The plaintiff, Raland J. Brunson, seeks the defendants’ removal from office for violating their oaths.

After the Supreme Court declined on Jan. 9 to hear Brunson’s lawsuit, he filed a petition for reconsideration on Jan. 23. On Feb. 1, the court scheduled the private conference for reconsidering the petition on Friday, when four of the nine justices must vote to grant the case a hearing for it to move forward.

Brunson, who is representing himself in the case, originally filed the lawsuit, Brunson v. Alma S. Adams, et al, on June 21, 2021 in Utah’s 2nd District Court. In August 2021, the case was moved from the state court to the U.S. District Court in Utah. After that court ruled against Brunson in February 2022, he appealed to the U.S. 10th Circuit Court of Appeals.

Before a decision was rendered by the 10th Circuit, Brunson realized he could bypass the appeals court and go straight to the Supreme Court by invoking the high court’s Rule 11. Under the rule, a case pending before the appeals court may bypass that court’s decision and go to the Supreme Court if it “is of such imperative public importance as to justify deviation from normal appellate practice and to require immediate determination in this Court.” The Supreme Court received Brunson’s petition in September 2022.

In his petition for reconsideration, Brunson argues that there must be a penalty for violating oaths of office or else they are “not binding.”

A “rigged election” is equivalent to war since both “put into power” a “victor,” he argues, and therefore allegations of “a rigged election” must be investigated.

“The Oath of Office requires that aid and comfort cannot be given to those levying war through a rigged election,” Brunson writes.

As a “Presidential rigged election is a threat to the Constitution,” he argues, “when members of Congress become aware of such allegations an investigation into these allegations is required or they become violators of their Oath of Office.”

“If a person who takes the Oath of Office owes allegiance to the United States,” Brunson continues, and the U.S. code regarding treason “states that whoever owing such allegiance violates this allegiance shall be incapable of holding office, then wouldn’t it be fitting that they shall be removed from office as well?”

Since his complaint alleges a serious national security breach that is an act of war and holds that “it requires an act on an emergency level to repair this breach immediately — to stop this war, and that those perpetrators of this breach are the respondents,” he writes, “doesn’t this Court have the power to adjudicate these serious claims and to immediately end the conflict and fix the national security breach?”

Brunson’s prior filing in the federal district court case noted that members of Congress had requested an investigation into the election. On Jan. 2, 2021, Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas), along with 10 other senators, requested “an emergency 10-day audit of the election returns in the disputed states.” A total of 147 Republican lawmakers objected to the certification of the election on Jan. 6.