Brunson Brothers Make History - The FULL Story

The KUWL Report | Substack ^ | William Quinn & Robert Cunningham

[RobaWho]

Why is the “secret” Brunson v Adams lawsuit officially scheduled for a US Supreme Court Hearing being met with defeating silence from America’s so-called media elite?

This Civil Lawsuit was proactively hand-selected by the US Supreme Court in October of 2022, was written and filed by a band of brothers (an actual band of trumpet playing brothers) without attorney representation, and seeks the most historic and consequential judicial remedy in American history. Why no coverage?

This video explores the WHY Questions that aren’t being asked - but should be. The links below provide factual “receipts” available for all to see - including America’s biased media.

Imbedded video & extensive linking available at link.

[Dr. Franklin]

My response: Then where is the Clerk’s “Call for Response”? Without that the only discussion that’ll take place about this Petition at the Conference will be to have it and the rest of the ones in the Dead Listed pile sent back to the Clerk’s office to be officially DENIED. I’m not saying that you are incorrect. I am not making any claims on anything about the merits of this Petition. I’m just pointing out that if you don’t have any evidence of at least a “Call for Response” by now then its obviously Dead Listed.

The way SCOTUS handles petitions for certiorari is that they discuss them on conference days IF one of them lists the case for conference. No clerk does that. At conference, the nine Justices sit in a room at conference table with no clerks present. The junior Justice must sit at the door in case a clerk knocks with an urgent matter to answer the door. At conference after discussion they vote on which cases to hear, or they may delay the final vote with a call for a response from a respondent to hear the other side of the argument. In that case, the vote is postponed until after a subsequent conference. Four justices must vote to hear the case for the writ of certiorari to issue. That is the procedure.

[philman_36]

Here comes Fury to save the DAY!

[Fury]

LOL!

[philman_36]

I am trying to educate you.

Says the person who didn't even know, and had to be shown the 10th Circuit had ruled.

Don't talk down to me!

[philman_36]

The remedy they allude to is not within the purview of SCOTUS.

18 U.S.C. United States Code, 2011 Edition
Title 18 - CRIMES AND CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
PART I - CRIMES
CHAPTER 93 - PUBLIC OFFICERS AND EMPLOYEES
Sec. 1918 - Disloyalty and asserting the right to strike against the Government
...an individual may not accept or hold a position in the Government of the United States or the government of the District of Columbia...

18 U.S.C.
United States Code, 2011 Edition
Title 18 - CRIMES AND CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
PART I - CRIMES
CHAPTER 115 - TREASON, SEDITION, AND SUBVERSIVE ACTIVITIES
§2381. Treason

...and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States...
There seems to be a recurring theme.

Doesn't the SC have the ability to render the remedy?

[philman_36]

Those laws are there for a reason, not for no reason.

[philman_36]

The beauty in this is that the Court can be lenient and just hit them with disloyalty instead of treason and still effect the removal from office.

There is remedy and in varying degrees.

[philman_36]

How is your day going?

[Fury]

The President can only be removed from office via conviction in an Impeachment trial.

[Fury]

Re: 108 - well, long day. Did some network qualifications for an upcoming project. Blocked a few websites that rudely throw up pop-up windows with ads.

And you?

[Dr. Franklin]

Don't talk down to me!

Lighten Up, Francis

[philman_36]

Let me show you something else...
In Sec. 1918 it mentions 7311 of title 5
§7311. Loyalty and striking
§1918. Disloyalty and asserting the right to strike against the Government

[philman_36]

The President can only be removed from office via conviction in an Impeachment trial.

Show me, don't tell me.

[philman_36]

You know what happened.

[Mr. Jeeves]

The case asks that all those who failed to protect the Country be immediately removed from office and barred from holding future public office for the remainder of their lives.

Say by some miracle the Court grants this. Do you think any of those people are going to leave?

[Fury]

https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/CDOC-110hdoc50/pdf/CDOC-110hdoc50.pdf

[philman_36]

You have nothing. Not even a single specific Clause. Got it.

[MayflowerMadam]

“This should have been addressed in Texas v. Pennsylvani but wasn’t. Now we are grasping at straws that SCOTUS will finally address the matter “

Yes. I can’t believe they declined to hear it, and act on it. If they had, we might not be in the current mess.

[philman_36]

How about...ARTICLE III SECTION 1.
The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour, and shall, at stated Times, receive for their Services, a Compensation, which shall not be diminished during their Continuance in Office.

And SECTION 2
The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority...

The USC embodies the laws of the United States and if they don't contradict the Constitution they're valid and the Supreme Court has the POWER to remove someone from office CONSTITUTIONALLY through legislation Congress itself passed.

[philman_36]

Now we are grasping at straws...

Yes.

In life it is better to have a straw than no straw.
(especially for malts)

Pardon my optimism.