by A2Guardians, ©2022

(Nov. 30, 2022) — The petition Brunson v. Alma S. Adams; et al., now docketed before the U.S. Supreme Court cites the national security breach by 388 federal officers having violated their sworn oath. The 117th Congress met on January 6, 2021 to debate and count the electoral college votes for the 2020 Presidential Election in which over 100 members of the U.S. Congress claimed factual evidence of election fraud. The respondent’s refusal to investigate this congressional claim was an act of treason.

Case 22-380 using Rule 11 bypassed the lower courts and was docketed at the high court on October 24th. The case is scheduled for a conference vote, however only 4 votes are needed to proceed to a hearing before the court. The relief sought is removal from office of the defendants including the sitting President of the United States Joe Biden Jr. and Vice President Kamala Harris.

Read petition here

Though not a part of this case, it should be noted that previous petitions to the U.S. Supreme Court sought redress for violations of the U.S. Constitution for ineligible candidates for President and in the 2020 election for Vice President which also represented treason and a threat to national security. It is difficult to imagine how the court can continue to ignore such fraud and violations to the Oath of Office with impunity.

The Courtroom of the Supreme Court of the United States

Although previous efforts to enforce Article II eligibility have reached the docket of the U.S. Supreme Court, every challenge was answered with silence and repeated injury. This inability to enforce the Constitutional qualifications for President of the United States, Commander-in-Chief of its Armed Forces, and Vice-President of the United States is a threat to national security and should not be mistaken for acquiescence.

Join the Conversation

39 Comments

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

  1. I have a question, the math does not add up, 388 federal officers, 152 house members and 94 senators does not add up 388. Who else will be removed?

        1. No, but it obvious enough: the pro se petitioner lost below below on grounds unrelated to the allegations.

          It is just a poorly written petition not worth the effort to respond.

          And the Solicitor General is correct: despite the lack of a response, it’ll be summarily denied at conference, and that denial order will be published on January 10, 2023.

  2. Treason on the docket at the U.S. Supreme Court. How appropriate! The proverbial fox watching the chickens in the chicken house! By the way, is TREASON still on the US Code books and being enforced? In answer to my own question, I believe that it is still on the books, but definitely not being enforced and doesn’t look like it will be any time soon! When the CIA, DNC, and traitorous others planted Barack HUSSEIN Obama in the White House as a Manchurian Candidate, everything in America changed. Merely look around you, even today, to see what I mean. The Supreme Court had a “heads up” on that treasonous scheme, but swore in the constitutionally ineligible usurper anyway (and, he was ethnically by far more ARAB AMERICAN AND ISLAMIC than the “FIRST BLACK PRESIDENT” that everyone thought he was). Treason has no statute of limitations (and conviction doesn’t necessarily require executing the guilty party). Thought that might be helpful for the bleeding heart liberals to know. Oh,well.

  3. Treason on the docket at the U.S. Supreme Court. How appropriate! The proverbial fox watching the chickens in the chicken house! By the way, is TREASON still on the US Code books and being enforced? In answer to my own question, I believe that it is still on the books, but definitely not being enforced and doesn’t look like it will be any time soon! When the CIA, DNC, and traitorous others planted Barack HUSSEIN Obama in the White House as a Manchurian Candidate, everything in America changed. Merely look around you, even today, to see what I mean. The Supreme Court had a “heads up” on that treasonous scheme, but swore in the constitutionally ineligible usurper anyway (and, he was ethnically by far more ARAB AMERICAN AND ISLAMIC than the “FIRST BLACK PRESIDENT” that everyone thought he was). Treason has no statute of limitations (and conviction doesn’t necessarily require executing the guilty party). Thought that this might be helpful for the bleeding heart liberals to know. Oh,well.

  4. This is just “click bait” that never goes anywhere. Unfortunately we will never see treason applied to those in office as it happens on both sides of the aisle.

        1. The mainstream and social-media aided and abetted (p)Resident Barack Hussein Obama twice pulling the wool over the eyes of the majority of voters, they did the same thing with Biden, and now they’re aiding and abetting Warnock doing the same thing in Georgia.

        2. Complaints about media coverage do not show that any election was “stolen” under any useful definition of that word, otherwise every losing candidate would seek a new election based on perceptions of how it was covered.

          Regardless, beliefs about media coverage are irrelevant to the number of electoral and popular votes that were actually cast and counted.

      1. I agree…..but we have “no standing” which apparently means the game is over before it starts……..see 2008 (and probably before) until now…….

  5. Rule 11 was not used to bypass any court, as the the district court dismissed the lawsuit, and the 10th Circuit affirmed the dismissal:

    https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/ca10/22-4007/22-4007-2022-10-06.html

    It was set for a U.S. Supreme Court conference after the response was waived, which is an indicator it was placed on the dead list and will be summarily denied at conference.

    So it easy to imagine this petition will not lead to anything.

    The denial order should be published on January 10, 2023.

    The U.S. Supreme Court’s repeated denial of eligibility challenges does not mean there is no method to enforce the natural born citizen clause.

    1. “The U.S. Supreme Court’s repeated denial of eligibility challenges does not mean there is no method to enforce the natural born citizen clause.”

      Your suggested enforceable method(s) is(are)?

      1. As the courts have explained, a sitting president or vice president could be impeached, convicted, and removed from office due to ineligibility.

        An ineligible candidate could be removed from a ballot (and thus never elected) through a lawsuit, provided the court has jurisdiction to hear the lawsuit. Such lawsuits are possible, as some ballots challenges have been rejected on their merits.

        1. “As the courts have explained, a sitting president or vice president could be impeached, convicted, and removed from office due to ineligibility.”

          Not unless/until what constitutes eligibility/ineligibility is defined by the SCOTUS.

          Which ballot challenge cases have been rejected by a court on their merits?

        2. Their merits? Is that what you’re calling this? The Supreme Court had ample evidence to freeze the 2020 election. They chose not to intervene. Biden doesn’t listen to them anyway and says he doesn’t. But he would have had to listen to them then. He even bragged that the Democrat fraud machine would get him elected. Everyone laughed it off when it was the only honest thing he ever said in his life.

        3. What constitutes an impeachable is solely in the domain of the House of Representatives; the courts have no say in the matter. And the courts already have said the House could impeach over ineligibility, without any reference to what SCOTUS might say. Whether the House actually would do so is another matter.

          Several eligibility cases were dismissed on the merits. Ankeny v. Governor of the State of Indiana being the most notable one. And the Pennsylvania courts ruled on the merits of Cruz’s eligibility.

        4. President Biden received a majority of the electoral and popular votes, as certified by the former vice president.

          No election lawsuit alleging fraud was successful.

          This petition also won’t be successful.

        1. Rudy, if you check out The U.S. Code, it’s listed as the first of the “Organic Law(s)” of the United States. And most, if not many, of the subsequent U.S. holdings that have become states were required to be bound by it in their charter.

        2. That that particular government agency includes the Declaration of Independence on its site doesn’t mean the Declaration of Independence was incorporated into the U.S. Code.

          And no state was “chartered” by the Declaration of Independence.

          Regardless, this petition will be denied.

      2. Note, no real enforceable methods available. The SCrOTUS won’t do anything to upset the apple cart, or stand on the Constitution’s most basic elements.

        1. Impeachment for a sitting president or vice president. A competently presented ballot challenge for presidential or vice presidential candidate.

    2. True. In conservative states, get a state Senator or Congressman to request an AG opinion on the meaning of the natural born citizen clause. Such opinion, if correctly stated, could be used by state elections officials to keep those ineligible off of the ballot. This would certainly be challenged, getting the issue into the courts.

      1. There’s no indication that any state’s attorney general would opine that, even if a member of Congress asked for such an opinion.

        Anyone, of course, has a constitutional right to petition the government for such an opinion. But the answer might be “no” (or silence).