. n-'bt o
`
`No
`
`In The
`Supreme Court of the United States
`
`Supreme Court, U.S
`FILED
`OCT 2 a 2022
`OFFICE OF THE Cl Fax-
`
`♦
`
`RALAND J 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
`♦
`PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI
`
`Raland J Brunson
`4287 South Harrison Blvd., Apt 132
`Ogden, Utah 84403
`Phone: 385-492-4898
`Petitioner in pro se
`
`RECEIVED
`OCT 2 k 2022
`OFFICE OF THE CLERK
`SUPREME COURT. U.S.
`
`

`

`1
`
`QUESTIONS PRESENTED
`
`A serious conflict exists between decisions rendered from
`along with
`this Court and lower appeal courts,
`constitutional provisions and statutes, in deciding whether
`or not the trial court has jurisdiction to try the merits of
`this case.
`
`This case uncovers a serious national security breach that
`is unique and is of first impression, and due to the serious
`nature of this case it involves the possible removal of a
`sitting President and Vice President of the United States
`along with members of the United States Congress, while
`deeming them unfit from ever holding office under Federal,
`State, County or local Governments found within the
`United States of America, and at the same time the trial
`court also has the authority, to be validated by this Court,
`to authorize the swearing in of the legal and rightful heirs
`for President and Vice President of the United States.
`
`In addition there are two doctrines that conflict with each
`other found in this case affecting every court in this
`country. These doctrines are known as the doctrine of
`equitable maxim and the doctrine of the object principle of
`justice. Equitable maxim created by this court, which the
`lower court used to dismiss this case, sets in direct violation
`of the object principle of justice also partially created by
`this Court and supported by other appeal courts and
`constitutional provisions.
`
`These conflicts call for the supervisory power of this Court
`to resolve these conflicts, which has not, but should be,
`settled by this Court without delay.
`
`

`

`11
`
`PARTIES TO THE PROCEEDING
`
`Petitioner Raland J Brunson is an individual representing
`himself and is a Plaintiff in the trial court.
`
`The following 388 Respondents are a party to this action as
`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; JOHN R. CURTIS; SHARICE
`DAVIDS; DANNY K. DAVIS; RODNEY DAVIS;
`MADELEINE DEAN; PETER A. DEFAZIO; DIANA
`DEGETTE; ROSAL DELAURO; SUZAN K. DELBENE;
`
`

`

`Ill
`
`ANTONIO DELGADO; VAL BUTLER DEMINGS; MARK
`DESAULNIER; THEODORE E. DEUTCH; DEBBIE
`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; KAIALPI
`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;
`
`

`

`1V
`IV
`
`ZOE LOFGREN; ALAN S.LOWENTHAL; ELAINE G.
`ZOE LOFGREN; ALAN S.LOWENTHAL; ELAINE G.
`LURIA; STEPHEN F. LYNCH; NANCY MACE; TOM
`LURIA; STEPHEN F. LYNCH; NANCY MACE; TOM
`MALINOWSKI; CAROLYN B. MALONEY; SEAN
`MALINOWSKI; CAROLYN B. MALONEY; SEAN
`PATRICK MALONEY; KATHY E. MANNING; THOMAS
`PATRICK MALONEY; KATHY E. MANNING; THOMAS
`MASSIE; DORIS 0. MATSUI; LUCY MCBATH; MICHAEL
`MASSIE; DORIS 0. MATSUI; LUCY MCBATH; MICHAEL
`T. MCCAUL; TOM MCCLINTOCK; BETTY MCCOLLUM;
`T. MCCAUL; TOM MCCLINTOCK; BETTY MCCOLLUM;
`A. ADONALD MCEACHIN; JAMES P. MCGOVERN;
`A. ADONALD MCEACHIN; JAMES P. MCGOVERN;
`PATRICK T. MCHENRY; DAVID B. MCKINLEY; JERRY
`PATRICK T. MCHENRY; DAVID B. MCKINLEY; JERRY
`MCNERNEY; GREGORY W. MEEKS; PETER MEIJER;
`MCNERNEY; GREGORY W. MEEKS; PETER MEIJER;
`GRACE MENG; KWEISI MFUME; MARIANNETTE
`GRACE MENG; KWEISI MFUME; MARIANNETTE
`MILLER-MEEKS; JOHN R. MOOLENAAR; BLAKE D.
`MILLER-MEEKS; JOHN R. MOOLENAAR; BLAKED.
`MOORE; GWEN MOORE; JOSEPH D. MORELLE;
`MOORE; GWEN MOORE; JOSEPH D. MORELLE;
`SETH MOULTON; FRANK J. MRVAN; STEPHANIE N.
`SETH MOULTON; FRANK J. MRVAN; STEPHANIE N.
`MURPHY; JERROLD NADLER; GRACE F.
`MURPHY; JERROLD NADLER; GRACEF.
`NAPOLITANO; RICHARD E. NEAL; JOE NEGUSE; DAN
`NAPOLITANO; RICHARD E. NEAL; JOE NEGUSE; DAN
`NEWHOUSE; MARIE NEWMAN; DONALD NORCROSS;
`NEWHOUSE; MARIE NEWMAN; DONALD NORCROSS;
`ALEXANDRIA OCASIO-CORTEZ; TOM O'HALLERAN;
`ALEXANDRIA OCASIO-CORTEZ; TOM O'HALLERAN;
`ILHAN OMAR; FRANK PALLONE JR.; JIMMY
`ILHAN OMAR; FRANK PALLONEJR.; JIMMY
`PANETTA; CHRIS PAPPAS; BILL PASCRELL JR.;
`PANETTA; CHRIS PAPPAS; BILL PASCRELL JR.;
`DONALD M. PAYNE JR.; NANCY PELOSI; ED
`DONALD M. PAYNE JR.; NANCY PELOSI; ED
`PERLMUTTER; SCOTT H. PETERS; DEAN PHILLIPS;
`PERLMUTTER; SCOTT H. PETERS; DEAN PHILLIPS;
`CHELLIE PINGREE; MARK POCAN; KATIE PORTER;
`CHELLIE PINGREE; MARK POCAN; KATIE PORTER;
`AYANNA PRESSLEY; DAVID E. PRICE; MIKE
`AYANNAPRESSLEY; DAVID E. PRICE; MIKE
`QUIGLEY; JAMIE RASKIN; TOM REED; KATHLEEN M.
`QUIGLEY; JAMIE RASKIN; TOM REED; KATHLEEN M.
`RICE; CATHY MCMORRIS RODGERS; DEBORAH K.
`RICE; CATHY MCMORRIS RODGERS; DEBORAH K.
`ROSS; CHIP ROY; LUCILLE ROYBAL-ALLARD; RAUL
`ROSS; CHIP ROY; LUCILLE ROYBAL-ALLARD; RAUL
`RUIZ; C. A. DUTCH RUPPERSBERGER; BOBBY L.
`RUIZ; C. A. DUTCH RUPPERSBERGER; BOBBYL.
`RUSH; TIM RYAN; LINDA T. SANCHEZ; JOHNP.
`RUSH; TIM RYAN; LINDA T. SANCHEZ; JOHN P.
`SARBANES; MARY GAY SCANLON; JANICE D.
`SARBANES; MARY GAY SCANLON; JANICE D.
`SCHAKOWSKY; ADAM B. SCHIFF; BRADLEY SCOTT
`SCHAKOWSKY; ADAM B. SCHIFF; BRADLEY SCOTT
`SCHNEIDER; KURT SCHRADER; KIM SCHRIER;
`SCHNEIDER; KURT SCHRADER; KIM SCHRIER;
`AUSTIN SCOTT; DAVID SCOTT; ROBERT C. SCOTT;
`AUSTIN SCOTT; DAVID SCOTT; ROBERT C. SCOTT;
`TERRI A. SEWELL; BRAD SHERMAN; MIKIE
`TERRI A. SEWELL; BRAD SHERMAN;MIKIE
`SHERRILL; MICHAEL K. SIMPSON; ALBIO SIRES;
`SHERRILL; MICHAEL K. SIMPSON; ALBIO SIRES;
`ELISSA SLOTKIN; ADAM SMITH; CHRISTOPHER H.
`ELISSA SLOTKIN; ADAM SMITH; CHRISTOPHERH.
`
`

`

`V
`
`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;
`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
`
`

`

`VI
`
`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
`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.
`
`

`

`Page
`
`1
`
`11
`
`Vll
`
`Vlll
`1
`1
`
`1 3 8
`
`9
`
`Vll
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`QUESTIONS PRESENTED............
`PARTIES TO THE PROCEEDING
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`LIST OF PROCEEDINGS
`JURISDICTION
`SUPREME COURT RULE 14(F) PROVISIONS
`STATEMENT OF THE CASE............................ ...
`REASONS FOR GRANTING THIS PETITION .
`CONCLUSION
`
`APPENDIX
`
`10th CIRCIUT ORDER AND JUDGMENT
`APPELLANT’S OPENING BRIEF
`TRIAL COURT JUDGMENT
`TRIAL COURT ADOPTING REPORT
`TRIAL COURT REPORT
`AND RECOMMENDATION
`OPPOSITION TO DISMISS
`
`,..App. 1
`App. 11
`App. 29
`App. 30
`
`App. 35
`App. 55
`
`

`

`Vlll
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`Page
`
`U.S. CONSTITUTION
`Amendment I...................................................
`Amendment IX.................................................
`Amendment V..................................................
`Amendment XII...............................................
`Amendment XIV.............................................
`Article 1 Section 11..........................................
`Article III.........................................................
`Declaration of Independence - Clause 1 & II
`
`1, 5, App. 17
`... 2, App. 15
`2
`3, App. 25
`2, App. 25
`2
`App. 14, 17, 21
`14
`
`3
`
`6, App. 9
`
`41
`
`UTAH CONSTITUTION
`Article I Section 3
`
`STATUTES
`18 U.S. Code § 2381.
`28 U. S. C. § 2101(e)
`28 U.S.C.A. §1257(a)
`
`CASES
`American Bush u. City Of South S, 2006 UT 40.... 5, App. 16
`App. 21
`Carey v. Piphus, 435 U.S. 247....................
`Determination Of Rights To Use Of Water,
`2008 UT 25 182 P.3d 362........................
`.. App. 13
`Morris v. House, 32 Tex. 492 (1870)
`5, App. 9
`Radioshack Corp. v. ComSmart, Inc., 222 SW 3d.. 5,App. 19
`Rector v. City and County of Denver, 348 F. 3d 935.. App. 22
`State v. Ruiz, 2012 UT 29, 282 P.3d 998
`App. 13
`
`RULES
`Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1)..
`Rule 11 Supreme Court
`
`App. 2
`1,4
`
`

`

`1
`
`LIST OF PROCEEDINGS
`
`• Raland J Brunson v. Alma S. Adams, et al., No. 1:21-
`cv-00111-CMR, U.S. District Court for the District of
`Utah. Judgment entered February 2, 2022.
`
`• Raland J Brunson v. Alma S. Adams, No. 22-4007,
`U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit.
`Judgment entered October 6, 2022.
`
`JURISDICTION
`
`Jurisdiction is found under 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.”
`
`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."
`
`“This Constitution, and the
`Article VI of the Constitution.
`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.”
`
`

`

`2
`
`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.”
`
`♦
`
`

`

`3
`
`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, Speaker of the House
`Nancy Pelosi and former Vice President Michael Richard
`Pence (“Respondents”). All 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.
`
`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
`Respondents
`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. Because
`of Respondents intentional refusal to investigate this
`enemy, Petitioner Raland J Brunson (“Brunson”) brought
`this action against Respondents because he was seriously
`personally damaged and violated by this 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, and all courts of
`law.
`
`On January 6, 2021, the 117th Congress held a proceeding
`This
`and debate in Washington DC (“Proceeding”).
`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.
`During this 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 (the enemy) is an act of treason and
`
`

`

`4
`
`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 and
`courts of law.
`
`Due to the fact that this case represents a national security
`breach on a unprecedented level like never before seen
`seriously damaging and violating Brunson and coincidently
`effects every citizen of the U.S.A. and courts of law.
`Therefore, Brunson moves this court to grant this petition,
`or in the alternative without continuing further, order the
`trial court to grant Brunson’s complaint in its fullest.
`Brunson’s complaint is the mechanism that can
`immediately remove the Respondents from office without
`leaving this country vulnerable without a President and
`Vice President.
`
`Despite the grave importance of this case, the trial court
`granted Respondents motion to dismiss (“Motion”) by
`stating “IT IS ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that plaintiff
`Raland Brunson’s action is dismissed without prejudice”.
`(“Order”) This Order followed the trial court’s order to
`adopt its report and recommendation that Brunson did not
`get until close to the beginning of Oct. 2022 thus
`prejudicing Brunson from timely filing any objections, and
`the Order did not properly address Brunson’s opposition to
`the Motion. Brunson’s opposition clearly shows that
`Brunson has standing.
`
`Per Brunson’s opening brief and as outlined in Brunson’s
`said opposition (both not properly addressed by the lower
`courts) Brunson’s has standing and the trial court has full
`proper jurisdiction to rule on the merits of this case based
`upon the following factors:
`
`

`

`5
`
`a) 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 the statutes and case law cited by Respondents
`claiming immunity from Brunson’s claims in this instance
`are unconstitutional and this Court needs to rule in that
`manner.
`
`b) “The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights,
`shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained
`by the people.” Therefore, the purpose of the Constitution
`The
`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 our rights. 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.
`
`c) The First Amendment of the Constitution states that
`Congress shall make no law prohibiting the right of the
`people to petition the Government for a redress of
`grievances.
`
`d) “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 (Kv.1952).” Radioshack Cory,
`v. ComSmart, Inc., 222 SW 3d 256.
`
`

`

`6
`
`Vitiate; “To impair or make void; to destroy or annul, either
`completely or partially, the force and effect of an act or
`West's Encyclopedia of American Law,
`instrument.”
`edition 2.
`
`e) Due to the uniqueness of this case, the trial court does
`have proper 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.” A court adjudicating that the
`Respondents, who have taken the Oath of Office, to be
`incapable of holding their offices or who have adhered to a
`domestic enemy, means nothing without such removal of
`office.
`
`Under the stated factors Brunson has an unfettered right
`to sue the Respondents under the serious nature of his
`claim, 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. These are
`facts that cannot be overcome, therefore, Brunson found no
`need to include in this petition a copy of Respondents’
`opposition to Brunson’s opening brief or any of their
`arguments. Nevertheless, Brunson’s opening brief does
`touch upon Respondents’ immunity arguments and shows
`
`

`

`7
`
`how Respondents do not, nor can they, overcome Brunson’s
`arguments as stated herein.
`
`It is an uncontestable fact that the Respondents committed
`fraud and treason breaching our national security (as
`factually alleged in Brunson’s complaint), thus adhering to
`an domestic enemy that continues to breach our national
`security at an alarming rate on a daily basis. This national
`security breach is having the same end result as an act of
`war; to place into power whom the Respondents want,
`Brunson moves this Court, with its
`which is Biden.
`powers, to order the trial court of this case to immediately
`grant to Brunson the damages he seeks in his complaint.
`This is necessary to immediately secure our national
`security without any further delay.
`
`Turning now to the doctrine of equitable maxim created by
`this Court, this doctrine stands in direct conflict of 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
`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.
`
`

`

`8
`
`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 doctrines 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’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 is a continual national security breach.
`
`Voting is the greatest power an individual can exercise in a
`Republic; it is Brunson’s personal voice and the way he can
`protect his personal constitutional protected rights and the
`U.S. Constitution. See ^ 71 of the Complaint. When the
`allegations of a rigged election came forward the
`Respondents had a duty under law to investigate it or be
`removed from office.
`
`An honest and fair election can only be supported by legal
`votes, this is sacred. It is the basis of our U.S. Republican
`Form of Government protected by the U.S. Constitution.
`The efforts made, as stated in the complaint, that avoided
`an investigation of how Biden won the election, is an act of
`
`

`

`9
`
`treason and an act of levying war against the U. S.
`Constitution which violated Brunson’s unfettered right to
`vote in an honest and fair election and as such it wrongfully
`invalidated his vote.
`
`As a national security interest, Brunson moves this court to
`be swift by going beyond granting this petition, it should
`order the lower court to grant Brunson’s complaint to avoid
`any further delay.
`
`CONCLUSION
`
`This petition is set forth in the interest of justice in
`protecting Brunson’s right to petition for a redress of
`grievances against the Respondents, and ensuring his right
`of due process against the encroachment of the doctrine of
`equitable maxim, and charging the Respondents who failed
`to investigate the allegations of a rigged election by having
`them removed from office without further delay.
`
`Dated: October 13, 2022
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`Is/
`
`Raland J Brunson
`Raland J Brunson
`4287 South Harrison Blvd., Apt 132
`Ogden, Utah 84403
`Phone: 385-492-4898
`Petitioner in pro se
`
`