The current culture of America

[SusanConstant]

as it is anythign but just. This is the actual motion the US Suprem corut will be recieving and that the family court has alreayd recived so that I might thne invalidate the results of last night's election as a Pressidential election is not valid or legal if federal precident known as Marbury has been violated and that violation has not yet been ajudicated and as both canddiates had a conflict of interest they can not overcome one of which is the admission, with exact words, that they could not as they lack the human ability to do, fufill the oath of office and so will not if then installed. The Supreme court recived this in a different form as I had to enter it befreo the 4th thus I will be entering this version asap. In then end I did not send either previously posted letter to this family court judge but sent another as both were too long and could be understood onyl by she and not any other person as we know what happened as were there, in the room when she, this judge, did it to me. By posting those letters I was then proving my intent if I was not able to fax this or mail this to the court on or before the election. By naming all I did I insured I hit upon every single point. Every fact. Here is what I actually sentto the court thus the current culture of our nation is injustice and now, the election is proof beyond any and all doubt as I was the only citizen acting, or even willing to act, to enforce our law wholly rather than only the parts that I personally like or that benefit me alone:

This is a corrected copy of communication sent on November 4th, 2008. It is in regards to and concerns In Re Susan Herbert which is a current federal case and was so before and on October 24th, 2008 the date upon which Linda Griffin unconstitutionally heard Austin V Herbert thus it does not constitute ex parte or violate any rule, precedent or law.

1. The word “plaintiff” was used at least twice whereby “petitioner” is the correct term. Susan Herbert is the petitioner/plaintiff in In Re Susan but the defendant in Austin V Herbert.

2. Handwritten note at the end of attached letter reads “I can be as clever as I need to be as that is self defense plus: I always obeyed the law and I out rank you.”

3. Petitioner wishes to add that Cate Austin perjured herself, then changed her perjured statement while in court upon petitioner Susan Herbert questioning her and that petitioner left statement as is. As Austin stated Herbert said “the whole world would know” but left out the preceding qualifiers as petitioner actually said ‘The Supreme Court will release its decision on Monday’ and ‘You will find out on Monday when the rest of the world does’ and ‘you can wait one day [until Monday]’. Austin did not wait thus not giving Herbert any opportunity to act other than as she did. Maybe Herbert would have broken the law; we will now never know. This was meant to imply Herbert is an egomaniac although Herbert’s statement is a statement of fact and as she actually is within US Supreme Court and has done twice over what was believed to be impossible while all Austin has done is kidnap two children and assault and batter said children and their mother for several years w/o fear of the consequence which is actual egomania and a crime and with Griffin knowing this since 2001. Griffin too then exhibits egomania. Neither is actual mentally ill only guilty. As Herbert did then make history of Earth shattering proportions, as it will eventually affect all of humanity even if it is after her death, is Austin then guilty or does she possess the gift of prophecy as she claims ignorance of Herbert’s current federal case but yet she exactly predicted it? Or is it that Herbert is constantly ethical and law abiding and that the law was always and so is on her side from before October 26th, 1998 so that any action not strictly adhering to law both the words and spirit or directly violating it is then an action which empowers Herbert?

4. Petitioner wishes to add that all Griffin had to do was invalidate her previous or first ruling as unconstitutional; as Roberts made himself available to give testimony all she then had to do was phone him and ask him what exact reason to write upon the piece of paper so that the Austin’s then had no reasoning or means to appeal such a decision. Griffin refused to do so as she personally seeks to injure Susan Herbert in such a way it is lethal. Or so petitioner believes all of the above is actual reality thus it is true, correct and factual; it was and it is.

 

[SusanConstant]

5. Petitioner wishes to add that she did have a back injury when she filed her petition to appear via phone. For the first time in her life she could not lift her leg to walk w/o excruciating pain while she could pedal a bicycle. So severe was this injury that she could not even travel to then have it x-rayed. Petitioner was anxious to have the action captioned Austin V Herbert heard asap. Today she knows: This was the universe or God’s or providence’s way of defending her as it is not coincidence this injury was real and never happened before or since, that then this action fell within a time period concurrent or simultaneous to petitioner’s federal case being heard and when the court clerk phoned her he did not state the hearing regarding date of trial was in progress as he would not know he should have done so due to circumstances beyond his control and his lack of knowledge of Griffin’s prior actions in the case known as Austin V Herbert which then propelled petitioner into US Supreme Court, thus this is yet another example of universal justice and is more evidence rising to proof of God existing and of God always and forever being on the side of the ethical no matter how long it takes to be adjudicated in a just manner and/or publicly. Petitioner wishes to note we “pray” to the courts and enter “prayers and petitions” to God for actual reasoning and that no clerk other than Jim Caruso, Griffin’s own clerk when Austin V Herbert was first heard, would know Griffin’s intentions towards Susan Herbert as fact as he told her what they might be and they then were realized. If any court clerk is upset or angry, personally offended by petitioner Susan Herbert’s accusation that this court is a court which is endemically corrupted and now even guilty of criminal acts, then that clerk should then work in another field as In Re Susan proves this kind of corruption against women and against the ethical is endemic upon a national level as it rose even into the office of the Executive in the person of Bill Clinton, then with Bush V Gore as one of the effects was the appointment of a Chief Justice so that the Executive then unchecked himself thus justice is no longer existent or is a matter of arbitrary personal policy and/or money then entered and settled within the US Supreme Court. It, discrimination against women and so injustice, as it is based upon what is not reality and no actual constitutional reasoning or just cause is there today and In Re Susan seeks to extinguish this endemic corruption thus driving it out of our institutions. If this were not the case? In Re Susan never would have been heard the first time. Therefore offering any litigant this particular personal opinion – “Judge Griffin wants to treat you justly and does not mean to do anything wrong” is then lying and is then a violation of Article 4 Section 4 of the United States Constitution; it is a crime if a clerk continues to do this as he or she now knows the facts as emotionally painful and as unbelievable as they seem. Petitioner has made this claim many, many times in federal court: “Discrimination is real thus appearances are deceiving as actions define you and so life, not death, is proof.” That exact statement of fact is a part of Petitioner’s actual federal caption and appears upon the first page of her federal lawsuit 08-6622. A clerk should reason who acted to do what to whom not what appears to be truth as it is not and where and why are petitioner’s children with third parties one of whom was not related to her, not even legally, at the time of filing and filed in PA when he was and remains an absolute stranger to her in order to then avoid adjudication in NY, specifically Albany County, and why or how this case came to then be denied hearing in NY, Albany County, in July 1999, as the Austin’s wished as jurisdiction was thrown to PA but it then came to be heard in NY, Rennselaer County, in 2001, when the Austin’s were attempting to run from PA as they were in violation of a PA court order and as petitioner’s children never left NY and so PA never, ever should have had jurisdiction as this was a kidnapping committed by abusive and violent family members but only did as the Austin’s perjured themselves in Albany County and as Linda Griffin sought to then aid and abet this kidnapping for personal reasons. These actions prove me to be truthful and correct not Griffin, as these actions prove her guilt as she did more of the same on October 24th, 2008. Children are not accidentally kidnapped and moved across state lines as they were in PA once for a short time in November of 1998 but then taken into NY w/o the order of a court in December of 1998 and/or May of 1999 according to the Austin’s own testimony in this court to Linda Griffin’s face and no judge accidentally violates the Declaration and Constitution and NY code over and over. According to the Austin’s own testimony in 2001, 2002, and 2003, a matter of the record of this court and NY state, they then lied to Albany County in 1999 and Philadelphia County in 1998 in order to then commit this kidnapping. Like Griffin can read, she can hear and she can count. She has the human ability but she lacks the will or the ethic to do so. Thus, stating Griffin means to uphold and enforce the law on my and my children’s behalf is a lie, which rises to a crime.

6. Petitioner wishes to add that no court clerk should be expressing his or her belief that Griffin is not committing acts of crime against her person and does not possess ill intentions towards her or her children as the proof is two federal cases making Herbert a first in history and according her standing no other litigant has ever been granted in which the US Supreme Court has disagreed with such an opinion. By according her what no other litigant has ever been accorded US Supreme Court is upholding petitioner’s claims as fact and true as this court deals only in fact and truth. It is according Susan Herbert a level of respect not accorded other persons even if it is then making her quest for justice more difficult not less so. This may be as the US supreme Court of all constitutions and institutions realizes Susan Herbert is a person able to overcome any manmade obstacle and such incredibly, astronomically high odds against her as to be numbers so large they are incomprehensible. That is, of all litigants ever Susan Herbert is unbelievable thus is actually extraordinary. Susan Herbert the person as she is her case constitutes an act of God.



Susan Herbert
In Re Susan Herbert, #08-6622
United States Supreme Court

 

[SusanConstant]

Then the motion:

This is regards to In Re Susan Herbert NOT Austin V Herbert so it is not to be confused as such and returned to me as if it constitutes ex parte and as if it violates law or rule. It does not, as it is a separate action and as it can never be wholly removed from any other current action directly due to Linda Griffin’s own actions. She created the massive conflict of interest with full knowing, with deliberation and upon her own will as she never had authority to hear Austin V Herbert as proven by In Re Susan. If this were not the case? In Re Susan would not have ever been docketed and then redocketed by US Supreme Court.

This is to inform Linda Griffin that you have been exactly named within In Re Susan Herbert, Supreme Court Case #08-6622 and that possible criminal charges may be pending as a result due to recent actions against the plaintiff, Susan Herbert, which violate the NY code and the law of the US and occurred upon October 24th, 2008 and took place inside the Rennselear County Courthouse in the form of an unconstitutional trial at which Linda Griffin presided:

I, Susan Herbert, petitioner and counsel, In Re Susan Herbert, request the US Supreme Court to consider the following as it occurred simultaneously to the federal court hearing this case as ‘renaming’ the case in order to enter other courts was an exact charge made within In Re Susan and is how and why petitioner Susan Herbert came to be within local district family court in NY as a party to an action named Austin V Herbert, that is, the same case known as In Re Susan Herbert docket #07-9804 and 08-6622, thus the petitioner then became the defendant and this was not only entered but heard. The plaintiffs in that action, the Austins, were granted standing and motions the US Supreme Court has denied them as did the solicitor general thus I argue the Supreme Court must now consider the following and do so as to avoid a third filing of In Re Susan Herbert:

1. Linda Griffin refused to consider motions already granted by US Supreme Court and denied hearing to a case already heard by US Supreme court although she admitted she had full knowledge of this action. This is not legal. Linda Griffin has no authority to over rule any action by the US Supreme court and especially may not decide what the US Supreme Court is in the process of deciding, as in this unique case, the US Supreme Court is reconsidering a previously decided case for the first time in US history. One may not ungrant what was granted or unhear what was and is being heard.

2. Linda Griffin refused to consider the plaintiff’s answer, dismissing it as no good and not judicable in direct conflict with what the US Supreme Court is actually doing as they are considering each claim made in that answer. Linda Griffin then denied what is actual reality and what is happening, and, even if denied once again, what then was happening when she made this unconstitutional and now criminal ruling. To be clear, Griffin stated it was not legal to consider what US Supreme Court is considering.

3. When she did so, Linda Griffin then refused to consider that the only weight the NY court or she herself had to justify an unconstitutional award of custody of petitioner’s children made to third parties, which is a found charge of child abuse, was then unfound by NY State at fair hearing in early 2004 as it was based upon testimony of out of state third party nonwitnesses whose evidence was 'stories told about susan by her borther from a time befroe the children were born" and as a master lfor the state perjured himself at this hearing to then supress knowledge of NY's unconstitutional policy which instructs social workers to not take any reports of emotional abuse no matter how severe in direct conflict with US law and NY's own code. Griffin and NY state have never named any other thing and now refuse to consider the only thing they did name; it cannot be overlooked that the NY Appellate with exact words thus violating the Bill of Rights did not support Griffin’s ruling as it did not name this as reason so that Griffin then has nothing to name as reason. Griffin was made aware this charge was unfounded and why. The Appellate went so far as to speculate, “even if [Susan] did meet extraordinary circumstances” casting doubt upon Griffin’s ruling that extraordinary circumstances did not apply. They did and do.

4. The petitioner, Susan Herbert, named the smallest and largest change of circumstances thus including every other change of circumstance within her case; petitioner was forced to do this due to unfair and unjust advantage the opposing counsel and third parties possessed. Linda Griffin was served notice of this action and asked petitioner, Susan Herbert, to state this current action for the record. These third parties have also now been named exactly as parties in In Re Susan Herbert. Linda Griffin then ruled, in direct conflict with US Supreme Court, as US Supreme Court upheld change of circumstances in such a manner petitioner, Susan Herbert, was granted what no other litigant has ever been granted, immediate reconsideration of a case previously denied any remedy or relief, thus Griffin has then ruled that NO change of circumstances would ever suffice and so meet a standard not the law but only her personal unjust policy. This is an admission justice is nonexistent for Susan Herbert exactly. This is supported beyond doubt as the law was on petitioner’s side from a time before she entered this NY court and also by the third parties original petition in this exact NY court, later changed, that stated only a need for “health insurance” for the minor children which Susan Herbert had already provided. It is then an impossible standard for petitioner, Susan Herbert, to meet as she actually did twice over what this NY court deemed to be impossible so that she has proven she can meet or exceed anything, that is, make any changes NY named as reason – if they ever existed. They did not. What’s more extraordinary than being first in all of US history? Twice over?

 

[SusanConstant]

5. Petitioner, Susan Herbert, was held to the standards of a licensed attorney when this not legal.

6. Petitioner, Susan Herbert, was called before this NY court and her minor children were interviewed without her knowledge or the knowledge of the US Supreme Court, thus witnesses in a federal case were tampered with and intimidated. As this action was filed within petitioner’s 25 day window to appeal to be re-heard, and as US Supreme Court then reset the clock to April of 2007 or October of 2007, or, according Griffin the most leeway March or April of 2008 by reconsidering In Re Susan Herbert, this then was also direct interference with a federal case and it was done with full knowledge of such as it is not possible, legally possible, to be heard or to have standing, in the lowest and highest court in this nation upon the exact same claim, as all attached In Re Susan Herbert and petitioner attached the actual petition to be reheard plus served this court and Linda Griffin specifically with notice of suit – the current action named exactly the same. Thus petitioner has become the first and only litigant to be heard in ALL US courts SIMULTANEOUSLY as all fall between. As previously mentioned she now possesses rulings that go against one another in direct conflict with all law – in every state and US law and in violation of all state and federal precedent.

7. As it was Linda Griffin herself who then became the cause of petitioner’s Susan Herbert successful bid to be reconsidered, to have her exact same suit, along with an attachment of a claim of new injury due to this NY action, as Linda Griffin upheld the Supreme Court’s prior finding, that Susan Herbert was and is, and remains, unique in all of US history, that she is an absolute class of one, “forever” injured as she is “forever pro se” then this is tantamount to admitting it is her person alone, her life, that this NY court, NY state itself, the third parties and Linda Griffin discriminate against. It is admitting it is every fact of Susan Herbert, even her human ability to emote and to reason, so that only her death will then be a satisfactory change of circumstances. It is acknowledging the injury is ceaseless and unending. If this were not fact then petitioner would not then be an absolute class of one and not be within any court let alone twice over in US Supreme Court. The question must be asked, Do these actions meet and even exceed the legal definition of treason? Is this a felony criminal act against Susan Herbert’s person as well as the persons of her minor children? Is it premeditated? Due to petitioner’s unique legal status, “acting, legal President aka the living embodiment of the law” as proven by Chief Justice John Roberts making himself available to give testimony in her defense by placing In Re Susan Herbert upon the docket again thus answering her notice to appear, a copy of which was provided to this court, is this equivalent to an act of treason?

8. This then is, as it has become, a Bill of Attainder and so works a corruption of blood; injury never ceases and it causes injury to all of petitioner’s biological descendents. It also causes injury to all other descendents – all future American citizens as petitioner was not guilty of any crime and as she used the law proactively, from October 26th, 1998, as she her own self entered the courts, thus she was innocent then and remains innocent today. Zero services were offered by the states and the only crime ever named was then found to be falsified by the NY fair hearing board along with US Supreme Court. This damage is incalculable and petitioner’s children and their children may never be healed by any future award of remedy and relief; indeed we cannot even know if this can or will be addressed beyond petitioner’s physical life.

9. NY State, Renneselaer County and Linda Griffin may not create the injury to the minor children where there was none and then refuse to address it. This sets a dangerous precedent as it then allows a family court judge to abuse and batter women and children with deliberation but suffer no consequences and while making relief impossible for the victims. This is yet a brand new federal question, courtesy of Griffin’s latest actions, as some states have code allowing for this and preventing a victim from dissolving the judge via direct lawsuit. No state may curtail the right of dissolution as it then grants a titled position – family court judge – overly broad power.

10. NY State may not hear a case if the Chief Judge of NY has been named as a party within a suit currently before US Supreme Court and/or has the Chief Justice. Both Judith S. Kaye and John Roberts are named.

The US Supreme Court should note that I predicted the above actions and so this proves a pattern, that is, this is not accident or coincidence but is guilt, and if denied any remedy and relief a second time I will then be forced to file a third time and also become the second US citizen to file within International Human Rights Court as all offices of government are now unchecked and will go unchecked until I am granted remedy and relief thus justice is nonexistent in the US for myself or any woman or any minor child; it has become an arbitrary decision of the courts and as my case demonstrates may even be a crime personal in nature thus it is obvious – justice is being bought and sold.

Susan Herbert was and is still humanly trafficked as she was once again made to cross state lines in pursuit of named, enumerated rights one of which she exactly stated to this NY court and to Linda Griffin and money traded hands thus justice was sold and it constitutes an illegal tax placed upon Herbert : Custody of her own person was up for sale as well as her minor children so that it is – is – human trafficking now court ordered and court condoned. Linda Griffin has made this a crime personal in nature. It is ongoing and incessant; petitioner’s children are being used as pawns by Griffin and all third parties and so are targets as this is equivalent to holding them (and her) hostage and is then demanding ransom in the form of paid for counsel and/or paid for enforcement of the law thus a paid for award in her favor only as it is purchased not as it is the only just thing to do according to law and precedent. Petitioner’s claim is that the Austins and Herberts are the traffickers; she now wishes the US Supreme Court to consider if Linda Griffin, Sanford Finkle and Leslie Ortiz, all named within In Re Susan Herbert both the current case and upon the first hearing, have become the traffickers.

Petitioner wishes to note that as the US Supreme Court has always upheld and enforced the law previously by obeying Executive Orders petitioner issued and which is a power she may exert according to our law and federal precedent, and the Supreme Court obeyed the law once again by answering her order naming Roberts exactly, directly as a cause, so that he did make himself available to give testimony in Susan Herbert’s defense, that any filing In the International Court of Human Rights then makes the US Supreme Court, with John Roberts as an exactly named defendant, then become human traffickers and so guilty of human trafficking.

 

[SusanConstant]

It also removes the seat of power from the US as the Office of President and Commander in Chief then rests within an international court and opens the door for any foreigner or foreign man willing to obey and enforce US law to lay claim to the Office thus striking down the requirement of “Natural born [ American ] citizen” to then become elected to this office. This court cannot now deny the truth of the Rennslear County NY court and the states as well as all named parties most especially Linda Griffin:

Petitioner is hated only for woman, genius and Susan Herbert exactly, or,

Being a natural born American citizen who used the law as a weapon in her defense as she acted to enforce it when no state would. She used the law as no man could or would thus she is hated for being of the ability to embody the law wholly, or to become what no other citizen was willing to become: An actual President and Commander. Susan Herbert was born without the human ability to fear the unethical and so she has been violated, tortured even, for not possessing the human ability to become unethical thus become one of the criminals and for refusing to believe she is a powerless victim.

I do not know how to stress this firmly enough: This NY action proves beyond any doubt all offices have been unchecked and remain so or else it never would have escalated to this degree. I never would have become a first, for better or worse.




Susan Herbert, petitioner and counsel,
In Re Susan Herbert 08-6622,
The acting, legal President and Commander in Chief.


And the letter to the 'judge':
We all know that I sent those letters to the Austin’s AFTER I bought the plane ticket and AFTER the US Supreme Court scheduled me for hearing as it did so a few days later but BEFORE my case was denied any remedy and relief. I sent those letters on Tuesday or Wednesday, as I’ll have to check the federal postal receipt, the Tuesday or Wednesday BEFORE that following Monday, the day the order was issued. It was not premeditated or planned as I do not control US Supreme Court and as I informed this court and the local police at the same time. Is your genius plan to use words to make it seem as if again? I’d guess YES. Does this mean you do have a deal with the 3rd District Appellate? Because we can always call in Clayton Higgins, William Suter, Jeff Atkins or Roberts – to testify before the NY Appeals Court thus proving you are a crook. We can actually ask the entire appellate bench as I named Judith S. Kaye. YOU CAN’T HEAR A CASE IN NY IF THE CHIEF JUDGE OF NY STATE’S HIGHEST BENCH IS NAMED, DUH. You do not get to cry you did not know. I told the US Supreme Court: It is not possibly corrupted and criminal anymore it is corrupted and criminal as twice is no mistake.

Now, as no person could know what the US Supreme Court would decide and as I would be breaking the law and abusing my kids if I knowingly sent them back to batterers and abusers and I told you they had been injured, you be my guest: Rule as we all know you decided to before I ever entered your court and thus become the family court judge who enters the history books for blaming and labeling a mother a criminal and abusive, not ‘worthy’ of custody her own person or her children for OBEYING & ENFORCING THE LAW.

As for moral authority? If I was not it, if I did not have more than you, I would not be In Re Susan, as moral authority is will it is not mores or being forced to obey as in America no person can be forced to do anything. The only answer to that question is “I feel that way” as if you do not feel what you say is a fact then it is not so. Like you, saying and pretending you are a judge but then acting like a child abuser, wife beater and king, as you feel as if you are above the law. You say you are not but your feeling betrays you as if you did not feel it then you would not do it. I know you tried not to show it; I saw your face. I had to stop myself from saying something to you.

I cannot wait to tell the world when before US Supreme Court or human rights court that Leslie Ortiz advised you to consider an unfair burden was being placed upon the kidnappers by the mother, the mother who was the victim of the kidnapping.

Your arrogance is astounding and appalling.

I warned you once to never decide you can know what a Trojan horse may be harboring. You reasoned you could ignore the law as appearances deceived you as you assumed the Supreme Court was not going to act. There is no such thing as In Re Susan II. Did I not state that I was after a unanimous decision? I received one – 0-9 - thus Marbury was violated and so I was awarded exactly what I needed as that then gave me standing to sue the Court directly. By naming my case In Re Susan when I did not name it that? It is the Court turning the clock back; it is resetting the time to April of 2008 and so nothing you have done is legal and is then a felony. What, you believe the Court wants to violate Marbury??? They had no choice but to reset the clock – travel back in time – and so act as if I am being heard for the first time. I set a trap and you ran into it. I gave you details, details and more details and you ran into it. How eager can any one person be to break the law and injure the innocent? Is it that much fun or are you that worried? I told the Court: Guilty people act guilty; you should wonder how many victims did not know what was being done to them.

You do not get to reason and decide how clever I am as that has already been decided by God. A lot of things have. Why don’t you spend your time figuring out what I could have possibly told the Court in order to be re-docketed like no other case ever, as it had to be something good. Violating Marbury was enough, but something caused the Court to do what it has never done before…what could that be? I told you: Twice is no mistake – my red hair is not coincidence. The Supreme Court doesn’t think so either.

I wish I could have seen the Court’s face when they discovered that you ruled what they deemed to be an extraordinary change of circumstances was not. But wait – you were the judge who said she did not believe that I had a ‘revelation’ while living with the Sioux in Bismarck and Mandan where Lewis & Clark wintered and met Sacajawea, weren’t you? The judge who ruled a rehab was not good enough if it was far from home, say, in FL, West Palm exactly, in 2000? I had to pick, Betty Ford or FL and I picked FL as I know: FL is not accident, as I was conceived there, in St. Augustine, the oldest city and the place the fountain of youth is located or so they say. As ideas are the cause of things, I placed the symbol for infinity over a map using the two points I know – St. Augustine where I was conceived and Troy, where I was born and the cross hairs, as this symbol resembles an “8”, landed exactly on Roanoke: My cause as the people landing there had an idea: Virginia Dare aka liberty. I fully expected that, as X actually does mark the spot.

You may call me crazy when you access the Supreme Court or the divine which ever comes first. I will not be holding my breath while I wait, as neither is likely to happen for you in this life as first, you gotta believe!

I cannot know the details only the outcome: Whether in our highest court or an international court I will win the day. I already have a bill of attainder argument written up, I already gave the Court an option other than granting me oral argument and I already have my case for International Court outlined. If I had little or no moral authority? You wouldn’t need to act so guilty, would you? It is as Kelly said: If you’re honest, honest then shows. YES as it is a pattern. Twice I have done what no other litigant has done. All you’ve done? More of the same: what is criminal.

BTW – you should know me well enough to then know when or if Susan chooses to go to the FBI again or to go public she can and will as once she sets her mind to something it is then realized as she acts upon it and does not stop until she gets what she needs not what you want which would be justice. I need it and you do not want me to have it. The universe does not change for you as you’re not special nor are you God. There are plenty of ways to guarantee I receive justice and you serve life in or out of an actual prison. Public humiliation is one of them. Don’t personally like it?

Sue me.

P.S. I was never on trial – you were. Your plea? GUILTY!

P.P.S. You admitted: her injury is “forever” as you exactly quoted that; she is “forever a pro se litigant…a class”. Why, is that you admitting my injury will never, ever end due to something you are doing? As I do not know any other person deemed to be “FOREVER pro se”. Forever? That’s a stretch; you have to be a 1st degree murderer to be labeled forever anything in a court of law! That is: The death penalty. So, either that class of one is the murderer or that judge is. As I’m not guilty you must be as me? If I were guilty of anything the cops or the US Marshal would have arrested me or one of those abuse reports against me would have stuck – if they were not falsified, that is. I’d be in jail or criminal court not US Supreme, lol.

P.P.P.S. Happy election day!!!

 

[SusanConstant]

I posted this on an Oprah board as people are exulting what was and is a violation of our law as both candidates were on the ballot due to appearances and money only not as they are able and capable aka just. All obama’s election proves is how far gone we are as if black was actually justice there are plenty of black persons who are way more able and capable than Obama but who did not have the opportunity due to illegal activities most of which are the direct result of Bush V Gore and the dumbing down of this nation due to the discrimination of women as your will has been broken as has your faith. Last time I checked faith was not a color or an appearance but a mind set, a feeling with an idea that is then acted upon or a concept formerly known as Philadelphia (brotherly love):

I hate to burst your bubble but…

As the US Supreme Court violated Marbury in my case, and did so in a manner that was an act of discrimination of me as a woman, the election is not valid. Marbury was the federal court ruling which vested the vote with legal power. As it is all offices have been unchecked but violating Marbury then placed your vote up for sale, made it an arbitrary award of the court and stripped it of legal power. You cannot hold a valid election if Marbury has been violated. The vote of women has never had any actual legal power due to men always and forever negating it but now? The court actually ruled this –no person has legal power as I have male sons and sued on behalf of all Americans – by unconstitutionally denying me oral argument thus silencing me and so the truth. Bush V Gore? The injury never ceases no matter how many people you elect until the offices are checked again. How do you do that? One citizen rises to then tell the truth of the sorry state we are in and how all of you fell for appearances not what is reality and is our law and so sold our law to the highest bidder.

Those cheering on TV? You ought to be ashamed of yourselves as you’re not cheering for justice. For McCain or Obama to be that? One of their names would have to be on my suit and I asked both of them three times over. Both refused to acknowledge the notice of suit they were sent and the facts of Bush v Gore, an illegal war, a bad declaration never addressed and trading lives upon money. They had to pretend they did not get that notice as the argument to defeat me does not exist as these two were and are greedy for the office when not humanly able to fulfill that oath of office as they cannot and refuse to fulfill their current oaths!

The citizens unchecked all offices up to Chief Justice, then Rhenquist unchecked himself, then Bush unchecked himself, then Roberts invoked the power of the Creator by making the death of innocent women for an act of God a valid award of the court made to men, then Roberts made the death of innocent male children a valid award of the court as he awarded it to you, some of whom are guilty, by throwing my case, then two people with a conflict of interest they cannot overcome due to an illegally declared and waged war then using money to prevent the Commander in Chief from discharging his duties and both of whom publicly stated they would not as they could not apply the law to women or would not as they did not believe women had liberty rights thus the Constitution will not be enforced in the cases of women and when one of them has no right to the office but only a privilege were placed on the ballot when there is no excuse for this and you voted for them in the primaries and did not act against it i.e. act to enforce the law and finally, in my case Marbury was violated. You lost the vote! You are dying in defense of the institutions and no citizen of a constitutional nation is ever to do that. Dying in defense of institutions means you have overthrown the law or…a coup has occurred. Terror suspects who are not citizens were granted legal power you do not have!

Marbury could not have been violated and the Court never, ever would have violated my rights as a woman if every single office of government had not been unchecked and if your vote had actual legal power, as it would not be possible. I’d never have been able to stand aside the Chief Justice then stand him down.

You have been going to the polls to perform a meaningless action. Men shouldn’t feel so bad as this has always been the case for women. It only seemed as if we were granted the legal power of a vote when we were not as citizens refuse to live it out. So unique is my legal standing that I have now been accorded what no other litigant in history has been accorded – I was re-docketed as if my case had not been heard once already and so tomorrow a response is due. There is no such thing as In Re Susan II; by docketing me as In Re Susan over again the Court turned back the clock to at least April of 2008. As all Supreme Court cases are available for your perusal none of you can claim ignorance as my reasoning was made public knowledge. The Court not only never denied my claim they upheld it by placing me on the docket the first time as the only pro se authority case of original jurisdiction ever. In effect they threw it to you who failed miserably once more.

You do not get opportunity after opportunity to disobey the law and in no way does this nation get to force one of two choices upon me both of whom are not legal choices as that is then a denial of liberty. The law is we are to get at least two just choices.

Don’t hate me when I ask the Court to hold a run off election with just choices on the ballot. It is not as if you were not told…if I am denied justice once again? Due to the nature of my case I file simultaneously in US Supreme Court (again) and in Human Rights Court so that the seat of power then leaves the US and any foreigner willing to uphold and enforce the law can then come forward to defend the Declaration and Constitution. Natural born & citizen falls by the wayside and it is proven absolutely: this nation is dead. By filing simultaneously in both federal and world court I’m using the planet to then check the Supreme Court aka YOU.

I have no idea what makes you reason that I am not correct as if Bush v Gore happened then it is. You can’t ever recheck the offices by acting as if it never happened. Your vote will never be legally powerful as you then cannot check and balance anyone or anything, as you not been able to since about 1950. What reasoning and application are you using to deny reality???

BTW – In order to even have an economic plan? You first need to know what an American dollar is! Neither one of these people does and as neither one of them has actual legal power due to the violation of Marbury then neither one of them can do anything they have promised. Both are slaves to Congress and the federal judiciary! You can’t check Congress or the judiciary if you have no check to then balance power, get it? These guys not only can’t reason constitutional law but they are subject to term limits so they then have no check. You cannot take the Presidential oath of office if it is proven from a time before you do that you do not have the human ability to preserve, protect and defend the law.

As your vote becomes executive order if you cannot check any office then neither can McCain or Obama!

And, it is not audacious to hope, as hope is a basic human right. Animals do not hope. People do as hope is. You are born into it. Hope is intrinsic to being American as that is our most basic founding principle and our very cause. If it does become audacious to hope or if it has, I would know as I’m the expert regarding hope as I hoped the Supreme Court would enforce Executive Orders I wrote as a last resort and they did. Hoping w/o question worked for me. While you might be tempted to label me audacious I am not as actual reality is I was not aware several thousand other Americans had not hoped the same as me before I came along. I had no idea I was first at the time I became first.

Hope floats the American people to our detriment as well as to our credit as we make real what we say we truly believe thus we willingly suffer the intolerable and do the impossible. Proof?

We, the American people, exist! We won the revolution known as America!

 

[SusanConstant]

Something good...

The "something good" I told the Court? I reasoned and decided what's good for the goose is also good for the gander thus equal protection and due process is:

"...as this is the case I have a novel request to make: May I be awarded the death of John Roberts as remedy and relief? as he seems to need to be made to have the same experience I was made to suffer. Or, is John Roberts willing to volunteer to die in defense of the Constitution? In defense of Bush V Gore? The Court as an institution? On behalf of the individual Justices? How about in defense of his own self, as Chief and as a citizen? Guilt or innocnece is not the issue before this court as it is or is not. Only John Roberts can answer this federal question."

How can you not love America? Where else can a citizen do this and have it heard?