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!!!
No, this definitely isn't the case, because they have not even agreed to hear the case yet.
SCOTUS receives over 1000 petitions every year and only grants cert on a couple dozen. The overwhelming majority of cert requests are denied, and this case is very unlikely to be one that makes it past that hurdle.
If they surprise us in January by granting certiorari, I'll start caring. Until then this case is just a wet fart.
^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.
If true it’s better we know now then getting all hyped up for a nothing again.