Since the elevation of John Roberts as the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, Roberts’ fidelity to the U.S. Constitution, as well as the Court’s impartiality above partisan ideological bias, has been challenged.

1. Shelby County v. Holder. The Roberts Court's evisceration of the most important civil-rights legislation passed since Reconstruction was its lowest moment. The impact of the decision to reverse a key part of the Voting Rights Act is anti-democratic, allowing numerous illegal voter-suppression schemes to go into effect, and making it much more difficult to stop them. But what makes Shelby County especially egregious is its threadbare legal reasoning, which can't even be called "constitutional law."

2. NFIB v. Sebelius. This case is generally seen as a liberal triumph because Chief Justice Roberts ultimately decided not to rule Barack Obama's signature domestic policy achievement unconstitutional. But its Medicaid expansion holding might actually belong at the top of list. In terms of its policy impact, it would be hard to identify a worse decision in the history of the Supreme Court. Thousands of people a year will literally die because Roberts re-wrote the Medicaid expansion of the Affordable Care Act to make it much easier for states to opt out.

3. Connick v. Thompson. This case involved an almost-certainly innocent man who spent 18 years in prison largely because the state illegally suppressed exculpatory evidence. According to a 5–4 decision written by Justice Clarence Thomas, however, nobody in the prosecutor's office could be held accountable for this egregious, willful rights violation.

4. AT&T Mobility v. Concepcion. In this case, the Court held (in an opinion written by the late Justice Antonin Scalia) that federal law preempted California's limits on forced-arbitration agreements. This decision makes it much harder for consumers to get effective remedies when companies rip them off.

5. Arizona Free Enterprise Club's Freedom Club PAC v. Bennett. I actually think that this, not Citizens United, is the very worst of the Roberts Court's campaign-finance decisions. The Court struck down an Arizona law that gave matching funds to candidates based on the money raised by their opponents. <Source>

There is little doubt in anyone’s mind that since Chief Justice John Roberts was sworn in on Sept. 29, 2005, by Justice John Paul Stevens, he has been a feckless jurist and not the constitutional conservative he was portrayed to be by the media. In fact, he was appointed by George W. Bush and was, in actuality, an establishment “go along to get along” Bushie. 

Now, we are about to find out whether or not the Roberts Court’s fidelity to the text, structure, history, and constitutional hierarchy is real and if the Court is a legitimate forum for Americans to redress their grievances.

The test: Brunson v. Alma S. Adams; et al. (Docket #22-380), a petition for a writ of certiorari filed on October 20, 2022.

Basically, the parties are alleged to have known that there were outstanding allegations of widespread election regularities on January 6th and violated their oath of office when they failed to investigate the matter of electoral irregularities prior to certifying the election and allowing Joe Biden to assume the Presidency.



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.


Petitioner Raland J Brunson is an individual representing himself and is a Plaintiff in the trial court.

388 Respondents, in their official capacities, are a party to this action as defendants in the trial court. including select Members of the House of Representatives and the Senate, President Biden, Vice President Harris, Michael Pence as former Vice President, and 100 Jane and John Does. 


This action is against 388 federal officers in their official capacities which include President Joseph Robinette Biden Jr, Vice President Kamala Harris, Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi and former Vice President Michael Richard Pence (“Respondents”). All the Respondents have taken the required Oath to support and defend the Constitution of the United States of America against all enemies, foreign and domestic, and as such they are liable for consequences when they violate the Oath of Office.

Respondents were properly warned and were requested to make an investigation into a highly covert swift and powerful enemy, as stated below, seeking to destroy the Constitution and the United States, purposely thwarted all efforts to investigate this, whereupon this enemy was not checked or investigated, therefore the Respondents adhered to this enemy. Because of Respondents intentional refusal to investigate this enemy, Petitioner Raland J Brunson (“Brunson”) brought this action against Respondents because he was seriously personally damaged and violated by this action of Respondents, and consequently this action unilaterally violated the rights of every citizen of the U.S.A. and perhaps the rights of every person living, and all courts of law.

On January 6, 2021, the 117th Congress held a proceeding and debate in Washington DC (“Proceeding”). Proceeding was for the purpose of counting votes under the 2020 Presidential election for the President and Vice President of the United States under Amendment XII. During this Proceeding over 100 members of U.S. Congress claimed factual evidence that the said election was rigged. The refusal of the Respondents to investigate this congressional claim (the enemy) is an act of treason and fraud by Respondents. A successfully rigged election has the same end result as an act of war; to place into power whom the victor wants, which in this case is Biden, who, if not stopped immediately, will continue to destroy the fundamental freedoms of Brunson and all U.S. Citizens and courts of law.

Due to the fact that this case represents a national security breach on a unprecedented level like never before seen seriously damaging and violating Brunson and coincidently effects every citizen of the U.S.A. and courts of law. Therefore, Brunson moves this court to grant this petition, or in the alternative without continuing further, order the trial court to grant Brunson’s complaint in its fullest. Brunson’s complaint is the mechanism that can immediately remove the Respondents from office without leaving this country vulnerable without a President and Vice President.

<Source: Supreme Court Docket Petition>

What does it all mean?

That knowing of alleged interference with the electoral process, those named in the petition had a constitutionally-mandated duty required by their Oath of Office to investigate the allegations as a matter of national security.

Bottom line…

Will the Roberts’ Court blow off the issue when its decision is distributed for Court Conference, ironically, on January 6, 2023? The Conference will decide, by vote, if the case will be heard before the Court.  

Five minutes before conference time, 9:30 or 10 a.m., the Justices are summoned. They exchange ritual handshakes and settle down at the long table. The Chief sits at the east end; the other Justices sit at places they have chosen in order of their seniority. Before each Justice is a copy of the day’s agenda. Each decides when he or she should refrain from taking any part in a case.

The Chief Justice opens the discussion, summarizing each case. The senior Associate Justice speaks next, and comment passes down the line. To be accepted for review, a case needs only four votes, fewer than the majority required for a decision on the case itself. Counsel for the litigants are directed to submit their printed briefs so that each Justice has a set several weeks before argument.

All conference decisions are published. The disagreements among the Justices are fully exposed to the public in the written opinions, and on occasion the language of dissent becomes vehement. <Source>

Is the Court willing to issue an opinion and risk removing sitting officials from office? 

Does the Oath of Office mean anything?

We are so screwed.

-- Steve

“Nullius in verba”-- take nobody's word for it!
"Acta non verba" -- actions not words

“Beware of false knowledge; it is more dangerous than ignorance.”-- George Bernard Shaw

“Progressive, liberal, Socialist, Marxist, Democratic Socialist -- they are all COMMUNISTS.”

“The key to fighting the craziness of the progressives is to hold them responsible for their actions, not their intentions.” – OCS

"The object in life is not to be on the side of the majority, but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane." -- Marcus Aurelius

“A people that elect corrupt politicians, imposters, thieves, and traitors are not victims... but accomplices” -- George Orwell

“Fere libenter homines id quod volunt credunt." (The people gladly believe what they wish to.) ~Julius Caesar

“Describing the problem is quite different from knowing the solution. Except in politics." ~ OCS