Motion To
Exceed Page & Word Limitations
The appellant, Susan Herbert,
requests an extension of the word and page limitations due to the complexity of
the case and the central issues at stake: equal rights for women and
constitutional authority vested in the lone citizen. Appellant is not a
licensed attorney and this case is her life; as she was born into harm
Appellant cannot make her case within the page limitations and this caused her
to be harmed within the federal court already as apellant/peitioner
was held to a rule invoked as law, a page limitation that prevented her from
making her case as she has been denied redress in person in all courts and was
at last denied redress on paper when she did comply to the page limitation as
the document was acted upon but then not filed. Finally her spoken testimony
was even thrown out as “not relevant” to the case in a CUSTODY case in which
she is the mother thus it is made impossible for Appellant to stay within the
current rules as judges and other ‘authorities’ are now participating in the
acts against Appellant, the ethical and all women. “Why” matters not. As the
discrimination of women has never ceased and is still promoted and condoned the
injury is ongoing and incessant and so newer harm comes to me as I make my
case.
The rules are meant are meant to
keep order and to balance power between licensed attorneys and those who are
not as it is assumed lawyers have more resources and expert knowledge of the
rules a pro se citizen does not thus ensuring each side has their fair and just
say. It is the my claim that page limitation became a point of law as it
uniquely targets this Appellant as I became the first and only citizen to enter
the Supreme Court directly and force direct action after Marbury
in 1803 and the only nonlawyer to be heard as
‘hearing’ is conferencing if you are pro se and that it serves to deny the
citizens informed consent in this unique case and that this is the personal
whim and will of individual people and courts but it is not our law. It is also
my claim that upon direct entry and action on 11/20/08 the rules no longer
applied to my person. Legally I never had to follow a single rule of the court
and the Chief Justice’s action serves as proof. I was officially denied any
protection of the law and subjected to all manner of undue process – unique
treatment in all of US history – and now I am being held to rule invoked as law
and being forced to “obey” what has never been applied to my person by clerks
who are in essence disobeying an order of the Chief Justice and adjudicating a
point of law. I followed the rules regarding form upon my own will and liberty
as I have the human ability and as I respect the Constitution and so I hold
myself to the highest standard. I became a unique absolute class of
one when all of this legal action happened over an 11 year period and a NY
court finally agreed with the Chief Justice officilally
certifying me certifying me “forever pro se” exactly on a piece of paper, or, a
case no lawyer could or would press as it was being made impossible by the
judiciary, the invocation of rule instead of law, the creation of
legal limbo and what is personal not actual or legal reality.
I should not then have to motion
the court to exceed the page limitations or to use 12 point type as to become a
constitutional authority case? A citizen has to have had every single
enumerated right violated in letter and spirit and I did thus the assumption is
to that I am obeying the law and lesser authorities such as rules no longer
apply to my person alone. This might never happen again to any other person. It
is my sworn testimony: If I tell a court I “can’t” do something they then focus
on that one thing. This has happened several times so the odds preclude it
being “mistaken” or “accident”. Thus people who participated in the overthrow
of our law and made me an authority case are now doing things over again to my
person never done to any other person. Not all people who do so are aware of
this. It seems as if this cannot be but that is what endemic corruption is and
that is how Bush V Gore and Herbert V Obama and the US came to
be. Your title matters not as you as a citizen failed firstly thus the “
As for type? I had practical and constitutional
reasoning to use 12 point type. I did look up why 14 point type is
required as that seems odd as even SCOTUS asks for 12 point type. I discovered
that this size type is required for two reasons: 1. It
is easier on the eyes to read and 2. It keeps a lawyer from writing too much as
it takes up so much space. Lawyers do need to be restrained as they have shown
this nation that they have little or no self control as proven by the state of
this nation. I am not a lawyer trying to take unfair advantage of anyone and I
do have self-control; I do not use nasty tricks nor do I have any formal
education in the law other than a class in legal research and a class called
Intro to Law. While I do have the ability to change my type to 14 point my
brief then would be well over two hundred pages and as it is a person can
easily read it thus I am asking the court to allow me to enter it in 12 point
type so that it is not so unwieldy. I do have one more reason:
In my brief I claim that there is
endemic corruption of the legal profession. I included exact acts against my
own person by state and federal judges and criminal acts by licensed lawyers
and I showed how I was unable to speak to a woman in over two years of dealing
with the Supreme Court even after I asked to do so. Although I repeatedly told
the clerk that the 40 page limitation was disabling due to the complex point of
law I had to teach the court regarding women and the original separation of
power as men and women are not exactly the same and due to the very nature of
an authority case. That is, one of the things I am required to do is prove I
can make the case by myself before SCOTUS thus the people as that is the burden
and to do that? You have to write it down. An authority case is
entered whole. I was held to that limit and I am convinced if I was not
held to that page limit then I would have been filed and heard orally. In the
end I was actually made to fight over one single page as the clerks were
counting 41 but I did not author page 41. Filing took 7 months! Finally clerks
actually denied what was exactly written on the page to refuse to file my case
thus I had to issue an order to have a new clerk assigned to my case. Thus page
limitation became a point of law as after the fact of my initial filing and
conferencing? I had no such trouble on the second and third attempts on the
clerks end thus in the beginning some form of discrimination was in play even
if it is that I did what no other American did thus the unique treatment I
received was not fair. Whether or not it was just is an argument I make within
my brief.
I would not be writing this
motion if the law in both letter and spirit had been applied to my person as I
did file a certificate of compliance which stated that I had complied to the rules
to the best of my human ability, a certificate this court asked for
but then when I filed it turned around and asked for something else: This
motion. A licensed lawyer or one who formally studied the law should be made to
file such a motion but not a nonlawyer who swears
they have made the attempt and not in an authority case.
While it is rare to grant such a
motion I have done the rarest of all things and have obtained the rarest of all
legal standing thus it is not only justifiable but in keeping with the spirit
of the rules and the law as I am at the most extreme disadvantage a litigant
can ever be in: I have sued all 300 million citizens. Until or unless another
name is on my case or until and unless a person begins obeying the letter and
the spirit of the law which is liberty itself I am alone, actually forever pro
se. Granting me space then, more paper, is not granting me more protection and
more privilege than any named person, as all it does is allow me to have the
say I have so far been denied. As I have had zero protection and no due process
made official, as I was deemed to be the lone person not covered by our law
when born into it only because I am a woman who is a genius or so I believe,
paper is the smallest form of remedy this court can grant me. It is chain of
command theory as any lower or other agency that then obeys both the letter and
the spirit of the law then removes itself from chain of causation as women are
yet the only group who suffered from a denial of liberty at our founding and
still do so today; women have no actual legal power and so are disadvantaged by
being born alive. Like the prayer of St. Francis states the chain of injury
must be broken first to then cause a chain of justice.
As I am a pro se case of
constitutional authority and original jurisdiction I then am my case;
separating myself from the issues and now separating this motion from my case
is nigh impossible for me as I am the victim and this is one of my points
of law. As my facts are my life they take up 40 pages and that is
skipping most of my injury. It is not possible for me to remove the
emotion of my case as liberty itself is an emotion, emotions are my fact and as
my brief is my sworn testimony, and what might be deemed to be ‘extra’ or
‘overindulgent’ to a judge may not be in actual reality. Citing repetition,
adjudicating what is or is not relevant and/or citing emotion as reason to
shorten my brief targets me alone and targets women as women have larger
hippocampuses thus process or discern emotion differently than men do and a
denial of liberty is an emotional injury that then causes an actual
physical injury to occur. Women are physically more susceptible to this
injury. What some – mostly males – perceive to be a defect is not and a
man would not know this as absolute fact nor would a woman with a title or
professional license as it is about perception versus reality: an emotion is my
hardcore fact not yours and a part of the whole truth is the correct emotion of
it. I cannot approach this clinically as a paid lawyer who is not the victim
might and by its very nature a constitutional authority case should be personal
and emotional or a denial of liberty has not occurred. For
the case for equal rights?
178 pages or 117 actual pages
minus my facts as my argument begins on page 61 is less than one page for each
year of our existence as a nation. All women and I are owed at least 178 pages
in the federal record as one form of remedy and relief. I have no objection to
defendants Obama, Roberts or the
As the injury is incessant,
ongoing and gross and as people are dying each day women go without actual
legal power I am asking this motion to exceed page limitation and to use
12-point type be considered an urgent matter.
The Appellant requests an
extension of the page limitations established by FRAP rule 32.(a)(7)(C).
The Appellant asserts that a page extension is proper due to the lengthy legal
record exceeding ten years, the severity and amount of acts committed against
her, and complex underlying issues including never before argued applications
of the of law as it pertains to women versus men and the failure of elected and
appointed persons to obey the law. An extension of the page limitation will
assist the Appellant to better present the facts and the issues on appeal to
the court especially as the Appellant intends to return to the Supreme Court.
12 point type will keep the page limitation to a reasonable amount.
Attached is the SCOTUS docket
proving direct entry and proving the action was never then filed or that I am
an actual case of constitutional authority and original jurisdiction and one
piece of proof John Roberts acted upon.
CONCLUSION
For the reasons stated above, the
Appellant respectfully requests that this Motion for leave to exceed the page
and/or word limitations of her Appeal Brief is granted.