Supreme Court Decision Pending In Little Known Case
(www.supremecourt.gov)
Comments (22)
sorted by:
I.e. Brunson vs. Adams, the daily hopium. This is a pdf of the petition.
This site is daily hopium.
And yours is a reply to the pdf link. __ Mr. Obvious
thank you
"Little Known Case" has been discussed quite a bit on here and other sites. But probably on the MSM outlets that fewer and fewer people are bothering to look at or listen to. We are now the news, not the old losers that are dying a fast death!
'Pending case' is about the public optic yes.
I used the phrase 'We Are The News Now" as my very first post that was a diatribe against false 'journalism'. when Q surfaced. I hadn't seen it prior. Does that mean? I don't know. But here we go......
Google needs feed is the real weapon and nobody is taking about it.
He included Chip Roy, and Chuck Grassley?
I didn't see Adam Schiff?
Went back and found Schiff.
385 members of Congress, past VP, current (fake) VP and President. 388 defendants in total...
All are defendants mainly based on their vote to certify the 2020 election results in direct contradiction of 100 members of Congress that brought forward evidence of election fraud. Obviously, the serious allegations of election fraud should have been investigated.
By ignoring the need to investigate and certifying the fraudulent results, they violated their oaths of office and caused a massive breach of national security (a coup, resulting in the installation of an illegitimate puppet government in place of the rightfully elected government).
Oh wow, even just reading the Questions Presented and the e-NOR-mous list of defendants tells me this is big. They're going after every fucking democrap & RINO in office and they're including some big names.
The only trouble with this is that every defendant is entitled to their own counsel and the resulting legal actions possible could fill a MOUNTAIN that could gag King Kong! And hundreds of lawyers against one Plaintiff's team of attorneys do not immediately present favorable odds.
However, TRUTH has a way of not needing to be defended the way deceptions need to be, so the main objective must be to focus on the FACTS as they contribute to proving the chronic lawlessness of the defendants.
I am not a lawologist, so this first-glance take on it should not be considered prophecy, just my gut reaction. And if little me can see this, how much more can those with pertinent experience see?
It's about legal definitions and how the lower court countered itself in those definitions with its decision. Definitions surrounding constitutionality as right to individuals vs mechanism of government.
Not sure how 'prophecy' gets involved there.
Currently the courts defend against Truth... and 'justice' is relative, as the parable of Solomon suggests.
thx for these added clarifications. Interpretations of definitions aren't very 'factish' but wild or twisted interpretations can be dynamited. Again, not a 'prediction', just my observation. This case should definitely expose the deep state's way of thinking for once & for all, so thx for your post because I didn't know this was going on. Juicy!!
it's my understanding the defendants (ALL OF THEM) failed to even reply to the plaintiffs motion for judicial review. this is strange any any case to say the least, nevermind a case with this many named defendants of such prominent/powerful positions. not sure how to interpret....they know it's going no where since they have judges/court under their thumb?...they are attempting to convince the court the matter is not worth their response (highly unlikely as even the most frivolous claims get responses calling out the frivolousness to get them dismissed)
just all around odd to me
wow that's the height of arrogance and over-confidence. I want that judge to consider their disrespect when it's his turn to communicate to the parties. Fair to say that they're going to pull 388 darrell brookses!
Hope anons are taking this hopium with a generous dose of salt, not just a grain.
Expecting the US Supreme Court to do the right thing and address the 2020 election, either by declaring the obvious true winner or requiring a new election or sending it back to the state legislatures to fix it, is guaranteed to generate massive waves of disappointment. Because they aren't going to do jack shit about it.
In other news, reality is still real.
This is the way.
Reality is.....it is an existing case.
The word 'hopium' is conjecture on your part. I might share in it. In fact I do for the most part.
I present it as news and news only.......to WATCH.....to comment on.....to gauge as positive or negative proof of progress.......
It's the reality we're living, not the one some dream of.
Don't project this dichotomy of hopium vs blackpilling onto the messenger.
I suggest no such thing.
For the record I never entertained a thought of projecting a dichotomy of hopium vs blackpilling onto the messenger.
For one thing I don't believe "hopium vs. blackpilling" is a genuine, legit choice. A person can eschew hopium and red pills, yet remain neutral, not crossing over into blackpilling, if they are particularly good at keeping an open mind. (I'm not; I freely guzzle the hopium and red pills, even if their effects can wane somewhat on certain days LOL :)
Sounds to me like we agree.
I'd say so
Roe decision and just knowing good guys win this war somehow gives me hope, but I'm with you. not gonna be surprised if the court builds a pretzel to explain why this case is being dismissed. when the real reason is because "they have me on tape fucking a 9 year old boy" or "they threatened to kill my wife and new born in an 'accident'"
Can someone ELI5 how if the SCOTUS doesn't rule for Brunson, they are complicit in what is being charged? The Legal Logic conundrum ?