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! - The Great Awakening

197

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!

posted 1 year ago by seernewday 1 year ago by seernewday +198 / -1

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)

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.

35 comments

35 comments share save hide report block hide replies

To The Great Awakening

We are researchers who deal in open-source information, reasoned argument, and dank memes. We do battle in the sphere of ideas and ideas only. We neither need nor condone the use of force in our work here. WE ARE THE PUBLIC FACE OF Q. OUR MISSION IS TO RED-PILL NORMIES.

This is a pro-Q community. Please read and respect our rules below before contributing.

WHY Q?

"Those who cannot understand that we cannot simply start arresting w/o first: ensuring the safety & well-being of the population shifting the narrative removing those in DC through resignation to ensure success defeating ISIS/MS13 to prevent fail-safes freezing assets to remove network-to-network abilities kill off COC to prevent top-down comms/org, etc. etc. should not be participating in discussions." Q

Comments (35)

sorted by:

▲ 2 ▼

– mnpsna 2 points 1 year ago +2 / -0

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!

permalink parent save report block reply