dChan - Q Origins Project Archive

Anons – lawfag has been urged to offer some laymans explanation of two legal principles which are involved in the Brunson case – and were also the bases for dismissal of most if not all of the other challenges to 2020 election fukery. One is STANDING and the other is IMMUNITY

Standing

Federal courts (including SCOTUS) have limited jurisdiction, meaning that they may only consider a case if the case and parties meet certain requirements. Art. 3 Section 2 gives federal courts power over certain “cases and controversies.”

SCOTUS has read into Article III that a plaintiff must have “standing” to bring a case in federal court; that is there must be an actual “cases or controversies” which the party can show effects them for the court to have constitutional jurisdiction.

This legal principle traces back to a pair of Supreme Court cases in the 1920s—Fairchild v. Hughes (1920) and Massachusetts v. Mellon (1921)—which together established that plaintiffs cannot sue the government in federal court if they fail to allege that they were specifically injured by (or face imminent injury from) unlawful government conduct. This rule, as the Court explained, was necessary to preserve the separation of powers between the judiciary and the political branches of government: Lawfag says this wasn’t unreasonable.

However, in 1992, (Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife) the Court imposed significant new requirements for “standing” First, the plaintiff must have suffered an “injury in fact”—an invasion of a legally protected interest which is (a) concrete and particularized and (b) “actual or imminent, not ‘conjectural’ or ‘hypothetical[.]’” Second, there must be a causal connection between the injury and the conduct complained of—the injury has to be “fairly … trace[able] to the challenged action of the defendant, and not … th[e] result [of] the independent action of some third party not before the court. Third, it must be “likely,” as opposed to merely “speculative,” that the injury will be “redressed by a favorable decision.”

Yeah that is just what it sound like – SCOTUS protecting their frens in the swamp. And they didn’t hide that fact, basing the new rules on “separation of powers” saying that

The wanted to avoid “judicial encroachment on the role of the executive by ruling on matters in which a plaintiff has no direct stake. To quote To permit conversion of an “undifferentiated public interest in executive officers’ compliance with the law into an ‘individual right.’… in the courts is to permit transfer from the President to the courts the Chief Executive’s most important constitutional duty, to ‘take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed,”

Ironic isn’t it? Brunson and other challenges to the malfeasance in the exercise of the “most important constitutional duty, to ‘take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed” are thrown out with no review of the merits because it might threaten separation of powers – everyone can see that is BS

Even so if Brinson and others had truly patriotic and capable lawyers (oh there are so few left) these tests can yet be met. Brinson didn’t make the case and that is why his case was thrown out and will also be rejected by SCOTUS (barring some sudden reversal of this long and clear body of law by SCOTUS – can that happenmebbe with compulsion…)

If I were representing Brunson I would make arguments on the 4 elements which I see are straightforward – mebbe Brunson can miss them but lawfag does not get how these issues can escape Trumps attorneys? Here u go:

First, “injury in fact”—an invasion of a legally protected interest which is (a) concrete and particularized and (b) “actual or imminent, not ‘conjectural’ or ‘hypothetical[.]’” To lawfag this is easily satisfied by the fact that election fraud undermines the fundamental right of every American citizen – a right that is 100% legally protected” and the violation of which was actual and not hypothetical – the injury was disenfranchisement,

Second, the causal connection between the injury and the conduct complained of—trace[able] to the challenged action of the defendant, and not … th[e] result [of] the independent action of some third party not before the court. OK this is tricky - the Brunson defendants were not the ones who “caused” the fukery – he alleges they did nothing about it – I think that argument misses the point – that is CAUSATION is established by the defendants acceptance and certification of the errors and that is on them.

Third, it must be “likely,” as opposed to merely “speculative,” that the injury will be “redressed by a favorable decision.” Well that’s a no brainer – of the Defendants are found to have violated fundamental rights and been derelict in their actions causing this damage then a new election and other injective relief can be “redressed” by the Court

1/2

>>17921850

Immunity

OK you cant make this shit up: Sovereign immunity in US law was inherited from the English common law “rex non potest peccare” Wait for it – that means "the king can do no wrong” Great start right?

The principle was not mentioned in the original United States Constitution. The courts have recognized it as a practical, logical inference hat the government cannot be compelled by the courts because it is the power of the government that creates the courts in the first place…” Still making sense? Not really. Lawfag can attest that this is a very complex and arcane subject – and there are good reasons for the basic rule – if anons want to have a stroke link to the law journals are below explaining the whole thing.

Suffice to say we have it and its clear and been followed for a long time, That said the way it has been applied has resulted in the gross injustice we see now – it’s a complex mix of executive, legislative and judicial fukery – but the judiciary is the most culpable. In short, the nature of the “sovereignty” created under the Constitution was uncertain

We went from subjects to citizens; was there a "sovereign" in this new republic? If so, where does sovereignty reside under a system of separated powers? What were the roles of the national legislature, the executive, and the federal courts?

So - In the United States, the federal government may not be sued unless it has waived its immunity or consented to suit. (which it has done but that’s a whole different topic)

Here it is The United States Supreme Court in Price v. United States observed: "It is an axiom of our jurisprudence. The government is not liable to suit unless it consents thereto.”

Immunity is in lawfag (and many scholars opinion) incompatible with the "rule of law" and inconsistent with important limitations on government action found in the Bill of Rights which IMO imply the availability of judicial redress for their violation.

1/2

However it really didn’t go off the rails until much later, In fact the case of United States v. Lee.106 U.S. 196 (1882) was exactly correct when they declared that:

“No man in this country is so high that he is above the law. No officer of the law may set that law at defiance with impunity. All the officers of the government, from the highest to the lowest, are creatures of the law, and are bound to obey it. As for the concern that the Executive’s ability to exercise public duties would be impaired if his officers were subject to the harassment of litigation, the majority was not convinced that making the government amenable to suit would impair the workings of government.’

This case strongly reaffirmed the role of the judicial branch as a guardian of the citizen from abuse of power by other branches of government. OK so far so gud…

Until the Supreme Court revisited this precedent in the twentieth century in a trio of landmark decisions (Larson/Malone) the doctrine of federal sovereign immunity can now be summarized as follows: the United States may not be sued without its consent. Period. However a few important exceptions remain.

A suit may be maintained directly against a governmental officer if the officer 1) allegedly acted outside of the authority, and/or 2) if the officer acted within the conferred statutory limits of the office, but his or her conduct allegedly offended a provision of the Constitution/ This means that when a government officer acts beyond legitimate authority, in either statutory or constitutional terms, sovereign immunity will not be recognized as an obstacle to legal action. This is what Brunson has to argue.

There is another element which is key – that is what is the remedy? Seeking damages is almost impossible but injunctive relief is alive and well. In Ex parte Young SCOTUS allowed federal courts to enjoin the enforcement of unconstitutional state (or federal) statutes on the theory that "immunity does not extend to a person who acts for the state, but [who] acts unconstitutionally.

Once again the modern court narrowed this fair and rational rule - Edelman v. Jordan, held that relief under Young can only be for prospective, rather than retrospective, relief; the court reasoned that the Eleventh Amendment's protection of state sovereignty requires the state's coffers to be shielded from suit. But importantly “prospective relief” includes injunctions and other equitable orders.

This in fact explains the array of judicial remedies may be invoked against the federal government and its officers which include the venerable writ of habeus corpus, but also other injunctive relief and understanding sovereign immunity as a judge-made doctrine, one not clearly compelled by the Constitution and one interpreted with varying degrees of stringency, is what Brunson must emphasize

PS - Noteworthy that 1976, federal law was amended to waive sovereign immunity on claims against the government for relief "other than money damages." Whats the catch? Here it is – waiver does not include— (A) the Congress; (B) the courts of the United States…5 U.S. Code § 701 (surprised?) Also notably excluded: (F) courts martial and military commissions; and (G) military authority exercised in the field in time of war or in occupied territory,

https://digitalcommons.law.ou.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1246&context=olr

https://scholarship.law.georgetown.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1111&context=facpub

2/2

>>17921860

GLOWFAG got a key word alert and shitposted

>>17921923

>>17921921

yes brunson is 100%correct and so are you

his case is based on common sense

however the courts are rigged and have little or none same as entire govt

unless they change his case will be tossed

he has a chance if he also addresses the 2 issues - standing and immunity- where he lost but so far he has NOT done that

>>17921988

no the case before

SCOTUS was from tenth circuit where brunson lost

the other case is still in state court but will prolly also be dismissed for same reasons

>>17922053

yes all those lawa and SCOTUS rulings are consistent with the "plan" as i understand it

use of complex of federal laws, ER declarations and PEADS support declaration of state of war (by 45) resulting in military tribunals is still on the table and the best hope IMO

if so 45 could still legally be CIC but NOT POTUS