Case That Could Overturn 2020 Election To Be Reviewed By Supreme Court

a reply to: TheBadCabbie

Good job with actively keeping your thread on track.

a reply to: TheBadCabbie

Well, the courts explained it thusly:

Before the election was complete, the plaintiffs had 'no standing'.

When the 'election' was over, the 'issue was moot'.

Yeah, that's some justice there.

Cheers

originally posted by: TheBadCabbie
a reply to: All Seeing Eye
a reply to: Oldcarpy2
a reply to: asabuvsobelow

Hey guys, I noticed the side argument about the difficulty of proving fraud, so I wanted to chime in and clarify this for you.

The criminal activity that is alleged by the petitioner is not the fraud that likely occurred in the 2020 election. It is the fact that when 100 congresspeople raised legitimate concerns about the integrity of the election, that instead of allowing those claims to be given consideration as tradition and law allow, the defendants actively thwarted such efforts. The plaintiffs allege that this is treason, as the defendants adhered to enemies of the republic by doing so.

As far as I can tell then, the plaintiff's burden of proof is not that there was fraud, only that there were legitimate concerns that fraud may have occurred. This might be as simple as showing that observers were interfered with. The bar of proof might even be as low as simply showing the fact of the interference in the legitimate process of objecting to the electoral count based on those concerns, which certainly seems to have occurred.

Nananananana, looking in my crystal ball, seeing an engineered interference by civilian third parties on January 6th, followed by lots of legislators saying things like "well we were going to hear objections, but since some civilians who were not elected officials made it onto the capitol building without our permission, and were mean to us, all of that goes right out the window, and we're going to certify this election without giving the legitimate complaints of shady activity the consideration that they are due."

That is not how that process is supposed to work as far as I know. Seems to this layman as though due process was subverted right there. Perhaps even treasonously so. Anyhow, that is what the plaintiffs are alleging. Not so much that there was fraud, but that the legislators and executives in question failed to carry out their oaths of office. They have all sworn to uphold and defend the constitution, but instead subverted it in that situation.

Good job with actively keeping your thread on track.

a reply to: carewemust

Thanks care. That's what it is. This petition is not about showing fraud, it's about showing that elected representatives who took an oath to uphold the US Constitution did not do so.

originally posted by: F2d5thCavv2
a reply to: TheBadCabbie

Well, the courts explained it thusly:

Before the election was complete, the plaintiffs had 'no standing'.

When the 'election' was over, the 'issue was moot'.

Yeah, that's some justice there.

Cheers

Well they can tie it in a bow and call it done all they like, it doesn't address the fact that those representatives didn't do their jobs, which affects the entire nation, and ultimately the entire planet.

As I see it, it all dosn't add up to a hill of (Rotten) beans.

The question then becomes, the head of the SC. John Roberts. Speaker of the house, Majority Leader, Or head of the SC. If those key people are compromised, you can forget Justice.

We desperately need a Christmas Miracle..

originally posted by: antar
a reply to: All Seeing Eye

God's Blessings to you old friend on this Christmas Season and all good things for the new year...

seeing how I have been here at ATS for at least, err, I forgot lol. Though I do have some ancient memories of two previous ATS sites. Yes, Im old lol

Thank you, you range some old bells. And a very Merry Christmas to you too.

Next year? I guess we are going to have to wait and see..

Be safe, Old Friend

originally posted by: Xcalibur254
Two lower courts have refused to hear the case due to lack of jurisdiction. Do you really think SCOTUS is going to decide any differently? There's a reason the DOJ didn't feel the need to respond to the writ of certiorari.

Yeah, we know those like you LOVE your dictatorial masters and don't care that your lovely dictatorial masters stole or steal elections as long as you are in power.

You are the type to defend the idiocy that your democrat dictatorial masters claim. "You want to make certain only U.S. citizens vote in U.S. elections & that there is no voter fraud? That's voter suppression... After all illegals, non-citizens, cats, dogs, dead democrats, hundreds to millions of conservatives who go to vote in person and are told "you already voted" when they didn't, and citizens of other countries all should be able to vote in U.S. elections."

originally posted by: ElectricUniverse

originally posted by: Xcalibur254
Two lower courts have refused to hear the case due to lack of jurisdiction. Do you really think SCOTUS is going to decide any differently? There's a reason the DOJ didn't feel the need to respond to the writ of certiorari.

Yeah, we know those like you LOVE your dictatorial masters and don't care that your lovely dictatorial masters stole or steal elections as long as you are in power.

You are the type to defend the idiocy that your democrat dictatorial masters claim. "You want to make certain only U.S. citizens vote in U.S. elections & that there is no voter fraud? That's voter suppression... After all illegals, non-citizens, cats, dogs, dead democrats, hundreds to millions of conservatives who go to vote in person and are told "you already voted" when they didn't, and citizens of other countries all should be able to vote in U.S. elections."

Hey! My dog is a proud Canine American! You will not deny his rights!!!/s

originally posted by: All Seeing Eye
As I see it, it all dosn't add up to a hill of (Rotten) beans.

The question then becomes, the head of the SC. John Roberts. Speaker of the house, Majority Leader, Or head of the SC. If those key people are compromised, you can forget Justice.

We desperately need a Christmas Miracle..

You may well be right.

Even so, I'm glad I did this thread, because I think this issue is at the heart of the problems we have in this country. If elected officials never uphold their oaths, and our elected representatives are never punished for not upholding their oaths, then we do not have a nation with rule of law.

The constitution can be practically meaningless in those circumstances, if those oaths are never upheld, never enforced, which is about where we are, where we've been for many years now. The longer we take to walk this back, the smaller the window TO walk it back becomes. Eventually we may reach a place where it CAN'T be walked back, if something isn't done.

So do laws mean anything? Are they real, or do they only mean something when somebody with some special position of authority says they do? Do we have a nation with rule of law, or...something else?

a reply to: TheBadCabbie

It does no good ranting about how things are. Unless, there is a remedy, that works.

After years of research I have come to the conclusion that we actually lost control of the government when the first secret society member was allowed to hold office. President Kennedy was correct when he warned us about Secret Oaths, proceedings. A open society is doomed to fail and enslavement when it allows Secret Societies to rule over it.

A few years ago I went in to have a skin cancer removed. In my mind the skin should have been excised to remove the cancer. But they refused to do this and only removed the surface growth. Their reasoning was "It would leave a scar". Doing it in the manner they did, did not remove the cancer, and it came back predictably. Its a racket!

Now relaying this to governments is virtually the same. Removing the surface corruption that can be seen, is not a cure, and the underlying corruption will return, sooner or later. Secret societies, is the core cancer. You can win back the government, but if the core corruption is not excised, it will return.

At this stage of the game there are no alternatives, the cancer cells must be addressed directly, and forcefully. If not, our "Body Politic" will die. Game over.

The only way you can read it like that is if you expect RvW to be overturned by the SC in some way.
RvW is EVERYTHING to the libs agenda.
EVERYTHING.
No, RvW was just the beginning of a SC that now is ruling for the Constitution and State Rights.
The ruling against the EPA for State authority is bigger than RvW by far. But abortion is bigger to the liberal agenda.
Moore v Harper is bigger too.
All these rulings are leading us back to the united States for America and away from the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA INC.
Let us examine Roberts.
Something obviously happened to him in a very short amount of time to where he is not driving the bus anymore.
RvW set the tone.
What is coming in 2023 due to all the new treaties and trade agreements is just that big.
For an example. Just picture the supply chains once the 25% tarrif on ALL Chinese goods imported will have.
The SC is under military guidance now.
It should be obvious we are under military occupation until civilian authority is reestablished.
The narrative has changed.
The corporation is expired with the 99 year charter and 24 year extension.
The New Republic is being rolled out.
The script got flipped.
This time period was meant for another outcome from Order ab Chaos.
Instead of us becoming a globalist state we get sovereign States and the return of the Republic.
The stage is set now for a complete implosion of the federal reserve banking system and the Petro dollar.
The simple clue to look for if this is true is that the cartels will be dealt with before the new system installed.
The reset, nesara/gesara or whatever it is we get has begun.
And the only thing I can say for certain of where it is going based upon the SC rulings recently, at present and near future is it is sovereign States.
FTX was planned to fail in order for the Fed to usher in authority to regulate crypto and prop up the cbdc. Luckily for us it will destroy the Fed instead and completely expose the current political establishment as it is proof of foreign interference in our elections and the pay for play schemes that has controlled elections.

Just look at the rulings these last few months and it becomes clear where this is going.
This is most certainly not "business as usual".
Everything is rapidly changing and the narrative looks totally different.
Actors

originally posted by: yuppa

originally posted by: Zrtst
I'm trying to imagine a universe where Roberts would take up that case. He folded over Obama care, he was heard yelling at fellow SCOTUS after the 2020 election, worried more about riots than the constitution.
Someone has something nefarious over Mr. Robert I believe.

Roberts did the RvW decision to screw republicans at the direction of the DNC. this will be dismissed.

a reply to: ElectricUniverse

The irony of your post. You worshipped Trump and would have gladly accepted him as dictator, yet claim "the other side" does exactly what you did.

Dunning Kruger is strong with you.

a reply to: All Seeing Eye

You make some valid points, I don't entirely disagree.

I think we can know about these things, and share these revelations with others. Discussion can be an aid to enlightenment. We can inspire hope. We can encourage free thought, fact finding, and self-reliance. We can promote better public awareness of important social and civil issues.

Also this petition could actually provide a remedy to our corruption problem. It wouldn't solve it completely, but it would sure be a start. It is as you say though, in that if this were all that were to happen it would only be scratching the surface. It does seem unlikely to be heard and upheld in the first place too, I agree.

On the other hand this sort of "do we have rule of law moment" has really come and gone a thousand times over the last few decades. We've learned about and discussed many of them here on this board. I can relate to your sentiments in that context, where you say ranting about it does no good.

It can seem so at times. I'm not so sure it's all that hopeless, though it does appear so, I agree.

I also agree that secrecy is a big part of our problem and what got us to where we are as a nation, as a planet, in the first place. Though it may perhaps be of well intention, it does appear to inevitably morph into a giant rug that a mountain of wrongdoing may be swept under. State secrets.

How do we moderate that in the future to prevent this sort of thing? How do we keep some secrets that must reasonably be kept without enabling wanton lawlessness from those who are privy to such special authority? How do we achieve that balance? Can it even be done?

a reply to: TheBadCabbie

I also agree that secrecy is a big part of our problem and what got us to where we are as a nation, as a planet, in the first place. Though it may perhaps be of well intention, it does appear to inevitably morph into a giant rug that a mountain of wrongdoing may be swept under. State secrets.

I have said this before and well worth repeating "A secret kept at all costs, will in the end, cost us everything". We are at that point now. "State Secrets".

Good men and women in the past signed onto that train of thought thinking it was for the good. But in reality they were only following a agenda that was laid out thousands of years ago, not in the best interest of humanity, as a whole.

The "Deep State" or Swamp, or anything else you would like to call it, is a reality, we can not see with our naked eyes, but no less runs our world. And that, is our true adversary.

How do we moderate that in the future to prevent this sort of thing? How do we keep some secrets that must reasonably be kept without enabling wanton lawlessness from those who are privy to such special authority? How do we achieve that balance? Can it even be done?

The very fact that the Kennedy assassination is still classified bares wittiness to the reality of the deep state, and its absolute control over our government. There is absolutely no reason to withhold the facts so long after the event, unless, those facts would expose some of the mechanization's involved in how the deep state controls our government. I have looked under that rug and it is vulgar.

Future? The only legitimate secrets that should be held, are our plans to defeat, the deep state! Once we decide to follow Brazil's lead, the NSA should go back to their original mission and protect our government from internal overthrow, because that is exactly what happened. And without saying it, monitor the ones they should have from the beginning.

I dont blame those patriots, because they have been misdirected like all of us.

The people of Brazil marched in unison physically, because they could. And in spirit, so did we..

The people, need to see that, "First Arrest".

As for the other secrets, ask yourself, should they have been secrets in the first place??

Can it even be done?

Let your imagination, be your limit...

a reply to: All Seeing Eye

I thought I'd take a few days, sort of contemplate my reply, where can we take this conversation in a direction that is beneficial? I'm glad I did. Here's what I came up with:

I guess when you break it down the Espionage Act really serves to constrain the average individual who might blow the whistle on shady activity. It's a stick that can be shoved in anybody's face that the government wants to keep quiet at the time. When I try to look at it objectively, putting good and bad aside, I see this "utilitarian" value of that law.

It doesn't amount to a hill of beans I'd guess when compared to contractual agreements that anyone participating in such a project might have to sign. Repealing, or even strengthening the Espionage Act doesn't really change contract law or the nature of contractual agreements.

The EA can be used like a ton of bricks to be dropped on the average person who wants to blow the whistle on something though. Whistleblower protections do seem to be at odds with it as well. Though Snowden merely exposed illegal activity with his disclosures, that fact has not absolved him of charges as of yet.

Seems like repealing the Espionage Act might not be enough then, if that is the right way to go. If you want to really nip it you'd have to have some sort of ban on secrecy contracts, which seems like a tough hill to climb.

Businesses will always want to have proprietary data and proceedings, as will the military. It seems wrong to want to interfere with private business's internal workings... Don't get me wrong, I agree that secret keeping is a big part of the problem. I'm just not sure how it looks, where it still works realistically.

Entities will want to maintain operational security, whether it is a civilian engineering project with no government involvement, or some super secret squirrel flying saucer deal. They're not necessarily always wrong...

On the other hand, sometimes it sure goes wrong, sometimes in a big bad way, costing lots of people their lives, or ruining lots of people's lives.

As an entrepeneur, I've seen opportunities evaporate, apparently as a direct result of my sharing the details of those opportunities with others. From that perspective, I can appreciate keeping some plans for future activities to myself for the sake of helping to assure my survival. That can be a good thing.

It's not necessarily all bad then. Where's the line there? Less secrecy from government, but what is realistic to expect and require? There will always be practical considerations that will necessitate secrecy at times...Banning civilian bureaucrats from secret proceedings? Changing the enforcement precedent on the Sunshine Act? I dunno. What do you think?

It's not necessarily all bad then. Where's the line there? Less secrecy from government, but what is realistic to expect and require? There will always be practical considerations that will necessitate secrecy at times...Banning civilian bureaucrats from secret proceedings? Changing the enforcement precedent on the Sunshine Act? I dunno. What do you think?

As I said, the only thing the government should keep secret, is its plans to ring in, the Adversary. The founding fathers knew the dangers of our new form of government as they saw first hand what can happen when power falls into the wrong hands.

They made it clear that if someone was beholding to another government, potentate, king, they were not worthy to hold office in this new government. Was it a oversight on their part or something else that they did not realize the dangers of Secret society members holding office. Maybe, they just couldn't see the dangers because most of them had a bias for one secret society, not realizing that even their beloved brotherhood could also, be infiltrated.

Secret societies are the right of the people to gather as they wish, this is true. But when one takes a oath to serve the people via a government office, in a open government, they should not have secret associations. You cant serve two masters at the same time.

I would draw the line on that point. No secret society members in public office. The Sunshine act can not remove nefarious skull&bones (Satanic Cults) members from the CIA and FBI. Nor could it even expose these people for who and what they are, and the damage they have caused throughout time.

The problem does not lay in legitimate secrecy, it lays in the criminals who use that secrecy to live above the law.

If I only had a magic wand...

Let them join but that makes them ineligible for public office

The Emoluments Clauses of the U.S. Constitution - CRS Reports

Language

Article I, Section 9, Clause 8: No Title of Nobility shall be granted by the United States: And no Person holding any Office of Profit or Trust under them, shall, without the Consent of the Congress, accept of any present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince, or foreign State.

This would include the BAR association and exclude 75% of current politicians.
original 13th amendment

"If any citizen of the United States shall accept, claim, receive, or retain any title of nobility or honour, or shall without the consent of Congress, accept and retain any present, pension, office, or emolument of any kind whatever, from any emperor, king, prince, or foreign power, such person shall cease to be a citizen of the United States, and shall be incapable of holding any office of trust or profit under them, or either of them."

originally posted by: All Seeing Eye

It's not necessarily all bad then. Where's the line there? Less secrecy from government, but what is realistic to expect and require? There will always be practical considerations that will necessitate secrecy at times...Banning civilian bureaucrats from secret proceedings? Changing the enforcement precedent on the Sunshine Act? I dunno. What do you think?

As I said, the only thing the government should keep secret, is its plans to ring in, the Adversary. The founding fathers knew the dangers of our new form of government as they saw first hand what can happen when power falls into the wrong hands.

They made it clear that if someone was beholding to another government, potentate, king, they were not worthy to hold office in this new government. Was it a oversight on their part or something else that they did not realize the dangers of Secret society members holding office. Maybe, they just couldn't see the dangers because most of them had a bias for one secret society, not realizing that even their beloved brotherhood could also, be infiltrated.

Secret societies are the right of the people to gather as they wish, this is true. But when one takes a oath to serve the people via a government office, in a open government, they should not have secret associations. You cant serve two masters at the same time.

I would draw the line on that point. No secret society members in public office. The Sunshine act can not remove nefarious skull&bones (Satanic Cults) members from the CIA and FBI. Nor could it even expose these people for who and what they are, and the damage they have caused throughout time.

The problem does not lay in legitimate secrecy, it lays in the criminals who use that secrecy to live above the law.

If I only had a magic wand...

a reply to: Nevercompromise

Interesting thoughts. I don't disagree. I'm not sure what to add, but I wanted to reply to say that you raise valid points.

a reply to: All Seeing Eye

Anyhow, agree. State secrets. Big part of the problem. State enforced secrecy has a place perhaps, but its rightful one is most definitely not the obfuscation of illegal activity by government officials.

I wanted to give this thread a nudge, and also to nudge it back on topic.

This petition may not go anywhere, but it most definitely should be taken very seriously. If government oaths to the constitution aren't enforced, then the constitution has no validity beyond being some profound words on some paper.

It only has meaning as a legal document if it is upheld and enforced. That means government officials upholding their oaths to the constitution, which should be enforced by the courts if necessary.

originally posted by: TheBadCabbie
The US Supreme Court has recently docketed a case for review bringing suit against Biden, Harris, Pence, hundreds of members of congress, and 100 John or Jane Does, for refusing to uphold their oaths of office. The allegation is that 100 members of congress brought serious election integrity concerns to the attention of the defendants on January 6th, and instead of allowing the customary ten day inquiry into the integrity of that election, the defendants thwarted any such efforts.

As of the time of this writing, the Brunson case does appear to be docketed. The defendants have changed representation from US Attorneys to the Solicitor General. The most recent activity that I've seen was the 23 November deadline for the defendants to respond, which appears to have been waived by the defendants. It looks as though the next step is for the court to decide whether they will rule on the petition or not. The remedy requested by the plaintiff is that the defendants be removed from office and barred from holding federal office in the future.

I'm going to provide a lot of sources from alternative media. Zero mention of this by MSM that I've seen.

The Brunson brothers'(plaintiff) website:
ralandbrunson.com...

First saw it mentioned in this post:
www.abovetopsecret.com...

I think this is the same Nino's Corner podcast that I recently viewed on it, one of the Brunson brothers is on the show answering questions:
rumble.com...

I think this is the same Godlewski video on it. Godlewski claims that this has already been heard and decided on months ago, and that the dates cited are fabrications. Godlewski's video on the subject:
rumble.com...

I liked this Conservative Daily video on it. Loy Brunson is there to give a synopsis, and they hash most of it out in the first thirty minutes or so. All of the videos I'm linking here are pretty long, there aren't any concise short pieces on it yet that I could find. If you were only to watch one, this provides the most concise information in the first half:
rumble.com...

If granted, this petition could overturn the 2020 election results. Those people all took oaths, which they ignored when they certified the 2020 results without first seriously considering the serious claims of election fraud that were made by 100 congresspeople.

I think there should be consequences for that, if rule of law still means anything in this nation. It should be interesting to see how the court rules, and what comes of it, if anything. This is an opportunity for the SCOTUS to implement a legal remedy to our corruption problem. I can't help but like that, and be hopeful that they will serve us some justice.

I thought some of you might not have seen this, since it seems to be subject to a media blackout. What do you think? Discuss.

Edit to add Supreme Court's docket search results for the case:
www.supremecourt.gov.../docket/DocketFiles/html/Public/22-380.html

a reply to: TheBadCabbie
I am praying for this for all of us.
If this video hasn't been posted please watch. Loy Brunson is literally going to the heart of the matter.
Are our Supreme Court Justices going to live up to their oaths to our constitution or not.
I wouldn't even try to explain, this interview is amazing and addressed everything you need to know.

www.bitchute.com...

This would be the shock heard around the universe!!