Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 30 of 39

Thread: Brunson v. Adams: Read This Most Interesting Case

  1. #1

    Brunson v. Adams: Read This Most Interesting Case

    A friend just tossed this at me. The plaintiff is suing everyone from Biden on down, nearly 400 respondents. I don't know how unique is the approach here, but I've not seen it before. Every assertion plaintiff makes appears to my eyes to be valid, which if so, places SCOTUS into something of a corner. I cannot see SCOTUS agree to hear the case as it would necessitate a ruling. The only valid opinion would result in the removal of every respondent from office and barring them for life from holding any position of Special Trust. This, of course, would throw a gigantic wrench in Theire works, and so therefore I cannot see SCOTUS giving it a hearing as there seems to be no upside for them. Refusing to hear the case would also stand to damage their credibility, but not nearly to the same degree. Therefore, having been painted into a tight corner by an apparently clever plaintiff, their least painful option would be to demur.

    If they choose to hear it, I would be more than a little surprised. OTOH, I suppose there is the possibility that SCOTUS might decide to make lemonade form this lemon by handing down some outrageously wrong ruling that would potentially forever codify Theire ability to do whatever the hell they please with utter impunity and in the open.

    It's anyone's guess what will happen here, but I will keep an eye on this one with some anticipation and curiosity.


    ~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~

    https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketP...jVyv09Ob86qVPk

    ~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~

     
    No. n-'bto


    In The
    Supreme Court of the United States

    RALAND J BRUNSON,
    Petitioner,
    v.
    ALMA S. ADAMS, et, al.,
    Respondents.

    On Petition for Writ of Certiorari To The United States Court Of Appeals For The Tenth Circuit

    PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI
    Raland J Brunson
    4287 South Harrison Blvd., Apt 132 Ogden, Utah 84403
    Phone: 385-492-4898
    Petitioner in pro se

    Supreme Court, U.S FILED
    OCT 2 a 2022
    OFFICE OF THE Cl Fax-


    RECEIVED
    OCT 2 k 2022
    OFFICE OF THE CLERK SUPREME COURT. U.S.



    1


    QUESTIONS PRESENTED
    A serious conflict exists between decisions rendered from this Court and lower appeal courts, along with constitutional provisions and statutes, in deciding whether or not the trial court has jurisdiction to try the merits of this case.
    This case uncovers a serious national security breach that is unique and is of first impression, and due to the serious nature of this case it involves the possible removal of a sitting President and Vice President of the United States along with members of the United States Congress, while deeming them unfit from ever holding office under Federal, State, County or local Governments found within the United States of America, and at the same time the trial court also has the authority, to be validated by this Court, to authorize the swearing in of the legal and rightful heirs for President and Vice President of the United States.
    In addition there are two doctrines that conflict with each other found in this case affecting every court in this country. These doctrines are known as the doctrine of equitable maxim and the doctrine of the object principle of justice. Equitable maxim created by this court, which the lower court used to dismiss this case, sets in direct violation of the object principle of justice also partially created by this Court and supported by other appeal courts and constitutional provisions.
    These conflicts call for the supervisory power of this Court to resolve these conflicts, which has not, but should be, settled by this Court without delay.



    11


    PARTIES TO THE PROCEEDING
    Petitioner Raland J Brunson is an individual representing himself and is a Plaintiff in the trial court.
    The following 388 Respondents are a party to this action as defendants in the trial court:
    Named persons in their capacities as United States House Representatives: ALMA S. ADAMS; PETE AGUILAR; COLIN Z. ALLRED; MARK E. AMODEI; KELLY ARMSTRONG; JAKE AUCHINCLOSS; CYNTHIA AXNE; DON BACON; TROY BALDERSON; ANDY BARR; NANETTE DIAZ BARRAGAN; KAREN BASS; JOYCE BEATTY; AMI BERA; DONALD S. BEYER JR.; GUS M. ILIRAKIS; SANFORD D. BISHOP JR.; EARL BLUMENAUER; LISA BLUNT ROCHESTER; SUZANNE BONAMICI; CAROLYN BOURDEAUX; JAMAAL BOWMAN; BRENDAN F. BOYLE; KEVIN BRADY; ANTHONY G. BROWN; JULIA BROWNLEY; VERN BUCHANAN; KEN BUCK; LARRY BUCSHON; CORI BUSH; CHERI BUSTOS; G. K. BUTTERFIELD; SALUD 0. CARBAJAL; TONY CARDENAS; ANDRE CARSON; MATT CARTWRIGHT; ED CASE; SEAN CASTEN; KATHY CASTOR; JOAQUIN CASTRO; LIZ CHENEY; JUDY CHU; DAVID N. CICILLINE; KATHERINE M. CLARK; YVETTE D. CLARKE; EMANUEL CLEAVER; JAMES E. CLYBURN; STEVE COHEN; JAMES COMER; GERALD E. CONNOLLY; JIM COOPER; J. LUIS CORREA; JIM COSTA; JOE COURTNEY; ANGIE CRAIG; DAN CRENSHAW; CHARLIE CRIST; JASON CROW; HENRY CUELLAR; JOHN R. CURTIS; SHARICE DAVIDS; DANNY K. DAVIS; RODNEY DAVIS; MADELEINE DEAN; PETER A. DEFAZIO; DIANA DEGETTE; ROSAL DELAURO; SUZAN K. DELBENE;



    Ill


    ANTONIO DELGADO; VAL BUTLER DEMINGS; MARK DESAULNIER; THEODORE E. DEUTCH; DEBBIE DINGELL; LLOYD DOGGETT; MICHAEL F. DOYLE; TOM EMMER; VERONICA ESCOBAR; ANNA G. ESHOO; ADRIANO ESPAILLAT; DWIGHT EVANS; RANDY FEENSTRA; A. DREW FERGUSON IV; BRIAN K. FITZPATRICK; LIZZIE LETCHER; JEFF FORTENBERRY; BILL FOSTER; LOIS FRANKEL; MARCIA L. FUDGE; MIKE GALLAGHER; RUBEN GALLEGO; JOHN GARAMENDI; ANDREW R. GARBARINO; SYLVIA R. GARCIA; JESUS G. GARCIA; JARED F. GOLDEN; JIMMY GOMEZ; TONY GONZALES; ANTHONY GONZALEZ; VICENTE GONZALEZ; JOSH GOTTHEIMER; KAY GRANGER; AL GREEN; RAUL M. GRIJALVA; GLENN GROTHMAN; BRETT GUTHRIE; DEBRA A. HAALAND; JOSH HARDER; ALCEE L.HASTINGS; JAHANA HAYES; JAIME HERRERA BEUTLER; BRIAN HIGGINS; J. FRENCH HILL; JAMES A. HIMES; ASHLEY HINSON; TREY HOLLINGSWORTH; STEVEN HORSFORD; CHRISSY HOULAHAN; STENY H. HOYER; JARED HUFFMAN; BILL HUIZENGA; SHEILA JACKSON LEE; SARA JACOBS; PRAMILA JAYAPAL; HAKEEM S. JEFFRIES; DUSTY JOHNSON; EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON; HENRY C. JOHNSON JR.; MONDAIRE JONES; DAVID P. JOYCE; KAIALPI KAHELE; MARCY KAPTUR; JOHN KATKO; WILLIAM R. KEATING; RO KHANNA; DANIEL T. KILDEE; DEREK KILMER; ANDY KIM; YOUNG KIM; RON KIND; ADAMKINZINGER; ANN KIRKPATRICK; RAJA KRISHNAMOORTHI; ANN M. KUSTER; DARIN LAHOOD; CONOR LAMB; JAMES R. LANGEVIN; RICK LARSEN; JOHN B. LARSON; ROBERT E. LATTA; JAKE LATURNER; BRENDA L. LAWRENCE; AL LAWSON JR.; BARBARA LEE; SUSIE LEE; TERESA LEGER FERNANDEZ; ANDY LEVIN; MIKE LEVIN; TED LIEU;



    IV


    ZOE LOFGREN; ALAN S.LOWENTHAL; ELAINE G. LURIA; STEPHEN F. LYNCH; 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; JERROLD NADLER; GRACE F. NAPOLITANO; RICHARD E. NEAL; JOE NEGUSE; DAN NEWHOUSE; MARIE NEWMAN; DONALD NORCROSS; ALEXANDRIA OCASIO-CORTEZ; TOM O'HALLERAN; ILHAN OMAR; FRANK PALLONE JR.; JIMMY PANETTA; CHRIS PAPPAS; BILL PASCRELL JR.; DONALD M. PAYNE JR.; NANCY PELOSI; ED PERLMUTTER; SCOTT H. PETERS; DEAN PHILLIPS; CHELLIE PINGREE; MARK POCAN; KATIE PORTER; AYANNA PRESSLEY; DAVID E. PRICE; MIKE QUIGLEY; JAMIE RASKIN; TOM REED; KATHLEEN M. RICE; CATHY MCMORRIS RODGERS; DEBORAH K. ROSS; CHIP ROY; LUCILLE ROYBAL-ALLARD; RAUL RUIZ; C. A. DUTCH RUPPERSBERGER; BOBBY L. RUSH; TIM RYAN; LINDA T. SANCHEZ; JOHN P. SARBANES; MARY GAY SCANLON; JANICE D. SCHAKOWSKY; ADAM B. SCHIFF; BRADLEY SCOTT SCHNEIDER; KURT SCHRADER; KIM SCHRIER; AUSTIN SCOTT; DAVID SCOTT; ROBERT C. SCOTT; TERRI A. SEWELL; BRAD SHERMAN; MIKIE
    SHERRILL; MICHAEL K. SIMPSON; ALBIO SIRES; ELISSA SLOTKIN; ADAM SMITH; CHRISTOPHER H.



    V


    SMITH; DARREN SOTO; ABIGAIL DAVIS SPANBERGER; VICTORIA SPARTZ; JACKIE SPEIER; GREG STANTON; PETE STAUBER; MICHELLE STEEL; BRYAN STEIL; HALEY M. STEVENS; STEVE STIVERS; MARILYN STRICKLAND; THOMAS R. SUOZZI; ERIC SWALWELL; MARK TAKANO; VAN TAYLOR; BENNIE G. THOMPSON; MIKE THOMPSON; DINA TITUS; RASHIDA TLAIB; PAUL TONKO; NORMA J. TORRES; RITCHIE TORRES; LORI TRAHAN; DAVID J. TRONE; MICHAEL R. TURNER; LAUREN UNDERWOOD; FRED UPTON; JUAN VARGAS; MARC A. VEASEY; FILEMON VELA; NYDIA M. VELAZQUEZ; ANN WAGNER; MICHAEL WALTZ; DEBBIE WASSERMAN SCHULTZ; MAXINE WATERS; BONNIE WATSON COLEMAN; PETER WELCH; BRAD R. WENSTRUP; BRUCE WESTERMAN; JENNIFER WEXTON; SUSAN WILD; NIKEMA WILLIAMS; FREDERICA S. WILSON; STEVE WOMACK; JOHN A. YARMUTH; DON YOUNG; the following persons named are for their capacities as U.S. Senators; TAMMY BALDWIN; JOHN BARRASSO; MICHAEL F. BENNET; MARSHA BLACKBURN; RICHARD BLUMENTHAL; ROY BLUNT; CORY A. BOOKER; JOHN BOOZMAN; MIKE BRAUN; SHERROD BROWN; RICHARD BURR; MARIA CANTWELL; SHELLEY CAPITO; BENJAMIN L. CARDIN; THOMAS R. CARPER; ROBERT P. CASEY JR.; BILL CASSIDY; SUSAN M. COLLINS; CHRISTOPHER A. COONS; JOHN CORNYN; CATHERINE CORTEZ MASTO; TOM COTTON; KEVIN CRAMER; MIKE CRAPO; STEVE DAINES; TAMMY DUCKWORTH; RICHARD J. DURBIN; JONI ERNST; DIANNE FEINSTEIN; DEB FISCHER; KIRSTEN E. GILLIBRAND; LINDSEY GRAHAM; CHUCK GRASSLEY; BILL HAGERTY; MAGGIE HASSAN; MARTIN HEINRICH; JOHN HICKENLOOPER; MAZIE HIRONO; JOHN HOEVEN; JAMES INHOFE; RON



    VI


    JOHNSON; TIM KAINE; MARK KELLY; ANGUS S. KING, JR.; AMY KLOBUCHAR; JAMES LANKFORD; PATRICK LEAHY; MIKE LEE; BEN LUJAN; CYNTHIA M. LUMMIS; JOE MANCHIN III; EDWARD J. MARKEY; MITCH MCCONNELL; ROBERT MENENDEZ; JEFF MERKLEY; JERRY MORAN; LISA MURKOWSKI; CHRISTOPHER MURPHY; PATTY MURRAY; JON OSSOFF; ALEX PADILLA; RAND PAUL; GARY C.PETERS; ROB PORTMAN; JACK REED; JAMES E. RISCH; MITT ROMNEY; JACKY ROSEN; MIKE ROUNDS; MARCO RUBIO; BERNARD SANDERS; BEN SASSE; BRIAN SCHATZ; CHARLES E. SCHUMER; RICK SCOTT; TIM SCOTT; JEANNE SHAHEEN; RICHARD C. SHELBY; KYRSTEN SINEMA; TINA SMITH;
    DEBBIE STABENOW; DAN SULLIVAN; JON TESTER; JOHN THUNE; THOM TILLIS; PATRICK J. TOOMEY; HOLLEN VAN; MARK R. WARNER; RAPHAEL G.WARNOCK; ELIZABETH WARREN; SHELDON WHITEHOUSE; ROGER F. WICKER; RON WYDEN; TODD YOUNG; JOSEPH ROBINETTE BIDEN JR in his capacity of President of the United States; MICHAEL RICHARD PENCE in his capacity as former Vice President of the United States, and KAMALA HARRIS in her capacity as Vice President of the United States and JOHN and JANE DOES 1-100.



    Vll
    TABLE OF CONTENTS
    QUESTIONS PRESENTED............ PARTIES TO THE PROCEEDING TABLE OF CONTENTS
    TABLE OFAUTHORITIES
    LIST OF PROCEEDINGS
    JURISDICTION
    SUPREME COURT RULE 14(F) PROVISIONS STATEMENT OF THE CASE............................ ... REASONS FOR GRANTING THIS PETITION .CONCLUSION
    APPENDIX
    10th CIRCIUT ORDER AND JUDGMENT APPELLANT’S OPENING BRIEF TRIAL COURT JUDGMENT
    TRIAL COURT ADOPTING REPORT TRIAL COURT REPORT
    AND RECOMMENDATION OPPOSITION TO DISMISS

    Page
    1 11 Vll Vlll 1 1 1 3 8 9
    ,..App. 1 App. 11 App. 29 App. 30
    App. 35 App. 55



    Declaration of Independence - Clause 1 & II UTAH CONSTITUTION
    Article I Section 3
    STATUTES
    18 U.S. Code § 2381. 28 U. S. C. § 2101(e) 28 U.S.C.A. §1257(a)
    CASES

    14
    3
    6, App. 9 4 1


    Vlll


    TABLE OF AUTHORITIES U.S. CONSTITUTION
    Amendment I................................................. ..
    Amendment IX................................................ .
    Amendment V................................................. .
    Amendment XII...............................................
    Amendment XIV.............................................
    Article 1 Section 11..........................................
    Article III............................................... .......... App. 14, 17, 21


    American Bush u. City Of South S, 2006 UT 40.... 5, App. 16


    Carey v. Piphus, 435 U.S. 247.................... Determination Of Rights To Use Of Water, 2008 UT 25 182 P.3d 362........................

    App. 21


    .. App. 13 5, App. 9 Radioshack Corp. v. ComSmart, Inc., 222 SW 3d.. 5,App. 19 Rector v. City and County of Denver, 348 F. 3d 935.. App. 22


    Morris v. House, 32 Tex. 492 (1870) State v. Ruiz, 2012 UT 29, 282 P.3d 998
    RULES
    Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1).. Rule 11 Supreme Court

    App. 13
    App. 2 1,4


    1, 5, App. 17 ... 2, App. 15 2 3, App. 25 2, App. 25 2


    Page

    1
    LIST OF PROCEEDINGS



    • Raland J Brunson v. Alma S. Adams, et al., No. 1:21- cv-00111-CMR, U.S. District Court for the District of Utah. Judgment entered February 2, 2022.
    • Raland J Brunson v. Alma S. Adams, No. 22-4007, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit. Judgment entered October 6, 2022.
      JURISDICTION
      Jurisdiction is found under 28 U.S.C.A. §1257(a)
      “Final judgments...rendered by the highest court of a State...may be reviewed by the Supreme Court by writ of certiorari...where any...right [or] privilege...is specially set up or claimed under the...statutes of...the United States.”
      SUPREME COURT RULE 14(F) PROVISIONS
      Amendment I of the Constitution of the United States: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting . . . the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
      Article VI of the Constitution. “This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made Pursuance thereof; . . .shall be the supreme Law of the land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby.”








    2




    Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States; . . nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law. . . nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.” Section 3: “No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any state, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any statelegislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any state, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.”
    Fifth Amendment of the United States Constitution: “No person shall...be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law . . .”
    Ninth Amendment of the Constitution of the United States; “The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.”
    Article I Section 7 of the Constitution of Utah; “No person shall be deprived of life, liberty or property, without due process of law.”
    Article 1 Section 2 of the Constitution of Utah; “All courts shall be open . . .which shall be administered without denial or unnecessary delay; and no person shall be barred from prosecuting or defending before any tribunal in this State, by himself or counsel, any civil cause to which he is a party.”











    3




    STATEMENT OF THE CASE
    This action is against 388 federal officers in their official capacities which include President Joseph Robinette Biden Jr, Vice President Kamala Harris, Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi and former Vice President Michael Richard Pence (“Respondents”). All the Respondents have taken the required Oath to support and defend the Constitution of the United States of America against all enemies, foreign and domestic, and as such they are liable for consequences when they violate the Oath of Office.
    Respondents were properly warned and were requested to make an investigation into a highly covert swift and powerful enemy, as stated below, seeking to destroy the Constitution and the United States, Respondents purposely thwarted all efforts to investigate this, whereupon this enemy was not checked or investigated, therefore the Respondents adhered to this enemy. Because of Respondents intentional refusal to investigate this enemy, Petitioner Raland J Brunson (“Brunson”) brought this action against Respondents because he was seriously personally damaged and violated by this action of Respondents, and consequently this action unilaterally violated the rights of every citizen of the U.S.A. and perhaps the rights of every person living, and all courts of law.
    On January 6, 2021, the 117th Congress held a proceeding and debate in Washington DC (“Proceeding”). This Proceeding was for the purpose of counting votes under the 2020 Presidential election for the President and Vice President of the United States under Amendment XII. During this Proceeding over 100 members of U.S. Congress claimed factual evidence that the said election was rigged. The refusal of the Respondents to investigate this congressional claim (the enemy) is an act of treason and






    4




    fraud by Respondents. A successfully rigged election has the same end result as an act of war; to place into power whom the victor wants, which in this case is Biden, who, if not stopped immediately, will continue to destroy the fundamental freedoms of Brunson and all U.S. Citizens and courts of law.
    Due to the fact that this case represents a national security breach on a unprecedented level like never before seen seriously damaging and violating Brunson and coincidently effects every citizen of the U.S.A. and courts of law. Therefore, Brunson moves this court to grant this petition, or in the alternative without continuing further, order the trial court to grant Brunson’s complaint in its fullest. Brunson’s complaint is the mechanism that can immediately remove the Respondents from office without leaving this country vulnerable without a President and Vice President.
    Despite the grave importance of this case, the trial court granted Respondents motion to dismiss (“Motion”) by stating “IT IS ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that plaintiff Raland Brunson’s action is dismissed without prejudice”. (“Order”) This Order followed the trial court’s order to adopt its report and recommendation that Brunson did not get until close to the beginning of Oct. 2022 thus prejudicing Brunson from timely filing any objections, and the Order did not properly address Brunson’s opposition to the Motion. Brunson’s opposition clearly shows that Brunson has standing.
    Per Brunson’s opening brief and as outlined in Brunson’s said opposition (both not properly addressed by the lower courts) Brunson’s has standing and the trial court has full proper jurisdiction to rule on the merits of this case based upon the following factors:






    5




    a) The case of American Bush v. City Of South Salt Lake, 2006 UT 40 140 P.3d.1235 clearly states that the Constitution of the United States along with State Constitutions do not grant rights to the people. These instruments measure the power of the rulers but they do not measure the rights of the governed, and they are not the fountain of law nor the origin of the people’s rights, but they have been put in place to protect their rights. Therefore the statutes and case law cited by Respondents claiming immunity from Brunson’s claims in this instance are unconstitutional and this Court needs to rule in that manner.
    b) “The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.” Therefore, the purpose of the Constitution was written to protect our self evident rights. The Constitution cannot be construed by any means, by any legislative, judicial and executive bodies, by any court of law to deny or disparage our rights. This is the supreme law of the land. “This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made Pursuance thereof; . . shall be the supreme Law of the land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby.” Article VI of the Constitution.
    c) The First Amendment of the Constitution states that Congress shall make no law prohibiting the right of the people to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
    d) “Our courts have consistently held that fraud vitiates whatever it touches, Morris v. House, 32 Tex. 492 (1870)”. Estate of Stonecipher v. Estate of Butts, 591 SW 2d 806. And “"It is a stern but just maxim of law that fraud vitiates everything into which it enters." Veterans Service Club v.Sweeney. 252 S.W.2d 25. 27 (Kv.1952).” Radioshack Cory, v. ComSmart, Inc., 222 SW 3d 256.






    6




    Vitiate; “To impair or make void; to destroy or annul, either completely or partially, the force and effect of an act or instrument.” West's Encyclopedia of American Law, edition 2.
    e) Due to the uniqueness of this case, the trial court does have proper authority to remove the Respondents from their offices under 18 U.S. Code § 2381 which states “Whoever, owing allegiance to the United States, levies war against them or adheres to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort within the United States or elsewhere, is guilty of treason and shall suffer death, or shall be imprisoned not less than five years and fined under this title but not less than $10,000; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States.” A court adjudicating that the Respondents, who have taken the Oath of Office, to be incapable of holding their offices or who have adhered to a domestic enemy, means nothing without such removal ofoffice.
    Under the stated factors Brunson has an unfettered right to sue the Respondents under the serious nature of his claim, no legislation can measure Brunson’s right to sue the Respondents. Furthermore, Brunson’s allegations against Respondents’ adhering to a domestic enemy, and committing acts of fraud are not protected by any kind of legislation of jurisdictional immunity. Essentially, acts of Congress cannot protect fraud, nor protect the violation of the Oath or that give aid and comfort to enemies of the United States Constitution or America as alleged in Brunson’s complaint against the Respondents. These are facts that cannot be overcome, therefore, Brunson found no need to include in this petition a copy of Respondents’ opposition to Brunson’s opening brief or any of their arguments. Nevertheless, Brunson’s opening brief does touch upon Respondents’ immunity arguments and shows






    7




    how Respondents do not, nor can they, overcome Brunson’s arguments as stated herein.
    It is an uncontestable fact that the Respondents committed fraud and treason breaching our national security (as factually alleged in Brunson’s complaint), thus adhering to an domestic enemy that continues to breach our national security at an alarming rate on a daily basis. This national security breach is having the same end result as an act of war; to place into power whom the Respondents want, which is Biden. Brunson moves this Court, with its powers, to order the trial court of this case to immediately grant to Brunson the damages he seeks in his complaint. This is necessary to immediately secure our national security without any further delay.
    Turning now to the doctrine of equitable maxim created by this Court, this doctrine stands in direct conflict of the doctrine of the object principle of justice.
    The doctrine of the object principle of justice is couched by the supreme law of the land, and sets in motion to provide our court system to be the most just, limited, highly effective and easy to understand, and infuses our court system to be the most highly respected and dearly admired court system greater than the world has ever seen. The doctrine of equitable maxim kills this and had the trial court been guided by the object principle of justice this appeal would not be necessary.
    In addition, the doctrine of the object principle of justice stops the precarious nature of our courts, their jobs would be much easier with less stress, and parties in court would have a strong sense on how the court is going to rule thus promoting settlements to high degree and as such, lawsuits and appeals would be greatly reduced. This is an absolute fact.






    8




    Jurisprudence requires this Court to revoke the doctrine of equitable maxim that it created and to instill the doctrine of the object principle of justice more thoroughly throughout the entire court system in America.
    The doctrines of equitable maxim and the object principle of justice are fully explained in a petition before this court under docket No. 18-1147. To avoid being repetitious, Brunson herein incorporates the argument found therein as though fully stated herein and moves this court to address the question either under this petition or docket
    No. 18-1147.
    REASONS FOR GRANTING THIS PETITION
    Brunson’s complaint alleges fraud, violations of the Oath of Office and touches on acts of treason committed by the Respondents. 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 a continual national security breach.
    Voting is the greatest power an individual can exercise in a Republic; it is Brunson’s personal voice and the way he can protect his personal constitutional protected rights and the U.S. Constitution. See ^ 71 of the Complaint. When the allegations of a rigged election came forward the Respondents had a duty under law to investigate it or be removed from office.
    An honest and fair election can only be supported by legal votes, this is sacred. It is the basis of our U.S. Republican Form of Government protected by the U.S. Constitution. The efforts made, as stated in the complaint, that avoided an investigation of how Biden won the election, is an act of






    9




    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.
    As a national security interest, Brunson moves this court to be swift by going beyond granting this petition, it should order the lower court to grant Brunson’s complaint to avoid any further delay.
    CONCLUSION
    This petition is set forth in the interest of justice in protecting Brunson’s right to petition for a redress of grievances against the Respondents, and ensuring his right of due process against the encroachment of the doctrine of equitable maxim, and charging the Respondents who failed to investigate the allegations of a rigged election by having them removed from office without further delay.
    Dated: October 13, 2022 Respectfully submitted,
    Is/ Raland J Brunson Raland J Brunson
    4287 South Harrison Blvd., Apt 132 Ogden, Utah 84403
    Phone: 385-492-4898
    Petitioner in pro se


    Last edited by Occam's Banana; 01-03-2023 at 04:09 PM. Reason: remove formatting (text color), hide long text
    freedomisobvious.blogspot.com

    In a world gone mad, no outrage can be validly assumed as beyond the pale of plausibility.


    We get what we tolerate and we deserve what we get precisely because we tolerate it.

    Our words make us the ghosts that we are.

    Convincing the world he didn't exist was the Devil's second greatest trick; the first was convincing us that God didn't exist.



  2. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  3. #2
    Based on the Tenth Circuit's opinion SCOTUS won't hear the case. It appears Brunson lost because he failed to properly preserve his objections to the trial court's holdings that he lacked standing and that the defendants had the defense of sovereign immunity. That's the risk of bringing a suit like this pro se.

    Tenth Circuit's opinion: https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketP...9-00000747.pdf
    We have long had death and taxes as the two standards of inevitability. But there are those who believe that death is the preferable of the two. "At least," as one man said, "there's one advantage about death; it doesn't get worse every time Congress meets."
    Erwin N. Griswold

    Taxes: Of life's two certainties, the only one for which you can get an automatic extension.
    Anonymous

  4. #3
    Quote Originally Posted by Sonny Tufts View Post
    Based on the Tenth Circuit's opinion SCOTUS won't hear the case. It appears Brunson lost because he failed to properly preserve his objections to the trial court's holdings that he lacked standing and that the defendants had the defense of sovereign immunity. That's the risk of bringing a suit like this pro se.

    Tenth Circuit's opinion: https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketP...9-00000747.pdf
    Well, if this is true then it just further reinforces the adage that it's a fool who has himself as a lawyer.
    freedomisobvious.blogspot.com

    In a world gone mad, no outrage can be validly assumed as beyond the pale of plausibility.


    We get what we tolerate and we deserve what we get precisely because we tolerate it.

    Our words make us the ghosts that we are.

    Convincing the world he didn't exist was the Devil's second greatest trick; the first was convincing us that God didn't exist.

  5. #4
    https://rumble.com/v23bzfs-last-fail...-v.-adams.html

    The above link is Greg Hunters interview with Loy Brunson of the 3 trumpet playing brothers who filed the case there seems to be some new development in the case.

  6. #5
    This case will be discussed by SCOTUS at a meeting this Friday, January 6th.

    If you want to support a decision for the case to be accepted, see these simple instructions.

  7. #6

    URGENT: SCOTUS this Friday could decide fate of US Government

    This letter-writing campaign is urgent. Watch this short video for instructions, and get your letters out ASAP:

    https://rumble.com/v202itp-juan-o-sa...r-letters.html

    If you don't know about the case, watch this:

    Last edited by Suzu; 01-02-2023 at 04:31 PM.

  8. #7
    Here's another interview that lays out the case:

    Last edited by Suzu; 01-02-2023 at 04:30 PM.

  9. #8
    Doubtful. SCOTUS most likely took up this case because they want to trick Trump supporters and put them in a false sense of security that there's a slight chance of hope. The SC is not your friend and justice will not be found in the courts.
    "Perhaps one of the most important accomplishments of my administration is minding my own business."

    Calvin Coolidge



  10. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  11. #9
    Quote Originally Posted by Anti Globalist View Post
    Doubtful. SCOTUS most likely took up this case because they want to trick Trump supporters and put them in a false sense of security that there's a slight chance of hope. The SC is not your friend and justice will not be found in the courts.
    I guess we'll find out on Friday. Meanwhile if you want to see the history of the case, it's the one in the right side column, here:
    http://ralandbrunson.com/History/History.html

  12. #10

  13. #11
    Quote Originally Posted by Anti Globalist View Post
    Doubtful. SCOTUS most likely took up this case because they want to trick Trump supporters and put them in a false sense of security that there's a slight chance of hope. The SC is not your friend and justice will not be found in the courts.
    Yeah, I don't see this one working out. The legal argument makes no sense to me. A member of Congress can't break their oath of office by voting in a way that you don't like.
    Psalm 35:7-10, Psalm 109, Isaiah 13:9, Hosea 13:16

  14. #12
    Scotus won't take up this case.

    All they did was file paperwork. Exagerration of the case status for video hits is LAME.

    https://www.uncoverdc.com/2022/12/30...-brunson-case/
    "For we are opposed around the world by a monolithic and ruthless conspiracy ... Its preparations are concealed, not published. Its mistakes are buried not headlined. Its dissenters are silenced, not praised. No expenditure is questioned, no rumor is printed, no secret is revealed." - J.F.K.

  15. #13
    Quote Originally Posted by Snowball View Post
    Scotus won't take up this case.
    Even so, I see no harm coming from the letter campaign.

  16. #14

    Exclamation Huckabee: Supreme Court Could Overturn 2020 Election with NEW Case

    Huckabee: Supreme Court Could Overturn 2020 Election with NEW Case

    The Supreme Court is hearing a case this week that could conceivably overturn the 2020 presidential election, according to Mike Huckabee.

    The case Brunson v. Alma S. Adams, et. al., was brought by Raland Brunson of Ogden, Utah and his three brothers seeking the removal of President Biden and Vice President Kamala Harris because members of Congress failed to fulfill their constitutional duty on Jan. 6, 2021, by not reviewing allegations of fraud in the 2020 presidential election.

    The former Arkansas governor and former Republican presidential candidate shared news of the bombshell case on Substack.

    “Sit down. I guarantee this Supreme Court story is real,” Huckabee began.

    “The Supreme Court has agreed to a hearing for a case that could conceivably — PLEASE consider this the longest of long shots — overturn the election of 2020, throw out all the legislators who voted to certify the results and leave them ineligible to run for office ever again, even for town dogcatcher,” he wrote.

    The case was added to the court’s docket for Friday, the anniversary of Jan. 6, and the day President Biden is set to give a speech commemorating the Capitol breach.

    The Brunson brothers argue in their lawsuit — without legal counsel — that 388 lawmakers took an oath to support and defend the U.S. Constitution “against all enemies, foreign and domestic,” but “purposely thwarted all efforts to investigate [allegations of fraud in the 2020 election], whereupon this enemy was not checked or investigated, therefore the Respondents adhered to this enemy.”

    They point to Jan. 6, 2021 when the 117th Congress held proceedings to count votes under the Twelfth Amendment.

    “During this Proceeding over 100 members of U.S. Congress claimed factual evidence that the said election was rigged. The refusal of the Respondents to investigate this congressional claim (the enemy) is an act of treason and fraud by Respondents,” the brothers argued.

    The suit names President Biden, VP Harris, former VP Pence, and 385 members of Congress, and, no, that is not a typo. Those are all the members who voted against a proposition for them to investigate claims that “enemies of the Constitution rigged the 2020 election.” So, this case is NOT about whether or not election fraud occurred. It’s about whether or not these people violated their oath by failing to investigate credible allegations of election rigging by enemies of the Constitution –- allegations that had been made by over a hundred of their own colleagues.

    In their words: “Is this about a rigged election? No, it’s about the members of Congress who voted AGAINST the investigation, thereby thwarting the investigation. Was this a clear violation of their oath? YES.” The suit says this violation is an act of treason and fraud. “A successfully rigged election has the same effect as an act of war: to place into power whom the victor wants, which in this case is Biden, who, if not stopped immediately, will continue to destroy the fundamental freedoms of Brunson and all U.S. Citizens and courts of law.”

    “When the allegations of a rigged election came forward, the Respondents had a duty under law to investigate it or be removed from office.”

    Huckabee points out, “If SCOTUS ruled in favor of the plaintiffs, the remedy would conceivably involve removing the sitting President and Vice President and all those representatives and empower the Court to authorize the swearing-in of the rightful President and Vice President. Not kidding; that’s the remedy the plaintiffs are asking for.”

    Could former President Trump be restored to office? Possibly.

    “Even if a majority of the Justices found merit in this case, would they be willing to do something this huge?” Huckabee asked. “They would be keeping in mind the potential consequences and, of course, possible effects on the balance of power. If this happened, it would be the wildest things ever to happen within our government — a purge, really, which, I have to admit, sounds pretty great with the state our country is currently in. But you know the saying, if something sounds too good to be true, it probably is.”
    https://www.toddstarnes.com/opinion/...m_medium=email
    “The spirits of darkness are now among us. We have to be on guard so that we may realize what is happening when we encounter them and gain a real idea of where they are to be found. The most dangerous thing you can do in the immediate future will be to give yourself up unconsciously to the influences which are definitely present.” ~ Rudolf Steiner

  17. #15
    Not happening. The SC is not your friend. Justice will not be found in the courts. People need to seriously get over it and accept the fact that nothing will be done about the previous election.
    "Perhaps one of the most important accomplishments of my administration is minding my own business."

    Calvin Coolidge

  18. #16
    Quote Originally Posted by ClaytonB View Post
    Yeah, I don't see this one working out. The legal argument makes no sense to me. A member of Congress can't break their oath of office by voting in a way that you don't like.
    If they where required to investigate but they voted to confirm the election instead didn't they omit to do their duty, which was to investigate?



  19. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  20. #17
    Case was denied about an hour ago.

  21. #18
    Quote Originally Posted by mrsat_98 View Post
    If they where required to investigate but they voted to confirm the election instead didn't they omit to do their duty, which was to investigate?
    If Congress has a vote, the entire point/purpose of the vote is so that Congress can decide, as a body, whether to act Yeah or Nay. If they are "required" to do something, then that something couldn't also be put to a vote, it would have to simply be performed under the law. For example, each member of Congress must swear an oath of office. This is required, and so it cannot be put to a vote. If putting something to a vote were somehow illegal or un-Constitutional (as, for example, Congress "voting" not to have a swearing-in anymore), then that would be a true jurisdiction of SCOTUS. But the outcome of a vote of Congress is, by definition, outside the purview of SCOTUS. This is the very definition of separation-of-powers. There was never any chance SCOTUS was going to take this up.
    Psalm 35:7-10, Psalm 109, Isaiah 13:9, Hosea 13:16

  22. #19
    Quote Originally Posted by ClaytonB View Post
    If putting something to a vote were somehow illegal or un-Constitutional (as, for example, Congress "voting" not to have a swearing-in anymore), then that would be a true jurisdiction of SCOTUS. But the outcome of a vote of Congress is, by definition, outside the purview of SCOTUS. This is the very definition of separation-of-powers. There was never any chance SCOTUS was going to take this up.
    This is the most direct explanation I've seen ^^

    Here's another:

    https://twitter.com/BehizyTweets/sta...81278632431616

    it's a civil case seeking criminal relief. To remove someone from office on the grounds of treason they have to be charged WITH treason, in this case, Brunson sought for SCOTUS to essentially punish them for treason WITHOUT them being charged with it.
    I haven't looked into the legal precedents and such and don't have much experience with it to say if it's right, but direct for sure. Mostly what I've seen is drama and not much about the process a suit takes through the courts, which is what people need to know to understand IMO.

    I wrote this thread about it:

    https://twitter.com/JohnBNevin/statu...59307360247808

  23. #20
    Quote Originally Posted by ClaytonB View Post
    If putting something to a vote were somehow illegal or un-Constitutional (as, for example, Congress "voting" not to have a swearing-in anymore), then that would be a true jurisdiction of SCOTUS. But the outcome of a vote of Congress is, by definition, outside the purview of SCOTUS. This is the very definition of separation-of-powers. There was never any chance SCOTUS was going to take this up.


    Am I miss misinterpetstanding something here? It isn't one of the jobs of SCOTUS to adjudicate the constitutionality of laws passed by Congress and signed into law?

    I wouldn't think that a vote by Congress which legalized slavery, for example, would be outside the purview of SCOTUS to adjudge unconstitutional...?

  24. #21
    Quote Originally Posted by mrsat_98 View Post
    Case was denied about an hour ago.
    I’m shocked. Completely shocked by this revelation.

  25. #22
    Quote Originally Posted by Anti Globalist View Post
    I’m shocked. Completely shocked by this revelation.
    Yes this is all very shocking. I'm shocked. Shocked, I say!


  26. #23
    Quote Originally Posted by A Son of Liberty View Post
    Am I miss misinterpetstanding something here? It isn't one of the jobs of SCOTUS to adjudicate the constitutionality of laws passed by Congress and signed into law?

    I wouldn't think that a vote by Congress which legalized slavery, for example, would be outside the purview of SCOTUS to adjudge unconstitutional...?
    *sigh -- Before I retype what I typed before, can you first address what it is about the example of swearing-in that you're not understanding? Any Constitutional or procedural obligation of a member of Congress cannot be evaded without dereliction of duty or, at least, becoming liable to impeachment. But no member of Congress can have an "obligation" or be "required" to vote Yeah or Nay in any vote that comes before the body because the entire purpose of the Congress is to represent We the People. SCOTUS doesn't get to second-guess that. Suppose that a Libertarian gets elected to Congress and he's known as Mr. No... he has literally campaigned on the promise that he will always vote NO on everything without exception. If that's what the people of that district want, that's their Constitutional right to send Mr. No to Congress. SCOTUS has zero authority to question Mr. No's votes, on any construction! The same applies to the vote to certify the 2020 election. We may sadly realize that the process itself is corrupted but, as a question of Constitutional authority, each member of Congress had full authority to vote Yeah or Nay as they saw fit. So, the vote and its outcome stands.

    The problem with our Republic is bigger than a vote in Congress. it's bigger than Mike Pence. If you ask me, that is the entire lesson to be learned here...
    Psalm 35:7-10, Psalm 109, Isaiah 13:9, Hosea 13:16

  27. #24
    Quote Originally Posted by ClaytonB View Post
    *sigh -- Before I retype what I typed before, can you first address what it is about the example of swearing-in that you're not understanding? Any Constitutional or procedural obligation of a member of Congress cannot be evaded without dereliction of duty or, at least, becoming liable to impeachment. But no member of Congress can have an "obligation" or be "required" to vote Yeah or Nay in any vote that comes before the body because the entire purpose of the Congress is to represent We the People. SCOTUS doesn't get to second-guess that. Suppose that a Libertarian gets elected to Congress and he's known as Mr. No... he has literally campaigned on the promise that he will always vote NO on everything without exception. If that's what the people of that district want, that's their Constitutional right to send Mr. No to Congress. SCOTUS has zero authority to question Mr. No's votes, on any construction! The same applies to the vote to certify the 2020 election. We may sadly realize that the process itself is corrupted but, as a question of Constitutional authority, each member of Congress had full authority to vote Yeah or Nay as they saw fit. So, the vote and its outcome stands.

    The problem with our Republic is bigger than a vote in Congress. it's bigger than Mike Pence. If you ask me, that is the entire lesson to be learned here...
    I'm asking a genuine question so you can dispense with the snark.

    If congress passes a bill, and that bill is signed into law... that's it? SCOTUS has no role in determining whether or not that law is constitutional? So congress can approve a bill which legalizes slavery, and the president signs that bill into law, and SCOTUS has no role in adjudicating as to whether that law is constitutional? That seems tenuous, to me. If I'm wrong, I'm wrong, and I'm fine with that. I'm just asking. I may not be understanding the role of SCOTUS correctly.

    That seems like a horribly vulnerable system to me - all it would take is for a party to capture the presidency, house majority and senate majority by one seat each for some really bad sh!t to get signed into law with no chance of oversight, if SCOTUS has no role in adjudicating bills signed into law by the legislative and executive branches...



  28. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  29. #25
    Quote Originally Posted by A Son of Liberty View Post
    I'm asking a genuine question so you can dispense with the snark.

    If congress passes a bill, and that bill is signed into law... that's it? SCOTUS has no role in determining whether or not that law is constitutional? So congress can approve a bill which legalizes slavery, and the president signs that bill into law, and SCOTUS has no role in adjudicating as to whether that law is constitutional? That seems tenuous, to me. If I'm wrong, I'm wrong, and I'm fine with that. I'm just asking. I may not be understanding the role of SCOTUS correctly.

    That seems like a horribly vulnerable system to me - all it would take is for a party to capture the presidency, house majority and senate majority by one seat each for some really bad sh!t to get signed into law with no chance of oversight, if SCOTUS has no role in adjudicating bills signed into law by the legislative and executive branches...
    There is no snark, but I do tire of re-explaining things when you're breezing right past the explanation, and then claim to be asking a "genuine question".

    You're not even wrong, you're just conflating two separate things. The content of a congressional vote (to pass a bill, for example) is absolutely within the purview of SCOTUS if that bill (or other action) violates the Constitution, or is otherwise an illegal action for Congress to take. But the lawsuit that is the subject of this thread was trying to sue the members of Congress for what they voted. Maybe it will help if I use a third metaphor that you can ignore so you can ask more genuine questions: it's like the movie Minority Report where they were charging people with "pre-crime". Even if you suppose that SCOTUS would overturn a bill, resolution or other action of Congress based on the Constitution, the votes for that bill, resolution or other action cannot themselves be unconstitutional because the entire purpose of Congress is for the members of Congress to vote in whatever way they deem their constituents to want them to vote! So, under no construction can the votes of the members of Congress to certify the 2020 election be considered unconstitutional, illegal, treasonous or anything else along those lines. Even if the election had been 100% provably stolen with full camera footage of all illegal actions taken and the footage delivered to Congress 7 days ahead of time, it still wouldn't be unconstitutional for any member of Congress to vote to certify the election. Reprehensible? Yes. Immoral? Yes. A treachery against all the values, history and heritage of our country? YES! But not unconstitutional or illegal in any other sense.
    Psalm 35:7-10, Psalm 109, Isaiah 13:9, Hosea 13:16

  30. #26
    Perhaps I'm just particularly thick tonight, but what 2 things am I conflating?

    And it seems to me like you're saying that SCOTUS has the authority to adjudicate bills passed and/or votes by congress, but... also doesn't have that authority?

    I'm legitimately trying to understand your argument here. That's all...

  31. #27
    Quote Originally Posted by A Son of Liberty View Post
    Perhaps I'm just particularly thick tonight, but what 2 things am I conflating?

    And it seems to me like you're saying that SCOTUS has the authority to adjudicate bills passed and/or votes by congress, but... also doesn't have that authority?

    I'm legitimately trying to understand your argument here. That's all...
    I think he's saying that SCOTUS can rule that a given thing is unconstitutional, but cannot rule that voting in favor of that thing is unconstitutional.

    Thus, those in Congress who voted in favor of certifying the 2020 election results cannot be punished for having done so (regardless of whether the results were legal/legitimate or not).
    Last edited by Occam's Banana; 01-09-2023 at 09:31 PM.

  32. #28
    Quote Originally Posted by Occam's Banana View Post
    I think he's saying that SCOTUS can rule that a given thing is unconstitutional, but cannot rule that voting in favor of that thing is unconstitutional.

    Thus, those in Congress who voted in favor of certifying the 2020 election results cannot be punished for having done so (regardless of whether the results were legal/legitimate or not).
    Ah, I see... I never would have thought that was in question. I must have missed that in the posts I replied to.

    See how simply a point can be made, though? Take a hint, Clayton...

  33. #29
    Quote Originally Posted by ClaytonB View Post
    There is no snark, but I do tire of re-explaining things when you're breezing right past the explanation, and then claim to be asking a "genuine question".

    You're not even wrong, you're just conflating two separate things. The content of a congressional vote (to pass a bill, for example) is absolutely within the purview of SCOTUS if that bill (or other action) violates the Constitution, or is otherwise an illegal action for Congress to take. But the lawsuit that is the subject of this thread was trying to sue the members of Congress for what they voted. Maybe it will help if I use a third metaphor that you can ignore so you can ask more genuine questions: it's like the movie Minority Report where they were charging people with "pre-crime". Even if you suppose that SCOTUS would overturn a bill, resolution or other action of Congress based on the Constitution, the votes for that bill, resolution or other action cannot themselves be unconstitutional because the entire purpose of Congress is for the members of Congress to vote in whatever way they deem their constituents to want them to vote! So, under no construction can the votes of the members of Congress to certify the 2020 election be considered unconstitutional, illegal, treasonous or anything else along those lines. Even if the election had been 100% provably stolen with full camera footage of all illegal actions taken and the footage delivered to Congress 7 days ahead of time, it still wouldn't be unconstitutional for any member of Congress to vote to certify the election. Reprehensible? Yes. Immoral? Yes. A treachery against all the values, history and heritage of our country? YES! But not unconstitutional or illegal in any other sense.
    On the other hand, what accountability would there be for a Congress that passes a law that, for instance, nullifies the Constitution? They have the authority to pass laws. SCOTUS has the authority to strike them. But are those responsible for such an attempted overthrow by infiltration, in direct violation of their oaths of office, accountable only to the next publice vote... even when rigging the vote is the primary question? Is there no such thing as a legislative duty that, due to circumstance, amounts to a criminal act?

    If not, what are any viable legal routes to accountability for those derelict and in violation of oath?

  34. #30
    Quote Originally Posted by jbnevin View Post
    On the other hand, what accountability would there be for a Congress that passes a law that, for instance, nullifies the Constitution? They have the authority to pass laws. SCOTUS has the authority to strike them. But are those responsible for such an attempted overthrow by infiltration, in direct violation of their oaths of office, accountable only to the next publice vote... even when rigging the vote is the primary question? Is there no such thing as a legislative duty that, due to circumstance, amounts to a criminal act?
    The idea of representative government is that "throw the bums out" is supposed to solve this problem. If there is a specific corrupt act (or acts) that has occurred, then there could be a DoJ investigation to aid in airing out the facts. Criminal charges are possible if any member of Congress breaks the law (e.g. campaign finance, bribery, etc.) Even if their vote has been bought, however, the cast of the vote itself is not the point at which the law was broken, it was the taking of consideration in exchange for that vote. The vote itself was merely a necessary condition to receive the consideration, which is where the law was broken. It's like if a corrupt cop is being paid per ticket by the mafia for operating a speed-trap at a specific location. The traffic stops themselves are not what is illegal (as long as the cop does abide by the law in performing them), it's the receipt of consideration that is what breaks the law.

    If not, what are any viable legal routes to accountability for those derelict and in violation of oath?
    2024. I know that's not a satisfactory answer, especially because we have effectively undeniable evidence that our elections are corrupt and rigged. However, we should not focus on the corruption and lose our will to fight. Rather, we should look for our strength still held in reserve, and muster that strength to resist evil. RPF is proof that there are plenty of us out here who will not bow to this unspeakable evil. And we're just the tiny few who are crazy or stupid enough to keep posting online. For every one of us on this forum, there are a thousand silent Americans who are just as well-informed and mad as hell about what is going on. We are outnumbered by the corrupt, no doubt, but never forget that corruption is weakness incarnate.

    The real problem, as I keep saying, is spiritual anyway. Yes, we need legal remedy, but the legal remedy will be the final step in any real change. The first step is spiritual. People need to awaken to the danger of sin in their hearts and homes, and eradicate it. We need to rally around Jesus as the only true King (he's not just "figuratively" King, he's literally King). When we realign our mindset this way, it will become possible for us to unite our strengths together in a way that is effective, and which the invader can do nothing to stop. To be clear, the invader is the devil... this is GOOD and EVIL....
    Psalm 35:7-10, Psalm 109, Isaiah 13:9, Hosea 13:16

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast


Similar Threads

  1. Tacoma weed case, interesting.
    By tod evans in forum U.S. Political News
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 04-27-2013, 10:11 AM
  2. Two Interesting Quotes From Samuel Adams
    By Sola_Fide in forum History
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 08-04-2012, 10:36 AM
  3. Replies: 0
    Last Post: 02-11-2011, 11:40 AM
  4. Replies: 26
    Last Post: 11-01-2010, 09:30 AM
  5. Interesting case on the Fed
    By decatren in forum Economy & Markets
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 01-30-2009, 08:16 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •