A Huge Case Is On The Verge of being heard by SCOTUS. Brunson Vs Adams Et Al. Alleges Hundreds Of Congress Members Breached Their Oaths.

WeR0206

Well-Known Member
Apr 9, 2014
20,303
25,988
1
2020evidence.org
This could be huge. Is this a card the court could play in case the lame duck congress attempts to curtail/dilute it?

Note on 11/23/22 the US govt (Solicitor General) waived its right to respond:
https://www.supremecourt.gov/search.aspx?filename=/docket/docketfiles/html/public/22-380.html

I think this is the original petition that was filed:

This case doesn’t have anything to do with the rightful winner of 2020 and everything to do with hundreds of members of congress failing to make sure the vote was legit before certifying it therefore putting our national security at risk.

As a reminder in Dec 2020 ODNI said there’s was signs of foreign interference. Also multiple state legislators sent letters to their US reps asking them to delay certification for a week or two so they could get their arms around what just happened. But nope. The certification was rammed through at like 2:30 am after a convenient fed boi provacateur led “riot” shut down all debate re: 2020 election shenanigans. How convenient.

The Question: How can you support, and defend, the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic?

Answer: You investigate. If there are claims that there is a threat, even if you don't believe there is a threat, you investigate. How else can you determine if there is a threat unless you investigate? You can't. Were there claims of a threat to the Constitution? Yes. Where did these serious claims come from? 100 members of Congress. What was the threat? That there were enemies of the Constitution who successfully rigged the 2020 election. Is this lawsuit about a rigged election? No, it's about the members of Congress who voted AGAINST the investigation thereby thwarting the investigation. Was this a clear violation of their oath? YES
 
Last edited:

WeR0206

Well-Known Member
Apr 9, 2014
20,303
25,988
1
2020evidence.org
This could be huge. Is this a card the court could play in case the lame duck congress attempts to curtail/dilute it?

Note on 11/23/22 the US govt (Solicitor General) waived its right to respond:
https://www.supremecourt.gov/search.aspx?filename=/docket/docketfiles/html/public/22-380.html

I think this is the original petition that was filed:

This case doesn’t have anything to do with the rightful winner of 2020 and everything to do with hundreds of members of congress failing to make sure the vote was legit before certifying it therefore putting our national security at risk.

As a reminder in Dec 2020 ODNI said there’s was signs of foreign interference. Also multiple state legislators sent letters to their US reps asking them to delay certification for a week or two so they could get their arms around what just happened. But nope. The certification was rammed through at like 2:30 am after a convenient fed boi provacateur led “riot” shut down all debate re: 2020 election shenanigans. How convenient.
@dailybuck777 would love to hear your take on this case
 

Aardvark86

Well-Known Member
Jan 23, 2018
8,548
8,915
1
I'll bet $150 that ... cert. denied (and quickly at that).

But, to show you that I am not a heartless bastard, and to give you a chance to make your money back, I'll give you double or nothing that the pro se litigant will be sanctioned.

Finally, just as an fyi, it is not uncommon in SCOTUS practice for a putative respondent (particularly the USG acting through the SG's office) to waive their right to file a brief in opposition to a cert petition, even in meritorious cases. Essentially, what happens is that if the court actually thinks the case might be worthy of consideration, it will issue a subsequent order requesting the views of the respondent/SG on the petition.
 

The Spin Meister

Well-Known Member
Nov 27, 2012
26,807
32,191
1
An altered state
I'll bet $150 that ... cert. denied (and quickly at that).

But, to show you that I am not a heartless bastard, and to give you a chance to make your money back, I'll give you double or nothing that the pro se litigant will be sanctioned.

Finally, just as an fyi, it is not uncommon in SCOTUS practice for a putative respondent (particularly the USG acting through the SG's office) to waive their right to file a brief in opposition to a cert petition, even in meritorious cases. Essentially, what happens is that if the court actually thinks the case might be worthy of consideration, it will issue a subsequent order requesting the views of the respondent/SG on the petition.
So this case is not going in front of SCOTUS as thread title implies. Instead petitions have been filed and the court has yet to certify. If that is the situation, you are right that the court will never dare touch such a case. The Roberts court has done and will do amazing legal gymnastics to avoid anything political. That is their Prime Directive.
 

LionDeNittany

Well-Known Member
May 29, 2001
47,030
22,680
1
DFW, TX
So this case is not going in front of SCOTUS as thread title implies. Instead petitions have been filed and the court has yet to certify. If that is the situation, you are right that the court will never dare touch such a case. The Roberts court has done and will do amazing legal gymnastics to avoid anything political. That is their Prime Directive.

WeR completly made something up?

Shocked
 

Aardvark86

Well-Known Member
Jan 23, 2018
8,548
8,915
1
So this case is not going in front of SCOTUS as thread title implies. Instead petitions have been filed and the court has yet to certify. If that is the situation, you are right that the court will never dare touch such a case. The Roberts court has done and will do amazing legal gymnastics to avoid anything political. That is their Prime Directive.
1. It is actually longstanding practice -- not unique to the Roberts court -- to find the absence of jurisdiction for "political questions" (properly defined in the constitutional sense of that word).
2. If anything, the "current" Roberts court has shown quite a bit of willingness to bend over backwards to take on "political" questions (colloquially defined).
3. Here though, the Court won't take the case because (i) petitioner does in fact lack standing, as 10Cir found, (ii) in terms of its procedural context (the arguments being advanced having been waived below), it's an inappropriate case, and (iii) the petitioner and his theory are pretty clearly wackadoodle. (I definitely encourage you to go to petitioner's website.)
 
Last edited:

WeR0206

Well-Known Member
Apr 9, 2014
20,303
25,988
1
2020evidence.org
I'll bet $150 that ... cert. denied (and quickly at that).

But, to show you that I am not a heartless bastard, and to give you a chance to make your money back, I'll give you double or nothing that the pro se litigant will be sanctioned.

Finally, just as an fyi, it is not uncommon in SCOTUS practice for a putative respondent (particularly the USG acting through the SG's office) to waive their right to file a brief in opposition to a cert petition, even in meritorious cases. Essentially, what happens is that if the court actually thinks the case might be worthy of consideration, it will issue a subsequent order requesting the views of the respondent/SG on the petition.
Who is your bet directed towards? I never predicted an outcome, was simply sharing this news since it's a small miracle this case even got this far to begin with.

What's interesting with this case is the court asked the filers to try and send it earlier (giving them a specific target date) than they were planning so the court could get eyes on it before the end of the year. Normally that kind of "help" isn't provided to cases trying to get through all the administrative red tape.
So this case is not going in front of SCOTUS as thread title implies. Instead petitions have been filed and the court has yet to certify. If that is the situation, you are right that the court will never dare touch such a case. The Roberts court has done and will do amazing legal gymnastics to avoid anything political. That is their Prime Directive.
What I meant by "going in front" is they are going to have to decide on it one way or the other. It's not getting filtered out/caught up in the lower courts or black hole waiting games, etc. like most of the cases that are trying to get to the SCOUTS. I guess "adjudicated" would have been a more accurate word, will update the title.
 

WeR0206

Well-Known Member
Apr 9, 2014
20,303
25,988
1
2020evidence.org
petitioner does in fact lack standing, as 10Cir found
From my understanding the 10 Cir was trying to sit on the case and would not give a final ruling in attempt to stall it from going in front of SCOTUS. Petitioners found a work around since it's a matter of national security (members of congress breached their oaths and thus exposed the country to potentially foreign interference). So they made the appropriate filing explaining why this case dealt with matters of national security and that's how they got it to SCOTUS in the first place.

From the petition:

"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, purposely thwarted all efforts to investigate this, whereupon this enemy was not checked or investigated, therefore the Respondents adhered to this enemy. Because of Respondents intentional refusal to investigate this enemy, Petitioner Raland J Brunson (“Brunson”) brought this action against Respondents because he was seriously personally damaged and violated by this action of Respondents, and consequently this action unilaterally violated the rights of every citizen of the U.S.A. and perhaps the rights of every person living, and all courts of law.

Respondents On January 6, 2021, the 117th Congress held a proceeding and debate in Washington DC (“Proceeding”). 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 This 4 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 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.

Despite the grave importance of this case, the trial court granted Respondents motion to dismiss (“Motion”) by stating “IT IS ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that plaintiff Raland Brunson’s action is dismissed without prejudice”. (“Order”) This Order followed the trial court’s order to adopt its report and recommendation that Brunson did not get until close to the beginning of Oct. 2022 thus prejudicing Brunson from timely filing any objections, and the Order did not properly address Brunson’s opposition to the Motion. Brunson’s opposition clearly shows that Brunson has standing.

Per Brunson’s opening brief and as outlined in Brunson’s said opposition (both not properly addressed by the lower courts) Brunson’s has standing and the trial court has full proper jurisdiction to rule on the merits of this case based upon the following factors:

a) The case of American Bush v. City Of South Salt Lake, 2006 UT 40 140 P.3d. 1235 clearly states that the Constitution of the United States along with State Constitutions do not grant rights to the people. These instruments measure the power of the rulers but they do not measure the rights of the governed, and they are not the fountain of law nor the origin of the people’s rights, but they have been put in place to protect their rights. Therefore the statutes and case law cited by Respondents claiming immunity from Brunson’s claims in this instance are unconstitutional and this Court needs to rule in that manner.
b) “The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.” Therefore, the purpose of the Constitution was written to protect our self evident rights. Constitution cannot be construed by any means, by any legislative, judicial and executive bodies, by any court of law to deny or disparage our rights. This is the supreme law of the land.“This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made Pursuance thereof; . . shall be the supreme Law of the land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby.” Article VI of the Constitution. The
c) The First Amendment of the Constitution states that Congress shall make no law prohibiting the right of the people to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
d) “Our courts have consistently held that fraud vitiates whatever it touches, Morris v. House, 32 Tex. 492 (1870)”. Estate of Stonecipher v. Estate of Butts, 591 SW 2d 806. And “"It is a stern but just maxim of law that fraud vitiates everything into which it enters." Veterans Service Club v. Sweeney. 252 S.W.2d 25. 27 (Kv.1952).” Radioshack Cory, v. ComSmart, Inc., 222 SW 3d 256. 6 Vitiate; “To impair or make void; to destroy or annul, either completely or partially, the force and effect of an act or instrument.” edition 2. West's Encyclopedia of American Law,
e) Due to the uniqueness of this case, the trial court does have proper authority to remove the Respondents from their offices under 18 U.S. Code § 2381 which states “Whoever, owing allegiance to the United States, levies war against them or adheres to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort within the United States or elsewhere, is guilty of treason and shall suffer death, or shall be imprisoned not less than five years and fined under this title but not less than $10,000; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States.” A court adjudicating that the Respondents, who have taken the Oath of Office, to be incapable of holding their offices or who have adhered to a domestic enemy, means nothing without such removal of office.

Under the stated factors Brunson has an unfettered right to sue the Respondents under the serious nature of his claim, no legislation can measure Brunson’s right to sue the Respondents. Furthermore, Brunson’s allegations against Respondents’ adhering to a domestic enemy, and committing acts of fraud are not protected by any kind of legislation of jurisdictional immunity. Essentially, acts of Congress cannot protect fraud, nor protect the violation of the Oath or that give aid and comfort to enemies of the United States Constitution or America as alleged in Brunson’s complaint against the Respondents.
 
Last edited:

The Spin Meister

Well-Known Member
Nov 27, 2012
26,807
32,191
1
An altered state
Who is your bet directed towards? I never predicted an outcome, was simply sharing this news since it's a small miracle this case even got this far to begin with.

What's interesting with this case is the court asked the filers to try and send it earlier (giving them a specific target date) than they were planning so the court could get eyes on it before the end of the year. Normally that kind of "help" isn't provided to cases trying to get through all the administrative red tape.

What I meant by "going in front" is they are going to have to decide on it one way or the other. It's not getting filtered out/caught up in the lower courts or black hole waiting games, etc. like most of the cases that are trying to get to the SCOUTS. I guess "adjudicated" would have been a more accurate word, will update the title.
Don’t believe that is accurate either. The entire court is not going to here the case. It will not be argued to the court but go either a single Justice spassigned to that 10th or a subset of three justices so assigned. Petitioner must argue standing and other issues before being granted a full SCOTUS hearing. Ain’t gonna happen..
 

Aardvark86

Well-Known Member
Jan 23, 2018
8,548
8,915
1
Who is your bet directed towards? I never predicted an outcome, was simply sharing this news since it's a small miracle this case even got this far to begin with.

What's interesting with this case is the court asked the filers to try and send it earlier (giving them a specific target date) than they were planning so the court could get eyes on it before the end of the year. Normally that kind of "help" isn't provided to cases trying to get through all the administrative red tape.

What I meant by "going in front" is they are going to have to decide on it one way or the other. It's not getting filtered out/caught up in the lower courts or black hole waiting games, etc. like most of the cases that are trying to get to the SCOUTS. I guess "adjudicated" would have been a more accurate word, will update the title.
The filing of a petition for cert is no miracle, in any sense of that word. Anyone with access to a word processor can do it, provided of course that they've already lost in the courts below. About 8000 petitions are filed each year. Maybe 80 are granted, so let's wait for that to happen before we talk about miracles.

And, it sure doesn't look like any particular red tape was avoided here, inasmuch as the case did in fact go through the ordinarily appellate processes, other than the fact that no oral argument was held by 10cir because that's what the parties consented to. They had a decision in six months from filing which, while relatively quick, is by no means extraordinary if you don't have oral argument and you obviously have a dog of a case.

Beyond that, it is also actually not a miracle that the Clerk of the Court would reach out to a litigant - particularly a pro se litigant -- when a petition (and accompanying documents) contains process defects.

In short, this is not a miraculously frivolous case, it's an ordinarily frivolous case.
 

LafayetteBear

Well-Known Member
Dec 1, 2009
48,963
21,889
1
^^^^^^
Lot's of thought there. Right about at your level.
LOL. Mea culpa for failing to give Dr. Conspiracy Guy and his OP concerning frivolous litigation on behalf of (how did he put it, again?) "the rightful winner of 2020" the respect and deference it so obviously deserves.

From your friend, Mr. Communist.
 

WeR0206

Well-Known Member
Apr 9, 2014
20,303
25,988
1
2020evidence.org
The filing of a petition for cert is no miracle, in any sense of that word. Anyone with access to a word processor can do it, provided of course that they've already lost in the courts below. About 8000 petitions are filed each year. Maybe 80 are granted, so let's wait for that to happen before we talk about miracles.

And, it sure doesn't look like any particular red tape was avoided here, inasmuch as the case did in fact go through the ordinarily appellate processes, other than the fact that no oral argument was held by 10cir because that's what the parties consented to. They had a decision in six months from filing which, while relatively quick, is by no means extraordinary if you don't have oral argument and you obviously have a dog of a case.

Beyond that, it is also actually not a miracle that the Clerk of the Court would reach out to a litigant - particularly a pro se litigant -- when a petition (and accompanying documents) contains process defects.

In short, this is not a miraculously frivolous case, it's an ordinarily frivolous case.
Well at least 100 members of congress would disagree with you that it’s a frivolous case. It’s a fact that multiple states legislators asked congress to delay the certification and take extra time to validate bc of mountains of red flags and shenanigans. Does Congress not have a responsibility to make sure they don’t certify a Manchurian candidate? To make sure they don’t certify a fraudulent vote or at least go through the motions? They didn’t HAVE to certify on 1/6 they still had some time. But nope they rammed it through after the convenient and planned “riot” stopped all discussion.
 

Aardvark86

Well-Known Member
Jan 23, 2018
8,548
8,915
1
Well at least 100 members of congress would disagree with you that it’s a frivolous case. It’s a fact that multiple states legislators asked congress to delay the certification and take extra time to validate bc of mountains of red flags and shenanigans. Does Congress not have a responsibility to make sure they don’t certify a Manchurian candidate? To make sure they don’t certify a fraudulent vote or at least go through the motions? They didn’t HAVE to certify on 1/6 they still had some time. But nope they rammed it through after the convenient and planned “riot” stopped all discussion.

You mean the members of Congress whose objections were rejected consistent with the procedures in 3 usc 15?

Congress has a duty to consider objections, which it did. There is no "level of effort" obligation, under either the statutes or constitution.
 

WeR0206

Well-Known Member
Apr 9, 2014
20,303
25,988
1
2020evidence.org
You mean the members of Congress whose objections were rejected consistent with the procedures in 3 usc 15?

Congress has a duty to consider objections, which it did. There is no "level of effort" obligation, under either the statutes or constitution.
Does congress take an oath of office to support and defend the constitution from all enemies? Would the insertion of a foreign controlled manchurian candidate (via election fraud) who wanted to take a shit on our constitution/rights be considered an attack on the constitution?

Congress didn’t reject the objections at first though. After the objections were made and seconded etc They started debate and that’s when the proceedings where shut down due to the riot/breach. When they reconvened in the early morning the debate wasn’t continued and the cert was rammed through.

Are you saying congress has no obligation to do any due diligence if fraud is alleged by multiple state reps before certifying? I find that hard to believe.
 

Aardvark86

Well-Known Member
Jan 23, 2018
8,548
8,915
1
Does congress take an oath of office to support and defend the constitution from all enemies? Would the insertion of a foreign controlled manchurian candidate (via election fraud) who wanted to take a shit on our constitution/rights be considered an attack on the constitution?

Congress didn’t reject the objections at first though. After the objections were made and seconded etc They started debate and that’s when the proceedings where shut down due to the riot/breach. When they reconvened in the early morning the debate wasn’t continued and the cert was rammed through.

Are you saying congress has no obligation to do any due diligence if fraud is alleged by multiple state reps before certifying? I find that hard to believe.
1. Sorry, you don't get to invoke "fraudulent oaths" every time someone doesn't vote the way you want them to. Life simply doesn't work that way. Biden is my president, though not because I voted for him. (And, BTW, the fact that the claim is based on an 'oath violation' just underscores why there is no standing here - oaths of office aren't contracts made with every citizen in the united states. Oh, and BTW, just think on this -- SCOTUS justices take oaths of office too. Should everyone be able to sue them for every vote they disagree with?)
2. Let's be honest here. The objections were well known, in advance. If you really think 'diligence' occurs in the course of the kibuki that is Congressional floor debate, rather than in advance of such debates, well, I don't know that there's any help for you. Oh, BTW, fun fact - 3 usc 17 requires that the question be called after two hours of debate.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: LafayetteBear

WeR0206

Well-Known Member
Apr 9, 2014
20,303
25,988
1
2020evidence.org
1. Sorry, you don't get to invoke "fraudulent oaths" every time someone doesn't vote the way you want them to. Life simply doesn't work that way. Biden is my president, though not because I voted for him.
2. Let's be honest here. The objections were well known, in advance. If you really think 'diligence' occurs in the course of the kibuki that is Congressional floor debate, rather than in advance of such debates, well, I don't know that there's any help for you. Oh, BTW, fun fact - 3 usc 17 requires that the question be called after two hours of debate.
Oh please. This wasn't just people being mad b/c they didn't get the outcome they wanted. Your ignorance is showing. Name one prior election where the way the election was handled in multiple states (mass unsolicited mail in ballots, etc.) wasn't changed/approved first by state legislatures and instead was unilaterally slammed down by either the Governor/SoS under the guise of covid "emergency" bs. This then disenfranchised all the other states that followed the rules governing how and when election procedures get changed.

Name one other election where on approximately 2:30 AM EST, TV broadcasts reported that PA, WI, AZ, NV and GA have decided to cease vote counting operations and will continue the following day. The unanimous decision to intentionally stop counting by all 5 battleground states is unprecedented and demonstrates prior coordination by election officials in battleground states. There would be no legitimate reason battleground states need to pre-coordinate election activities and stop on-going adjudication processes. However, is equally puzzling that the vote counting did not stop, as reported. In fact, it continued behind closed doors in early hours of November 4, 2020. This activity is highly unusually and demonstrates collusion to achieve desired results without being monitored by watchers.

Name one other election that had THOUSANDS of affidavits/whistleblowers pointing out mountains of shenanigan's, red flags, etc. especially from subject matter experts like this one:
https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.mied.350905/gov.uscourts.mied.350905.1.19.pdf (Declaration of Dr. Navid Keshavarz-Nia)

I conclude that a combination of lost cryptographic key contained on stolen USB memory cards, serious exploitable system and software vulnerabilities and operating system backdoor in DVS, Scytl, SOE Software/eClarity and Smartmatic created the perfect environment to commit widespread fraud in all states where these systems are installed. My analysis of the 2020 Election from NY Times data shows statistical anomalies across the battleground state votes. These failures are widespread and systemic - and sufficient to invalidate the vote counts.

I conclude with high confidence that the election 2020 data were altered in all battleground states resulting in a hundreds of thousands of votes that were cast for President Trump to be transferred to Vice President Biden. These alterations were the result of systemic and widespread exploitable vulnerabilities in DVS, Scytl/SOE Software and Smartmatic systems that enabled operators to achieve the desired results. In my view, the evidence is overwhelming and incontrovertible.


Name one other election where multiple state legislators from multiple states signed letters asking their US reps to delay certification b/c there were significant problems with how their state conducted the vote, changes in the electoral process were made outside of legislative approval, etc..

Name one other election where gps data shows highly coordinated ballot harvesting/distribution via mules who are going back and forth between non profits and ballot drop box locations.

Name one other election where the winner only won a handful of bellwether counties.

Nothing to see here:

RyqtZNhO.jpeg


There is none so blind as those who will not to see:

(aggregation of all 2020 election fraud evidence)

(2020 election fraud evidence collection)

(Amistad Project - Legitimacy & Effect of Private Funding in State & Federal elections)

(The Immaculate Deception - Pete Navarro report)
 
Last edited:

Aardvark86

Well-Known Member
Jan 23, 2018
8,548
8,915
1
Oh please. This wasn't just people being mad b/c they didn't get the outcome they wanted. Your ignorance is showing. Name one prior election where the way the election was handled in multiple states (mass unsolicited mail in ballots, etc.) wasn't changed/approved first by state legislatures and instead was unilaterally slammed down by either the Governor/SoS under the guise of covid "emergency" bs. This then disenfranchised all the other states that followed the rules governing how and when election procedures get changed.

Name one other election where on approximately 2:30 AM EST, TV broadcasts reported that PA, WI, AZ, NV and GA have decided to cease vote counting operations and will continue the following day. The unanimous decision to intentionally stop counting by all 5 battleground states is unprecedented and demonstrates prior coordination by election officials in battleground states. There would be no legitimate reason battleground states need to pre-coordinate election activities and stop on-going adjudication processes. However, is equally puzzling that the vote counting did not stop, as reported. In fact, it continued behind closed doors in early hours of November 4, 2020. This activity is highly unusually and demonstrates collusion to achieve desired results without being monitored by watchers.

Name one other election that had THOUSANDS of affidavits/whistleblowers pointing out mountains of shenanigan's, red flags, etc. especially from subject matter experts like this one:
https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.mied.350905/gov.uscourts.mied.350905.1.19.pdf (Declaration of Dr. Navid Keshavarz-Nia)

Name one other election where multiple state legislators from multiple states signed letters asking their US reps to delay certification b/c there were significant problems with how their state conducted the vote, changes in the electoral process were made outside of legislative approval, etc..

Name one other election where gps data shows highly coordinated ballot harvesting/distribution via mules who are going back and forth between non profits and ballot drop box locations.

Name one other election where the winner only won a handful of bellwether counties.

Nothing to see here:

RyqtZNhO.jpeg


There is none so blind as those who will not to see:

(aggregation of all 2020 election fraud evidence)

(2020 election fraud evidence collection)

https://beta.documentcloud.org/docu...report-final-w-attachments-and-preface-121420 (Amistad Project - Legitimacy & Effect of Private Funding in State & Federal elections)

https://bannonswarroom.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/12/The-Immaculate-Deception-12.15.20-1.pdf (The Immaculate Deception - Pete Navarro report)

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.mied.350905/gov.uscourts.mied.350905.1.19.pdf (Declaration of Dr. Navid Keshavarz-Nia)
 
  • Haha
Reactions: The Spin Meister

WeR0206

Well-Known Member
Apr 9, 2014
20,303
25,988
1
2020evidence.org
You're right, there's absolutely nothing suspicious about 5 battleground states all announcing at the same time (at 2:30 am mind you) they were sending everyone home and going to stop counting and resume in the morning, something that was completely unprecedented, and then we find out they actually kept counting with no real supervision, etc.....:rolleyes: Enjoy your banana republic!

We'll see what happens with this SCOTUS case but I'm not holding my breath.
 

KnightWhoSaysNit

Well-Known Member
Jul 19, 2010
9,926
11,018
1
LOL. Mea culpa for failing to give Dr. Conspiracy Guy and his OP concerning frivolous litigation on behalf of (how did he put it, again?) "the rightful winner of 2020" the respect and deference it so obviously deserves.

From your friend, Mr. Communist.

Then debate his content like everyone else.

I want a board that discusses and resolves issues. Not mudslinging. I want people to realize what they are supporting.

FYI, the word communist, or Marxist, denotes a combination of authoritarianism and socialism, both directions being taken by your party. Mark Levin recently wrote a book on this entitled "American Marxism." There are many examples that have been presented here over the past year, so these words actually denote some content.

If you want to refute that direction by your party then please do. Give us some examples of how your party is taking us toward the vision of the original republic, its structure of checks and balances, and its constitution. Start a thread on it. I can't wait.
 
  • Like
Reactions: WeR0206

KnightWhoSaysNit

Well-Known Member
Jul 19, 2010
9,926
11,018
1
@LafayetteBear here is a synopsis of Levin's book on AMAZON.COM.

Again, how about a thread from you on how this perspective is all wrong.
In American Marxism, Levin explains how the core elements of Marxist ideology are now pervasive in American society and culture—from our schools, the press, and corporations, to Hollywood, the Democratic Party, and the Biden presidency—and how it is often cloaked in deceptive labels like “progressivism,” “democratic socialism,” “social activism,” and more. With his characteristic trenchant analysis, Levin digs into the psychology and tactics of these movements, the widespread brainwashing of students, the anti-American purposes of Critical Race Theory and the Green New Deal, and the escalation of repression and censorship to silence opposing voices and enforce conformity. Levin exposes many of the institutions, intellectuals, scholars, and activists who are leading this revolution, and provides us with some answers and ideas on how to confront them.
As Levin writes: “The counter-revolution to the American Revolution is in full force. And it can no longer be dismissed or ignored for it is devouring our society and culture, swirling around our everyday lives, and ubiquitous in our politics, schools, media, and entertainment.” And, like before, Levin seeks to rally the American people to defend their liberty.
 

LafayetteBear

Well-Known Member
Dec 1, 2009
48,963
21,889
1
1. Sorry, you don't get to invoke "fraudulent oaths" every time someone doesn't vote the way you want them to. Life simply doesn't work that way. Biden is my president, though not because I voted for him. (And, BTW, the fact that the claim is based on an 'oath violation' just underscores why there is no standing here - oaths of office aren't contracts made with every citizen in the united states. Oh, and BTW, just think on this -- SCOTUS justices take oaths of office too. Should everyone be able to sue them for every vote they disagree with?)
2. Let's be honest here. The objections were well known, in advance. If you really think 'diligence' occurs in the course of the kibuki that is Congressional floor debate, rather than in advance of such debates, well, I don't know that there's any help for you. Oh, BTW, fun fact - 3 usc 17 requires that the question be called after two hours of debate.
Mic drop. LOL, Dr. Conspiracy Guy.
 
  • Like
Reactions: NJPSU

LafayetteBear

Well-Known Member
Dec 1, 2009
48,963
21,889
1
@LafayetteBear here is a synopsis of Levin's book on AMAZON.COM.

Again, how about a thread from you on how this perspective is all wrong.
In American Marxism, Levin explains how the core elements of Marxist ideology are now pervasive in American society and culture—from our schools, the press, and corporations, to Hollywood, the Democratic Party, and the Biden presidency—and how it is often cloaked in deceptive labels like “progressivism,” “democratic socialism,” “social activism,” and more. With his characteristic trenchant analysis, Levin digs into the psychology and tactics of these movements, the widespread brainwashing of students, the anti-American purposes of Critical Race Theory and the Green New Deal, and the escalation of repression and censorship to silence opposing voices and enforce conformity. Levin exposes many of the institutions, intellectuals, scholars, and activists who are leading this revolution, and provides us with some answers and ideas on how to confront them.
As Levin writes: “The counter-revolution to the American Revolution is in full force. And it can no longer be dismissed or ignored for it is devouring our society and culture, swirling around our everyday lives, and ubiquitous in our politics, schools, media, and entertainment.” And, like before, Levin seeks to rally the American people to defend their liberty.
Let me know when Joe Biden, Bernie Sanders or any members of the Squad start agitating for government takeover and ownership of "the means of production" in this country. The political spectrum certainly DOES include both communists and progressives, but it also includes conservatives. Progressives are obviously closer to communists on that spectrum than conservatives, but (despite Levin's apparent efforts to conflate the former two), they are far from being the same thing.

I also love Levin's resort to the tired conservative refrain about "the brainwashing of students" in American schools and universities. As if no person who ever enrolled in an American school or university was ever capable of thinking critically (i.e., for himself or herself), and needed to have someone else supply his or her political perspective. Denying the agency of American students in that fashion is simply laughable. And pathetic. Didn't YOU attend college? Surely you don't mean to assert that YOU have been "brainwashed." Or that you are singularly immune to being "brainwashed."

And BTW, I assume you are speaking of THIS Mark Levin?:

Mark Reed Levin (/ləˈvɪn/; born September 21, 1957) is an American lawyer, author, and radio personality. He is the host of syndicated radio show The Mark Levin Show, as well as Life, Liberty & Levin on Fox News. Levin worked in the administration of President Ronald Reagan and was a chief of staff for Attorney General Edwin Meese. He is the former president of the Landmark Legal Foundation, a New York Times best-selling author of seven books, and contributes commentary to media outlets such as National Review Online. Since 2015, Levin has been editor-in-chief of the Conservative Review[4] and is known for his incendiary commentary.[5]

He has been described as "right-wing" by The New York Times, CNN, NPR, and Politico.[6][7][8][9] He is known for his strident criticisms of Democrats and encouragement of primary challenges to congressional Republicans that he considers to be "Republican In Name Only" (RINO). He endorsed Ted Cruz in the 2016 Republican Party presidential primaries and declared himself "Never Trump", but reluctantly endorsed Donald Trump after Trump won the Republican nomination.[10] Since the start of the Trump presidency, Levin's commentary has become strongly pro-Trump.[

No wonder you regard him as authoritative.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: franklinman

The Spin Meister

Well-Known Member
Nov 27, 2012
26,807
32,191
1
An altered state
Then debate his content like everyone else.

I want a board that discusses and resolves issues. Not mudslinging. I want people to realize what they are supporting.

FYI, the word communist, or Marxist, denotes a combination of authoritarianism and socialism, both directions being taken by your party. Mark Levin recently wrote a book on this entitled "American Marxism." There are many examples that have been presented here over the past year, so these words actually denote some content.

If you want to refute that direction by your party then please do. Give us some examples of how your party is taking us toward the vision of the original republic, its structure of checks and balances, and its constitution. Start a thread on it. I can't wait.
I find it interesting, to the best of my knowledge, there is no mention of any economic system to be established. Adam Smith had just started writing but the term capitalist had been used for centuries. Yet it isn’t used in the Constitution. In fact, the Constitution doesn’t prescribe, establish, or encourage any set economic system. It does grant the power to levy taxes, levies, fines, and more. Also grants the power to regulate commerce but tha is a very vague clause that has been seriously abused to restrict free capitalism.

Does anyone know if this was discussed at in the debates of the drafting of the Constitution or the Federalist Papers that came after? Seems like the Founders didn’t want to establish any system and believed it was up to the people. Or perhaps the free market with personal ownership had been so engrained in colonial society that it was deemed not necessary to legislate it.

Have quite often heard that Adam Smith is the father of capitalism but always felt that all he did was define, set criteria for it, and name it. But the free market in many forms has existed as long as mankind. Even Neanderthals would barter and trade their belongings. It is the natural form of economics that other systems like socialism, Marxism, communism and more work hard to destroy in the lust of centralized power.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: WeR0206

KnightWhoSaysNit

Well-Known Member
Jul 19, 2010
9,926
11,018
1
Let me know when Joe Biden, Bernie Sanders or any members of the Squad start agitating for government takeover and ownership of "the means of production" in this country. The political spectrum certainly DOES include both communists and progressives, but it also includes conservatives. Progressives are obviously closer to communists on that spectrum than conservatives, but (despite Levin's apparent efforts to conflate the former two), they are far from being the same thing.

I also love Levin's resort to the tired conservative refrain about "the brainwashing of students" in American schools and universities. As if no person who ever enrolled in an American school or university was ever capable of thinking critically (i.e., for himself or herself), and needed to have someone else supply his or her political perspective. Denying the agency of American students in that fashion is simply laughable. And pathetic. Didin't YOU attend college? Surely you don't mean to assert that YOU have been "brainwashed." Or that you are singularly immune to being "brainwashed."

And BTW, I assume you are speaking of THIS Mark Levin?:

Mark Reed Levin (/ləˈvɪn/; born September 21, 1957) is an American lawyer, author, and radio personality. He is the host of syndicated radio show The Mark Levin Show, as well as Life, Liberty & Levin on Fox News. Levin worked in the administration of President Ronald Reagan and was a chief of staff for Attorney General Edwin Meese. He is the former president of the Landmark Legal Foundation, a New York Times best-selling author of seven books, and contributes commentary to media outlets such as National Review Online. Since 2015, Levin has been editor-in-chief of the Conservative Review[4] and is known for his incendiary commentary.[5]

He has been described as "right-wing" by The New York Times, CNN, NPR, and Politico.[6][7][8][9] He is known for his strident criticisms of Democrats and encouragement of primary challenges to congressional Republicans that he considers to be "Republican In Name Only" (RINO). He endorsed Ted Cruz in the 2016 Republican Party presidential primaries and declared himself "Never Trump", but reluctantly endorsed Donald Trump after Trump won the Republican nomination.[10] Since the start of the Trump presidency, Levin's commentary has become strongly pro-Trump.[

No wonder you regard him as authoritative.

Like a true leftist, you again resort to an attack on the source and used a lot of words to add little real content. I highlighted your "means of production" and "brainwashing" attempts.

When government regulates one industry, even to the point of indiscriminately shutting parts of it down, while then subsidizing other industries to compete in the same product area (energy), that is exactly what they are doing -- controlling the means of (energy) production. During the pandemic government even ordered businesses to be shut down. That is the ultimate CONTROL OF PRODUCTION. Your party even made certain spending contracts contingent upon the use of unions. That is an unbelievable breach of market principles and private ownership. It essentially goes against the principle of anti-trust. The government gets in the middle of competition.

As for brainwashing, that occurs subtly in all forms of media, right through education on campuses by professors, such as the likes of your own Robert Reich, a true leftwing socialist. The educators are part of the money pipeline from both the government and China. They are not going to lecture to kill the golden goose. This is part of the reason to "forgive" student debt. It's about buying votes, and throwing money at supporters within Education.

Yes people have a mind of their own. But when all of the imagery and information is presented by only one side with an agenda, to the exclusion of the other, then yes indeed they are manipulated. They become brainwashed. You only know what you can see or hear. That's it.

I attended college over 40 years ago. I studied the sciences and engineering. The leftwing takeover had not emerged at that time. Now the schools are all about attracting dollars and research grants. This is where Chinese money and Chinese "students" come into play. Nothing bad can be said of China. I'm not going to dig up the examples of free speech being crushed on campuses. You can find them on your own. But there's a big and obvious example: Biden has yet to say anything negative about a country that started a global pandemic and killed millions, many Americans. He was their grifter. You know this to be true. Just won't admit it. You deflect.
 
  • Like
Reactions: WeR0206

dailybuck777

Well-Known Member
Jan 2, 2018
11,560
16,661
1
@dailybuck777 would love to hear your take on this case
Not familiar much with Supreme Court certiorari practice. As Aardvark said many cases are filed and only a very small number heard. Aardvark being in DC has much better insight than I. Although I disagree with him on the extent of dishonesty in the DOJ and FBI, I have always found him to give fair, well-reasoned explanations for his views.
 

LafayetteBear

Well-Known Member
Dec 1, 2009
48,963
21,889
1
See my comments in red type face.

Like a true leftist, "True leftist?" That's relatively mild - particularly from MY perspective - but I thought you were adamantly against any mudslinging. What if I responded by calling you a "Trump Cultist" or a "True rightwinger?" You OK with that? you again resort to an attack on the source and used a lot of words to add little real content. I highlighted your "means of production" and "brainwashing" attempts.

When government regulates one industry, even to the point of indiscriminately shutting parts of it down, while then subsidizing other industries to compete in the same product area (energy), that is exactly what they are doing -- controlling the means of (energy) production. So your apparent focus is on the energy industry, and your argument is that overregulating the energy industry - to the point of "shutting it down" - constitutes "communism." First, NO PART of the energy industry has been shut down. Second , although "green energy" has received government subsidies, so have the coal and gas businesses. During the pandemic government even ordered businesses to be shut down. Which businesses? For how long? You can deny that there was a public health emergency until you are blue in the face, but that doesn't change the fact that it happened. That is the ultimate CONTROL OF PRODUCTION. Your party even made certain spending contracts contingent upon the use of unions. That is an unbelievable breach of market principles and private ownership. It essentially goes against the principle of anti-trust. The government gets in the middle of competition. The preceding three sentences are the most laughable part of your entire post. I get it. You're anti-union and anti-collective bargaining. The fact remains, however, that many of the workplace safety laws, wage and hour laws, and other labor and employment laws and practices we have today are the result of collective bargaining and political organizing by labor unions. I would add that ANY government regulation of business activity could arguably be called "getting in the middle of competition," but much of it is now regarded as both beneficial land necessary. You want your meat inspected? Your medicines to be unadulterated? If so, you are in favor of the government "getting in the middle of competition." And BTW, that is in no way against antitrust principles, either.

As for brainwashing, that occurs subtly in all forms of media, right through education on campuses by professors, such as the likes of your own Robert Reich, a true leftwing socialist. And Mark Levin is a RWNJ, so we're even. The educators are part of the money pipeline from both the government and China. They are not going to lecture to kill the golden goose. This is part of the reason to "forgive" student debt. It's about buying votes, and throwing money at supporters within Education.

Yes people have a mind of their own. But when all of the imagery and information is presented by only one side with an agenda, to the exclusion of the other, then yes indeed they are manipulated. Did Fox News go off the air? Did the Washington Times, National Review, and Wall Street Journal cease publication? Did Clear Channel and Salem Media go bankrupt? There are over 1,500 conservative talk radio stations in this country. Talk radio is almost exclusively conservative. They become brainwashed. Tell me about it, Fox News viewer. You only know what you can see or hear. That's it.

I attended college over 40 years ago. I studied the sciences and engineering. The leftwing takeover had not emerged at that time. Now the schools are all about attracting dollars and research grants. This is where Chinese money and Chinese "students" come into play. Nothing bad can be said of China. I'm not going to dig up the examples of free speech being crushed on campuses. The vast, vast majority of grant money that is distributed to American universities comes from U.S. federal and state governments, and from U.S. based corporations. You are GROSSLY overstating the relative amount, and impact, of Chinese grant monies, all without data ("I'm not gonna dig that up."). You can find them on your own. But there's a big and obvious example: Biden has yet to say anything negative about a country that started a global pandemic and killed millions, many Americans. He was their grifter. You know this to be true. Just won't admit it. You deflect. Thanks for telling me what I subjectively know. Sigh ... You have no proof of how Covid-19 started, or (perhaps more accurately), how it jumped from animals (bats?) to humans. I suspect that it did, indeed, start in China. But I'm not about to go around slinging mud (as you say) without more definitive proof. I DO think we should be pushing the Chinese, harder, for more information and explanation.
 

dailybuck777

Well-Known Member
Jan 2, 2018
11,560
16,661
1
See my comments in red type face.
"Did Fox News go off the air? Did the Washington Times, National Review, and Wall Street Journal cease publication?"

Big Tech shut down Parler when it was the no. 1 downloaded App on Apple Store. Just bare-knuckled brute power by behemoths that felt no need to explain their actions or to give American people choices. Shameless actions by stupid and malevolent people.
 
  • Like
Reactions: jjw165

KnightWhoSaysNit

Well-Known Member
Jul 19, 2010
9,926
11,018
1
@LafayetteBear a few points in response:

  • When we say "government subsidies" for green energy that is money going to China (for things like solar panels) out of the pockets of Americans. The "government" is the pocketbook of Americans. It isn't some external entity that has no cost. Americans are getting taxed by Dem-spending, i.e., inflation.
  • Oil and gas companies don't get subsidies. In fact they pay huge amounts of taxes. Just as much or more than any other business. I believe what you are referring to is the depreciation of investment associated with well-depletion, flipping that to claim it is a subsidy. That's like any other asset that a company might build which becomes worthless at end of life.
  • I am not denying a public health emergency. I am claiming that the government overstepped its bounds and ordered businesses closed that should have been allowed to remain open. They even ordered churches closed. When the teachers unions pushed for school closures the Dems complied and made it hard for parents to go to work with children at home. That hurt businesses, which could no longer find employees.
  • There is no way you are going to convince me that Twitter, Facebook, the MSM (ABC, CBS, NBC) are not extremely biased to the left. Twitter even blocked the voice of the president. Watching NBC, especially MSNBC or CNN, can turn you into a leftwing zombie. I've seen it. I've questioned people who watch these channels -- what they believe and why. It's astounding. The beliefs are without any standing.
  • Grant money for universities, again, comes from The People. It doesn't come from some external money-supply machine that we call "government." As for China, I can't remember the source as its been a long time, but I came away astounded by the influence of China on the behavior of college administrators. I visited my university a few years ago and was surprised by the makeup of grad students. Guess where they came from.
  • Do you think Covid came from bats? Seriously? Are you that far behind on this? This virus has been studied and it is clear that it was manufactured. Statistically impossible to have evolved in nature. It is a bio-weapon, a gain of function experiment that was not contained. The only question is whether or not someone did this on purpose. That we will never know. What we do know is that the origin is China, and we still treat them like buddies.
 

KnightWhoSaysNit

Well-Known Member
Jul 19, 2010
9,926
11,018
1
And a couple more points:

What you (@LafayetteBear) call "collective bargaining" does two things:
  1. It allows the lazy people to be paid more than they are worth, feeding off the more productive people.
  2. It holds the more productive people back. Therefore, the output of the "collective" goes down and the cost goes up
These things have nothing to do with worker safety any more. That's OSHA and has nothing to do with the union. Your mind is stuck in the 1930s.

Safety standards, particularly with respect to the food supply, are necessary regulations. Environmental regulations are hit or miss. It depends on the regulation, what it costs to be measured, and whether you are going to hold competition to that same standard. You can't strap an air standard onto a US business and then pose no penalty (tariff) on a country's production of that product without that standard. The air circulates. This is another reason the hole climate change agenda is BS. It will do nothing if countries in Asia, particularly China, do not comply. All it does is clobber Americans and others that "agree."

The way your party's legislation is pushing unions, tied to spending programs, is incredibly unfair and unproductive. As I wrote, it is effectively an anti-trust violation. It's socialized labor by authoritarian decree -- a Marxist concept that protects nobody but the lazy.

And finally, you did not do anything I asked and instead carried on here. If you believe in your party's platform, start a new thread and show us how Dems are taking us closer to the republic envisioned by our Founders with power in the states. Show us how that platform is more constitutional. Show us how it honors divided government with checks and balances. Show us how it is retaining market principles. Dems have thrown all of this out the window. Conservatives have shown on multiple occasions here how Dems have been destroying our republic -- doing the opposite of what I just listed.
 
  • Like
Reactions: roswelllion

jimarnp

Well-Known Member
Sep 6, 2001
2,347
1,158
1
This could be huge. Is this a card the court could play in case the lame duck congress attempts to curtail/dilute it?

Note on 11/23/22 the US govt (Solicitor General) waived its right to respond:
https://www.supremecourt.gov/search.aspx?filename=/docket/docketfiles/html/public/22-380.html

I think this is the original petition that was filed:

This case doesn’t have anything to do with the rightful winner of 2020 and everything to do with hundreds of members of congress failing to make sure the vote was legit before certifying it therefore putting our national security at risk.

As a reminder in Dec 2020 ODNI said there’s was signs of foreign interference. Also multiple state legislators sent letters to their US reps asking them to delay certification for a week or two so they could get their arms around what just happened. But nope. The certification was rammed through at like 2:30 am after a convenient fed boi provacateur led “riot” shut down all debate re: 2020 election shenanigans. How convenient.
Foreign interference = act of war, per executive order. ---- Wonder if this is why congress refuses to pull back the carpet
 
  • Like
Reactions: WeR0206

KnightWhoSaysNit

Well-Known Member
Jul 19, 2010
9,926
11,018
1
Foreign interference = act of war, per executive order. ---- Wonder if this is why congress refuses to pull back the carpet

Lots of shenanigans. The voting machines are beyond what I can address, but there were numerous cases reported on the election night of observers being barred from close inspection. Why? There should be nothing to hide in an election. The more transparent, the more trustworthy. EVERYBODY should want that, and to those who don't, again, why?

The vote-by-mail is a huge problem. There is no way to verify a signature match without a handwriting expert. A picture ID, on the other hand ...
 
  • Like
Reactions: jimarnp and WeR0206

LafayetteBear

Well-Known Member
Dec 1, 2009
48,963
21,889
1
And a couple more points:

What you call "collective bargaining" does two things:
  1. It allows the lazy people to be paid more than they are worth, feeding off the more productive people.
  2. It holds the more productive people back. Therefore, the output of the "collective" goes down and the cost goes up
You should have quit while you were behind. So American union workers are "lazy people" who are "hold[ing] the more productive people back?" Awesome. Brilliant thinking. John Birch would be proud of you.
 
  • Like
Reactions: franklinman