Brunson - CERTIORARI DENIED
SEE TOP COMMENT!
https://www.supremecourt.gov/orders/courtorders/010923zor_p860.pdf
Page 5
22-380 BRUNSON, RALAND J. V. ADAMS, ALMA S., ET AL.
You’re wrong. He certainly made the claim about treason.
https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.utd.126764/gov.uscourts.utd.126764.6.1.pdf
Claims:
I. Promissory Estoppel - (p.15)
II. Promissory Estoppel - (p.17)
III. Breach of duty - (p. 18)
IV. Intentional infliction of emotional distress - (p.19)
V. Fraud - (p. 20)
VI. Civil conspiracy - (p.23)
Those are all tort claims. None of them are constitutional. None of them are "treason."
Notice that this case is such a sacred cow, even citing their own claims for relief and pointing out how none of them are "treason" results in a downvote tantrum. This is truly remarkable.
They all add up t treason.
Is the Supreme Court supposed to act as their lawyer in completely reforming/rewriting their claims to some legally sufficient level? No. They are the dumbasses that decided to write this themselves. They sure exacted enough money from people duped into sending some to them that they could afford to get a real lawyer to try and put something viable into this diatribe. But they didn't. When your claim fails, it fails.
https://youtu.be/C3xM8sHGoiQ
Court can't rule on arguments not made. Have to make the right arguments. Even if the underlying claim is valid (election manipulation and fraud), Brunson failed to make the right arguments to support said claim.
Courts are corrupt or did you not get the memo?