In a rare move, all three liberal Supreme Court justices recused themselves on May 28 from a case involving a lawsuit filed against them for rejecting a previous lawsuit that sought to overturn the results of the 2020 presidential election.
In the case, the Supreme Court turned away a longshot bid by Raland J. Brunson of Ogden, Utah, who has gained notoriety among Trump supporters for his legal activism.
The case at hand is known as Brunson v. Sotomayor. The petitioner sued Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, and Ketanji Brown Jackson in their official capacities for voting on Feb. 21, 2023, to deny the petition for certiorari, or review, in his previous lawsuit, Brunson v. Adams.
The three Democrat-appointed justices recused themselves, citing judicial disqualification mandates in the U.S. Code and the Code of Conduct for Justices of the Supreme Court of the United States, which the nation’s highest court adopted in November 2023.
The previous lawsuit was Brunson v. Adams, in which Mr. Brunson sued hundreds of members of Congress in 2021, claiming that they violated their oath of office by not investigating election fraud in the 2020 election and by certifying the election victory of then-challenger Joe Biden, over then-incumbent President Donald Trump in a vote that concluded in the early morning of Jan. 7, 2021, following the security breach at the U.S. Capitol.
Rep. Alma Adams (D-N.C.) appears in the short title of the petition filed in the appeal because she was named first in the list of 388 respondents. Also included as respondents were President Joe Biden, Vice President Kamala Harris, and former Vice President Mike Pence. The lawsuit sought the removal from office of President Biden, Vice President Harris, and the members of Congress.
RELATED STORIES
Supreme Court Rejects Request to Hear Case Seeking to Overturn 2020 Election
2/21/2023
Supreme Court Rejects Request to Hear Case Seeking to Overturn 2020 Election
Judge Overturns Election, Calls Evidence of Fraud ‘Shocking’ | Facts Matter
11/6/2023
Judge Overturns Election, Calls Evidence of Fraud ‘Shocking’ | Facts Matter
In the unorthodox lawsuit, Mr. Brunson argued that avoiding an investigation “of how Biden won the election, is an act of treason and an act of levying war against the U.S. Constitution which violated Brunson’s unfettered right to vote in an honest and fair election and as such it wrongfully invalidated his vote.”
In that appeal, the Supreme Court denied the petition for certiorari, or review, in an unsigned order on Jan. 9, 2023. No justices dissented. No reason was provided for the decision. At least four of the nine justices have to vote to approve a petition for certiorari for it to advance to the oral argument stage.
The court denied a petition for rehearing on Feb. 21, 2023, in an unsigned order without providing a reason. No justices dissented.
This week, the Supreme Court denied the petition for certiorari in Brunson v. Sotomayor in an unsigned order without providing a reason. No justices dissented, but Justices Sotomayor, Kagan, and Jackson did not participate in the ruling.
The petition had been docketed with the high court on March 29, with Mr. Brunson serving as his own counsel.
Mr. Brunson argued in the second lawsuit that the justices violated their judicial oath in Brunson v. Adams.
The lawsuit began in state court but the justices as federal officers had the case removed to federal district court.
The district court found that the state court lacked jurisdiction in the suit, holding that the official capacity claims against the justices were tantamount to claims against the United States, which enjoys sovereign immunity. Sovereign immunity is the legal doctrine that the government cannot be sued without its consent.
The district court determined that the state court lacked jurisdiction and that the district court therefore lacked derivative jurisdiction due to the official capacity claims triggering the justices’ sovereign immunity.
The district court dismissed the action, finding that the justices enjoyed immunity.
Mr. Brunson appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit, arguing that even if derivative jurisdiction had been required, the state court still retained jurisdiction because the doctrine of sovereign immunity runs afoul of the First Amendment’s right to petition for redress of grievances.
On Feb. 9 of this year, the 10th Circuit dismissed the appeal.
In the Supreme Court proceeding, U.S. Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar, functioning as attorney for the justices being sued, waived the federal government’s right to respond to the petition in the Supreme Court in a document that was docketed on May 2.
Mr. Brunson argued that the three justices violated their oath of office “by giving aid and comfort to enemies of the Constitution, which is an act of treason, fraud and a breach of contract.”
He urged the Supreme Court to grant his petition, alleging the justices were guilty of “fraud, violations of the Oath of Office and ... treason.”
“These serious offenses need to be addressed immediately with the least amount of technical nuances of the law and legal procedures because these offenses are flowing continually against Brunson’s liberties and life and consequently is [sic] a continual national security breach.
“Seeking a redress of grievances, as Brunson has done herein, is a great power one retains to protect himself from the encroachment of a tyrannical government. Brunson’s personal voice and the way he can protect his personal constitutional protected rights and the U.S. Constitution,” the petition stated.
"Technically" you're not required. If you go to browser Settings, Privacy/Security, and find Javascript (sometimes under Site Settings), then disable it for that website, then the blocking popup won't occur and you can read the article. It's a "technical" move which is difficult for some.
You nailed the lie the court perpetrated upon the people. Tjey are not the sovereign. We, each free man individually is the sovereign. They have no immunity to begin with and no protection once they commit treason. This proves they have no integrity either. They are no longer a court.
I think this is to expose and highlight what we are all thinking. Power back to the people.
The doctrine is based on an older concept: The King can do no wrong, meaning, The King is inviolable to to be held harmless against all suits. These fall on his employees at all times.
Typically, this is an English thingy, and everywhere the King is the head of state. And old rag of a system, to quote a very nervous House-drinker.
At any rate, it should not apply to the Federal .gov, as the We the People and the States, who were created by the people, have created a servant to their interest. So, except may be for external purposes, the sovereign doctrine does not apply.
Rather the other way around. Hence, the privacy protections in the 5th and other amendments.
Our country would be a sovereign country but our government, in relation to the people, is most certainly not. What arrogance. The counties created the states and the states created our government. Our federal government has very limited authority to do only specific things. It ran off those rails a very long time ago.
Our public servants come from the people. The people are almost entirely ignorant about how our government is supposed to work and the very few authorities it has. The people were never meant to be ruled....however, when they become ignorant and don't carefully watch their servants, things go off the rails. And here we are......
Thanks for the link. Always amazed that people go to the trouble of writing a post that links to a site you can’t read. Why bother at that point? At least there are good people like you to do their job for them.
How do you figure?
The court denied cert which kills the appeal forever, not seeing any hopium there. This article isn't about the case moving forward, it's about Sotomayor, Jackson, Kagan not being part of the denial.
But it is curious as to why they would recuse themselves for nothing (with or without a burger). However, if this does makes it's way to the court, and all the liberal justices have recused themselves...then they can blame whatever happens on those nastry conservative leaning judges...either way.
They recused themselves because they were named defendants, so the recusal was absolutely required - this isn’t a “recuse because you might be biased”, the rule against judges hearing cases in which they are defendants or plaintiffs is ironclad.
And there is no “if this does make its way to the court here”. It already did, and the court denied cert. That is the final decision.
I don't see how this is good news. All of the "conservative" justices voted yesterday to deny certiorari which means they won't be hearing the case.
Like other posters said this seems to be a maneuver from the liberal justices to put pressure on Alito and Thomas to recuse themselves when cases involving President Trump come in front of the Supreme Court.
Did they do this to put pressure on Alito and Thomas to recuse from Trump's Jan 6 cases? Even if not, it'll be held up by the left as more reason they should.
They recused themselves from a non case. It wasn't taken up. Plus, the article said they were named specifically in the lawsuit by Brunson. I personally see it as a morality issue as well as pressuring Thomas and Alito, trying to make themselves look "holier than thou" too. Hypocrites SMH
I fear some of you think this is somehow proof of white hats exerting control. It is not. The rest of the Court UNANIMOUSLY voted to DENY the petition, meaning the Supreme Court will not hear the case. The three recused votes could not have changed the outcome at all, so this was done to set the stage to pressure justices on our side to recuse themselves.
Duh, they don't have to, but the point is to try and make them look bad for not. "Look, the liberal justices recused, why won't the evil corrupt conservative ones do it"? And they hope everyone is too stupid to remember the recusal didn't change the outcome any, so it was all just for show.
Why would a Glowie try to convince you the three libs recusing was just a trick to try and pressure conservatives to recurse? I'd think a Glowie would try and convince you white hats told them to do this so you'd think everything was going to plan, meanwhile a sham prosecution of the President convicted him of 34 felonies. Seriously? EVERY SINGLE CHARGE stuck?
Anyone attempting to dissent gets labeled a shill, a doomer, or a Fed. I'm a critical thinking Patriot that is both a realist and suspicious of anyone offering partial knowledge, but hiding large parts of the truth from me.
Folks, Nothing happens until we-The assembled Multitude play out the Nov. 24 election. one way of thew other accountability will return starting on or about Feb 25th of 2025.
So 2020 never gets corrected? The steal worked and we have to “move on”? Then ‘24 will be no different. I’m my life I have to fix issues before I can go to the next one. Otherwise I’ve done nothing, and my problems remain. 2020 should be fixed.
Perhaps 2020 will be "fixed" after Trump is back in. The number of Americans who view it as stolen is increasing imo. As eyes open, they open to more than merely Trump is better than Biden. I think as awakening happens, they are willing to look at lots of the Biden admin bs and see the truth now. No more propaganda feeding them the lies. It's one of my greatest hopes anyway lol.
As soon as we vote, we concede to the last election results. Even tho we know the truth, we will have then decided we got screwed, but are gonna go ahead and “try again”…and keep that “well get’em this time” attitude. Hope Trump wins, because then what? We hope the next one will be better? Gotta face the music eventually. Or the truth rather. That elections can be stolen..and there’s nothing we can do about it. Unless something happens in the next few months. ??
The time is gone. No matter how much comes out, there is no physical way to redo the past 3.5 years. The truth coming out - even after Trump takes office - is public proof for the treason trials and legal proof for undoing the BS laws passed. Will also be the proof to fix election laws long before any more elections are scheduled. That may be as "fixed" as we'll ever get for the 2020 election. I hope I'm wrong, but that makes sense.
"God is Not mocked,whatever a man sows that shall he reap" frustrating to watch those that were appointed to bring Justice, deny it. Yet isn't it good to know that there is no such thing as a permanent recrusal, even a supreme Court judge, has a judge over him and cannot (without Christ) escape the great white throne judgment (Revelation 20:11) "
THE CASE IS DOA...that's why these 3 LIBERAL RADICALS recused...BUT THEY DID IT AFTER THE FACT...just saying
....headline is mis-leading and makes you think the case will be cert'd and heard by SCOTUS...BUT IT'S NOT and never will be....THESE 3 ARE JUST SHOW-BOATING so they can turn to ALITO AND SAY HE SHOULD RECUSE...what 💩
I just love how the Brunson Cases keep getting pushed aside without being addressed by thee only court that can even address their cases. Every time it gets brushed off, it tells me the cases are 100% on target, and would have to be upheld per the Constitution. And our current corrupt SCOTUS is too chicken-💩 to remove all the Cabal politicians that would fall by this grand legal sword.
In a rare move, all three liberal Supreme Court justices recused themselves on May 28 from a case involving a lawsuit filed against them for rejecting a previous lawsuit that sought to overturn the results of the 2020 presidential election.
In the case, the Supreme Court turned away a longshot bid by Raland J. Brunson of Ogden, Utah, who has gained notoriety among Trump supporters for his legal activism.
The case at hand is known as Brunson v. Sotomayor. The petitioner sued Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, and Ketanji Brown Jackson in their official capacities for voting on Feb. 21, 2023, to deny the petition for certiorari, or review, in his previous lawsuit, Brunson v. Adams.
The three Democrat-appointed justices recused themselves, citing judicial disqualification mandates in the U.S. Code and the Code of Conduct for Justices of the Supreme Court of the United States, which the nation’s highest court adopted in November 2023.
The previous lawsuit was Brunson v. Adams, in which Mr. Brunson sued hundreds of members of Congress in 2021, claiming that they violated their oath of office by not investigating election fraud in the 2020 election and by certifying the election victory of then-challenger Joe Biden, over then-incumbent President Donald Trump in a vote that concluded in the early morning of Jan. 7, 2021, following the security breach at the U.S. Capitol.
Rep. Alma Adams (D-N.C.) appears in the short title of the petition filed in the appeal because she was named first in the list of 388 respondents. Also included as respondents were President Joe Biden, Vice President Kamala Harris, and former Vice President Mike Pence. The lawsuit sought the removal from office of President Biden, Vice President Harris, and the members of Congress. RELATED STORIES Supreme Court Rejects Request to Hear Case Seeking to Overturn 2020 Election 2/21/2023 Supreme Court Rejects Request to Hear Case Seeking to Overturn 2020 Election Judge Overturns Election, Calls Evidence of Fraud ‘Shocking’ | Facts Matter 11/6/2023 Judge Overturns Election, Calls Evidence of Fraud ‘Shocking’ | Facts Matter In the unorthodox lawsuit, Mr. Brunson argued that avoiding an investigation “of how Biden won the election, is an act of treason and an act of levying war against the U.S. Constitution which violated Brunson’s unfettered right to vote in an honest and fair election and as such it wrongfully invalidated his vote.”
In that appeal, the Supreme Court denied the petition for certiorari, or review, in an unsigned order on Jan. 9, 2023. No justices dissented. No reason was provided for the decision. At least four of the nine justices have to vote to approve a petition for certiorari for it to advance to the oral argument stage.
The court denied a petition for rehearing on Feb. 21, 2023, in an unsigned order without providing a reason. No justices dissented.
This week, the Supreme Court denied the petition for certiorari in Brunson v. Sotomayor in an unsigned order without providing a reason. No justices dissented, but Justices Sotomayor, Kagan, and Jackson did not participate in the ruling. The petition had been docketed with the high court on March 29, with Mr. Brunson serving as his own counsel.
Mr. Brunson argued in the second lawsuit that the justices violated their judicial oath in Brunson v. Adams.
The lawsuit began in state court but the justices as federal officers had the case removed to federal district court.
The district court found that the state court lacked jurisdiction in the suit, holding that the official capacity claims against the justices were tantamount to claims against the United States, which enjoys sovereign immunity. Sovereign immunity is the legal doctrine that the government cannot be sued without its consent.
The district court determined that the state court lacked jurisdiction and that the district court therefore lacked derivative jurisdiction due to the official capacity claims triggering the justices’ sovereign immunity.
The district court dismissed the action, finding that the justices enjoyed immunity.
Mr. Brunson appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit, arguing that even if derivative jurisdiction had been required, the state court still retained jurisdiction because the doctrine of sovereign immunity runs afoul of the First Amendment’s right to petition for redress of grievances.
On Feb. 9 of this year, the 10th Circuit dismissed the appeal. In the Supreme Court proceeding, U.S. Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar, functioning as attorney for the justices being sued, waived the federal government’s right to respond to the petition in the Supreme Court in a document that was docketed on May 2. Mr. Brunson argued that the three justices violated their oath of office “by giving aid and comfort to enemies of the Constitution, which is an act of treason, fraud and a breach of contract.”
He urged the Supreme Court to grant his petition, alleging the justices were guilty of “fraud, violations of the Oath of Office and ... treason.”
“These serious offenses need to be addressed immediately with the least amount of technical nuances of the law and legal procedures because these offenses are flowing continually against Brunson’s liberties and life and consequently is [sic] a continual national security breach. “Seeking a redress of grievances, as Brunson has done herein, is a great power one retains to protect himself from the encroachment of a tyrannical government. Brunson’s personal voice and the way he can protect his personal constitutional protected rights and the U.S. Constitution,” the petition stated.
Thanks for providing this. I was required to subscribe to view it....which I did not do.
"Technically" you're not required. If you go to browser Settings, Privacy/Security, and find Javascript (sometimes under Site Settings), then disable it for that website, then the blocking popup won't occur and you can read the article. It's a "technical" move which is difficult for some.
That's very interesting. I will give that a go; thank you.
If you
archived version: https://archive.ph/0DABt
So, who is sovereign?
As I recall, the Creator is greater than the creation.
How was the Federal government created? Who is the creator of the federal government? Where does it get its authority?
Sovereign immunity resides with the Sovereign?
You nailed the lie the court perpetrated upon the people. Tjey are not the sovereign. We, each free man individually is the sovereign. They have no immunity to begin with and no protection once they commit treason. This proves they have no integrity either. They are no longer a court.
I think this is to expose and highlight what we are all thinking. Power back to the people.
exactly.
The doctrine is based on an older concept: The King can do no wrong, meaning, The King is inviolable to to be held harmless against all suits. These fall on his employees at all times.
Typically, this is an English thingy, and everywhere the King is the head of state. And old rag of a system, to quote a very nervous House-drinker.
At any rate, it should not apply to the Federal .gov, as the We the People and the States, who were created by the people, have created a servant to their interest. So, except may be for external purposes, the sovereign doctrine does not apply.
Rather the other way around. Hence, the privacy protections in the 5th and other amendments.
Our country would be a sovereign country but our government, in relation to the people, is most certainly not. What arrogance. The counties created the states and the states created our government. Our federal government has very limited authority to do only specific things. It ran off those rails a very long time ago.
Our public servants come from the people. The people are almost entirely ignorant about how our government is supposed to work and the very few authorities it has. The people were never meant to be ruled....however, when they become ignorant and don't carefully watch their servants, things go off the rails. And here we are......
Looks like WE are sovereign ;). (And Magistrates too)
Thanks for the link. Always amazed that people go to the trouble of writing a post that links to a site you can’t read. Why bother at that point? At least there are good people like you to do their job for them.
I have never registered on this site. I can open it without any problems. 💁🏼Sorry about those Olddogg.
How are you able to do that? It said that I'd reached my limit of 3 free articles.
To be fair i could also read it without login. Not in US now though.
It's possible they've forgotten they had to register an account to view the content.
MVP 🐸
Gnicely done with the archived post :-)
Looks like Brunson Hopium is back on the menu boys! 😀
How do you figure? The court denied cert which kills the appeal forever, not seeing any hopium there. This article isn't about the case moving forward, it's about Sotomayor, Jackson, Kagan not being part of the denial.
He can submit an entirely new case. It ont be an appeal
The rest is now also going to recuse themselves? What then?
But it is curious as to why they would recuse themselves for nothing (with or without a burger). However, if this does makes it's way to the court, and all the liberal justices have recused themselves...then they can blame whatever happens on those nastry conservative leaning judges...either way.
They recused themselves because they were named defendants, so the recusal was absolutely required - this isn’t a “recuse because you might be biased”, the rule against judges hearing cases in which they are defendants or plaintiffs is ironclad. And there is no “if this does make its way to the court here”. It already did, and the court denied cert. That is the final decision.
I don't see how this is good news. All of the "conservative" justices voted yesterday to deny certiorari which means they won't be hearing the case.
Like other posters said this seems to be a maneuver from the liberal justices to put pressure on Alito and Thomas to recuse themselves when cases involving President Trump come in front of the Supreme Court.
And there you go.
https://greatawakening.win/p/17tKisfF7l/justice-alito-declines-to-step-a/c/
Ok handshake.
It doesn't set the stage for squat.
They don't have to recuse themselves for anything.
They can tell them to go to hell.
The is a false flag predicate to pressure Thomas and Alito to recuse from key cases.
And the 2 of them should laugh in their faces and tell them to fuck off. Imagine following the lead of 3 DEI cunts. Lol it'd be absolutely pathetic.
Did they do this to put pressure on Alito and Thomas to recuse from Trump's Jan 6 cases? Even if not, it'll be held up by the left as more reason they should.
They recused themselves from a non case. It wasn't taken up. Plus, the article said they were named specifically in the lawsuit by Brunson. I personally see it as a morality issue as well as pressuring Thomas and Alito, trying to make themselves look "holier than thou" too. Hypocrites SMH
To be precise, they recused themselves from the decision not to take it up. It wasn’t a non case until that order not to take it up was released.
Lol
Does anyone believe that they would do this, if they weren't being controlled?
Judge Kegan, because she was solicitor general (?) recused over 100 times. I don't believe a single one could have gone the other way because of it.
I fear some of you think this is somehow proof of white hats exerting control. It is not. The rest of the Court UNANIMOUSLY voted to DENY the petition, meaning the Supreme Court will not hear the case. The three recused votes could not have changed the outcome at all, so this was done to set the stage to pressure justices on our side to recuse themselves.
It doesn't set the stage for squat.
They don't have to recuse themselves for anything.
Duh, they don't have to, but the point is to try and make them look bad for not. "Look, the liberal justices recused, why won't the evil corrupt conservative ones do it"? And they hope everyone is too stupid to remember the recusal didn't change the outcome any, so it was all just for show.
SCOTUS Justices recuse themselves from an appeal 3% of the time. This is almost unprecedented. But you fear....
So why do you suppose they did it then? Their votes couldn't have changed the outcome here, yet they chose to recuse anyway.
I guess you were wrong.
https://greatawakening.win/p/17tKisfF7l/justice-alito-declines-to-step-a/c/
Uhh, no, I said it was "done to set the stage to pressure justices on our side to recuse themselves.", not that it would CAUSE them to recuse.
Duh.
Didn't work.
Alito and Robert's told them to pound sand.
I have been watching you for a long time comment on here. You just comment right above the fray in order not to get thrown off.
Glowie much?
Why would a Glowie try to convince you the three libs recusing was just a trick to try and pressure conservatives to recurse? I'd think a Glowie would try and convince you white hats told them to do this so you'd think everything was going to plan, meanwhile a sham prosecution of the President convicted him of 34 felonies. Seriously? EVERY SINGLE CHARGE stuck?
Anyone attempting to dissent gets labeled a shill, a doomer, or a Fed. I'm a critical thinking Patriot that is both a realist and suspicious of anyone offering partial knowledge, but hiding large parts of the truth from me.
Folks, Nothing happens until we-The assembled Multitude play out the Nov. 24 election. one way of thew other accountability will return starting on or about Feb 25th of 2025.
So 2020 never gets corrected? The steal worked and we have to “move on”? Then ‘24 will be no different. I’m my life I have to fix issues before I can go to the next one. Otherwise I’ve done nothing, and my problems remain. 2020 should be fixed.
Agreed. If we don’t we continue with the stealing and the corruption.
Perhaps 2020 will be "fixed" after Trump is back in. The number of Americans who view it as stolen is increasing imo. As eyes open, they open to more than merely Trump is better than Biden. I think as awakening happens, they are willing to look at lots of the Biden admin bs and see the truth now. No more propaganda feeding them the lies. It's one of my greatest hopes anyway lol.
As soon as we vote, we concede to the last election results. Even tho we know the truth, we will have then decided we got screwed, but are gonna go ahead and “try again”…and keep that “well get’em this time” attitude. Hope Trump wins, because then what? We hope the next one will be better? Gotta face the music eventually. Or the truth rather. That elections can be stolen..and there’s nothing we can do about it. Unless something happens in the next few months. ??
The time is gone. No matter how much comes out, there is no physical way to redo the past 3.5 years. The truth coming out - even after Trump takes office - is public proof for the treason trials and legal proof for undoing the BS laws passed. Will also be the proof to fix election laws long before any more elections are scheduled. That may be as "fixed" as we'll ever get for the 2020 election. I hope I'm wrong, but that makes sense.
or at least exposed at the very LEAST!
This will prove important!
"God is Not mocked,whatever a man sows that shall he reap" frustrating to watch those that were appointed to bring Justice, deny it. Yet isn't it good to know that there is no such thing as a permanent recrusal, even a supreme Court judge, has a judge over him and cannot (without Christ) escape the great white throne judgment (Revelation 20:11) "
Amen.
THE CASE IS DOA...that's why these 3 LIBERAL RADICALS recused...BUT THEY DID IT AFTER THE FACT...just saying
....headline is mis-leading and makes you think the case will be cert'd and heard by SCOTUS...BUT IT'S NOT and never will be....THESE 3 ARE JUST SHOW-BOATING so they can turn to ALITO AND SAY HE SHOULD RECUSE...what 💩
I just love how the Brunson Cases keep getting pushed aside without being addressed by thee only court that can even address their cases. Every time it gets brushed off, it tells me the cases are 100% on target, and would have to be upheld per the Constitution. And our current corrupt SCOTUS is too chicken-💩 to remove all the Cabal politicians that would fall by this grand legal sword.
Wait... is this a good thing or a bad thing for us?
Is this a fooled you, just kidding thing?
Hope there is an interview on their cases again soon.
This is awesome!
I agree HardWorkinPatriot.
That is a SPICY MEATBALL!!! Tell me patriots in control without telling me patriots in control.
The optics looks bad for the DS. The Brunson case(s) are really shining a light on corruption even if all these case go "nowhere".
Think bigger picture.