Anonymous ID: b6a457 Jan. 4, 2023, 2:35 p.m. No.18075663   🗄️.is 🔗kun   >>5678 >>5707 >>5724 >>6156 >>6180

Pb

>>18075417

wow

 

Adam and Tracy, you do not know the mind of SCOTUS in relation to the Brunson case and you have acted as if you do. “The Truth About the Brunson Case”? Before making such a claim you should have contacted me.

Your claim is not true and effectively gives aid and comfort to an enemy of the United States of America.

 

This should be notable

every bread

until we know what habbens

with brunson/scotus.

Anonymous ID: b6a457 Jan. 4, 2023, 2:37 p.m. No.18075678   🗄️.is 🔗kun   >>5704 >>5707 >>5724 >>6152

>>18075663

Raland (Loy) J Brunson v. ALMA S. ADAMS docket number 22-380

 

Deron’s response to the article posted here https://t.me/BrunsonBrothersSCOTUS/245

 

cut and paste from response in PDF:

 

Dear Adam Carter & Tracy Beanz

 

In regard to your article dated December 30, 2022, titled “The Truth

 

About the Brunson Case”, it seems that you purposely ignored the

 

following controlling points in order to sustain your captured title. This

 

is flawed reporting and not acceptable.

 

  1. SCOTUS has laid out its rule requirements that must be met before

 

it will grant a writ. Addressing the contents of a writ in Brunson’s case,

 

are Rules 11 and 12. These two rules note that a writ will be granted

 

for compelling reasons, for such conflicts between appellate courts over

 

the same important matter, or where there is a serious question of law.

 

These are just a few examples that are neither controlling nor do they

 

measure the Court’s discretion nor indicate the reasons for the court's

 

consideration.

 

Adam and Tracy, you do not know the mind of SCOTUS in relation to

 

the Brunson case and you have acted as if you do.

 

“The Truth About the Brunson Case”?

 

Before making such a claim you should have contacted me. Your claim

 

is not true and effectively gives aid and comfort to an enemy of the

 

United States of America.

 

  1. Brunson’s writ points out that the purpose of war is to put into power

 

its victor. Brunson also points out that a rigged election accomplishes

 

the same thing, only there is not an immediate loss of life and property.

 

A rigged election IS an act of war. Brunson’s writ further alleges that the

 

respondents refused to investigate the allegations that the 2020

 

presidential election was rigged.

 

All the respondents have taken the required oath to support and defend

 

the Constitution of the United States of America against all enemies,

 

foreign and domestic, and as such, they are liable for consequences

 

when they violate the Oath of Office. Their refusal to do an investigation

 

into the allegations of a rigged election gave aid and comfort to this

 

enemy that has waged war under the guise of a ‘fair’ election. This is

 

an act of treason. Adam and Tracy, this is a very strong and serious

 

reason, our national security, compelling SCOTUS to grant Brunson’s

 

writ. How did you miss this point?!

 

  1. SCOTUS is also bound by its oath of office. With this oath, they are

 

BOUND to stop a war when given that opportunity. Brunson’s case

 

gives SCOTUS that opportunity.

 

Adam and Terry, what makes you think you know what powers

 

SCOTUS has and, does not have, under the Brunson’s case?

 

  1. Brunson’s writ alleges “Due to the uniqueness of this case, the trial

 

court does have proper authority to remove the Respondents from their

 

offices under 18 U.S. Code § 2381 which states “Whoever, owing

 

allegiance to the United States, levies war against them or adheres to

 

their enemies, giving them aid and comfort within the United States or

 

elsewhere, is guilty of treason and shall suffer death, or shall be

 

imprisoned not less then five years and fined under this title but not less

 

than $10,000, and shall be incapable of holding any office under the

 

United States.”

 

A court adjudicating that the respondents, who have taken the Oath of

 

Office, to be incapable of holding their offices because they have

 

surrendered to a domestic enemy, means nothing without such removal

 

from office.” SCOTUS has the power to remove ALL the respondents

 

from office under Brunson’s case.

 

Adam and Terry, what you have said in your article is not factual.

 

  1. Again, under war powers (look them up yourself) SCOTUS, under

 

Brunson’s case, has the power to remove the respondents from office

 

and completely adjudicate the case to end the war. Adam and Terry,

 

Isn’t it a simple conclusion that anybody, I mean ANYBODY, who is

 

found to be in a position to stop a war against America and refuses to

 

do so can be found guilty of treason? Think about it!!

 

I do not feel compelled to continue further at this time in pointing out

 

how false your story is. I feel that what I have pointed out is enough to

 

help stop you from producing such articles.

 

We invite you to retract your claims.

 

You should be strongly promoting Brunson’s case in the name of justice

 

and freedom and pray that SCOTUS removes the respondents from

 

office for giving aid and comfort to an enemy of the Constitution of the

 

United States thus ending this war. Which side are you on?

 

Deron Brunson

Anonymous ID: b6a457 Jan. 4, 2023, 2:53 p.m. No.18075824   🗄️.is 🔗kun   >>5834 >>5843

>>18075783

>>18075730

 

I hope all goes down and all fired and all their passes and links to anything government shut off while they are all in the building, as they will have no company/government acces to cars, planes, credit cards, etc.

All will be hoofing it and or using their own funds to escape DC before real people find them.

Will be amongst the sheep and cattle, walking down the streets.

 

>>18075783