history
Brunson v. Alma S. Adams; et al.,
(Biden, Harris, Pence & 385 Members of Congress)

There are three lawsuits from the brothers. Two of them identical to each other. The first One, filed by Loy Brunson in the Federal Court, April 1, 2021 has made it to the Supreme Court where the Court will decide if they want to schedule a hearing. The second one, filed by Raland J. Brunson, made it to the Supreme Court but was denied a hearing (Docket #22-380). As a result, Raland filed a lawsuit against 3 of the Judges of the US Supreme Court for denying his petition for a hearing. Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, and Ketanji Brown Jackson. March 17th the Federal Court of Utah ordered Sonia, Elena, and Ketanji to respond to this lawsuit or be removed from office. The three defendants followed the court order, hired attorneys and responded with a motion, asking the Judge to dismiss the case. Because the defendants followed the Federal Court order, Raland can, if necessary, appeal this case against the these US Supreme Court Justices all the way to the US Supreme Court, giving the other six an opportunity, if they want, to grant Raland a hearing, and remove them from office.

THE FIRST TWO LAWSUITS
Both lawsuits include defendants Pres. Biden, Harris, former V.P. Pence and 385 members of congress for breaking their oath of office by voting AGAINST the proposition (that came from members of congress) to investigate the claims that there were enemies of the constitution who successfully rigged the election.

BOTH LAWSUITS ARE ABOUT THE DEFENDANTS BREAKING THEIR OATH OF OFFICE
"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic..."

THE QUESTION
How can you support, and defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign, and domestic? Answer: You investigate. If there are claims that there is a threat, even if you don't believe there is a threat, you investigate. How else can you determine if there is a threat unless you investigate? You can't. Were there claims of a threat to the Constitution? Yes. Where did these serious claims come from? 100 members of Congress. What was the threat? That there were enemies of the Constitution who successfully rigged the 2020 election. Is this lawsuit about a rigged election? No, it's about the members of Congress who voted AGAINST the investigation thereby thwarting the investigation. Was this a clear violation of their oath? YES.

THE RELIEF THAT LOY AND RALAND ARE SEEKING
That defendants be permanantly removed from office, and not allowed to hold a public office again.

BACKGROUND
Loy, Raland, Deron and Gaynor Brunson (the brothers) witnessed the 2020 election along with claims from members of congress that the election was rigged. What got their attention was when the proposition to investigate those claims was presented to Congress and put to a vote. What came as a shock to the four brothers is when they discovered that 387 members of Congress along with VP Mike Pence actually voted against the proposed investigation, thus thwarting the investigation. Whether the election was rigged or not was no longer their main concern. What now became the concern was when those members of Congress violated their sworn oath by voting to thwart the investigation.

The brothers wanted to do something about this. Their brother Deron had quite a lot of experience in the legal field, which started out when he began suing banks in an attempt to show the corruption in that part of the financial world, so he had enough knowledge to file a lawsuit against the now current 385 members of Congress along with VP Mike Pence, Joe Biden, and Kamala Harris. He already had experience with the SCOTUS by bringing two petitions to them, both of which were denied, but this experience gave him enough success along the way to give him the confidence that maybe, just maybe, he might be able to do something about this thwarted investigation.

Their brother Gaynor was heavily occupied with his audio/video television business (Rock Canyon Studios) so Deron got together with his other two brothers to plan out the strategy. They decided to have their oldest brother Loy to be the name on the lawsuit, which is called a "Complaint" and because he would be on the Complaint, the Court would refer to him as the Plaintiff. The 388 people being sued will now be called Defendants. Loy went to the Federal Court in Salt Lake City and paid for the filing fee, but the Court did not file his complaint, claiming that they were just too busy, and would get around to it when they can. The brothers filed a lawsuit against the Federal Court and finally, after several months, they decided to file Loy's complaint. During that time of waiting, they got together and decided to have their brother Raland file the identical lawsuit with his name on it, which made it to the US Supreme Court, but was denied a hearing. Here are the events of all three lawsuits, which includes Raland's case against three of the Judges of the US Supreme Court for denying his hearing:


EVENTS
(To be updated when a new event occurs)
LOY BRUNSON
March 23, 2021
The Complaint
(Loy files the complaint in the Utah Federal Court)

March 29, 2021
1st Amended Complaint
(The brothers make changes, and Loy files the 1st Amended complaint in the Utah Federal Court)

March 31, 2021
1st Amended Complaint Served
(The Clerk of the Court had the U.S. Marshalls serve the 1st Amended Complaint on 85 defendants, including Nancy Pelosi and Maxine Waters before being stopped by the Court, claiming it was a "clerical error by the Deputy Clerk".)

Judge Romero asks Loy to Amend the Complaint, along with instructions on how to make it better.

April 6, 2021
2nd Amended Complaint
(Loy Brunson (following Judge Romero's instructions) files his 2nd Amended Complaint in Utah Federal Court.)

April 20, 2021
3rd Amended Complaint
(The brothers make changes, and Loy submits the 3rd Amended complaint for it to be filed in the Utah Federal Court)

JUDGE ROMERO (WHO KINDLY GAVE LOY INSTRUCTIONS ON HOW TO MAKE THE COMPLAINT BETTER) IS NOW REPLACED WITH A DIFFERENT JUDGE, AND WITHOUT AN EXPLANATION, THE NEW JUDGE HOLDS OFF ON FILING THE 3RD AMENDED COMPLAINT.

THE BROTHERS DECIDE TO GO TO THE HIGHER COURT ABOUT IT.

June 1, 2021
Writ of Mandamus to the Court of Appeals (10th Circuit)
(Loy files a pleading to have the 10th Circuit compel the Federal Court to file Loy's 3rd Amended Complaint)

THE TENTH CIRCUIT DENIES THE PLEADING
(explaining that the Federal Court will eventually get to it when they can.)

June 20, 2021
1st Motion to Reconsider
(Loy files a motion reminding them that the Federal Court accepted his filing fee, but won't file his 3rd Amended Complaint, asking the 10th Circuit to reconsider, quoting the rule that the Federal Court must administer "without denial or unecessary delay")

THE TENTH CIRCUIT ONCE AGAIN DENIES THE PLEADING
(explaining once again that the Federal Court will eventually get to it when they can.)

THE BROTHERS DECIDE TO SUE THE FEDERAL COURT AS WELL AS THE 10TH CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS, ASKING THEM TO EITHER RETURN LOY'S FILING FEE, OR FILE HIS 3RD AMENDED COMPLAINT.

August 10, 2021
Lawsuit against the two Federal Courts Filed. (Loy v. Utah Federal Court & the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals)
(Loy goes to the Utah 4th District Court and files the lawsuit against the two Federal Courts. Even though the U.S. Attorneys explain to the Court that it cannot judge a case against the Federal Courts, Judge Low accepts the filing fee and judges the case anyway.)

BY MOTIONS FROM THE U.S. ATTORNEYS, THE 4th DISTRICT COURT DISMISSES LOY'S COMPLAINT THAT WAS AGAINST THE TWO FEDERAL COURTS
(explaining that the Federal Court will get to filing his 3rd Amended Complaint when they can.)

THE BROTHERS MAKE FOUR MORE ATTEMPTS TO HAVE THE DISTRICT COURT COMPEL THE TWO FEDERAL COURTS TO FILE LOY'S 3RD AMENDED COMPLAINT. ALL ATTEMPTS DENIED WITH THE SAME EXPLANATION

November 3, 2021
3rd Amended Complaint Filed!
(After 7 months, and for reasons not explained, the Federal court files Loy's 3rd Amended Complaint and back dates it to April 20, 2021)

December 30, 2021
4th Amended Complaint
(The brothers make changes and Loy submits the 4th Amended complaint to be filed in the Utah Federal Court.
The Court waits until March 28, 2022 to finally file it.)

April 22, 2022
The Summons
(The court issues the summons for the 388 defendants. The Clerk of the Court contacts Loy and let's him know that he can pick up the box filled with the Summons for the 388 defendants that have been stamped with the seal of the court. The brothers can now serve all 388 defendants with the summons and complaint.)

April 26, 2022
Serving the lawsuit on all 388 defendants
(The brothers along with their friend Duane Bingham stuffs envelopes with a copy of the complaint along with the summons for the 388 defendants. The brothers are using the U.S. Postal Service to act as process servers to all defendants. The 388 packets were delivered to the post office staff who were waiting to process the service.)
The Lawsuit
The defendants have 60 days to answer the complaint.

July 1, 2022
U.S. Attorneys Motion To Dismiss
(The U.S. Attorneys file a motion to dismiss Loy's lawsuit on the grounds that defendants are protected under Title 28 which gives defendents Soveriegn Immunity from any lawsuits relating to actions of treason while serving in the capacity of their office. The U.S. Attorneys also file a notice of appearance in behalf of all the defendants, making them the official attorneys on record, instead of representing them "specially". )

July 6, 2022
Opposition to Motion To Dismiss
(The brothers prepare the opposition to the Attorneys' attempt to dismiss the the lawsuit, and Loy files it in the Utah Federal Court.)

January 6, 2023
Magistrate Judge Recommends the Case Be Dismissed
(After six months, Magistrate Judge Cecilia M. Romero recommends to the chief judge that this case should be dismissed. Chief judge Shelby has not made a decision.)

March 30, 2023
Chief Judge Shelby Dismisses the Case
(Without any reason why, which is a requirment for all judges, Shelby dismisses the case.)

April 19, 2023
US Supreme Court Petition Docketed!
(Using the Rule 11, The SCOTUS accepts Loy's petition and puts it on the docket. June 22, 2023 the nine Supreme Court Justices will meet and discuss the case to see if they deem it worthy of a hearing.)

June 26, 2023
Petition Denied
The Justices vote to deny the petition.

July 7, 2023
2nd Petition Filed
Loy's Petition for a 2nd hearing is filed.

August 21, 2023
2nd Petition Denied
During the summer break, when the Justices are not around, Chief Clerk Scott Harris chooses to deny Loy of a hearing. Only two petitions are allowed. The Justices at any time can reverse their decision and hear the case. "We The People" through their letters to the Justices can help make that happen.
RALAND J. BRUNSON
June 21, 2021
The Complaint
(The brothers take a copy of Loy's 4th Amended Complaint, puts Raland's name in the place of Loy. Raland files the complaint in the Utah 2nd District Court.)

July 25, 2021
3 Defendants Served
(The brothers acquire from the Court the Summons for Joe Biden, Kamala Harris, Nancy Pelosi, and Raland uses the Post Office as process servers. Defendants have until August 23rd to answer the complaint.)

August 5, 2021
Lawsuit moved from State Court to Federal Court
(The U.S. Attorneys catch wind of the lawsuit, step in acting in behalf of the United States (not the defendants) and moves the case to the Federal Court.)

August 5, 2021
Motion to Dismiss
(The U.S. Attorneys, acting in behalf of the United States (not the defendants) file a motion to dismiss Raland's lawsuit.)

December 13, 2021
Opposition to Motion to Dismiss
(After a battle regarding what court has proper jurisdiction, and after another change in who will judge it, the brothers prepare a motion opposing the Attorneys' attempt to dismiss Raland's lawsuit.)

February 2, 2022
Dismiss Granted
(Judge Hill Parrish dismisses Raland's lawsuit, claiming that the defendants have Sovereign Immunity which is designed to protect them from having to account for aiding the enemies of the Constitution because it was done while acting in the capacity of their office.)

February 14, 2022
Raland Files an Appeal to the 10th Circuit
(The brothers decide to appeal Raland's dismissal.)

August 14, 2022
The Supreme Court of the United States
(The brothers realize that they no longer have to wait for a decision from the 10th Circuit of Appeals. The Rule 11 enables them to bypass the 10th Circuit and go straight to the SCOTUS. Their brother Deron spent the past week crafting a perfectly well written petition for writ of certiorari. On this day Deron had his two brothers Loy and Raland fine tune it in preparation for the SCOTUS and the proper format for the printers.)

September 23, 2022
Petition for Writ of Certiorari Received
(The SCOTUS received the petition along with the copies for the Justices.)

September 28, 2022
A phone call from SCOTUS
(The Clerk of the SCOTUS calls Raland requesting for a revision of the Petition that would include more information on the lawsuit and wondering how soon they could get it.)

October 17, 2022
2nd phone call from SCOTUS
(The Clerk of the SCOTUS calls Raland again. She asks "how are you doing on your revision of the Writ with the additional information that we need?" Raland said "We're working on it as we speak!" She said "how soon can we get it?" Raland said "Right away!")

October 20, 2022
Revised Petition shipped to the SCOTUS

October 24, 2022
Petition docketed!
(The clerk of the Court tells Raland that they have everything they need. The U.S. Attorneys have until Nov 23, 2022 to respond showing why the Supreme Court of the United States should not move on this case.)

November 23, 2022
The Solicitor General of the United States Department of Justice replaces the U.S. Attorneys
(Elizabeth B. Prelogar, the Solicitor General of United States, the official attorney on record for the defendants, and in behalf of the 388 defendants, waived their right to respond to this lawsuit, thus allowing the SCOTUS to move forward!)

November 30, 2022
The SCOTUS set the conference date for Jan 6, 2023
(The 9 Justices will meet January 6, 2023 to discuss the case and decide (by vote) if they want to move it to a hearing, where they will oficially judge the case and decide (by vote) if defendants should be removed from office)

January 9, 2023
The SCOTUS denies Raland's petition
(Without explanation, The Justices voted to not hear the case. The brothers move forward with the plan to file a petition for reconsideration, along with more support from we the people.)

January 23, 2023
2nd Petition filed
(The brothers are asking the Justices to reconsider hearing the case.)

February 1, 2023
Conference date set for February 17
(Conference date set where the Justices will consider (for the second time) the hearing of Raland's case.)

February 17, 2023
2nd Petition Denied
(The brothers did not get enough votes from the Justices for Raland's petition for a hearing to be granted.)

March 3, 2023
3rd Petition sent
(The brothers send a 3rd Petition asking Justices to hear Raland's case.)

March 17, 2023
3rd Petition returned
(The brothers received a letter from the SCOTUS saying "This case is considered closed in this Court, and no further consideration by this Court is possible".)

-- RALAND SUES 3 OF THE JUSTICES --
March 17, 2023
Lawsuit Filed against Sonia, Elena, Ketanji
(Raland, with the help of his brother Deron, files the lawsuit in the local 2nd District court in Ogden, Utah.)

April 12, 2023
Case Moved to Federal Court
(Defendants' attorneys successfully moves the case from the State Court to the Federal Court in Salt Lake City, UT)

April 19, 2023
Defendants Obey Court Order
(Defendants follow the court order from Raland's judge and files a motion, asking the Federal Judge to dismiss the case, knowing that if the Judge refuses to dismis the case, that they would have the opportunity to appeal it to the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals, where, if they lose, they could appeal it to the US Supreme Court.)

May 15, 2023
Raland Files an Opposition
(The brothers file an opposition to Defendants Motion to Dismiss the Case, showing how Defendants, through their motion are attempting to rewrite the Constitution.)

July 7, 2023
Magistrate Judge tells the Chief Judge to dismiss the case.
(The chief judge is the only one authorized to dismiss a case.)

July 17, 2023
Raland challenges the magistrate judge.
(Raland files an opposition to the magistrate judge's recommendation.)

August 9, 2023
Chief Judge dismisses Raland's case.
(Chief Judge Howard Nielson dismisses the case.)

October 24, 2023
Raland appeals the Judge's decision.
(Raland files his appeal to the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals.)

November 21, 2023
U.S. Attorneys file their opposition.
(The U.S. Attorneys explain that because Raland didn't get special permission to file his case from the Federal Claims Court, his case should not be heard.)

December 11, 2023
Raland challenges the U.S. Attorneys.
(Raland files his reply and explains that any requirment to get permission to file a lawsuit against anyone violates his first ammendment right.)

February 8, 2024
The Court rules against Raland.
(The 10th Circuit does not address Raland's argument about having to get permission to sue, but instead argues that Raland did not file his lawsuit in the right court and therefore his case should be dismissed.)

April 2, 2024
The U.S. Supreme Court.
(The case is now with the U.S. Supreme Court. The U.S. Attorneys have until May 2, 2024 to respond, then it will go to conference where the 6 Justices will have the opportunity to vote if this will go to a hearing.)

May 2, 2024
The U.S. Attorneys waived their right to respond.)
(Unless the Justices ask them to.)

May 7, 2024
Distributed for conference for May 23, 2024.)
(The forty copies of the Petition have been distributed for conference, where the justices will vote whether or not they want a hearing.)

May 28, 2024
Petition DENIED
(The three defendant's recused themselves in the decision. The remaining six voted. Raland did not get the four votes that was needed.)

June 12, 2024
2nd Petition Filed
(Raland has one last chance to file another petition for a rehearing.)

June 27, 2024
Distributed
(Notice it doesn't say "distributed for conference" because it's summertime, which means the justices are on break. Will the clerks be the ones who will vote in behalf of the Justices?)

July 22, 2024
2nd Petition for a Hearing DENIED
(Raland is only allowed two petitions for this case.)

Letters