SCOTUS SUIT: SUSAN V OBAMA, ROBERTS, HULL & THE US

SCOTUS SUIT: SUSAN V OBAMA, ROBERTS, HULL & THE US

Letter introducing the Petition as this is based upon an acted upon application directly entered on 11/20/08 thus I became the first and only person to to do since 1803:

 

Roberts, Higgins and Suter plus “Various Clerks”:

 This is a copy of the petition I recently entered as my PC crashed the other day thus all you have is a two line note, lol. I took the application for a stay you acted upon last November, excised the ending and inserted a few other reasons as now I can name them exactly but left it much as it was thus you’ll see the word “Exhibit” and “stay” every now and then instead of “Appendix” and “cert”. I believe number 36ish to 50 are original. Most of my case or most of the petition is really within the federal appeals motion and brief.  

 The reason I left it is so the citizens could read what you read thus understand the 11/20/08 action. I wanted the citizens to see for themselves why and how you can and may circumvent the US if default is. I know parts of it sound funny today as events have transpired since then so that it seems as if some fact and some reasoning no longer apply but that is not true: Take the “Don’t Ask Don’t Tell” Policy.

 First Obama says he will leave it and then he says he will think about revoking it. Later he says he will consult with the military as he will not make any decisions on his own. Yeah, as you have no authority and power but he says no, as he wants to do what the military wants him to do. Screw women and screw the law. Forget that no actual Commander ever resorts to committee to then command as that -committee – by its very nature is not actual command of any kind as you can never control other people, can you? All you control is yourself If you need to go to a committee? You doubt yourself you doubt your own ability and capacity.

 It is a he to claim the law and the application of the law is gray, that you cannot know what is right or wrong. Reality might be that you personally do not know but it is not that you cannot know; you can you just do not for whatever reason. Thus that he is born: It’s policy; it’s a gray area. There is no such thing as constitutional policy when reasoning and applying the law; either it is legal or it is not. Men insist it is policy and that policy is legal as they can’t reason the law; the human ability is not theirs. Also they want to be able to violate the law if it is convenient for them to do so. Obama never once cited any constitutional reasoning. If he cites it now he lifted it from me and my work, lol. Here’s what Obama actually did:

 If you install yourself in direct violation of the law you have no moral authority thus you’re screwed if the military refuses to obey your orders so all Obama did was look around and reason and decide what he could use to then pander to the military. Obama has done this in the past. All he is doing is acting upon what might garner him popularity but all he accomplishes is something just as unconstitutional as the POLICY still exists … he’s left it so that any person can recycle it over again upon their whim and will – w/o any named constitution what they thought you wanted to hear. My clue came early on when Obama’s campaign money manager said on Obama’s very first day in the Illinois State House (or maybe it was the floor of the Senate) Obama knew to walk up to him and say, “They tell me you’re the person I need to see if I want to become the President” i.e. BUY THE OFFICE. As in he plotted whom he had to get in tight with, which person had the money and political influence he needed to peddle. Who’s so greedy they actively seek this office??? Who wants it so badly they plot it??? Foreigners and crooks, that’s who as that is pure EGO; it is wholly unconstitutional. Thus I did some digging and turned up a paper written in 2006 by an associate of Obama’s that was a treatise on WHY we should let foreigners hold the office; why we should give our rights and so our lives away to the crooks thus globalize the Presidency via foreignization. Proof he conspired to do what he did and that he acted upon it as early as 2006 He attempted to use propaganda to condition the people at least that far back. No natural born American does this.

 Fully knowing Obama would fight “foreigner” with doublespeak I then attacked all of this differently as it’s foreign if our Founders did not write it nor intend it nor did they live it. You can be born here but be foreign. Who then cares what the paper birth certificate or certificate of live birth then says? We all know your father does not appear to be AFRICAN as that is not a race but a nationality, duh. He had to answer AFRICAN but did Hawaii ask WHERE? Nope, they asked what. So, did Hawaii originally write that or did somebody doctor it at a later date? I say somebody called a spin doctor and most likely called in a personal favor but was not so careful. And if Obama is claiming HAWAII is the authority upon who he is then WHY IS HE A SENATOR OUT OF ILLINOIS If this is not a snow job then what is it???

 

It’s like claiming JEWISH is a race not a religion. Sammy Davis Jr. would be stunned to know he’s not black but Jewish according to that logic We all know you can be lily white with blue eyes but be AFRICAN. Ask Charlize Theron. Race means what you appear to be on the outside; it’s a genetic marker. It has nothing to do with your insides. Nationality might tell us a lot about your insides. Then again you could be John Lennon and write to the Queen wholly disowning any titles of nobility upon your American naturalization. Is John Lennon then British any longer? He sounds very British but if he writes down WHITE, what is he? The proof is his action, as he acted wholly American and even after the FBI unjustly harassed him to boot, lol. Lots of Brits become naturalized Americans for tax purposes only but not many disown the crown and all things that reek of class distinctions … not many write to the Queen saying take it all back. Do I write down that I’m CATHOLIC? My race is CATHOLIC??? Nobody ever writes down that I’m AMERICAN, do they? But am I? They write WHITE. To Susan Herbert, what does WHITE even mean? as if you ask me I am so pale I am decidedly bluish not white and so white is meaningless to me. MD was correct: I should have checked BLUE. I needed to be BLUE. I have no idea what WHITE even feels like. One of my closest friends reasoned NATIVE AMERICAN based upon my mother’s appearance and my own person or who I am; she was shocked to discover EUROPEAN. Race is asking what not who. The legal assumption is HUMAN, some color of human as color denotes genetic marker and depending upon that marker we can sort of know where and when but never who and today that is not always the case, is it? Someday there will be one box to check: Cafe Au Lait. Or no box to check as it will no longer matter as we’ll all be from here, as Native Americans or Naturalized Americans.

 Or they will ask for your head size and shape as that is what anthropologists use and it’s very telling. You can know almost exactly where and when via head size and shape. I will write: MOTHER, SUSAN HERBERT, BASKETBALL; NICELY ROUNDED BUT YET TOO BIG FOR MOST OFF THE RACK HATS. My kids have my head and apparently most of us remained in Germany as the elongated headed Germans immigrated here while the round-headed Germans remained behind. So noticeable was this that German immigration officials noted it. That makes me an aberration, lol. A statistical nightmare, 101.

 Obama’s certificate of live birth? Puhleez. That piece of paper is so foreign in so many ways it makes actual foreign birth certificates look good in comparison. Or so I believe.

 I included a few new reasons tacked onto the end of what was the application for a stay and then attached a ton of stuff but two things are of particular interest to you: The 1968 Credit River Minnesota jury nullification of the Federal Reserve and the very first SCOTUS bar admissions in 1790, before . A third thing that you may be particularly interested in? Look at the list of dates of publication of the missing 13th then look at the state names. WYOMING should jump out at you. There’s a pre- 1871 date and a post- 1871 date. This is so very important as in Wyoming women had the vote thus after the 1871 incorporation of DC which excluded all women thus it is FOREIGN as you can’t be a living government w/o women as then there are no baby constitutions thus no Republic and we never said women exactly could not vote and did say EQUAL and DUE that state still recognized the missing 13th as having been ratified thus WOMEN agreed with its ratification; women must have accepted it as having been ratified. Men had something to lose not women by its later exclusion in violation of the due process clauses. Especially white men.

 In New England? Upon consent of the electorate a woman, Lydia Taft, voted three times in or around 1756 in Massachusetts thus proving our original Founders intentions and motivations as to if women could vote and/or would become voters. The colonial electorate of MA. set precedent as in Old England women did not vote until 1918.

 In Wyoming? Women voted in 1969.

 

Susan.

 P.S. Think of my flyer; the first copy hit you with everything then I winnowed it down as people responded. Now the third version focuses on SCOTUS, taxes, the Federal Reserve and constitutional authority. It’s like leading horses to water only with people you have to figure out what they do not know and then you have to motivate them to then want to drink.