Anonymous ID: 07e17e Dec. 22, 2023, 7:35 a.m. No.20114884   🗄️.is 🔗kun

>>20114742

>Jack Smith filed a response

“Not clothed in the authority of the federal government, Smith is a modern example of the naked emperor,” the Dec. 20 amicus brief argues. “Improperly appointed, he has no more authority to represent the United States in this court than Bryce Harper, Taylor Swift or Jeff Bezos.”

 

https://www.abajournal.com/news/article/was-jack-smiths-appointment-unconstitutional-he-has-no-more-authority-than-taylor-swift-amicus-brief-argues

 

"Private citizen Jack Smith lacks standing to petition the Supreme Court for a writ of certiorari before judgement in United States v. Trump for the same reason I do. Jack Smith is in the eyes of the Supreme Court a private citizen not an officer of the United States."

 

https://reason.com/volokh/2023/12/21/jack-smith-lacks-standing-to-file-in-the-supreme-court-because-he-is-only-a-private-citizen/

 

No. 23-624 In the Supreme Court of the United States

UNITED STATES, Petitioner,

v.

DONALD J. TRUMP

BRIEF OF FORMER ATTORNEY GENERAL EDWIN MEESE III AND LAW PROFESSORS STEVEN G. CALABRESI AND GARY S. LAWSON AS AMICI CURIAE SUPPORTING NEITHER PARTY

QUESTION PRESENTED

Whether private citizen Jack Smith lacks authority to represent the United States, which jurisdictional requirement must exist at all stages of litigation, and which cannot be waived, in filing his Petition for a Writ of Certiorari in this Court?

https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/23/23-624/293864/20231220140217967_US%20v.%20Trump%20amicus%20final.pdf

Anonymous ID: 07e17e Dec. 22, 2023, 7:48 a.m. No.20114936   🗄️.is 🔗kun   >>4941 >>4951

>>20114893

10 U.S. Code Chapter 13 - INSURRECTION

10 U.S. Code § 254 - Proclamation to disperse

Whenever the President considers it necessary to use the militia or the armed forces under this chapter, he shall, by proclamation, immediately order the insurgents to disperse and retire peaceably to their abodes within a limited time.

Anonymous ID: 07e17e Dec. 22, 2023, 7:54 a.m. No.20114957   🗄️.is 🔗kun

>>20114893

>Because it was a SPECIFIC, DELINEATED requirement for the invocation of the Insurrection Act of 1807.

 

"And how can anyone in 2023 or 2024 blame me for legally invoking the Insurrection Act under Title 10, Chapter 13 of the US Code? After all, [they] are the one's who said it was an insurrection."

 

"Am I good, or what?'