Our last chance at the Jurybox

The soapbox was silenced/crushed by Big Tech and Social Media.
The Ballotbox is riddled with corruption
The Jurybox has so-far been showing colusion in Treason with with their partners in Big Tech, Politicians and Judges.

We are getting one last dose of hopium In SCOTUS, If this fails all we have left is the freedom pill box…


Like Mr Pelosi says : Its not who you know…




Brunson SC Case: Elizabeth Prelogar is the Solicitor General of the USand took over the Brunson Brothers Case from US Attys.

I wondered why the US attorneys were replaced by the Solicitor General on the Brunson vs Alma Adams case? The historical duties and assignments answers this question. I can see a lot of pros for the case by bringing her in and some cons__

“Presenting the Case of the United States As It Should Be”: The Solicitor General in Historical Context

June 1, 1998

Some 60 years ago, a letter found its way into the United States mail addressed simply “The Celestial General, Washington, D.C.” The Postmaster apparently had no trouble discerning to whom it should be delivered. It went to Robert H. Jackson, then Solicitor General of the United States.(1)

   Now neither Justice Jackson nor any of my other predecessors, I am sure, had pretensions of other-worldliness.   But they  we  have all been fortunate indeed to have been able to serve in what Thurgood Marshall called "the best job I've ever had."(2)   For the office of Solicitor General of the United States is a wonderful and unique creation.

  The Solicitor General is the only officer of the United Statesrequired by statute to be "learned in the law."(3)   He is one of only two people (the other being the Vice President) with formal offices in two branches of government.(4)   And perhaps more than any other position in government, the Solicitor General has important traditions of deference to all three branches.

  The Solicitor General is of course an Executive Branch officer, reporting to the Attorney General, and ultimately to the President, in whom our Constitution vests all of the Executive power of the United States.Yet as the officer charged with, among other things, representing the interests of the United States in the Supreme Court, the position carries with itresponsibilities to the other branches of government as well.   

   As a result, by long tradition the Solicitor General has been accorded a large degree of independence.

    To the Congress, Solicitors General have long assumed the responsibility, except in rare instances, of defending the constitutionality of enactments, so long as a defense can reasonably be made.(5) With respect to the Supreme Court,theSolicitor General has often been called "the Tenth Justice."(6)   But alas, although I get to participate a lot, I do not get a vote (and in some important cases I could really use one).  No, the Solicitor General's special relationship to the Court is not one of privilege, but of duty – to respect and honor the principle of stare decisis, to exercise restraint in invoking the Court's jurisdiction, and to be absolutely scrupulous in every representation made.   As one of my predecessors, Simon Sobeloff, once described the mission of the office:

  The Solicitor General is not a neutral, he is an advocate; but an advocate for a client whose business is not merely to prevail in the instant case.My client's chief business is not to achieve victory, but to establish justice.(7)

   So what does the Solicitor General do, and how did the office come to be? As for the "what," for the past 50 years or so, the Solicitor General has had two principal functions: to represent the United States in the Supreme Court and, with respect to the lower federal courts and state courts, to decide when the United States should appeal a case it has lost, when it should file a brief amicus curiae, and when the United States should intervene to defend the constitutionality of an Act of Congress.   Ultimately, it is the responsibility of the Solicitor General to ensure that the United States speaks in court with a single voice – a voice that speaks on behalf of the rule of law….

“Since the early 1950s, relief from non-litigation responsibilities has left modern-day Solicitors General free to concentrate on the “interest of the United States” with respect to litigation. That concept is elusive, and it is often difficult to discern just what position the interest of the United States supports. But so long as Solicitors General apply the principle best articulated by my predecessor Frederick Lehmann that “[t]he United States wins its point whenever justice is done its citizens in the courts”(113) and so long as Solicitors General maintain fidelity to the rule of law, it will continue to be true, as Francis Biddle wrote following his tenure in the office, that"[t]he Solicitor General has no master to serve except his country."(114)”

(IMHO: I think the Solicitor General assigned to this case, tells you how very important and perhaps challenging to the SC the Brunson vs … is. The very fact the SC took it is just as meaningful. SG of US also works for the SC, everything must be done explicitly by the constitution.)


Have to love this case if its trying treason


Wow! Just Wow :clap: !

The biggest surprise is the deafening silence. Crickets…


Here we go. Finally. Yet it still doesn’t make the news. Nowhere. Thanks Barrett. Not that there is a snowball’s chance…


Any money on how many bought Scotus Justices there are?

Interesting that this came 2 days ago too…


We have good news!
We are back on the docket!
SCOTUS has updated our motion for reconsideration and has set a conference date of 2/17, just two weeks from Friday!
We told you we were ready for anything, we are still in the fight. Keep the prayers coming!


Power to fund the USA without taxation

I highly doubt it, whats the plan?

hopefully this don’t lead to another con con push


It is possible to have a limited Con Con btw.


I do not believe it.

The reason is simple, it requires politics and politicians, they’ll say or do anything to get their way, and always at the cost of the people, of “their” people.

What can the constitution possibly lack the way it is?

Or, what have previous amendments created in their wake?

No, I oppose any con con 1000x it would serve to injure more than it would help, there is no salvation coming from any politician(s).



Sorry I missed this notice, posted on Feb 1st from the Brunson brothers on Truthsocial @OfficialBrunsonBrothersSCOTUS

·Feb 1We have good news!
We are back on the docket!
SCOTUS has updated our motion for reconsideration and has set a conference date of 2/17, just two weeks from Friday!
We told you we were ready for anything, we are still in the fight. Keep the prayers coming!:pray:



The Hearing Petition has been denied (as of 2/24) and plans are in the works for the Next Step. Keep your letters coming!



So Bruson v Adams appears DOA and the Solicitor General didn’t do anything :thinking:

Color me not surprised. :expressionless: