Werewolf said:

---

What part of "We have it all" do you not understand?…

---

I suppose "we", "it", and "all" for starters.

Your statement of the precedural status of this case is factually incorrect, and this: "Supreme Court conference is next week with complete power to adjudicate the complaint....and reward all requested in complaint which includes removal of POTUS and all other 380 criminals from office" is just bonkers nonsense.

Next step here is that respondents have 30 days to file response briefs, then the justices meet in conference on January 6 to decide whether to hear the case (based on recommendations from their clerks, typically), and then there is a months-long process of filing briefs by both sides and by outside parties. All of that before oral arguments. (SCOTUS will sometimes make a ruling "per curiam" on the briefs before oral arguments.)

That's how SCOTUS works. Your fantasies to the contrary have no basis in fact.

caryking said:

---

Manny Sanguine said:

---

Werewolf said:

---

Civilized said:

---

caryking said:

---

Civilized said:

---

Werewolf said:

---

This goes back to the 2020 election and Jan 06th if you choose to listen.

---

We all listened, including the courts. There was nothing to hear.

Consequential electoral fraud is a fantasy.

---

That's like saying.. OJ didn't do it!

We all know he did it; however, a legal process found him not guilty. Civ, your arguments are extremely weak! If you don't believe the narrative, then that's fine; however, standing on your tired argument is another…

---

The legal process didn't declare OJ not guilty. The prosecutors were unable to meet the required burden of proof.

Huge difference between OJ and electoral fraud.

There was significant circumstantial evidence presented in court that OJ was guilty. In the case of electoral fraud, no evidence of consequence has been brought forth and substantiated in courts that lead any judge at any time to believe consequential fraud was present.

Furthermore, there is not any circumstantial evidence (that has not been debunked) to indicate electoral fraud happened either.

Frankly I've got to say I was quite pleasantly surprised at how little talk of fraud there was this cycle, other than Kari Lake and her loons.

Even if such a stance is politically motivated since most politicians across the spectrum realized before these elections that fake electoral fraud was a loser at the polls, I'm glad that's where we ended up.

I'd certainly rather end up in the right place for the wrong reason then not end up there at all.

---

This case that the SCOTUS has now decided to hear...........is one of maybe 100-150........out of maybe 1,500 to 2,000 submitted. SCOTUS didn't arbitrarily pick this case.......there is a reason.

---

I realized a while ago that bringing factual information to this board is pointless. (This was around the time that posters on this board wouldn't even admit that a rumor about Adam Schiff's sister was false, considering the fact that he doesn't have a sister.) I still drop by from time to time to see what nonsense you all are repeating back to each other in your little echo chamber, but without commenting. However, I could not let this pass.

The description of the status of this case above is false.

For the many people who don't understand the SCOTUS certiorari process, here is where things stand.

The case in question, Brunson v. Adams, had a petition filed at SCOTUS on November 23. The petition is listed to be reviewed in conference on January 6 in order to determine whether the case will be heard by SCOTUS. That's all.

SCOTUS receives thousands of such petitions each year (more than 5000 in 2020) and all of them (assuming they meet minimal requirements for form, signatures, fees, etc.) are reviewed in conference regardless of how meritless or ridiculous their claims are.

So, no, SCOTUS has not decided to hear this case. Law clerks for most, but not all, of the justices will read Brunson's petition and any responses filed by the hundreds of named respondents and will make recommendations about whether SCOTUS should hear the case or deny the petition. Four justices will have to agree to hear the case. That decision - most likely a single sentence - will be made public some time after the January 6 conference.

(Edited for a typo. Back to occasional lurker mode.)

---

What is this petition? I don't follow these things. I like to stay on constitutional policy…

Yes, I also think we had enough evidence to warrant a "real" investigation in the 2020 election. That said, the issues we saw in 2020 continued to the 2022 election. It is what it is…. Now, we just have to out-think the opposition on how the election will be administered.

---

The process of having a case heard by SCOTUS starts with a petition for certiorari, essentially a request for the court to take up the case. The other party then nas 30 days to file a response to your request. The justices then meet in conference to decide which cases to hear.

The petition in this case was filed on 11/23. The hundreds of respondents have until 12/23 to file response(es). The justices will consider the petition and respons(es) in conference on 1/6, but the decision in almost all cases are based entirely on recommendation from their clerks. If the justices agree to hear a case, there is a months-long process of briefs being filed before oral arguments.

What's up Manny!!! Thank you for gracing us with your presence. Your condescending remarks reminds us just exactly why you and your ilk only do "drop ins."

Since our last conversation, which you ran away when you were faced with facts, because.. well... that's how you and your ilk roll, things have gotten worse. Why don't you grow a set and defend your side? I think we all know why.

Glad to see you back.

When you get a second would you please respond to this article with your opinion. Thanks in advance. Looking forward to hearing your thoughts. And by the way, it's from one of your MSM outlets.

https://www.cnn.com/2022/11/29/health/gun-deaths-disparities/index.html

Manny Sanguine said:

---

caryking said:

---

Manny Sanguine said:

---

Werewolf said:

---

Civilized said:

---

caryking said:

---

Civilized said:

---

Werewolf said:

---

This goes back to the 2020 election and Jan 06th if you choose to listen.

---

We all listened, including the courts. There was nothing to hear.

Consequential electoral fraud is a fantasy.

---

That's like saying.. OJ didn't do it!

We all know he did it; however, a legal process found him not guilty. Civ, your arguments are extremely weak! If you don't believe the narrative, then that's fine; however, standing on your tired argument is another…

---

The legal process didn't declare OJ not guilty. The prosecutors were unable to meet the required burden of proof.

Huge difference between OJ and electoral fraud.

There was significant circumstantial evidence presented in court that OJ was guilty. In the case of electoral fraud, no evidence of consequence has been brought forth and substantiated in courts that lead any judge at any time to believe consequential fraud was present.

Furthermore, there is not any circumstantial evidence (that has not been debunked) to indicate electoral fraud happened either.

Frankly I've got to say I was quite pleasantly surprised at how little talk of fraud there was this cycle, other than Kari Lake and her loons.

Even if such a stance is politically motivated since most politicians across the spectrum realized before these elections that fake electoral fraud was a loser at the polls, I'm glad that's where we ended up.

I'd certainly rather end up in the right place for the wrong reason then not end up there at all.

---

This case that the SCOTUS has now decided to hear...........is one of maybe 100-150........out of maybe 1,500 to 2,000 submitted. SCOTUS didn't arbitrarily pick this case.......there is a reason.

---

I realized a while ago that bringing factual information to this board is pointless. (This was around the time that posters on this board wouldn't even admit that a rumor about Adam Schiff's sister was false, considering the fact that he doesn't have a sister.) I still drop by from time to time to see what nonsense you all are repeating back to each other in your little echo chamber, but without commenting. However, I could not let this pass.

The description of the status of this case above is false.

For the many people who don't understand the SCOTUS certiorari process, here is where things stand.

The case in question, Brunson v. Adams, had a petition filed at SCOTUS on November 23. The petition is listed to be reviewed in conference on January 6 in order to determine whether the case will be heard by SCOTUS. That's all.

SCOTUS receives thousands of such petitions each year (more than 5000 in 2020) and all of them (assuming they meet minimal requirements for form, signatures, fees, etc.) are reviewed in conference regardless of how meritless or ridiculous their claims are.

So, no, SCOTUS has not decided to hear this case. Law clerks for most, but not all, of the justices will read Brunson's petition and any responses filed by the hundreds of named respondents and will make recommendations about whether SCOTUS should hear the case or deny the petition. Four justices will have to agree to hear the case. That decision - most likely a single sentence - will be made public some time after the January 6 conference.

(Edited for a typo. Back to occasional lurker mode.)

---

What is this petition? I don't follow these things. I like to stay on constitutional policy…

Yes, I also think we had enough evidence to warrant a "real" investigation in the 2020 election. That said, the issues we saw in 2020 continued to the 2022 election. It is what it is…. Now, we just have to out-think the opposition on how the election will be administered.

---

The process of having a case heard by SCOTUS starts with a petition for certiorari, essentially a request for the court to take up the case. The other party then nas 30 days to file a response to your request. The justices then meet in conference to decide which cases to hear.

The petition in this case was filed on 11/23. The hundreds of respondents have until 12/23 to file response(es). The justices will consider the petition and respons(es) in conference on 1/6, but the decision in almost all cases are based entirely on recommendation from their clerks. If the justices agree to hear a case, there is a months-long process of briefs being filed before oral arguments.

---

The plaintiff was one of the 4 men in the discussions. It was agreed that the SCOTUS can made a decision this week........and that decision would not even be required to be made public. You are simply wrong.

I'll add one more thing, the SCOTUS to act on this favorably is clearly the healthiest outcome. Watching Will Cain Show this AM and listening to his interview of Tucker Carlson. Per Tucker thinking, a civilian process and the Constitution working via one of the three branches is clearly best. We are in COG. Hopefully Law of War Manual Chapter 11 is not the final remedy. Its right there as a last resort.

Werewolf said:

---

Manny Sanguine said:

---

caryking said:

---

Manny Sanguine said:

---

Werewolf said:

---

Civilized said:

---

caryking said:

---

Civilized said:

---

Werewolf said:

---

This goes back to the 2020 election and Jan 06th if you choose to listen.

---

We all listened, including the courts. There was nothing to hear.

Consequential electoral fraud is a fantasy.

---

That's like saying.. OJ didn't do it!

We all know he did it; however, a legal process found him not guilty. Civ, your arguments are extremely weak! If you don't believe the narrative, then that's fine; however, standing on your tired argument is another…

---

The legal process didn't declare OJ not guilty. The prosecutors were unable to meet the required burden of proof.

Huge difference between OJ and electoral fraud.

There was significant circumstantial evidence presented in court that OJ was guilty. In the case of electoral fraud, no evidence of consequence has been brought forth and substantiated in courts that lead any judge at any time to believe consequential fraud was present.

Furthermore, there is not any circumstantial evidence (that has not been debunked) to indicate electoral fraud happened either.

Frankly I've got to say I was quite pleasantly surprised at how little talk of fraud there was this cycle, other than Kari Lake and her loons.

Even if such a stance is politically motivated since most politicians across the spectrum realized before these elections that fake electoral fraud was a loser at the polls, I'm glad that's where we ended up.

I'd certainly rather end up in the right place for the wrong reason then not end up there at all.

---

This case that the SCOTUS has now decided to hear...........is one of maybe 100-150........out of maybe 1,500 to 2,000 submitted. SCOTUS didn't arbitrarily pick this case.......there is a reason.

---

I realized a while ago that bringing factual information to this board is pointless. (This was around the time that posters on this board wouldn't even admit that a rumor about Adam Schiff's sister was false, considering the fact that he doesn't have a sister.) I still drop by from time to time to see what nonsense you all are repeating back to each other in your little echo chamber, but without commenting. However, I could not let this pass.

The description of the status of this case above is false.

For the many people who don't understand the SCOTUS certiorari process, here is where things stand.

The case in question, Brunson v. Adams, had a petition filed at SCOTUS on November 23. The petition is listed to be reviewed in conference on January 6 in order to determine whether the case will be heard by SCOTUS. That's all.

SCOTUS receives thousands of such petitions each year (more than 5000 in 2020) and all of them (assuming they meet minimal requirements for form, signatures, fees, etc.) are reviewed in conference regardless of how meritless or ridiculous their claims are.

So, no, SCOTUS has not decided to hear this case. Law clerks for most, but not all, of the justices will read Brunson's petition and any responses filed by the hundreds of named respondents and will make recommendations about whether SCOTUS should hear the case or deny the petition. Four justices will have to agree to hear the case. That decision - most likely a single sentence - will be made public some time after the January 6 conference.

(Edited for a typo. Back to occasional lurker mode.)

---

What is this petition? I don't follow these things. I like to stay on constitutional policy…

Yes, I also think we had enough evidence to warrant a "real" investigation in the 2020 election. That said, the issues we saw in 2020 continued to the 2022 election. It is what it is…. Now, we just have to out-think the opposition on how the election will be administered.

---

The process of having a case heard by SCOTUS starts with a petition for certiorari, essentially a request for the court to take up the case. The other party then nas 30 days to file a response to your request. The justices then meet in conference to decide which cases to hear.

The petition in this case was filed on 11/23. The hundreds of respondents have until 12/23 to file response(es). The justices will consider the petition and respons(es) in conference on 1/6, but the decision in almost all cases are based entirely on recommendation from their clerks. If the justices agree to hear a case, there is a months-long process of briefs being filed before oral arguments.

---

The plaintiff was one of the 4 men in the discussions. It was agreed that the SCOTUS can made a decision this week........and that decision would not even be required to be made public. You are simply wrong.

I'll add one more thing, the SCOTUS to act on this favorably is clearly the healthiest outcome. Watching Will Cain Show this AM and listening to his interview of Tucker Carlson. Per Tucker thinking, a civilian process and the Constitution working via one of the three branches is clearly best. We are in COG. Hopefully Law of War Manual Chapter 11 is not the final remedy. Its right there as a last resort.

---

So what is the range of potential outcomes here?

BBW12OG said:

---

What's up Manny!!! Thank you for gracing us with your presence. Your condescending remarks reminds us just exactly why you and your ilk only do "drop ins."

Since our last conversation, which you ran away when you were faced with facts, because.. well... that's how you and your ilk roll, things have gotten worse. Why don't you grow a set and defend your side? I think we all know why.

Glad to see you back.

When you get a second would you please respond to this article with your opinion. Thanks in advance. Looking forward to hearing your thoughts. And by the way, it's from one of your MSM outlets.

https://www.cnn.com/2022/11/29/health/gun-deaths-disparities/index.html

---

Hey, Lucy. I'm glad you edited your post to add the parts I highlighted, or I wouldn't have been sure it was you. I was worried someone had hacked your account. I would suggest sprinkling a few "MARXIST" in, just to keep "in character."

No, I won't get into some debate about whatever random of-topic idea you decide to throw in. Sorry.

I may just stop by to cast pearls on occasion, although I've always found the second half of that verse to be more instructive. ("... lest they trample them under their feet, and turn again and rend you.")

Could be they simply confirm the lower court decision. Could be a number of other outcomes to in the event they overturn. They could make a decision behind closed doors and it be leaked to reach the public.....just like Roe v Wade.

Overturning - as it was explained in the video = might result in a number of variations as to penalties, etc.

The video discussion suggested a motive that they may be attempting to protect the institution from a lame duck Congress action to change their #'s, alter their terms, etc.

IMHO, I think they'll be wise to overturn .......for the sake of their necks. But I'm not trying to argue with you. It's what I believe to be a possible reason.

This case could have been a planted case too......

It's a great time to be alive, Civ.

Manny Sanguine said:

---

Werewolf said:

---

What part of "We have it all" do you not understand?…

---

I suppose "we", "it", and "all" for starters.

Your statement of the precedural status of this case is factually incorrect, and this: "Supreme Court conference is next week with complete power to adjudicate the complaint....and reward all requested in complaint which includes removal of POTUS and all other 380 criminals from office" is just bonkers nonsense.

Next step here is that respondents have 30 days to file response briefs, then the justices meet in conference on January 6 to decide whether to hear the case (based on recommendations from their clerks, typically), and then there is a months-long process of filing briefs by both sides and by outside parties. All of that before oral arguments. (SCOTUS will sometimes make a ruling "per curiam" on the briefs before oral arguments.)

That's how SCOTUS works. Your fantasies to the contrary have no basis in fact.

---

The reference to "we have it all" is simply what Trump has said since Dec 2020/Jan 2021. You're in COG right now and don't know it Obviously you've been tuned in to CNN and others similar. You probably didn't hear Chris Miller's words either. Stay tuned......it is taking time to smoke out all the rats........and particularly when we intend on catching em' all.

It was discussed with the actual plaintiff in the video.

By the way, note the top 6 threads on this forum. They're all tied together with Ukraine, the border, the fiat dollar-inflation.

Werewolf said:

---

Manny Sanguine said:

---

caryking said:

---

Manny Sanguine said:

---

Werewolf said:

---

Civilized said:

---

caryking said:

---

Civilized said:

---

Werewolf said:

---

This goes back to the 2020 election and Jan 06th if you choose to listen.

---

We all listened, including the courts. There was nothing to hear.

Consequential electoral fraud is a fantasy.

---

That's like saying.. OJ didn't do it!

We all know he did it; however, a legal process found him not guilty. Civ, your arguments are extremely weak! If you don't believe the narrative, then that's fine; however, standing on your tired argument is another…

---

The legal process didn't declare OJ not guilty. The prosecutors were unable to meet the required burden of proof.

Huge difference between OJ and electoral fraud.

There was significant circumstantial evidence presented in court that OJ was guilty. In the case of electoral fraud, no evidence of consequence has been brought forth and substantiated in courts that lead any judge at any time to believe consequential fraud was present.

Furthermore, there is not any circumstantial evidence (that has not been debunked) to indicate electoral fraud happened either.

Frankly I've got to say I was quite pleasantly surprised at how little talk of fraud there was this cycle, other than Kari Lake and her loons.

Even if such a stance is politically motivated since most politicians across the spectrum realized before these elections that fake electoral fraud was a loser at the polls, I'm glad that's where we ended up.

I'd certainly rather end up in the right place for the wrong reason then not end up there at all.

---

This case that the SCOTUS has now decided to hear...........is one of maybe 100-150........out of maybe 1,500 to 2,000 submitted. SCOTUS didn't arbitrarily pick this case.......there is a reason.

---

I realized a while ago that bringing factual information to this board is pointless. (This was around the time that posters on this board wouldn't even admit that a rumor about Adam Schiff's sister was false, considering the fact that he doesn't have a sister.) I still drop by from time to time to see what nonsense you all are repeating back to each other in your little echo chamber, but without commenting. However, I could not let this pass.

The description of the status of this case above is false.

For the many people who don't understand the SCOTUS certiorari process, here is where things stand.

The case in question, Brunson v. Adams, had a petition filed at SCOTUS on November 23. The petition is listed to be reviewed in conference on January 6 in order to determine whether the case will be heard by SCOTUS. That's all.

SCOTUS receives thousands of such petitions each year (more than 5000 in 2020) and all of them (assuming they meet minimal requirements for form, signatures, fees, etc.) are reviewed in conference regardless of how meritless or ridiculous their claims are.

So, no, SCOTUS has not decided to hear this case. Law clerks for most, but not all, of the justices will read Brunson's petition and any responses filed by the hundreds of named respondents and will make recommendations about whether SCOTUS should hear the case or deny the petition. Four justices will have to agree to hear the case. That decision - most likely a single sentence - will be made public some time after the January 6 conference.

(Edited for a typo. Back to occasional lurker mode.)

---

What is this petition? I don't follow these things. I like to stay on constitutional policy…

Yes, I also think we had enough evidence to warrant a "real" investigation in the 2020 election. That said, the issues we saw in 2020 continued to the 2022 election. It is what it is…. Now, we just have to out-think the opposition on how the election will be administered.

---

The process of having a case heard by SCOTUS starts with a petition for certiorari, essentially a request for the court to take up the case. The other party then nas 30 days to file a response to your request. The justices then meet in conference to decide which cases to hear.

The petition in this case was filed on 11/23. The hundreds of respondents have until 12/23 to file response(es). The justices will consider the petition and respons(es) in conference on 1/6, but the decision in almost all cases are based entirely on recommendation from their clerks. If the justices agree to hear a case, there is a months-long process of briefs being filed before oral arguments.

---

The plaintiff was one of the 4 men in the discussions. It was agreed that the SCOTUS can made a decision this week........and that decision would not even be required to be made public. You are simply wrong.

I'll add one more thing, the SCOTUS to act on this favorably is clearly the healthiest outcome. Watching Will Cain Show this AM and listening to his interview of Tucker Carlson. Per Tucker thinking, a civilian process and the Constitution working via one of the three branches is clearly best. We are in COG. Hopefully Law of War Manual Chapter 11 is not the final remedy. Its right there as a last resort.

---

So, your belief is that SCOTUS will abandon their established procedures to:

• Decide this case on the merits based only on a petition for certiorari, and without briefs or oral arguments (let alone any kind of response at all from the hundreds of named respondents),
• That will do so without the case even being on their calendar in any respect until January,
• That they will grant the requested relief of deposing essentially the entire sitting elected government of the United States,
• And they they will do so in secret?

So does that mean that SCOTUS will install a new legislative and executive government, in secret? If a week from now, or a month from now, or a year from now, the same members of congress and the same executive are continuing to act like they're running things, does that mean that their actions after this secret decision by SCOTUS are null and void and that some shadow government is taking actions that we just don't know wbout?

What is your evidence for such an extraordinary assertion?

Manny Sanguine said:

---

Werewolf said:

---

Manny Sanguine said:

---

caryking said:

---

Manny Sanguine said:

---

Werewolf said:

---

Civilized said:

---

caryking said:

---

Civilized said:

---

Werewolf said:

---

This goes back to the 2020 election and Jan 06th if you choose to listen.

---

We all listened, including the courts. There was nothing to hear.

Consequential electoral fraud is a fantasy.

---

That's like saying.. OJ didn't do it!

We all know he did it; however, a legal process found him not guilty. Civ, your arguments are extremely weak! If you don't believe the narrative, then that's fine; however, standing on your tired argument is another…

---

The legal process didn't declare OJ not guilty. The prosecutors were unable to meet the required burden of proof.

Huge difference between OJ and electoral fraud.

There was significant circumstantial evidence presented in court that OJ was guilty. In the case of electoral fraud, no evidence of consequence has been brought forth and substantiated in courts that lead any judge at any time to believe consequential fraud was present.

Furthermore, there is not any circumstantial evidence (that has not been debunked) to indicate electoral fraud happened either.

Frankly I've got to say I was quite pleasantly surprised at how little talk of fraud there was this cycle, other than Kari Lake and her loons.

Even if such a stance is politically motivated since most politicians across the spectrum realized before these elections that fake electoral fraud was a loser at the polls, I'm glad that's where we ended up.

I'd certainly rather end up in the right place for the wrong reason then not end up there at all.

---

This case that the SCOTUS has now decided to hear...........is one of maybe 100-150........out of maybe 1,500 to 2,000 submitted. SCOTUS didn't arbitrarily pick this case.......there is a reason.

---

I realized a while ago that bringing factual information to this board is pointless. (This was around the time that posters on this board wouldn't even admit that a rumor about Adam Schiff's sister was false, considering the fact that he doesn't have a sister.) I still drop by from time to time to see what nonsense you all are repeating back to each other in your little echo chamber, but without commenting. However, I could not let this pass.

The description of the status of this case above is false.

For the many people who don't understand the SCOTUS certiorari process, here is where things stand.

The case in question, Brunson v. Adams, had a petition filed at SCOTUS on November 23. The petition is listed to be reviewed in conference on January 6 in order to determine whether the case will be heard by SCOTUS. That's all.

SCOTUS receives thousands of such petitions each year (more than 5000 in 2020) and all of them (assuming they meet minimal requirements for form, signatures, fees, etc.) are reviewed in conference regardless of how meritless or ridiculous their claims are.

So, no, SCOTUS has not decided to hear this case. Law clerks for most, but not all, of the justices will read Brunson's petition and any responses filed by the hundreds of named respondents and will make recommendations about whether SCOTUS should hear the case or deny the petition. Four justices will have to agree to hear the case. That decision - most likely a single sentence - will be made public some time after the January 6 conference.

(Edited for a typo. Back to occasional lurker mode.)

---

What is this petition? I don't follow these things. I like to stay on constitutional policy…

Yes, I also think we had enough evidence to warrant a "real" investigation in the 2020 election. That said, the issues we saw in 2020 continued to the 2022 election. It is what it is…. Now, we just have to out-think the opposition on how the election will be administered.

---

The process of having a case heard by SCOTUS starts with a petition for certiorari, essentially a request for the court to take up the case. The other party then nas 30 days to file a response to your request. The justices then meet in conference to decide which cases to hear.

The petition in this case was filed on 11/23. The hundreds of respondents have until 12/23 to file response(es). The justices will consider the petition and respons(es) in conference on 1/6, but the decision in almost all cases are based entirely on recommendation from their clerks. If the justices agree to hear a case, there is a months-long process of briefs being filed before oral arguments.

---

The plaintiff was one of the 4 men in the discussions. It was agreed that the SCOTUS can made a decision this week........and that decision would not even be required to be made public. You are simply wrong.

I'll add one more thing, the SCOTUS to act on this favorably is clearly the healthiest outcome. Watching Will Cain Show this AM and listening to his interview of Tucker Carlson. Per Tucker thinking, a civilian process and the Constitution working via one of the three branches is clearly best. We are in COG. Hopefully Law of War Manual Chapter 11 is not the final remedy. Its right there as a last resort.

---

So, your belief is that SCOTUS will abandon their established procedures to:

• Decide this case on the merits based only on a petition for certiorari, and without briefs or oral arguments (let alone any kind of response at all from the hundreds of named respondents),
• That will do so without the case even being on their calendar in any respect until January,
• That they will grant the requested relief of deposing essentially the entire sitting elected government of the United States,
• And they they will do so in secret?

So does that mean that SCOTUS will install a new legislative and executive government, in secret? If a week from now, or a month from now, or a year from now, the same members of congress and the same executive are continuing to act like they're running things, does that mean that their actions after this secret decision by SCOTUS are null and void and that some shadow government is taking actions that we just don't know wbout?

What is your evidence for such an extraordinary assertion?

---

Whatcha thinking we're in a courtroom?

SCOTUS made a decision behind closed doors with Roe v Wade only to be leaked..............just like that.

As I've stated here many times, I'm not going to waste a lot of my time debating someone on the other side. My focus is to provide info to others w similar viewpoints as mine such that they can be more confident in the treachery and the evil which exists among our elites and their minions in govt. So many only see things in terms of R v D........it's much more sinister and evil than that.

Rest assured; military Law and trial is nothing like a civilian courtroom. The military can try you in the morning and hang you in the afternoon. Look for a lot of it.......2023-2024ish probably. The question is "how long does this fiasco go on to wake the American citizenry up..........as so many remain asleep.

Werewolf said:

---

Manny Sanguine said:

---

Werewolf said:

---

Manny Sanguine said:

---

caryking said:

---

Manny Sanguine said:

---

Werewolf said:

---

Civilized said:

---

caryking said:

---

Civilized said:

---

Werewolf said:

---

This goes back to the 2020 election and Jan 06th if you choose to listen.

---

We all listened, including the courts. There was nothing to hear.

Consequential electoral fraud is a fantasy.

---

That's like saying.. OJ didn't do it!

We all know he did it; however, a legal process found him not guilty. Civ, your arguments are extremely weak! If you don't believe the narrative, then that's fine; however, standing on your tired argument is another…

---

The legal process didn't declare OJ not guilty. The prosecutors were unable to meet the required burden of proof.

Huge difference between OJ and electoral fraud.

There was significant circumstantial evidence presented in court that OJ was guilty. In the case of electoral fraud, no evidence of consequence has been brought forth and substantiated in courts that lead any judge at any time to believe consequential fraud was present.

Furthermore, there is not any circumstantial evidence (that has not been debunked) to indicate electoral fraud happened either.

Frankly I've got to say I was quite pleasantly surprised at how little talk of fraud there was this cycle, other than Kari Lake and her loons.

Even if such a stance is politically motivated since most politicians across the spectrum realized before these elections that fake electoral fraud was a loser at the polls, I'm glad that's where we ended up.

I'd certainly rather end up in the right place for the wrong reason then not end up there at all.

---

This case that the SCOTUS has now decided to hear...........is one of maybe 100-150........out of maybe 1,500 to 2,000 submitted. SCOTUS didn't arbitrarily pick this case.......there is a reason.

---

I realized a while ago that bringing factual information to this board is pointless. (This was around the time that posters on this board wouldn't even admit that a rumor about Adam Schiff's sister was false, considering the fact that he doesn't have a sister.) I still drop by from time to time to see what nonsense you all are repeating back to each other in your little echo chamber, but without commenting. However, I could not let this pass.

The description of the status of this case above is false.

For the many people who don't understand the SCOTUS certiorari process, here is where things stand.

The case in question, Brunson v. Adams, had a petition filed at SCOTUS on November 23. The petition is listed to be reviewed in conference on January 6 in order to determine whether the case will be heard by SCOTUS. That's all.

SCOTUS receives thousands of such petitions each year (more than 5000 in 2020) and all of them (assuming they meet minimal requirements for form, signatures, fees, etc.) are reviewed in conference regardless of how meritless or ridiculous their claims are.

So, no, SCOTUS has not decided to hear this case. Law clerks for most, but not all, of the justices will read Brunson's petition and any responses filed by the hundreds of named respondents and will make recommendations about whether SCOTUS should hear the case or deny the petition. Four justices will have to agree to hear the case. That decision - most likely a single sentence - will be made public some time after the January 6 conference.

(Edited for a typo. Back to occasional lurker mode.)

---

What is this petition? I don't follow these things. I like to stay on constitutional policy…

Yes, I also think we had enough evidence to warrant a "real" investigation in the 2020 election. That said, the issues we saw in 2020 continued to the 2022 election. It is what it is…. Now, we just have to out-think the opposition on how the election will be administered.

---

The process of having a case heard by SCOTUS starts with a petition for certiorari, essentially a request for the court to take up the case. The other party then nas 30 days to file a response to your request. The justices then meet in conference to decide which cases to hear.

The petition in this case was filed on 11/23. The hundreds of respondents have until 12/23 to file response(es). The justices will consider the petition and respons(es) in conference on 1/6, but the decision in almost all cases are based entirely on recommendation from their clerks. If the justices agree to hear a case, there is a months-long process of briefs being filed before oral arguments.

---

The plaintiff was one of the 4 men in the discussions. It was agreed that the SCOTUS can made a decision this week........and that decision would not even be required to be made public. You are simply wrong.

I'll add one more thing, the SCOTUS to act on this favorably is clearly the healthiest outcome. Watching Will Cain Show this AM and listening to his interview of Tucker Carlson. Per Tucker thinking, a civilian process and the Constitution working via one of the three branches is clearly best. We are in COG. Hopefully Law of War Manual Chapter 11 is not the final remedy. Its right there as a last resort.

---

So, your belief is that SCOTUS will abandon their established procedures to:

• Decide this case on the merits based only on a petition for certiorari, and without briefs or oral arguments (let alone any kind of response at all from the hundreds of named respondents),
• That will do so without the case even being on their calendar in any respect until January,
• That they will grant the requested relief of deposing essentially the entire sitting elected government of the United States,
• And they they will do so in secret?

So does that mean that SCOTUS will install a new legislative and executive government, in secret? If a week from now, or a month from now, or a year from now, the same members of congress and the same executive are continuing to act like they're running things, does that mean that their actions after this secret decision by SCOTUS are null and void and that some shadow government is taking actions that we just don't know wbout?

What is your evidence for such an extraordinary assertion?

---

Whatcha thinking we're in a courtroom?

SCOTUS made a decision behind closed doors with Roe v Wade only to be leaked..............just like that.

As I've stated here many times, I'm not going to waste a lot of my time debating someone on the other side. My focus is to provide info to others w similar viewpoints as mine such that they can be more confident in the treachery and the evil which exists among our elites and their minions in govt. So many only see things in terms of R v D........it's much more sinister and evil than that.

Rest assured; military Law and trial is nothing like a civilian courtroom. The military can try you in the morning and hang you in the afternoon. Look for a lot of it.......2023-2024ish probably. The question is "how long does this fiasco go on to wake the American citizenry up..........as so many remain asleep.

---

Oh, so you're just having fantasies about the military staging a coup and murdering people you don't like. Cool.

Manny Sanguine said:

---

Werewolf said:

---

Manny Sanguine said:

---

Werewolf said:

---

Manny Sanguine said:

---

caryking said:

---

Manny Sanguine said:

---

Werewolf said:

---

Civilized said:

---

caryking said:

---

Civilized said:

---

Werewolf said:

---

This goes back to the 2020 election and Jan 06th if you choose to listen.

---

We all listened, including the courts. There was nothing to hear.

Consequential electoral fraud is a fantasy.

---

That's like saying.. OJ didn't do it!

We all know he did it; however, a legal process found him not guilty. Civ, your arguments are extremely weak! If you don't believe the narrative, then that's fine; however, standing on your tired argument is another…

---

The legal process didn't declare OJ not guilty. The prosecutors were unable to meet the required burden of proof.

Huge difference between OJ and electoral fraud.

There was significant circumstantial evidence presented in court that OJ was guilty. In the case of electoral fraud, no evidence of consequence has been brought forth and substantiated in courts that lead any judge at any time to believe consequential fraud was present.

Furthermore, there is not any circumstantial evidence (that has not been debunked) to indicate electoral fraud happened either.

Frankly I've got to say I was quite pleasantly surprised at how little talk of fraud there was this cycle, other than Kari Lake and her loons.

Even if such a stance is politically motivated since most politicians across the spectrum realized before these elections that fake electoral fraud was a loser at the polls, I'm glad that's where we ended up.

I'd certainly rather end up in the right place for the wrong reason then not end up there at all.

---

This case that the SCOTUS has now decided to hear...........is one of maybe 100-150........out of maybe 1,500 to 2,000 submitted. SCOTUS didn't arbitrarily pick this case.......there is a reason.

---

I realized a while ago that bringing factual information to this board is pointless. (This was around the time that posters on this board wouldn't even admit that a rumor about Adam Schiff's sister was false, considering the fact that he doesn't have a sister.) I still drop by from time to time to see what nonsense you all are repeating back to each other in your little echo chamber, but without commenting. However, I could not let this pass.

The description of the status of this case above is false.

For the many people who don't understand the SCOTUS certiorari process, here is where things stand.

The case in question, Brunson v. Adams, had a petition filed at SCOTUS on November 23. The petition is listed to be reviewed in conference on January 6 in order to determine whether the case will be heard by SCOTUS. That's all.

SCOTUS receives thousands of such petitions each year (more than 5000 in 2020) and all of them (assuming they meet minimal requirements for form, signatures, fees, etc.) are reviewed in conference regardless of how meritless or ridiculous their claims are.

So, no, SCOTUS has not decided to hear this case. Law clerks for most, but not all, of the justices will read Brunson's petition and any responses filed by the hundreds of named respondents and will make recommendations about whether SCOTUS should hear the case or deny the petition. Four justices will have to agree to hear the case. That decision - most likely a single sentence - will be made public some time after the January 6 conference.

(Edited for a typo. Back to occasional lurker mode.)

---

What is this petition? I don't follow these things. I like to stay on constitutional policy…

Yes, I also think we had enough evidence to warrant a "real" investigation in the 2020 election. That said, the issues we saw in 2020 continued to the 2022 election. It is what it is…. Now, we just have to out-think the opposition on how the election will be administered.

---

The process of having a case heard by SCOTUS starts with a petition for certiorari, essentially a request for the court to take up the case. The other party then nas 30 days to file a response to your request. The justices then meet in conference to decide which cases to hear.

The petition in this case was filed on 11/23. The hundreds of respondents have until 12/23 to file response(es). The justices will consider the petition and respons(es) in conference on 1/6, but the decision in almost all cases are based entirely on recommendation from their clerks. If the justices agree to hear a case, there is a months-long process of briefs being filed before oral arguments.

---

The plaintiff was one of the 4 men in the discussions. It was agreed that the SCOTUS can made a decision this week........and that decision would not even be required to be made public. You are simply wrong.

I'll add one more thing, the SCOTUS to act on this favorably is clearly the healthiest outcome. Watching Will Cain Show this AM and listening to his interview of Tucker Carlson. Per Tucker thinking, a civilian process and the Constitution working via one of the three branches is clearly best. We are in COG. Hopefully Law of War Manual Chapter 11 is not the final remedy. Its right there as a last resort.

---

So, your belief is that SCOTUS will abandon their established procedures to:

• Decide this case on the merits based only on a petition for certiorari, and without briefs or oral arguments (let alone any kind of response at all from the hundreds of named respondents),
• That will do so without the case even being on their calendar in any respect until January,
• That they will grant the requested relief of deposing essentially the entire sitting elected government of the United States,
• And they they will do so in secret?

So does that mean that SCOTUS will install a new legislative and executive government, in secret? If a week from now, or a month from now, or a year from now, the same members of congress and the same executive are continuing to act like they're running things, does that mean that their actions after this secret decision by SCOTUS are null and void and that some shadow government is taking actions that we just don't know wbout?

What is your evidence for such an extraordinary assertion?

---

Whatcha thinking we're in a courtroom?

SCOTUS made a decision behind closed doors with Roe v Wade only to be leaked..............just like that.

As I've stated here many times, I'm not going to waste a lot of my time debating someone on the other side. My focus is to provide info to others w similar viewpoints as mine such that they can be more confident in the treachery and the evil which exists among our elites and their minions in govt. So many only see things in terms of R v D........it's much more sinister and evil than that.

Rest assured; military Law and trial is nothing like a civilian courtroom. The military can try you in the morning and hang you in the afternoon. Look for a lot of it.......2023-2024ish probably. The question is "how long does this fiasco go on to wake the American citizenry up..........as so many remain asleep.

---

Oh, so you're just having fantasies about the military staging a coup and murdering people you don't like. Cool.

---

FROM OTHERS:

It's been brought to my attention about the Brunson vs. Adams, docket 22-380, filed to the Supreme Court in Utah in October 2022... which is getting some "excited" and I'm here to wreck the party and I'm going to break this down as vanilla as possible.

What the Filing is about:

"He alleged that before accepting the electoral votes on January 6, 2021, defendants intentionally refused to investigate evidence that the November 2020 presidential election was fraudulent."

Brunson vs. Adams:
https://www.ca10.uscourts.gov/sites/ca10/files/opinions/010110749788.pdf

In order to understand why this filing is irrelevant, this is why I have been showing the two different angles the Military is in complete control of our Nation via the Law of War Manual 2016 and the Military Justice Act 2016 that tie in with the Uniform Code of Military Justice (Military Law) and Federal Laws.

This has NEVER been about 'Election Fraud' from the Voter or State.

One… this is Military Operation, a Covert Operation, Military Occupancy as defined in the Law of War Manual. It was published in June 2015, updated in December 2016. Also, the Military Justice Act of 2016, shows the Supreme Court outlining Military Law and Courts is/are separate the Civil Laws and Courts which combined sets the stage for the Laws and Orders put into place from January 20, 2017, to January 20, 2021, the National Guard being Federalized to Active-Duty Status in March 2020 to present day, which all lead to the grand finale Military Tribunals / Commissions (Court Trials) as reported on December 29, 2021, by the New York Times.

Two, the Military Alliance of Generals plugged (planted) Trump where the people could see a visual President (which is a Continuation of Government) in Presidential Form to use and reverse all the fraudulent laws, codes, and statutes, of the Federal Corporation of the District of Columbia that violates the Constitution of the United States of America (the highest Law in the Land) and to dismantle the RINOS of the Federal Corporation.

CIC Trump as visual President took all the Laws, Codes, Orders, Acts, and Statutes and applied them as they legally read, not how they were abused by the Corporate RINOS. Doing so, allows the American people to see the RINOS implode from within from top to bottom without being able to point any fingers and be accused of abuse of power or laws.

The Military and CIC were never going to make this known. But a LOT more people should be awake by now with understanding of what he says "we're going to give the power back to the people" means.

The Military works on a Chain of Command, Intelligence, and Orders. We are a Nation of Laws and Orders. They work very well when people know how the Government works, it's our right and our duty.

In 2016, candidate Trump made it very clear what was coming (hindsight 20/20). On the campaign in 2016, "Never again will we voice to the public what we're doing with the Military… if you find out, guess who else does?"

Plus, it's a different kind of war as he proclaimed over and over and over. It's an invisible and hidden enemy not from abroad, but from within.

The Military Occupancy in the United States is dismantling the Washington Establishment known as the RINOS from the Supreme Court all the way down to State Courts, Governors, Attorney Generals, House of Representatives, and Senators who use and abuse the Voting System by placing their candidates in positions to conduct their money laundering schemes and control for genocides, trafficking, and their secret society get rich while appeasing and suppressing the American people via chaos, divisions, and distractions for many, many years.

These evil and dirtbag RINOS have used the word "constitution" along with those to deceive you the people into believing they're quoting the Constitution of the United States of America, as data shows roughly 70% of Americans know NOTHING about the Constitution much less our History, Foundation, Quotes, and meanings of the verbiage etc.

FROM OTHERS:

A little backdrop history on how the United States of America became the United States Federal Corporation.

The United States became a Federal Corporation via the Organic Act of 1871, D.C. became its own Foreign Territory, as both are defined Stoutenburgh vs. Hennick, and 28 U.S. Code 3002.

No, you weren't "taught" about the Federal Corporation, for a REASON! Heck, there's a LOT of things you weren't "taught" about or "shown" on the black box that's also controlled.

It's an abusive system, a controlling system, one that's been deceptive, conning, and vile for many years.

There's a LOT of things Americans do not know because of the indoctrination, divide, and conquer tactics.

It's a 'create a problem, we already have a solution to.'

Chaos + Division = Power Acquisition.

Organic Act 1871:
https://leg.wa.gov/CodeReviser/documents/sessionlaw/1887pam1.pdf

Stoutenburgh vs. Hennick:
https://tile.loc.gov/storage-services/service/ll/usrep/usrep129/usrep129141/usrep129141.pdf

28 United States Code 3002:
https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCODE-2015-title28/html/USCODE-2015-title28-partVI-chap176-subchapA-sec3002.htm

District of Columbia Government:
www.dccouncil.gov (http://www.dccouncil.gov/)

Therefore, it's important to understand what takes precedence over the other.

Military Operation > Supreme Court.

The Law of War Manual and Military Justice Act of 2016 paired with pre-existing laws show this was a Military Operation and plan long before anyone had heard of Election Fraud at this magnitude.

The Law of War Manual (December 2016) and the Military Justice Act of 2016 are what's 'governing' our Country right now in a Military Occupancy along with our Allies as outlined in the manual.

Law of War Manual:
https://dod.defense.gov/Portals/1/Documents/pubs/DoD%20Law%20of%20War%20Manual%20-%20June%202015%20Updated%20Dec%202016.pdf?ver=2016-12-13-172036-190

Military Justice Act of 2016:
https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/R/R46503#:~:text=A%20number%20of%20concerns%20relating,to%20trial%20by%20court%2Dmartial.

Now let's look at timelines and timestamps. They form a Blueprint:

1. The Alliance of Generals presents to you 2016 candidate Donald John Trump; a Military Plug for Federal Corporation terms: a COG (Continuation of Government).
2. November 2016 "Election"
3. Law of War Manual (June 2015; amended December 2016)
4. Military Justice Act (2016)
5. Executive Order 13848 (September 12, 2018)

You should first ask yourself this question… as I've asked many over and over:

How did Donald John Trump know to sign Executive Order 13848 and to DECLARE a National Emergency to deal with the "Threat" of Election Fraud, a year and 10 months after the 2016 Election... TWO months before the November 2018 midterm and TWO Years before Covid and the November 2020 Presidential Election???

Read that again…

How did Donald John Trump know to sign Executive Order 13848 and to DECLARE a National Emergency to deal with the "Threat" of Election Fraud…

A year and 10 months after the 2016 Election...

TWO months before the November 2018 midterm

TWO Years before Covid and the November 2020 Presidential Election???

Applying those timelines plus this specific order with a National Emergency before those key dates… should tell anyone this was not about 'Election Fraud.'

The 'Election Fraud' was a distraction created by the Military to keep the Continuation of Government rolling where the world Military Operations can run smoothly, efficiently, and as effectively as possible.

Timelines matter. So does terminology. Inside the Executive Order 13848 specifically says this:

"Although there has been no evidence of a foreign power altering the outcome or vote tabulation in any United States election..."

NO evidence of a foreign power altering.

Does NOT mention Domestic.

And also says in 'ANY' US Election. Where it's specified in Section 8, "election" means any election after the date of this order (September 12, 2018).

It also says:

FROM ANOTHER:

(a) Not later than 45 days after the conclusion of a United States election,

Keyword: a

Conclusion of a United States Election. Not one, not a specific one.

All of which outlines the Military Operations of each Election via the Congressional, Governors, and Legal sides.

The very first paragraph of Executive Order 13848 says:

By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, including the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (50 U.S.C. 1701 (https://www.govinfo.gov/link/uscode/50/1701) et seq.) (IEEPA), the National Emergencies Act (50 U.S.C. 1601 (https://www.govinfo.gov/link/uscode/50/1601) et seq.) (NEA), section 212(f) of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 (8 U.S.C. 1182(f (https://www.govinfo.gov/link/uscode/8/1182))), and section 301 of title 3, United States Code (https://www.govinfo.gov/link/uscode/3/301),

50 US Code 1701: Unusual and Extraordinary Threat; declaration of National Emergency; exercise of Presidential authorities:
https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCODE-2011-title50/html/USCODE-2011-title50-chap35-sec1701.htm

50 US Code 1601: War and National Defense:
https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCODE-2020-title50/pdf/USCODE-2020-title50-chap34-subchapI-sec1601.pdf

8 US Code 1182: Excludable Aliens
https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?req=(title:8%20section:1182

3 US Code Section 301:
https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCODE-2020-title3/pdf/USCODE-2020-title3-chap4-sec301.pdf

Executive Order 13848:
https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2018/09/14/2018-20203/imposing-certain-sanctions-in-the-event-of-foreign-interference-in-a-united-states-election

It's very crucial to read all those above and pair those with EO 13848, the Law of War Manual and other laws applicable.

CIC Trump declared THREE National Emergencies to deal with this threat because Americans had to visually see this in-depth of laws being broken by this hidden and invisible enemy that's existed long before 2016 and 2020.

Though all part of the Covert Operation and the Military making the Deep State destroy their institution from within but visually to the public, Congress failed to address those which became three breaches of National Security.

For those who cannot grasp the Military Operation or refuse to see it though all Laws and Orders outline it clear as clear... the American people had to visually see these Laws being broken by the Washington Establishment aka the RINOS.

Checkmate.

Congress, Media, Tech, and all Departments knew about the Law of War Manual and MJA 2016. That's why it's important to understand, there's two ways to simultaneously view this operation. The Military's working behind the scenes while most Americans are watching the COG (Continuation of Government) in which Congress, Governors, Media, Tech, are under Military Control.

Members of Congress and Government are all under Oaths and NSAs. Yes, again, they know what's going on. From the beginning, the guilty parties acquired by the Military and Federal agents would have:

Signed full written confessions.
Confessed every crime on video.
Surrendered all assets and wealth.
Allowed social media takeover.
Given a new phone and computer.
Implanted with tracking.
Agreed to 365/24/7 protection.
Are DONE if Trump Team is harmed.


Are DONE if ANY red line is crossed.

Told to play a specific "role."
Get to go to jail if the entire plan works.
Otherwise, your original sentence happens.

Then they start playing their roles as you have all witnessed in which a few of us can put together in a blueprint form for you. Tired of hearing 'you're watching a movie?' Tough. Because you are. It's the greatest Military movie of all time.

To understand the Supreme Court and Voting Procedures,

This is where the 68% to 75% percentile of Americans who cannot name the 3 Branches of Government earns its data.

- Legislative Branch - makes all laws, declares war, regulates interstate and foreign commerce and controls taxing and spending policies; aka writes the laws.

- Executive Branch - part of government that enforces law and has responsibility for the governance of a state; aka passes the laws.

Judicial Branch - The judicial branch is in charge of deciding the meaning of laws, how to apply them to real situations, and whether a law breaks the rules of the Constitution; aka interprets the law.

The next thing Americans need to learn, relearn, and understand is Voting. We have Laws in place. They've BEEN in place.

By learning these, they can help you decipher what's propaganda, misinformation, or other people who have no clue what they're talking about.

Although this has NEVER been about the Courts, the Courts have systems, procedures, and laws in place. The Supreme Court does NOT change the Law just because you do not like the result. The Supreme Court interprets the Laws. They do not write or change the Laws.

The Statute of 1845 states when and how we vote:

2 US Code 7:
https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCODE-2010-title2/html/USCODE-2010-title2-chap1-sec7.htm

If we do not have honesty, integrity, and responsibility in a simple piece of paper from 1845 that tells when and how we vote... do we really need to add new ways to vote right now? How about let's learn this system, put those values around it, thennnn we can talk about more ways to vote being registered with those same values around them.

The next step will be to understand that January 6 is a Constitutional process of counting and electing the President and Vice President.

How the Electoral Votes are counted on January 6th:

Article II, Section 1, Clause 3: Electoral College Count:
https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/article-2/section-1/clause-3 (https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/article-2/section-1/clause-3/)/

If the President is not chosen by January 20th after that process, the Vice President becomes President until further notice:

Section 3 of the 20th Amendment specifies:
https://constitution.congress.gov/constitution/amendment-20/#:~:text=Section%203,President%20elect%20shall%20become%20President.

3 US Code Chapter 1 Section 15 specifically says:

"Congress shall be in session on the sixth day of January succeeding every meeting of the electors. The Senate and House of Representatives shall meet in the Hall of the House of Representatives at the hour of 1 o'clock in the afternoon on that day, and the President of the Senate shall be their presiding officer".... (read more)

3 US Code Chapter 1 Section 15:
https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCODE-2014-title3/html/USCODE-2014-title3-chap1-sec15.htm

3 US Code Chapter 1 outlines the whole process of Presidential Elections and Vacancies:
https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?path=/prelim@title3/chapter1&edition=prelim

If there's no Vice President elected by the time of Inauguration, via the Presidential Succession Act of 1947, the Speaker of the House becomes President UNTIL the House selects a President or the Senate selects a Vice President.

Presidential Succession Act:
https://www.congress.gov/event/108th-congress/house-event/LC15233/text?s=1&r=3#:~:text=Under%20the%201947%20act%20any,automatically%20vacates%20his%20Cabinet%20position.

Now, let's specifically get on January 6, 2021, aka J6. That day was NOT "Trump" versus "Biden." Once again, January 6th is a Constitutional Process of counting the votes for President and Vice President.

Had J6 been a real scenario, Congress would have still failed to do their job. Here's how and why. Had there been an actual "insurrection"... once the Capitol Police would have done their job, which would have taken a LOT longer to sort out than what was shown to the public in the planned operation (destroying of an institution from within), Congress' would have stopped on Arizona, gone into the special chamber due to the Objections to sort that out before ever reconvening to the House floor for states moving forward in the process.

Also, the majority of Americans had no clue January 6 is a Constitutional process. So, the time Americans catch a tiny sliver of the news, of course something of that magnitude for those who aren't following close will think it's crazy, unordinary and panic.

The Military Operation was never going to be made public in the first place for MULTIPLE reasons, mainly because the majority of Americans cannot name the 3 branches of government, most cannot understand MULTIPLE facets of Military and Government at this point... Might as well leave it up to those of us who do, to clean it out and make it better for you.

Because if that were a true "insurrection"... there's no such thing. The Declaration of Independence gives 'we the people' the full authority to:

"That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness."

"It is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security."

Alter or Abolish
Institute new Government
Their RIGHT
Their DUTY
Throw off such Government
Provide NEW

Declaration of Independence:
https://www.archives.gov/founding-docs/declaration-transcript


Also, the rotunda doors entering the Capitol building... are 2,000 POUND doors and they open from the INSIDE. One of the most protected buildings along with the White House for all these years and all of a sudden, the 2,000 lb doors that open from the inside were not locked by those "professional" guards and Sergeant of Arms... who both the House and Senate, Sergeant of Arms resigned the very next day? HAHAHA Get out of here.

January 6th was another Military Occupancy distraction, in which 99% of you fell for it, hook, line, and sinker. Welcome to the Aquarium.

You want out of the glass confinement? Understand the Military Operation via the Law of War Manual.

Alabama was the ONLY state to successfully cast and confirm their Electors without any objections... Had this been a 'Vote Count' error, on the 2nd state, during the Arizona count, there were objections, and that's when the "insurrection" happened.

Although this has never been about 'Election Fraud' via Voter or State Count, had this been a 'Voter Count' issue, here's what was to CONSTITUTIONALLY happen when the Objections took place:

"Objecting to the Counting of One or More Electoral Votes Provisions in 3 U.S.C. 15 include a procedure for making and acting on objections to the counting of one or more of the electoral votes from a state or the District of Columbia. When the certificate or equivalent paper from each state (or the District of Columbia) is read, "the President of the Senate shall call for objections, if any." Any such objection must be presented in writing and must be signed by at least one Senator and one Representative. The objection "shall state clearly and concisely, and without argument, the ground thereof.... " During the joint session of January 6, 2001, the presiding officer intervened on several occasions to halt attempts to make speeches under the guise of offering an objection. When an objection, properly made in writing and endorsed by at least one Senator and one Representative, is received, each house is to meet and consider it separately. The statute states that "[n]o votes or papers from any other State shall be acted upon until the objections previously made to the votes or papers from any State shall have been finally disposed of." However, in 1873, before enactment of the law now in force, the joint session agreed, without objection and for reasons of convenience, to entertain objections with regard to two or more states before the houses met separately on any of them."

Counting Electoral Votes:
https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/RL/RL32717/12


After the beautifully orchestrated and planned military distraction piece completed its staged mission, House Speaker, Nancy Pelosi, ignored those objections and rushed counting and confirming all 50 states.

LOL, that should keep a few of ya busy :-)

And I'll close for the night with this fake 2018 pic.

BBW12OG said:

---

What's up Manny!!! Thank you for gracing us with your presence. Your condescending remarks reminds us just exactly why you and your ilk only do "drop ins."

Since our last conversation, which you ran away when you were faced with facts, because.. well... that's how you and your ilk roll, things have gotten worse. Why don't you grow a set and defend your side? I think we all know why.

Glad to see you back.

When you get a second would you please respond to this article with your opinion. Thanks in advance. Looking forward to hearing your thoughts. And by the way, it's from one of your MSM outlets.

https://www.cnn.com/2022/11/29/health/gun-deaths-disparities/index.html

---

I read his response (and subsequent posts) to indicate that he'll engage here with some "light" work... but he wants nothing to do with you.

Another one that posted on the football boards that he thought the Water Cooler should be eliminated from IPS...

TheStorm said:

---

BBW12OG said:

---

What's up Manny!!! Thank you for gracing us with your presence. Your condescending remarks reminds us just exactly why you and your ilk only do "drop ins."

Since our last conversation, which you ran away when you were faced with facts, because.. well... that's how you and your ilk roll, things have gotten worse. Why don't you grow a set and defend your side? I think we all know why.

Glad to see you back.

When you get a second would you please respond to this article with your opinion. Thanks in advance. Looking forward to hearing your thoughts. And by the way, it's from one of your MSM outlets.

https://www.cnn.com/2022/11/29/health/gun-deaths-disparities/index.html

---

I read his response (and subsequent posts) to indicate that he'll engage here with some "light" work... but he wants nothing to do with you.

Another one that posted on the football boards that he thought the Water Cooler should be eliminated from IPS...

---

Hey, if BBW (or anyone else) want to continue the conversation about SCOTUS procedures in general or the status of Brunson v. Adams in particular, I'm happy to do so. I'm just not going to chase down whatever off-topic rabbit hole BBW wants to throw out there.

Near as I can tell all of my posts are where they are supposed to be, so I assume the last part isn't direted to me.

RT: https://t.co/TnKUC1EGH6🐸⚡️💥⛈@KarliBonne https://t.co/3X7WFpzsmi

レイは2019年12月からバイデンラップトップを持っていた...FBIはそれが本物であることを知っていて、そこにある不利な証拠を正確に知っていた-彼らは違法に我々の電子メールやテキストメッセージを読んだ-レイは我々が pic.twitter.com/0bU10Bh8wk

— Or Sassur (@OrSassur) December 4, 2022

Werewolf said:

---

RT: https://t.co/TnKUC1EGH6🐸⚡️💥⛈@KarliBonne https://t.co/3X7WFpzsmi

レイは2019年12月からバイデンラップトップを持っていた...FBIはそれが本物であることを知っていて、そこにある不利な証拠を正確に知っていた-彼らは違法に我々の電子メールやテキストメッセージを読んだ-レイは我々が pic.twitter.com/0bU10Bh8wk

— Or Sassur (@OrSassur) December 4, 2022

---

That, I agree with…. A Trump appointee, vetted by the RNC led by Ronna McDaniel. Trumps biggest fault! He trusted Republicans (at least the establishment ones)..

Has the January 6 committee figured out why the doors to the Capitol were unlocked and held open by the cops yet?

— Tim Young (@TimRunsHisMouth) October 13, 2022

caryking said:

---

Werewolf said:

---

RT: https://t.co/TnKUC1EGH6🐸⚡️💥⛈@KarliBonne https://t.co/3X7WFpzsmi

レイは2019年12月からバイデンラップトップを持っていた...FBIはそれが本物であることを知っていて、そこにある不利な証拠を正確に知っていた-彼らは違法に我々の電子メールやテキストメッセージを読んだ-レイは我々が pic.twitter.com/0bU10Bh8wk

— Or Sassur (@OrSassur) December 4, 2022

---

That, I agree with…. A Trump appointee, vetted by the RNC led by Ronna McDaniel. Trumps biggest fault! He trusted Republicans (at least the establishment ones)..

---

Bannon's show this morning included quite a bit of discussion about the FBI dating back to Hoover. Very good if you didn't and wish to find it

🚨My guess is that all the evidence has already been erased, deleted or destroyed, because it is way too damning!🤫🤫🤫 pic.twitter.com/TGhvUrJM3I

— DK🇺🇸🦅🇺🇸 (@1Nicdar) December 16, 2022

Bannon: After Monday, it’s rolling. They’re going to indict [Trump]. There’s no doubt about that. 41 Democrats put a bill in to restrict him from running for president. They understand they can’t beat him at the ballot box. pic.twitter.com/LcjoFtNB7F

— Grace Chong 🇺🇸 (@gc22gc) December 17, 2022

Trump is a loser!!!

86wolf said:

---

Trump is a loser!!!

---

Why do you believe that?

Werewolf said:

---

Bannon: After Monday, it’s rolling. They’re going to indict [Trump]. There’s no doubt about that. 41 Democrats put a bill in to restrict him from running for president. They understand they can’t beat him at the ballot box. pic.twitter.com/LcjoFtNB7F

— Grace Chong 🇺🇸 (@gc22gc) December 17, 2022

---

Can't beat Trump at the ballot box? LOL

All evidence to the contrary.

caryking said:

---

86wolf said:

---

Trump is a loser!!!

---

Why do you believe that?

---

Because he lost.

Civilized said:

---

caryking said:

---

86wolf said:

---

Trump is a loser!!!

---

Why do you believe that?

---

Because he lost.

---

Civ, that's too shallow for you. 86Wolf said Trump is a loser. I'm not here to say 86 is wrong; rather, want to hear why he said that. I may not agree; just want to hear more why he said that…

It's very simple… no agenda, just curious…

Civilized said:

---

Werewolf said:

---

Bannon: After Monday, it’s rolling. They’re going to indict [Trump]. There’s no doubt about that. 41 Democrats put a bill in to restrict him from running for president. They understand they can’t beat him at the ballot box. pic.twitter.com/LcjoFtNB7F

— Grace Chong 🇺🇸 (@gc22gc) December 17, 2022

---

Can't beat Trump at the ballot box? LOL

All evidence to the contrary.

---

Considering the evidence you will only look at, I agree with you.

That said, the provocation, by the left (hell, even a good portion of the right), is only to take our eye off the ball. We can all argue, debate, cast aspersions against each other, or, we can get focused on the country's sovereignty.

Our federal debt is ~32T
The Federal Reserve balance sheet is ~10T
Unfunded liabilities are greater than 50T

That is unsustainable! Modern Monetary Policy has created this mess. A day of reckoning is coming. If the dollar is no longer the world currency (meaning everything transacts to it), then we will lose our biggest export. Printing of money is over. The economic world, we know, will be done!

Remember what the balance sheet of the Federal Reserve is. It's basically congressional spending that no country will buy the bonds. So, the Federal Reserve monetizes the deficit, by printing more money, and absorbs the deficit onto its balance sheet.

Obama and presidents before him layered debt via methods, like this. Trump actually worked to lower the Federal Reserve balance sheet and Biden has exploded it.

The elites don't care about the impact this has on all of us. We are the debtors and we own this debt. Only the people can pay this back. Younger population will become serfs, no different than Socialist or Communist country's.

So, what's more important? Bickering about the stuff they wants us to bicker about? Or, wanting to get control of our financial institutions?

All of the provocative divisions that have been created is to take our eye off the ball. Wokism is exactly that! Look at what we fight about…

Lol. This is appropriate.

Now that the Twitter files have confirmed basically everything we suspected, has anyone who had #Resistance in their profile changed it to #GalacticEmpire yet? pic.twitter.com/Egn5MgMKNC

— Dave Rubin (@RubinReport) December 20, 2022

Civilized said:

---

Werewolf said:

---

Bannon: After Monday, it’s rolling. They’re going to indict [Trump]. There’s no doubt about that. 41 Democrats put a bill in to restrict him from running for president. They understand they can’t beat him at the ballot box. pic.twitter.com/LcjoFtNB7F

— Grace Chong 🇺🇸 (@gc22gc) December 17, 2022

---

Can't beat Trump at the ballot box? LOL

All evidence to the contrary.

---

LOL. I agree with your cynical comment :-) ........at the moment. ;-)

packgrad said:

---

This too. The left is led by absolute lunatics now.

---

9/11 and Pearl Harbor were acts of war from external enemies for motives unrelated to our democratic institution.

"Attack on democracy" connotes an attack from within whose intent is to overthrow or dramatically change our system of governance.

It's not some maladjusted stance to think that the sitting President attempting to deny and circumvent the results of a free and fair election was a colossally bad day for the nation.

Our country has never seen anything like it and we all better hope we don't see anything like it ever again.