Welcome Back! Today on Legalese we finish discussing the Brunson Case (Commonly known as Docket: 22-380.) The first episode on The Brunson Case we looked at the background of the case and its judicial history. We also discussed what exactly a writ of certiorari is and broke down the first part of Brunson’s cert petition, including the all-important Question Presented.
Today we explore the other key part of any cert petition, the statement of the facts of the case, where one brings to bare the material evidence required to answer all topics raised by the QP. We will also discuss the wisdom of fighting battles to ostensibly “defend the Constitution” by sacrificing the Times, Places & Manner’s clause, The Presidential Elector’s clause, the Electoral College clause, The Presidential Vote clause, the Cases and Controversies clause, the Treason clause, and the 5th, 6th, 7th, 11th and 12th Amendments on the altar of convenience.
Legalese is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.
Follow & Support
Legale§e is a subscriber-supported project. Please consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.
“Constitutional Sleight Of Hand: An explicit history of implied powers” Now Available on Amazon
Legalese is a podcast that discusses all things constitutional law as well as current events in politics and other areas of law.
Tags: Law, Constitution, Politics, legal theory, Moral Philosophy, Current Events, brunson, brunson case, docket 22-380, constitution, separation of powers, treason, common law, impeachment, individual rights
sovereign immunity could thus be easily side-stepped with that approach, its not about what they "did", its about what they didn't do.
I am making assumption that US congress members must post a performance bond prior to being sworn in... I see that ~ In 1792, Congress passed a law creating the office of Paymaster General and made the taking of office contingent on the positing of a $20,000 bond ~ Since the claim (one of them anyway) is failure to uphold their Oath(s) of office wouldn't it be more "actionable" to make clam of -- Generally there are three types of acts covered by a public official bond.
1.) Misfeasance occurs where a public official fails to perform a duty of his or her office. It is a mistake or error without criminal intent or violation of law which causes damages to the public. Simply put misfeasance is the wrongful performance of a legal act.
2.) Nonfeasance is the result of a public official neglecting to perform a duty, that INACTION causing harm or damages to the public. Under tort law, an individual generally does not incur liability for a failure to act where the individual has no preexisting relationship with the injured party(ies). A public official is held to a different standard. His or her failure to act where the position requires he or she to do so is a violation and incurs liability.