SCOTUS to Discuss Pro Se Case that Hopes to Declare Administrative Constitutional Violations as Treasonous
The Supreme Court of the United States of America set for discussion a petition written by a pro se litigant. See the docket here.
It is rare for SCOTUS to decide cases presented without a licensed attorney representing the petitioner.
This monumental case, Raland J. Brunson v. Alma S. Adams, et al, presents the most basic argument against corrupt acts by members of Congress and the Executive Branch of our government, that is equally applicable to the judges who preside over our legal system.
Sovereign immunity is not supposed to extend to administrative acts, no matter how important those acts are.
Mr. Brunson argues convincingly that refusing to investigate allegations of voter fraud during the November 2020 election was an act of treason by members of Congress, Kamala Harris and Joseph Biden, Jr.
My contention is that any judge who allows the court reporter or court clerk to fabricate the official record of proceedings and refuses to make a proper investigation into credible claims of that malfeasance, is equally guilty of treason.
From the Appellant’s Opening Brief from the appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit:
“The legislative body of the U.S., or the Constitution,
legally cannot protect fraud or violations of the Oath of
Office or acts of treason nor deprive an individual from
petition for a redress of grievances as alleged in Brunson’s
complaint. These acts cannot be protected in such a way
that the technical nuances of the law and legal procedure
reach such a high standard that that a laymen cannot
reach or they become highly discouraged from seeking
redresses in a court of law. This is self evident as it ties to
the Amendment IX and the First and Second clause of the
Declaration of Independence.”
In other words, the Court should not commit an injustice, just because the victim forgot to say the magic words, “Wingardium Leviosa and/or Expecto Patronum.”
Download and read the Petition for Writ of Cert and Appendix below.
A Higher Law 
I have another case you may want to look at. Please review over case no. 22-6123 and the website has the documents not listed publicly on the Supreme Court website. It is about asking for a Special Master in the federal court to investigate blackmailed federal judges. A lawyer who is credible and has not lost his law license and has not been sued for defamation by John Roberts. This case is using a credible witness and the suspicions of judicial blackmail by a former alternative media journalist who was framed for a crime he didn’t do.
https://www.supremecourt.gov/search.aspx?filename=/docket/docketfiles/html/public/22-6123.html
For the documents not listed at the Supreme court, they are in certain articles. I can email you them or you can find them on your own. Please contact me and let me know. I feel you should cover this issue on your blog since both cases including the Brunson case are heading for conference on January 6, 2023.
Please contact me.
LikeLike
I read quickly through the motion for recusal of Judge John Roberts. I did not see the petition for writ of cert.
Honestly, the motion was poorly written. It is hard for me to understand much of it and I have excellent reading comprehension skills.
I did pick up that you are complaining that Judge Roberts because Attorney L. Lin Woods made accusations against the Judge and there is somehow blackmail giving Judge Roberts a reason to recuse.
I have not read much about Qanon. At this point I don’t trust any of the rhetoric. I have witnessed members from both sides of the aisle lie and cheat.
I am positive there were democrats registered to vote in states they did not reside in. One admitted to that on Facebook and had over a hundred thumbs up.
I do like Attorney Lin Woods’ work that I am familiar with. I’ll have to look into all this in my “spare time”.
Thank you for your concern.
LikeLike