The Bold Case of Brunson Calls for Resignation of Legislators En Masse. Yipee!

by Mary W Maxwell, PhD, LLB

I am here to say that the new case of Brunson v Adams contains the hottest balance-of-power issue I have ever seen. It is a case by an ordinary citizen. He thinks his right-to-elect was violated by the various frauds going on at the polls in the 2020 election.

I'm eager to use Brunson's case to emphasize the citizens' role against corruption -- in all matters, not just voting -- but first let me describe the particulars. The docket number is #22-380.

Raland Brunson first filed a case in the state court of Utah. The feds then asked that it be removed to the federal court because the defendants are federal office holders (President, Vice President, and over 300 of the 535 members of Congress).

The name "Adams" appears in the title of the case, Brunson v Adams, as Magistrate Alma Adams is the one who allowed the case to be removed to the feds. So, as far as I can tell, Brunson is fighting something called Rule Eleven. That rule is based on a statute which does indeed allow a state case to be yanked out of state hands.

However, that jurisdictional issue is small peanuts compared to Brunson's real issue. He complains that one member of Congress (I think it was Sen Ted Cruz) had asked, in December 2020, for a 10-day investigation of claims of voter fraud, but congresspersons voted this down, so it did not happen. (Note: the word 'congresspersons' includes senators as well as representatives.)

Brunson regards that failure to investigate as a crime in itself. He says the Defendants broke their oath to protect the Constitution and the remedy is to remove them from office on grounds of treason.

Over the years, heaps of citizens have filed in courts, both state and federal, to complain about Congress's neglect of duty. I certainly have done so, such as in Maxwell v Trump, a case about Congress's failure to do its duty regarding war. But my cases never make it to the US Supreme Court.

Brunson v Adams is now headed to SCOTUS. The conference will be held (I think) on December 11, 2022. As usual, 4 of the 9 judges are required to say Yes to "grant cert." It is even possible for them to rule on the case "if they feel like it."

The Old Balance-of-Power Theory

From here on in, the subject matter of this article isn't the 2020 election; it isn't Rule 11, it isn't the charge of treason. It is "balance of power." I am a balance-of-power maniac.

Mr Brunson has made me rethink my position. He has made me shift my emphasis from the balance among the three branches of government -- legislative, executive, and judicial. He has also caused me to discount, slightly, the balance between the states and the feds. Brunson has puffed up -- way, way up -- the place of The People in the Constitution.

Let's quickly review the old balance-of-power theory. The US Constitution was written in 1787. Its authors, known as The Framers, were influenced by the work of Frenchman Baron de Montesquieu and Englishman John Locke (writing in Holland). You can credit Locke with the idea that the government's basis of authority is the consent of the governed. No small deal!

Montesquieu directly influenced the structuring of our federal government into the three branches. Naturally, any government would need to hand assignments to specific offices. But Montesquieu meant the arrangement to be a check on government's power. He expected each branch to be jealous of its turf such that none could become dictatorial.

For instance, once the Framers had determined that declarations of war should be the exclusive responsibility of Congress, not the president, any takeover of that task by a president should be fought against by Congress. Indeed Congress's prerogative of impeaching a president is pure checks-and-balances. A recalcitrant president could find himself "out the door." Note: three US presidents have been impeached by the House but none of them were convicted by the Senate.

So none ever got the door treatment. Possibly this means that the turf-war expectation is dead. Or it could mean that the impeachment effort was "political." As we saw with the first Trump impeachment, it was blatantly Party-led for Party's sake.

There is also a fixed balance of states' power versus federal power in the parchment. Who attended the Philadelphia Convention in 1787 to write the Constitution? Fifty-five delegates from the 13 states. And they did not give away the kitchen sink. They allowed the feds to have enumerated powers, such as the power to coin money, and to build a Navy -- things that a nation can do but a state can't do. These enumerated powers are listed in plain English in Article I, section 8, of the parchment.

Again, this balancing may be dead. States do not fight against usurpation of their prerogatives. (Makes you wonder who gets elected as governor these days.) Very often the Legislature offers money to the states to accept encroachment on its turf. My favorite example is Education. The feds have no grant of power to involve themselves in the schooling of children. Yet, as we know, most states have agreed to participate in such federal things as the Core Curriculum.

There is also a balance of The People versus Government in the Constitution. It consists of Article V's provision for the people to amend the Constitution (38 of the 50 states have to want it). And there is the whole of the Bill of Rights, by which every Tom, Dick, and Harry gets to have a say.

There is also a mention, in the Fifth Amendment, of the grand jury as an entity. In early days of our Republic, the grand jury beloneged to the people and I contend that it still does. Grand Juries should bring to the attention of government the need for prosecutions.

Again, it's not working, Folks. The feds, and perhaps each state, use a method of judicial or executive control over local grand juries. (And that's not to mention the weaponization of law under the corrupt and treasonous "DoJ.")

As for amendments, consider the power of the mass media to trick people as to what a proposed amendment really means. "You can't win."

Long story short, the design conjured up by Baron de Montesquieu helped this nation for a while, but today the landscape has changed and the Constitution is not up to it. Sorry.

Locke, Hobbes, and Rousseau

Now let's look at John Locke's "Second Treatise on Government." He wrote it in 1690, well before Charles Darwin wrote "The Descent of Man" in 1871. Locke incorrectly described a state of nature in which we had all been in a condition of freedom and natural rights. This was never the case, we are not hermits -- we live in societies. And the very existence of a "right" depends on a society to give protection to such rights. The real state of nature is one in which a bully has plenty of potential to dominate others.

Locke was preceded by Thomas Hobbes (1588-1679) who had pictured a human's lot in the state of nature as "nasty, brutish, and short." He, too, was incorrect, but from his incorrect view he came up with the useful idea of people ceding some of their sovereignty to a ruler in exchange for peaceable social relations. He honored a Leviathan, a very strong ruling power.

And don't forget Frenchman Jean-Jacques Rousseau who wrote The Social Contract in 1762. He posited a "volunte generale" -- the will of the people. I think this can be used in two ways. The bad way is that it can be an excuse for authoritarian government; the "greater good" should make people succumb to harsh laws -- think China or the Australian state of Victoria today.

The good way is that a general will supports majority rule as against the tiny minority of wealthy overlords.

Of the three thinkers, Locke, Hobbes, and Rousseau, it is Locke's treatise on government that underpins our Constitution, especially the Bill of Rights. Locke influenced Madison by his valuing of tolerance. This had to do with religious tolerance, but in general it's reflected in America's value of pluralism in government (a pluralism hugely reduced by the monolith of media).

It's High Time We Updated the Governing Theory

The new court case by Raland Brunson -- delivered pro se, no less -- is about the behavior of specific persons who occupy the various roles of the US government. Brunson said they are failing in their duty. I hope we will someday date American political theory as being pre-Brunson and post-Brunson.

Please be warned that I have not given sufficient effort to researching the particulars of Brunson's case. I am eliciting the essence of it, according to my own lights. My lights include research on what has been happening to our government since, say, 1980 -- and what has been going on in American culture since 2000. I can hardly report on all of that here, so I will just use Brunson as a counterweight to the older balance-of-power theory. I don't know how old Mr Brunson is.

Because our Constitution contains the vital protections of the Bill of Rights, and has enjoyed great authority, we should not want to pitch the parchment. So please don't take my ideas here to mean that we should start from scratch -- that would be disastrous. Let's just imitate Raland Brunson in his attempt to make the Constitution work by making all individuals live up to their oath to that founding document.

But first I want to update the 17th, 18th, and 19th theories outlined above. They were all written when the population of the world was under 2 billion -- it is now 8 billion. They were written when the strongest physical force you could use against an enemy was gunpowder. (No planes, no bombs, no bioweapons, no geo-engineering, no mind control, no WEF, etc.)

Thus, Hobbes, Locke, and Rousseau could hardly be expected, in their recommendations for designing a government, to understand the issue of globalist control, much less to provide for our current complicated circumstance.

Being a sociobiologist, I must try to correct their ontologies. Humans are mammals and thus each person has to look out for himself -- we have many instincts that underwrite a healthy selfishness. Homo sapiens is, nevertheless, a social species. We need our group and we need some persons within the group to set the pace, to give us a belief system and means of disciplining deviants. It takes both culture and government to carry out these big tasks.

So we need theorists who can analyze the pressures that are operating today. To put it crudely, I see a hidden group of individuals running the whole species for its hidden purposes -- which may be simple selfish purposes. They have twisted everything, including our thought processes, to suit their maintenance of control. Poor jerks.

And they have a huge bevy of servants, maybe even the guy in the apartment next to yours, a nice guy, who is trained to thwart the good of all. And he may not even realize he is doing that! Poor mixed-up soul.

Can Brunson Make the Constitution Work?

Instead of running two arguments here -- pro and con Brunson, I will limit the present article to a claim that, yes, Brunson can make the US Constitution and, therefore, the US government a thing of beauty and a joy forever -- as someone once said.

Brunson rails against the fact that members of Congress voted to say No to a request by one congressperson that they carry out a certain investigation, as specified in federal law for times when (as in 1877) an election is thought by many observers to be invalid.

There is no question that Congress can override its own past work. There was never an amendment to make that law stick. Congress must obey the Constitution; it does not have to obey federal law insofar as it is free to change that law by simple majority in both chambers. (If the president vetoes it, they need 2/3 vote to overcome that.)

Brunson is going beyond that technical point. He is saying (I paraphrase liberally): "Hey, you guys in Congress, I know that you know that the 2020 election was fraudulent in about 5 states, and it's your duty, which you recognized years ago, to cease running toward Inauguration and hold a 10-day investigation. If you don't do so, you are traitors, given that you took an oath to defend the Constitution. So get the hell out of here. Begone, Satan. I want my country back."

During the Jan 6 melee, and before it and after it, I published my opinion that Biden was legally elected, based on the fact that Amendment XX provides for congressional interference if there is no other way to produce a president with sufficient electoral college votes (these day, 269). The amendment lays out the way a vice president (in 2021, Pence) presides over the opening of the ballots in a joint session of Congress and must accept challenges from the floor.

Pence did accept two challenges, regarding Arizona and Pennsylvania, and correctly sent each house to debate and vote on these. Both came back with insufficient votes to reject the state's count. The Jan 6 meeting ended in the wee hours of Jan 7, 2021.

So I, Mary Maxwell, being a sort of parchmentary prude, said "That's the end of it. Even if five states stink, the law shows the way for elected persons to fix that and they (basically the Democrat majority) refused to utilize it, so we've gotta live with it. Sad, but what can you do? Etc.

Brunson, God love him, said "Wait a minute. Hold your horses, Maxwell. [He did not really address me, OK?] It's not for you, Maxwell, to say 'Let's accept sin.' I, Brunson, say DON"T accept it. Kick the sinners out of the temple. [There's precedent for that!]. Throw their tables over and let 'em know who's in charge here. WE THE PEOPLE ARE IN CHARGE."

The new balance-of-power issue therefore has to do with the role of THE PEOPLE in the Constitution. I can see today that we vastly under-rated it. We who established our polity by a declaration of independence in 1776 that said "King George, amscray" should not do a Maxwell and say "When our elected leaders do the wrong thing the only hope is to replace them at the next [fraudulent?] election."

I concede the field to Brunson. I say "Corrupt politicians, amscray -- and make it fast cuz we have worse than 'retirement' in store for you."

Yay, Locke's consent of the governed! Yay, Rousseau's will of the people! Yay, Hobbes' Leviathan -- us!

Calling on all Leviathan staff members -- you know who you are -- to protect our society! I quote New Hampshire's 1784 state constitution, Article 10, still in force:

"Government being instituted for the common benefit, protection, and security, of the whole community, and not for the private interest or emolument of any one man, family, or class of men; therefore, whenever the ends of government are perverted, and public liberty manifestly endangered, and all other means of redress are ineffectual, the people may, and of right ought to reform the old, or establish a new government. The doctrine of nonresistance against arbitrary power, and oppression, is absurd, slavish, and destructive of the good and happiness of mankind."

Yay, New Hampshire! Yay, republicanism! Yay, Brunson! Yay, Everybody!

-- Mary Maxwell is the author of Prosecution for Treason, aimed mainly at Congress, published by TrineDay in 2011. She has been a candidate for Congress three times. Contact her at MaxwellMaryLLB@gmail.com

Below, please see Mary's new video on YouTube, entitled "Naked Tamerlan Tsarnaev." In the description box are the lyrics to her new song "Jahar on the MTA." This matter is urgent: