Exclusive: BREAKING: The U.S. Supreme Court accepted the Raland Brunson case, the Supremes accepted the case (Source is redacted to protect source) (If they didn’t accept they’d be the first 9 of the un-named defendants!)

USWGO Alternative News ^ | 1/6/23 | USWGO Alternative News

[C210N]

A lawyer who had emailed me, who was involved in some way with the Raland Brunson case in the U.S. Supreme Court, and he had informed me that he “have heard the Supremes accepted the Brunson case.”

So this lawyer had informed me that the Raland Brunson case had been accepted at the conference today in the U.S. Supreme Court. Hooray!!!! Great for them. Brian Hill also sent a letter to the Supreme Court in support of the Brunson case.

[C210N]

Some interesting twists with Roberts.

Also:

Today is the conference day for the U.S. Supreme Court on January 6, 2023. John Roberts will now be confronted with an EMERGENCY MOTION requesting recusal (attached evidence) of Chief Justice John Roberts to all nine justices with allegations from Attorney L. Lin Wood (allegations made two years ago on Twitter). The entire case in the U.S. Supreme Court is regarding a request for a Special Master to review over alleged blackmail videos of judges and officials engaging in acts of rape and murder of a child on video tapes. The blackmail scheme is allegedly from U.S. Intelligence agencies of the U.S. Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), as well as MOSSAD, British MI6, and the Chinese Communist Party (CCP), according to what was alleged by Attorney Wood. The case was by Brian D. Hill, the former news reporter of USWGO Alternative News at uswgo.com. The case can be accessed here: https://www.supremecourt.gov/search.aspx?filename=/docket/docketfiles/html/public/22-6123.html (Case no. 22-6123). John Roberts was given an opportunity by an emergency application requesting voluntary recusal for having a conflict of interest due to having a personal interest in the outcome of the blackmail scheme case. He has refused to recuse himself and may try to fight to have SCOTUS to deny Writ of Certiorari, case no 22-6123. If he does then John Roberts has violated the law, violated 28 U.S. Code § 455 – Disqualification of justice, judge, or magistrate judge.

I've noticed you filed in the Raland Brunson case in the Supreme Court. About the whole national security issue here. There is another case just as disturbing which endangers national security. If John Roberts tries to throw out the Brunson case then this Supreme Court case is relevant to you as well as the Brunson brothers. Judges and a justice are being allegedly blackmailed with Jeffrey Epstein tapes into making bad decisions against those against the Deep State Swamp. Statements of this alleged blackmail scheme in the pending SCOTUS case from a licensed attorney who made such statements almost two years ago. He still has not been disbarred or sued for defamation. So his statements are at issue in a current Supreme Court case. Briefly, there is a ongoing case in SCOTUS and two filings have been made asking the chief justice to recuse himself for allegations of blackmail. The chief justice has refused to recuse himself repeatedly. This case concerns the issue of an attorney alleging publicly the existence of blackmail tapes concerning judges and officials, and the petitioner asking for a special master to review over the alleged blackmail tapes. Here is the link and documents not listed publicly but also in the SCOTUS case files are attached. https://www.supremecourt.gov/search.aspx?filename=/docket/docketfiles/html/public/22-6123.html This will be reviewed at conference on the same date as the Raland Brunson case, on January 6, 2023. Thanks, Stanley

[AppyPappy]

Is this about the Waffle House fight?

[ifinnegan]

Maybe you could say what the Raland Brunson case is.

[E. Pluribus Unum]

[E. Pluribus Unum]

https://www.qwant.com/?q=Brunson+v.+Alma+S.+Adams&client=brz-brave&t=web

[MayflowerMadam]

https://freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/4118318/posts

Both lawsuits include defendants Pres. Biden, Harris, former V.P. Pence and 385 members of 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.

BOTH LAWSUITS ARE ABOUT THE DEFENDANTS BREAKING THEIR OATH OF OFFICE
“I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic...”

[ifinnegan]

Thanks.

[E. Pluribus Unum]

What Raland J Brunson v. Alma S. Adams is Really About

https://www.monomakhos.com/case/

What Happened

On January 6, 2021, the 117th Congress held a proceeding in Washington DC for the purpose of determining the votes in the 2020 presidential election and certifying the results for the President and Vice President of the United States under Amendment XII.

During this proceeding over 100 members of U.S. Congress claimed they had factual evidence that the 2020 elections were rigged.

Pres. Biden, Harris, former V.P. Pence and 385 members of Congress broke their oath to protect the Constitution 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.

Failing to investigate the matter demonstrates the Respondents “adhered” to the enemy, which is treason, and their inaction unilaterally violated the rights of every citizen of the U.S.

The Cases

The Plaintiffs have two cases. The first one was filed by Loy Brunson and is still held up in the Utah Federal Court.

However, an identical case was filed by his brother with the US Supreme Court, bypassing the previous 10th circuit court of appeals, by filing it under Rule 11, stating that the case falls under the category of a National Emergency.

Rule 11. Certiorari to a United States Court of Appeals before Judgment

A petition for a writ of certiorari to review a case pending in a United States court of appeals, before judgment is entered in that court, will be granted only upon a showing that the case is of such imperative public importance as to justify deviation from normal appellate practice and to require immediate determination in this Court. See 28 U. S. C. § 2101(e)...

[MtnClimber]

I did internet searches and I can’t tell what the hell this is either. Maybe the Supreme court will look at double-triple transgender and if it is just ridiculous.

[Larry Lucido]

Isn’t USWGO the site that used to spam FR with nonsense and then got itself banned from here?

[joesbucks]

Why hide the source…….,,if true?

[Fury]

PLEASE, PLEASE someone make a wager that USSC will “accept” Brunson.

I say USSC will not accept Brunson meaning they will not grant certiorari.

[absalom01]

I’ll take “Things that didn’t happen” for 1,000, Alex.

[unlearner]

If anything could get our nation back on the right path right now, this has the best chance of happening. Hold our elected officials (and appointed officials) accountable to fulfill their oaths of office. Make them personally liable.

[Rob_Henry]

I can absolutely guarantee that SCOTUS did no such thing. I’m willing to put 1000.00 on the line too. This is nonsensical fantasy from people who are scamming others out of money. This entire thing was nonsense from the beginning and certiorari will be denied.

[Fury]

Re: 11

Why? Because of white hats. And devolution. And well, classified!

[Fury]

Re: 15 - Agreed, there’s talk and there’s walk.

I can’t wait to serve up the claim chowder on this not getting granted cert.

[Larry Lucido]

The first one was filed by Loy Brunson

***

Llord Braun? I wondered what he’s been up to.

[KevinB]

This seems unlikely to me. We should certainly wait until official confirmation.

[CJ Wolf]

I feel you are correct but hope you are wrong.

😀