top of page

SCOTUS Petition to Possibly Remove 388 Federal Officers

Update (21 August 2023): Rehearing DENIED.



Update (27 July 2023): “DISTRIBUTED” but it does not explicitly state that it is distributed for conference, let alone a particular date. Laziness or intentionally vague for a reason?



Update (7 July 2023): Petition for rehearing filed. Again.




Update (26 June 2023): Rehearing DENIED.


Not surprising. It is, however, becoming tiresome. It’s great that someone is making the effort and keeping the pressure on.


As for SCOTUS, it is strange that they actually bothered in the first place and keep on doing so. To be fair, I don’t know what they are doing behind the scenes. But if they are really threatened by the Demoncrat effort to introduce term limits, then maybe overtly going on the offense may help?



Update (7 June 2023): Some may think it’s pointless but it’s been distributed for conference of 22 June 2023.



Update (25 May 2023): Just like last time back in November 2022, the government surprisingly waives its right to respond, signed on 24 May 2023.

The Government hereby waives its right to file a response to the petition in this case, unless requested to do so by the Court.

It may just be the “let’s not dignify it” attitude, but it is arguably unwise to not take advantage of the opportunity to make things harder for the petitioner and the court… which is just as well.



Update (11 May 2023): “Third time lucky?”


One of the Brunson brothers has filed what appears to be essentially the same petition with the same arguments: to remove a number of federal officers from office for failing to do their job.


The case Loy Arlan Brunson, Petitioner vs Alma S. Adams, et al. (22-1028) is on the docket of SCOTUS (dated 24 April 2023). Please note the docket number of the previous petition that was denied is 22-380.



Update (21 February 2023): Rehearing DENIED.


This in itself is not surprising. The surprise is that there was a conference and then a second one. According to Brunson, there are other cases in play for whatever they’re worth.


As for this case, it’s almost as if SCOTUS is waiting for the right time, including a sufficient percentage of the population to wake up. As is common, whether rightly or wrongly, it’s not just the court of law but also the court of public opinion that matters. Personally, I’m content to wait and see but I’m not holding my breath.



Update (2 February 2023): Although the initial petition was denied, a petition for a rehearing was filed on 23 January 2023.


In short, it appeals to the serious nature of the case, particularly the possibility of an “act of war”, so please get on with it.

Allegations that claim the election is rigged should be investigated. If one of the purposes of war is to put into power its victor, and since a rigged election accomplishes the same thing, which is to put into power its victor, then isn’t a rigged election an act of war? This Honorable Court has already ruled that one need not pick up arms in order to “levy war” in US v Burr (1807) 4 Cranch (8 US) 4669, 2 L.Ed. 684.

On 1 February 2023, it was distributed for conference of 17 February 2023.



Update (9 January 2023): Petition DENIED.


Not that surprising, although it is strange that they even had a conference for it in the first place.

Original Article (30 November 2023)

Not surprisingly, this is not covered by lamestream media although it is a little surprising that independent media is not giving this more attention. So, I may as well mention it here. I am not implying this will result in any significantly positive actions but there is the potential.


Raland J. Brunson, Petitioner vs Alma S. Adams, et al. (22-380) on the docket of SCOTUS is basically a petition to have the 388 “Respondents” possibly removed from office—including President Biden and VP Harris—for failing to investigate the claims of fraud regarding the 2020 presidential election.


This is not even directly about the election results or the alleged fraud itself, but that there was no investigation of the claims thereof. From “Statement of the Case” (p.3–p.4):

Respondents were properly warned and were requested to make an investigation into a highly covert swift and powerful enemy, as stated below, seeking to destroy the Constitution and the United States. Respondents purposely thwarted all efforts to investigate this, whereupon this enemy was not checked or investigated, therefore the Respondents adhered to this enemy. …
On January 6, 2021, the 117th Congress held a proceeding and debate in Washington DC (“Proceeding”). This 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 [sic] 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. Therefore, Brunson moves this court to grant this petition, or in the alternative without continuing further, order the trial court to grant Brunson’s complaint in its fullest. Brunson’s complaint is the mechanism that can immediately remove the Respondents from office without leaving this country vulnerable without a President and Vice President. [Emphasis mine.]

From p.7 under the same abovementioned section:

It is an uncontestable fact that the Respondents committed fraud and treason breaching our national security (as factually alleged in Brunson’s complaint), thus adhering to an [sic] domestic enemy that continues to breach our national security at an alarming rate on a daily basis. This national security breach is having the same end result as an act of war; to place into power whom the Respondents want, which is Biden. Brunson moves this Court, with its powers, to order the trial court of this case to immediately grant to Brunson the damages he seeks in his complaint. This is necessary to immediately secure our national security without any further delay.

What is surprising is that the Respondents have not… well, responded. The below was signed on 23 November 2022.

The Government hereby waives its right to file a response to the petition in this case, unless requested to do so by the Court.

There are, of course, other implications outside this case. For example, will “they” arrest Trump as a counterattack? This does not necessarily prevent this petition from being granted. Will there be some sort of so-called false flag? Or will this simply fizzle out?


As the saying goes: Time will tell.


Raland J. Brunson, Petitioner vs Alma S. Adams, et al. (22-380)
 

Be sure to subscribe to our mailing list so you get each new Opinyun that comes out!

 

댓글


Screen Shot 2021-12-09 at 4.49.31 PM.png

10% Off
Use Code: MERRYXMAS

MERCHANDISE!

bottom of page