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)

[one guy in new jersey]

do support

[one guy in new jersey]

not writing it off

[philman_36]

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.

[Bruce Campbells Chin]

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.

[woodpusher]

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

[philman_36]

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.

[philman_36]

First it was...700 federal district courts...

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

[woodpusher]

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.

[philman_36]

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

[Deaf Smith]

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?

[Taxman]

Ping

[woodpusher]

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.

[philman_36]

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.

[Degaston]

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.

[jmaroneps37]

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.

[E. Pluribus Unum]

Thanks for the excellent analysis.

[Robert DeLong]

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.

[rick400tec]

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

[marktwain]

I do not know.

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

[Degaston]

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.