1.              Thoughts on US V Nixon as applied to Obama and Roberts, the letters preceding paragraphs have no meaning as I pulled this out of something I am writing as I make 3 attempts to collect our award in 3 ‘courts’ that might enforce the default judgment:

 A). If BVG was and is wrong not in error then Roberts appointment was not legal and that appointment led to rulings that harmed me directly the most important being SCOTUS’ refusal to hear Nicholson V Scopetta , a NY case involving all my same issues, without any named reason as I was in NY and had my rights stripped by the NY courts when innocent thus if heard or if a reason was named then this could not have happened to me. And if such rulings harmed me and/or harmed women or even targeted them and then led to Obama being elected you must sue not only Obama but Roberts, SCOTUS and The People and the only place to do that is inside SCOTUS. See US V Nixon, as nobody has absolute immunity and to even claim it you must be claiming you’re appointment is legal and/or has a constitutional basis –Obama’s does not – or that national security is at stake and then offer supporting proof as SCOTUS is not guarding any national security secrets in this case; for Roberts to answer a question as to what occurred in a case conference and to limit the question to my case only is legal and constitutional as is questioning the filing and certifying process the clerks have seemed derail (as at least one of my federal questions was certified after I asked it but was denied an appearance in person and when a lawyer and a man asked it and did secure an appearance in person)  and further this court could follow SCOTUS’ own procedures and go off of the record BUT I do not need to know any of that but only may want to know as may other similarly injured citizens: Justice warren e. burger, writing for the Court, rejected Nixon's claim of "an absolute, unqualified Presidential privilege of Immunity from judicial process under all circumstances." Burger found that absent a claim of need to protect military, diplomatic, or sensitive national security secrets," the need for protecting the confidentiality of presidential communications must give way to a legitimate request by the courts for information vital to a criminal prosecution. Burger noted that the judge would review the subpoenaed tapes in private to determine what portions should be released to the prosecutors. This confidential review would prevent sensitive but irrelevant information from being disclosed. And further: “neither the doctrine of separation of powers, nor the need for confidentiality of high level communications, without more, can sustain an absolute, unqualified Presidential privilege of immunity from judicial process under all circumstances” US V Nixon decided 8-0 as it established the conditional nature of presidential immunity not to follow the plurality view in Barr v. Matteo of absolute administrative immunity. It reined in extravagant assertions of President Richard Nixon's lawyers, who claimed presidential power to be unlimited, especially as to foreign and defense matters, and defined solely by a president's own judgment; in refuting such claims and proclaiming that no one is above the law, Chief Justice Warren Burger's opinion nevertheless twice quoted Chief Justice John Marshall's words, in United States v. Burr to the effect that Presidential accountability to the legal order does not mean courts may proceed with the President as with any other citizen, which is WHY Susan came to SCOTUS first  – as she can reason this applies to a sitting Chief Justice legal or not as well so the only court that may proceed is SCOTUS unless it defaults. I can imagine US V John Roberts and/or US V SCOTUS, et al. as Bush V Gore caused so much damage and death as Iraq and Obama now are because of it plus Obama is also installing institutions and ideas known as socialism and Marxism and does not possess the human ability to accord women justice. US V Nixon wholly applies to Obama as Obama acted to serve  and US V Nixon was over an election, possible criminal activity regarding an election that the person who was not yet elected President over again knew about so he then entered the Office in violation of the law and/or its spirit as is my case and my award. You can and may force him to produce a paper birth certificate or, as I requested, force him to appear in person as upon SCOTUS defaulting? SCOTUS upheld power and authority is mine, or, this court or any court who will obey the law or to the People: Upon default or denial as a denial is not legally  or constitutionally possible in this case  we may now employ violence legally. Notice SCOTUS ruled UNANIMOUSLY in US V Nixon thus emphatically stated THIS IS THE LAW; US V NIXON IS  NOT A MATTER OF OPINION.

B). This became possible as clerks, or so I assume, withheld a letter I sent to Roberts containing vital information regarding this case and an action taken by Elena Kagan, the new SG, appointed by Obama and that injured every single citizen including violating the rights of all sitting Justices and even those of you on this bench. Kagan deliberately violated the law in a criminal manner when she knew as I told her and warned her not to do it and so I alerted Roberts as while he could know she was violating the law he could not know it was criminal unless I told him as what he can’t know is did she know what she was doing when she did it or not? Well, even if I did not inform Kagan she always knew and knows now NOTHING she ever does is legal ever. WHO needs a Justice to tell them a crime is a crime and a violation of a right is a violation??? What kind of lawyer does not know unless SCOTUS tells them??? These persons are guilty of malpractice if nothing else and I am sorely tempted to charge Roberts with that but I can’t. The clerks I can and may charge with malpractice. Usually we call this being unfit to serve. Obama too is a lawyer. I never claimed he was fit as by his own admission on his own website:

He claimed to be a subject to both the US and Britain as Kenya was under British colonial rule then. This then violates me as a person with American Indian heritage and as a person who was raised to know that both US law and the Iroquois Confederacy are the same thus there is no difference: I am a Native plus I was raised within the original Confederacy.  The US has never once allowed for any type of dual citizenship and American Indians were denied a declaration proclaiming they are entitled to protection of civil rights under US law, they aren’t persons, as the US does not recognize duality of citizenship so if a state injures you as an American Indian then you have no right to federal protection under USC 1983 as you are not a party to the two governing contracts or US code and also do not fall under state constitutional law. It's a private right case as this right was not a private right grounded in statue. See Inyo County. Inyo County involved the core issue of whether the Paiute Shoshone Indian Community was immune from execution of a state search warrant of tribal employment records issued in connection with the investigation of off-reservation welfare fraud by unnamed tribal employees. The Tribe sought declaratory and injunctive relief against the County and its officers on the ground that they had exceeded their jurisdiction because the warrant interfered with the Tribe's sovereign immunity and its right to self- government. The Tribe also sought compensatory damages under Section 1983 for violation of the Tribe's rights. The Supreme Court held that Tribes are not persons for purposes of bringing Section 1983 claims against a state for damages for infringement of sovereign interests. In this case we have federal and state violations. So now Obama not only does not pay his dues but gets to violate people who have been here for a thousand years and who still pay the price and who never once had a choice let alone protection and still do not??? Exactly like women? And me? If I had to choose and did then so does Obama and he did not; he exploited that duality and still is two faced because of it. I already proved hypocrite is a fact of Obama as is changing spots like a leopard within SCOTUS thus I may state it as my fact as it is reality even if SCOTUS did not uphold it: Obama did hold at least 3 kinds of citizenship, British, Indonesian and Kenyan, and claims to be exclusively loyal to two religions. According to US V Nixon I or any citizen victim may ask to see his passport records even if the US holds them. Three classes have standing to ask to see them: Mothers, veterans and all American Indians as we can and may argue if American Indians may vote thus harm me as I entered it via a Spanish Treaty re land patents  and when they aren't even persons according to SCOTUS  and as they do still live upon Reservations. I cannot and may not vote in Tribal elections and some of their election issues are harming me as they involve state and federal officials. See Wilma Mankiller and the Cherokee Constitutional Crisis. Ideally you want to award me my remedy and relief as my original solution and original award is much less messy than this and is constitutional plus effective.