Damn, CERTIORARI DENIED 22-380 BRUNSON, RALAND J. V. ADAMS, ALMA S., ET AL
Order List (01/09/2023) (supremecourt.gov)
Discussion about this post
No posts
© 2025 Peter Halligan
Substack is the home for great culture
Order List (01/09/2023) (supremecourt.gov)
No posts
I am very grateful for your interest and to be the patriot human you are. There are two court conviction cases already that were/are submitted as evidence in the Illinois 7th district and the Wyoming 7th district (November 1 still refused to file a case number by the clerk) and what must be done is to resubmit the case with ALL CURRENTLY KNOWN EVIDENCE. We do not need or want a lawyer because pro-se status grants more leeway of the rules and procedure. (We would however possibly use an "attorney" Once the court grants discovery as the court may wish or demand) however the "people" have and are the "power" when corruption must be removed. I BELIEVE to file in the Wyoming Supreme Court is the next step and more importantly is to get as many Valid Plaintiffs behind the cause and that should get a court to rule that the "Vaccines" or DOD counter measures to be publicly published as a POISON as documents prove. This has completely destroyed my business, my family and my future. I'm at my wits end . Your words of encouragement are helpful but honestly I don't think I can organize it to refile this by my self. Fortunately they have not evicted my mom yet but it's a matter of time until they will unless the public pressure makes the court act.
God bless you.
Federal law requires the automatic disqualification of a federal judge under certain circumstances.
In 1994, the U.S. Supreme Court held that "Disqualification is required if an objective observer would entertain reasonable questions about the judge's impartiality. If a judge's attitude or state of mind leads a detached observer to conclude that a fair and impartial hearing is unlikely, the judge must be disqualified. " [Emphasis added]. Liteky v. U.S., 114 S.Ct. 1147, 1162 (1994).
Courts have repeatedly held that positive proof of the partiality of a judge is not a requirement, only the appearance of partiality. Liljeberg v. Health Services Acquisition Corp., 486 U.S. 847, 108 S.Ct. 2194 (1988) (what matters is not the reality of bias or prejudice but its appearance); United States v. Balistrieri, 779 F.2d 1191 (7th Cir. 1985) (Section 455(a) "is directed against the appearance of partiality, whether or not the judge is actually biased.") ("Section 455(a) of the Judicial Code, 28 U.S.C. §455(a), is not intended to protect litigants from actual bias in their judge but rather to promote public confidence in the impartiality of the judicial process.").