January 6, 2023 May Fundamentally Change the United States Forever
January 6, 2023 May Fundamentally Change the United States Forever
Tim O’Connor – Center for the Preservation of Humanity – 12/22/2022
Note that date, January 6, 2023, fifteen days from today. The Supreme Court of the United States will be opening their year up with a case titled Brunson v Adams, et. al. The case even provides for an outside possibility that Donald John Trump be placed back into the Oval Office. The implications will be massive.
Raland J. Brunson, a man from Utah, listed 388 defendants, almost all of whom were US House of Representatives or US Senate members on January 6, 2021, whom failed to uphold their Oath of Office because each of them declined to investigate the 2020 election. Also named are Kamala Harris and Joe Biden. He filed the suit in Utah and the Utah court ruled that he lacked standing. Brunson appealed the decision. The Tenth Circuit Court upheld the lower court’s ruling. Even before the Tenth Circuit Court ruled; however (they were dragging their feet), the Supreme Court convinced Brunson to petition the Supreme Court directly which is highly unusual.
On it’s face, Brunson’s case sounds great because it would enable elected leaders to be held accountable. It would also change the way the courts operate. It will also change the way the United States operate. And it will absolutely give the Judicial Branch incredible power. So, the case is very broad in scope and however this case is decided will cause changes in the United States.
The flashy part of the Brunson’s petition reads, “It is an uncontestable fact that the Respondents committed fraud and treason breaching our national security (as factually alleged in Brunson’s complaint), thus adhering to an domestic enemy that continues to breach our national security at an alarming rate on a daily basis. This national security breach is having the same end result as an act of war; to place into power whom the Respondents want, which is Biden. Brunson moves this Court, with its powers, to order the trial court of this case to immediately grant to Brunson the damages he seeks in his complaint. This is necessary to immediately secure our national security without any further delay.”
As Brunson’s summarized complaint reads, “On January 6, 2021, the 117th Congress held a proceeding and debate in Washington DC (“Proceeding”). 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 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.”
Brunson is seeking to have the respondents, all of them, removed from office immediately. In the future candidates who choose to ignore their Oath to the Constitution of the United States will need to look over their shoulder. That’s a good thing. That is a necessary thing.
What is not such a good thing is that the amount of power the Judicial Branch would wield will be ruinous to the liberty and freedom of the United States. I say this because right now it seems as though the Court will rule according to what the Constitution actually says (originalism, or close to it). In the future, if and when the Constitution is amended again, the political leanings of the Court changes (‘originalism’ versus ‘living document’ in regards to the Constitution), or one of the party’s packs the court those opinions could abruptly change. As a result of this case; however, the Court may very well grant itself the sole discretionary power to decide every utterance made by any elected leader and to have the ability to judicially order them out of office.
I liked the idea much more until Brunson explained his vision more fully. Brunson described how he sees this playing out during an interview with Kate Dalley on the Alex Jones Show on December 21, 2022,
“… And when we say toss them out of office it really can be quite smooth. The way I believe it would happen is that a court would, the uh, US Marshals Service would be the ones to deliver an order from the federal court to the Sergeant at Arms with a list of credentials to be canceled. So they could cancel the credentials right there, there could be special government teams broadcast teams that go into the media to make sure that there are not, you know, inciting of riots and false information producing a lot of violence. And so they, we probably could all of a sudden see new faces on television where they are reporting the news explaining what’s happening. That it’s a smooth transition, we’re not losing our republic, and nothing’s happening wrong, but it’s a good transition. And then the three directors of the Federal Communications Commission have taken Oaths to the Constitution too. So they’ve had an obligation that they’ve neglected and violated their oath by allowing anything through the broadcast waves to generate any kind of negative feelings or criticism of our great Constitution – they have an obligation to support and defend it. And so, I think there can actually be a pretty smooth transition. I have friends that are democrats and republicans and I’ve asked them what is it that you really want from your representatives? And they all say the same thing. Honesty. Well that’s what this case is about, it’s simply about making our representatives honest whether you are a democrat or a republican and so this would, this would enforce the Oath and cause our representatives to be honest. That’s basically what it is. …
“… It’s possible [reinstating Donald Trump], we’ve had the discussion with Constitutional attorneys and stuff, about this. It’s really up to the Supreme Court. This is sort of an, this could be considered an act of war. When you have that much evidence of infiltration to our, to our sacred, uh, election process, I mean people won’t investigate it. And so this actually gives the Supreme Court complete discretion and power to do whatever they think is deemed necessary to secure our security in this country. And so they could completely adjudicate this whole case before the Sixth, the whole complaint, they could actually execute it and completely take care of it before January Sixth.”
When Brunson got to the part about special governmental information boards I started really hating this idea. I’ve had enough of ‘special governmental information boards’, historically titled propaganda. I’ve heard enough out of media outlets telling everyone what the government thinks we should know. I’ve seen enough about ‘misinformation’ being monitored, censored, and/or used as a cause for prosecution by the government against it’s ‘dissident’ citizens.
The misinformation ‘transition’ boards described by Brunson are bad enough. The trust and power he has decided to place in the courts is terrifying. The Republic of the United States of America is designed to limit the power of any one branch of government. Giving the Judicial Branch – designed to be the weakest branch for it’s history of growing to be all encompassing – ‘complete discretion and power” over anything is basically what Brunson’s plan is. When will the Court relinquish that power? Never. I will turn to one of the most influential early American’s, Benjamin Franklin, “Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.”
I believe that Brunson has good intentions. Of course good intentions are scattered all over the road to Hell. I think Brunson’s efforts are going to end up on the path to Hell. I love the idea of having politicians being held accountable to their Oath of Office. I absolutely hate what this part of the matter portends for the US government’s existence. If Brunson’s relief is granted, 388 politicians, most of whom were legally elected, will be thrown out of office for, in essence, the way they voted to proceed with an investigation. The burden of whether or not to proceed with Congressional investigations would basically fall upon the Supreme Court if they grant Brunson’s relief. I’m with Brunson too, this country is going way off the rails, the damage is already irreversable, and there should have been an investigation into allegations of irregularities and fraud during the 2020 election. It is the ramifications of the Court’s decisions regarding Brunson’s case which has the potential to give them incredible new powers which is why, in my opinion, the Supreme Court gave advice for filing the petition as well as fast tracked it onto their calendar.
The other big issue with Brunson’s case is a battle between two judicial doctrines – equitable maxim and the object principle of justice. In docket number 18-1147 equitable maxim equates to courts throwing out lawsuits because of standing. “The doctrine of equitable maxim, a case law by the Supreme Court Of The United States, is a doctrine that unjustly thrashes and contradicts the right of due process. It does this by allowing the discretion of trial courts to completely ignore, refuse to hear, or disregard a party's pleadings. This doctrine continues further by stopping any controlling case law including the United States Constitution.”
The object principle of justice seems to be a reference to making the courts look at the merits of the case and determine suitability based upon that. As the docket cited above explains it, “Regardless of Petitioner's argument, Petitioner has the right to have his argument addressed. Failure of this strips Petitioner's right to be in court while keeping his filing fee money—this contends that he has no Constitutional right of due process—the right to be heard.”
This could be a very good thing because it would force lower courts to actually hear cases instead of passing them off to another court through appeals. In Brunson’s case, the Utah court should have heard the case. The Utah court may have ruled in such a manner that it would be appealed; however, the case would have been heard at least. That I agree with.
Apart from the re-enforcement of due process; however, this law suit is horrible. And it is based, as best I can tell, on a very sandy foundation. The foundation of this case is the love of a man – Donald Trump. As Steve Quayle has stated multiple times, “There is no political solution to a spiritual problem.” Brunson’s case, more than anything else, represents an effort at attempting to ‘solve’ a spiritual problem with the idolization of a man. Brunson’s explanation leads me to believe that as long as his guy gets into office it doesn’t matter how much damage is inflicted on the nation.
Maybe I’m wrong about all of the warnings I have offered here. The one thing I am absolutely sure of is that there really is no political solution to a spiritual problem. If the United States is to be repaired, we need to repent, bigly. And really, Repent. Read the Bible, accept Jesus, search for the face of God, repent for your sins, and pray for salvation. Donald Trump’s reintroduction into the Oval Office may or may not happen. If it does, it would be good for certain aspects of our lives – like border security, war avoidance, and economically, but at the end of the day Donald Trump is unable to save our souls – Jesus Christ is our path to the Father and the Father wants us to follow the same rules Jesus did. As a nation, if we seek to bandage and restore the bloodied and bleeding United States we need a lot more people who love Jesus for His sacrifice and strive to be holy, and a lot less emphasis on Donald Trump’s potential to be trusted back into the Oval Office – especially along the lines which Brunson has suggested.
Bless God and God bless.