Posted on 02/15/2023 11:57:54 AM PST by bitt
A "rigged election" is equivalent to war since both "put into power" a "victor," argues plaintiff, and therefore allegations of a rigged election must be investigated.
The Supreme Court is set to reconsider whether to hear a lawsuit alleging President Biden, Vice President Kamala Harris, former Vice President Mike Pence, 291 House members, and 94 senators violated their oaths of office by refusing to investigate evidence of fraud in the 2020 election before certifying Biden as the victor on Jan. 6, 2021, allowing for Biden and Harris to be "fraudulently" inaugurated.
The plaintiff, Raland J. Brunson, seeks the defendants' removal from office for violating their oaths.
After the Supreme Court declined on Jan. 9 to hear Brunson's lawsuit, he filed a petition for reconsideration on Jan. 23. On Feb. 1, the court scheduled the private conference for reconsidering the petition on Friday, when four of the nine justices must vote to grant the case a hearing for it to move forward.
(Excerpt) Read more at justthenews.com ...
“I am skeptical of the result.”
Agree. We get our hopes up, then ... POW!
Only thing that gives me a glimmer of hope is that SCOTUS could be in panic mode seeing what Biden has done to us, and they know they have power to maybe turn things around. They have kids and grandkids like everyone else. Do they want them growing up in this hell hole?
The Biden administration has successfully intimidated the Supreme Court justices by encouraging “protests” by Democrat militants at the justices homes even after the attempted assassination of one justice and his family by one of those militants.
this case has no merit because the court lacks jurisdiction to grant the relief sough. Period. Full stop.
Obviously so, but there is also ridiculously no standing and the 10th Circuit chose that route.
Brunson wrote to the 10th Circuit that the alleged action, "violated the rights of every citizen of the U.S.A. and perhaps the rights of every person living...." The alleged injury cannot get less particularized to Brunson than that. The 10th Circuit tossed it on standing.
As the 10th Circuit noted, "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."
These are the reasons he is going to scotus:
“ Before a decision was rendered by the 10th Circuit, Brunson realized he could bypass the appeals court and go straight to the Supreme Court by invoking the high court’s Rule 11. Under the rule, a case pending before the appeals court may bypass that court’s decision and go to the Supreme Court if it “is of such imperative public importance as to justify deviation from normal appellate practice and to require immediate determination in this Court.” The Supreme Court received Brunson’s petition in September 2022.”
In this video, he discusses how he was able to file with SCOTUS . Just jump to 8:10.
(I don’t normally watch Charlie Ward. But, this just happens to be where I found the interview)
“ Before a decision was rendered by the 10th Circuit, Brunson realized he could bypass the appeals court and go straight to the Supreme Court by invoking the high court’s Rule 11. Under the rule, a case pending before the appeals court may bypass that court’s decision and go to the Supreme Court if it “is of such imperative public importance as to justify deviation from normal appellate practice and to require immediate determination in this Court.” The Supreme Court received Brunson’s petition in September 2022.”
The initial submission of a petition to SCOTUS was rejected by the clerk of the court. The revised Petition was not accepted at Scotus until October 20, 2022, after the 10th Circuit had issued its Opinion on October 6, 2022. A Rule 11 bypass did not happen.
https://www.supremecourt.gov/ctrules/2019RulesoftheCourt.pdf
Rule 11. Certiorari to a United States Court of Appeals Before JudgmentA 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).
https://www.supremecourt.gov/search.aspx?filename=/docket/docketfiles/html/public/22-380.html
In the case, the actual petition for writ of cert was filed on October 20th, after the judgment in the 10th Circuit was entered on October 6th.
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
Brunson v. Adams, S Ct 22-380
The Petition for Writ of Cert was filed October 20, 2024.
It was received by the Office of the Clerk October 24, 2022.
Yes, I agree. They have stated that voter fraud is a State issue, except when they federal courts over rule state election laws. Then they are all in.
Basically, it’s a two faced approach. The SCOTUS has repeatedly interfered with state legislature voting laws, when it works against allowing people to cast a vote. However, it refuses to hear cases related to if the vote will matter.
The recent election in Maricopa County was interesting in that the activities were certainly performed to prevent voting, changing the ballots to be unreadable to block Election Day voting, yet the SCOTUS seems uninvolved.
All this says is they should have investigated. If plaintiff prevails, expect Phony investigation soon.
I’m not sure what the SCOTUS is expected or able to do in the case of Maricopa. Even the state Court of Appeals seems to be dragging its feet in issuing a ruling (or is 2 weeks normal ?). Lake has said she would take it to the Arizona Supreme Court but they would likely at most strike down the standard used by the first judge without ordering a new election. At least there is a reconsideration on the docket and the AZ appeals court did expedite the hearing. Everyone understands I think the seriousness of these cases, being the first to act is another matter.
I’m not sure of your point: the case could not be granted in either the District Court, Circuit Court, or SCOTUS. It has no merit because no court has jurisdiction to grant the relief sought
Agree!
One could argue that the shenanigans of Maricopa County is up to the state of Arizona to correct. After all counties are subordinate to states. Florida corrected Miami and Dade counties! (It may be state constitution dependent!)
One could argue that the shenanigans of Maricopa County is up to the state of Arizona to correct.
Thats the Roberts “ get out of jail free card” for SCOTUS. He did that with Obamacare by declaring it a tax , and stating thats the provence of Congress.
In this case its a state legislature, and the political weasels all fear being excluded from the club if they dare to protect the integrity of voting...
I think Roberts based his reasoning that allowed ZeroCare to stand on the same questionable reasonable that said Social Security was constitutional (i.e., a tax!).
Courts loved precedents even bad precedents, beats the hard work of thinking!
Wow.
How does Raland J. Brunson bypass the standing issue?
First they have to rule on the merits of the complaint of a fraudulent outcome.
THEN they rule on what to do next (constitutionally hopefully, even though in this case, it would be more on constitutional intent).
Since the officially rigged election is a case of first impression (I think) then if the Court rules it was rigged, set another hearing to show uncontroverted documentation that Trump was the winner.
If the Court finds Trump the winner by whatever standard of proof they use, then SCOTUS declares Trump the winner and they give Biden a certain timeframe to vacate the White House.
If the Court doesn't find enough proof to declare Trump the winner, they would probably send the election back to the states for a re-election.
EITHER WAY, A DREAM COME TRUE!
I think this would be more of a case of constitutional intent which should not be that difficult to discern by the text of the Constitution itself and the documentation of the intent of the Founders and ratifiers.
The Court is the constitutional Judicial Branch of the feds. IMO, each of the three branches has the authority to sanction the unconstitutional activities of another branch if based soundly on the Constitution or in this case sound constitutional intent.
Why not then? Why let joepedo have 2 years to run rampant?
Or why take 2 years to do so.
If by sanction you mean removal, they do per the procedures outlined in the U.S. Constitution.
If the Court doesn't find enough proof to declare Trump the winner, they would probably send the election back to the states for a re-election.
This will never happen as it would be itself an unconstitutional act.
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.