Supreme Court DENIES 22-380 Brunson v Adams case Fast Facts / January 9, 2023 / Leave a Comment January 9, 2023
As expected the Supreme Court has decided NOT to hear the Brunson v Adams et al case. The Order List was released this morning and Brunson’s case was right there in the DENIED section.
So what does this mean? In essence it means Brunson’s case is dead. The 10th Circuit Court of Appeals ruling will stand. That ruling agreed with a lower court that threw out Brunson’s case for lack of jurisdiction. The 3 appeals judges who heard that case (not that it matters) were appointed by Republican Presidents. Presidents Ronald Reagan, George W. Bush and Donald Trump.
Read the Supreme Court Orders List here.https://lisaremillard.com/supreme-court-denies-22-380-brunson-v-adams-case/
So we all were waiting for the Supreme Court's Monday decision....
Here's a quick overview from a small conservative news network... Just reading the Gateway Pundit, basically.
And, unsuprisingly, it was a No.
This isn't over though! Check out u/catsfive top comment in the stickied post here on GAW.https://greatawakening.win/p/16ZqiD2zIW/brunson--certiorari-denied-/
Now check out this article from Salt Lake Tribune. Particularly, Rayland Brunson's comments from last Thursday:
Hello my fabulous patriots and friends. Okay! Here is the deal with tomorrow's decision. The Supreme Court's schedule of posting decisions is always the Monday following conference. So, we won't know anything until Monday! Now, don't think for a second that my brothers and I are not prepared for a denial. We've got plenty of chess pieces still at play and we still have our queen. Through hard knocks we have learned how this political/litigation game works, so keep up the prayers and your letters to the Supreme Court! You count! We love everyone of you! Thank you for your wonderful support!
The Brunson brothers set the stage for a denial because a case like this would inevitably field that result. It's going to take more work and that is OK; its part of the process.
The other side of this is those who have said from the jump that the case is flawed. JustHuman touched on it this morning. About 7 minutes in and not much to say. Whole episode is a great listen, it's about other topics however... he touches on this so quickly, it's funny how a lot of the citizen journalist community has tried to veer away from it even as massive interest forces their hand.
Robert Barnes gave probably the best 2 minutes on what the case is and the dissenting view.
So here's where I'm at on it personally at this point - and feel free to disagree. This Brunson case was a fun little dig when it started and in its defense it has attracted a lot of interest and brought Patriots together. That can't be a bad thing.
But following the denial, we should temper our expectations for any kind of favorable outcome at this point. Even the Brunson's themselves knew that a denial was likely.
Where it succeeded was to call attention to the issue of Title 28 immunity - whereby politicians are not truly legally bound in their Oath of Office. It lets us know that they haven't been taking it seriously and that is legally sound for them... which is morally incorrect to many of us, and not why we vote for them.
Politically it is meritorious. At a time when [Jim Jordan will be heading up a committee on Federal Gov. Weaponization]( and so many other dark deeds of the political and elite classes are being exposed to the public, the case is a sincere plea TO OUR INSTITUTIONS to GIVE ITS PEOPLE some kind of ACTUAL JUSTICE.
However, from a LEGAL perspective this is a round peg jammed over a square hole. There just isn't ANY WAY for the Supreme Court to really look at this issue; its out of the scope of what sorts of things they decide on and enforcement is IMPOSSIBLE.
Its too big and clunky. What the Brunson case was good for was drawing attention to the aforementioned Oath of Office, something the Brunsons have long been interested in (they made a documentary about it years ago) and for jumping the hurdle on who has standing in these Election law cases. For a better chance at a favorable outcome we need to look to the micro:
- Kari Lake's lawsuit is definitely a prime candidate
- Also Garland Favorito in GA
The Brunsons will take next steps, apply for a rehearing in 25 days per the SCOTUS rules. They've said they aren't done and to hang in with them.
What are the possibilities here?
- It was always just a grift and a nothingburger, that got alot of undue praise and support (even the $ kind)
- It was a crucial and careful chess move by the WH to dissuade lame duck Pelosi from messing with Supreme Court at a desperate time for them, when major changes were coming (see: Omnibus fraud)
- it was controlled opposition to make Republican "far right" seem unhinged, frivolous
- It was an opening salvo to a bigger fight, where more carefully constructed cases by Brunsons or others begin to hit SCOTUS docket and actually make progress
- At a time when corruption is being exposed and investigated, calls public attention and drums up focused interest in both how our process of government works and what can and can't be remedied and by whom
I don't have any answers but I DO think on the whole the case is leading us somewhere. What might be most important about it is to show an audience of increasingly insulated and isolated politicians and elites that a great many people in America feel despondent, cheated and defrauded over the 2020 Election and will continue to make noise about it no matter how much the media tries to sell lies about J6.
It tells them that there are many new fresh sets of eyes on them, much the way that the recent House Speaker events have sparked new interest and attention into the mechanisms of our system - and outrage over the derailment of the processes as intended to work. They were able to get away with MUCH because for a long time from the late 90s to early 2010s there was a very low bar - the news media and entertainment technology KEPT people detached and uninterested in their politics, which has long been a staple of American life.
In America, one thing that kept us free from despotic rule for so long was the fact that Americans were ENGAGED and CONCERNED with what went on in their politics for MOST of the country's history since its founding - part of the grift of the last 30-50 years has been the CABAL finding ways to distract us or make us apathetic towards civil engagement.
I can never forget something I heard Jessie Ventura say during a conversation about becoming Governor of Minnesota. He said he knew he could win because his early numbers showed 10% in new voters and that MN people typically have America's highest percent of voters in elections, at 50%. This is the same strategy of Trump, what is sometimes called the silent majority. Personally, it came as a shock to me that half
We never stop to ask, why are we silent? Did someone make us be quiet, or convince us that it didn't matter? If so, who? I think of my mother and father, of the baby boomer generation, who are generally conservative but read and digest only the headlines. Their interests were always geared more towards movie stars like John Wayne or music groups like Aerosmith; that's the interest areas I picked up from them more than any other.
My grandmother was born in the Depression and while never having keen interest in politics beyond her love of John Kennedy, seemed to almost naturally key in on the media when they lied and kept a fairly cynical attitude towards anything she first read or heard. She read the local paper every day until she was too blind, and would leave news on in the background, occasionally relating back what she heard ... like most older folks she was constantly shocked at the changes in the world. More than this, she was always in the know about what government services and things she could receive, and never missed out on any help she could potentially qualify for. She was resourceful and pragmatic in a wonderful way.
What I'm saying is that cases like Brunson are part of a pattern emerging that had long been part of American life, but dissipated in recent times through a variety of factors. The grassroots activism, the silent majority waking up and voicing concerns.... the public interest that it received is part of a re-focus to this crucial issue that we've been forcibly separated from over generations.
The faster we wake up, the more we can soften the blow of hard times ahead. So whatever you think of Brunson and wherever it goes, its ALWAYS good when we're paying attention.
Godspeed.
The remedy the Brunson case is asking for is not constitutional.
The Legislative Branch (Congress) is the only one with the power to remove sitting members of the other two branches—or sitting members of Congress itself.
Imagine if SCOTUS could remove members of the other two branches?
Trump wouldn’t have last a second as POTUS.
I am NOT asking what the Plan is, or what the script it.
I am NOT asking what will happen next, or when it will happen.
I think it is fair to say that "We have it all" and "Enjoy the show" and "Trust the Plan" are statements that we believe, but to get others to believe we need ongoing milestones and proof.
And, at this point, what exactly are we trying to awaken people to? That 2020 was stolen? That the vax is death? That the Cabal is evil? That we are watching a movie? That God wins? That the ending is not for everyone? Or that we need to wake up? All of the above?
What is our message supposed to be? What is the end goal? It's time to regroup and refocus the message, and I am pleading with the Q Team to have some type of drop that is reassuring, and that gives us a few things to focus on. Without such guidance, I think we are at risk of losing momentum, losing solidarity, etc.
I'm curious to know what the rest of you think. I know there are hardcore Anons who are going to post that I'm dooming, or that I'm a pussy, or this and that... yeah, yeah, you're not very constructive and you're a bit too full of yourselves, but feel free to dump your usual crap.
For the rest of you--how do you see your role being defined? What is your focus? What is our collective "job description" and how has it evolved? Is anyone else sensing that we need something to rally around?
Are we a bunch of hopium addicts who played ourselves? Have we been played by glowies laughing their asses off as we chase the laser pointer? Dozens if not hundreds of posts about the Brunson case this past month, and the few posters who correctly explained it was a procedural nothing burger were buried in an avalanche of opinions with no factual knowledge of the process. Yes, I bought into the hopium for a while.
https://www.supremecourt.gov/orders/courtorders/010923zor_p860.pdf
Page 5
22-380 BRUNSON, RALAND J. V. ADAMS, ALMA S., ET AL.
Covfefe!
Hopium cases that will prove there is a plan and date fagging . . .
Let's try not to be the wicked generation that demands a "Sign"
Most know which side is going to win.
Yesterday u/TSearch made a post about how the McCarthy speaker of the house vote might interact with the Brunson case. ie. if the SoH was not yet elected when the congress defendants are possibly removed if the Brunson Brothers win their SC case that the congress defendants broke their oath by not investigating possible election fraud in 2020.
TSearch made the case that the voting for SoH would be diffferent with so many fewer congress members. That hasn't panned out but along the way, TSearch noticed that Kevin McCarthy is not among the congress members mentioned in the case when he would be an eligible defendant.
I guess this is because the white hats have other plans for McCarthy, they need him as SoH now that he has had to make the big concessions to get support.
If you need more proof that this was the plan all along, then here it is, McCarthy is missing from the defendants list.
From u/TSearch 's post:
Here is every House of Representatives defendant with a name ending in M. Copied directly from the filing. I’ve looked multiple times and don’t see his name.
NANCY MACE; TOM MALINOWSKI; CAROLYN B. MALONEY; SEAN PATRICK MALONEY; KATHY E. MANNING; THOMAS MASSIE; DORIS 0. MATSUI; LUCY MCBATH; MICHAEL T. MCCAUL; TOM MCCLINTOCK; BETTY MCCOLLUM; A. ADONALD MCEACHIN; JAMES P. MCGOVERN; PATRICK T. MCHENRY; DAVID B. MCKINLEY; JERRY MCNERNEY; GREGORY W. MEEKS; PETER MEIJER; GRACE MENG; KWEISI MFUME; MARIANNETTE MILLER-MEEKS; JOHN R. MOOLENAAR; BLAKE D. MOORE; GWEN MOORE; JOSEPH D. MORELLE; SETH MOULTON; FRANK J. MRVAN; STEPHANIE N. MURPHY;