The actual reasoning Obama may not be installed:

[SusanConstant]

I currently have three actions in US Supreme Court; two of them are attached to a case I filed in October due to my unique circumstances: all three cases? They are all original jurisdiction which has never happened before. In fact almost every single legal action in my life has been a first and/or unique. There are several constitutional reasons voting for either major party candidate is treason and that installing Obama is treason. It all goes back to the discrimination of women and Bush V Gore. not one current lawsuit has the correct legal reasoning save my own and so far all litigants i have come across are men. Men? They have unclean hands and are not mmebers of any injured class. If there is another female litigant i haven't seen her but she may exist.

Many of you have little or no faith in spite of actual reality like the exact words in our law or the exact words in federal precedent or math. An actual skpetic is NEVER to possess inviolate disbeliefs as that then is: DOGMA. Many members here refused to believe the facts of my life even though they can go to the Court's docket and see two actions one of which is unusual in that it has no response from the solicitor general yet was set for conference and both of which are unusual in that I am pro se and a woman and began in this court as original jurisdicition. You can count the original cases on one hand so either I do know what I am talking about and all of my stated facts are actual reality or the US Supreme Court is insane. As actual insanity is organic this is not very likely, is it? In an attempt to inform the public as the press is humiliated and embarrssed by me as are all of the men - other or lower federal judges, candidates and attorneys involved - I am posting the points of law in my petition, as those involved do not want you to know them. The Supreme Court? It seems as if they do want you to know them or thye would not have set me for conference again. BTW: the number one injury to my person? constitutional attormeys and politicans insisting as fact that a woman cannot develop, reason and apply the law in an original fashion a la Thurgood Marshal and Brown V Topeka as a woman cannot possbily be a genius and so can nvever produce unique intellectual property. If she does? she's crazy as that is all men have left - denial. Men in denial are not insane but they are mentally ill. As ignorance is not an excuse in the eyes of the law thus you can vote for an unable, incapable and unqualified person by ignoring all facts but you may not. If you do? A person named Susan might then be able to invalidate the entire election as she has been pursuign this since april of 2007 and she has made the case for equal rights for women at long last. My points of law some of which are repetitive for reasoning - so it'll sink into your head or a Justices' head (I'll have to post this in segments so hang on until it is all here):

Some of but not all of the constitutional reasoning which invalidates the results of this election, as appearances are deceiving and 'black' is not the issue the voters should be citing. Instead voters should be citing my injury, the discrimination of women, lies made to seem like the truth and illegal actions that are made to seem as if they are legal:

1. A majority, the whole court even, is likely to rule for me thus securing their constitutional authority once again by upholding Marbury on behalf of myself then all women and their children both male and female thus all Americans and petitioner is likely to prevail on the merits as it is math and exact words of our law plus the exact words of prior federal precedent as well as actual biology. My case is supported by proven scientific fact, my own experience of this American life and eyewitness testimony. I am the only person ever to be granted the standing of pro se, authority and original jurisdiction and I have done it twice over. I have chosen to say too much rather than not enough thus proving I can make this case and win on the merits of my case as I overcome all US case law regarding this issue, addressing a person on the ballot for President, so that my cases now before this court as one are adjudicated and so I may orally argue Susan Herbert V Barack Obama and the United States alone or in conjunction with In Re Susan Herbert. The caseload I am now forced to assume all alone would crush any other pro se litigant or any licensed attorney acting alone. It would crush several firms of attorneys working together. Time may run out or the injury may become too severe to then be addressed as irreparable injury, possibly the physical death of my person or my children, may occur. My children have already had their will broken and so their injury is; they have died emotionally and are no longer recognizable. I have already had bones broken and was physically dead once; my injury is now as my death is imminent but not inevitable.

2. This election was never legal as Bush V Gore was not legal and remains a tied decision. No Presidential election and indeed, no election at all, is legal and so valid unless Bush V Gore is addressed. By addressing Bush V Gore and In Re Susan and now Susan V Obama, you then address all others. Bush V Gore is an extreme test of chain of command theory which is how and why it became an illegally waged war; Bush V Gore is the citizens unchecking all offices up to Chief Justice by refusing to obey the law, reason their vote and/or obey the spirit of our law; it is the citizens reasoning and deciding they are powerless victims and so actually becoming powerless victims.

3. Bush V Gore is a Chief Justice unchecking himself, the Justices voting twice for President, 9 as 5?4 as 2 or 5 as 1 versus 4 as 1, a tie, and an illegal third party custody award of my person to lawyers ? men ? not on the ballot. It is also two persons proving they cannot fulfill the oath of office, as they did not act pro se. [A sitting President does decide ties in US Supreme Court; a case of original jurisdiction has no lower or other court ruling plus authority cases by their very nature are challenging the people and the Congress as the inherency or implication is the people and Congress have failed to act or failed to fulfill duty already, so if tied it then goes to the President as a tie then is a case thrown to the people who are embodied by the sitting President as he or she is their one vote realized as executive order. A President and Chief Justice are equivalent legal authorities; a President enforces the law and/or the correct application of it not a lower court. A President calls the tie by issuing his or her own reasoned decision as we do not vote on our law as it is; we do not repeal the term known as 4th amendment or the term known as “natural birth” via popular vote. We might fine tune it but we do not ever erase or remove a term! I have no idea where, why or how men came to posses the mistaken belief a tie is decided by a lower court. If that has happened? It is incorrect! It was done in error.]

4. Bush V Gore became a never legal President then unchecking the office of President as the only legal appointment of a new Chief Justice must be one that is arbitrary like old age in this unique case as the only way to recheck the offices is by arbitrary appointment. Thus all offices of government were then unchecked; no person is in charge and/or all separation of power is grossly violated; not one authority is fulfilling his or her oath of office or discharging their duties and no person knew the actual reasoning to then overturn Bush V Gore when ignorance is not an excuse. Whole schools of law failed. Not one authority I contacted obeyed the law and some even broke it. The citizens violated Marbury first as they obeyed the unconstitutional, unethical and immoral orders of their commanding officers thus they are then liable as proven by their willingness to harm me and my children, to continue to pay taxes levied unjustly (w/o representation) and to suffer the Bush administration; they began volunteering to die in defense of the invention of the institution, office of Chief Justice and President who is also Commander, as all male and in defense of what Congress is and does not the people and in defense of federal court rulings or paper. As a government and law they became dead institutions. The election of 2004 was no good as Bush should not have been on the ballot and Kerry was and is unfit to command as he violated a renegotiated honor bound contract. I had no choice in 2000 as my vote was denied me so had no liberty and my right to vote thus liberty was denied me yet again in 2004. It is still denied me.

5. The declaration of war is no good as it is based upon bad evidence. Congress declares war therefore Congress is to address this declaration by issuing a new one based upon good evidence, invalidating the bad one and not re?issuing it and/or presenting new evidence to then support the bad one thus making it good. Congress did no such thing thus our Constitution was violated in an absolute fashion. May a Congress declare a war upon bad evidence and then act as the Commander? Or abuse the power to fund legislation and/or refuse to create effective legislation for women and yet Preside? Congress is doing both. This is not a Republican form of government and it constitutes unchecked domestic violence. Congress is violating Art. 4 Sec. 4 by living it out as Art. $ Sec. $

6. Congress then used money to prevent the person the voters believed to be the legal Commander when he is not from discharging his duties and from waging 'effective' war. Congress abused the War Powers Act thus enlisted service member's lives were traded upon the dollar. Enlisted service members are the innocent children of women who are mothers; they are all volunteer and the military is controlled by the civilians ? us. We even have a civilian Commander. Congress is supposed to represent or be WE, the people. It does not and is not; one of the most grievous offenses any office holder can commit is trading the lives of the innocent upon money, especially enlisted service members and mothers. Not one member fulfilled his oath of office thus NO MEMBER OF CONGRESS CAN THEN OVERCOME THE CONFLICT OF INTERESTS TO THEN ACT AS COMMANDER. Obama and McCain equally then were automatically excluded from the ballot as YOU do not get to amend our law in a manner not legal or to elect persons not able to fulfill the Presidential oath of office. The voters are creating a situation that is not only absolutely and wholly unconstitutional but that then denies enlisted service members, mothers and all other women and children their liberty rights and so zero opportunity. No liberty then no justice. Our common interest is to be the law; obviously Congress has reasoned and decided and then forced it upon the voters: Congress no longer obeys the law as it does not have to as there are no consequences. Recently Congress has been printing up or creating energy ? money ? that does not exist and doing so to protect private interests some of who are guilty at my expense. Congress too then is invoking the power reserved to the exactly named Creator as only the Creator can actually create and destroy energy. Congress can try to violate a law known as the “Conservation of Energy and Matter” but it will not work. Congress' interest is that money and the privilege they are accorded via a title. It is perceived power. The voters have given them power that is not theirs by voting them into office over and over even when they admit they have behaved criminally, have refused to discharge their duties and openly stated they will not, and/or do not know the law. The voters violated the separation of powers first.

[SusanConstant]

7. Neither major party candidate has clean hands and neither can actually do anything they have promised to do, as it is humanly impossible for them. For instance, to institute any kind of economic recovery plan? First you must name the exact problem ? the cause ? and all of its effects and then you must know what our dollar actually is and what standard supports it. Neither candidate does. Obama has no clue; he can hope all he wants but nothing he claims will actually happen. Obama has confused what is or is not an entitlement and if these entitlements are even legal. This extends to every area and every problem our nation faces. If a "plan” does seem to make things better? Obama violated the laws that rule this universe; he violated our written law and/or it only seems as if; it is not an actual solution but may be a temporary 'fix'.

8. Unity is not possible unless you can reason and apply the equal protection clauses to women and their children. The promise of Brown will never be realized unless this occurs, as all actual rights are human rights as there is no such thing as women's rights. Money does not resolve this issue. You must define when life begins and so personhood or the right comes into being. A man cannot do this ever, ever, ever as he will not give birth thus he can never own as fact the knowledge. The only way he can do this is by asking a woman for help as in voting for her for President and/or appointing her Chief Justice. Obama has already said it is "above [his] pay grade" to reason this thus he cannot and so will not reason and apply the equal protection clauses to women and their children. It is not legal to subject me to the moral authority of a man who has none, as he will not name it. No man is safe if he refuses to define his views on when life begins and this issue affects women and children only. It is my life and/or the quality of my life that is at stake not his and not any man’s.

9. Only mothers and veterans have a protected right to hold this office; all others have the privilege as only mothers and veterans have proven they can and will shed their blood and risk their life in defense of the Constitution or WE, the people. Obama then claimed for himself a right that he does not possess at the expense of able and capable persons who do have a protected right, some of who are members of a still injured class. McCain? As a veteran he then may be held to a higher standard, as he should possess this knowledge re chain of command theory and illegal war. I am an equal opportunity petitioner as I held both major party candidates equally unable and incapable before the very first primary as no third party could or would win as they lacked the funds to buy the office and as not one third party has secured a place upon all 51 ballots. The Libertarians have been attempting this for over 25 years and have still not accomplished it.

10. Obama claimed he is a constitutional law professor when he is not. An argument began over the fine differences in words. He also snuck into and out of Jacksonville and never stated his reasoning for doing so. This was purposely done as he engineered a situation whereby later in the day he made a splash in Tampa thus the papers did not carry the Jacksonville story as a reporter caught him in the act but only carried his Tampa appearance. This is not an accident or mistake and Floridians are sick of being a doormat for these kinds of antics in regards to Presidential elections. FL was denied justice in 2000 and we were denied justice once again as our delegates to the Democratic Convention thus our vote did not count as the Democrats were censured for holding the primary too early. It matters not if a Democrat then won the national election, as we will never know what might have been as FL delegates could have cast their votes for another Democratic candidate based upon moral authority and the law and because two parties one of which is the Democratic Party have been given control of the ballot. These two parties have overly broad power in violation of the law and prior federal court rulings that state no party may be favored over another; if these two parties were not favored over all others they then would not be the only two on all 51 ballots and they would not appear in the first two slots on all ballots I have seen so far.

11. Obama did not keep an honor bound contract and in fact absolutely and wholly violated at least three by going against his word to run for this office using public funds becoming the first person since 1976 to use private money only thus this election was bought. There is no polite way to say this: If you cannot keep an honor bound contract, if you default before you enter the office of President, you may not then be legally elected under these current conditions, as taking the oath is then a lie as Obama has the human ability to keep that contract but did not as he is greedy for the office. I have no way to trace all of that money and this privatization of the election gives wealthy individuals, large businesses and their interests an unfair and unjust advantage. For at least a year before the first primary Obama was adamant about government accounting for its spending and just election funding but then made himself an exception at the last minute – when it seemed as if no person could then act to stop him.

12. Obama ignored several notices of suit as he is named in my federal lawsuit now before US Supreme Court. He refused to respond over and over. He also kept inundating my mailbox with requests for money thus enticing me to break the law and harassing me, which is a crime. I cannot overlook this due to the very nature of my suit as it makes me the person he has to unseat and I did not trade one cent upon our law or any life. Justice is, as fact w/o question, now bought and sold as that is what buying an election and violating Marbury and so unchecking all offices is. If money were not an issue this then would never have come to pass. I repeatedly sent him cease and desist orders all of which went ignored.

13. Corinne Brown who was so vociferous in her opposition to Bush V Gore and stated repeatedly that she felt as if her vote had been stolen in 2000 ignored me, as did the NAACP. I was told to my face by a citizen who appears to be black that this most likely happened as no “black” person or “black” organization was going to help me, no matter how tragic my personal situation is, to unseat a Presidential candidate who appears to be black. I was stunned, as this thought had not once entered my mind. The NAACP is not a “black” organization and I once even took action to join this group and one of my closest friends ran a chapter of it. In fact the NAACP was founded by…whites in order to help former slaves begin again or rather begin for the first time. The NAACP is our nation’s oldest civil rights organization and was at one time the most prestigious. I must consider this might be true based on comments persons made after this election was held in violation of the law and the result was announced. Not only must I consider my appearance as white and Obama's as black may have caused a part of my legal situation to become worse but I know as fact 'woman' did as the person answering the phones for the Jacksonville ACLU told me this. They said that word: 'woman', as a reason I might not be called back. Another thing the ACLU did not like? That I am heterosexual and that I proved parts of their agenda unconstitutional at the time I contacted them. The Miami chapter told me my case was not worth their limited resources as it was not pressing or important, a lie. The NY chapter refused to even acknowledge me despite NY’s unconstitutional, unwritten policy regarding emotional abuse. I find this especially offensive as most of the ACLU's agenda is unconstitutional, it harms women and I have been subjected to their actions in federal court over and over. There is no reasoning whatsoever which actually or legally reasons why and how the ACLU and atheists enter federal court all of the time even if the claim violates our law and/or actual reality but I am yet denied and even when atheists have no evidence let alone proof. Not one organization or single person I asked for assistance would do so and almost all of them receive public money of some kind. Three Senators, including one from NY where my case sits in family court, and one running for President, wrote to me when I stood them down and said that they could not help me, as I was not their "constituent". My FL Senators also refused to help me with one saying Bush V Gore was legal in spite of hard, cold facts like math and another saying that he could not interfere with a federal case ? when I was no longer in federal court and when Senators interfere all of the time for their friends or in cases that garner them 'good' publicity i.e. popularity or votes.

[SusanConstant]

14. In my unique case the Supreme Court of the United States and its Chief Justice then reasoned and ordered itself out of existence as a court of law thus an authority by actually violating Marbury only as I am a woman and specifically this exact woman thus my life was sold to the highest bidder, as were my children's lives. No vote has actual legal power or any authority but only appears to have it as Marbury was the decision that then created the Court's constitutional authority by vesting the vote with actual legal power and moral authority by making the President equal to the citizen and so liable thus answerable to the lone citizen. By violating Marbury and doing so to then harm the person who is the acting, legal President and Commander, myself, as this was at first acknowledged by the Court by granting me status no other citizen has ever been granted and then by obeying Executive Orders I issued and signed "The acting, legal President and Commander" yet denying me oral argument so that the people were not then informed and denying me and my male children any and all remedy and relief but then according terrorists and terror suspects rights and privileges I was denied as were other women, the Court overthrew our law. It was, in effect, a coup as a coup in America is silent but then becomes violent. It remains a coup. You can but you may not hold a Presidential election if it is a coup.

15. The only possible way to then recheck all offices and so balance all power and establish actual equal rights is to then accord me exactly oral argument. You recheck the offices via telling the exact truth and winning a unanimous decision in favor of women and their children and all ethical Americans who made an attempt to obey the law and the spirit of the law. In this case ANY citizen could have volunteered to recheck the offices if they could then act pro se and make the case; a citizen could have claimed third party standing against Bush & Gore on behalf of the US or women alone as no person who is a member of the injured class was ever likely to possess the human ability to sue in their own defense thus it then goes to the first volunteer if they have the case for equal rights. I'm that person, as I possess the case and acted upon my knowledge as soon as humanly possible for me to do so.

16. The military has several serious problems and neither McCain nor Obama can clearly articulate what they are and so then fix them. Obama is for the continuation of the "Don't Ask Don't Tell Policy" which encourages recruits to lie thus violate the honor bond before they serve a single second, strips recruiters of the ability to reason and decide if a recruit is fit whether he or she is gay or not as each citizen must as we are self?governing and self?adjudicating and ignorance is no excuse and as it yet denies women, even women who are gay, some combat positions namely the Office of Commander in Chief. It is based upon a lie and appearances only. Obama stated he could not Command (make a decision) alone so would not and does not believe this policy causes harm when it does and it harmed me in 1995 and 1996 and Obama stated that he was for drafting women if a draft was initiated. Drafting women is unconstitutional as it constitutes double jeopardy as sex and childbirth always carries the risk of injury and death for women and not men. The draft is a written proof of death contract and childbirth is a proof of death contract not in writing until after the fact of actual birth. The draft and pregnancy are equivalent; birth and war are equivalent. Our law names life, death, natural birth, war, double jeopardy and a Creator exactly thus defining this. Obama cannot fix what he does not know is wrong or what he mistakenly believes is legal when it is not; he will only worsen our current situation and cause a further erosion of our military. Enlisted service members will die w/o reason or cause. Obama cannot command in the field as I can or others can and does not know the actual enemy, military tactics, basic chain of command theory and has never to my knowledge shed his blood and/or risked his life in defense of me, my children or the Constitution or else his name would be on this lawsuit as co?petitioner or as an adversarial party acting pro se and my life would not be what it is today: absolutely and wholly unsafe.

17. Obama believes "gay" is a protected class and is for giving the rights of women to men who are gay by giving them unfair advantage and overly broad power compared to women yet denied basic human rights and our law protects no act of sex not even heterosexual acts as an act of sex is a choice unless it is forced. The word "sex” was jokingly and mistakenly used in the Civil Rights Act, as the protected class is women as "female" is a quality of being human and acts of sex are not. Quality of sex or gender is not a choice. Rights if you are gay consist of the same rights all citizens have if they are human and then law abiding. Just as men and women have only one distinction so do persons who are gay and this one distinction does not then make any of us not human or less than human.

18. It is intrinsic to doing the job of according women and their children thus all humans true equality and justice that you are an actual woman, as Obama will not ever know what that is as absolute fact ? at least not in the next 8 years. He cannot reason equality. The Civil Rights Act allows me and my children or all Americans to discriminate based only upon man as woman is necessary to do this job and so not vote for and/or install Obama as President and Commander based only upon “male” even if no other reasoning existed. Therefore, as Obama is a man I openly cite that as part of my reasoning as hell will freeze over before yet another man usurps and violates my rights when I am most able and most capable and I have always obeyed the law and the spirit of the law and I as a mother possess the protected right not he and “male”, by his very nature, cannot perform the job of President and Commander while I can and did.

19. The Equal Time rules were not obeyed or enforced and were exploited for their four exemptions. Proof would be Oprah Winfrey as she gave Obama airtime she did not give other candidates as her show qualifies for such an exemption. Due to Winfrey's unique situation one cannot ignore her money or influence in this unique case and one cannot ignore her refusal to answer my suit or address it in any way. Winfrey also never before did such a thing; she herself cited black over and over and she campaigned against Bush citing his record of not according women what she believed to be their rights but did not hold Obama accountable for the same and even ignored his "above my pay grade" comment as if he never said it. Other proof would be Fox broadcasting not allowing Ron Paul to debate when he was a legitimate contender with the means as he had the support of the public via the internet; Fox cited Obama's race over and over and had no reasoning to deny Paul airtime. Fox exploited an exemption. Paul is an Independent Republican not a Republican so he and his party received unequal airtime as in next to none. To my knowledge only Jay Leno addressed this by inviting Paul to appear and discuss his exclusion by Fox. Due to media consolidation all networks now produce their own programming thus must abide by the Equal Time Rules and some citizens like Winfrey have a higher standard to meet due to their own unique facts regardless of the four exemptions. I my own self was ignored by all media outlets when I made US history and am the acting, legal President and Commander. The reasoning? The press did not believe the US Supreme Court ever heard my case as I was denied oral argument thus stated that I had not executed executive orders, had no actual case and so was 'making it up' and 'delusional'. I was turned into an exemption! I would have received news coverage and airtime if I were not unconstitutionally denied oral argument before this court.

20. If Marbury is violated then your vote does not have any legal power or the legal power it has is not equal, as it has now been made an arbitrary decision of the federal court. A woman's vote has never had actual legal power but only the appearance of it. As the vote is your check then it is not possible to balance power w/o equal legal power or any at all and the Office of the President has been purchased. Proof would be private money and the total amount spent on this election calculated to be an unbelievable but very truthful $5.3 billion dollars. Proof would be Obama being able to purchase a place on the ballot while federal judges went so far as to my pull my case from the files and tamper with the date and time stamp to keep me off of the ballot. Proof is the rules, which allow a person to appear on the ballot may be avoided completely by payment of a one time fee in most states thus you do not have to prove any ability or any willingness even.

[SusanConstant]

21. I am not to be faulted for other federal judges violating the law in order to then silence me and so keep me off of the ballot. There is no authority save me. All discriminated openly or outright refused to uphold and enforce the law. If all of the above were not fact and did not happen and if the law was not on my side then I never, ever would have been accorded standing as a pro se case of constitutional authority and original jurisdiction not once but twice over as I was then given immediate reconsideration of my case in order to 'unviolate' Marbury. If Marbury is violated then all offices have fallen. In my unique case the only court to go to, the only 'authority' left after US Supreme Court, is a world or international court and due to the nature of my suit - men refusing to preserve, protect and defend our law based only upon women as less than and money, and a mental illness known as denying reality or changing reality aka conditioning thus using discrimination and propaganda to commit criminal acts - the seat of power goes with me as I am it so that it leaves the jurisdiction of the US and strikes down “natural born” , “citizen” & “men” so that any foreigner willing to fulfill the oath and do so on behalf of women or my one person can then become elected. This Court knows as fact I, not Obama, am the legal President as I first unseated Bush by overturning Bush V Gore and standing down all up to the office of the President and into this Court as an original case so invalidated this election from a time before even so much as a single primary was held. A response was due on the 5th, one day after the election thus invalidating it as the Solicitor General never responded, the Supreme Court never had the power or authority to deny me the first time as the Court under Roberts had begun making law, amending law, is in violation of the separation of powers and is exerting the power of the exactly named Creator by killing the innocent as it granted this power to men only thus it awarded the death of innocent women and children to men so it is discrimination and a clear violation of our law, and it goes against the Bill of Rights as well as the equal protection clauses as life has never been defined. This then subjects women to conditions not terms and our law is one of terms as there are to be zero conditions as your humanity is not dependent on any outside condition placed upon you by the other citizens, not even a President, or any court ruling as humanity is. You are born into your humanity as you are born into rights as the founders gifted us with the law but God gifted us with will and liberty first and a gift is unconditional. We are supposed to be subject to the terms of a contract not the conditions. We call it a term in office for a reason. Women are yet the victims of men changing the conditions on them thus while they say they believe in equality and often act as if they do, their true unspoken belief is realized as gross injustice and even murder as their true belief is the citizens are powerless and women are less than so even more powerless; that no woman can reason and so make this case nor ever act as Commander.

22. I proved my ability beyond any and all doubt by actually fulfilling the oath and so acting as President and Commander and by making this case in spite of every single citizen acting against me and all denying reality and my injury. I defeated the entire federal government acting alone, as I am a power of one. I know how to use my vote thus the law as a weapon. The citizens are acting upon what appears to be truth when it is not so that they break the law each day but yet deny it even when poverty, ignorance, discrimination and death ? injustice ? is all around and there is no constitutional reasoning or just cause. Liberty is nearly extinguished. I am the lone citizen standing as I acted as an actual Commander is to act by willing government into being and so creating life where there are only dead institutions: In our federal government. President? I have already made law via executive order and my suit; I have already preserved, protected and defended the Constitution beyond what was believed to be humanly possible for a woman as my lone vote now floats this government and law as does one other vote that is the one vote cast for my person. This vote was cast where all of this began, in FL. This is FL ballot # 3481 upon which my name for President and the name of Ron Paul for Vice President was written in the space provided for write in candidates and was then mailed [there is a short and a long number]. My standing to press suit is then secured. I am aware Paul may not qualify to act as VP as he is a member of Congress; as no other person volunteered, as Paul was injured and as this voter looked up what values and ideals the parties were supposed to represent but did not said voter chose to name him. If Paul is disqualified this does not disqualify my person. It leaves this office empty or I simply name another person.

23. The US failed to respond within 30 days which is standard contract law thus I win as by failing to respond you have offered me a contract to which I accepted all terms and you then refused to honor it. You may not offer me a contract then revoke it only as I accepted and met all of your terms as proven by my docketing and re?docketing as I wholly embodied the law. I even met the conditions you changed unjustly. As high as you raised the bar I met it and even flew past it. This new suit is yet further proof of this. Therefore I may also now sue the Chief Justice and the whole Court once again and add the Solicitor General thus the US by suing Obama as he volunteered and the citizens then made him their representative. This, failing to respond in 30 days, was the means for the case known as the "Auschwitz Lie" brought by Mel Mermelstein against the IHR as he successfully proved he would have been awarded promised compensation if the IHR responded to him as the IHR offered Mermelstein a contract asking him to prove the Holocaust happened and he accepted the terms. When the IHR did not respond within 30 days he then sued for breach of contract and emotional distress among other things. I too press suit for the same as the denial of liberty cause my sons and me to suffer extreme emotional distress. I was promised the blessings of liberty; I too accepted the challenge to prove the discrimination of women is alive and well and perpetrated by the federal government, upon the 'highest' levels of power and within the 'highest' offices, that women are actually created the equals of men, that the Creator exists, that our law is elegant as it is written originally, that the resolution of Uniformity is within our law but has gone unnoticed by physicists and that our one vote is an actual power and the US failed to respond. My entry to this very court is my absolute proof and my denial is other absolute proof as I did get a unanimous decision as I predicted. I know exactly how extraordinary I am. Like Merlmelstein I would have won a ruling in my favor and secured all the blessings of liberty if allowed to argue orally thus execute the contract known as US law. This Court and this nation has been telling what I have nicknamed the "Woman are the equals of men and receive equal protection and due process of the law thus may become Chief Justice, President and Commander while they yet go without a federal court ruling and while they are yet the victims of discrimination lie" as equal protection thus actual legal power does not exist nor does the opportunity to become Chief Justice, President and Commander or to enter this court pro se if you are a woman and/or if you have defeated the federal judiciary's, Congress' and the Executive's faulty reasoning in an airtight fashion. I did make the case ? a case no man and no attorney could make. I can and will prove I would have won my case and won it unanimously 9?0 not 0?9 if I had been allowed entry thus I can now sue the US and its current but not legal representative, Barack Obama, for breach of contract. In California, the Evidence Code permits the Court to take judicial notice of "facts and propositions of generalized knowledge that are so universally known that they cannot reasonably be the subject of dispute." Judge Thomas T. Johnson: "This court does take judicial notice of the fact that Jews were gassed to death at Auschwitz Concentration Camp in Poland during the summer of 1944. It is not reasonably subject to dispute. And it is capable of immediate and accurate determination by resort to sources of reasonably indisputable accuracy. It is simply a fact." The Declaration is written; the American Revolution is won; the Constitution and Bill of Rights is; my case is; liberty and equality is; therefore I am.

24. This election then is yet another illegal third party award of my custody to men, to the unjust and to a major party that has violated our law and women over and over. Some of these persons are guilty. Nothing in our law says Susan Herbert alone may not address her injuries or that Susan Herbert alone is exempt from our law. Nothing says that I alone am to receive no protection of the law especially when innocent and especially when the states refused to name anything I was guilty of yet kept 'punishing' me over and over by issuing false and unconstitutional decisions and orders based upon no case law and which even violated the code of the issuing state as well as US law and fly in the face of reality. My person is not recognizable in these orders as my facts were changed. These decisions and orders then found me when the law does not protect me thus I alone am subjected to the law when I alone am not allowed to use the law as a weapon in my defense. If the law accords me zero protection it then may not find me. As I named all Americans as liable with the exception of the clerks of this court then I sued on behalf of all ethical and law abiding Americans thus this election makes us sovereign nations so that we can and may commit any crime we wish and not be held to the consequence under the law. You may find that we - myself, my sons or a clerk of this very court - did it but we cannot be held for it or convicted under the law as this court has previously ruled if the law does not exist then the law not the person must be addressed. Thus as our law no longer exists in reality but only upon paper Obama must be addressed as should the Chief Justice and this Court as a Chief Justice and President are equivalent legal authorities and this is the only manner this court can and may re-secure constitutional authority and re-establish law and then order – checks and balances.

[SusanConstant]

25. The Supreme Court of the United States has recently begun considering the consequences of their rulings in the cases of women only and in the case of myself only. This is proven by several rulings that violate our law and/or hold women to conditions men are not held to, rulings in which the liability of men for the injury to women was the factor used to deny women justice thus justice or the very lives of women was bought and sold, a ruling that erases words magically from our law with fancy word usage making it seem as if and by the refusal of this Court to hear an equal protection case known as Nicholson V Scopetta which then resulted in more and worse harm to my person and to the persons of all women and the refusal to grant me oral argument. This court nor any court is to consider the consequences of adjudicating a case or of awarding remedy and relief to a litigant, to a class of one or millions, as it is impossible to predict the future exactly and as this then makes the preservation, protection and defense of Declaration and Constitution impossible. No woman can preserve, protect and defend her own life or the lives of her children. Violence may erupt; riots may ensue. This is the case of the aftermath of Brown V Topeka. Then again, no rioting may ensue. We can never know this detail exactly. Federal precedent is: At times blood must be shed in order to water the tree known as liberty. While the ideal is we have orderly transfers of power some citizens refuse to own knowledge and so choose ignorance when ignorance is not a reason or an excuse. To cite possible ? possible ? consequences in the cases of women only or in the case of invalidating the election of a person who appears to be black to the Office of President is then to break the law, discriminate, harm the injured class or the lone person worse and to participate in what is now a criminal act as it is treason as it is the overthrow of our law and the negation of what is a protected birthright paid for in our blood and the blood of those who came first. I stand between our law surviving versus being overthrown in an irreparable manner; if forced into an international court I will then be proving the United States no longer recognizes its own law and has now died, as it has become a dead institution of government and law.

26. I overcome all prior decisions against a private citizen suing to remove a candidate from the ballot or to be placed on the ballot; I will win on merit and airtight reasoning. First, I am the acting, legal President. Am I even private then as I volunteered? Second, I became this – I acted - before any primaries were held. Third, I stood down all of Congress but as it is unchecked it did not act thus no statutory method exists in actuality but only upon paper. Congress is mostly male and mostly Democratic; this court cannot overlook this nor the gross violation of separation of power nor the cause as unconstitutional term limits have become repugnant and so they are string theory as they change numbers that should never have been changed and skew power in favor of Congress. We then have no way to check Congress or any branch as that is our vote and it is negated by decisions of this court and by Congress itself. Electing a person over again is our means to check Congress’ actions and should be our means to check the two parties actions. I wrote to all 100 Senators and to dozens and dozens of Reps, some more than once. All failed me and all denied reality. As I named Chief Justice John Roberts exactly in his official capacity and as an individual and the whole court as well as NY's Chief Judge Judith S. Kaye and several others within my federal suit, a suit in International Human Rights Court not only removes the seat of power from the US but also then would name these people exactly for engaging in what is human trafficking under the guise of family court orders and federal court orders none of which are supported by the evidence or by our two governing documents. It would find John Roberts and this entire nation guilty of becoming human traffickers and pimps, of becoming child abusers and wife beaters for profit.

26. The only thing that ever makes anyone whole is the truth. I need to be able to tell my truth as I have been libeled and slandered almost beyond repair as has the law and I need to know what Obama's truth is. This is not a frivolous suit or one brought without cause. This man harmed me as he refused to act and he ignored me; he specifically ignored a legal argument I gave him regarding war funding so he could then act as he told me he was a constitutional law professor or at least a scholar and at the time I had no reason to doubt this. I asked for nothing in return not even his help in resolving my case, as people are dying daily. Then Obama inundated my mailbox with requests for money and would not cease and desist. His policies will only serve to further injure this nation especially women, children and service members. He has no protected right to this office natural birth or not. I have suffered for 16 years under men who were unable, incapable or unfit and so I refuse to suffer a second more under yet another unable and incapable person and/or an unqualified man. Americans need to have actual faith and actual trust in a person acting as President so they then can have faith in US law and they need to know their one vote is absolutely without price as it is their life. I claimed my right to press suit when I proved my ability and willingness by acting in defense of this nation and so risking my life over and over. I did not risk it for this: justice bought and sold thus life for sale.

28. Until my cases are adjudicated I am trapped in what is in legal limbo so the Presidential election is not a valid election and is unconstitutional. The results are invalidated. Interestingly, created or manmade legal limbo was one of my very first claims in federal court in early 2007 that was then denied and cited as being frivolous and having no basis in fact or law. I do not possess ESP; legal limbo existed for women, children, enlisted service members, persons who are gay, the poor and I alone from a time before I entered the courts. It did exist then and does exist now or else I already would have given oral argument before this court. No person can deny the importance of my federal questions some of which have never been adjudicated namely my first federal question: Is God or the exactly named Creator actual reality and if so are women then created equal to all men and so does Marbury apply to their persons? I will remind the Court: Marbury addresses the office of Commander in Chief as well as the office of President. The US Supreme Court by denying me oral argument and refusing to answer a single question then answered: The exactly named Creator does not exist, Susan Herbert alone is the exception to the law, women are not equal and so less than men and not of the Creator and Marbury does not apply to anyone not even this very court so the Presidential election thus the office of the executive may be purchased or stolen by snakes. It was and is. A woman's only other recourse? Marry into the possibility of becoming elected. This nation may not force me to marry a man or have relations with snakes to then become the elected President and Commander; it may not force me to violate the law. This nation may not reason if a man cannot prove God exists than a woman cannot; that is like saying a man can prove life ? give childbirth ? but a woman cannot prove life. Proving the Creator is actual reality is easy for this woman. In fact proving the Creator is easier than suing the Chief Justice of the US.

29. An emergency application for a stay of enforcement of judgment was not treated in a timely manner when it is a true emergency and enlisted service members, women and children have died as a result. I did mistakenly date it the 8th when it was the 15th. This is yet one more example of how men are granted what I am not as Bush Jr. received timely treatment in 2000 when he applied for a stay but had no true emergency. I clearly wrote on the label of the box in which it was mailed “Emergency Application”. Bush’s lawyers may have claimed they were entering a petition within 24 hours and then done so; I would have done the same had I the human ability as I am working all alone so could not within 24 hours but if I had been granted the stay would then have been able to begin addressing the issues thus preventing some deaths as I do have the ability to advise persons on exactly what to do if they are in one of the deadly situations that exist. Today, on November 20th, 2008, case 08-6622 was finally scheduled for conference. I know a true emergency is a life or death issue; does this Court and does the Chief Justice? as Congress and the never legal Executive do not know what an actual emergency is and abuse that word constantly in an attempt to instill unwarranted fear in the citizens.

30. It is unconstitutional and not effective or practical to let the inmates run the asylum, as at some point asylum will no longer exist. Actual reality is no liberty, no justice and so no America. As goes the law so goes this nation and the eventuality is death. This eventuality is avoidable. James Madison warned us against the temporary passion of the people. He exactly said the people can and may become "possessed" of a "temporary passion". The DSM names this as a mental illness. Liberty is a choice so you choose: Are you possessed and/or mentally ill? I own the knowledge the Supreme Court and its Chief Justice may be misguided at times mostly due to attorneys missing the argument or presenting what is a lie as it is not the whole truth but I do not truly believe they are crooks who intend to cause harm and who have motive to do so as that is not a legal or just choice, is it? The law is: You are presumed to be innocent until proven guilty and as that choice ? Justices who are actual crooks ? then would mean I am going to have to find a foreign nation willing to allow me to liberate it in which to make my home. While I could poll the jury by asking all 9 whom they voted for that is not necessary. For a Justice or myself the law is crook is not an option. Period. If you are a President and Commander? Crook is not supposed to be an option; you may be forced to act extra?constitutionally but never unconstitutionally. This citizen knows the difference.

[SusanConstant]

31. I possess no evidence that Barack Obama is a natural born American, as the only certificate I have seen is not a birth certificate but a registration of birth certificate, which any person can and may get. All this certificate does is certify that you were born and your live birth was registered in that place in that state but does not certify that you were actually born in the US or that your parents are natural born citizens or even American citizens. Also Barack Obama’s mother, called a citizen, may not be as she did not live in the US for five years before giving birth to Barack Obama or so I was told thus he would not then qualify for natural born status even if born in Hawaii. Eyewitnesses have placed his birth in several different places, in two different hospitals and in two different countries. This registration of birth certificate has no seal that I can discern and no signature which it must have; unlike my own registration of birth certificate it does not state on the back that it proves age and citizenship for passport or driver’s license but not for qualification to become elected to the office of President and Commander. I have both certificates and can secure the original on file in NY; does and can Barack Obama? Many citizens noted that his father’s race is listed as “African” which is odd indeed as any actual American birth, a natural born American citizen, would not then possess such a racial classification on this certificate as it is to be a transcript of the original and in 1961 no documents listed “African” as a race but only “Negro”. Thus this casts doubt upon its authenticity, as any actual transcript should state “Negro” and not “African” unless Hawaii is ahead of its time. The word “transcript” is missing from this registration of birth certificate, which leads me to believe Obama’s actual birth certificate is not American and/or that his parents could not prove his place of birth to Hawaiian officials. While I have never seen an actual birth certificate from Hawaii nor an official registration of birth certificate that is Hawaiian I do not believe Hawaii alone would have documents so different from any other state’s that these documents then become the focus of a federal lawsuit as they violate the equal protection and due process clauses as well as our right of safety by offering us no protection from foreigners flying into or traveling by any means into the US to register a birth thus making that child eligible for the benefits of US citizenship known as the office of the President and Commander. While no person could engineer a situation in which their child needed a birth certificate to then run for President and so tried to deceive the public by registering the birth only, that is no parent could know if their child would ever run for President, if Barack Obama does not have the same documents I have, equivalent documents, then I must know as he then is not a natural born citizen and so has not even the privilege of becoming elected to this office. I REFUSE TO GIVE MY BIRTHRIGHT AWAY BEFORE EVER BEING GRANTED IT AND THEN STILL REFUSE. I PAID MY DUES, AS DID MY PARENTS, AND I SHED MY BLOOD; I ACTUALLY DIED IN DEFENSE OF THE CONSTITUTION. If McCain also is not qualified as he may legally be a naturalized citizen and not natural born I then had two unqualified persons forced upon me by the major party political monopoly and that – unjust choices – is then not liberty. As for third parties? Unless they knew the reasoning Bush V Gore is unconstitutional they too lacked the human ability to keep me or my sons safe so all choices on the ballot were then unjust.

I wish the court to give special consideration to one of the most unique assaults upon my human dignity ever and an extraordinary violation of my rights perpetrated by the state of MD, specifically the Department of Motor Vehicles, which involves my registration of birth certificate: I had used this for 35 years to secure a federal military ID and my original driver’s license as well as a federal grant. Not once was it questioned as it has a raised seal and signature and as the military and the states supported it with other documentation and my living person. It was proved. MD however, even after reading the back, insisted that I had to pay for a new birth certificate from NY or else I could not get an ID forget a license. I told MD it may not compel me to do that as it constitutes a violation of the equal protection clauses and is an unjust tax. This clerk insisted that she could not accept any of my ID no matter what due to this registration of birth not being the new style of birth certificates NY had begun issuing. She said NY had “new” ones that replaced an older style. I said, “Lady, my other ID does not expire and so I do not die thus am no longer proof beyond doubt as to who I am only because you refuse to accept the registration of birth certificate. The registration is evidence rising to proof, as are the other state documents but the federal military ID is proof beyond any reasonable doubt and I, the living person, am the absolute proof rising beyond any and all doubt. Neither you nor NY can make me pay for a new birth certificate each time NY redesigns it. I’m not redesigned the paper is. That’s on NY not me.” She insisted I could not be processed so would not be and when I demanded an exact reason she stated: “I can’t as it’s not the right color. You’re not the right color.” The room went silent. I asked, “You just said ‘not the right color’. What color do I, Susan, have to be to then get an ID from MD?” She answered, w/o skipping a beat, “Blue.” I became indignant and irate and ordered her to get her supervisor and I told her she just asked me to meet an impossible standard and that if this was not discrimination of Susan Herbert alone then I had no idea what is as nobody but nobody had to be blue to then get a driver’s license or state ID. I’d be more upset than I am with MD but this was the event that tipped me off to what this injury became: discrimination of me alone as I knew the law and so knew my rights and concepts like the burden of proof standard; that my ethic and my intelligence was causing me injury. One would think this could not escalate any further but it did as I was once cited for being Native American; being born here and so “you know the law” was actually exactly used against me to then injure me not the words Native American. I never did turn blue in DMV but I did receive a MD state issued ID within the hour that day. When I recently received a “new” NY birth certificate? Still not blue but I am out $60.

Nothing in our law or any prior precedent makes it legal and binding for the voters to force a person who cannot fulfill the oath or who may not be a natural born citizen upon my children or me. It is actually the exact opposite. Every citizen in this nation can vote for Obama; however they may not, it is not legal, if they know him to be unfit or unable to Preside and Command, or unqualified, and did know it when they voted but ignored it.

I am self?educated, poor and possess no party affiliations or any political weight known as political favor. Each and every fact of my life runs against me ever being able to do this as even my human ability to emote and to reason or my gender is believed to be a liability. None of this then makes me unable or incapable; that is perception and is discrimination. I used my lack of formal education, as I was not then indoctrinated by mostly male points of view many of which are dead wrong. I was able to uniquely reason the law as it applies to women as well as men and I was able to make “I” statements no man could as that is all about being extremely self?aware. I used my larger hippocampus and the ability to discern very fine differences in human emotion to then turn the tide in my favor by catching persons in the act of violating our law. They were dumbstruck. Liberty is an emotion as is the truth; you will hear it and feel it if your compass is set due north according to our law no matter what those in charge do or say. I have felt the vote and Philadelphia as sacred so I know it. If you lie to me or break the law you can use all the fancy words you wish or no words at all; I will still know it for what it is: Unconstitutional.

As the vote feels one way and as Philadelphia another so does liberty denied. All can be known. It is like the bible says: Nothing is hidden that shall not be revealed. As people do not repeat myths unless they contain some truth I discovered how to use the Declaration as a compass and so the Constitution became a map, a unique map of my sacred human heart, which contains the answers to our earliest origins as it led me to know the birth of this universe and beyond. It led me to discover the answers to secrets that I never imagined I would know in my lifetime and to do what Einstein and Thurgood Marshall could not. I did not realize other people could not "see" the law as a three?dimensional picture in their head or as equations and so did not know these answers were staring them in the face. When I wrote "the structure of DNA is found in our law" I thought all clerks knew this and could "see" it in the right of safety as this is realized as two conditions – liberty and justice - and in office of President and Commander as it twists and turns to become two offices in one person. When I wrote the "right of privacy does exist and is contained in the clause exactly naming the Creator and is supported by Marbury” I thought all Justices and clerks saw the right of privacy and equality as an equation balancing on a fulcrum or canceling the other out until it becomes E=MC2. I did not know you were blind to [I]why Roe V Wade is unconstitutional beyond it is not named in our law as I possess a unique skill or so I was told recently. The universe?

It is all contract law and math; it is constitutional.

What did I ask for as remedy and relief from day one, April 4th, 2007 and on?

The power of Executive Order as I knew as absolute fact without question my legal argument unseated Bush Jr. then placement upon the ballot in all 50 states and DC for the office of President and Commander. I claimed the power of Executive Order my own self by entering this court but left it up to the people to claim it for their persons via voting for me thus against those intent upon violating and even overthrowing our law for their own personal, selfish interests. As I was silenced unconstitutionally, the people - especially women and enlisted services members - then had no opportunity.

We as a nation were born in an act of self-defense by invoking our right of safety and liberty, as they are inalienable. Our vote is actually paid for with our very blood. Our vote is our right to life and so is our means of defending our persons. It is the Creator who ultimately reasons and decides which among us will be born under these skies and within this country and so be of the ability to wield that vote - the greatest weapon of mass creation man has ever wrought. What is of the Creator and which we are then born into no man can or may put asunder as he will have to go through a woman first – I, Susan – and this American refuses to negotiate as an actual American never negotiates her safety.

I will settle for nothing less than this nation’s unconditional surrender to the Declaration and Constitution, as those are the inviolate terms that absolutely and wholly define our humanity and so make us a living government and living law known around the world as We, the people – the Americans.

[billydkid]

Could you maybe put this in some sort of simple language so that some of us have at least a clue what you are talking about.

[Professor Yaffle]

Hi Susan, nice to see you.

[Lonewulf]

tl;dr

[Praktik]

Wait a sec - is this the same Susan that had the youtube video out about how her roadside stop was unconstitutional a few years back?

I'm intergoogling as we speak but can't seem to find it - if anyone has seen what I'm talking about and my vague description triggered something...

[Professor Yaffle]

Wait a sec - is this the same Susan that had the youtube video out about how her roadside stop was unconstitutional a few years back?

I'm intergoogling as we speak but can't seem to find it - if anyone has seen what I'm talking about and my vague description triggered something...

She's made a few posts here before, have a look and see if any of them ring more bells.

[SusanConstant]

What is going on now with this action? I filed a case and Marbury was violated as were my rights only as I was a woman. I turned around after new federal injury occurred and entered a new case naming roberts as the chief justice and as an individual as well as the whole court and this whole nation; i held all 300 milion of you liable as I may. When the solicitor general failed to respond as their is no argument against me as it does not exist (if you argue agaisnt me you are arguing to throw out both the Declaration and Constitution; you are arguing to overthrow our law permanently or to injure innocent women and children as well as enlisted service mmebers but make it legal to do so; as my argument is exact words and math you are arguing against actual reality), I then sued Obama as your representative and the US; once again i held roberts accountable and responsible so I sent an application for an emergecny stay of enforcement of judgement - the election result- to him which he acted upno as soon as he received it by setting my case for conference. I then followed that up with an actual petition supporting the application for a stay which the Court should have recevied Wednesday. Sometimes it takes them a few days to look at it and docket it.

My cnew case name is:

SUSAN HERBERT

A Natural Born Citizen Who Is A Mother And So Shed Her Blood And Risked Her Life In Defense Of The Constitution Or We, The People
Thus The Protected Right Is Hers


Petitioner,


VS.

BARACK OBAMA

AND

THE UNITED STATES


Respondents.


I do not know if the Court will docket this as a separate action or merely attach it to In Re Susan 08-6622 as I told Roberts I could argue this cold based upon the application for a stay. I know as fact the court is trying to avoid a circus. Both cases known as In Re susan contain pages of questions all dealing with equal rights issues. Most have never, ever been adjudicated or even asked as no man had the ability to do this as no man gives birth to a baby constitution. A man testifying to abortion, pregnancy or childbirth is a lie as he cannot know this as fact as he will never have these experiences of life. If a man had this human ability it would have happened; women and children would have secured their human rights already. Men (and the press) may not personally like the fact that a woman beat them at their own game but too bad for them. My questions and reasoning to be heard, also from my suit:

Questions

Did the US Supreme Court violate Marbury by refusing to accord In Re Susan Herbert oral argument as it is a case that is pro se, constitutional authority and original jurisdiction thus hearing is then automatically both reading and oral argument, and as her claim is that she was and is denied any appearance in person in any court as a plaintiff or petitioner and so this court only compounded the injury?

Have all offices of government been unchecked as both cases known as In Re Susan Herbert proved as does her life as she is her case? If Marbury is violated and all offices are unchecked, then is a Presidential election legal, binding and valid?

What does the phrase “natural born citizen” mean? Must a citizen be born within the US or does it mean one or both of his or her parents must be natural born American citizens? Does Barack Obama fulfill this requirement? What is must a citizen produce to then prove they are a “natural born citizen” as only that and age 35 is a named requirement to then legally hold this office? Is a registration of birth certificate acceptable or must a person produce an actual birth certificate issued by a state and so not a registration only?

Is Susan Herbert the acting legal President and Commander as proven by her two cases both of which are pro se, constitutional authority and original jurisdiction, was she at the time this election was held and if so was it unconstitutional and a crime for court officers, attorneys and federal judges to conspire alone or in conjunction with others to keep her name off of the Presidential ballot in all states?

Is the office of President and Commander the protected right of mothers and veterans only and a privilege for all others? If so have women who are mothers been illegally kept off of the ballot while men who have no right and have not earned the privilege or even proven their willingness and ability been placed on it? Is this the direct result of discrimination and the past effects of discrimination and unfair, unjust rules meant to protect a two party monopoly and predominantly male, Judeo-Christian system?

Is the drafting of women unconstitutional as it constitutes double jeopardy as women are always subject to death via sex and childbirth while men are not thus women shed blood and risk their lives in defense of the Constitution each time they give birth? Is “Don’t Ask Don’t Tell” unconstitutional as it yet denies even women who are gay some combat positions namely Commander in Chief and as it encourages lying from a time before you enter the military?

Is it legal for any member of the current Congress to be on the ballot and/to elected to the office of President as Congress creates legislation, impeaches and declares war, as it is a Congress that refused to impeach and publicly announced it did not have to do its duties so it would not as it was above the law, and who refused accord women justice by creating legislation always citing money as excuse and who declared a war upon bad evidence and did not then address that bad declaration and who later used money in the form of a denial of funding for equipment and troop requests in order to prevent the Commander from discharging his duties and so effectively commanding thus violated the separation of powers and abused the War Powers Act or is this a conflict of interest so great no member of the Congress can ever overcome to then act as President and Commander?

Is a President and Commander in Chief to be held not only to the highest standard, US law, but the strictest standard, actual reality, and does Barack Obama meet these standards? Does he have the ability as “to the best of my ability” is named to fulfill the oath of office as he cannot resolve the injustices women face nor can he resolve any of the issues Bush V Gore then caused? Was he unable from a time before he was even nominated by the Democratic Party due to the unique facts of his life such as being a sitting member of the Congress that did not address a bad declaration of war and his inability to reason Bush v Gore for what it is thus he cannot preserve, protect an defend the Constitution?

Did both major parties engage in the buying and selling of the office of the Executive as evidenced by a reputed $5.3 billion dollar price tag? Did the voters? Does this massive influx of money and the almost total lack of regulation as this money cannot be traced then make it impossible for any person not willing to violate our law or the spirit of our law to then become the elected President and Commander? Does it harm women due to the past effects of discrimination? Did Barack Obama violate the spirit of the law by using only private funding so he could then raise and spend an unlimited amount and so did he purchase this office? Does our law make campaign financing as it exists now unconstitutional as recent reform only served to make it more difficult for independent and third party candidates not less so while actually favoring incumbents and major party candidates?

[SusanConstant]

Reasons To Grant Petition


For 16 years we have been suffering and dying without reason or cause; for women this has always been the case as our nation came into being excluding women. Since 1998 chain of command has been interrupted due to perjury committed by the sitting President and Commander, a person who had no protected right to hold this office but only the privilege and who engaged in the purchase of this office and went so far as to do so with the assistance of a person who was not born in America and was not an American but a British born citizen who worked mostly as a prostitute in France (courtesan, if that makes it any easier to swallow) named Pamela Harriman, later given what is equivalent to a state funeral for no reason other than what is personal and when American women and other citizens are denied this, and this perjury was ignored by Congress and then the people as if it had never happened. One devastating effect on women who are girls? Children now engage in oral sex yet claim it is not sex and younger and younger girls are being deceived by this lie. One devastating effect on all women? Abuse of power is excused as the men engaging in it are also the men charged with the duty to address it thus what is abuse of power, and is men acting against women, is labeled something else and made to seem as if it is normal and legal. Chain of command is yet disrupted today due to Bush V Gore which has now escalated to all offices becoming unchecked. Under these most extraordinary of all circumstances, the effect of a failure to grant a writ of mandamus and/or prohibition could well be to deny Petitioners fully effective relief or any relief in this case and to inflict material harm on all women, their children and enlisted services members plus the Presidential election process. The United States could fall as a scientific world power as this case would also unite faith and reason thus resolving Uniformity and so reasons a newly defined force that another nation may then use to gain advantage in the world market. While this force has been known to exist no person knew what it is or clearly defined it. The citizens might never come to own the actual power or force their one vote is and so this government and law might never recover. A writ and oral argument is further justified by the extraordinary importance of the outcome of this case and the extremely time?sensitive nature of relief. Petitioners have been injured without relief for over ten years to the point of physical and emotional death; currently they are threatened with irreparable injury, and the equities clearly favor granting a writ, because a writ and then oral argument is the only means of protecting Susan Herbert, her minor sons Ethan and Christopher, all women and their children, enlisted service members and the integrity of the federal election process while ensuring women and the poor have proper and orderly access to the judicial system.

The office of the Executive is our protected birthright; women - either me alone or as a class - should not have this birthright stripped from their persons before it has ever even been accorded to them. This would be especially injurious as conditions exist today as just as the bald eagle went off the endangered species list women went on it as this nation denies it has and is engaged in an actual war against women and girls in spite of actual reality: Unchecked rapes, sexual abuse, child sexual abuse, the spread of sexually transmitted diseases like AIDS, domestic and other violence, death from drug addiction, one sitting Justice who is female in 2008 and only a handful of Senators, the unchecked and now accepted prevalence of what Justice Potter would know as being actual pornography and the sex industry being the industry which accords women the most pay.

Lastly but mostly, I wish to make a gift of my priceless intellectual property to all natural born citizens especially women, children and enlisted service members, or, to all Native Americans.

The type of writ I am seeking, 20.1: both in the alternative. “The issuing of mandamus…is constitutionally vested in the Supreme Court…but a mandamus directed at a public officer, belongs to original jurisdiction…and is restricted to certain specified cases that do not comprehend a mandamus. The latter clause of the above section to persons holding office under the authority of the US is therefore not warranted by the constitution and void.” 1 Cranch, R. 175. This does not apply in this case. I am the United States in this case and due to the absolute unconstitutionality of Bush V Gore, due to Roberts denying me justice in an unconstitutional manner once already which then caused my children to be killed as their will was broken and caused further injury to my person, John Roberts has no authority over my person under the law as all offices went unchecked. I’m the lone American who actually obeyed the law and all federal precedent. I’m the actual living embodiment of the law and I have authority and consent. This case sets precedent and is unique. This will never happen again in the US for if it does there will be something very, very different – it will not be an American.

The Court may not rely on past precedent when no past ruling may cover this unique issue, as it is a first in the history of the world. As I attempted to enter other courts and as I was denied and as Bush V Gore set new precedent as will I by closing this door, then I can be granted original jurisdiction and mandamus. I am of the true belief, in this case, you can indeed grant me original jurisdiction and mandamus as not one person – those in chain of command who failed to fulfill their honor bound duties some of whom broke the law - has or ever had authority and as authority and consent are reciprocal.

I am demanding a writ of prohibition against the people in order to prevent them from acting to make real the result of a federal decision and order known as 2008 Presidential election and it is not valid, binding or legal, as it violates our law absolutely and wholly, as it makes a violation of Marbury permanent, as it sells the office of the Executive to the highest bidder i.e. private interests and as it was never legal from a time before even the first primary was held. I am seeking a writ of prohibition against Barack Obama preventing him from acting as President and Commander and a writ of mandamus compelling him to produce his birth records thus answering my federal question regarding whether or not he is a natural born citizen. I also ask for a Writ of Mandamus to be issued against George Bush Jr. compelling him to do his duty and so stand down as I have legally unseated him and as he had no actual legal power but only moral authority and that moral authority became nonexistent soon after he assumed command. The public has deemed his Presidency to be the worst in US history; if this is true then the public must accept equal fault, as ignorance is not an excuse and there is no other citizen willing to stand beside me. Each has their own reason, most of which I have found to be excuses. I do not believe Bush Jr. meant to cause this nation or my own person harm intentionally and I myself do not consider his actions the worst as one cannot truly compare any single President’s actions against another’s as all stand alone. I, my own self, witnessed Bush Jr. being emotionally assaulted and battered on national television in February of 2007; it was at this time I realized he was experiencing gross injury and so did not know something about himself, our law and the public. He was speaking out against Congress’ refusal to grant him funds for troops and adequate troop numbers; he was attempting to inform a reporter that enlisted service members would be sent to their deaths directly due to this action. The reporter then said something so injurious and so out of touch with reality and our law that I witnessed Bush Jr. implode as he realized that this reporter had no idea what was actually happening and so other Americans did not. Bush Jr. was devastated; he literally imploded and I can and will produce this taped appearance for the court. At that moment he then lost any ability he might have had to act. This event led me to immediately phone the US military, specifically the Navy at Naval Station Mayport where federal injury first occurred to my person and to my sons persons to inform them that I had the case for equality and proof of life. I spoke to the Commander’s office that referred me to a Lt. Commander with JAG. This Lt. Commander and I “squared off” as I informed him that I was fully prepared to stand down the Chief Justice and the person acting as President and expected to do so soon; that I possessed the legal argument and the means to enter US Supreme Court. The point of law was lost on this Lt. Commander who could not reason that Congress was not his friend but had become his deadly enemy and as he had no idea what this argument meant to the military as he could not get past my being a woman or the appearance that Congress funds war and so Congress commands when it does not. In his mind funding was inextricably linked to authority. However, he not once called me crazy or stupid nor did he even so much as infer this and as I invoked chain of command he even respected me. He told me he knew if any person could do this it would be me, he was certain of that based only upon our conversation, and he wished me luck in my endeavor. I officially stood him down then thus stood aside the whole military. Next I phoned the Supreme Court and asked the clerk for directions to file a case of original jurisdiction, as acting upon my knowledge is what matters in the eyes of the law and a citizen is charged with the duty to deliver any information that effects our national safety to his or her commanding officer/s any way they can which at that point then became the Chief Justice and then the whole Supreme Court. It is my true belief that Bush Jr. was caught in a situation that was then beyond his abilities and capabilities due to no fault of his own. Most people believe that standing down is then admitting guilt or admitting defect; it is not especially in this extraordinary case. If all that is left within Bush’s power is this he should not hesitate to act for the people nor do I expect him to do so. This is exactly what makes or breaks an American who is an actual President and Commander whether they possess the title or not. By volunteering one final time and so do one of the hardest and most difficult things he will ever be asked to do in his life he will then turn his attempt into our recovery as a nation. This is the greatest test of will and liberty any man can ever undergo and it is this that proves or disproves the actual measure of an American. No other nation is this.

It is my true belief that no person ever served my notice of suit upon Bush Jr.; I have zero evidence he ever received it and lots of evidence he did not. I must act for myself and then this nation and so I must ask for this Writ against Bush Jr. but I want to make it clear I am not accusing him of guilt or deliberation and tell this court and him that this Writ of Mandamus must be issued so that I can then actually assume the office and so defend my birthright and the birthright of every American, the Declaration and Constitution realized as this office, from the dangers it now faces. I must then be allowed to face Barack Obama and any person, group, political party or private interest acting to violate the law, illegally circumvent it and/or corrupt it as not only the legal President and Commander but also the actual President and Commander thus defend We, the people. I am the person who represents the United States Armed Forces and have since that February day and then all those who did not break the law and who did act to uphold it and/or who are wholly vulnerable and defenseless. This is not a case of Bush Jr. not wanting to do his duty it is that this duty is beyond his ability and the only way to then become able is to stand down on behalf of your nation thus aside your nation. It is like I stated within In Re Susan: In America, first the bomb is set off then the fuse is lit. This is how Bush Jr. can aid the people in relighting the torch known as liberty which is almost completely extinguished and this is how he can first light the flames of his own sacred human heart as that fire has not ever been set ablaze. As I’m the expert and the actual authority I know as the only time I have seen it was a time he would have been too young to recall it so that feeling is then lost to him but that injury is not forever. I may have been forced to act alone but Bush Jr. will not be acting alone as he will have 300 million people behind him for the first time since he sat as President and Commander.

Federalist 23 is clear: The founders could not plan for all emergencies and we must deal with them as they arise. They expected us to be of the ability to think on our feet or to learn what we do not know and then act. Federalist 10 is clear: Address the cause if possible but if not address the most damaging effect. Marbury is clear: You must act.

How this petition will be in aid of the court’s appellate jurisdiction, 20.3: The Supreme Court of the United States may not apply the law justly in ANY appellate cases or extend its appellate jurisdiction to ANY cases involving women and children justly or even apply the law justly upon hearing ANY petitions whatsoever as it is impossible to reason the law if the court does not know something or if this court is in denial or if this court is not willing. If justice is now nonexistent and Barack Obama’s nomination and doubts re his birth are part of the reasoning liberty has been denied me and all women, and I can and will prove he does not have the protected right and that he purchased this office, and the both major parties may have placed unqualified men who may not be natural born citizens under our law on the ballot, then this court must act to address this to then re-secure justice. No decisions and orders stand as good and no citizen has to obey the law while liberty and justice is denied me and then all of America and Marbury actually demands we do not obey such orders as our law is self-defense is a duty and a right as we are a nation born in an act of self-defense. Safety was our original reasoning and our cause as was liberty and justice. Also, this court wants and needs to re-secure constitutional authority officially by upholding Marbury in our defense or else no citizen is then subject to the law nor can they be found under the law; this court would have no authority and no legal power and so the question of aiding the court’s appellate jurisdiction would then be and remain moot as in order to have appellate jurisdiction first you must actually and legally be a court of law.

The exceptional circumstances that warrant the Court’s discretionary powers, 20.1: Legally and actually a coup has occurred, as that is what this kind of consolidation of power that then requires innocent people die is and that is what all offices going unchecked is. This coup has not yet turned bloody. If you look, I stated what my last resort would have to be: Actually firing shots at a third party so it condemns me, my sons and others to possible injury and death when only some of these people are actually and legally guilty. I have exhausted all other courts and ‘authorities’ and the court I am before now, a local district court, was recently found to be trading the law upon honor bound dollars. I have a US Marshal babysitting me and a clerk of this court as he will be ‘checking up’ on the progress of this case but not the guilty parties who are now citing paper as a deadly weapon and an emergency when wielded by Susan Herbert alone in US Supreme Court. The clerks and Justices are fine with paper and paper, 8 ½ by 11, is one of the rules and is federal precedent yet the US Marshal is worried. On the very day in April of 2008 that I was denied oral argument and both extraordinary writs, FL investigated me for child abuse and based their action upon my belief in God and the fact that I filed a lawsuit in US Supreme Court. The social worker first mentioned the lawsuit, then launched right into the concerning things it included such as a belief in God, illegal war and Bush Jr. It is extraordinary that I willed myself to do this when 300 million citizens failed as I did this alone. Every single right named in our law was denied me and this court itself then even violated my rights forcing me to reveal what I never wanted to reveal as it was my private knowledge that has no bearing upon my legal claim and so it never should have been necessary to reveal this. I am the exceptional circumstance; the entire state of our nation is the exceptional condition.

I publicly posted the facts of my case all over the internet and not one citizen ‘believed’ I was actually heard in US Supreme Court or that I could add and so knew what the difference was between an absolute and whole number or between a body as in a person and a body as in a body of government or a body of belief. The last violation of my rights was a gross violation as a federal judge denied the very existence of this nation and our law. This occurred on July 1st, 2008 and is included within In Re Susan. Judges acted only upon their discriminatory unjust beliefs regarding women and Susan exactly as I not once asked the court to adjudicate who I am as I did not ask this court. I know whom I am, as I am not confused, deluded or mistaken – I am a Native American, a person naturally born within the physical boundaries of the US thus we need not adjudicate this one issue. This July 1st ruling and all rulings are so egregious as they are meant to tell me that no appeal would ever be granted to me.

Also in play is an extraordinary law of this universe known as entropy, the tendency of a system in disorder to become more disordered until chaos reigns. In order to arrest and even reverse entropy one must act to break the chain of causation and then act to ‘correct’ the cause: Mistaken beliefs men have of this universe, the Creator and of women.

Adequate relief cannot be obtained from any other court as I have been to them all from lowest to highest and none are willing to obey the law. I may be the first citizen to appear in all courts simultaneously. By going into the US Supreme Court as a case of original jurisdiction I already proved the lower federal courts were not willing thus appealing Timothy Corrigan’s shameless July 1st, 2008 ruling is not possible. They are still at it. When federal judges are acting as if they are delusional by issuing rulings that state the Iroquois, the Justices and I do not exist nor ever did as I entered the entire Iroquois Constitution, biographies of each Justice taken from the federal government’s website, several decisions and orders they authored as well as my own birth certificate and federal military ID and these unconstitutional rulings are exactly worded “There is no basis in fact or law” for my claim – a claim based upon math and exact words – I cannot fight it as these people need mental health help not legal help. I’m a patriot, physicist, subsistence attorney, philosopher and scholar not a therapist. It has been ten years. If any court was willing or able to accord me justice it would have happened already thus it must now be considered: Do you ask another nation if they want a genuine liberator in the flesh for no cost but living expenses or do you accord me justice?

To overcome the lower courts sexism and prejudice first I would have to teach it Latin, Greek, Roman Catholicism, logic, military tactics and strategy, biology, geometry, Buddhism, diagramming sentences, physics, art history, sociology and several other disciplines and that is only if they are willing to learn and they are not. My energy is not wasted teaching the Justices anything they do not know but is wasted teaching other federal judges or other state judges. It is impossible to adjudicate this case in any other court as the last but perhaps most important factor is: John Roberts has a seizure disorder so he is the perfect Justice and/or Judge to preside as a part of my case deals with the intrinsic or creation force, an actual physical force in this universe, which our vote is as it is this power that is realized as a form of government and law known affectionately by St. John as “the church of Philadelphia”. A person with a seizure disorder would immediately know the truth of this as he has life experience other persons do not and that no school can ever teach you. The world’s foremost expert and leading authority in seizures would not then possess the ability, capability and expertise John Roberts does unless that authority actually experienced a seizure as proof is life.

Finally? As John Roberts had no involvement in Bush v Gore he can and may adjudicate whether or not I have overturned it and whether or not I have unseated Bush Jr.

[CptColumbo]

Whiskey Tango Foxtrot!

I would offer more detailed opinion, but I haven't read the entire OP yet. I may get back to you in a couple of days.

[SusanConstant]

Besides resolving uniformity my case unites faith and reason. I can prove all things are possible; then I can prove what is or is not actual reality from among these possibilities. I cannot prove what is impossible. My argument is not religious at all. It is legal and scientific as religion is not faith and as even the legal profession and the sciences practice or possess dogma. It denies no person choice; what it does is define our law absolutely so that persons cannot keep changing the conditions on you or using propaganda and/or fear to then discriminate, control you or negotiate your humanity thus your rights. For instance, men use abortion to then control women by denying them liberty rights. Telling a woman she cannot have an abortion if her life is at stake is like telling a soldier he cannot shoot if the enemy has a gun pointed at him. Men abuse knowledge of the law to then abuse power; silence? It is a form of abuse of knowledge thus abuse of power which is why you should be furious the press will not publicize my case. All the men pressing suit have gotten some publicity even if it was only the internet news services. The day Obama's lawyers received my suit? They went on the news and stated all suits were "garbage". in my case that is then calling my person garbage and so it is defamatino of character. I'll amend this to include defamamtion as i already have a libel and slander federal question regardign the "Patriot act" within In Re Susan. This would not be the first time a person read my suit then began committing the very charges I named within it against me over again. Federal judges did it too, lol.

A term is a condition you place upon yourself; a condition is something another person forces upon you. Contract law is terms not conditions as you can never control any other person but only yourself. You volunteer to abide by terms never conditions! It is informed consent. I do not know about you but I never, ever consented to any of this and I never, ever obeyed or believed Bush V Gore. Think: did you have informed consent if federal judges were pulling suits and committing other acts that are criminal in order to silence lawsuits against the candidates or that overturn Bush V Gore?

You should all be furious and ready to march on Washington DC as shooting is your duty and your right and is even supported by Marbury if this happens: As a nation you unfounded your selves!

[Tailgater]

Could you add a summary post?

[CptColumbo]

I currently have three actions in US Supreme Court; two of them are attached to a case I filed in October due to my unique circumstances: all three cases?
1. What are the docket numbers? I don't see it on the US Supreme Court calender for the current term: http://www.supremecourtus.gov/index.html
2. Why did this sentence end with a question mark?

[SusanConstant]

Mail me your addy; I can call you as a witness to then give testimony to just how pathetic, apathetic and stupid Americans have become; I can use you to prove that Americans are eager to become dead institutions as they have been emotionally assaulted and battered almost beyond repair. They have no idea liberty is an emotion realized as justice. They have no idea our law is fear is not an option as it is unconstitutional as in any safe nation? You would not be so afraid. Safety is a named right you know. In fact I will print these photos as I still have to author a brief.

You're proof: Men cannot conceive of any woman being able to Preside and Command as every single litigant coming before this court to remove Obama has to prove that...

He would win as he can do this job if his name were then upon the ballot. That is US case law; if you cannot pro ve this? you are not supposed to then be able to pres suit as what you have to prove is your right was violated and it is only a right, a protected right, if you first have the willingness and/or ability. Of course I fully expect men to circumvent US case law.

US law? It's about Id not Ego. Ego is the actual issue and the actual problem as it drives men to belive as fact they are the exception to the law and so above it. Ego causes them to deny reality like: Patriarchy has dropped dead. Proof beyond any reasonable doubt would be the Supreme court's own docket as no other woman has been allowed entry as I have and no man was ever granted standing as pro se, authiorty and original jurisdiction. I have done three times what men could not.

Lol! Let me guess: I hacked into the docket? I was accidentally set for conference? Once may be a mistake? Two or three times? No mistake!

[maxfrost]

Basically, it's Barack Obama isn't qualified to be POTUS for any number of reasons and for that reason George Bush Jr. must remain on the job. Or, maybe she's the only one in the country who hasn't been disqualified for some reason or other and should become the next president. Or,... Oh, hell, I give up.

[ktesibios]

SusanConstant's claims of "treason" are themselves unconstitutional, as treason is specifically defined in Article 3, Section 3 of the consitution:

Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court..

No word salad, no matter how big the serving, will ever twist this into anything having to do with the election of a President. The reason the Framers so restricted the definition of treason should be obvious- in the monarchist regimes that were the norm until the founding of the USA, "treason" all too often meant "pissing off the King".

It's really a matter of curiosity only, but is this just another routine case of a paranoid conspiracist not bothering to know a simple bit of information from a fourth-grade civics class, or one of a paranoid conspiracist being aware of the facts and dishonestly choosing to ignore them?

It's a pity that cockeyed suits like the ones about Obama's citizenship commonly get dismissed on grounds of standing. I have a delicious mental image of a judge frantically leafing through thesauruses and crossword-puzzle dictionaries in search of a way to say "bat**** crazy" without torpedoing his judicial dignity.

[WildCat]

I currently have three actions in US Supreme Court;
Can you cite these cases you claim to have before the SCOTUS?

[CptColumbo]

1. What are the docket numbers? I don't see it on the US Supreme Court calender for the current term: http://www.supremecourtus.gov/index.html
2. Why did this sentence end with a question mark?

Can you cite these cases you claim to have before the SCOTUS?I didn't see SUSAN HERBERT A Natural Born Citizen Who Is A Mother And So Shed Her Blood And Risked Her Life In Defense Of The Constitution Or We, The People Thus The Protected Right Is Her V. BARACK OBAMA AND THE UNITED STATES (or just Herbert v. Obama) on the docket yet for this term.


BTW Susan just link to another site next time, rather than filling up a page.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/3473513/Supreme-Court-Petition-In-Re-Susan-Herbert-A-Case-Of-Original-Jurisdiction

[SusanConstant]

I entered Einstein and Tesla as well as several others and their work as proof. Do you then deny their work? Their facts and their person? What, the founders never lived? The Iroquios did not write a Coinstitution? What you are doing is not only discrimination of me and all women but of all Native Americans as well as any group not white, not male and not atheist. You are: unethical. Here you go fellas:


Legal theory is exactly like scientific theory. First you author the theory based upon ownership of knowledge. Ownership of knowledge is Id, not Ego. What is observed then proves the theory as law. You are not supposed to use what is observed to then cobble together a theory thus explain what you observe. If you do that you are not proving anything. Our founders authored a legal thoery known as the Declaration and Constitution; we then lived it out as real thus we made observations. WE ARE THE PROOF OF US LAW AS ELEGANT! It is indeed a law and not merely one kind or type of government as it exactly matches things like Relativity and The Law of Conservation of Matter and Energy. The founders theorized one vote counts and the individual is important and that a person could rise to power by acting upno an ethic - rights born of the Creator thus they are inalienable not upon the whim and will of unjust men. We did indeed invoke divine right but very, very differently: As a matter of your own judgement upon your own self as we are self-governing and so self-adjudicating. We theorized all people are equal in the eyes of gGd and so under US law. We said: God leveled the playing field first.

I'm absolute proof that one vote does count and that any citizen can rise to power based upon that vote; I'm proof that any victim can overcome the injury no matter how great and no matter how severe so if any of you are victims it is only because you are willing victims. You are proof beyond any reasonable doubt; you become absolute proof if you die physically or in this case, metaphysically as that is what liberty denied is, as willing victims are dead instituions of government.

Study the historical record: All nations die this way; first they go metaphysically then physically. The reason it seems as if we are repeating Rome's mistakes? We are as the Ceasar declared himself a god and the roman Senate did nothing. This happens when any great government denies women rights then denies their children rights or refuses to ever accord them to begin with as patriarchy and endemic corruption can only go so far. Once you corrupt the system a much as possible you must then change it into soemthing else or eliminate it entirely; you die. PERIOD.

BTW: I believe I am going to enter all of these responses as supproting evidence rising to proof. The actual issue?

Ego, as Ego drives this kind of behavior as Ego is fear based while Id is not. Ego is self-doubt and blame; Id is ownership of knowledge and so confidence. Ego is perceived power while Id is actual power. Ego is what causes denial. Ego is discrimination.

Equivalent Ego and Id? An actual form of energy. Our fonders were - are - a big bang. So am I. You? Imploding stars. It is like I told the court:

The voters wither on the vine.

[CptColumbo]

What is with the declarative sentences ending with question marks?

[Professor Yaffle]

I think the first thread Susan started here has links to court cases she has been involved with.

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=121942

Post 16 in the thread is particularly illuminating.

[geni]

The Constitution is not a suicide pact. Which means even if you do managed to produce a set of non standard reasoning that gets you where you want to go it woin't actualy provide you with an effective case.

[applecorped]

I know exactly how extraordinary I am.

How do you know for sure?

[IchabodPlain]

Men? They have unclean hands and are not mmebers of any injured class.

You lost me about here.

[gdnp]

I entered Einstein and Tesla as well as several others and their work as proof.

I thought your premise was that no man is qualified to be president because they are all mentally ill, based on the fact that they could not conceive of a woman being a genius. Or something like that. Yet you quote Einstein and Tesla, who were men and thus presumably insane (I would agree with the latter but not the former). Yet men gave 2 Nobel Prizes to Marie Curie. Clearly, some men recognized her a genius. And some men voted for Hillary Clinton: millions in fact. So I think you have failed to prove that all men are insane. In fact, the preponderance of the evidence suggests they are not. Even if they were, do you expect a Supreme court with 8 men and 1 woman to to admit it? Your logic is fatally flawed.

If you truly believe what you have posted here you may wish to consider psychiatric evaluation. I mean this in all sincerity, and hope you do not take it as an insult.

[applecorped]

Maybe if I break it don into smaller pieces will help understand it better. Let's see:

17. Obama believes "gay" is a protected class and is for giving the rights of women to men who are gay by giving them unfair advantage and overly broad power compared to women yet denied basic human rights and our law protects no act of sex not even heterosexual acts as an act of sex is a choice unless it is forced. The word "sex” was jokingly and mistakenly used in the Civil Rights Act, as the protected class is women as "female" is a quality of being human and acts of sex are not. Quality of sex or gender is not a choice. Rights if you are gay consist of the same rights all citizens have if they are human and then law abiding. Just as men and women have only one distinction so do persons who are gay and this one distinction does not then make any of us not human or less than human.


No.

[gdnp]

So...

They were insane women?

No, Einstein was sane but Tesla was a brilliant nut.

[Lonewulf]

No, Einstein was sane but Tesla was a brilliant nut.

Oh, dang.

I liked the other one. Was more controversial and funny. :D

[Gord_in_Toronto]

Basically, it's Barack Obama isn't qualified to be POTUS for any number of reasons and for that reason George Bush Jr. must remain on the job. Or, maybe she's the only one in the country who hasn't been disqualified for some reason or other and should become the next president. Or,... Oh, hell, I give up.

No. No. No. You haven't been listening!!! :D

Obama can't be President because Bush was never legally President. You are going to have to do the last eight years over again and get it right this time. Or something like that. :confused:

[Gaspode]

Some posts split to AAH.

As per the membership agreement, keep the thread on topic and do not indulge in personalised responses.

[fuelair]

This legal activity has no (zero, nada, etc.) chance of doing anything the person claiming to have entered it says/posits/thinks it will. It is, however a sign of the problems inherent in a system where there is not some agency that checks all attempts at lawsuits (tort law applications) and automatically throws out those that may be considered errant/deficient, incompetant, immaterial or meant to bog down the courts and their functions for no real legal purpose or due to the belief in some ficticious interpretation of the law or it's parts.

[WildCat]

Some posts split to AAH.

As per the membership agreement, keep the thread on topic and do not indulge in personalised responses.
Susan's incoherent rambling manifesto has a topic?

Could somebody please paraphrase the topic?

[Tricky]

Susan's incoherent rambling manifesto has a topic?
Yes it does. The thread title at least is clear. There are several other distinct "issues" mentioned in the long posts, (which, by the way, violate no forum rules) and you are invited to address any of them. Those posts which are nothing more than comments on the poster will continue to be moved to AAH, as I have done to a few more. If personal attacks continue, they will be subject to moderation and infractionation.

If you find this thread not worth your effort, you are invited to set your "ignore" cannon to it's highest strength.

[gtc]

It would crush several firms of attorneys working together. Time may run out or the injury may become too severe to then be addressed as irreparable injury, possibly the physical death of my person or my children, may occur. My children have already had their will broken and so their injury is; they have died emotionally and are no longer recognizable. I have already had bones broken and was physically dead once; my injury is now as my death is imminent but not inevitable.


Is anyone else concerned by this part?

[Drudgewire]

Is anyone else concerned by this part?


Wow, missed that. And yes I am, especially after reading the interview with the creators of "The Shield" who based a big part of the finale on the incident with pro wrestler Chris Benoit:

“The initial pitch was Shane gets caught,” Ryan said. “There was a pro wrestler [Chris Benoit] who did something similar last year. They have a term for it -- ‘family annihilator.’ You believe you’re preserving for eternity their level of innocence, that you're somehow saving them. To write those scenes was not pleasant. From the moment the family went on the run, I said to the writers, ‘This whole journey needs to bring them a lot closer together.’”

[Professor Yaffle]

I can only suggest reading this, for a background:

http://decisions.courts.state.ny.us/ad3/Decisions/2005/95617.pdf

[Kopji]

A reading of Susan's posts, although very lengthy and flowery, seem to be a declaration of war on the US and she asserts herself as the true President.

This due to some kind of clever direct ability to represent her case before the supreme court.

If jref wants to protect this kind of stuff as 'topical', hey go for it.

[gdnp]

I agree with Tricky's assessment (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=3981201#post3981201) in the prior thread:

This is indeed very sad. I cannot help but think that if we had universal health care, many of Susan's problems would get some attention.

[balrog666]

Yes it does. The thread title at least is clear. There are several other distinct "issues" mentioned in the long posts, (which, by the way, violate no forum rules) and you are invited to address any of them. Those posts which are nothing more than comments on the poster will continue to be moved to AAH, as I have done to a few more. If personal attacks continue, they will be subject to moderation and infractionation.

If you find this thread not worth your effort, you are invited to set your "ignore" cannon to it's highest strength.


Yes, the title is clear, the rest of the book ...


And, so, if I donate blood, Al-Qeada wins?? :rolleyes: Is that close?

[RandFan]

I can only suggest reading this, for a background:

http://decisions.courts.state.ny.us/...2005/95617.pdf (http://decisions.courts.state.ny.us/ad3/Decisions/2005/95617.pdf) Thank you very much.

"If we could read the secret history of our enemies, we should find in each man's life sorrow and suffering enough to disarm any hostility." --Longfellow

While Susan isn't an enemy of mine by any stretch of the imagination I most certainly think she has experienced sorrow and suffering enough to disarm any negative view I might have toward her. As a parent I can understand to some small degree what she has been through.

I don't know all of the facts of the case or Susan's take but I think the court likely acted appropriately.

That said, Susan I hope you find some measure of peace in all of this. I wish you no ill will. I don't think your current course is well advised and I hope you can find help aside from this quixotique cause but it is a free country and as long you are not breaking any laws you are entitled to seek redress.

[gtc]

We have Universal Health in Australia. To recieve treatment, people have to be willing to accept help or be in a much worse situation and be forced into treatment. I think it is the same in the UK.

[RandFan]

I have been a long time opponent to universal health care. I'm now in support of it.

[Drewbot]

Does anyone get the feeling that those children might really be sick, and Moms is writing it off to them 'being emotionally drained by the government'?

[Professor Yaffle]

Does anyone get the feeling that those children might really be sick, and Moms is writing it off to them 'being emotionally drained by the government'?

Read the link I posted. The kids don't live with their mum.

[linusrichard]

It is, however a sign of the problems inherent in a system where there is not some agency that checks all attempts at lawsuits (tort law applications) and automatically throws out those that may be considered errant/deficient, incompetant, immaterial or meant to bog down the courts and their functions for no real legal purpose or due to the belief in some ficticious interpretation of the law or it's parts.

I don't know what you mean by "automatically," but I'm pretty sure the courts throw out frivolous suits regularly and pretty easily. It's unfortunate that judges and court staff have to do that, but I think it beats the alternative of having an outside agency screen cases and decide what gets to the court. It seems to me that deciding whether or not a suit is frivolous has to be a judicial decision.

[fuelair]

Anyone curious - based on the court record thing - how she found this forum? Doesn't seem a normal side trip on that ride.

[qwints]

This legal activity has no (zero, nada, etc.) chance of doing anything the person claiming to have entered it says/posits/thinks it will. It is, however a sign of the problems inherent in a system where there is not some agency that checks all attempts at lawsuits (tort law applications) and automatically throws out those that may be considered errant/deficient, incompetant, immaterial or meant to bog down the courts and their functions for no real legal purpose or due to the belief in some ficticious interpretation of the law or it's parts.

That's a pretty dangerous view point. Who decides what this agency is? There are rules designed allowed to winnow out frivolous claims - see FRCP 12(b), but every American deserves their day in court.

On the main topic of the thread, we need to see cause numbers or the cases don't exist.

[Ducky]

This person has a J.D.? I've known some pretty bad spellers who were attorneys but I've never seen an attorney write with such incoherence and lack of basic language skills. Nor do I see attorneys write in such a fashion as to attempt with letters and punctuation to show how they would speak what they are writing. Such displays are often the mark of undereducated internet trolls who think by spamming the internet and repeating themselves ad nauseam it will somehow change their situation.

Whatever wrong this person has or has not suffered, I fail to see how this nonsense would begin to address it.

However, one bit that strikes me as taking a left turn at crazy road is this:

I REFUSE TO GIVE MY BIRTHRIGHT AWAY BEFORE EVER BEING GRANTED IT AND THEN STILL REFUSE. I PAID MY DUES, AS DID MY PARENTS, AND I SHED MY BLOOD; I ACTUALLY DIED IN DEFENSE OF THE CONSTITUTION.


...huh? That's so chocked full of nutty goodness it's got to be better tasting than a payday bar. Mayhap someone's been drinking of the following coffee:

http://i4.peapod.com/c/IJ/IJUAA.jpg

[Cain]

She reminds me of Francis E. Dec minus the fun. That guy filed a bunch of lawsuits, and even references the Supreme Court. What's up with these crazy people?

http://blog.wfmu.org/freeform/2005/05/gangster_comput.html

I like rant #2.

[UnrepentantSinner]

Post #1 - butterfly
Post #2 - Garfield the cat
Post #3 - willow tree
Post #4 - Jello parfait
Post #5 - raincloud over a lake
Post #6 - Abraham Lincoln

[SezMe]

Whatever may be the merits of her claims, she has surely surpassed BAC for the title of "War and Peace" poster. That said, BAC can give her some lessons on citing loony sites for support of her positions.

[Smackety]

I can only suggest reading this, for a background:

http://decisions.courts.state.ny.us/ad3/Decisions/2005/95617.pdf

ah.. I see now, some kind of amphetamine psychosis, perhaps?

[CptColumbo]

Susan,

Alright, I've been trying to read your OPs and I'm not sure what point you are trying to make. It seems to boil down to nobody, except you, deserves the freedoms guaranteed under the US Constitution. That no one, except you, has earned these rights.

I know it might be difficult, but could you write a topic sentence or explain (in one sentence) what your point is?

[gdnp]

Susan,

Alright, I've been trying to read your OPs and I'm not sure what point you are trying to make. It seems to boil down to nobody, except you, deserves the freedoms guaranteed under the US Constitution. That no one, except you, has earned these rights.

I know it might be difficult, but could you write a topic sentence or explain (in one sentence) what your point is?

You have reminded me of an old platitude, which I will paraphrase to avoid channeling a certain Sarah Palin thread.

Do not attempt to teach a giraffe to sing. It is a waste of time, and it annoys the giraffe.

[CptColumbo]

You have reminded me of an old platitude, which I will paraphrase to avoid channeling a certain Sarah Palin thread.

Do not attempt to teach a giraffe to sing. It is a waste of time, and it annoys the giraffe.
I'm annoyed when the "giraffe" is unwilling to learn, especially on a topic they want to be an expert in.

[gdnp]

I'm annoyed when the "giraffe" is unwilling to learn, especially on a topic they want to be an expert in.

Yes, it is frustrating. The point of the platitude is that the giraffe is incapable of learning what you wish to teach it.

This case is not entirely the same. The giraffe in the parable has no desire to sing. The author of this thread probably desperately wants someone to take her claims seriously.

[CptColumbo]

Yes, it is frustrating. The point of the platitude is that the giraffe is incapable of learning what you wish to teach it.

This case is not entirely the same. The giraffe in the parable has no desire to sing. The author of this thread probably desperately wants someone to take her claims seriously.Unfortunately for her, the quality of the writing doesn't equal the quantity of it. If the point she is trying to make is that Barak "Obama may not be installed" as President, I'm not following her line of reasoning (if there is one).

This appears to be a stream of conscienceness paper, rather than a legal brief.

[doobiedoright]

Wow so if I read all that correctly she is the only one who should be president?

Is there a Doctor in the house?We surely have a need for one!

[Gord_in_Toronto]

Unfortunately for her, the quality of the writing doesn't equal the quantity of it. If the point she is trying to make is that Barak "Obama may not be installed" as President, I'm not following her line of reasoning (if there is one).

This appears to be a stream of conscienceness paper, rather than a legal brief.

If you refer back to my post #33 in this thread, you'll see I summarized her point as: Obama can't be President because Bush was never legally President.
I did base this on reading about 1/3 of the words Susan had written to that point (my generic Evelyn Wood course does pay off occasionally). :)

If I have misrepresented what she said, she is free to correct me. :duck:

[shemp]

Obama can't be President because Bush was never legally President.

Yeah, I think that's what it boils down to. But if you want to play this game, you could argue that every U.S. President since John Tyler has been in office unconstitutionally. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Tyler#.22His_Accidency.22)

But if this isn't what it boils down to, could someone sum the whole thing up in 100 words or less?

[gdnp]

But if this isn't what it boils down to, could someone sum the whole thing up in 100 words or less?

No.

[BirdStrike]

I reject your "reasoning" Susan and replace it with Obama will be installed on Jan. 20, 2009 due to the will of the American people.

I like to keep things simple. :)

[leonAzul]

That's a pretty dangerous view point. Who decides what this agency is? There are rules designed allowed to winnow out frivolous claims - see FRCP 12(b), but every American deserves their day in court.



Many jurisdictions have expanded the responsibilities and revised the qualifications of the clerk of the court for this purpose. IOW, it doesn't require an outside agency but can be implemented by reassigning duties within the court.

[hgc]

SusanConstant: The intersection of Dr. Bronner's castille soap and Time Cube.

[dudalb]

If Donna Kossy brings out a new edition of her classic book "Kooks", Susan deserves a few pages.

[Upchurch]

I, for one, welcome our new bat:rule10 crazy Overlord. (Overlady?)

[quarky]

I tried to read the whole thing.
Now I want to sue someone.

[Gord_in_Toronto]

I tried to read the whole thing.
Now I want to sue someone.

Me too. :mad:

But who? :D

[Lonewulf]

So sue me.

[Seanette]

I didn't read any of Susan's posts, due to length and incoherence, but did read everyone else's in the thread.

Can anyone come up with any rational explanation as to what deceased European physics geniuses (Einstein and Tesla, for those joining the thread in progress) have to do with the 2008 US Presidential election?

[Lonewulf]

No.

[Darth Rotor]

There are several constitutional reasons voting for either major party candidate is treason and that installing Obama is treason.
You need not have typed anything beyond this, Susan. It was at this point that the moonbat detector goes off, for most readers, and the odds of anything following this statement gets any consideration. While you kindly put your "bottom line up front" it was a self inflicted wound. In so doing, you showed that you have no bottom line, nor a supportable point.
Many of you have little or no faith in spite of actual reality like the exact words in our law or the exact words in federal precedent or math.
You demonstrate little idea of what most or many of us do or don't know.

Susan, your cases will fail if your reasoning is of this quality in all three. I wish you the best of luck in wasting the time of anyone in our legal system. Lord knows, they don't have enough to do. Mulling over your complaint is something their idle minds will welcome, as a dog welcomes a chew toy.

Can anyone come up with any rational explanation as to what deceased European physics geniuses (Einstein and Tesla, for those joining the thread in progress) have to do with the 2008 US Presidential election?
Yes. Einstein developed the theory of relativity. Obama has foreign relatives. Einstein, a foreigner, was not born in the US. Therefore, neither was Obama, and thus Obama can't be President. :p

Simple, really, when a simple mind dreams it up.

DR

[timhau]

Can anyone come up with any rational explanation as to what deceased European physics geniuses (Einstein and Tesla, for those joining the thread in progress) have to do with the 2008 US Presidential election?

Yes we can. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diagnostic_and_Statistical_Manual_of_Mental_Disord ers)

[Seanette]

Yes. Einstein developed the theory of relativity. Obama has foreign relatives. Einstein, a foreigner, was not born in the US. Therefore, neither was Obama, and thus Obama can't be President. :p

Simple, really, when a simple mind dreams it up.

DR

My brain just curled up in a little ball and started whimpering.

[Darth Rotor]

My brain just curled up in a little ball and started whimpering.
Doctor Darth recommends an immediate treatment with cold beer.
http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_1096247bd06c5e752b.jpg (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=10924)

Beer: it does a brain cell good. :)

[technoextreme]

I have been a long time opponent to universal health care. I'm now in support of it.
Yeah there is a major flaw in that whole way of thinking. As someone else pointed out the person wants to get help.

[Chaos]

My brain just curled up in a little ball and started whimpering.

There, there...

*gently strokes Seanette´s brain*

Hope your hubby doesn´t see me doing this... :eek:

[Seanette]

There, there...

*gently strokes Seanette´s brain*

Hope your hubby doesn´t see me doing this... :eek:

He's not the jealous type.

[Little 10 Toes]

You claim that you have acted as President and Commander In Chief, per Article II, Section 2, Clause 1. Please advise when the Electoral College voted for you. Please also use one thousand words or less in the responce.

[Ducky]

You claim that you have acted as President and Commander In Chief, per Article II, Section 2, Clause 1. Please advise when the Electoral College voted for you. Please also use one thousand words or less in the responce.

Don't do this. Now we're going to get a list of 1,000 elective courses in college.

[Chaos]

He's not the jealous type.

In most places where I´ve been, stroking any part of another man´s wife is a rather bad idea...

[funk de fino]

I think Susan should be introduced to Maggie Thatcher.

What a stunning OP or two.

[SisterSmile]

Hell has no fury like a woman scorned...

[Lonewulf]

In most places where I´ve been, stroking any part of another man´s wife is a rather bad idea...

Foot massages come to mind... as well as a certain kind of Pulp Fiction. :D

[CptColumbo]

It appears Susan isn't returning.


Post and run.

[Darth Rotor]

It appears Susan isn't returning.
Post and run.
*sound of entire congregation exclaiming*

Thanks be to God!

[Alferd_Packer]

It appears Susan isn't returning.


Post and run.


Maybe they up'd her meds.

[skeptical]

The author of the OP obviously has some serious issues. I hope they seek some help.

Anyway, to salvage some shred of useful information out of this thread, I just wanted to point out that the poster could not have filed the case with SCOTUS. Article III limits the original jurisdiction of SCOTUS to cases "affecting Ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, and those in which a state shall be a party". It has only appellate jurisdiction in all other cases and as we know from Marbury, the original jurisdiction cannot be changed except by amendment.

[Darth Rotor]

The author of the OP obviously has some serious issues. I hope they seek some help.
Nitpick. She, not they. Singular author, singular pronoun to follow. :D The issues aren't in need of help, the author is.

[GodMark2]

Nitpick. She, not they. Singular author, singular pronoun to follow. :D The issues aren't in need of help, the author is.

"They" is the epicene third-person singular pronoun. The inappropriateness of this usage in written English is, at best, disputed. It's use on spoken English, however, is well documented.

[Darth Rotor]

"They" is the epicene third-person singular pronoun. The inappropriateness of this usage in written English is, at best, disputed. It's use on spoken English, however, is well documented.
Hi. This is a written medium. The author/they is incorrect. That sloppy usage in speech is not uncommon is no excuse. That you attempt to excuse it is a disappointment. I shall report you to the Grammar Tyrant. ;)

Good day.

DR

[GodMark2]

Hi. This is a written medium. The author/they is incorrect. That sloppy usage in speech is not uncommon is no excuse. That you attempt to excuse it is a disappointment. I shall report you to the Grammar Tyrant. ;)

Good day.

DR

Por Ahora! Viva le Resistance! Give me liberty or give me a good ham sandwich!

[EGarrett]

Hope this would be the first ever 100 post-thread without any actual replies...

[Professor Yaffle]

Hi. This is a written medium. The author/they is incorrect. That sloppy usage in speech is not uncommon is no excuse. That you attempt to excuse it is a disappointment. I shall report you to the Grammar Tyrant. ;)

Good day.

DR

The prohibition for using they as a gender neutral singular pronoun was yet another piece of grammar foisted on the public by 18/19th Century grammarians. Their solution was to use he as a default (in their minds it was better to be sexist than to use a plural instead of a singular). I reject their solution and revert to original usage.

If it was god enough for Jane Austen, William Shakespeare, Geoffrey Chaucer, Oscar Wilde, Lewis Carroll, Charles Dickens, George Elliot, George Orwell etc etc... it is good enough for me.

http://www.crossmyt.com/hc/linghebr/austheir.html


The argument was settled long ago: singular they has routinely been used throughout the history of English, by all the best writers, until certain subcases were artificially turned into "errors" by self-appointed experts. Successively less discriminating pseudo-authorities then generalized the proscription in successively sillier ways, although they have largely been ignored by the users of the language.

http://158.130.17.5/~myl/languagelog/archives/003582.html