump. That means that the DS/cabal plans it interfered with were even worse...
Timing is coincidence. We've seen so many coincidences. Someone once asked, "when does it become mathematically impossible?". That does seem late since the new congress starts on 1/3. That eliminated Juan o savins theory that they might hold it as leverage against the lame duck congress to prevent any last minute legislation that changes the courts.
I've had to stop listening to Juan...
Do you know what “conference” is?
Do you know what the elimination of lifetime appointments is?
https://www.supremecourt.gov/casedistribution/casedistributionschedule.aspx
All “conference” is for is to determine what cases they will or won’t take. Meaning any case with a pending petition for certiorari will go to conference. This case ain’t making it out. No justice will want to hear a case like this from a pro se defendant advancing poor legal arguments backed by innuendo and hyperbole which doesn’t support the causes of action they are attempting to litigate. You and I could sue Fauci for being a big full of shit asshat, and we could appeal getting booted all the way to SCOTUS. And our case would go to conference. Because every single one filed goes to conference.
For example: You cannot sue 388 members of Congress for fraud. If Congress had actually consented to be sued over fraud (they didn’t) then best case is you could sue your member of Congress. Some other district representative owes you nothing because they do not represent you. This is not a whole lot different than suing members of congress for lying during a campaign by claiming one thing and voting another way once elected. That is what we’d call “fraud in the inducement” yet you cannot sue over that. Every single member would be bogged down in endless litigation for the duration of their term in office if this were so. Maybe that doesn’t bother a lot of people. But it bothers the people who make the laws. So they don’t allow that type of suit.
Apparently nobody wants to hear the reality of this case. They hear “fraud” and see requests to throw out members of Congress and think this is great. But that has no bearing on the merits of their causes of action. And I think everyone here should take notice at the publicity pushing this case. This is highly suspicious to me. Indicative of a grift operation. Nobody in the legal world is of the delusion that this case is going anywhere besides the trash bin. So why is a lawsuit destined for failure making waves and being talked about? Why are these dudes making web pages and public appearances promoting a bullshit lawsuit? This smells very bad. I do not knowingly aid and abet snake hopium salesman grift operations. Nobody else here should either.
If true it’s better we know now then getting all hyped up for a nothing again.
Haven't fully digested what you wrote, but will give it a try this evening. In the meantime I want to point out that the Brunson brother in the video explicitly stated that they weren't suing the government, and were contesting the immunity clause that protects a Congress member even when he violates his oath of office. Don't know if this changes your analysis any.
Immunity does not cover acts of treason. Stealing a Presidential election and hiding the evidence with a fake insurrection is the highest level of treason.
As it should be,but we know that many in office don't think it has limits.
Reminds me of the scene in one of the Lethal Weapons where the South African drug kingpin holds up a passport stating, "Diplomatic immunity..." To which Danny Glover replies, "...has been revoked!" as he plugs him with lead.
While I probably ought to see the video where they say this before commenting; if they said what you said they did, this just demonstrates they are clueless about what they are doing.
There are different types of immunity: (1) Constitutional immunity - i.e. speech & debate clause and 11th amendment; (2) judicially created doctrines of immunity - i.e. absolute & qualified immunity; and (3) statutorily created immunity - i.e. lawful commerce in firearms act.
Now, I could be wrong in what I’m about to say, but I read all the filings in the district court case. I did not get around to the 10th circuit docs. But I do not see where they challenge the constitutionality of the FTCA in district court. A failure to do so is a waiver of this argument on appeal. From their certiorari petition, you can’t even determine on what basis they think the FTCA is unconstitutional. It just is, according to them, because of “the seriousness of the charges” they are peddling. Good luck with that argument.
JURISDICTION Jurisdiction is found under 28 U.S.C.A. §1257(a) “Final judgments...rendered by the highest court of a State...may be reviewed by the Supreme Court by writ of certiorari...where any...right [or] privilege...is specially set up or claimed under the...statutes of...the United States.”
I just cut and paste this out of their petition for certiorari. Do you see a big problem here? They didn’t get kicked out of state court. They got kicked out of federal district court, affirmed on appeal by the 10th circuit. WTF does a statute on appealing state Supreme Court decisions to SCOTUS have to do with their jurisdiction problem??
They also claim this gem:
“e) 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 than 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.” A court adjudicating that the Respondents, who have taken the Oath of Office, to be incapable of holding their offices or who have adhered to a domestic enemy, means nothing without such removal of office.”
So apparently the existence of a criminal statute somehow confers judicial authority to “sentence” people criminally as a result of a civil lawsuit filed by this dude…
“Under the stated factors Brunson has an unfettered right to sue the Respondents under the serious nature of his claim, no legislation can measure Brunson’s right to sue the Respondents. Furthermore, Brunson’s allegations against Respondents’ adhering to a domestic enemy, and committing acts of fraud are not protected by any kind of legislation of jurisdictional immunity. Essentially, acts of Congress cannot protect fraud, nor protect the violation of the Oath or that give aid and comfort to enemies of the United States Constitution or America as alleged in Brunson’s complaint against the Respondents. These are facts that cannot be overcome, therefore, Brunson found no need to include in this petition a copy of Respondents’ opposition to Brunson’s opening brief or any of their arguments . . .”
Where does one even begin with this type of asshattery? This isn’t even circular logic. It is just non sensical gibberish. At no time does the law change based on the seriousness of untried allegations. “If i simply claim something serious enough, I have a natural right to create my own legal reasoning and remedy to guarantee I get the relief I am seeking.”
Thanks. I didn't read what you read, nor did I analyze what I read as completely as you did. It seems that three of the Brunson brothers each filed complaints using different approaches.
The complaint I looked at was all about the defendants disenfranchising the plaintive by their refusal to investigate election chicanery. It seemed weak to me, but it does get the notion in front of the SC in a way other means have not. And it also gets the objections to the entire House counting process there too.
BTW, I think watching the video is worth your time.
I'll try to check out the video when I have my wits about me...long week...
I don't know if I wrote a short explanation of the legal system basics, if it could get quick linked on the front page or if it would just be in the dust bin of post history on this site. But much meritless hopium could be avoided with a simple understanding of how cases proceed in the court system.
If you are talking about an appeal to the US Supreme Court, then you have to start with the procedural posture of the case. Has this case been to trial? Have any of the claims been disposed of on the merits? Did this case get booted because it was lacking something necessary to be viable? In essence, one must first answer the question "what the hell happened over there?" before you can proceed.
In this case, it was booted early on because the trial court believed there was no subject matter jurisdiction. In particular, the tort claims the plaintiff made against the defendants were barred under federal law. So in the mind of the district court, there were no possible facts that exist which, if true, could entitle the plaintiff to relief based upon those tort causes of action. When you do not allege a viable legal theory of recovery, the court lacks subject matter jurisdiction to rule on your case. This is what got the guy booted. No facts or evidence were considered in the dismissal. No trial or ruling on any merits was made.
To appeal, you have to have a reason. Simply disagreeing with the judge is not sufficient. On this appeal, the issue should be simply that these causes of action are viable, and as such, the district court does have subject matter jurisdiction. However, the dude barely touches on the only reason he has to be in front of the highest court in the land. This petition is filled with hyperbole, innuendo, and unsubstantiated and/or bogus legal theories as to the seriousness and urgency in needing to grant relief to the plaintiff. This is not how our system works at all. No justice gives a shit about the seriousness of the claims, or the urgency in granting the plaintiff relief. Because SCOTUS doesn't try cases. They rule on whether a judge erred in issuing the order that he or she made in a case.
Meanwhile, everyone around here gets all hyped about the innuendo and hyperbole, because we are all fkn heated about the failure of the court system to try these election fraud cases and solve this problem. If you point out that this case is bottom of the barrel retard level bullshit, somehow that makes you a shill. But I don't live in make believe world where shit like this is magically going to save the day. I'd love for some cognizable and viable legal theory to advance its way thru the court system and put an end to the foreign occupation of our government. But that has yet to happen. This case sure as hell is not what we have been waiting on. And the fact that there is a publicity push, this plaintiff is making public appearances promoting this abomination of a lawsuit, and friendly media on our side are entertaining it...even shilling that it has a hint of a prayer or is otherwise viable...that is a problem.
This case stinks of opportunistic snake hopium sales grifting. Either that, or another example of making everyone look retarded because they buy into the fake narrative surrounding the case. A joke of a lawsuit is still a joke, even if it purports to demand something we might all be in favor of.
What I am trying to get everyone to notice is the absolute insane legal arguments being cloaked by hyperbole and sensationalism about the fraudulent election. These guys just don’t have a cognizable legal theory here, let alone a viable one. This shouldn’t get anyone’s attention. And certainly not worthy of its own website. These are red flags. People engaged in self promoting bullshit that is wrapped in peoples anger about the 2020 election fraud is a form of fraud itself.
LOL nice book "you" typed up shill. Judging from your history of posts you're a shill and should be DEPORTED.
Yes, deport those who point out the obvious. I rate your cope 1.5 out of 10.