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.
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.
clap clap clap So many words to convey so little. I did ask those specific questions that can be answer in a couple of words each for a very specific reason. So I don't have to take a sickle into the verbose jungle just to figure out where exactly you stand.
Let me help you out. Everything you have said can be summarised in two words.
Yeah, here is my sincere advice to you. Just stay out of the way and stop wasting people's time and watch how the other patriots will actually do it.
My original instinct was correct. Listening to you is exactly like listening to the doctors talk about covid and vaccines. Each person has a hard time unplugging from the matrix when it comes to their own expertise. Good luck, anyway.
Or you could sit back and watch how I am right that there is no legal recourse for this and we have to gain control of our government back at the grass roots in order to do it. Wanna put your money where your mouth is? I bet you $10,000 there is no lawsuit that is going to fix this. Or do you want to pretend that our founders designed a fool proof system that will withstand a corrupt and morally decaying society so that some dipshit named Brunson is gonna fix it for you?
Let me help YOU out. You didn't listen to anything I said. You didn't respond with anything substantive. You attack me without any basis because what I said doesn't align with what you want to cope about. And what you are doing with Brunson is pure cope, plain and simple. Feel free to do that. Put your money where your mouth is.