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]

There are no Justices with the courage to make a ruling in their favor.
And certainly not 5 of them.

Justice Alito had ordered a stay in Pennsylvania in 2020 and IIRC, he had the support of Thomas and Gorsuch, but our darling Amy girl wouldn't commit to hearing that case. IMHO, the justices didn't want a repeat of the 2000 election in which the court decided the election in favor of Bush. That damaged the court's reputation with many, as it was viewed as a political decision. What is intriguing about this case is that it allows the court to criticize Congresscritters for not investigating the election returns before certifying them, without themselves adjudging the facts of the 2020 election themselves. All they need show is that there were serious issues raised, but they were never investigated by those under oath to investigate them.

Personally, it appears to me that the venue is wrong, and this case should have been brought in D.C. due to jurisdictional issues, and it resembles a quo warranto action in some regards. The Justices might order the case transferred to the U.S. District Court in D.C. for further proceedings. We will know more after the results of the SCOTUS conference Jan. 6, 2023.

[Dr. Franklin]

The Court declines to hear over 98% of Petitions for Writ of Certiorari filed before it. This will be among them.

The odds go up if the case is selected for discussion at conference, which this case was.

[Dr. Franklin]

Where is the Constitutional and legal requirements for the pause and said investigations????

The Guarantee Clause, Article IV, Section 4.
"The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government"

[philman_36]

The irony...

Where in the Constitution can I find this “requirement to investigate”?

Senators File Ethics Committee Complaint Regarding Colleagues’ Role in Jan. 6 Insurrection
When Senators Ted Cruz and Josh Hawley announced they would object to the counting of state-certified electors on January 6, 2021, they amplified claims of election fraud that had resulted in threats of violence against state and local officials around the country.

The question the Senate must answer is not whether Senators Hawley and Cruz had the right to the object to the electors, but whether the senators failed to “[p]ut loyalty to the highest moral principles and to country above loyalty to persons, party, or Government department”[4] or engaged in “improper conduct reflecting on the Senate”[5] in connection with the violence on January 6. The Senate Ethics Committee should investigate their conduct to fully understand their role. The actions of which we know demand an investigation and a determination whether disciplinary action is warranted. Until then, a cloud of uncertainty will hang over them and over this body.

It may not answer your question, but damn, it'll make ya think.

[philman_36]

All they need show is that there were serious issues raised, but they were never investigated by those under oath to investigate them.

How about an ethics complaint? See above.

[Jim Noble]

That damaged the court's reputation with many, as it was viewed as a political decision

Hearing the case was the problem. A gross usurpation of the powers of the Florida Legislature, without even a shred of a Federal Constitutional issue.

[philman_36]

You know what I find interesting in that diatribe?
Their loyalty to their Oath and their loyalty to the Constitution are never brought into question, even by those seven people filing the complaint.

[Dr. Franklin]

Hearing the case was the problem. A gross usurpation of the powers of the Florida Legislature, without even a shred of a Federal Constitutional issue

SCOTUS put a veneer of respectability to W. Bush's presidency because the Florida legislature was going to vote those electors for Bush if vote counting continued in South Florida. In 2020, despite the obvious fraud, no Republican controlled legislature even came close to voting the electors themselves. Comparing the two elections, it is obvious that the Bush family was favored while Trump was not.

[Dr. Franklin]

How about an ethics complaint? See above.

Failing to perform the duties of an oath of office is more serious than a breach of ethics. A court could rule that failing to perform one's oath of office to investigate foreign meddling and digital hacking of our elections is disqualifying to hold federal office. An ethical violation doesn't go that far.

[philman_36]

Where in the Constitution can I find this “requirement to investigate”?

Here ya go, Jim. Congressional Record WASHINGTON, WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 6, 2021

Just use the Find/Search function with "investigat"...just that, no "e", no "i"...and see just how many times that comes up.

For more irony, find/search "oath" and then scroll up to the previous page, the right hand column for who was speaking.

[philman_36]

Failing to perform the duties of an oath of office is more serious than a breach of ethics.
Don't be condescending like I was some ignorant boob.
I was replying to this...

All they need show is that there were serious issues raised...
The complaint gives further evidence that issues were raised.

No matter. The Congressional Record link above lets anybody read the play by play.

[Dr. Franklin]

The complaint gives further evidence that issues were raised.
No matter. The Congressional Record link above lets anybody read the play by play.

The issue of hacking the online election counting was raised, but never investigated.

[philman_36]

Mr. JOHNSON of Louisiana. (in part) Mr. RASKIN and others today have cited the 12th Amendment, and they cite Article II, Section 1, Clause 3—re- member that, Clause 3. And they have asserted that Congress has only one narrow role today; we are just supposed to count the electoral votes that have been submitted. But those advocates have overlooked a critical first prin- ciple.
Their assertion is only true so long as Congress first is convinced that the electoral votes were not produced by a process that violated the Constitution is there. We have to get through Clause 2 of Article II, Section 1, before we get to Clause 3 is the point.

[philman_36]

... but never investigated.

And here we are because nothing was investigated.

[Dr. Franklin]

Thus, having not take the time out to investigate further the allegation of foreign interference of an election, especially one that involves the presidency, is a clear violation of the oath administered to support this Constitution. For nothing is a more serious threat to this nation than a foreign actor interfering with the election of the highest office holder in the nation.

This appears to be the argument that some at SCOTUS want to address. I just think the action needed to have been brought in the D.C. District Court for proper venue and jurisdiction. D. C. was the "scene of the crime", and all present that day can reasonably expect to answer for that act in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. I will volunteer to be the lead plaintiff if a D.C. attorney wants to file that case. Once filed, the clerk at SCOTUS should be notified of its potential jurisdiction in a second case.

Any takers?

[philman_36]

I just think the action needed to have been brought in the D.C. District Court for proper venue and jurisdiction.
Too late. So sad.

Due to the fact that this case represents a national security breach on a unprecedented level like never before seen...
Rule 11 to the rescue.

RULES OF THE Supreme Court of the United States
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).

And the sheep graze quietly on...

[philman_36]

As Mr. Brunson points out...if the 10th Circuit had moved on his case
instead of sitting on it, Rule 11 would have never applied.

[philman_36]

Ping to 56.

[Dr. Franklin]

As Mr. Brunson points out...if the 10th Circuit had moved on his case instead of sitting on it, Rule 11 would have never applied.

SCOTUS can exercise supervisory control over the lower courts through the prerogative writs. Rule 11 is just one example of that power. The problem is that SCOTUS is not acting like this case is any kind of emergency. From that I conclude that at present, there aren't four justices who want to hear this case. So, it is going to conference based upon the support of one to three of them hoping to get to four.

[JoeVortex]

This video is almost 38 minutes long. If you don’t want to sit through the whole thing, you only need to listen to the first 4 minutes to get the implications of the case.

My two cents is this is so monumental that SOCTUS will find some technicality to duck the issue.