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.
