Potentially the Most Consequential Supreme Court Case in U.S. History

By Harold Pease, Ph.D.
  Swearing allegiance to the Constitution is required by every office holder in our government and every person who serves in the armed forces. The Constitution reads, “I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic….” Should there be a penalty for violating that oath? That is now before the Supreme Court Jan. 6, 2023. Did legislators knowingly violate the Constitution by not waiting the 10 day period to assess the evidence of fraud and alleged foreign interference in the election when they knew evidence to that end existed in the 2020 Presidential Election. Some 387 members of Congress voted against an investigation, thus thwarting an investigation.
  In November 2020 alone LibertyUnderFire.com published three columns documenting that concern: “Sudden Stop in Vote Reporting Suggests Election Fraud,” “Vice President Biden, Please Hold Back for the Sake of Ballot Integrity,” and “Dominion Software Switched Millions of Trump Votes to Biden.” Virtually all investigations since confirm that election fraud existed.
  The Brunson v. Alma S. Adams; et al case “alleges that Congress failed in its Constitutional duty by ignoring protection of critical infrastructure (election systems) during a National Emergency.” The Brunson brothers, who initiated this suit, asked, “How do you support, and defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign, and domestic? Answer: You investigate. If there are claims that there is a threat, even if you don’t believe there is a threat, you investigate.  How else can you determine if there is a threat unless you investigate?  You can’t. Were there claims of a threat to the Constitution? Yes. Where did these serious claims come from? One hundred members of Congress. What was the threat? That there were enemies of the Constitution who successfully rigged the 2020 election. Is this lawsuit about a rigged election? No, it’s about the members of Congress who voted AGAINST the investigation thereby thwarting the investigation. Was this a clear violation of their oath? YES” (All quotes are from filing documents).
  The events leading to SCOTUS accepting the case follow. Loy Brunson files the brothers complaint under his name in the Utah Federal Court, March 23, 2021. On March 31, 2021 the 1st Amended Complaint was processed by the clerk of the Court and served by U.S. Marshalls on 85 defendants, including Nancy Pelosi and Maxine Waters before being stopped by the Court, claiming it was a "clerical error by the Deputy Clerk.” So the Deep State was very aware of mounting opposition to the denial of requested 10 day review before the electoral count.  
  From this point forward they faced a wall of obstruction: amended complaints, motions to reconsider, even a Writ of Mandamus to the Court of Appeals (10th Circuit) to compel the Federal Court for movement, then a lawsuit against the two Federal Courts, again for action—all to no avail. They were thwarted at every turn and always with the same explanation “the Federal Court will eventually get to it when they can.” After more than a year of the same the court finally “issues the summons for the 388 defendants.” Everyone voting against the measure requiring 10 days of review before the electoral vote received a summons, plus the president.  They had 60 days to answer the complaint.  
  Then the U.S. Attorneys suddenly intervened shielding members of Congress from being personally responsible for their vote by filing a notice of appearance in behalf of all the defendants, making THEMSELVES “the official attorneys on record,” instead of the legislators. The brothers had not sued the U.S. Government, only certain members of Congress who had violated their oath to protect and preserve the Constitution by not adhering to it. They promptly issued a motion to dismiss Loy’s lawsuit “on the grounds that defendants are protected under Title 28 which gives defendants Sovereign Immunity from any lawsuits relating to actions of treason while serving in the capacity of their office.” What!!! Members of Congress have immunity from treason? Our Founders would have never supported this. On July 6, 2022, the brothers filed an opposition to the Attorneys' attempt to dismiss the lawsuit. The defense offered only stonewalling silence thereafter.
  Fortunately almost a year before, June 21, 2021, realizing that they could double their chances of getting to the Supreme Court with a second identical suit but under the name of another brother, this time Raland, the brothers sued members of Congress again. But once again the U.S. Attorneys, “acting in behalf of the United States (not the defendants)” ran interference and filed a motion to dismiss Raland's lawsuit using the same reason as cited for the Loy suit.
  The brothers knew their only hope was to bypass the biased circuit court and it came to them that they could use Rule 11 (National Emergency) to vault over the obstructionist 10th Circuit of Appeals and “go straight to the Supreme Court.” If a fraudulent election with foreign interference was not a national emergency what was? On Sept. 23, 2022 their petition for a Writ of Certiorari (national emergency) was received by SCOTUS.  A week later “the Clerk of the SCOTUS calls Raland requesting a revision of the Petition that would include a motion to dismiss and motion to waiver. Having these included in the paper work it is believed bolsters the evidence that defenders had every chance to oppose. The brothers felt pressured to get it in ASAP, they did and their case was docketed Oct. 24, 2022.  
  The clerk notified the brothers that “they have everything they need.” The U.S. Attorneys had until Nov. 23 “to respond showing why the Supreme Court of the United States should not move on this case.” They provided no defense. Nor did they ask for a motion to oppose, an extension, or a continuance. Nothing! Miraculously all opposition melted away (“Brunson and the Supreme Court Case that Would Fix 2020 and Bring Treason Charges for 388 Officials,” The Pete Santillo Show, Interview with Loy Brunson, Nov. 30, 2022).
  A month later “Elizabeth B. Prelogar, the Solicitor General of United States, the official attorney on record for the defendants, and in behalf of the 388 defendants, waived their right to respond to this lawsuit, thus allowing the SCOTUS to move forward!”   And it did setting the conference date for Jan. 6, 2023. It requires four votes to have a hearing and five to remove from office all defendants, making this case potentially the most consequential in U.S. history.
  Dr. Harold W. Pease is an expert on the United States Constitution and a syndicated columnist. He has dedicated his career to studying the writings of the Founding Fathers and applying that knowledge to current events. He taught history and political science from this perspective for over 30 years at Taft College.