In his petition for reconsideration, Brunson argues that there must be a penalty for violating oaths of office or else they are "not binding.
A "rigged election" is equivalent to war since both "put into power" a "victor," he argues, and therefore allegations of "a rigged election" must be investigated.
"The Oath of Office requires that aid and comfort cannot be given to those levying war through a rigged election," Brunson writes.
I assume this case will not be heard. I read some legal minds dissecting it and there were some legal type reasons why, beyond my capacity to grok fully or explain...