Q Posts- Remember your Oath- reminder for Brunson v Adams SCOTUS 22-380 Case?
(media.greatawakening.win)
Comments (43)
sorted by:
Great reminder Anon!
It is worth noting again that the Brunson v Adams case is not a criminal case, but a civil one that is directly confronting the violation of the Oath of Office that required that there be an investigation into the evidence presented regarding the election integrity. In their rush to certify 2020, the respondents of the BvA case violated their Oath of Office, and in so doing, as argued by the Brunson Brothers, nullified their right to hold public office.
If SCOTUS rules in favor of Brunson, they will be ruling that the 388 respondents no longer have the right to hold office now, or ever again due to their violation of their Oath of Office.
If this case is won, and I pray it is, it could start a whole domino effect because politicians at every level of government are guilty of this. From city, to county to state, to federal. For far too long, too many have ignored and even flouted their oaths of office and the people have not held them accountable. We are all getting a big wake up call to learn and know our constitution and actually use it as intended. This is big.
I think this is why the whole oath thing was a big part of the Q movement over the years. TBH, it all sounded strange at the time but it seems to make more and more sense with this Brunson SCOTUS case!
Many of we the people (Americans) have failed our Founding Fathers. But it's not over and we still have a chance to actually start doing what WE the people need to do, and that means holding those we elect to their oaths.
Perfect for thee mass lineup. Nice!!
I may no longer wear a uniform, but that doesn't mean my service ended. I remember by oath I took to serve and the extra one I added for myself:
"I have sworn on the altar of God, eternal hostility against every form of tyranny on the mind of man."
Every. Form. Of tyranny.
There is no expiration date on the oath we took when entering military service...
Semper Fidelis
This thread gave me chills.
Thank you! I hope virtually every present and past service member has this same attitude!
Yea, Milley for example. He takes his oath seriously.
His oath to satan.
Not trying to be a doomer but do you guys really think the SCOTUS will be allowed to take this up? Much less rule in our favor?
That would mean removing 380 members of the federal government. That is most of the elected government.
My belief is that they should take the complaint and vote 9-0 in favor thus removing those members but recent history tells me that they will vote 3-6 to not take it up to even hear the complaint.
I am just trying to be real. Not shitting on it. The case is 100% legit and should be considered and ruled on. I think things are too far gone for that though.
A lot of people are not able to think logically.
The SC has already had MULTIPLE opportunities to quietly shut down this case before it ever got to this point. In fact, this is exactly what all the "expert" lawyers have been predicting every time this case is mentioned (Tracy Beanz is a good example).
The lawyers have been unanimous in their predictions that the SC would never touch this case. That it was a nothing burger. They have been proven wrong through every step of the process so far.
The SC has in fact gone out of their way to help bring the case forward. Let that REALLY sink in for a minute...
Why would the SC actively encourage the Brunson brothers to file the case (with modifications requested by the SC), only to then have it fail the conference vote on Jan. 6th? Does that make any sense to anyone?
Unless the whole thing is just a political move by the SC to warn the Congress not to try to impose term limits or pack the court. Who knows? We will see soon enough, starting with what the lame duck Congress does this month...
I have to agree.
I am surprised this case made it this far but burden of proof for civil cases is usually less than a criminal case.
So because of that reason alone I never say never because you don't know what the SC is thinking if they allowed it to pass so many obstacles so far.
Since the SC only rules on whether a lower court ruling was Constitutional, isn't whether the lower court case was civil or criminal irrelevant?
True but the Brunson's are arguing a national security breech which is technically a matter of military courts but still within the jurisdiction of the SC.
They proved that when they wouldnt even hear the case in 2020. There is not going to be a court solution to this. Not unless Q lied when he said the military is the only way. Dopium.
You are not thinking about optics here. Remember, they had to let them steal 2020 and 2022 elections. We can't be the only ones awaken, the rest of the US population needs to be awake before things can start rolling. Think about it. If they had tried to drain the swamp when Trump was still president, at the time, 50% still thought Trump was a russian asset, so the DS could have easily said that Trump is doing a coup. Then we would have had civil war. Even when Trump did his 2024 bid for president live announcement, he even stated towards the end of the speech that not enough people have woken up yet. So what I think is that the SC aided the DS to steal the election by not taking the cases, which gave the DS their ego boost thinking they won without suffering losses. So the DS thinks it controls the SC until the Roe v Wade situation. That showed to us that maybe white hats are in control. Because of Roe v Wade, the Demorats got shit on by their voter base for allowing this to happen. Now the DS knows that they dont control SC, so they try to pack it and set term limits. This also gives me an inclination that white hats are in control.
Military could still be the only way - either way.
They rule for, DOJ fails to enforce (and may move to arrest SC themselves) Mil steps in.
They rule against, Mil steps in and takes out all of them incl SC.
1 is most aligned w/Q IMO because it follows the rule of law more closely - think SCOTUS
Agreed. I used to think that option 2 was more likely, but then the SC reversed Roe v. Wade, and I changed my mind.
I now think option 1 is more likely. Quick and clean.
Going by past history, you are right. But if things have to change, they have to start somewhere and this case is the perfect start if and when it happens!
Nobody thought roe v Wade would actually get ditched. Or Trump would beat hildawg in 16.
I pray you are right
No I don't. Everytime there is a venue to fo something people go nuts over it. Shit or get off the pot.
As a vet myself, I understand that as a trooper, I’m not aware of the battle plans/strategy - and rightly so. We don’t know - either way, but this looks quite plausible to me. We all know there’s a plan, and the timing is very interesting and logical.
Don’t forget that one of the biggest weapons they had is now gone and they really are panicking. I don’t think anyone would deny that.
This case is delayed until Jan correct?
JANUARY 6TH
u/#LetTheSinkIn
Yes but because it comes under National Security, it can be taken up anytime by the Supreme Court!
So let me guess Supreme Court rules in our favor. DOJ does nothing. Military then has to come in to enforce the law?
If Supreme Court rules in our favor, it is Game Over!
He was asking who enforces the verdict. Focus on reading comprehension.
The answer is we don't really know who would enforce that verdict. Some theorize US Marshals... but my bet would be the Marines.
Bottom line: we don't know the answer - I don't think something like this has ever happened before, or at least not en masse (388 defendants).
All nine justices of the current SCOTUS took two oaths before being seated: a Constitutional Oath and a Jucicial Oath.
https://www.supremecourt.gov/about/oath/oathsofthecurrentcourt.aspx
“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.”
And:
“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 _________, according to the best of my abilities and understanding, agreeably to the constitution and laws of the United States. So help me God.”
So they are under the same gun the Congress is under. If they violate their oaths of office that would be treason and treason is punishable by death.
It will be difficult for them to decline to hear Brunson v Adams and when it is heard it will be difficult for them to fail to affirm Brunson's claim that much of Congress (and others) violated their oaths.
They are intelligent - if nothing else - and they are perfectly capable of full consideration of potential consequences. They will do that carefully.
So I believe it's game on.
How the SC can do anything but delay the rulin without violating their own oath?
However, if they decline, it would be themselves violating their oath and the military and it would be more obvious than ever before that the country is lost....only at the precipice strikes again? At this point, I have zero confidence in guessing the next part in this saga
I think Q#22 gives us a hint:
Q#22 Nov 01, 2017 12:57:15 AM EDT
Who controls the NG?
Why was the NG recently activated in select cities within the US?
Can the NG work in coordination w/ the MARINES?
Do conditions need to be satisfied to authorize?
What former President used the military to save the republic and what occurred exactly?
Biggest drop to ever be provided on Pol. Study and prepare. The masses tend to panic in such situations.
No war. No civil unrest. Clean and swift.
Brunson vs Adams SCOTUS Case 22-380 scheduled for conference for 01/06/2023 - https://www.supremecourt.gov/search.aspx?filename=/docket/DocketFiles/html/Public/22-380.html
The Case Distribution Schedule identifies the dates on which petitions for writs of certiorari, along with corresponding briefs in opposition and reply briefs, will be distributed to the Justices. It also identifies the dates on which those petitions are scheduled to be considered by the Justices at Conference, although this schedule is subject to change.
The timing for placing petitions on a Conference list and distributing them to the Justices is governed by Rule 15.5. It provides as follows:
The Clerk will distribute the petition to the Court for its consideration upon receiving an express waiver of the right to file a brief in opposition, or, if no waiver or brief in opposition is filed, upon the expiration of the time allowed for filing. If a brief in opposition is timely filed, the Clerk will distribute the petition, brief in opposition, and any reply brief to the Court for its consideration no less than 14 days after the brief in opposition is filed, unless the petitioner expressly waives the 14-day waiting period.
In most cases, the disposition of a petition discussed at a particular Conference will be announced in an order list that is issued at 9:30 am on the Monday after that Conference. https://www.supremecourt.gov/casedistribution/casedistributionschedule.aspx
Yes but I think that because it comes under National Security, it can be taken up anytime by the Supreme Court
who decides/decided this is a national sec issue? DOD?
The relief sought is a national sec issue. I think SCOTUS has already decided it as national sec case as they were ready to accept it under Rule 11 earlier
KaBooom!
Q theme I always thought was about us never giving up! Multiple meanings exist again :)