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
