Marbury v Madison
II. Marbury v Madison: Constitutional
Authority Vested In The Lone Citizen, or, Like It Or Not Marbury Is The Law Of
The US And This Universe
This is a case of original jurisdiction as Bush V Gore is an illegal
award of our custody and an illegal violation of separation of power as the
Supreme Court assumed the power of one, a power clearly granted to the single
citizen and the person who is President only.
To ask the Supreme Court to decide a presidential election holds the Court
to an impossible standard as it then must predict the future and no court can
know if the sitting President will do his duty and if not, can and will another
citizen act? Bush V Gore is a tie, 5 as 1 versus 4 as 1, as it cannot be
9 or the Justices have voted twice for President and either way the person who
is President is to have issued a reasoned decision of his own and/or an
executive order. 9 as 5-4 as 1 is not constitutional in the case of Bush V
Gore as it is about the difference between whole and absolute numbers; it
is one citizen one vote which in this case is equivalent to one body of
government one vote or 9 as 1. That is our law as we are a never‑ending
chain of command and are peers; no single vote has more or less power than my
own. William Clinton failed to act as a President decides a tie.
The only form of the power of one the Supreme Court as a whole may ever
invoke is unanimous and the only form it may invoke as an absolute is the Chief
Justice alone standing down the sitting President. However the Chief Justice
may not be able to stand the President down due to conditions he does not
control: A citzenry who refuses to exercise their rights and fails to act over
and over and a Congress that violates the law by excusing a criminal act only as the person who is President commits it and/or
because their own members are guilty of the very same things: extramarital
affairs and sexual harrassment. Unfortunately the actual charge
was then and remains now PERJURY. Congress was at the time of
A Chief Justice may not negate our vote and thus uncheck himself as the
Chief Justice and the President check and balance one another. They are
equivalent legal authorities. In this way then the people check the Supreme
Court; they check and balance the court via their whole vote vested in the
person who is President and/or by direct legal challenge. Bush v Gore
then was a two way tie as it was and is also 1 whole court aside the Chief
Justice, or 9 –5-4 as 1 for Bush versus the whole popular vote, We the people,
1 for Gore or 1 versus 1, a tie. The
If the sitting Chief Justice dies after negating the whole vote effectively
castling with the person being installed as President to counter any in
violation of the law acts that person or his administration might commit? Power
has been consolidated in the Chief Justice and whole court. The sitting
President then must appoint an already sitting Justice whom he did not nominate
or nominate a person already sitting but based upon something that is arbitrary
such as old age or longest tenure to then begin rechecking the offices of
government. If he does not he has unchecked the office of Executive, his own
office, and so chain of command is not only interrupted but completely severed;
the violation of separation of power is endemic or gross. If the President
nominates a person who is not an arbitrary appointment or is not
already sitting whom he did not nominate thus there is a conflict of interest?
And the office of executive is unchecked? The law is about to be
overthrown. Congress (Senate) must act to refuse to appoint that person. If Congress fails? The law is overthrown. As Marbury
sued the President by suing Madison a citizen will have to sue the Commander by
suing the Chief Justice as the direct result of unchecking the office of
President after first unchecking the Chief Justice (Bush V Gore is the
cause of unchecking Chief) will be: WAR, against innocent women or declared on
bad evidence or military called out against innocent civilians. Logic and
reason dictates this will happen at some future point as the point our law is
really, actually and legally overthrown has to be about the office of
Commander. Why? The citizens failed to vote; if a failure to vote is the
first cause then you have not ‘elected’ a President but instead
had a Commander forced upon you because Bush’s and Gore’s lawyers are criminal
but not stupid. Whoever won Bush V Gore could then call out the National
Guard or the military to then enforce it. If citizens protest squash it with
the National Guard. And that is known as a military dictatorship. Thus the
point of actual overthrow, the point of law, was always going to be about the
Commander or war. You can know the issue not the exact details.
So then, if you know this you can then reason something else: Any single
citizen can then sue to either remove the illegally appointed Chief Justice, to
remove the illegally installed President or to be placed upon the ballot in all
50 states. In this case you may not sue to remove the Chief Justice unless he has
displyed incompetence or has failed to perform his duties. Issuing a ruling you
do not personally approve of, relying upon faulty reasoning or even issuing a
ruling that violates our law is not failing to fulfill his duties nor is it
proof of incompetance: 1, If he is acting we know he is willing 2, His oath is
to the best of his ability whatever that ability may be and 3, An illegally
appointed Chief Justice who is sitting illegally? He is not in violation of the
law unless he knows and he would have to know something he cannot know, it is
not humanly possible, until the lone citizen presses suit as it is not about
his appointment as logic dictates it has to be a fact of the peitioner as the
Chief Justice subjected himself to review of the Senate thus we know his fact
so he then is to get at least one lone opportunity to become a legal
appointment once he owns the knowledge the petitoner brings forth as the equal
protection and due process clauses apply to him; a Chief Justice is not the
exception to the law as he is Chief Justice – if anything he is never
excepted from our law as he has the highest, strictest standard.
Logically, and via application of past federal precedent, and in
consideration of the conditions that exist now, and in consideration of the
nature of the injury, only one kind or type of citizen meets the burden, meets
the standard, has pure or absolute standing and so can and will make this case:
A citizen who is a mother.
I was illegally denied my vote in 2000, 2004 and 2008. I’m now suing for
civil rights violations, for breach of the contract known as US law and for
direct, personal injury by the clerks and/or the Chief Justice and as offical
unjust policy exists within the Supreme Court that harms me and all women and
then all ethical persons. It was acted upon in my unique case. I have never
been granted protection of the law or due process. Some of the effects of equal
protection and due process being denied my person and denied to other women is
that no woman or minority has been of the ability to become the legally elected
President, unfit persons have been on the ballot and/or elected and that this
office has been openly bought and sold. Only mothers and veterans have a
constitutionally protected right to this office and we have been denied this
right and this privilege and mothers grossly so as the people then elected a
man not able to apply the law to women or to fulfill the oath of office and
when I and other women are able and capable thus the 2008 election was not
legal and went forward when my federal case went unadjudicated due to no fault
of my own.
A violation of my rights and a violation separation of power continues to
this day as the power of one, Executive Order, and the power of one, my vote
and then the whole vote, rests within the Supreme Court as evidenced by Bush
V Gore, Schiavo, Castlerock and Carhart and other
rulings concerning women which are all de facto executive orders that deny us
equal protection and due process and self determination, our safety and hope,
all rights, and now this violation of separation of power serves to deny us our
very lives when we are innocent and when we are made vulnerable and kept
vulnerable.
The entire federal government from the lone citizen to the office of the
President has fallen and is now refusing to accord women and Susan Herbert
alone and their innocent children some of who are enlisted service members any
and all protection of the law, as legal power, a vote, no longer exists in
actual reality but is merely a matter of arbitrary federal court rulings and as
the federal court at its highest level, US Supreme Court, is now awarding the
death of innocent women to men and asking innocent women to meet the
unconstitutional proof of death standard. The federal government is now
acting upon the following belief as true and fact when it is not real and is
not biologically possible: That a woman cannot reason and decide life and
death issues concerning her person or any persons as she is defective in the
logic and reasoning department thus men must possess absolute authority over
her and that men can and do give birth to living constitutions – live
human babies. The federal government is insisting that women and
children are safe and Susan Herbert herself is safe, and that equal protection
and due process exist in actual reality, when that is impossible if the federal
court, almost exclusively male, is now demanding that Susan Herbert die and
stay dead or that she never be born. From In Re Susan Herbert, 07-9804:
“I first was made to act alone and later chose to act alone; to this day
this choice is not mine but one that is forced upon me as I will never acquire
the human ability to write with the technicality of an attorney nor will I ever
be of the human ability to follow the rules exactly. I cannot do what is
humanly impossible for me and I cannot force or make any person do a job or
obey a law if they are not willing to do so. I cannot make another have faith
in our law.
I acted upon my own faith in the law, our written Declaration and
Constitution, and then my own moral authority and the advice given to me in Bush
V Gore by the Justices and then all prior Supreme Court decisions regarding
equal protection and due process as the citizens are of a mistaken belief and
that is that this court does not give advice. This is not fact as all Supreme
Court decisions are advice to and for the citizenry and so George Bush Jr. and
I receive exactly the same advice from the Supreme Court. I willed myself to
know what I did not and to become what I was not. I stopped fighting a county
court that was embroiled in graft as it was pointless and instead, in 2000,
began planning my assault upon the county, state and federal judiciary and the
unjust men and now some unjust women running this nation that do nothing or act
against me and my children. I decided I would not allow them to use money or
female as reason when it is excuse. I decided I would not enter my petition
until I could argue on my own behalf and due to my children being abused I had
to wait until they would never need to testify, only want to testify if safe.
Because of a physical injury and lack of resources I must argue orally as I
cannot prepare a brief, and I knew I needed to be of the ability to argue all
equal protection and due process issues and then all constitutional law and so
had to teach myself due to the past effects of the discrimination of women and
due to what this now endemic domestic violence has done to Americans:
Not one other citizen recognized that late Chief Justice Rhenquist gave
standing to pieces of paper and lawyers not the persons vying for the office
who were to take the presidential oath and did so when he knew they had no
equal protection and due process issue as a similar situation has occurred in
the past and never went to the Supreme Court. The Electoral College yet exists;
Congress failed to act and so did our Governors as they do have the power of
one and could have sued as a third party on behalf of their states citizens as
they are a states legal custodian and no single citizen was ever likely to have
the ability to sue. Neither Bush nor Gore defended their own constitution and
instead allowed lawyers, snakes, to whisper in their ear and to lie to the
Supreme Court and the American public by creating a brand new claim, one that
would set new precedent, in order to gain access to the federal judiciary and
do so at the highest level possible as a case of original jurisdiction. These
snakes made it seem as if their claim was heard upon appeal from the Florida
courts and was legally sound; they made it seem as if there was an equal
protection issue and due process issue present when there was not, only issues
and problems these men created for themselves over the course of 200 years by
acting to deny legal voters their right and by acting to keep women from the
offices of legal power.
Bush V Gore itself was a case of the domestic violence named in
Article 4 Section 4 occurring, perpetrated by lawyer‑like snakes and an
irresponsible press calling itself and its placing of blame, its blurring of
the facts and its catering to political agendas “journalism”; it was aided by a
Congress and the citizenry not willing to act and refusing to uphold and
enforce the law, otherwise known as doing their job and/or exercising their
rights that then served to deny all a Republican form of government. It was and
is an absolute violation of our law as it violated the whole vote and thus our
whole law.
I knew actual reality was that Justice Rhenquist and the others by hearing Bush
V Gore effectively liberated all Americans from the created barriers now in
place ‑ from the snakes, from the money, from the political parties and
from the made up rules ‑ that stand in our way and that keep us from this
office unfairly and unjustly and so set new precedent: the Supreme Court bit
the snakes right back by allowing each American to duly process themselves and
so sue for the equal opportunity to become the elected President.
In essence, all decisions of the Supreme Court are a sort of “per curiam” as it is a one whole court upholding the
whole law via a whole majority. A Presidential election must be decided either
a lone, absolute one, the Chief Justice standing down the sitting President (in
which case our government and law has been overthrown as the President must
then be a criminal if he cannot or will not obey the law, or, we have a rogue
Chief out to make himself a king via consolidation of power but in both cases
we have 300 million citizens who failed) or 9 as 1, the whole court upholding
the whole law via a whole majority aka the whole vote. In this way 9 as 1 is a
whole one and an absolute one as it is a matter of absolute law: one
man one vote, or, one body of government one vote.
This is why actual “per curiam” is not used in this court as the math does not
always add up due to this very issue, the election of a President aka
constitutional authority, and as it is inherent or implied only issues of social
importance or constitutional challenges are heard here. As it stands Bush V
Gore is an unresolved, unrecognized tie. 9 as 5-4 as 1 is not legal or good
math as it is actually 9 as 5-4 as 2, 5 as 1 for Bush and 4 as 1 for Gore or 1
versus 1, a tie.
This door must not remain open as wide as it is now for it makes me and any
American citizen a sovereign nation unto their self, a state acting upon their
own and able to do anything the actual President can as long as they did not
support Bush V Gore in any way as it makes us his equal in legal power
as you cannot hold us to a contract you broke and Marbury says one must
defy illegal orders or be liable for damage. I did not obey and I did not pay
taxes except when forced to by an illegal order of the court and by illegal
seizure. As I own the argument that places me in the office of the President
and a second argument that also places me in the office of Commander in Chief
no authority is above me.
What citizen would act to enforce or uphold a law that they do not believe
is real for them? Or act to enforce a law that does not seem or feel as if it
protects and empowers their own person? The effects of
the endemic discrimination of women and Bush V Gore serve to render our
citizens willing victims, as their spirit is broken. I am the only example they
have of a person acting on their own in spite of the odds and so they tell me
that I am delusional, I am not being truthful, that it is impossible to have
had my life unfold as it did, that I do not know our law or cannot apply it
correctly and that if I am ever heard in court that I will be silenced or
denied justice as they assume the Supreme Court is actually all those false
things it has been labeled: political, corrupt, self-serving, unjust, unfair
and intent on trashing and violating our law for their own personal gain or to
enhance their egos. They willingly believe the lies they are told and believe
the emotions they feel as facts of other people and so have become victims,
citizen lambs to the slaughter and do not uphold the honor bond.
The one thing our founders were not is willing victims. The one thing our
founders were was accountable and their names upon the Declaration support this.
The other thing they actually were? Responsible, for when their original
Articles of Confederation did not work they invented a new form of government
from scratch and then lived it out as real even when it was seemingly
impossible and even when it was painful to do so. They admitted to their
mistakes more quickly than they claimed their successes. The lives of
Washington, Adams and Hamilton support this as their specific acts and specific
words in specific places with specific people serve to prove their personal
beliefs as authentic and genuine or facts of them. They are men who found themselves upholding the honor bond and fulfilling duty to
the point it was physically and emotionally uncomfortable for them at times and
even though it took
I, my own self, am proof the first patriots lived and were actual humans,
real people alive in or around 1776 and 1787. I, my own self, prove they acted
as they did and that what the historians say happened did actually happen and is fact. No photographs exist to prove they lived; no paper
is proof of them. No museum, created record or title in a book of history makes
the words on any document the truth. The words are myth unless lived out as
true belief as fingerprints, photographs and words prove nothing not even
actual life. It is I, Susan, acting on her own that is proof as the
fingerprints our founders left behind are all over me and inside my person and
have become my faith. I, Susan, am proof that our American story now a legend
and soon to become a myth unless I am heard was and is history.
I seek not to dissolve our law but to dissolve instead a shadow government
of people who have mistaken beliefs of our founders, this nation, this law,
this world and themselves as Americans as anytime a person gives away their
legal power and moral authority they are then a shadow government as we are
supposed to be a living government and living law of people, thriving and
striving and not a semi‑dead or even half‑awake government. To be
half‑awake is to be a shadow of our former selves and a shadow of what
our founders intended for us. To choose the easy road and to make the easy
decisions, the comfortable ones only, or to fail to act, is to be a shadow of who and what you might become; it is to use only a sliver of
your power as a person. It makes us all ghosts of the founders instead of the
living embodiment of their spirits.
I am not a ghost.
I alone among 300 million plus citizens understood perceived reality was not
actual reality and that the Chief Justice and other Justices were dangling a
shiny, red apple directly in front of our faces. I thought to plunder history
just as our founders did as that was the one and only example I had ‑ our
founders ‑ and so knew that snakes do not reason as they have no emotion
and are cold blooded; they are after “I” and never “We” as We the people all
appeared in court that day and lost as a reasoned decision for a runoff
election and an executive order against all able bodied citizens directing them
to fulfill duty and vote does not pay. I recalled Genesis: ‘And I will
place enmity between you and the snake and you will strike at his head while he
strikes at your heel and kills your children.’
I witnessed the snakes go for our Achilles heel, our Supreme Court, or the
appearance of possessing constitutional authority over our humanity and so I
struck back in conjunction with the Supreme Court in order to save myself and
then my children as I knew after the Supreme Court is the President or my one
person as that is chain of command theory. I knew without a unanimous
decision the Supreme Court was opening a door not closing one as any dissent
throws it to the people embodied by the sitting President and if he and all
others fail it then goes to the lone person who caught it when Justice
Rhenquist threw it: I, Susan.” – In Re Susan, 07-9804
I, Susan Herbert, became the constitutional authority by living US law and
federal precedent out as real thus coming to know US law is elegant as it is
written, that Marbury is law as is the existence of the Supreme Court as
a not the court of authority or is a constitutional referee,
that the resolution of uniformity sits within our law but physicists and all
others failed to notice this, that life or personhood thus the right comes into
being at an exacting point before birth, that the exactly named Creator is
actual reality, that our one vote if wielded correctly and if experienced as
equivalent will and liberty is an actual physical force and that the case for
equal rights, which I have made as I lived it, is also the case for the
unification of faith and reason. This is also the case for the Supreme Court
itself as an institution as except for the Justices I may be the only American
who knows what the Supreme Court is and I’m now wondering if the
Justices know as the clerks do not seem to know. I, Susan, the living person
prove I am the most able and capable American citizen of all as I accepted your
unfair conditions and succeeded against any obstacle whatsoever placed in your
path and I prove that discrimination is real and does prevent a woman from ever
actually ascending to the offices of President and/or Chief Justice as no way
is possible except federal lawsuit if you are not willing to violate the law. I
prove beyond any doubt that our law is just and our law actually empowers the
most disadvantaged person there is as I defied those orders and still triumphed
by entering Supreme Court directly thus I actually and legally ascended to the
office of President and so no authority is above me. Barack Obama sits in
reality; nothing makes that actual or legal. All I encountered along the way
said this was not actual, real, legal or even possible – a lie – as George
Washington did it before me and so did another, William Marbury, but I had an
advantage they did not as I have Marbury v Madison itself, Bush V
Gore and physics.
I may have had to endure abject suffering, torture, broken bones, hunger,
isolation, forced separation from my children for over a decade, exposure,
extreme fear and enforced poverty but I triumphed never the less as our
founders did not promise me money or things but something far rarer and more
valuable than all the things in all of this universe: The blessings of
liberty. I actually received the blessings of liberty or so I truly
believe as those were not of Earth and this lawsuit will then tell me if the
All court rulings in my case both state and federal violate the law and are
abuse of power, abuse of judicial discretion and are arbitrary and capricious;
none of them find any actual fact, some create the facts they want but do not
have as the event never happened i.e. I did not write or do that thing – it
never happened – and/or I never complained to that thing or made that point of
law, or I am not that label such as claiming I filed as a woman only when I
filed as a human being and some constitute crimes. In short whenever I trumped
a judge’s or clerk’s reasoning that judge or clerk then committed what then
became a crime instead of applying the law to my person equally or at all. I
was faulted for being more intelligent and more able and capable than the
elected and appointed officials and for knowing when agents were acting in
violation of our law as all I ever did was hold the state of PA to the law and
precedent known as Stankowsky V Kramer which says that a sate must knock
itself out in making the attempt to reunite children with their parent if
separated and that a parent may use the foster care system if necessary but
this alone does then terminate any right as a parent can and may ask the state
for assistance. I asked for protective custody and so volunteered BEFORE my
children were injured thus the state could not blame me or hold me liable; it
could not charge me with failure to protect as I invoked Marbury as well
and that is what set all of this in motion in 1998 as PA had no way around my
legal argument except to silence and control me, to attempt to injure me in an
irreparable manner, by then handing me and my children over to known abusers
and batterers some named as felons. PA offered zero services for our
reunification; it placed my children in protective custody and then turned
right around and handed them back to the very people named as the people we
needed protection from. Then my children were spirited away into NY w/o the
knowledge of anyone including the court. NY then followed suit and as an actual
dollar amount changed hands in the form of the sale of a house for one dollar
as an incentive to harm us so we were sold across state lines and into human
bondage only so PA and NY did not then have to pay liability to women as both
states have secret unjust policy that I uncovered. It is secret as it is kept
from women but all the attorneys and all the social workers and all the judges
know of it. That’s collusion. It might be conspiracy. My
mistake? Telling the “authorities” I know what you did and are doing
and I am telling on you; I am telling the Supreme Court of the United States
and do not think for one hot minute I need some $500 an hour self-righteous
windbag to do it. I know the duties you are charged with under the law and I
know the law! What are you going to do? Argue that you need to murder
me because I was born and I survived to tell on you?
My reasoning and application of Bush V Gore and all of our law and
then all of federal precedent is not wrong or mistaken; if I say it is a
hardcore fact that Bush V Gore is a tie then it is as it is not a matter
of personal belief but of reality as in history, exact words and math. If I say
a woman sheds her blood and risks her life giving birth then she does, as that
is a medical fact as it is our biology as well as a legal fact as we are a
living government of people. No court may deny me or defeat me unless it:
Unconstitutionally denies me any appearance in person, as the winning argument
against this case does not exist. You can argue it but you will not
then win. If this court or any person at all actually, truly believes it can
argue against our law and against humanity as in legally kill our law and so
kill humanity then be my guest, as that requires an appearance in person,
doesn’t it? That person will be arguing to physically murder my children and me
and do so with the permission of a court or arguing to overthrow our law with
the permission of a court, or that person will be pleading temporary insanity.
This case can never be removed from Marbury, Bush V Gore, Austin
V Herbert, In Re Susan Herbert, In Re Thomas Jefferson or the
2008 Presidential election as all are now inextricably linked. I am the
constitutional authority and not you or any other person on Earth. God granted
me what are inalienable rights thus no man can or may steal them from me or
deny them to my person unless I allow it and I would first have to believe that
is possible and then have to believe that I am powerless to defend myself. As I
can read and I can count and do so better than any man alive or else he would
be a co-appellant or I would have legal representation then I will never, ever
believe anything that you write upon a piece of paper except for 9-0 FOR Susan
Herbert as my legal argument is I AM A HUMAN BEING WHO IS A WOMAN AND A NATIVE
AMERICAN THUS BIOLOGICALLY DISTINCT AND THEN INDIVIDUALLY UNIQUE SO AM EQUAL AS
NO TWO PEOPLE NOT EVEN TWO MEN ARE EXACTLY THE SAME BUT ARE UNIQUE. IT IS NOT
EQUAL RIGHTS BUT EQUIVALENT RIGHTS. We are not exactly the same as men and
women. We are distinct but equal. As individual people we are unique.
The person who makes the case for equal rights for women and children then
is, as the vote has to be violated and our law overthrown so she becomes it as
she alone stands forever pro se in defense of our law, the constitutional
authority of this nation. This person has to be a woman as no biological man
can ever know pregnancy, he will never be pregnant, so then can never know when
life begins as actual, legal and scientific fact as the knowledge is
dependent upon the experience of having been pregnant thus is an actual
biological fact of a woman and not a man. A man cannot own knowledge he will
never have as a biological fact as all he can own is the exact words of our law
and the exact words of science but never own actual proof beyond any doubt.
Thus a person who is a man cannot make the case for equal rights yet they keep
trying and the federal court and indeed the entire federal government keeps allowing
them to try via making law and authoring federal cases and so flies in the face
of actual reality. The federal court has begun allowing male “authorities” to
falsify proof as the argument and testimony of a man never rises above
suggestive and circumstantial evidence in the case of woman or birth
of another human.
How can a mostly male federal government reason and apply the law to women
if it cannot reason and know life as a fact and cannot reason and know natural
birth as a fact? If it cannot count? If this
were possible then Barack Obama would not be running around as the physically
real but not legal President so Obama is my proof beyond any doubt and I do not
ever need to see his birth certificate or passport records to prove this as
life itself is proof as Marbury V Madison states it is your actions that
prove you as you act upon what you truly think, feel and believe. If actual reality, your words and actions and the state of
my life and/or this nation, does not match the paper known as the Declaration
and Constitution? Unjust men have hijacked this nation and our law
thus we are no longer constitutional.
My right to press this case and to appear in person within the Supreme Court
as a right fully vested as I acted and I match the paper. Lassiter
states we have no right to legal representation in family court which the
Supreme Court is in the case of an election but Bush and Gore had it while I do
not and did not; Monell V DSS says a citizen may sue to enforce the law;
Bush V Gore says I may sue for custody of the US; Marbury says I
must act before and after and that we are all our own authorities in the end
and so must as a duty defy illegal, immoral, unethical and
unconstitutional orders or be held liable. The CA evidence code says some
things, like the Holocaust, the Supreme Court’s own docket, our law or our
American Revolution are so universally known as fact and reality that they
cannot be denied in any reasonable fashion. Thus I acted upon all of
my knowledge. I did not breach the contract but the people, the Solicitor
General exactly, the acting but never legal President exactly and the Supreme
Court exactly did breach it. Thus I won my case from a time before I
entered. All I need?
An appearance in person as until then my life and my children’s lives are
not safe and are in mortal danger. This court needs to check and balance itself
when it has heard a past case in which the legal argument is and remains: I
need justice so I, a man, want to be allowed to kill my innocent wife, a woman and
do so in an action which does not define life thus defines what it can never
know – death, as to be dead you must first be a life and bodies do not prove
life and death nor does paper and so reasons that death of the innocent is
awardable only to men by men when they seek to kill innocent women and innocent
children as actual reality is that case is going to the Supreme Court of the US
as is my own and that court is and has always been a male majority since the
birth of this nation and since Marbury was heard thus SCOTUS is not then
a jury of my peers nor is it just representation so that women and children
will always lose and lose their lives; they will always and forever be paying
taxes unjustly and they will pay with their lives. Justice will never be theirs
– ever – unless a woman is the Chief Justice or the President thus can and will
stand alone, pro se, and make law.
I applied for both jobs and secured them as the Supreme Court’s own docket
proves and so until or unless I can make Roberts appointment legal by appearing
in person then this court has no power or authority over me and has no
authority over any woman as if it did? This case would be captioned Susan
Herbert V Obama and the
I, Susan, entered a court already in violation of the law as it knows Schiavo
to be unconstitutional and knew then and it knows it may not arbitrarily change
the caption of a case especially if it then changes the very nature of the case
and knew when it did it. KNOWING but then ACTING TO DO IT or FAILING TO
ACT is a crime and this federal appellate court may not then blame the Supreme
Court or me. What sane litigant would then agree to allow a corrupted court be
it deliberate, inability or an actual mistake to then adjudicate her case? To exercise legal power and/or moral authority over her? She
would not; if forced into that court she would act to defend herself and so I
did. I’ll tell this court and whatever judge and citizen is reading this what I
told the Supreme Court in my own notice of suit as I did not wait on the other
federal court to act thus served them notice of suit which also served as a
statement of the issue before this court did as I knew my rights would be
violated as a fact:
“It is unconstitutional and not effective or practical to let the inmates
run the asylum as at some point asylum will no longer exist. Actual reality is
no liberty, no justice and so no
The applicable standard of review is always constitutional authority: “The
Constitution states in Article III that: “The judicial Power of the United
States, shall be vested in one Supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as
the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish… The judicial Power
shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution…”
The legal case Marbury v. Madison, the basis for the exercise of
judicial review in the
Opponents of judicial review have charged that the Supreme Court’s power
It's: The Law
to invalidate Federal and state laws or actions has
no counterpart in common or civil law, and has no textual basis in the United
States Constitution. The law of the
The Framers? See Federalist 78, quoted here as the
citizens may not have read it: “It is far more rational to suppose,
that the courts were designed to be an intermediate body between the people and
the legislature, in order, among other things, to keep the latter within the
limits assigned to their authority. The interpretation of the laws is the
proper and peculiar province of the courts. A constitution is, in fact, and
must be regarded by the judges, as a fundamental law. It therefore belongs to
them to ascertain its meaning, as well as the meaning of any particular act
proceeding from the legislative body. If there should happen to be an
irreconcilable variance between the two, that which has the superior obligation
and validity ought, of course, to be preferred; or, in other words, the
Constitution ought to be preferred to the statute, the intention of the people
to the intention of their agents… It only supposes that the
power of the people is superior to both; and that where the will of the
legislature, declared in its statutes, stands in opposition to that of the
people, declared in the Constitution, the judges ought to be governed by the
latter rather than the former. They ought to regulate their decisions by the
fundamental laws, rather than by those which are not fundamental…
These sometimes extend no farther than to the injury of the private rights of
particular classes of citizens, by unjust and partial laws. Here also the
firmness of the judicial magistracy is of vast importance in mitigating the
severity and confining the operation of such laws. It not only serves to
moderate the immediate mischiefs of those which may have been passed, but it
operates as a check upon the legislative body in passing them; who, perceiving
that obstacles to the success of iniquitous intention are to be expected from
the scruples of the courts, are in a manner compelled, by the very motives of
the injustice they meditate, to qualify their attempts. This is a circumstance
calculated to have more influence upon the character of our governments, than
but few may be aware of… Considerate men, of every description, ought to
prize whatever will tend to beget or fortify that temper in the courts: as no
man can be sure that he may not be to-morrow the victim of a spirit of
injustice, by which he may be a gainer to-day…To avoid an arbitrary discretion
in the courts, it is indispensable that they should be bound down by strict
rules and precedents, which serve to define and point out their duty in every
particular case that comes before them; and it will readily be conceived from
the variety of controversies which grow out of the folly and wickedness of
mankind, that the records of those precedents must unavoidably swell to a very
considerable bulk, and must demand long and laborious study to acquire a
competent knowledge of them. Hence it is, that there
can be but few men in the society who will have sufficient skill in the laws to
qualify them for the stations of judges. And making the proper deductions for
the ordinary depravity of human nature, the number must be still smaller of
those who unite the requisite integrity with the requisite knowledge.. Upon the whole, there can be no room to doubt that the
convention acted wisely in copying from the models of those constitutions which
have established good behavior as the tenure
of their judicial offices…” – Hamilton
Federalist 47 and 48: “The reasons on which Montesquieu grounds his maxim
are a further demonstration of his meaning. “When the legislative and executive
powers are united in the same person or body,” says he, “there can be no
liberty, because apprehensions may arise lest the same monarch or
senate should enact tyrannical laws to execute them in a
tyrannical manner.” Again: “Were the power of judging joined with the
legislative, the life and liberty of the subject would be exposed to arbitrary
control, for the judge would then be the
legislator. Were it joined to the executive power, the
judge might behave with all the violence of an
oppressor.” Some of these reasons are more fully
explained in other passages; but briefly stated as they are here,
they sufficiently establish the meaning which we have put on this celebrated
maxim of this celebrated author.” Federalist 48: “It was shown in the last
paper that the political apothegm there examined does not require that the
legislative, executive, and judiciary departments should be wholly unconnected
with each other. I shall undertake, in the next place, to show that unless
these departments be so far connected and blended as to give to each a
constitutional control over the others, the degree of separation which
the maxim requires, as essential to a free government, can never in practice be
duly maintained….It is agreed on all sides, that the powers properly belonging
to one of the departments ought not to be directly and completely administered
by either of the other departments. It is equally evident, that none of them
ought to possess, directly or indirectly, an overruling influence over the
others, in the administration of their respective powers. It will not be
denied, that power is of an encroaching nature, and that it ought to be
effectually restrained from passing the limits assigned to it. After
discriminating, therefore, in theory, the several classes of power, as they may
in their nature be legislative, executive, or
judiciary, the next and most difficult task is to provide some practical
security for each, against the invasion of the others. What this security ought
to be, is the great problem to be solved…Will it be sufficient to mark, with
precision, the boundaries of these departments, in the constitution of the
government, and to trust to these parchment barriers against the encroaching
spirit of power? This is the security which appears to have been principally
relied on by the compilers of most of the American constitutions. But
experience assures us, that the efficacy of the provision has been greatly
overrated; and that some more adequate defense is indispensably necessary for
the more feeble, against the more powerful, members of
the government. The legislative department is everywhere extending the
sphere of its activity, and drawing all power into its impetuous vortex.”
-
What else did the framers say about the Judiciary, specifically the idea of
the Supreme Court? From James Madison’s notes: Hugh
Williamson asked James Wilson if he meant to have a council of the Executive
and judges. He said No. He said, “A council
serves oftener to cover, than prevent, malpractices.” Elbridge Gerry opposed
the idea of a council including judges. “They would have a sufficient check
against enroachment on their own department by their exposition of the laws,
which involves a power of deciding their constituionality. In some states the
judges have actually set aside law as being against the constitution.” Gerry assumed
national judges could set aside laws found to be unconstituional and it was NOT
commented upon. Judical review was discussed by some delegates. It seems as if
it was presumed to be a part of the judical process or was it?
This nation,
Exigent emergencies are dealt with in Federalist 23; factions are dealt with
in Federalist 10. Madsion and all of the founders knew: The people might become
possessed as all past great governments have fallen because of this. The need
was found to exist as no other nation allows you to challenge the ruler
directly as legal power is arbitrary and/or not actual reality but not
the need as the last resort or as the constituional authority
as we are all volunteers and our ‘rulers’ are subject to re-election thus you
check the Supreme Court with your vote or a direct lawsuit. We had the vote on
paper but did we have it in real life? Are we actually equal in legal power?
You can write it down but is it reality? Marbury V Madison answered this
question definitively for men as legal power was made real in 1803 for men who
appear to be white. In 1954 men who appear to be black had legal power
realized. For women legal power has never been actual reality and today men
have now made their legal power an arbitrary decision of the federal court as
they have given that power and their authority away to the Supreme Court.
Marshall never meant to strip the citizens of constitutional authority but
only to force them to live the law out as real thus coming to own the knowledge
of it as proven by his actions after Marbury: He authored almost all
rulings alone as he knew this could turn into a small group wielding great
power and no man can know if that group will always act justly thus he set the
example. He held himself to the same standard as Jefferson who also acted
extra-constitutionally as he too had to do so. A citizen then could challenge
Historians assume many things but do not know why: John
Marshall wanted and needed
The argument was changed to: Was this a petty disagreement between
rivals? History books say it is. Some of these books go so far as to label
the involved men as petty. It had nothing to do with a petty rivalry as
ultimately Marbury V Madision gave
How could any citizen know as fact without question that Marbury V
Madison is elegant itself as the idea it contains is within our law but the
exact institution – Supreme Court as the court of constitutinal authority or an
authority equal to your own person but not outside or above you –
is not until or unless a citizen like myself lived it out as real thus testing
it? John Marshall crafted what is elegant law not theory and not application;
it exactly matches law of this universe that is unwritten as it is authored by
the exactly named Creator and is known as physics. Marbury V Madison
would be lived out in a way that mistakenly placed the Supreme Court over us as
we believed lies, sold our vote thus sold justice and refused to accord women
equal rights; it would be questioned, debated, denied and argued until or
unless the need arose and so a citizen was forced to put it to the most extreme
test of all: Not only the written law but chain of command theory as Marshall
adressed both duties of the Executive and the law that rules war is written
nowhere. A Commander exercises moral authority; he or she wills life into being
where there is none via acting even if that means their death. A Commander
removes the dead institutions and replaces them with living constitutions; she
wills life as she is willing to trade her life for yours.
No matter Marshall’s motivations he had insight so far reaching it was bound
to confuse the citizens and even repel them as it demands you hold yourself to
the perfect ideal even in death thus only a citizen so extraordinarily injured
that she would literally and figuratively have nothing left to lose could or
would act upon it wholly and go so far as to die to then be able to issue
actual Executive Orders that carry the full authority or weight of the law. Her
weight would be greatest as she had to become absolutely fearless by venturing
into the unknown and so standing down fear until or unless death occurred or
until she stood aside the Creator. What is the number one thing in this world
that holds citizens back from claiming their liberty and acting upon it? From defending their own person first? Fear of the
unknown.
It is human nature and it is history: As death is one of the terms and as we are first we constantly engage fear and
constantly encouter the unknown and at least one American has always been
willing to go there on behalf of all other citizens. Jefferson, Adams,
Marshall, Madison and Marbury went to the unknown for all of us alive today and
as humans live only about 80 years they then had only some of the results of
their experiement – defying Earthly authorities and true power born of the
internal God spark or as is our nature as humans as equal creators – and so
could not tell us what they did not know and what had not yet come to pass. We
had to live it out ourselves. Directly due to their actions I then had the idea
to invoke Marbury and so live it out as reality thus testing it once and
for all as the citizens are flopping around like fish on dry land gasping for
air when it comes to ethical and moral issues and when it is a matter of
justice. Justice is; no person should be afraid or indecisive when it is about
actual justice. The citizens? They no longer reason,
decide and then act decisively as the question of judicial review goes
unanswered and injustice abounds so they look for someone or something to
blame: I can’t do anything. Someone should get rid of the Supreme
Court. How can something be an actual law if it is not within our law?
How is it possible for one person to go up against an institution like the
Supreme Court and win or how can any one person become the President if it is
an emergency? How can you fight what you cannot even see? Why am I shut out? How can anyone solve this?
Because: The spirit of the law is born of your actual power as a person as
you can make any choice you wish to make but ownership of that power, or
knowledge of it, wholly rests upon making the
decisons that are most righteous and just as they are the most difficult of all
to live with as you live with the consequences after the fact of it. Some
consequences are good and some are bad; some are devastating. You do not always
want to make these decisions but you know you have to do so; anything less
would be giving up on yourself and God. It would be giving up on your nation or
other people which then is everything you ever thought you knew and truly
belived in and that is not a choice you can ever make as that will only serve
to deny you actual liberation. Securing proof of life, making those most
difficult of all decisions and taking the ethical and moral high road no matter
what, and acting in defense of others not able and not capable like other women
and children, will require death and that might be physical death but it could
be spiritual death. You can never know exactly. You can do it but will you?
If you owned other knowledge such as this is about your humanity and your
children being sentenced to death or sentenced to life and the winner of this
legal battle takes all – the wisdom of the ages – you would indeed. You would
act pro se and state PA’s unjust policy exactly for the record when the
Philadelphia County judge asks you if you want him to consider anything to then
prove it exists and prove judges are acting upon it he does exactly what
all lawyers, social workers and court officers said he would do. You would
throw yourself under an oncoming train as you know your children will be
destined to live what you lived and never escape as you could not as nothing
would change, or the third parties would follow through on their promise and
never stop hounding you for the rest of your life, or that women and children
who did not have all the ability and capability God gave you were being injured
and/or dying and nobody was doing anything for them. People who could and were
charged with the duty were not lifting a finger. You would if you knew as fact
without question: I can do this; I never failed at anything I set my mind
to doing, not once not ever. I can access the Supreme
Court all by myself and they can’t. Everyone keeps saying I’m different and its me; that attorney knew when he heard it: courage;
ability; fearless; principle; actual power. This will never end unless I act
and I know so I have to act…I cannot do anything less. You can’t negotiate
justice and be a just nation. You can’t reason and decide to harm the most
vulnerable and survive.
You would rise above all others as you own the knowledge of that highest of
all appellation. Any idiot can choose to become the
cause of injury and harm but only those of will and liberty, actual power that
cannot be removed from their person and that survives beyond the grave, are
able and capable of choosing possible death and then living with and owning the
effect of their actions in such a way energy is created. People who own actual
power and so exert will and liberty after they are dead? They are the fruit of
the tree known as liberty as they are humans who became actual souls and so
their humanity is unconditional; if the Declaration,
Constitution and Marbury equally protect and duly process you?
The gift is wisdom. You alone make the choice to go there; you alone
own the sacrifice. You become uncompromising thus justice is.
Marbury makes it so even the most disadvantaged of us can succeed and
achieve against the most extraordinary odds that exist. Marbury makes it
so if you did receive a cash settlement or forty acres and a mule?
Then you do have actual disadvantage where the woman who received less than
zero has all of the benefit: She has only herself and her knowledge, and no
outside thing she is beholden to or that owns a piece of her. Outside
validation does not exist for her as it will always be internal. She won actual
liberty the most difficult way possible – according to the Marbury rules - and forty acres and a mule would have served to slow
her down or impede her or even stop her. Marbvury V
I’m a born Commander thus I can command. May I? I never asked you that did I? As that is up to me and not a federal court ruling. I can
and I may so I did as the need arose. The only actual question to ask if two
men come before this court vying for the power of Executive Order is, “Would an
actual President and Commander even ask?” No, they would act as I did: I
resolved a tie of the Supreme Court known as Bush V Gore in my own favor
as I pressed suit and issued Executive Orders and signed them the “Acting,
legal President and Commander”. All citizens failed, even the former sitting
President and both candidates who then became federal litigants. It is not
coincidence that Gore brought this suit to court in FL or that Bush then
brought it into Supreme Court or rather their lawyers did when the oath of
office clearly reads “I will” and not “My lawyers will”. Al Gore had another
choice. So did every living American citizen 35 or over. If you have to ask the
Governor or Chief Justice Who is the
authority? You then are not it. Why or how did you ever come to
believe you could award moral authority? Or now, that you
could take it via a popular vote? You are awarding and taking nothing as
you cannot award and take what is not real for you; you
are causing injustice. WHO ever told you that you were not a court of
constitutional authority? If it actually is inalienable then it is; it exists
now and always has existed; you are born into it; why would you ever ask? I
asked no one as the Declaration is; the Revolution is; the Constitution
is; Marbury V Madison is; and even Bush V Gore is thus I am.
I am, thus
I’m the test of Marbury; reality dictates that we need a referree
just like the heavy weight matches not a last or final authority. No other
person can or will know all of my fact. Under just
conditions? I would never need a federal agency and I would defeat it
every time if dragged into court. I have successfully, legally avoided an
unjust tax since I was 5. I disobeyed. I threw it right back to the federal
agency and told them to fight the Catholic Church or rather my father did in my
name. When I could then I did. I acted alone. I moved the battle from
Susan to the
The citizens have been conditioned to fear the meaningless name or title and
the entity itself. They’ve finally given away their authority. They are afraid
of what is not reality. Now we do not even care if a living person is standing!
We are arguing ideas only – something Jefferson and Marshall avoided as proven
by
SCOTUS is never to engage in ideaological warfare. Philosophical debate,
what US government and law constitutes as it is a philosophy of politics thus
all actual federal questions are philosophical questions as you can never
remove human compassion or moral authority, is not ideaological
warfare. Of all institutions only SCOTUS has moral authority built into its
design as does the Commander. All of its power is moral authority as it has no
legal power other than each Justice having one vote as it is not named in our
law thus it is liberated from the Executive acting as the President and
Congress and answers directly to the people as its existence is totally
dependent upon the people’s moral authority or willingness to appear and then
willingness to live out its rulings, disobey its rulings or come back to argue
it over again at some point besed upon results and so ownership of new
knowledge. The lone citizen, mothers, soldiers, SCOTUS as a whole, the Chief
Justice alone and the Commander posess moral authority but for the Commander
and SCOTUS it is a part of the design as citizens, mothers and soliders, bring
it or not. A Commander and Chief Justice is it. The
Legislative and Executive? Ideally they are to bring moral
authority into the office with them but it is only as it acts; moral authority
is not built into the instituion as a part of the design. It is built into your
one vote and all power is derived from authority and consent which is
reciprocal but you are volunteers and so not forced to obey. Your vote is legal
power and moral authority but moral authority? Your actions are the only
measure of that and that is what then separates us.
The lone citizen, mothers, soldiers, SCOTUS as a whole, the Chief Justice
and the Commnader in Chief not the President all possess moral
authority as all have volunteered to die if neccessary. Death can be emotional
or physical; you are willing to do whatever you truly believe to be just and/or
safe. You might have to do a lot of things you never saw coming and you never
know the exacting consequences. You are willing to pull the trigger if
neccessary. SCOTUS and its Chief answer directly to us only not to any other office
or institution with the person who is President and Commander being the legal
and moral equaivlaent of the Chief Justice. A Chief Justice like the lone
CIVILIAN citizen can and may assume command of this nation and its military if
neccessary which is why a President and Commander may call out the
National Guard or the
It is not subject to political whims or to any institution such as Congress.
Watch me exercise my right of dissolution: Congress enacted USC 1331 which says
that I cannot take a case of original jurisdiction to SCOTUS first; instead I
must go to the Federal Appellate. Nice try Congress! YOU did not create
SCOTUS – the People did. It isn’t named in our law as it came to exist or at
all except for the exact words “Supreme Court”. But as it exists? Not named at
all! Thus what makes you actually believe you can violate Marbury and so
make yourself unequal to me? Did you read Federalist 48 about the legislative
being a greedy vortex? Why, USC 1331 is the legislative branch acting as if it
is the judiciary and so re-ajudicating or overturning Marbury. It is the
making of actual ex post facto law that harms me alone and women alone; it is a
gross violation of separation of power. If I do have a case of
original jurisdicition or a suit against SCOTUS employees? 1331 violtates so many clauses that it is ridiculous. We can
start with the equal protection clauses. And in my case as no othercourt
allowed me an appearance at all then the 1st amendment fell too. If
your argument is that 1331 applies not to SCOTUS but to the citizens then my
argument is not to this citizen! VOID! Congress cannot and may not steal legal
power unless I let it and as for moral authority? Nobody can legislate that.
You can make the attempt to tell me with a piece of paper that you can reason
and decide which cases SCOTUS can or cannot hear or what they will or will not
hear but SCOTUS? It does not answer to you but to I and then
WE and it answers directly via lawsuit and our vote for President. How
can you legislate what is not even within our law, or, tell a make believe
institution that we made up out of thin air, that we caused with our ideas
about law and justice and our will or faith, that does not LEGALLY or ACTUALLY
exist within our US law what to do via law? LOL! You cannot! You may not!
SCOTUS is what we use to check Congress and the Executive as the last
few Executives and WE, the people did not see eye to eye. We were reading
the two governing documents; the Executive was reading “The Metamorphosis” for
its ideas and the Congress was reading “The 7 Habits of Highly Ineffective
Bodies: Not So Powerful Lessons In Impersonal
Stagnation” for its ideas as it was not our law they were reading. Congress can
make all the law it pleases concerning SCOTUS but the
paper does not make it legal, actual or real. WE DO. And now Congress who
resolved to violate the term natural birth in order to favor members of
Congress only at the expense of all women and in violation of a fully vested protected
right for some of those women has a
brand new problem: As of 01/20/09? Congress is
no longer acting under the authority of US law or the United States but
under the authority of Kenya (Kenya is ranked 147th out of 180 countries for
corruption with least corrupt countries at the top of the list with Denmark
1st, US 18th and Somalia 180th; it is estimated the average urban Kenyan pays
16 bribes per month) or Indonesia (126th today was 144th;
it is 11 years since the downfall of Suharto who held Indonesia in the grip of
a military dictatorship for 33 years following a bloody coup and clampdown that
cost an estimated 700,000 lives; I do not know about you but I am what I was
raised in and around and what my parents acted out as they truly believed it;
so is Obama as he is a citizen of whatever nation or state is offering him the
benefits at the time or a member of whatever religion is most popular. He
changes colors like Congress…hmmm, it is as it acts).
Now do you understand my point of law Federal Court? The
If we live it out as real it is and it is law if we have proven it
works and is supported by the evidence rising to proof: Are you realizing
justice or injustice? SCOTUS may never be written law and should never be
written down at least for the next few decades or so and maybe never as then
Congress could control SCOTUS thereby perverting justice. The lone citizen,
mothers, soldiers, SCOTUS, the Chief Justice and the Commander have the highest
standard and cannot by law trade honor bound dollars upon the law as that is
selling people which is why a Justice cannot retire and make a fortune like a
President can and may: It is assumed a Justice has expert knowledge of the law
a President and Commander might have but usually does not have and moral
authority is the difference as a President does, as a part of his job, sign off
on law which is then our budget. Money does trade hands if you are the
President. A Justice never has money passing through his or her hands unless it
is their paycheck which by the way I sign as does every citizen as any paycheck
that says US or FEDERAL makes me Congress’ and the Executive’s boss not the
other way around but in SCOTUS case? It makes us equals. Not employer/employee
but equals as Marshal said, but our first our law and all of our actions when
we founded this nation say, The lone citizen is to hold themselves to the
highest appellation and the strictest standard and that is justice; the
founders made all citizens Presidents, Commanders and Justices and then willed
it into being via acting. The founders fully expected office holders
other than the Judiciary and the President to act as if they were immoral
recks, and even expected a few judges would fall and so made provisions for
this as perceived power tends to do that to a person and as the entire
historical record of Earth supported this as fact with one lone exception: The
Iroquois Confederacy. Franklin realized it was indissoulable and I came to know
why – checks and balances extend all the way down into the family like my
own parents did with my person as they empowered me to defy authority figures
and taught me titles and uniforms do not make a man – never assume a
title or uniform means that person lives that title or uniform out as actions
count and always reason your case, considering proof of life, as you can and
must say no but with actual reasoning and you must intervene when you witness
another being harmed - but they never counted on other persons having no
faith in US law or becoming so morally bankrupt I’d be the last one standing
and that my exertion of actual power would cause the unjust to target me and
would make me unsafe my entire life as my ability to tell the truth at all
costs and live it exposed these people for what they are: Animals and not men.
I never counted on SCOTUS succumbing to appearances and money; I never
counted upon SCOTUS clerks not knowing what and why or the actual reasoning. I
never, ever for one moment thought clerks would obey Congress and 1331 and/or not realize this constitutes the buying
and selling of justice. I never counted upon SCOTUS clerks not realizing why
Justices canot earn millions but members of Congress can and do or why Congress
may never legislate SCOTUS in any way or invoke any code that interferes with
SCOTUS’ operation: Congress is charged with funding legislation and funding
war. Sorry Congress: You cannot trade money upon the lives of mothers and
soldiers thus you have zero authority over SCOTUS except for approving
nominations and even that? You MAY interrogate a Justice. It’s semi-legal as
you’re supposed to inform the public not criminally prosecute or interrogate a
person but it is not mandatory. SCOTUS, AS IT EXISTS TODAY, OR, AS WE LIVED IT
OUT, IS NOWHERE WITHIN OUR LAW AND IS THE DIRECT RESULT OF MARBURY V MADISON
AND THE PEOPLE’S WILL. THE PEOPLE WILLED IT INTO BEING. NOT CONGRESS. THE
PEOPLE CONTROL SCOTUS AND CAUSE IT TO EXIST BY VOLUNTERING, EXACTLY LIKE THE
PEOPLE REALIZE THE
As I’m pressing suit to overturn Bush V Gore, uphold the law on
behalf of women and their children some of whom are enlisted service
members, uphold the term natural birth and invalidate an election as the
candidate the people elected is sitting indirect violation of our law even if
he was born here and even if he did not buy the office as he did not know what Bush
V Gore is or says and has no idea what SCOTUS is and as the evidence I do
have is that he is foreign born and may not be a citizen as he might have
traveled on a passport not American after age 18 (See my attachment US case law
and all of my attachments all entered to federal court) and as he never acted
to address the bad declaration, abused the War Powers Act and used money to lame
duck the sitting Commander thus denying service mebers equipment and troops and
in so doing caused some of them to die and as the US is in breach of the
contract due to the Solicitor’s General failure to respond? I, Susan, answer
only to SCOTUS specifically John Roberts and not to any other person or
institution and I answer only to Roberts as my equal once this case is set for
hearing in person or else he is not a legal appointment. I make him legal or
not. We know he’s willing or has moral authority as he volunteered and we know
a person within SCOTUS acted upon my never filed application thus SCOTUS do
have moral authority no matter how or why it came to pass but all other
citizens and institutions have fallen. I have proof Roberts has moral authority:
Carhart as his answer is mostly correct but his reasoning is faulty as
only men appeared and not one of them had the correct argument or any proof.
Bader-ginsburg has the mostly correct answer but even her reasoning is not true
and she was not able to reason this wholly, to a level of proof, for the other
Justices thus Carhart, while giving the moral authority of women away to
men and so is unconstitutional is also imbued with moral authority as the
Justices were willing to tackle this question. The mistake? If you do not own proof either way as to when
life begins or as to why a woman who is a mother as she is if she’s pregnant
can never be told if she can or cannot pull the trigger as you would never tell
a soldier this? Wait for a living woman to come along and hear it as an
emergency but Carhart in no way proves the court is not yet possessed of
moral authority. It’s suggestive evidence not proof; life disproves it.
Only moral authority vested in my person and SCOTUS remains. Due to the
Solicitor’s failure and Obama 08 only we stand because of Marbury V
Madison. While you might argue SCOTUS violated Marbury in my case 1,
We do not know if a Justice was involved and
2, We do know that SCOTUS could not know something unless it heard me
in person or another court did. Until or unless a court allowed me an
appearance in person SCOTUS could not know but not one sitting federal judge
would listen to reason as they are sexist, racist, political, unable and
afraid. The Jax bench and the employees of that federal court are acting
criminally and that is a charge I can prove beyond any doubt whatsoever and I
will never veer from it. Other federal benches I accessed on paper were not
acting criminally. My point of law went over their heads no matter what I
wrote, even when I told them why I could not author a brief two years
ago as I always knew I was going to have to present this case orally as it is
its nature: it is the case for proving acting and not the paper counts and so
is proof thus the case will never translate to paper wholly as I know something
men do not and as my dominant hand was crushed but no services were made
available to overcome this. They could not grasp something but were
too egotistical and too scared to allow me to appear and so find out or they
did not understand that it might be written on the paper, Artilce II does exist
in writing, but it is not actual and real if Congress refuses to abide by it
even when I sued all 100 Senators and several Representatives individually as
Congress had no motivation to obey the law as they have skewed all power in
their favor. Federal judges couldn’t see it or if they did know it were so
stunned by my complaint they refused to believe it. One Sioux City judge seemed
as if she were actually reasoning it but in the end had the incorrect answer
and still denied me any appearance in person. This court did obey the spirit of
our law. All others dismissed me without considering my evidence rising to
proof or my point of law saying as Article II existed so I could not address
the ballot or accused me of asking a political question when I stated my fact
that I have never belonged to any political party as I do not participate in
criminal activity. They adjudicated my asked for remedy and relief and not my
point of law! First you adjudicate the point of law and then
the asked for award. I know they were also upset as I claimed I can and will
act as President; they want a litigant who is placing another person in Obama’s
stead; if I claimed Obama is not legal but then propped up another person to
replace him especially a man they would have no problem but the idea that a
woman could reason and decide she can act as President and Commander is
repulsive to them; it is frivolous and delusional to belive you can and may if
you are a woman or a nonlawyer as the law does not apply to you and never will
if they have their way. State and federal judges, especially federal
judges, are openly hostile to pro se ltigants and they are able to shut us out
only as Congress is not babysitting them. I then
realized once SCOTUS seemed as if it violated Marbury that SCOTUS had
to violate Marbury. Not because it was giving away its moral authority
to Congress due to 1331 or by refusing me direct entry (which in the end it did
not refuse even if it never filed the paper thus Congress got nothing) but
because: Like Marbury until SCOTUS created the docket, their own docket,
I had no proof rising beyond any and all doubt to then overcome the
federal judges denial of reality and the clerks denial of reality to enter to a
federal court thus establishing the violation of separation of power is gross
thus no actual legal power for anyone and that chain of command had been
severed completely thus no moral authority or no ethic. No will. I could not
overcome this denial of reality until it was shattered by SCOTUS seeing they
denied it while they then went and did it as you canot know if you are it and
you’re in it and also a part of it. I needed the docket so they could step back
and see it to then own the knowledge via insight that if We, SCOTUS, did
it then she really has been denied any and all rights and any
and all protection of the law upon every level and within every office all the
way up to SCOTUS; she realy is going to be murdered and she really will never
see her kids again. SCOTUS itself, as this has never happend before
ever in world history and as the conditions are so very extraordinary, could
not know it as hardcore fact until it created its own docket exactly like
How do you reasonably deny the SCOTUS docket if you are a federal judge?
And I attach it to my complaint and you can then look it up for good
measure? There exists only one explanation: discrimination.
I owned all of this knowledge as absolute fact but I’m a natural born
genius. And my genius became greater by obeying
Judicial review first fell and fell hard as a President got away with a
crime known as perjury as if the piece of paper proved him guilty or not when
paper proves nothing. As if he never did it and it never happened or if he did
it then it was legal as he is above our law. And he said it was a mistake; no,
as a mistake happens only once. Geroge Bush Sr. was correct but people ignored
him as he said, he begged Americans to listen to him,
‘It is a pattern of deceit’ and then Clinton and all of his administration
began saying ONLY A PAPER CONVICTION PROVED GUILT THUS IF THE PAPER DID NOT
EXIST YOU WERE NOT GUILTY. Then Congress began saying it. Excuse me? That –
paper - is not judicial review. It’s not proof
of guilt or inocence. Paper is not justice. People are
as justice is the product of an idea , law, and
emotions, liberty and safety, which only people produce thus cause
justice and not dead paper. Paper never feels liberated and paper cannot
keep you safe; paper won’t answer you if you talk to it; it cannot tell you its
fact. Can a piece of paper tell you I was born at Mohawk Paper Mill?
Or I feel happy to see you? A person can write anything
on a piece of paper but it is not a person’s fact unless they act upon it.
Nobody but the lone citizen – I, Susan – and then SCOTUS are “above” or
“outside” the written law as we never gave up our moral authority and we did
not volunteer to die in defense of institutions instead of constituions plus
neither one of us is named in the law thus we possess constitutional authority.
So moral, so willing am I that SCOTUS effectively ruled by directly entering me
but not filing the paperwork and by denying me any and all protction and
process of our law twice over: This kid is the one exception to the law, a
sovereign nation unto herself, and does not need the
protection of our law. She can and may do whatever she wants even shoot to kill
as she even toppled us. Either this is an impossible standard that no other
person can ever meet, we are missing the point of law, we never saw the paper
as clerks kept it from us or Susan Herbert is the acting, legal
President and Commander. It’s the last thing, President and
Commander. ONLY denying me any protection of the law but then directly entering
me when SCOTUS never filed the paper proves I am operating on the purest
of standing and with the most moral authority as I am the proof not the
paper! I’m still acting as Marshall told me I must as William Marbury
failed to do that and as I know that due to Marbury the ruling now
existing I also needed to act before so I did – before any primary was held,
long before as I first acted in December of 2000 and first entered fedreal
court in April of 2007. Like SCOTUS I am unwritten law as you will not find
SUSAN HERBERT in our law exactly or even woman exactly but my words
and my actions constitute law. By making my case I created government and law
from scratch all by myself exactly like a founder. I willed life into being
where there is none and I willed death out of being
where there was some. I, a Native American, acted in the name of
THE MOST MORAL AUTHORITY AS I SECURED LEGAL POWER VIA ACTING UPON AN
IDEA,
I claimed or commandeered my vote to then be able cast a vote only I am not
The Fisher King named Perceval so I know: Casting a vote? Fish for men and
not actual fish as you cannot live on will alone. That is what a
subsistence attorney is: A fisher of men. The
If I see our judiciary is falling? If I know we are about to enter that
event horizon – death - then I act; and if
we pass it? I act and act like a person possessed as my sons were already dying
in defense of a piece of paper and later did die in defense of it: A family
court ruling issued by Linda Griffin out of NY. That ruling actually caused me
gross physical injury of which I have photographs and then caused my death
which I survived so I knew: I cannot stop acting; I must go back and forth
between courts until finally I can enter the Federal Appellate with proof: The
SCOTUS docket and a brand new NY family court ruling as that, in
conjunction with my person and my lawsuit, is evidence rising to proof
beyond doubt no person can deny as it covers the entire judiciary from our
‘lowest’ most fundamnetal court, family court, to our our ‘highest’ most
fundamental court, SCOTUS or national family court, and once SCOTUS falls as it
will if I am not heard? HOW CAN YOU BE WITH NO LEGAL POWER AND NO MORAL
AUTHORITY? YOU NEED A JUDICIARY TO BE A JUST NATION AND WHAT SEPARATES US FROM
THE REST OF THE WORLD? FEDERAL COURTS; SCOTUS, AN ACTUAL,
LEGAL AND REAL COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS. NO JUDICIARY AS PEOPLE ARE NOW
DYING IN DEFENSE OF DEAD PAPER ONLY W/O CAUSE OR REASON OR BECAUSE OUR
God does not abhor naked singularities: We are one.