Return to Main Menu
from bdobry

date Wed, Dec 30, 2009 at 7:05 PM
subject Examples of a Criminal Congress

I'm about to write up the judgment against the entire sitting Congress; part of it like both houses of Congress colluding in the case of Resolution 511 and then conspiring to turn the House Judiciary Committee into a kangaroo court of constitutional authority to then circumvent the Judiciary branch itself and so circumvent The People - it prevents us from stopping them via public debate and lawsuit - is already entered. Will you guys give me a few instances of a member of Congress acting criminally or an act of Congress being criminal?



For instance a person told me that a member of Congress said that if Congress did only what it is allowed to do according to the Constitution then Congress would have nothing to do. I can and will cite this but: I forget WHO said this, lol. I need a name. I'm looking for stuff like this and the corporate bailouts and like Pelosi saying nobody would execute their sworn duties as "there will be no impeachments". We already won so all I'm doing is informing the judge it is a crime whether we know it happened or not and in this case? We know it happened and is still happeneing. We can and do see and hear Obama and our wallets are lighter plus we're not very content these days so we know. Congress believes if we don't know it happened it is not a crime and Congress believes we're stupid. Congress doesn't get it: The Obama/Biden animal and all of their persons are the living, absolute proof of their true motivations and intentions and those intentions are unjust while their motivations are criminal. They even wrote and signed confessions - the federal budget. We can see and feel what is supposed to be invisible and unknown. So give me some examples of things you personally want and need on the federal record.



Sometimes personal belief is constitutional.



Put CONGRESS in the subject header please.



Thanks, Susan.



P.S. Several people have sent me items about others seeking to hold the Office of President. Many of them are military. Lawyers, uniformed military present or retired and men cannot by law hold the Office at this point. You have to be a woman or else you cannot possibly accord women and their children justice. As of BVG it became HUMANLY IMPOSSIBLE for a man to accord women justice, as you have to own the knowledge of woman, pregnancy and birth as absolute fact. Unless one of these wonderkinds can reason his past behavior in regards to women and children as constitutional and they can’t (or her past behavior if she's a lawyer or ex military) and unless one of these men can and will become pregnant they do not qualify. They can have all the fancy, impressive credentials in the world; vagina, uterus and ovary are the only credentials that count in this case. BVG is the conclusion of the experiment so if a man could have and would have then women would have at least some legal power but they have none over 80 years after ‘winning’ the vote directly due to two offices being held exclusively by men only: Chief Justice and President. It matters not how moral or ethical you are; biology - actual reality and the legal burden of proof standard - dictates no man can hold the Office constitutionally at this point; another man would not be constitutionally set! Another man never, ever relieves the injury known as BVG let alone remedies it but only makes it worse. Your first and only clue that none of these men are qualified or fit should be: If that man was qualified and was fit? He would know what I just told you so he'd be supporting a woman not seeking the office himself. He'd have read the SCOTUS docket, alarm bells would have gone off and then he would have entered an argument against BVG way back in 2000 and/or phoned me more recently. SERIOUSLY. Besides woman being a point of law? SO IS SCOTUS ITSELF AS IT IS ALLOWING BAD CASES ENTRY - CASES THAT ARE NOT ACTUAL CASES WITH FEDERAL QUESTIONS OR PRESSING SOCIAL ISSUES AND/OR THAT LACK ANY POINT OF LAW AT ALL - AND IS ENTERING AND HEARING CASES W/O ANY EVIDENCE OR PROOF IN SUPPORT OF THE ARGUMENT AND IS NOW DECIDING CASES WRONGLY, NOT IN ERROR BUT WRONGLY. If a person claiming they are qualified and fit to hold this office can't or won't take on SCOTUS? Or if they do not even mention it? RUN. One of your most egregious injuries has been electing and/or installing Presidents who can't check SCOTUS as they don't have the ability or as it benefits you not them and not their friends. At this point I have zero competition for the Office but hopefully people will then come forward when we’re finally heard in person, as then I’ll have taught those men how to do it. ; )

Return to Main Menu