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.)

[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.

---

Brunson v. Alma S. Adams; et al.,
(Biden, Harris, Pence & 385 Members of Congress)

Currently, there are two lawsuits identical to each other.
The first One, filed by Loy Brunson is still held up in the Utah Federal Court.
The second one, filed by Raland J. Brunson has made it to the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS),
Docket #22-380, where 9 Justices in conference will vote (only 4 needed) to move to a hearing.

THE LAWSUIT
Both lawsuits include defendants Pres. Biden, Harris, former V.P. Pence and 385 members of congress for breaking their oath of office by voting AGAINST the proposition (that came from members of congress) to investigate the claims that there were enemies of the constitution who successfully rigged the election.

BOTH LAWSUITS ARE ABOUT THE DEFENDANTS BREAKING THEIR OATH OF OFFICE
"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic..."

THE QUESTION
How can you support, and defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign, and domestic? Answer: You investigate. If there are claims that there is a threat, even if you don't believe there is a threat, you investigate. How else can you determine if there is a threat unless you investigate? You can't. Were there claims of a threat to the Constitution? Yes. Where did these serious claims come from? 100 members of Congress. What was the threat? That there were enemies of the Constitution who successfully rigged the 2020 election. Is this lawsuit about a rigged election? No, it's about the members of Congress who voted AGAINST the investigation thereby thwarting the investigation. Was this a clear violation of their oath? YES.

THE RELIEF THAT LOY AND RALAND ARE SEEKING
That defendants be permanantly removed from office, and not allowed to hold a public office again.

BACKGROUND

Loy, Raland, Deron and Gaynor Brunson (the brothers) witnessed the 2020 election along with claims from members of congress that the election was rigged. What got their attention was when the proposition to investigate those claims was presented to Congress and put to a vote. What came as a shock to the four brothers is when they discovered that 387 members of Congress along with VP Mike Pence actually voted against the proposed investigation, thus thwarting the investigation. Whether the election was rigged or not was no longer their main concern. What now became the concern was when those members of Congress violated their sworn oath by voting to thwart the investigation.

The brothers wanted to do something about this. Their brother Deron had quite a lot of experience in the legal field, which started out when he began suing banks in an attempt to show the corruption in that part of the financial world, so he had enough knowledge to file a lawsuit against the now current 385 members of Congress along with VP Mike Pence, Joe Biden, and Kamala Harris. He already had experience with the SCOTUS by bringing two petitions to them, both of which were denied, but this experience gave him enough success along the way to give him the confidence that maybe, just maybe, he might be able to do something about this thwarted investigation.

Their brother Gaynor was heavily occupied with his audio/video television business (Rock Canyon Studios) so Deron got together with his other two brothers to plan out the strategy. They decided to have their oldest brother Loy to be the name on the lawsuit, which is called a "Complaint" and because he would be on the Complaint, the Court would refer to him as the Plaintiff. The 388 people being sued will now be called Defendants. Loy filed the complaint, which eventually got stuck in the Federal Court, so they got together and decided to have their brother Raland file the identical lawsuit with his name on it, in the Utah 2nd District Court. While Loy's lawsuit continued to be held hostage in the Federal Court, Raland's lawsuit eventually made it to the SCOTUS. Here are the events of both lawsuits:

EVENTS
(To be updated when a new event occurs)

LOY BRUNSON March 23, 2021 The Complaint (Loy files the complaint in the Utah Federal Court) March 29, 2021 1st Amended Complaint (The brothers make changes, and Loy files the 1st Amended complaint in the Utah Federal Court) March 31, 2021 1st Amended Complaint Served (The Clerk of the Court had the U.S. Marshalls serve the 1st Amended Complaint on 85 defendants, including Nancy Pelosi and Maxine Waters before being stopped by the Court, claiming it was a "clerical error by the Deputy Clerk".) Judge Romero asks Loy to Amend the Complaint, along with instructions on how to make it better. April 6, 2021 2nd Amended Complaint (Loy Brunson (following Judge Romero's instructions) files his 2nd Amended Complaint in Utah Federal Court.) April 20, 2021 3rd Amended Complaint (The brothers make changes, and Loy submits the 3rd Amended complaint for it to be filed in the Utah Federal Court) JUDGE ROMERO (WHO KINDLY GAVE LOY INSTRUCTIONS ON HOW TO MAKE THE COMPLAINT BETTER) IS NOW REPLACED WITH A DIFFERENT JUDGE, AND WITHOUT AN EXPLANATION, THE NEW JUDGE HOLDS OFF ON FILING THE 3RD AMENDED COMPLAINT. THE BROTHERS DECIDE TO GO TO THE HIGHER COURT ABOUT IT. June 1, 2021 Writ of Mandamus to the Court of Appeals (10th Circuit) (Loy files a pleading to have the 10th Circuit compel the Federal Court to file Loy's 3rd Amended Complaint) THE TENTH CIRCUIT DENIES THE PLEADING (explaining that the Federal Court will eventually get to it when they can.) June 20, 2021 1st Motion to Reconsider (Loy files a motion reminding them that the Federal Court accepted his filing fee, but won't file his 3rd Amended Complaint, asking the 10th Circuit to reconsider, quoting the rule that the Federal Court must administer "without denial or unecessary delay") THE TENTH CIRCUIT ONCE AGAIN DENIES THE PLEADING (explaining once again that the Federal Court will eventually get to it when they can.) THE BROTHERS DECIDE TO SUE THE FEDERAL COURT AS WELL AS THE 10TH CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS, ASKING THEM TO EITHER RETURN LOY'S FILING FEE, OR FILE HIS 3RD AMENDED COMPLAINT. August 10, 2021 Lawsuit against the two Federal Courts Filed. (Loy v. Utah Federal Court & the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals) (Loy goes to the Utah 4th District Court and files the lawsuit against the two Federal Courts. Even though the U.S. Attorneys explain to the Court that it cannot judge a case against the Federal Courts, Judge Low accepts the filing fee and judges the case anyway.) BY MOTIONS FROM THE U.S. ATTORNEYS, THE 4th DISTRICT COURT DISMISSES LOY'S COMPLAINT THAT WAS AGAINST THE TWO FEDERAL COURTS (explaining that the Federal Court will get to filing his 3rd Amended Complaint when they can.) THE BROTHERS MAKE FOUR MORE ATTEMPTS TO HAVE THE DISTRICT COURT COMPEL THE TWO FEDERAL COURTS TO FILE LOY'S 3RD AMENDED COMPLAINT. ALL ATTEMPTS DENIED WITH THE SAME EXPLANATION November 3, 2021 3rd Amended Complaint Filed! (After 7 months, and for reasons not explained, the Federal court files Loy's 3rd Amended Complaint and back dates it to April 20, 2021) December 30, 2021 4th Amended Complaint (The brothers make changes and Loy submits the 4th Amended complaint to be filed in the Utah Federal Court. The Court waits until March 28, 2022 to finally file it.) April 22, 2022 The Summons (The court issues the summons for the 388 defendants. The Clerk of the Court contacts Loy and let's him know that he can pick up the box filled with the Summons for the 388 defendants that have been stamped with the seal of the court. The brothers can now serve all 388 defendants with the summons and complaint.) April 26, 2022 Serving the lawsuit on all 388 defendants (The brothers along with their friend Duane Bingham stuffs envelopes with a copy of the complaint along with the summons for the 388 defendants. The brothers are using the U.S. Postal Service to act as process servers to all defendants. The 388 packets were delivered to the post office staff who were waiting to process the service.) The defendants have 60 days to answer the complaint. July 1, 2022 U.S. Attorneys Motion To Dismiss (The U.S. Attorneys file a motion to dismiss Loy's lawsuit on the grounds that defendants are protected under Title 28 which gives defendents Soveriegn Immunity from any lawsuits relating to actions of treason while serving in the capacity of their office. The U.S. Attorneys also file a notice of appearance in behalf of all the defendants, making them the official attorneys on record, instead of representing them "specially". ) July 6, 2022 Opposition to Motion To Dismiss (The brothers prepare the opposition to the Attorneys' attempt to dismiss the the lawsuit, and Loy files it in the Utah Federal Court. the brothers are still waiting to this day for the court to make a decision.)

RALAND J. BRUNSON June 21, 2021 The Complaint (The brothers take a copy of Loy's 4th Amended Complaint, puts Raland's name in the place of Loy. Raland files the complaint in the Utah 2nd District Court.) July 25, 2021 3 Defendants Served (The brothers acquire from the Court the Summons for Joe Biden, Kamala Harris, Nancy Pelosi, and Raland uses the Post Office as process servers. Defendants have until August 23rd to answer the complaint.) August 5, 2021 Lawsuit moved from State Court to Federal Court (The U.S. Attorneys catch wind of the lawsuit, step in acting in behalf of the United States (not the defendants) and moves the case to the Federal Court.) August 5, 2021 Motion to Dismiss (The U.S. Attorneys, acting in behalf of the United States (not the defendants) file a motion to dismiss Raland's lawsuit.) December 13, 2021 Opposition to Motion to Dismiss (After a battle regarding what court has proper jurisdiction, and after another change in who will judge it, the brothers prepare a motion opposing the Attorneys' attempt to dismiss Raland's lawsuit.) February 2, 2022 Dismiss Granted (Judge Hill Parrish dismisses Raland's lawsuit, claiming that the defendants have Sovereign Immunity which is designed to protect them from having to account for aiding the enemies of the Constitution because it was done while acting in the capacity of their office.) February 14, 2022 Raland Files an Appeal to the 10th Circuit (The brothers decide to appeal Raland's dismissal.) August 14, 2022 The Supreme Court of the United States (The brothers realize that they no longer have to wait for a decision from the 10th Circuit of Appeals. The Rule 11 enables them to bypass the 10th Circuit and go straight to the SCOTUS. Their brother Deron spent the past week crafting a perfectly well written petition for writ of certiorari. On this day Deron had his two brothers Loy and Raland fine tune it in preparation for the SCOTUS and the proper format for the printers.) September 23, 2022 Petition for Writ of Certiorari Received (The SCOTUS received the petition along with the copies for the Justices.) September 28, 2022 A phone call from SCOTUS (The Clerk of the SCOTUS calls Raland requesting for a revision of the Petition that would include more information on the lawsuit and wondering how soon they could get it.) October 17, 2022 2nd phone call from SCOTUS (The Clerk of the SCOTUS calls Raland again. She asks "how are you doing on your revision of the Writ with the additional information that we need?" Raland said "We're working on it as we speak!" She said "how soon can we get it?" Raland said "Right away!") October 20, 2022 Revised Petition shipped to the SCOTUS October 24, 2022 Petition docketed! (The clerk of the Court tells Raland that they have everything they need. The U.S. Attorneys have until Nov 23, 2022 to respond showing why the Supreme Court of the United States should not move on this case.) November 23, 2022 The Solicitor General of the United States Department of Justice replaces the U.S. Attorneys (Elizabeth B. Prelogar, the Solicitor General of United States, the official attorney on record for the defendants, and in behalf of the 388 defendants, waived their right to respond to this lawsuit, thus allowing the SCOTUS to move forward!) November 30, 2022 The SCOTUS set the conference date for Jan 6, 2023 (The 9 Justices will meet January 6, 2023 to discuss the case and decide (by vote) if they want to move it to a hearing, where they will oficially judge the case and decide (by vote) if defendants should be removed from office)

[philman_36]

There is no Constitutional basis for the Court to order the relief requested.

You're telling me to read about the SG taking over the case when you don't even know that the writ states exactly where and what the Constitutional basis is.

Do you need me to point out the exact words or can you find them yourself?
Raland J. Brunson, Petitioner v. Alma S. Adams, et al.

[Degaston]

This thread is misleading. This particular Petition is obviously now dead-listed, won’t even get a second of discussion at their next January 6th conference meeting, and set to be put on the CERTIORARI DENIED list along with the rest of the dead-listed ones and most of the ones that actually do get discussed but have 0, 1, 2, or 3 justices who want further action (but not the 4+ needed to proceed).

Here is this petition’s docket and the fact that there has not been any call made for a Response is telling that it’s dead-listed. If at least 1 Justice (out of 9) has shown interest in having the Case discussed then the Clerk would’ve put out a Call for Response.

https://www.supremecourt.gov/search.aspx?filename=/docket/docketfiles/html/public/22-380.html

Only a dishonest and/or ignorant fool would think otherwise.

Now, if something changes on this docket before January 6th, such as the Clerk putting out a Call for Response, then I will reconsider my opinion on this. It’s just that tens of thousands of cases have gone down this same path and in every situation I’ve ever seen with the path like this particular Petition its ended as CERTIORARI DENIED. I have never seen one like this where its beome CERTIORARI GRANTED. Just look at the docket history on all of the Petitions that get CERTIORARI GRANTED and see for yourself.

[maddog55]

The is a BOMBSHELL, HUGE NEWS... not. Not to mention totally false per the headlines.

[Bruce Campbells Chin]

And rather than prove that assertion, because who wants to spend time doing something fruitful like supporting their argument, one can merely speak a thing and make a thing so. Got it.

I assumed you were familiar with the Constitution but maybe I'm wrong, so I'll help you out. The Constitution specifies two, and only two, ways to remove the President from office.

The first way provided by the Constitution to remove the President from office is by impeachment and conviction, as stated in Article 2 Section 4 of the Constitution, and by the procedures described in Article 1, sections 3 and 4.

The second way is via removal by the 25th Amendment, and by the Procedures described therein. And that's it

It should be noted neither of those procedures involves the federal court system at all, other than stating that the Chief Justice presides over the impeachment trial of the President in the Senate. But even then, only the votes of the senators themselves can remove the president from office.

This request that the Supreme Court, on its own authority, remove both the President and Congress from office is ridiculously far beyond the scope of anything even hinted at in the Constitution. If you disagree, please feel free to quote the article and section, or constitutional amendment, that specifically authorizes the Supreme Court to do this.

[Bruce Campbells Chin]

I'm not debating with a link. You tell me, directly, what specific provisions of the Constitution authorize the Supreme Court to remove both the President and Congress from office.

There isn't one.

[philman_36]

THE WAIVER WAS THE RESPONSE!

Your own links prove that as I've shown you!

[philman_36]

I'm not debating with a link.

The link is to the case. The case has words. Read the words.

Disprove the argument presented BY the words therein.

You step into a debate and you don't even know the subject matter. AMAZING!

[one guy in new jersey]

Right.

One never truly knows what will move four Justices to get off the dime.

[philman_36]

I'll help you out... e) Due to the uniqueness of this case, the trial court does have proper authority to remove the Respondents from their offices under 18 U.S. Code § 2381 which states “Whoever, owing allegiance to the United States, levies war against them or adheres to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort within the United States or elsewhere, is guilty of treason and shall suffer death, or shall be imprisoned not less than five years and fined under this title but not less than $10,000; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States. ” A court adjudicating that the Respondents, who have taken the Oath of Office, to be incapable of holding their offices or who have adhered to a domestic enemy, means nothing without such removal of office.

It's a law passed by Congress and Constitutional, isn't it?

[philman_36]

One never truly knows what will move four Justices to get off the dime.

Sister, it isn't just your slip that is showing.

[one guy in new jersey]

What...too old/obscure?

[philman_36]

Why are you talking inanities?

[philman_36]

No. To move, to take action.

It seems your desired action is inaction. Not to get off the dime, as it were.

[one guy in new jersey]

Not so.

Just aware of the stiff odds, intimidating, really, and the fact that the SCOTUS Justices have 100% discretion to do whatever they please in response to Certiorari writs.

[philman_36]

Ironically, in NOT supporting this to be heard you're prompting/encouraging the Supreme Court Justices to break their own Oath of Office as well.

Just look the other way. Nothing to see here.

[philman_36]

You're writing it off as a fait accompli.

THAT is what you're doing.

[philman_36]

Fait accompli is a French term that means a thing which is done or accomplished; a completed act.

[DouglasKC]

There is no way on God’s green earth that the SCOTUS will rule to remove office holders. But then again I never thought Roe V Wade would be struck down either.

[Bruce Campbells Chin]

It's a law passed by Congress and Constitutional, isn't it?

It is not unconstitutional on its face, but like a lot of other laws, it could be applied unconstitutionally. In this case, an attempt to use it to remove a sitting President from office would be unconstitutional. The Constitutionally correct legal remedy for treason by the President would be three steps: 1) The House would impeach the President for treason, 2) the Senate would vote to convict him by a 2/3 majority, and then 3) the now former President could then (and only then) be prosecuted criminally for treason under 18 U.S.C. Section 2381.

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.

Just think how easy it would be for a single prosecutor in D.C. to convict a conservative Republican President of treason (they might have tried it against Trump if it was possible) and then just give him the boot. There isn't any hint anywhere in the Constitution that is permitted, nor is there anything in Supreme Court caselaw suggesting that a criminal conviction of any kind results in the removal of a President. You want him out? Impeach him, then prosecute him criminally.

The argument for removing members of Congress for not doing an investigation is even worse. The doctrine of legislative immunity is incredibly well-established, and the failure of a legislature to do something you think they should have done isn't actionable against them as individuals no matter what.

Apart from that, the whole premise of the argument is absurd. Congress has no constitutional obligation to investigate anything unless Congress determines it is necessary. Nothing in the Constitution gave the courts the power to make that determination. What the Constitution did do is leave it up to the states to choose their own electors. So if you want to go after how those states chose their electors, the proper remedy is to sue the states.

[philman_36]

There is no way on God’s green earth that the SCOTUS will rule to remove office holders.

Why? Because it hasn't been done before?

But then again I never thought Roe V Wade would be struck down either.
I agree. See 27.