Concerns over the integrity of US elections are growing worse as citizens are not getting any justice from the court system regarding the highly suspicious problems with elections systems and election officials all over the country.
The Supreme Court recently received a petition for a writ of certiorari from Raland J. Brunson in the case of Raland J. Brunson v. Alma S. Adams, et al, docket No. 22-380. Under our Constitution, “we the people are the sovereign power,” court documents read.
The civil case sought a ruling saying that government officials should be held to the highest standard when they take an oath of office and swear to uphold the Constitution while serving in office, claiming “there are no exceptions and there is no immunity.”
“On Jan. 6th the U.S. Supreme Court denied the 2020 election lawsuit against President Joe Biden, Vice President Kamala Harris, former Vice President Mike Pence 291 House members, and 94 senators,” Jon Dougherty reported for Conservative Brief, adding:
“The lawsuit alleges the defendants violated their oaths of office by refusing to investigate evidence of fraud in the 2020 election before accepting the electoral votes on Jan. 6, 2021, allowing for Biden and Harris to be fraudulently inaugurated.
The court held a private conference Friday to vote on whether or not to hear the case, releasing its decision Monday. Four of the nine justices must vote to hear a case for it to move forward,” Just The News reported.
The lawsuit, filed by Raland J. Brunson, alleges the defendants violated their oaths of office by refusing to investigate evidence of fraud in the 2020 election before accepting the electoral votes on Jan. 6, 2021.
Media reported more details from ksltv:
The Supreme Court declined Monday to hear another longshot case alleging the 2020 election was fraudulently brought by a Utah man seeking to have hundreds of elected officials removed from office, including President Joe Biden and Vice President Kamala Harris.
The case had been dismissed by lower courts for various reasons, including a lack of jurisdiction. But it became a right-wing talking point in the run-up to the two-year anniversary of the Jan. 6, 2021, insurrection because the justices discussed whether to hear it during their previously scheduled closed-door conference on the day of the anniversary.
That happenstance timing was the result of the US solicitor general’s decision last year to waive the government’s right to respond in the matter on November 23, automatically putting it on the list for last Friday. The solicitor general’s decision to stay out of the case signaled a belief that it would not be seriously considered by the justices.
“This was a frivolous lawsuit that never came within a light year of actually getting the court’s attention,” said Steve Vladeck, a CNN Supreme Court analyst and professor at the University of Texas School of Law.
— DailyNoah.com (@DailyNoahNews) January 6, 2023
“The only reason why it was on anyone’s radar is because former Gov. Huckabee claimed that there was some deep substantive significance in the fact that the justices were considering it at their January 6 conference,” Vladeck said.
CNN reported last week that US Capitol Police ramped up security around the Supreme Court and Capitol buildings ahead of the January 6 anniversary, and that the department was monitoring for protests related to the case.
According to court documents, lead plaintiff Raland J. Brunson of Ogden, Utah, filed the lawsuit on Oct. 06, 2021, for the “rigged & fraudulent 2020 Presidential election.”
In February 2022, the United States Utah District Court dismissed the case, with Brunson appealing the decision to the U.S. Supreme Court shortly afterward.
Just The News reported with more details:
“The Raland J. Brunson suit was moved from the state court to the U.S. District Court in Utah. After that court decided against Brunson, he appealed to the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals. Before a decision was made by the federal appeals court, Brunson realized he could bypass the court and go straight to the Supreme Court by invoking the high court’s Rule 11.
The rule says that a case pending before the appeals court may bypass that court’s decision and go to the Supreme Court if it “is of such imperative public importance as to justify deviation from normal appellate practice and to require immediate determination in this Court.”
After the Supreme Court received Brunson’s petition on Sept. 23, the clerk of the court followed up with him twice for more information on the lawsuit and the timeline for when that information would be sent.
Brunson’s filing in the federal district court case noted that members of Congress had requested an investigation into the election. His complaint asserts there were “over 1,000 affidavits detailing that the Election was rigged with fraud, and claims that there was massive foreign interference in the Election by helping illegal aliens, and other noncitizens vote in the Election, thereby canceling the votes.”
On Monday, Brunson posted on his Facebook that they are planning to petition for reconsideration.
“The Petition was denied. We will now make our next move. A petition for rehearing. Hang in there everyone,” Brunson posted.