Posted on 12/22/2022 5:25:40 PM PST by E. Pluribus Unum
do support
not writing it off
What is absurd is your statement.
...some lowly federal prosecutor bringing charges against a sitting President...
This is a private citizen bringing charges, not a federal prosecutor, lowly or otherwise.
...700 federal district courts around the country...
First, private citizens cannot indict or formally file charges under federal law. They can file reports or complaints with a U.S. attorneys office, but it is up to a prosecutor as to whether or not to actually bring federal charges. So to the extent they are trying to act as some kind of private criminal prosecutors, they lose right there at the outset.
As for your argument about the number of federal districts...this is why I hate debating with non-laeters because most of them have no idea what they're talking about when it comes to legal process, courts, etc..
There are 94 federal districts, but the vast majority of those have multiple judges and multiple courtrooms. In fact, maybe there is some weird district that has only one, but if so, I don't know where it is. So yes, there are over nearly 700 actual federal judges who preside over their own court, and you only need one to get a conviction and, under your theory, remove a President from office.
They used the Court's own Rule 11 to bypass the 10th Circuit who had been sitting on the case for months.
The Petition was not accepted and docketed at Scotus until after the 10th Circuit issued its Opinion on October 6, 2022.
https://www.supremecourt.gov/ctrules/2019RulesoftheCourt.pdf
Rule 11. Certiorari to a United States Court of Appeals Before JudgmentA petition for a writ of certiorari to review a case pending in a United States court of appeals, before judgment is entered in that court, will be granted only upon a showing that the case is of such imperative public importance as to justify deviation from normal appellate practice and to require immediate determination in this Court. See 28 U. S. C. § 2101(e).
Brunson v. Adams, S Ct 22-380
The Petition for Writ of Cert was filed October 20, 2024.
It was received by the Office of the Clerk October 24, 2022.
https://www.ca10.uscourts.gov/sites/ca10/files/opinions/010110749788.pdf
Brunson v. Adams, et al., No. 22-4007 (10th Cir. 10/6/2022)At 18-19:
ORDER AND JUDGMENT*
Before TYMKOVICH, BALDOCK and CARSON, Circuit Judges.
Raland Brunson appeals the district court’s dismissal of his action for lack of jurisdiction. Exercising jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, we affirm.
Defendants removed the case to federal district court and filed a motion to dismiss under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) (lack of jurisdiction) and 12(b)(6) (failure to state a claim). Mr. Brunson filed an opposition to the motion to dismiss. A magistrate judge issued a report and recommendation (Recommendation) that the action be dismissed for two independent reasons: (1) Mr. Brunson lacked constitutional standing because his claimed injury was not concrete and personal to him but only the same as any citizen, and (2) Eleventh Amendment sovereign immunity barred the claims against the defendants, who were sued in their official capacity only, and Mr. Brunson failed to identify any statute or other express provision that unequivocally waives that immunity for his claims.
At 19-20:
Mr. Brunson filed a timely objection to the Recommendation, arguing only that the magistrate judge did not address the arguments in his opposition to the motion to dismiss and thereby deprived him of due process. The district court overruled the objection, concluding there was no authority for Mr. Brunson’s proposition “that a reviewing court must specifically address arguments made in brief,” and finding he “was afforded procedural due process by receiving notice of the motion to dismiss and having a reasonable opportunity to respond to it.” R. at 510. Because Mr. Brunson did not assert any objections to the magistrate judge’s conclusions that he lacked standing or that the defendants were entitled to sovereign immunity, the district court determined he had “waived any objections to [those] conclusions.” Id. The court then adopted the Recommendation in full, dismissed the action without prejudice for lack of jurisdiction, and entered a separate judgment. This appeal followed.
At 23:
Essentially, he contends that because he alleged the defendants acted fraudulently, and because “‘fraud vitiates whatever it touches,’” Aplt. Opening Br. at 5 (quoting Est. of Stonecipher v. Est. of Butts, 591 S.W.2d 806, 809 (Tex. 1979)), he has an “unfettered right to sue the Defendants,” id. at 2, and any federal law or case law is inapplicable if it “support[s] treason, acts of war or the violation of Brunson’s inherent unalienable (God-given) rights,” id. at 8. But none of his supporting authorities suggests that allegations of fraud, acts of war, or the violation of allegedly “inherent unalienable (God-given) rights,” id., relieve a plaintiff from demonstrating Article III standing.
At 24:
III. Conclusion
The district court’s judgment is affirmed.
Entered for the Court
Bobby R. Baldock
Circuit Judge
The Constitution grants Congress the power to enact laws.
Congress enacted 18 U.S. Code § 2381.
Note the first word...Whoever. No limitations.
The Court would merely be upholding laws passed by Congress itself.
It isn't my, nor the Court's fault, that Congress enacted their own demise.
Hoisted on their own petard.
NOW, it's...700 actual federal judges...
This suit could erase the sovereign immunity of federal elected officials.
Not without repealing part of the Constittion.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/articlei#section6
U.S. Const., Art. 1, Sec. 6
The Senators and Representatives shall receive a compensation for their services, to be ascertained by law, and paid out of the treasury of the United States. They shall in all cases, except treason, felony and breach of the peace, be privileged from arrest during their attendance at the session of their respective Houses, and in going to and returning from the same; and for any speech or debate in either House, they shall not be questioned in any other place.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/articleiii#section3
Article 3, Sec. 3:
Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort. No person shall be convicted of treason unless on the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act, or on confession in open court.
For treason, real wartime enemies are required along with a real war.
Only fools believe treason happens only during war and not during even relative peace.
Treason leads TO war, not from it.
JMO, YMMV
US Code provides that the House shall investigate violations of oath of office and convict, possibly 5USC 7311 by House member(s).
The persons listed in the SCOTUS petition would then be barred from being part of the investigations.
Penalties for conviction are given in 18USC 1918.
If all in the petition were convicted, the House would be just 100+ members until state remedies applied.
With a new Speaker then selected, could just 100 House members impeach a POTUS & VP?
Ping
This is a private citizen bringing charges, not a federal prosecutor, lowly or otherwise.
Private citizens do not bring criminal charges. Were it a criminal case, the caption would be United States v. or The People of the State of [blank] v., or The State of [blank] v..
The origin case number was 1:21-CV-00111-JNP. It is a civil suit for damages, not a criminal action which can only be brought by a government prosecutor.
I should have just left it at a private citizen was bringing the case.
That’s incorrect. The Waiver is the normal action taken by the Solicitor General’s office on any Petition they believe doesn’t meet minimal requirements of being before the Supreme court. If at least 1 of the 9 Justices believes that the Petition is worthy of having a discussion, then the Clerk will call for a Response. Now that hasn’t happened with this Petition.
The Certiorari hearing is on January 6th. Do you think maybe the court picked that day for a reason?
It will take just 4 votes to get all of the records moved up.
Thomas Alito Gorsuch Kavanaugh and or Barrett without Roberts.
The USSC has already taken the case.
It is a review of whether or not the NSA report was strong enough to mandate a Congressional investigation before certifying Joey and Giggles.
Brunson v. Adams could force 191 House members and 94 Senators to vacate their office because they failed to defend our Constitution against a foreign enemy - in this case Chinas. China clearly interfered in the 2020 election. The questions raised in the Ratcliffe report, which was requested by the House, center on whether there was enough interference to change the outcome of the election.
Half of Ratcliffe’s analysts said yes and half said no.
Nevertheless, Brunson contends that the fact that half said yes was enough to mandate an investigation as a threat to National Security. The question of a possible threat to National Security enabled the four Brunson brothers to avoid having their suit thrown out in the 10th Circuit.
The real world possible out comes could be the Court dismisses the case - possible of course but not likely since they could have done that already and NO ONE who object.
They can find that Brunson’s evidence of dereliction of duty to defend our Constitution has been established and the individuals that blindly voted to certify Joey and Giggle did in fact violate their oath of office.
In the latter event the court could use a non pro tunc order - remember they are THE USSC and can do whatever they want.
The non pro tunc which literally means “now for then” could allow a new polling of those that blindly voted to certify Joey and Giggles and have them vote again. Knowing what has now been pulled out in the open about the trashing of the Ratcliffe report many would change their vote - but would enough do so?
If a new vote is held and it is against certification Joey and Giggles would be removed from office and the as yet unknown Republican Speaker of the House would become POTUS.
Thanks for the excellent analysis.
Well, I disagree with you also, for the same reasons I stated before, but notice I made no prediction of the outcome, because I can’t be sure of the outcome. But I will stipulate the odds are most likely not in my favor. But I do believe in miracles.
Does the Supreme Court routinely contact plaintiffs by phone and coach and encourage to expidite filing to make deadline ASAP???
Listen to (search) interview Sarah Westall Brunson
However, courts do go out of their way to accommodate pro se cases.
In this case the Supreme Court denied their Petition.
https://www.supremecourt.gov/search.aspx?filename=/docket/docketfiles/html/public/22-380.html
Jan 09 2023 Petition DENIED.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.