I started doing interviews for published stories in 1977 – that’s 45 years ago. During that time, I’ve probably done a thousand of these source interviews. However, history may show that this is the most important interview I’ve ever conducted.
Loy Brunson is a Constitutional scholar and one of 4 Brunson brothers. One of his greatest discoveries about the U.S. Constitution is that members of Congress do not have the broad immunity that many of them think they do. The destruction of this concept of Congressional immunity may soon play a huge role in an upcoming case before the Supreme Court which was just docketed three weeks ago and currently slated for conference on – you’ll newer guess what day – January 6th, 2023.
At this time – or perhaps before – the Supremes could make a decision that would remove the President, Vice President, and a sizeable majority of members of Congress from their roles as representatives of the people of the United States of America for refusing to do any sort of an examination of the results of the 2020 election. Failure to take on this Constitutional responsibility – regardless of what Mike Pence has to say on this matter, could be considered a national security emergency requiring emergency judicial action.
At that time, the Supremes could order that special elections would be held barely months into the future to replace the displaced Senators and Congressional representatives – probably the most remarkable positive event in American history.
Think this is the wildest of all conspiracy theories? Listen to Loy Brunson carefully before you cast this theory aside.
Because it is a case of national security, it can be decided whenever including on 1/6 or even earlier by SCOTUS and that also without further hearing from any of the parties involved!
Mr. Brunson answers this and notes this case has been taken as a case of national emergency... watch the video as I think he answers the possibilities and the Courts authority on this well
Brunson was allowed to submit his petition under Rule 11. That doesn't at all mean that the petition has been approved. The case status is currently "scheduled for conference" which means that, on January 6th, all that will happen is that the Court will state whether or not they are going to hear the case.
It is true that most petitions which are accepted for review under Rule 11 are then granted certiorari. But still, it is completely false to say that the conference date is when the Court "starts hearing the case".
Correct. And I am on the record about how I feel about this case. People interested can review my history. Needless to say, I predict 0 of 9 votes to take this case. And even if they did, they aren't trying the case, the issue before the court is whether the district court erred in finding no subject matter jurisdiction. In the bizarre event that SCOTUS takes this case, they won't be talking about national security, fraud, or hearing any evidence. It will be a legal analysis as to whether the complaint has subject matter jurisdiction of federal courts or not. Not a hint more than this.
If they did somehow find subject matter jurisdiction, the district court is just going to boot it on remand for some other shortcoming.
It does not appear that rule 11 is in play. The docket says its on appeal from 10th circuit. So there is no bypassing of the appellate courts here. And even if rule 11 was in play, it means very little. States have an equivalent of rule 11 and it is used regularly.
Oh, if this guy is a "Constitutional Scholar" then I am both the King and Queen of England. And maybe even a prince.
They aren't hearing it, they are deciding if they will hear it. It seems to me an even more fundamental issue. If Congress doesn't have to abide by their oath, who does? What's the point of any oath or affirmation? If you don't have to tell the truth in court because you promised to, is perjury possible? What about marriage? Contracts and mortgages?
Bill Still reporting on the coup.
I started doing interviews for published stories in 1977 – that’s 45 years ago. During that time, I’ve probably done a thousand of these source interviews. However, history may show that this is the most important interview I’ve ever conducted.
Loy Brunson is a Constitutional scholar and one of 4 Brunson brothers. One of his greatest discoveries about the U.S. Constitution is that members of Congress do not have the broad immunity that many of them think they do. The destruction of this concept of Congressional immunity may soon play a huge role in an upcoming case before the Supreme Court which was just docketed three weeks ago and currently slated for conference on – you’ll newer guess what day – January 6th, 2023.
At this time – or perhaps before – the Supremes could make a decision that would remove the President, Vice President, and a sizeable majority of members of Congress from their roles as representatives of the people of the United States of America for refusing to do any sort of an examination of the results of the 2020 election. Failure to take on this Constitutional responsibility – regardless of what Mike Pence has to say on this matter, could be considered a national security emergency requiring emergency judicial action.
At that time, the Supremes could order that special elections would be held barely months into the future to replace the displaced Senators and Congressional representatives – probably the most remarkable positive event in American history.
Think this is the wildest of all conspiracy theories? Listen to Loy Brunson carefully before you cast this theory aside.
Thank you.
HOLY SHIT IT SOUNDS LIKE HABBENIIIIIINNNNNGGG
No.
Whoever wrote this is either incompetent, or psyopping.
The Supreme Court will decide on Jan 6 whether or not they are going to hear the case.
Because it is a case of national security, it can be decided whenever including on 1/6 or even earlier by SCOTUS and that also without further hearing from any of the parties involved!
Mr. Brunson answers this and notes this case has been taken as a case of national emergency... watch the video as I think he answers the possibilities and the Courts authority on this well
Brunson was allowed to submit his petition under Rule 11. That doesn't at all mean that the petition has been approved. The case status is currently "scheduled for conference" which means that, on January 6th, all that will happen is that the Court will state whether or not they are going to hear the case.
It is true that most petitions which are accepted for review under Rule 11 are then granted certiorari. But still, it is completely false to say that the conference date is when the Court "starts hearing the case".
Correct. And I am on the record about how I feel about this case. People interested can review my history. Needless to say, I predict 0 of 9 votes to take this case. And even if they did, they aren't trying the case, the issue before the court is whether the district court erred in finding no subject matter jurisdiction. In the bizarre event that SCOTUS takes this case, they won't be talking about national security, fraud, or hearing any evidence. It will be a legal analysis as to whether the complaint has subject matter jurisdiction of federal courts or not. Not a hint more than this.
If they did somehow find subject matter jurisdiction, the district court is just going to boot it on remand for some other shortcoming.
It does not appear that rule 11 is in play. The docket says its on appeal from 10th circuit. So there is no bypassing of the appellate courts here. And even if rule 11 was in play, it means very little. States have an equivalent of rule 11 and it is used regularly.
Oh, if this guy is a "Constitutional Scholar" then I am both the King and Queen of England. And maybe even a prince.
LETS GO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Could this case be why trump made his announcement today?
Excellent video.
wow. this gives me hope. i’m going to pray that the justices have the courage to do the right thing.
truly remarkable what they have done.
They aren't hearing it, they are deciding if they will hear it. It seems to me an even more fundamental issue. If Congress doesn't have to abide by their oath, who does? What's the point of any oath or affirmation? If you don't have to tell the truth in court because you promised to, is perjury possible? What about marriage? Contracts and mortgages?