Whether the Supreme Court has the authority and duty to immediately cure a serious ongoing national security breach affecting the U.S., Canada, and Mexico, given the nature of the case, the lack of other remedies, and the Court's oath to protect the Constitution

QUESTIONS PRESENTED : “It is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is.” Marbury v Madison, 5 US 187 (1 Cranch) (1803). If it is the province and duty of this Court to say what the law is, then due to the nature of this case, which exposes a current ongoing serious national security breach affecting both Canada and Mexico, and being that there exists no other remedy in play that could cure this breach, and being that an emergency exists to cure this breach immediately, doesn’t this Court, by authority of the oath of office and other judicial factors have the power to cure this breach immediately? Also, if the oath of office emphatically on its face mandates the province of duty for allegiance to protect and defend the Constitution against all enemies foreign and domestic, and when this Court is faced with a domestic enemy, as shown in this case, that is attacking the Constitution, then doesn’t this Court have the full ; authority and duty to cure this attack by fully adjudicating this case, especially when nothing else is in play to cure it? Also, can Congress count votes under Amendment XII if allegations arise that there is a breach in the electoral process, especially when a breach in the electoral process has the same effect as war, which is to put into power its victor? By counting the votes without first investigating the allegations of this breach, isn’t that an act of giving aid and comfort to this breach which is an enemy of the Constitution, a violation of the oath of office, an act of treason? Also, isn’t the said breach an act of war? This Honorable Court has already ruled that one need not pick ii up arms in order to “levy war” in US v Burr (1807) 4 Cranch (8 US) 4669, 2 L.Ed. 684. Also, how can Congress pass laws that protect / themselves when they violate their oath of office? Also, if jurisprudence teaches that it’s a crime to make laws to protect a crime, then when Congress passes laws that protect themselves from their own violation of their oath, isn’t that on its face a violation of their oath? If treason is found in giving aid and comfort to enemies of the Constitution, and if misprision of treason is the concealment of treason, or if having knowledge of the commission of treason while failing or refusing to disclose the same to a judge or proper authority, then isn’t the trial judge, who dismissed this case with no explanation, guilty of misprision of treason due to the fact that this case factually exposes acts of treason by the Respondents? And wouldn’t misprision of treason extend to all those who help effectuate the dismissal of this case? Also, if fraud vitiates everything that it touches, and if giving aid and comfort to enemies of the Constitution is also an act of fraud, then when Congress met under : Amendment XII to count the votes, and when they didn’t investigate the founded claims of a breach of the electoral process, then what Congress participated in was a war party in order to put into power their victor from this : breach, therefore they did not participate under authority of Amendment XII because didn’t fraud vitiate it? Also, because this case exposes the Respondents in giving aid and comfort to an enemy of the Constitution, and because this is also an act of fraud on their part, didn’t this fraud vitiate all their legal theories used to dismiss this case in the trial court? ss : iii Also, because Brunson’s right to seek a redress of grievances is protected by Amendment I of the Constitution, and because Brunson has the right, and patriotic duty under an implied oath, that we all have, to protect the Constitution and himself against enemies of the Constitution, doesn’t this alone sustain Brunson’s Article III standing? To claim otherwise doesn’t that give aid and comfort to enemies of the Constitution? Also, due to the nature of this case that exposes a serious national security threat that is ongoing, and in light of the allegiance to the Oa