I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter: So help me God.
WWG1WGA
"The Question: How can you support, and defend, the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic? Answer: You investigate. If there are claims that there is a threat, even if you don't believe there is a threat, you investigate. How else can you determine if there is a threat unless you investigate? You can't. Were there claims of a threat to the Constitution? Yes. Where did these serious claims come from? 100 members of Congress. What was the threat? That there were enemies of the Constitution who successfully rigged the 2020 election. Is this lawsuit about a rigged election? No, it's about the members of Congress who voted AGAINST the investigation thereby thwarting the investigation. Was this a clear violation of their oath? YES."
—Question of Law in the Supreme Court case known as Brunson v. Alma S. Adams; et al. (Biden, Harris, Pence & 385 Members of Congress)
They Broke Their Oaths
Loy, Raland, Deron, and Gaynor Brunson all witnessed what they believed to be the theft of the 2020 election and decided to file suit. However, the interesting approach that they have taken is not to make a formal complaint that the election was stolen; instead, they have chosen to sue members of the U.S. Congress who voted not to investigate whether any election irregularities may have occurred that could have affected the outcome. In other words, the Brunson Brothers were motivated to sue because these elected officials broke their oaths to protect the Constitution of the United States.
The Brunson Brothers believed that, to support and defend the Constitution, an investigation into possible fraud needed to take place. Otherwise, how could anyone know with certainty whether the election had been secure?
What shocked the Brunson Brothers was that only 147 members of the US Congress voted in support of the proposed ten-day audit of the election before certifying the ballot count of the Electoral College, while, according to the Washington Post, 377 members voted against the proposed ten-day investigation, and eight abstained.
Supreme Court Docket No. 22-380
Eventually, the case — Raland J. Brunson, Petitioner v. Alma S. Adams, et al. — ended up on the docket of the Supreme Court . The "Questions Presented" section, in Raland J. Brunson's Petition for a Writ of Certiorari, goes like this:
A serious conflict exists between decisions rendered from this Court and lower appeal courts, along with constitutional provisions and statutes, in deciding whether the trial court has jurisdiction to try the merits of this case.
This case uncovers a serious national security breach that is unique and is of first impression, and due to the serious nature of this case it involves the possible removal of a sitting President and Vice President of the United States along with members of the United States Congress, while deeming them unfit from ever holding office under Federal, State, County or local Governments found within the United States of America, and at the same time the trial court also has the authority, to be validated by this Court, to authorize the swearing in of the legal and rightful heirs for President and Vice President of the United States.
In addition there are two doctrines that conflict with each other found in this case affecting every court in this country. These doctrines are known as the doctrine of equitable maxim and the doctrine of the object principle of justice. Equitable maxim created by this court, which the lower court used to dismiss this case, sets in direct violation of the object principle of justice also partially created by this Court and supported by other appeal courts and constitutional provisions.
These conflicts call for the supervisory power of this Court to resolve these conflicts, which has not, but should be, settled by this Court without delay.
Might the Supreme Court grant relief, not only to the Brunson Brothers, but to millions who are weary of being characterized as "election deniers" simply for wanting investigations to take place? Is it possible that some, or all, of those named in the lawsuit might be removed from office? Keep an eye on this one.
Paul Dowling has written about the Constitution, as well as articles for American Thinker, Independent Sentinel, Godfather Politics, Eagle Rising, and Free Thought Matters.
Great Point to Focus on!
Yes - they broke their oath to defend the US Constitution by refusing to investigate the evidence of election fraud brought forward by over 100 members of Congress... and that refusal directly caused a breach of national security. Add in collusion with a foreign power and you have treason.
The other issue is the immunity that elected representatives have tried to legislate for themselves... but that is not going to work either.
We will know on Jan 6th whether or not this was a political game being played by the SC - or if it is the mechanism to be used by the SC + military to defend our country from the puppet government installed by the attack.
A final point on the timing. Some people are convinced that the removal of the traitors was delayed until Jan 2023 in order to give President Trump 6 more years, plus to also let the demoncrap party destroy itself in the interim.
"The other issue is the immunity that elected representatives have tried to legislate for themselves... but that is not going to work either."
this!
I have only one good eye. I will definitely keep it on this. It would be awesome for sure. No one can deny that.
The fact it is there to me is awesome. Whatever happens/happens why fret?
I see things like “Military is the only way” - this would led to things like the Military is the only way. Why? Well if I am not mistaken things roll downhill pretty fast. Meaning the hill is all on the same team. The bottom of this is what? Police, DA’s, Feds, and so on.
The democrats know this by their own words of saying our democracy is at stake. Not our republic is at stake.
Little details add up. The most amazing time is when sees Justice - real Justice.
Blending all together this fits. Yet nothing can stop what is coming - regardless of the outcome.
To be excited is not a bad thing. To be hopeful is never a bad thing. No matter the outcome. Keep your head high.
I love seeing the courage those trumpet players are doing and they have been under the radar and very in tune with what God would possibly do.
They have ears but cannot hear-they have eyes but cannot see. Lest they—-
When they say “our democracy is at stake,” remember that the third definition of democracy in the M-W dictionary refers to the Democrat PARTY.
Yes, Congress refused to take a 10 day pause and investigate. They took an oath to protect against enemies foreign and domestic. They are the enemy within.
They refused to take a pause, yet reconvened later that night from their time hiding in the tunnels with perfectly written and rehearsed speeches.
Yes, That is how the Dems roll, plotting and planning in advance. They will do anything and everything (legal and illegal) to remain in power and get their way. They are like self-centered children. The RINOS also have a role in this.
They break their oath every single day.
They will not be able to walk down the street.
They already can't without protection.
We will find out if the Supreme Court is part of the cover up or not.
It will prove they are a captured entity and then the military can step in legally because all branches of government and judiciary are captured. The SCOTUS could face treason charges.
147
Hmm interesting. 741 and mirror of it 147 is A number that comes up often referencing GameStop
Is that the reason that Q has repeatedly asked to "Remember your Oath"?
Good point.
https://greatawakening.win/p/16ZX7yjy0B/q-posts-remember-your-oath-remin/
Thank you for posting this analysis of the case. I understand ot much better now.
I dont believe the court will rule in favor of Brunson, but by not doing so they may trigger the military intervention we are yearning for.
It's an interesting case, and thanks for your overview, but SCOTUS will tie themselves into knots to avoid making a decision so disruptive as to depose the other two branches of government.
We should calibrate our expectations accordingly.
The fact that the Supreme Court pushed this case to make the docket is huge. The lower court was going to sit on it, but the SC told them to push it through under a 'national security' clause, and even got them to add some things to it.
Unlike every other case that just got dismissed, ignored, rejected etc - that is a huge telling point of data that this case might actually go somewhere big.
28 U.S. Code § 453 - Oaths of justices and judges
Each justice or judge of the United States shall take the following oath or affirmation before performing the duties of his office: “I, ___ ___, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will administer justice without respect to persons, and do equal right to the poor and to the rich, and that I will faithfully and impartially discharge and perform all the duties incumbent upon me as ___ under the Constitution and laws of the United States. So help me God.”
They also have to swear the Judicial Oath:
“I, _________, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God.”
I gotta be honest. It's looking like the ball is in now in the Supreme Court's lap. The Justices of the highest court in the land are going to have to show which side they are on. Any Justice who votes to decline a case alleging a massive breakdown in national security will be committing the same crime as the defendants and they should be added to the list for military tribunals.
u/#pepecozy
There are several legal types on Truth Social that think it’s going to get skipped. However at the current rate of events and wins…. January is eons from now.
Hell, even the "legal types" on gaw think it's going to get skipped. It's a pipe dream.
Agreed except that the clerk of the court was proactively pushing them to submit it.. to me as a scotus groupie was odd..
Not only did they push them to submit it; in an interview with the eldest Brunson brother, Juan O’ Savin, and David Nino, Brunson states that the clerk asked them to add and elaborate details and gave them a hard deadline to get it submitted to the clerk’s office by. Sauce: https://rumble.com/v1xhi9c-david-nino-rodriguez-w-huge-intel-drop-w-107-the-ghost-and-loy-brunson-scot.html
Who?
Moreover, claims of election fraud were supported by the head of the US DoJ, Bill Barr when he stated that {paraphrased quote} "...we saw vote tampering, but it was not enough to change the election results."
That alone is proof that congress had an obligation to investigate, and factually verify the claim- they failed in their duty, and violated their oath of office.
In a just world we would have hanged them already v
"broke their oath to protect the Constitution"?! They have ZERO desire to "protect" it..... Their ONLY goal is the complete dissolution and distruction of it...
This is what Q means by the Military is the only way. Once SCOTUS refuses or mishandles this case, the military will step in. Not with guns, but with the Law and the Constitution.
And if SCOTUS rules in our favor I bet military would be the ones to implement and carry it out.
Man if this is allowed to stand it will set a precedent that will have huge impacts in all areas of government! It will open the flood gates of lawsuits and keep the lawyers in business bigly.
I don't think any of us realize the full ramifications if the goes to a full 9 justice hearing and SCOTUS decides in favor of Brunson.
Breaking the oath leads directly to election fraud
And that covers everything!
no wonder Hobbes is trying to push ahead AZ... and it will be the right wingers who go along to get along who wil be on the wrong side of this decision in the long run. Those who acquiesced to the demands of "certify or be jailed" despite stated reservations...
But doesn't there need to be pretty good proof of election fraud/foreign election modification, in order for them to call for an investigation, in support of their oaths of office? So how can you say the case is not about election fraud?
My understanding is it's not about election fraud in the sense that they're trying to prove or disprove it happened. It's irrelevant. They're trying to say there was enough claims and evidence of possible election fraud that there should have at least been an investigation. And by refusing to even investigate, they broke their oath to defend the constitution.
But I think that they have to present proven evidence of election fraud, that Representatives were aware of, in order for this suit to succeed, or even be allowed to proceed. Otherwise, it's just "there was talk of election fraud", "or people said there was evidence of election fraud, but we didn't see it", which I think will prevent the case to go forward.
Someone else said Barr admitted there was evidence of election fraud, but it wasn't enough to change the results. 🤔
How would he know whether it was enough to change the results? Sounds like his statement was justification for making sure all fraud should was investigated prior to certification.
Exactly.