So. Brothers from Utah without formal legal training (for whatever that's worth) had sufficient knowledge about a particular law created by Congress that demands investigation by Congress into lawful complaints submitted to Congress.
The Congress decides to "boot" this responsibility and in so doing violate the law and their oaths citing,β¦
So. Brothers from Utah without formal legal training (for whatever that's worth) had sufficient knowledge about a particular law created by Congress that demands investigation by Congress into lawful complaints submitted to Congress.
The Congress decides to "boot" this responsibility and in so doing violate the law and their oaths citing, oh, I don't know..."insurrection?"
I'll bet the vast majority of those losers in Congress lack any knowledge of this law -- as does the vast, vast majority of lawyers in this country.
So. Instead of lawyers from all over the country "descending" on Congress demanding they follow their own law and investigate, three "ordinary" men from Utah take up the task -- come what may. Instead of a flood of such cases coming from all over the country from uncountable numbers of lawyers truly dedicated to their oaths and the Constitution, three "ordinary" men from Utah invest the time and money and effort and intellectual capital to craft πΆπ΅π¬ case that sits on the Supreme court calendar for conference on -- of all days -- Jan 6, 2023.
While I understand being "measured" in our optimism for any just outcome of this case, lawyers across this country should be mortified at their own ignorance of this law and their inaction. Should those of us who pray and hold out hope that justice will be done in this case have our prayers and hopes answered, it would be no stretch to suggest that the ensuing ignominy that falls upon this country's legal profession will have been ππππππ just like which has befallen those in the medical profession.
That's just the point - these non-lawyers have zero understanding of the law (but obviously did a helluva lot of work to get a Petition filed with the Supreme Court.)
I know a lot of lay people think this treason theory is a slam dunk, but it's just anything but that.
Even IF someone slips LSD into the Supreme Court's drinking water and they voted to hear this pile of crap, there's absolutely no legal way (as Jeff hints) that the Supreme Court has the power to do what they want it to do, which is to "un-do" the elections and prosecute the cheaters for treason. They just don't have that power.
Mark my words: these guys worked very hard and got very lucky to get a case filed. That's a billion miles away from convincing anyone on the SC to actually hear the thing. I predict the vote is 9-0 to ignore this thing.
The fundamental point of the case rests on the fact that nearly 400 members of the United States Congress broke the law and their oaths. They did this by voting to dispense with their duty to investigate lawfully-submitted complaints to it regarding the election.
Stated differently, assuring "fair and honest" elections provides the basis for the law. The basis of the ππππ is Congress's failure to follow it -- πππ "un-doing" the election. This law provides as a penalty for failing to follow it removal from office. The Brunsons didn't provide for this remedy! "Lawmakers" did -- and they "booted" -- their own law!!
Had Congress done its duty and found that the over 100 complaints of election "irregularities" πππ had no merit, (cough, cough) then the nation would have the assurance it has a right to -- that the federal election was "fair and honest." And none of us would have ever heard of Loy or Raland Brunson.
The country's lawyers could remain inert against the ongoing Constitutional violations started in 2020 and watch in peace as yet more violations of it and basic human rights get imposed on nation via the vaxxine mandate of the Congressionally-assured "fair and honest" election that brought us that corrupt parasite from Delaware.
P.S. Your sanctimony and disparagement toward this subject and the Brunsons really is unbecoming, Fred.
Your initial statement is incorrect - this case is not based on Congress breaking a law - it's based on the stretch that their oaths to defend the Constitution were violated. It's a YUGE leap to jump from pledging to defend the Constitution, to you failed to defend the Constitution because you had a difference of opinion about the validity of an election outcome.
You say "This law provides as a penalty for failing to follow it removal from office." Entirely untrue. Cite the law to me. No such law exists.
I believe as much as anyone does that the election was rigged. There absolutely was election fraud, I don't doubt it in the least. But the People do not and never have had the power to elect the president of the United States. That's solely the Electoral College's job.
You can say what you want about my "sanctimony and disparagement" but I've always understood that the average person understands almost nothing about our Constitutional Republic.
This case has ZERO basis to go forward. It won't. Mark my words: 9-0 against hearing it.
You're right -- to a point. I was wrong -- to a point. I spoke to one of the Brunson brothers yesterday and got myself straightened out from the source.
The question is not about the validity of an election outcome per se. It is about a duty to investigate lawful complaints that pertain to allegations of ππππππππ ππππππππππππ that had serious implications related to national security. Not vote counting per se.
Let's say the Congress does its duty, investigates, and they find sufficient evidence to prove foreign interference. We then have a national security issue, a possible state of war, and, lastly, an election issue.
If the above happens and Congress finds insufficient evidence to prove foreign interference and proves through its investigation that the electronic voting system is 100% secure and everybody's vote counted as cast, it would prove that at no time was national security at risk, election integrity has been proven, and the election stands. No foreign interference, no treason, no state of war, no election issue.
So, Fred, you contend the above does not pertain to federal officials' oath of office? That the above falls outside their duty to "protect and defend?" That not undertaking this investigation does not violate their oath?
OK.
As for your point about "the people" not having the power to elect the President? Who said they did? "Everybody knows," Fred, that in our constitutional republic voters vote to elect electors who then vote to elect the President. Come on, man!
I should have expanded on my Electoral College reference. It was too laconic to be understood. What I meant to imply was that the election fraud that occurred was at the state level popular elections, and not the EC. There was no vote fraud at the Electoral College, which is the only body that actually chooses our President - not the popular votes.
That said, there's no *legal* duty for Congress to investigate anything, whether or not they took an Oath to defend the Constitution. Their oath of office is ceremonial, not legal.
If this were not the case, the winning party could simply charge the losing party with violating their oaths every time the government switched parties. This is the stuff of Banana Republics - or used to be.
Ergo, they haven't "adhered to an Enemy" much less committed Treason (which by the way, can only be charged when our Republic has formally declared war on an Enemy.)
Nor does the Supreme Court have any power to un-do an election that has been decided by the Electoral College, and subsequently certified and accepted by Congress.
For these reasons, the Brunson case has no legal basis whatsoever - no matter how frustrated the American people are with the rampant frauds in our elections and holding offices in our houses of Congress.
I am in complete agreement with you that the popular votes were fraudulent. They obviously were, it seems to me. But that opinion does not equate with a legal requirement that Congress investigate anything. There's simply no such requirement in any federal statute I'm aware of.
Which brings up a problem (and perhaps a potential solution I mentioned in another thread yesterday.) The federal government ordinarily has zero Constitutional authority to oversee elections - even those for federal office. That's completely the jurisdiction of the states themselves.
The evil genius of the election stealing Democratic Party is that by corrupting elections they theoretically are beyond the scope and reach of the federal authorities. The only authorities they need to fear are run by their own Democratic (or RINO) state officials. So the Dems cheated their way to controlling our federal offices by corrupting our state offices. It's almost like the Achille's heel ejection port on the Death Star, if you'll excuse the silly popular reference.
However, the Voting Rights Act was enacted in the 1960's to fix another Democratic corruption - though one based on race instead of party. Prior to the VRA, state Democratic poll officials made it practically impossible for Southern blacks to vote. There was no way to address these racial disparities because the Feds had no power over elections.
Today I hear many people on the right warning us not to "federalize" elections. OK. But wasn't the Voting Rights Act effective at preventing race-based election fraud? Why shouldn't we adopt the same tactics?
We have to fix local election fraud, or else this nation is finished. It may well be too late. The "proton torpedo" may already have been launched.
Yup, I agree with your description. The election fraud is really quite simple. It's the electronic voting machines. They need to be eliminated. Paper ballots only, hand counted. Simple solution actually. Florida had fair elections this year due to the election reforms laws that were passed here (I believe we are the only state to have done so). The total vote was counted in one night. Thus the only state where the red wave was "visible".
But your conclusion may still happen:...We have to fix local election fraud, or else this nation is finished. It may well be too late. The "proton torpedo" may already have been launched... There is a division taking shape between the Bolsheviks, who control the Fed Gov't and many of the state and local gov'ts, and the people and states that remember what it means to be American. The people are already dividing themselves by leaving the Woke states and moving to the free states. Conversely, unhappy woke people who live in free states are moving to states where they are "free" to practice their Wokeism. As the Woke states and the Fed gov't go increasingly broke, eventually the free states will have to cut ties out of self-preservation or their productivity will be taxed to support the unproductive Woke governments. I don't know if this can be reversed. I do not believe the Bolsheviks will voluntarily give up power in 2024. They will entirely steal the election or they will not hold elections at all based on same national emergency they create which would prolly begin next year. I do not put anything past these people.
The average person may know nothing about the application of our Constitution but they are increasingly aware that there "is a rat in Philadelphia" and they are increasingly feeling disenfranchised and powerless/meaningless, though they are unable to identify the source of their frustration. If nothing else, events like this unlikely case will serve to give some concrete expression to the frustration American citizens are experiencing. The case may go nowhere but continual efforts like this may serve to galvanize and coalesce a public movement against the evil that has taken our government.
Let's hope it has the effect you mention in your last sentence.
I fear instead that this ignorant pile of crap case will only serve to further alienate the well-meaning but ignorant of the law public, and drive them further underground when it inevitably craters on Jan. 6
All I know is we must continually and loudly point out what is so wrong about what is happening. But it is a very difficult proposition when the enemy literally controls the mass media. I would not worry about alienating a few wilting daisies in the public. If they can't appreciate what is happening, they wouldn't be of any help anyway. This is a war and looking for the perfect legal case is not going to accomplish anything. We have to keep fighting loudly and crudely if necessary. There is a reason for Stew Peters style. We are always letting the opposition set the terms of the debate. Think about it. They ALWAYS control the playing field cuz we're always on the defensive. It's ridiculous. We have to reject their presuppositions, vividly describe them for the evil they are and proclaim the truth. People recognize truth when they hear it. There is no common ground with evil. When we compromise, we lose. The Rep party under the RINOs have always used this tactic to control the party. We have to put the enemy on the defensive and force them to defend their position. We do not have to defend our position. We are in the right. Truth defends itself. Evil cannot stand under scrutiny. There is a division coming and we should welcome it and illuminate it. This is not a legal debate. This is a war.
So. Brothers from Utah without formal legal training (for whatever that's worth) had sufficient knowledge about a particular law created by Congress that demands investigation by Congress into lawful complaints submitted to Congress.
The Congress decides to "boot" this responsibility and in so doing violate the law and their oaths citing, oh, I don't know..."insurrection?"
I'll bet the vast majority of those losers in Congress lack any knowledge of this law -- as does the vast, vast majority of lawyers in this country.
So. Instead of lawyers from all over the country "descending" on Congress demanding they follow their own law and investigate, three "ordinary" men from Utah take up the task -- come what may. Instead of a flood of such cases coming from all over the country from uncountable numbers of lawyers truly dedicated to their oaths and the Constitution, three "ordinary" men from Utah invest the time and money and effort and intellectual capital to craft πΆπ΅π¬ case that sits on the Supreme court calendar for conference on -- of all days -- Jan 6, 2023.
While I understand being "measured" in our optimism for any just outcome of this case, lawyers across this country should be mortified at their own ignorance of this law and their inaction. Should those of us who pray and hold out hope that justice will be done in this case have our prayers and hopes answered, it would be no stretch to suggest that the ensuing ignominy that falls upon this country's legal profession will have been ππππππ just like which has befallen those in the medical profession.
Latest update on the Brunsen case - SCOTUS is set to have a confrence on (of all dates!) 1/6/23
https://rumble.com/v1yclhk-surrender-u.s.-sovereignty-with-loy-brunson-and-josh-reid-unrestricted-trut.html
That's just the point - these non-lawyers have zero understanding of the law (but obviously did a helluva lot of work to get a Petition filed with the Supreme Court.)
I know a lot of lay people think this treason theory is a slam dunk, but it's just anything but that.
Even IF someone slips LSD into the Supreme Court's drinking water and they voted to hear this pile of crap, there's absolutely no legal way (as Jeff hints) that the Supreme Court has the power to do what they want it to do, which is to "un-do" the elections and prosecute the cheaters for treason. They just don't have that power.
Mark my words: these guys worked very hard and got very lucky to get a case filed. That's a billion miles away from convincing anyone on the SC to actually hear the thing. I predict the vote is 9-0 to ignore this thing.
The fundamental point of the case rests on the fact that nearly 400 members of the United States Congress broke the law and their oaths. They did this by voting to dispense with their duty to investigate lawfully-submitted complaints to it regarding the election.
Stated differently, assuring "fair and honest" elections provides the basis for the law. The basis of the ππππ is Congress's failure to follow it -- πππ "un-doing" the election. This law provides as a penalty for failing to follow it removal from office. The Brunsons didn't provide for this remedy! "Lawmakers" did -- and they "booted" -- their own law!!
Had Congress done its duty and found that the over 100 complaints of election "irregularities" πππ had no merit, (cough, cough) then the nation would have the assurance it has a right to -- that the federal election was "fair and honest." And none of us would have ever heard of Loy or Raland Brunson.
The country's lawyers could remain inert against the ongoing Constitutional violations started in 2020 and watch in peace as yet more violations of it and basic human rights get imposed on nation via the vaxxine mandate of the Congressionally-assured "fair and honest" election that brought us that corrupt parasite from Delaware.
P.S. Your sanctimony and disparagement toward this subject and the Brunsons really is unbecoming, Fred.
Your initial statement is incorrect - this case is not based on Congress breaking a law - it's based on the stretch that their oaths to defend the Constitution were violated. It's a YUGE leap to jump from pledging to defend the Constitution, to you failed to defend the Constitution because you had a difference of opinion about the validity of an election outcome.
You say "This law provides as a penalty for failing to follow it removal from office." Entirely untrue. Cite the law to me. No such law exists.
I believe as much as anyone does that the election was rigged. There absolutely was election fraud, I don't doubt it in the least. But the People do not and never have had the power to elect the president of the United States. That's solely the Electoral College's job.
You can say what you want about my "sanctimony and disparagement" but I've always understood that the average person understands almost nothing about our Constitutional Republic.
This case has ZERO basis to go forward. It won't. Mark my words: 9-0 against hearing it.
You're right -- to a point. I was wrong -- to a point. I spoke to one of the Brunson brothers yesterday and got myself straightened out from the source.
The question is not about the validity of an election outcome per se. It is about a duty to investigate lawful complaints that pertain to allegations of ππππππππ ππππππππππππ that had serious implications related to national security. Not vote counting per se.
Let's say the Congress does its duty, investigates, and they find sufficient evidence to prove foreign interference. We then have a national security issue, a possible state of war, and, lastly, an election issue.
If the above happens and Congress finds insufficient evidence to prove foreign interference and proves through its investigation that the electronic voting system is 100% secure and everybody's vote counted as cast, it would prove that at no time was national security at risk, election integrity has been proven, and the election stands. No foreign interference, no treason, no state of war, no election issue.
So, Fred, you contend the above does not pertain to federal officials' oath of office? That the above falls outside their duty to "protect and defend?" That not undertaking this investigation does not violate their oath?
OK.
As for your point about "the people" not having the power to elect the President? Who said they did? "Everybody knows," Fred, that in our constitutional republic voters vote to elect electors who then vote to elect the President. Come on, man!
I should have expanded on my Electoral College reference. It was too laconic to be understood. What I meant to imply was that the election fraud that occurred was at the state level popular elections, and not the EC. There was no vote fraud at the Electoral College, which is the only body that actually chooses our President - not the popular votes.
That said, there's no *legal* duty for Congress to investigate anything, whether or not they took an Oath to defend the Constitution. Their oath of office is ceremonial, not legal.
If this were not the case, the winning party could simply charge the losing party with violating their oaths every time the government switched parties. This is the stuff of Banana Republics - or used to be.
Ergo, they haven't "adhered to an Enemy" much less committed Treason (which by the way, can only be charged when our Republic has formally declared war on an Enemy.)
Nor does the Supreme Court have any power to un-do an election that has been decided by the Electoral College, and subsequently certified and accepted by Congress.
For these reasons, the Brunson case has no legal basis whatsoever - no matter how frustrated the American people are with the rampant frauds in our elections and holding offices in our houses of Congress.
I am in complete agreement with you that the popular votes were fraudulent. They obviously were, it seems to me. But that opinion does not equate with a legal requirement that Congress investigate anything. There's simply no such requirement in any federal statute I'm aware of.
Which brings up a problem (and perhaps a potential solution I mentioned in another thread yesterday.) The federal government ordinarily has zero Constitutional authority to oversee elections - even those for federal office. That's completely the jurisdiction of the states themselves.
The evil genius of the election stealing Democratic Party is that by corrupting elections they theoretically are beyond the scope and reach of the federal authorities. The only authorities they need to fear are run by their own Democratic (or RINO) state officials. So the Dems cheated their way to controlling our federal offices by corrupting our state offices. It's almost like the Achille's heel ejection port on the Death Star, if you'll excuse the silly popular reference.
However, the Voting Rights Act was enacted in the 1960's to fix another Democratic corruption - though one based on race instead of party. Prior to the VRA, state Democratic poll officials made it practically impossible for Southern blacks to vote. There was no way to address these racial disparities because the Feds had no power over elections.
Today I hear many people on the right warning us not to "federalize" elections. OK. But wasn't the Voting Rights Act effective at preventing race-based election fraud? Why shouldn't we adopt the same tactics?
We have to fix local election fraud, or else this nation is finished. It may well be too late. The "proton torpedo" may already have been launched.
Please use the term "Democrat" and "Democratic" correctly. There's absolutely nothing democratic about the Democrat party and their ilk.
Yup, I agree with your description. The election fraud is really quite simple. It's the electronic voting machines. They need to be eliminated. Paper ballots only, hand counted. Simple solution actually. Florida had fair elections this year due to the election reforms laws that were passed here (I believe we are the only state to have done so). The total vote was counted in one night. Thus the only state where the red wave was "visible".
But your conclusion may still happen:...We have to fix local election fraud, or else this nation is finished. It may well be too late. The "proton torpedo" may already have been launched... There is a division taking shape between the Bolsheviks, who control the Fed Gov't and many of the state and local gov'ts, and the people and states that remember what it means to be American. The people are already dividing themselves by leaving the Woke states and moving to the free states. Conversely, unhappy woke people who live in free states are moving to states where they are "free" to practice their Wokeism. As the Woke states and the Fed gov't go increasingly broke, eventually the free states will have to cut ties out of self-preservation or their productivity will be taxed to support the unproductive Woke governments. I don't know if this can be reversed. I do not believe the Bolsheviks will voluntarily give up power in 2024. They will entirely steal the election or they will not hold elections at all based on same national emergency they create which would prolly begin next year. I do not put anything past these people.
The average person may know nothing about the application of our Constitution but they are increasingly aware that there "is a rat in Philadelphia" and they are increasingly feeling disenfranchised and powerless/meaningless, though they are unable to identify the source of their frustration. If nothing else, events like this unlikely case will serve to give some concrete expression to the frustration American citizens are experiencing. The case may go nowhere but continual efforts like this may serve to galvanize and coalesce a public movement against the evil that has taken our government.
What I want to know is where the F*** are our lawyers?
You're a man after my own heart, Phil. β€οΈβ€οΈβ€οΈ
Let's hope it has the effect you mention in your last sentence.
I fear instead that this ignorant pile of crap case will only serve to further alienate the well-meaning but ignorant of the law public, and drive them further underground when it inevitably craters on Jan. 6
All I know is we must continually and loudly point out what is so wrong about what is happening. But it is a very difficult proposition when the enemy literally controls the mass media. I would not worry about alienating a few wilting daisies in the public. If they can't appreciate what is happening, they wouldn't be of any help anyway. This is a war and looking for the perfect legal case is not going to accomplish anything. We have to keep fighting loudly and crudely if necessary. There is a reason for Stew Peters style. We are always letting the opposition set the terms of the debate. Think about it. They ALWAYS control the playing field cuz we're always on the defensive. It's ridiculous. We have to reject their presuppositions, vividly describe them for the evil they are and proclaim the truth. People recognize truth when they hear it. There is no common ground with evil. When we compromise, we lose. The Rep party under the RINOs have always used this tactic to control the party. We have to put the enemy on the defensive and force them to defend their position. We do not have to defend our position. We are in the right. Truth defends itself. Evil cannot stand under scrutiny. There is a division coming and we should welcome it and illuminate it. This is not a legal debate. This is a war.
From the rooftops! Bullhorns!!