I didn’t see this on searching this site. This case just made it onto the SCOTUS docket. I guess they could just turn it around to a lower court but I’m sort of surprised to see it this far along, given the strident nature of the claim. Anyone else aware of this? Thoughts? Here, in the words of others, is the claim. “STATEMENT OF THE CASE This action is against 388 federal officers in their official capacities which include President Joseph Robinette Biden Jr, Vice President Kamala Harris, Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi and former Vice President Michael Richard Pence (“Respondents”). All the Respondents have taken the required Oath to support and defend the Constitution of the United States of America against all enemies, foreign and domestic, and as such they are liable for consequences when they violate the Oath of Office. 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, Respondents 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. On January 6, 2021, the 117th Congress held a proceeding and debate in Washington DC (“Proceeding”). This 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 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.” https://www.supremecourt.gov/Docket...2243533_20221027-152110-95757954-00007015.pdf
We'll see what comes of it, but during the certification process, all courts refused anything regarding the election as they didn't want to feel obligated to overturn part or all of an election. A judge has allowed an election case to go forward in Arizona, but that is the first state case I have seen go to court. I suspect the SCOTUS will decide that Congress has to regulate the election and the courts have no role in the process, but we'll see.
I have been following information about this case, and it seems like the Supreme Court might actually hear it. they have been asking the Brunson brothers for more information that they want to look at. Even if they do not hear it right away, the case has passed all the lower courts and they can appeal to the Supreme Court if necessary. The possibility that this goes through is almost earth-changing for America if the Brunson brothers do win the case ! This is actually going through as a civil case, not a criminal one, but one of neglect of doing what they are supposed to do to verify an election before it is certified. If it is found that the members of Congress who voted to certify the election without the necessary verification process, then it will certainly lead to criminal charges, and quite possibly nullify the whole election. Edit to ad: Here is a website that goes into depth about this. https://highlandcountypress.com/Con...me-Court-considers-Brunson-v-Adams/4/22/86700
It stinks when I view an action to maintain the integrity of our systems as an opportunity for our enemies to gain ground. I found some background on this, since neither my local news nor any of my favorite sites have said anything about it. July 2021: The 4 Brunson brothers filed this in Utah. Aug 2021: United States Attorney for the District of Utah, as counsel for Defendants, filed a notice of removal in this court. The notice relies on Federal statutes which authorize the removal of a civil action commenced in a state court against "[a]ny officer of the United States ... for or relating to any act under color of such office." Aug 2021: The Brunsons filed a motion to remand the action back to state court. They argue that remand is required because: (1) their claims do not depend on federal law, and under the well-pleaded complaint rule, federal defenses do not provide a basis for removal; and (2) the federal court is biased against them. Case Text states that "Defendants' removal of this state court action under 28 U.S.C. § 1442(a) was proper." Case Text provides a lengthy analysis as to their reasoning. Interestingly, a cornerstone of the statutes require removal of such lawsuits from the states to prevent bias on the part of a hostile state that might be the plaintiff against the Fed, while the Brunsons want the case kept out of Federal courts for like-kind reasons. I've not seen any path this took wending its way through the Federal court system. I wonder if it went directly to SCOTUS because of the nature of the parties. I've not read anything that indicates the Brunson brothers were encouraged to be plaintiffs by any group, or that this case is a component of a larger strategy.
The case is appealed from the 10th Circuit. Certiorari has not been granted yet, in January the Certiorari Pool will gather to see if there are the 4 Justices needed to grant it.
Welcome to the forum, @Richard Joseph ! If you like, there is an introduction area sub forum, it is under the Notices and Announcements section at the top of the page, and you can share a little about yourself there, and people will be able to welcome you. If you click on your name at the top right corner of the page, a little box will open up where you can add an avatar and choose your alert preferences and stuff like that. This case should be pretty interesting if it actually gets looked at by the Supreme Court in January, and I have been following along as I find information about it. People all over are learning about this case and hoping it will help out.
The Supreme Court has decided not to look at this case; so it will now go into an appeal, it appears. Have not been following the news on this the last couple of days.
Maybe it does not go for a true appeal (since it's been down that path.) It looks like Brunson may file a petition for reconsideration, but I can find no info on why SCOTUS rejected it. As an aside, Brunson has set up a website for this action. Link
Yes, anyone can file for reconsideration, but I believe I read once where that would take 5 justices to agree to consider it instead of 4. Won't happen.
Did it change since 2020? I thought it was still 4 for granting cert. This distinguishes between granting a stay and granting cert. Maybe the 5 is for a stay? https://teacherscollegesj.org/how-many-justices-does-it-take-to-grant-cert/
By Reconsideration, I assume it is a Petition for a Rehearing. Supreme Court Rule 44: in part: A petition for rehearing is not subject to oral argument and will not be granted except by a majority of the Court, at the instance of a Justice who concurred in the judgment or decision. https://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/supct/rule_44