All Episodes
Previous Next
Sept. 30, 2023 - Blood Money
01:02:50
Brunson Bros Vs Tyranny w/ Loy Brunson and Joey Gilbert Ep 100
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
and the good the the web
the
Tyranny Tune in to the America Happens channel on Rumble.
Alright, welcome to the latest episode of Blood Money, Blood Money Episode 100.
A very special episode with a very special person, Lloyd Brunson.
How are you doing, sir? Doing great, thank you.
Thanks for having me on.
Thank you. It's amazing having you on.
So I'm just going to give a quick little one minute thing here as far as what you and your brothers have been doing.
You and your brothers have been doing something I think all Americans should do.
For those that don't know, Loy's brother actually ordered a bunch of DVDs about the law world, how to learn how to, you know, Do a case and use that knowledge off of DVDs to file this case that made it to the U.S. Supreme Court to challenge the constitutionality of the 2020 election and the actions of the 388 defendants, congresspeople and senators.
Loy, let's dive right into it.
Give us an update on how this case has been going and any recent developments.
Okay. Well, there's several cases, two main cases.
The first case went to the Supreme Court and it was denied a hearing.
They can shelf it. They could bring it back anytime they want, but they denied a hearing.
And so this really is the main case that started out first and it got stuck in federal court.
So my brother, one of my brothers decided, hey, let's do another one.
So we agreed. And so he started in state court and federal court and his made it to the Supreme Court before me.
And that was the goal is to get it to the Supreme Court.
We were pretty sure it was going to be dismissed and we were prepared for that.
Now my brother took these courses but he practiced for years after he took the DVD courses and from experience he learned a lot of stuff.
But to kind of break it down, I'll start with March 31st, 2021, the U.S. Marshal Service was ordered by the Utah Federal Court to start serving the summons and complaints on Capitol Hill.
And the order was to serve 388 defendants, including Joe Biden, Kamala Harris, and Mike Pence, and 385 members of the U.S. House and U.S. Senate.
And so they started doing that according to the docket on March 31st, and they were finished with about 84 that day.
The next day, we got noticed that the federal court had ordered it to be stopped, and they ordered it to be unfiled, and they canceled my complaint.
Wow. A court can't do that.
A judge, that's the administrative side of the court.
Now, the administrative side of the court has no immunity.
They're as subject as any company, basically.
And so we decided we were going to take them to task.
So we took that court to the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals with, we call it a writ of mandamus.
It's a complaint saying, hey, the lower court is messing up here.
It's not supposed to be doing what they did.
Please help us. And they replied back saying, oh, they're just backlogged.
They're busy, basically. They can't, you know, they're not doing anything wrong.
It's like, did you even read what we sent you?
They canceled the filing.
They unfiled a complaint.
So we decided to sue both courts in state court.
So we filed a lawsuit with me as the plaintiff against the federal court of Utah and the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals in state court.
The U.S. attorneys came on defending the two courts.
And they filed a motion to dismiss and while this was happening my brother's case was also moving forward and in his case the U.S. Attorneys referenced my case and admitted wrongdoing but claimed immunity.
So we took that information and we filed a full summary judgment motion in state court against them.
Now when someone interferes with a lawsuit They are liable for the monetary damages you're asking for in the lawsuit.
Now, when we're suing these 380 defendants, we're not suing for real damages.
We're not suing for real monetary damages.
But when you have punitive damages, you have to set the numbers where it hurts.
So we figured a million dollars per cause of action was reasonable with these high You know, members of Congress that created a huge security breach.
So the total was $2.9 billion with 388 defendants.
So we had a $5.8 billion case against two federal courts, the 10th circuit and the federal court.
The U.S. attorneys were fighting and subjecting themselves to the decisions made in the state court.
That's a historical experience right there.
So they even got to the point where the U.S. attorneys were frustrated with the judge that he was taking too long to make a decision, and they asked the judge in some pleadings that they could get an extension if the judge ruled in our favor.
So the U.S. attorneys are basically saying to the state court, if you rule in Brunson's favor, please give us an extension to oppose the full summary judgment motion.
So here is U.S. attorneys battling in state court defending two federal courts.
I mean, I don't think that's ever happened.
In the history of this country, right?
Yeah. And so after a while, the judge finally made a decision and it was not in our favor.
So that was over.
But when we thought, oh my gosh, you know, we're just kind of dead in the water because there's that case.
It's not going anywhere. They unfiled it.
But a few weeks after we fought and the fighting was showing them that state and U.S. Constitution and the legal authority That we have a right of due process protected by the Constitution to sue anyone in any court.
And it's up to the defendants to decide if it's deficient.
And then they show that in their pleadings, you know, with a motion to dismiss.
So for the court to unfile that was just, we couldn't believe it.
So a few weeks after we fought in state court, we get a notice from the federal court that they have Not only just allowed me to refile, but they filed for me.
They refiled my case, and they ordered the clerk of the court to issue 388 summonses.
So that started moving forward.
Okay, so we battled there, and then we wait for the judge to make a decision, and it took almost a year for the judge to make a decision.
Well, that almost a year was a few weeks ago.
So once that decision was made, that he was going to pull the dismissal motion, we got thinking, okay, we have two choices here.
We can fight in the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals.
Or we can do what we did with my brother's case and that's see if the Supreme Court of the United States will accept it under Rule 11 without getting the decision from the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals.
That's required. You can't have a petition accepted and docketed at the Supreme Court until you've satisfied and gotten decisions from all the lower courts, right?
And we hadn't got a decision from the Tenth Circuit.
We barely filed a notice of appeal And so we decided to put a Rule 11 together.
Now, a Rule 11, the last time a Rule 11 was successfully docketed was in the 70s.
Wow. During the Nixon administration, as what I was told, an attorney told me he did some research, and that had something to do with the Nixon administration.
And before that...
It's like, well, the last time a pro se litigant has ever been successfully docketed with a Rule 11 petition for a writ of certiorari Was never.
It's never happened in the history of the court.
And so we're thinking, okay, we're going to give this a try.
They might just send it back.
We really thought they were just going to send it back and say, hey, this is almost identical to your brother's case.
We've already reviewed it.
We denied a hearing, you know, and it's done.
So just battle with the 10th Circuit.
And so we went ahead.
I want to read a little bit of the Rule 11 here.
It's interesting, the wording.
It says, a petition for writ of certiorari to review a case under Rule 11 in a United States Court of Appeals.
And that's where ours was pending, a United States Court of Appeals, the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals.
Before judgment is entered in that court, before we get a decision or judgment entered in the Tenth Circuit, it says here that it will be granted Upon a showing, granted, meaning they will allow it to be docketed, granted upon a showing that the case is of such imperative public importance as to justify deviation from normal appellate practice.
So that's what we were asking the Supreme Court to do is to deviate, let us deviate from normal appellate practice and accept this as a Rule 11.
So we sent it off and several days later we keep checking the docket.
All of a sudden, it's there.
They didn't call us. They didn't send us back.
It's docketed.
So if you go to supremecourt.gov, you can see it, and you'll see a stamp on it where it says Rule 11.
I don't know if you can see that right there, Rule 11.
Mm-hmm. That is, so it's there, so you can see that that's what happened, and so they filed it on the 19th, I believe, and it was docketed on the 24th.
Now, they gave the United States Solicitor General, she came on board immediately, and the previous one, she didn't come on as the defendant's attorney until the day that her response was due.
Well, yesterday, her response was due, and she's been on this case for several weeks.
And she, yesterday afternoon, she filed a waiver, waiving the defendant's rights to oppose this, to oppose this petition.
And we thought that that might happen because we've included in the petition, in a way, an opposition.
We included the motion to dismiss, which would kind of streamline it for her because it'd be, it's a lot of work to file an opposition.
It would take some time.
So there we are. So now we're waiting for the Supreme Court to To set a date for a conference where the nine justices go in a conference room by themselves and they take a vote, the nine votes, and if four of them say move it to a public dated, a docketed public date for a hearing, then it moves to a hearing. And the hearing is where it's like the full-blown, you know, A trial basically with both sides arguing with the justices.
And so we have this letter campaign going and we really believe that if we get enough letters to the Supreme Court showing them that the public is aware of this and they want a good outcome, I think that there is a much better chance this time of actually getting a hearing dated, the docketed hearing after conference more so than we had before because over 70,000 people have written letters You know, MSN, CNN did three stories.
MSN did three stories. Newsweek did four stories.
So it's gained some national attention.
And then we've been, you know, I've been doing interviews and talking about it.
And so we really believe that the letters are super important.
Every single letter supports, you The position that they should docket a date for a hearing.
And it's more than just what the justices will do.
This is about voting for the Constitution.
Sending a letter is like voting for the Constitution and the oath of office because what we're claiming is that they've given themselves immunity with the oath.
And Article 6 of the Constitution is very clear with the words, they shall be bound by oath to this Constitution.
Bound. If you have immunity, there's no binding oath.
That's the low-hanging fruit.
That's the easy thing to understand.
People that go to LloydBrunson.com, and it's so easy to do a letter.
You can do it digitally, and it actually, Fulfillment Company prints it out and folds it and puts it in an envelope with your personal message along with the letter and your signature that you do with your mouse.
So this is much more than, this is more than what the justices will do.
This is about people becoming aware of the power in the Constitution beginning with this powerful clause that demands a binding oath.
And my dream, my vision is a hundred million letters and I think that's possible with President Trump who's already truth and we truth an article about this.
And so it's so important and it's an opportunity to be a permanent part of history because every single letter that goes to the court is filed and permanently stored.
So all people have to do is go to your website that we have the Chiron writing it right now, loybrunson.com.
And right then and there, they could fill out the letter, have it sent out.
Sounds like a very easy process, a couple of minutes maybe.
It really is. We're asking for a $2 minimum gift because we have to pay for postage and pay for the fulfillment company to print and fold it and put it in an envelope and they're individually sent.
So it really is quite easy.
And if you want to do something where you want to do the whole letter yourself, it shows very simple instructions.
Those instructions, of course, are free to write your own letter and send a copy to us so that we can have a record that the letter was sent.
So that's what our push is right now, is to get as many letters before conference to encourage a hearing.
I've also reached out to the Solicitor General, and I'm working on getting a face-to-face meeting with her to encourage her in a polite, respectful way to just encourage the justices to vote for a hearing.
Because this is really important, and a lot of people are becoming aware of it, and I think it needs to be addressed.
So I think she could see that too.
I know there's a few thousand viewers right now checking this out across all of our platforms.
I mean, there should be a few thousand letters that go out right now.
I mean, this is $2. To save the future of the country, to stop ourselves from falling into tyranny.
Such a simple process.
And you guys have put it all together.
I mean, I have so many questions about, you know, this incredible miracle that you've been able to.
Because this is unheard of.
This is historic, how pro se litigants are able to get a case like this to the Supreme Court.
I don't even see attorneys being able to pull this off.
Honestly, I think if you guys hired attorneys, you would have probably been stuck in the mud and heard a lot of excuses.
I mean, is that a...
You're absolutely right.
Absolutely right and I think people have tried to bring cases against officers and the government and what happens you get stuck in a claims court you can't go to the supreme court that way so attorneys just aren't geared for this and I'm hoping I've had attorneys reach out where they want to do some similar lawsuits so this has kind of opened some opportunities where they didn't know they exist before even with lawyers Yeah.
Wow. Wow. I mean, what is it that inspires?
I mean, the amount of work involved in this, that your brother learning law, all of you guys diving into this.
I mean, obviously, there's a huge amount of inspiration.
You're trying to save the country.
But really, I mean, is it a difficult process?
Is it something that anybody that has the willpower to do what you guys have done could achieve the same?
Because it seems like there's a lot of lawsuits.
It seems like this is one of many that could be addressed.
Well, there are lawyers now, as I mentioned, that have reached out to us and they have the ability.
They know how to file in state and federal court.
And so I think we've opened up some opportunities for people, but it's not that easy.
My brother for years battled and he was like being self-taught while he was getting beat up and he had some successes.
But he's filed cases in state court and federal court, and he's actually had two petitions for the certiorari docketed with the US Supreme Court.
So he learned more from his experience than I'm sure he did from the court.
So no, it's not that easy.
But if you can find some attorneys that see this, which some have reached out to us, that'd be the way to go.
And so, yeah, it's not easy.
It seems like they were trying every trick in the book, including doing things that are not part of the procedure, doing things that might even be unlawful to prevent you guys from getting this case heard.
Well, they did, like the federal court unfiling my case.
I mean, what were they thinking? Maybe they thought that I was an indigent and didn't pay for the filing fee, and then they can do stuff like that.
So they might have got a little confused.
So when we battled them back with opposition and complaint that they had unfiled my case, they got a lot of...
They received a lot of information from us about the constitutionality of what we were doing and the unconstitutionality of what they were doing by violating our rights, constitutionally protected rights of due process and petition for redress of grievances.
But to kind of show an example, and that's what we're doing.
You know, I've always, over the years, see, about 14 years ago, I heard Barack Obama say that the foundation of the Constitution is fundamentally flawed.
America was fundamentally flawed.
And I thought, wow. And so I had to read his oath that he took as a U.S. senator, that he swore to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic.
And I thought, Gosh, if he were my defense attorney, and he got up in front of the judge and says, my client's fundamentally flawed.
I mean, it was so obvious.
I had to read it, though. I heard him, and then when I read that, I knew what it was.
When I read it, it just hit home.
And so I felt like I had to study the Constitution, and that was difficult.
I wanted to understand every word, but I got through it, and I found Parts of it that connected with me, so I actually have written a few books and I have one at 7discoveries.com and just to give you an illustration of and we've used some of these concepts I found that there are power clauses that have been overlooked and ignored for over 200 years and an example of that is I was at an event and I was talking to people about my book and I was trying to raise some money to get some more printed and And I stopped a man
and I said, I found something revolutionary, a new discovery in the Constitution that I believe has never been published before, and I'm raising money to help with printing my next print.
Would you let me tell you what one of those discoveries is?
And if you agree with me, would you maybe...
Take a copy and contribute a little bit towards the printing of my next printing.
And he pulled out his pocket Constitution.
It was tattered and marked up.
And he says, you think you can tell me something I don't already know in this?
And I says, yeah, I think I can.
Would you listen? He says, sure, go ahead.
Let's hear it. And I said, well, the Constitution has an interpretation clause.
It's a clause that demands the Constitution only be interpreted in ways that protect our God-given unalienable rights.
Now, Congress defined the first ten amendments Not the Bill of Rights.
I mean, we know it as the Bill of Rights, but they really define the First Ten Amendments as further declaratory unrestricted clauses to the seven articles of the Constitution.
So they're powerful, and the Ninth Amendment is just one sentence, and it goes like this.
The enumeration and the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed.
To deny or disparage others retained by the people.
No misconstruing the Constitution.
No interpreting the Constitution in any way that benefits federal government and bureaucracies at the expense of the unalienable rights of the people.
I said, I call that the voice of God.
I call it the Trump clause.
I call it the interpretation clause of the Constitution.
And then I just went quiet and he pulled out his wallet, handed me a 20 and took a book and walked away.
So that was a great experience.
So I've been experiencing like that.
I'll speak to groups and they want to get a copy of this.
There are other clauses too that are phenomenal that really clear up.
There are some contradictions in the Constitution and these discoveries clear up.
You can't find a publication of the Constitution.
There isn't one that exists that shows that the first ten amendments amended anything.
You know how you see footnotes in pocket constitutions?
You can't find any footnotes in the seven articles that show that the first ten amendments amended anything, unless you have My book.
That's awesome. And another, I just want to say one more thing about that.
If you were to ask any representative to show you a specific, very clear cut clause in the Constitution that prohibits socialism, they wouldn't be able to do it unless they had my book.
Yeah, yeah. I mean, that book doesn't seem too intensive.
The U.S. Constitution is definitely not like a, you know, long read. Why is it that these U.S.
attorneys that should understand the Constitution are, I mean, blatantly ignoring it, basically, and having to force you to point out the clauses that protect our rights.
Well, I think they want to keep their jobs.
And we've had some people help us that we didn't expect would help us that are like listening to what we're saying.
And like for the federal court to reverse their decision and let us file a lawsuit against the president of the United States when they had unfiled and said it was deficient.
For them to reverse their decision, they're reading what we're sending them.
And we're showing them their oath.
We're showing them that the Constitution demands that they allow us to move forward.
So there are several judges, justices in the federal court of Utah.
And so we just, man, wouldn't it be great to be a fly on the wall and see how they came up with a decision that we'd better refile this case for Brunson and let it move forward because they did it quickly.
Quickly and efficiently, and they had the chief clerk of the court sign off on every single one of the 388 summonses.
And so we see some real positive, incredible things happening, like the Supreme Court accepting this Rule 11, this historical document that's never been allowed before by a pro se litigant, never before by anyone You know, since the 70s.
And so we're seeing some, because this lawsuit is not about the outcome of an election.
It's not partisan. They're Republicans.
There's a socialist. They're Democrats.
And it's all about, we want our representatives to be honest, and we want the Supreme Court to do something about their dishonesty and them circumventing the clause in the Constitution that requires they take a binding oath.
So if they're taking an oath and not thinking it's binding, that's a false oath.
There are perjury laws in different states, like California has a perjury law that excludes politicians and the oath of office.
So it's about awareness, you know, you shall know the truth, the truth shall make you free.
We know the truth in the Constitution, and then we can hold our representatives accountable.
So we're showing the justices, we're showing the US attorneys, we're showing the federal courts That we know the Constitution and what the demands are that they've been ignoring, and we the people are going to wake up and know what those requirements are that they're failing to follow, and we're going to hold their feet to the fire.
So something's happening.
That is awesome. It just seems like such a huge turn of events, the fact that they're first trying to toss this case out, they're trying to ignore it, they're trying to get it out of the way, and then all of a sudden they refile the case themselves.
That's pretty mind-blowing, without even telling you, and then it appears on the docket.
They don't even let you know, just in case.
I mean, you might forget that it ever happened, right?
Is that the intention there, maybe?
Well, I think so. And they knew we weren't going to quit.
I've thought about this.
The federal court judges were probably thinking, we've created some liability for ourselves.
We better kind of clean up the mess we created.
And so they had to do that.
Otherwise, we could have brought our suit back again, possibly.
And they did the right thing.
And they knew they did the right thing because we, in a way, we schooled them on their oath because they've ignored it and everyone else has ignored it.
When Amy Coney Barrett was asked in a Senate hearing what the protections were in the First Amendment just to let people hear some information about the Constitution, she remembered all of them except the one that has something to do with the judges.
And that's petition for redress of grievances.
She couldn't remember that. And that is so symbolic.
The whole country is forgotten.
In a way, the whole country is not aware of the petition for redress of grievances and how they have hidden it and how they've just buried it.
In order to file a suit like ours in the claims court, you have to get permission from the government.
You have to get permission from the sergeant in arms to even file the case.
And then you go to the claims court and then it dead ends without you being able to go to the Supreme Court.
So we've just used the Constitution and I think we've opened up some doors that have been closed but not locked.
And everyone's just been thinking we couldn't do this.
Sort of like the story of the baby elephant that's tied with a heavy chain and a great big metal post deep into the ground.
And after it grows up, you can just put a little string on its leg almost, and it will just think that it can't pull because it's still believing it's that chained spike into the ground.
And I think that's what's happened to America.
We believe that our rights are chained to the ground with a spike, and they're really not once we understand how to protect them and hold our representatives' feet to the fire in protecting them.
Exactly. We have attorney Joey Gilbert here, too.
We're going to let him in and just continue this conversation.
He's one of the freedom fighters out there that's been filing a lot of lawsuits, especially with some of this transit agenda stuff.
How are you doing, Joey?
How are you? Doing well.
It's nice to meet you, sir. Hello, Joey.
How are you? Great to meet you.
Loy was giving us an update on this case that they have filed in the Supreme Court.
So we're just going to roll through some of the questions and then bring you in on this, Joey.
Loy, in terms of the timeline going forward, can you tell us a little bit about what that looks like, what we could expect?
Well, now that the Solicitor General has filed a response, a waiver yesterday, it's up to the court, and I would say within the next few days or week or two, not really very long, that they will put a date on the docket for conference.
Now, because they adjourn at the last part of June, I'm kind of thinking that they might set a date for October when they come back.
So we're just not sure what's going to happen.
So they're either going to set a date for something near the end of June or October because they adjourn for the whole summer until October.
Wow, wow. So, Joey, I want to bring you a little bit up to speed here as far as what's going on.
You have the Brunson brothers here, right?
None of them are attorneys.
None of them went to law school, right?
One of them ordered a bunch of DVDs and started learning a lot because he was so passionate about what's happening in this country and the tyranny that's coming in this country and what's happening with our courts that he felt like, and the Brunson brothers as a unit felt like, this is something that had to be addressed.
And they managed to get their case into the Supreme Court as, sir, it was a Rule 11 violation?
Is that correct? Yes. Well, it's a Rule 11, and I read part of it.
The Supreme Court Rule 11.
Wow. Yeah, that allows you to do it if they find it of imperative public importance as to justify deviation from normal appellate practice.
Wow, wow. And so, the 388 defendants are congressional members and senators that were around during the 2020 election, where a lot of, you know, what some of us think is malfeasance was happening, and they were not protecting the Constitution.
I'm curious, Joey, I mean, this is a historic thing that's never happened where pro se litigants have been able to get to the Supreme Court in this manner.
In fact, the last time that there was a Rule 11 violation case was in the 1970s.
I'm curious, as an attorney, what is your opinion about all of that?
I mean, I think it's like, you know, these types of times we're in, you know, it's got to be, you know, unconventional methods.
And, you know, so much of what we're seeing is, I mean, look, I've never had my ass whooped so many times as I have these last four years trying to fight very basic stuff, stuff that we thought we'd have no problem.
I mean, you're in Nevada, you're in a right to tri-state.
We're trying to get, you know, the patients access to hydroxychloroquine or ivermectin.
I mean, anything else, they'll give these people no problem.
But here... Here, you know, you've got, you know, simple, I think, legal matters that should have been considered and they were thrown out.
And so I think what these guys did here is ingenious, actually.
You know, it's just a matter of going back and looking and finding an angle.
Like I always say, where there's a will, there's a way.
And I really do think that they went back and they peeled back the layers of the onion and they found, you know, different avenues in.
And, you know, look, you know, these judges, you know, I'm not going to, you know, obviously he's still a member, you know, practicing.
I've got to be careful what I say.
But I've never seen so much legislating from the bench, not following the law, not doing what was best, you know, for the people, not listening, not giving us a true voice.
You know, that's what we're supposed to be able to do is address our grievances.
And there is no better time to have grievances addressed in that 2020 election.
Look, you know, I don't care what anyone says.
That was the biggest shit show I've ever seen in my life of what went on.
Those mail-in ballots were put through in the dark of night.
You know, you literally saw states being stolen in real time on TV, you know, pizza boxes held up in front of me.
And then and then after they steal it, you've got, you know, these members of Congress and members of our government that certified it without even taking a look at it.
I mean, at the end of the day, I mean, at least slow your roll and realize that you had I mean, not just a few hundred thousand, millions of people in D.C. I was there.
You know, I saw it with my own eyes.
I had people wanting to shut down that government.
They didn't have enough people there to stop it, trust me.
And they ignored it.
And they just steamrolled right over us.
So for me, from the outside, looking in as a lawyer and realizing that, like, we tried everything.
It didn't work. We tried to follow the protocol and the procedures and, you know, everything else.
And when that didn't work, I'm just, you know, like I said, you know, I'm blown away, you know, in a good way, that these gentlemen stepped up and used an unconventional method to have their grievances redressed.
And it should. I mean, for all intentional purposes, this should get a hearing.
This should get in there.
I mean, I don't know under what grounds they could deny it.
I mean, and I've tinkered with it.
I've read it. I mean, it doesn't make sense to me how they could not give this a hearing.
Will they find a way?
Probably. You know, that's all that you see.
But I mean, trust me, everybody across this country that's been a part of this fight the past four years, you know, since 2020, is watching this closely, praying to God that one of these judges will have the courage to just do their damn job.
Just do your job.
Just let it in.
Let it have a hearing. Let you guys present argument.
And if that happens, it should be a pretty easy, you know, very obvious, you know, squiggling on your face Scenario that this wasn't ever supposed to go down the way it went down.
So as an attorney watching this, we can only hope that our country will be allowed a chance to have the sunlight shown on what really happened.
And if it's not now, I just...
It's going to be exposed.
Joe, you were mentioning how in the last three years you've never, I mean, I don't know if you're talking about corruption or whether it's things happening that don't normally happen in the course of a court session.
Loy was mentioning how his case was unfiled, literally unfiled.
What do you think about that?
Not surprised at all. Look, they're going to do anything.
Again, look what's happened.
I mean, literally, look what's happened.
President Trump was impeached for a phone call that was absolutely perfect.
Meanwhile, Joe Biden is literally cutting deals, and they just lie right in front of your face.
I mean, they honestly do the most egregious, despicable things that you could ever imagine, and then simply say, well, sorry.
You know, no big deal. Here we are in Nevada, right to Tri-State.
They deny hydroxychloroquine.
I mean, I mean, whatever.
The same thing with the mat. No science was followed.
Now we're looking back on this.
It's the most egregious, insane stuff.
And yet still you could turn on CNN or watch one of these in the tank, you know, biased pundits try and make an argument that what happened didn't happen.
It's not even it's not even a controversy anymore.
Literally, we have the documents, we have the information, we have the people saying they did exactly what we said they did, and they still won't believe it.
So, to hear that the case was unfiled, I'm not surprised at all.
The last thing they ever want is this case to see the inside of a courtroom truly And the people to see it, and then to actually have to rule on the merits of it, because if that happens, it's over.
And so I wouldn't expect anything less but the government to do everything in its power, illegal and completely unfounded, to keep this thing out of the courtroom with the justices actually having to rule on it.
Because if they have to rule on the actual face value of this, the merits of this, I mean, like I said, it's over.
There was zero done to validate the claims and the issues that we the people had with the way this election was conducted and the people contesting it, and they just don't want to hear it.
Yeah, I notice a lot of Joey Gilbert fans are online right now, so I just want to mention, we're going to put that caption back on, LloydBrunson.com.
It's very important that people do this letter-writing campaign.
As anybody that's been listening early on this episode, this is a two-minute process, a $2 process, right?
These gentlemen here, the Brunson brothers, have taken their time to put these letters together to make it very simple For people to be able to protect their constitution and make sure that the Supreme Court takes this case very seriously.
So whoever's joining us right now, please take two minutes.
Please take two minutes and go out there and fill out this letter.
Send it out. Two dollars.
I mean, it doesn't even cost half the price of a Starbucks coffee.
Come on. To save our country, right?
So, you know, let's get into this idea of no standing, Joey.
There's been a lot of cases that have, you know, gone to court and they've said, you know, there's no standing, no standing.
You know, the liberal media says, oh, it's 60 cases that have been to court.
They all got rejected as if they were actually properly seen through the process as opposed to dismissed without having it be heard.
Do you agree with that statement, first of all?
No, it's all bullshit. It's all bullshit.
It's all just a nonsense.
Look, it's an easy thing to say.
No one really knows what the hell it means.
I don't even think they know what the hell it means.
They just say it.
It's an easy argument out.
Oh, this person doesn't have to say this.
I don't understand.
I mean, how you don't as a taxpayer, as a citizen, as someone that has a vote, how...
You know, look, you know, I don't care what anyone says, whether it was machines or the fact that the Democrats just have a better apparatus.
I think Ben Shapiro and I've heard Shapiro and Charlie Kirk and some of those guys say it.
At the end of the day, they're just out hustling us, you know, and trust me, some of this stuff is completely lawful in states like Nevada, ballot harvesting is fully legal.
But they've been doing this for a long time.
All the mail-in ballots did was just make it open season and allow them to cheat just that much more profusely.
And so when they come with these standing arguments, it's just nonsense.
It really is.
I mean, look, it just it doesn't hold water, but that's their go-to.
And then, you know, again, once it's out of court, then they're back, you know, back selling their garbage to the American people on the news shows that are all in the tank.
I mean, we have a captured media.
We have a captured, you know, judicial branch.
You know, at the end of the day, there's no one to protect us right now.
So that's why I, like, commend the Lunswick Road, what they're doing.
We have no other choice but to try and hit them from every angle we can.
And try and expose them and get something in front of some judges that have the courage, have the balls to say, wow, man, something happened here.
And again, no one voted for this.
If you really want to know whether or not...
The 2020 election was legitimate.
Just look at what's happened to this country.
Look at that southern border.
Look at that guy that can't complete a sentence.
Look at our FAA. Look at our rail systems.
Everything you could possibly imagine has just gone to hell in a handbasket.
No one voted for this shit.
So, you know, I'm sorry.
I'm not pulling punches.
I was never put here to pull punches.
And again, you know, whether I ever run for political office or get a chance, and again, I'm going to speak my mind.
I'm going to speak the truth.
And again, you know, it's all nonsense.
And like I said, I don't buy a word of it.
This case gets in there in front of the right judges or in front of judges that aren't afraid to rule on the merits.
And every one of those 380 people in there that voted for this thing should be thrown the hell out.
Wow, wow. That would be a beautiful day in America.
Now, Loy, you were talking a little bit earlier, I believe, about Judge Barrett, if I'm not mistaken, about how she had forgotten a certain article of the Constitution.
Do you mind repeating that? Well, she was asked, I think it was Senator Tom Cotton.
No, maybe it wasn't him. But she was asked just to give the public a brief little constitutional lesson by expressing the protections found in the First Amendment.
And she remembered assembly, religion, speech, the press, and then she got stuck.
And it's like, that's so symbolic because the one she got stuck on and couldn't remember is vitally important.
It's exactly what we're doing and what America should have been doing a long time ago, but they've been pushed out of the process and that's petition for redress of grievances.
And that's what we're doing through the courts is petitioning for redress of grievances.
And so when the court unfiled our case, we took them to court.
We took two federal courts to state court.
We sued two federal courts.
And after we battled there, they reversed their decision.
So they could see that they had created a liability for themselves and that we were going away.
And they were probably afraid of the public awareness part of this.
They probably didn't want to go down in history as depriving someone their right to File a complaint because the judicial side of the court, they enjoy some protections, but not when they cross over to the administrative side of the court.
And that's what they did because the filings are the administrative side and the administrative side of the court does not have judicial protection.
Now, petition of redress of grievances, could you explain what that means for people that don't know?
Well, let the attorney explain that.
It's basically your grievances addressed.
You know, we have grievances. My right to participate in a constitutionally sound election was stolen from me, personally damaged.
But the attorney's the one to get a good answer on that one from.
I mean, look, here's the thing, though.
It doesn't need to be complicated.
That's the problem here. Again, our courts were put into place so when you have an issue, when things haven't followed down the proper course of action, when rules of law, when regulations, when codes have not been followed, you have the right, it's your right to take it in front of Those that are supposed to, you know, again, make a decision based on facts, based on evidence, not based on standing nonsense and this bullshit.
They don't want to give a chance for us to bring in.
Addressing our grievances is coming and saying, look.
Oh, excuse me.
There's these things that were done, put in place last minute with no legislative, you know, no legislative approval, done last minute and by folks that are not supposed to have any, you know, business in these issues.
And I'm talking about the mail-in ballots, everything else that was done.
And then they did it.
And we're supposed to be able to go and say, excuse me, these laws were broken.
You know, we want this addressed.
They won't even address it.
That's the issue. You can't even get a day in court.
I mean, I at least had a chance to get into some of these courts where virtually everything was just motion to dismiss.
Motion to dismiss, you know, whatever it was.
It was a couple of standing issues.
They'll always throw a standing issue in there no matter what.
But I mean, again, at the end of the day, the whole idea of redress is that we're a nation of laws.
Laws were broken. You know, thousands of laws across this country, if you add up state by state, county by county, were broken.
You know, I mean, just maimed and ignored.
And so we have a right to take those in and have them addressed.
And we've never, no one's been able to do that.
I'm curious, the petition or redress of grievances, does that threaten judicial immunity in any way?
Well, it could.
Even though judges have judicial immunity, that can be challenged.
There's a limit to immunity.
So you can challenge anything. And that's what we're really feeling good about, that the court came around and refiled my case.
They came to the conclusion, obviously, that It's not up to the judge before the defendants respond, whether the case is viable or whether it's a decent case or not.
That's up to the fight in court with the pleadings going back and forth.
Some people say that the Supreme Court doesn't have the power to remove someone from office.
Look what the Congress is doing.
They're trying to destroy the Supreme Court.
With we, the people supporting the Supreme Court, Think about it.
I tell people like this.
It's like, well, let's say President Biden was accused of a capital punishment crime in a state and they had capital punishment and the U.S. attorneys defended him and lost and lost and lost until it went to the Supreme Court.
Does the Supreme Court have the power to uphold a lower court ruling?
And allow that state to execute him under the capital punishment statutes they have?
Yes, that's a form of removing a politician from office.
So they absolutely do have the power, but whether they have the support or not, that's a whole other question.
And that's what we're trying to do with the letters, is to raise support so the justices who work for We the People can feel like they've got the support of We the People.
So if they make an incredible decision, they've got the support.
And some people say that that would turn the government upside down.
No, it could actually be a very smooth process.
I think we should look at it more like the vacancies that provide options for new candidates to start new campaigns and the hundreds of millions of dollars that would be funneled into that while they take a break or while the states, you know, replace those vacancies.
Meanwhile, then there could be a transition that people wouldn't even, you know, it's like a bloodless revolution.
And then we would have candidates running for office that knew that we have a binding oath.
Right now, I've experimented.
When you talk to people about a binding oath or in politics, one state representative said, you mean if I didn't obey the Constitution, I could be held accountable?
I mean, he just said those words, and it's like, are you kidding me?
So just the power, just the power of saying, we want a binding oath, Supreme Court, and we know that they've given themselves immunity and federal and state statutes that have given themselves unconstitutional immunity.
They all swear to uphold the Constitution.
Well, let's see them uphold the binding oath.
So this is an exciting time to see people engage in the Constitution in a simplistic but powerful way with the letter-writing campaign, where we're all unified on one point with the Constitution, a binding oath, and once we satisfy that goal, then we can take step number two, and three, and four, and so on.
You're talking about people are scared that this is going to turn the government upside down, right?
But isn't the job of the judiciary to turn the government upside down if it's become this corrupt as it has today?
Well, sure. And look, the media is a big problem.
Now, the Federal Communications Commission has presidentially appointed directors.
They take an oath to the Constitution.
I was wondering why President Trump didn't do something with the FCC and disciplining the stations.
So there could be, once this transition takes place, there could be special military broadcast teams that go to the main broadcast houses, just like a bankruptcy kind of thing, where they take over a business temporarily to make sure it keeps going, that it doesn't die.
And so you can be watching CNN and all of a sudden a long commercial happens and then you see new faces and these government officials that are there, these military broadcast teams or whatever, could be dressed like civilians and they say, look, there's a transition happening.
It's a smooth transition.
We're going to have some replacements in Congress, you know, so that could happen.
And then the media could be held accountable from then on because PSYOPs is a division of every country that has A military.
The psyops is a very important division of the military.
And that's exactly what our media has turned into.
A psychological warfare device that has turned us into supporting the domestic enemies of the Constitution.
And so they've infiltrated in this.
So when President Trump re-truthed the article, He mentioned something in our pleadings, and that is we compare it to an act of war because when there's an act of war, when there's a war, the victor puts in place their leader.
And that's exactly what happened or can happen with an election.
When you have an infiltration, domestic enemies take over your election process.
They put in their victory.
And it's the same as an act of war.
And so we say act of war vitiates everything just as fraud vitiates everything in illegal terminology.
And the justices have an opportunity to do something before it's too late.
And if they hesitate and wait, we might not have a Supreme Court that could do anything.
So we're grasping at just a time here where we do not, we're on the brink of disaster here.
So hopefully we'll all wake up and with God's help, we'll get this mess turned around.
There was a very interesting step here, Lloyd, that you talked about that I want to get Joey's opinion on, which was the waiving of defendant's rights to oppose this case.
Am I saying that correctly? Waiving the defendant's rights?
Yeah, and it's kind of a common thing.
It's not that uncommon. They feel like there's really nothing more they can do because we included the motion to dismiss in the pleadings, in the petition.
But why did she wait so long to do it?
But go ahead. He should answer the question.
Joey. I don't understand.
I don't understand. So the defendants, they took about it.
And I'm talking about the 388 defendants.
They took about a year to the U.S. attorney.
It took about a year to respond and then finally responded that they were not going to oppose.
Oh, no, no. Let me explain that.
That's what happened was...
No, that's not what happened.
What happened, we're talking about the United States Solicitor General became the counsel for defending the 380 defendants, representing them.
And she came on board about a month ago, taken over from the U.S. Attorney's position.
The U.S. Attorneys were defending the 380 defendants.
And as about a month ago, the US Solicitor General, because it's a Supreme Court issue, she takes over and she defends them.
And so the Supreme Court gave her until the 24th of May, which was yesterday, to respond with an opposition or just respond or to file an extension Or she could, one of her options was file a waiver, waiving her defendant's rights to respond before conference.
And so she waived the right to respond with any kind of added opposition to our petition.
She waived that right yesterday.
And that's kind of typical.
Sometimes they'll feel like there's really nothing more they can add to the petition.
And the fact that we've already done it and to file an opposition is a lot of work.
That's a lot of work. Actually, that doesn't surprise me.
And again, why it doesn't surprise me also, we waive a lot of things in court, you know, rules of procedure.
Sometimes it's, you know, strategic.
Other times it's because they just don't care and they're not going to eventually come around to respond in any way, shape or form.
So I think it might be the latter, whereas they don't plan on responding and they don't want to.
As you said, that's a hell of a petition.
That's a hell of a response that they have to generate.
So by waiving that, again, it either is going to proceed to another stage or it's just going to go away.
Another reason they might not want to do it is they don't want to put anything in writing back.
Yeah. So making a record, again, there's far brighter people than I ever will be, but there's always a reason for what they're doing.
I'll just tell you that much. It's not by mistake.
They always know what they're doing, especially at that level.
Most solicitor general is getting what they call their pants down.
She's doing something on purpose for sure.
Well, she's been reprimanded before by Senator Tom Cotton because she was representing the U.S. government.
She reversed the decision without consulting anyone, and she lost nine to zero.
So she didn't please anyone.
So she has a mind of her own.
But another question would be, why did she wait so long?
She could have filed the waiver as soon as she came on board, and that would have sped things up.
Then the court could have set a date for conference.
Oh, come on now. They're not going to do that.
They're not going to do anything. They're going to walk slow walking.
One thing I've learned about this, it is the game of slow walking.
With America's Frontline Doctors, we still have things that we filed during the first six months of the pandemic that are just now getting ruled on, getting thrown out.
They just slow walk.
Of course, there's lots of things you can do.
But at the end of the day, let's just be honest with each other here.
She answers to someone else above her.
She's doing what she's told to do.
It's just that simple.
She wouldn't be where she's at if she wasn't.
I'm sorry. I do feel that way about these people.
This actually works to our advantage with the letter campaign because it gives us more time to bring public awareness to the situation.
So in a way, we're glad that she waited until this last day.
And of course, we'd like them to adjudicate the whole complaint quickly.
But like you just said, it could take a long time.
So this could give us the whole summer to get President Trump involved.
Tucker Carlson, I've been introduced to, he's looking at this situation, to really launch one hell of a letter campaign where the goal would be, in my vision, would be 100 million letters.
And with Trump involved, encouraging people to write letters, you don't have to be voter-aged to do it.
If everyone that voted for Trump and others, friends and families did it, we could get to the 100 million letter mark.
And if we did, Believe me, we would have a hearing date set after the conference, which I think the conference is going to happen probably sometime in October.
I'd be shocked if they put it on the fast track and have a conference before they adjourn the end of June.
Yeah, yeah. Now, this is the Constitution.
Like, we were talking about how U.S. attorneys, I mean, straight up don't know certain clauses of the Constitution.
What's going on there? Are we teaching these kids the wrong things in law school?
Why is the Constitution constantly being ignored?
Well, that's a good question, too, because I've met with the National Center for Constitutional Studies, the owners, and they've distributed over like 70 million copies of the Constitution.
A lot of those go into schools.
And I said, why don't we insert some of these concepts?
Because I shared my concepts with them and they said, we want to publish those concepts.
And I decided to put it in my own book.
But he says they couldn't send them to the schools because all the schools, they are not allowed to see interpretations of the Constitution.
They're only allowed to see the documents and then accept the current interpretations through case law.
So there's really a restriction set in place where we can't really see the Constitution for what it is.
It's a premeditated successful attempt at blocking our education.
Wow, wow. I mean, how do we fix some of these issues?
If we had the power amongst, you know, this group here, what are the things that we would have to address in order to fix a lot of these problems with our judiciary?
How all this stuff is being slow-walked?
How intentionally it's being delayed?
How the Constitution is being so blatantly violated?
How do we fix these issues? Well, the oath is really the most powerful clause and the most powerful tool we can use.
Just when these people, when these justices and others see that we're on to them about the oath, believe me, they're going to take a step back and they're going to reconsider what they're doing.
Like that representative I was telling you about, it's like, be accountable?
I mean, we're going to show them that they are accountable.
And, you know, in my book, I have a quote from George Washington.
Let us simply be asked, where is the security for property, for reputation, for life, if the sense of moral and religious obligation desert the oaths, the oaths, which are the instruments of investigation in courts of justice.
So we're basically showing them, we're on to you.
We're on to you with the oath, and you've been hiding this for many years, and the Congress has for many years, and America is waking up, and the greatest The beginning of an awakening, I believe, is recognizing that Article 6 is very clear with the words, they shall be bound by oath to this Constitution, and they've given themselves immunity.
So I think that's a huge step forward.
And as we gain more knowledge, like Thomas Jefferson said, The true corrective for constitutional abuse is education, and that's what we're doing.
We're showing the most simple and most powerful piece of education with just that little clause that I repeated that anyone can read in seconds as a beginning of taking our country back.
We did an episode, episode 81, with Attorney Todd Callender, and I believe Joey's spoken with Attorney Todd Callender, too.
And in that episode, we discussed how there's certain members of our political class that haven't even taken their oaths of office.
They don't have it recorded.
Hence, and therefore, everything they've done is illegitimate.
How does that sort of thing happen?
And is that sort of thing part of the scheme of blatantly ignoring the laws of the Constitution?
Well, a lot of it is ignorance.
Several years ago, my father had me come over to his house and he showed me that he had found that the state constitution in Utah required that they subscribe their oath or they're not acting in their office legally.
And so he discovered that in the city we were in, the mayor and the commissioners had not subscribed their oath.
So he sent them a letter asking them if they had.
And about a week or two later, he received a letter back.
He showed me it had a picture of all of them subscribing their oath with their pen.
But it goes back to ignorance again.
It's like a will. If you go to a will and your uncle told you you were going to inherit $10 million out of the $20 million estate and the attorney starts reading through the will and saying, sorry, it's not there.
It's not there. But you have a copy.
You have a copy and you read it to him and say, wait, I think you missed something here.
I think you missed the last line of the fifth addendum, right?
And that's what the Constitution, in a way, it's like a will.
And if we don't have the knowledge to understand it, to use it to protect us, then we're going to be in the situation we're in now.
And that's why we're in the situation we're in now, because the money changers, the people with money, have been able to fund and own the publishing houses, our schools, our universities.
They've been able to control the information and the knowledge that is dispersed through the educational process and the media.
And boy, were they wise, insidiously wise, but wise to keep us ignorant.
And as I was studying the Constitution, I was seeing a chess match.
And you know what? The bad guys lost.
But the good guys only win if they know what's in the document because there are some secret, powerful passages, clauses that I have in my publication.
That just changes everything.
And when you're aware of those, like the oath of office, it's like, hey, you guys have taken a fake oath because you believe that there's immunity when they're not a binding oath.
And you swear to uphold the Constitution and you take an oath and it requires a binding oath, you darn well know in your mind you weren't thinking it's binding.
So they've all taken a false oath.
Yeah. I already know the answer to this next question.
But why is it that you go to law school and the first thing that they teach you is not the Constitution?
Why is that not the general practice since that is the law of the land?
Well, not only that, I've run for U.S. Senate a couple of times just to be able to yell at state delegates at the state nominating convention 4,000 at a time.
And it's like, and I said at one of them, I said, you know what, what's the job description of a U.S. Senator?
It's the oath of office.
It's to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic.
That is the job description.
And why is that? I think it's intentional.
They don't want people to understand the Constitution.
They want to push it away from us.
And that's why they've made laws and statutes or whatever, not allowing anything into the schools that show interpretation of the document, except case law.
And it's really, really sad.
So I'm excited because I'm on a mission of education.
I printed 21,000 of these books and I have about 5,000 left and I'm going to print 30,000 more.
And we're going to get the Constitution understood beginning with the oath of office and how powerful it is.
And that's step number one.
So I'm on an education crusade.
That is awesome. This is something that our government should be funding.
This is something that every child should learn.
Since it is law, then it is very intentional that that does not happen.
That's very clear right now.
And, you know, you hear people like the Fetterman guy.
I don't know if you guys saw the Project Veritas expose.
How he's one of his, you know, chief of staff is talking about how he's against the Second Amendment.
That he's willing to throw that, you know, overboard.
I mean, isn't that alone a breach of his oath of office?
Yes. Yes. He should be arrested.
He should be arrested on the spot.
If we were up to speed, he would be arrested on the spot for violating the oath of office.
Well, I would love to have, if we could put the website again one more time, as we close this episode, for everybody that's watching, please go to LloydBrunson.com.
Take two minutes to make sure to Two minutes and two dollars.
I mean, as little as possible to make sure that these letters get to the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court understands that we, the people, are very serious.
This has to be looked at.
And obviously, the more letters they get, the more convincing it gets.
So please take the time, all the viewers out there, to spend two minutes and two dollars to get these letters out.
Gentlemen, is there anything we didn't touch upon in this episode that's worth discussing, mentioning?
Loy? Well, I would like to say that we printed some extra copies of the petition.
It's a very strict, kind of complex, perfect bound statement.
It's a piece of work and we have extra copies.
You can go to 7discoveries.com and some of those are available if someone wants an actual physical copy of the petition as required by the Supreme Court.
It's perfect bound exactly the way they ask for it to be filed.
So if they want that, they can go there as well as the book.
They can get the books there too. 7discoveries.com.
Thank you for having me. This is great.
Thank you, Loy, and thank you and to your brothers for what you are doing.
You guys are American heroes.
Mr. Gilbert, is there anything you want to say in closing?
No, you know, the only thing I'd like to say is like, look, this country is going to keep going in the direction it goes until everyday Americans that, you know, don't have special skill sets, you know, they're not lawyers, they're not whatever, get up and fight.
I mean, this country was founded on our freedoms.
And so everyone needs to get in this.
It shouldn't just be a few of us here.
Everybody can make a difference whether you're sending letters, Writing to your judges, going to your city council meetings, your county commissions, your school boards, going to D.C. Everyone's got to get in this fight, man.
And I just want to encourage you, like I said, everyday folks are going to be what turns this country around.
Don't think that there's anyone coming to save us.
We've got to save ourselves. So if you take anything away from this, get in the fight however you can.
Get in, and of course I don't mean physically.
I mean use your mind, use your resources, be resourceful, do what these gentlemen have done and the rest of us, and get in the fight and try and make a difference.
Yes, yes. And look to the Brunson brothers as a point of inspiration.
Again, DVDs, law DVDs sent to their home and they learn the process.
And of course, nothing is easy.
You got to fight through everything in this life to get what you want.
But it is possible.
It is possible. And look at the miracle that the Brunson brothers have made happen right now.
The fact that this has even made the Supreme Court is historic.
So thank you so much, gentlemen.
Thank you so much, Mr. Brunson.
Thank you so much, Mr.
Gilbert, for coming on the Blood Money Podcast.
For the viewers out there, please make sure you tune in in about, you know, 52 minutes for Gloves Off.
Joey's going to have his awesome show, which, honestly, Joey, is getting better and better every week.
I mean, seriously. It's going to be straight fire because we're dropping fire tonight.
It's a Scott McKay night.
We're just coming for everybody's throat.
Awesome. And I'm sure it's going to be hilarious.
All right, guys. Nice to meet you so much.
Thank you. You too. Great to meet both of you.
Thank you. Thank you. And thank you so much, viewers, for joining us for the Blood Money Podcast.
We will see you on the next episode.
And please check out AmericaHappens.com for all of our latest episodes.
▲
Export Selection