Jesus said, "Recognize what is in your sight, and that which is hidden from you will become plain to you . For there is nothing hidden which will not become manifest." Gospel of Thomas (5)
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.”
RFK Jr. Details the Vaccine Manufacturers’ Stunning Admission of Causing Injury & Harm
Each of the 405 diseases that have become epidemic since 1989 is listed as a side effect in the vaccine inserts. Autism is among those diseases listed.
“The Federal law says that they’re not allowed to list anything on that manufacturer’s insert unless [the] FDA determines that it is likely that the vaccine caused that injury.”
Brought to you by Pfizer
The next episode of ☀️ICIC – International Crimes Investigative Committee with: Dr. Claus Köhnlein, Dr. Hans-Joachim Maaz & Samuel Eckert
Coming up on this episode of Alison at Large: A one-on-one with J6 political prisoner Jake Lang. We will remember the infamous day and discuss the new book he has released behind bars. Plus a shocking ruling out of new Zealand… Regarding pedophilia. And “to censor or not to censor”… That is the question… And Elon Musk’s latest maneuver may shock you. And B.M.W. introduces you to a car with a ‘digital soul.’
The Higher View is a brand-new show using The View as a format. If you are a fan or not a fan of The View which has been on for 25 years. We have taken the show format to a Higher Consciousness perspective. Our first show aired live yesterday. Please check it out and share. It is time that Humanity moves to a Higher Consciousness together. Awake 2 Oneness Radio: https://www.awake2onenessradio.org/
General Flynn says the enemy is acting the way they are because they’re worried (panicked!), and he wants the American people to be ready to rally at the right time, saying 99.9% we will be unified:
A word to the Unvaccinated
How they can program us through wave of energy that has a profound effect on us.
Was 911 a setup? Decide for yourself as conspiracy theories are coming true.
Satanic cults and cannibals are todays powerful people
What is real, what is not. What is your perception of reality?
We have been enslaved for a long time by the negative force of humanity. The veil is lifting and we beginning to the world from a different perspective. First and foremost we are energetic beings and our bodies are far more full of our essence in the metaphysical sense than our physical body. Think of the universe as a whole as a field of energy, infinite, mysterious and intelligent and we are all connected.
This energy source has also been validated by the late Dr. Valerie V. Hunt, scientist, author, lecturer and Professor Emeritus of Physiological Science at the University of California. She confirmed electromagnetic energy is the most plentiful constant energy of our universe. It is a part of all structures living and dead, including the atmosphere. We create electromagnetic energies in the atoms of our living cells, which we enhance by the reaction with the atmospheric energy field. We know this expanded energy field as the human aura. Without this biofield life would not exist and there would be only an inner biochemical mix. Dr. Hunt was involved in research that is uncovering the various dimensions involved in the bioenergetic transactions between humans and the environment as they relate to human behaviors, emotions, health, illness, and disease, as well as scientifically quantifying the human aura and the levels of consciousness it contains.
In order to tap into this source, we should focus on the metaphysical as well as the physical, realizing our beliefs, thoughts, emotions and actions all are contributing factors to our reality. Our focus is mostly on the material aspect of our world; providing for our families, trying to stay healthy, and dealing with the seemingly chaotic and troubling world. Many are trying to find their way spiritually. We all have problems and troubles and that is part of our test. How do we handle those situations? Are we fearful and angry or loving and compassionate?
How we handle those situations are entirely in our control. The wonderful thing about our lives is we have free-will with the ability to choose. Keep in mind energy flows where your attention goes.
Balancing involves the body, mind and spirit which includes diet, movement of the body, dealing with negative and positive emotions, and the will to reconnecting to the source of creation. When you reconnect, you will realize the oneness of the creation. God, Tao, Infinite Intelligence, Creator, Universal Mind are just one of the many names of the same Source of our creation that mankind has been trying to connect since the beginning. We are in the best time of our lives and are blessed to be here.
We the people do have the power. United we stand, divide we fall. We need to unite and stand against the tyranny as described in the Video below.
The case described in the Video below 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. See Case
Bill Gates and Jeffrey Epstein. You Decide
Judge Declares Illinois Cashless Bail Law Is Unconstitutional
By Jack Phillips
December 29, 2022Updated: December 29, 2022
An Illinois judge ruled Wednesday that parts of the state’s controversial SAFE-T act was unconstitutional just days before the cashless bail law was scheduled to take effect.
Kankakee County Circuit Court Judge Thomas W. Cunnington wrote that the Illinois state legislature “improperly attempted to amend the Constitution” and said elements of the law violate the Constitution’s separation of powers clause.
The SAFE-T Act, originally passed in January 2021, changes how courts handle criminal defendants and attempted to abolish cash bail.
The judge, in siding with the plaintiffs, found that “had the legislature wanted to change the provisions in the Constitution regarding eliminating monetary bail … they should have submitted the question on the ballot to the electorate at a general election,” adding that courts had their abilities “stripped away” by the legislature.
Further, Cunnington wrote that “declaratory judgment is proper in this case and that plaintiffs have met their burden to show to this court that [the SAFE-T Act] as they relate only to the pretrial release provisions are facially unconstitutional.” For the cash bail part of the law, he wrote it “will likely lead to delays in cases, increased workloads, expenditures of additional funds, and in some cases, an inability to obtain defendant’s appearance in court,” adding that it “that these likely injuries occasioned by the enforcement of an unconstitutional law, are cognizable injuries which provide constitutional standing to plaintiff State’s Attorneys.”
The suit was filed against Democrat Gov. J.B. Pritzker, Illinois Attorney General Kwame Raoul, Senate President Donald Harmon, and Speaker of the House Christopher Welch, according to a news release from the Office of the Kankakee County State’s Attorney, one of the lead plaintiffs in the class-action lawsuit. Raoul said in a statement the state will appeal the ruling to the Illinois Supreme Court.
“Today’s ruling affirms that we are still a government of the people, and that the Constitutional protections afforded to the citizens of Illinois–most importantly the right to exercise our voice with our vote–are inalienable,” Kankakee County State’s Attorney Jim Rowe said in a statement after the ruling Wednesday.
Raoul, a Democrat, said that the Illinois Supreme Court will now have to “definitively resolve this challenge to the pretrial release portions of the SAFE-T Act” because Pritzker, the legislative leaders, and others “intend to appeal the circuit court’s decision directly to the Illinois Supreme Court, where we will ask the court to reverse the circuit court’s decision.”
Pritzker called the ruling a “setback” and declared that Illinois’ “antiquated criminal justice system” needs to be replaced with “a system rooted in equity and fairness.”
“We cannot and should not defend a system that fails to keep people safe by allowing those who are a threat to their community the ability to simply buy their way out of jail,” he said. “I thank the Attorney General for his work on this case and look forward to the Illinois Supreme Court taking up the appeal as soon as possible.”
About 64 counties that signed onto the complaint will not have the bail portion of the SAFE-T act go into effect in the state. Other provisions of the law such as bodycamera mandates for police departments, training mandates, and more will go into effect Jan. 1, according to local media reports.
Before the lawsuit was filed, some Republican state leaders sounded the alarm about the SAFE-T act, arguing that it would lead to a rapid increase in violent crime across Illinois and Chicago, a city that frequently sees more than 700 homicides each year. As of Dec. 1, 2022, Chicago officials recorded about 630 murders, while in 2021, the city recorded more than 800.
Jack Phillips is a senior reporter for The Epoch Times based in New York. He covers breaking news.
Prof. Jonathan Turley listens during a House Judiciary Committee hearing on the impeachment inquiry against President Donald Trump in the Longworth House Office Building on Capitol Hill in Washington on Dec. 4, 2019. (Brendan Smialowski/AFP via Getty Images)
Constitutional Law Professor Issues Warning After FBI Criticizes ‘Conspiracy Theorists’
By Jack Phillips
December 28, 2022Updated: December 29, 2022
Constitutional law professor Jonathan Turley sounded the alarm over the FBI’s recent statement decrying “conspiracy theorists” and “disinformation” after recent installments of the “Twitter Files” revealed that agents were in constant communication with Twitter.
A spokesperson for the FBI told Fox News, in response to several “Twitter Files” installments, said that “conspiracy theorists” are “feeding the American public misinformation” and said they are trying to discredit the bureau and its agents.
That statement, Turley told Fox News, is “disturbing” because the FBI has allegedly “attacked many of us who were raising free speech concerns and called all of us collectively ‘conspiracy theorists spreading disinformation.’
“It was highly inappropriate, because the FBI has said that combatting disinformation is one of its priorities. So, it is a very menacing thing when you have the largest law enforcement agency attacking free speech advocates,” Turley, a professor of law at George Washington University who served as an expert witness during former President Donald Trump’s first impeachment inquiry, told the outlet.
With the reporting around the Twitter Files, Turley noted that new owner Elon Musk “has confirmed that the FBI paid social media companies to help them deal with what they called disinformation, which most of us call censorship.”
“But also that they were in continuous communication, as were other agencies, targeting specific citizens and specific posters to be banned or suspended,” Turley said, referring to disclosures from the files. “That really does smack of an agency relationship and that could violate the first amendment.”
What Happened
The FBI made its statement to Fox News after several journalists posted screenshots of messages showing how FBI agents communicated with top Twitter officials, namely about potential reports about Hunter Biden.
“What I quickly put together is a pattern where it appears that FBI agents, along with former FBI agents within the company, were engaged in a disinformation campaign aimed at top Twitter and Facebook executives, as well as at top news organization executives to basically prepare them, prime them, get them set up to dismiss Hunter Biden information when it would be released,” journalist Michael Shellenberger wrote.
Elon Musk arrives at the justice center in Wilmington, Del., on July 13, 2021. (Matt Rourke/AP Photo)
Another email, dated only last month, showed FBI agent Elvis Chan forwarding a message from the agency’s National Election Command Post to Twitter regarding 25 accounts that were allegedly spreading “misinformation about the upcoming election” on Nov. 8. Days later, the FBI’s San Francisco field office flagged four accounts to Twitter they believed “may potentially constitute violations of Twitter’s Terms of Service for any action or inaction deemed appropriate within Twitter policy,” according to files released by journalist Matt Taibbi that was shared by Musk on Twitter.
In another disclosure this month, one Twitter executive appeared to express alarm over the FBI’s pressure. “They are probing & pushing everywhere they can (including by whispering to congressional staff),” Carlos Monje wrote in January 2020.
Reports have indicated that a number of Big Tech companies have hired retired FBI agents and former intelligence officials. Twitter was no different, having hired former FBI general counsel James Baker, who was recently “exited” by Musk in early December amid reports that he was secretly “vetting” files that were accessed by Taibbi, Shellenberger, and other journalists.
When reached for comment, the FBI also said those messages between the bureau and Twitter show “nothing more than examples of our traditional, longstanding, and ongoing federal government and private sector engagements, which involve numerous companies over multiple sectors and industries. As evidenced in the correspondence, the FBI provides critical information to the private sector in an effort to allow them to protect themselves and their customers.”
But Turley, in an opinion article, said that “it is not clear what is more chilling—the menacing role played by the FBI in Twitter’s censorship program, or its mendacious response to the disclosure of that role” before he called for reforms at the bureau.
“After Watergate, there was bipartisan support for reforming the FBI and intelligence agencies. Today, that cacophony of voices has been replaced by crickets, as much of the media imposes another effective blackout on coverage of the Twitter Files,” he said. “This media silence suggests that the FBI found the ‘sweet spot’ on censorship, supporting the views of the political and media establishment.”
The Epoch Times has contacted the FBI for comment.
Jack Phillips is a senior reporter for The Epoch Times based in New York. He covers breaking news.
‘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
CROSSROADS
JOSHUA PHILIPP
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.
QUESTIONS PRESENTED
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.
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
constitutional provisions.
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
MAILED TO:
Supreme Court of the United States
1 First Street, NE
Washington, DC 20543
Attn:
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
Dear Justices,
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.
Supreme Court: Brunson v. Alma S. Adams; et al., Case Summary and Timeline
The case involves the possible removal of a sitting President and Vice President of the United States along with 388 members of the United States Congress.
Respondents were properly warned and were requested to make an investigation Into a highly covert swift and powerful enemy, seeking to destroy the constitution in the United States of America.
The case alleges that Congress failed in their Constitutional duties by ignoring the protection of critical infrastructure (election systems) during a National Emergency.
US courts have consistently held that fraud vitiates everything (US v Throckmorton, 1878).
The refusal of the respondents to investigate The Congressional claim (the enemy) is an act of treason and fraud by respondents.
The successful manipulation of US elections constitutes an act of war.
An FBI document being kept from the public under court seal undermines the government’s seditious-conspiracy case against the Oath Keepers, shows that the indicted members of the group “are not guilty,” and “proves that the prosecution is lying to the jury,” a former Oath Keepers attorney said in a statement provided to The Epoch Times on Oct. 7.
Jonathon Moseley, who previously represented Oath Keepers defendant Kelly Meggs before his law license was revoked, said an FBI interview with a U.S. Capitol Police officer shows the Oath Keepers protected the officer from an angry mob near the Capitol Rotunda on the afternoon of Jan. 6, 2021.
“This document—together with a photograph of the moment inside the U.S. Capitol on January 6—proves that the prosecution is lying to the jury,” Moseley said in the statement (pdf). “No one who engages in seditious conspiracy or insurrection stops to come to the aid of the police against the mob.
“If the Oath Keepers were involved in any way in any insurrection or conspiracy to obstruct the Joint Session of Congress on January 6, would they turn and stand between the U.S. Capitol Police against the mob?” Moseley asked. “This is not merely a good act. This is absolute proof that there never was any insurrection or seditious conspiracy. The prosecution’s entire case is a fraud upon the American people.”
William Miller, public information officer for the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the District of Columbia, declined to comment on Moseley’s statements. “We typically do not comment on cases beyond our public statements and filings to the court, and have no comment,” Miller told The Epoch Times in an email.
The FBI document in question, a Form 302 summary of officer Harry Dunn’s interview with two special agents, came up in open court on Oct. 6 during the seditious-conspiracy trial of Oath Keepers founder Elmer Stewart Rhodes III and four co-defendants, Kelly Meggs, Kenneth Harrelson, Jessica Watkins, and Thomas Caldwell.
Judge Issues Public Warning
Prosecutor Jeffrey Nestler informed Judge Amit Mehta that Moseley was “threatening” to release a sealed document. In response, Mehta took the unusual step of suggesting the news media covering the trial post messages to Moseley on social media saying that he would be jailed if he released the document.
Judge Mehta is back. Nestler is now talking about a weird thing involving a lawyer who was formerly a part of defense team, Jonathon Moseley, and who is now disbarred. He is threatening or trying to release FBI 302s protected by a protective order. …
Judge Mehta says that if Mosely does he will be in contempt of court and he urges us (reporters) to tweet that out so Moseley will know that. Moseley claims the doc lost its protective order status; Mehta: i decide when something's lost that status. /59
“These public tweets from journalists reporting on Mehta’s public warning are visible as an incredible event in the already farcical prosecution,” Moseley said.
Two FBI agents interviewed Dunn on May 18, 2021, about the incident in the Small House Rotunda. According to video footage from an independent journalist, and portions of the FBI summary of Dunn’s interview reviewed by The Epoch Times, a group of Oath Keepers came upon a volatile standoff in the Small House Rotunda at 2:48 p.m. on January 6.
An Oath Keepers member gets in between a protester and a Capitol Police officer during a tense exchange in the Small House Rotunda on Jan. 6, 2021. (Stephen Horn/Screenshot via The Epoch Times)
Dunn and at least two very agitated protesters in the crowd were shouting at each other. Dunn has said he did not have his finger on the trigger of his rifle, according to his FBI interview. A bullet was in the chamber but the firearm’s safety was on, he said.
Rhodes told the FBI in an interview that same month that Dunn shouted at the crowd, “I’m going to take as many of you [expletives] with me if you come for my rifle,” according to an interview summary obtained by The Epoch Times.
The Oath Keepers “got in between that cop and the Trump supporters and calmed things down and de-escalated the situation,” Rhodes said. “And protected—and protected him.”
In a March interview with The Epoch Times, Rhodes said the situation in the Small House Rotunda could have gone critical very quickly. The stakes in the situation were high, which is why the Oath Keepers stepped in to be a buffer, Rhodes said.
“If you’re armed and you got unarmed assailants, multiples coming at you, you’re in a lethal-force situation and you can’t let them take your gun,” he said. “So in that kind of situation, law enforcement officers will shoot.”
Kellye SoRelle, former general counsel for the Oath Keepers, told FBI agents in May 2021 that the people shouting at Dunn were “agitators.”
At the time, Dunn was guarding the stairs leading down to the Lower West Terrace tunnel entrance. Dozens of officers were inside the building in that location, which was used as a decontamination station for police hit with pepper spray, according to bodycam footage reviewed by The Epoch Times.
Dunn said when the Oath Keepers approached him, he told them the protesters were fighting police, according to the FBI interview summary.
The Oath Keepers told Dunn they would be a barrier between him and the angry crowd, the FBI document said. Dunn said he “allowed them” to stand in front of him to keep the crowd “from getting down the stairs.”
Dunn told the FBI he was “not angry or scared” but rather “distressed inside.” He had his rifle “flush with his chest” in “Condition 1,” meaning a round was in the chamber, the FBI summary said.
Oath Keepers member Graydon Young said he and other Oath Keepers aided numerous people in need of first aid after they entered the Capitol Rotunda that afternoon, according to a summary he wrote on Jan. 8, 2021.
The Oath Keepers had reached the top of the east steps at the Columbus Doors and “got caught in [the] crowd and shoved in,” Young said.
‘Trying to De-Escalate’
“Once we were in we tried to discourage property destruction,” Young wrote. “I specifically yelled at people who knocked over a sign in the hallway and broke glass. That made us angry … we saw that as our property.”
Young said he approached a police officer and told her the Oath Keepers’ conflict was with Antifa, not law enforcement.
“We had been told that Antifa was in the crowd inciting the riots and they were the ones damaging property,” Young wrote. “We also knew someone had been shot and were trying to de-escalate.”
Young was referring to the fatal shooting of Air Force veteran Ashli Babbitt in the hallway outside the Speaker’s Lobby at 2:44 p.m., some 5 minutes before.
Young wrote that his team leader, “OK Gator 1” [Meggs] reported that he and a few other Oath Keepers “interposed between a police officer and the angry mob.”
Oath Keepers defendant Graydon Young (under the arrow) inside the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021. (U.S. DOJ/Screenshot via The Epoch Times)
“He appeared distressed and had his finger on the trigger,” Young wrote. “Our guys de-escalated by firmly telling both sides to calm down. Another police officer was advised to give ground. That officer acknowledged the situation was a ‘broken arrow.’”
In military parlance, “broken arrow” means a unit has been overrun and needs additional support or backup.
Dunn later said he did not know what a “broken arrow” was and did not hear anyone use the term on January 6. While acknowledging Oath Keepers stood between him and the crowd, Dunn said he did not need to be “de-escalated.”
Dunn disputed the reports that his finger was on the rifle trigger, saying that would have only happened if he was aiming the firearm at an active threat, the FBI summary said.
Members of the Oath Keepers ascend the east steps of the U.S., Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021. (U.S. DOJ/Screenshot via The Epoch Times)
In June 2022, Young agreed to plead guilty to two counts of conspiracy in a deal with federal prosecutors. A conviction for those crimes could carry up to 25 years in prison. Young has not been sentenced.
The new details about the Dunn incident will likely be used by defense attorneys in the Rhodes trial to counter prosecutors’ claims the Oath Keepers were attacking the Capitol in order to disrupt the certification of the 2020 presidential election results. Oct. 7 was the prosecution’s fourth day presenting evidence against the Oath Keepers in U.S. District Court in Washington.
Moseley said he disputes the government’s claim that there were no closed-circuit security cameras in the Small House Rotunda that would have captured the Oath Keepers’ interactions with Officer Dunn.
Must Have Been Cameras
“Each year tourists, school children, lobbyists, and the public mainly visit the Rotunda, Statuary Hall, the so-called “crypt” museum room, and the hallway in between where the incident on January 6 occurred,” Moseley said.
“The incident was at the top of a major stairway, where a camera would be placed. Yet the government claims that they cannot find security camera recordings of the incident in this very public location. The concealment of the video recordings alone could justify dismissal of the prosecutor’s case.”
Moseley disputed that he issued any threat about the FBI document in his correspondence with prosecutors Nestler and Kathryn Rakoczy. He said he “reminded prosecutors of their own stated policy and gave them the unwarranted and extra courtesy of notifying them that he would be writing a news analysis article on the topic.”
Moseley said in previous situations, including FBI interview notes of Michael Greene, the operations leader for the Oath Keepers on January 6, the documents could be released if redactions were made to blot out the names of FBI agents and any unindicted persons.
The Dunn document “as redacted fails to meet the test of ‘sensitive’ under the protective order,” Moseley said. “There is no legitimate interest in the DOJ in covering up its own fabrication of a criminal case against the Oath Keepers.”
Moseley said he was struck that even after Mehta issued the jail threat in open court that was picked up by myriad news media outlets, “none of those journalists are the slightest bit interested in what the document says.”
Joseph M. Hanneman is a reporter for The Epoch Times with a focus on the Jan. 6 U.S. Capitol incursion and its aftermath; and general news in the State of Wisconsin. His work over a nearly 40-year career has appeared in Catholic World Report, the Racine Journal Times, the Wisconsin State Journal and the Chicago Tribune. Reach him at: joseph.hanneman@epochtimes.us
