+ Reply to Thread
Results 1 to 14 of 14

Thread: A BREACH OF NATIONAL SECURITY - The Loy Brunson US Supreme Court Case

  1. Link to Post #1
    Avalon Member norman's Avatar
    Join Date
    25th March 2010
    Location
    too close to the hot air exhaust
    Age
    68
    Posts
    8,894
    Thanks
    9,942
    Thanked 55,035 times in 8,168 posts

    Default A BREACH OF NATIONAL SECURITY - The Loy Brunson US Supreme Court Case

    A spark that could ignite Washington and The Deep State



    BRUNSON VS ALMA SUPREME COURT DOC 22-380

    SCOTUS DOC WAIVER


    URGENT 11.25.22 SCOTUS case. Magnitude of what's at play
    HAMMERTIMERapidFireQNews - Published November 25, 2022

    https://rumble.com/v1x61a5-juan-o-sa...s-at-play.html


    Source: https://www.rumble.com/video/v1ujvw3/?pub=4
    Last edited by norman; 1st December 2022 at 12:51.
    ..................................................my first language is TYPO..............................................

  2. The Following 11 Users Say Thank You to norman For This Post:

    Blacklight43 (1st December 2022), bluestflame (1st December 2022), Chip (3rd December 2022), Johnnycomelately (1st December 2022), Karen (Geophyz) (1st December 2022), NancyV (1st December 2022), Nasu (1st December 2022), palehorse (29th December 2022), Sadieblue (2nd December 2022), selinam (1st December 2022), Vangelo (1st December 2022)

  3. Link to Post #2
    Avalon Member norman's Avatar
    Join Date
    25th March 2010
    Location
    too close to the hot air exhaust
    Age
    68
    Posts
    8,894
    Thanks
    9,942
    Thanked 55,035 times in 8,168 posts

    Default Re: A BREACH OF NATIONAL SECURITY - The Loy Brunson US Supreme Court Case

    BREAKING: Brunson Case on Docket for Supreme Court Conference - Congressional Immunity on Trial
    Sarah Westall - December 1st, 2022

    Loy Brunson joins the program to discuss the lawsuit him and his brothers filed against 385 members of congress, Joe Biden, Kamala Harris, and Mike Pence. His case is challenging the congressional immunity clause and whether it protects congress from literally everything, even violating their oath of office and the U.S. constitution.







    A BREACH OF NATIONAL SECURITY: LOY AND RALAND BRUNSON SUPREME COURT CASE
    Project Camelot - November 29th, 2022

    TODAY’S INTERVIEW WITH LOY BRUNSON RE Supreme Court Case #22-380 Brunson VS. Adams Defendants Joseph Biden, Kamala Harris & including 388 members of the House of Representatives and Senate...….”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.”

    ..................................................my first language is TYPO..............................................

  4. The Following 7 Users Say Thank You to norman For This Post:

    Alecs (1st December 2022), Blacklight43 (1st December 2022), bluestflame (1st December 2022), Nasu (1st December 2022), Sadieblue (2nd December 2022), T Smith (5th December 2022), Vangelo (1st December 2022)

  5. Link to Post #3
    Avalon Member norman's Avatar
    Join Date
    25th March 2010
    Location
    too close to the hot air exhaust
    Age
    68
    Posts
    8,894
    Thanks
    9,942
    Thanked 55,035 times in 8,168 posts

    Default Re: A BREACH OF NATIONAL SECURITY - The Loy Brunson US Supreme Court Case

    ..................................................my first language is TYPO..............................................

  6. The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to norman For This Post:

    bluestflame (1st December 2022), Nasu (1st December 2022), Sadieblue (2nd December 2022), T Smith (5th December 2022)

  7. Link to Post #4
    Avalon Member norman's Avatar
    Join Date
    25th March 2010
    Location
    too close to the hot air exhaust
    Age
    68
    Posts
    8,894
    Thanks
    9,942
    Thanked 55,035 times in 8,168 posts

    Default Re: A BREACH OF NATIONAL SECURITY - The Loy Brunson US Supreme Court Case

    A WILD CARD HAS JUST ENTERED THE GAME
    November 30th, 2022


    Source: https://www.bitchute.com/video/kLCgOoMvrlVq/



    The clerk of the Supreme court talked them into removing the Rule 11 part ( after the 10th circuit appeals court released it for advancement to the Supreme Court [ in my mind that was a tricky defensive move by the corrupt network, now it doesn't have the national emergency element built into it] ) . . .hmmm


    Also, the date for the review conference by the Justices is now officially set for Jan 6th 2023. That's too late for what O'Savin says is the urgency.

    But, I suppose there's nothing really stopping them from moving faster than that if they want to ?
    Last edited by norman; 1st December 2022 at 14:32.
    ..................................................my first language is TYPO..............................................

  8. The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to norman For This Post:

    bluestflame (2nd December 2022), Nasu (1st December 2022), Sadieblue (2nd December 2022), T Smith (5th December 2022)

  9. Link to Post #5
    Avalon Member
    Join Date
    26th May 2010
    Location
    Albuquerque, NM, USA
    Age
    73
    Posts
    2,450
    Thanks
    11,321
    Thanked 22,059 times in 2,419 posts

    Default Re: A BREACH OF NATIONAL SECURITY - The Loy Brunson US Supreme Court Case

    Quote Posted by norman (here)
    A WILD CARD HAS JUST ENTERED THE GAME
    November 30th, 2022


    Source: https://www.bitchute.com/video/kLCgOoMvrlVq/



    The clerk of the Supreme court talked them into removing the Rule 11 part ( after the 10th circuit appeals court released it for advancement to the Supreme Court [ in my mind that was a tricky defensive move by the corrupt network, now it doesn't have the national emergency element built into it] ) . . .hmmm


    Also, the date for the review conference by the Justices is now officially set for Jan 6th 2023. That's too late for what O'Savin says is the urgency.

    But, I suppose there's nothing really stopping them from moving faster than that if they want to ?
    There is no “miracle” at work here. This is routine legal procedure he is describing. The SCOTUS can deny the petition even though there was no opposition filed to the petition for writ of certiorari. Or, it can grant it. Odds are that the petition will be denied. I’m not predicting it will be denied. I’m just saying the odds are against it being granted.

    Edit: Mr. Brunson is living in fantasy land about what he sees happening. I’m referring to what he says after Juan O Savin first spoke. What Savin is suggesting is that SCOTUS may grant the petition to give it some leverage over Congress to prevent it from packing the court or otherwise punishing the court for its recent decisions, especially on Roe v Wade. Interesting theory but doubtful.
    Last edited by Satori; 1st December 2022 at 14:46.

  10. The Following 9 Users Say Thank You to Satori For This Post:

    Alecs (1st December 2022), bluestflame (2nd December 2022), Journeyman (29th December 2022), norman (1st December 2022), Sadieblue (2nd December 2022), scotslad (1st December 2022), selinam (1st December 2022), Sunray (4th December 2022), T Smith (5th December 2022)

  11. Link to Post #6
    Avalon Member norman's Avatar
    Join Date
    25th March 2010
    Location
    too close to the hot air exhaust
    Age
    68
    Posts
    8,894
    Thanks
    9,942
    Thanked 55,035 times in 8,168 posts

    Default Re: A BREACH OF NATIONAL SECURITY - The Loy Brunson US Supreme Court Case

    The real point is, the case itself is rock solid. As soon as any ( it only requires one ) members of Congress raised evidence and challenges to the forwarding to a (joint?) house vote to accept the election results that came in from the states, they were legally required to halt proceedings and review the issues.

    They DIDN'T.
    ..................................................my first language is TYPO..............................................

  12. The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to norman For This Post:

    bluestflame (2nd December 2022), Sadieblue (2nd December 2022), selinam (1st December 2022), wondering (1st December 2022)

  13. Link to Post #7
    Avalon Member
    Join Date
    26th May 2010
    Location
    Albuquerque, NM, USA
    Age
    73
    Posts
    2,450
    Thanks
    11,321
    Thanked 22,059 times in 2,419 posts

    Default Re: A BREACH OF NATIONAL SECURITY - The Loy Brunson US Supreme Court Case

    Quote Posted by norman (here)
    The real point is, the case itself is rock solid. As soon as any ( it only requires one ) members of Congress raised evidence and challenges to the forwarding to a (joint?) house vote to accept the election results that came in from the states, they were legally required to halt proceedings and review the issues.

    They DIDN'T.
    I agree with the point of law that the certification process in Congress was required to stop once even a single state had not certified its state results. When confronted with that situation, as it was, Congress was then required to recess to debate the point and resolve it before proceeding to move on to the next state certification. That did not happen. Thanks in large measure to Pence. I wrote about this at length in a number of posts in this Forum in November/December 2020 on one of the election threads. I included citations to the applicable law.

    But, sadly, a rock solid legal position does not mean the SCOTUS will grant a petition.

  14. The Following 9 Users Say Thank You to Satori For This Post:

    bluestflame (2nd December 2022), Journeyman (29th December 2022), norman (1st December 2022), palehorse (29th December 2022), Sadieblue (2nd December 2022), scotslad (1st December 2022), Sunray (4th December 2022), T Smith (5th December 2022), wondering (1st December 2022)

  15. Link to Post #8
    Scotland Avalon Member scotslad's Avatar
    Join Date
    18th September 2018
    Location
    Scotland
    Posts
    653
    Thanks
    2,129
    Thanked 6,032 times in 644 posts

    Default Re: A BREACH OF NATIONAL SECURITY - The Loy Brunson US Supreme Court Case

    @Satori, damn you're good, squire

  16. The Following User Says Thank You to scotslad For This Post:

    T Smith (5th December 2022)

  17. Link to Post #9
    Avalon Member norman's Avatar
    Join Date
    25th March 2010
    Location
    too close to the hot air exhaust
    Age
    68
    Posts
    8,894
    Thanks
    9,942
    Thanked 55,035 times in 8,168 posts

    Default Re: A BREACH OF NATIONAL SECURITY - The Loy Brunson US Supreme Court Case

    Should these people shut up about it, or should the whole country we talking about it ?

    Also, there are signs that there may be a Trump arrest coming up soon.

    JUAN O SAVIN and LOY BRUNSON - SCOTUS Case 22-380 ~ THE HEAT IS ON -Hammertime 12.2.22
    Published December 2, 2022

    https://rumble.com/v1yhbfo-juan-o-sa...mertime-1.html


    Source: https://www.rumble.com/video/v1vv676/?pub=4
    ..................................................my first language is TYPO..............................................

  18. The Following User Says Thank You to norman For This Post:

    bluestflame (3rd December 2022)

  19. Link to Post #10
    Avalon Member
    Join Date
    26th May 2010
    Location
    Albuquerque, NM, USA
    Age
    73
    Posts
    2,450
    Thanks
    11,321
    Thanked 22,059 times in 2,419 posts

    Default Re: A BREACH OF NATIONAL SECURITY - The Loy Brunson US Supreme Court Case

    Quote Posted by norman (here)
    Should these people shut up about it, or should the whole country we talking about it ?

    Also, there are signs that there may be a Trump arrest coming up soon.

    JUAN O SAVIN and LOY BRUNSON - SCOTUS Case 22-380 ~ THE HEAT IS ON -Hammertime 12.2.22
    Published December 2, 2022

    https://rumble.com/v1yhbfo-juan-o-sa...mertime-1.html


    Source: https://www.rumble.com/video/v1vv676/?pub=4
    I don’t think they should shut up. They have a right to speak. But I do think they need to do their homework governing the rules of the SCOTUS and the process that applies to filing a petition for writ of certiorari.

    By way of disclosure I have not watched much of this video, nor did I finish the video posted before this one. In their enthusiasm a number of misstatements were made and I quit watching. I may go back and finish one or both videos, the one in post #4 and the one above, just out of curiosity while doing some chores to pass the time.

    From a big picture standpoint I will make a few observations:

    First, the Clerk of the Supreme Court must docket a petition as long as the submission appears to comply with the rules as to form and is timely. Typically the clerk will accept any filing, but may ask for supplemental information. However, as a general rule the clerk will accept a filing and then let the justices (or judges) deal with more subtle procedural issues. Thus, the fact that the case was docketed does not mean that the petition will be granted.

    Second, as I mentioned in post #5 above there is no requirement that the other party, called the respondent, must file any opposition to the petition. This is a “may” file, not a “shall” file situation. However, if there are misstatements of fact or law in the petition the respondent should file an opposition and point that out. Failure to do so at the outset could be a waiver of objections to those misstatements. (The rule of the SCOTUS can be obtained in line. Rules 14 and 15 are most pertinent. You can also read Rule 11 that they tried to invoke but did not have to because the Tenth Circuit made a decision, we are told.) Ultimately the “justices” decide if the rules have been complied with and may relieve a party from the failure to follow a rule.

    Lastly, for now, I believe I heard it said in the first video that respondents had 10 days to file an opposition to the petition. They were excited that 10 days had expired and that this meant the petition would be granted and they would “win”. Under rule 15 respondents have 30 days, not 10 days, to file an opposition. The time runs from the date the petition was docketed, ie, filed. I’m not sure of that date and did not check before starting this post, but I do not think the 30 days has expired yet. I could be wrong about that. And, even if it did expire, the Court can direct that respondent do file an opposition.

    So, in my view, no one should get too excited or hopeful that the petition will be granted. Nor, if it is granted, is there any guaranty that the relief they seek—whatever that is—will be granted, in whole or in part. (By the way I’m beginning to hear people on other venues make completely erroneous statements about this case and what could happen, such as federal Marshalls showing and soon making arrests of these 300 plus people. That’s utter nonsense.)

    We have to wait and see.

    For what it’s worth, of course.
    Last edited by Satori; 4th December 2022 at 17:41.

  20. The Following 5 Users Say Thank You to Satori For This Post:

    Alecs (4th December 2022), Journeyman (30th December 2022), norman (4th December 2022), T Smith (5th December 2022), wondering (4th December 2022)

  21. Link to Post #11
    Avalon Member
    Join Date
    26th May 2010
    Location
    Albuquerque, NM, USA
    Age
    73
    Posts
    2,450
    Thanks
    11,321
    Thanked 22,059 times in 2,419 posts

    Default Re: A BREACH OF NATIONAL SECURITY - The Loy Brunson US Supreme Court Case

    Quote Posted by Satori (here)
    Quote Posted by norman (here)
    Should these people shut up about it, or should the whole country we talking about it ?

    Also, there are signs that there may be a Trump arrest coming up soon.

    JUAN O SAVIN and LOY BRUNSON - SCOTUS Case 22-380 ~ THE HEAT IS ON -Hammertime 12.2.22
    Published December 2, 2022

    https://rumble.com/v1yhbfo-juan-o-sa...mertime-1.html


    Source: https://www.rumble.com/video/v1vv676/?pub=4
    I don’t think they should shut up. They have a right to speak. But I do think they need to do their homework governing the rules of the SCOTUS and the process that applies to filing a petition for writ of certiorari.

    By way of disclosure I have not watched much of this video, nor did I finish the video posted before this one. In their enthusiasm a number of misstatements were made and I quit watching. I may go back and finish one or both videos, the one in post #4 and the one above, just out of curiosity while doing some chores to pass the time.

    From a big picture standpoint I will make a few observations:

    First, the Clerk of the Supreme Court must docket a petition as long as the submission appears to comply with the rules as to form and is timely. Typically the clerk will accept any filing, but may ask for supplemental information. However, as a general rule the clerk will accept a filing and then let the justices (or judges) deal with more subtle procedural issues. Thus, the fact that the case was docketed does not mean that the petition will be granted.

    Second, as I mentioned in post #5 above there is no requirement that the other party, called the respondent, must file any opposition to the petition. This is a “may” file, not a “shall” file situation. However, if there are misstatements of fact or law in the petition the respondent should file an opposition and point that out. Failure to do so at the outset could be a waiver of objections to those misstatements. (The rule of the SCOTUS can be obtained on line. Rules 14 and 15 are most pertinent. You can also read Rule 11 that they tried to invoke but did not have to because the Tenth Circuit made a decision, we are told.) Ultimately the “justices” decide if the rules have been complied with and may relieve a party from the failure to follow a rule.

    Lastly, for now, I believe I heard it said in the first video that respondents had 10 days to file an opposition to the petition. They were excited that 10 days had expired and that this meant the petition would be granted and they would “win”. Under rule 15 respondents have 30 days, not 10 days, to file an opposition. The time runs from the date the petition was docketed, ie, filed. I’m not sure of that date and did not check before starting this post, but I do not think the 30 days has expired yet. I could be wrong about that. And, even if it did expire, the Court can direct that respondent do file an opposition.

    So, in my view, no one should get too excited or hopeful that the petition will be granted. Nor, if it is granted, is there any guaranty that the relief they seek—whatever that is—will be granted, in whole or in part. (By the way I’m beginning to hear people on other venues make completely erroneous statements about this case and what could happen, such as federal Marshalls showing and soon making arrests of these 300 plus people. That’s utter nonsense.)

    We have to wait and see.

    For what it’s worth, of course.
    Ps. Mr Brunson also made a big deal out of the fact that the US Solicitor General is now involved in the case. That is routine and provided for by law. Once a case involving the US government goes to the SCOTUS the Solicitor General always takes over the case. That is the main purpose of the office of the Solicitor General; to represent the US government before the SCOTUS. So nothing to see there folks.
    Last edited by Satori; 4th December 2022 at 18:08.

  22. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to Satori For This Post:

    Alecs (4th December 2022), norman (5th December 2022), wondering (29th December 2022)

  23. Link to Post #12
    Avalon Member norman's Avatar
    Join Date
    25th March 2010
    Location
    too close to the hot air exhaust
    Age
    68
    Posts
    8,894
    Thanks
    9,942
    Thanked 55,035 times in 8,168 posts

    Default Re: A BREACH OF NATIONAL SECURITY - The Loy Brunson US Supreme Court Case

    This is a huge article I'm not going to attempt to copy here, read it at the LINK

    Derek Johnson – Brunson vs. Adams Breakdown via Military Operation… which is getting some “excited” about the Supreme Court overturning the 2020 Election
    December 7, 2022

    https://www.ournewearthnews.com/dere...2020-election/




    by Derek Johnson

    Brunson vs. Adams Breakdown via Military Operation

    I’ve heard the chatter about the Brunson vs. Adams, docket 22-380, filed to the Supreme Court in Utah in October 2022… which is getting some “excited” about the Supreme Court overturning the 2020 Election.

    Brunson vs. Adams:
    https://www.ca10.uscourts.gov/sites/...0110749788.pdf

    I’m going to break this down as vanilla as possible. . . . . . .
    ..................................................my first language is TYPO..............................................

  24. The Following User Says Thank You to norman For This Post:

    wondering (29th December 2022)

  25. Link to Post #13
    Avalon Member norman's Avatar
    Join Date
    25th March 2010
    Location
    too close to the hot air exhaust
    Age
    68
    Posts
    8,894
    Thanks
    9,942
    Thanked 55,035 times in 8,168 posts

    Default Re: A BREACH OF NATIONAL SECURITY - The Loy Brunson US Supreme Court Case

    Sarah Westall - Analyzing Brunson Case: Is it Legit? Martial Law & Historical Precedence w/ Attorney Wayne Jett
    1 hour 4 minutes Posted Dec 16, 2022





    SHOW NOTES
    Attorney and author Wayne Jett returns to the program to discuss the Brunson Case now on the docket for conference at the Supreme Court. We discuss what this case is arguing and the unprecedented behavior of the court. Jett discusses martial law and why he believes the country is currently in this state.

    Spoiler alert, Wayne believes the country (USA) is under Martial Law (very discretely)
    ..................................................my first language is TYPO..............................................

  26. Link to Post #14
    Avalon Member norman's Avatar
    Join Date
    25th March 2010
    Location
    too close to the hot air exhaust
    Age
    68
    Posts
    8,894
    Thanks
    9,942
    Thanked 55,035 times in 8,168 posts

    Default Re: A BREACH OF NATIONAL SECURITY - The Loy Brunson US Supreme Court Case

    All Oaths Matter Military to Politicians ~ Make It Count ~ Join the Battle ~ 12.27.22
    HAMMERTIMERapidFireQNews - Published December 28, 2022

    https://rumble.com/v22vjty--all-oath...attle-12..html

    Hammer Time Rapid Fire Q News was joined on 12.27.22 with Juan O’ Savin & Loy Brunson to continue their conversation and follow up about SCOTUS case 22-380 with Tim Canova.

    Tim is a Gateway Pundit contributor, a Constitutional Law Professor and politician. What will we see done? What are possible outcomes? Will the SCOTUS judges do right by the people and justice? We have window like no other right in front of us.



    Source: https://www.rumble.com/video/v209eys/?pub=4
    ..................................................my first language is TYPO..............................................

  27. The Following User Says Thank You to norman For This Post:

    Vangelo (29th December 2022)

+ Reply to Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts