One thing to think about is that the US Solicitor General waived its right to even make a response to the request for certification... that’s how seriously the government is taking this petition.
HomeAnalysisCould Brothers From Ogden, Utah Have Found A Way To FIX The 2020 Election?
Analysis
Could Brothers From Ogden, Utah Have Found A Way To FIX The 2020 Election?
by Robert Cunningham & William QuinnNovember 28, 2022827443
SHARE42
Brunson v. Adams was filed out of Ogden Utah. The case has been accepted for review by the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS.)
What is this case about? How does it concern me?
Image by Anthony Quintano
Please Follow us on Gab, Minds, Telegram, Rumble, Gab TV, GETTR, Truth Social
Following the 2020 election, certain legislators, Senators and others brought forward evidence and claims suggesting there was some sort of malfeasance during the 2020 election.
Once these claims and evidence were brought forward following the election, Congress was required to pause in order to investigate and ascertain the validity of these concerns. Among other things, this pause would have delayed the January 6th vote by Congress to certify the Electors and thus confirm the results of the election and next President of the United States.
Mike Pence and members of Congress voted NOT to pause nor did they implement an investigation surrounding these claims. Congress proceeded to confirm the Electors and their votes and name Joe Biden as newly elected President.
The case asserts that by failing to fulfill the requirement to investigate, all those who refused to investigate failed to fulfill their Oaths to protect the Country and Constitution. Failure to protect the Country is tantamount to committing treason. Consequently, these officials are open to investigation on such charges and if found guilty they could face the associated penalties.
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. This would potentially include the President, Vice President and more than 380 members of Congress. Were this to be granted it could be followed by further investigation into their actions which could lead to criminal proceedings.
This case is full of miracles. I pray the miracles continue. 🙂
And certainly not 5 of them.
BFL
I have no idea what "proactively hand-selected" is supposed to mean here. All that has happened is that the petitioners have submitted a petition for certiorari and the Clerk of the Supreme Court has filed it . . . as the Clerk pretty much does on a pro forma basis with any petition so submitted. The petition is scheduled to go to Conference on Friday, January 6, 2023.
I'm going to go way out on a limb here and predict that, thereafter, when the Court next issues Order -- which could be as soon as Monday, January 9 -- this petition will have been denied.
There is nothing to see here . . . except, perhaps, a silly grift by some rightwing nut jobs.
here we go...
Note this irony - I checked the Court’s conference calendar yesterday and the Brunson case is set down for conferencing - get ready - for January 6, 2023.
The Court declines to hear over 98% of Petitions for Writ of Certiorari filed before it. This will be among them.
bump for later
BTTT
BTTT
BTTT
BTTT
BTTT
BTTT
Can anyone provide links to any Supreme Court dockets where there was a “call for response” made on case more than 12 days after a “DISTRIBUTED for Conference” result within a week from a “Waiver of right of respondent” filing and then that case resulted in oral arguments before the Supreme Court?
Short answer: This petition of the Brunsons is almost certainly “dead listed” and will be automatically in the DENY pile at this scheduled Conference session. It’s impossible for anyone to advocate with any credibility that this petition is going anywhere (except DENIAL) if they don’t provide these links.
This petition filing was submitted, response waived, put in the “dead listed” right away after the cert pool review, and no indication that there has been any “call for response” that could possibly put it on the “discuss list” where cases still have less than a 10% chance of getting approved for court review. It’s been almost 2 weeks now since it got added to the “Distributed for Conference” list and still no “call for response”.
“The Government hereby waives its right to file a response to the petition in this case, unless requested to do so by the Court.”
https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/22/22-380/247457/20221123155305329_Waiver%20Letter%20-%2022-0380.pdf
Nov 23 2022 Waiver of right of respondent United States to respond filed.
Nov 30 2022 DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 1/6/2023.
https://www.supremecourt.gov/search.aspx?filename=/docket/docketfiles/html/public/22-380.html
Any case not appearing on the discuss list is “dead listed” for denial without a conference vote. Only 15 percent to 30 percent of circulated petitions appear on the discuss list .... the Court does not include any petition on the “discuss list” until a response has been filed Thus, if the [any justice] believes that, despite a waiver of a brief in opposition, the petition should be included on a discuss list for a conference vote, he or she will ask the Clerk to “call for a response.”
A kook petition.
The remedy they allude to is not within the purview of SCOTUS.
They must have missed the day they talked about law school on a TV law drama.
BTTT