Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Brunson v. Alma S. Adams; et al., (Biden, Harris, Pence & 385 Members of Congress) [on USSC docket 1/6/2023] (Defendants can be permanently removed from office, and not allowed to hold a public office again.)

Posted on 12/22/2022 5:25:40 PM PST by E. Pluribus Unum


Because the USSC wanted this case, it bypassed the lower courts. The filing attorney believes that the date January 6th was chosen as a signal of what the result is going to be.




TOPICS: Conspiracy; Government; Politics
KEYWORDS: bs; childish; conspiracy; foolishness; forgetit; grifters; ignorance; no; nonsense; notgoingtohappen; nutjob; playpretend; psychotic; qtardism
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-8081-82 next last
To: philman_36

do support


61 posted on 12/22/2022 9:11:22 PM PST by one guy in new jersey
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 55 | View Replies]

To: philman_36

not writing it off


62 posted on 12/22/2022 9:11:52 PM PST by one guy in new jersey
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 56 | View Replies]

To: Bruce Campbells Chin
The idea that you could just bypass the entire Constitutionally-mandated impeachment procedure simply by some lowly federal prosecutor bringing charges against a sitting President, and then having him convicted in any one of nearly 700 federal district courts around the country, is absolutely absurd.

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...

Court Role and Structure

The Supreme Court is the highest court in the United States. Article III of the U.S. Constitution created the Supreme Court and authorized Congress to pass laws establishing a system of lower courts. In the federal court system’s present form, 94 district level trial courts and 13 courts of appeals sit below the Supreme Court.
63 posted on 12/22/2022 9:18:01 PM PST by philman_36 (Pride breakfasted with plenty, dined with poverty and supped with infamy. Benjamin Franklin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 59 | View Replies]

To: philman_36
This is a private citizen bringing charges, not a federal prosecutor, lowly or otherwise.

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.

64 posted on 12/22/2022 9:30:46 PM PST by Bruce Campbells Chin ( )
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 63 | View Replies]

To: philman_36; marktwain
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 Judgment

A 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

https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/22/22-380/243739/20221027152243533_20221027-152110-95757954-00007015.pdf

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


65 posted on 12/22/2022 9:41:15 PM PST by woodpusher
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: Bruce Campbells Chin
Nothing in the Constitution gave the courts the power to make that determination.

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.

66 posted on 12/22/2022 9:41:19 PM PST by philman_36 (Pride breakfasted with plenty, dined with poverty and supped with infamy. Benjamin Franklin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 59 | View Replies]

To: Bruce Campbells Chin
First it was...700 federal district courts...

NOW, it's...700 actual federal judges...

67 posted on 12/22/2022 9:43:55 PM PST by philman_36 (Pride breakfasted with plenty, dined with poverty and supped with infamy. Benjamin Franklin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 64 | View Replies]

To: E. Pluribus Unum; Lockbox
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.

68 posted on 12/22/2022 9:43:58 PM PST by woodpusher
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: woodpusher
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

69 posted on 12/22/2022 9:57:18 PM PST by philman_36 (Pride breakfasted with plenty, dined with poverty and supped with infamy. Benjamin Franklin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 68 | View Replies]

To: Bruce Campbells Chin
What I would look forward to is SCOTUS striking down Title 28 (immunity for treason).

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?

70 posted on 12/22/2022 9:57:32 PM PST by Deaf Smith (When a Texan takes his chances, chances will be taken that's for sure.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 59 | View Replies]

To: Taxman

Ping


71 posted on 12/22/2022 10:03:45 PM PST by Taxman (SAVE AMERICA! VOTE REPUBLICAN IN 2023 AND 2024!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: philman_36; Bruce Campbells Chin
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.

72 posted on 12/22/2022 10:25:40 PM PST by woodpusher
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 63 | View Replies]

To: woodpusher
Pardon me. I was riffing the other poster. I'm aware it is a civil case.

I should have just left it at a private citizen was bringing the case.

73 posted on 12/23/2022 12:17:32 AM PST by philman_36 (Pride breakfasted with plenty, dined with poverty and supped with infamy. Benjamin Franklin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 72 | View Replies]

To: philman_36

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.


74 posted on 12/23/2022 1:33:27 AM PST by Degaston (no autocrats please)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: E. Pluribus Unum

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.


75 posted on 12/23/2022 4:04:44 AM PST by jmaroneps37 (Freedom is never free. It must be won rewon and jealously guarded.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jmaroneps37

Thanks for the excellent analysis.


76 posted on 12/23/2022 6:14:45 AM PST by E. Pluribus Unum (The worst thing about censorship is ████ █ ██████ ███████ ███ ██████ ██ ████████.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 75 | View Replies]

To: Bruce Campbells Chin

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.


77 posted on 12/23/2022 9:17:45 AM PST by Robert DeLong
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: marktwain

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


78 posted on 12/28/2022 6:17:11 AM PST by rick400tec (Please write or call your Senators and Representatives)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: rick400tec
I do not know.

However, courts do go out of their way to accommodate pro se cases.

79 posted on 12/28/2022 2:23:45 PM PST by marktwain
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 78 | View Replies]

To: marktwain

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.


80 posted on 01/10/2023 4:35:02 AM PST by Degaston (no autocrats please)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 79 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-8081-82 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson