All Episodes
Nov. 29, 2022 - Project Camelot
50:40
A BREACH OF NATIONAL SECURITY. LOY BRUNSON SUPREME COURT CASE
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Thank you.
Thank you.
So I have Loy Brunson with me and we're going to be dealing with his court case that is going before the Supreme Court.
And it is actually incredibly groundbreaking, and he and his brothers are extreme innovators, I would say, creatively in the legal arena.
And you've also run for Senator.
Isn't that right, Lloyd?
Yeah, I've run for U.S.
Senator a couple times.
Which gives you, I guess, a real familiarity with the whole voting process and why you're doing what you're doing.
So what I want to do is draw people's attention to this case that's on my website.
And so everyone who is watching can actually go there.
And what I'm going to really briefly bring up on the screen is my actual... I think this will work.
Yeah, so everyone should see that.
So it is Rollin J. Brunson versus Alma S. Adams, and you can explain the differences between the different cases because I know there's a few of them.
And this is basically a lot of links to information that you can follow.
But basically from the lawsuit, what I wanted to do was draw your attention to The fact that there was a proceeding on January 6, 2021, and Congress got together and was supposed to take a look at what was deemed factual evidence of an election being rigged, and they refused to do that.
So this is part of the lawsuit now.
And due to the fact that this case represents a national security breach, On an unprecedented level like never before seen damaging and violating Brunson and coincidentally affects every citizen of the USA and courts of law and voting is the greatest power an individual can exercise in a republic.
It is Brunson's personal voice and the way he can protect his personal constitutional protected rights and the U.S. Constitution C-71 of the complaint.
When the allegations of a rigged election came forward, the respondents had the duty under law to investigate it or be removed from office.
And that is basically where we stand.
So going back to you now, Loy, I hope that's a good enough introduction.
And if you want to give some of your background, you can do so, too.
Sure.
Maybe I'll just get right into the cases.
You mentioned several, a few cases.
Uh, when we started doing this, I was the, I was the plaintiff and, uh, we, as we progressed and saw how the U S attorneys were fighting us and, uh, and we realized that this could take some time.
Well, let me just back up at the get go.
We decided to take the case all the way to the Supreme court.
So as we were working with me as the plaintiff, My third brother, Roland J. Brunson, who is the plaintiff listed on the petition for renaissance, he came up with a great idea.
He said, you know, we should have more than one lawsuit because one of these, if we have multiple lawsuits, if we have two lawsuits, one is going to reach the Supreme Court before the other.
So we concluded that we didn't want to spend a lot of time fighting them, the U.S.
attorneys.
So we decided that the sooner they get a decision from the judge to dismiss The quicker we're able to go to the next level and then to the U.S.
Supreme Court.
So, I was bogged down in federal court.
There's a lot of information and some interesting stories about that where we actually took it to the 10th Circuit because they wouldn't let me file, and they were claiming they were letting me, but then they were admitting that they weren't letting me file a case.
I mean, that's... So, we actually sued the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals and the federal court for blocking Me from even filing my case.
We took them to the state court and sued them in state court.
And after that was all done, a few weeks later, the federal court, out of the blue, they still wouldn't let me file.
We lost in state court.
They wouldn't let me file.
And finally, just out of the blue, the federal court notified me that they had not only filed my complaint, but they had also ordered the clerk of the federal court of Utah to issue 388 summonses.
And so we were pretty excited about that.
But as we got into it with the attorneys, after the attorneys came on representing all 380 defendants, we got stuck.
It's like the judge wouldn't make a decision.
But meanwhile, my brother, we're working on... Okay, we just lost you.
I'm sorry.
Okay, you just cut out.
So you start to say, um, so your brother... My brother... I'll back up.
So my brother, we'll switch to my brother's case.
Mine's stuck.
My brother's working on his.
He started the same, it's the same identical case.
So if you go to 7discoveries.com, you can see the two different lawsuits.
One says Rolland J. Brunson, mine says Loy Brunson, and they're identical complaints.
Okay.
But the petition for rid of certiorari is just rolling.
Mine hasn't made it there yet.
It's the same identical case, though.
So he started in state court.
U.S.
attorneys moved it to federal court.
And they made a decision there to dismiss.
And it went to the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals.
And then the 10th Circuit Court sat on it, sat on it for months.
And we decided, hey, we've got to get it to the Supreme Court.
But in order to go to the Supreme Court, you need to show that you've gone through all the lower courts first.
So we got, my brother Darren is the legal mind behind this.
So we have a, we have a meeting with him and we put a little pressure on him to say, you've got to find a way to unstick us from the 10th circuit court.
We're stuck there.
This could last forever.
We could be stuck there for years.
And so he, uh, he does some research.
Okay.
You're cutting out again.
I'm not sure why.
Yeah, I've got some stuff going on with my phone.
I'm sorry.
So he decided that, he found actually, with some research, that we could actually bypass the Circuit Court of Appeals if it's a national emergency.
And to bypass it, you have to actually, on your petition, the Supreme Court requires, you have to have it bound special format.
It's really quite complex, but it makes it simple for them.
So here we are deciding to use the Rule 11 that we have found, And that it's a Supreme Court Rule 11 that allows you to bypass the circuit court if it's a national emergency.
So we sent it off under Rule 11, hoping that they would accept it as a Rule 11 national emergency petition.
So five days later, we received a phone call from the Supreme Court.
And my brother took the call, and they told him that they had decided to allow the petition to be filed as a national emergency under Rule 11.
And so we got it all prepared, but they also asked us to include some extra stuff in there that isn't normally required.
So we did that, and we sent it off, hoping that they would accept it, and five days later he received a phone call saying, Saying that they were going to accept it and docket it.
And please include that, you know, that extra stuff, uh, that they wanted.
And actually this is the time when they, they also needed some, some additional stuff that we didn't put in it for the, it gets so confusing.
I get confused telling the story.
But, uh, so what happened was we file this, uh, this, we do what they tell us to do.
And we're getting ready to send it off with their information, again, under Rule 11.
And the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals makes a decision.
So we're thinking, well, we don't need to do Rule 11 now because the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals has made a decision.
So we call the Supreme Court Clerk's Office and we tell them that we just got noticed from the Tenth Circuit that they've made a decision.
So do we need to take that Rule 11 platform out of the petition?
And they said, yeah, you don't need it now.
I just put the stuff in that we asked for and get it to us.
And how soon can you get it to us?
And, uh, we says, well, it'll be a couple of weeks.
And, and the, the analyst from the court said, well, we'd like it as soon as possible.
I guess that would work two weeks, but if you can get it to us sooner, please get it to us sooner.
So we, we got it done a week earlier than we expected.
So we sent it on a Thursday and, uh, they received it on a Friday.
And they docketed it on Monday and they showed that it was filed the day we sent it, which was the Thursday, which was the 20th of October.
So this has been happening pretty quickly.
And then they gave the U.S.
attorneys a deadline of November 23rd to file an opposition to oppose this before it goes to conference.
So what they do is they give the defendants one chance, just one chance to file reasons why it shouldn't make it out of conference.
And so on the 22nd, Third, the day that it's due, we get a notice and we check the docket that the U.S.
attorneys are no longer defending the 380 defendants.
That the United States Solicitor General is now the defense attorney, and she's come on record, and she also signed a waiver waiving their right to oppose this petition before a conference.
So they can't do anything now before conference.
They waive their right to do anything, any more defense, to oppose it before conference.
Okay.
So, yeah, this is where, as far as I remember, when you were on Nino's show, you kind of left off and maybe that's where it was at that point.
And I think that people will want to understand.
So what is the exact status right this second?
The exact status right now?
Okay, go ahead.
Right, a few days after that.
We're past the 23rd, right?
Right, we're past the 23rd, so now it can go to conference without any delay whatsoever.
What is gone to conference?
What does that mean?
A conference is where the nine justices get together by themselves without any representation from either side of this case.
No litigants involved at all, just them.
They get together and they discuss the case and they decide with nine votes Whether it's going to move forward or not.
Now, out of the nine justices, if we have four votes voting for it to move forward, then it moves forward.
So we only need four out of nine.
So that could happen on Friday.
You don't need a majority.
Pardon?
You don't need a majority.
No, you don't need a majority.
Just four out of the nine.
Out of nine.
Right.
Are they in session or are we waiting for them to come back to session?
Well, if you go to SupremeCourt.gov, you will see that there is a conference scheduled for this Friday.
It doesn't say what cases are going to be presented at conference, but there is a conference scheduled for this Friday.
And there's also a conference scheduled for the following Friday.
So normally, We would be able to look at the docket and it would reflect the date of the conference for our petition.
Okay, now we haven't seen any date showing conference yet, but that's the next step.
So we're watching the docket to see when the conference date is going to be.
It could be Friday.
I mean, all of a sudden the docket could on Thursday show that it's going to be in conference on Friday, but it is definitely going to conference.
That's a guarantee.
Going to conference and the justices will vote on it, whether to move forward with it or not.
For, like I said, for voting in favor, it moves forward.
If it's not scheduled for this Friday, I would think it'd be the next Friday.
It'd be soon, I would think.
All right.
Now, I have a number of questions, so I hope you'll be patient with me and take as much time as you need to explain whatever it is.
So now, You and I briefly talked, and I'm very interested in this whole immunity clause, right?
That is supposed to make these individuals who you've named, actually, in theory, immune from anything they do, but that does not include national security breaches, right?
It does not include You know, to reason these things that they've been accused of actually, it does not include those things.
So, in theory, it can't protect them.
Now, this is a very interesting dynamic because.
Because of the way you've written, which I think, I don't know who wrote the whole briefing, you know, your case.
I thought it was very eloquently written.
Thank you.
It was my brother, Darren.
He's the legal brain behind all of this, and we contribute.
Very astute, you know.
Well, I'm a fan of language and all of that, so I thought you did a lovely job.
Anyway, so the idea here is that if they're not immune, then they're exposed.
One would wonder, okay, we want to go fast back, you know, flashback into, uh, this is January 21, right?
January 6, 2021 is the actual date when they were supposed to decide correctly.
Tell me if I'm right.
We were supposed to decide on that day whether to take 10 days to look at the evidence of possible election interference.
Is that correct?
That's correct.
Yes, that's correct.
Okay, and they neglected to do so.
They've actually voted not to do so.
Yeah, which is the national security breach.
Right.
When you have a hundred credible witnesses with a mountain of evidence and give us a 10-day investigation on this, they should have done it.
When Mike Lee stood up and said, oh, I had to do this because the Constitution requires me to do it.
No.
Fraud vitiates everything.
If there are security issues, You don't say, I've got to go ahead and do this without checking out if there are problems or not.
So what Mike should have said, Senator Lee should have said is, I'm going to do, I'm going to fulfill my constitutional duty with this situation after we take a 10 day investigation because of the witnesses that have brought evidence that there is, there are crimes being committed here.
And, and so we need to investigate those crimes.
Can you imagine going to a police department with, with a hundred Witnesses saying that there's a crime and the police department refuses to investigate it.
Right now.
So that's okay.
But there's there's also kind of a litany of things that have been going on with the Supreme Court.
And I also did a whole review of all of the cases that have been brought that to the Supreme Court in the past.
I don't know if it is two and a half years, whatever it is.
And that included a huge number of cases from Trump himself.
And, you know, people working with Trump, uh, before the Supreme Court, all of which were not, not heard.
All of which were not even... Well, they were heard.
They were heard and voted.
Some of them were not heard.
Okay, but in some cases, they, they actually, they say, there's a reporter who specializes in this, and they said that Yes, as you say, they did vote up, but I basically turned them all down.
A lot of them on standing alone, right?
And the other thing, a lot of them didn't also say the reason they turned them down.
Which, there's a reporter, a New York Times reporter who's come forward and said, you know, and brought up that issue, that for some reason, It's just a, you know, maybe just a docket issue or whatever you do where you actually say the reason you're rejecting a case.
The reasons are missing.
Yeah, and our case is completely different.
See, our case, that was up.
Those cases were about the outcome of the election.
This case.
It's not about the outcome of the election.
I have a rationale for asking you this because the reason I'm bringing this up is I'm, again, you know, I warned you that I'm going to look at it from their point of view and I want to see how they look at this situation.
So I want to know why they're letting this case go forward and what their real goal is.
And so one of the things that I thought that they would do is if they were to allow your case, What they basically are saying is there that there is a consideration for fraud in the 2020 election.
That has to be at the basis of everything that they decide, right?
If they've already decided across the board before you ever entered the door with your case that all cases to do with 2020 that deal with fraud were false, were not admitted, were not You know, not a substantial evidence wasn't substantial, then if they were to allow your case, they would be saying.
The evidence does not exist for this, so they could say here your case is being considered, but why should we consider it when there was no evidence of fraud?
We've proven over two and a half years of rejecting these cases.
There's no evidence of fraud.
Now you're saying there's evidence of fraud because there were 100.
At least a hundred of the members brought forward evidence that was sitting there that was not considered on that day.
So, do you see what I'm saying?
We're really talking about evidence of fraud.
On the one hand, if the U.S.
is our case, you have to say that their consideration, not that there's fraud, but there's a consideration that there's fraud.
However, I'm just saying that the Supreme Court up to now has shown no openness whatsoever to considering fraud.
Actually, you need to understand which justices voted which way, okay?
Three of the justices have voted in favor of Trump-related Supreme Court cases.
Okay, Clarence Thomas made a very important rule statement, I guess, right?
Right, Alito.
Let me just interject one little thought.
The U.S.
Attorneys never, in their defense, in their motion to dismiss, argued merits.
They argued only immunity.
That's the only thing they argued.
Now, that's kind of interesting.
And you must analyze every single Supreme Court justice.
But let me just interject one little thought.
Let me just interject one little thought.
The U.S. attorneys never in their defense and their motion to dismiss argued merits.
They argued only immunity.
That's the only thing they argued.
They did not dispute that there was whether or not there was fraud or anything or any wrongdoings.
They didn't say that there was no wrongdoing.
They only said that their defendants had absolute immunity.
So is that their only argument or could their argument change?
That was their only argument.
That was their only argument and they could have inserted more than that, but they waived their right to do that on Wednesday, the 23rd of November.
The solicitor to add anything else to it besides immunity.
So this case is really... Did we get cut off?
I'm sorry.
Slightly.
But if you could back up and just say, so they're only arguing on this.
So when they have this meeting, they're going to have Friday or following Friday, whenever it is.
The conference.
The conference.
They call it the conference.
This is a decision on whether to consider your case, but it's not really a decision.
Their decision is not going to be on whether immunity is a good argument.
That's not going to be what they're discussing, is it?
That's the whole defense.
That's what's interesting about this.
They have not even mentioned that they haven't defended fraud one bit.
There's not one ounce of defense against fraud in this case.
Nothing.
It's all immunity.
And that's, like I said, that's why it's so interesting that now the U.S.
Attorneys are no longer representing the defendants, but now the Solicitor General is.
And the Solicitor General had plenty of time to do everything you're talking about.
And she could have asked for an extension.
And she chose to waive the right to defend any more than what we had in our petition, her 388 defendants.
And that's what's kind of Okay, but what are... I guess I want to get back to this, and I know we're going to be kind of splitting hairs, but on the Friday, whatever Friday, they have the conference.
What are they going to exactly be deciding?
Whether the case has merits to go forward?
Wow, what happened?
Hello?
Hi.
Hi.
Are you there?
We have a little problem here.
Okay.
I was just wondering, you don't have a computer where you could be doing the show?
I could, yes, but things have been so crazy today, I'm traveling.
I see.
All right, well, we'll try to continue here and hopefully this will stay happening.
I can edit out delays, so it's not too much of a problem for me.
So what we're coming back down to was really what is going to be decided on when they get there together and four people are going to vote on something.
Nine people.
Nine people.
Okay.
And four, at least, you need at least four to move it into the next step.
So I'm trying.
When I was cut off, when I was cut off, you were asking about this coming Friday.
What could happen then?
Because Friday is, there's a conference scheduled where they could review quite a few cases and ours could be one of them.
Okay.
And, but my question is, what are they going to consider?
Are they going to consider the case going forward They're not going to be looking at their own defense.
They're going to be deciding whether the case has merits to go forward.
Is that not true?
Yes, and they've already characterized it.
The clerk of the Supreme Court is Mark Sessions Harris.
For 11 years, he was the Supreme Court's attorney, their counsel, and that clerk office has accepted this as a national emergency petition.
Now, under the Supreme Court's Rule 11, if a national emergency situation comes up, they can do much more than just reverse or uphold a lower court's decision.
They can completely adjudicate the whole complaint, and they can award, and they can execute, and they can do everything having to do with that.
So, what we're asking them to do is Cancel, basically cancel the credentials of 380, you know, 85, 87 members of the federal government, including a sitting president and vice president.
Okay, yes, I understand that.
What I'm trying to figure out is what they're going to do when the nine justices get together to have a conference.
What are they deciding on that day about the case?
I think I can answer that.
They asked us to include in the petition the U.S.
Attorney's motion to dismiss.
So we put that in there.
So they will be able to look at every single item that the U.S.
Attorneys have used to defend their 388 defendants in the full case.
Okay?
So they will have that.
Now, they also, like I said, gave the solicitor, the U.S.
Attorneys, an opportunity to add more to it, and they waived that right.
So they only have The motion to dismiss, which is completely only about immunity.
They never got into the merits of the case ever.
As a matter of fact, we had two cases going and my case, I was actually able to use to create a full summary judgment motion because they basically admitted wrongdoing in my brother's case that is now in front of the Supreme Court, but they only defended They defended the position, like I said, only based on immunity.
And in a way, I think, if I remember right, that they actually conceded and admitted to some wrongdoing, but they just claimed immunity.
So what the Supreme Court justices are going to do, I don't know, but this suit challenges the immunity they've given themselves.
Article 6 of the Constitution requires that all of them be bound, all of our representatives be bound by oath.
And we're, in our pleadings, we state in the complaints, we show That they cannot be bound by oath.
They have to be bound by oath.
They can't give themselves immunity and not amend the Constitution, basically.
So them giving themselves immunity is a violation of Article 6 of the Constitution that requires they be bound by oath.
You can't have immunity and bound by oath.
They contradict each other.
So there's an immunity question here as well as the The breach of national security that they were all guilty of.
I hope that's helpful.
I'll try to... Yeah, it is, actually.
But the thing is that if... Now, this is just a sort of philosophical idea.
Is it possible that they don't want to go into the merits of the case and that they never intend to go into the merits of the case?
Because at that point they would have to consider That there was the possibility of fraud in the election, and you just said, you know, there's this thing about fraud is, you know, all deciding, right?
If there's one fraud, it's everyone.
Well, it's not about fraud.
It's not about fraud.
It's about investigating whether there was or not.
That's what it's about.
It's not about fraud at all.
It's about investigation.
All right, but they still have to, the merits of the case are not about immunity, unless, except as what, as they're looking at it.
They're only saying whether or not they're immune.
They know they didn't investigate crimes that... We had a hundred witnesses.
We had a hundred creditable witnesses that said, hey, this needs to be investigated and they refused to do it.
Right.
And so that in and of itself is... Yeah.
From their point of view, they are limiting their... As you said, they limited their defense.
They're not even trying to give themselves some other defense.
They're basically limiting it to Immunity.
And that means that when they decide to either have the case go forward or to reject it, it's going to base, everything's going to be based on immunity.
And technically, now you and I don't, I don't agree that they're immune.
But they think they are.
You see what I'm saying?
They believe that they are.
Why should they, in other words, I'm just hypothetically looking in the future.
I'm trying to say that if, because if they can reject this case on the basis of immunity, they can reject any future cases on the basis of immunity.
And they will still never have admitted The possibility that there was wrongdoing.
Well, you make a very good point.
You make a very good point in that even if the justices were completely against that, they would want it to move forward from conference so they could completely smash it with the full hearing.
Then all complaints that were similar to this would be squashed right at the get-go with a Supreme Court ruling.
Okay, but let's have you talk to a lawyer.
I understand it's your brother's a lawyer, right?
No, he's not a lawyer.
None of us are lawyers.
Oh, he sounds like he is, but okay.
So, he should be- No, if we'd gone to a lawyer, we wouldn't have this at the Supreme Court right now.
We would have gone to a court of claims.
We would have had to gotten permission from the sergeant-at-arms.
We would have had to get a waiver.
We wouldn't even be in court right now.
Okay, okay.
I understand all that.
I mean, I love that you guys cut to the chase in the ways that you did.
However, I want to come back to this idea of immunity and how much strength- Yeah.
Do they have to go on to reject this case even if it goes forward like let's say on Friday?
Right.
They think they're so strong on immunity that they can wave it forward and then it'll be shot down on immunity.
Now what is because that's actually a huge issue constitutionally.
Absolutely.
Also in terms of the overall makeup Not only the Supreme Court, but all of the officers and all of the individuals that have been named in the suit.
How can these individuals commit treason against our government and our people based on immunity?
You see what I'm saying?
That's what they're going to have to argue.
Absolutely!
Yeah, how do they argue that, you know?
Absolutely, even if there is immunity.
And why didn't their attorney, who is the United States Solicitor General, why didn't she add some more defense to the defendants?
That's the warning.
That's the warning here.
That I would say is that they, you know, this is my opinion, of course, but the arrogance of the office is such that they're basically saying to the American people, We don't care.
We don't need it.
We don't need any defense.
We don't need to get into detail.
We don't need to get down and dirty into the weeds.
We're immune.
Yeah.
End of story.
But they have a problem though.
They have a problem.
They didn't stop it before it got to the Supreme Court.
The court that they're attacking.
The justices that they are threatening.
Well, I just wonder... It's in front of them now.
Okay.
Well, let me ask you this.
How far does immunity go?
I mean, have you considered this?
Immunity is unconstitutional, and that's the constitutional challenge with this.
You cannot have a binding oath and have immunity.
You can't do it.
Well, they've had it.
You and I both know.
It's unconstitutional.
It's illegal.
I understand that, but it hasn't been made illegal.
US Code Title 28 is illegal.
Yeah.
I understand that, but it hasn't been made illegal.
They are still standing on it.
And so what we need to do is we need to know there could be, you know, immunity might actually not work in certain aspects of your case.
Like, one of those, you're not immune, for example, if you were having a meeting on the 6th of January, you were presented with evidence of fraud.
And you refuse to consider it.
Immunity may not enter into that equation.
Oh, it absolutely would because what the U.S.
attorneys have been saying is any act when they're acting as an officer of the government or acting as a member of Congress, they are immune from anything they do acting in that capacity and that they would only be disciplined by the body of their house.
Except if it's considered treason.
No, there's no exceptions to their immunity.
If you read the title 28, no, they do anything they want.
There's no exception.
I read it and it said that there were exceptions.
It said, well, that's maybe I misinterpreted.
I thought it said they were immune except they couldn't go so far as to Do something that breached national security or was actually, you know, treason.
Well, where were you when we needed you?
That's good news.
That's good news to me.
I didn't rely on you.
All I'm saying is that, look, think about it.
That's an excellent point.
I love that.
I would like to talk to your brother.
I would like your brother to come forward and to say, sure.
Really, because if they're going to use the immunity as their get-out-of-jail-free card, I want to know if immunity has any limitations, or it's blanket for the rest of the life, for the whole world.
They can murder, they could murder, you know, billions of the United States citizens, and they could claim immunity.
Is this what you're really saying?
Well, you know, I'm getting what your point is, and your point is wonderful.
It's fantastic.
It's like, if this goes to a full-blown hearing, we're going to need to litigate in front of the justices, and that should be one of the important points.
Even if we strike down immunity based on Article 6 of the Constitution, We could use that as a mechanism or a pleading to say, hey, even if they have immunity, which is the only defense that they've they've pled, then go into what you're talking about.
So the only thing is that it must have limits within the nature of the constitution.
Sure.
I need to see the references in the constitution that limit the immunity of You know, get out of jail free card.
It's officers.
It just makes sense.
I want to see the title.
I want to see it's U.S.
code and the title and the clauses to that.
Yeah, get us that.
That's fantastic.
That's a great point.
And that's another reason that they should move it forward.
Yeah.
So.
Well, I'm just telling you that they're completely arrogant.
They have to be arrogant for a reason.
If they're going to bring this forward, they're going to figure, okay, this is the low-hanging fruit.
We'll let it in.
We'll let it in the gate so that we can shut it down for all time.
Because this is a way to really, to really Get at any election fraud, any future cases that come along, any cases that could have happened in the midterms and the primaries for that matter, right?
Saying that our rights have been violated, that we have the right to recourse.
It's all in the Constitution.
We've got to have some kind of recourse against the judicial body.
Well, it's Article 6.
They're supposed to be binding to the Constitution.
they could turn into Hitler, right? - Well, it's Article 6.
They're all supposed to be binding to the Constitution.
They shouldn't have immunity.
But the point you're raising is really incredible.
And maybe the attorneys that counsel, they give counsel to the justices.
Maybe they're all over this point that you're making.
And we, the Brunson Brothers, are not even aware of that part of it.
We're just focusing on they don't have immunity.
But the point you're raising that's amazing is that even if they have the immunity they claim to have, it doesn't protect them with certain, you know, certain... Not under certain circumstances.
Like you said, this is a national security breach.
This is treason.
This is evidence of treason, possible evidence of treason, collusion or an enemy.
These are things that must limit immunity of officers.
It has to.
I'm not, you know, we'll just see where it all goes and other people will be talking to you.
If we had known you when we were doing this, you would have gotten into that and we would have included that, but I'm kind of glad That we got dismissed as quickly as we had so we could be at the Supreme Court.
I'd much rather be here than dealing with 388 different law firms with them answering the complaint and filing separate motions.
This is much better.
It is, but I, you know, okay, are there other, I, I just want to say the evidence, when they, when they come back, they, they actually show you who they are and the way they think of that themselves, because they think... You know, I don't even know if they know they're being sued.
I don't even, I think it's possible that most of the defendants maybe already don't even know.
They don't even know probably, and if they do, it's like, what a joke, right?
Well, I'm not so sure, but it may be again.
That these individuals have been, you know, basically coached.
If you're a congressman, if you're a senator, if you're a, you know, a VP, if you're a this, you're a that.
Trump doesn't seem to be immune from anything, but these people appear to be immune from everything.
So we gotta figure out where the, where these lines are drawn, um, and going forward, and I think it's really fascinating.
Uh, okay, so can I ask you about your other cases now?
Are we, Because let's say, okay, this, we're on pins and needles, and we get Friday, or we get the following Friday, and then a decision is made.
It goes forward, and then, then you have a court battle, a real court battle.
Oh, if this moves, what's your question?
If this moves forward, then it's litigated for, you know, justices, then it's litigated in front of the nine justices where the Where the Solicitor General will have an opportunity to present her case, and whoever it is that represents Roland or Roland himself would represent his position.
So, and then they decide.
So, I don't know how long that would last.
Okay, and would it be publicized?
Like, would it be, um, would people be able to watch it?
I don't know.
I hope so.
I think it'd be great.
They might make it a still kind of situation.
You know, stipulation.
Yeah, who knows?
Who knows what they could do with this?
Yeah.
Well, I mean, you have to be thinking forward, you know?
Yes.
Positively.
This is good.
I'm glad we're talking about this.
Absolutely.
We're just so shocked and stunned that it was accepted and docketed and accepted as a national emergency type case.
We're just like, okay, now we need to prepare an opening brief, right?
Which we should include what you're saying.
And we hadn't even talked about that at this point.
So what you're saying would be a Pretty cool contribution to an opening brief.
So we need to do some work on that.
I'll introduce you to my brother.
We'll have a power up with you if you'll let us.
We'll figure this out.
Okay, well, you know, legal minds.
I'm sure 107, as I'd mentioned, might be a good person to give you advice on this matter, and certainly there are a zillion of lawyers out there, too.
Definitely.
That'd be wonderful to have some legal minds step into the arena here and help out.
That'd be terrific.
Absolutely.
So, okay, so you're in this situation.
Now, I suppose that ABC, CNN and CBS and all the majors, none of them got in touch with you right now.
Is that right?
Well, there was a while where we couldn't take messages because there were so many phone calls.
So we might have missed a few.
We need to go through the records and see what all the phone numbers were that were reaching out.
But if they wanted to get a hold of us, they could.
And so nothing like that has happened yet.
It could happen soon.
I mean, it hasn't been very long that we started to go public just locally with this and it's just sort of mushrooms where it's, it's really gaining some traction on the internet with special, you know, patriot minded people like yourself.
Absolutely.
Well, uh, it's, I mean, it, it, there's a, a simplicity about it and it's, it's quite clear.
So people, I'm just talking to the audience now, if you haven't read the case, it's actually, I've got the PDF linked on my, on my page there and you know I've quoted those few few paragraphs that I thought were particularly important um and eloquent and I I think I you know just to read it as a document is re quite fascinating it's not that long it's like 18 page you know yeah basically they do a certified word count they don't want it to be very long
They made it a lot thicker than it was.
They made it, you know, a thicker document than what it was needed to be.
So, okay, so let's hypothetically go where things may go.
Now, we've said what would happen if it goes to court.
Like it would end up in an actual litigation is how you looked at it, right?
Okay.
What if it doesn't?
What if they shoot it down?
You've got another case right on its heels.
Is that right?
Well, if they shoot it down, we can do a motion for reconsideration and that's what we would do.
And if we had a lot of support from America for them to reconsider and make the right decision.
But like you made a really good point, even if they hated this and wanted to shoot it down and crush it, they've got to let it move out of Move from conference into a full-blown hearing to really destroy it.
So, yeah, we have an identical case that's in federal court right now, the Utah federal court, the Utah district, U.S.
district court, and it's identical to my brother's.
And, and Judge Shelby, the Obama appointed chief justice here in Utah, has, he will make a decision.
The U.S.
attorney's filed a motion to dismiss.
We filed an opposition.
They filed a reply.
Notice of decision has been made.
But I got a notice from the court that they found documents where they weren't supposed to be.
And it was like, there's an audit going on there.
So that was really surprising.
I need to get into that and see what that's about.
We just kind of ignored it because we're just focusing on this other case.
But there's some stuff going on that shouldn't be happening in the federal court.
But we would focus on that and move that forward as well.
We're not going to quit fighting.
This is a fight we're going to stay at.
But I think the justices are going to, well, we'll see.
I think they're going to let it move forward.
Okay, this is really fascinating.
Well, is there anything, you know, I don't need to keep you for that long.
I know that, you know, there are other interviews out there you're probably going to be doing.
Nino's been texting me, asking me to call you.
So, you know, and if there are people, I know there are people that are going to want you to speak, you know, out there and that there are maybe even You know, I'm not familiar with the process of bringing a case to the Supreme Court and whether or not you are able to do things like, can you rally people to come to a rally?
Oh, sure, sure.
As a matter of fact, there's amicus briefs that people can file supporting friends of the court and they can, as friends of the court, support a certain position, you know, so that's okay.
There's nothing wrong with that.
That's why I'm thinking if this If people become more connected to this and they go to 7discoveries.com and let us know that they're out there by just even making a dollar donation.
And as the news gets a hold of this more, it will and people show support for the Supreme Court to honor their oath of office and the Constitution and allow this to move forward in a positive way with positive results.
This could be a big turning point for this country.
People can make a big difference.
I think that if it really does really come down to immunity, that we've got a very interesting case on our hands.
And I think it could, you know, it could actually blossom into something much bigger and out of necessity, in other words, because we're really talking about the future of how You know, the law is, you know, adjudicated or whatever, you know.
Well, there are immunity laws locally too in the state of Utah.
If someone gets killed accidentally by a policeman, they don't, there's no recourse.
There's no award because, you know, because we have immunity laws here that are unconstitutional, unlike other states.
So this kind of a decision moving forward against the immunity that they're claiming based on the constitution would have quite a rippling effect right down to the local level.
So this would, this could, Make a huge difference in even local cases in states.
Absolutely.
So, you're giving me the impression that you haven't really consulted outside legal counsel.
Is that?
No, they're too expensive.
You know, I've tried.
They want too much money.
I even had an attorney say that for $2,000 you can negotiate a settlement.
Patriotic duty, one would think.
Well, we haven't, you know, I've Where do you go?
I mean, we, we've, uh, I've contacted attorneys and it's like, it's just, they just think it's, I think they just think it's ridiculous.
And so now it's to this point, that's a little different story.
So maybe if they're a law firm or some lawyers that wanted to get involved and we felt like they could contribute.
Are you familiar with David Strait?
No, no, I'm, I'm new to this.
He's a special forces guy that happens to be an expert on, on the law.
And he teaches huge classes online and he's quite well known.
Okay.
Could you, have you talked to him about your point you're making?
Because I don't think attorneys know what you're talking about.
You did some digging.
Over the last day.
Okay.
You didn't dig this from an, you didn't get this from an attorney.
You, you researched it on your own, right?
Okay.
I don't think you're going to find a lawyer because there's never been a case that would require that kind of study.
And that kind of research.
I think you've uncovered something.
I mean, I was reading the different clauses that were written in the thing and I, maybe I just, it's the way I read it.
You know what I'm saying?
Okay.
Okay.
But I think it's very important.
All I'm saying is that David straight works with Trump and that he'll talk to us.
That'd be great.
We'd love to talk.
Yes.
And well, let me just suggest to you, all you have to do is again, go to Nino.
And Nino could put you in touch with Juan, and Juan can put you in touch with David Strait, I'm sure of it.
Will you follow up and make sure that happens?
I think you should go down these avenues.
I'll be talking to Nino in a few minutes, so I'll mention that to him.
If you're looking forward to a battle in court over immunity, then you're going to have to shore up.
Well, I don't think my brother wants to represent himself in court.
I think it would be inane.
I agree.
Yeah, he sounds brilliant, but regardless.
Okay, so I won't keep you much longer.
You know, it's wonderful.
It's fascinating.
I'm sure I'm going to hang up, you know, with you here, and I'm going to have 20 more questions that I want to discuss.
So, I hope you'll consider coming back.
Of course.
We'll definitely encourage our audience, people that know lawyers that might be interested in this, because that See the plot thickens, right?
Oh, that'd be a great think tank to have lawyers getting involved and analyzing every aspect of this case.
That'd be phenomenal.
This is on behalf of the American people.
This matters.
Okay.
People need to go to 7discoveries.com and click on the link that shows the history of the case and the updates of the case.
And they can go through every single docket item on that and get themselves versed with what's happening.
Would be great.
And just make a dollar donation.
That would be huge support.
7discoveries.com.
Great.
Okay, and the link is on my page as well.
All right.
Thank you, Loy.
It's great to have you on the show.
Fascinating.
You guys are so brave and brilliant, and I think it's very exciting what you're doing.
Very exciting.
Thank you very much.
This has been great and very insightful.
Thank you.
All right.
Take care.
Bye-bye.
You too.
Export Selection