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.
