Return to Main MenuSCOTUS Rehearing / Fun with the Federal CourtSubject: SCOTUS Rehearing / Fun with the Federal Court
From: bdobry
Thu, Jan 7, 2010 at 10:25 PM
The SCOTUS rehearing is next Friday. I'm not expecting any action from SCOTUS as all that means is some clerk typed in "rehearing" not that any Justice is ever gonna actually see it as no clerk ever should have tried to summarize an authority case as he IS NOT qualified to do so; only a Justice can ever handle an authority case - there is no summary done by a clerk as hearing in person isn't an option as it's a protected right - so either the Justices never saw it or we have the 9 dumbest SCOTUS Justices ever. I mean ever.
Sioux City wants me to pay the court fee. The magistrate says "insufficient fact". The magistrate is not Bennet, it's another person. "Insufficient fact": That's an exact lie as absolute proof trumps fact any day of the week and she has every fact she needs even if I had no proof. Also she says that I stated no arguable basis in fact or law so they CAN'T decide the case. Another exact lie as the arguable basis in fact and law is: It's a fact that we signed and then acted upon the Declaration thus We won the Revolution. It's universally accepted as common knolwedge, so common you may not deny it: We, The People, won. The guns did not shoot the British - we did. So when our first attempt to make law, the Articles of Confederation, did not work we had to make another attempt: This time we said The People is the "most perfect more of government" - we used those exact words - so now, it is the law: The People, not the paper or the words upon it, is the constitutionally set government. People are the government and become the law; via actual trial and actual error we live history and so collect the fact which we compile into a body of evidence thus know the the truth of the law.
The Founders, the body of evidence, knew as fact they got it wrong the first time as The People told them via action, Shay's Rebellion. The People did not send a paper petition to Washington; they shot eachother. Even The Founders couldn't live under the Articles so we're the proof as if they can't then we can't. As The People will shoot us, The Founders, next. OR SO I BELIEVE THE THINKING WENT. Shay's Rebellion is a fact of history; it happened. It casued The Founders to meet in Annapolis. Really and truly. They started over, from scratch and so written law was born. We had fact and we had law. THEN The Founders wrote it down after it was an idea in their heads. LIVING PEOPLE HAD AN IDEA. INSIDE THEIR HEADS. The paper did not write on itself. Institutions NEVER come before constitutions. Institutions are not the government or law. Institutions cannot and do not write themselves up or shoot the enemy as institutions are great but first you need constitutions to invent them in their heads. Ideally it's constitution, Declaration, constitution, Constitution. Then you might get something like a building or if you're a glutton for punishment a federal bench IF and ONLY IF the constitutions then act upon The Constitution. No institution does a thing for you; you need zero institutions as all you need is a constitution who owns the knowledge: People have a constitution and are a constitution as the paper is icing on the cake thus I'm my own boss. 200 years of avoiding the practice of constitutional law is ridiculous. You're never not gonna be your own boss no matter what they claim so go into managament already. Decide: "I am the most perfect form of government".
Fact: We then called the law itself, we wrote it down on the paper, The Constitution for The United States of America and began it with "We the People of the United States". Hey! What'd'ya know? Our FACT is our LAW. "There's insufficient fact to determine as to whether or not SUSAN has stated an arguable basis for relief in fact or law" ? I want some relief from a fact, SCOTUS as THE court of constitutional authority, and from another fact, Obama, not found within our law aka our Constitution but you do not know if Article I Section II exists, if the words "natural born" are there and/or if we ever named SCOTUS and/or a foreign nation as the constitutionally set government??? If I enter only copies of the two documents and ask IS THE FAIRY TALE WE CALL AMERICA REAL OR NOT? could you read them? Would you? Or would you write: Exactly! It's only a fairy tale. The two governing documents are a fairy tale that you're supposed to STOP believeing in when the federal court says "It's not real for you."
This judge IS mentally ill as she insists all of the above is not fact or law and that we CAN'T argue it. Yes I can as she has given me the best arguable basis of all; she gave me all of the fact I'll ever need: inside her courtroom I could argue and so prove beyond any doubt at all that Patricia Beeler is mentally ill thus she CAN'T argue law no matter who appointed her or what she is wearing or how big her gavel is. If you lack the human ability to reason then you CAN'T reason "the fact is the law". You'll never, ever own that knowledge ever. You can't reason it is and you can't reason it is not. Precedent is: Jefferson lobbied hard to get a federal judge removed and did as he was mentally ill and so drank. DRINKING was the symptom; mentall illness was the exactly stated cause. MENTALL ILLNESS makes you unfit to serve as you CAN'T serve. It's not your fault; you're sick; you have a disease. It's named in the DSM. Some people drink; others issue insane federal court rulings expecting us all to go along with them as if we too are insane. Jefferson did not care if he was a drunk; Jefferson said he couldn't tolerate the rulings the judge was issuing. If you're the Dylan Thomas of the Federal Bench so we only get quality work from you when you are drunk and your work is masterful? Jefferson would buy you a bottle, make sure you put away at least half of it and then and only then put a pen in your hand. Lincoln would too only his idea was: Find out what the Grant of the Federal Bench is drinking and give me some as maybe its something the booze and not in him. Mental health experts are a dime a dozen. Upon direct questioning in an open court 300 million People, all experts, will all testify that YES, WE WON THE REVOLUTION and Patricia Beeler is a human being, one of The People. There you go: Beeler is mentally ill. It's very easy to argue and prove if Beeler is mentally ill or not. Two questions will do it. 1. Did we win the Revolution, the war we fought AGAINST Britain from 1776 to 1783? Yes or no.
2. You said Yes. Well, this piece of paper called a ruling which you wrote and signed says The People lost to an institution known as the federal judiciary, one Patricia Beeler, when clearly they did not as acting upon that knowledge alone - We won the Revolution - Susan Herbert forced the sitting officers of the US, all citizens who are ignorant and/or crooks and then the Supreme Court itself to default as they all agree "we did win the Revolution; we can't argue we did not or then it's treason as we know we did". So, did you, Patricia Beeler, author and sign this document? as if you did then NOTHING reasons these words on this ppaer with your signature upon it except mental illness as only a stark raving lunatic would ever come to believe she could convince Susan Herbert that we lost the Revolution, or at least Susan alone did, as I, Beeler, say so. Her best effort is paper. With the creative power of a toad she wrote: "Insufficient fact" and "no arguable basis in the law" to then know or not know, to prove one way or the other, if we did or did not win the Revolution.
That's the question, did we win the Revolution and if so is the commission being withheld from The People illegally thus the withholding of the paper itself became the violated, fully vested right making adjudication of the commission neccessary as Mabury V Madison states only the delivery of the actual paper itself constitues remedy and relief?
And Beeler said "No, I'm not one of The People. So WE did not win the Revolution. I did." Why, she's not human as she's GOD. No Constitution for you, ever, and you don't get a say. Even after I said, If you answer this as if I am asking you for anything then you are mentally ill as I'm not asking for what is already mine and hanging on the wall of the Smithsonian. As for what's inalienable? ONLY a lunatic would insist that of all people on Earth Susan is the one person in whom God did not join will and liberty. Yes Susan vested it by entering SCOTUS but too bad! God never placed it inside Susan to begin with thus The People lose!
Can a federal judge know that? Isn't the only way you can prove that via appearance in person? If what Beeler needs to know god did join it in me is to see me perform a miracle, isn't that something she has to witness first hand? I can do miracle; but of all the popular ones there are, how do you copy healing the sick and send in it to the court or copy water into wine and attach it? See healing the sick? If I heal Beeler herself then it's proof! As she then CAN reason and so will produce an actual ruling devoid of mental illness. Even the Pope needs 1st person eyewitness testimony. At least 3 miracles have to be EXPERIENCED and it must be established to the level of proof the same person is guilty of all 3 miracles not that all 3 happened to the same person - like God would give one person 3 and George Washington none? - and then you're up for sainthood NOT federal judgeship. The Pope wants 3 impressive fact filled stories he can't reason away except for the miraculous and he prefers other 1st person witnesses as well as in "I saw it happen to her" or "we saw hr do it". Are you telling me that I meet the Vatican's strictest standards but not Federal courts loosest, mentally ill, so anything goes to SCOTUS if you can outwit the mentally ill judge thus get it past her? You can't copy a miracle. Or can you?
So: I need to think about this as I might be able to have some fun with it. I might pay the fee using my old tribute line or I might go to appeals directly via extraordinary writ. I might be wasting more of my time. You guys need to think as there is something we could do, especially if we give the Supreme Court notice exactly like the Founders notified Britain, via petition first on paper then in person:
What if your federal question for SCOTUS is: Did the American colonists, THE PEOPLE, win the war known as the American Revolution or did you SCOTUS win the Revolution? And if the colonists, who were all People with not a federal judge among them let alone a Justice, did win then is the constitutionally set government The People and NOT the federal judiciary or anything else like an invalid popular vote? Which is The People, the vote itself or the voters? That is, if the entire nation votes to install a foreign born citzen who is not qualified according to the Constitution and all US case law but even so much as one lone citizen owns the knowledge that votes aren't the goverment but The People are so if the people on the ballot aren't persons with any protected rights under US law then the vote isn't than can and may you FORCE The People, that one person, to suffer the injury w/o relief such as redress in person? Or does four more years constitute cruel and unusal punishment? Does bestowing the Nobel Peace Prize upon a vote, a dead institution, make it especially cruel as the Nobel Prize can't by its own rules be awarded posthumously and so must be awarded to a living human who actually did something to promote the peace not breach it, but not an animal, not a thing, or not an action of and by itself and when Watson and Crick got to steal her work so then screw over a woman only as she died thus she was not awarded the prize with them? So then, like Marbury himself did we win only to lose the award, liberty, as Susan can't seem to raise enough people to storm the Court building and take it back by force as the Founders instructed?
It's a miracle! We won the Revolution by acting in our own defense!