Slippery eel? lol that's a first...
Here is something I find laughable - that you have convinced yourself that elected members can never be held responsible for their actions by the people.
Even more funny is you thinking I said that. Because I am clearly talking way above your head you do not have any idea what I am telling you. This is why you cling to cope and hopium like fuckin Brunson. And when I point it out you reeeee like a leftist.
I thought we were having an adult discussion. But no. You were attacking me. For no real reason. I guess because you have no substance to dispute what I'm saying. If you do, you never say it. Just more cope and hopium. Buffoonery of the highest order.
I gave you the fuckin blueprint for how elected members get held accountable by the people. Take back your local government. Then you can unwind this. You cannot unwind it with cope and hopium. Brunson is just going to laugh his way to his bank to cash all the checks from dipshits like you that think he's doing anything except grifting off your hopium.
You are so clueless you think there is some alternative Constitutional theory to do this. There isn't. Take back your local government or we all go to the camps. Period.
When the DOJ abdicates responsibility to investigate and prosecute fraud, you can't pass the buck to Congress. Does Congress have law enforcement powers? No. When you bring a dud of a lawsuit to the Supreme Court, you cannot blame them for booting it if you are in favor of the rule of law. A lack of a viable remedy does not suddenly manifest whatever remedy you can conceive of out of whatever legal theory you can dream up or hallucinate. You don't have to like it. You have to accept it. Or you will never resolve the issue.
Do you subscribe to Q's statement that everything must be done abiding by the rule of law? Yes or no? I just told you what the law is. You have nothing you can point to to dispute it. Besides that you don't like what I told you so you want to imagine some other way. But not taking back your local government. Some other means of a remedy that is not existing under the law.
Courts cannot compel prosecutions. Courts cannot remove members of Congress. The executive cannot remove members of Congress. Its called separation of powers. And they have exploited this to our detriment. If you believe in the rule of law to fix this, none of what you are saying is lawful. So you have to go get a state prosecutor to start blowing up voting mules. To prosecute corrupt officials. And to clean out the election apparatus such that the will of the people is reflected. If you do this, you can then elect uncucked members of Congress and a President that will uncuck the DOJ and start going after these guys. That is the only way. Except if you are you. Then somehow a dumbass named Brunson is secretly working a strategy tying in to some other unproven theory.
Put the pipe down dude. And for god's sake there is no need to be this undignified in an adult conversation.
Its such a great tool it gets laughed out of court and only people here without a clue think it will go somewhere. Why do you think that complete dipshits with no idea how to write a lawsuit getting smoked out of court faster than a morning shit getting flushed down the toilet and then grifting off of it is an effective tool? The only people it is effective for is them. Cuz they profit off of ignorance and hope.
-
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.
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.
Isn't tick tocking being a jackass? So he never changed, right?
I'm way over the drip drip drip. Open the fuckin floodgates already. If the stuff comes out and doesn't immediately cause the entire world population to revolt, no drip campaign is going to do that. I'm so tired of having just enough info to know major bad stuff is going on and has been for awhile. But not enough that it can't be normie 'splained away as a conspiracy theory. Beyond maddening.
This shit has been going on for many many years. It is likely a counter punch thrown at China, who appears to be taking liberties with Biden far greater than Biden can plausibly hide from the public. An attempt to save face, as it were; similar to how the Chinese respond.
It kind of reminds me of Goodfellas...that restaurant owner partners with Pauley for protection against Tommy. Except he ends up getting fucked anyways. Pauley runs up the restaurant's credit selling shit out the back door for pennies on the dollar. Then they end up torching the place in an insurance scam once the credit runs out.
Biden bends over for China to give access for cash. But because they have proof he grabs his ankles for them, he cannot control the scope of their access without jeopardizing himself. The shit they have been doing appears to be just humiliating the guy. And they know that even with Biden gone, they have succeeded in compromising enough of our government that the others will not come to his defense.
I predict some real bad shit about Biden and China coming out as a retaliatory move for Biden not staying on the reservation here and continuing to grab the ankles for the CCP. This will not be received well by them.
I'm prepared to be skewered for this. I can never support capital punishment in this country. We all have seen far too much corruption and egregious fuckery in the judicial system and with rogue prosecutors. Limited government is a concept designed to mitigate the scope of inevitable corruption that always occurs. Trump is busy being abused by a rogue judge and rogue prosecutor in a bullshit NY case. Imagine if it carried a capital sentence...
Hundreds of people have been exonerated from death row...many of whom had execution dates set and at the last minute stayed by a court. The exonerees are only the ones who have succeeded in challenging their convictions. Many others exist that did not commit the crime. And many more were sent to the death chambers without having committed any offense worthy of a death sentence.
If you do not trust the government, why give them the power to take the life of a citizen? Would that not inevitably be abused by said corrupt government? We have evidence of rampant abuse in the criminal justice system. Cooler heads need to prevail here. We need to either abolish the death penalty or limit the availability of it to only the most absolutely certain cases. And I am not sure you can ever be absolutely certain. One innocent life taken in the name of we the people is one too many for me to accept. I know others will not agree, and that is fine. But I'll never support this.
Having the option for diesel makes sense, but diesel doesn't store well...it gets water in it and that is a big problem.
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.
I'm curious what you're doing for gasoline. I haven't come up with what I'd consider a safe method to store enough gas for light use in either a vehicle or generator. Seems like asking for a problem to have a bunch of gas cans full in your garage. One or two, ok. But enough for an extended disruption and minimal usage? Not sure what to do there.
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.
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.
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.
I am not 100% sure I grasp what you’re asking so correct me if I am not answering the question.
Someone is doing all this crap. If it isn’t them because they are just acting, then I don’t know how you could consider them guilty of anything except acting. If they took an oath, how does that suddenly transform them from actors to perpetrators? The issue still remains who is actually doing the acts in question that are unlawful. That is the person guilty of the crime. One likely would need to know who hired them and what they were instructed to do and its underlying purpose before you could get any idea what level of culpability, if any, is there.
The media, in narrow circumstances, could be credibly charged with treason for pushing known bogus stories to give aid and comfort to the enemy. Fake news narratives aren’t necessarily aid and comfort. There needs to be intent, and the specifics of what they did need to fairly unambiguously support a finding of providing that aid and comfort. There is no bright line rule; it would be entirely fact dependent.
Getting duped isn’t a crime. Getting duped into a crime is not an excuse from accountability for the crime; but it might be a mitigating circumstance as to the sanction for being convicted of the crime.
https://greatawakening.win/p/16amwDFHv8/x/c/4TsaJ83qzvU
I think this goes where I am trying to point you. I addressed this in a reply to u/bubble_bursts.
I did quite a few breakdowns of this a few months ago when everyone was getting hyped about it. It’s bad. It isn’t valid.
https://greatawakening.win/p/16ZqPbRnN9/x/c/4ToipzNEEaa
I think this link goes where I intended it. Ive commented ad nauseam about this case and how it will predictably go nowhere. And if we had perfect angels on the bench, the outcome would be identical - booted.
I cannot believe these fools cite a criminal statute defining the punishment for treason as grounds for a court to grant them this relief in a civil suit, either.
The only fraud they claim is fraud in the inducement. Not “election fraud.” To illustrate how non sensical that is, they would need to claim they would never have voted at all if they had known this was the outcome. They were duped into voting. Which makes zero sense.
You cannot get caught up in all the hype they start their lawsuit with. It is the bulk of their complaint. But none of that ties in with the actual claims for relief that they made. I can’t read it any other way than one of two options: (1) they are morons; or (2) they cloak their grift in everyone’s righteous indignation about egregious fraud in the 2020 election. I suppose it could also be both.
Calling the Constitution a “contract” is more of a philosophical analogy than it is a legal argument. “Promissory estoppel” is a form of equitable relief arising out of contract law when there is no binding contract between the parties. It is rarely successful. An example of promissory estoppel being successful was an old case between Aretha Franklin and a concert venue in New York. At least I think it was her. It was a famous singer from Detroit. There were negotiations about her coming in to play a series of concerts. They reached a preliminary agreement on basic terms but had not finalized all of them. But the concert venue began planning/spending on improving the venue to put on her shows. She eventually backed out and got sued for promissory estoppel. The venue incurred substantial sums of money in preparing the venue and an advertising campaign. They were allowed to recover it on the basis that they relied on the assurance she would sign the final deal; it was only minor issues left to work out. When you lack a contract, you cannot demand specific performance as relief. Only expenses you incurred in reliance on the agreement can be claimed as damages. The benefit of the bargain is not on the table as relief.
The biggest red flag of all: they accused Tracy Beanz of treason for questioning the validity of their suit. Now that is a head scratcher…
I actually preboooonked that, sorry.
Here we are in 2023, and DS apparatchiks are still openly advertising their DS credentials online with no awareness of the need to conceal that...
Can't we just start doing what they do?
"Sorry, NBC, but the debooonk was deboooonked by a variety of sources I decline to name as well as produce the basis supporting the debooonking."
has no idea how he keeps winning.
kek
We know how he keeps winning.
Joe Manchin (D) - WV Yep. Compromised.
How bout Brad Paisley? How gay af is bringing muh country music star into this? I am sure all the country music fans are immediately jumping on board the Deep State train and all in favor of trillions to Ukraine and spilling American blood in Ukraine, right? Is like Sean Hannity on steroids - Mr. Yankee loves muh country music, muh rank n file, muh gityerjab, muh did you know I trained mma my whole life, muh did you know my mom worked in a prison, and muh tick fuckin tock. Paisley, Garth Brooks, Tim McGraw/Faith Hill et al are cucked beyond belief.
I listened to serious medical minds tell us that all the covid bs was bs. But I didn't even need that. It was pretty apparent.
Show me a single serious legal mind that actually believes this suit is viable. I am skeptical that there is even one. But even a blind hog gets an acorn sometimes so there is probably 1 or 2 guys claiming so. A first year undergrad pre-law student would fail if they turned in that lawsuit. You don't have to like it. You are free to wish this suit did something. But living in reality is a lot better than actually believing this was going somewhere. At least don't send these clowns money. Don't let them grift off your righteous indignation and hope for accountability.
I said this in response to another comment: I think this concept is making a mountain out of a molehill. They are accountable for everything they did. The only reason accountability hasn't happened is that they also control the apparatus in charge of holding them accountable. The US Attorney's office is the only entity that can charge people with treason. No state can. And Garland is in charge of the US Attorney's office. Taking the oath of office, or failing to take the oath of office doesn't have an impact on violating the most severe statutes in the US code.
In the Civil War, we did not prosecute treason for reasons of wanting to restore the union. These were Americans, after all, and the war was fought to keep them Americans. Though there was great debate over the merits of doing so. With the confederate civilians, especially, they did not take any oath. If they provided aid and comfort to the enemy, they committed treason. Oath or no oath. And the same thing here. One does not need to expressly acknowledge loyalty/duty/allegiance to the United States to be held accountable for their acts against the United States.
The military can try soldiers, ex soldiers, and foreigners apprehended in foreign lands for violating laws of the United States. They can prosecute crimes that occurred on domestic military bases. But otherwise, the particular crime that you commit does not trigger a process that supersedes the constitution - which affords the 5th amendment right to be indicted by a grand jury in the district in which the crime occurred. The right to due process. And to be tried by a jury of citizens in the state and district in which the crime occurred under the 6th amendment.
Until the DOJ is cleaned out, there will not be accountability. Taking or not taking an oath has zero impact on this. But it does render the official acts of those officers of the United States a nullity if they do not lawfully hold the office. So for this issue, the correct lawsuit to bring is a challenge to the validity of any act of a person acting under color of law that does not lawfully have the ability to exercise power.
normies don't believe anything that cannot be demonstrated beyond a reasonable doubt with dna, video in 8k from 30 different angles and satellite imagery, 900 eye witnesses, and a sworn videotaped confession in open court, and presented by Tony Fauci. Beyond maddening.