What is Brunson v Alma case? SC considers lawsuit in 2020 election, may oust Biden and Harris
WASHINGTON, DC: It was heavily rumored that the Supreme Court will meet on January 6, 2023, to discuss whether or not to place the case of Brunson v Adams on the full Supreme Court’s docket which contains information about cases, both pending and decided, that have been filed at the Court. The mentioned lawsuit has been brought against 388 federal officers for failing to pay attention to the states’ warnings about illegal votes. The drama surrounds the 2020 elections.
This, in turn, invokes Rule 11 which identifies this case as impacting our national security landing it straight into the lap of SCOTUS. As a response, the Supreme Court has asked the Clerk of the Court to reach out to the plaintiffs to help them present their case. The request to investigate the election was brought by Ted Cruz and 154 congressmen. The basis remains that the defendants - Joe Biden, Kamala Harris, and Mike Pence - were voted to certify the 2020 election. However, the investigation into the election did not go through even after receiving a valid request from 154 congressmen to investigate six states where there was a question of validity.
READ MORE
Hence, the case alleges that these individuals have indeed violated their oath to defend the Constitution. Ratcliffe, who is the head of 17 intelligence gathering agencies, had stated on several occasions that there was indefinite Chinese interference in the 2020 election. Now, the claim is not that the elections were rigged or invalid, it asks the Court that by breaking the oath to defend the Constitution from issues like Chinese interference, these public figures qualify to hold public office.
What is the Brunson v Alma case?
The case is between petitioner Raland J Brunson and Alma S Adams et al, as respondents. It uncovers a serious national security breach that is unique and is of first impression, and due to the serious nature of this case it involves the possible removal of a sitting President and Vice President of the United States along with members of the United States Congress while deeming them unfit from ever holding office under Federal, State, County or local Governments found within the United States of America, and at the same time, the trial court also has the authority, to be validated by this Court, to authorize the swearing-in of the legal and rightful heirs for President and Vice President of the United States.
There are two doctrines that conflict with each other found in this case affecting every court in this country. These doctrines are known as the 'doctrine of equitable maxim' and the 'doctrine of the object principle of justice'. The equitable maxim created by this court, which the lower court used to dismiss this case, sets in direct violation of the object principle of justice also partially created by this Court and supported by other appellate courts and constitutional provisions.
