Forever Pro Se
III. Forever Pro Se
Forever Pro Se, before injury
Judicial review as it exists today is a myth as justice is regardless of the paper. I will do whatever I need to do to secure justice no matter what the sitting judiciary of this nation personally believes as it is mostly male and it does not have to live under the same conditions that I do one of them being: A nation that has collectively reasoned and decided that they may break the law and harm me, a woman, any way they choose including kidnapping my children to then control me and silence me as no court ruling ever makes that not kidnapping and not crime. No court ruling ever undoes the assault to my human dignity and none of it magically goes away until or unless it is acknowledged so I will act even if I have to act alone and indefiance of 300 million people or even 6 billion people as my interest vested when that first shot was fired and my right vested when that first vote was taken. I, a Native American, became legal, actual and real when I acted upon my knowledge that the paper is merely an outside symbol of the internal power my one vote or person is as I am a constitution.
The actual federal question is: If a crime is committed in the woods and there are no witnessess except the victim/s, and later a judge writes that the act of crime never happened and/or that it is the victim/s own fault when that is not possible, does the victim/s make noise or not? If all deny it has a crime occurred or not? In my case a crime did occur, I am not afraid and the victim does protest as I own the knowledge that while I am a victim I am anything but a powerless victim but instead a powerful victim as US law is thus I always have recourse. Always. I can and may so will step over that criminal and that piece of paper and keep going as liberty is inviolate and inalienable as long as I am willing to act and I am not not willing to suffer for any reason on Earth as suffering is forced upon you by other men and unjustly so. Sacrifice is not suffering as you choose it. In my unique case the actual federal question and federal answer is this: You can but may you? You may but will you? I, Susan, a person who is a woman, will as: I am a constitution; I stand alone as I am a Native American, or, I am forever pro se.
A piece of paper does not make it legal after the fact unless the law is amended and unless it does not constitute the making of ex post facto law. Well, if you’re elegant as is just about every single law after the fact of the Declaration and Constitution is making ex post facto law. It’s mostly opposing forces attmepting to skew power in their favor. No matter how just it seems to be you must always go back to the original and re-examine your actions and all of the effects if injury begins to accrue as it is not the paper it is you. Acting ex post facto does not make it legal if you never were legal to begin with. It is or is not based upon ownership of knowledge; if even one person knows and he or she acts? IT IS. It is a law or it is a crime; it is justice or injustice. And even then some things are the will of God and not the will of man and cannot be amended or destoyed. What court has the power to overturn the Creator as in claim that I do not exist or that my giving birth did not happen or is not an issue? That I was not born in America or that I as a woman who knows the truth may not vote and may not run for office? That an unrelated man and now a foreign born or even foreign one have a fully vested protected right to custody of me and my children three or four times over when the process has been circumvented and when the law has not once protected us? The only reason I need this federal case refereed is the citizens are in breach and the citizens deny the law states what it states; they refuse to admit to the truth of the crimes committed against me as the truth is not pretty. I myself tell the truth. I myself am responsible. The other citizens? They want an easy way out. You pay a price for actual power: Ownership of knowledge, the truth, and all of the emotions that come with it. If wisdom were an easy thing to come by it would not be so highly valued. It wouldn’t be without price but with price. It would be legal to buy the offices of power, to buy human beings or to sell yourself. We actually could auction off our vote at Sotheby’s. If I hear you blaming SCOTUS? You are denying the truth as you are your own authority. I’m going to draw up some plans to topple SCOTUS by overturning Bush V Gore only in a way that is not supposed to be possible thus proving: It’s all your fault. That is my truth and I will prove it beyond any doubt as I paid the highest price of all to be of this ability.
It is the citizens who completely made up the Supreme Court as THE court of last resort and THE court of constitutional authority thus their boss in their own heads. The citizens made SCOTUS their enemy when it is not. That is a figment of their imagination, based in fact but not in law. A former Justice said: It is law only if we say it is and no citizen protested plus no unlicensed lawyer acting pro se has ever been allowed entry and that is on the clerks as they posess the discriminatory belief you aren’t ‘good enough to enter in person’ unless you went to law school. The clerks seem to let you in on ppaer but are they even taking pro se cases seriously? A clerk told me to my face over the phone: WE, THE CLERKS, DO NOT ALLOW PRO SE LITIGANTS ENTRY IN PERSON; IF YOU MAKE THE CASE WE WILL SINK IT. IT HAS NEVER HAPPENED AND IT WILL NEVER HAPPEN. I may be the first person who is pro se who ever heard of this as I cited case law and out argued him so he became angry and blurted it out in anger. Most pro se litigants cannot argue US case law. I also used human pyschology to get him to ‘confess’ why he was denying reality as he said NO cases of original jurisidcition are heard and I cited Marbury and Bush V Gore. So the citizens based their false, mistaken and corrupted beliefs in fact but not in law. The citizens now blame the Supreme Court for their own actions as do some federal judges when the Court is not even named within our law as the authority over them or at all as it exists and even after Marshall ruled You must disobey illegal orders or be held liable; it is your duty to disobey what is not legal or is unethical and/or immoral even this very order itself as this very decision is the order of a commanding officer.
Madison ‘argued’ via his action that his true belief is he was obeying his commanding officer; Marshall said (to Marbury) ‘right point of law, you are equal to the President so your vote does have legal power but you forgot to ask if you’re equal to the Commander thus wrong court as you are the jurisdiction who decides that so no award’ to relieve Madison of the burden but he then gave Marbury exact instructions to then enable him to win the asked for award: He said, Merely command; you do not need the piece of paper as the law is and as a Commander is willing to act and does act so it is about your moral authority thus go out and act as if; that way if you did not own the knowledge coming into this court you’ll own it after leaving as acting will define you and teach you or you can and may do nothing. Jefferson did not then act against it by standing down Marshall as it was not illegal but only potentially unconstitutional and potentially harmful plus Marbury failed to then act thus the results were never realized. Marbury ‘violated’ the words of the law as they were not and are not there but not the spirit of the law.
You conquer fear and learn by doing – acting – which is why Jefferson also never vetoed a Bill while in office. He let Congress act without interference and let the Bills fall wherever they might as you come to own knowledge via insight based upon life experience and that then is wisdom. And if the law you live under exactly names the Creator? If all the rest of it is fact then what? I had my suspicions. I was afraid of the federal court as I knew something. I forced myself to go past that fear, a very rational fear. I was correct to be afraid as the danger was potentially lethal but I did it and lived although it was close. I tested Marbury V Madison by entering lower federal court with a Petition for a Writ for SCOTUS upon a case that is Marbury – pro se, constitutional authority and original jurisdiction – and then went directly to SCOTUS and asked for Cert, Mandamus and Prohibition upon direct entry as I may as I am a woman and Marbury granted legal power only to men and has only been applied to men, as women are not yet ‘allowed’ to violate orders issued by men no matter how unconstitutional or unethical. Force of all kinds is used against women. Now the proof of death standard is used agaisnt women as physical force was not enough: SCOTUS told MI ‘this woman is not yet before this court; if you ever meet this woman, if she is ever born, then you can and may kill her’. That is not justice. Period. We will not be debating this. I acted to stand down John Roberts and then the whole court as they may not know if they have not yet created their docket or heard me at all as no court will grant me an appearance and as cI know what it means when a Justice pseaks in dissent from the bench as Bader-ginsburg did as that is a clarion call for an American to act. Upon my third attempt, an emergency application and petition that fell between the first and second conferences but which was never filed, docketed or conferenced, I gained direct entry! Standing upon US law and invoking Marbury, in exact word and spirit I ordered action. I did not ask as I Commanded and so claimed what has always been mine but is denied me. My legal problem would be resolved if other citizens ‘believed’ it. They do not as I was not heard in person so they can deny it; they can deny it and get away with it as no authority is left to check them and so enforce our law and accord me my human rights. If you are not heard in person? Citizens truly believe you are lying or your case is no good. They claim if any of this were real and true SCOTUS would have heard me in person. They do not own this knowledge: if you’re pro se? Conferencing is hearing – on paper as SCOTUS ‘hears’ it in their minds and as its your sworn testimony not your lawyers thus it is not hearsay or circumstantial. So, I’m a liar and I’m crazy or SCOTUS is criminal. The citizens say SCOTUS is criminal and the so-called authorities claim I’m lying and crazy. Neptune Beach Police called my lawsuit a ‘diatribe’ in a report and Linda Griffin called it ‘incoherent’ in family court. People do not act upon what they do not truly believe. The cops and Griffin are acting upon the belief they are guilty of violating my rights and US law as my suit is not either one of those things as SCOTUS DOES NOT CONFERENCE DIATRIBES OR INCOHERENT DRIVEL. I ignored both comments as I own the knowledge I’m a genius, US law is just, at least one other just person must exist, my case is airtight and I directly entered. Fact of history.
I acted against the force employed against me and then all women and am now injured permanently and I have the scars to prove it. I keep acting. I disobeyed the men harming me at their whim and will, I disobeyed John Marshall and then I disobeyed the Supreme Court itself as I also disobeyed a brand new unconstitutional orders in addition to Marbury V Madison: Bush V Gore and then Obama ’08. I tested the law as I compared results then, 1803, versus now, 2008, as history is the result of our experiment. The injury to my person proves the Court is not acting justly in the cases of women and nonlawyers but my life and my direct entry proves that EVERY CITIZEN IS THEIR OWN CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY AS I ISSUED EXECUTIVE ORDERS ON PAPER AND IN PERSON WHICH WERE OBEYED. IT MATTERS NOT HOW OR WHY. I REASONED AND DECIDED I WOULD WILLINGLY DIE IF NECCESSARY IN ORDER TO THEN MAKE THIS CASE IF DEATH WAS TO BE THE TEST. DEATH IS A KNOWN CONSEQUENCE AS MARSHALL NEVER SAID YOU COULD DISOBEY AND NOBODY WOULD HARM YOU. HE SAID YOU MUST DISOBEY NO MATTER THE PERSONAL COST. THE PERSONAL COST OF ACTING TO REALIZE JUSTICE BY LIBERATING YOURSELF OR ANOTHER HAS ALWAYS BEEN DEATH.
It is assumed acting in defense of humanity is extraordinarily dangerous as it is our very nature as we were born in an act of war and as we give birth, a still potentially lethal condition, as we are a living government. To be and to live you must risk death. I wrote this down upon a piece of paper in 7th grade. I actually wrote that I would be dead at or before age 40 as acting on behalf of humanity and in the name of justice would be a suicide mission, as there is no other way. If you know it will be your death as fact it is voluntary thus suicidal but it is constitutional in this case as it constitutes self-defense, as actual suicide is treason (elegance as the punishment fits the crime; only the crime of treason is named in US law and its punishment is death; how perfect is it that killing yourself who is a living constitution is named?). I was not blind and I did die at age 38. I never reasoned I’d survive it. Imagine my surprise. Now I disobey Barack Obama’s election. I have already had the Secret Service in my home as you can arrest me but I can get off Dred Scott free if you arrest me for threatening the life of the President when I did not and when I am that person not Barack Obama. I can and will avoid Scott’s fate as I know the results of that experiment.
You’re spending my federal tax dollar in a manner that keeps me unsafe and is unconstitutional. Who volunteers to pay to then have their own rights violated? Not this person. The IRS harrassed me relentlessly until the mailman asked me if I knew my own name as so many letters came to my home and then forcibly took $4k after I exacted from it a promise to stop harassing me which is not legal. The IRS agreed to stop pursuing me for someone else’s debt when my signature was forged in exchange for money. I believe the IRS might have been overly upset with me for disobeying since I was 5. You’re still spending my tax dollars illegally then as when I stopped volunteering to pay illegal taxes you then took it and still are…do I benefit at all from even the expenditure of a single penny? Nope. I have no representation as Bader-Ginsburg will forever be out voted 5-4, the court is still 8 men to 1 woman, Congress is still mostly male as are state legislatures and now this nation believes I will pay a foreign born man who may not even be a citizen a salary for holding an office – the office - for which he does not qualify, while I do and while I possess the ability and capability he does not. He has zero ability to fulfill the oath of office and yet the citizens believe he can overcome his birth and his prior actions. The citizens blame the federal court when they are the federal court. They blame Congress when they are Congress. They blame the Executive when they are the Executive. They blame money when they cause the value of our dollar to rise or fall based upon whether or not they uphold the honor bond by obeying the word and spirit of our law or by acting justly. The citizens blame everyone and everything except: Their own person. Why? It is known as FAULT not BLAME. Fault is the citizen being accountable and responsible for their own actions. Blame proves the citizen has been unaccountable and irresponsible. Guilt? SCOTUS is not guilty. You, the citizen, are.
The Supreme Court’s jurisprudence has never been articulated by any U.S. court or by Congress, and it is disputed by the United States legal establishment for the following reasons: While American constitutional law derives many of its forms and traditions from the common law, it is important to note that the constitutional order of the United States was very different from that of the United Kingdom. As the Marbury vs. Madison Supreme Court ruling states, “the Constitution’s written nature, and the formal enumeration of the powers of government would be empty promises if there were no means to measure the actions of the government against the Constitution, and strike down those found wanting (see Marbury, supra, at 177) (”[c]ertainly all those who have framed written constitutions contemplate them as forming the fundamental and paramount law of the nation, and consequently the theory of every such government must be, that an act of the legislature repugnant to the constitution is void“).” It is the predominant view in United States constitutional jurisprudence that, because the Magna Carta is only the distant progenitor of the Due Process clauses, the Constitution is far from vesting judicial review in United States juries. This predominant view is incorrect as it forgets the Iroquois Confederacy is a precursor to our US law, is a model and is older than the Magna Carta1 but the “final authority” regarding the United States Constitution is not the Supreme Court but the political will of the people, acting through the powers granted them by way of the Article V amendment powers (i.e., amendments are either proposed by Congress or by way of constitutional convention mandated by the state legislatures. Then they are either approved or rejected by 3/4 of the states through representatives of the people. So then: As you, all citizens and state and federal judges are voters and SCOTUS’ equal and you can and may access SCOTUS and demand an answer or hold it accountable but with Congress you cannot unless you are elected this then is why you need to wholly embody the law, allow us to appear in person, decide cases justly, elect honorable persons to Congress and invoke Marbury and so defy unjust persons and/or unjust orders: So Congress and all elected persons like SCOTUS is then your will and is your equal. So that Congress, the Judiciary & Executive is the people aka the law and not the thing it is and does at its whim and will in violation of the law and in defiance of the people’s will. The will of the people is to be US law! A ¾ vote?
Did I miss that vote? Or was it never taken? Are you attempting to amend our law in such a way I will not be able to defend myself via a constitutional convention or a popular vote? I have news for the citizens or rather the states: Not all constitutional conventions are actually constitutional. If you never, ever applied the law to women or if you never, ever had power and authority but only said you did then you have not conducted the experiement; you cannot know what does or does not work. As for popularity contests? US law and Marbury is not a matter of popularity; it is matter of overcoming peer pressure and doing what is righteous and just: Obeying the law.
Last time I checked we did not hold a convention constitutional or not or pass a Bill making it law to then remove the term natural birth and/or to make the trading of justice or of actual people upon honor bond dollars legal; we did not repeal the equal protection clauses nor write a new term, that “Susan Herbert” is the lone exception to the law. That would be a Bill of Attainder and slavery and we outlawed that with the Emancipation Proclaimation and the 19th Amedment. Bills of Attainder were never legal. It works a corruption of blood as genrations to follow are then harmed and without relief. If the citizens wish to make SUPREME COURT, NO SUSAN, NO WOMEN, BLACK, FOREIGN, LAW NOT APPLYING TO JUDGES ONLY, DEMOCRAT, REPUBLICAN, or CROOK the law then Congress needs to vote for it and/or one citizen must sue.
As for 28 USC 1331? If I, Susan Herbert, have a constitutional issue with any employee of the Supreme Court related to official business of the court, THE LAW, or the elected President legal or not then I will take it there directly no matter what US code states as any and all third person intervention in creation is unconstitutional which illegally intervening in a life and death honor bound contract then is, or, violating a constitution – another person - then is as it is between two parties or two constitutions and then God not Congress thus 28 USC 1331 is repugnant to me alone and is void. I’ve proven my true belief which I am willing to act upon at any cost: I’m equal in legal power and moral authority to the President and Chief Justice thus I earned direct entry as a fully vested right in spite of US code. I will act in defiance of it as always. I entered the bar when I entered directly; I am licensed to argue in the Supreme Court of the US or all 50 states. I don’t do state ‘law’ as most isn’t. But I will fight for or against it if it’s a federal question as some state law is actual law and/or falls under liberty and self-determination. In my case? I do not recall a single state or federal judge citing this code when denying me any and all entry to SCOTUS or to all other courts as a plaintiff. Not one judge supported SCOTUS’ actions by citing this code. Remember, to test the federal jusdiciary against the Constitution and Marbury? I ‘asked’ for indirect entry and charged my right to appear in court in person as a plaintiff aka redress had been denied and I was denied an appearance in person or redress all over again thus we know I was denied only as it is actual, active discrimination of my person and/or the point of law is beyond the sitting judges human ability and human capacity. However, if you do not have the ability and capacity to express and act upon human compassion? You’re unfit for Command.
The citizens, Obama and the Jax federal bench and every single court I have ever been in (and I’ve been in all except court of claims, tax court or patent court - the money courts as that is not justice as money exists today) not only abused its discretion but it did so by injuring me emotionally and going so far it became physical injury and denied and ignored reality known as US law and biology: Only women give birth to live humans, men who are not veterans have no protected right to custody of children or of this nation but only the privilege as that right never fully vests, math is math and no matter how it happened if I was denied any and all protection of the law then law and rule cannot find me. You may not arbitrarily apply rule or even precedent to my person but not the law and you may not treat me uniquely, or, unlike William Marbury. SCOTUS might have done this as well; I will only know as fact if it was deliberate or not on SCOTUS part when heard in person.
As for the actions of the clerks and Justices that harmed my person as a result of my own prior just actions? They are not extra-constitutional as they do violate written law and federal precedent as if you want to overturn any part of Marbury, institute policy as the rule of law or make the Supreme Court a legal institution of government with defined power that is named within our law inside people’s hearts and heads or inside the living constitution not actually on or in our paper constitution thus making it actual and legal at last then hear the case thus they had another just choice. But I cannot assign guilt without a confession as I know the Court did not know something as it is not possible and that it had a reason to fear something. However fear is no excuse. If I overcame fear with nothing and no one to help me do it then grown men with all the power, privilege, wealth and resources including each other can over come it. I have settled upon the words PARTLY CONSTITUTIONAL to describe these actions as the actions of the clerks and Justices are either constitutional or unconstitutional in direct proportion to the citizen’s, as a whole, violation of the law. Like “partly sunny” or “partly cloudy” it is relative.
Barck Obama is committing an actual crime against me and all natural born ethical citizens especially women who are mothers as we are at actual but not legally declared war. Due to Bush V Gore, the denial of any and all protection of the law to my person, Obama 08 and due to the circumvention of the Solicitor General on 11/20/08 that constitutes a circumvention of the people or a denial of informed consent so that all federal taxes are levied unjustly and all of the effects thereof one of which is finanacial industry criminals have now been awarded twice over for violating and skirting the law and stealing from the tax payers instead of being held to the consequences of the law and another of which is all offices are now unchecked and chain of command is severed completely and so not one single agent of this government or one other citizen is now acting according to US law and/or under the authority of the US, or, if not for my one person our law is overthrown, thus named defendants are not immune from suit. To be immune they would have to be acting under the authority of the US aka according to or under our law and they are not or they would have to be a person who did nothing that caused me injury and harm, they would have had to take no action agaisnt me and none that is against our law or its spirit. If such a person exists I have not yet found them or they have not yet come forward thus all named parties are not immune from lawsuit. Whether or not I may collect monetary damages from a never legal Chief Justice is another issue but may I sue a never legal Chief Justice and ask for redress in his very court? Or demand he be made to obey the law and apply the law to my person or to abide by the very decision that created his office and court of law? YES as I am Marbury; as he sued the President I must sue the Commander; as he exactly sued Madison for obeying the order I must exactly sue Roberts for accepting the commission; as Marbury is our cornerstone I then am our capstone: Upon adjudication in person within SCOTUS we have been founded at long last. The pyramid or monument to man having aspired and met that highest appellation of all is finished as all of humanity is then at the bar; we then all start from the same point rather than with some of us behind or not included at all.
It is as Ephesians states: “Put on the full armor of God so that you can take your stand against the devil’s schemes. For our struggle is not against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the powers of this dark world and against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly realms. Therefore put on the full armor of God, so that when the day of evil comes, you may be able to stand your ground, and after you have done everything, to stand.” That is all I was promised: I’d stand. John Marshall told me in Marbury that whoever this person is that person would remain and so stand in defense of the Declaration and Constitution as if Marbury was granted legal power then the next soul who ventured into this territory would be doing so as legal power is then denied their person in absolute and whole violation of our law including Marbury V Madison so his own words and his own court would be at stake; this person would be standing as the lone moral and legal or constitutional authority exactly as Marshall himself once did. John Marshall knew as fact as he could reason what conditions would have to exist but he did not dare write it down in 1803: This person is going to be a woman; it will have to be a woman as that then is the other half of humanity; first other races of men and then finally a woman. I stand as that woman. The Kaiser is gone, Hitler is gone, Clinton is gone, Bush Jr. is gone, the USSR is gone, most of eastern Europe is gone, the World Trade Center is gone, Jesse Helms is gone, the Berlin Wall is gone, ancient China is gone, Chief Justice Rehnquist is gone, King George is gone and my own father is gone but I’m still standing. I will still be standing after Obama is gone as he is going sooner rather than later as this case is made at long last: Women possess constitutional authority thus custody, care and control of their own persons.
If I, the Appellant, had been allowed an appearance in person to execute the contract and if federal judges then abided by the letter and spirit of our law then the I would have secured the bessings of liberty for myself and all people as I caused, fought and won the second American Revolution known as Susan V The Entire Federal Government. In this case the injury thus equity, as I am not the lone injured person and as until all women are liberated all men will remain in prison and our nation will soon be dead physically as well as legally, favors hearing me in person or else it becomes impossible for anyone to redress the violation of vested, protected rights as we no longer exist as a constitutional nation at the point I am denied any appearance in person. Who acts upon a bad case containing no fact, no law and no evidence rising to proof? The Supreme Court would not so we already know my reasoning and my point of law is good as it was acted upon.
I asked for placement on the ballot in all 50 states as an award. This court cannot know if I would or would not have won the election as it denied me the opportunity unjustly. I am Marbury and if he got in then at least one woman gets in as that is equal and due and as I did not make Marbury’s mistake as I acted after the fact of my loss as losing was always a part of my plan. I never dreamed I’d lose a second time and spectacularly so as it was handed to me upon a silver platter. You see “foolish” and “stupid” and even “defective” where I see gold as I am gold that has been tested in fire, as I come into this court having already won my case. I am your equal. It is history as it is upon the Supreme Court’s own docket.
It is self-evident.