I like Q-Post #970 for that, post date March 28th. Thirty days (for Brunson Bros to file a petition) brings us to early-mid February. Some time to docket and schedule then thirty days from then to bring us to mid-late March. What happens as a result if they clear that hurdle is yet to be seen. I especially like that "final stage" part. I know it's going to take awhile, probably a couple years, to hash through this cabal-ese garbage, but a lot can happen in two years time. Hopeful, one way or another.
I keep saying, Brunson case was a insurance policy against stealing the House from MAGA. Now that the house is safe, the case will be put on ice, to be resurrected as necessary, until, I predict, it will be in play at the very end, when we hit the precipice.
A lot of their perspective stems from the understanding of how SCOTUS works and what their specific actions mean, and not as much on the facts of the matter.
I do agree that we wont see any major bomb drop - atleast not until the end.
But I do not agree that this case is inconsequential - I believe it (or one of their related cases) has already played a role and will keep playing a role in guiding the Congress's actions up until the precipice.
Yes. This has always been a reason for lack of standing. They should have figured that out. Kari Lake did, and she specifically stated that the cheating affected her specific outcome and had enough proof of the number of ballots to flip it.
And the real issue with standing, is that no citizen has any constitutional right to vote for POTUS/VP. As a point of fact, we don't actually vote for either. We vote for ELECTORS, who then vote for POTUS/VP. Electors DO have an explicit constitutional right to vote for POTUS/VP, a right which many states have suppressed for a very long time by passing and enforcing laws requiring Electors to essentially be messengers, couriers, merely conveying a vote, as opposed to exercising free agency which is essential to the nature of voting. Of course, SCOTUS recently fucked this in their 9-0 ruling in Chiafalo in 2021.
The only parties with absolute standing in these cases, are 1.) the Electors who were denied their office as the result of unlawful appointments, the result of fraudulent elections and 2.) The candidate who was denied the office he sought by the state officials who conducted unlawful elections and unlawfully appointed his opponent's pledged Electors on the basis of fraudulent elections.
States must still conduct their elections in compliance with the Constitution and valid federal statutes that regulate said elections. Yes, Congress does have some constitutional authority over federal elections,conducted by the states.
The disputed matter is of a constitutional nature (at state and federal levels) but not how Brunson attempted to argue. This "violation of oath" to exercise alleged authority that doesn't actually exist, was nonsense.
Does not hinge on there actually being election fraud. It hinges on the warning of 153 congressmen that the presence of fraud needed to investigated - discovered if indeed it was present - and the violation of the oath of office by anyone who obstructed that investigation.
And the courts repeatedly have stated they don't care. We are living under a corporate oligarchy. The only way out is to OPT OUT. Become a state national and enjoy your freedom.
Brunson claims that the defendants knowingly mocked their oaths, and became enemies of the U.S. Constitution that they swore to protect, by allowing fraudulent votes to be counted. As previously stated, fraud violates everything.
As I previously asked, where in Constitution is Congress explicitly authorized to adjudicate (investigate and render judgement upon, including voiding) purported fraudulent Electoral certificates? To note, the original intent and plain meaning of the word "count" within the context of its usage in the applicable section of the Constitution, simply means "tabulate."
So again, under what specific clause of the Constitution is Congress given authority to usurp the clearly delegated power of the Judiciary? Congress cannot neglect a responsibility it does not possess.
Yup. They have this false hope things will change. Only when the economy goes to complete shit and people keep dying from the vax will things change. Unfortunately we need the lazy normies to have their lives ruined and we can turn their anger towards politicians.
Keep in mind Anons and Patriots, how many times Roe vs. Wade or other famous SCOTUS cases were appealed before they were heard/voted on. The Brunson Case needs all the support it can get to bull through!
The case was declined with about 22-23 other cases on the same day, all possibly having less, equal, or maybe more value. Nothing was clearly provided in the denial except denied more on technicality like the rest instead of actually being “heard”. It’s totally common, and unless the whole Nation makes a mass stink about it, then it may be appealed many times. This is why Trump has stated himself we Patriots, Anons, and upset Americans need to peacefully march/protest City to City, much like Brazil or Countries of the EU, if we want to be heard outside our voting (if not cheated).
Nothing was clearly provided in the denial except denied more on technicality like the rest instead of actually being “heard”. It’s totally common, and unless the whole Nation makes a mass stink about it, then it may be appealed many times.
I wasn't clear on if any reason or details were provided about why they turned it down.
I really think getting over the hurdle of STANDING was a bigger deal than we realize; if the public support continues to get stronger for this case, even if they appeal it into oblivion I would GUESS that before too long someone will get a case on the same topic up to them.
Brunson kind of gave us a target and outline even if it isn't the one that makes it to SCOTUS... and as you say, if the massive public interest and support only continues on for it, they will start getting A BUNCH of cases that are very similar to Brunson even if they won't take this one, and they will feel the pressure to look into it until they do.
It's kind of like the 'get woke-go broke' trend only applied to SCOTUS. Our folks are great at keeping the heat cranked up. 🤣
I really think getting over the hurdle of STANDING was a bigger deal than we realize
Correct. Brunson doesn't have standing because he didn't have any constitutional right denied.
The Electors and to an extent candidate Trump, however, did have their constitutional rights denied. These are the parties that have standing.
To win the game, you have to play the game, not try to circumvent the rules of the game. All the money floating around funding so much Paytriot bullshit, and yet from what I can tell, not a single case filed in support of the Electors to be pushed up the chain as should have been done. Why?
And as much as I wanted to believe the Brunson guys just didn't know better... the Barnes clip kind of convinced me....
I mean at the stage you're taking this puppy to SCOTUS.... and STILL going as pro se litigants?
...why have you not at least mentioned or courted SOME KIND of LEGAL REP?? Especially with the publicity you're getting...
If anything, maybe this is a marker to show us the direction we need to take in order to get something filed and moving that is correctly done in the legal sense. We learn more in defeat and all that, y'know...
The legal system has always been about process and procedure. It all requires valuable resources like time and money. If the Brunson brothers are willing to
continue to invest in both areas then I can wish them good luck. And they have my respect if they want to keep pushing.
Tried to cover most of what's been said here and in the sticky yesterday. I gave a pretty thorough accounting of things and listed pros and cons about the case from both sides... or at least that was what I attempted to do.
Overall I feel like it's a good sign to see them continue to push the case and that there's always a chance that something extraordinary happens...
But it might be time to start tempering our expectations a tad and getting prepared for the next battles. In fact Rayland Brunson posted that Last Thursday! so it seems clear that even they were prepared for a rejection as the outcome, at least initially.
The thing is that Brunson has been a winner from a political/optics standpoint and attracted a lot of grassroots support and public outcry. It's good because it has cemented the fact that many people in our country STILL HAVE major grievances with 2020 and HAVE NOT LET IT GO. Our political class and the Justices have learned that there is an overwhelming groundswell intent on pushing them to remedy SOMETHING about the way all of it went down.
But, the case is just so flawed. It's trying to put a round peg in a square hole for numerous reasons: pro se litigants, a huge legal remedy that is unenforceable by the Court, the scope of the case being far too wide in its terms, the actual allegations being very incogruous with the 6 pages of background given, etc etc. If it had a more narrow focus or the "ask" wasn't so massive I think it might have had a better shot at being taken up, but in the current form it's just a mess.
Hopefully it will end up being a LEAD IN to some other more focused case that speaks to what happened during 2020 that was specifically unlawful and/or the Constitutionality of things like immunity. I hate to see people got their bubbles burst about it, but we should remain realistic about things- justice wasn't and isn't ever going to come all at once, even though it SHOULD.
I'm really not sure the courts are going to be on on side on this one. For one, does SCOTUS really have the authority to remove sitting members of congress and a president? I can't imagine that they would. Also the scope of this case is so huge I can't see them trying it in court. Kudos to the Brunson bros, but I'm just not seeing this one.
I get that. The elections run in each state should still have a standard that satisfies accountability and authenticity. Mail in ballots have no mechanism for proper chain of custody tracking. A couple yokels go to a remote ballot box, scoop out an unknown number of ballots, bring them to an HQ to be counted there. There's nothing to prove the collection and movement from the box to HQ is untainted.
It does have a standard. Currently, each state's elections satisfy that state's standard. Those states know they will lack chain of custody and they don't care. The authorities know it's tainted, and often prefer it that way. It's still not a federal issue - all federal cares about is if they send delegates. The rest is the state's problem and the people of that state can, Constitutionally, choose to condone a corrupted voting system. Several do. The states have to fix it, the people of those states have to fix it; and now they have to do it by some means other than the ballot box.
I get it. It's just frustrating being her in WA state. The election system is broke AF and King Inslee has taken advantage of it to our fullest. To think our broke ass corrupted courts will do anything about is just pissing in the wind. Our issues here have been broken for so long it feels like nothing will be remedied at a state level.
I actually posted that same video in the write up
that I did! Hah.
I thought Barnes gave the best quick summary of why the case just has so much dragging on it. I've noticed he and others like JustHuman who talk a lot of the legal stuff have been very begrudging in their having to deal with it. They put in the video titles "Update on Brunson" and the like because so many people are asking them about it and then cover it for all of 30 seconds because it is a complete dumpster fire in their opinion. Gotta be careful who you call "grifter" when you're trading on the same news yourself... all I'm sayin'.
For the record I do think the case had some merits but the process it took to get here was oversold and people were made to think it received special attention. On the bright side, though, the Brunson case DID make it over the hurdle of standing so it provided some clarity there, after we've seen SO MANY tossed for that reason.
2020 is NEVER going to be reversed. The fact that anyone would even suggest so at this point should be outted as a massive disinfo agent and labeled as a fed.
Of course it should have been. If it was going to be reversed it should have happened before he took office. Not a year later. Not two years later. Certainly not two and a half years later after the midterms took place with JUST AS MUCH FRAUD as 2020.
White hats are letting the old system collapse in on itself. And that was always going to take a full term of Biden at the least to happen. The scary thing is the dollar still hasn't collapsed. I don't see Q team bothering letting 2024 go back to Trump until the financial collapse happens. It's literally a game of hot potato with the global economy. Any pain we all feel is a minor benefit in MAYBE getting a very small amount of people to wake up. Most will just be further demotivated and never vote again.
This war was always a hope of a hope of a prayer that they could actually win this thing. Coalitions of world and military leaders have been trying for centuries. What makes this time different? I think they do have an ace in the hole, but I cant imagine why they haven't shown it yet. Like I said most of the country is completely broken and doesn't have the stomach for anything other than rolling over and dying at this point. They waited too long on that front.
Never in a million years is the Supreme Court gonna take this case and do anything about it.
They allowed states to unconstitutionally change election laws, allowed the election to continue on for fucking days after the constitution clearly says it’s supposed to end, and didn’t do a fucking thing.
They are nothing more than an illusion. Why would any of you think they have the want or ability to do anything about the corruption destroying the country? Cmon.
The military courts are the only way because all 3 branches are broken.
The Brunson case was dead on arrival. It’s still important for them to go through the process to demonstrate how wholly corrupt the system is. But nobody here should be thinking this will go anywhere.
Here is the tl;dr from an actual lawyer: the exact same 9 Justices that just voted not to grant cert on this case are not going to magically change their minds on a petition for rehearing on the exact same case 30 days later. Please do not get distracted by this and get your hopes up.
Sending letters is not a thing you are supposed to do to influence a an appellate court or the SCOTUS - in fact, the opposite; the court is supposed to rule based solely on the law as it’s applied to the facts and isn’t supposed to be influenced by public opinion (which is why the are appointed for life), so spamming the court with letters will not have the intended affect. This isn’t like writing your rep in Congress.
You shitty opinions about lawyers are entirely justified and I share them; the difference is that I’m not telling you what I think should happen in a just word; I’m telling you the objective facts about what is 100% going to happen in this current world with a shitty legal system - the petition for rehearing is going to be denied and we will never hear about the Brunson case again.
I’m just telling you what, in fact, SCOTUS is going to do with this case. It’s going to deny the petition for rehearing. Do with that information what you will. Don’t shoot the messenger.
Why would they reconsider? On what grounds? These Judges are too afraid for their lives to rule on this. THE GOOD NEWS is that we learned in their reasons for denying this is that members of Congress are not legally bound by the constitution. What?
I am curious why the Brunsons are pushing for a petition for reconsideration. They must know something that we do not know unless they feel it is a long shot that it is still worth pursuing.
It's the SCOTUS's job to view a complaint through the lens of the US Constitution, and legal precedents. Not the lens of public opinion. This was a reason Jefferson stated for the life term; so that they may interpret the law against the Constitution, and not against public opinion, which may change over time.
Unfortunately the DemoLibs have been allowed to protest right outside the judges homes up until the slight of hand law change that was made with Pelosi’s approval, right before Conservatives took over the House. They got to publicly and directly attempt to influence nearly everything SCOTUS and every other US Court did for the last 2 years. Little turds!
Sounds like the Executive branch should do its job of enforcing the law to protect the Justices.
On that note, where was our military during the Rebellion of 2020, when our Elections were interfered with and manipulated? Could have all been prevented, but wasn't. Was allowed to happen. Either greatest sting in history, or greatest grift. 2 years later, still nothing to confirm either theory.
They should hear a case on its merits. The problem with this case is the remedy, which to remove politicians from office. SCOTUS does not have the power, the constitution grants impeachment power to Congress, and it's the only way to remove them. SCOTUS will not take the case because they are powerless to remedy it. Time to put away childish things.
I think they SHOULD factor public interest in when taking cases and they oftentimes have in our history.
It's the actual verdicts and outcomes in the reading of the case that we want to stay Constitutionalist... so I guess I'm agreeing with you! Hah 🤣
I read somewhere yesterday that the reason given to not hear the case was that they couldn't enforce the removal. Not sure if it was true that there was actually a reason given, but I know its true that they couldn't actually enforce it.
I feel like if the case was a little more focused, and asked for something more in line with what SCOTUS could do like say rule if their oath of office immunity is Constitutional or not, it could have a better shot of being taken up to be heard. Maybe we'll get something like that down the line, from where this one started off.
I think the biggest deal with it so far is that it was not kicked for not having standing.... so we have some kind of baseline for who is the aggrieved party (or plaintiff or whatever legal jargon is appropriate) in the 2020 election. I don't know though I'm just playing Perry Mason Jr. like a lot of us. 😁
30 days?
It took less time than that for Chief Justice Roberts to illegally adopt his kids from... wherever he got them.
Done in 30 anyone?!
Please God
I like Q-Post #970 for that, post date March 28th. Thirty days (for Brunson Bros to file a petition) brings us to early-mid February. Some time to docket and schedule then thirty days from then to bring us to mid-late March. What happens as a result if they clear that hurdle is yet to be seen. I especially like that "final stage" part. I know it's going to take awhile, probably a couple years, to hash through this cabal-ese garbage, but a lot can happen in two years time. Hopeful, one way or another.
.
"... Done in 30.
House cleaning.
WH secured.
Final stage.
Q "
.
https://qalerts.app/?q=%23970
Everything happening all at once would be amazing.
Things improving gradually instead of swirling collectively down the shitter would be great too though.
I keep saying, Brunson case was a insurance policy against stealing the House from MAGA. Now that the house is safe, the case will be put on ice, to be resurrected as necessary, until, I predict, it will be in play at the very end, when we hit the precipice.
What are your thoughts on the Tracey Beanz / Inside DC perspective on the Brunson Case?
A lot of their perspective stems from the understanding of how SCOTUS works and what their specific actions mean, and not as much on the facts of the matter.
I do agree that we wont see any major bomb drop - atleast not until the end.
But I do not agree that this case is inconsequential - I believe it (or one of their related cases) has already played a role and will keep playing a role in guiding the Congress's actions up until the precipice.
Thanks BB.
SCOTUS denied election fraud cases. Don't see why they'd accept this case.
What was the basis for the denial?
lack of standing; supposedly he didn't prove that he had a "personal stake in the outcome of the action"
https://www.ntd.com/supreme-court-rejects-case-seeking-to-overturn-2020-election_894187.html
Yes. This has always been a reason for lack of standing. They should have figured that out. Kari Lake did, and she specifically stated that the cheating affected her specific outcome and had enough proof of the number of ballots to flip it.
The way I see it is that this case is utter BS.
They asking for a remedy that’s unconstitutional; that SCOTUS fires almost the entire Congress, POTUS and the VP.
SCOTUS can’t unseat elected officials, and that’s a good thing when you think about it.
Fraud vitiates everything.
Obviously this doesn't mean what you think it does.
Totally agree, that’s why the court case must be bullet proof.
And that’s why you can’t ask the SCOTUS for a remedy to unseat elected members of Congress/POTUS. That’s asking the SCOTUS to act unconstitutional.
I’m really happy that only Congress itself and WTP can unseat elected members, imagine how long Trump would’ve last under the 2017 SCOTUS?
This is so frustrating! We the people have standing, ffs.
They have an oath. Without an oath, what are they?
Tyrants.
And the real issue with standing, is that no citizen has any constitutional right to vote for POTUS/VP. As a point of fact, we don't actually vote for either. We vote for ELECTORS, who then vote for POTUS/VP. Electors DO have an explicit constitutional right to vote for POTUS/VP, a right which many states have suppressed for a very long time by passing and enforcing laws requiring Electors to essentially be messengers, couriers, merely conveying a vote, as opposed to exercising free agency which is essential to the nature of voting. Of course, SCOTUS recently fucked this in their 9-0 ruling in Chiafalo in 2021.
The only parties with absolute standing in these cases, are 1.) the Electors who were denied their office as the result of unlawful appointments, the result of fraudulent elections and 2.) The candidate who was denied the office he sought by the state officials who conducted unlawful elections and unlawfully appointed his opponent's pledged Electors on the basis of fraudulent elections.
States determine the manner of their elections, election fraud must be handled at the state level. Brunson is a federal issue - violation of Oath.
States must still conduct their elections in compliance with the Constitution and valid federal statutes that regulate said elections. Yes, Congress does have some constitutional authority over federal elections,conducted by the states.
The disputed matter is of a constitutional nature (at state and federal levels) but not how Brunson attempted to argue. This "violation of oath" to exercise alleged authority that doesn't actually exist, was nonsense.
The hopium was unreal over the past few weeks on this case. I bit my tongue but people on this board should have realistic expectations..
and the dates that just don't make sense by adding up unscrupulous numbers hurts my head.
Triggering snowflakes in their safe space is a no no. Coddling is the order of the day!
The people responding to you are not looking at this objectively. They are just arguing their point with no regard to what you’re actually saying.
Does not hinge on there actually being election fraud. It hinges on the warning of 153 congressmen that the presence of fraud needed to investigated - discovered if indeed it was present - and the violation of the oath of office by anyone who obstructed that investigation.
That wasn't the point I was making
And the courts repeatedly have stated they don't care. We are living under a corporate oligarchy. The only way out is to OPT OUT. Become a state national and enjoy your freedom.
Have you done this successfully? If so, what process did you use? Did you get a passport card with stars on it?
We need a tax revolt.
Exactly.
Where does the Constitution give Congress the authority to adjudicate Electoral appointment disputes?
You claimed Congress violated the Constitution. Which part?
As I previously asked, where in Constitution is Congress explicitly authorized to adjudicate (investigate and render judgement upon, including voiding) purported fraudulent Electoral certificates? To note, the original intent and plain meaning of the word "count" within the context of its usage in the applicable section of the Constitution, simply means "tabulate."
So again, under what specific clause of the Constitution is Congress given authority to usurp the clearly delegated power of the Judiciary? Congress cannot neglect a responsibility it does not possess.
Sorry but not getting my hopes up
Anyone who thought this was gonna actually happen is full of shit.
Too many people here are addicted to this kinda shit and just fills the site with clutter.
Yup. They have this false hope things will change. Only when the economy goes to complete shit and people keep dying from the vax will things change. Unfortunately we need the lazy normies to have their lives ruined and we can turn their anger towards politicians.
Cope seethe dilate
Keep in mind Anons and Patriots, how many times Roe vs. Wade or other famous SCOTUS cases were appealed before they were heard/voted on. The Brunson Case needs all the support it can get to bull through!
Those were cases that actually had been argued and worked their way through the system. The Brunson case was DOA at every level.
The case was declined with about 22-23 other cases on the same day, all possibly having less, equal, or maybe more value. Nothing was clearly provided in the denial except denied more on technicality like the rest instead of actually being “heard”. It’s totally common, and unless the whole Nation makes a mass stink about it, then it may be appealed many times. This is why Trump has stated himself we Patriots, Anons, and upset Americans need to peacefully march/protest City to City, much like Brazil or Countries of the EU, if we want to be heard outside our voting (if not cheated).
I wasn't clear on if any reason or details were provided about why they turned it down.
I really think getting over the hurdle of STANDING was a bigger deal than we realize; if the public support continues to get stronger for this case, even if they appeal it into oblivion I would GUESS that before too long someone will get a case on the same topic up to them.
Brunson kind of gave us a target and outline even if it isn't the one that makes it to SCOTUS... and as you say, if the massive public interest and support only continues on for it, they will start getting A BUNCH of cases that are very similar to Brunson even if they won't take this one, and they will feel the pressure to look into it until they do.
It's kind of like the 'get woke-go broke' trend only applied to SCOTUS. Our folks are great at keeping the heat cranked up. 🤣
Yes haha! Yes we all are. WWG1WGA
Correct. Brunson doesn't have standing because he didn't have any constitutional right denied.
The Electors and to an extent candidate Trump, however, did have their constitutional rights denied. These are the parties that have standing.
To win the game, you have to play the game, not try to circumvent the rules of the game. All the money floating around funding so much Paytriot bullshit, and yet from what I can tell, not a single case filed in support of the Electors to be pushed up the chain as should have been done. Why?
Yep, you're over the target.
And as much as I wanted to believe the Brunson guys just didn't know better... the Barnes clip kind of convinced me....
I mean at the stage you're taking this puppy to SCOTUS.... and STILL going as pro se litigants? ...why have you not at least mentioned or courted SOME KIND of LEGAL REP?? Especially with the publicity you're getting...
If anything, maybe this is a marker to show us the direction we need to take in order to get something filed and moving that is correctly done in the legal sense. We learn more in defeat and all that, y'know...
Cool, so at least 30 more days
never gonna happen. military is the ONLY way. but, after this the SCOTUS is now complicit.
The legal system has always been about process and procedure. It all requires valuable resources like time and money. If the Brunson brothers are willing to continue to invest in both areas then I can wish them good luck. And they have my respect if they want to keep pushing.
Interesting strategy. Keep refiling until they get annoyed enough to accept it. I can see this taking a looooong time
Military is the only way.
I posted on this yesterday following the news.
Tried to cover most of what's been said here and in the sticky yesterday. I gave a pretty thorough accounting of things and listed pros and cons about the case from both sides... or at least that was what I attempted to do.
Overall I feel like it's a good sign to see them continue to push the case and that there's always a chance that something extraordinary happens...
But it might be time to start tempering our expectations a tad and getting prepared for the next battles. In fact Rayland Brunson posted that Last Thursday! so it seems clear that even they were prepared for a rejection as the outcome, at least initially.
The thing is that Brunson has been a winner from a political/optics standpoint and attracted a lot of grassroots support and public outcry. It's good because it has cemented the fact that many people in our country STILL HAVE major grievances with 2020 and HAVE NOT LET IT GO. Our political class and the Justices have learned that there is an overwhelming groundswell intent on pushing them to remedy SOMETHING about the way all of it went down.
But, the case is just so flawed. It's trying to put a round peg in a square hole for numerous reasons: pro se litigants, a huge legal remedy that is unenforceable by the Court, the scope of the case being far too wide in its terms, the actual allegations being very incogruous with the 6 pages of background given, etc etc. If it had a more narrow focus or the "ask" wasn't so massive I think it might have had a better shot at being taken up, but in the current form it's just a mess.
Hopefully it will end up being a LEAD IN to some other more focused case that speaks to what happened during 2020 that was specifically unlawful and/or the Constitutionality of things like immunity. I hate to see people got their bubbles burst about it, but we should remain realistic about things- justice wasn't and isn't ever going to come all at once, even though it SHOULD.
I'm really not sure the courts are going to be on on side on this one. For one, does SCOTUS really have the authority to remove sitting members of congress and a president? I can't imagine that they would. Also the scope of this case is so huge I can't see them trying it in court. Kudos to the Brunson bros, but I'm just not seeing this one.
You wanna not be heard?
Say nothing. Do nothing.
Listen to at least the first five minutes of Loy Brunson.
https://youtu.be/3WtgjbEDzI4
Agreed. The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.
because GEOTUS cannot return before the 20th or 2024 is null and void
They won't even consider the mail-in ballot case.
States determine the manner of elections. It's none of SCOTUS' business.
I get that. The elections run in each state should still have a standard that satisfies accountability and authenticity. Mail in ballots have no mechanism for proper chain of custody tracking. A couple yokels go to a remote ballot box, scoop out an unknown number of ballots, bring them to an HQ to be counted there. There's nothing to prove the collection and movement from the box to HQ is untainted.
It does have a standard. Currently, each state's elections satisfy that state's standard. Those states know they will lack chain of custody and they don't care. The authorities know it's tainted, and often prefer it that way. It's still not a federal issue - all federal cares about is if they send delegates. The rest is the state's problem and the people of that state can, Constitutionally, choose to condone a corrupted voting system. Several do. The states have to fix it, the people of those states have to fix it; and now they have to do it by some means other than the ballot box.
I get it. It's just frustrating being her in WA state. The election system is broke AF and King Inslee has taken advantage of it to our fullest. To think our broke ass corrupted courts will do anything about is just pissing in the wind. Our issues here have been broken for so long it feels like nothing will be remedied at a state level.
Don't get your hopes up
https://rumble.com/v22jai8-robert-barnes-on-the-brunson-case-part-3-the-washington-pundit.html
I actually posted that same video in the write up that I did! Hah.
I thought Barnes gave the best quick summary of why the case just has so much dragging on it. I've noticed he and others like JustHuman who talk a lot of the legal stuff have been very begrudging in their having to deal with it. They put in the video titles "Update on Brunson" and the like because so many people are asking them about it and then cover it for all of 30 seconds because it is a complete dumpster fire in their opinion. Gotta be careful who you call "grifter" when you're trading on the same news yourself... all I'm sayin'.
For the record I do think the case had some merits but the process it took to get here was oversold and people were made to think it received special attention. On the bright side, though, the Brunson case DID make it over the hurdle of standing so it provided some clarity there, after we've seen SO MANY tossed for that reason.
It's not completely dead, in the same sense that rocks are not completely dead. "Never alive" is the correct term.
The idea they would ever accept cert on this absolute nutjob fringe case is laughable. Call me a shill, whatever. Don't give a shit.
Anyone thinking this case will do anything has no clue.
Yes it is.
Oh ffs.
I don’t have any hope in this being the answer but 30 days is fucking retarded regardless. Why does everything have to be so damn slow?
2020 is NEVER going to be reversed. The fact that anyone would even suggest so at this point should be outted as a massive disinfo agent and labeled as a fed.
But it should’ve been, so I don’t understand why you would say that.
Edit: Not being a smartass, I genuinely don’t get it.
Of course it should have been. If it was going to be reversed it should have happened before he took office. Not a year later. Not two years later. Certainly not two and a half years later after the midterms took place with JUST AS MUCH FRAUD as 2020.
White hats are letting the old system collapse in on itself. And that was always going to take a full term of Biden at the least to happen. The scary thing is the dollar still hasn't collapsed. I don't see Q team bothering letting 2024 go back to Trump until the financial collapse happens. It's literally a game of hot potato with the global economy. Any pain we all feel is a minor benefit in MAYBE getting a very small amount of people to wake up. Most will just be further demotivated and never vote again.
This war was always a hope of a hope of a prayer that they could actually win this thing. Coalitions of world and military leaders have been trying for centuries. What makes this time different? I think they do have an ace in the hole, but I cant imagine why they haven't shown it yet. Like I said most of the country is completely broken and doesn't have the stomach for anything other than rolling over and dying at this point. They waited too long on that front.
I understand the attempt. But I would rather it just die than have my heart broken yet AGAIN.
Never in a million years is the Supreme Court gonna take this case and do anything about it.
They allowed states to unconstitutionally change election laws, allowed the election to continue on for fucking days after the constitution clearly says it’s supposed to end, and didn’t do a fucking thing.
They are nothing more than an illusion. Why would any of you think they have the want or ability to do anything about the corruption destroying the country? Cmon.
The military courts are the only way because all 3 branches are broken.
Its dead lol. enough of this 30 more days shit.
‘The military is the only way’
The Brunson case was dead on arrival. It’s still important for them to go through the process to demonstrate how wholly corrupt the system is. But nobody here should be thinking this will go anywhere.
Would love to be wrong.
Here is the tl;dr from an actual lawyer: the exact same 9 Justices that just voted not to grant cert on this case are not going to magically change their minds on a petition for rehearing on the exact same case 30 days later. Please do not get distracted by this and get your hopes up.
Sending letters is not a thing you are supposed to do to influence a an appellate court or the SCOTUS - in fact, the opposite; the court is supposed to rule based solely on the law as it’s applied to the facts and isn’t supposed to be influenced by public opinion (which is why the are appointed for life), so spamming the court with letters will not have the intended affect. This isn’t like writing your rep in Congress.
You shitty opinions about lawyers are entirely justified and I share them; the difference is that I’m not telling you what I think should happen in a just word; I’m telling you the objective facts about what is 100% going to happen in this current world with a shitty legal system - the petition for rehearing is going to be denied and we will never hear about the Brunson case again.
I’m just telling you what, in fact, SCOTUS is going to do with this case. It’s going to deny the petition for rehearing. Do with that information what you will. Don’t shoot the messenger.
It’s not dead it’s just delayed dead
Just two more weeks. (x2)
Why would they reconsider? On what grounds? These Judges are too afraid for their lives to rule on this. THE GOOD NEWS is that we learned in their reasons for denying this is that members of Congress are not legally bound by the constitution. What?
I am curious why the Brunsons are pushing for a petition for reconsideration. They must know something that we do not know unless they feel it is a long shot that it is still worth pursuing.
SCOTUS distinctly said “TO BLAVE”; and as we all know “to blave” means to “bluff”!
What do we have to lose? God bless them, please, for their efforts. 🙏❤
I wouldn't want a SCOTUS that is swayed by public opinion, I hope they are not.
It's the SCOTUS's job to view a complaint through the lens of the US Constitution, and legal precedents. Not the lens of public opinion. This was a reason Jefferson stated for the life term; so that they may interpret the law against the Constitution, and not against public opinion, which may change over time.
Unfortunately the DemoLibs have been allowed to protest right outside the judges homes up until the slight of hand law change that was made with Pelosi’s approval, right before Conservatives took over the House. They got to publicly and directly attempt to influence nearly everything SCOTUS and every other US Court did for the last 2 years. Little turds!
Sounds like the Executive branch should do its job of enforcing the law to protect the Justices.
On that note, where was our military during the Rebellion of 2020, when our Elections were interfered with and manipulated? Could have all been prevented, but wasn't. Was allowed to happen. Either greatest sting in history, or greatest grift. 2 years later, still nothing to confirm either theory.
They should hear a case on its merits. The problem with this case is the remedy, which to remove politicians from office. SCOTUS does not have the power, the constitution grants impeachment power to Congress, and it's the only way to remove them. SCOTUS will not take the case because they are powerless to remedy it. Time to put away childish things.
It doesn't matter what they say, they don't have the authority to grant the remedy. It can't happen. The case is dead. Period.
What attorneys? Thought Brunson was PRO SE?
I think they SHOULD factor public interest in when taking cases and they oftentimes have in our history.
It's the actual verdicts and outcomes in the reading of the case that we want to stay Constitutionalist... so I guess I'm agreeing with you! Hah 🤣
I read somewhere yesterday that the reason given to not hear the case was that they couldn't enforce the removal. Not sure if it was true that there was actually a reason given, but I know its true that they couldn't actually enforce it.
I feel like if the case was a little more focused, and asked for something more in line with what SCOTUS could do like say rule if their oath of office immunity is Constitutional or not, it could have a better shot of being taken up to be heard. Maybe we'll get something like that down the line, from where this one started off.
I think the biggest deal with it so far is that it was not kicked for not having standing.... so we have some kind of baseline for who is the aggrieved party (or plaintiff or whatever legal jargon is appropriate) in the 2020 election. I don't know though I'm just playing Perry Mason Jr. like a lot of us. 😁