╌>

SCOTUS to reconsider hearing case alleging Biden, Harris, lawmakers ignored 2020 fraud, broke oaths | Just The News

  
Via:  Jeremy in NC  •  last year  •  21 comments

By:   Natalia Mittelstadt (Just The News)

SCOTUS to reconsider hearing case alleging Biden, Harris, lawmakers ignored 2020 fraud, broke oaths | Just The News
As a "Presidential rigged election is a threat to the Constitution," he argues, "when members of Congress become aware of such allegations an investigation into these allegations is required or they become violators of their Oath of Office."

Leave a comment to auto-join group Today's America

Today's America


S E E D E D   C O N T E N T



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.

File https://justthenews.com/sites/default/files/2023-02/20230126114616761_rehearing%2022-380.pdf

Brunson, who is representing himself in the case, originally filed the lawsuit, Brunson v. Alma S. Adams, et al , on June 21, 2021 in Utah's 2nd District Court. In August 2021, the case was moved from the state court to the U.S. District Court in Utah. After that court ruled against Brunson in February 2022, he appealed to the U.S. 10th Circuit Court of Appeals.

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 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.

As a "Presidential rigged election is a threat to the Constitution," he argues, "when members of Congress become aware of such allegations an investigation into these allegations is required or they become violators of their Oath of Office."

"If a person who takes the Oath of Office owes allegiance to the United States," Brunson continues, and the U.S. code regarding treason "states that whoever owing such allegiance violates this allegiance shall be incapable of holding office, then wouldn't it be fitting that they shall be removed from office as well?"

Since his complaint alleges a serious national security breach that is an act of war and holds that "it requires an act on an emergency level to repair this breach immediately — to stop this war, and that those perpetrators of this breach are the respondents," he writes, "doesn't this Court have the power to adjudicate these serious claims and to immediately end the conflict and fix the national security breach?"

Brunson's prior filing in the federal district court case noted that members of Congress had requested an investigation into the election. On Jan. 2, 2021, Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas), along with 10 other senators, requested "an emergency 10-day audit of the election returns in the disputed states." A total of 147 Republican lawmakers objected to the certification of the election on Jan. 6.


Tags

jrGroupDiscuss - desc
[]
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
Professor Principal
1  seeder  Jeremy Retired in NC    last year

This could get interesting.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
1.1  Vic Eldred  replied to  Jeremy Retired in NC @1    last year

It will inform the public if nothing else.

 
 
 
cjcold
Professor Quiet
2  cjcold    last year

Just the News is a far-right wing propaganda site that just makes shit up.

Their "writers" don't even pretend to be professional or accurate.

 
 
 
Just Jim NC TttH
Professor Principal
2.1  Just Jim NC TttH  replied to  cjcold @2    last year

Still, much to your dismay it seems, within the MBFC guidelines. Sorry

 
 
 
evilone
Professor Guide
2.2  evilone  replied to  cjcold @2    last year
Just the News is a far-right wing propaganda site that just makes shit up.

Well the substance of the article breaks down to the SCOTUS is "reconsidering to take up the case". They denied to take it up once and the petitioner filed a motion to reconsider. The Court does have to look at the motion and that decision is coming up. I highly doubt they will since:

Brunson’s case argued that 291 House lawmakers and 94 senators violated their oaths of office by refusing to further investigate unfounded claims of mass electoral fraud in the 2020 presidential election.

He had asked for $2.905 billion tax-free in damages and a removal of the officials from office.

There is no mechanism in law for the removal of 385 members of Congress, the President and Vice President from office. There is no valid argument that any of these people were required to investigate anything either. I'm pretty sure this guy's lawyer made a nice chunk of change off an imbecile.  

 
 
 
evilone
Professor Guide
2.2.1  evilone  replied to  evilone @2.2    last year
The Court does have to look at the motion and that decision is coming up. I highly doubt they will since:

The Court denied the case again. I'll use a favorite quote of mine - "It's dead, Jim."

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
2.3  Texan1211  replied to  cjcold @2    last year
Just the News is a far-right wing propaganda site that just makes shit up. Their "writers" don't even pretend to be professional or accurate.

Looks like this passes as 'debunking' to some liberals.

 
 
 
Jasper2529
Professor Quiet
2.4  Jasper2529  replied to  cjcold @2    last year
Just the News is a far-right wing propaganda site that just makes shit up. Their "writers" don't even pretend to be professional or accurate.

Attacking the source does not make a logical argument or contribute to the discussion.

 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
Professor Principal
2.4.1  seeder  Jeremy Retired in NC  replied to  Jasper2529 @2.4    last year

They have no intent of contributing to the discussion.  The headline alone, apparently causes them concern so they will do everything they can to deflect away from it.

 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
Professor Principal
2.5  seeder  Jeremy Retired in NC  replied to  cjcold @2    last year
ust the News is a far-right wing propaganda site that just makes shit up.

And yet here you are not proving it wrong.  .

 
 
 
JBB
Professor Principal
3  JBB    last year

[DELETED]

 
 
 
Just Jim NC TttH
Professor Principal
3.1  Just Jim NC TttH  replied to  JBB @3    last year

Did you read the article? Has NOTHING to do with Trump but rather dereliction of duty by others.........................seems not

 
 
 
JBB
Professor Principal
3.1.1  JBB  replied to  Just Jim NC TttH @3.1    last year

SMH...

 
 
 
Just Jim NC TttH
Professor Principal
3.1.2  Just Jim NC TttH  replied to  JBB @3.1.1    last year

REread the headline AND article if you even did the first time. The subject is 

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.
 
 
 
Hallux
PhD Principal
4  Hallux    last year

I doubt that SCOTUS will open the lid to even more such idiocy and will instead choose to nail the Bronson brother's coffin shut.

 
 
 
bbl-1
Professor Quiet
5  bbl-1    last year

Gee.  So apparently the 62 courts and judges that heard evidence concerning fraud in the 2020 election, or the lack there-of, are not part of this inquiry?  If so, why?

 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
Professor Principal
5.1  seeder  Jeremy Retired in NC  replied to  bbl-1 @5    last year

Try reading the article.  It's explained.

 
 
 
bbl-1
Professor Quiet
5.1.1  bbl-1  replied to  Jeremy Retired in NC @5.1    last year

I did.  The explanation is flawed.  The court cases concerning alleged fraud in the 2020 election are the only things that matter.  The SCOTUS, if it has the nerve, should do a review of those if it desires to reinstall Trump and persecute his detractors.  Which is what all of this is about.

 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
Professor Principal
5.1.2  seeder  Jeremy Retired in NC  replied to  bbl-1 @5.1.1    last year

You might have read the article but you didn't understand it.  Unfortunately, that's something that I can't help you with.

 
 
 
bbl-1
Professor Quiet
5.1.3  bbl-1  replied to  Jeremy Retired in NC @5.1.2    last year

The article is flawed.

 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
Professor Principal
5.1.4  seeder  Jeremy Retired in NC  replied to  bbl-1 @5.1.3    last year

Don't explain how.  Just blather on mindlessly.

 
 

Who is online

Drinker of the Wry
Jeremy Retired in NC
Ozzwald
afrayedknot
CB
Just Jim NC TttH


47 visitors