Interesting Court Case on the SCOTUS Website. Response Required by Nov. 23rd!

BUMP !!!

Pence isnt the president of the us, what!!!

The court acknowledges the coup.

For justice

WHO brought the suit? Also, why are they calling Pence the President???

She read it wrong. If you look at the actual document, here's what it says.

https://imgur.com/XEAZ03y

Okay.







































WHAT THE FUHHHHHH!?????????

you do realizeabsolutely ANY citizen of the us may petition the supreme court right???

all it takes is a couple bucks for the court fees and a google document search to do this.

a homeless bum can do this

once again glp nothingburger

Garfinkel is going to arrest all of you for possessing hopium.

True, however, if it doesn't follow exact federal court protocol it will get tossed.


Pro se is someone that filed the petition on their own, anyone can file it, most pro se cases get dismissed because they don't understand the federal filing procedure.

You Trump Q tards will just not stop.

Read the entire case!
[link to www.supremecourt.gov (secure)]

Obviously misspoke. Here is the actual suit

[link to casetext.com (secure)]

More Q stuff??...

2 more...days?

This is just a petition filing. There are no justices that have rendered any decisions, responses, or opinions on this case. Unfortunately, it's gone nowhere.


The only thing that happened on the SC side is the clerk stamped it received and they're saying it's denied unless another response is submitted. Again procedure issues.


It does bring attention to issues though.

Last Edited by Matrix Doctor on 11/21/2022 10:00 AM

[link to www.supremecourt.gov (secure)]

[link to www.supremecourt.gov (secure)]

MEANINGLESS
The supreme court must take the case up first. It hasn't.

While I believe much has been a coup since 2020 .... this will never happen. It's over.

Black Jesus Hates Quitters....

People are encouraged to not see a coup d'etat against Trump by the insane American ruling class, then encouraged again NOT to see the on going counter coup by the Trump forces.

Instead Americans are encouraged by the corporate media to see what is going on as just two-party politics as usual, or if not usual, usual enough.

As it is, and strange for a conspiracy forum, GLP is pretty much solid in encouraging the "politics as usual" narrative and anyone veering from that narrative is trounced on by negation snakes.

A few years from now the coup/counter coup viewpoint will be the prevailing understanding.

I'm not reading 18 pages posted across 8 twitter links.

Summary Now:

Turn off the fucking shit music for the love of mike.

more Q hopium. nothing more nothing less.

OP LINK to the Site to cast my VOTE: or is this scam posting? I need to at least weigh my Vote like a red-blooded American who has a Brandon brain impacted president.

It doesn't really matter what's on it, or even in it. It was just an individual filing of a petition to the SC. Anyone can do this even you or I.



The problem with filing something of this magnitude in the SC is federal court procedure is extremely tight. What this means is people have to file correctly, language has to be almost perfect when filing or they don't even take a second look. That's why there are attorneys that specialize in federal courts only, even state and local attorneys may fall short when filing on the federal level.




Last Edited by Matrix Doctor on 11/21/2022 09:57 AM

I have been following this from day one. There is nothing on the courts calendar for Nov 23 2022 [link to www.supremecourt.gov (secure)]

will be tossed due to:
1. a tiny technicality, error, etc. in the filing or other procedures
2. lack of standing

total waste of time and taxpayer money

I've been praying for this Nation since this administration

was 'put in' for God to save us from this evil empire.

If it's His will, we will be 'pulled out of the fire'.

I hope others as well as me continue to pray...

Interestingly enough, in the Ripple SEC case- the Amicus briefs are all pro se…. This is a trend of the little guy using his power in a very well coordinated effort to expose the system for what it is.

wich in the end reads:

CONCLUSION

For these reasons, Defendants satisfy the requirements for removal under § 1442(a). Defendants are federal officers and members of Congress who are being sued for actions performed in their respective positions under color of federal office. Because Defendants have colorable federal defenses to Mr. Brunson's claims, including sovereign immunity, Defendants' right to removal under 28 U.S.C. § 1442(a) is absolute. Therefore, the court recommends that Mr. Brunson's Motion to Remand be DENIED. 7

Mr. Brunson's additional arguments that remand is required because the federal court is biased against him, and the United States Attorney's Office has a conflict of interest, are unfounded and do not provide a basis for remand. The procedural posture of an entirely independent lawsuit filed by Mr. Brunson's brother, pending before a different federal judge, fails to show that this court is biased against Mr. Brunson in this case. Additionally, the court is not aware of anything in the record or otherwise to support Mr. Brunson's claim of bias. Finally, and significantly, as previously explained, the right to removal in this case is absolute. Manypenny, 451 U.S. at 242. The Supremacy Clause (i.e., Article VI) of the Constitution means something as any lover of the Constitution would have to acknowledge. Congress enacted section 1442(a) to ensure that cases against federal officers were heard in federal court. Because Congress enacted section 1442, the Supremacy Clauses makes it the supreme law of the land. Given Mr. Brunson's desire to protect the Constitution, he cannot reasonably begrudge the Supremacy Clause's application here.

Copies of this Report and Recommendation are being sent to all parties, who are hereby notified of their right to object. The parties must file any objection to this Report and Recommendation within 14 days after being served with a copy of it. Failure to object may constitute waiver of objections upon subsequent review. 8

28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(2).

28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(2).