Thread by @JohnBNevin

🧵🏦 The Brunson Case - Supreme Court #law #atty

Rayland J. Brunson
v.
Alma S. Adams

Docket:
supremecourt.gov/search.aspx?fi…

On the question of accountability of elected representatives for failing to uphold Constitutional electoral duty.

Summary of the case below. More links at the end.

😀👍

"This action is against 388 federal officers...[including Biden, Harris, Pelosi, Pence] [who] have taken... Oath to support and defend the Constitution...against all enemies, foreign and domestic, and as such they are liable for consequences when they violate the Oath of Office."

"Respondents were properly warned and were requested to make an investigation into a highly covert swift and powerful enemy...seeking to destroy the Constitution and [the U.S.]. [Respondents] violated the rights of every citizen .. and perhaps the rights of every person living.."

"On January 6, 2021, the 117th Congress held a proceeding and debate in Washington DC (“Proceeding”). Proceeding was for the purpose of counting votes under the 2020 Presidential election for the President and Vice President of the United States under Amendment XII."

"During this Proceeding over 100 members of U.S. Congress claimed factual evidence that the said election was rigged. The refusal of the Respondents to investigate this congressional claim (the enemy) is an act of treason and fraud by Respondents."

"A successfully rigged election has the same end result as an act of war; to place into power whom the victor wants, which in this case is Biden,who,if not stopped immediately, will continue to destroy the fundamental freedoms of Brunson and all U.S. Citizens and courts of law."

"Due to the fact that this case represents a national security breach on a unprecedented level like never before seen seriously damaging and violating Brunson and coincidently effects every citizen of the U.S.A. and courts of law."

"Brunson moves this court to grant this petition [or] order the trialcourt to grant Brunson’s complaint in its fullest. [This] is the mechanism that can immediately remove the Respondents from office without leaving this country vulnerable without a President and Vice President."

Petition for writ of certiorari:

supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/22/2…

I am looking into this case with curious lighthearted optimism and low expectations. I've just now completed this initial investigation. Looks like an interesting approach among the many (but few that have been granted fair hearings).

Will post more relevant links below as I find them.

@JohnBNevin

As for me, I am a non-lawyer who nonetheless can read and reason. I am curious, but make no presumption. Accordingly, I will seek context through research, and I'll ask ChatGPT questions to learn some law. I'll share some links and information as I go.

odysee.com/@johnbnevin:5/…

Before I proceed beyond the cursory investigation above, I have some items to clarify.

a) However strong a case it may seem to be on its surface, the question is whether this one, as written, will be compelling and convince the judge it should proceed.

b) Many more lawsuits are filed than succeed. And sometimes lawsuits are filed that make no legal impact aside from showing up in searches within legal databases. This political one has 388 defendants (First of a series of red flags or simply 388 incumbents that need unseating?)

c) One might think, "The bastards failed to investigate a potential NatSec election concern before approving its results... What exactly is the holdup here??" (and I'm sympathetic)...

c2) but in the legal world (as I understand it) We are looking at: How strong is the case presented by the plaintiff? How strong is the case for dismissal presented by the state? What does relevant law say? What is existing precedent?

d) Even among those who want accountability for a stolen election, there will be those against sudden removal of 388 of them post-gavel. I have no opinion because logistics involve unknowns and variables (resistant chaos cells during transition render my blind analysis useless.)

e) Last thing before moving on later today: We are in an age where entirely fabricated news is a legitimate concern (if you haven't heard the news that 'write me a supreme court case that sues the entire U.S. Congress' is not far away, have a look at @ OpenAI's ChatGPT.)

e2) The defense against being fooled by fake news, in addition to always-on skepticism, is corroborating primary sources. On good habits, I found the official Supreme Court docket page first.

supremecourt.gov/search.aspx?fi…

Now, to proceed. We have an open world to explore :)

OK, here we go.

BTW The relief sought is $2.9 billion and the complaint asks that defendants be removed from office and never allowed to serve again.

In the first few posts of this thread, I began with a copy and paste from the summary section of the court document, written by Brunson brothers, that the Supreme Court will consider. Here is a picture showing another Brunson summary -- from Raland Brunson's website.

Claim: Biden et al violated an oath which reads, "I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic" when voting against a proposition to investigate colleague's election claims.

Setting aside legal opinion, of which only 1 will ultimately be enforced (judge's), I layman say this case passes the basic common sense tests that I can easily employ (not much) At the very least, the argument does not appear to rest on magic, but some attempt at reason.

ralandbrunson.com

The photo of the Brunsons and context of the website are not overtly offensive; more likely to be seen as the opposite. An offer to join letter campaigns and an affiliate link score not-0-out-of-10 on the scam radar at first glance.

Raland's website offers his version of events as relates to the history of this case, which presents as an earnest attempt to put the court docket in plain language. The most recent background summary goes:

Brunson suit dismissed, with judge saying that Sovereign Immunity protects the incumbents. Raland appealed. The Supreme Court was scheduled to decide whether the case will move forward on 1/6/23; a published decision is imminent.

So here we are today. The lower court's decision on sovereign immunity may or may not close the door on any reasonable appeal. Or the court may find some room for redonsideration.

Note: Possibly, the two summaries I have examined, both coming from the Brunsons, are not accurate summaries of the whole of the complaint document. I cannot assume to a certainty or draw a conclusion, no more than I may judge a book by its cover or news by its headline.

Next I'll see what other outlets are reporting.

Gateway Pundit Alicia Powe here:

thegatewaypundit.com/2022/12/will-s…

Powe reports information in Brunson's writ of certiorari and on his website -- information that is already in this thread. Though it does not consider the strength of the state's motion to dismiss, it operates as a functional overview summary as well.

Tim Conova, introduced as a Professor of Law, guest writing for Gateway Pundit, brings a good bit of new information:

thegatewaypundit.com/2022/12/tim-ca…

Conova makes claim that "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"

No grave consequence due if wrong, but Conova states SC Justices "may... see these approaching storm clouds and conclude... intervention is necessary to prevent larger civil unrest... from constitutional violations.. undermining public trust and confidence" in 2020s elections.

Conova notes: "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." Interesting branch of study.

Each writer above seems to take the case seriously, though incentives may be at play. In my experience, any concerns about GP's credibility have not precluded my belief they will most times land on the good side of the range from 'just facts' to 'opportunistic sensationalism.'

I'll look at one more voice that takes the case seriously before I pivot -- Robert Cunningham and William Quinn for CDMedia gives quite a bit of new context and background:

creativedestructionmedia.com/analysis/2022/…

One bit from that article: "It is the Court’s decision which cases to take on and typically they review a relatively small number (several hundred per year of the thousands submitted.) This case is before SCOTUS because they CHOSE to review this case."

Now I have a fair foundation and a better chance to understand the legalese -- I just need to fill in my blind spots. It is important for me to recognize though that I have now only been exposed to the plaintiff's position and various reporters sympathetic to that position.

To stop now would leave me vulnerable to an echo chamber effect, where I am dependent on information representing an insufficient subsection of the all perspectives. This is a particular risk within polarized political landscapes.

That said, I'll next look at the legalese -- the court documents, laws, and legal definitions that I can find publicly available. After IRL duties :)

A few ChatGPT results:

... aaand I'm back. Catching up, I'm on an entertaining and educational investigatory exercise into the latest election accountability hopium case. Primary goal is to attain contextual information in anticipation of the judgment. 2nd goal is to share how I investigate.

Consider it predictable when people who are lazy, of bad faith, or of low character stubbornly insist that my goal is to predict the outcome, draw and voice overcertain conclusions, or to 'be right' about it somehow. Modern political punditry has conditioned this bias.

supremecourt.gov/search.aspx?fi…

Here is the Supreme Court docket. The latest Brunson filing is the 10/22 writ of certiorari.

See the attached ChatGPT results, keeping in mind that sometimes they will be nonsense.

The downloadable files there include Brunson's writ and an appendix that is the October 6 decision by the appeals court that at first glance appears to thoroughly consider and refute Brunson's case.

That's where we stand. As GP's Alicia Howe reported in her article in this thread above, "The Brunsons are now appealing the case to the Supreme Court."

Here is the link to Brunson's argument in the writ again:

supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/22/2…

And an opening section from the document. Note the two results for doctrines of equitable maxim and object principle of justice. New to me.

This above text, written pro se by amateurs, may or may not contain the most direct route to a determination by an unbiased judge that the case will be heard.

Next is the list of people being sued. Might make a nice wallpaper.

Next, citations from the U.S. Constitution that are presented as support. Note here "shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion... or given aid or comfort" to enemies.

Boiled down: Voting to recognize an election while 100 Congressional colleagues have concerns about foreign intervention into it is aid to enemies.

One of the great things about reading these documents is that when they are reasonably well written and go to the root at the Constitution, it's always a good learning experience. Here is one like that for me:

"...the Constitution of the United States... [does] not grant rights... These instruments measure the power of the rulers [not] the rights of the governed, and they are not the fountain of law nor the origin of... rights, but they have been put in place to protect their rights."

And here is where we get our first direct look at Brunson language central to SC's review - his argument against the 'sovereign immunity' cited at dismissal.

Though quite relevant, that would be a tangent for me here, because decision is imminent and others are better suited.

The basic question is whether sovereign immunity applies here. The question is whether the SC has authority to enforce 18 U.S. Code § 2381 for treason.

“Whoever, owing allegiance to the [US], levies war against... adheres to... enemies... [gives] aid/comfort... is guilty of treason and shall suffer death, or... be imprisoned not less than five years and fined... not less than $10,000... [and] incapable of holding any office...”

Brunson argues: What meaning does this law have if the court can adjudicate whether an incumbent has given aid to enemies, but has no say in removal from office?

I read Brunson's standing argument as essentially disenfranchisement, and cites National Security to appeal for expedited handling. All that's left is the judge's decision. I'll add some thoughts here and there.

Because I don't have expectations, have constant general optimism, and I don't pin my hopes on a single event, I have no need to protect myself from disappointment from the outcome.

"Expectations are premeditated resentments"

This makes me an outlier and limits my ability to have a good read on general sentiment. I am always perplexed when perpetual anxiety mode projects a fear of disappointment on me, because I do not suffer that -- I use discretion and believe you can too.

As a side note, presuming to be the nanny or seatbelt for other people's disappointment is also a momentum dampening trick used by social engineers.

"Don't get your hopes up, we always lose"

After thinking about my own blindspot, I'll use Google News for mainstream perspectives. Four results came up: one is 404, one is behind paywall (the Salt Lake Tribune), one is a letter to the editor, and one is a podcast sympathetic to the cause.

Though Salt Lake Tribune is a significant, ~150 year old corporation, that alone is no reason to change my map. I do note that that paper used the word 'longshot' to describe the case, a word more likely to be accurate here than with Ron Paul.

Google News is tapped.

A bit dissatisfied at the search results, but I have not yet exhausted diminishing returns on this research, not at all. Aha! Turns out Google results are much different than results of the next engine I tried.

I used Yahoo randomlyish, as I would try any of a number of alternatives to find more perspectives as needed. It's hard to believe what I found. What seems to be one of the very few serious investigations into this case on the internet:

uncoverdc.com/2022/12/30/the…

This is ironic for two reasons. 1) The article does not take the brunson case as a serious legal challenge, yet is written by folks that are otherwise fearlessly pro-election integrity 2) The article is written for an outlet that I have personally written for in the past :LOL:

I must admit a fear that my description of what appears to me as a serendipitous event will be mistaken for a contrivance.

The article is at UncoverDC and written by Adam Carter and Tracy Beanz. These two are as usual some time ahead of me and the world on this one, written 10 days ago. There is very interesting conjecture as to the results of the case, and the authors predict immediate dismissal.

It also goes into the legal justifications for that prediction in great detail, and provides much historical context. No need to summarize it here, but many relevant branches of study.

A topic within the article is pertinent here. Deriving pseudo-optimism from legal predictions without sufficient predicate legal knowledge, rather than cultivating a natural view of time's horizon. I presume there is some reason to believe this failure is endemic.

From my searches so far, I have not found that there is much activity surrounding this case at all. But the UDC article says "This story is 'clickbait' gold and has caught fire on social media and among the America First base like few other stories we’ve seen."

Setting aside that I can trust the authors claims' on a personal level, the fact that this does not match what I've seen in my research so far is where I need to look next.

It is a good reminder to check the wisdom of crowds! Perhaps that's why UDC is ahead on the stories.

From my perspective, which was intended to be mostly outside the scope of this thread, I now must re-evaluate immediately. I have direct experience with claims made in articles by these two authors that have borne true. I now have a trusted authority on the matter.

Aside from reservations for the low-probability prospect of long-term peer 'confidence' positioning, I now am compelled by circumstance to restructure the heirarchy of information authority surrounding this subject. I cannot take rearrangement of foundational pieces lightly.

But my goal in this thread, specifically improvisationally templating a general investigatory process, dictates that I keep my own anecdotal experience out of consideration. Even from that perspective, the UDC article stands.

Last bit from UDC article is impressively central to both generalist map and the specific issue - claim: 20-25% of cases at this stage proceed. I am no more qualified to vet that claim to certainty than others of course, but the article is a more than respectable standard.

Now to leverage crowd wisdom!

First, postings within the Twitter search were mostly retweets of articles I'd already found, scattered with opinion. Will look elsewhere.

While typing the search term, Twitter said there had been 300+ tweets today for the suggested phrase FWIW.

When looking at a Telegram global search for brunson, I see there have been a about few hundred posts in about a month. The volume of activity is not obviously different from Twitter. Searching on this site, though, perhaps one can more easily see the duplicate posts by bots.

There is fewer information and articles, more posts seem to be commentary on Telegram. Also tongue in cheek making fun. 'Look out politician, you're on the Brunson list, buh bye tomorrow.'

The next step will be a virtual step, as I haven't had accounts at Truth Social, or Gettr or Gab in some time.

I would now gather whatever impressions I could easily obtain at those networks similarly to Twitter above, to improve my map.

This is where I choose to pass on this one. I have gathered huge swaths of contextual information that was not previously available to me at low cost and and in little time by taking planned jaunts into a variety of places to prepare to understand an interesting decision.

When i started, I had a Supreme Court election case to look at, but knew nothing about it. Is it a well written essay that only lawyers will be annoyed exists? Will the court give it hearing?

Are we in an age where we must double-check??

/end

@JohnBNevin

Maybe next thread, I do search engines.

SCOTUS passed on hearing Brunson v Adams case.

Most direct summary that I have found:

"SCOTUS does not, and should not, have the authority to remove politicians from office based on their voting choices."

#law #atty #lawtwitter

ClaytonB from @RonPaulForums summarizes:

"the outcome of a vote of Congress is, by definition, outside the purview of SCOTUS. This is the very definition of separation-of-powers"

ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php…

@BehizyTweets summarizes:

https://twitter.com/BehizyTweets/status/1612481278632431616

"it's a civil case seeking criminal relief. To remove someone from office [for] treason they have to be charged WITH treason.. Brunson sought for SCOTUS to essentially punish them for treason WITHOUT them being charged with it."

Are those responsible, in direct violation of their oaths of office, accountable only to the next public vote? Even while rigging the vote is the primary question? What is a representative Republic's defense against infiltrate->rig->occupy->overthrow legislatively?

Are there ANY viable legal routes to accountability for those derelict and in violation of oath?