May 30, 2024 - Epoch Times
07:32
| 
| Time | Text |
|---|---|
| Yesterday, in a rare move within the U.S. | |
| Supreme Court, three justices recused themselves from a case related to the 2020 presidential election. | |
| Specifically, all three of the liberal justices on the court, Alina Kagan, Sonia Sotomayor, as well as Katonji Brown-Jackson, all three of them recused themselves from a lawsuit that's currently on the Supreme Court docket. | |
| Although, this whole thing requires a bit of backstory. | |
| All the way back in the year 2021, a man from Utah named Roland Bronson filed a massive lawsuit against hundreds of members of Congress. | |
| His central claim was that they violated their oath of office by not investigating allegations of election fraud prior to certifying the election winner. | |
| The list of respondents in the case was rather long. | |
| In fact, it was 388 names long. | |
| However, because Congresswoman Alma Adams from North Carolina appeared alphabetically first, the case was given the title Brunson v. Adams. | |
| Now, obviously, this is a rather unorthodox type of lawsuit, where Mr. Brunson was making the central argument that, quote, avoiding an investigation of how Biden won the election is an act of treason and an act of levying war against the U.S. Constitution, which violated my unfettered right to vote in an honest and fair election. | |
| And as such, it wrongfully invalidated my vote. | |
| And ultimately, he was seeking the very lofty remedy of having Joe Biden, Kamala Harris, as well as the hundreds of members of Congress removed from office. | |
| Now, as you would imagine, the lawsuit was dismissed by both the lower courts as well as the appeals court. | |
| However, Mr. Brunson then appealed the case all the way up to the U.S. | |
| Supreme Court, who back in January of last year likewise rejected his petition. | |
| Quote, In that appeal, the U.S. | |
| Supreme Court denied the petition for certiorari, or review, in an unsigned order on January 9, 2023. | |
| No justices dissented. | |
| No reason was provided for the decision. | |
| At least four of the nine justices have to vote to approve a petition of certiorari for it to advance to the oral argument stage. | |
| A month later, Mr. Brunson tried again to get a rehearing on the case, but that was also denied. | |
| "The court denied a petition for rehearing on February 21st of 2023 in an unsigned order without providing a reason. | |
| No justice is dissented." But, as is becoming clear, Mr. Brunson does not appear to be the type of man to give up so easily. | |
| That's because, after having his case denied by the appellate court as well as the U.S. | |
| Supreme Court, he went ahead and filed this new lawsuit right here, called Brunson v. Sotomayor, wherein he accused the three liberal justices of the court of violating their judicial oath. | |
| Specifically, Mr. Brunson, he argued that, quote, the three justices violated their oath of office by giving aid and comfort to enemies of the Constitution, which is an act of treason, fraud, and a breach of contract. | |
| Meaning that he took the unusual step of suing the Supreme Court justices themselves for denying his earlier appeal. | |
| Now, the second lawsuit of his bounced around the system quite a bit, starting initially within the state's court system before moving on to the federal district court. | |
| The lawsuit began in state court, but the justices, as federal officers, had the case removed to the federal district court. | |
| The district court found that the state court lacked jurisdiction in the suit, holding that the official capacity claims against the justices were tantamount to claims against the United States, which enjoys sovereign immunity. | |
| Sovereign immunity is the legal doctrine that the government cannot be sued without its consent. | |
| Essentially, after the case was moved from the state circuit to the federal circuit, it was ultimately dismissed because the finding, at least, was that the Supreme Court justices enjoyed sovereign immunity. | |
| Mr. Brunson then, he appealed that decision to the U.S. | |
| U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit arguing that, quote, "The doctrine of sovereign immunity runs afoul of the First Amendment's right to petition for redress of grievances." Now the appellate court did not buy that argument, and back in February of this year they ruled against Mr. Brunson. | |
| However, he's obviously a man on a mission, and as such, Mr. Brunson appealed again to the U.S. | |
| Supreme Court itself. | |
| Now, in this case, the Solicitor General of the United States, Ms. | |
| Elizabeth Prelliger, she functioned as essentially the attorney for the Supreme Court justices being sued. | |
| And on May 2nd of this year, she waived the U.S. | |
| government's right to respond to the petition, leaving the decision up to the Supreme Court justices themselves. | |
| And just yesterday, the following happened, quote, In a rare move, all three liberal Supreme Court justices recused themselves, citing judicial disqualification mandates in the U.S. | |
| Code and the Code of Conduct for Justices of the Supreme Court of the United States, which was adopted in November of 2023. | |
| Essentially, they recused themselves from the case because the case involved them. | |
| However, despite that fact, the petition for the case to be taken up was still ultimately rejected. | |
| Quote, "The Supreme Court denied the petition for review in Brunson v. Sotomayor in an unsigned order without providing a reason. | |
| No justices dissented, but Justices Sotomayor, Kagan, and Jackson did not participate in the ruling." And so with that, the case has met its end, at least for now. | |
| However, perhaps the most interesting aspect of this entire case is that the whole thing was done as a petitioner in pro se, meaning that Mr. Brunson did not have a lawyer, but rather, he was representing the case himself, making it all the way up to the U.S. | |
| Supreme Court, not once, but twice. | |
| If nothing else, these chaotic lawsuits, they do show that a single man can push the envelope quite far. | |
| If you'd like to go through the details of the case for yourself, I'll throw the links to the PDF versions of the different court documents. | |
| You'll be able to find them down in the description box below this video if you're the type of person that likes to dig into the weeds. | |
| And also, if you appreciate content like this, I do hope you take a quick moment to smash those like and subscribe buttons so that the YouTube algorithm will be quite literally forced to share this video to ever more people. | |
| Alright, just to pause here for a super quick moment. | |
| Listen, it's obvious that the financial system is not looking too great. | |
| After being pumped up with trillions of virtually free government dollars for many, many years now, well, the stock bubble might actually burst in the near future. | |
| And in that process, unfortunately, it could take away the nest egg of anyone who happens to be exposed to it. | |
| And so, consider taking this opportunity to diversify into something which is beyond the grasp of Washington D.C. | |
| and Wall Street, physical gold and silver. | |
| And the best company to use, in my opinion, is the sponsor of today's episode, American Hartford Gold, who I should mention is also my own personal gold and silver bullion dealer. | |
| And besides myself, they have thousands of 5-star reviews from other Americans, and they also have an A-plus rating with the Better Business Bureau. | |
| And working with them is rather simple. | |
| They have a huge selection of coins, bars, and rounds to choose from. | |
| They have super friendly staff who you can call and they can set up either gold delivery directly to your doorstep or they can even set you up in a gold IRA. | |
| And then lastly, best of all, if you tell them that Roman sent you, they will throw in a free gold coin with your first qualifying purchase. | |
| So give them a call. | |
| The number is 866-242-2352. | |
| That's 866-242-2352, or you can simply text Roman to 65532. | |
| I'll also throw a link to their webpage, it'll be down there in the description box below. | |
| And lastly, if you do appreciate content like this and you just want more content every single week, well, you're in luck. | |
| Because over on Epic TV, our awesome no censorship video platform, I publish anywhere between one to three exclusive episodes of Facts Matter every single week. | |
| Usually on topics that are, unfortunately, too spicy for here on YouTube. | |
| Of course, everything on there is properly sourced. | |
| Everything there is fact-based, just like the episodes here. | |
| It's just that the topics we cover, well, they're just not welcome here on YouTube. | |
| They have an algorithm that crawls my speech. | |
| And if I say certain words, it might just take down my video and then I have to fight with the system on the back end. | |
| And that's, let's just say it's not easy to say the least to fight with a machine that is programmed to just detect certain things. | |
| And then just, you know, either suspend the channel or suspend that particular video or give a strike to the channel. | |
| It's like, it's a mess, to say the least. | |
| And so that's exactly why we created EpicTV, a platform where we can publish content without even having to think of self-censoring. | |
| And until next time, I'm your host, Roman from The Epic Times. |
Export Selection