SCOTUS to Think About Hearing 2020 Election Case Relating To Jan 6 Actions

The Supreme Court is set to think about hearing a 2020 election case concerning actions handled Jan. 6, 2021 by previous Vice President Mike Pence, President Joe Biden, Vice President Kamala Harris, 291 Home members, and 94 senators.

The claim, submitted by Raland J. Brunson, declares the offenders broke their oaths of workplace by declining to examine proof of scams in the 2020 election prior to accepting the electoral votes on Jan. 6, 2021, permitting Biden and Harris to be “fraudulently” inaugurated.

Throughout the joint session of Congress to license the 2020 election outcomes, “over 100 members of U.S. Congress claimed factual evidence that the said election was rigged,” Brunson declares in hispetition for a writ of certiorari “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.”

On Friday, the court will choose whether to give the case a hearing. 4 of the 9 justices need to vote to hear it for the case to move on.

The lawsuit, Brunson v. Alma S. Adams, et al, was initially submitted on June 21, 2021, by Raland J. Brunson in Utah’s second District Court after his bro, Loy, submitted the exact same claim in federal court in Utah, according to the brothers’ website describing their cases. The siblings are representing themselves in the claims.

The Raland J. Brunson match was moved from the state court to the U.S. District Court in Utah. After that court chose versus Brunson, he interested the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals. Prior to a choice was made by the federal appeals court, Brunson recognized he might bypass the court and go directly to the Supreme Court by conjuring up the high court’s Rule 11

The guideline states that a case pending prior to the appeals court might bypass that court’s choice 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.”

After the Supreme Court got Brunson’s petition on Sept. 23, the clerk of the court followed up with him two times to learn more on the claim and the timeline for when that info would be sent out.

Brunson’s filing in the federal district lawsuit kept in mind that members of Congress had actually asked for an examination into the election. His problem asserts there were “over 1,000 affidavits detailing that the Election was rigged with fraud, and claims that there was massive foreign interference in the Election by helping illegal aliens, and other noncitizens vote in the Election, thereby canceling the votes.”

On Jan. 2, 2021, Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas), together with 10 other senators, asked for “an emergency 10-day audit of the election returns in the disputed states.” An overall of 147 Republican lawmakers challenged the accreditation of the election on Jan. 6.

“The efforts made, as stated in the complaint, that avoided an investigation of how Biden won the election, is an act of treason and an act of levying war against the U.S. Constitution which violated Brunson’s unfettered right to vote in an honest and fair election and as such it wrongfully invalidated his vote,” Brunson declares in his petition for a writ of certiorari.

In the district court choice in the event, the judge kept in mind that Brunson requested “(1) the immediate removal of all Defendants from office; (2) that they never be able to collect any further pay from the United States for their official service in Congress or as President or Vice President; (3) that they never be able to again practice law or again serve as an elected office-holder in this country; (4) that they each be investigated for treason; and (5) that former president Trump be immediately inaugurated as President.”

Brunson likewise looked for almost $3 billion in damages.

The federal district court gave the offenders’ movement to dismiss the case based upon Brunson’s absence of standing and the sovereign resistance that the offenders have in their capability as federal government authorities. The appeals court promoted the termination.