ig

No. 22- * U.S.

Supreme Ccwt,
FILED

APR 1 9 2023
In The
OFFICE OF THE CLERK

Supreme Court of the United States

♦

LOY ARLAN 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

RULE 11
PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI

-♦
Loy Arlan Brunson
55 North Merchant St. #1631
American Fork, UT 84003
Phone: 801-375-3278
Petitioner in pro se
r

QUESTIONS PRESENTED

“It is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial

department to say what the law is.” Marburv v Madison. 5
US 137 (1 Cranch) (1803).

If it is the province and duty of this Court to say what

the law is, then due to the nature of this case, which
exposes a current ongoing serious national security breach
affecting both Canada and Mexico, and being that there
exists no other remedy in play that could cure this breach,
and being that an emergency exists to cure this breach
immediately, doesn’t this Court, by authority of the oath of
office and other judicial factors have the power to cure this
breach immediately?

Also, if the oath of office emphatically on its face

mandates the province of duty for allegiance to protect and
defend the Constitution against all enemies foreign and
domestic, and when this Court is faced with a domestic
enemy, as shown in this case, that is attacking the
Constitution, then doesn’t this Court have the full
authority and duty to cure this attack by fully adjudicating
this case, especially when nothing else is in play to cure it?

Also, can Congress count votes under Amendment XII if

allegations arise that there is a breach in the electoral
process, especially when a breach in the electoral process
has the same effect as war, which is to put into power its
victor? By counting the votes without first investigating
the allegations of this breach, isn’t that an act of giving aid
and comfort to this breach which is an enemy of the
Constitution, a violation of the oath of office, an act of
treason?

Also, isn’t the said breach an act of war? This

Honorable Court has already ruled that one need not pick
 ii

up arms in order to “levy war” in US v Burr (1807) 4

Cranch (8 US) 4669, 2 L.Ed. 684.

Also, how can Congress pass laws that protect

themselves when they violate their oath of office?

Also, if jurisprudence teaches that it’s a crime to make

laws to protect a crime, then when Congress passes laws
that protect themselves from their own violation of their
oath, isn’t that on its face a violation of their oath?

If treason is found in giving aid and comfort to enemies

of the Constitution, and if misprision of treason is the
concealment of treason, or if having knowledge of the
commission of treason while failing or refusing to disclose
the same to a judge or proper authority, then isn’t the trial
judge, who dismissed this case with no explanation, guilty
of misprision of treason due to the fact that this case
factually exposes acts of treason by the Respondents? And
wouldn’t misprision of treason extend to all those who help
effectuate the dismissal of this case?

Also, if fraud vitiates everything that it touches, and if

giving aid and comfort to enemies of the Constitution is
also an act of fraud, then when Congress met under
Amendment XII to count the votes, and when they didn’t
investigate the founded claims of a breach of the electoral
process, then what Congress participated in was a war
party in order to put into power their victor from this
breach, therefore they did not participate under authority
of Amendment XII because didn’t fraud vitiate it?

Also, because this case exposes the Respondents in

giving aid and comfort to an enemy of the Constitution, and
because this is also an act of fraud on their part, didn’t this
fraud vitiate all their legal theories used to dismiss this
case in the trial court?
 iii

Also, because Brunson’s right to seek a redress of

grievances is protected by Amendment I of the
Constitution, and because Brunson has the right, and
patriotic duty under an implied oath, that we all have, to
protect the Constitution and himself against enemies of the
Constitution, doesn’t this alone sustain Brunson’s Article
III standing? To claim otherwise doesn’t that give aid and
comfort to enemies of the Constitution?

Also, due to the nature of this case that exposes a

serious national security threat that is ongoing, and in light
of the allegiance to the Oath of Office, doesn’t this moot any
civil procedure rules like rule 12, or the Federal Tort
Claims Act, or other legal theories used to dismiss this case
in order to avoid giving aid and comfort to enemies of the
Constitution?

Also, when the Respondents made claims that Brunson

doesn’t have Article III standing, isn’t that just an act to
strip Brunson of his right to seek a redress of grievances
under the nature of this case along with his right to protect
himself from the Respondents whom Brunson has factually
alleged are enemies of the Constitution?

Also, how can one of the Respondents make a threat to

several members of this Court and not be removed from
office under this case?

Also, how can the trial court close its doors under the
doctrine of equitable maxim without it being a violation of
the object principle of justice?

These serious conflicts on a national level call for the

supervisory power of this Court to resolve these conflicts,
which has not, but should be, settled by this Court.
 iv

PARTIES TO THE PROCEEDING

Petitioner Loy Arlan Brunson is an individual

representing himself and is a Plaintiff in the trial court and
in the Petitioner in this petition.

The following Respondents, 388 of them, are a party to

this action and are 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; JOHNjR. CURTIS; SHARICE
DAVIDS; DANNY K. DAVIS; RODNEY DAVIS;
MADELEINE DEAN; PETER A. DEFAZIO; DIANA
DEGETTE; ROSAL DELAURO; SUZAN K. DELBENE;
ANTONIO DELGADO; VAlj BUTLER DEMINGS; MARK
DESAULNIER; THEODORE E. DEUTCH; DEBBIE
i

!
 V

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; KAIALI'I
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;
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
 Vi

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.
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;
 vii

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
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
 viii

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.
 IX

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page

QUESTIONS PRESENTED............ 1
PARTIES TO THE PROCEEDING 4
TABLE OF CONTENTS 9
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES 10
LIST OF PROCEEDINGS 1
JURISDICTION 1
SUPREME COURT RULE 14(F) PROVISIONS 2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE................................ 5
REASONS FOR GRANTING THIS PETITION.. 12
CONCLUSION 14

APPENDICES

JUDGMENT IN CIVIL CASE ..App. 1

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION....... ..App. 2
PLAINTIFF’S OBJECTION TO THE R&R App. 14
MOTION TO DISMISS App. 23
OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO DISMISS App. 45
REPLY TO MOTION TO DISMISS App. 61
 X

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES

CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISIONS
Amendment XII........................................................ 6
Article 1 Section 2 of the Constitution of Utah 3
Article I Section 7 of the Constitution of Utah 3
Article II, Section 1, Clause 8............................... 3
Article III, Section 3............................................... 9
Article VI................................................................... 2
Article VI, clause 3................................................... 3
Fifth Amendment..................................................... 2
Fourteenth Amendment........................................ 2
Ninth Amendment................................................... 2, 8

STATUTES
18U.S. §2381........... 9
18 USC §2382........... 4
28 U. S. C. § 2101(e) 1
28 U.S.C.A. §1257(a) 1
5 U.S.C. §3331......... 4

CASES
American Bush v. City Of South Salt Lake,
2006 UT 40 140 P.3d.l235................................... 7
Council Of Federated Organizations v. MIZE,
339 F.2d 898 (5th Cir. 1964)............................... 11
Radioshack Corp. v. ComSmart, Inc.,
222 SW 3d 256........................................................ 5,7
US v Burr (1807) 4 Crunch (8 US)
4669, 2 L.Ed. 684................................................... 2, 6

RULES
Rule 11 12
 1

LIST OF PROCEEDINGS

• Loy Arlan Brunson v. Alma S. Adams, et al., No.

2:21-cv-00175-RJS-CMS U.S. District Court of the
District of Utah. Judgment entered on March 29,
2923.

• Loy Arlan Brunson v. Alma S. Adams, No. 23-4042,

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit. This
case is currently pending.

JURISDICTION

This petition is filed under Rule 11, and this Court’s

jurisdiction is invoked under 28 U.S.C.A. § 1257(a).

Rule 11 “A petition for a writ of certiorari to review a

case pending in a United States court of appeals, before
judgment is entered in that court, will be granted only upon
a showing that the case is of such imperative public
importance as to justify deviation from normal appellate
practice and to require immediate determination in this
Court. See 28 U. S. C. § 2101(e).”

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.”

♦
 2

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.”

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
 3

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.”

Article II, Section 1, Clause 8 “Before he enter on the

Execution of his Office, he shall take the following Oath or
Affirmation:-"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will
faithfully execute the Office of President of the United
States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect
and defend the Constitution of the United States."

The U.S. Constitution, Article VI, clause 3 states “The

Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the
Members of the several State Legislatures, and all
executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States
and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or
Affirmation, to support this Constitution;.. .”

The U.S. Constitution, Article VI, clause 3 states “The

Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the
Members of the several State Legislatures, and all
executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States
and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or
Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious
Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office
or public Trust under the United States.”
 4

The oath states “I 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.”

5 U.S.C. §3331 which states “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.”

18 USC §2382. Misprision of treason, reads, “Whoever,

owing allegiance to the United States and having
knowledge of the commission of any treason against them,
conceals and does not, as soon as may be, disclose and
make known the same to the President or to some judge of
the United States, or to the governor or to some judge or
justice of a particular State, is guilty of misprision of
treason and shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not
more than seven years, or both.”

Bouvier’s Law Dictionary of 1856 states: “2. Misprision

of treason, is the concealment of treason, by being merely
passive; Act of Congress of April 30, 1790, 1 Story's L. U. S.
83; 1 East, P. C. 139; for if any assistance be given, to the
traitor, it makes the party a principal, as there is no
accessories in treason.”
Fraud vitiates everything that it touches. “Our courts
have consistently held that fraud vitiates whatever it
touches, Morris v. House, 32 Tex. 492 (1870)”. Estate of
 5

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 (Ky.1952).” Radioshack Corp. v.
ComSmart, Inc., 222 SW 3d 256.

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, and former Vice
President Michael Richard Pence (“Respondents”). All the
Respondents have sworn an 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 by
giving aid and comfort to enemies of the Constitution and
acting in a capacity of waging war.

The Respondents waged a covert domestic war against

the United States of America. This war began on January
6, 2021 during the 117th session of Congress when
arguments arose from both sides of the party accusing each
other of treason for causing a breach in the electoral
process. Over 100 members of Congress requested an
investigation into these and other such breaches. It was
the Respondents who voted not to investigate these
breaches. If a breach in the electoral process seeks to put
into power its victor, and if war seeks to do the same thing,
then this breach is an act of war.

The Respondents refused to do an investigation which

would have identified who was or wasn’t interfering with
the electoral process. Purposely voting against the
investigation was a war strategy that guaranteed putting
 6

into power its victor. Therefore, on January 6, 2021 the

Respondents waged war which continues to this day.

During the said session of Congress many members

claimed that their duty under their Oath of Office and
Amendment XII was to count the votes and that they were
not there to do an investigation into the said allegations of
a breach into the electoral process. So they purposely gave
aid and comfort to this breach which is an act of war
against the Constitution.

The Oath of Office emphatically on its face mandates a

province of dutiful and allegiance to protect and defend the
Constitution against all enemies foreign and domestic. And
to avoid the serious penalties associated with the violation
of their Oath of Office it was Respondents’ first dutiful
allegiance to their Oath of Office to first investigate the
allegations that there was a breach of the electoral process
before counting the votes under Amendment XII, otherwise
wouldn’t they be giving aid and comfort to an act of war
disguised as an “honest election?”

This Honorable Court has already ruled that one need

not pick up arms in order to “levy war” in US v Burr (1807)
4 Cranch (8 US) 4669, 2 L.Ed. 684.

Despite the fact that a breach of the electoral process is

an act of war against the Constitution, this breach also
comprises as being an act of fraud. Fraud vitiates
everything that it touches. “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
(Ky.1952).” Radioshack Corp. v. ComSmart, Inc., 222 SW
3d 256. Therefore, when the Respondents voted against
 7

doing an investigation into the founded claims that the

election was breached, then the said session turned away
from being a session under Amendment XII, rather it
turned into a war party giving aid and comfort to enemies
against the Constitution, and this war party also
constitutes acts of fraud perpetrated by Respondents.

And the outcome of this war party seriously breached

our national security that is still ongoing today! This
breach also affects the national security of Canada and
Mexico!

The actions of Respondents as stated above seriously

damaged Brunson upon which Brunson brought his claims
couched and guaranteed by the Constitution against the
Respondents.

“We the People” commissioned government to secure our

rights. “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all
men are created equal, that they are endowed by their
Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these
are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness, — That to
secure these rights, governments are instituted among
Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the
governed.” —Second clause of the Declaration of
Independence. 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, in commissioning a Government to secure
our rights, the Constitution of the United States with the
first ten amendments was ratified in 1791. This is the
official and only Constitution of the United States. The
 8

first 10 amendments are defined by Congress as “further

declaratory and restrictive clauses.” These clauses are set
in place to restrict the interpretation of the Constitution
from ever being an instrument that government could use
to rule over “We the People.” On this premise, the
government shall always be restricted by the rights of the
people. “The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain
rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others
retained by the people.”—Amendment IX of the
Constitution. 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 Respondents freely took upon themselves, without

reservation, the Oath of Office. It binds them to protect
Brunson’s rights. When they violate their oaths it makes
them liable for the claims that Brunson made against
them, and it fulfills the promise that “Congress shall make
no law respecting an establishment of religion, or
prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the
freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people
peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government
for a redress of grievances.”? (Bold emphasis added) —
Amendment 1.

It is argued by the Defendants that that Brunson’s right

to bring the said claims against the Respondents is first
subject to the Federal Tort Claims Act (“FTCA”), if that is
true then this Act restricts Brunson’s right to seek a
redress of his grievances under his claims which is
unconstitutional because is not the Constitution a
restriction against the government and not Brunson?

Brunson brought six causes of action against the

Defendants for their violations of their Oath of Office.
 9

Specifically, these torts are as follows: 1. Promissory

Estoppel, 2. Promissory Estoppel Count II, 3. Breach of
Duty, 4. Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress, 5.
Fraud, and 6. Civil Conspiracy. Brunson alleged under
each cause of action that he had suffered: (1) concrete
injury; (2) that his injuries are directly traceable to the
actions of Respondents, and (3) that the injury will be—not
merely speculative—redressed by a favorable decision. To
be in keeping with the Constitution this Court should rule
that this gives Brunson Article III standing.

The violation of the Oath of Office is serious; Article III,

Section 3 pf the said Constitution specifies that, “Treason
against the United States shall consist only in levying War
against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them
Aid and Comfort.” And “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.”—18 U.S. § 2381. How can they be incapable of
holding office and still retain their office without removal?
Therefore, doesn’t this give the trial court power to remove
individuals from office, including this Court?

In addition, how can Congress take an oath to uphold

the Constitution then pass laws that protect themselves
when they violate their oath by giving aid and comfort to
enemies of the Constitution? They passed laws giving
themselves immunity, they also passed the FTCA which
unconditionally mandates restrictions such as the
requirement to obtain permission from the government
before you can bring action against individuals like the
Respondents, and then once you gain this permission you
must bring your action in the United States Court of
 10

Federal Claims. These are unconstitutional restrictions

placed upon Brunson.

The Constitution was not written to protect treason or

fraud, so when government officials violate their oath by
giving aid and comfort to enemies of the Constitution, or by
becoming an enemy themselves, they cannot hide behind
statutes, or case law, or the Constitution or any other acts
of Congress, nor by any of the heavily riddled legal theories
found in Respondents’ motion to dismiss. Isn’t the Oath of
Office absolute? You cannot give aid and comfort to
enemies of the Constitution, therefore, no interpretation of
any law can exist that protects this or delays this, or stops
anybody like Brunson from prosecuting such acts.

In addition, it’s clear, when you give aid and comfort to

enemies of the Constitution that is also an act of fraud, and
fraud vitiates everything that it touches as stated above.
So there can be no immunity or court procedure that would
stall and hinder or keep a person like Brunson from
bringing his claims against individuals for their violation of
their Oath of Office.

Also, being that the consequences of misprisions of

treason is serious, and being that this case factually alleges
with evidence that the Respondents have engaged in
treason, and the fact that this case was dismissed, isn’t the
dismissal a showing of misprision of treason by all those
parties that effectuated the dismissal of this action, or the
dismissal of any other action with the same merits?

In addition, one of the Respondents has breathed out

threats against several members of this Court by stating “I
want to tell you Gorsuch, I want to tell you Kavanaugh -
you have released the whirlwind, and you will pay the
price. You won’t know what hit you if you go forward with
these awful decisions,” Schumer, as one of the Respondents
 11

and as a member of Congress, threatened with these words

to a cheering crowd in March 2020. (This statement can be
easily found on the internet.) How could words like these
not be a direct threat against the Justices of this Court,
knowing full well, that Schumer, as an enemy of the
Constitution, could assemble Congress and make this
threat a reality? Doesn’t this give this Court another
reason to grant this case, and to remove the Respondents
from office by canceling their credentials with a Court order
via by the U.S. Marshalls who then would submit it to the
sergeant of arms who then would execute the order?

Also, being that the only thing stated from the trial
court’s ruling is that “It is ORDERED AND ADJUDGED
that judgment is hereby entered in favor of Defendants”.
This is a violation of Brunson’s right of due process, the
right to be heard. This ruling did not address anything
stated from Brunson. “The right of a litigant to be heard is
one of the fundamental rights of due process of law. A
denial of the right requires a reversal.” Council Of
Federated Organizations v. MIZE, 339 F.2d 898 (5th Cir.
1964).

Brunson paid a filing fee to be heard, it’s his right under

due process to be heard, therefore the said ruling violated
Brunson of his right to be heard when it did not address his
arguments. Therefore under the law, Brunson’s case
requires reversal. However, due to the serious nature of
this case, Brunson moves this court to adjudicate this case.

This Court has created the doctrine of equitable maxim

which stands in direct conflict with the doctrine of the
object principle of justice.

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
 12

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.

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 doctrine 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 believes that there will be millions of letters

and affidavits that will pour into this Court encouraging
this Court to hear this case. This is because this case
represents a national security breach on a unprecedented
level like never before seen which seriously damages
 13

Brunson and consequentially effects every citizen of the

U.S.A. and courts of law, and affects the national security
of Mexico and Canada.

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 they are a continual national
security breach. Therefore, Brunson moves this court to
grant this petition and to adjudicate it.

♦
 14

CONCLUSION

This petition is set forth in the interest of justice in

protecting Brunson’s right to petition for a redress of
grievances that needs this Court’s supervisory power to be
protected, and to cure the national security breach as
stated above, and to ensure the right of due process against
the encroachment of the doctrine of equitable maxim is
protected, and charging the Respondents who failed to
investigate the allegations of a breach in our election by
having them removed from office without further delay for
the violation of their oath of office.

Dated: April 11, 2023

Respectfully submitted,

Loy Arlan Brunson

55 North Merchant St. #1631
American Fork, UT 84003
Phone: 801-375-3278
Petitioner in pro se
 App.l

Case 2:21-cv-00175-RGS'Document 74 Filed 03/21/2 PageID.2187

Page 1 of 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF UTAH

JUDGMENT IN CIVIL
LOY ARLAN BRUNSON, CASE

Plaintiff, Case No. 2:21-cv-00175-RJS-

CMR
v.
Chief District Judge
ALMA S. ADAMS, et al„ Robert J Shelby

Defendants. Magistrate Judge

Cecilia M. Romero

It is ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that judgment is

hereby entered in favor of Defendants.

SO ORDERED this the 20th day of March, 2023.

BY THE COURT:

/s/ Robert J Shelby

ROBERT J SHELBY
United States Chief District Judge