>>18037479
1/
Of course most of us have never heard of this case but it is huge,
The historic significance of Brunson v Adams ranks with the signing of the Declaration of Independence.
I say this with no fear of contradiction as every aspect of this case bears on whether our Constitutionthat supports the very freedoms that we enjoy and that make us different from third world dictatorships.
Brunson v Adams is THAT important.
This case is at once scary, because the stakes involved are as high as we can go; and encouraging because the Court has accepted it, and the significance of the scheduled hearing - January 6, 2023 is so clear.
Moreover, since the Court has accepted this case, we can justifiably conclude that it has had an awaking
and the dodge of "Plaintiff has no standing," in regard to voter integrity cases will no longer be used.
The fact that Brunson v Adams has been accepted also bodes well for any eventuality that the Lake v Hobbs case could progress to the high court.
This says the Court could very well rule in favor of Lake or if Lake wins in the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, decline to hear Hobbs' objections and in so doing, let a victory for Lake stand.
My fellow patriots, we are living in an historic period in the history of our beloved America.
This is your history.
This is your life.
This is real.
Please take the time to read down to the final word.
While as much public attention as could slip by the media censors has been focused on the U.S. Supreme Court’s taking the cases of Moore v Harper and Missouri v Biden, neither would immediately upend the 2020 Presidential Election.
But Brunson v Adams could, which is why you have heard nothing about it.
Despite the news blackout, the thugs that run our government may very well be threatening the High Court’s Justices and their families over the possible outcome of Brunson v Adams.
It is that important.
The case was brought by four brothers from Utah that were outraged that most of the Congress ignored its constitutionally mandated duty to investigate the circumstances of the fake election in 2020.
The Brunsons rightly point out that each member of Congress that helped certify the fake “election” of a “Manchurian Candidate” and criminal, violated his or her oath of office requiring them to defend and uphold our Constitution from all enemies foreign and domestic.
Brunson v. Adams, seeks the removal of President Biden and Vice President Harris, because they were certified as winners in violation of constitutionally mandated due diligence on the part of those that disregarded their oaths of office by their failure to support and defend to constitutional process of certification.
Brunson v Adams also seeks to remove all 291 U.S. Congressional Representatives and 94 U.S. Senators who voted to certify the Electors to the Electoral College on January 6, 2021
without first investigating serious allegations of election fraud in half a dozen states and foreign election interference and breach of national security in the 2020 Presidential Election.
Since this could restore Donald Trump to office as President of the United States, this theory HAS to be what the “crazy conspiracy right wingers” were talking about two years ago.
Of course, those of us that knew and understood the theory of Brunson v Adams never dreamed things would be so bad that the Supreme Court Justices would
blatantly dodge their responsibilities to hear at least one of the many cases that sought to have the clear evidence of rampant voter fraud heard in a court of law.
We know now that the Justices were being threaten and the lives of their families were being threatened as well.
It would seem that things have changed in two years.
In their pro se filing, the Brunson brothers very wisely stressed that the findings of Director of National Intelligence John Ratcliffe indicating foreign government interference in our national election, made the matter one of important NATIONAL SECURITY INTERESTS.
That allowed their case to bypass a U.S. 10th Court of Appeals motion against its continued progress and get the case to the Supreme Court