December 13, 2022
“Oath and Consequences” – Understanding the Brunson Case
By: Doug Traubel
Stay tuned for action in this case between now and January 6, 2023
PARTIES TO THE PROCEEDING
Petitioner: Raland J. Brunson (of Utah) is an individual representing himself and is a Plaintiff in the trial court.
Respondents: 388 in total: 385 members of Congress, “President” Biden, “Vice President” Harris and former Vice President Pence.
The Brunson petition focuses on damages to the plaintiff’s fundamental freedoms over being denied his First Amendment right to petition the government for redress of grievance in state court. By extension, the plaintiff (in his petition) represents every citizen. The potential impact of this case is broad and touches the 2020 AND 2022 elections. The circumstances driving the petition are unprecedented, but the path for redress is clear and soundly constitutional.
Premise: A national security crisis was created when 100 members of Congress claimed to have factual evidence of a rigged election. These expressed concerns made on behalf of The People they represent should have triggered a non-partisan, oath-centered response. With all seriousness, the full body of Congress should have investigated the concerns brought to light by its 100 vocal peers before accepting the electoral votes of the several states.
The voices of 100 members of Congress alone were a compelling cause to pause. Ultimately, and in haste, 385 members of the Congressional body along with the Vice President abandoned their oath by ignoring evidence for concern that a citizen’s solemn right to vote had been compromised. Abdicating the oath of office by accepting the votes under such a large cloud of suspicion resulted in the installation of a president in office whose policies — without exception — have since damaged and daily continue to damage the security and sovereignty of our country and rights of The People on a scale equivalent to an act of war.
Accepting the votes from the Electoral College despite concerns amplified by 100 voices of doubt violated the oath (Article VI) of 385 of the respondents. Vice president Pence in his role as president of the Senate also violated his oath of office. The punishment for violating one’s oath is spelled out in the Fourteenth Amendment under Section 3; specifically, removal from office and prohibition from ever holding any office in the land. Brunson argues that the consequences of violating the oath in this context amounts to treason as defined in Art III, Sec 3; the spectrum of penalties for which is spelled out in Federal law (U.S. Code Title 18) ranging from a minimum of a $10,000 fine and five years of prison to death.
Brunson argues that his First Amendment right to petition the government for redress of grievance was denied by the lower court (Supreme Court of Utah). The decision to dismiss his action (without prejudice) was done under a corrupt operating philosophy permeating all courts in the US known as the Doctrine of Equitable Maxim which collides with the proper operating ethos of the Doctrine of Object Principle of Justice. The distinctions are profound and spelled out below in excerpts from this case (Supreme Court Docket No. 22-380) and Supreme Court Docket No. 18-1147 (a case filed by Raland Brunson’s brother, Deron, in an unrelated, but relevant case):
“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. In this instant case, the said doctrine was exercised by the trial court when it refused to hear, address, and disregarded Petitioner’s pleadings without any hearing and against any legal controlling case law produced by Petitioner. At the same time, under this said doctrine, the trial court granted every request of Respondent, Bayview Loan Servicing, LLC, and awarded them attorney’s fees without their request.”“The doctrine of the object principle of justice” is couched by the supreme law of the land, and sets in motion to provide our court system to be the most just, limited, highly effective and easy to understand, and infuses our court system to be the most highly respected and dearly admired court system greater than the world has ever seen. The doctrine of equitable maxim kills this and had the trial court been guided by the object principle of justice this appeal would not be necessary. In addition, the doctrine of the object principle of justice stops the precarious nature of our courts, their jobs would be much easier with less stress, and parties in court would have a strong sense on how the court is going to rule thus promoting settlements to high degree and as such, lawsuits and appeals would be greatly reduced. This is an absolute fact.”
Plaintiff Brunson’s primary objective is twofold. First, he wants for the SCOTUS to grant a Writ of Certiorari (an order compelling a lower court to send up the case) and second, for the lower court to hear his case – an exercise aimed at ending the arrogant practice of equitable maxim that resulted in the dismissal of his original action by the trial court without a hearing and so late that he could not file timely objection. Brunson’s second objective is intended to hit a reset button throughout the courts to operate under the (proper) doctrine of the object principle of justice. Brunson argues he was denied his right to petition government for a redress of grievance without the due process and equal protection guarantees of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments, and most interestingly to this author, his unenumerated rights under the Ninth Amendment.
Brunson properly argues authority for SCOTUS to rule on the case under Art III, Sec 2 that gives it jurisdiction in a conflict between a citizen and a state. He also sites 28 U. S. C. A. 1257:
“Final judgments…rendered by the highest court of a State…may be reviewed by the Supreme Court by writ of certiorari…where any…right [or] privilege…is specially set up or claimed under the…statutes of…the United States.”
I must add that Justices of the SCOTUS are under oath just as are the respondents and will be in violation if they grant immunity to the 388 respondents by declining the case. Furthermore, such dereliction would put the court in a subordinate role to the supposed co-equal legislative branch by rendering it untouchable. If the respondents are found to have violated their oath and are then necessarily removed by Deputy US Marshals, a military presence would fill the vacuum until a new election could be held to replace the ousted and dishonored congressional respondents.
Brunson’s action has been described as a “Hail Mary” because it is unprecedented and depends on the condition that at least four members of the SCOTUS will honor their oath to grant certiorari on what is a black and white example of members of Congress (principally) violating their oath. If granted, the path forward and remedies are mostly clear and yes, Trump could be returned to the White House as the last “duly elected” president. He would do so without Pence who is a respondent. It is unclear to me how the vacated VP post would be filled. Perhaps a special Vice Presidential and Congressional election would be called at the same time.
Most of our so-called representatives work for their own power and profit. The beauty of the Brunson petition is that it is citizen initiated and driven. It is a paragon of virtue to behold in stark contrast to the venal occupation government/organized crime syndicate lording over us. The action comes from where the authority of government is ordained, from a single member of We the People and can be the first step in gaining traction over a long journey to restore the Republic. God bless the Brunson brothers.
Doug Traubel is a veteran lawman and author of Red Badge – A Veteran Peace Officer’s Commentary on the Marxist Subversion of American Law Enforcement & Culture and Can They Do That?How Police Get Around the Fourth Amendment.
Doug has been an adjunct instructor at Boise State University and an instructor at the Idaho State Police Academy on the topic of gangs.
Doug ran for Ada County Sheriff in 2021 during an appointment process prompted by an unexpected vacancy.He was voted the # 1 candidate out of three finalists by the Republican Central Committee, but was passed over by the Board of County Commissioners who appointed the number three (establishment) candidate, Matt Clifford. Doug challenged Matt in the 2022 primary election for a two-year term and lost garnering 35% of the vote. The office is up for election again in 2024.