News Release – 12/3/2022

Breaking News: SCOTUS – Friend of the Court Brief on Behalf of Raland J. Brunson  
Community Support Foundation
PO Box 139
Logan, Utah 84323

 

WEIGHING IN ON THE POLITICAL NIGHTMARE
$2.9 BILLION CASE AGAINST 385 MEMBERS OF CONGRESS AND MORE

A landmark case by Utah’s own Brunson Brothers — one of who was Barbie & Ken Cromar’s neighbor seven houses away — has worked their 2020 election complaint AGAINST 384 members of CONGRESS and FOUR OTHERS totaling 388 individuals, all the way through Utah State, Federal US District, and Tenth Circuit Courts. Now, almost two years later, with TWO well-documented but UN-investigated fraudulent elections on record, the BRUNSON case has FINALLY made it all the way up to the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS).

The Community Support Foundation has been requested to weigh in on this matter and is presently going through the numerous requirements to file a Brief Amicus Curiae (Friend of the Court Brief) on behalf of Raland J. Brunson, the contents of which follow:

 

BRIEF AMICUS CURIAE OF COMMUNITY SUPPORT FOUNDATION, SUPPORTING PETITIONER

OVERVIEW

Pursuant to the matter of Raland J. Brunson vs. Alma S. Adams, et, al., The Community Support Foundation, a grassroots organization involving citizens across the country, is submitting this Amicus Curiae on behalf of the Petitioner(s) Raland J. Bruson and “We the People.”

So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets.

(BIBLE – Matthew 7:12)

 

If one of the people are harmed by the court, then ALL ‘We the People’ are harmed.

“If one of the people can secure justice, then ALL ‘We the People’ enjoy justice.”

.

BASIS

Community Support Foundation supports community development and provides relief to the distressed. The organization encourages citizens to participate in the development and support of Community Standards and other activities that pertain to the development and support of the common unity that unites members of a society.

Community Support Foundation has been requested to oversee the matter of Raland J. Brunson vs. Alma S. Adam et, al., as “Community Advocates” and we believe Community Support Foundation’s Amicus can provide an important perspective in this ongoing debate. 

 

[Pleas Note: While it was Raland’s case that finally made it to SCOTUS, there are FOUR Brunson Brothers involved — all have been involved in a lifelong promotion of Constitutional JUSTICE for ALL. — And  wouldn’t you know it, “coincidentally” all four brothers form a nationally renowned TRUMPET Quartet.  Loy is from our beloved Cedar Hills and was a neighbor of “Barbie & Ken” Cromar – also closed to knocking the doors with their Habeas Corpus case.  It is hoped that the FOUR will let out a four-part harmonious trumpet BLAST off the steps of the  SUPREME COURT to celebrated His victory!]

 

In addition, this Amicus submission will help to counter an unfortunate misconception in our nation. Generally,the courts are viewed as beyond the reach of the influence of the general public. While judges in our court system are indeed appointed and not elected, these judges ARE Still To Serve the People. The Constitution stipulates that they shall hold office “during good behavior.” (Article III Section 1) And the Respondents, along with our judges,  are bound by Article VI of the Constitution, which describes the “supreme law of the land.”  The clause in United States Constitution’s Article VI, stating that all laws made furthering the Constitution and all treaties made under the authority of the United States are the “supreme law of the land.”  We observe that the Petitioner, Raland J. Brunson, has suffered a “a long train of abuses and usurpations” (Declaration of Independence) at the hands of the Respondents and through his court cases, by a number of judges and officers of the court who have NOT acted honorably and in “good behavior.”

Therefore, we offer that very few Americans are even aware of their right to present a Motion to be Admittedas an Amicus and offer their thoughts and opinions pursuant to specific cases before our courts. Through this process of Motion to be Admitted as an Amicus (Rule 37) in this matter, the Community Support Foundation is informing citizens that they can participate in this process.  Therefore, we “Petition for Redress of Grievances” herein as authorized by Article I of the Constitution, the Supreme Law of the Land, hence requiring no inferior state or federal statute to do so.

 

ARGUMENT

Nothing offends the human conscience more that the attempt by one member of society to advance at the expense of another.

In America, we have always championed the importance and expectation of a level playing field. During Supreme Court Justice Elena Kagan’s confirmation hearing in 2010, she described the courts as “level playing fields” where citizens receive “equal justice.” – An ideal that is engraved in marble on the front of the Supreme Court building: “Equal Justice Under Law.”

 

Just to be clear, our Founding Fathers gave the People a Constitutional Republic and any officer of this court who believes our nation is “a democracy” should be fired for judicial ignorance, malfeasance and incompetence.  Democracy is mob rule by the majority.  The beauty of our Divinely inspired Constitution for those intelligent enough to understand it, know that it is the “greatest document ever struck off by the hand of man” (Gladstone) for one simple reason:  The original United States Constitution protects the rights, privileges and immunities of the individual from the tyranny of the majority (democracy). The individual is the sovereign, NOT the government. Government was established by the Founders to protect the sovereign – just as far as it can go before it affects another.  Again, when the individual’s rights are protected from the majority, every individual is protected that comprises the whole, liberty-empowered whole that is We the People.

No longer are we (the people) confident that the rules of the game can even be recognized, let alone that they will be followed. Time once was when we knew our ethical limits and what could be expected. But as ‘greed became good‘ our traditional values seemingly fell by the wayside, leaving in its wake the destruction of trust. Now, under these conditions, “we the people” of this community are asking to be heard.

 

The country has been adversely affected by the actions of the Respondents far beyond the inconvenience, defamation, and economic losses of the petitioner. Therefore, in this case, when we see One of the “We the People” (the petitioner), being greatly harmed by government tyranny.  If one is harmed by government tyranny, then ALL of “We the People” are harmed. And such is the case with Raland Brunson’s Certiorari #22-380  – as one of We the People he has been trespassed, harmed and damaged, and this honorable Court is called upon to remedy in behalf of Raland Brunson, his three brothers, and indeed ALL of the People!

As individuals, businesses and nations we are bound together by a vast web of treaties, laws and rules of engagement.Though sometimes complex and inefficient, these rules have prevented us from devolving and dropping into complete chaos. They support our civilization and our very existence.

However, the most tragic impact has been the deliberate and calculated attempt of the accused political leaders to advance their calculated plan, at the expense of “we the people,” with the aid of legal counsel and other officers of the justice system; because their participation has allowed the justice system, the Courts, and the Law to be wielded as instruments of abuse.

The 388 Defendants’ blatant violations of trust have weakened the fabric of confidence that binds the country together to such a level that if the Defendants are not stopped and summarily punished, the confidence restored and revitalized, – then that national fabric may decompose beyond repair – which could devolve the nation into a cataclysmic, bloody second Civil War.

 

PETITIONER’S ALLEGED MATERIAL FACTS

1. FACT – The PETITIONER’S action is brought 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 (the Respondents).

 

2. FACT – 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.

 

3. FACT – 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 U.S. 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.

 

4. FACT – The Respondents intentional refusal to investigate this enemy, the Petitioner, Brunson, brought his action against the Respondents because he was seriously personally damaged and violated by the 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 (“we the people”), along with all courts of law.

 

5. FACT – On January 6, 2021, the 117th Congress held a proceeding and debate in Washington DC. The 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.

 

6. FACT – During the 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 is an act of treason and 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 (“we the people”) and the courts of law.

 

7. FACT – Brunson’s case represents a national security breach on an unprecedented level, never seen before, seriously damaging and violating Brunson, his brothers, and collectively every citizen of the U.S.A. (“We the People”) rights, and the courts of law.

 

8. FACT – Despite the grave importance of this case, the trial courts granted the Respondents motion to dismiss by stating Brunson’s action was dismissed without prejudice.”

 

9. FACT – Brunson’s opposition (which was not properly addressed by the lower courts) has standing and this court has full proper jurisdiction to rule on the merits of this case.
   

 

ACKNOWLEDGED OBSERVATIONS AND FACTS

The Constitution of the United States along with State Constitutions do not grant rights to the people. These instruments we designed to measure, bank, curb and cool the power of the rulers but in no way do they do notmeasure the rights of the governed, and nor are they are not the fountain of law, nor the origin of the people’s rights, but rather acknowledge the pre-existence of these un-a-lien-able, God-given rights, privilege and immunities. The US Constitution and the Constitutions of the various states, have been put in place to protect individual People’s rights from the government and other people. Therefore, the statutes and case law cited by Respondents claiming immunity from Brunson’s claims are unconstitutional and this Court needs to rule in that manner. 

The Oath of Office itself proves that the false doctrine of “absolute immunity” a complete fallacy by the simple fact that the oath-taker solemnly swears and promises to protect the Constitution from both “enemies foreign AND DOMESTIC”.  In other words, taking an oath of office does NOT crown the person as a king or queen with a god, — now infallible – and as such hence incapable of domestic sedition, treason, incompetency, or just plain stupidity.  Fortunately, The Supreme Law of the Land, makes no mention of “intent” or “stupidity”, but rather addresses actions, such as the 388 Defendants’ failure to allow the “10 days to review the complaints, affidavits, etc., before certifying an election as presented by Brunson.

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people. 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 the rights of the People.

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, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.”   (Article VI of the Constitution)

This Amicus Curiae invokes and endorses Brunson’s use of the First Amendment of the Constitution which states:

Congress shall make no law prohibiting the right of the people to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

The 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.

As per declaration by the U.S. Constitution, this court is lawfully endowed with 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.”

 

The Respondents, who have taken the Oath of Office, and have, in fact, actually violated their oath of office – whether intentionally, ignorantly or stupidly, it matters not – and as such have adhered to a domestic enemy, and must be removed from their office, as correctly suggested by Brunson.

Brunson does have an unfettered right to sue the Respondents under the serious nature of his claim, and 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.

It is an incontestable fact that the Respondents committed fraud and treason breaching our national security, thus adhering themselves to a domestic enemy that continues to breach our national security on a daily basis. This national security breach is having the same end result as an act of war; to place into power the one whom the Respondents want, which in this instant case was one Joseph Robinette Biden and a host of others.

Therefore, this court must immediately grant to Brunson the removal from office all trespassing Respondents and damages he seeks in his complaint.  It is necessary to secure our national security while there is an opportunity to secure it, and do so without further delay.

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.

 

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 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.”

 

Finally, the US Supreme Court’s ruling will confirm this Court’s position as to whether public opinion does, in fact, matter.

Through the matter before this Court, we see that the Judicial System has become dysfunctional and inefficient,at best, and very corrupt at its worst. Certain laws have been passed and actions taken that, in effect, reward(pay money, perks, or subsidies) to those who are willing to subvert the law.

As a society it seems that we have allowed a classist division to divide the People against each other, us and it is time to question whether or not our governing system will provide the protections that are guaranteed by the Constitution.

One only needs to review the local news sources in virtually any city in American to see that something is greatly amiss. In fact, many of those sources have been referenced to the concerns raised herein. “Where there is smoke, there is fire!” The Cambridge Dictionary of American Idioms suggests the meaning of this phrase is, “ifit looks like something is wrong, something is probably wrong.”

Therefore, “We the People” of this community raise our voice of warning that something appears to have been seriously amiss in the 2020 elections and Congress should have taken the required time to investigate the alleged violations!

Lord Acton reminds us that “Power tends to corrupt and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Great men are almost always bad men, even when they exercise influence and not authority; still more when you super add the tendency of the certainty of corruption by authority,” and serves as a reminder of a local vernacular which states:

“We have learned by sad experience that it is the nature and disposition of almost all men. as soon as they get a little authority, as they suppose, they will immediately begin to exercise unrighteous dominion.”

Lord Acton cautions us with an understanding that no matter how hard we try, “the will of the people [whether in a tyranny of majority or individuals] cannot make  just that which is unjust.“

George Washington, Founding Father, General, First President and the first signer of the US Constitution declared:

“Government is not reason; it is not eloquence; it is force. Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master.”

 

 

Lord Acton assures us that, “The novelty of the American Constitution was that it imposed checks on the representatives of the people.”  To be clear, Lord Action says, “By liberty I mean the assurance that every manshall be protected in doing what he believes is his duty against the influence of authority and majorities. custom and opinion,” yet he warns us about the dangers of the class warfare attributed to the appalling judicial situationhere in the State of Utah. “The danger is not that a particular class is unfit to govern. Every class is unfit to govern.” 

 

The actions of the Respondent(s) in this matter appear to be intent on the DEPRIVATION OF RIGHTS UNDER COLOR OF LAW in violation of 18 U.S. Code § 242 and CONSPIRACY AGAINST CIVIL RIGHTS under 18 U.S. Code § 241:

USC 18 Code § 242 – Deprivation of Rights Under Color of Law –  Whoever, under color of any law, statute, ordinance, regulation, or custom, willfully subjects any person in any State the deprivation of any rights shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both;  (USC 42 §1983)   includes judges specifically  /  highest punishment = death)

18 U.S. Code § 241 – Conspiracy Against [Privileges, Immunities and] Rights – If two or more persons conspire to injure, oppress, threaten, or intimidate any person in any State, Territory, Commonwealth, Possession, or District in the free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege secured to him by the Constitution or laws of the United States, or because of his having so exercised the same; or If two or more persons go in disguise on the highway, or on the premises of another, with intent to prevent or hinder his free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege so secured — They shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and if death results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include kidnapping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill, they shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for any term of years or for life, or both, or may be sentenced to death.

 

Actions which were designed to defraud the Petitioner and “we the people” along with:

42 U.S. Code § 1983 – Civil Action for Deprivation of Rights – Every person who, under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage, of any State or Territory or the District of Columbia, subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States or other person within the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws, shall be liable to the party injured in an action at law, suit in equity, or other proper proceeding for redress, except that in any action brought against a judicial officer for an act or omission taken in such officer’s judicial capacity, injunctive relief shall not be granted unless a declaratory decree was violated or declaratory relief was unavailable. For the purposes of this section, any Act of Congress applicable exclusively to the District of Columbia shall be considered to be a statute of the District of Columbia

18 U.S. Code § 2381 – Treason – 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.

 

In the next two code cites it must first be noted that by definition and statute when a government official is advised of possible treason and/or sedition, that the official who does not investigate the allegation of potential treason and/or sedition may be found guilty and punished for same, for having not acted to investigate and address such criminal actions to root them out from the body politic.

18 U.S. Code § 2382 – Misprision of Treason – 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.

18 U.S. Code § 2384 – Seditious Conspiracy – If two or more persons in any State or Territory, or in any place subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, conspire to overthrow, put down, or to destroy by force the Government of the United States, or to levy war against them, or to oppose by force the authority thereof, or by force to prevent, hinder, or delay the execution of any law of the United States, or by force to seize, take, or possess any property of the United States contrary to the authority thereof, they shall each be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than twenty years, or both.

 

There is ample evidence presented in Brunson’s motion and this Friend of the Court Brief to show that Brunson’s claims have plausible merit. The Defendant(s) in concert with others have conspired to cause harm and have willfully sought the destruction of Brunson’s (and “we the people’s) God Given Rights, which lies at the heart of this matter.

The public corruption discussed herein may well fall under The RICO Act, which focuses specifically on racketeering, and it allows the leaders of a syndicate to be tried for the crimes, which the order others to do or assisted them in doing, closing a perceived loophole that allowed a person who instructed someone else to, for example, murder to be exempt from the trial because they did not actually commit the crime personally.

Therefore, it is incumbent upon you, Your Honors, as officers of the Court and Servants of We the People, to bring this out into the light of day and expeditiously restore law and order to the nation.

 

CONCLUSION

The Brunson petition has been submitted, in the interest of justice, seeking protection of Brunson’s right to petition for a redress of grievances against Brunson, and ensuring that his (our) right of due process against the encroachment of the doctrine of equitable maxim, and charging those Respondents, who failed to investigate the allegations of a rigged election, of TREASON and removing them from office without further delay, and prosecuting them to the fullest extent of the law.

“DUE PROCESS OF LAW”

The Constitution and the Bill or Rights guarantee several specific rights of “We the People,” many of whichhave been discussed above. In addition to these narrowly defined rights also provide the broad guarantee that no one shall be deprived of “life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.”

The “due process” guarantee includes the rights outlined in the Constitution as well as others not specifically mentioned. In fact, some observers have referred to the due process clauses as the “wild card” of the Constitution because of the opportunity they provide for the judiciary to interpret individual rights expansively.In the simplest of terms, however, the due process guarantees of the Constitution assures that everyone will be treated equitably, as promised by Supreme Court Justice Elena Kagan, in the courts as “level playing fields” where citizens receive “equal justice,” as so engraved on the front of the Supreme Court building: “Equal Justice Under Law.”

SUMMATION

For a society to work, the members of the society must have a common agreement between them; One which would allow the attainment of what each individual needs; physically, emotionally, intellectually, economically and spiritually. In return each individual is responsible to serve society to the best of that individual’s talents and abilities.

The “Principles of Good Business^©” seemingly reflect a common thought that each of us must have: 1) A Stewardship of Responsibility; 2) Adherence to Ethical Standards; 3) The creation of Abundance; 4) A Pledge to Do No Harm; and 5) A Duty to give Back to the Community. Simple principles, that when followed, form the moral basis of a free society and guarantee the trust and confidence of our communities through a common acknowledgement of our expectations.

Even to the casual observer, there appears to be a preponderance of evidence to show that these basic rights afforded “we the people” have been repeatedly violated.

In the wake of the recent terrorist attacks in the United States we are once again witnessing the impact that political correctness has had in our communities and it is a sad reminder of Edmund Burke’s warning, “The only thing necessary tor the triumph of evil is tor good men to do nothing.” Hans Christopher Wahl tells us, “Political correctness is a form of intimidation that coerces good people into feeling guilty and ashamed tor telling the truth. Within a society infected with the cancer of political correctness, the truth becomes the enemy and those telling the truth become despised, And Evil Triumphs. Political correctness enables lies to become truth: evil to become good: wrong to become right. and over time, the unacceptable becomes acceptable. Political correctness is a subtle attack on free speech, democracy, truth, common sense, reality and God. Because of America’s politically correct environment. Americans today are now tearful, watchful, and careful about what they say and do. When it comes to spreading truth, Americans now hesitate. As a result, good people do nothing,and evil triumphs.”

But not today!

The voice of the people is demanding to be heard on this matter. Collectively we are speaking up and shouting, “Where there is Smoke, there is fire!” 

Clearly the Respondents are guilty of the crimes they are charged with and the flagrant violation to our protected Constitution Rights is glaringly apparent.

Remember that Lord Acton has already reminded us that “the will of the people cannot make just that which is unjust.”  

It’s time to rule in favor of the Petitioner. Justice demands it!  

 

In 1776, the people made a similar demand.  

“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. — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends. it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it.… laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form. as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed (or lightand transient causes, and accordingly all experience hath shewn. that mankind are more disposed to suffer. while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed.

But when along train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism. it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security. — Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them… To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.“

 

But in all of this let us remember,

“The Greatness in America Lies in Her Ability to Repair Her Faults.” 

                                                  – Alexis de Touquerville

 

Recognizing that an Amicus Curiae from is uncommon in these proceedings, public opinion should play asignificant role in the course of this case. Together, we stand to urge the Supreme Court of the United States torule in favor of Petitioner Raland Brunson, and reconfirm the belief that communities are bound together by a common unity in principles, such as the “Principles of Good Business^©,” and that “good conduct” is a mandatory requirement by the courts and community at large.

May GOD bless us all, at this late hour and keep us safe in the cause of Liberty and Justice for All.

Follow the Brunson Brother’s and Barbie & Ken’s’ progress here:  www.MiraclesInGodWeTrust.com/BarbieandKenvGoliathlRS/ 

and more detailed articles at  www.CedarHillsCitizens.org/ 

 

Tom Fairbanks
Community Health Advocate                                     
Community Support Foundation                                              
(385) 467-3315
communitysupportfoundation@protonmail.com

 

_________________

 

See this signed and NOTARIZED pdf copy here…

12 05 2022 – FOTCB for Brunson – Tom Signed & Notarized

 

See Cedar Hills / SCOTUS related stories here…

FREEDOM FIGHTERS: It MUST be something in the Cedar Hills, Utah WATER?