The Letter

December 31, 2022

 

Supreme Court of the United States

1 First Street NE

Washington D.C. 20543

 

Dear Justices:

As the final arbiters of the law, you are charged with ensuring the American People the promise of equal justice under the law.  As a United States citizen, I am respectfully requesting you exercise your full authority by agreeing to hear the RALAND J BRUNSON v. ALMA S. ADAMS case (22-380), as it directly impacts our entire country; our very way of life.

On a personal note, we have all had moments where something we assumed was safe becomes lost or threatened, and it takes on an importance it didn’t have before and an urgency to protect it. 

The day the United States Constitution became that for me was July 29, 2020. 

I saw a video of all the violence that had been going on across the country and was so incensed I wrote about it.  I think the latter part of what I wrote remains relevant, as it was a precursor of what we’re seeing today. 

***
July 29, 2020

Sometimes it’s not a matter of which side you’re on.  It just is.

I don’t know how many of you saw Barr sparring with the House Judiciary Committee. As part of the process a video was shown featuring the violence we’ve been seeing across the nation.

Before I go further, can we at least agree on that?  Can we agree that what we’re seeing is VIOLENCE?  People being shot, run over by cars, blinded by lasers and hand thrown incendiary devices, hit with objects, punched, kicked and thrown to the ground? If these things happened during the course of any other event they would be prosecuted as crimes.

If we can’t agree on that, there is no point in reading the rest of what I have to say.

I think we should be billing the mayors of these cities for damages to federal buildings, because that’s money out of all our pockets. These officials, all the way up to their governors should also pay for whatever it costs this country to send in reinforcements to protect their people in their cities, because of their failure to take steps to restore order in their jurisdictions.

Where applicable, I think we should also hold their representatives in Congress accountable for calling these riots “peaceful demonstrations” and failing to act.

Congress took an oath. It reads:  “I, AB, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion, and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God.”

What we are seeing is an insurrection which is defined as, “a violent uprising against an authority or government.”  How can one dispute this?

So why are the members of Congress unwilling to fulfill their duties and obligations to stop it? Why are they not supporting our president with respect to his right to call in a militia to protect the American People?

Article I, Section 8, Clause 15: [The Congress shall have Power . . .] To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions; . . . The states as well as Congress may prescribe penalties for failure to obey the President’s call of the militia.”

When the Attorney General says, “these are not peaceful protests, but “an assault on the Government of the United States,” is Congress not obligated to listen and respond accordingly? Do they get to imagine a different reality? If they truly cannot see what is going on around them, shouldn’t they be expelled?

They seem to have trouble with definitions, too. The definition of peaceful is “free from disturbance; tranquil; not involving war or violence.” What we’re seeing is not peaceful.  And this is a war.  Many of us just didn’t see it until now.

It is a federal criminal offense (and a violation of oath of office) for anyone employed in the United States Government, especially members of Congress, to “advocate the overthrow of our constitutional form of government”.

According to Black’s Law Dictionary, “advocate” means to “speak in favor of or defend by argument; to support, vindicate, or recommend publicly.” Those who are calling what we’re seeing “peaceful protests,” when they are anything BUT, are supporting, vindicating, and recommending, publicly, that it is constitutional to allow it.

Members of Congress are refusing to defend the United States Constitution!

Such refusal establishes their objective to overthrow our government which they seem to think is completely within their purview.  

I am here to tell you, it is not.

Voting someone into a position of authority does not give them the right to change the parameters of their office. 

The United States Constitution that Congress took an oath to uphold is clearly dead to them, and therefore, the members of Congress are essentially dead to the American people.  They are of no use to us.  In fact, they are an extreme liability and should be removed from their positions forthwith.

***  

In closing, I want to thank you for showing an interest in the Brunson case.  The U.S. Supreme Court is our last hope, our last line of defense, with respect to restoring our confidence in the United States Constitution and the promise of equal justice under the law for the American People.  We are grateful for your presence. 

 

Sincerely,

 

 

Gail Sheppard

 

 

Cc:  RALAND J BRUNSON

Comments

  1. I should like to sign this beside you, Gail.
    However, as I am not a citizen of the USA,
    that would likely be foreign interference;
    so I’d better not…

  2. A very moving letter, indeed.

    It reminds me of my own views and efforts in the 1990’s as a part of the then “patriot movement” to use the legal system to bring Leviathan to account. I am old enough (mid-sixties) to remember the Civil Rights era, when the political and legal system could still be used to reform, from within, what the system had become. I was naive enough to think that in the Age of Clinton, that this was still possible.

    I now understand, quite tragically, that the U.S. can no longer be reformed from within. On the Federal level, everyone and everything is “mobbed up” and compromised. No one can prosecute anyone else’s wrong doing without their own crimes being exposed.

    As the whole political, economic and societal house of cards starts collapsing on itself, I expect the Powers-That-Should-Not=Be to take desperate measures. Blogger and commentator Gonzalo Lira, who lives and reports from Ukraine, was born in Chile and went to school at an Ivy League college in the States. Here, he discusses the Latin American concept of auto-golpe (lit. “self-coup”):

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KxBFMqm1wHk

    This is where the govenrnment in power stages a “coup against itself” to detroy the legal system and rule by decree.

    If this case goes forward and is ruled in the plaintiffs’ favor, does anyone truly expect that Biden, Harris and hundreds of members of Congress will simply sit around waiting to be arrested? No! They will attempt an auto-golpe before allowing that to happen. In the process, the Supreme Court Justices will be kidnapped and shot, extra-judicially. Remember, the latter came close to happening in the wake of the overturn of Roe v. Wade.

    Now, if I can see all of this, then so can the Supreme Court Justices! Therefore, I expect that this case will be “cert. denied” on spurious technical grounds. It is just too hot to handle.

    Sorry for the “black pill” but I see no way out of this short of a total societal and systemic collapse. All preppers, prepare for impact!

    • Gail Sheppard says

      Oh, I certainly do expect that they will stand down. They haven’t been in DC since Trump shut it down. When he said we were being attacked from within on Jan 6, he wasn’t talking about the people at the Capitol. He was talking about them. They can hold all the Zoom meetings they want; but no one is going to listen to them no one is going to get paid.

  3. Very fine, Galinushka!,

    Let us all pray that they wake up and smell the coffee.

    The riots were a watershed for me too. They led me to believe that this country is much less stable than many had assumed. I predicted it, in writing, but I got the timing wrong. I thought it would occur during the run up to the 2018 midterms.

    One gets the feeling we are camped on the side of a smoldering volcano.

    • Gail Sheppard says

      That’s a good way to put it.

      • George Michalopulos says

        Indeed, that’s a very good way to put it.

        Misha, I agree with you about the utter depravity of our ruling elites. They’re so out of touch that they make Versailles look like a church social.

        I do have a white pill however: when an elite is so out of it that they constantly have to change the rules, they know that their grip on power in tenuous. Consider how terrified they were of the J6 “rioters.” They were as terrifying as a college frat party.

        I’m not a pollyanna but I can’t help shake the feeling that they’re not as powerful as we think they are.

        • George,

          Just because I call them puppets of a fascist oligarchy does not mean that I think they have all that much power either. On that we agree. They are Keystone Kops and that is a fatally bad sign that half the country can see it so clearly.

          On the Case, I found this helpful. I’m not as pessimistic as the authors, nor do I think the case is necessarily “frivolous”. However, I don’t like the odds.
          The reason I link the article is that it contains a nice little section regarding J6 from the cui bono perspective. They call it a “Fedsurrection” and assert, as I did at the time, that the whole thing was staged to prevent the hearing of evidence on election fraud and keep the election from going to the House of Representatives. They fixed the election and then they fixed the certification process. I.e., to say, J6 hurt Trump the most, not because he incited anything but because it was staged to prevent his second term.

          Pure banana republic antics.

          That so many know it and that it is so transparent does not bode well for their hold on power.

  4. George Michalopulos says
    • This stood out to me from that Saker piece:

      “With the tragedy and destruction unfolding so distressingly in Ukraine, we should remember the values and hard won freedoms that distinguish us from Putin, none more than LGBT+ rights. So let’s resume our series of tweets to mark #LGBTHM2022”
      —Richard Moore, Chief of MI6

      Moore tweeted this the day after Russia moved into Ukraine last February. How’s that for framing the Ukraine conflict from a Western perspective?

  5. Looks like they will hear the case

  6. Looks like another job might be up for grabs soon…

    Within a Month, the Catholic Church will have a new Roman Pontiff

    https://www.fromrome.info/

    ‘ The passing of His Holiness Pope Benedict XVI, the Successor of Saint Peter, has started the clock which countdowns the time set by the Papal Law Universi dominici gregis, for the election of a new Roman Pontiff.

    This process is an unavoidable and necessary legal requirement for the College of Cardinals, who are given no special authority in the Church to elect the Roman Pontiff apart from this law.

    In accord with n. 37 of that law, modified by Pope Benedict XVI on Feb. 22, 2013 A. D., the Cardinals must convene to elect a new pope of the Catholic Church within 21 days, for a valid election. This validity is granted by the Papal Law only under the most stringent and exclusive condition, of n. 77 of that law:

    77. I decree that the dispositions concerning everything that precedes the election of the Roman Pontiff and the carrying out of the election itself must be observed in full, even if the vacancy of the Apostolic See should occur as a result of the renunciation of the Supreme Pontiff, in accordance with the provisions of Canon 333 § 2 of the Code of Canon Law and Canon 44 § 2 of the Code of Canons of the Eastern Churches.

    (Please note that the official English translation, has “resignation” in place of “renunciation” in the passage above, where as the only binding text, the Latin original reads, “renunciation”.)

    Thus, since Pope Benedict XVI never in fact renounced the petrine munus, which he was elected to receive in accord with express obligation of the Cardinals, in a conclave, specified in n. 53 of that same papal law,* the College must convene.

    In this regard, there is now an attempt by some to impose an entirely false narrative upon the present circumstances, not only as regards the completely non-factual assertions that Pope Benedict XVI has abdicated, or the attempt to signify that with the word “resignation” which does not exist in the Church’s juridical norms currently in force, but also to insist that this Papal Law be interpreted according to English common law, where the mere holding of power gives one a right.

    Contrariwise, in Church Law, which is based on Roman Law, the merely holding of power confers no right. Thus, the Cardinal electors, by the mere fact that they are the electors, have no right to alter the observance of the Law or chose not to fulfill it.

    If they do, they would lose all right to elect the Roman Pontiff, and the Church would enter into an exception juridical situation, as regards the current norms, and the Apostolic Right of the faithful of the Church of Rome (Dioceses of Rome and the Suburbican Dioceses bordering it) revives, since as the prefatory letter of Pope John Paul II, affixed to the Papal Law, expressly affirms that the institution of the Conclave “is not necessary for the valid election of the Roman Pontiff.”

    Immediately following the burial of Pope Benedict XVI we should not be surprised if we see the Dean of the College invoke a Conclave. This is because, by the very nature of the requirement in n. 37, the Cardinals must convene within 21 days of the death of the Roman Pontiff:

    No. 37. “I furthermore decree that, from the moment when the Apostolic See is lawfully vacant, fifteen full days must elapse before the Conclave begins, in order to await those who are absent; nonetheless, the College of Cardinals is granted the faculty to move forward the start of the Conclave if it is clear that all the Cardinal electors are present; they can also defer, for serious reasons, the beginning of the election for a few days more. But when a maximum of twenty days have elapsed from the beginning of the vacancy of the See, all the Cardinal electors present are obliged to proceed to the election.”

    (This is the modified version of n. 37, as changed by Pope Benedict XVI).

    They can meet earlier if they are all assembled, but they cannot defer more than 21 days.

    Also, though they have discretion to interpret vague obligations of this law, as per n. 5 of this law, they cannot interpret 21 to be any other number.

    In addition, they cannot exercise the discretion of n. 5, unless they hold a meeting and vote upon it, since votes of a juridical nature specified in the Code of Canon Law, must be in person.

    The dominant narrative is attempting, however, to pre-program the expectation that the Cardinals will not convene in Conclave. Though it is impossible to know the future, one can however outline how imprudent that would be for the rights and privileges of the College.

    First, because the Cardinals have no exclusive right and only have a right to elect a pope, according to this law, if they exercise their rights, the situation is not like English Common Law where they have the discretionary right not to exercise their statutory duty.

    Second, because the Cardinals cannot decide to do anything except by vote, that vote not to enter into Conclave would have to be unanimous, for it it were not, then the Cardinals dissenting against the decision could publish pronounce the others in schism, and convene on their own a Conclave, after having elected their own Dean and vice Dean etc.. And thus the minority could proceed to a legal and valid election. And since the risk that a minority chose the Pope would most certainly be against the pleasure of the majority, the only prudent thing would be for the entire College to enter into Conclave.

    Nor is there any real risk to the College to enter into Conclave, because whether they want Bergoglio to be the Pope or not, they could always elect him a second time, so that henceforth he hold the Petrine Munus and there be no doubt anymore to his legitimacy.

    So any failure to convene, would set up the situation I have already written about here.

    Thus, it is absolutely certain that within the next 30 days will be will have a new legitimate Roman Pontiff, for even if Bergoglio would be elected again, his first pontificate was never legitimate, and he was never a Pope.

    _______________

    * 53. In conformity with the provisions of No. 52, the Cardinal Dean or the Cardinal who has precedence by order and seniority, will read aloud the following formula of the oath:

    We, the Cardinal electors present in this election of the Supreme Pontiff promise, pledge and swear, as individuals and as a group, to observe faithfully and scrupulously the prescriptions contained in the Apostolic Constitution of the Supreme Pontiff John Paul II, Universi Dominici Gregis, published on 22 February 1996. We likewise promise, pledge and swear that whichever of us by divine disposition is elected Roman Pontiff will commit himself faithfully to carrying out the munus Petrinum of Pastor of the Universal Church and will not fail to affirm and defend strenuously the spiritual and temporal rights and the liberty of the Holy See. In a particular way, we promise and swear to observe with the greatest fidelity and with all persons, clerical or lay, secrecy regarding everything that in any way relates to the election of the Roman Pontiff and regarding what occurs in the place of the election, directly or indirectly related to the results of the voting; we promise and swear not to break this secret in any way, either during or after the election of the new Pontiff, unless explicit authorization is granted by the same Pontiff; and never to lend support or favour to any interference, opposition or any other form of intervention, whereby secular authorities of whatever order and degree or any group of people or individuals might wish to intervene in the election of the Roman Pontiff. ‘

    I’m not so sure about the absolute certainty,
    but, heigh-ho, on we go…

  7. Gail, I would sign that letter too!! Scripture reading today… Luke 21… we should not be surprised, however we are horrified and I need to go deeper into prayer!

  8. The tragedy of the pyramid builders
    https://emanuelprez.substack.com/p/the-tragedy-of-the-pyramid-builders?utm_source=post-email-title&publication_id=885592&post_id=94860852&isFreemail=true&utm_medium=email

    ‘ There is a whole class of people in the United States that I refer to as the “pyramid builders.” Like the pyramid builders of ancient Egypt, they are trusted by the pharaoh with designing the most secret parts of the pyramid. What this class of overfed lawyers, doctors, CEOs, and diplomats (those misguided high priests wallowing in narcissism and decadence) do not know , however, is that just like the pyramid builders of ancient times, once they have successfully designed and built the secret inner chambers of this modern pyramid of death, they too will be led down to the river and slaughtered mercilessly so that the secrets will remain forever secret. ‘

  9. Looks like the Supreme Court has spoken. I, for one, am grateful to God for their decision.

Speak Your Mind

*