Supreme Court 22-380 PDF Free Download

Supreme Court 22-380 PDF Download Info

Supreme Court 22-380 PDF Free Download, Brunson v. Alma S. Adams PDF Free Download, Supreme Court Docket 22-380 PDF.

Supreme Court 22-380 PDF Free Download

In Determining Whether Or Not The Trial Court Has Jurisdiction To Try The Merits Of This Case, Decisions Rendered By This Court And Lower Appeal Courts, As Well As Constitutional Provisions And Laws, Are In Grave Disagreement.

This Case Reveals A Serious National Security Breach That Is Unusual And Of First Impression. Due To The Seriousness Of This Case, It Raises The Possibility Of Removing The President And Vice President Of The United States As Well As Members Of Congress And Declaring Them Unfit To Hold Office In Any Capacity Within The Federal, State, County, Or Local Governments Of The United States Of America. At The Same Time, The Trial Court Has The Power To Order Their Removal.

Additionally, Two Competing Doctrines Were Discovered In This Case That Have An Impact On All Of The Nation’s Courts. The Doctrine Of The Equitable Maxim And The Doctrine Of The Object Principle Of Justice Are Two Names For These Doctrines. The Object Principle Of Justice, Which Is Also Partially Created By This Court And Supported By Other Appeal Courts And Constitutional Provisions, Is Directly Violated By The Equitable Maxim That This Court Established And That The Lower Court Used To Dismiss This Case.

These Conflicts Need The Use Of This Court’s Supervisory Authority, Which Has Not Yet Been Used But Should Be Swiftly Resolved.

Petitioner Raland J. Brunson Is A Plaintiff In The Trial Court And Is An Individual Acting Pro Se. In The Trial Court, The Following 388 Respondents Are Parties To This Action As Defendants:

“Congress Shall Make No Law Respecting An Establishment Of Religion, Or Prohibiting… The Right Of The People Peacefully To Assemble, And To Petition The Government For A Redress Of Grievances,” States Amendment I Of The United States Constitution.

The Constitution’s Article Vi. The United States Constitution And Any Laws Enacted In Accordance With It Are To Be Regarded As The Supreme Law Of The Land, And All State Judges Are Required To Uphold It. No State Shall Deprive Any Person Of Life, Liberty, Or Property, Without Due Process Of Law… Nor Shall Any State Deny To Any Person Within Its Jurisdiction The Equal Protection Of The Laws. This Is Stated In The Fourteenth Amendment To The United States Constitution. No One Who Has Previously Taken An Oath As A Member Of Congress, An Officer Of The United States, A Member Of Any State Legislature, Or An Executive Or Judicial Officer Of Any State To Support The Constitution Of The United States, Shall Be Eligible To Serve As A Senator Or Representative In Congress, Or As An Elector Of The President And Vice President, Or To Hold Any Office, Civil Or Military, Under The United States Or Under Any State. But Such A Disability May Be Eliminated By Congress With The Support Of Two-thirds Of Each House.

No Person “Shall… Be Deprived Of Life, Liberty, Or Property, Without Due Process Of Law,” According To The Fifth Amendment Of The United States Constitution. “The Enumeration In The Constitution, Of Certain Rights, Shall Not Be Construed To Deny Or Disparage Others Retained By The People,” Reads The Ninth Amendment To The United States Constitution.

“No Person Shall Be Deprived Of Life, Liberty Or Property, Without Due Process Of Law,” States Utah’s Constitution In Article I Section 7.

“All Courts Shall Be Open…which Shall Be Administered Without Denial Or Unnecessary Delay; And No Person Shall Be Barred From Prosecuting Or Defending Before Any Tribunal In This State, By Himself Or Counsel, Any Civil Cause To Which He Is A Party.” Is Stated In Article 1 Section 2 Of The Utah Constitution.

President Joseph Robinette Biden Jr., Vice President Kamala Harris, Speaker Of The House Nancy Pelosi, And Former Vice President Michael Richard Pence Are Among The 388 Federal Officers Named In This Action Who Are Serving In Their Official Capacities (Collectively, “Respondents”). All Of The Respondents Have Taken The Obligatory Oath To Uphold And Defend The Us Constitution Against All Enemies, Both Domestic And Foreign, And As A Result, They Are All Responsible For The Consequences If They Violate The Oath Of Office.

A Highly Covert Swift And Powerful Enemy, As Stated Below, Seeking To Destroy The Constitution And The United States, Purposely Thwarted All Efforts To Investigate This, Whereupon This Enemy Was Not Checked Or Investigated, Therefore The Respondents Adhered To This Enemy, Despite Being Properly Warned And Requested To Make An Investigation Into This Enemy. Petitioner Raland J. Brunson (“Brunson”) Filed This Lawsuit Against Respondents Due To The Latter’s Deliberate Refusal To Look Into This Enemy; As A Result, Brunson Was Seriously Personally Harmed And Violated By The Latter’s Action, Which In Turn Violated The Rights Of Every American Citizen, Possibly All Living People, As Well As All Courts Of Law. Respondents The 117th Congress Held A Proceeding And Debate In Washington, D.c. On January 6, 2021 (The “Proceeding”).

The 2020 Presidential Election For The President And Vice President Of The United States Was Being Conducted In Order To Count Votes In Accordance With Amendment Xii. Over 100 Members Of The Us Congress Asserted Factual Evidence That The Alleged Election Was Rigged Throughout This Proceeding. It Is An Act Of Treason And Fraud On The Part Of The Respondents To Refuse To Look Into This Congressional Claim (The Enemy). A Successfully Rigged Election Has The Same Outcome As A Successful Act Of War: It Instals The Winner, In This Case, Joe Biden, Who, If Not Stopped Right Now, Would Continue To Undermine Brunson’s Fundamental Rights As Well As Those Of Other American Citizens And The Rule Of Law.

Due To The Fact That This Case Represents A National Security Breach On A Scale Never Before Seen, Seriously Harming And Violating Brunson While Also Having An Impact On All Americans And Legal Systems. As A Result, Brunson Requests That This Court Grant The Petition Or, Failing That, Direct The Trial Court To Fully Grant Brunson’s Complaint. The Mechanism To Remove The Respondents From Office Immediately Without Leaving Our Nation Vulnerable Without A President And Vice President Is Brunson’s Complaint.

The Trial Court Granted The Respondents’ Request To Dismiss (The “Motion”), Declaring That “It Is Ordered And Adjudicated That Plaintiff Raland Brunson’s Action Be Dismissed Without Prejudice,” Notwithstanding The Seriousness Of The Case. (“order”) This Order Followed The Trial Court’s Directive To Adopt Its Report And Recommendation, Which Brunson Did Not Receive Until Almost The Beginning Of October 2022, Precluding Brunson From Timely Filing Any Objections. Additionally, The Order Improperly Addressed Brunson’s Opposition To The Motion. Brunson’s Opposition Is A Blatant Indication That He Has Standing.

According To Brunson’s Opening Brief And The Details Of His Opposition (Both Of Which The Lower Courts Failed To Properly Address), Brunson Has Standing And The Trial Court Has Full Authority To Decide The Merits Of This Case On The Basis Of The Following Factors:

It Is Made Very Clear In American Bush V. City Of South Salt Lake, 2006 Ut 40, 140 P.3d. 1235, That Both The Federal And State Constitutions Do Not Provide Individual Citizens Any Rights. These Instruments Are Not The Fountain Of Law Or The Origin Of The People’s Rights, But They Have Been Put In Place To Protect Them. These Instruments Measure The Power Of The Rulers, But They Do Not Measure The Rights Of The Governed. As A Result, The Laws And Case Law Used By The Respondents In This Case To Support Their Claim Of Immunity From Brunson’s Claims Are Unconstitutional, And The Court Must Rule Accordingly.

The Constitution’s Enumeration Of Certain Rights “Must Not Be Construed To Deny Or Disparage Others Retained By The People.” As A Result, The Constitution Was Written To Protect Our Rights, Which Are Self-evident. The Constitution Cannot Be Interpreted To Deny Or Disparage Our Rights By Any Means, By Any Legislative, Judicial, Or Executive Body, Or By Any Court Of Law. “This Constitution, And The Laws Of The United States Which Shall Be Made Pursuance Thereof;.. Shall Be The Supreme Law Of The Land; And The Judges In Every State Shall Be Bound Thereby,” The Constitution States, “Shall Be The Supreme Law Of The Land.” The Constitution’s Article Vi.

According To The First Amendment Of The Constitution, Congress May Not Pass Any Legislation That Restricts Citizens’ Ability To Petition The Government For Redress Of Grievances.

According To Morris V. House, 32 Tex. 492 (1870), “Our Courts Have Consistently Held That Fraud Vitiates Whatever It Touches.” Butts V. Estate Of Stonecipher, 591 Sw 2d 806. Additionally, Fraud “Vitiates Everything Into Which It Enters,” According To A Strict But Just Maxim Of Law. V. Sweeney, A Veterans Service Club. 252 S.w.2d 25. 27 (Kv.1952).” Comsmart, Inc. V. Radioshack Cory, 222 Sw 3d 256.

Vitiate Is “To Impair Or Make Void; To Destroy Or Annul, Either Whole Or In Part, The Force And Effect Of An Act Or Instrument.” Version 2.

Due To The Special Nature Of This Case, The Trial Court Is Appropriately Entitled To Remove The Respondents From Their Positions Under 18 U.s. Code 2381, Which States That “Whoever, Owing Allegiance To The United States, Levies War Against Them Or Adheres To Their Enemies, Giving Them Aid And Comfort Within The United States Or Elsewhere, Is Guilty Of Treason And Shall Suffer Death, Without Such Removal Of Office, A Court’s Determination That The Respondents, Who Took The Oath Of Office, Are Unable To Hold Their Positions Or Have Adhered To A Domestic Enemy, Is Meaningless.

Because Of The Seriousness Of His Claim And The Above Factors, Brunson Has An Unrestricted Right To Sue The Respondents; No Law May Limit This Right. Furthermore, No Statute Of Jurisdictional Immunity Protects Brunson’s Allegations That The Respondents Adhered To A Domestic Enemy Or Committed Fraud. In Essence, As Claimed In Brunson’s Complaint Against The Respondents, Acts Of Congress Cannot Protect Fraud, Violated Oaths, Or Actions That Support Enemies Of The American People Or The Constitution. Given That These Are Unavoidable Facts, Brunson Did Not See The Need To Attach A Copy Of The Respondents’ Opposition To His Opening Brief Or Any Of Their Arguments To The Petition. Even Nevertheless, Brunson’s Opening Brief Touches On The Respondents’ Claims Of Immunity And Demonstrates How They Are Unable To Refute The Arguments Made By Brunson In This Document.

It Is Without Dispute That The Respondents Violated Our National Security By Engaging In Fraud And Treason (As Factually Alleged In Brunson’s Complaint), Adhering To A Domestic Enemy That Continues To Do So At An Alarming Rate On A Daily Basis. The End Result Of This National Security Breach Is The Same As That Of A War: The Election Of Biden, Who Is Desired By The Respondents. Has The Authority To Direct The Trial Court In This Case To Grant Brunson The Damages He Requests In His Complaint Right Now. This Is Required Without Further Delay To Immediately Secure Our National Security.

Let’s Now Discuss The Doctrine Of Equitable Maxim Established By This Court, Which Is In Stark Opposition To The Doctrine Of The Object Principle Of Justice.

The Doctrine Of The Object Principle Of Justice Is Enshrined In The Supreme Law Of The Land, And It Sets In Motion Efforts To Make Our Court System The Most Just, Constrained, Highly Effective, And Simple To Understand, As Well As The Most Highly Regarded And Dearly Admired Court System The World Has Ever Seen. This Is Defeated By The Doctrine Of Equitable Maxim, And This Appeal Would Not Be Required If The Trial Court Had Been Guided By The Object Principle Of Justice.

Additionally, The Doctrine Of The Object Principle Of Justice Ends The Precarious Nature Of Our Courts, Makes Their Jobs Much Easier And Less Stressful, And Gives Parties In Court A Strong Sense Of How The Court Will Rule, Which Greatly Encourages Settlements And Lowers The Number Of Lawsuits And Appeals. This Is A Definitely True Fact.

Jurisprudence Demands That This Court Revoke The Doctrine Of Equitable Maxim That It Established And More Thoroughly Ingrain The Doctrine Of The Object Principle Of Justice Across The Whole American Judicial System.

Detailed Explanations Of Both The Object Principle Of Justice And The Equitable Maxim Are Provided In A Petition Filed With This Court Under Docket Number 18-1147. In Order To Avoid Repetition, Brunson Incorporates The Argument Made There As If It Were Fully Stated Here. Brunson Then Requests That The Court Address The Issue Either In The Context Of This Petition Or Docket No. 18-1147.