I did some searches of this case to begin on Jan 6th, 2023 on Brave, etc and it was pretty much useless... These are the key results I found on Yandex.com.
Loy Brunson is a Constitutional scholar and one of 4 Brunson brothers. 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 as the Supreme Court starts hearing the case Jan 6, 2023 (www.bitchute.com)
SCOTUS Brunson v Adams 22-380 Case- Impeachment of members of Congress not required as Court has power to remove all 388 Defendants from holding office if found guilty under charges of Treason due to violation of their oath by not investigating the claims of election fraud and adhering to the enemy! (https://greatawakening.win/p/16ZqPSMuev/scotus-brunson-v-adams-22380-cas/c/ )
Brunson Bros. drain the swamp
ralandbrunson.com The first One, filed by Loy Brunson is still held up in the Utah Federal Court. The second one, filed by Raland J. Brunson has made it to the Supreme Court of the United...
Is this the Supreme Court case that will... - American Thinker
americanthinker.com›blog/2022…this…supreme_court… —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.
WILL SCOTUS TAKE THIS ON? The Four Brunson Brothers...
thegatewaypundit.com›2022…will-scotus…brunson…385… According to the complaint, Brunson v. Alma; et al (Docket #22-380), the defendants, Biden, Harris, Pence ... The Brunsons are now appealing the case to the Supreme Court.
BRUNSON v. STATE | FindLaw | Supreme Court of Georgia.
caselaw.findlaw.com›ga-supreme-court/1634985.html Case opinion for GA Supreme Court BRUNSON v. STATE. ... 2. Brunson contends that the trial court should have instructed the jury on the affirmative defense of self-defense.
This post here at the Great Awakening has a sober second look at this matter https://greatawakening.win/p/16ZqPbRnN9/-the-truth-about-the-brunson-cas/c/
I asked a question on that posting but maybe others on this post can also answer. With all the cases they turn away, why even agree to look at this one if they have no standing to rule on it? There are so many “constitutional experts” on both sides of this issue that, frankly, I’m just confused. Some say they have that power and some say not. I’m just an accountant trying to understand.
I think people who are opposing this case are looking at it from purely procedural point of view and this is not how Supreme Court does things.
I am looking at this case from national importance point of view.
https://rumble.com/v235yf8-constitutional-law-part-ii-the-brunson-brothers-lawsuit-before-the-supreme-.html
As per allegations in the complaint (which is being explained in this above video), there are 31 states that have violated election laws. I don't think there is any other Court which can decide this issue other than SCOTUS?
The people opposing this case may be right that based on past history, SCOTUS will not get involved in this case. But my point is that if they want to get involved, they have full authority and jurisdiction to take action in this case!
Let's see what happens!
They haven’t looked at this one yet. It’s on the docket, but that just means that Brunson filled out the right paperwork and mailed it to the right address.
The Jan 6 conference is when they look at it, decide whether they have jurisdiction (not “standing” - that’s something completely different that plaintiffs must show), and decide whether this one will be another of the vast number of cases that are turned away.
"This column isn’t going to earn anyone money—to the contrary—many of you will likely hate us for writing it. But the truth is the truth".
A wise man once said anything before "BUT" is BS.
Agreed.
Id add, if the Juano/Nino/McKay/Ward/Parkes circle is promoting it then it's most likely going to amount to nothing substantial.