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!!!
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.
What you don't understand, the district court dismissed the case. It went to the 10th circuit appellate court and they "Affirmed" the lower courts ruling. You can see that at the link below on page 18.
https://www.ca10.uscourts.gov/sites/ca10/files/opinions/010110749788.pdf
At this point the SC could have ended the Brunson case.
If the SC wanted to make the case go away, all they would have to do is "Affirm" the lower courts rulings and it would be history.
The Supreme court didn't do that. In fact, the SC clerk instructed the Brunson brothers what they should include and encouraged the Brunson's to get it the court ASAP.
That is not the actions that would have taken place if the SC had full intentions to dismiss this case.
That isn’t accurate. When you want to appeal to them, you file a petition for a writ of certiorari. Then SCOTUS goes to conference to consider whether they are going to grant the writ (hear the case) or deny the writ (not hear the case). Denying the case has the effect of the 10th circuit decision standing. In order to “affirm” the 10th circuit, they’d have to actually hear the case and agree with the reasoning from the 10th. This hasn’t happened and will not happen. Because in conference, there will not be enough votes to take it. They need 4 out of 9. I suspect they won’t even get 1. It will get zero votes to make it out of conference.