The Supreme Court on Feb. 21 rejected a case that was seeking to overturn the 2020 election.
Justices turned down a request for rehearing by Raland Brunson, a Utah man who brought the case.
Justices did not explain their decision and a vote tally was not made available.
The court periodically releases lists of orders, and the Feb. 21 list included the decision on Brunson v. Alma Adams.
Brunson and his brothers filed the case in Utah in 2021, arguing that members of Congress violated their oath of office by failing to investigate evidence of 2020 election fraud and certifying the electoral votes for President Joe Biden.
That amounted to a rigged election, which achieves the same result as war, the Brunsons argued.
The case was moved to federal court, where the brothers asked the judiciary to remove Biden from office. If carried out, that would mean swearing in former President Donald Trump as president, according to court filings.
The Supreme Court turned down the case in January after considering whether to take it during a Jan. 6 conference. The reasoning for initially rejecting the case was also not made public.
Brunson filed a petition for rehearing, or a request for the court to reconsider their initial decision.
In a 10-page petition, Brunson said that the court should take up the case because, in part, no courts have ruled that failure to comply with the Oath of Office results in being penalized. The filing also said that the allegedly rigged election resulted in a national security breach that needs repairing.
“When a case like this one comes forward under a petition for writ of certiorari claiming that there exists a serious national security breach, and that this breach is an act of war, and that it requires an act on an emergency level to repair this breach immediately—to stop this war, and that those perpetrators of this breach are the respondents, doesn’t this Court have the power to adjudicate these serious claims and to immediately end the conflict and fix the national security breach?” the petition asked.
Deron Brunson, Raland Brunson’s brother, had told The Epoch Times he was confident the petition would work.
Steve Vladeck, the Charles Alan Wright Chair In Federal Courts at the University of Texas at Austin School of Law, had predicted justices would reject the petition.
“To the surprise of exactly no one who understands what they’re talking about, the frivolous rehearing petition from SCOTUS’s denial of the frivolous cert. petition trying to ‘reinstate’ President Trump was denied this morning without comment,” Vladeck wrote on Twitter.
The Brunson brothers have not yet reacted to the news of a second rejection.
In a statement on Monday, they said: “As we observe Presidents’ Day this year, there is much turmoil in our great country. However, we are inspired and hopeful as we await future decisions on our case efforts. As we continue our fight for the good of America, we are reminded of all of the incredible men who have served as President, and are anxiously looking forward to the day greatness returns to the Office of the President.”
You’ll never guess how many have been killed or seriously injured in just the first year. Yet, the FDA and CDC keep pushing the shots, despite their own trial data showing they have no benefit in terms of reducing your risk of hospitalization or death.
According to a December 2021 survey of 2,840 Americans, between 217,330 and 332,608 people died from the COVID jabs in 2021.
Survey results also show that people who got the jab were more likely to know someone who experienced a health problem from COVID-19 infection, whereas those who knew someone who experienced a health problem after getting the jab were less likely to be jabbed.
Of the respondents, 34 percent knew one or more people who had experienced a significant health problem due to the COVID-19 illness, and 22 percent knew one or more people who had been injured by the shot.
Fifty-one percent of the survey respondents had been jabbed. Of those, 13 percent reported experiencing a “serious” health problem post-jab. Compare that to Pfizer’s six-month safety analysis, which claimed only 1.2 percent of trial participants experienced a serious adverse event.
In December 2022, Rasmussen Reports polled 1,000 Americans. In this poll, 34 percent reported experiencing minor side effects from the jab and seven percent reported major side effects.
That said, the most recent survey1,2—published in the peer-reviewed journal BMC Infectious Diseases—puts the death toll from the COVID jabs somewhere between 217,330 and 332,608 in 2021 alone. As noted by Steve Kirsch:3
“[We’ve] killed at least 217,000 Americans and seriously injured 33 million … in just the first year, and the CDC [Centers for Disease Control and Prevention] and FDA [U.S. Food and Drug Administration] want to give you more shots … Since deaths from the vaccine were higher in 2022, most experts would estimate the all-cause mortality death toll from the COVID vaccines to be in the range of 500K to 600K.
“So the global cost of life from these vaccines is on the order of 10 to 12 million people … These [data] are consistent with the numbers I’ve been saying for a long time. It’s not a coincidence.”
Survey: Why People Did or Did Not Get the Jab
Now, the slant of this paper is kind of interesting. The primary aim of it was to “identify the factors associated by American citizens with the decision to be vaccinated against COVID-19.”
The author was curious about why 31 percent of the U.S. population had declined the jab or not completed the primary series by November 2022, nearly two years into a massively advertised “vaccination” campaign.
Calculating the proportion of fatal events from the jab was secondary. As explained by the author, Mark Skidmore,4 Ph.D., an economics professor at Michigan State University:5
“A largely unexplored factor is the degree to which serious health problems arising from the COVID-19 illness or the COVID-19 vaccines among family and friends influences the decision to be vaccinated.
“Serious illness due to COVID-19 would make vaccination more likely; the perceived benefits of avoiding COVID-19 through inoculation would be higher.
“On the other hand, observing major health issues following COVID-19 inoculation within one’s social network would heighten the perceived risks of vaccination. Previous studies have not evaluated the degree to which experiences with the disease and vaccine injury influence vaccine status.
“The main aim of this online survey of COVID-19 health experiences is to investigate the degree to which the COVID-19 disease and COVID-19 vaccine adverse events among friends and family, whether perceived or real, influenced inoculation decisions. The second aim of this work is to estimate the total number of COVID-19 vaccine-induced fatalities nationwide from the survey.”
Here’s an excerpt describing the methodology:6
“An online survey of COVID-19 health experiences was conducted. Information was collected regarding reasons for and against COVID-19 inoculations, experiences with COVID-19 illness, and COVID-19 inoculations by survey respondents and their social circles. Logit regression analyses were carried out to identify factors influencing the likelihood of being vaccinated.”
A total of 2,840 people completed the survey between Dec. 18 and Dec. 23, 2021. The mean age was 47, and the gender ratio was 51 percent women, 49 percent men. Just over half, 51 percent, had received one or more COVID jabs.
As Skidmore suspected, results showed that people who got the jab were more likely to know someone who experienced a health problem from COVID-19 infection, whereas those who knew someone who experienced a health problem after getting the jab were less likely to be jabbed.
Of the respondents, 34 percent knew one or more people who had experienced a significant health problem due to the COVID-19 illness, and 22 percent knew one or more people who had been injured by the shot. So, as noted by to the author:7
“Knowing someone who reported serious health issues either from COVID-19 or from COVID-19 vaccination are important factors for the decision to get vaccinated.”
As for the types of side effects experienced by people within the respondents’ social circles, they included (but were not limited to) the “usual suspects,” such as:
Heart and cardiovascular problems.
Severe COVID infection or other respiratory illness.
Feeling generally unwell, weak, fatigued, and out of breath for weeks.
Blood clots and stroke.
Hundreds of Thousands Killed for No Reason
“… the total number of fatalities due to COVID-19 inoculation may be as high as 278,000 (95 percent CI 217,330-332,608) when fatalities that may have occurred regardless of inoculation are removed.”
Were COVID-19 an infection with an extremely high mortality rate, perhaps high rates of death from a vaccine would be acceptable. But COVID-19 has an exceptionally low mortality rate, on par with or lower than influenza, hence the risk associated with the COVID jabs ought to be equally low.
The global cost of life from these vaccines is on the order of 10 to 12 million people.
— Steve Kirsch
As it stands, the risks of the shots are very high, while Pfizer’s own trial data, with more than 40,000 participants, show they offer no benefit in terms of your risk of hospitalization and/or death. The absolute risk reduction is so minute as to be inconsequential.8
High Rates of Side Effects
The death toll from the jabs isn’t the only disturbing part of this paper, though. Skidmore’s findings also suggest side effects from the jab may be more common than previously suspected.
As mentioned, 51 percent of the respondents had been jabbed. Of those, 15 percent reported experiencing a new health problem post-jab and 13 percent deemed it “serious.” Compare that to Pfizer’s six-month safety analysis,9 which claimed only 1.2 percent of trial participants reported a serious adverse event.
Now, as suggested by Kirsch,10 “we need to discount that by a factor of two because people report less severe adverse events as adverse events.” Still, that means serious adverse events from the jab are five times higher than what Pfizer reported.
“This is why the FDA never does after-market surveys on the drugs it approves. Because reality hurts,” Kirsch writes.11 “It is the FDA that should have discovered this before Mark Skidmore. The FDA is asleep at the wheel and they just believe everything the drug companies tell them, hook, line, and sinker. This is a major miss. Why aren’t they doing surveys like this to see if the reality matches the study?”
More Side Effect Rate Comparisons
For additional comparison, here are the findings of several other investigations:
Rasmussen Reports12: In December 2022, Rasmussen Reports polled 1,000 Americans. In this poll—taken one year after Skidmore’s survey—34 percent reported experiencing minor side effects from the jab and seven percent reported major side effects.
CDC’s V-Safe data13: In October 2022, ICAN [Informed Consent Action Network] obtained the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s V-Safe data. This is a voluntary program to monitor adverse vaccine reactions. Of the 10.1 million COVID jab recipients who used the app, 7.7 percent had to seek medical care post-jab.
Kirsch-funded survey14: A June 2022 U.S. survey by the market research company Pollfish found that 16.3 percent of COVID jabbed respondents experienced an injury, and 9.7 percent required medical care.
The graphic below, which visually compares Skidmore’s findings to the findings of the Rasmussen, V-Safe, and Pollfish surveys, was created by InfoGame on Substack.15 As noted by InfoGame:
“Skidmore’s article serves as another sign that the rate of COVID-19 side effects is extremely high and that the COVID-19 vaccines are an unprecedently risky medical product.”
Menstrual Irregularities Are Common Post-Jab
While we’re on the topic of reported side effects, several surveys have also focused on the frequency of abnormal menses in women who got the jab, which could be indicative of reproductive harm. For example:
A British survey published in early December 2021 found 20 percent of women experienced menstrual disturbances following their jab.16
A study published in Science Advances in mid-July 2022 found 66 percent of “fully vaccinated” postmenopausal women experienced abnormal breakthrough bleeding. In total, 42.1 percent reported heavier menstrual flow post-jab (this included women of all ages, as well as transgenders on hormone treatments).17
An Italian peer-reviewed study published in March 2022 found that “50-60 percent of reproductive-age women who received the first dose of the COVID-19 vaccine reported menstrual cycle irregularities, regardless of the type of administered vaccine.” After the second dose, abnormal menses were reported by 60 percent to 70 percent.18
People in High Places Seek Retraction
Not surprisingly, people in high places are already trying to force a retraction of the paper. A special notice from the editor, dated just two days post-publication, states:
“Readers are alerted that the conclusions of this paper are subject to criticisms that are being considered by editors. Specifically, that the claims are unsubstantiated and that there are questions about the quality of the peer review.”
As noted by Kirsch:19
“They are actively trying to get the paper retracted because it destroys the narrative. I’m certain they will succeed because journals are under intense pressure to censor any anti-narrative paper. The problem is that Mark’s survey was entirely consistent with my surveys.
“If they want to have the paper retracted they need to show us THEIR surveys. But of course, they don’t have any surveys because they are too afraid of the results.
“So they will use hand-waving arguments like “I don’t like the methodology” or some nonsense like that instead of gathering their own data. They will NEVER show us survey data that supports their narrative because it isn’t there.
“That’s why there are no success anecdotes. NOBODY can give me the name of a U.S. geriatric practice where all-cause deaths plummeted after the vaccines rolled out. In every case, they went the wrong way. The narrative is unraveling at an accelerated pace but the medical community is still fighting the truth.”
Originally published Feb. 07, 2023, on Mercola.com
Views expressed in this article are the opinions of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of The Epoch Times. Epoch Health welcomes professional discussion and friendly debate. To submit an opinion piece, please follow these guidelines and submit through our form here.
Dr. Joseph Mercola is the founder of Mercola.com. An osteopathic physician, best-selling author, and recipient of multiple awards in the field of natural health, his primary vision is to change the modern health paradigm by providing people with a valuable resource to help them take control of their health.
Multiple Sclerosis and Medical Marijuana
Nature Is Free Medicine for Many Chronic Diseases, 1 Way Enhances Healing Effects
If you don’t know where to go on vacation, there is no harm in getting in touch with nature. Not only does it relieve stress, but it may also help reduce the need for prescription medications for conditions like high blood pressure and asthma. It’s best to take off your shoes and step on the grass with your bare feet—you may gain some unexpected benefits.
Green Space Is Free Medicine, Can Improve Many Chronic Diseases
Do you like green spaces? The British Medical Journal published a two-year study in Finland that revealed that frequent visits to green spaces such as forests, gardens, parks, and meadows can help people reduce the use of prescription medication for depression, insomnia, high blood pressure, and asthma. These medicines are mainly used to treat common and potentially serious health problems.
The study analyzed about 7,300 people, and the results found that compared with those who visited green spaces less than once a week, those who visited green spaces three to four times a week were 33 percent less likely to use psychotropic medication, 36 percent less likely to use antihypertensive medication, and 26 percent less likely to use asthma medication.
Exposure to natural environments is widely believed to be beneficial for human health, and this study actually provides another piece of evidence. Dr. Gyaltsen Lobsang, a preventive medicine expert and director of Dr. Lobsang Preventive Medicare Clinic, said that he often encourages people to go into the forest; this advice is even included in his “prescription” because nature has so many health benefits to offer.
Plants release a lot of oxygen and produce a lot of bioactive substances during photosynthesis, which helps you resist oxidation and reduce chronic inflammation.
Many people suffer from chronic inflammatory conditions. When the cells in the body do not get enough oxygen, the hypoxic cells will emit “reactive oxygen species,” which can damage cells and organs, resulting in body oxidation and chronic inflammation. Chronic inflammation will then lead to weakened immunity, making it difficult for the body to fight against foreign viruses and bacteria.
Hypoxemia (insufficient oxygen in the body) can be caused by environmental, physiological, and pathological factors. Lobsang pointed out that symptoms such as muscle stiffness, poor sleep, and dizziness may indicate a lack of oxygen in the body.
2. Boost immunity and prevent cancer
People can also breathe in phytoncides when they are in green spaces, especially forests. Phytoncides, also known as “exterminators of the plant,” are chemicals that plants release into the air with antimicrobial properties to protect themselves from insects.
A study found that the activity of natural killer (NK) cells in the body increased by about 50 percent after people breathed in phytoncides while walking in nature. These cells can kill tumor cells and virus-infected cells in the body.
Lobsang believes that the air in the forest can help cleanse the lungs. Therefore, he will ask patients, especially lung cancer patients, to get in touch with nature, preferably in areas with forests, at least two to three times a month.
4. Relieve stress, improve mood, and regulate autonomic nervous system
A natural environment filled with plants promotes the relaxation of the body and mind. The director of Lohasiinfra Clinic in Taiwan, Shih-Heng Chang pointed out that there are more sounds in the forest than at the seaside, such as the chirping of insects and birds, and the sound of the wind. These sounds are called white noise, and they can block out real noise, helping to relieve stress, and are more relaxing than total silence.
Studies have also found that forest landscapes can reduce psychological stress and mental fatigue, and induce positive emotions, thereby improving anxiety, depression, and anger. This has preventive and therapeutic effects on depression. At the same time, forest bathing also helps to reduce stress hormones such as adrenaline and cortisol, thus relieving people’s stress.
Stress is also closely related to autonomic nervous system disorders; forest bathing can increase the activity of the parasympathetic nerves and reduce the activity of the sympathetic nerves, allowing the autonomic nervous system to return to a stable and balanced state. Consequently, sleep quality can also be improved.
5. Lower blood pressure and manage diabetes
Studies have found that the forest environment can effectively lower blood pressure, reduce pulse rate, and improve cardiac-pulmonary and metabolic functions, which can help improve the quality of life of pre-hypertensive or hypertensive patients.
Speculated reasons why forests may reduce blood pressure include the positive effects of phytoncides on the body, and the modulating effect of the forest environment on the autonomic nervous system.
Walking in a forest environment increases adiponectin, which helps lower blood glucose levels in diabetic patients. High levels of adiponectin have been linked to resistance to diabetes, weight loss, and the prevention of atherosclerosis.
5. Manage ADHD and improve concentration
In addition to improving concentration in the general population, natural environments can also enhance attention in children with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD). A walk in the park is sufficient to elevate concentration in children with ADHD.
Lobsang also found in his clinical treatment that the symptoms of 80 to 90 percent of children with ADHD or autism can be gradually improved when the children are exposed to nature.
Lobsang believes that plants are very effective in purifying the air, saying that “plants are the best air purifiers.” He pointed out that many studies have found that simply having a lot of plants (such as sansevieria) indoors can help clean the air.
7. Improve eye health
Looking at a green environment after intense eye use can relax the eyes. Chang explained that green light’s wavelength can relax the eye muscles. The eyes will directly affect the brain, and the discomfort of the eyes will cause pain in the head. Computer vision syndrome refers to the discomfort in the eyes caused by prolonged viewing of the computer, which will extend to the brain, resulting in symptoms such as headache and nausea.
Take off Your Shoes and Perform ‘Earthing’ to Increase Natural Healing Power
When walking into green spaces, it is best to take off your shoes if possible, and step barefoot on grass, dirt, and sand to perform “earthing,” as doing so allows you to receive nature’s medicine—electrons from the Earth’s surface.
Scientist Clint Ober discovered the health benefits of earthing by accident. In his book “Earthing,” co-authored with Dr. Stephen Sinatra and others, it is stated that people live on an electrified planet and live an electrified life—the heart, brain, muscles, nervous system, and immune system are all dynamic electric circuits. The purpose of earthing is to connect the weak current on the surface of the earth with the physiological current of the human botos to restore the body’s electrical balance.
Numerous studies have now documented the many benefits of going barefoot on the ground, including reduced chronic inflammation, pain and stress, improved blood flow, vitality and sleep, enhanced wound healing, and the prevention and treatment of autoimmune diseases.
A case study (pdf) by the International Academy of Clinical Thermography mentioned that an 85-year-old man with severe inflammation and chronic pain woke up stiff and sore every day, and his pain completely disappeared after four weeks of earthing therapy.
To maximize the benefits of performing earthing to the body, going barefoot for as little as 30 or 40 minutes daily can significantly reduce pain and stress.
Lobsang said that the body is the structure of energy, and earthing can not only release bad energy from the body, but also massage the soles of the feet at the same time. There are many acupoints on the soles of the feet, such as the Yong Quan acupoint, which is an excellent acupoint for relieving stress, stabilizing emotions, and improving sleep. Additionally, the stimulation of the sole muscles can promote microcirculation.
Lobstang brings his patients to places with clean grass for earthing. In particular, grass that has been exposed to the sun is best. However, people with wounds on the soles of the feet, especially diabetics, have to be careful; they should avoid earthing when there are wounds on the soles of the feet.
In addition, traditional Chinese medicine believes in the concept of the unity of man and nature, and earthing is in line with the concept. Wu Kuo-pin, superintendent of Taiwan Xinyitang Heart Clinic, said that the ground is a part of the Earth (in the Five Elements); the Earth element is associated with the spleen and stomach, and the spleen and stomach are part of the digestive system in traditional Chinese medicine. People can strengthen their spleen and stomach by performing earthing and absorbing the qi of the Earth element. The immune system will improve as the function of the spleen and stomach improves.
Kuo-pin once heard of a case in which a cancer patient recovered from cancer by walking barefoot in the mountains. He emphasized that the energies of the human body, the Earth, and the universe are inherently interconnected. Stepping on the ground with bare feet can adjust the energy of the body, which is beneficial to overall well-being.
“We have good news! We are back on the docket!” the tweet read. “SCOTUS has updated our motion for reconsideration and has set a conference date of 2/17, just two weeks from Friday!…” -Brunson Brothers tweet
[Breaking Christian News] The case brought by Utah brothers Raland and Loy Brunson—(Raland Brunson v. Alma Adams) had been making its way through the US court system. After the US Supreme Court (SCOTUS) initially agreed to hear the case, it was rejected without explanation on January 9th, of this year. (Screengrab image)
However, on February 1st, the Brunson Brothers shared on Twitter that the case was back on:
“We have good news! We are back on the docket!” the tweet read. “SCOTUS has updated our motion for reconsideration and has set a conference date of 2/17, just two weeks from Friday! We told you we were ready for anything, we are still in the fight. Keep the prayers coming!”
The Brunson v. Adams case, if won, would essentially reverse the presidential results of the 2020 election.
On Raland Brunson’s website a description reads:
THE LAWSUIT Both lawsuits include defendants …Biden, Harris, former V.P. Pence and 385 members of congress for breaking their oath of office by voting AGAINST the proposition (that came from members of congress) to investigate the claims that there were enemies of the constitution who successfully rigged the election.
BOTH LAWSUITS ARE ABOUT THE DEFENDANTS BREAKING THEIR OATH OF OFFICE “I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic…”
THE QUESTION How can you support, and defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign, and domestic? Answer: You investigate. If there are claims that there is a threat, even if you don’t believe there is a threat, you investigate. How else can you determine if there is a threat unless you investigate? You can’t. Were there claims of a threat to the Constitution? Yes. Where did these serious claims come from? 100 members of Congress. What was the threat? That there were enemies of the Constitution who successfully rigged the 2020 election. Is this lawsuit about a rigged election? No, it’s about the members of Congress who voted AGAINST the investigation thereby thwarting the investigation. Was this a clear violation of their oath? YES.
THE RELIEF THAT LOY AND RALAND ARE SEEKING That defendants be permanently removed from office, and not allowed to hold a public office again.
@BrunsonSCOTUS tweeted, “…strength in numbers is such an empowering tool that We the People can use to our advantage, so come on over to our new website http://brunsonbrothers.com as we continue to grow this historic movement! We feel we are on a divine mission, and the inspiration this has brought to people along with some of the breaks we’ve caught along the way proves that any “average” American can make a world of difference. All it takes is a vision, a plan, and most importantly faith and prayer.” Subscribe for free to Breaking Christian News here
On their Twitter account, the brothers added, “We truly feel that somehow, someway, all we have done in our lives has been for a purpose. We weren’t quite sure what that purpose was, until now…”
According to Republican congress members Matt Gaetz and Lauren Boebert, Speaker of the House Kevin McCarthy has agreed to release all of the January 6 footage as Democrats have tried to shield its release.
“The American people deserve to know the truth about what happened on January 6th. We have demanded to see all the footage. Transparency is coming,” Gaetz said. “Every time from the JFK files to 9/11, to now January 6th. It’s our own government, our own Department of Justice that seems to stand in the way of transparency.”
He also called for CSPAN cameras on the House floor.
“If we had cameras on the floor, my suspicion is we would have far better attendance during debates that impact the lives of our fellow Americans,” Gaetz said.
Boebert also chimed in: “Speaker McCarthy says he’ll be releasing ALL the footage from January 6th. Considering all the public has seen are edited clips from a bunch of Democrats with an axe to grind, it sure will be nice to get some unbiased footage.”
Shortly after McCarthy became speaker, speculation began swirling that he would release 14,000 hours of footage relating to January 6.
The revelation was praised by Fox News host Tucker Carlson.
“I think the public should see what happened on that day,” McCarthy said last Thursday. “I watched what Nancy Pelosi did, where she politicized it. … I think the American public should actually see what happened instead of a report that’s written for a political basis.”
“Well, yeah. After two full years, after a highly publicized and highly politicized congressional committee, after endless grandstanding in the media, after unprecedented political crackdowns, after nearly 1,000 arrests, after all of that: Americans, yes they do, have a right to know what actually happened on Jan. 6,” Carlson said in response to the development. “That’s what Kevin McCarthy said. Who could argue otherwise? What is the counter argument?”
“’You can’t know whether the Capitol’s surveillance cameras pan, tilt or zoom — and if you do know, America is in peril.’ It’s completely absurd. Every human movement in the United States Capitol is recorded by cameras, and you already knew that because the same is true in virtually every public building in the Western hemisphere,” Carlson said. “That is not a secret. That, of course, is not the secret the Democrats fear you might learn if you saw the tape.”
“They are probably a lot more concerned about whether you will discover how many law enforcement agents actively helped Jan. 6 protesters enter the building that day,” Carlson added. “Some of them definitely did, we know that for a fact because we have the tape.”
‘Without a Shadow of a Doubt’: Kari Lake Responds After 2-Day Election Fraud Trial Ends
By Jack Phillips
December 23, 2022Updated: December 23, 2022
Arizona GOP candidate Kari Lake released a statement Thursday saying that her lawyers proved that there was “malicious intent” that caused disruption during Maricopa County’s Nov. 8 election, although lawyers for Arizona’s Secretary of State office and Maricopa County argued that she didn’t offer any evidence of alleged fraud or misconduct.
Abha Khanna, a lawyer representing Hobbs, told the courtroom in Maricopa County that Lake’s attorneys have not established whether printer problems on Election Day were intentional acts that would have changed the race’s outcome had they not occurred. At the trial’s closing arguments Thursday, Khanna said Lake’s claims were based on hearsay, speculation, and theatrics.
“What we got instead was just loose threads and gaping plot holes. We know now that her story was a work of fiction,” Khanna said.
But Kurt Olsen, one of Lake’s attorneys, said officials tried to downplay the effects of the printer problems in Maricopa County. On Nov. 8, County Supervisor Bill Gates and Recorder Stephen Richer announced during a news conference that there were printer errors at dozens of polling locations countywide, telling voters to either drop their ballots inside drop-boxes or go to another polling location.
“This is about trust, your honor,” Olsen said. “It’s about restoring people’s trust. There is not a person that’s watching this thing that isn’t shaking their head now.”
Superior Court Judge Peter Thompson, an appointee of former Republican Gov. Jan Brewer, did not say when he would issue a ruling on the case.
Following the two-day trial, Lake told reporters that she believes her attorneys presented a case that would potentially change the outcome of the election. A lawsuit Lake filed earlier this month called for either a redo of the election in Maricopa County or to declare her the victor over Hobbs, a Democrat.
‘Without a Shadow of a Doubt’
“We provided expert testimony. We provided experts. The other side brought in activists to try to save face. They admitted that they’ve known about these ballot problems. They’re ballot problems,” Lake said.
Her lawyers “proved without a shadow of a doubt that there was malicious intent that caused disruption so great it changed the results of the election,” Lake said, adding, “We demand fair, honest, transparent elections, and we will get them. And I pray so hard for this judge.”
At one point during the trial, Lake’s attorneys pointed to a witness who examined ballots on behalf of her campaign and discovered 14 ballots that had 19-inch images of the ballot printed on 20-inch paper, meaning the ballots wouldn’t be read by a tabulator. The witness claimed someone changed those printer configurations, although election officials disputed those assertions.
Lake also called on pollster Richard Baris, who told the court that he believes technical problems at polling places had disenfranchised enough voters that it would have changed the outcome of the race in Lake’s favor. Baris noted that Election Day voters in Maricopa mostly trended Republican.
Baris stated that 25,000 to 40,000 people who would normally have voted actually didn’t cast ballots as a result of Election Day problems, saying that his estimate was primarily influenced by the number of people who started answering his exit poll but didn’t finish the process.
“The bottom line here is that those who said they would cast their vote by mail or drop their ballot off by mail completed their questionnaire at a 93 percent rate,” Baris said, adding that “the rate for Election Day voters was only 72 percent. I can tell you that has never happened to me before, ever.”
Kenneth Mayer, a political science professor at the University of Wisconsin-Madison who is not a pollster involved in the race, claimed that Baris was engaging in making “assumptions and speculation.”
Earlier in the week, Thompson allowed Lake’s case to go to trial but dismissed eight out of 10 claims brought by Lake’s team. The judge ruled that the dismissed charges didn’t meet the criteria to bring election challenges under Arizona law.
Jack Phillips is a senior reporter for The Epoch Times based in New York. He covers breaking news.
Front row, left to right — Associate Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Clarence Thomas, Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Jr., Associate Justices Samuel A. Alito, Jr. and Elena Kagan.
Back row — Associate Justices Amy Coney Barrett, Neil M. Gorsuch, Brett M. Kavanaugh and Ketanji Brown Jackson.
Supreme Court Considers Taking Brunson v. Adams Case That Seeks to Overturn 2020 Election
The U.S. Supreme Court will decide whether it will take up a case that could overturn the 2020 elections and make representatives who voted to confirm the election ineligible to hold office in the future. The case, Brunson v. Alma S. Adams; et al, sues the members of Congress who voted against the proposed 10-day audit of the 2020 elections, alleging that doing so and then certifying the election regardless was a breach of their oath of office.
If the Supreme Court rules against Congress, it could potentially remove a sitting president and vice president, along with the members of Congress involved, and deem them unfit to hold office again at any level of U.S. government. It would allegedly also give the Supreme Court the ability to authorize the swearing-in of the rightful president and vice president. Link
Case explained in the video below and the Justices will have a conference on January 6.
A serious conflict exists between decisions rendered from
this Court and lower appeal courts, along with
constitutional provisions and statutes, in deciding whether
or not the trial court has jurisdiction to try the merits of
This case uncovers a serious national security breach that
is unique and is of first impression, and due to the serious
nature of this case it involves the possible removal of a
sitting President and Vice President of the United States
along with members of the United States Congress, while
deeming them unfit from ever holding office under Federal,
State, County or local Governments found within the
United States of America, and at the same time the trial
court also has the authority, to be validated by this Court,
to authorize the swearing in of the legal and rightful heirs
for President and Vice President of the United States.
In addition there are two doctrines that conflict with each
other found in this case affecting every court in this
country. These doctrines are known as the doctrine of
equitable maxim and the doctrine of the object principle of
justice. Equitable maxim created by this court, which the
lower court used to dismiss this case, sets in direct violation
of the object principle of justice also partially created by
this Court and supported by other appeal courts and
These conflicts call for the supervisory power of this Court
to resolve these conflicts, which has not, but should be,
settled by this Court without delay.
PARTIES TO THE PROCEEDING
Petitioner Raland J Brunson is an individual representing
himself and is a Plaintiff in the trial court.
The following 388 Respondents are a party to this action as
defendants in the trial court:
Named persons in their capacities as United States House
Representatives: ALMA S. ADAMS; PETE AGUILAR;
COLIN Z. ALLRED; MARK E. AMODEI; KELLY
ARMSTRONG; JAKE AUCHINCLOSS; CYNTHIA AXNE;
DON BACON; TROY BALDERSON; ANDY BARR;
NANETTE DIAZ BARRAGAN; KAREN BASS; JOYCE
BEATTY; AMI BERA; DONALD S. BEYER JR.; GUS M.
ILIRAKIS; SANFORD D. BISHOP JR.; EARL
BLUMENAUER; LISA BLUNT ROCHESTER; SUZANNE
BONAMICI; CAROLYN BOURDEAUX; JAMAAL
BOWMAN; BRENDAN F. BOYLE; KEVIN BRADY;
ANTHONY G. BROWN; JULIA BROWNLEY; VERN
BUCHANAN; KEN BUCK; LARRY BUCSHON; CORI
BUSH; CHERI BUSTOS; G. K. BUTTERFIELD; SALUD
0. CARBAJAL; TONY CARDENAS; ANDRE CARSON;
MATT CARTWRIGHT; ED CASE; SEAN CASTEN;
KATHY CASTOR; JOAQUIN CASTRO; LIZ CHENEY;
JUDY CHU; DAVID N. CICILLINE; KATHERINE M.
CLARK; YVETTE D. CLARKE; EMANUEL CLEAVER;
JAMES E. CLYBURN; STEVE COHEN; JAMES COMER;
GERALD E. CONNOLLY; JIM COOPER; J. LUIS
CORREA; JIM COSTA; JOE COURTNEY; ANGIE CRAIG;
DAN CRENSHAW; CHARLIE CRIST; JASON CROW;
HENRY CUELLAR; JOHN R. CURTIS; SHARICE
DAVIDS; DANNY K. DAVIS; RODNEY DAVIS;
MADELEINE DEAN; PETER A. DEFAZIO; DIANA
DEGETTE; ROSAL DELAURO; SUZAN K. DELBENE;
ANTONIO DELGADO; VAL BUTLER DEMINGS; MARK
DESAULNIER; THEODORE E. DEUTCH; DEBBIE
DINGELL; LLOYD DOGGETT; MICHAEL F. DOYLE;
TOM EMMER; VERONICA ESCOBAR; ANNA G. ESHOO;
ADRIANO ESPAILLAT; DWIGHT EVANS; RANDY
FEENSTRA; A. DREW FERGUSON IV; BRIAN K.
FITZPATRICK; LIZZIE LETCHER; JEFF
FORTENBERRY; BILL FOSTER; LOIS FRANKEL;
MARCIA L. FUDGE; MIKE GALLAGHER; RUBEN
GALLEGO; JOHN GARAMENDI; ANDREW R.
GARBARINO; SYLVIA R. GARCIA; JESUS G. GARCIA;
JARED F. GOLDEN; JIMMY GOMEZ; TONY GONZALES;
ANTHONY GONZALEZ; VICENTE GONZALEZ; JOSH
GOTTHEIMER; KAY GRANGER; AL GREEN; RAUL M.
GRIJALVA; GLENN GROTHMAN; BRETT GUTHRIE;
DEBRA A. HAALAND; JOSH HARDER; ALCEE L.
HASTINGS; JAHANA HAYES; JAIME HERRERA
BEUTLER; BRIAN HIGGINS; J. FRENCH HILL; JAMES
A. HIMES; ASHLEY HINSON; TREY HOLLINGSWORTH;
STEVEN HORSFORD; CHRISSY HOULAHAN; STENY H.
HOYER; JARED HUFFMAN; BILL HUIZENGA; SHEILA
JACKSON LEE; SARA JACOBS; PRAMILA JAYAPAL;
HAKEEM S. JEFFRIES; DUSTY JOHNSON; EDDIE
BERNICE JOHNSON; HENRY C. JOHNSON JR.;
MONDAIRE JONES; DAVID P. JOYCE; KAIALPI
KAHELE; MARCY KAPTUR; JOHN KATKO; WILLIAM R.
KEATING; RO KHANNA; DANIEL T. KILDEE; DEREK
KILMER; ANDY KIM; YOUNG KIM; RON KIND; ADAM
KINZINGER; ANN KIRKPATRICK; RAJA
KRISHNAMOORTHI; ANN M. KUSTER; DARIN
LAHOOD; CONOR LAMB; JAMES R. LANGEVIN; RICK
LARSEN; JOHN B. LARSON; ROBERT E. LATTA; JAKE
LATURNER; BRENDA L. LAWRENCE; AL LAWSON JR.;
BARBARA LEE; SUSIE LEE; TERESA LEGER
FERNANDEZ; ANDY LEVIN; MIKE LEVIN; TED LIEU;
ZOE LOFGREN; ALAN S.LOWENTHAL; ELAINE G.
LURIA; STEPHEN F. LYNCH; NANCY MACE; TOM
MALINOWSKI; CAROLYN B. MALONEY; SEAN
PATRICK MALONEY; KATHY E. MANNING; THOMAS
MASSIE; DORIS 0. MATSUI; LUCY MCBATH; MICHAEL
T. MCCAUL; TOM MCCLINTOCK; BETTY MCCOLLUM;
A. ADONALD MCEACHIN; JAMES P. MCGOVERN;
PATRICK T. MCHENRY; DAVID B. MCKINLEY; JERRY
MCNERNEY; GREGORY W. MEEKS; PETER MEIJER;
GRACE MENG; KWEISI MFUME; MARIANNETTE
MILLER-MEEKS; JOHN R. MOOLENAAR; BLAKE D.
MOORE; GWEN MOORE; JOSEPH D. MORELLE;
SETH MOULTON; FRANK J. MRVAN; STEPHANIE N.
MURPHY; JERROLD NADLER; GRACE F.
NAPOLITANO; RICHARD E. NEAL; JOE NEGUSE; DAN
NEWHOUSE; MARIE NEWMAN; DONALD NORCROSS;
ALEXANDRIA OCASIO-CORTEZ; TOM O’HALLERAN;
ILHAN OMAR; FRANK PALLONE JR.; JIMMY
PANETTA; CHRIS PAPPAS; BILL PASCRELL JR.;
DONALD M. PAYNE JR.; NANCY PELOSI; ED
PERLMUTTER; SCOTT H. PETERS; DEAN PHILLIPS;
CHELLIE PINGREE; MARK POCAN; KATIE PORTER;
AYANNA PRESSLEY; DAVID E. PRICE; MIKE
QUIGLEY; JAMIE RASKIN; TOM REED; KATHLEEN M.
RICE; CATHY MCMORRIS RODGERS; DEBORAH K.
ROSS; CHIP ROY; LUCILLE ROYBAL-ALLARD; RAUL
RUIZ; C. A. DUTCH RUPPERSBERGER; BOBBY L.
RUSH; TIM RYAN; LINDA T. SANCHEZ; JOHN P.
SARBANES; MARY GAY SCANLON; JANICE D.
SCHAKOWSKY; ADAM B. SCHIFF; BRADLEY SCOTT
SCHNEIDER; KURT SCHRADER; KIM SCHRIER;
AUSTIN SCOTT; DAVID SCOTT; ROBERT C. SCOTT;
TERRI A. SEWELL; BRAD SHERMAN; MIKIE
SHERRILL; MICHAEL K. SIMPSON; ALBIO SIRES;
ELISSA SLOTKIN; ADAM SMITH; CHRISTOPHER H.
SMITH; DARREN SOTO; ABIGAIL DAVIS
SPANBERGER; VICTORIA SPARTZ; JACKIE SPEIER;
GREG STANTON; PETE STAUBER; MICHELLE STEEL;
BRYAN STEIL; HALEY M. STEVENS; STEVE STIVERS;
MARILYN STRICKLAND; THOMAS R. SUOZZI; ERIC
SWALWELL; MARK TAKANO; VAN TAYLOR; BENNIE
G. THOMPSON; MIKE THOMPSON; DINA TITUS;
RASHIDA TLAIB; PAUL TONKO; NORMA J. TORRES;
RITCHIE TORRES; LORI TRAHAN; DAVID J. TRONE;
MICHAEL R. TURNER; LAUREN UNDERWOOD; FRED
UPTON; JUAN VARGAS; MARC A. VEASEY; FILEMON
VELA; NYDIA M. VELAZQUEZ; ANN WAGNER;
MICHAEL WALTZ; DEBBIE WASSERMAN SCHULTZ;
MAXINE WATERS; BONNIE WATSON COLEMAN;
PETER WELCH; BRAD R. WENSTRUP; BRUCE
WESTERMAN; JENNIFER WEXTON; SUSAN WILD;
NIKEMA WILLIAMS; FREDERICA S. WILSON; STEVE
WOMACK; JOHN A. YARMUTH; DON YOUNG; the
following persons named are for their capacities as U.S.
Senators; TAMMY BALDWIN; JOHN BARRASSO;
MICHAEL F. BENNET; MARSHA BLACKBURN;
RICHARD BLUMENTHAL; ROY BLUNT; CORY A.
BOOKER; JOHN BOOZMAN; MIKE BRAUN; SHERROD
BROWN; RICHARD BURR; MARIA CANTWELL;
SHELLEY CAPITO; BENJAMIN L. CARDIN; THOMAS R.
CARPER; ROBERT P. CASEY JR.; BILL CASSIDY;
SUSAN M. COLLINS; CHRISTOPHER A. COONS; JOHN
CORNYN; CATHERINE CORTEZ MASTO; TOM
COTTON; KEVIN CRAMER; MIKE CRAPO; STEVE
DAINES; TAMMY DUCKWORTH; RICHARD J. DURBIN;
JONI ERNST; DIANNE FEINSTEIN; DEB FISCHER;
KIRSTEN E. GILLIBRAND; LINDSEY GRAHAM; CHUCK
GRASSLEY; BILL HAGERTY; MAGGIE HASSAN;
MARTIN HEINRICH; JOHN HICKENLOOPER; MAZIE
HIRONO; JOHN HOEVEN; JAMES INHOFE; RON
JOHNSON; TIM KAINE; MARK KELLY; ANGUS S.
KING, JR.; AMY KLOBUCHAR; JAMES LANKFORD;
PATRICK LEAHY; MIKE LEE; BEN LUJAN; CYNTHIA
M. LUMMIS; JOE MANCHIN III; EDWARD J. MARKEY;
MITCH MCCONNELL; ROBERT MENENDEZ; JEFF
MERKLEY; JERRY MORAN; LISA MURKOWSKI;
CHRISTOPHER MURPHY; PATTY MURRAY; JON
OSSOFF; ALEX PADILLA; RAND PAUL; GARY C.
PETERS; ROB PORTMAN; JACK REED; JAMES E.
RISCH; MITT ROMNEY; JACKY ROSEN; MIKE
ROUNDS; MARCO RUBIO; BERNARD SANDERS; BEN
SASSE; BRIAN SCHATZ; CHARLES E. SCHUMER; RICK
SCOTT; TIM SCOTT; JEANNE SHAHEEN; RICHARD C.
SHELBY; KYRSTEN SINEMA; TINA SMITH;
DEBBIE STABENOW; DAN SULLIVAN; JON TESTER;
JOHN THUNE; THOM TILLIS; PATRICK J. TOOMEY;
HOLLEN VAN; MARK R. WARNER; RAPHAEL G.
WARNOCK; ELIZABETH WARREN; SHELDON
WHITEHOUSE; ROGER F. WICKER; RON WYDEN;
TODD YOUNG; JOSEPH ROBINETTE BIDEN JR in his
capacity of President of the United States; MICHAEL
RICHARD PENCE in his capacity as former Vice President
of the United States, and KAMALA HARRIS in her
capacity as Vice President of the United States and JOHN
and JANE DOES 1-100.
Write to the Justices clicking this link and get the following letter
Supreme Court of the United States
1 First Street, NE
Washington, DC 20543
Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Jr.
Associate Justice Clarence Thomas
Associate Justice Sonia Sotomayor
Associate Justice Samuel A. Alito, Jr.
Associate Justice Elena Kagan.
Associate Justice Amy Coney Barrett
Associate Justice Neil M. Gorsuch
Associate Justice Brett M. Kavanaugh
Associate Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson
RE: Brunson v. Alma S. Adams et al No.: 22-380
This letter is to express my support of the above referenced case. I am concerned that the United States has experienced a national security breach and a violation of every citizens’ greatest power in a Republic: voting. I ask that you stand against the interference of foreign and domestic enemies and uphold the supreme law of the land by granting this petition. You truly are in a position that represents a court system greater than the world has ever seen.
I, along with many others, seem to be witnessing our nation captured and I am left to wonder if it might be by some of these very respondents. I pray for the right and just outcome and I am grateful for your time and consideration.