Supreme Court Dockets Brunson v. Adams Case That Challenges the Failure of Congress to Investigate Disputed Electoral College Votes ~ January 6, 2023


A historic case has been docketed by the United States Supreme Court. Case number 22-380 titled Brunson v. Adams has reached the highest court in the land by a Writ of Certiorari from the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals. The petitioner of the case, Raland J. Brunson, is suing 388 federal officers, including former Vice President Mike Pence, President Joe Biden, and Vice President Kamala Harris, for “violating their oaths of office,” where they swore to support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies both foreign and domestic. Brunson claims their refusal to investigate an alleged attack (voter fraud) on the Constitution on January 6th, 2021, violated the oaths they swore just one day prior as they were sworn in as members of the 117th Congress.

The case itself is not alleging electoral fraud occurred in the 2020 election. Instead, they cite the 147 members of Congress having their request to investigate (after hundreds of affidavits alleging fraud) denied signals that all other members defied their oath of office. In connection with Brunson’s “breach of duty” argument, it should be noted that the last phrases of the House and Senate Oath of Office read “… that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter: So help me God.” The remedy sought by Brunson would result in the removal of all respondents from their current positions and would bar them from ever holding public office ever again.

A significant number of Americans believe the results of the 2020 election were impacted by “unethical activity,” to put it mildly. Those in this camp are told their beliefs have been “debunked.” But in order for something to be “debunked” it must have been proven untrue. However, these allegations were not actually “debunked” but instead ignored or dismissed, which is precisely what this case seeks to address.

The 147 members who objected to the results cited “concerns brought by constituents and legal questions that had been raised about the state’s election process.” Despite this, the vote was certified without investigation. Senator Ted Cruz had proposed a ten-day audit of the election in contested states to investigate claims. In support of this proposal, Senator Cruz noted that:

“The most direct precedent on this question arose in 1877, following serious allegations of fraud and illegal conduct in the Hayes-Tilden presidential race. Specifically, the elections in three states-Florida, Louisiana, and South Carolina-were alleged to have been conducted illegally.

“In 1877, Congress did not ignore those allegations, nor did the media simply dismiss those raising them as radicals trying to undermine democracy. Instead, Congress appointed an Electoral Commission-consisting of five Senators, five House Members, and five Supreme Court Justices-to consider and resolve the disputed returns.

“We should follow that precedent.”

He went on to propose:

“Congress should immediately appoint an Electoral Commission, with full investigatory and fact-finding authority, to conduct an emergency 10-day audit of the election returns in the disputed states. Once completed, individual states would evaluate the Commission’s findings and could convene a special legislative session to certify a change in their vote, if needed…we intend to vote on January 6 to reject the electors from disputed states as not ‘regularly given’ and ‘lawfully certified’ (the statutory requisite), unless and until that emergency 10-day audit is completed.”

Had this request been granted, this case would never have been filed, regardless of the findings in the ten-day audit.

The defense being deployed by the respondents is that they are protected by Article 11 of the Constitution’s “sovereign immunity.” However, Article 11 reads: “The Judicial power of the United States shall not be construed to extend to any suit in law or equity, commenced or prosecuted against one of the United States by Citizens of another State, or by Citizens or Subjects of any Foreign State.” Brunson is not targeting states, but rather individual members of government.

Brunson’s case cites many Constitutional Articles that, in his estimation, explain why his case is Constitutionally sound despite respondents – both Republicans and Democrats – believing sovereign immunity grants them full protection from prosecution for their conduct during their time in office. Article 1 reads: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting . . . the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.” Brunson feels this proves his attempt to have this case heard is protected.

Additionally, Brunson uses Article 6 of the Constitution to attest that members of government are bound to the oaths they swear upon entering office. It reads: “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.” In conclusion, it does not say anywhere in the Constitution that extenuating circumstances can annul their sworn oath, which includes the day’s events of January 6th, 2021.

In interviews, Loy Brunson, the brother of the petitioner who has an identical case in the lower courts under his name, makes it a point to categorize this case as bipartisan. Since the 2020 election, beliefs and disbeliefs about election fraud have fallen among party lines for the most part. But this case reveals how several members from both parties ignored inquiries and certified the election. Because of this, both Democrats and Republicans are being accused. For all Americans, it was concerning to see so many members of a newly “elected” government refuse to consider the possibility of foul play in the process that put them in their positions of power.

Brunson has a website that outlines the history of the case in its entirety, but here is a brief summary:

Prior to the case being docketed by the Supreme Court, the case had been held up in the 10th Circuit Court of appeals. Fearing it would never move past this crucial step, Brunson successfully invoked rule 11 of the Supreme Court, which states “A petition for a writ of certiorari to review a case pending in a United States court of appeals, before judgment is entered in that court, will be granted only upon a showing that the case is of such imperative public importance as to justify deviation from normal appellate practice and to require immediate determination in this Court.” In other words, a case of such strong national importance – an emergency – could bypass a circuit court decision and be heard and ruled on by the Supreme Court at any time they deem necessary. Brunson revealed that the Supreme Court clerk had been reaching out to them to get this case brought under the proper format and prior to it being submitted had asked it to be brought as soon as possible, showing an interest in the court to consider the case.

This case undoubtedly contains the strongest allegations in U.S. history to ever be docketed by the Supreme Court, so could they really rule to move it to the final stage? First, consider the case making it this far is extremely rare, if not unprecedented. In addition, prior to the 10th circuit giving their decision, the court alerted Brunson that the case would be accepted as a national emergency if the lower court did not release a ruling, signaling at least moderate interest on their end in looking at the case.

The conference date is set for this week — Friday, January 6th, 2023, exactly two years to the day that Brunson is alleging this breach occurred. In conference, the 9 Supreme Court Justices will decide whether or not to move the case to an official hearing, the final step in adjudicating the case. One would think a case of such historic and national significance to the United States of America would certainly be on every mainstream news channel as we approach the pivotal decision date, but as we all know we are not living in normal times. No matter, mainstream media coverage does not decide what is real or not. The official Supreme Court website cited above proves how real this case is. How they decide to act on it is yet to be determined, but we will soon find out.

40 thoughts on “Supreme Court Dockets Brunson v. Adams Case That Challenges the Failure of Congress to Investigate Disputed Electoral College Votes ~ January 6, 2023

  1. Millions of us American citizens have not heard about this case, how can we get updates on this and what we can do to help


    1. Please look on my blog, or elsewhere, for Restored Republic. There you will find detailed information about this case, as well as instructions for how write (letter template included) the SC letting them know your thoughts. Thanks for reading my blog! 🌹


      1. Go ahead and send your letters, they will accomplish NOTHING. The Supreme Court pays no attention to such things.

        And remember, the Court gets thousands of Petitions for a Writ of Certiorari a year, but only grants about 1.5% of them.

        So don’t crow just yet, the Court may have decided (at the January 6th Conference) to DENY the Writ, which means this case goes nowhere!


    2. It’s best not to disseminate nonsense. better to send the Brunson Bros some tissues so they can clean up after themselves when they’re know.


    3. You haven’t heard of it for good reason, since it was worthless. And now it’s DEAD, since the Supreme Court has DENIED the Petition.

      Click to access 010923zor_p860.pdf

      Brunson v. Adams is on page 5, in the listings for Certiorari Denied

      Please note this is from the Supreme Court’s Official Website. Accept no substitute “source”.


    1. Well, a message has appeared indicating the Brunson case has been decided 5-4 in favor of their case. Their us also a chance the SC had merely “agreed” to hear the case. We shall see on Monday! Stay tuned! 😊🌹


      1. Nonsense! All that can be decided at the January 6th Conference is whether to grant the Petition and issue a Writ of Certiorari, thus paving the way for the Court to receive Briefs from all the parties, schedule Oral Argument, and ONLY THEN DECIDE THE CASE.

        I don’t know who sent the “message” you refer to (and I note you didn’t provide a link to it for us to review), but if it truly claimed the “case has been decided”, then the person who sent it DOESN’T KNOW WHAT THEY’RE TALKING ABOUT!


    2. As per my Reply to CINDYLOUCBP, all that could have happened (on January 6th) is that the Justices decided whether or not to actually hear the appeal, by granting the Petition for a Writ of Certiorari, and issuing the Writ. If it’s granted, then the case will be docketed for full Briefing by the parties, Oral Argument before the Court, and only then will a decision on the merits be made.

      As for what happened, at the earliest we may know on Monday (the 9th) should an Order either granting or denying “cert.” is docketed on the Supreme Court’s Official Website. Don’t bother listening to or reading ANY OTHER SOURCE!


  2. Nonsense! All that can be decided at the January 6th Conference is whether to grant the Petition and issue a Writ of Certiorari, thus paving the way for the Court to receive Briefs from all the parties, schedule Oral Argument, and ONLY THEN DECIDE THE CASE.

    I don’t know who sent the “message” you refer to (and I note you didn’t provide a link to it for us to review), but if it truly claimed the “case has been decided”, then the person who sent it DOESN’T KNOW WHAT THEY’RE TALKING ABOUT!


    1. Thank you! I Am not a legal scholar, and agree with your perceptions regarding the “procedure” used by the SC. I also know Miltary law supersedes civilian law, and that we are now in a legal state of war as well as “State of Emergency”. Again…we shall see what transpires on Monday, Jan. 9! 😊🌹


      1. Sorry, but you “know” ABSOLUTELY NOTHING! As the collections of word salads you’ve posted demonstrates.

        By the way, “Military Law” (whatever you mean by that) DOES NOT “supersede” Civilian Law, most especially NOT the Constitution, which is the SUPREME LAW OF THE LAND!

        As for being in a “legal state of war”, the Constitution clearly says that only happens if CONGRESS DECLARES WAR! Care to tell me precisely when that happened (with PROOF), since I must have slept through it.

        Ditto for being in a “State of Emergency”, so far as I know that only happens if the President declares there to be one. (And by “President” I don’t mean that PRETENDER living in Florida.)

        The one TRUE thing you’ve written is that we’ll see on Monday (or later) what the Supreme Court will do with this case: Grant the Writ and hear it, or Deny the Writ and end it.

        By the way, if you bothered to read the Petition, you’ll discover it starts out with a whopping big mistake, one that normally is FATAL. On page 4 of the Petition (page 10 of the PDF I’ll try to post a link to) the required statement of Jurisdiction CITES THE WRONG STATUTE! It invokes the right to appeal from a STATE COURT, but this is an appeal from a FEDERAL COURT.

        As I said, normally a mistake like that would be fatal to the Petition, since that is invoking the WRONG basis for Subject Matter Jurisdiction, and without such Jurisdiction the only thing the Supreme Court can do is DISMISS the case!

        Of course, this isn’t a “normal” appeal. It’s being brought by a NON-Lawyer, appearing Pro Se. The Court tends to “bend over backwards” in such cases, so I won’t be shocked if it merely notes the error, and then invokes by itself the correct statute (the one governing appeals from Federal Court).

        HOWEVER, this is a demonstration of the “quality” of the “lawyering” by the Petitioner. That same “quality” infects just about EVERYTHING he produced in this entire case, from the Federal District Court, through the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals, and now the Supreme Court. I won’t “predict” what’s going to happen, but I won’t be surprised if the Petition is denied, nor will I be shocked if sanctions are imposed against the Petitioner.

        But, to repeat, I agree “we will see”.


      2. Thank you for providing clarity. In your opinion, has Executive Order 13962 has been revoked? Are all EO’s signed by Trump still in effect? Thx! 😊🌹


    1. There’s nothing to “update”. Although the Petitioner has said he’ll petition for a rehearing, that’s most likely as doomed as this was.

      Moreover, he can’t simply regurgitate the same tripe he’s been saying throughout this litigation (here and in the courts below) – though he’ll probably try. According to Supreme Court Rule 44 (which governs Rehearings) such a request MUST be based solely on: “INTERVENING circumstances of a substantial or controlling effect or to other substantial grounds NOT PREVIOUSLY PRESENTED”.

      In other words, it must be based on FACTS not previously available, and/or to REASONS not previously argued. As I said, given how the Petitioner has conducted himself throughout this litigation (from the very start in the lower courts), I expect he’ll simply regurgitate what he’s said before, or come up with some other SPECIOUS claims and arguments.

      In short, he may find himself SANCTIONED for abusing the courts, but accomplish nothing else. We shall see.


      1. You’re referring to the cretin (Steele) who “claimed NASA holds a colony on Mars populated by human slaves who were kidnapped as children and sent to the planet”? Who will you tell me to rely on next, members of the Flat Earth Society, or people who insist the Moon is made of green cheese?

        P.S. – And that’s just the “benign” form of his lunacy and EVIL! He also spreads the LIES from the “Protocols of the Elders of Zion” (a FORGERY by the Russian Secret Police), and is a HOLOCAUST DENIER! If you’re truly relying on him, then you’re either equally INASANE, or equally EVIL – or both!


      2. Our legal system is functioning very well, as proven by what happened in this lawsuit.

        What isn’t working well at all are the minds of people like you who continue to post such mindless drivel, and the gullible fools who swallow it.

        How many times must it be demonstrated that YOU DON’T KNOW WHAT YOU’RE TALKING ABOUT before you exercise at least a little skepticism about Lying Trump’s Big Lie?


  3. America looks the way it does because Americans don’t know anything about our History and Foundation.

    The Founders established a Military first for a reason.

    The Founders established a Military Law first for a reason.

    The Founders established Military can act without Congress for a REASON.
    Military comes first.
    The Supreme Court clarified Military supersedes all things Civil in the Military Justice Act of 2016 Military.,to%20trial%20by%20court%2Dmartial
    4X980 = 3920 = March 9, 2020.

    DJT declared two more National Emergencies verbally, after 7 in Executive Orders, March 13 & 27, then on March 27, Federalized 1 million Reserves and National Guardsmen to Active-Duty in Executive Order 13912 and 10 US Code 1209.

    All of those Executive Orders had deadlines in them… “Biden” has extended every single one of them two years in a row now.

    Military Operation with a Continuation of Government

    Library of Congress:


    1. Thank you, thank you for these details! Trumps EO ‘s are still in force, and we are actually operating under Martial Law right now while thus all plays out! 😊🌹


      1. I’ll thank you to stop spreading your HALLUCINATIONS (a polite term for Lies). As I’ve already told you, the one Executive Order you specifically invoked (13962) had NOTHING to do with a “State of Emergency”, nor did it put us under Martial Law. If you have any EVIDENCE to the contrary, please PRODUCE IT (including LINKS so, as I did with 13962, I can review the material to determine whether or not it supports what you said). That, my dear, is how an HONEST PERSON behaves! I’m seriously doubting you qualify as one.


      2. I’m not in pain. In fact, reading your mindless drivel is a source of great amusement to me. (Which is why I waste time here.)


    2. Yes, people like you “don’t know anything about our History and Foundation”, as that load of BS you just posted proves.

      The Founders DIDN’T “establish a military first”, if by “first” you mean before the Constitution was even drafted! And said document, “the supreme law of the land”, makes it clear that the Military can only exist BY AN ACT OF CONGRESS signed into LAW by the President. Furthermore, it also limits any funding for the Army to a TWO YEAR PERIOD, after which Congress must pass another appropriation or the Army ceases to exist!

      See, Art. I, Section 8, Clause 12.

      And if you bother to read the Declaration of Independence it states that one of the causes which impelled us to make that declaration was that the King had: “affected to render the military INDEPENDENT OF, and SUPERIOR TO, the civil power.”

      So where you get the idea that “Military can act without Congress”, or that it “comes first” is beyond me.

      As for the “clarification” you attribute to the Supreme Court, go back and re-read the article you linked to. IT’S NOT FROM THE SUPREME COURT! It’s from the Congressional Research Service, and it discusses (as its title says) AN ACT OF CONGRESS!

      Moreover, as the article EXPRESSLY SAYS (and the title of the Act would indicate to any rational person), this system of justice ONLY APPLIES TO THE MILITARY! So it does NOT “supersede all things civil” as you FALSELY claim.

      By the way, remember Gitmo? Remember how Bush the Second tried to create a “Constitution free zone” there? He got slapped down by the Supreme Court several times! So, no, Military run prisons (such as Gitmo) are subject to Civilian control and Law just like everything else is.

      And while you’re at it, look at Footnote 26 of that article from the Congressional Research Service you obviously didn’t bother to read. The article refers to and quotes from the case of United States ex rel. Toth v. Quarles, 350 U.S. 11, 15 (1955):

      “[T]he power granted Congress ‘To make Rules’ to regulate ‘the land and naval Forces’ would seem to restrict court-martial jurisdiction to persons who are actually members or part of the armed forces [because] any expansion of court-martial jurisdiction … necessarily encroaches on the jurisdiction of federal courts set up under Article III of the Constitution where persons on trial are surrounded with more constitutional safeguards than in military tribunals.”

      So thanks for that demonstration of why “America looks the way it does”, because of the IGNORANCE on display by people like you (and the Petitioner in this lawsuit).


  4. In reply to Cindyloucbp’s question about Executive Order 13962 (and Executive Orders in general): what the heck does that have to do with anything?

    Number 13962 didn’t declare a “State of Emergency”, nor was it in anyway related to what we are talking about. Ditto for all the others (which I’m not going to bother reviewing for you).

    By the way, given all the articles you’ve posted on this website from Anti-vaxxers, it’s rather hypocritical for you to cite that particular Executive Order. Indeed, given that it obviously was issued as part of the “great Covid-19 conspiracy” the Qniverse believes in, I wonder why you would celebrate a (now dead) litigation intended to return Trump to office!

    (But then, trying to get sense out of QAnon believers is a waste of time and energy.)

    We only agreed on one thing concerning this case: we would see. Well now we have: Cert. Denied! (Which means this case is dead.)

    Click to access 010923zor_p860.pdf

    Brunson v. Adams is on page 5, in the listings for Certiorari Denied

    Please note this is from the Supreme Court’s Official Website. Accept no substitute “source”.


    1. It seems to me that an Executive Order remains in play until, and unless it is repealed, or revoked, neither of which has occurred for any of the EO’s signed by DJT. This’d has the effect of maintaining the State of Emergency, as well as the confiscation of collateral from those with evidence as being “enemies of the state” through illegal financial activities. Check out David Robert Steele’s video…We have it all. Thx! 😊🌹


      1. That all depends on what the SUBJECT of the Executive Order is, and what PRECISELY the “State of Emergency” is. You previously asked about Executive Order 13962, which was only about the Covid-19 vaccine! How is that in anyway RELEVANT to this lawsuit?

        (And it’s “odd” you should invoke such an order, given all the articles you’ve posted on this website from the Anti-Vaxxers, and proclaiming the Covid-19 Pandemic a “hoax”. If you truly believe that, shouldn’t you OPPOSE restoring Trump to the White House?)

        As for that video you trumpet, how about a link to it? I’m not going to search the Internet to find it!


  5. Cindy asked for “Your thoughts of the U.C.C. Code!” Here are three:

    1) The only thing known as the “U.C.C.” is the Uniform Commercial Code, so asking about “U.C.C. CODE” is redundant.

    2) The U.C.C. is STATE Law, not FEDERAL, and therefore is COMPLETELY IRRELEVANT to this discussion.



    1. My investigation of the U.C.C. Shows this system to be of vital interest for each state as the U.C.C. Regulates commerce. Thanks so much for your recognition of U.C.C. 2013032035 which had never been rebutted. 😊🌹


      1. You just can’t stop demonstrating your complete ignorance (and probable insanity), can you?

        What the heck is “U.C.C. 2013032035”? It’s not part of the Uniform Commercial Code (which like many pieces of legislation is divided into Articles and Sections, such as U.C.C. § 2-314 (the Implied Warranty of Merchantability).

        And the U.C.C. doesn’t “regulate commerce”. It’s a body of law, passed by the States (not the Federal government) having to do with various aspects of in-State transactions. (For example, the Warranty of Merchantability is one of the reasons you can return a gallon of sour milk to your grocery store for a refund.)

        But as far as INTER-State Commerce is concerned, that’s regulated by Congress, NOT the States. (Constitution, Art. I, Section 8, Clause 3)

        P.S. – Of course, all of this is COMPLETELY IRRELEVANT to the BIG LIE you’ve bought into concerning the 2020 Election, and the absurd Brunson v. Adams case.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.