No .

n-'bto
Supreme Court, U.S
FILED
In The
OCT 2 a 2022
Supreme Court of the United States 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

this Court and lower appeal courts, along with
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;
 IV

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
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.
 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.
 Vll

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page

QUESTIONS PRESENTED............ 1

PARTIES TO THE PROCEEDING 11

TABLE OF CONTENTS Vll

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES Vlll

LIST OF PROCEEDINGS 1
JURISDICTION 1
SUPREME COURT RULE 14(F) PROVISIONS 1
STATEMENT OF THE CASE............................ ... 3
REASONS FOR GRANTING THIS PETITION . 8
CONCLUSION 9

APPENDIX

10th CIRCIUT ORDER AND JUDGMENT ,..App. 1

APPELLANT’S OPENING BRIEF App. 11
TRIAL COURT JUDGMENT App. 29
TRIAL COURT ADOPTING REPORT App. 30
TRIAL COURT REPORT
AND RECOMMENDATION App. 35
OPPOSITION TO DISMISS App. 55
 Vlll

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
Page

U.S. CONSTITUTION
Amendment I................................................... 1, 5, App. 17
Amendment IX................................................. ... 2, App. 15
Amendment V.................................................. 2
Amendment XII............................................... 3, App. 25
Amendment XIV................................. ............ 2, App. 25
Article 1 Section 11.......................................... 2
Article III......................................................... App. 14, 17, 21
Declaration of Independence - Clause 1 & II 14

UTAH CONSTITUTION
Article I Section 3 3

STATUTES
18 U.S. Code § 2381. 6, App. 9
28 U. S. C. § 2101(e) 4
28 U.S.C.A. §1257(a) 1

CASES
American Bush u. City Of South S, 2006 UT 40.... 5, App. 16
Carey v. Piphus, 435 U.S. 247.................... App. 21
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).. App. 2
Rule 11 Supreme Court 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."

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.”
 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
Constitution and the United States, Respondents
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

and debate in Washington DC (“Proceeding”). This
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
was written to protect our self evident rights. The
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
instrument.” West's Encyclopedia of American Law,
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,
which is Biden. Brunson moves this Court, with its
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