 |
| SCOTUS v DEEP STATE |
Update 06May2024
Questionionable Legislation
Update: 17FEB2024
On 20 December 2023, the Supreme Court announced it would review the charge of "Obstruction Of An Official Proceeding".
Some 300 people have been charged with that statute for alleged crimes committed during the Capitol riot.
According to Time Magazine, more than 1,033 people were arrested on charges of storming the US Capitol building on Jan. 6, 2021; charges range from "Obstruction of an Official Proceeding to Assault". But, 28 months after the attempted insurrection, a significant number of rioters are still awaiting their sentencing.
[Notably, those charges were countered with video evidence indicating the charges were false, or worse, that undercover law enforcement officers impersonating protestors were the actual perpetrators of the crimes. Evidence recently presented indicates that senior officers in the House and Senate engaged in a conspiracy to create the image of an assault on Congress, when none actually occurred.]
Around 47% of those arrested [485 individuals] received criminal sentences, while the rest are waiting for their trials or haven’t yet reached plea agreements. According to the US Attorney’s Office for the District of Columbia, 277 defendants were sentenced to periods of incarceration, with longer prison terms for those who engaged in violence or threats.
[Defendants were not allowed legal representation]
[Former] President Donald Trump is also charged with that count in the federal investigation being led by Jack Smith in spite of President Trump's case of Immunity.
[Meanwhile, The Supreme Court declined to expedite a ruling on Donald Trump’s presidential immunity defense against special counsel Jack Smith’s Jan. 6 prosecution. The Justices declined Mr. Smith’s petition for quick review in a single sentence without dissents. \
[The Wall Street Journal notes that Colorado disqualification of Trump as a candidate on their ballot shows how Democrats are determined to make 2024 an election decided by lawyers and courts, not by voters.]
Copyright ©2023 Dow Jones & Company, Inc. All Rights Reserved. 87990cbe856818d5eddac44c7b1cdeb8
Ultimately, it would be the basis for reviewing the Brunson v Adams case on the grounds that Congress violated the Constitutional Rights of US CITIZENS.
- FIRST Amendment [Religion, Speech, Press, Assembly, Petition]
- SECOND Amendment [Right to Bear Arms]
- THIRD Amendment [Quartering of Troops]
- FOURTH Amendment [Search and Seizure]
- FIFTH Amendment [Grand Jury, Double Jeopardy,
- Self-Incrimination, Due Process]
- SIXTH Amendment [ Criminal Prosecutions - Jury Trial,
- Right to Confront, and to Counsel]
- SEVENTH Amendment [Common Law Suits - Jury Trial
- EIGHTH Amendment [Excess Bail or Fines, Cruel and
- Unusual Punishment]
- Ninth Amendment [Non-Enumerated Rights]
- [Listing these specific rights in the Constitution does not mean that Citizens do not have other rights that have not been spelled out.]
- Tenth Amendment [Rights Reserved to States or People]
This case [BRUNSON v ADAMS] has been accepted for review by the US Supreme Court - a rarity in US Jurisprudence. This blog is based on the excerpts of the filing as it now appears on the SCOTUS docket [#22-380] as of 24 October 2022.
[A similar case (#Tore Maras) was recently accepted by the SCOTUS for review after the Ohio Supreme Court ruled against a lower court dismissal.]
The Brunson v Adams case initially addressed issues at the State [Utah] level which essentially violate the US Constitution.
Lower courts dismissed the suit on the basis of "Equitable Maxim" sets in direct violation of the Object Principle of Justice. The case was initiated in June 2021 by Raland J Brunson, arguing Pro Se [i.e., representing himself without a lawyer], In general terms, seeking redress for
"the violation of his Constitutional protected right to participate in an honest and fair election."
"A serious conflict exists between decisions rendered from this Court and lower appeal courts, along with Constitutional provisions and statutes, in deciding whether or not the trial court has jurisdiction to try the merits of this case."
Brunson alleged that the 2020 election was rigged and it lists the Defendants, 94 US State Senators and 129 members of the House of representatives, Joseph Biden and Kamala Harris, and former Vice President Mike Pence, in a conspiracy to defraud the United States and Mr. Brunson, by rigging or allowing the 2020 election process to be rigged.
Brunson's suit calls for
the removal of 94 Senators, President Biden and VP Kamala Harris for being part of the conspiracy to rig the 2020 elections and overthrow the duly elected leader of the United States.
[Because over 100 members of the House of Representatives challenged the vote count]
Mr Brunson's suit alleged that:
1) The Defendants [the US Congress and Senate] violated the US Constitution and their respective Oaths of Office by intentionally refusing to ensure an honest and fair election.
2) Members of Congress are obligated to "reject Electoral College vote submissions from States whose electoral systems are so badly flawed as to render their vote submissions unreliable, untrustworthy, and unworthy of acceptance."
3) During the January 6, 2021 proceedings to count Electoral College votes, Defendants "knowingly mocked their oaths," and thus became "enemies of the U.S. Constitution [which they swore to protect]" by "allowing fraudulent votes to be counted."
4) The 2020 Presidential election was "rigged in every single State," and despite evidence of voter and election fraud, Defendants [Congress] "intentionally refused to investigate the evidence and conspired to cover up the evidence."
5) Defendants' conduct constituted "an attack against the US Constitution" resulting in the fraudulent inauguration of President Biden and VP Harris.
Mr Brunson's Requested Relief includes
1) The immediate removal of Defendants from office,
2) Create an order that former President Trump immediately be allowed to be inaugurated President.
---
The US Attorney [District of Utah], as Counsel for Defendants, sought the removal of the civil action which commenced in a state court against "any officer of the United States ... for or relating to any act under color of such office."
Editorial Note:
The US Attorney argued that elected officials are immune from ANY prosecution since they are "officers of the US". Brunson appealed on the basis of Section 1442(a), an exception which allows for the removal of a civil action commenced in State court.
The Supreme Court has clarified that: if a Defendant (a federal officer) meets these requirements (e.g., the Color of Office) the "right of removal is absolute."
Thus, the Defendant's claim that they have Sovereign Immunity requires that the case be tried in federal court - where the case can be litigated precisely because the Defendants are "federal officers" (who have sworn to uphold the Constitution).
Nonetheless, the District Court dismissed the case; subsequently, Brunson successfully appealed on the basis that the federal court was biased against him, and the US Attorney's Office had a conflict of interest!
In the course of judicial procedure, Mr Brunson succeeded in forcing the case up the ladder by exposing a number of contradictions between State and Federal laws, but the most egregious of which was the attempt to claim Congress's immunity from prosecution based on their status as "federal officers" and thus "Sovereign Immunity" [an exclusion claimed by the British Crown in the American colonies].
Mr Brunson's case is based essentially on Congress's refusal to carry out their Constitutionally required duties in certifying the Election Results when it was clear that the results were based on massive voting corruption.
The public was distracted from the Constitutional review demanded by 100 Members of Congress because of the January 6 demonstration which the FBI converted into an "assault".
Thus, the Election and Electoral College results were not certified in accordance with the US Constitution. In brief, the Election must be decertified, and none of the election components would be legal.
This issue then becomes worth deliberation by the US Supreme Court based on the following:
1) A serious conflict exists between decisions rendered from Supreme Court and lower appeal courts, along with constitutional provisions and statutes, in deciding whether or not the trial court has jurisdiction to try the merits of this Constitutional case.
2) Of great importance, this case uncovers a serious national security breach since it involves the possible removal of a sitting US President and Vice President along with members of the US Congress - deeming them unfit from holding government office in the US.
3) At the same time the trial court also has the authority, to be validated by the Supreme Court, to authorize the swearing in of the legal and rightful heirs for US President and Vice President.
4) There are two doctrines that conflict with each other found in this case affecting every court in this country, known as the doctrine of Equitable Maxim and the doctrine of the Object Principle of Justice.
a) Equitable Maxim created by the Supreme Court, which the lower court used to dismiss this case, sets in direct violation of the Object Principle of Justice which was also partially created by the Supreme Court, and traditionally supported by other Appeals Courts and Constitutional provisions.
b) These conflicts call for the supervisory power of the Supreme Court to resolve these conflicts, which should be settled by this Court without delay.
This case is now on the Supreme Court docket as of 24 October 2022.
[The SCOTUS decision to hear this case may be related to the Deep State plans to pack the Supreme Court during the Lame Duck Congress period when few are paying attention]
[That was how we ended up with an Income Tax, the Federal Reserve Bank, and the Sedition Act]
------------------------------------
The preceding walks you through the relevant elements of Constitutional Law [although I'm certain to be pilloried by law professors and ambulance chasers claiming I have no clue about how the law works]. Nonetheless, I've made this issue as clear as possible with a simplified approach so you can grasp the relevant legal implications of the following.
------------------------------------
1) First Amendment: "Congress shall make no law respecting ... the Right of the People ... to petition the Government for a Redress of Grievances."
2) Article VI of the Constitution: "... the Laws of the United States ... shall be the Supreme Law of the Land, and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby."
3) Fourteenth Amendment: "... nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property without Due Process, nor deny any person... the equal protection of the laws" [e.g., Washington DC]
4) Section 3: No person, Senator or Representative, or Elector of the President or Vice President, or hold any office, ... who, having previously taken an oath ... as an "officer of the United States", ... shall have engaged in an insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof.
5) Ninth Amendment: The enumeration ... of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others contained by the People.
6) Article I, Section 7 of the Utah Constitution: All courts shall be open ...; and no person shall be barred from prosecuting or defending ... any civil cause to which he is a party.
So, what does all this mean to the Defendants [POTUS, Congress and the Senate):
1) This action is against 388 federal officers, all of whom have taken the required Oath to support and defend the US Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic.
a) Defendants were requested to make an investigation into a a highly covert, swift, and powerful enemy, seeking to destroy the Constitution and the United States
b) Defendants thwarted all efforts to investigate this, whereupon this enemy was not checked or investigated.
c) Therefore, the Defendants ADHERED to the enemy!
d) Because of Defendants' intentional refusal to investigate this enemy, Petitioner [Brunson] brought this action against Defendants because he was seriously personally damaged and violated by this action of the Defendants, and consequently, this action unilaterally violated the Rights of every citizen of the USA and perhaps the Rights of every person living, and all courts of law.
2) On January 6, 2021 the 117th Congress held a proceeding and debate... for the purpose of counting votes under the 2020 Election for the President and Vice President of the US under Amendment XII.
3) During this proceeding, over 100 Members of Congress claimed factual evidence that the said Election was rigged.
4) The refusal of the Defendants to investigate this Congressional claim (the enemy) is an Act of Treason and Fraud by Defendants.
a) 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 all US citizens and courts of law.
b) This case is the mechanism that can immediately remove the Defendants from office without leaving the Country vulnerable without a President and Vice President.
c) Plaintiff [Mr Brunson] has standing and the Supreme Court has full and proper jurisdiction to rule on the merits of this case.
d) Due to the uniqueness of this case, the Supreme Court does have the authority to remove Defendants from their offices under 18 US Code S 2381 "Whosoever owing allegiance to the US, levies war against them, or adheres to their enemies, giving them aid and discomfort within the US or elsewhere, is guilty of Treason and shall suffer death, or shall be imprisoned for not less than five years, and shall be incapable of holding any office under the US."
e) It is an incontestable fact that the Defendants committed Fraud and Treason, breaching our National Security - which has the same effect as an Act of War.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Editor Note:
This case should be reviewed with a
full reading of Executive Order 13848 and Executive Order 13823
both of which spell out the basis for charges of Treason - and the Death Penalty.
