COACH DAVE & LOY BRUNSON 🏈⛪🏛️⚖️📜📩🇺🇸 BE TRUE TO YOUR OATH 📺 BRIGHTEON.TV

⁣Source: https://www.brighteon.com/521a....0e48-05e4-406c-9721-

Thumbnail: https://imgflip.com/i/7oc2o5

VfB knew this was coming, and even with that foreknowledge, didn't stap ye olde hockey helmet on tight enough

VfB's GREATEST HITS

FRAUD VITIATES ALL CONTRACTS
BAIT & SWITCH
MULTI-PRONGED ATTACK
ISOLATE, IMMOBILIZE & IMMOLATE [THE 3 I's]
and muh fav 😁:
WE TOLD YOU NOT TO BE STUPID, YOU MORONS! [Attributed to Ben Stern 🎙]

https://loybrunson.com/

Welcome to Loy Brunson's Website
Your Letter is mightier than the Sword
It's Easy! Send your own Letter or Fill out our form and We'll send one for you...

Letters sent as of June 4th 2023 Count - 5,100
Restore Our Republic

UPDATES Breaking News 5.24.23
The Supreme Court of the United States under its' "imperative public importance" RULE 11 has allowed Loy Arlan Brunson to bypass the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals. The SCOTUS as of April 19, 2023 has received, filed and docketed Loy Arlan Brunson's emergency RULE 11 PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI.

What is Rule 11: A petition for a writ of certiorari to review a case pending in a United States court of appeals, before judgment is entered in that court, will be granted only upon a showing that the case is of such Imperative Public Importance as to justify deviation from normal appellate practice and to require immediate determination in this Court.

This new Docketed case #22-1028, as of May 24th, US Solicitor General, waived defendants rights to oppose petition prior to conference.

As we are heading into a new Supreme Court Conference, we need to launch a new letter campaign for this newly Docketed case # 22-1028. We need you to join us, in showing the supreme court, “We The People”, are behind and in support of this case, to save our Constitution and to insure the “Oath” is binding, as required by article 6 of our Constitution.

https://www.supremecourt.gov/s....earch.aspx?filename=

BE MILITANT INFILTRATORS | 6-5-2023
https://www.brighteon.com/9157....4fa6-3d3f-43ab-8456-

The Ninth Amendment provides that the enumeration of certain rights in the Constitution should not be construed to mean that the Constitution does not protect rights that are not enumerated. The Amendment was included in the Bill of Rights to address fears that expressly protecting certain rights might be misinterpreted implicitly to sanction the infringement of others.1

Few Supreme Court cases offer significant analysis of the Ninth Amendment. Prior to 1965, litigants occasionally invoked the Amendment, often along with the Tenth Amendment or other provisions of the Bill of Rights, to challenge the constitutionality of government actions, but the Court consistently rejected those claims.2 In 1965, in Griswold v. Connecticut, a majority of the Court cited the Ninth Amendment, along with the substantive rights protected by the First, Third, Fourth, and Fifth Amendments, and held that the Constitution protects penumbral rights of ‘privacy and repose’ that bar a state from prohibiting the use of contraception by married couples.3 By contrast, in the 1973 case Roe v. Wade, the Court grounded a constitutional right to abortion in the Fourteenth Amendment rather than the Ninth.4

Overall, the Court has generally treated the Ninth Amendment as a rule of construction for the Constitution rather than a freestanding guarantee of any substantive rights. Thus, in Richmond Newspapers v. Virginia, a plurality of the Court referred to the Amendment as a sort of constitutional ‘saving clause,’ which, among other things, would serve to foreclose application to the Bill of Rights of the maxim that the affirmation of particular rights implies a negation of those not expressly defined.5

https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/amdt9-1/ALDE_00013641/['constitution']