Good morning, Def-Con News readers. Will today be the day we witness our Take Back in action?
The Supreme Court has accepted a complaint that 388 elected officials blocked a legal requirement of a ten-day window for a review of the 2020 election despite legally submitted complaints.
This by James Grundvig on americanmediaperiscope.com.
SCOTUS purposely pictured without Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson
NOTE: This IS NOT a claim of Election Fraud. Rather, the complaint states that congress did not perform what was required of them in that they failed to take ten days to look into the complaints brought concerning the election.
Again, the claim:
Congress did not provide the legally required ten-day window following the registering of complaints concerning the 2020 election.
The complaint seeks that all 388 elected officials be relieved from any status in the government–fired that is–and President Trump be placed back in office until a new election can be conducted.
The Supreme Court has accepted this complaint as a petition of National Emergency, and they can move on this as fast as they want and do not have to hear arguments.
Either they agree with the petition that the 388 legally bound elected officials failed to do their legal duty or they do not think the law has merit.
This is the process:
1. SCOTUS will schedule a one-day private conference with all nine justices to determine whether the complaint moves forward. A vote of only four justices is required to move the complaint forward.
2. Because this is a National Emergency the SCOTUS can schedule a Hearing or rule as fast as they desire to determine whether a law has been broken. If they determine the law has been broken, SCOTUS may issue orders to have the 388 elected officials arrested—Biden, Harris, most of the [democrats communists] in congress and approximately half of the republicans.
Click HERE for what We the People have been waiting to see.
NOTE: We are experiencing a Total. Media. Blackout. on this “National Emergency.”
This should come as little surprise for mainstream media outlets not to be covering the potentially seismic, landmark petition set in front of the nine Justices on the Supreme Court of the United States (“SCOTUS”).
But with “national emergency” language added to the second submission of the petition it begs the question relating to the alternative news outlets, such as Zero Hedge,Unz.com, Breitbart, and The Gateway Pundit failing to cover this story—as of this writing Monday at 12 noon—that resides in the public domain
While all four of these new news outlets have done a phenomenal job covering the election coup of 2020 and the ongoing theft and irregularities in the 2022 midterm elections, why hasn’t anyone of them—or all of them—pounced on this story?
It’s a petition that has the potential to rewrite the history of American politics like few other cases.
Brunson v. Adams, Et Al.
On October 20, 2022, the first submission of the petition, Supreme Court Case #22-380), “Raland J. Brunson, Petitioner, v. Alma S. Adams, Et, Al.,” dives into the matter and conflicts in its petition.
The petition is for a Writ of Certiorari, which is “the primary means to petition the court for review is to ask it to grant a writ of certiorari. This is a request that the Supreme Court order a lower court to send up the record of the case for review.”
U.S. Government Waiver:
Interestingly, last Wednesday, November 23, the U.S. federal government via its General Solicitor, Elizabeth B. Prelogar, the Counsel of Record, waived its “right to file a response to the petition…” on the eve of Thanksgiving holiday.
This means the ball is in the Supreme Court to act post haste. Since this isn’t a typical case per se before SCOTUS, no oral arguments will be heard. Instead, only four (4) Justices need to vote for the petition to be analyzed in case and constitutional review, according to several sources.
If the petition gets a green light from the Supreme Court, then the Justices will vote on whether to grant in favor of it or against it. Those implications are enormous. More on the potential fallout from the petition later.
Opening Statement of the Petition
Starting from the 2nd paragraph, the petition reads [emphasis ours]:
This case uncovers a serious national security breach that is unique and is of first impression, and due to the serious nature of this case it involves the possible removal of a sitting President and Vice President of the United States along with members of the United States Congress, while deeming them unfit from ever holding office under Federal, State, County or local Governments found within the United States of America, and at the same time the trial court also has the authority, to be validated by this Court, to authorize the swearing in of the legal and rightful heirs for President and Vice President of the United States.
In addition there are two doctrines that conflict with each other found in this case affecting every court in this country. These doctrines are known as the doctrine of equitable maxim and the doctrine of the object principle of justice. Equitable maxim created by this court, which the lower court used to dismiss this case, sets in direct violation of the object principle of justice also partially created by this Court and supported by other appeal courts and constitutional provisions.
These conflicts call for the supervisory power of this Court to resolve these conflicts, which has not, but should be, settled by this Court without delay.
The ensuing five (5) pages lists the names of the “Parties to the Proceedings,” all 388 of them in the U.S. Congress, the Senate, Joe Biden, Kamala Harris, and former Vice President Michael Pence.
The petition goes on to list cases, Article I, Section 3 of the Utah Constitution, jurisdiction, statutes, rules, proceedings, statements of the case, and Supreme Court Rule 14(F) Provisions.
Brunson Conclusion:
In the end of the 18-page petition, Brunson arrives at his conclusion [emphasis ours]:
This petition is set forth in the interest of justice in protecting Brunson’s right to petition for a redress of grievances against the Respondents, and ensuring his right of due process against the encroachment of the doctrine of equitable maxim, and charging the Respondents who failed to investigate the allegations of a rigged election by having them removed from office without further delay.
What is at Stake?
At the core of the petition is the argument that Brunson’s right to due process to a filed complaint that came after the January 6, 2021, hurrying by both houses of Congress to certify Joe Biden as president of the United State, but that 388 members of public office blocked the 10-day review process for the complaint to be heard or evaluated on its merit.
What does that mean?
Here are some questions to consider as this petition moves through each one of its final stages with the Supreme Court.
Vote in Favor
If the Justices vote in favor of the petition:
- Will the U.S. Marshals and Secret Service remove the 388 members?
- If removed, will they be replaced by qualified U.S. military officers to carry on the business of the United States of America in continuity-of-government maneuver?
- Will the removed members be indicted and tried for treason or a lesser offense?
- Will both the 2020 and 2022 elections be disqualified and replaced with a secure election at some point in 2023?
Vote Against
If the Justices vote against the petition:
- Will anyone of those nine Justices, or all of them, be arrested for treason for not carrying out its legal duties?
There are lots of questions to be answered. But since its now being heard before the Supreme Court as a “national security” issue, we expect the answers to and which way the petition breaks—in favor of or against—to reach a conclusion swiftly.
A vote in favor of the petition, and the “Belligerent Occupants” in Washington, D.C., will be cleansed from our current corrupt government.
Meanwhile in the [Obiden Regime], as a result of a critical report against Joe Biden, the shadow regime is now looking to replace Kamala Harris as vice president.
Wouldn’t that serve as the cherry on the cake?
Final thought: Please may this not be merely more false hope. May the Take Back of our Constitutional Republic progress smoothly in this manner.
