Rita, as I read it, the case is about the members who declined to execute their constitutional duties to protect and defend the Constitution against all enemies foreign and domestic. It is a tort. The redress asked to repair the damages is that all of the culpable be unseated and new elections held.
So it is not per se about election fraud but rather dereliction of their highest sworn duty. Fraud is a background issue because the plaintiffs seek to show they had probably cause to stop proceeding and investigate yet did not.
Lawyers on the thread, please correct my understanding if I err.
Interesting ange taken by the plaintiffs.
TracyBeanz has a series of sound clips that discusses this case but if she is correct the SC Cannot impose the remedy they request, the removal of over 300 elected officials and will not act on the case. They apparently a hearing on 1-6 which is certainly suggestive, but I do not know for which side. Sorry, no text, you need to go to Telegram!
https://t.me/TracybeanzOfficial/4113
(I do not know if the court can consider one narrow issue raised by the case and ignore other aspects.)
You are correct.
The Brunson brother is filing only a Civil Case, based on something more like “malfeasance”.
The presumption made by others, is that it would lay a foundation for criminal charges, and extrapolate into charges against some for Treason or Sedition and only then is the fit court a Tribunal.
Smileyface has the Loy Brunson interview in it’s finest form, on Nino’s Corner upthread.
*Juan O’Savin and *Ghost round out the discussion with implications for MIL developments.
The best interview I’ve seen in ions for its potential.
If the US SC wants to pass or fail the Constitution’s judicial test. Will they or won’t they?
Continuity of government, I think, is real. We will soon see if the last branch of government is captured. After that, it’s Q, or who? Idk.