SCOTUS accepted case regarding 2020 election!πŸ€—πŸ€—πŸ€—

blackbery

Well-known member
SCOTUS accepted the case, not based on election fraud (they refuse to look at that) but on the lawsuit based on
A NATIONAL EMERGENCY!πŸ€—πŸ€—πŸ€—

PARTIES TO THE PROCEEDING

Petitioner Raland J Brunson is an individual representing himself and is a Plaintiff in the trial court.

The following 388 Respondents are a party to this action as defendants in the trial court:
Named persons in their capacities as
United States House Representatives:


In addition to the 388 named Respondents, there are 1-100 Respondents who are listed as Jane/John Does!

JOSEPH ROBINETTE BIDEN JR in his capacity of President of the United States;
MICHAEL RICHARD PENCE in his capacity as former Vice President of the United States, and
KAMALA HARRIS in her capacity as Vice President of the United States and
JOHN and JANE DOES 1-100.
 

blackbery

Well-known member
Let's see what happens.
It could lead to the arrest of hundreds in Congress & the WH.

There is no set time for SCOTUS to rule; they could make their decision in a week or in 6 months.
The case was accepted on Friday, Nov. 25/2022.
 

blackbery

Well-known member
FikB9rNXoAEXRuv.jpeg
 

waybread

Well-known member
The Supreme Court has just dismissed a case brought by a group of Trump supporters against Dominion Voting Systems and Facebook (including Mark Zuckerberg Priscilla Chang.)
https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/22/22-305/241032/20220928182246845_Petition for Writ ORourke.pdf

Lower courts determined that the plaintiffs lacked standing, and that their complaints were frivolous. One of the problems for the plaintiffs was that one of them did not even vote in 2020, so the notion that they sustained damages was disingenuous. When the Supreme Court declines to hear a case, the lower court ruling or dismissal stands.
 

blackbery

Well-known member
So what?:rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:
THIS particular case has nothing to do with election fraud.
Those cases you mentioned above have been dismissed due to 'lack of standing' &
supreme court hasn't looked at the evidence.

Have you read the lawsuit on THIS case?πŸ˜—πŸ˜—
I posted it above.
It's based on Congress/Senate not doing their Duty.
Nothing to do with election fraud.

If they rule in Brunson's favour, at least 368 traitors will be removed from Congress.
O'Biden/harris will be removed.
Half the Senators will be removed.

Let's see what happens!πŸ€—πŸ€—πŸ€—

Save America.
 

blackbery

Well-known member

Update on the SCOTUS case of Brunson vs Adams!​


SCOTUS chose Jan 6/2023 when they will release their verdict on accepting the case or not.

Interesting date they chose!(y)(y)(y)


c0060c30-2d25-4441-8434-6eef99fa30a9_1079x719.jpg
 

waybread

Well-known member
The Supreme Court's constitutional mandate is not to "drain the swamp," but to rule on the constitutionality of cases brought before it.
So what?:rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:
THIS particular case has nothing to do with election fraud.
Those cases you mentioned above have been dismissed due to 'lack of standing' &
supreme court hasn't looked at the evidence.

Have you read the lawsuit on THIS case?πŸ˜—πŸ˜—
I posted it above.
It's based on Congress/Senate not doing their Duty.
Nothing to do with election fraud.

If they rule in Brunson's favour, at least 368 traitors will be removed from Congress.
O'Biden/harris will be removed.
Half the Senators will be removed.

Let's see what happens!πŸ€—πŸ€—πŸ€—

Save America.
I won't hold my breath on this happening, blackbery. I recommend that you don't, either.
 

blackbery

Well-known member

blackbery

Well-known member
Yeah, WB, you've said that already.😌😌
Are you so confident that SCOTUS won't rule to remove the traitors?πŸ˜—πŸ˜—

Even top Constitutional lawyers have pointed out how unusual it was 4 the supreme court to take up this case.
They receive thousands each year & yet they picked out this Brunson case.

And the date they chose (Jan 6/2023) a very telling one!πŸ˜…πŸ˜…πŸ˜…

Anyways, let's see what happens. Nobody knows what their ruling will be until the day of.

SAVE AMERICA from the evil O'Biden regime which is deliberately destroying America from within.

πŸ™πŸ™πŸ™
 

blackbery

Well-known member
Yes, I am pretty confident.

Thanks for asking.


Oh, goody! πŸ€—πŸ€—πŸ€—
Since you were confident that Melania was leaving Trump, that Trump was going to prison, that the GOP was 'done',
that Twitter was not in collusion with the Dems, that the Hunter laptop from hell was Russian disinformation, that
Fauci was a 'good guy', that the vaxx worked, that O'Biden was not senile., that Ukraine is a democracy.....etc etc etc.........
..it makes your 'confidence' very likely indicator that the supreme court will rule in favour of Brunson.😊😊😊

It will mean the removal of all those who refused to do their duty.
That's 385 Dem/Rino members of Congress/Senate(90% Dems, rest are RINOs)
And the certification of 2020/2022 elections are null & void.
SCOTUS will not overturn the elections; that is not their duty but they can rule that
the politicians should not have certified without investigating the cases of election fraud.

And of course, the removal of the illegal president O'Biden/Harris.🀩🀩
Mike Pence is no longer in politics so he can't be removed.
But none of these traitor politicians will ever be able to run for office again.

SAVE AMERICA!
PRAY 4 AMERICA!

πŸ™πŸ™πŸ™πŸ‡ΊπŸ‡²πŸ‡ΊπŸ‡²πŸ‡ΊπŸ‡²
 
Last edited:

waybread

Well-known member
Blackbery, I gotta love your sense of humor.

Oh, and did I also tell you that I support the NWO, love George Soros, put fluoride in people's drinking water, eat small children for breakfast, indulge in satanic rituals, secretly work for the CIA, and routinely vote Socialist Workers Party? :wink: :wink:

One actually serious current SCOTUS case I'm surprised you haven't mentioned (apologies if I missed it, but I can take only so many rants) is about the "independent state legislature theory." Check out Moore v Harper involving North Carolina.
 

blackbery

Well-known member
The thread is about the Brunson case WB......😏😏

If you want to start your own thread with your own cases that interest you, then please go ahead.


And here's another video with Loy Brunson himself explaining how it all came about.

Fascinating.

But, once again, nobody, not even the top Constitutional lawyers know how SCOTUS will rule.

We will have to wait & see what happens!πŸ€—πŸ€—πŸ€—


 

waybread

Well-known member
Gosh, BB, with all of your misrepresentations about the following and your "American coup d'Γ©tat" meme not about members of Congress, you appeared to express a much broader purview for this thread:

"...Melania was leaving Trump, that Trump was going to prison, that the GOP was 'done',
that Twitter was not in collusion with the Dems, that the Hunter laptop from hell was Russian disinformation, that
Fauci was a 'good guy', that the vaxx worked, that O'Biden was not senile., that Ukraine is a democracy..."

All about the Brunson case, apparently. :wink: :wink:
 

blackbery

Well-known member
 
Top