Justplainbill's Weblog

No. n-‘bto
Supreme Court, U.S
FILED In The
OCT 2 a 2022
Supreme Court ofthe United States OFFICE OF THE Cl Fax-
♦
RALAND J BRUNSON,
Petitioner,
v.
ALMA S. ADAMS, et, al.,
Respondents.
♦
On Petition for Writ of Certiorari
To The United States Court Of Appeals
For The Tenth Circuit
♦
PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI
Raland J Brunson

Petitioner in pro se
RECEIVED
OCT 2 k 2022
OFFICE OF THE CLERK
SUPREME COURT. U.S.
1
QUESTIONS PRESENTED
A serious conflict exists between decisions rendered from
this Court and lower appeal courts, along with
constitutional provisions and statutes, in deciding whether
or not the trial court has jurisdiction to try the merits of
this case.
This case uncovers a serious national security breach that
is unique and is of first impression, and due to the serious
nature of this case it involves the possible removal of a
sitting President and Vice President of the United States
along with members of the United States Congress, while
deeming them unfit from ever holding office under Federal,
State, County or local Governments found within the
United States of America, and at the same time the trial
court also has the authority, to be validated by this Court,
to authorize the swearing in of the legal and rightful heirs
for President and Vice President of the United States.
In addition there are two doctrines that conflict with each
other found in this case affecting every court in this
country. These doctrines are known as the doctrine of
equitable maxim and the doctrine of the object principle of
justice. Equitable maxim created by this court, which the
lower court used to dismiss this case, sets in direct violation
of the object principle of justice also partially created by
this Court and supported by other appeal courts and
constitutional provisions.
These conflicts call for the supervisory power of this Court
to resolve these conflicts, which has not, but should be,
settled by this Court without delay.
11
PARTIES TO THE PROCEEDING
Petitioner Raland J Brunson is an individual representing
himself and is a Plaintiff in the trial court.
The following 388 Respondents are a party to this action as
defendants in the trial court:
Named persons in their capacities as United States House
Representatives: ALMA S. ADAMS; PETE AGUILAR;
COLIN Z. ALLRED; MARK E. AMODEI; KELLY
ARMSTRONG; JAKE AUCHINCLOSS; CYNTHIA AXNE;
DON BACON; TROY BALDERSON; ANDY BARR;
NANETTE DIAZ BARRAGAN; KAREN BASS; JOYCE
BEATTY; AMI BERA; DONALD S. BEYER JR.; GUS M.
ILIRAKIS; SANFORD D. BISHOP JR.; EARL
BLUMENAUER; LISA BLUNT ROCHESTER; SUZANNE
BONAMICI; CAROLYN BOURDEAUX; JAMAAL
BOWMAN; BRENDAN F. BOYLE; KEVIN BRADY;
ANTHONY G. BROWN; JULIA BROWNLEY; VERN
BUCHANAN; KEN BUCK; LARRY BUCSHON; CORI
BUSH; CHERI BUSTOS; G. K. BUTTERFIELD; SALUD

0. CARBAJAL; TONY CARDENAS; ANDRE CARSON;
   MATT CARTWRIGHT; ED CASE; SEAN CASTEN;
   KATHY CASTOR; JOAQUIN CASTRO; LIZ CHENEY;
   JUDY CHU; DAVID N. CICILLINE; KATHERINE M.
   CLARK; YVETTE D. CLARKE; EMANUEL CLEAVER;
   JAMES E. CLYBURN; STEVE COHEN; JAMES COMER;
   GERALD E. CONNOLLY; JIM COOPER; J. LUIS
   CORREA; JIM COSTA; JOE COURTNEY; ANGIE CRAIG;
   DAN CRENSHAW; CHARLIE CRIST; JASON CROW;
   HENRY CUELLAR; JOHN R. CURTIS; SHARICE
   DAVIDS; DANNY K. DAVIS; RODNEY DAVIS;
   MADELEINE DEAN; PETER A. DEFAZIO; DIANA
   DEGETTE; ROSAL DELAURO; SUZAN K. DELBENE;
   Ill
   ANTONIO DELGADO; VAL BUTLER DEMINGS; MARK
   DESAULNIER; THEODORE E. DEUTCH; DEBBIE
   DINGELL; LLOYD DOGGETT; MICHAEL F. DOYLE;
   TOM EMMER; VERONICA ESCOBAR; ANNA G. ESHOO;
   ADRIANO ESPAILLAT; DWIGHT EVANS; RANDY
   FEENSTRA; A. DREW FERGUSON IV; BRIAN K.
   FITZPATRICK; LIZZIE LETCHER; JEFF
   FORTENBERRY; BILL FOSTER; LOIS FRANKEL;
   MARCIA L. FUDGE; MIKE GALLAGHER; RUBEN
   GALLEGO; JOHN GARAMENDI; ANDREW R.
   GARBARINO; SYLVIA R. GARCIA; JESUS G. GARCIA;
   JARED F. GOLDEN; JIMMY GOMEZ; TONY GONZALES;
   ANTHONY GONZALEZ; VICENTE GONZALEZ; JOSH
   GOTTHEIMER; KAY GRANGER; AL GREEN; RAUL M.
   GRIJALVA; GLENN GROTHMAN; BRETT GUTHRIE;
   DEBRA A. HAALAND; JOSH HARDER; ALCEE L.
   HASTINGS; JAHANA HAYES; JAIME HERRERA
   BEUTLER; BRIAN HIGGINS; J. FRENCH HILL; JAMES
   A. HIMES; ASHLEY HINSON; TREY HOLLINGSWORTH;
   STEVEN HORSFORD; CHRISSY HOULAHAN; STENY H.
   HOYER; JARED HUFFMAN; BILL HUIZENGA; SHEILA
   JACKSON LEE; SARA JACOBS; PRAMILA JAYAPAL;
   HAKEEM S. JEFFRIES; DUSTY JOHNSON; EDDIE
   BERNICE JOHNSON; HENRY C. JOHNSON JR.;
   MONDAIRE JONES; DAVID P. JOYCE; KAIALPI
   KAHELE; MARCY KAPTUR; JOHN KATKO; WILLIAM R.
   KEATING; RO KHANNA; DANIEL T. KILDEE; DEREK
   KILMER; ANDY KIM; YOUNG KIM; RON KIND; ADAM
   KINZINGER; ANN KIRKPATRICK; RAJA
   KRISHNAMOORTHI; ANN M. KUSTER; DARIN
   LAHOOD; CONOR LAMB; JAMES R. LANGEVIN; RICK
   LARSEN; JOHN B. LARSON; ROBERT E. LATTA; JAKE
   LATURNER; BRENDA L. LAWRENCE; AL LAWSON JR.;
   BARBARA LEE; SUSIE LEE; TERESA LEGER
   FERNANDEZ; ANDY LEVIN; MIKE LEVIN; TED LIEU;
   IV
   ZOE LOFGREN; ALAN S.LOWENTHAL; ELAINE G.
   LURIA; STEPHEN F. LYNCH; NANCY MACE; TOM
   MALINOWSKI; CAROLYN B. MALONEY; SEAN
   PATRICK MALONEY; KATHY E. MANNING; THOMAS
   MASSIE; DORIS 0. MATSUI; LUCY MCBATH; MICHAEL
   T. MCCAUL; TOM MCCLINTOCK; BETTY MCCOLLUM;
   A. ADONALD MCEACHIN; JAMES P. MCGOVERN;
   PATRICK T. MCHENRY; DAVID B. MCKINLEY; JERRY
   MCNERNEY; GREGORY W. MEEKS; PETER MEIJER;
   GRACE MENG; KWEISI MFUME; MARIANNETTE
   MILLER-MEEKS; JOHN R. MOOLENAAR; BLAKE D.
   MOORE; GWEN MOORE; JOSEPH D. MORELLE;
   SETH MOULTON; FRANK J. MRVAN; STEPHANIE N.
   MURPHY; JERROLD NADLER; GRACE F.
   NAPOLITANO; RICHARD E. NEAL; JOE NEGUSE; DAN
   NEWHOUSE; MARIE NEWMAN; DONALD NORCROSS;
   ALEXANDRIA OCASIO-CORTEZ; TOM O’HALLERAN;
   ILHAN OMAR; FRANK PALLONE JR.; JIMMY
   PANETTA; CHRIS PAPPAS; BILL PASCRELL JR.;
   DONALD M. PAYNE JR.; NANCY PELOSI; ED
   PERLMUTTER; SCOTT H. PETERS; DEAN PHILLIPS;
   CHELLIE PINGREE; MARK POCAN; KATIE PORTER;
   AYANNA PRESSLEY; DAVID E. PRICE; MIKE
   QUIGLEY; JAMIE RASKIN; TOM REED; KATHLEEN M.
   RICE; CATHY MCMORRIS RODGERS; DEBORAH K.
   ROSS; CHIP ROY; LUCILLE ROYBAL-ALLARD; RAUL
   RUIZ; C. A. DUTCH RUPPERSBERGER; BOBBY L.
   RUSH; TIM RYAN; LINDA T. SANCHEZ; JOHN P.
   SARBANES; MARY GAY SCANLON; JANICE D.
   SCHAKOWSKY; ADAM B. SCHIFF; BRADLEY SCOTT
   SCHNEIDER; KURT SCHRADER; KIM SCHRIER;
   AUSTIN SCOTT; DAVID SCOTT; ROBERT C. SCOTT;
   TERRI A. SEWELL; BRAD SHERMAN; MIKIE
   SHERRILL; MICHAEL K. SIMPSON; ALBIO SIRES;
   ELISSA SLOTKIN; ADAM SMITH; CHRISTOPHER H.
   V
   SMITH; DARREN SOTO; ABIGAIL DAVIS
   SPANBERGER; VICTORIA SPARTZ; JACKIE SPEIER;
   GREG STANTON; PETE STAUBER; MICHELLE STEEL;
   BRYAN STEIL; HALEY M. STEVENS; STEVE STIVERS;
   MARILYN STRICKLAND; THOMAS R. SUOZZI; ERIC
   SWALWELL; MARK TAKANO; VAN TAYLOR; BENNIE
   G. THOMPSON; MIKE THOMPSON; DINA TITUS;
   RASHIDA TLAIB; PAUL TONKO; NORMA J. TORRES;
   RITCHIE TORRES; LORI TRAHAN; DAVID J. TRONE;
   MICHAEL R. TURNER; LAUREN UNDERWOOD; FRED
   UPTON; JUAN VARGAS; MARC A. VEASEY; FILEMON
   VELA; NYDIA M. VELAZQUEZ; ANN WAGNER;
   MICHAEL WALTZ; DEBBIE WASSERMAN SCHULTZ;
   MAXINE WATERS; BONNIE WATSON COLEMAN;
   PETER WELCH; BRAD R. WENSTRUP; BRUCE
   WESTERMAN; JENNIFER WEXTON; SUSAN WILD;
   NIKEMA WILLIAMS; FREDERICA S. WILSON; STEVE
   WOMACK; JOHN A. YARMUTH; DON YOUNG; the
   following persons named are for their capacities as U.S.
   Senators; TAMMY BALDWIN; JOHN BARRASSO;
   MICHAEL F. BENNET; MARSHA BLACKBURN;
   RICHARD BLUMENTHAL; ROY BLUNT; CORY A.
   BOOKER; JOHN BOOZMAN; MIKE BRAUN; SHERROD
   BROWN; RICHARD BURR; MARIA CANTWELL;
   SHELLEY CAPITO; BENJAMIN L. CARDIN; THOMAS R.
   CARPER; ROBERT P. CASEY JR.; BILL CASSIDY;
   SUSAN M. COLLINS; CHRISTOPHER A. COONS; JOHN
   CORNYN; CATHERINE CORTEZ MASTO; TOM
   COTTON; KEVIN CRAMER; MIKE CRAPO; STEVE
   DAINES; TAMMY DUCKWORTH; RICHARD J. DURBIN;
   JONI ERNST; DIANNE FEINSTEIN; DEB FISCHER;
   KIRSTEN E. GILLIBRAND; LINDSEY GRAHAM; CHUCK
   GRASSLEY; BILL HAGERTY; MAGGIE HASSAN;
   MARTIN HEINRICH; JOHN HICKENLOOPER; MAZIE
   HIRONO; JOHN HOEVEN; JAMES INHOFE; RON
   VI
   JOHNSON; TIM KAINE; MARK KELLY; ANGUS S.
   KING, JR.; AMY KLOBUCHAR; JAMES LANKFORD;
   PATRICK LEAHY; MIKE LEE; BEN LUJAN; CYNTHIA
   M. LUMMIS; JOE MANCHIN III; EDWARD J. MARKEY;
   MITCH MCCONNELL; ROBERT MENENDEZ; JEFF
   MERKLEY; JERRY MORAN; LISA MURKOWSKI;
   CHRISTOPHER MURPHY; PATTY MURRAY; JON
   OSSOFF; ALEX PADILLA; RAND PAUL; GARY C.
   PETERS; ROB PORTMAN; JACK REED; JAMES E.
   RISCH; MITT ROMNEY; JACKY ROSEN; MIKE
   ROUNDS; MARCO RUBIO; BERNARD SANDERS; BEN
   SASSE; BRIAN SCHATZ; CHARLES E. SCHUMER; RICK
   SCOTT; TIM SCOTT; JEANNE SHAHEEN; RICHARD C.
   SHELBY; KYRSTEN SINEMA; TINA SMITH;
   DEBBIE STABENOW; DAN SULLIVAN; JON TESTER;
   JOHN THUNE; THOM TILLIS; PATRICK J. TOOMEY;
   HOLLEN VAN; MARK R. WARNER; RAPHAEL G.
   WARNOCK; ELIZABETH WARREN; SHELDON
   WHITEHOUSE; ROGER F. WICKER; RON WYDEN;
   TODD YOUNG; JOSEPH ROBINETTE BIDEN JR in his
   capacity of President of the United States; MICHAEL
   RICHARD PENCE in his capacity as former Vice President
   of the United States, and KAMALA HARRIS in her
   capacity as Vice President of the United States and JOHN
   and JANE DOES 1-100.
   Vll
   TABLE OF CONTENTS
   Page
   QUESTIONS PRESENTED…………
   PARTIES TO THE PROCEEDING
   1
   11
   TABLE OF CONTENTS Vll
   TABLE OF AUTHORITIES Vlll
   LIST OF PROCEEDINGS 1
   JURISDICTION 1
   SUPREME COURT RULE 14(F) PROVISIONS
   STATEMENT OF THE CASE………………………. …
   REASONS FOR GRANTING THIS PETITION .
   1
   3
   8
   CONCLUSION 9
   APPENDIX
   10th CIRCIUT ORDER AND JUDGMENT ,..App. 1
   App. 11
   App. 29
   App. 30
   APPELLANT’S OPENING BRIEF
   TRIAL COURT JUDGMENT
   TRIAL COURT ADOPTING REPORT
   TRIAL COURT REPORT
   App. 35
   App. 55
   AND RECOMMENDATION
   OPPOSITION TO DISMISS
   Vlll
   TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
   Page
   U.S. CONSTITUTION
   1, 5, App. 17
   … 2, App. 15
   Amendment I……………………………………………
   Amendment IX………………………………………….
   Amendment V…………………………………………..
   Amendment XII………………………………………..
   Amendment XIV………………………………………
   Article 1 Section 11……………………………………
   Article III…………………………………………………
   Declaration of Independence – Clause 1 & II
   2
   3, App. 25
   2, App. 25
   2
   App. 14, 17, 21
   14
   UTAH CONSTITUTION
   Article I Section 3 3
   STATUTES
   18 U.S. Code § 2381.
   28 U. S. C. § 2101(e)
   28 U.S.C.A. §1257(a)
   6, App. 9
   4
   1
   CASES
   American Bush u. City Of South S, 2006 UT 40…. 5, App. 16
   Carey v. Piphus, 435 U.S. 247……………….. App. 21
   Determination OfRights To Use Of Water,
   2008 UT 25 182 P.3d 362…………………… .. App. 13
   5, App. 9
   Radioshack Corp. v. ComSmart, Inc., 222 SW 3d.. 5,App. 19
   Rector v. City and County ofDenver, 348 F. 3d 935.. App. 22
   State v. Ruiz, 2012 UT 29, 282 P.3d 998
   Morris v. House, 32 Tex. 492 (1870)
   App. 13
   RULES
   Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1)..
   Rule 11 Supreme Court
   App. 2
   1,4
   1
   LIST OF PROCEEDINGS

• Raland JBrunson v. Alma S. Adams, et al., No. 1:21-
  cv-00111-CMR, U.S. District Court for the District of
  Utah. Judgment entered February 2, 2022.
• Raland JBrunson v. Alma S. Adams, No. 22-4007,
  U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit.
  Judgment entered October 6, 2022.
  JURISDICTION
  Jurisdiction is found under 28 U.S.C.A. §1257(a)
  “Final judgments…rendered by the highest court of
  a State…may be reviewed by the Supreme Court by
  writ of certiorari…where any…right [or] privilege…is
  specially set up or claimed under the…statutes
  of…the United States.”
  SUPREME COURT RULE 14(F) PROVISIONS
  Amendment I of the Constitution of the United States:
  “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment
  of religion, or prohibiting . . . the right of the people
  peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for
  a redress of grievances.”
  Article VI of the Constitution. “This Constitution, and the
  Laws of the United States which shall be made Pursuance
  thereof; . . .shall be the supreme Law of the land; and the
  Judges in every State shall be bound thereby.”
  2
  Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United
  States; . . nor shall any state deprive any person of life,
  liberty, or property, without due process of law. . . nor deny
  to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of
  the laws.” Section 3: “No person shall be a Senator or
  Representative in Congress, or elector of President and
  Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under
  the United States, or under any state, who, having
  previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as
  an officer of the United States, or as a member of any state
  legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any
  state, to support the Constitution of the United States,
  shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the
  same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But
  Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove
  such disability.”
  Fifth Amendment of the United States Constitution: “No
  person shall…be deprived of life, liberty, or property,
  without due process of law . . .”
  Ninth Amendment of the Constitution of the United States;
  “The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights,
  shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained
  by the people.”
  Article I Section 7 of the Constitution of Utah; “No person
  shall be deprived of life, liberty or property, without due
  process of law.”
  Article 1 Section 2 of the Constitution of Utah; “All courts
  shall be open . . .which shall be administered without
  denial or unnecessary delay; and no person shall be barred
  from prosecuting or defending before any tribunal in this
  State, by himself or counsel, any civil cause to which he is a
  party.”
  ♦
  3
  STATEMENT OF THE CASE
  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.
  Respondents
  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
  This
  4
  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.
  Despite the grave importance of this case, the trial court
  granted Respondents motion to dismiss (“Motion”) by
  stating “IT IS ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that plaintiff
  Raland Brunson’s action is dismissed without prejudice”.
  (“Order”) This Order followed the trial court’s order to
  adopt its report and recommendation that Brunson did not
  get until close to the beginning of Oct. 2022 thus
  prejudicing Brunson from timely filing any objections, and
  the Order did not properly address Brunson’s opposition to
  the Motion. Brunson’s opposition clearly shows that
  Brunson has standing.
  Per Brunson’s opening brief and as outlined in Brunson’s
  said opposition (both not properly addressed by the lower
  courts) Brunson’s has standing and the trial court has full
  proper jurisdiction to rule on the merits of this case based
  upon the following factors:
  5
  a) The case of American Bush v. City Of South Salt Lake,
  2006 UT 40 140 P.3d. 1235 clearly states that the
  Constitution of the United States along with State
  Constitutions do not grant rights to the people. These
  instruments measure the power of the rulers but they do
  not measure the rights of the governed, and they are not
  the fountain of law nor the origin of the people’s rights, but
  they have been put in place to protect their rights.
  Therefore the statutes and case law cited by Respondents
  claiming immunity from Brunson’s claims in this instance
  are unconstitutional and this Court needs to rule in that
  manner.
  b) “The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights,
  shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained
  by the people.” Therefore, the purpose of the Constitution
  was written to protect our self evident rights.
  Constitution cannot be construed by any means, by any
  legislative, judicial and executive bodies, by any court of
  law to deny or disparage our rights. This is the supreme
  law of the land. “This Constitution, and the Laws of the
  United States which shall be made Pursuance thereof; . .
  shall be the supreme Law of the land; and the Judges in
  every State shall be bound thereby.” Article VI of the
  Constitution.
  The
  c) The First Amendment of the Constitution states that
  Congress shall make no law prohibiting the right of the
  people to petition the Government for a redress of
  grievances.
  d) “Our courts have consistently held that fraud vitiates
  whatever it touches, Morris v. House, 32 Tex. 492 (1870)”.
  Estate of Stonecipher v. Estate of Butts, 591 SW 2d 806.
  And “”It is a stern but just maxim of law that fraud vitiates
  everything into which it enters.” Veterans Service Club v.
  Sweeney. 252 S.W.2d 25. 27 (Kv.1952).” Radioshack Cory,
  v. ComSmart, Inc., 222 SW 3d 256.
  6
  Vitiate; “To impair or make void; to destroy or annul, either
  completely or partially, the force and effect of an act or
  instrument.”
  edition 2.
  West’s Encyclopedia of American Law,
  e) Due to the uniqueness of this case, the trial court does
  have proper authority to remove the Respondents from
  their offices under 18 U.S. Code § 2381 which states
  “Whoever, owing allegiance to the United States, levies war
  against them or adheres to their enemies, giving them aid
  and comfort within the United States or elsewhere, is guilty
  of treason and shall suffer death, or shall be imprisoned not
  less than five years and fined under this title but not less
  than $10,000; and shall be incapable of holding any office
  under the United States.” A court adjudicating that the
  Respondents, who have taken the Oath of Office, to be
  incapable of holding their offices or who have adhered to a
  domestic enemy, means nothing without such removal of
  office.
  Under the stated factors Brunson has an unfettered right
  to sue the Respondents under the serious nature of his
  claim, no legislation can measure Brunson’s right to sue the
  Respondents. Furthermore, Brunson’s allegations against
  Respondents’ adhering to a domestic enemy, and
  committing acts of fraud are not protected by any kind of
  legislation of jurisdictional immunity. Essentially, acts of
  Congress cannot protect fraud, nor protect the violation of
  the Oath or that give aid and comfort to enemies of the
  United States Constitution or America as alleged in
  Brunson’s complaint against the Respondents. These are
  facts that cannot be overcome, therefore, Brunson found no
  need to include in this petition a copy of Respondents’
  opposition to Brunson’s opening brief or any of their
  arguments. Nevertheless, Brunson’s opening brief does
  touch upon Respondents’ immunity arguments and shows
  7
  how Respondents do not, nor can they, overcome Brunson’s
  arguments as stated herein.
  It is an uncontestable fact that the Respondents committed
  fraud and treason breaching our national security (as
  factually alleged in Brunson’s complaint), thus adhering to
  an domestic enemy that continues to breach our national
  security at an alarming rate on a daily basis. This national
  security breach is having the same end result as an act of
  war; to place into power whom the Respondents want,
  which is Biden.
  powers, to order the trial court of this case to immediately
  grant to Brunson the damages he seeks in his complaint.
  This is necessary to immediately secure our national
  security without any further delay.
  Brunson moves this Court, with its
  Turning now to the doctrine of equitable maxim created by
  this Court, this doctrine stands in direct conflict of the
  doctrine of the object principle ofjustice.
  The doctrine of the object principle of justice is couched by
  the supreme law of the land, and sets in motion to provide
  our court system to be the most just, limited, highly
  effective and easy to understand, and infuses our court
  system to be the most highly respected and dearly admired
  court system greater than the world has ever seen. The
  doctrine of equitable maxim kills this and had the trial
  court been guided by the object principle of justice this
  appeal would not be necessary.
  In addition, the doctrine of the object principle of justice
  stops the precarious nature of our courts, their jobs would
  be much easier with less stress, and parties in court would
  have a strong sense on how the court is going to rule thus
  promoting settlements to high degree and as such, lawsuits
  and appeals would be greatly reduced. This is an absolute
  fact.
  8
  Jurisprudence requires this Court to revoke the doctrine of
  equitable maxim that it created and to instill the doctrine
  of the object principle of justice more thoroughly
  throughout the entire court system in America.
  The doctrines of equitable maxim and the object principle of
  justice are fully explained in a petition before this court
  under docket No. 18-1147. To avoid being repetitious,
  Brunson herein incorporates the argument found therein
  as though fully stated herein and moves this court to
  address the question either under this petition or docket
  No. 18-1147.
  REASONS FOR GRANTING THIS PETITION
  Brunson’s complaint alleges fraud, violations of the Oath of
  Office and touches on acts of treason committed by the
  Respondents. These serious offenses need to be addressed
  immediately with the least amount of technical nuances of
  the law and legal procedures because these offenses are
  flowing continually against Brunson’s liberties and life and
  consequently is a continual national security breach.
  Voting is the greatest power an individual can exercise in a
  Republic; it is Brunson’s personal voice and the way he can
  protect his personal constitutional protected rights and the
  U.S. Constitution. See ^ 71 of the Complaint. When the
  allegations of a rigged election came forward the
  Respondents had a duty under law to investigate it or be
  removed from office.
  An honest and fair election can only be supported by legal
  votes, this is sacred. It is the basis of our U.S. Republican
  Form of Government protected by the U.S. Constitution.
  The efforts made, as stated in the complaint, that avoided
  an investigation of how Biden won the election, is an act of
  9
  treason and an act of levying war against the U. S.
  Constitution which violated Brunson’s unfettered right to
  vote in an honest and fair election and as such it wrongfully
  invalidated his vote.
  As a national security interest, Brunson moves this court to
  be swift by going beyond granting this petition, it should
  order the lower court to grant Brunson’s complaint to avoid
  any further delay.
  CONCLUSION
  This petition is set forth in the interest of justice in
  protecting Brunson’s right to petition for a redress of
  grievances against the Respondents, and ensuring his right
  of due process against the encroachment of the doctrine of
  equitable maxim, and charging the Respondents who failed
  to investigate the allegations of a rigged election by having
  them removed from office without further delay.
  Dated: October 13, 2022
  Respectfully submitted,
  Is/ Raland JBrunson
  Raland J Brunson
  4287 South Harrison Blvd., Apt 132
  Ogden, Utah 84403
  Phone: 385-492-4898
  Petitioner in pro se