Started By
Message
locked post

The Supreme Court is CONSIDERING Taking Up a 2020 Election Case

Posted on 11/16/22 at 1:58 am
Posted by BoarEd
The Hills
Member since Oct 2015
38862 posts
Posted on 11/16/22 at 1:58 am
This was what was historical about tonight
Supreme Court Docket
Drop Box File of Document

Uh, guys... a Supreme Court case regarding the 2020 election just hit the docket

> it involves the possible removal of a sitting President and Vice President of the United States along with members of the United States Congress

> This action is against 388 federal officers in their official capacities which include President Joseph Robinette Biden Jr, Vice President Kamala Harris, Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi and former Vice President Michael Richard Pence (“Respondents”)

Check the document for the full list.

Also, it is about the congress ignoring over one hundred claimants, on J6, that the election was rigged. They did not investigate the claim, as they should have, and installed Biden. Under the constitution this is treasonous, as they were aiding the enemy.

> When the allegations of a rigged election came forward the Respondents had a duty under law to investigate it or be removed from office


Don’t know if anyone has seen this yet..but nice timing that this made it in the docket tonight huh?

Tick tock, bitches.
This post was edited on 11/16/22 at 10:02 am
Posted by BRgetthenet
Member since Oct 2011
118224 posts
Posted on 11/16/22 at 2:07 am to
quote:

This action is against 388 federal officers in their official capacities which include President Joseph Robinette Biden Jr, Vice President Kamala Harris, Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi and former Vice President Michael Richard Pence (“Respondents”). All the Respondents have taken the required Oath to support and defend the Constitution of the United States of America against all enemies, foreign and domestic, and as such they are liable for consequences when they violate the Oath of Office.

Respondents were properly warned and were requested to make an investigation into a highly covert swift and powerful enemy, as stated below, seeking to destroy the Constitution and the United States, Respondents purposely thwarted all efforts to investigate this, whereupon this enemy was not checked or investigated, therefore the Respondents adhered to this enemy. Because of Respondents intentional refusal to investigate this enemy, Petitioner Raland J Brunson (“Brunson”) brought this action against Respondents because he was seriously personally damaged and violated by this action of Respondents, and consequently this action unilaterally violated the rights of every citizen of the U.S.A. and perhaps the rights of every person living, and all courts of law.

On January 6, 2021, the 117th Congress held a proceeding and debate in Washington DC (“Proceeding”). This Proceeding was for the purpose of counting votes under the 2020 Presidential election for the President and Vice President of the United States under Amendment XII. During this Proceeding over 100 members of U.S. Congress claimed factual evidence that the said election was rigged. The refusal of the Respondents to investigate this congressional claim (the enemy) is an act of treason and 4 fraud by Respondents. A successfully rigged election has the same end result as an act of war; to place into power whom the victor wants, which in this case is Biden, who, if not stopped immediately, will continue to destroy the fundamental freedoms of Brunson and all U.S. Citizens and courts of law.
Posted by BoarEd
The Hills
Member since Oct 2015
38862 posts
Posted on 11/16/22 at 2:09 am to
This is the path.

I love how, so far, this thread has been visited by three communists who downvoted this. Yeah, it's just fricking terrible that a court is actually going to hear evidence of the stolen 2020 election, isn't it? frick you people.
This post was edited on 11/16/22 at 2:14 am
Posted by TheRoarRestoredInBR
Member since Dec 2004
31015 posts
Posted on 11/16/22 at 2:20 am to
I dont trust courts, not even USSC..

Maybe, maybe UCMJ, and in America's current dying state..even she is to be watched closely.

The US is a totally captured operation..full of saboteurs and traitors.
Posted by lsuguy84
Madisonville
Member since Feb 2009
25953 posts
Posted on 11/16/22 at 2:20 am to
Posted by BoarEd
The Hills
Member since Oct 2015
38862 posts
Posted on 11/16/22 at 2:23 am to
Posted by BoarEd
The Hills
Member since Oct 2015
38862 posts
Posted on 11/16/22 at 2:28 am to
We need the evidence laid out in court no matter what the Supreme Court may decide. Yeah, the military is the only way, but what the hell needs to happen to get the military involved? Hopefully laying the evidence out for the world to see in a court of law is enough to do the trick.
Posted by Intelligent
Member since Jun 2017
675 posts
Posted on 11/16/22 at 2:31 am to
you suck
Posted by BoarEd
The Hills
Member since Oct 2015
38862 posts
Posted on 11/16/22 at 2:33 am to
Hello, Mr. Communist. I think you and all those like you suck too.

Eat shite, loser.
Posted by TheRoarRestoredInBR
Member since Dec 2004
31015 posts
Posted on 11/16/22 at 2:33 am to
QDog, I agree, but it's so so f@cking glacial..

Hillary, Bill, Bush Jr, Biden, Nancy, Chuck, Mitch, etc..are all gonna have died at age 88 years old a whole decade ago when we finally have some resolution..

And the US will be Venezuela North by then.

And if they are put out to pasture in secret, McCain style(if the daughter and Kasich's Freudian slips are correct?)..hidden from the public masses..that isn't justice for the people.
This post was edited on 11/16/22 at 2:51 am
Posted by Lambchops11
Member since Jul 2013
615 posts
Posted on 11/16/22 at 2:46 am to
Butt hurt much?

Could you please explain why BoarEd sucks?

Also explain why this is a bad thing if it’s so false?

Thanks
This post was edited on 11/16/22 at 2:47 am
Posted by BoarEd
The Hills
Member since Oct 2015
38862 posts
Posted on 11/16/22 at 2:47 am to
quote:

I agree, but it's so so f@cking glacial..


I agree. At some point though things will begin to move very quickly.
Posted by Lambchops11
Member since Jul 2013
615 posts
Posted on 11/16/22 at 2:48 am to
What’s up with the dates on this thing? From the looks, this happened back I. October and decision was on Oct 22?

Hope I’m wrong
Posted by BoarEd
The Hills
Member since Oct 2015
38862 posts
Posted on 11/16/22 at 2:51 am to
It just came up on the docket tonight. One of the dates is the date of the decision of the 10th circuit, another is the date it was filed with the SCOTUS. They had until November 23rd to respond to the filing and tonight they agreed to hear the case.

That's the way I read it anyways.
Posted by Lambchops11
Member since Jul 2013
615 posts
Posted on 11/16/22 at 3:05 am to
Ah my bad. Good shite! Let’s ride.
Posted by SlapahoeTribe
Tiger Nation
Member since Jul 2012
12441 posts
Posted on 11/16/22 at 4:16 am to
Remember when the Supreme Court admitted that DWI checkpoints were unconstitutional but then allowed them because the court said the benefits outweighed the costs to your freedoms?

They’ll do the exact same here - “to remove so many people or a sitting President two years after an election would cost more than it’s worth… blah blah blah.”
Posted by BoarEd
The Hills
Member since Oct 2015
38862 posts
Posted on 11/16/22 at 4:26 am to
Posted by BoarEd
The Hills
Member since Oct 2015
38862 posts
Posted on 11/16/22 at 4:28 am to
Well, let's hope not. Let's hope they do the right thing. At the very least, let's hope they admit it was stolen. It'll be up to the military to actually fix it.
Posted by cssamerican
Member since Mar 2011
7909 posts
Posted on 11/16/22 at 4:33 am to
Excited that at least it will get a day in court; however, expectations are low of anything coming out of it. Who is the Raland J Brunson?
This post was edited on 11/16/22 at 4:45 am
Posted by Dday63
Member since Sep 2014
2393 posts
Posted on 11/16/22 at 4:44 am to
Yeah, none of this is accurate. The Plaintiff, who has been laughed out of court at every level, has filed a petition to the Supreme Court.

Defendants have not yet responded, so the Court has not agreed to hear it.

And it won't be heard.
first pageprev pagePage 1 of 7Next pagelast page

Back to top
logoFollow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News
Follow us on X, Facebook and Instagram to get the latest updates on LSU Football and Recruiting.

FacebookXInstagram