SCOTUS v House critters - Charge that "failure to investigate" claims of election fraud made by 100 House members breaches the US Constitution - attracting minimum 5 years
SCOTUS v House critters - Charge that "failure to investigate" claims of election fraud made by 100 House members breaches the US Constitution - attracting minimum 5 years
Cross post “fail” = whole article from the below SubStack posted in full. Interesting SCOTUS case hit the docket: Brunson vs Adams, et al. We have never seen anything like this before. (substack.com)Thanks for reading Peter’s Newsletter! Subscribe for free to receive new posts and support my work.
Thanks, I was just curious about the conference for hearing date. As for them taking it up, it does seem rather unlikely, but this bench of Justices has surprised us before.
(The 9 Justices will meet to discuss the case and decide (by vote) if they want to move it to a hearing, where they will oficially judge the case and decide (by vote) if defendants should be removed from office)
Persons do not have standing to sue in federal court when all they can claim is that they have an interest or have suffered an injury that is shared by all members of the public. Thus, a group of persons suing as citizens to litigate a contention that membership of Members of Congress in the military reserves constituted a violation of Article I, § 6, cl. 2, was denied standing.8 “The only interest all citizens share in the claim advanced by respondents is one which presents injury in the abstract. . . . [The] claimed nonobservance [of the clause], standing alone, would adversely affect only the generalized interest of all citizens in constitutional governance.” 9 (per curiam). Cf. Ex parte Levitt, 302 U.S. 633 (1937); Laird v. Tatum, 408 U.S. 1 (1972).
Notwithstanding that a generalized injury that all citizens share is insufficient to confer standing, where a plaintiff alleges that the defendant's action injures him in “a concrete and personal way,” “it does not matter how many [other] persons have [also] been injured. . . . [W]here a harm is concrete, though widely shared, the Court has found injury in fact.” 10(internal quotation marks omitted). In this case, “EPA maintain[ed] that because greenhouse gas emissions inflict widespread harm, the doctrine of standing presents an insuperable jurisdictional obstacle.” The Court, however, found that “EPA's steadfast refusal to regulate greenhouse gas emissions presents a risk of harm to Massachusetts that is both 'actual' and 'imminent.'” Id. at 517, 521.
Ok Peter. That post was from my Uncle. He's a retired judge and lawyer. I asked him further and thus is what he said..
I searched the U.S. Supreme Court docket for Brunson vs Adams. This is what came up. As I said. A petition was filed and it looks like it will come up for conference Jan 6, 2023.
The main issue I see is standing, but even then, the courts do not, never have, and never will substitute the courts’ opinion on the outcome of a federal election.
Hi. As I told Peter that information was from my uncle, a lawyer and judge. He told me, I'd have to ask him. But he seems to think it's a joke because this is totally outside of anything that has ever happened. Also. For this to happen you'd need to be overtly courageous, assume you or your family will be killed, and of not, for the rest of your life be looking over your shoulder. Sorry. I don't think any of those justices, even Clarence Thomas would take that on.
Ok, To quote from the article - it is a breach of house rules filed by 100 congress members - congressional law itself was broken.
"This case is NOT one of election fraud, it is about congress and the senate NOT doing their oath of office and violating Amendment I to the constitution, Article VI of the constitution, the 14th Amendment of the constitution, section 3, the 5th and the 9th Amendment of the constitution, as well as a couple of Utah State Constitution articles. Most pertain to due process, the right to investigation, and not performing the 10 day investigation when questions of election fraud were presented to congress."
“..for breaking their oath of office by voting AGAINST the proposition (that came from members of congress) to investigate the claims that there were enemies of the constitution who successfully rigged the election.”
denial of ibestigation into possible fraud in breach of congress procedures - not the election itself
Dec 1, 2022·edited Dec 1, 2022Liked by Peter Halligan
Understood. I think the point is that this type of lawsuit has never gone anywhere before, as he said. He's one of us and again a retired lawyer and judge. If it's really the hope that the President as well as 100s of members of congress go to jail or get executed, I think we'll be extremely disappointed. As this has to be the biggest stretch of anything hopeful I've ever heard, TBH. Also if happened, would be the best thing I had ever heard with the exception of hearing I was having my 2 children. But, there isn't a fireballs chance in hell any of these people will be held accountable for.anything, on this planet. IMHO. 🙏
You think these Satanists would leave something so big to SCOTUS? Lol.
SCOTUS has been as corrupted as any other branch of government. Most were appointed by pure criminals. It is mostly uninformed morons in robes pretending to be the best of justice.
https://creativedestructionmedia.com/video/2022/12/07/analysis-of-the-brunson-case-scheduled-before-scotus-the-most-consequential-election-fraud-case/
Thanks, I was just curious about the conference for hearing date. As for them taking it up, it does seem rather unlikely, but this bench of Justices has surprised us before.
November 30, 2022
The SCOTUS set the conference date
(The 9 Justices will meet to discuss the case and decide (by vote) if they want to move it to a hearing, where they will oficially judge the case and decide (by vote) if defendants should be removed from office)
Well we'll find out soon.............
Persons do not have standing to sue in federal court when all they can claim is that they have an interest or have suffered an injury that is shared by all members of the public. Thus, a group of persons suing as citizens to litigate a contention that membership of Members of Congress in the military reserves constituted a violation of Article I, § 6, cl. 2, was denied standing.8 “The only interest all citizens share in the claim advanced by respondents is one which presents injury in the abstract. . . . [The] claimed nonobservance [of the clause], standing alone, would adversely affect only the generalized interest of all citizens in constitutional governance.” 9 (per curiam). Cf. Ex parte Levitt, 302 U.S. 633 (1937); Laird v. Tatum, 408 U.S. 1 (1972).
Notwithstanding that a generalized injury that all citizens share is insufficient to confer standing, where a plaintiff alleges that the defendant's action injures him in “a concrete and personal way,” “it does not matter how many [other] persons have [also] been injured. . . . [W]here a harm is concrete, though widely shared, the Court has found injury in fact.” 10(internal quotation marks omitted). In this case, “EPA maintain[ed] that because greenhouse gas emissions inflict widespread harm, the doctrine of standing presents an insuperable jurisdictional obstacle.” The Court, however, found that “EPA's steadfast refusal to regulate greenhouse gas emissions presents a risk of harm to Massachusetts that is both 'actual' and 'imminent.'” Id. at 517, 521.
I wonder why SCOTUS solicited the case and further information? It did not have to.
Ok Peter. That post was from my Uncle. He's a retired judge and lawyer. I asked him further and thus is what he said..
I searched the U.S. Supreme Court docket for Brunson vs Adams. This is what came up. As I said. A petition was filed and it looks like it will come up for conference Jan 6, 2023.
https://www.supremecourt.gov/search.aspx?filename=/docket/docketfiles/html/public/22-380.html
Gov is not even going to object since the case is abundantly clear that it is BS.
https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/22/22-380/247457/20221123155305329_Waiver%20Letter%20-%2022-0380.pdf
The main issue I see is standing, but even then, the courts do not, never have, and never will substitute the courts’ opinion on the outcome of a federal election.
I say. Hope springs eternal, from many of us.
Hello RLM, can you provide a source for the hearing date of Jan 6, 2023? I don't see that at the SCOTUS link you posted. Thanks.
Hi. As I told Peter that information was from my uncle, a lawyer and judge. He told me, I'd have to ask him. But he seems to think it's a joke because this is totally outside of anything that has ever happened. Also. For this to happen you'd need to be overtly courageous, assume you or your family will be killed, and of not, for the rest of your life be looking over your shoulder. Sorry. I don't think any of those justices, even Clarence Thomas would take that on.
Ok, To quote from the article - it is a breach of house rules filed by 100 congress members - congressional law itself was broken.
"This case is NOT one of election fraud, it is about congress and the senate NOT doing their oath of office and violating Amendment I to the constitution, Article VI of the constitution, the 14th Amendment of the constitution, section 3, the 5th and the 9th Amendment of the constitution, as well as a couple of Utah State Constitution articles. Most pertain to due process, the right to investigation, and not performing the 10 day investigation when questions of election fraud were presented to congress."
“..for breaking their oath of office by voting AGAINST the proposition (that came from members of congress) to investigate the claims that there were enemies of the constitution who successfully rigged the election.”
denial of ibestigation into possible fraud in breach of congress procedures - not the election itself
As you say, hope springs eternal.
Understood. I think the point is that this type of lawsuit has never gone anywhere before, as he said. He's one of us and again a retired lawyer and judge. If it's really the hope that the President as well as 100s of members of congress go to jail or get executed, I think we'll be extremely disappointed. As this has to be the biggest stretch of anything hopeful I've ever heard, TBH. Also if happened, would be the best thing I had ever heard with the exception of hearing I was having my 2 children. But, there isn't a fireballs chance in hell any of these people will be held accountable for.anything, on this planet. IMHO. 🙏
Don't think it'll go anywhere, but sounds like loads of fun on the off-chance it does!
Chances of legal success?
ZERO.
SCOTUS as bent as every other branch of governmentarditist.
I’ll tell you exactly what will happen.
Nothing.
You think these Satanists would leave something so big to SCOTUS? Lol.
SCOTUS has been as corrupted as any other branch of government. Most were appointed by pure criminals. It is mostly uninformed morons in robes pretending to be the best of justice.
I would love to be wrong. Wake me if I am….
👀
OMG !!! Pray for us, this may be even more historic than it seems.