Idaho Dispatch

Your Local Media Ally

Op-Ed: “Oath and Consequences” – Understanding the Brunson Case

By • December 11, 2022

Stay tuned for action in this case between now and January 6, 2023


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.

This Op-Ed was submitted by Doug Traubel. Op-Eds do not necessarily reflect the views and opinions of those at the Idaho Dispatch.

Amazon Outlet

Tags: 14th Amendment, 5th Amendment, 9th Amendment, Biden, Brunson, Congress, Constitution, Doctrine of Equitable Maxim, Doctrine of the Object Principle of Justice, Kamala Harris, Mike Pence, SCOTUS, Writ of Certiorari

9 thoughts on “Op-Ed: “Oath and Consequences” – Understanding the Brunson Case

  1. It is a great story, but it has a couple of concerns, constitutionally the first of which is that we have right to redress, but i believe it the legislature? if so, this lawsuit skipped this step, which makes it a invalid attempt. Secondly, the proper steps, are first legislature , executive and judicial . Granted the Executive is not going to take action, and the legislative has been blind to the people for years, so that leaves the Judical. I have great hopes as do many, in fact, I hope my view is wrong, god only know we need some part of our government to take action, but this also forces a couple of real major questions? If we gut our government branches, because this affects the legislative branch the greatest, and leaves us without, it also guts our executive branch. So how does this get enforced ? Secondly we would need immediate relief? In other words elections since this group is no longer eligible to hold office, and the governmental departments are also defunct. It is interesting? My hopes are it is much simpler and can be done, I truly believe things did not go correctly and still haven’t and they paper ballots and id on election day, and only one day to decide is proper, for all fifty states whoever the constitution allows the states to control elections, even though its turn into a shit show as of late.

    1. Thanks for your thoughts CC…This seems to be a fairly sound lawsuit though. Only question is will the Supremes uphold THEIR oath. Especially with Congress wielding court packing and forced retirement threats on an equal branch of government. Congress deserves to get their hand slapped.

      Amendment 1: Congress shall make NO LAW respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition THE GOVERNMENT for a redress of grievances.

      **Says nothing about which branch of government the people can, or is restricted to redress a grievance to, only that it can not make laws abridging these rights. Since the Supreme Court is part of the Government, fair game.** is there a different part of the Constitution you are referring to?

      Also, and in addition to the above, the people DID redress a grievance to The legislative branch, and roughly 100 members of Congress, as the suit mentions, called for an investigation, which fell on deaf ears while the rest ramrodded the “election results” through.

      I do agree with you that God is in control. And not directing this at you, because I’m sometimes just as guilty as many, but that is not an excuse to be complacent, as God directs and guides us to fight for truth, not sit back and wait for something to happen. These brothers have done an amazing thing, and I respect them dearly for their efforts thus far.

      In regards to the tumult that would arise out of holding members of the government accountable to their oaths and the Constitution, I would say, not acting and continuing to permit the government to run amok would deliver an outcome for worse than a relatively quick house cleaning.

      That being said, this is a single vector that may or may not bring about desired results. The “ fight “ will always continue on… God Bless…

  2. I have pinned this on my FB feed so it stays at the top bc this is HUGE!!! We are the sovereign and we need to spread this far & wide. We need a groundswell awareness of this case! If an oath isn’t binding what good is an oath?

  3. Civil War II …… does SCOTUS have the courage?
    Will God save or give us what He deems is necessary to cleanse humanity? Rain falls on all, will the remnant survive?

  4. I sure hope all the ducks are lined up. The major hurdle here is, it all depends on the integrity of the courts, including the Supreme Court who has a member that was born a woman, yet she cannot define what a woman is???. How can there brothers get a fair judgment with such a corrupt system,, God bless their efforts.

  5. Great synopsis. If the Courts rule in favor of Brunson, it would be justice, but it may lead to civil war and a dissolution of the union. Meanwhile, Russia and China are lurking and waiting. These are heavy and insane times.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *