Nonetheless, at the Electoral College meeting, Senator Cruz rose to call attention to DNI Ratcliffe's view that there was indeed Chinese interference that needed to be more fully investigated. That, in combination with thousands of affidavits and other evidence made for a substantive case that Congress was constitutionally required to investigate in the immediately-ensuing 10-day period as part of the Electoral College responsibility. Congress abrogated their oath of fidelity to the Constitution by voting down the required investigation.
Biden called the action in support of the investigation an "attempt to steal the election" whose future possibility he would see to stamping out. (That would only be possible through a Constitutional Amendment, which he has yet to bring.) In short order, the media narrative morphed into Trump allegedly having mounted "an insurrection" on 1/6.
The attempt by a majority of the Members of Congress to thwart the Constitutionally-required investigation at the 2021 Electoral College meeting is the subject of a suit presently before SCOTUS in Brunson v Adams. The remedy contemplated, requested and demanded by Brunson is the removal from office of all that participated in the anti-constitutional actions of that day, including some 400+ Members of Congress, Biden and Harris.
In-your-face, symbolic or otherwise, SCOTUS has scheduled its hearing for Brunson on 1/6/2023, two years after the alleged crime took place.
Regarding Barry's failed attempt to meet the standard as a Natural Born Citizen (NBC) as put forth in the John Jay letter, we saw Barry's minions suggesting NBC was satisfied simply by his having been born in Hawai'i. That truly would be a nearly meaningless criteria hardly worthy mentioning, that his bio-mother need only have been positioned above US soil when she gave birth.
It was almost comical to see both Deep State (DS) factions (D&R) coming to mutual nullification for the 2008 election NBC requirement as both Barry's and No-Name's birth particulars were questionable. Since the DS had by mutual agreement already settled on those two being the nominated candidates, there was talk off the NBC question being thenceforward off-limits for both candidates as to their questionability (from the media/Ds/Rs). Unfortunately, there were those pesky lawsuits, for which the DS black robes determined "no-standing" responses would be the most effective deterrent.
As Barry's NBC lawsuit dismissals littered the landscape and a Kenyan grandmother seemed to affirm that she was present when Barry was born in Mombasa, Kenya, verified documentation of that and/or to the contrary became a new, vaporous and elusive standard.
Even as Republican-minded questioners were noting the lack of verified documentation to in anyway counter and substantiate a Mombasa birth--for which there was by that time some documentation (a Kenyan LFBC for Barry, for example, calculation that Stanley Ann Dunham did not meet the requirement to pass on her citizenship to little Barry, plus affirmation that BHO I was indeed a registered citizen of the British Commonwealth at the (claimed) time and place of Barry's birth (even while there were reports of Barry's celebrating two different birth dates).
Through mediation of at least one CIA asset positioned in the Hawaii Department of Health, we came to be shown a computer-printed Certificate of Live Birth that contained specious, non-standard field values (e.g., African). Later, two more CIA assets (Judith Corley and Robt F. Bauer) would be brought into the chain of LFBC production as it was finally presented on April 27, 2011.
After (CIA front organization) Subud's past Treasurer and former USA National Chairperson took over Directorship of the Hawai'i Department of Health in January, 2011, it took only three months to produce that which Hawaii Governor Neil Abercrombie supposedly could not locate among the State's documents after months of dumpster diving, a clearly forged and fraudulent Long Form Birth Certificate for Barry. All three Official Verifications produced by two staff HDOH CIA assets were internally invalid, as well. No court has assessed the merits of any case using the LFBC or its Verifications. A Mississippi court did come close to making a determination on the merits, it was procedurally botched by the relatively inexperienced lawyer, Orly Taitz.
That CIA-backed Barry would foist fraudulent documentation should come as little surprise to an American electorate that has had to endure the long-overdue, hidden documentation of CIA involvement in the JFK assassination, even as it has had to enduring the 50+ Intelligence Chiefs that lied about their interference in the 2020 election by publicly declaring that the Hunter Biden laptop was Russian disinformation. The intelligence community's leaders have well earned their being fully reformed if not jettisoned by the American Government that is Of the People, By the People and For the People.
No, the interviewer assumed that and jumped into conversation with it. It's by no means clear that she actually said that.
The attempt by a majority of the Members of Congress to thwart the Constitutionally-required investigation at the 2021 Electoral College meeting is the subject of a suit presently before SCOTUS in Brunson v Adams. The remedy contemplated, requested and demanded by Brunson is the removal from office of all that participated in the anti-constitutional actions of that day, including some 400+ Members of Congress, Biden and Harris.
There is no constitutionally required investigation.
Brunson v. Adams has not been accepted by the Court. A petition for writ of cert has been filed. The case has about a zero chance of being accepted. The petition, as with the legal filings in the courts below, is a frivolous waste of time.
Brunson is joke which was dismissed on pretrial motion by the District Court, which dismissal was upheld by the Circuit Court.
For an example of a joke, see the petition at 3:
Respondents were properly warned and were requested to make an investigation into a highly covert swift and powerful enemy, as stated below, seeking to destroy the Constitution and the United States, purposely thwarted all efforts to investigate this, whereupon this enemy was not checked or investigated, therefore the Respondents adhered to this enemy. Because of Respondents intentional refusal to investigate this enemy, Petitioner Raland J Brunson (“Brunson”) brought this action against Respondents because he was seriously personally damaged and violated by this action of Respondents, and consequently this action unilaterally violated the rights of every citizen of the U.S.A. and perhaps the rights of every person living, and all courts of law.
Brunson states the alleged action "unilaterally violated the rights of every citizen of the U.S.A. and perhaps the rights of every person living, and all courts of law." He can not claim a particularized injury shared by a few billion others.
Lujan, Secretary of the Interior v. Defenders of Wildlife et al., 504 U. S. 555, 560 (1992)
Over the years, our cases have established that the irreducible constitutional minimum of standing contains three elements. First, the plaintiff must have suffered an "injury in fact"—an invasion of a legally protected interest which is (a) concrete and particularized, see id., at 756; Warth v. Seldin, 422 U. S. 490, 508 (1975); Sierra Club v. Morton, 405 U. S. 727, 740-741, n. 16 (1972);1 and (b) "actual or imminent, not 'conjectural' or 'hypothetical,"' Whitmore, supra,at 155 (quoting Los Angeles v. Lyons, 461 U. S. 95,102 (1983)).1 By particularized, we mean that the injury must affect the plaintiff in a personal and individual way.
10th Circuit:
BOBBY R. BALDOCK CIRCUIT JUDGERaland Brunson appeals the district court's dismissal of his action for lack of jurisdiction. Exercising jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, we affirm.
[...]
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.
[...]
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.
[...]
Mr. Brunson first argues that the district court's separate judgment is invalid because it fails to set forth the legal basis for the judgment. This argument is frivolous.
[...]
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.
[...]
III. Conclusion
The district court's judgment is affirmed.