Must watch. 👀 https://truthsocial.com/users/annvandersteel/statuses/110196900004325201
Ann Vandersteel.
Breaking: Federal Public Officials found with no Oath of Office on file. (Big names have no oath to the Constitution on file.)
Writ of Quo Warrento filed with U.S. attorney in Washington, DC. They have to provide an affidavit to the DC court and attorney in 10 days or get replaced or immediately terminated…per 5 U.S. code 3332. (If I read it right.)
Vice President
Sec. of Defense
Sec. of Treasury
Sec. of Health and Human Services
Sec. of Energy
Sec. of Education
Sec. of Commerce
Sec. of State
Sec. of Labor and Transportation
Department of Homeland Security
Attorney General
Food and Drug Commissioner
CDC Director
And so on…
WH’s got ‘em coming and going…again. If they refuse to pledge an oath to the Constitution, they get replaced (and maybe jailed). If they do pledge an oath to the Constitution, they can be held accountable for their (past?) and future actions. And piss off their handlers.
That is a petition for a writ of certiorari. That is not the suit they filed. These guys just start throwing legal jargon around that, at best, is far attenuated from their claims for relief. And at worst, have no relationship whatsoever.
If you read the order of the district court, and the 10th circuit’s opinion affirming the district court, they were dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Because there was no set of facts they could show which would support their causes of action.
https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.utd.126764/gov.uscourts.utd.126764.6.1.pdf
This is their suit. Starting on page 15 are their 6 claims for relief. 2 claims of promissory estoppel, 1 claim for breach of duty, 1 claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress, 1 claim f fraud in the inducement, and 1 claim for civil conspiracy. Don’t bother reading the prior pages. They are not relevant to the claims for relief. People read that and think they are suing on that basis but they are not. Brunson might even think that he is suing on that basis because he doesn’t understand what he is doing.
As to claims 1 & 2, how are you going to argue that you have an agreement of any sort with all members of the House, Senate, and Vice President, almost all of whom have never met Brunson or talked to him - and he relied upon that agreement…that is a non sequitur.
At best, if such “duty” existed, the only parties that would have one to Brunson would be his congressman and senators. The rest of Congress cannot owe him a duty if they do not represent him. It is non sensical to claim there is a duty in a negligence type of legal framework. If a citizen could sue their members of Congress on this basis it would be unlimited lawsuit Armageddon for each act of Congress that people didn’t like. Our system doesn’t work like that.
IIED claims are laughable. I honestly can’t believe he went there.
The fraud claim is basically in the inducement, because he is basically arguing that they duped him into voting under false pretenses that they would do something he was counting on but they didn’t. If you had your right to vote denied, as he says here, that is a Constitutional violation, not a civil tort claim for fraud.
To allege civil conspiracy, you must first have viable underlying tortious acts that the defendants colluded together to perform. We have no viable underlying tortious acts - IIED is a fail, as are fraud and breach of duty.
These guys were booted from court for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. All this jargon and references to various doctrines had no relation to it. 90% of the district court opinion was based on the court rejecting the idea that government officials could be sued in tort for their acts in government. And Brunson could not provide any examples of this happening in history. Not to mention resolving sovereign immunity defenses arising out of the Constitution.
The other 10% in that judge’s opinion related to standing. Which is also a component of subject matter jurisdiction. But based on whether Brunson is a party that, if these claims could be brought, could be the one to bring them. Brunson cannot allege damages that are concrete and particularized to him. This fails centuries old law for having a case or controversy under Article III for a court to have jurisdiction. His injury, if any, is not unique to him but common to everyone. Just like an individual taxpayer does not have standing to challenge congressional spending bills as unconstitutional because the injury is common to all taxpayers, Brunson’s alleged injury is generalized to everyone, and speculative.
Citing a criminal statute on the punishment for treason does not magically grant a court the ability to impose that criminal liability in a civil case. For numerous reasons. Not the least of which is that the evidentiary burden for a criminal conviction is beyond a reasonable doubt. Civil lawsuits are almost always a “preponderance of the evidence” standard. Just like a judge can’t jail you as a form of relief for contract fraud civil suits, though separate prosecution for criminal fraud arising out of that same incident is possible - there is no authority to impose this criminal statute here. And Brunson cannot prosecute criminal cases on behalf of the United States.
He’s lucky he didn’t get sanctioned for frivolous pleadings. At the very least, his dollar amount for damages was plucked out of thin air. With no plausible lawful basis to claim he has incurred damages of 1% of this number. There are no set of facts in existence that he could claim damages like that.
The entirety of this case is noise. Designed to rope you in because you are righteously pissed off about the fraud and the failure of anyone to address it. If you block out the noise in this case, there is nothing here. Just a joke of a lawsuit with clowns who are trying to fund raise on it.
First claim is not about having an agreement between the members and Brunson. The claim states:
Thee things need to be shown:
There was enough evidence to suspect that the elections were not honest and fair.
Constitution does indeed guarantee the right to honest and fair elections to all the citizens, not just Brunson.
The members took Oath of office in which they swore to uphold the constitution.
Brunson has provided evidence for all of these 3 points. These are all in the sections you asked me to skip over because they are "noise". Brunson incorporated al these "noise" in paragraph 67 and so it becomes relevant.
He backs up his point 1 in paras starting from 35 to 66.
He backs up point 2 in paras 6 - 34
The point 3 is the very interesting point. Brunson assumes they took Oath of office. However this particular post is questioning that assumption.
Claim 2 is very similar, except in addition to denying our right to vote in a fair and honest election, this also implies the members were providing comfort to the enemies of the state.
I am not even interested in all the other claims since these two are gigantic and exactly to the point.
The first plan of attack is to not try this case on its merits. Hence the filing to SCOTUS. Hypothetically, lets say it turns out that eventually the case needs to be tried on its merits. What happens? Whats are the moves by the enemy?
The defendants have to disprove either points 1, 2 or 3. Point 1 requires trying the claims of not having a honest and fair elections by a jury. I dont think they want to go there. That would be the kind of exposure we are all waiting or.
Point 2 is self evident so not even worth trying to disprove.
This brings up point 3. Interdasting. That brings us to THIS post by Vandersteel.
Are the Cabal being corralled into admitting they never took Oath of Office? Its too retarded a course of action, but an enemy desperate enough will try everything, no matter how stupid.
Imagine if they are planning on this defence? Sure, they might slip out of Brunson's case, but expose the entire "Biden Administration" to be exposed as a fraud, and undoing everything that happened in last 2 years.
From a Devolution point, these are end game scenarios. This is how you would wind up the movie once we hit the precipice, and legally bring in Trump to save the world from the precipice - which is the only way to unite and left and the right and we all know this is part of the plan.
With all due respect, and without intent to insult you since we are having a constructive discussion, you are not hearing me. You need to understand how lawsuits work. When I say everything before their claims for relief is just noise, it is. A pleading is a short and plain statement showing the plaintiff is entitled to relief. Way back nearly a century ago, we switched to notice pleadings at the federal level. You simply have to allege sufficient facts that, if true, would demonstrate you are entitled to relief. But these aren’t construed to support whatever possible legal theory that those facts could support; they must support your specific claims. The judge isn’t going to act as your lawyer and find the right places to put these facts. If you allege the wrong theory, you will get kicked. It is the plaintiff’s job to advance their claims. They have done an awful job of this.
Also, it is called “notice pleadings” because due process in the constitution requires the plaintiff to provide sufficient notice to the defendant as to the specific causes of action that are being alleged so that the defendant has a reasonable opportunity to defend them. If your specific legally theory was actually disguised as something else, you failed to provide sufficient notice to the defendant and your claim fails.
You cannot have a claim that “infers” another claim. For example: there is no private civil action for treason. That is a criminal prosecution. So you can’t make that claim. You cannot cloak or “infer” treason in a promissory estoppel claim. Because that is a criminal act. Not a civil action. They specifically make the first 2 claims for relief “promissory estoppel.” And that is epic fail.
https://ir.lawnet.fordham.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?referer=https://www.google.com/&httpsredir=1&article=3011&context=flr
The result would be the same if you sued someone for being a dumbass. Even if every illustration of what a complete buffoon that person is was true, that is not a viable claim. There is no cause of action against someone for being a dumbass. So under no set of facts in existence could you allege a viable claim against this person for being a dumbass because there is no cause of action in our legal system to bring that before any court. Booted. Like Brunson.
If you had your voting rights infringed, you can bring section 1983 claims against the individual(s) you believe are responsible for it. Because that is the civil statute for civil rights infringement - of which the right to vote is one of those rights. They did not bring this action under 1983, so…booted. Because if that was the argument, it is not a contract law based claim. Except that is what they specifically pled - promissory estoppel. Sue on that basis, and there will be no set of facts in existence that would make that theory valid or viable.
It is no different than this: imagine getting into a car accident and suing the other driver under promissory estoppel because the law says you have to stay in your own lane, and you have a duty to look and signal before changing lanes - which you relied upon his duty to abide by traffic laws and he did have that duty. And he expressly agreed to abide by traffic laws when he got his driver license. 1,000 out of 1,000 times, you will get kicked out of court and possibly sanctioned for frivolous pleadings. That is the wrong theory for your injury.
Frankly, he also sued the wrong people. It was state legislatures who failed to protect the integrity of the vote in those problem states. It was state governors and Secretaries of State who certified fraudulent returns. But the constitution doesn’t allow citizens of other states to sue other states. So the best he could do is sue his own state…but he does not allege anything against Utah.
Lawsuits aren’t rocket science. They aren’t secretive. Fairly straightforward. And it is always the plaintiff that carries the burden of establishing their claims. Brunson failed to even come within several miles of the target here. He may be 1,000% right there was egregious fuckery in the 2020 election. But if this is his theory on how to do something about it, its idiocy of the highest order. Don’t conflate the fuckery with the theory entitling one to relief. There is no legal theory that works in his lawsuit regardless of how outrageous 2020 was.
Let me try a completely different track. Forget about this particular lawsuit. Lets say that the elected representatives failed to fulfil their Oath of office by investigating claims of widespread election fraud and certified a fraudulent election even after being made aware of the possibility of widespread fraud.
I would appreciate if you can make your position clear, succinctly for these questions:
You are claiming that this should be filed as a criminal case, and not a civil case, correct?
Criminal cases can only be brought by government prosecutors, correct?
If no such cases were brought forward, then do you claim the citizens have any way to redress this situation?
If so, how would they do it?
If not, then do you agree this is an unacceptable situation that needs to be addressed?
Treason is a criminal offense. Only the United States can prosecute treason. Brunson is not the United States.
See above.
The lack of redressability does not magically manifest a means of redressability. Our founders were fallible. Our system is based on a presumption of a moral society. We do not have this.
Comandeering the local governments away from the hacks is the only way to fix this. If Q said everything had to be lawful, this is the only way. Brunson created his own remedy and demands a court enforce it. That is lawlessness. Antithetical to Q.
who would agree that we should be stuck with a color revolution takeover? Just because I don't like it or want it doesn't mean that I can create my own legal theories and remedies for it. That would be fighting lawlessness with lawlessness.
I am not sure exactly how to convey this. I know what you are saying with the fraudulent elections because I alternate between livid and demoralized over the lack of accountability for this. It is absolutely maddening. But when you look at the official process, I don't see it the way most do.
I think we will find it highly likely that members of Congress not only benefited from election fraud, but may also have been involved in carrying it out. We don't have a lot of leads to go on in this regard. But common sense would tell you that this is far more likely to have occurred than not.
If we cast aside the debate over the constitutionality of the Electoral Count Act, we must then look at what that act states. Congress can reject the electors upon a sufficient number of members voting to do so. The statute does not compel them to do so. Nor does it identify the grounds for rejecting them. It would appear that it is up to the members to decide. Otherwise, the constitution itself commands that the electors are counted in the 12th amendment. With this in mind, I do not understand how an oath to defend the constitution was violated. I do not see where certifying the fraudulent returns was barred by the Constitution since the document itself compels their counting, and the ECA provides an option to reject them, not a mandate. Nor did these fraudulent electors get sent there by Congress themselves. They were in receipt of what they had with discretionary authority to accept or reject them. The basis of an individual member's decision to accept or reject will rest on what they believe their constituents will hold them accountable for. The biggest problem we have in this country is that most of the people are sleep walking sheep who don't pay attention to any of this. That is not a Constitutional problem; that is a society problem. No document could ever exist to cover the contingencies that arise out of a population that abdicates their responsibilities to inform themselves and participate in the political process.
One does not have a right to vote in a presidential election. It is a privilege granted by the state legislature under the electors clause of the Constitution. They could just as easily not have a vote for president/vice president and have the legislature themselves choose electors to the electoral college. This can and has been done early in the history of the republic.
The real perpetrators of fraud were the state legislatures who sent electors selected by fraud. Not asserting themselves in the run up to the election against bogus lawsuits, consent decrees, and SoS/Governor/County Board changes to election law is essentially abdicating that office. And that is who failed in their oath of office, if anyone did.
Don't forget that upon no candidate receiving more than 270 electoral votes, the house chooses the president. They could have constitutionally chosen Biden. We think they wouldn't because more state delegations were Republican than Democrat. But they could have...never discount the rino factor. If the timing were different and there were more democrat delegations than republican, they would have likely installed Biden in such a scenario.
I cannot accept the argument that following the Constitution violates the Constitution. I see how many others do not see certifying fraudulent electors as being Constitutional. I just don't agree with it. Congress likely cannot discard electors under the ECA because it conflicts with the plain language of the 12th amendment. Even if they could, the statute doesn't require them to. So how this can be violating an oath to uphold the Constitution doesn't compute to me. This is not to discount the egregious fuckery and bs that occurred to get us here.
The problem we have is that the Constitution was written for a moral society. It cannot function in the absence of such a society. The founders would never have conceived of this level of flagrant bullshit happening in our society. So they would not have provided a framework to address it. There is no legal process to correct for an absence of sufficient numbers of people; those who willfully refuse to participate. So we inevitably end up being governed against our will.
We expect someone else to fill that spot on the county election board. We expect someone else to fill that spot as a poll watcher or election worker. We expect someone else to run for Secretary of State. I am guilty of said offense. I have zero desire to work in elected office. But this leaves us stuck with whoever will run. We can see how that has worked out. Refusing to run or fill these positions allows the DS to install their own hatchet men and apparatchiks to expand the rig to higher levels. Until we un fuck ourselves at the local level, we cannot address the higher level fraud. Meanwhile a side show is going on with people throwing shit at the wall in lawsuits trying to find some legal fix for a problem that cannot be fixed under the law. It is the "get rich quick" scheme for combating a color revolution. There is no "get rich quick" scheme that works. Just the time consuming job of assuming local responsibility for your government so that eventually we can dispose of this bs.