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!!!
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.
I have to admit that I was underwhelmed by the petition I read. And immunity is a huge shield that needs to be gotten around.
The video is interesting (if true) when relaying how the clerks worked with the plaintiffs to get this case in front of the court. Now the SC clerk is not at the level of court clerks I have had to deal with -- they're helpful, but you have to ask the right questions, and you pretty much have to do things their way. Here, they were very proactive. The behavior of the clerks in this case was very unusual based on my very limited experience.
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.