>>18023865 lb/pb

>Question:

>IF the SC rules in favor of Brunson and by some miracle Congress and Biden admin are removed, who performs the functions of Congress in their places? Who will be acting president and VP?

>Humor me instead of "not gonna happen"s, pls.

This essay has examples of the continuity of government notification system and may provide some background information on events that may transpire upon a favorable decision in Brunson.

https://patelpatriot.substack.com/p/devolution-addendum-series-part-2

Clearly, our government used the alert system, a fact which, so far, cannot be disputed. What’s left to determine is whether this alert was real, a test/exercise, or a mistake.

Like I said, I’ve spent quite a bit of time searching for information about this alert and found no indications that it was a mistake. I’ve found no official references to the alert at all. No government agency commented that it was done in error or that there was a scheduled exercise.

>>18024372

>- Brunson case going before the Supreme Court on 1/6/23. Favorable ruling = mass arrests.

Negative. SC decides if the SC is going to take the case on 1/6/23. Favorable ruling = future case hearing.

>>18024495

>and hyper-focusing on politics.

Politics? This is /qresearch.

[infiltration]

Only those who could[can] be controlled [via blackmail or like-beliefs] were installed in critical leadership positions across all political and non-political Control and Command Positions [CCP].

CCP [necessary] to ensure protective blanket [insurance].

Traitors everywhere.

As a backup, they infiltrated and control the narrative (the ‘MSM’).

As a backup, they install ONLY THOSE on the team.

As a backup, they blackmail those that aren’t.

As a backup, they defined ‘conspiracy’ as crazy/mentally unstable and label anything ‘true’ as such.

This works given most of what they engage in is pure evil and simply unbelievable (hard to swallow).

The ‘fix’ has always been in – no matter which party won the election (-JFK (killed)/Reagan(shot)).

This was always the promise made to those who played the game (willingly or otherwise) (i.e., they would never lose power).

Power of the (3) letter agencies.

Power over the US Military

https://qalerts.app/?q=only those

>>18024511

>Now ask yourself why the SC would hear this case. ( on Jan 6th at that)

The SC has not yet decided to hear the case, Anon.

"The Supreme Court is scheduled to have a conference on January 6, 2023 where they will consider if they will indeed hear this case. It only takes four (4) justices in this instance to say “yes” for the hearing to proceed."

https://tennesseestands.org/commentary/a-huge-case-headed-to-the-us-supreme-court-maybe/

>>18024524

>why is the XRP guy still chillin?

XRP is frozen and not traded pending SEC action, Anon.

>>18024578

> it was just to decide to take up the case

Friday, January 6, 2023 is a Conference Day on the court's schedule, Anon. The case goes to conference, the Justices will discuss the merits of the case. If four or more agree the case deserves a hearing then a hearing will be scheduled.

>>18024638

>Did the CIA try to kill Ronald Reagan?

>Because they killed JFK.

The ‘fix’ has always been in – no matter which party won the election (-JFK (killed)/Reagan(shot)).

Q

350

>>18024665

>1/6 ruling?

You mean the 1/6 conference which includes Brunson, Anon?

Conference Days: The Justices meet in a private conference to discuss cases argued earlier that week. The Justices also discuss and vote on petitions for review. The building is open to the public but the Justices do not take the Bench.

https://www.supremecourt.gov/

https://www.supremecourt.gov/legendkeyinfo.aspx

>>18024739

Note: Distributed for Conference:

Conference Days: The Justices meet in a private conference to discuss cases argued earlier that week. The Justices also discuss and vote on petitions for review. The building is open to the public but the Justices do not take the Bench.

https://www.supremecourt.gov/legendkeyinfo.aspx

In a Conference the Justices review pending petitions. If a petition wins the support of four or more justices the petitioner is granted a hearing.

Check the Court's calendar for Jan 6:

https://www.supremecourt.gov/

1/6/23 is a Conference Day

>>18024750

Looks like there's going to be a new MOS for trap and skeet shooters under development. Plus, we finally have a good use for those 12-gauge flechette rounds.

>>18024757

>government did a waiver where they will not be disputing the case.

Yes. The Solicitor General waived a response. The petition must still go to conference where the SC Justices will decide if the petition has merit. If four or more Justices decide in conference that the petitioner deserves a hearing then the case will move forward and a hearing will be scheduled.

>>18024902

>what are your thoughts on the waiver of right of defendant portion?

The United States is stepping aside in the matter and allowing the petitioner to seek redress from Alma S. Adams, et al.

>>18024982

>Sikorsky VH-3D Sea King helicopter…

>>18025006

>so if the SC takes up the case will there even be argumentation made if they have waived the rights?

The defendants have not waived their rights. The Solicitor General of the United States waived comment from the United States. The United States is not a party to the case. If four or more SC Justices decide the petitioner should be granted a hearing, a hearing will be scheduled. Representatives from both sides will have an opportunity to make arguments before the court. The United States will not be representing either side.

>>18025104

Their bug zappers are working overtime in that video, Anon.