The Carter/Beanz article is the one referred to by a previous reader:
Sent by reader N.:
equal time_BRUNSON Reply to Carter/Beanz
Dear Adam Carter & Tracy Beanz:
In regard to your article dated December 30, 2022, titled “The Truth About the Brunson Case”, it seems that you purposely ignored the following controlling points in order to sustain your captured title. This is flawed reporting and not acceptable.
1. SCOTUS has laid out its rule requirements that must be met before it will grant a writ. Addressing the contents of a writ in Brunson’s case, are Rules 11 and 12. These two rules note that a writ will be granted for compelling reasons, for such conflicts between appellate courts over the same important matter, or where there is a serious question of law. These are just a few examples that are neither controlling nor do they measure the Court’s discretion nor indicate the reasons for the court's consideration.
Adam and Tracy, you do not know the mind of SCOTUS in relation to the Brunson case and you have acted as if you do. “The Truth About the Brunson Case”?
Before making such a claim you should have contacted me. Your claim is not true and effectively gives aid and comfort to an enemy of the United States of America.
2. Brunson’s writ points out that the purpose of war is to put into power its victor. Brunson also points out that a rigged election accomplishes the same thing, only there is not an immediate loss of life and property. A rigged election IS an act of war. Brunson’s writ further alleges that the respondents refused to investigate the allegations that the 2020 presidential election was rigged.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. Their refusal to do an investigation into the allegations of a rigged election gave aid and comfort to this enemy that has waged war under the guise of a ‘fair’ election. This is an act of treason. Adam and Tracy, this is a very strong and serious reason, our national security, compelling SCOTUS to grant Brunson’s writ. How did you miss this point?!
3. SCOTUS is also bound by its oath of office. With this oath, they are BOUND to stop a war when given that opportunity. Brunson’s case gives SCOTUS that opportunity.
Adam and Terry, what makes you think you know what powers SCOTUS has and, does not have, under the Brunson’s case?
4. Brunson’s writ alleges “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 then 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 because they have surrendered to a domestic enemy, means nothing without such removal from office.” SCOTUS has the power to remove ALL the respondents from office under Brunson’s case.Adam and Terry, what you have said in your article is not factual.
5. Again, under war powers (look them up yourself) SCOTUS, under Brunson’s case, has the power to remove the respondents from office and completely adjudicate the case to end the war. Adam and Terry, Isn’t it a simple conclusion that anybody, I mean ANYBODY, who is found to be in a position to stop a war against America and refuses to do so can be found guilty of treason? Think about it!!
I do not feel compelled to continue further at this time in pointing out how false your story is. I feel that what I have pointed out is enough to help stop you from producing such articles.
We invite you to retract your claims.
You should be strongly promoting Brunson’s case in the name of justice and freedom and pray that SCOTUS removes the respondents from office for giving aid and comfort to an enemy of the Constitution of the United States thus ending this war. Which side are you on?