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

a reply to: fringeofthefringe

Thanks for sharing the link, interesting interview. Loy is also interviewed in the Nino's corner vid I linked, as well as the Conservative Daily vid. Mostly the same info as in the interview that you linked.

It would be nice to see it upheld, I think it would be a big step toward addressing the corruption problem we have in this nation. Should be interesting to see how the court rules, either way.

January 2, 2023 - Take a Moment to Think Back 2 Years -

Evidence generated..."fingerprints" left behind, by execution of "Strategically Executed/Targeted Fraud".

Presidential Election 2020

Joe Biden won a record low number of counties in the United States by an alleged “winner” in 2020 – winning only 17% of the counties in the US.

Biden won fewer counties than Barack Obama, in his 2008 record-setting election.

President Trump won 2,496 counties in 2020. Joe Biden only 477.

Trump won 84% of America. Biden “won” 17%.

More at: www.thegatewaypundit.com...

If you present the above numbers in a case study, without revealing the winner, every person who sees them would confidently state that the candidate with 2,496 counties and 84% of America, would win the election.

Conversely, people would think you're on drugs if you tell them that the guy with 477 counties/17% of America supporting him, would win the Presidential election.

The case we are discussing is not about voter fraud but about the constitutional duty to investigate the over 5,000 sworn avidavids that witnessed fraud.
The crux of the case is the sworn oath to the constitution, is that going to be something politicians and judges are held accountable for?
If so then they were obligated to investigate said fraud.
The SCOTUS has two sworn oathes and other public servants have to swear an oath as well. Big question is....
Is that for show or is it a real sworn oath.

originally posted by: asabuvsobelow

originally posted by: Oldcarpy2
a reply to: MetalThunder

"Fraud vitiates everything.”

Yes, if you can prove actual fraud.

A big "if".

Over here anyway.

It's nearly impossible to prove voter/election fraud and you know this and the courts know this , the very courts who would be used to prove fraud are the very courts whom would suffer should the fraud be proved.

Election and Voting procedures are purposefully insulated to protect the Privacy and Rights of the people voting but this in turn is what makes it almost impossible to prove fraud. You've seen 2,000 mules I assume ? What more proof do you need combine that with the 2022 midterms and yeah our Election system is very broken.

This GP article says that though the case was scheduled to be reviewed on Friday, we will most likely not hear an announcement until Monday:

The Brunson brothers’ case was expected to be looked into today. The US Supreme Court will make a decision on whether to hear this case today with an expected announcement on Monday.

www.thegatewaypundit.com...

a reply to: TheBadCabbie

Regarding the Brunson vs Adams 2020 election case, 3 "Amicus Briefs" were rejected by the Supreme Court yesterday, Friday January 6th, during their "Conference".

Source: www.supremecourt.gov.../docket/docketfiles/html/public/22-380.html

Is the rejection(s) a good sign, or bad sign, for the SCOTUS taking up the case?

a reply to: carewemust

It doesn't seem like a bad thing for the case at first glance. It looks like the name on those briefs are someone representing the state of "New California", which is not even actually a state of course. Seems as though that might have been some possible political shenanigans, though I don't really know for sure, I haven't read those briefs.

I presume that it is possible to derail some cases like this by injecting some absurd legalese, so perhaps that was something of that nature. I really don't know for sure. I'd guess the Supreme Court rejecting them doesn't hurt the Brunsons' case though.

I expect we'll hear something about it tomorrow.

Petition Denied. Just like I said would happen.

originally posted by: Xcalibur254
Petition Denied. Just like I said would happen.

So who really is the legal President of the United States?

a reply to: Xcalibur254

Can't say I'm surprised. A little disappointed perhaps, not surprised though.

May 30, 2024 - Developing

GOOD NEWS?

Supreme Court Justice Issues 'Ominous' Warning About Upcoming Rulings

By Matthew Impelli

Every liberal U.S. Supreme Court justice sat out of a decision this week in a rare move for the nation's highest court.

On Tuesday, Supreme Court Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, and Ketanji Brown Jackson sat out of a decision in Brunson v. Sotomayor, et al. Each of the three liberal justices was named as a defendant in the case. They did not provide a specific reason for sitting out and are not required to do so.

The case was brought by Raland Brunson, who attempted to challenge the results of the 2020 presidential election and named the three justices as defendants for denying a writ of certiorari in a previous appeals case.

Continued at: www.newsweek.com...

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: WeMustCare


" 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. "




Hmm... That is a Bit Overwhelming in it's Ramifications . Have any of these " congresspeople " been Identified ?

If they were to overturn the election, and then award it to Trump, he would not be able to run in 2024. Is this their October Surprise?

a reply to: matafuchs

He may not be able to run, but they may let him complete the time that he missed from his prior 'second' term.

I think the answer is up in the air on this.

Can anyone find a precedent?

a reply to: Fowlerstoad

Wouldn't Trump be provided the opportunity to have his full 2nd term should the election results be overturned? I mean would he not be entitle to a full 2nd term? It doesn't make sense to me that he would not be able to run in the current election and also not receive his time should he be declared the original winner of the 2020 election....but then again...i don't fully understand the laws around this admittedly.

originally posted by: matafuchs
If they were to overturn the election, and then award it to Trump, he would not be able to run in 2024. Is this their October Surprise?

Came here to say the same thing... It wouldn't surprise me one bit if they suddenly said "Yeah Biden didn't actually win, Trump did so therefore he's not allowed to run again. It must be an option they're testing seeing that the liberal unJustices sat this one out.

originally posted by: LSU2018

originally posted by: matafuchs
If they were to overturn the election, and then award it to Trump, he would not be able to run in 2024. Is this their October Surprise?

Came here to say the same thing... It wouldn't surprise me one bit if they suddenly said "Yeah Biden didn't actually win, Trump did so therefore he's not allowed to run again. It must be an option they're testing seeing that the liberal unJustices sat this one out.

I don't see it like that. My take is this ruling would spawn a public investigation and many people would see 5,000 signed affidavits witnessing election fraud and election irregularities and other evidence. If Michael Cohen's witness testimony is valid then how could 5,000 witnesses be ignored? The main argument here, as I see it, is the election fraud claims needed to be looked into and investigated. Our congressmen and women had a constitutional duty to do so. They needed to pause the election certification and address the claims of election fraud. Ted Cruz mentioned this exact point the other day, this interview may be fore warning of the SCOTUS ruling.
timing is interesting, Cruz hits the nail on the head
If an investigation lead to a change in the election results and Trump was found to have won, it would not take away Trumps 2024 election results because he never had a second term. Even if Trump were to assume the role as president before Nov 5th or Jan 20th, as a result of the SCOTUS ruling and subsequent investigation Trump would still be eligible for another full term.

Would it also mean that every single thing the Biden administration has done be reversed and such? I'm talking EVERYTHING. Every appointment, EO, monies reclaimed. Yeah, I said it.

It isn't feasible to do the above. They can't claim Trump was technically president for the past 3+ years and simply had a pinch hitter. There's no precedent because it's never happened before, therefore, precedent would have to be set.

Leave it to the left to have everything they touch turn to SH#T. Hmmmm, I remember a saying back in the day. In polite terms, something to the effect of screwing up a hydrated dream.....yes, they could and would definitely screw that up. The progressive liberal left, search and destroy everyone and everything outside of their demented agendas.

Would it also mean that every single thing the Biden administration has done be reversed and such? I'm talking EVERYTHING. Every appointment, EO, monies reclaimed. Yeah, I said it.

a reply to: StoutBroux
This was discussed when chatter about Obama's legitamicy may have come to this. Some things would be undone and some we'd have to live with. It would be a sticky mess and uncharted territory. I don't think student loans would be undone but for example, the border EO's and energy policies would be. We never have faced this so it would set precedence.