SusanConstant
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Aug 1, 2008
- Messages
- 131
I changed my letter to the local district 'judge' as I had to send new info to the Supreme Court. I will be sending the federal Court my prior posting for the date. The law is I must act even if all I can do is post a 'crazy' sounding letter as it should sound as if it is when you do not know all of the facts, lol. I wrote this mostly for fun and as I despise this ‘judge’ as she has no right to call herself that. The US Supreme Court knows all about my Jefferson/Hamilton claim. This 'judge'? Of course not. All she knew was all other facts including what US law says, basic math and I'm not Christian exclusively. She ruled due to the dates, proving my kids were kidnapped, it was an accidental kidnapping. She said, we cannot undo an what was an accident. Susan NEVER should have been their mother as I hate her. She ruled, in this unique case, 1998 does not come before 2001 and JUNE 98 does not come after MAY 98 so that it makes no difference that I am the mother and an actual citizen with rights. She ruled You have zero rights; no protection of the law or God. A third party unrelated man who was and is an absolute stranger was then allowed to petition and then get custody of me and my kids as he transported the kids across state lines from PA, where he originally petitioned and swore out lies as truth, into NY, where his wife then 'repetitioned' along with him. Well, I can do that too only go one better as I can do it in US Supreme Court. [BTW, I can and will say "It is" and not "It is alleged" as I was there and I have no filter - an attorney. An attorney cannot state "It is" or "This person is guilty" as he or she may not have been there and he or she does not know as fact. It is not alleged if you are the victim and you are now your own attorney and are in US supreme court as if it was not? you wouldn't be here, get it? People have heart attacks screaming 'You can't say that!" Yes, I can so I will as I already did.
Linda Griffin: These last few pages are for you alone although the Court will see it. A theoretical physicist aka a constitutional scholar proposes a theory and so predicts the behavior of an event in nature. Then he or she under the strictest scrutiny watches it play out to prove if their theory is law or not. If the prediction comes to pass it is. If the stated prediction then occurs, if nature behaves as the theorist predicted, then a theory is proven to be fact or absolute. Correct.
Susan predicted to the US Supreme Court within a suit that Linda Griffin and Co. were a pack of criminals or guilty. She then stated what these people would do: hold this hearing, refuse to address any change of circumstances, deny her access to the evidence that rises to proof (which Susan provided to the Supreme Court as a complete list with a brief description of each document as it sits in federal court already thus a list of the body of evidence denied her), deny her any and all witnesses including Roberts when he agreed to appear via the phone and deny all of her motions. Susan predicted she will try to make it sound legal, she might even allow Susan to argue against Finkle’s motion to dismiss making it seem as if the opportunity for justice existed when it DOES NOT and that she would not even realize she made the comment the US Supreme Court was careful not to make thus the injury is compounded as are the damages with every word that falls out of her mouth. Susan predicted that even if she warned Linda Griffin that Griffin would then believe she could somehow snowball or railroad Susan when all Susan had to do was show up in person even if she never said a word. Susan predicted that this would then all happen, that these people are crooks and dumb crooks, and that we could prove it all, measure the results, by checking it against the record and her petition PLUS the list of evidence; some proof would be readily available for measurement as in Did Susan have access to any of those records? Did griffin deny hearing a petition currently being heard? Or Did Roberts testify over the phone on Susan’s behalf? Does Linda Griffin know she said with exact words that this injury was “forever” thus it never ceases and so works a corruption of blood?
Susan predicted the behavior of a natural event, her person in a courtroom in NY, exactly this one courtroom under this exact set of conditions: Griffin, Sanford Finkle, Leslie Ortiz, the Austin’s and Herberts. As Susan is the constant it was the behavior of the OTHER PEOPLE Susan then predicted. Susan said, “I now have a case of a Bill of Attainder being illegally passed against me and in my name only.” You do not predict the constant. You predict the variables; what you could not know otherwise – unless your theory was true, correct and fact. You predict whether or not Griffin and all of these people are guilty or not and with an equation based upon your theory which then should work each time. Susan predicted guilt, as they did not withdraw this action. Just as Einstein watched that eclipse, Susan then watched these people all behave in the exact manner she claimed they would. Injury will never cease unless the Supreme Court grants her oral argument as either these guys are mentally ill, insane or egomaniacs aka guilty. We all know they were proven to be sane and so have no mental defects as we all went to the same forensic psychiatrist and we were all certified so except one person – Charles Herbert. Certify him mentally ill and Griffin places him back in Susan’s life. Dr. Cooke the person who explored our persons? As in the guy who ‘discovered’ Hawaii one of only 3 states I have never been to like Alaska and California? He’s a constant. Susan even predicted that they would try to label her an egomaniac exactly as Cate Austin did by lying, then changing her testimony, changing her lie, two minutes later. Cate settled upon, The “whole world would know”. Maybe; as it is possible although that is not close to what I told her. Does Cate actually have ESP or the gift of prophecy? Susan liked this lie so she left it, as it became exact proof no person can deny. How many times does Susan have to mention Carl Jung? The constant, Susan, and the constant, Dr.Cooke, and the constant, US law plus all prior federal court rulings, gave Griffin every single fact she needed to then be able to prove herself innocent, it happened but I’m innocent, and Griffin instead behaved exactly as Susan predicted as did all others. Susan told the US Supreme Court:
While it seems as if Griffin is now acting to obey the law and to accord me justice one cannot overlook the FBI’s recent actions against her for trading the law upon honor bound dollars thus there is a massive conflict of interest which she has not yet acknowledged just as she once refused to acknowledge Ortiz’ conflict. A pattern known as observable phenomena, past and/or current behavior. One cannot ignore the FBI released its findings on the very day I was to first appear. One cannot ignore Griffin entered this petition and then scheduled it for hearing fully knowing a federal petition to be reheard was then interfered with and that even the US Marshal’s were later used to tamper with witnesses and so tamper with evidence rising beyond any doubt – Susan herself. One cannot ignore the fact that Susan served Griffin with notice or that Griffin knew the clock had been reset by the Supreme Court as this case is yet named In Re Susan when that was not Susan’s choice as De Novo or another caption was yet she still - still – heard this frivolous petition.
Linda Griffin: These last few pages are for you alone although the Court will see it. A theoretical physicist aka a constitutional scholar proposes a theory and so predicts the behavior of an event in nature. Then he or she under the strictest scrutiny watches it play out to prove if their theory is law or not. If the prediction comes to pass it is. If the stated prediction then occurs, if nature behaves as the theorist predicted, then a theory is proven to be fact or absolute. Correct.
Susan predicted to the US Supreme Court within a suit that Linda Griffin and Co. were a pack of criminals or guilty. She then stated what these people would do: hold this hearing, refuse to address any change of circumstances, deny her access to the evidence that rises to proof (which Susan provided to the Supreme Court as a complete list with a brief description of each document as it sits in federal court already thus a list of the body of evidence denied her), deny her any and all witnesses including Roberts when he agreed to appear via the phone and deny all of her motions. Susan predicted she will try to make it sound legal, she might even allow Susan to argue against Finkle’s motion to dismiss making it seem as if the opportunity for justice existed when it DOES NOT and that she would not even realize she made the comment the US Supreme Court was careful not to make thus the injury is compounded as are the damages with every word that falls out of her mouth. Susan predicted that even if she warned Linda Griffin that Griffin would then believe she could somehow snowball or railroad Susan when all Susan had to do was show up in person even if she never said a word. Susan predicted that this would then all happen, that these people are crooks and dumb crooks, and that we could prove it all, measure the results, by checking it against the record and her petition PLUS the list of evidence; some proof would be readily available for measurement as in Did Susan have access to any of those records? Did griffin deny hearing a petition currently being heard? Or Did Roberts testify over the phone on Susan’s behalf? Does Linda Griffin know she said with exact words that this injury was “forever” thus it never ceases and so works a corruption of blood?
Susan predicted the behavior of a natural event, her person in a courtroom in NY, exactly this one courtroom under this exact set of conditions: Griffin, Sanford Finkle, Leslie Ortiz, the Austin’s and Herberts. As Susan is the constant it was the behavior of the OTHER PEOPLE Susan then predicted. Susan said, “I now have a case of a Bill of Attainder being illegally passed against me and in my name only.” You do not predict the constant. You predict the variables; what you could not know otherwise – unless your theory was true, correct and fact. You predict whether or not Griffin and all of these people are guilty or not and with an equation based upon your theory which then should work each time. Susan predicted guilt, as they did not withdraw this action. Just as Einstein watched that eclipse, Susan then watched these people all behave in the exact manner she claimed they would. Injury will never cease unless the Supreme Court grants her oral argument as either these guys are mentally ill, insane or egomaniacs aka guilty. We all know they were proven to be sane and so have no mental defects as we all went to the same forensic psychiatrist and we were all certified so except one person – Charles Herbert. Certify him mentally ill and Griffin places him back in Susan’s life. Dr. Cooke the person who explored our persons? As in the guy who ‘discovered’ Hawaii one of only 3 states I have never been to like Alaska and California? He’s a constant. Susan even predicted that they would try to label her an egomaniac exactly as Cate Austin did by lying, then changing her testimony, changing her lie, two minutes later. Cate settled upon, The “whole world would know”. Maybe; as it is possible although that is not close to what I told her. Does Cate actually have ESP or the gift of prophecy? Susan liked this lie so she left it, as it became exact proof no person can deny. How many times does Susan have to mention Carl Jung? The constant, Susan, and the constant, Dr.Cooke, and the constant, US law plus all prior federal court rulings, gave Griffin every single fact she needed to then be able to prove herself innocent, it happened but I’m innocent, and Griffin instead behaved exactly as Susan predicted as did all others. Susan told the US Supreme Court:
While it seems as if Griffin is now acting to obey the law and to accord me justice one cannot overlook the FBI’s recent actions against her for trading the law upon honor bound dollars thus there is a massive conflict of interest which she has not yet acknowledged just as she once refused to acknowledge Ortiz’ conflict. A pattern known as observable phenomena, past and/or current behavior. One cannot ignore the FBI released its findings on the very day I was to first appear. One cannot ignore Griffin entered this petition and then scheduled it for hearing fully knowing a federal petition to be reheard was then interfered with and that even the US Marshal’s were later used to tamper with witnesses and so tamper with evidence rising beyond any doubt – Susan herself. One cannot ignore the fact that Susan served Griffin with notice or that Griffin knew the clock had been reset by the Supreme Court as this case is yet named In Re Susan when that was not Susan’s choice as De Novo or another caption was yet she still - still – heard this frivolous petition.