Excerpt (the first few paragraphs, emphases mine):
While there has been much public attention on the U.S. Supreme Court’s present consideration of the “independent state legislature” theory in Moore v. Harper involving North Carolina’s redistricting, that case would not immediately upend the 2020 presidential election.In contrast, a little-known case that appeared recently on the Court docket could do just that. The case of Brunson v. Adams, not even reported in the mainstream media, was filed pro se by ordinary American citizens – four brothers from Utah — seeking the removal of President Biden and Vice President Harris, along with 291 U.S. representatives and 94 U.S. senators who voted to certify the electors to the Electoral College on Jan. 6, 2021 without first investigating serious allegations of election fraud in half a dozen states and foreign election interference and breach of national security in the 2020 presidential election. The outcome of such relief would presumably be to restore Donald Trump to the presidency.The important national security interests implicated in this case allowed the Brunsons to bypass an appeal that was frozen at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit and get the case to the Supreme Court which has now scheduled a hearing for January 6, 2023. The Brunson Petition for a Writ of Certiorari would require the votes of only four justices to move the case forward.It seems astounding that the Court would wade into such waters two years to the day after the Congressional vote to install Joe Biden as president. But these are not normal times. Democrats may well push legislation in this month’s lame duck session of Congress to impose term limits and a mandatory retirement age for justices, and thereby open the door to packing the Court.
The final paragraph reads as follows:
The fact that the Brunson case has made it to the Court’s docket suggests profound concerns about a lawless Jan. 6 congressional committee, politicized federal law enforcement and intelligence agencies and major constitutional violations intended to overthrow an elected government by manipulating the outcome of the presidential election.
Read the entire essay HERE.
Your thoughts?
For my part, I'm wondering if Brunson v. Adams is now dead at the SCOTUS level. Is it? Help me out here. It looks to me that the case was denied in SCOTUS conference. But that the case ever made it to the SCOTUS level speaks volumes!
The site of the attorney for the case.
ReplyDelete8:12am Eastern Jan 9, 2023 there is rumor an announcement by SCOTUS re 22-380 is meant for today. As of this post, nothing has been posted on the SCOTUS docket re Jan 6, 2023 conference. Alt rumor exists leaked from an attorney involved that in conference it was accept for hearing. It is also entirely possible this has already occurred out of the public eye - as matters of NATIONAL SECURITY would. We will see. Regardless, this happening NEEDS PUBLIC AWARENESS.
ReplyDeleteThank You for the opportunity to reply. This case is a life/death case. Supreme Court, chose ye today, who ye shall serve; God or mammon, as for me and my family, we shall serve the Lord Jesus Christ, as we humble ourselves and repent of our sins; namely our failure to support Godly Government candidates and Godly decisions, plus protect the elderly and the children of our country and our world.. We have Failed Lord Jesus, In your Mercy Have mercy on us, Amen
ReplyDeleteI think this conclusion is premature, as no varifyable information has been made public, only speculation (hearsay). Americans are not interested in hearsay (gossip) we have seen enough of that from the talking heads in alternative media, promising hopium for starting on 6 years now! It’s time to dispense with the bullshit and start dealing in facts. We have had enough hopium for a lifetime!
ReplyDeleteIs it true only Judge Thomas is left, the remaining 8 arrested some time ago? If true, can 1 judge rule? Wasn’t this case quietly decided July 2022 and set aside until “the right time? If it is rejected by the Court, the judges are also treasonous. It is not a political case, the defendants refused to use the ten days allowed to investigate charges of voter fraud in 2020 when asked to do so before Pence certified the vote.
ReplyDeleteIt was just denied. Roland is a friend of mine. You can look it up on his Facebook page posted about 7:30 AM
ReplyDeleteHe's your friend? Well, I thought his name is "Raland Brunson," not "Roland Brunson.
DeletePlease get back to me on this.
ReplyDeleteTHE hand that writes on the wall ... IS in Charge !
They need to go back to the high standard for absentee ballots
ReplyDelete1) In the military service or employed abroad
2) attending college
3) in the hospital or old age home
4) on foreign travel must show tickets
5) severe mobility issues involving pain
As for old age homes, there should be a machine in them if possible.
Above is beakerkin
ReplyDeleteIt's ALL a lie. Both sides. Game over..
ReplyDeleteYou should add to your comment policy... ALL VIEWS IN OPPOSITION TO THGE EX[RESSED VIEWS OF TGE SITE ADMNISTRATOR WILL BE DELETED UPON RECOGNITION
ReplyDeleteJust a suggestion supporting your actual policy..
Um, no.
DeleteThis is a free-speech site within the parameters listed in the comment policy here:
Comments that include any of the following are subject to deletion:
1. Any use of profanity or abusive language
2. Off topic comments and spam
3. Use of personal invective
Off topic rants of right, left, or center are deleted. Period. Full stop.
Section 3 -14th Amndment
Delete(mispelled on purpose).
State Sec. Rewrtiting the elction lws. ileagul, with out the States legis-tors changing it.
Several states sec. doing so - is a rising (rebelion).
And, members of the capital giving aid and comfort by not investigating.
SHALL NOT take another OA-th.
Are there any fellow Amerkans who will spread this along?
The Congress Tells The SCOTUS Which Cases to Proceed with.
ReplyDeleteThese guys need to file again with the SCOTUS; maybe the Repubs will be more persistent.
@Anon:
DeleteActually, the SCOTUS, decides which cases it will hear. Not the Congress. It's a little more complicated than that.
See How the Supreme Court Decides Which Cases to Hear