SCOTUS on Brunson case, This Friday?
🗣️ DISCUSSION 💬
Lets see what happens...
Comments (26)
sorted by:
Friday happens to be 2/17/2023 - 2+1+7+2+2+3=17.......... Q
LOL, let's say their deep state slaves just read that now.
They'll report it to their higher ups and now, their higher ups are shitting the bed second guessing themselves whether this is it for them🤣🤣🤣
Nothing is going to come of this because the remedy Brunson is seeking is that the SCOTUS remove sitting members of the Executive and Legislative branches of the government. SCOTUS has ZERO authority to do this. This is why SCOTUS didn't pick the case to even be read the first time around.
I think this is the key. I don't know any way that SCOTUS can remove a sitting member of congress. Not adhering to their oath of office is bad, but I don't know if the constitution carries a penalty. Please advise if you know any. Even treason requires a trial in the senate. The time to carry out 388 treason cases would exceed their term. While Brunson might be correct on the merits, what's the remedy? For myself, I have won court cases, and walked away with nothing. Sucks. Removing a sitting member of congress, by SCOTUS, might be illegal. Interesting constitutional crisis.
Creating a Constitutional crisis is the point. That's the only way to lawfully allow the military to take control.
oh yeah, I like that! How else could you bring in the military without it being a coup? How better a way to prove the legislature is corrupt? Exec branch corrupt, legislature corrupt, courts corrupt and no authority for SCOTUS to fix it. MrBig, I think you've got it! I like that!
What does the constitution permit SCOTUS?
Do they not have standing you say? Shut ut tf down then. Stop using their legal game tools
With all respect, I didn't say they don't have standing. Actually they DO have great standing.
I'm just asking about the remedy. Where in the constitution does it allow SCOTUS to be the overseer to the legislative branch? It doesn't. 3 Co-equal branches. Where in the constitution does SCOTUS have the ability to remove any legislator? This is a good case, but no remedy. That's the problem. What's the remedy? Treason? That case must, as stated in the constitution, be herd in the Senate.
To be more clear. I was asking if SCOTUS got no standing, not the brothers pushing the case :)
Ah, thank you for clearing that up.
and that's perfectly aligned with my question. I just asked it a different way.
Loy Brunson asked "If the oath of office has no teeth, then the constitution has no meaning." This may actually be at the root of what we're asking.
Legal name wargame anyway with so many layers of mental control via color of law.
If you ask me the US has been a corporate vessel of the Crown Corporation in city of London since the act of 1871 but was probably taken long before that even. All the shitty amendments came after the legal municipality in dc took over.
Under duress since then
If the corporation goes bankrupt, does that make the contract invalid/dissolved/Insolvent? How far back can a country's bankruptcy court claw back? Centuries? Does it take a war to cancel the contract? What if we dissolve the currency instead? If there is no Rothschild currency, how can a debt be repaid? Assets? OK, we give you that hell hole DC back. In return, pay us for WW1 and WW2 that we fought on your behalf. Back to reality, If the congress didn't have the authority to enter that contract, how could that contract be valid? They would have entered the contract fraudulently, and fraud vitiates everything.
This is fun!
Yeah, the remedy should have been a full investigation of the Legislative and Executive branches and their inability/unwillingness to uphold their oaths... conducted by the SCOTUS. Since no one else is apparently capable of bringing this up or questioning the scum who ignores all of their duties.
All I need to know > Brunson speaks w Charlie Ward 2-6-2023
https://rumble.com/v28t6x4-2-6-2023-loy-brunson-and-charlie-ward-discuss-scotus-case-22-380.html
Loy Brunson and Charlie Ward discuss SCOTUS case 22-380 now scheduled for a rehearing on February 17th.
Link: https://t.me/BrunsonBrothersSCOTUS/329
TWO MOAR DAYS!
2 more days until we never have to hear about this case again. Thank goodness.
The case is asking the courts to find people guilty of treason without a trial. It never had a chance, and rightfully so. Brunson is trying to address a real problem but he chose a completely wrong avenue of attack.
I agree with Bedminster, this is too radical for the DC crime family, the only radical things that come out of DC are to the Citizens of the United States of America, nothing comes to the Elected officals or the non-elected elietes of DC, never has nor ever will. Frens this is just the way life is and not pipe dreams as this Brunson case is. OH I would love to see this case move forward, but it ain't habbening.
I’m of this same opinion. Derek Johnson set me strait and I understand it’s the military.
Yeah, as everything unfolds, and we find more. rot everywhere. I think When Q said NCSWIC was referring to us...
Nothing will happen with the Brunson case.
This is a case that no serious person has confidence in.
Only seriously duped and paytriot addicted anons unfortunately.
Dont worry, after the Brunson bois are kaput the same circle of grifters a la Juan O Savin, Charlie Ward, Scott McKay, Stew Peters, et al will come up with some new retarded grift to further rope along anons. Here's hoping some of them will wake up after this debacle and learn: NEVER TRUST A PAYTRIOT.
True; I'm trying to save these these people undue anguish.
I like X22 and other speculative podcasts. However, on specific issues, I defer to the opinions of people like Bannon, Robert Barnes, Rich Baris , or Glenn Greenwald.
Those are credible sources of information and good geopolitical speculators. Something the paytriots lack entirely.
I see X22 as something else. The outlet predates Q and has always claimed to be a news aggregator and speculator. Dave makes it very clear he is just reporting current events and when relating to Q he specifically uses phraseology that is definitive opinion. The group of names I mentioned claim to have insider knowledge, access, and even grander fictitious claims most here are familiar with.
X22 doesn't do that. He claims to be infotainment and owns it as such. The other group is running a grift, and while obvious to most anons, some will always fall for it. Sophist tradecraft for sale under the guise of whatever the target audience is seeking.
The best is yet to come.😁