Posted on 12/29/2022 8:19:26 PM PST by Hostage
Long, but important read:
Supreme Court considers Brunson v. Adams Friday, December 16, 2022 7:30 PM
By Tim Canova Professor of Law and Public Finance Nova Southeastern University Shepard Broad College of Law
While there has been much public attention on the U.S. Supreme Court’s present consideration of the “independent state legislature” theory in Moore v. Harper involving North Carolina’s redistricting, that case would not immediately upend the 2020 presidential election.
In contrast, a little-known case that appeared recently on the Court docket could do just that. The case of Brunson v. Adams, not even reported in the mainstream media, was filed pro se by ordinary American citizens – four brothers from Utah — seeking the removal of President Biden and Vice President Harris, along with 291 U.S. representatives and 94 U.S. senators who voted to certify the electors to the Electoral College on Jan. 6, 2021 without first investigating serious allegations of election fraud in half a dozen states and foreign election interference and breach of national security in the 2020 presidential election. The outcome of such relief would presumably be to restore Donald Trump to the presidency.
The important national security interests implicated in this case allowed the Brunsons to bypass an appeal that was frozen at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit and get the case to the Supreme Court which has now scheduled a hearing for January 6, 2023. The Brunson Petition for a Writ of Certiorari would require the votes of only four justices to move the case forward.
It seems astounding that the Court would wade into such waters two years to the day after the Congressional vote to install Joe Biden as president. But these are not normal times. Democrats may well push legislation in this month’s lame duck session of Congress to impose term limits and a mandatory retirement age for justices, and thereby open the door to packing the Court.
Such a course would seem to be clear violations of Article III, Section 1 of the Constitution which provides that Justices “shall hold their Offices during good Behavior.” In addition to such institutional threats to the Supreme Court, several justices and their families have been living under constant threats to their personal security since the overturning of Roe v. Wade.
Perhaps these institutional and security threats have provided powerful incentives for the Court to put Brunson v. Adams on its docket as a shield to deter any efforts by the lame duck Congress to infringe on the Court’s independence. Or perhaps conservatives on the Court are serious about using the Brunson case as a sword to remove public officials who they believe have violated their constitutional Oaths of office by rubber-stamping electors on Jan. 6th without first conducting any investigation of serious allegations of election fraud and foreign election interference.
Moreover, recent weeks have brought a cascade of news suggesting the likelihood of an impending constitutional crisis that could be difficult to resolve without the Court’s intervention.
It is now clear that the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) was colluding with social media giants Twitter and Facebook to censor news of Hunter Biden’s laptop in the weeks leading up to the 2020 election – a most egregious First Amendment violation intended to rig the election outcome and perhaps to install an unaccountable and criminal puppet government. Meanwhile, the Jan. 6 committee may soon send a criminal referral to the Justice Department to arrest President Trump even though his reinstated tweets are a reminder that he was not calling for insurrection but for peaceful protest on Jan. 6.
More recently, the Department of Homeland Security’s Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA) was reportedly working with Big Tech to censor election critics.
Supreme Court justices may well see these approaching storm clouds and conclude that the Court’s intervention is necessary to prevent larger civil unrest resulting from constitutional violations that are undermining public trust and confidence in the outcomes of both the 2020 and 2022 elections.
When they break the Constitution — the supreme law of the land — to rig an election, the only recourse may be the Supreme Court or military tribunals.
As the Brunson lawsuit argues, all of Congress was put on notice prior to its January 6th vote by more than a hundred of its own members detailing serious allegations of election frauds and calling for creation of an electoral commission to investigate the allegations.
Moreover, the Office of Director of National Intelligence (ODNI) was required to submit a report on foreign threats to the 2020 Presidential election by December 18, 2020. That deadline was set by executive order and by Congress itself. When December 18th came and went without ODNI submitting its report, Congress should have started asking questions and investigating.
In fact, DNI John Ratcliffe announced on that day that the 17 U.S. intelligence agencies he was overseeing had found evidence of foreign election interference but were split as to its significance and whether such breach of national security was sufficient to overturn the outcome of the election. And yet there was no action whatsoever by Congress, no inquiry and no investigation. Instead, Congress approved the possibly fraudulent election results on Jan. 6 without asking any questions of the DNI and the Intelligence Community.
When the results of the 1876 presidential election were in doubt, Congress created a special Electoral Commission made up of five House members, five Senators, and five Supreme Court Justices to investigate.
In contrast, in early 2021 Congress had nearly two weeks to investigate before the January 20th date of the presidential inauguration. Had Congress waited even just one more day to Jan. 7, they would have received the long-awaited ODNI report reflecting a split in the Intelligence Community and the DNI’s own conclusion that the People’s Republic of China had interfered to influence the outcome of the presidential election.
As Dr. Barry A. Zulauf, the Analytic Ombudsman for the Intelligence Community, concluded at the time, the Intelligence Community shamefully delayed their findings until after the January 6th Electoral College certification by Congress because of their political disagreements with the Trump administration. This paints a picture of collusion and conspiracy involving members of Congress and U.S. intelligence agencies to cover up evidence of foreign election interference and constituting the crime of treason.
The Brunson lawsuit does not claim the election was stolen, merely that a large majority of Congress, by failing to investigate such serious allegations of election rigging and breaches of national security, violated their oaths to protect and defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic – an oath also taken by Supreme Court justices and members of the U.S. military.
The fact that the Brunson case has made it to the Court’s docket suggests profound concerns about a lawless Jan. 6 congressional committee, politicized federal law enforcement and intelligence agencies and major constitutional violations intended to overthrow an elected government by manipulating the outcome of the presidential election.
> “And just how do you know that.”
It was politely explained to you that the procedures by the clerks do not dead-list a cert application that they intend to send over to conference.
Dead-list cert applications are handled at the Clerk level, they are never sent to the Justices.
The remaining listed applications are sent for review by all 9 Justices for voting which applications will go forward and which will be denied. Brunson will be reviewed this coming January 6.
This is the last piece of polite information you’re getting from me. No one needs your sh*tty attitude on any thread.
Thank you.
Witness a genuine piece of sh*t on FR here at #52.
Note I never met this ingrate nor corresponded anywhere with same except for the few instances on this particular thread.
Re: 52 - good grief, grow up.
“Dead-list cert applications are handled at the Clerk level, they are never sent to the Justices.”
No one is told the recommendations of the law clerks, and different justices get different recommendations. You have NO IDEA what the clerks have recommended, except this:
The US Government hasn’t bothered to reply to the case.
And if you read the amicus briefs, the embarrassingly bad arguments would be obvious:
Their arguement:
Amicus brief from “New California”:
“This movement...expects to stand up as a state in the first quarter of 2024 by submitting a resolution of statehood to the United States Congress...”
You think ANYONE will give that garbage serious consideration?
Obviously, you don’t care what the truth is on this topic of Supreme Court processes so I’m going to just provide some links for the non-lazy who actually seek the truth to find out for themselves what’s really up. I’m dismayed about many other comments on this thread where they simply don’t know what they are talking about, they are purposely lying, or they are just too lazy.
1. Go to this link to see the links to the recent orders of the Court - particularly the CERTIORARI Granted and CERTIORARI Denied and make a random sample of those Granted and those Denied.
https://www.supremecourt.gov/orders/ordersofthecourt/22
2. With the docket numbers you can look up the docket history and see the patterns.
For example, the last Denied one here is 22-5750
https://www.supremecourt.gov/orders/courtorders/121222zor_1qm1.pdf
It’s link is:
https://www.supremecourt.gov/search.aspx?filename=/docket/docketfiles/html/public/22-5750.html
You can search for it using the docket numbers here.
https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docket.aspx
3. In the docket documents you will notice a pattern on how the Solicitor General responds. This happens in most cases.
“The Government hereby waives its right to file a response to the petition in this case, unless requested to do so by the Court.”
They did this in the Brunson case (and many others) with the exact same verbiage.
https://www.supremecourt.gov/search.aspx?filename=/docket/docketfiles/html/public/22-380.html
https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/22/22-380/247457/20221123155305329_Waiver%20Letter%20-%2022-0380.pdf
“The Government hereby waives its right to file a response to the petition in this case, unless requested to do so by the Court.”
4. Now here is an example of a docket that was granted. Note the length and the response of the Solicitor General.
https://www.supremecourt.gov/search.aspx?filename=/docket/docketfiles/html/public/21-1576.html
5. Note this pending case that was Granted after the Solicitor General waived their right to respond. Now some lazy dummy reading this will say “aha the same thing will happen with the Brunsons” but the truth is that they aren’t looking at the facts completely.
https://www.supremecourt.gov/search.aspx?filename=/docket/docketfiles/html/public/22-49.html
Jul 22 2022 Waiver of right of respondent United States to respond filed.
https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/22/22-49/230712/20220722173546293_Waiver%20Letter%20-%2022-0049.pdf
“The Government hereby waives its right to file a response to the petition in this case, unless requested to do so by the Court.”
Jul 27 2022 DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 9/28/2022.
Jul 29 2022 Response Requested. (Due August 29, 2022)
One of the Justices obviously wanted to discuss the case. 2 Motions to extend the time to file a response were made and both were granted. Finally, we got this from the Solicitor General office.
Oct 28 2022 Brief of respondent United States in opposition filed.
https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/22/22-49/244252/20221028132500285_22-49%20Lora%20Opp.pdf
The Petitioner did a reply. The Petition was distributed for the 12/02 conference. Apparently, the Justices didn’t get it (though they denied certs on others) and then they got to it on December 9th and granted cert.
Nov 15 2022 DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 12/2/2022.
Dec 05 2022 DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 12/9/2022.
Dec 09 2022 Petition GRANTED.
Link to ones on the 12/02 lists for the Conference. Around 100 were Denied. Most of them were likely dead listed and you can probably see this for yourself when they are missing the “Response Requested” line in case the respondents decided to initially not respond.
https://www.supremecourt.gov/orders/courtorders/120522zor_d1of.pdf
Not true. The Government WAIVED any response.
Have you NOT read the Waiver?
Rather than discuss the case you hone in on an amicus brief.
Laughable.
You're SO funny! You go on and on about how there has been no response/call for response and then you post that.
ROTFLOL
26. Thought the25th amendment dealt with the removal of a sitting president in case of mental or physical impairments that make it impossible to carry out their official duties.
What do you think happens when someone “waives” a response?
Here is the full text of the waiver: “The Government hereby waives its right to file a response to the petition in this case, unless requested to do so by the Court.”
That was 23 Nov. The Court has not asked them for a response. So...why not?
In this instance it goes to Conference unopposed. No opposing brief, nothing.
What do you think happens when someone “waives” a response?
PLEASE! Tell me why.
Dazzle me with brilliance or baffle me with BS, but enough with the cliffhanger act.
You have done a bit amount of work but your objective is vacuous and misses the point of this thread. You can post all the court links you want, you still miss the big picture on the historical event time scale, not the trivial court calendar scales.
Brunson will with very high probability be denied. That is not in dispute in this thread. Brunson in the court context is not important. That is the point.
The Courts are moribund, that is the point. Vietnam was lost because policymakers acted as lawyers. When you fight wars with lawyers, you lose.
Here is prologue to understanding the bigger picture. The following specific actions and events in themselves are not important. Something else is much more important. Let's see if you can catch it.
Another Brunson brother, seeing what federal court was doing, filed in state court later in 2021, caught attention of US Attorneys from first filing, US Attorneys moved new state case to federal court, slow-walked then dismissed, Brunson appealed to federal appeals court.
Brunson Brothers got attention of community and nation, and legal experts and attorneys in community and nation, because case was quite different, said support brought awareness to Brunson Brothers of Rule 11 bypass to SCOTUS, cert application filed, accepted for conference to be reviewed for decision to die or survive.
Die is highly likely, except Brunson's and new lawyer and law professor friends, witnessed SCOTUS clerk calling not once, but twice to explain that cert filing was deficient in format compliance, but significantly said clerk made urgent that corrected cert app be sent in immediately and asked repeatedly when it would be ready,
It is not unusual for clerks to tell parties their filings need things, what is unusual is the clerk urging immediate correction and resubmission. Most clerks might simply respond, "Your cert app is not ready, not compliant, you will need to file at later date"; many moons thence.
If you are at all experienced in legal actions, you should know that a clerk on your side can put runners on base for you to bring home, but it doesn't guarantee you won't strike out.
The dismal legalities, like attracting a flock of seagulls with breadcrumbs, case specifics of Brunson actions attract lawyers and puffy heads who like to go on and on and argue until nausea. And if you stop throwing legal crumbs ($$$) at them, they strut around as if you're a nothingburger.
They are the Praetorian Guard of the Oligarchy.
If you individually don't get this, it's not important. Others will read and understand.
A clue of what is important, not to lawyer know-it-alls, but to the historical event in progress, are actions taken by the Brunson Brothers that go far and beyond their call of patriotism. One such detail is their maniacal tenacity in serving 381 Members of Congress, repeat 381 serves, each served and filed back at court. That illustrates part of the real point in all this. Their extraordinary efforts do not matter to the court process, but the court process is not important here, history is.
Three effing hundred and eighty one service of process actions by pro se brothers.
Here's another clue: Brunson's have not given up, forged ahead, soldiered through legal minefields.
True, they will, barring a Roe burst of courage, will with near certainty lose in the courts, but another very important party will lose in history. That party is in the thread title in parentheses. Brunson Brothers are putting the malfeasance of federal club members ON RECORD.
It would be nice to say "God Bless America! Happy New Year and Best Wishes to All"; unfortunately it's going to be "Welcome Comrades to 2023's Continuing Saga of The Great Reset!"
Better odds or still frivolous in your eyes?
Totally frivolous. That is why no response was filed. Because it isn’t worth the time. If the defendants think it is a total waste of time to respond, and no one at the Court has asked them to respond, what makes you think the Court is serious about the case?
“It seeks to expel 291 Representatives and 94 Senators from Congress on charges ranging from failure to uphold their Oaths to Treason.”
How would Pence fit in to the suit? He also failed to uphold his oath.
There's the nugget.
It isn't the Court's responsibility to tell them to respond with anything, even a waiver.
The deadline, without a delay of some sort which also wasn't asked for, would have simply passed with no action.
If the SG doesn't know the procedure that's on her.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.