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?
