Blog Rules

Comments are initially moderated, after which you have the opportunity to freely participate in the discussion. I do retain the right to remove postings which are obscene, commercial or which lack in content (trolling).

Argue with facts, provide supporting evidence and links.

And have fun


54 thoughts on “Blog Rules

  1. since Obama had dual citizenship “at birth” and therefore split loyalties “at birth”, he is not a “natural born citizen” of the United States.

    NBC: Dual citizenship or loyality has nothing to do with natural born citizen. All that is required is that a child is born under full jurisdiction of the United States, which excludes by the fewest words, children born to foreign dignitaries, invading military and for a while, Indians not paying taxes

    A “natural born citizen” would have no other jurisdiction over him “at birth” other than that of the United States. The Framers chose the words “natural born” and those words cannot be ignored. The status referred to in Article 2, Section 1, “natural born citizen”, pertains to the status of the person’s citizenship “at birth”.

    NBC: Yes, the status of President Obama at birth was that he was under full jurisdiction of the United States and born a natural born citizen. Due to his father’s citizenship, he could however have chosen to take his secondary, statutory citizenship when reaching the age of majority. But he clearly elected to continue his natural born US citizenship status.

    The other numerous law suits circling Obama to question his eligibility fail to hit the mark on this issue. Since Obama was, “at birth”, a British citizen, it is completely irrelevant, as to the issue of Constitutional “natural born citizen” status, whether Obama was born in Hawaii or abroad. Either way, he is not eligible to be President. Should Obama produce an original birth certificate showing he was born in Hawaii, it will not change the fact that Obama was a British citizen “at birth”.

    NBC: Again, to the United States, any secondary status President Obama may have had at birth are incidental as no country would allow the laws of other nations to decide who is or is not a US citizen. Do you want to try again? Because it is clear that dual citizenship has NO relevance here.

    Read some more here


    PS: Donna has received an education at Dr C’s as well but alas, she has failed to absorb the material. Let pray that her follies no further bother her.

  2. Why are new comments disabled on the technical evidence threads? I’d like to point out some gross errors on your part.

  3. They autoclose after a certain period of time to minimize spam and advertising. Let me open a new thread for you where you can quote and discuss what you believe to be some ‘gross errors’

  4. How is it possible for the problem over the social security number to be true? Investigating further shows that Mr. Ludwig was still alive in 1977. In fact, he did not die until 1981. How could anyone have stolen a number from a dead person who was not dead yet?

  5. Research also shows that Ludwig had a very different number than the one Obama has been using.

    But birthers are not guided by logic and reason.

  6. My name is David Schied and I would like the opportunity to place input and TRUTHFUL content on your blog site to counter your dreadful mistake of using fraudulent Michigan court judgments as your sole source of published information. I have joined WordPress for the purpose of asking you for that opportunity to express on your blog site some insights – and evidence if necessary – to support my position that the information that you have posted is not only very incomplete (thus repainting the picture that only the government criminals want the public to know about me) but is constructed as intentionally fraudulent so as to cover up multi-levels of government crimes.

    The information that I found to very incomplete on your site is located at the blog – “Educating the Confused – Criminal Contempt and Judge Karen Khalil” and the references by your contributors to court case “rulings” written by judges that are grossly incomplete and constructed so as to intentionally cover up crimes that have long been committed by all levels of Michigan government for which the evidence was repeatedly submitted but intentionally disregarded by the judges in a “chain conspiracal” fashion…..believe it or not. The evidence is clear and is now also being made public since it has become equally clear that the judicial system is completely broken (as independent research by the Center for Public Integrity has also suggested).

    So I ask again for the opportunity to “contribute” to your blog by submission of the truth to counter what the government has placed “into the record” by disseminated to the public, for which the “findings” of the various court “agents” is grossly skewed and fraudulent because of significant OMISSIONS and MISSTATEMENTS.

    Please notifiy me directly when you have allowed me access to your blog as a contributor. My email address is “”.

  7. You are free to contribute as a commenter to this site. I am very interested in hearing your side of the story. Although this site is focused on addressing Obama’s eligibility, I did address your case as it was mentioned tangentially and caught my interest.

    I assume that you have been released? What exactly did happen?

    I notice that I got your name wrong… I do apologize.

    I found most of the interesting documents on

  8. The documents at the website were put up when I tried to sue the State of Michigan the first time.

    I have since tried a second time, only to document the denial of due process at every level of the Michigan courts, beginning with the Court of Claims (where my 22-count Complaint was dismissed because I failed to provide the the Ingham County Circuit Court in Lansing with my “original signature” on the hearing notice on my motion to counter the felony fraud being perpetrated by the Attorney General)…. through the Court of Appeals (which went so far as to deny my Waiver of Fees on filings so to use “color of” discretion to deny me my day in court)….and to the Michigan Supreme Court (where they discretionarily chose to “pass” on my case and where I have now brought an “inextricably intertwined” Petition for Writ of Mandamus connected with that Court of Claims case back in their face along with a separate case in “Demand for Criminal Grand Jury Investigation” that originated from my divorce case in the Wayne County Circuit Court through the Court of Appeals where it got the same type of treatment as the Court of Claims case to keep from having to “address” it and to deny me “due process”.

    You should note that the circuit court judge that dismissed my “Demand for Criminal Grand Jury Investigation” is married to the #1 man under Robert Ficano, who is the object of the FBI investigation into the “Severence Scandal” that had been going on for the past couple of years. His name is Azaam Elder or something like that. His wife is Judge Charlene Elder, who is Muslim (not that this matters as after I had the first judge dismissed from my divorce case, Elder was much nicer but while continuing to uphold the denial of my demand for a grand jury investigation into government corruption that destroyed my family.

    Of particular interest to your readers would be yet another case that has been stuck in the Court of Appeals for the past year and a half. It is a case I filed in Wayne County Circuit Court in Detroit in suit of one of the two school districts that you previously highlighed, along with the Wayne County Sheriff and the Wayne County Prosecutor. This is the case of “David Schied v. Leonard Rezmierski, et. al.” Rezmierski was (retired last year) the superintendent of the Northville Public School District. What strangely coincidental (or not so) about this case is that the Wayne County Circuit Court judge that dismissed it was a 30-year resident of Northville. Her husband has a law practice around the corner from the school district offices. This judge – Jeanne Stempien – was also the “chairperson” of the Judicial Tenure Commission for many years and at a time the Commission denied action on about six (6) Judicial Misconduct complaints I had filed around 2008. Yet despite all this, Stempien refused to “disqualify herself” in response to my motions that she do so. Instead, I got court-watcher testimony from many testifying that she committed multiple crimes from the bench while ruling on my year’s worth of court activity. I also have two sets of “Register of Actions” from Wayne County clerk’s office showing fraud by that office too in cover up of some of Stempien’s crimes from the bench. Moreover, throughout the lower circuit court case and STILL in the Court of Appeals, the “lead counsel” from the Wayne County Corporation representing the county law enforcement and prosecutor Kym Worthy was a woman by the name of “Marianne Talon”. Talon was the very first to be suspended without pay by Robert Ficano a year and a half or so ago when the “Severence Scandal” first broke out.

    Interesting? This &!?*@ only scratches the surface of what I’ve got on these government “players”. It makes my single stupid teenage indescretion back in 1977 look like what it was…..nothing! I’ll hope that you’ll spend your time from this point forward exploring what was NOT published by the corrupt State and Federal judges operating in Michigan. This is the key to understanding why I insist we have “domestic terrorists” committing treason against not only me and plethora of others, but against the People of Michigan and the People of the United States as well.

    Let me know of any new postings. While I wish to keep your readers posted about more, I have my hands pretty full right now and hope that you can send me reminders of new postings for me to read on this topic. I’ll freely provide my email address at and read those email referencing your “nativeborncitizen” blog in the subject line. Thanks for this opportunity.


    David Schied

  9. You know I’m actually Susan and this is my work due to my typos; people always ask, “Is this realy Susan? Or is it somebody pretedning to be her?” as they don’t believe I’d take the time to answer them; if I didn’t I’d be a hypocite as that’s equality…My name is Susan Herbert of In Re Susan Herbert I & II, US Supreme Court, Petitions 07-9804 & 08-6622. I’m the first and only citizen to enter SCOTUS directly upon authority and original jurisdiction which means: I AUOTMATICALLY WON UPON FILING ALONE. First I overturned BVG an then I went after Obama. Let’s see: I had the Secret Service at my home and the US Marshal’s at my home, all because they’re terrified as they’ve been in denial. All because I won and so a SCOTUS clerk then entered what can only be a false entry – DENIED – as authority cases go directly to the Chief Justice; clerks are not to touch them as if they had the ability and capacity to reason the point of law they NEVER would have entered BVG, a FICTIONAL case. As it is BVG stood as a tie, 5 as 1 versus 4 as 1 or 1 Chief alone acting on behalf of the Court. no matter how you count it BVG is a ie so NOBODY INSTALLED AFTER BVG IS LAWFUL. In 2008 EVERYBODY WAS UNQUALIFIED AS NONE OF THEM KNEW THE TRUTH OF BVG; if they did then they too could prove they could fulfill the Oath of Office as it’s I WILL not MY LAWYER WILL. Don’t forget: BVG began life as Gore V FL so it should have entered SCOTUS as Gore V FL or…Gore V Jeb Bush, the Governor of FL. Lawyers changed the case name to confuse you and cause you to blindly believe SCOTUS has the authority and power to install a President. Apparently it worked as only I took on the Chief Justice.

    Wining is one thing while collecting is another. So I returned to SCOTUS directly once more and secured a default judgment against the US that is another first. I PROVED OBAMA IS NOT NATURAL BORN NOR IS HE A LAWFUL VOTER AS HIS NATURAL BORN PARENT DOES NOT MEET THE MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS SET FORTH IN THE NATIONALITY ACT. Go look for yourself.

    Judges routinely veered into criminal insanity as this sit became class action and we entered an airtight case; we shut down every single excuse people are making up. We not only have the good application of the law but the good science too. The facts – HISTORY – is clear and so is the eyewitness testimony; I went so far as to enter the satellite coordinates of a person who watched an Obama interview in real time early on whereby his grandmother states he was born in Kenyan and somebody places a hand over her mouth and they cut away. Broadcast on time delay this was edited out.

    No judge was willing to touch the case as one of the first things it does is: INDICT EVERY SINGLE SITTING FEDERAL JUDGE FOR CONSPIRAC, COLLUSION AND COMPLACENCY. All judges are doing is protecting other lawyers and doing it because they are driven to preserve their ability it lie so that hey can then cast judgment on others thereby placing blame and never, ever accepting accountability or responsibility. Recently in Western FL after having been wrongly arrested and after Obama sent a US Marshal to my home on or around February 19th, 2010 to threaten me with this exact action, I was finally able to secure an appearance in person to give oral argument in a county court convened as an original venue and with a judge acting as a Justice as your one vote has the power and authority of an Executive Order. That’s what I did in SCOTUS: I wrote and signed and Executive Order that 2 clerks acting upon after assuming constitutional authority.

    In case it’s lost on you: The US and along with it -them – as the US would be the business entity formed in 1871 with the DC Organic Act so hat YOU were replaced by a dead institution as the government so any paid Officer, the ONLY time you hear a criminal charge in a civil court is TREASON heard in SCOTUS. We have more than two witnesses and we have Obama’s own actions and own testimony proving he is foreign born and held citizenship in at least two other nations, Britan and Indonesia. In the US? Paper is never, ever the proof so you’re wasting your time ‘arguing’ pieces of paper. s this is a question regardign a matter of EXACTLY worded law the ONLY written authorities SCOTUS or nay US court accepts are: The Declaration (1776), The Constitution (1787-89 NOT 1871) up to Amendment #12, The Federalist Papers and…In Re Susan Herbert I which is why my action to enter directly is such a big deal: I’m the first woman to author actual law, law of the US and law of this universe as I not CERN resolved Uniformity and I assigned the rights to you which is why CERN is so desperate to steal hem, as you remain ignorant and they are counting upon it exactly like the paid Officers are. [An aside: Jefferson not Lord Calvert correctly weighed the Earth, time and human consciousness. Calvert has erroneously been given credit for this while Jefferson good work has sat on the Congressional record. Jefferson first entered his work re sovereignty in 1774 with a Summary View and later scientifically proved it by developing a system of weights and measures that correctly answers the question Newton sets forth in Principia. All any man ever did is check Calvert’s math not his theory and they never tested Calvert’s theory. I did. I proved Jefferson, now deceased Hugh Everett, Ray Morton and I correctly answered this question; we have the actual or good science as you can prove our theory using the behavior of magnetic North].

    The US and Obama defaulted on 11/05/08, the day after the ‘election’, and as it is a criminal charge then it also constitutes a plea of NO CONTEST as the legal presumption is if you had a defense you’d mount it. Now the class and I will be proceeding to both US Claims and Geneva.

    You can read the Sioux City Iowa complaint that is my successful attmpt to serve Obama directly so he’s already been placed under arrest as that’s what constitutional authority is; also see per posse commitatus. You can also read a 300 page filing in Duluth, MN intended to inform the peple not ot be heard in person. All the facts are contained within it. They are posted on SCRIBD under the username Susan Constant. Some of the facts?

    Obama was orn in Kenya; his mother then re-entered NORTH AMERICA via Canada so Canada, also a British protectorate at the time, holds the vault copies of his records. All I had to do is collect the eyewitness testimony and then ask Canada. She then entered the US, returning to Washington State. The US and Canada share what is the world’s longest undefended border and back then nobody asked questions. Later Obama moved to Indonesia and attended a private school at first; upon adoption by Lolo Sotero he changed o a public school which you can and may do in Indonesia IF you’re a citizen; non-citizens ae not allowed a public edcuation. The passport Obama seems to have traveled upon after age 18 is an Indonesian one and so he automatically gave up any legal claim he MIGHT but didn’t have. He now has zero legal standing in our courts. He himself testified that he spent several months in Indonesia at one point; no noncitizen may spend as much tiem as he claims in Indonesia upon a visa as Indonesia does not allow it so if his words are true he was claiming Indonesian citizenship. I also entered a letter issued by the US State Department answering a query made by his mother that reads her US passport had expired and she would have to pay a fee to have it reissued. Sorry! you may not BUY American citizenship; if you knowingly, willingly an deliberately allow your American passport to expire you give it up; also you may not secure a new one via deceit or it’s automatically null and void. Did Stanley Anne Dunham ever tell the US State Department that she and her son had claimed Indonesian citizenship, that she willingly gave her citizenship up? NO. If it were legal to buy a passport hence US citizenship for a $25 fee then everybody would do it.

    Obama made his own choices in life at age 18. Changing his name, making conflicting claims, passing off an autobiography as his that was actually written by Bill Ayers who has confessed, etc. etc. is sheer propaganda and is meant to make you doubt yourself. The psychology is this: When human beings are confronted by direct conflicts they cannot reason and that cause them to be afraid or to feel as if the are insane they then insert whatever makes them feel emotionally and metaphysical comfortable no matter how irrational it is.

    Barack Obama and all others I named including John McCain as he too did not qualify as he was born in the Panama Canal Zone and was not grandfathered in so Senate Res. 511 stating SOME of us could run if not qualified according to US Law was meant to circumvent US Law, to escape justice as none of these people are above the law and what they need and want is for you to remain their slaves – for you to keep paying tribute to them – by controlling the knowledge in order to control you. WHO signed 511? 3 people 2 of them being Hilary Clinton and Obama so those who had the most to gain by perpetrating treason. The natural birth case is actually about WOMEN as the equals of men as crooks resorted to installing totally incompetent persons rather than a qualified, able and capable woman and as by controlling women – by oppressing them – it’s a way for less than one percent of this Earth’s population to control you; harm and/or control a woman and you control ALL of her children so all humans not only Americans. WHO rules you?

    The same handful of banking families that always have. America began is slide into death as far back as 1836 when John Marshal died. When Lincoln was assassinated? The People were overthrown as LAWYERS and the WEALTHY who pay them and endow their law schools were able to form an oligarchy that was completed with BVG. Now? It’s despotism and so prepare yourselves: you can face reality and deal with it or you can subject yourself to the dictator that is coming.

    By facing reality? I mean you are OBLIGATED to actually consider and reason al claims. What you then come to believe after you conduct an investigation to the best of your ability is your own opinion and your own truth. some truths we share as a nation; other truths? We will never share them as unique individuals. The absolute refusal to consider anything but Obama is qualified? It flies in the face of reason, of human ration, as our divine endowment is we have a mind of our own.

    The class and I would not keep winning and would not continue to secure federal ‘rulings’ in which our claim is changed, facts are ignored and denied and judges even make stuff up that we never said or that is totally false. In this case? A birth certificate is irrelevant and the ONLY documents you may cite in order to rule against us? The four named above so judges veer into delusional and insanity as they’re trapped: FOR THE FIRST TIME EVER SINCE ABOUT 1836 ALL AUTHORITY



    Obviously somebody has indoctrinated he author of this site as the only boss you have in the US is the exactly named Creator, nature and nature’s God NOT another ma; you have a commission so you don’t need the permission of a federal judge or any other person to claim a right that is yours. i’m laughing as men? you’re only harming yourselves by denying reality as you’re birthright is derived via your father while the right – the vote – is derived through your mother. If you reason this case any other way an extreme imbalance of power exists that only serves to harm men, men who aren’t named Rothchild, Rockefeller, Warburg, Astor, etc.

    And no, there’s no “s” in Rothchild; I know as I’m a Rothchild who has zero desire to become what hey have become. Don’t believe me as FL just took a DNA sample so soon I can show you that I’m a Rothchild but it’s not dark smudges on a DNA test that are the absolute proof: it’s the insider knowledge I possess that I freely share with anybody who wants it. In America?


    Who truly believes any of these men are the best America has to offer? I would suggest to you that if any one of these men or women had so much as an atom of ability and capability ten they would not now be in violation of not only every single letter of the law but also it’s spirit. They would not be actively participating in what is treason.

    I’ll let you know what happens in US Court of Claims and Geneva as I’m working on the filing now. No matter what any appointed o elected officer tells you? no matter what any ‘authority’ figure tells you? US Law is NOT authoritarian rule. They can tell you anything they please but Marbury V Madison is clear: Only you have to know and failure to act is not an option and neither is the placement of blame.


    P.S. I completely get that this is your blog but I’ll remind you of the 1st Amendment and an interaction between Jefferson and Alexander Humboldt who was horrified when he read a newspaper maligning Jefferson. Humboldt believed it was a crime and should not be allowed. Jefferson told him not only wasn’t it a crime but to limit the press is to ask for your rights to be violated; he told Humboldt to tell people all about this newspaper an its contents and WHERE he found it: In President Thomas Jefferson’s own office.

    P.P.S. When I served Obama in person I was able to absolutely prove it, that Obama knew and not only kept committing crimes but then sent a US Marshal to my home to threaten me as Obama went on national TV and being asked about healthcare replied using these words: “earthquake”. “Hawaii” and LA Purchase”. Obama had what is an actual Freudian slip! Go ahead: Ask Harvard Medical and they’ll confirm it. The only place on Earth al of these words exist in one place and make perfect, logical sense? MY COMPLAINT. If he never read it or did not know o its contents and that I unseated him lawfully – via the named process – so that I’m the rightful, lawful holder of the Office then he would never have said this and no US Marshal ever comes to my home in 2010. The videotape of Obama saying this is online.

    His action constitues absolute proof of life. BTW: Harvard? I sued them too. Harvard happens to be this nation’s first coporation and they unjustly passed Obama and graduated him when he not once produced any work of his own; he was allowed to slide by exactly like the star football player. I may be the very first woman to do some things but you’re never going to hear me claim something ONLY as I’m a woman; you’re insane if you run around accepting Nobel Prizes only as your skin is black or only as you’re a woman. The science we entered? You can prove it your own sl in your own home; you don’t need a billion dollar particle collider anymore than you need me or a federal judge. We didn’t declare our Co-dependence but our Indpendence.

    If the owner of this Blog wishes to enter his or her own opinion to US claims or any of you do all you have to do is send it to me as my name & addy is plastered all over the net. I’m wiling to enter anybody’s opinion either way as w/o opposing forces and w/o various differentials and properties there’d be no dynamic. My email is: .

  10. Both Supreme Court petitions were denied.

    No. 08-6622


    In Re Susan Herbert, Petitioner


    Docketed: October 6, 2008

    ~~~Date~~~ ~~~~~~~Proceedings and Orders~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

    Oct 3 2008 Petition for a writ of mandamus and/or prohibition and motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed. (Response due November 5, 2008)

    Nov 20 2008 DISTRIBUTED for Conference of December 5, 2008.

    Dec 8 2008 Petition DENIED.

    No. 07-9804


    In Re Susan Herbert, Petitioner


    Docketed: March 12, 2008

    ~~~Date~~~ ~~~~~~~Proceedings and Orders~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

    Mar 11 2008 Petition for a writ of mandamus and/or prohibition and motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed. (Response due April 11, 2008)

    Apr 1 2008 Waiver of right of respondent Federal Respondent to respond filed.

    Apr 3 2008 DISTRIBUTED for Conference of April 18, 2008.

    Apr 21 2008 Petition DENIED.

    May 7 2008 Petition for Rehearing filed.

    May 13 2008 DISTRIBUTED for Conference of May 29, 2008.

    Jun 2 2008 Rehearing DENIED.

  11. We have more than two witnesses and we have Obama’s own actions and own testimony proving he is foreign born and held citizenship in at least two other nations, Britan and Indonesia.

    There is no evidence that President Obama was foreign born and the facts actually show him born on US soil. As to other citizenships, there is no evidence he ever held an Indonesian citizenship as such is contradicted by Indonesian law and the facts of the case. Furthermore, holding a foreign citizenship does not cause one necessarily to lose one’s natural born birthright and since parents cannot abandon a child’s birthright citizenship and a child cannot denounce his citizenship, the Indonesian connection is another merritless myth.

    We do know that President Obama was born on US soil and thus by any standard a natural born citizen.

  12. Susan believes that by filing an ‘original action’ her case must be heard and the petition cannot be denied. However, reality shows otherwise

    The Constitution specifies that the Supreme Court may exercise original jurisdiction in cases affecting ambassadors and other diplomats, and in cases in which a state is a party. In all other cases, however, the Court has only appellate jurisdiction. It considers cases based on its original jurisdiction very rarely; almost all cases are brought to the Supreme Court on appeal. In practice, the only original jurisdiction cases heard by the Court are disputes between two or more states.

    So the Court has no requirements to hear a case of original jurisdiction and Susan’s case does not even get close to a case in which the Supreme Court MAY exercise original jurisdiction.

    Susan tried to reargue the denial in 09-6777 and failed.


  13. Ohio

    Herbert v. Obama et al

    Filed: January 19, 2010 as 5:2010cv04006

    Plaintiff: Susan Herbert

    Defendants: Barack Obama, John Roberts and Paul Zoss

    Cause Of Action: Civil Rights Act

    Court: Eighth Circuit > Iowa > Northern District Court

    Type: Civil Rights > Other Civil Rights

    Herbert v. Austin et al

    Filed: January 7, 2010 as 5:2010cv04002

    Plaintiff: Susan Herbert

    Defendants: David Austin and Cate Austin

    Cause Of Action: Civil Rights Act

    Court: Eighth Circuit > Iowa > Northern District Court

    Type: Civil Rights > Other Civil Rights

    Herbert v. Weinstein et al

    Filed: January 7, 2010 as 5:2010cv04003

    Plaintiff: Susan Herbert

    Defendants: Arnold Weinstein, Sanford Finkle, Leslie Ortiz, Linda Griffin, Alanna McMillan and others

    Cause Of Action: Civil Rights Act

    Court: Eighth Circuit > Iowa > Northern District Court

    Type: Civil Rights > Other Civil Rights

    Herbert v. Department of Justice et al

    Filed: December 30, 2009 as 5:2009cv04105

    Plaintiff: Susan Herbert

    Defendants: Department of Justice, Eric Holder, Elena Kagan and Various Agents of FBI

    Cause Of Action: Civil Rights Act

    Court: Eighth Circuit > Iowa > Northern District Court

    Type: Civil Rights > Other Civil Rights

    Herbert v. US Marshal Service et al

    Filed: December 30, 2009 as 5:2009cv04104

    Plaintiff: Susan Herbert

    Defendants: US Marshal Service and Mike

    Cause Of Action: Civil Rights Act

    Court: Eighth Circuit > Iowa > Northern District Court

    Type: Civil Rights > Other Civil Rights

    Herbert v. Democrats et al

    Filed: December 18, 2009 as 5:2009cv04099

    Petitioner: Susan Herbert

    Respondents: Democrats, Republicans and Libertarians

    Cause Of Action: Civil Rights

    Court: Eighth Circuit > Iowa > Northern District Court

    Type: Civil Rights > Other Civil Rights

    Herbert v. Clerks of The Supreme Court

    Filed: December 4, 2009 as 5:2009cv04094

    Plaintiff: Susan Herbert

    Defendants: Clerks of The Supreme Court and Will

    Cause Of Action: Civil Rights

    Court: Eighth Circuit > Iowa > Northern District Court

    Type: Civil Rights > Other Civil Rights

    Herbert v. Mullen

    Filed: December 4, 2009 as 5:2009cv04093

    Plaintiff: Susan Herbert

    Defendants: Mike Mullen and United States Military

    Cause Of Action: Civil Rights

    Court: Eighth Circuit > Iowa > Northern District Court

    Type: Civil Rights > Other Civil Rights

    Herbert v. Obama

    Filed: December 4, 2009 as 5:2009cv04091

    Plaintiff: Susan Herbert

    Defendant: Barack Obama

    Cause Of Action: Civil Rights Act

    Court: Eighth Circuit > Iowa > Northern District Court

    Type: Civil Rights > Other Civil Rights

    Herbert v. Roberts

    Filed: December 4, 2009 as 5:2009cv04092

    Plaintiff: Susan Herbert

    Defendant: John Roberts

    Cause Of Action: Civil Rights

    Court: Eighth Circuit > Iowa > Northern District Court

    Type: Civil Rights > Other Civil Rights


    HERBERT v. JAMES Has Decisions

    Filed: April 25, 2012 as 3:2012cv00469


    Respondents: Diane James, DAVID E WILKINS and Barack Obama

    Cause Of Action: Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (Federal)

    Court: Eleventh Circuit > Florida > Middle District Court

    Type: P. Petitions > General

    Herbert v. United States of America et al Has Decisions

    Filed: December 15, 2008 as 3:2008cv01201

    Plaintiff: Susan Herbert

    Defendants: United States of America, Barack Obama and John Roberts

    Cause Of Action: U.S. Government Defendant

    Court: Eleventh Circuit > Florida > Middle District Court

    Type: Civil Rights > Other Civil Rights

    Herbert v. Obama et al

    Filed: December 4, 2008 as 3:2008cv01164

    Plaintiff: Susan Herbert

    Defendants: Barack Obama and United States

    Cause Of Action: Federal Question

    Court: Eleventh Circuit > Florida > Middle District Court

    Type: Civil Rights > Other Civil Rights

    Herbert v. The United States et al

    Filed: June 23, 2008 as 3:2008cv00634

    Plaintiff: Susan Herbert

    Defendants: The United States, John Roberts, David Austin, Catherine Austin, Charles Herbert and others

    Cause Of Action: Federal Question

    Court: Eleventh Circuit > Florida > Middle District Court

    Type: Civil Rights > Other Civil Rights

    Herbert v. United States of America et al

    Filed: October 11, 2007 as 3:2007cv00964

    Plaintiff: Susan Herbert

    Defendants: United States of America, George Bush, Jr., John Roberts, Alberto Gonzales, Henry Moore, II and others

    Cause Of Action: Civil Rights Act

    Court: Eleventh Circuit > Florida > Middle District Court

    Type: Civil Rights > Other Civil Rights

    Herbert v. USA

    Filed: August 22, 2007 as 3:2007cv00776

    Plaintiff: Susan Herbert

    Defendant: USA

    Cause Of Action: Fed. Question: Civil Rights Violation

    Court: Eleventh Circuit > Florida > Middle District Court

    Type: Civil Rights > Other Civil Rights

    Herbert v. USA et al

    Filed: August 1, 2007 as 3:2007cv00699

    Plaintiff: Susan Herbert

    Defendants: USA, George Bush, Jr., Richard Cheney, David Austin, Catherine Austin and others

    Cause Of Action: Civil Rights

    Court: Eleventh Circuit > Florida > Middle District Court

    Type: Civil Rights > Other Civil Rights

    Herbert v. USA et al

    Filed: April 19, 2007 as 3:2007cv00315

    Plaintiff: Susan Herbert

    Defendants: USA, George Bush, Richard Cheney, State of Florida, State of South Carolina and others

    Cause Of Action: Fed. Question: Civil Rights Violation

    Court: Eleventh Circuit > Florida > Middle District Court

    Type: Civil Rights > Other Civil Rights

    Susan et al v. United States et al

    Filed: April 4, 2007 as 3:2007cv00267

    Plaintiffs: Susan, Ethan and Christopher

    Defendants: United States, George Bush, Rick G., J. Migglin, Linda Griffin and others

    Cause Of Action: Civil Rights Act

    Court: Eleventh Circuit > Florida > Middle District Court

    Type: Civil Rights > Other Civil Rights


    Herbert et al v. US Military et al Has Decisions

    Filed: October 31, 2011 as 0:2011cv03217

    Plaintiffs: Susan Herbert, Ethan Herbert and Christopher Herbert

    Defendants: US Military, Residents of Apt. #49, David Quinones, III, Kari Longstreth, Republican Party and others

    Court: Eighth Circuit > Minnesota > District Court

    Type: Civil Rights > Other Civil Rights

    Herbert et al v. Obama et al Has Decisions

    Filed: July 7, 2011 as 0:2011cv01869

    Plaintiffs: Susan Herbert, Brian Dobry, Frederick Webbe, Susan Clemon and Ray Morton

    Defendants: Barack Obama, Joe Biden, Nancy Pelosi, Timothy Gaither, William Suter and others

    Cause Of Action: Civil Rights

    Court: Eighth Circuit > Minnesota > District Court

    Type: Civil Rights > Other Civil Rights

    New York

    Herbert v. The United States of America

    Filed: September 4, 2007 as 1:2007cv00909

    Plaintiff: Susan Herbert

    Defendant: The United States of America

    Cause Of Action: Violation of Civil Rights

    Court: Second Circuit > New York > Northern District Court

    Type: Civil Rights > Other Civil Rights

    New Hampshire

    Herbert v. USA

    Filed: September 4, 2007 as 1:2007fp00281

    Plaintiff: Susan Herbert

    Defendant: USA

    Cause Of Action: Civil Rights Act

    Court: First Circuit > New Hampshire > District Court

    Type: Civil Rights > Other Civil Rights


    Herbert v. United States of America

    Filed: September 4, 2007 as 1:2007cv00532

    Plaintiff: Susan Herbert

    Defendant: United States of America

    Cause Of Action: Fed. Question: Civil Rights Violation

    Court: Third Circuit > Delaware > District Court

    Type: Civil Rights > Other Civil Rights

    South Dakota

    Herbert v. USA

    Filed: September 12, 2007 as 5:2007cv05067

    Plaintiff: Susan Herbert

    Defendant: USA

    Cause Of Action: Federal Question: Other Civil Rights

    Court: Eighth Circuit > South Dakota > District Court

    Type: Civil Rights > Other Civil Rights


    Herbert v. United States of America

    Filed: September 13, 2007 as 2:2007cv00207

    Plaintiff: Susan Herbert

    Defendant: United States of America

    Cause Of Action: Civil Rights Act

    Court: Tenth Circuit > Wyoming > District Court

    Type: Civil Rights > Other Civil Rights


    Herbert v. The United States of America

    Filed: September 12, 2007 as 1:2007cv02417

    Plaintiff: Susan Herbert

    Defendant: The United States of America

    Cause Of Action: Civil Rights

    Court: Fourth Circuit > Maryland > District Court

    Type: Civil Rights > Other Civil Rights

  14. Susan: There are excellent anti-psychotic medications available nowadays. I strongly suggest you look into it.

  15. Susan has gone through a lot.

    Matter of Catherine Austin v Susan Herbert

    Matter of Austin v Herbert 2005 NYSlipOp 07749 October 20, 2005 Appellate Division, Third Department Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431.

    In the Matter of Catherine Austin et al., Respondents, v Susan Herbert, Appellant, et al., Respondents. (And Another Related Proceeding.)


    Mugglin, J. Appeal from an order of the Family Court of Rensselaer County (Griffin, J.), entered December 19, 2003, which granted petitioners’ application, in two proceedings pursuant to Family Ct Act article 6, for permanent custody of respondent Susan Herbert’s children.

    In this contested custody case, petitioners, the paternal aunt and uncle, sought permanent custody of two boys (born in 1995 and 1996). Their biological father appeared at the hearing, but he neither contested the petition nor testified. Respondent Susan Herbert, the biological mother (hereinafter respondent), opposed the petition. After hearing the parties and others, Family Court found that the requisite extraordinary circumstances in parent versus nonparent custody contests were present (see Matter of Bennett v Jeffreys, 40 NY2d 543, 544 [1976]; Matter of Scala v Parker, 304 AD2d 858, 859 [2003]) and, therefore, reached the issue of the children’s best interests (see Matter of Scala v Parker, supra at 859) and awarded permanent custody to petitioners. [*2]

    On this appeal, respondent does not challenge Family Court’s finding of extraordinary circumstances. Indeed, such a challenge would prove fruitless in view of the fact that from the children’s respective births until June 1999 when they were placed in the physical custody of petitioners, respondent had voluntarily left the children with her parents in New Mexico, considered options, including but rejecting adoption, with Catholic Charities in Louisiana, consented to temporary custody in her brother and his wife in Pennsylvania and surrendered the children, on a temporary basis, to a social services agency in that state. Eventually (in June 1999), by agreement so ordered by the Court of Common Pleas in Pennsylvania, respondent consented to legal custody with her brother and his wife and physical custody with petitioners. In short, partially due to physical and emotional abuse by the children’s father and partially due to her substance and alcohol abuse, respondent has only had sporadic custody of these children for time periods totaling only several months. Respondent does make four arguments, the first of which is that Family Court ignored that portion of the agreement, so ordered by the Court of Common Pleas in Pennsylvania, that obligated the parties to work toward reunification of mother and children, a factor, she argues, emphasized by the Court in Matter of Bennett v Jeffreys (supra). Respondent completely overlooks, however, those portions of the agreement which required, as a condition of reunification, that she obtain a custodial evaluation, an expert opinion that she is drug free, that she maintain a stable home, that she be employed or in an educational program and that she demonstrate appropriate parenting abilities, all of which she failed to do. Moreover, such an agreement is simply one factor relevant to the ultimate custody determination of Family Court (see Matter of Bruce BB. v Debra CC., 307 AD2d 408, 409 [2003]; Matter of Auffhammer v Auffhammer, 101 AD2d 929, 929-930 [1984]).

    Next, respondent faults Family Court for placing too much emphasis on the testimony of the children’s psychologist. We find no support for this assertion in the record. Respondent faults the witness’s inability to make a custody recommendation. He appropriately refused to do so since he had never met with respondent. He was called only to testify as to his treatment of the children and his observations of their problems upon return from visitation with respondent.

    Third, respondent argues that Family Court mischaracterized her separation from her children as voluntary when it was necessary to escape the abuse of her husband. Suffice it to say that, while this may have been true for short periods of time, it neither justifies the extended periods of separation that occurred nor does it explain her voluntarily inviting her former husband to move to Philadelphia with her, where, predictably, the abuse continued.

    Lastly, we find no merit to respondent’s argument that she should not be penalized by reason of her children bonding with petitioners because petitioners were responsible for some of the delay in bringing the case to trial by moving to transfer jurisdiction from Pennsylvania to New York. The degree of bonding is simply one factor among the totality of the circumstances considered by Family Court (see Matter of Bruce BB. v Debra CC., supra at 409). Here, Family Court assessed and weighed many factors in reaching its reasoned determination that the best interests of the children require continued custody with petitioners.

    Crew III, J.P., Peters, Rose and Kane, JJ., concur. Ordered that the order is affirmed, without costs.

  16. Noted. Her therapist should be steering her away from the destabilizing hobby of mixing legal involvement and conspiracy obsession, then, eh?

    In any case, I’ll put on the elkskin gloves.

  17. Or might the list of lawsuits above indicate something akin to a Hoarding Disorder? She needs a care-giver of some sort; the ideation displayed above can’t be doing her any good.

  18. She lost custody over her children, she is blaming herself for some of her choices and now she feels that her rights as a mother have been violated.

    The rest is just ‘window dressing’ I believe. She needs to ‘fight the evil legal system’ using her belief that Marbury provides her with standing.

    Read her SCOTUS and other complaint which talks about ‘custody’ in various contexts.

    Is the UCCJ unconstitutional as it awards custody of women over 18 to others as they are attached to their children and as issue and jurisdiction are one and the same, and so awarding jurisdiction to any place the mother is not or to any other person but the mother is a violation of equal protection and due process, her liberty rights, her property rights and her power of one? Does it give judges overly broad power to not hear difficult or complicated cases? Does it unjustly target women due to the past effects of discrimination?

    Many of her cases are also filed in the name of her children.

    Supreme Court Petition: In Re Susan Herbert, A Case Of Original Jurisdiction

    I wish she would find some resolution.

  19. > As it is BVG stood as a tie, 5 as 1 versus 4 as 1

    What a sad sad deluded mind…

    We should tell that to the Oklahoma Thunder – that they actually achieved a tie in the finals (1 as 1 versus 4 as 1). It’s a huge conspiracy that defrauded them of half the title!!!!1!!!11!!!!one!!!eleven!!!

  20. I deliberately hit every single US District and some more than once; if I need an answer I’m going to get it as it’s delusional for you or anyone to truly believe you have the ablity or he power to control the truth. If I need to prove an insurmountable conflict exists and if I need to know the truth of what you actuall believe versus what you purport to believe I’ll file 10,000.

    NBC: And have every Circuit and District reject your position? Something does not become the truth by repetition of the same failure.


    NB:C If you had won, you would not be filing

    What I can’t believe is you were ignorant this case existed.Who’ can claim ignorance as their excusewhen I filed in a courthouse near you but you failed to execute your minimum duties under the law? It’s not like you don’t have intenet access and it’s not like I filed n a courthouse far, far away from you so you could ot know and cold not trot on down to your federal court and see it for yourself if you don’t have internet access. Did I not tell you I indicted every sittign federal judge? Let me be very, very clear: I GAVE A PINK SLIP TO EVERY SINGLE SITTING OFFICER WITH IN RE SUSAN I & II.

    NBC: Good for you, but then again, they appear to not have taken your actions very seriously? What you believe and what is the reality does not appear to coincide here.

    Justice is not money and the only form of remedy and relief available in authority cases of o.j. is: Hearing. In person. What are you going to do, pay off every woman and every child you ever harmed due to prejudice? As money has no value WHAT are you going to pay billions of us off with? BE SERIOUS.

    NBC : In our history, many classes of people have been injured by policy. But that is somewhat separate from your claims.

    “Susan believes that by filing an ‘original action’ her case must be heard and the petition cannot be denied. However, reality shows otherwise. The Constitution specifies that the Supreme Court may exercise original jurisdiction in cases affecting ambassadors and other diplomats, and in cases in which a state is a party. In all other cases, however, the Court has only appellate jurisdiction. It considers cases based on its original jurisdiction very rarely; almost all cases are brought to the Supreme Court on appeal. In practice, the only original jurisdiction cases heard by the Court are disputes between two or more states.So the Court has no requirements to hear a case of original jurisdiction and Susan’s case does not even get close to a case in which the Supreme Court MAY exercise original jurisdiction. Susan tried to reargue the denial in 09-6777 and failed.”

    I NEVER EVER EVER REARGUED ANYTHING AND I NEVER EVER EVER LIFTED A FINGER TO FIGHT 09-6777 AS: IT WASN’T DIRECTLY ENTERED; IT WAS DEMONSTRATIVE. Three’s a charm you know. Knock it off: 07-9804, 08-6622 and 09-6777. BOTH 07-9804 & 08-6622 were directly entered so No, I didn’t fail.

    NBC : A petition was filed and rejected by the Court. That’s a fail my friend

    how is it possible that I faield if I directly entered twice and I secured default? THE JUDGMENT OF DEFAULT IS FOR ME THUS THE CLASS NOT AGAINST US. You are now making it up.

    NBC: There is no judgment of default…

    Furthermore you’re reading – quoting – law school babble that doesn’t apply. i’ll say it one last time:


    NBC : Truly innovative but a bit light on logic and reason

    YOUR ACTIONS ARE THE PROOF AS PER MARBURY. There’s only TWO cases of authority and o.j., Marbury and me. SCOTUS did not hear original cases until 2000 and they NEVER filed let alone heard an authoirty case of o.j. concernng a Presidential election. i’m first and only.

    NBC: The Court did not hear any of your cases at it refused your petitions. Surely you understand the difference?

    The BVG lawyers? THEY DD NOT CLAIM TO POSSESS CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY. Why do you think Paul Stevens called them liars? SCOTUS claimed filing at all in anyway is a privlege andt that’s insane. SWhoever told SCOTUS clerks and Justics that garbage? Who indocrinated them? So once you defaet this then HEARING IN PERSON IS YOUR RIGHT NOT A PRIVILEGE as…THE CLERK HAD TO HEAR THE POINT OF LAW AND CALL IT; THE CLWERK HAD TO BECOME THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE TO FILE YOU DIRECLY. you can’t seem to seprate paper from people and filing from hearing; you seem to think you MUST appear in prso to ‘win’ a point of law. No; very, very good atorneys never make appearances in court. Do you not get what you cited says IN PRACTICE? Meanng: It’s never happend yet but it might. Today? IN PRACTICE the Supreme Court DOES hear cases of o.j. as I won this as a right. Rather the right already existed and all I did is claim it for myself thus everyone else.

    NBC : Fascinating interpretation of the facts… But your case was never heard. And yes, the Supreme Court has occasionally accepted original jurisdiction petitions and actually heard these cases. And there is no right to be heard in person btw…

    No. 08-6622


    In Re Susan Herbert, Petitioner


    Docketed: October 6, 2008

    ~~~Date~~~ ~~~~~~~Proceedings and Orders~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

    Oct 3 2008 Petition for a writ of mandamus and/or prohibition and motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed. (Response due November 5, 2008)v DIRECT ENTRY!!! NO LOWER COURT!!!


    NBC : Sorry Susan, no right was won here. The filing of an original jurisdiction action is described in Rule 17 of the Supreme Court. You filed what is known as a ‘petition to be heard’ and the petition was rejected.

    Dec 8 2008 Petition DENIED. False entry made by a clerk. I ALREADY PROVED THIS AND JUDGE HOSFORD AGREED AS IT’S BASIC CONTRACT LAW; & COMMON SENSE YOU DON’T GET TO DENY US LAW THE CONTRACT EXISTS!!! If the US fails to respond it’s a judgment of default for us as it would be in any court. Once the clerks wrote “Distributed” whether it was or not? I PROCEDED SO CONTRACT LAW AND MY RIGHT KICK IN AND SUPERCEDED ANY RULE, CODE, BELIEF OR TRADITION. I FILED MADAMUS NOT CERT HENCE YOU WOULD: COMPEL THE US TO RESPOND. The clerks played fast and loose with the motion to compel. Read all abotu iti nthe suit.

    NBC : The US may decide to respond or waive its response. There is no such thing as default judgment in the Supreme Court. Read Rule 17: The Clerk will dis­tribute the filed documents to the Court for its consideration upon receiving an express waiver of the right to file a brief in opposition, or, if no waiver or brief is filed, upon the expi­ration of the time allowed for filing.

    No. 07-9804


    In Re Susan Herbert, Petitioner


    Docketed: March 12, 2008

    ~~~Date~~~ ~~~~~~~Proceedings and Orders~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

    Mar 11 2008 Petition for a writ of mandamus and/or prohibition and motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed. (Response due April 11, 2008)

    Apr 1 2008 Waiver of right of respondent Federal Respondent to respond filed. US WAIVES ITS RIGHTS UNDER THE 1871 INC HENCE THE 1871 INC ITSELF DUE TO THE NATURE OF THE SUIT. We revert to original US Law.

    NBC : Say what 🙂

    Apr 3 2008 DISTRIBUTED for Conference of April 18, 2008. False entry; not legally possible. Why do you think Willima Suter is so desperate ? HE maintains the docket; he ddi this and I already confrotned him.

    Apr 21 2008 Petition DENIED. IF a Justice denied this case? THEY DENIED US LAW AND THEIR OWN EXISTENCE. Why won’t Suter deliver the case to Roberts or to any lone Justice? Oh, as then they might read it and realize Chief Clerk Willima Suter committed treason; he DIRECTLY targeted the Justices thus you when he targeted me.

    NBC : The court did not deny law or their own existence, they denied your petition to have your case be heard.

    May 7 2008 Petition for Rehearing filed. MEA CULPA.

    May 13 2008 DISTRIBUTED for Conference of May 29, 2008. PUH LEEZ!!! Even Orly Taitz doesn’t believe this, lol.

    Jun 2 2008 Rehearing DENIED. Again: The Chief Clerk and some other clerks are beggign to go to prison. Remeber, the STATE of FL entered this very docket to Hosford not me. Hosford sided with me and simple, basic contract la. TO DENY A STANDING JUDGMENT OF DEFAULT IS TO BE CMENTALLY ILL & RIMINALLY INSANE. EVERYBODY WOULD WRITE DENIED IF THAT’S HOW YOU GOT AROUND A JUDGMENT OF DEFAULT, lol.

    NBC: Under rule 17, the US does not have to respond. It can file a waiver or just not respond. This is about a petition to be heard and in obvious cases like yours, the court needs not help from the US

    “She lost custody over her children, she is blaming herself for some of her choices and now she feels that her rights as a mother have been violated.The rest is just ‘window dressing’ I believe. She needs to ‘fight the evil legal system’ using her belief that Marbury provides her with standing.”

    WRONG,”window dressing is not field in SCOTUS; as it’s about substance not style you must have an actual fedeal question and an actual point of law. Mine is basic: Let’s do the math correctly in accordance with US Law. If I DID NOT win? Direct filing never would have occurred. If I had no point but only fluff? Filing would not hav ocurred at all.

    NBC: Anyone can petition the Supreme Court to be heard. But to be actually heard is the hard part. In order for you to ‘win’ you need to be heard and the Court needs to side with your arguments. The court however, never even heard your case as it rejected your petition. You do understand rule 17 do you?

    You did not read what I wrote or you inserted and injected your own beliefs and own truths into my work when you read it as you ‘heard’ the case in yoru head as you read it. Simple pyschlogy is at work: Humans will insert anthign at all in order to deny eality, the reality of their own emotions. The truth makes you uncomfortable.

    NBC : That’s a two edged sword my friend. You must realize that under your own ‘logic’. you, as a human, will insert anything at all in order to deny reality?

    If you read what I wrote then you know not only do I not – NOT – regret a single moment of my life but: In America you do not place blame ever as you find fault or reason guilt. I would like you to name this decision of mine that you claim I regret and so I blame other people for my own actions? What’s this thinking of mine that then led to an action of mine that I’m blaimng you or anybody else for? I claimed the exact opposite in court. I have some news for you: Exactly as I control myself? you control yourself and the BVG lawyers and Obaam control theirselves. NOBODY MADE OBAMA OR ANY OF THESE PEOPLE RISK THEIR LIFE VIA THE COMMISSIN OF TREASON. They VOLUNTARILY assumed that risk and they lost. I do not feel sorry for them and the power of forgiveness is a power reserved to The Creator only.

    NBC: They lost 🙂 because the courts refused to hear your cases? That’s novel.

    As for the family case: Yeah, you sound all dramtic and self-righteous but i’d do soeme fact checking: not only did I not lose custody of my kids but my son Christopher is an actual, namd, legal unborn person in the state of FL. FLORIDA designated him as such as then violated our igths upon a federal level thereby preservign that standing until the case is heard. you jsu heard it; are you agreeign with the actions of the Judciary?

    NBC : Based on what I have read so far, the Court ruled in the best interest of your sons

    The states and the fed violated our rights and I invoked Marbury compelling them to enforce US Law. We became the victims of an actual kidnaping and then a legally enforced kidnapping as the states – judges – unlawfully played games with jurisdiction while the Defedents and their hired guns boght court ruligns outright. I ALREADY PROVED IT. We were sold for the grand total of $1 or 33 !/3 cents ap iece while the people who aided and abetted the perps were paid $20k in a back kick and $9,999, one dollar less than is automatically repoted to the IRS. A house was sold for $1 and mortgaged that same day for $30k. Subtract the $1 ale and the $20k kickback and you get $9,999. I ENTERED THE DEED AND THE MORTGAGE. How did I lose custody of my kids if somebody put me in the hospital – I needed surgery – and my kids were kidnapped? NOT ONE PERSON HAS EVER DENIED ANYTHING I’VE CHARGED THE WITH AS THEY CANT AS THEY DID IT AND SO THEY’D BE ON TRIAL. You mount not make up your defense.

    NBC: Some charges just do not require explicit denial Susan

    If you bother to read the Petition you’ll know the xacting details but you can examine something else: NY Apellate Judge J. Migglin was caught up in a scandal as hte Democrats in NY were selling Judicial appointments. There’s 4 Apellates in NY. 3 of them were caught and found to have been accpeting bribes in custody cases or: selling human beings. I was in the 4th, the Albany Appellate, and it was my fortune to catch this Appellate red handed.’Judge’ J. Migglin was paid as were ‘attorneys’ Greg Rinckey and Sanford Finkle. Again it’s already been proven. If you read the ‘ruling’ J. igglin wrote? you’d have to be a deaf, dumb and blind moron to sign off on it as he exactly words TWO violations of the Bill of Rights. EXACTLY. Migglin was being investigated when he died. That’s a convenient excuse for you to stop investigatign when their are plenty of others to investigate startign with yoru own selves. I handed the entire paper trail to the FBI. Combined with my testimony and m children’s they had cause to exeucte arrets and refused. God forbid the FBI be made to investigate: All 50 governors and the sittign President legal or not. But first: Themselves.

    NBC : You are allowing the inactions or actions of others to control you my friend. You believe that inaction is because of self interest rather than because of lack of a case

    If the FBI wants to protect the crooks only to then deny their own participation so be it. They can be slaves as it’s their choice but it’s not mine.

    NOBODY CITES NY, lol! Not one person who knows a single fact cites anything NY states. :The family court Judge, Linda Griffin, changed testimony given on the stand WITHIN her ruling. She pretends I did not enter any evidence or proof as the other side entered ZERO evidence and ZERO proof. Do you know the strict standards for denying a mother custody especially when the father is not standing? Because you can never, ever meet these standards and because they entered zip she negates my entire case completely. As if we never entered it. In one pargraph? Griffin refers to a letter written by Dr. Robin Waxman. Which letter? as there are at least two and of all the letters Waxman wote one is vital. Why pretend there is only one? She also nevermentions the kids father was present he just didn’t want his kids and did not want to pay child support and wanted to kill me. Albany Law School took one look at her ruling and asked, “WHAT DO YOU MEAN THE FATHER WAS IN THE ROOM?” ALS said, “susan, you would never know that by merely reading her ruling.”

    NBC: Funny, the Appellate ruling made it clear that the father appeared but had no interest in the children. What the ruling also made clear is that while you are right that there have to be extraordinary circumstances for denying a mother custody, the judge observed that such extraordinary circumstances did exist. You never challenged these findings. Let me quote

    After hearing the parties and others, Family Court found that the requisite extraordinary circumstances in parent versus nonparent custody contests were present (see Matter of Bennett v Jeffreys, 40 NY2d 543, 544 [1976]; Matter of Scala v Parker, 304 AD2d 858, 859 [2003]) and, therefore, reached the issue of the children’s best interests (see Matter of Scala v Parker, supra at 859) and awarded permanent custody to petitioners.

    On this appeal, respondent does not challenge Family Court’s finding of extraordinary circumstances.Indeed, such a challenge would prove fruitless in view of the fact that from the children’s respective births until June 1999 when they were placed in the physical custody of petitioners, respondent had voluntarily left the children with her parents in New Mexico, considered options, including but rejecting adoption, with Catholic Charities in Louisiana, consented to temporary custody in her brother and his wife in Pennsylvania and surrendered the children, on a temporary basis, to a social services agency in that state. Eventually (in June 1999), by agreement so ordered by the Court of Common Pleas in Pennsylvania, respondent consented to legal custody with her brother and his wife and physical custody with petitioners. In short, partially due to physical and emotional abuse by the children’s father and partially due to her substance and alcohol abuse, respondent has only had sporadic custody of these children for time periods totaling only several months.

    I said, “EXACTLY; it’s: PROPAGANDA. It’s a bribe and it’s a crime. You do know the Austin’s grandfather is the National Director of Literacy for NY State and is a democrat, don’t you?” His name would be Garrett Murphy. Feel free to fact check that althogh he might be deceased by now. But you’ll fidn his name. Linda Griffin goes so far as to state an you can go look: THE BIOLOGICAL MOTHER DOES NOT COUNT. It’s NOT Cate Austin; it’s DAVID AUSTIN, her husband, an absolute stranger and no relation to me not even by marriage who filed a false affadavit in PA after he unlawfully moved my childen from PA & into NY. He and Cate accpeted receipt of them unlawfully. Cate is my ex sister in law. At this ime there was no relationship not even legally and I ddi not know her husband. He claims o know me and know me well so well he’s walking into a courthosue alone asking for my kids. This man not only lied hrough his teeth he could not answer basic questions such as hair color or eye color so how dos he know me at all? I did not know her husband David – I did not even know his last name – and it’s obvious this affadavit is false as Cate did not appear and it doesn’t make sense.

    Why were these people so hot to harm the mother while granting the rights of the BIRTH MOTHER WHO SHED HER BLODD AND RISKED HER LIFE GIVING BIRTH TO A MAN WHO IS NOT THE FATHER? I can answer this as PA social workers came clean as hey fel so damn guilty: MONEY. And: DENIAL. I was told: “Domestic violence does not exist as soon as the doors to the courtroom close.” I was told: They’re engaged in a silent, negative contract as they all agree to lie and to deny reality to please the Judge! When a Judge beginswritign MOTHERS DO NOT COUNT and other judges begin writing “OTHER CIRCUMSTANCES EXIST” but they won’t name them as they don’t, or a judge actually issues athreat from the bench only as you pressed charges and for no other reasoing and does so in front of a packed courtroom then YOU need to worry as you’re next. In fact I’m bettign it already hapeend to you only you ddi not know the law or these nasty lawyer tricks invollving language so you did not realzie what was going on in your life is criminal.

    You missed BVG, didn’t you? What else got past you?

    MARBURY V MADISON GRANTS EVERYBODY LEGAL STANDING; AGAIN READ WHAT I WROTE WITHOUT CHANGING IT. Marbury is John Marshall restating that constitutional auhority is ours as in is the lone citizens.

    NBC: In Marbury the court found that it has the power of judicial review. Since there was a real injury to Marbury, and particularized, the Court suggested that he would have a case. But the court then observed that under the Constitution they lack the ability to hear a mandamus as in original jurisdiction unless it involves the specific categories outlined in the Constitution. So I am not sure how or why you invoke Marbury. Marbury is the only case that I am aware of in which the petition was granted and the case was heard, leading to the concept of judicial review and the ruling that a petition for mandamus under original jurisdiction fails unless the case is one of those outlined in our Constitution. Susan’s case fails in that aspect and thus it is not surprising that the Court refused to hear it.

    He reasons your vote is equivalentotExecutive Order, that blame is not an option as only you have to know and your comanding officer is not responsible for your actions so YOURE LIABLE and that failure to act isn’t even on the able and never will be.

    NBC: No mention of a vote or equivalent to executive order.


    NBC: So far no legal argument.

    NBC : Fascinating interpretation of Marbury, and rejected by the courts. You do understand the concept of standing? Marbury is best described as the case which developed the concept of judicial review.

    We derive “What did you know, when did you know i and when did you act upon it?” from Marbury. SCOTUS as we know it does not exist in US Law. Marbury created it. My act of genius was to invoke Marbury agaisnt PA & NY and then directly challlenge the Cief Justice and n so doing test Marbury:

    NBC: Act of genius. That’s ironically sad. I do understand that you believe that your filings were evidence of your ‘genius’ however the courts totally ignored you because they understand that Marbury does not provide you with standing. You did not challenge anyone other than petition the court for your case to be heard. The court refused to hear your case. The end.

    Is it constitutional or not? Lawyers are insane if they tell you Marbury IS NOT constitutional and makes liberty and ustice impossible but then keep petitionng it. Their excuse? Law school taught as absolute, unquestionable fact that no human being on Earth could ever SUE THE CHIEF JUSTICE; you couldn’t enter directly so you could never, ever ecure yoru ights. You wouldn’t control your own desiny and fate lawyers and the people who hire them would. In America you may sue anybody civilly or criminally and if one man named Marbury could enter directly then nothign is keeping you out. John Marshall himself said: If the denial of the paper becoems the denial of the right then cme on back and we’ll give you the piece of paper. That’s what I did, go back for the paper.

    NBC : Totally ignoring the requirement of standing…

    Nobody is REASONING law and its application based upon fact and law; nobody is pesenting logic, reason and ration but only unsupported beliefs.

    NBC : Don’t be too hard on yourself here.

    Do you even know why Jefferson set Marbury is motion? HINT: He, lke Rehnquist, mant to open a door not close one. If justice is made impossible why are you alive? Why have a mind? Why be born? Your existence wold be pointless if you actually couldn’t claim the comission on your own.

    NBC: Marbury was allowed standing because he suffered injury particular to him and the court could resolve the issue by granting judicial review. This should not be confused with original jurisdiction as this applies in limited cases under our Constitution and is the likely reason why your petition was denied. Of course, you lack both standing as well as a clear legal argument, something many a court has observed. See for example:

    The Complaint, a thirty-one page, manifesto-like document largely comprised of unnumbered, single-spaced paragraphs in diminutive font, sets forth Plaintiff’s account of the myriad ways in which she believes she has been discriminated against due to her status as a woman. This pervasive and systemic discrimination, she claims, constitutes equal protection and due process violations, see Complaint at 8, and entitles her to relief such as having her named placed on the presidential ballot of all fifty states, women being made to register for the draft, amendment of the constitution, and the issuance of a temporary injunction against Wal-Mart. See id. at 17-18. It is also noted that the allegations and facts set forth in the Complaint somewhat mirror those from a case Ms. Herbert filed on April 4, 2007, in this Court that was dismissed on April 6, 2007, upon a finding that “Plaintiff[‘s] claims are clearly fantastic and delusional and her requested relief is beyond the Court’s authority.” Order of Dismissal Without Prejudice (Doc. #6), entered in Case No. 3:07-cv-267-J- 20TEM, at 4. Indeed, Plaintiff seeks, among other relief, reinstatement of that lawsuit. Complaint at 2, 10 (“Please undismiss the di[s]missal.”), 18.

    “We should tell that to the Oklahoma Thunder – that they actually achieved a tie in the finals (1 as 1 versus 4 as 1). It’s a huge conspiracy that defrauded them of half the title!!!!1!!!11!!!!one!!!eleven!!!”

    Again, Be Serious. Not only are ties possible in SCOTUS but SCOTUS began as a circuit court of 25 judges. They actually rode the circuit on horseback. 9 Justices is a number that seems to ork but ther’s no law or even code stating you may only have 9. you can and may appoint more or less Justices. One of the very reasons we use an odd number? To avoid ties! But in the case of a Presidential eelction you can’t avoid a tie IF you bring the case to SCOTUS and IF one, lone citizen is willing. That lone citizen rises as that’s chain ofocmmand thoery and that’s your oene vote. WE DO NOT HAVE THE POPULAR VOTE IN AMERICA!!! It’s a whole one pitted against…you. We pit a MAJORITY of one agasnt a MINORITY of one but we do not count exactign numbers; we don’t subtract 4 from 5 or count individual votes. How evr many votes exceed the other contenders is couned as one FOR. Think: If you could claim “527 votes” mean Bush won then how coul ou or 9 Justices cast yoru weight agaisnt it to defend yourself? YOU COULDN’T! you’d need 528 Justices, get it? you ould need to cast 528 votes.

    As your lone vote is equivalent to an Executive Order then YOU are a whole class of one conssiting of an absolute person. You’re whole one goes up agaisnt their whole one; whoever has the correct reasoning based uon fact and law (or as you know it ‘closest’ to correct) then ‘wins’. We: VOLUNTEER to conduct the experiemnt by voluntarily abiding by not obeyign SCOTUS rulings not orders. If you know ro if you coem to discvoer tha SCOTUS is incorrect? You bring suit.

    In middle school and in very early algebra your techers were supposed to ensure you mastered the concept of absolutes and wholes but they failed. According to US Law and the good math? BVG is a tie any way you cunt it; it’s 1 whole Elecoral College for Bush V one whole nation for Gore. It’s one whole court for Bush V one whole nation fo Gore. It’s one lone Justice actign as a whoel class V one whole nation and then 1 Susan Herbert. Sorry! I? I never, ever participated. I mean not once. I preseved my legal standing by preserving my vote. One of the reasosn you’re in denial and you’re not taking this seriously is you did particpate. It’s you who ae actually placing blame on me, lol. For what? Shattering your delusions? Proving you pay tribute not just taxes?

    Upon a whole other level greatest weight for keeping everybody but licensed lawyers out of SCOTUS? Control; if you can’t and don’t act pro se and you can’t and don’t brign yoru own cases to SCOTUS then what’s inflicted upon you the lies lawyers and their clients mostly coporate or political tell . That’s not reality at all elt alone the realiity of US Law: Where does it state ties aren’t possible and a law degee and/or license is a qualification? THe Oath of Office deos state “I WILL”; it does not read “MY LAWYER WILL” so if you wage the case that you’re the rightful, lawful holder of he Office? YOU HAVE TO ACT PRO SE OR ALL YOU’RE PROVING IS YOU HAVE ZERO ABILITY. You have to have some ability as it also reads “TO THE BEST OF MY ABILITY” so your ability must exist first. If you can’t or won’t reason and wage your own case? Defend yourself? You can’t preserve, protect, and defend me anyone else.

    “She needs to fight the evil legal system.” NO: I WILL AND MUST FIGHT EVIL PEOPLE WHO ACT HEINOUSLY AND WHO HARM ME; YOU’RE NEVER, EVER GOING TO LIFT A FINGER TO DEFEND YOURSELF SO YOU DON’T HONESTLY BELIEVE I’D SIT AROUND WAITING ON YOU TO DEFEND ME AND MY KIDS, DO YOU? DO YOU THINK I BELIEVE YOU’RE EVER GOING TO ACT AGAINST YOUR OPPRESORS? If a US Marshal showed up at your door and delivered a death threat in front of witnesses courtesy of Obama & Co. (ultimately the banking families) you’d crumble. Puh leez! Legal systems, the dead instuitutions, have no mind so can’t reason. Who reasons with inaimate objects? NOBODY although you blame inanimate objects constantly.

    I do take it seriously when Jews, after the holocaust, tell me to “NEVER FORGET”. I do take it seriosuly when Patrick Henry says, “For my own part, I consider it as nothing less than a question of freedom or slavery; and in proportion to the magnitude of the subject ought to be the freedom of the debate. It is only in this way that we can hope to arrive at truth, and fulfil the great responsibility which we hold to God and our country. Should I keep back my opinions at such a time, through fear of giving offence, I should consider myself as guilty of treason towards my country, and of an act of disloyalty toward the majesty of heaven, which I revere above all earthly kings. Mr. President, it is natural to man to indulge in the illusions of hope. We are apt to shut our eyes against a painful truth, and listen to the song of that siren till she transforms us into beasts. Is this the part of wise men, engaged in a great and arduous struggle for liberty? Are we disposed to be of the number of those who, having eyes, see not, and, having ears, hear not, the things which so nearly concern their temporal salvation? For my part, whatever anguish of spirit it may cost, I am willing to know the whole truth; to know the worst, and to provide for it.”

    “There is no evidence that President Obama was foreign born and the facts actually show him born on US soil. As to other citizenships, there is no evidence he ever held an Indonesian citizenship as such is contradicted by Indonesian law and the facts of the case. Furthermore, holding a foreign citizenship does not cause one necessarily to lose one’s natural born birthright and since parents cannot abandon a child’s birthright citizenship and a child cannot denounce his citizenship, the Indonesian connection is another merritless myth. We do know that President Obama was born on US soil and thus by any standard a natural born citizen.” ONE: Evidence and proof are two different things. Evidence is stuff like paper and fingerprints and blood and DNA. Proof is living testimony. There’s so much evidence no reasoanble person can deny it and no federal judge did. READ WHAT THEY WROTE. Not one denied the evidence – they merely ignored it to get it past you. Not one said that I faield to meet the burden of profo standard let alone burden of evidence. Let’s play pretend; let’s pretend I entered no proof. At what point does the aggragate amount of evidence then become proof as you coss that line? Pit us head to head aianst Obaam and we’ll win based upon: EVIDENCE ALONE. Proof? you pit me againt Obama, McCain or any one of the criminals you set up in DC and i’ll crush them when it comes to reasoning a pont of law as i’ve done it in person more than once. Obama? I proved he doesn’t possess the human ability to think theoretically. That’s why all his work is signed “Anonymous” and the only work he actually signed using his own name is incomprrhensible. If you’re so damn certain of yourself? Pit me agaisnt Obama live, in person, and let’s disocver if he can reason US Law or not. Most lawyers graduating frm law school today? CANT. But I did enter proof, remember? since when do you get to change the tesimony already fild in court? What, you get to claim there aen’t two witnesses or Obama did not say something he admits he said and that we can prove by asking others who were there and heard it so POOOF! These witnesses don’t exist? YOU cannadmay testify for Obaam but YOU don’t have a right nor the power or authority to just claim the testimony of a witness sis nonxistent only as you say so. GO READ IT. Despots and cntrol freaks do this. TWO: Who’s “we”? YOU DO NOT SPEAK FOR US; THERE’S NO COLLECTIVE WE. You don’t get to automatically include us. t’s: The People. YOU CAN’T POSSIBLY KNOW WHAT DID NOT HAPPEN. Born on US Soil? Where do you belive Obaam was born and how do you OWN THIS KNOWLEDGE? how do you KNOW? Show me your evidence and proof. Present yorur reasoning. Not of anything I or Obama claim but your reasoning of US Law. A paper birth certificate isn’t ithe proof and it isn’t you reasning a point of law. THREE: By ANY Standard Obama’s natural born? i’m gonna give you that as by the standardknown as mental illnes and criminal insanity yup, he’s ‘nautral born’. FOUR: You ignored PROXIMITY OF BLOOD and PRIMOGENITURE. Reason it. Facts might change as more develop but they don’ t disappear altogether. all you said is ‘I DICTATE IT: OBAMA IS NATURAL BORN’.

    “Conspiracy”: Yup. Under US Law you conspire and collude. You can and may conspire alone or together but you only collude together. It’s both passive and active conspiracy and collusiion. As I said: You conspired as if nohing else you conspired alone. You also colluded as if nothing else you passively colluded.

    NBC: There are a few logical problems here. First of all the word conspire

    1. Make secret plans jointly to commit an unlawful or harmful act.

    2. (of events or circumstances) Seem to be working together to bring about a particular result, typically to someone’s detriment.

    So con, which means ‘together’ infers more than one and secondly conspire means that the goal was a particular result. In this case, the only person who ‘conspired’ has been you, at least under your own logic. You actively brought about a particular result.

    I’m gong to tel you to place “I wasn’t consciously aware of what was going on” right up there with ignorance: It’s not an excuse. It’s your job to know. THERE’S NO SUCH THING AS A CONSPIRACY THEORY; AN ACTUAL CONSPIRACY IS OR ISN’T; THERE’S NO THEORIZING. The phrase “conspiracy theory” is a corruption of our language.

    “Many of her cases are also filed in the name of her children.”

    Nope! WRONG, not a mistake and not in error as you’re wrong: in actuality? ZERO!!! I NEVER filed a case in the name of my children alone; that happens to be a charge I levied against Micheal Newdow as he used a child to get inside a court when he had no case only he shot himself in the foot as by enterigng his daughter? He entered the proof we needed.

    NBC: So you agree that many of your cases have been filed in the name of your children? You disagree by pointing out that you never filed them in the name of your children only. But that was not my claim

    I have INCLUDED my children as a part of the class of many ; in SCOTUS the Pettion had all three of our names on it. Wanna hear my sons horror stories soemday regarding all the abuse heaped upon them by these monsters? At one point they hired a ‘child pyschologist’ to abuse them in his office.

    NBC: >/b> So what abuse took place?

    Ask Linda Griffin’s own court clerk who now works elsewhere as he told me and my lawyer iin the hallway inside the court that “Randy Cale is a court whore” that “nobody ever listens to him”. Wana hear my sosns tesimony or will you call them liars to?

    NBC: I never called you a liar nor would I call your sons liars. They are the victims of unfortunate circumstances. You blame the legal system, the courts, the specialists, etc.

    Are they crazy? Of course I INCLUDED THEIR NAMES BUT NOT EVERY SINGLE TIME and of course I filed in OUR names in SCOTUS but it’s captioned what? What do my originals say versus what do court clerks say? I not once, not ever filed in their name alone. Make up another ecuse. Listen – LISTEN – to what you wrote: “many of HER cases are also filed in the name of HER CHILDREN”. Many of Suan’s cases are also filed in Ethan and Christopher’s name, as if they’re sperate suits? MY case was refiled in THEIR names? WRONG!!!

    NBC: You protest too much and apply not enough logic and reason to my simple statement.

    Also: It’s CASE, one case, not cases plural. It’s the same point of law over and over and over worded differently to illustrate or demonstrate a point of law and something you do not undestand regarding language.

    NBC: Let me check:

    Herbert et al v. US Military et al Civil No. 11-3217 (DWF/TNL)

    Susan Herbert, and her minor Sons,

    Ethan and Christopher,

    Herbert v US et al – FL – 3:07-cv-00267-HES-TEM

    Susan PRO SE


    Ethan PRO SE



    PRO SE

    That’s already more than one…. Just because you claim it’s the same ‘argument’ does not make it the same case. But by admitting that it is the same case, the Courts will have an easy time rejecting any further filings on your part, as they have noticed and done in the past.

    This is now a class action lawsuit. It’s a class of many. I have an exacting list. It covers all women andso all humans on Earth but immediately there’s an exactly named class who joined voluntarily as I did not recruit anybody. The exactly named class numbers as less than a hundred and there are two other members of counsel. you can’t possibly meet damages for all women other than remedy and relief but you can for the EXACTLY named class.

    NBC: A class action… Now that is novel… But again, class action or not, the foundation as outlined in your ‘complaints’ continue to fail.

    “Or might the list of lawsuits above indicate something akin to a Hoarding Disorder? She needs a care-giver of some sort; the ideation displayed above can’t be doing her any good.”

    Ideation is a bi g word; are you an expert in pyschiary? I am.

    NBC: I do understand that you consider yourself to be quite the expert, a lawyer, a physicist, a psychiatrist. But honestly…

    I suggest you read all of the expert knowledge regarding the actual or good pyschiatry that I placed within the lawsuit for the reader’s convenience. It’s hardcore science anybody can prove or disprove. In case you don’t knoww: You have as ubconscious minds if you negated itthen you wouldn’t be leaving posts like this. Your subconscious mind drives you, the difference between actual self and personality drives you, so you place the truth of yourself on display but do not realzie it precisely as it is subconscious. To be aware of it you have to negate your subconscious by moving knolwedge about self into your conscious awareness. Think of it this way; Why are you assigning your judgment values to me when this is about justice so this is about you? It’s a case of hoarding alright only i’d say the hogs and the hoarders are the people YOU elect and YOU now support with tribute who won’t give up control they never had; it’s an illusion only. I designed these complaints like the MN Multiphasic Test. Only more perfect. As your subconscious is driving you and I’m aware of it and I can quantify it? I NEGATED WHAT IS SUBCONSCIOUS; WHATEVER YOU ASSIGN TO ME IS TRUE ABOUT YOU…. you protect these peopele as YOU want and need caretakers. I wrote “it’s homicide and suicide and if you’re participating then who’s doing it? YOU NOT ME; I NEVER PARTICIPATE. Which is why I don’t NEED to enter a federal court in person as nobody NEEDS an institution. They’re handy but you do not need them. I know; organized politicaly funded science and so pyschiatry would have you believe the ANIMATE arose from the INANIMATE thus it’s perfectly okay to dehumanize all of us. No, no, no; the ANIMATE arose from the ANIMATE or else: Jefferson would be wrong. you know what else I wrote? “As the named punishment for treason is death then if you commit suicide the punishment actually does fit the crime! ”

    NBC : Well, for someone claiming to be an expert in psychiatry/psychology, you do manage to undermine your case a bit.

    “Noted. Her therapist should be steering her away from the destabilizing hobby of mixing legal involvement and conspiracy obsession, then, eh? In any case, I’ll put on the elkskin gloves.” I’m stil waitign for SERIOUS reasoning….you’re supposed to LOGICALLY state your position and so enter yoru reasoing against me. I have a ot of leeway here as I already laced my actual reasoning, myoriginal intellectual proeprty that already won direct filing as right, to the record.

    NBC: Many a petition is filed with the Supreme Court, but few are actually heard. They meet the same fate as yours: denial of the petition. Anyone can file a petition but until the court decides to hear it, it is meaningless.

    Since it’s done I can play a little bit here. PA shut down your nonsense in 1999. I mentioned this before but: as I’m in possession of a comprehensive pysch eval that found me free of any mental defect and I entered it to SCOTUS aong with the Cuuriculae Vitae of a doctor?

    NBC: What happened in Florida recently? I understand that the Court had you committed for a while, unable to face the charges? I’d love to see additional documents though. So far the documents have been far and between, especially the documents that document the incidents and actions.

    And as PA COURT ORDERED this eval for all of us and a man was removed because of it? You have to go to SCOTUS to make this claim. If you don’t? It’s libel. If I use a very loose standard, FL Statute 916, clear and convincing evidence must exsist for you to make this claim. So what really ticks you off, that you voted for somebody ONLY because they’re black as no other reasonin exists or that a woman beat you to the punch? Do I make you FEEL stupid? That’s one of the contrlo issues afoot.

    NBC: Irony oh sweet irony.

    The reasoning I wouldn’t fle the above ‘responses’ in SCOTUS? You gave nonanswers and only cast judgment, the exact charge I made, and SCOTUS already overtrured NY and BVG. It’s on you if you keep OBEYING these guys blindly.

    NBC: SCOTUS never overturned NY and BVG. It’s all based on your failure to understand what happened. Read rule 17 and understand how a denied petition means that the Court refused to hear the case.


    NBC: I would object to this logical fallacy

    And yes, I say the same thign over again but use different words to show you…language is being used to harm you. My point of law? IT NEVER CHANGES!

    NBC: Too bad that you are wrong as law and common law develop continuously.

    When you distill the EP&DP clauses down to their very essence? There is zero difference; all these fine meanings in words vanish as it’s about potential and the whole not absolutes. You possess the potetnial; you don’t need permission to become self-actualized. You’re not standing upon a piece of paper but upon universal law. I don’t care what you call it as it’s all murder to me and it’s all inequality to me; it’s various forms of the same exact thing. There exists infinite forms. But WHAT makes you human? What levels this field? YOUR MIND.

    i’m not upset and i’m not actually insulting you. You’d know it if I were. i’m also not attmptign to sway you or convince you as the evidence and profo speaks for itself and we canand will suport our case with our own reasoning, our own intelectual prooerty as that’s what any lawyer does. You appear in person to support your documents so you and your work rise to the level of proof. I’m tryign to: motivate you; start asking questions and start acting; reason your case logically as ANYTHING can and may happen in US Claims and Geneva. You do not make yoru case to them but to who? THE PEOPLE!

    NBC: I have read your complaints which are long but fail to make a compelling legal case

    I can play here as I entered the actual reasoning bto court already ut you should sit down and go through everything I entered including the attachments as you CAN’T know if I presented evidnece until you examine he evidence. Then logically reason your case based upon ALL fact and law not only your fact and not only Obama’s purported facts.

    NBC: In Obama’s case the Long Form Birth certificate shows him born on US soil and thus under US Constitution a natural born citizen

    This case is supposed to cause spirited debate and a national discussion …if you happen upon something you can’t deny then start asking why? One member of counsel voted for Obama as she ddid not know he changed his name. There’s no right or wrong as far as the Voters are concerned as justice is abotut the whole truth so everybody gets to have an opinion.

    I’m going to ask you to seriously think about this: Why do formerly great governments fall when they refuse to accord women equality? When they deny women are equal? Why is equality the only thing UNJUST persons aren’t willing to act upon? Is black the difference or is woman the actual difference?

    NBC: This has nothing to do with equal rights for women.

  21. o No, I didn’t fail. how is it possible that I faield if I directly entered twice and I secured default?

    ROTFL… You never secured any default. You attempted to have your cases heard by the Supreme Court (what is known as a petition), believing that you had a right to be heard under ‘original jurisdiction’ and in all cases the Supreme Court rejected your petitions and thus denied you a hearing. While the US failed to or declined to respond, this was in connection to your petition. No default.

    Susan, you achieved nothing but losses so far. Sorry to inform you my dear friend. I wish you well. Please understand that your ‘logic’ has failed to sway much of any court. So far your cases appear to have been dismissed, often sua sponte based on their lack of a coherent legal argument.

    I wish things had worked out differently for you and your children.

    This case is supposed to cause spirited debate and a national discussion

    I understand that you believe that this case is somehow earth shattering but the courts and those who looked at your arguments, are not very impressed.

    Again, I wish you well my friend. I have provided the dockets and some of the texts of your many cases in hope that people will understand the evolution of your cases and your arguments. It pains me that you are separated from your children.

    I am a Constitution Susan Herbert wordpress blog

    Susan Constant at Scribd

    Susan Constant reaching enlightenment

    Gunslinger The Supreme Court brief is an interesting law review article, or would be several such articles, if it were organized in a less rambling fashion. That being said, I can’t find a justiciable controversy (which means–I can’t find any request for the court to act, nor anything they could act upon. Courts are not law review editors).

  22. According to the Constitution of the United States only natural born citizens are eligible to serve as President of the United States or as Vice President. The text of the Constitution does not define what is meant by natural born: in particular it does not specify whether there is any distinction to be made between persons whose citizenship is based on jus sanguinis (parentage) and

    those whose citizenship is based on jus soli (birthplace). What did the framers of the Constitution consider to be the basis for the designation “Natural Born citizen?”

    Perhaps the best definition is found in the first Naturalization Act of 1790. “The Naturalization Act of 1790 stated that “the children of citizens of the United States that may be born beyond sea, or out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born citizens”. (Act to establish a uniform Rule of Naturalization, 1st Congress, 2nd session, March 26, 1790, 1 Stat.L. 103 at 104, 2 Laws of the U.S., ed. Bioren & Duane (1815) 82 at 83.) Under this clarification the fact that President Obama’s mother was natural born citizen, then the physical location of his birth would not matter.

    In the congress that passed the act were several members of the Constitutional convention that saw no conflict in defining natural born.

  23. The naturalization act shows that the Founders could not have considered Jus Sanguini to be the definition of natural born or they would not have had to extend citizenship to children born abroad to US citizens.

    In fact, such statutory acts show that such children are considered to be naturalized.

    Simple really. Of course, the unfortunate reference to ‘natural born’ in the earliest act was removed quickly.

    Since such children derive their citizenship from statute, they cannot logically be considered to be natural born.

    Thank you for pointing this out.

  24. Thomas Jensen,

    Alexander Hamilton told us specifically that to find the meaning of terms in the Constitution, we should look to the legal system of England. Natural born had a very specific meaning in English law.

  25. The was old world definition was the citizenship of birth was permanent that is if you were born an Englishman you would die an Englishman. As a land that needed immigrants we also accepted the idea that citizenship could be surrendered and new one chosen. This was one of the major problems surrounding the issue of impressment into the British navy during the war of 1812.

  26. Thomas Jensen – when the Founders changed from a Common Law understanding of a legal principle they told us. Nowhere did they tell us that they were changing the Common Law meaning of the term “natural born”. In fact the Constitution is filled with English legal terms – ex post facto, habeus corpus, Bills of attender, high crimes and misdemeanors, pardons, impeachment. All are from the English legal system.

  27. Great! ‘cuase I’m not debating – reasoning – jus sangunini as I’m not a fascist, a nationalist or French. Look up how that concept contributed to nationaism and WWII. I already addressed jus sanguini and rejected it as bad theory, a long time ago.

    I named: Proximity of blood and primogeniture.

    When you reason US Law you must consider balance and counterblance not balance alone or what you have is an unjust balance of power. If you draw your reasoning as a diagram it will look like a double helix and/or an hour glass. It’s elegant. You reason: Equal but distinct and then unique. you must account for biological distinction known as man and woman that then also addresses stuff like stem cell research, abortion, adoption of forieners at the expense of already born Americans in foster care, egg & sperm donation, gay ‘rights’ [ the act of sex is not human sexuality] etc. etc. you end up hittign every EP&DP issue as all of them are the direct result of the prejudice of or agaisnt women.

    If you do not account for the fact that men do not give birth to humans then you’re stuck with an imbalance of pwoer that ultimately harms men as the chain of causation that criminal corruption is whips around to bite you in the butt. A man SIGNS for you…when your mother signs yoru birth cert as a maiden you’re legally orphaned and so you belogn ot the fed; your father then must sign exactly as the Founders did. If you as a man want to sign for a baby that is not yours? Go for it as a member of the class did this very thing. Also you’re NOT prevented from takign yoru case to court and reasoning that you, although foreign born, have secured the right of natural birth for your children. Wen ho Lee did this very thing as he was falsely accussed of spying and eventually wrote a book entitled “My country Versus Me” whereby he offers a full confession: his msitake in life, how clinto nand Reno and others were able to do this to him is: He told himself that he COULDNT participate in our political process as it might be lethal as it was in the nation into which he was born…he said that was an excuse and that if he participated he would have been able to defend himself so now he travels the nation teaching immigrants that participation is absolutely neccessary and really, what’s the point ot even being here if you then do not participate i nthe political process? He confessed: He didn’t vest his interest or the right for his own children (and so grandchildren) UNTIL: A sittign President and US Attorney General actually conspired to frame him as they needed a victim and chose him so he psent 2 years in prison because he chose himself first; he victimized his own self by failing tio participate.

    Another member of the class has a son who’s father is from Ghana. She’s natural born but her son isn’t but she has a claim to then secure the brirthright due to an injury related to being black and the police that is the direct result of the actions of a sitting President legal or not…if Obama can make his case then let him as he can enter ANY reasoning he pleases. Why default? Why plead No Contest on 11/05/08 if you possess an answer?

    I’ll remind you: so far the Queen of England has not produced any letter of renunciation from Obama. WHO do we know who came to America and emobdied what it is to be American and then took his case to court to duke it out and won, as he won the right to remain here and he became a citizen? JOHN LENNON. He sued the US for harrassing him and attempting to unlawfully deport him ONLY as he was embodying our original form. John Lennon said soem of the most american thigns I ever heard such as (parphrased) ‘the greatest day of my life was the day I won in federal court as it was the same day my son was born; my son was born and that same day my lawyer told me the decison was in and he began to read it to me’. Go read it. Lennon also said that ‘YES, being harrassed by the FBI was a pain in the but’ and when Dick Cavett asked him why he wasn’t angry he said that this could happen to him i nany nation but the difference in America was that here, he could go on TV or in the papers and talk abotu it openly while in other nations includign Britain he would never be allowed to publicly make his case or to talk about it at all.

    John Lennon wrote a letter to the Queen renouncing all titles inlcuding his knighthood and serverign all allegiances to the crown. Obaam wants me to belive that he’s zero point when no, John Lennon holds this seat as he was assasinated…would Lennon have been murdered if the US did not act against him? maybe but it’s notl ikely as WHY pick John Lennon? There’s lots and lots fo reasons that make up the whole reasoning his fame as a Beatle and his activism. Another reason is it seems as if the US won’t protect him or pursue justice as the US fought him so hard. I CONTACED BUCKINGHAM PALACE; NO LETTER OF RENUNCIATION EXISTS!

    People do not understand that ever since the US – DC – began invking Executive Order 100 in pereptutity when in reality it feel when Lincoln fell as the War was essentuially over that we, The People, were made the enemey of the US government. They use Executive Order 100 to rationalize and justify their unlawful acts agaisnt us. Hence the US mostly – and now absolutely and wholly – acts against you and your interests.

    WHO has the most interest is seeing to it that Obama is entrenched and that you take it w/o objection like you took Nixon and Nixon’s pardon and then Clinton’s perjury? The very same people who financed WWII and who endow Harvard.

    Logic is NOT swaying and convincing; Im not attmepting to sway or convince you as every human on Earth has to meticulously go over the facts includign the trail of living people not paper anybody can forge or fabricate at their local Kinko’s – and then, based upon fully informed consent, make up their own minds. So far you have been denied that right. These people delusionally insist that you don’t have a mind of your own and that you cannot make well reasoend decisons for your own self. That you NEED to be RULED by an elite grpoup that you then OBEY.

    Reality is you do not have to obey The Creator as you became sovereign when you were crowned with a mind of your own by The Creator so you can even defy him. We: ABIDE by law based upon our conscious awareness of it and our willingness to do so once we emply human ration, our emotional reasoning capacity.

    From the American Dreams site:

    In one of the most shocking articles that the New York Times has ever put out, a New York Times reporter has openly admitted that virtually every major mainstream news organization allows government bureaucrats and campaign officials to censor their stories. For example, almost every major news organization in the country has agreed to submit virtually all quotes from anyone involved in the Obama campaign or the Romney campaign to gatekeepers for “quote approval” before they will be published. If the gatekeeper in the Obama campaign does not want a certain quote to get out, the American people will not see it, and the same thing applies to the Romney campaign. The goal is to keep the campaigns as “on message” as possible and to avoid gaffes at all cost. But this kind of thing is not just happening with political campaigns. According to the New York Times, “quote approval” has become “commonplace throughout Washington”. In other words, if you see a quote in the newspaper from someone in the federal government then it is safe to say that a gatekeeper has almost certainly reviewed that quote and has approved it. This is another sign that “the free and independent media” in this country is a joke. What we get from the mainstream media is a very highly filtered form of propaganda, and that is one reason why Americans are turning away from the mainstream media in droves. People want the truth, and more Americans than ever realize that they are not getting it from the mainstream media.

    The following quote comes from the recent article in the New York Times mentioned above and it is absolutely jaw dropping….

    “The quotations come back redacted, stripped of colorful metaphors, colloquial language and anything even mildly provocative.

    They are sent by e-mail from the Obama headquarters in Chicago to reporters who have interviewed campaign officials under one major condition: the press office has veto power over what statements can be quoted and attributed by name.

    Most reporters, desperate to pick the brains of the president’s top strategists, grudgingly agree. After the interviews, they review their notes, check their tape recorders and send in the juiciest sound bites for review.

    The verdict from the campaign — an operation that prides itself on staying consistently on script — is often no, Barack Obama does not approve this message.”

    This is an article that everyone needs to read. If you have not read it yet, you can find it right here.

    What all of this means is that both the Obama campaign and the Romney campaign essentially have “veto power” over any quotes from those campaigns that we see in the newspapers.

    According to the New York Times, virtually every major news organization has agreed to submit their quotes for “quote approval”….

    “It was difficult to find a news outlet that had not agreed to quote approval, albeit reluctantly. Organizations like Bloomberg, The Washington Post, Vanity Fair, Reuters and The New York Times have all consented to interviews under such terms.”

    This is absolutely disgusting, and it goes against everything that our media is supposed to stand for.

    The following is what Joseph Farah had to say when he learned about this story….

    “All I can say about these people I once considered “colleagues” is that I am so ashamed of them. I am mortified. They are humiliating themselves and a vital institution for any free society.”

    It seems the biggest threat to the American tradition of a free and independent press is not government coercion. It’s the willing submission of the press to being handled and managed by government and politicians.

    Keep in mind that Joseph Farah has been working in the world of journalism for decades. He is deeply saddened to see what is happening to a profession that he deeply loves.

    But he is not the only one.

    Just check out what Dan Rather had to say during a speech back in 2009….

    “At my age and stage I’ve finally reached the point where I don’t have to kiss up to anybody,” he said. “What a wonderful feeling it is.”

    Even so, his talk emphasized what he believes is the erosion of quality journalism, because of the corporatization, politicization, and “trivialization” of news. Those three factors, Rather argued, have fueled the “dumbing down and sleezing up of news” and the decline of “great American journalism.”

    Likening media consolidation to that of the banking industry, Rather claimed that “roughly 80 percent” of the media is controlled by no more than six, and possibly as few as four, corporations.

    And Dan Rather is right. The control over the media in the United States is more tightly concentrated than ever before.

    Back in the early 1980s, approximately 50 corporations essentially had nearly total control of the media in the United States.

    Today, just six monolithic media corporations dominate virtually everything you watch, hear and read.

    These six gigantic corporations own television networks, publishing houses, movie studios, newspapers, radio stations, music labels and video game companies. Most Americans are absolutely addicted to information and entertainment, and those six massive corporations supply the vast majority of the information and entertainment that Americans take in.

    The amount of control that those six corporate giants have is absolutely incredible. For example, the average American watches 153 hours of television a month. If you can beam 153 hours of “programming” into someone’s head each month, that gives you an awesome amount of influence over that person.

    The six monolithic corporations mentioned above are Time Warner, Walt Disney, Viacom, Rupert Murdoch’s News Corp., CBS Corporation and NBC Universal.

    There are some areas of the media that are not completely dominated by those corporations, but even control over those areas is becoming more highly concentrated than ever.

    For example, Clear Channel now owns over 1000 radio stations across the United States. The power that Clear Channel has over the radio industry in America is absolutely staggering.

    Even control over the Internet is becoming much more concentrated. Giant corporations such as Facebook, Google, Yahoo and Microsoft are increasingly controlling what we see and hear online.

    But it really is the “big six” that dominate most of what we see, hear and read on a daily basis.

    In a previous article, I detailed a portion of the vast media holdings of these gigantic corporations…”

    Still wondering WHY this case hasn’t picked up air time in the news? I sued ’em all, that’s why. I happen to know a radio show was done on this case early on and that had so many repercussions the owners of a website I later named ran scared after first making false accusations regarding money and me as a mother, lol…they falsely claimed I was ordered to pay child support and failed to do so and that I had my parental rights temrinated when I haven’t thus I must be defective as a human being when child support was never an issue…no other website ever did this…believe it or not at one point a person on Obama’s payroll would follow me on the net and argue just to argue. when as insider came forward and told me that this man was actually on Obama’s payroll and told me how they knew this I then confronted him: Are you willing to enter your reasoning to court? and I never heard from him again. I asked: what do you mean by ‘working for Obama’? Do you mean canmpaigning or volunteering? She said, NO Susan, working for him as in being on his payroll and then she told me how she knew this…you could not deny it as she gave me proof of life.

    The people at the very top of this food chain do not want you to know that you are their slaves and have always been so as all they do is merely change the form…they need a slave workforce to build their houses and cars and planes and celsl phones etc. etc. They need you to need them or they’re out of gas…if you know US history and understand that paper money is a total fabrication – a complete lie – as if stuff like inflation and deflation, then ooops! They’re then broke.

    From a recent letter I wrote to a few members of the class [please do not insert your own emotional truth…you never met me so you can’t ‘hear’ it when I’m telling a joke or if you never asked me about something then you wouldn’t know what I believe or don’t believe; refrain from assigng what are yoru beliefs to me]:

    “I’m seriously working on the claim now, lol:

    One of the first things you have to do is choose a 3 digit code from the list Claims provides. Technically we fall under every single code; it’s every jurisdiction and every issue but I chose #140, Contract – Injunction Post Award as our best bet is to go after the money in the Sioux Fund as I exactly named it in 07-9804 via claiming that had my injunction been properly filed by SCOTUS clerks upon the US defaulting and Obama pleading No Contest in 08-6622 on November 5th, 2008 then Barack Obama never would have been sworn in and we would have collected that fund minus the deposit of $20 million no matter what else we collected. We won; now we ask them to “re”issue and enforce the injunction that already exists and is good as I served Obama in person. I never had to file it with SCOTUS.

    It’s also the lowest amount; I can then demonstrate that every word of US Law and US case law has fallen as has its spirit so that one of the most grievous injuries is the fact that our right under Art.1 Sec. 8 has been violated as proven by…the very complaint you’re reading for if we didn’t have the intellectual property and so the good science then we never, ever would have been able to do this as it’s not possible; if I participated at all in any way, if I ever acted upon bad science and if I ever fell for any of these lies? Then I couldn’t have tackled BVG as the ability and capacity wouldn’t be mine. I wouldn’t know Jefferson correctly answered Newton’s question. This opens the door to present our work in person…hopefully they’ll understand it’s a suit that falls under every type of case they hear including patent cases as your patent claim may not arise as a result of a countersuit. Ours doesn’t.

    So we’re asking them to enforce the injunction, hear the case and then make the monetary award. As I said I’m keeping it short.

    The Court of Claims has a lot riding on this including publicity as you can even ask if the Court of claims is an Art. 1 or Art. 3 court; that is, the US Court of Claims could pull the same play I did and assert its authority as an Art. 3 Court once we clear up the nonsense over money and what it is. They could establish an equal footing with SCOTUS as it makes no sense to be bounced back and forth the way they claim jurisdiction works if you do not account for directly entered constitutional authority cases…by hearing us and sending us straight back to SCOTUS if anybody challenges their ruling they may claim to be an Art. 3 Court equivalent to SCOTUS as they do hear constitutional issues. So I’m going to sell it to them this way; theoretically you force a stand off between the Chief Judge of this Court and the Chief Justice of SCOTUS and who rises like a phoenix between the two? WE DO.

    You would never logically appeal this case to the US Federal Appellate so there exists an exception to the court rules: an authority case of o.j. in which the US has already defaulted…they had plenty of opportunity to answer and chose not to; do you really believe they’ll appeal if we win again, to SCOTUS? And risk going before a war crimes court in Geneva? I’m betting: Not gonna happen so Claims doesn’t have to worry about them appealing. We might end up in SCOTUS only as a courtesy and to ensure the process exists for futrue genrations as there’d still be the unresolved Post Master General point of law that Claims could clear up by ordering him to serve Roberts my postal service/tenure in office/ who serves the Chief in case of an emergency or when the field is occupied by the enemy question. If the Post Master serves roberts? No problem. If he doesn’t? He’s in violation of a court order and he loses that tenure. I may fire him then. I doubt the modern day postal inspector is Ben Franklin…if he was he would’ve objected by now due to all the postal service cuts so I don’t see him mounting an authority case on his own.

    Furthermore if you look at all the types of cases this court hears I can offer them answers they need such as answers about vaccines. It’s NOT metal in vaccines causing all of this damage it’s mostly TIMING as they changed the vaccine schedule w/o any regard to simple, basic human psychology. That’s the largest or greatest influence when you see autism as a result of vaccination…in each individual you need to look at the hydrogen carbon chain reaction going on in a human body to know if metal caused brain damage and the like as that’s about chemical bonding. A tiny amount of metal like a tiny amount of arsenic CAN injure an individual dependent upon their sex, their environment and that chain reaction as there is an ideal that I know. Your goal should be to totally prevent these types of injuries not pay out ex post facto.

    I’m going to need you to look up everything you have to do to serve the parties and at all the other paperwork as there’s nothing stopping you from doing some of it and sending it to me.

    If you guys do not help me this time do you know how much I’m going to bill you? I promise The Creator: I’ll throw a single silver dollar at you and I’ll walk away with the rest and then if you want the money you’ll HAVE to mount a federal case all by yourself so as you can clearly see it’s easier to create a few sheets of paper now or fill out a form or two now than suffer later when it’s completely unnecessary. I won’t feel sorry for you. Do you know how hard it is for me to ask these fuckers for money??? MONEY??? I’m dying inside a little more with each letter I type…plus I have to admit WHY it took me so long and it’s not only because I needed to secure a decision in person. sure that was 99.9% of it but a part of me was never going to ask for money…there’s a part of me that’s still hoping the planet will implode before I have to go here as I know how we’re bugging out but not when and I don’t know very many exacting details yet [HINT HINT: Lion’s Gate as the “key” is the male part and the “gate” is the female part]. Also: we’re all going but that doesn’t mean we’re going at the same time or that we’ll have the same outcomes as that’s up to The Creator. When the Bible says you cannot know and exact time or day? You can but that doesn’t mean that time applies to you, lol. So I’ve been lazy when it comes to this complaint as I own more knowledge and truly, while it’s not going to happen, I want the planet to implode before I have to say we will settle for money even though I know that wouldn’t be the end for us but the beginning. My best legal and medical advice is: Worry about yourself thus America not Earth. The universe? It isn’t going anywhere. But then again neither is Earth if you consider consciousness, whole time and the pulse rate of Earth.

    I wouldn’t laugh: you know how I’ve been screaming about vulcanology? Underwater oceanic volcanoes are starting to erupt; do you have any idea how large the mountain ranges under the oceans are and how deep the trenches are? If a large one blows what would that do to our food chain in a relatively short amount of time? There’s nothing you can do to fix any of this on a global level as we went so far down this path but you don’t have to sit back and let these people begin WWIII only because they have depraved ideas and they actually believe they’ll become immortal physically. Rather than let these men have their own judgmental way you can allow nature to take its course. What happens every time man – any hominid – disrupts the balance of any ecosystem past a certain point? It dies and then it is reborn as nature will heal itself.

    Maybe The Creator will snatch you away in the twinkling of an eye, maybe alien space craft from another solar system or galaxy will aid and abet us and maybe we’ll build our own ships. I’m still laughing at these idiots for not planning for this day but instead building underground bunkers and an airport in our mile high city. Yeah, while we were conquering multidimensional space, the constitutional authority case of o.j., how life began in this universe and time as mass they were building what is basically a $4 billion sex club as look at what they chose to put on display in their MILE HIGH CLUB. Trust me: They did not realize what they were doing. The only thought they did.

    Let’s pretend: aliens land en masse in the USA; who do they ask to meet, me or Jacob Rothchild? What’s Jacob Rothchild going to share with them? Who will these aliens invest in, me or him? Let’s pretend: Jecob Rothchild pulls out a spaceship out of his pocket capable of traveling in this immediate physical solar system; what good is it if the Earth is not fit for human habitation and anyways, who deliberately visits Denver? Who travels from say, Paris to Denver or Zeti Reticuli to Denver unless the Cowboys are in the Super Bowl? Only people who live in Denver. Puh leez. I’ve been to Denver.

    What’s this reason – excuse – you have so you can’t fill out a form??? Good or bad if there’s anything Americans know how to do it’s fill out paperwork. For those of you who would like to take a stab at freestyling? Go ahead as your form may be perfect.

    Pro Se Info:

    Court rules; forms are in the Appendix I around page 185 or so:

    You can look up examples as to how others filled out these same forms by looking up suits online or logging onto PACER. To use PACER merely create an account as they bill you per page but you only need to open pages once as you save them. They’ll send you a paper bill and it’s not much per page, something like 8 cents but I haven’t used it in so long I forget exactly how they apply that cost.

    Of course I didn’t pay the bill they sent me. I merely opened up another account as I’m In Re Susan so I can wholly reason why this is perfectly legal for me to do. You tell the Court: Is it legal for you to do so? I figure the US still owes me at the least $1,399,999,950.00 so I have over a billion three to go before I can no longer legally refuse to pay my PACER bill; whether or not you do is up to you:

    “Today, the Obama Administration has talked about settling the Black Hills land claim dispute. In a press statement, President Barack Obama gave hope of government negotiations and Native American self-determination. A tribal analysis stated that President Obama “is a strong believer in tribal sovereignty. He does not believe court or the federal government should force Sioux tribes to take settlement money for the Black Hills. He believes that tribes are best suited to decide how to handle the monetary award themselves.” [47]

    The Sioux are re-emerging with new faith and are ready to start working with President Barack Obama where they have publicly announced their eagerness for “government to government negotiations to explore innovative solutions to resolve the long-standing dispute over the sacred Black Hills in a fair and honourable manner. “[47]

    There is no current government activity on the Black Hills. However, on November 5, 2009 President Obama stated to the Native American population that “You deserve to have a voice,” and “You will not be forgotten as long as I’m in this White House.”[48] This statement occurred after President Obama’s signature on a bill allowing agencies to submit paperwork in regards to methods and efforts of allowing Native American tribes to participate in and influence decisions in United States policies regarding tribal life.” WHOEVER SAID THEY COULDN’T???

    “On April 27, 2009, the Native Times article “Lawsuit Would Let Sioux Take Money for Black Hills” wrote that the Sioux still have not received the money that was awarded to them in 1980. However, today, the notion of land over money for compensation has begun to fade for some. One lawyer for 19 tribal members who reside on the reservations and have filed a suit says they want to receive money and not the land as compensation. They claim that 5,000 tribal members have signed on with the lawsuit but don’t want to be named.[49]

    As a result, two problems have emerged regarding money as just compensation. First, the Sioux do not know how they want the money to be distributed. Lawyer Wanda L. Howey-Fox argues that the money should be given to each individual member of the tribe.[49] Second, many tribal members feel as if they cannot come forward and share their view of accepting the money without being reprimanded by tribal officials as well as other Native Americans in the community. Consequently, statements by tribal members, such as Charlotte Black Elk of the Pine Ridge Reservation, state that “tribal members who agree to take the money would be giving up their identities as Indians. Anyone who wants money for the Black Hills should not live on the reservations.”[49]

    Moreover, high tribal officials have spoken for the people, ultimately producing only one viewpoint in the issues concerning the Black Hills land claims, thus representing only one side of the issue.[citation needed] President Theresa Two Bulls has stated that the people must “stress the sacredness of the Black Hills so our youth are engaged in keeping our culture intact and always growing towards the future.”[47]

    On June 30, 2009, the Rosebud Sioux and Oglala Sioux tribes called for a meeting to discuss the split issues regarding just compensation for the Black Hills.[47]”

    Howley-Fox asked for $900 million to be released but the fund today? At around $1.4 billion.

    Article dated Sept. 3rd, 2012:

    They’re buying back land and that’s not just. In our deal they get the land, the US gets its money back and we get the interest on the fund. Allodial title would allow any people already there to remain there – you could ‘deed’ it to your descendants in that they’d inherit and they could live in any existent buildings in perpetuity – as long as they do not make substantive improvements including the National Park Service. If they make substantive improvements? Title is broken and the land reverts to its natural state. I’d say Mt. Rushmore is a substantive ‘improvement’ regardless of its artistic integrity but it’s already there, isn’t it? You won’t be carving Obama’s face into that mountain any time soon and work on the Crazy Horse sculpture next door would have to cease. Remember: The Sioux claim to want the same thing we do as they claim this land is sacred. In our settlement? Everybody gets what they claim they need.

    As far as speculators go? Hey, you knew when you purchased that land it was tied up in litigation that has never been settled. If you lose your investment as you bought something like mining rights? Too bad as that’s US Law so suck it up. You assumed a risk upon fully informed consent and you lost.”

    [I know it’s the Broncos; saying cowboys is a joke kids. Also: you do realize that NORAD where my brother in law worked is in Colorado Springs don’t you? As he wouldn’t tell me what was going on out there I looked up PROTOCOL. They have protocol for what to do when you make contact with an alien. Go look!] -end

    Before I go tonight? You’ve been living vicariously thorugh lawyers…you’ve been living what lawyers and law schools and the people who endow them believe not what you believe…you’re the victim not any lawyer you hire! Can you vicariously participate in the process via lawyers? No, as YOU have to go here. Wisdom is born of life experience. Only you had your unique experience of life. Your hired lawyer?

    They weren’t even there when you were injured. Nobody can epresent you better than you. And as lawyers are unreasoanble as they all veered into mental illness and insanity you can’t tell them that now they are some of the victims as they’re their own ultimate victimizer!!! what’s the line you draw between victim and victimizer? I know but most people do not. Most people do not realize they’ve become victimizers and lawyers never realize it.

    Oliver Wendell Homes said you CANT reason with an unreasoanble person. you can and may reason your case but not to people who are unreasoanble which almost of DC is today. Lawyers and judges who are lawyers want to maintain total control of you in court so the lie and attempt to dicate reality to you and they refuse to ask the actual question present.

    My mother was almost the case fro women and the draft; she almsot became rotsker V goldberg but refused as nobody would ask the actual federal question present. Remember this transpired around the same time the ERA failed. The US Military held my mother to an impossible standard ONLY because they did not want her to join and outrank them as she can pull rank; not everybody knows how to do this correctly or can; she was joing the reserves at the time as she’s an RN. The Military was going to pay her off so she refused to eb the case as she had a question NOBODY would ask and it was her question that caused me to be able to correctly reason the application of US Law accounting for the distinction known as actual bilogical reality:

    Are we holding our SONS to a double standard?

    She named and so foresaw: BACKLASH AGAINST ETHICAL MEN.

    Again, if you want to join you may…you? You can appear in Obama’s stead and argue your version of natural birth if you please if he fails to appear again. If he doesn’t answer again – he won’t – then you can answer and so you could wrest the seat from me.


    P.S. I almost forgot: Qui tam, whistleblower lawsuits: Qui tam is short for Qui Tam pro domino rege quam pro si ipso in hac parte sequitur, or, Who sues on behalf of the King, as well as for Himself.

    No, no, no; it’s Marbury: Who sues acting as President and Commander on behalf of The People, as well as for himself as he too is a People. Ultimately? You sue on behalf of THE King, the just Creator in whose image homo sapiens are modeled after due to that mind of our own not a judgmental god as we named the Creator, nature and nature’s god.


    P.P.S. I printed new “business” cards as I’m a card carrying member of one ‘political’ organization only, Jefferson Lives. There’s one member: Me.

    This time I called it Jefferson Survives. I’m close to perfecting it; I believe the next version will be my last. I have the end shot of Planet of the Apes, Liberty rising out of the sand, on the front in black on a blood red background. Send me your addy and I’ll send you some. I also have one copy of Criminal Procedure (2007) up for grabs that I can send via media mail to the first taker. It’s a textbook; it’s not that great (it’s not one of these $600 or $700 textbooks) but it’s handy. I have my own copy.


    It sounds like I’m saying John Lennon’s letter doesn’t exist, lol.

  29. Oh and Susan, your case was never accepted by the Supreme Court. They denied your petition.

    And yes Qui Tam was tried, without much success, by Berg. Such a foolish attempt.

    I looked in some detail into your case history. Sad… The Neptune Beach police report was particularly interesting. How are things right now?

  30. Keep in mind that Joseph Farah has been working in the world of journalism for decades. He is deeply saddened to see what is happening to a profession that he deeply loves.

    ROTFL now that is hilarious…

  31. Of course I didn’t pay the bill they sent me. I merely opened up another account as I’m In Re Susan so I can wholly reason why this is perfectly legal for me to do. You tell the Court: Is it legal for you to do so? I figure the US still owes me at the least $1,399,999,950.00 so I have over a billion three to go before I can no longer legally refuse to pay my PACER bill; whether or not you do is up to you:

    That’s the attitude that keeps getting you in trouble…. Admitting that it was done on purpose further aggravates your case.

    Using your logic, it’s ok to steal as long as you can convince yourself that the other party owes you money…


  32. No, no, no; it’s Marbury: Who sues acting as President and Commander on behalf of The People, as well as for himself as he too is a People.

    The Court ruled that Marbury lacked standing as the law allowing him to file directly with the Supreme Court was unconstitutional.


    A little knowledge can be so dangerous.

  33. Go talk to Judge Kevn Hosford. If you coulld DENY reality after you failed to respond – if you could efault but then deny it by merely writing denied – then everybody would do it, duh. Hosford told FL: That word is meaningless; it has to be a fasle entry or: it has to be a criminally insane person named the Chief clerk of the US attmepting to hide what he did. Hey NBC: If the Chief clerk of the US threatens you and then acts upon it how do you sue him if he controls the docket? Hosford sided with me: The word DENIED proves nothign and is irrelevant in this instance as default is. what, if you FTA you can deny it and so no consequences exist? You’ll never suffer capeus?

    BTW: In ALL cases of authority and o.j. that are DIRECTLY entered? The Chief Justice MUST name his reasoning for denying hearing IF he denies it. Where do you see John roberts John Hancock? Prove to us that it was served to him by the Chief Clerk or any Clerk. You can’t, as it never transpired. In other cases he or she may decline to name their reasoning as in Nicholson v Scopetta but not in directly entered authority cases of o.j.

    Berg, as in Philip Berg? I can tell you all about Berg. What do you want to know, why he failed? Or why he’s lying ot you? as I had contact with him.

    Last time I checked? BERG DID NOT ENTER DIRECTLY. He didn’t even know you could until I went and did it and then told him you could.

    Yawn…give me a holler when he does enter directly.

    This is what I mean about unreasoanble people…you’re NOT applying logic ration and reason but merely denyign the reality of what I wrote, what the Founders wrote and US history that did transpire.

    Qui tam? I didn’t file it INDIRECTLY as a straightforward case of qui tam. Where do you see those words in any document previously filed??? In any previously field document not merely the SCOTUS Petitons? You don’t! The problem with qui tam? LAWYERS DELUSIONALLY BELIEVE THEY ARE THE KING.

    I have zero idea as to why you need to deny reality so badly but – again – I directly sued SCOTUS and in so doing challenged Marbury and BVG; I tested Marbury and invented the process to sue directly as it did not exist before I did it. I stood aside (or down) the Chief Justice of the US. Before I did it? Your vote was equivalnet to an Executive Order on paper only but not in reality. That idea or concept was real only in that it existed on pieces of papwer but nobody ever did it. You have to ACTULIZE the words.


    Why would you be so hot to protect: LICENSED LAWYERS? Instead of yourself?

    Logic – the terms – dicates: If you sue a Chief Justice in his or her legal capacity then you go directly to SCOTUS as nothing else makes sense.

    Are you one of these peole who delusionally believes that the Fiounders made guesses – wrote down any old thign – and that the rules exist for no reasoning at all? Like somebody felt like saying “delivery must occur by first class mail” but no actual reaosning exists? Did you jsut blindly obey this stuff but never reason why first class mail??? Or why the oldest is traditionally appointed Chief but Roberts si very, very young? It didn’t seem odd to you that the Justices were essentially castign a second vote in BVG? Or is it that….you failed to act so your ego has taken a direct hit?

    I’ll take you up on your offer NBC as…one principle of qui tam is YOU MAY NOT CLAIM DELIBERATE IGNORANCE!!!! If Susan told you and you just didn’t bother reading it and researching it? That then is deliberate ignorance and you do not get to claim it as your excuse in court. You say REASON your point and support it but then you don’t. I smell: A hypocrite. It’s the Hippocratic oath not the Hypocritic oath. Hypocrite is a greek word tha means ACTOR and John Marshall was one. i’m beginin to think you might be one. That doesn’t mean all of his work is bad and some of it? Elegant. It’s possible for you, be you a hypocrite or not, to achieve your human potential and in so doing becoming self-actualized thus you too could produce elegant work – if you made an attempt to the best of your ability.

    One of the acts I cited in my claim against the employees of SCOTUS and federal judges in general? Not playing by their own named court rules let alone US Law.

    Put your money where yoru mouth is; bet on yourself; place your case, your reasoning, on paper or in an e-file and send it to me and I’ll file it or, upon us filing, then answer us. I can and will file the word “Yawn” on yoru behalf but: Expect at least one court clerk and 16 Federal Court of Claims judges to laugh at you not with you.

    The link to the American Dreamer site, as that article is very long, is:

  34. The Chief Justice MUST name his reasoning for denying hearing IF he denies it.

    Nope… Not according to the rules of the Court. Such ignorance.

  35. Poor Susan, in Marbury the Supreme Court ruled the law that allowed Marbury to directly enter the Supreme Court as unconstitutional and thus you similarly could not have entered directly.
    Read the Constitution and and the rules of the Court. When you submitted your petition to be heard, the clerk placed it on the calendar and I doubt the Judges even discussed the case. Denied.. No need for any explanations.

    Sorry Susan, I have wasted tens of dollars on Pacer getting access to the many documents in your case. None amounted to much of interest other than the occasional psychological evaluation or the police report of Neptune beach.

    Sorry my friend, no court is going to listen to you when you base them on such ramblings.

    It’s that simple. And the record so far supports my case.


    In a petition for certiorari, the US may or may not respond, there is no concept of default for a petition of cert.

    Really Susan… I have no information as to what Judge Hosford may have told you but I doubt that you correctly interpreted it.

  37. Logic – the terms – dicates: If you sue a Chief Justice in his or her legal capacity then you go directly to SCOTUS as nothing else makes sense.

    You cannot sue a Chief Justice. Check out judicial immunity…. For goodness sakes.

    You are so poorly informed about the Courts, it’s shocking… In spite of so many filings.

    Tell us more about the Neptune police report…. I found it fascinating…

  38. Dec 8 2008 Petition DENIED. False entry made by a clerk. I ALREADY PROVED

    You have done nothing of the kind. You filed a petition, the court denied the petition.

    The end… And yet, in your fantasies you imagine yourself to be the victor… So sad. Susan, I wish you all the best but I do not believe any of your cases have risen to much of anything.

  39. I have zero idea WHO Joseph Farah is as I never haerd of him. He IS NOT the point at all: The point is conspiracy and collusion by mass media to indoctrinate you by reporting ONLY what your so-called candidates claim is be “on point”. Who’s the arbiter of what’s on point? What is or isn’t US Law? What is or isn’t insane? They have a message they mean to indoctrinate you with and based upon your REactions not your actions they’ve succeeded.

    Ever wonder WHY candidates seemed preoccupied with FOREIGN POLICY while American slowly dies? To the extent and degree its an obssession? WHO oh WHO is foeign and needs you to invest in what is foreign not what is an american interest? Who ho who profits at your expense? David Rockeleller was quoted as saying that if the press had not censored itself for 40 years in regards to meetings of the Bilderberger Group then THEY couldn’t have successfully inflicted their idea of a new world order upon us. Who annointed clinton? The Bilderbergers. Who was Harvard’s quasi political group endorsing as their young, promising socialist hopeful if you voted for a specific persoanlty across party lines? Bill Clinton. Where did Obaam go to law school after first circumventign the process by having a stranger call in a favor for him only upon nothing but the word af another person not upon the truth of Obama? Harvard. Where did Obama’s FOREIGN BORN father go so that he, Obama, wasn’t a legacy as legacies have American born fathers and as he can’t think theoretically or produce his own ideas he then needed to pull a fast one and so circumvent the admissions process we’d have to subject ourselves to as he couldn’t afford to let anyone sit in judgment of him or they might find out he’s wholly faking it as Neitzsche taught him? Harvard. Obama asked a person he knew to call in a favor from a person Obama never met. And that idiot did it ONLY as he wanted to vote for: BLACK SKIN. Like every actual rasicst now he has trouble dealing with the fact that he acted to aid and abety soembody ONLY as they had blck skin. Is that why you’re blindly in love with Obama? As he’s black? Last time I checked you could have black skin and be a crook, a moron , a sexist or flat out insane; last time I checked you could be if you had white skin as don’t you call Clinton the first black President? But there’s no connection and it’s not your fault for being rascist and sexist and delibrately ignorant as all of this was sitting upon the public record if only you dug, if only you looked beyond, oh say, corporate news conglomerates and instead went looking for the actual people who were there, but for soem ‘reason’ it’s beyond yoru control so it’s not yoru fault yet…you voted, didn’t you?. Who’s fault is it then that you’re racist, sexist and ignorant and that you can’t or won’t act to save yoru own life?

    WHO ordered the news agencies to censor anything? Nobody ordered them to do it; in case you missed it perusual these people voluntarily censored it – they played by the rules according to DC – ONLY as they wanted to profit…they would get something….and you wouldn’t get the truth. If news orgnaizations are censoring what they report so that they cater to the entrenched criminal element? Gee, tthat’s about constitutional authority and Marbury and the crooks have the only voice and they have the means to inundate you with propaganda but you don’t have the means to defend yourself.

    Not unless you file directly in SCOTUS that is. Go read the list of who owns what news outlets…I happen to know first hand that Clear Channel does own most radio stations in the US currently. II know a lot of stuff about the BROADCASTING as I know the person who is this nation’s best FCC attorney in the biblical sense as we lived together and who is actually ethical so much so that it hurts to be him soemtimes. You can fact check this list of who owns what.

    I never heard of Farah. NBC belivees Frah is funny? Is a joke? I’m betting Farah whoever he is never heard of NBC, Natural Born Citizen NOT National Broadcasting Corporation. I’m quite certain Farah has heard of the National Broadcasting Corporation. Have you, Natural born citizen? Looks like: Joke’s on you.

    I “imagine myself to be the victor”? Well, I am in possession of a document that millions of americans saw as I alerted them to it that Oshows FL was mailing out absentee ballots but then going into the system and chaging addresses so that they could stuff the ballot box at the primary. My addy? 100 Seagate Ave 101. Brian, who lives here, participates in criminal corruption not me. He asked for an absentee ballot. He happend to think it was late in coming so he checked his name o nthe rolls and saw that our addy had been changed to 1100 20th N. St. Somebody had to enter the system to do this. That very day he comes home upset after talking to the Supervisor of elections and what’s in our mailbox? Why, his absentee ballot addressed to 1100 Seagate #101 so WHO acted to do this? I went online giving America his name and his birthdate so they could look it up on their own. iId say I have them over a barrel as the two thigns crooks in DC never, ever toelrate are franking abuse and ballot box stuffing.

    li’m imaginary and so I imagine things? Like the Revolutionaries imagined they were the victors or the north imagined they were the victors? I ALREADY DID IT BOZO; WHAT ELSE DO YOU NEED, TO HAVE A FEDERAL JUDGE TELL YOU? WHY? WHAT MAKES A FEDERAL JUDGE A GREATER AUTHORITY THAN US LAW ITSELF??? THAN: YOU? you NEED a federal judge to tell you what’s reality and what isn’t? That your numbers are imaginary – literally – in actuality like your nonexistent reasoning is? Promise me: You’ll take a picture of yoruself on your webcam when the news finally catches up to you. I

    kid you not: People committing blantant crimes told me MOTIVE doesn’t count, that they aren’t criminals committing crimes as no guilty verdict exists and/or as they would have been arrested by now, lol. Sure they stole, perjured themselves, stabbed soembody but as no piece of paper exists saying GUILTY then they aren’t even though they had motive, even though they knew it is a crime and even though they acted to do it.

    So, all those times Jeffrey Dahmer murdered and ate a boy it WASNT a crime as we did not charge him for every single act but only some? as in he did it other times but as we did not exactly charge him then those times don’t count, as if they never happened as the paper verdict exactyl naming them doesn’t exist? All those rapes and murders Ted Bundy commtted aren’t crimes as we did not secure a guilty verdict in every single case but only some? The person in my world who told me they robbed a Masons Lodge isn’t guilty as the police wouldn’t take my report not even after the Masons filed one? Clinton didn’t commit perjury as no guilty verdict exists on a piece of paper? Nixon was pardoned therefore no crime occurred? Ted Bundy himself didn’t agree with that line of insanity as he confessed to an FBI agent before he was put to death.

    Check me: A member of Clinton’s staff was on national TV discussing Clinton’s administration that he was an active part of; I saw this interview. He said Sure the Clinton Administration was the most corrupted in US history but as no guilty verdict exists then they aren’t actually guilty. WTF??? is correct.

    You do realize – know- that a member of Obama’s “circle” if you will already went on TV and said that when the Nobel Prize was announced and he experienced Obaam coming to delusionally, truly believe he actually did something to deserve tit that he became frightened. He said that he had an agreement with Obama and everyone else invovled or so he TRULY believed, that he would call Obama a genius and the like in exchange for exacting things such as an office or title. He thought a contract existed. At the time the Nobel Prize was announced he witnessed -EXPERIENCED – Obama coming to truly believe he was a genius and had done something to deserve or earn this award other than be born with black skin and he was stunned. He looked around the room and became frightened as maybe, just maybe, he did not have a contract with these people as he could no longer discern who was delusional and who wasn’t; was he himself delusional? What if he never had a contract? What if he helped to drive Obama into deep delusion? He thought YOU all knew that Obama was no actual genius, that it was all a lie, and that people like him were only saying it to say it, to get something. Did you know or not? How could a same person not know? as: The claims they make DEFY human ration and we all know it so he bolted as he became afraid and then he confessed on national TV. to everytihng he did.


    The reasoning that you deny reality? You’re driven to do it. It has to do with basic human pyschology and human nature. When a machine such as a PC and its program confront a direct contradiction that PC’s program will insert anything at all. Anything; chaos reigns. Wheh human beings confront a direct contradiction that thy cannot reason? That they cannot emotionally process? They insert whatever makes them physically comfortable. Whatever stuffs down the fear. Nazis know that humans do this. They challenge your sense of ration and present you with direct contradictions with deliberation.

    What’s a hallmark of fascism specifically Nazism? THE POPULACE BEGINS TO DOUBT ITS OWN SANITY AS THE ALTERNATIVE IS TOO TERRIFYING TO CONTEMPLATE. First your ego doesn’t allow you to acknowledge reality and then by the tiem you’re willing as thigns are so bad you can’t as the idea that you will be killed exactly like Jews were ro that you will be trated as I was is so scary to you that you choose to veer into insanity…you: DOUBT YOUR OWN SANITY. That’s why you react as you do. But I entered several Americans who actually stood in a moment and publicly doubted their own sanity due to BVG, Gore himself and Obama to name a few. One man heard Obaam respnd to a question abotu Healthcare with “Hawaii”, “LA Purchase” and “earthquake” when thaose words made zero sense whatsoever and went online asking this:

    ‘I know we elected a lunatic. But I just heard Obama say what he said. Is he truly that far gone or am I insane? somebody please tell me: Is it me? Am I insane?’ I entered him – that post – but not by his exacting name. He heard what he heard and everybody knew it made no sense as they discussed how irrational it is UNLESS you knew that’s an actual Freudian slip on Obama’s part as I had just served Obama in person. That man never needed to read the suit; if he heard what he heard and he saw what he saw and he knew it made no sense based upon the question being asked WHY would he ever coem to doubt his own insanity? He told us why: The reported pretended they didn’t hear what Obama said.

    Hmmmm.who else pretended they were deaf in an exactign moment? Arizona’s own Rep. Gifford who pretended Jared Laughner was speaking Spanish hence she couldn’t understand him when he asked her a direct question at a public meeting.

    Jefferson warned you over and over, most recently in 1820: Your PERSONAL beliefs are incongruent with US Law; when they then become inconsistent? So that they’re both incongruent and inconistent? You’re not medically mentally ill but under the law you’re legally insane.

    So I imagined it all, huh? Go read US Law, US Case law and Marbury: you must own the knowledge and then act upno ownership of the knowledge; no paper ruling is neeccessary as that ‘s what actual constitutional authority is, duh. ACT UPON YOUR OWNSERSHIP OF THE KNOWLEDGE; IF THE DENIAL OF THE PIECE OF PAPER BECOMES THE DENIAL OF THE RIGHT ITSELF AS INSANE AMERICANS INSIST THEY NEED THE PIECE OF PAPER THEN COME ON BACK AND WE’LL GIVE YOU THE PIECE OF PAPER. Marshall wrote that, not me.


    You seek permission as you need to cast yoru baseless, groundless judgemnet values upon me so that you can place blame upon me and/or upno other peopel and thingss rather than take responsiblility for your own actions or failure to act. you do not want to be liberated as with libery comes great responsibliility and whatever you do in life you’ll never, ever admit that you’re accountable and you’re responsible for your own actions or failure to act. you delsuionally believe lawyer or nurse o teacher is soemthign you go out and achieve while Chief Justice or President or rock star is something people give you. You delusionally believe that while you CAN become a teacher by acting in that direction that you can’t become President unless somebody gives it to you. But: you delusinally believe that you’re only a teacher or a nurse if a piece of paper known as a diploma or license says so.

    The Founders denied us the popular vote for this very reasoning: PEER PRESSURE; SEEKING THE PERMISSION OF ANOTHER MAN WHEN IT’S A MATTER OF YOUR OWN CONSCIENCE AND CONSCIOUS AWARENESS. Let me guess: you ask permission before you phone in a police report or vote? You check in with a political party to see who everybody else is going to vote for ro you ask another perons if you should call the cops? If a book says you can’t then you can’t? It impossible for the book – accordign to a piece of paper – so it’s humanly impossible for you? If you represented us at the Covention we’d still be British…you’d be asking the King if you could declare your indepedence or you’d be voting as a block only as you were terrifeid to stand alone, on yoru own two feet upon what you truly believed. you’re the elector being purchased who goes then votes as a part of the electoral college not accordign to his conscience al al John Anderson in 1980 but because Bush won a popular vote in FL. He or one of his handlers walked inot our Office of electiosn and paid a fee that proves nothign regardign ability to be on then ballot in the primary and upon winning a popular vote that is wholly unlawful he “buys” you, one of FL’s electors so you blindly vote for him no matter what is righteous or just. Electors? They can vote for ANYBODY at all that they want to vote for, even you. If you do not appear on the ballot? you duke it out in SCOTUS against those who did appear provong YOU have the ability they do not.

    But you’ll never, ever, ever test yoruself will you? You’ll neverm, ever,ever stand alone, upon your own reasoning hence your own ability, and so risk being criticized and JUDGED the way you judge me will you? Lucky for me I know this is about justice not judgment so until or unless somebody does produce actual reasoning based upon US Law and actual fact – until soembody appears and produces actual proof – then your insanity does not apply to me.

    My patience hs run out with you as you’re not stupid. you’re doing this with deliberation as you have no case so why bother to run this site? so you can conspire and collude? so you can indoctrinate people? so you can feel like a great big man by making somebody else feel less than? Oh you rookie:

    First of all yoru insults are childish. Secondly? I run with the big boys. If it were possible to own me using words lke yawn, n*gger or even c*nt then I couldn’t do this as I’d cave like an empty sack of flour wouldn’t I? You honestly and truyl belive that you’re this right stuff that can openly challenge me in prson a la the US Navy? That you can survive a kill or be killed stand off in person? The Navy and I are laughing as you have doen absolutely nothign to demonstrate that you can’ what would you do at a military hearing once the door is closed and they can do anything at all to you? Cry? I already engaged in such a stand off with the Navy more than once. The Navy stood aside me. Were you there? No, and you wouldn’t be – ever – as you’re an actual coward who hides behind a website. I don’t participate with actual cowards.

    But guess what kiddo? ii’m going to ask that you be made to test yourself, that you be made to stand before a court and state yoru case and your reasoning so i’m going to ask that you be compelled to appear sicne you went hear: INSANITY. You’re mocking US Law and the sacrifices other human beings made on yoru behalf when we asked for nothing in return. you’re unwilling to assuem the actual risjk of death even if it’s dying of embarrassment alone but you’re going ot mock me and mock Jefferson and mock Adams and even Rehnquist and Thurgood Marshall? If the ONLY way you’ll ever learn this lesson is to be made to go here I can and may ask for that and last time I checked nobody on Earth could stop me from serving you.

    Lol! Don’t you get it? I ALREADY SERVED YOU. You accepeted receipt. first class mail? I did that when I mailed you #07-9804 & 08-6622 and there I am on the docket so the whole plaent knows and was served. So far NO FEDERAL JUDGE HAS DISAGREED ON THESE EXACTING POINTS. Read what they say, read my answer and then read their response. ZERO DISAGREEMENTS ON EXACTING POINTS UNLESS AN INSANE JUDGE IS CLAIMING SOMETHING LIKE I WAS CRIMINALLY CONVICTED UPON OF FELONY CHARGES UPON TRIAL SO THAT I’M IN PRISON WHEN…NO SUCH EVENTS TRANSPIRED. Where am I at? At home. Do I have any convictions upon going to trial? Have i ever been to trial or to prison? No.

    So read what judges INITIALLY claim then read my objection and then read their so-called rulings. No reasoning at all or pull the documents is all they’ve got? If you thave motive to commit a crime tthat you’ve exactly stated in this or prior rulings w/o realzing it until I pointed it out to you then you’re perpetrating one and if truly have no reasoning as you don’t then you’re legally insane.

    No reasoning at all except “coward”…I’m used to that one.

    Now, I was sincerely answering the person who named jus sanguini to let them know I’ve already gone there and I’m not only not reasoning that but that I proved it ot be bad legal theory. MY motive is liberty and justice; yours? Injustice. At least we know the truth about you now, don’t we? And it’s not only NBC, it’s a few of you. No reasoning at all, no case you can support, not even in a freakin’ post except Coward and that happens to be another form of self-doubt and blame. Didn’t Benedict Arnold place blame and doubt himself? Isn’t that why he became our greatest traitor not our greatest general? Isn’t self-doubt and blame aak fasle fear and false guilt the injury and harm we came to in Eden? What are you, jealous? Rage filled as my mere existence makes you feel as small as you act?

    How many more millenia do you need before you finally make an attempt to master the knowledge gifted to you by the Foundersbut first The Creator? ‘Cause I’m done and there’s room on the monument at Saratoga for your name as you won’t find Benedict Arnold’s on it.

    Rookie, rookie rookie; amateur; sucker: you did carefully listen to CERN’s recent announcement didn’t you? They were served. They actually said that they did not discover any Higgs Boson – READ THEIR OFFICIAL PRESS RELEASE – but only evidence that it MIGHT exist and if it does then that will solve their little problem regarding mass. Wait, isn’t evidence exactly what CERN started with? And as a particle collider is not nature since when does a particle collider prove anything??? It doesn’t; only uckers belive that and do not notice that CERN made its non-announcment when? July 3rd. Gee, Bastille Day is July 14th; you;’d think if CERN & FRANCE weren’t trying to steal our intellectual proerty that they make their grandiose anouncment on Bastille day not the day before our Independence Day. But you don’t reason anything, do you? WHO tells you in Petition 07-9804 that she knows the resolution to Uniformity as it was sitting in plain sight and Jefferson wrote it down but died 5 years before we began measurign magnetic north so that he never knew that he, not Lord Calvert, correctly answered the question Newton asks in Principia and in so doing solves this problem regardign mass that Niles Bohr DELIBERATELY lies about in: “On The CONSTITUTION Of The Atom”? Who says thnaks to The founders I know how and why magnetic north moves so THE AMERICANS own this intellectual proeprty as I assgiend the rights to The People not to myself? Only I, susan, knew calvert’s model – his thoery is bad -so he was awarded credit erroneously ans no man thought to check his model but only check his math. Yes, dumb, crazy, imaginary Susan Herbert became the ONLY woman on the historical record of Earth and one of only a handful of human beings to defieneactual law of this universe all by herlsef, w/o the help of any man. I know sweetie; it KILLS you that now that i’ve arrived you can no lnger rationalize and justify you’re insane belifs by claiming you are superior to me as your proof is no woman is an actual natural born genius and no woman ever will be, that actual genius is reserved to white European makes only. I get it; I know; you hate me as I shater all of yoru delusions and once you have to let go of the smalest irrational persoanl belif you have then your entire belif system comes crumbling down around you and it’s proved you not me veered into insanity. That reality is you’re actually everything you assign to me. I know how that, the whoeletruth not part of it, kills you inside.

    A meaning for the word “id” in ancient language? “I die of embarrassment”. Yup, as you committed treason and the named punishment is death. You did it to yourselves.

    I can’t wait to reort to Ray that you – YOU – decided you could not only stand one or both of us down but that you could out reason us when it came to physics and/or mathematics when all of CERN can’t or else they would. That’s as pahetic as you claiming your argument and yoru insults not your reasoning trump Jefferson.

    I can’t reason with unreasonable people as it’s impossible as either you can reason but won’t or you can’t reason as you’re insane so I’m not going to waste anymore of my time here. If you have something to contribute, to actually reason I’ll consider it; I have been known to amend a belief or to admit you have the best reasoning not me or that you know soemthign I don’t; if you want ot ask me soemthign email me…I’ll take the time to answer you if you’re sincere. Asking about jus sanguini is reasonable as it’s an actual legal theory and not many people know to name it…early on soem lawyers named it but they had no idea as to what it actually is or as to what they were talking about…I happen to know that most historians claim nobody can figure out the complex concept the Scottish idea of proximity of blood and primogeniture to be when it’s law and it’s in what is considered to be the world’s first declaration of indpendence written in…Scotland. The whole truth is self-evident to me…it’s the founding fathers and the patriotic mothers…where was Jefferson’s mother’s family from? SCOTLAND. What nation am I only three genrations removed from on my father’s side? SCOTLAND. Will seems to be gentically encoded within us. Jefferson’s infamous Scittish relative? BLACK AGNES, lol. She defended a castle all by herself by telling the attackers where they could stick it and then standing her ground. Of course Jefferso nand I would be familar with proximity of blood and promogentiture…read the Dultuh filing as all kinds of goodies are in there. I didn’t write it and file it or a judge but for you.

    I used to hold a “class” at the library for anybody who wanted to learn and/or make their own case. I offered to give legal advice pro bono. all you had to do is show up; if you could state yoru case? i’d assit you in filing it but I would not do the work for you or tell you what your case and yoru point of law (or federal question is); somehow, someway you had to convey it ot me. You know what some kacass did one night? He shows up and asks me a question so I begin to reason US Law citing US Case law. Inthe moment I cite CUSTODY, that BVG is a custody issue and I connect the dots to Lassiter, among other things, he says, “That’s not true!” I ask, “What isn’t?” He says that there’s no such case regarding custody and if you have the right to an attorney or not in civil court that family court and SCOTUS is; that there’s no such case that reasons if you have the right to an attorney in family court in which SCOTUS opined NO. It wasn’t the first time this man did this so I say, “Yes there is; it’s Lassiter. She lost custody in family court and had been denied an attorney so LAWYERS took it ot SCOTUS whereby SCOTUS ruled NO and Thurgood Marshall dissented stating that we were denying legal representation to people in our most fundamental court, family court. I offered to open up the Civil Procedure book I had which contains parts of the transcript…I said that as we were at the libray we could go look it up so he could confirm for himself if it existed or not; he wasn’t being asked to blindly believe me and I never, ever advocate that. This man said, “No thanks” but then jumped up and acted to leave…I asked him if he was going to stay to secure what he came here for, what he claimed to want…and then he said it, HIS truth: “No; it’s not going to be any fun if I can’t if I can’t ridicule you.” His actual motive was to do what you’re doing but once he found out he was wrong and i’m extremely reasonable and patient he ran away…manipualtors? As you are? When out of gas they run away or resort to violence even if it’s a pathetic attempt to emotionally abuse a person, to perpetrate emotional violence.

    Do you know what I can do to you with deliberation using words alone in a court of law as I’ve honed an inborn talent into a fine skill set?

    Cut your heart out.

    And on some level you know it. To quote a man named Ron: “Susan, Wayne anderson PhD can know that you’re smarter than he is and you can know it. The one thign you can’t do or else he reacts like a maniac and begisns threatening you as he once did it to a man? Whatever you do in life you can’t tell Wayne to his face that you know that he knows that you’re smarter than he is.” Why, because then Wayne like you can’t deny reality? sorry guys: I can’t take 07-9804 and 08-6622 back if I wanted to as even if I ask Atkins or Higgins to destory the docuemnts too many people know history transpired. I can’t kill everybody who knows; can you? As that’s what you’ll need to do to be able to deny reality seemingly forever or at least until you die a physcial death. I would suggest to you that’s the same reason Jacob Rothchild wants to kill you via financing WWIII as he needs to continue to deny reality and he can’t if you ever wake up and smell the roses.

    How do you think actual dictators and/or an elite Nazi SS rise to power??? It’s not spontaneous generation…Marbury makes an oligarchy possible and the severing of the hcain of command in such a way the two Offices known as President and Commander are split allows a dictator to rise once everythign si in place. Then we’ll have WWIII. None other than Kurt Godel warned you in the 50’s upon being sworn in as a citizen. If you won’t reason with me Will you believe logician Kurt Godel, the man Einstein called his only contemporary in that only Godel was able and capable of discussing time with him? Godel authored the THEORY OF INCOMPLETENESS.


    I know that All that remains for evil to triumph is for men of good conscience to do nothing.


    I know that One man of courage is a majority.

    Goodbye. For now. You know: See ya in court!

    For those of you who do care and are interested and as you are human beings not slugs so you do reason your positions in space as righteous not right is a metaphysical point in space:

    I just thought of something as I was logging off for the night:

    If you never read Petition 07-9804? You might not know that I named the Ft. Laramie Treaty in both the federal questions sections and at the end; none of us asked for money; we never sued over money. As paper money isn’t reality? It makes no sense to ask for money. The point of law is liberty, justice, sovereignty and so SAFETY. You keep you safe; no gun or title or badge keeps you safe; it’s not possible to be safe if unjust men control you or if they can force their will upon you so that your will becomes the will of the group.

    Once BVG came to be and once I successfully directly entered so that the US waived its right under the 1871 version of US Law then ALL contracts across the Earth fall back to that first contract we have in the mythological Eden. You then keep going as universal law is a matter of terms – it too is a form contract law takes – and once you successfully reason how the universe was created and how life came to be in this universe you then reason the case forward citing everything on Earth that is elegant and so good – constitutionally solid – essentially correcting our course so that as you trace the history of contract law you eventually wind up in the US…now, who were the first people to arrive in what is now modern day America? I can name them. After that who are the first people to have – possess – an actual claim upon this land via a deed, a staked out claim and a map? THE VIKINGS IN 1362 AS THE KENSINGTON RUNESTONE IS AUTHENTIC. How do I know? Oh, it’s encoded plus it has a form of the hooked X you find in only three places on Earth one of them being the Hopi sacred tablet. The other is a church in Europe. The Vikings double dated it so you couldn’t chip off a part of it and carve something – a lie – over it.

    If you actually go to the area this runestone maps out you will find the staked out claim as the stakes still exist! Also the ruenstone records how a slaughter occurred so that these Vikings shed their blood over this land. There’s also a fort with ramparts, ramparts that were found only in Europe around the 1300’s. Here Natives did not use this style of rampart; it wasn’t known to them. You will find markings on rocks that are iron crosses, the same crosses to be found on Viking sails that the Natives carved. The Natives also sued this symbol so you’re looking at two different things: some of these iron crosses, if you follow them, mark the Natives spying on the Vikings and recording the route the Vikings took before they decided to slaughter them. Other iron cross symbols refer to Native prophecy not the Vikings.

    If you have all of that then what else? What else do you need?

    You MUST resolve the case that Natives have against us (our ancestors) as invaders who violated every single solitary treaty or you can’t make the case as you wouldn’t possess authority. It’s to be equal justice for us all not only some of us. The injury and harm Natives have never been able to get over is the fact that most Americans deny reality where they are concerned. Do you know what so-called scholars have done? For two hundred years they denied that the Iroquois confederacy thus their elegant constitution was older than the Magna Carta that protects the aristocracy. They did this to preserve white, male European superiority – judgment – over Natives. The Iroquois date their Constitution to 800 and something based upon an eclipse that occurred but organized science denied this. Recently science had to admit: This eclipse occurred!!!

    For nearly a thousand years the Iroquois preserved their law verbatim via oral tradition and via living it out as actuality before they ever wrote it down. People: Stone turns to dust, ink fades and pieces of paper crumble…what will you do when you no longer have the originals hanging in the Smithsonian if you do not own the whole truth they convey as you never lived them out as actuality? As you do not own the knowledge as wisdom?

    One of the funniest things Scalia ever said? There’s a prefatory clause in the Second amendment meaning: There’s a comma in it, lol. I know of only two sources that preserve this comma as it was originally written that I can and may legally claim are OFFICIAL versions of US Law. Now deceased member of the class Jesse Johnson? He handed me his card and it read “,Constitution Party” and I howled, “Did you do this on purpose or is it a typo? Do you know?” AMERICANS DID NOT KNOW!

    You need to address Natives so I knew to cite Ft. Laramie as I reason it via the LA Purchase which is so important (as is FL) as Spain’s Notes on its Second Expedition sat in Spain untranslated for 400 years. These notes record FL Landfall and cover part of the area we purchased when we purchased LA. I read them and fell out as…a contract with Natives exists within them! A legally binding contract. You have to have a common understanding and both sides must know what will be exchanged, what each will give and receive. All the elements are present. This contract was then reported to the King of Spain – the person was acting under his authority upon Papal grant that can be traced to Jesus and so eventually back to the Hindus, the first organized religion on Earth, and so The Creator and he reported the details of this contract to the King who never objected – but we never knew about it. Jefferson bought this contract when he bought LA but you can’t fulfill a contract you do not know exists so first those notes had to be translated and then I had to go looking. I had to make the opportunity possible as the possibility didn’t exist. Once you know this contract exists so the possibility of the opportunity exists? You’re to have at least one opportunity to fulfill it. If you act to fulfill it? You address thus resolve all Native claims including the Ft. Laramie Treaty case that now sits in the Federal Court of Claims.

    As I named it in 07-9804 and subsequent filings and as I finally caused a judge in an original venue upon an invocation of admiralty law to acknowledge our win in person then the PERFECT VENUE for this case now that you can’t overcome the Chief Clerk of the US or the Stay clerk of the US as they unlawfully occupy the playing filed and refuse to stand own as not only does Court of Claims retain jurisdiction over the Ft. Laramie Treaty case but Court of Claims hears constitutional issues – federal questions – and will hear admiralty cases if the claim arises over or as a direct result of an Executive Order.

    The Court of Claims? When you reason this case, the mother of all US cases, then everything is one and the same as you’ve distilled US Law down to its very essence and so the least becomes the greatest and vice versa as US Law is reciprocal. So you MUST enter the greatest or largest point of law directly not a lesser form…entering as any type of case but an authority case of o.j. or entering indirectly doesn’t work then.

    If you would like to discover some fascinating facts about your own history as a nation and about Native American read the filing in Duluth. For instance you see an ancient form of Hebrew in the American West and the Cherokee calendar of holy Days is identical to the Jewish calendar of holy Days…why??? The Cherokee ran DNA tests thinking they’d find there was a genetic link but there wasn’t…or is there? I’m Native among other things but I hold no tribal affiliation and never did; FL now has my DNA; what will it reveal?

    SPOILER ALERT!!! The four races that separated and went in the four directions at the Tower of Babel finally reunited when the transcontinental railroad was completed. It’s very, very important that we drove a GOLDEN spike into the ground in Utah to commemorate the occasion. The Iroquois are the only people who completed their journey all by themselves as they were told to go North and they did it. They traveled all the way North and down again to settle in and around NY…I went to school next to one of the most sacred sites on Earth, Cohoes Falls, as that is where Hiawatha was said to have been moved by actual human grief only to look up and see Deganawidah walking towards him across or on the water. Hiawatha and so the Iroquois are said to have been given their law whole as a gift of The Creator, an award for having completed their journey. Deganawidah is their Great Peacemaker who is said will return again.

    I was raised on the Great Iroquois Nation while simultaneously being raised in NY State and in America…I’m Native born and Natural born as everybody born in America is a Native, lol! But I have the DNA to back it up. Wampum belts? NOT MONEY BUT LINES OF GENETIC CODE. Wampum belts are sacred objects not money; you’re confused as the early European inhabitants of the US – men – carried pocket books or ornate purses that held money. The reasoning Natives were willing to trade what is now Manhattan for glass beads is they had a priceless value in that their intrinsic value lay in being able to weave wampum belts with them. Do you know how much work went into one wampum bead made from clam and/or oyster shells? The attraction is if you knew the correct sacred pattern to weave – and not everyone did – then you could do so and do so in greater detail with premade glass beads. Natives did not possess this technology.

    There’s a photo of these belts lying side by side when Natives won suit against NY for the theft of sacred objects and so they were returned. This photo more than anything allows you to ‘see’ that what you’re looking at is lines of DNA.

    Salvation history is that when we went in the four directions we were each given a set of tablets, stone tablets. Nobody knew who was in possession of the white man’s tablets. A mistake was made as the people given these tablets were mountainous people. Also these people use masks in their ceremonies. Tibetans have the yellow man’s set, Kenyans (check that for me) have the black man’s set, and the Hopi have the red man’s set. A piece of the Hopi tablet is missing; it is said that SOMEBODY has that missing piece and that the Hopi will know if Susan does or not when they test her as she can translate them and has red hair but does she know their ‘secret’ or ancient sign language known only to them? YES. How do you think I knew I was looking at an exact form the hooked X takes when no archeologist did? It’s on the part of the tablet that’s missing so you only see a part of the X and it’s in reverse as if it’s a mirror image for reasoning to do with the correct translation. Go look at them.


    Who was mistakenly thought to be in possession of the white man’s set? LOL! SWIZERLAND!!! A Native American went to Switzerland and discovered that they have family masks and as they are mountainous people he came to believe that they must have the stone tablets. WRONG.

    Trace the development of the Constitution; trace it in all of its early forms going back to Eden. JEW is a religion NOT a race and what color would we scientifically designate Moses to be? White. What did Moses climb to receive the Ten Stone Commandments? MOUNTAIN SINAI. Those commandments traveled across the world eventually becoming US Law. Who has more mountains over 14k than Switzerland? WE DO!!! America is one of the most mountainous locations on this planet. That stone turned into paper and nobody realized it as they kept looking for rock and as they didn’t know facts about the US and our law.

    David slew Goliath with a rock. SOMEBODY threw a rock through a window at the U of V and lied to Thomas Jefferson about it. I, Susan? I slew the giant with my vote…I threw a rock through the house of glass that Congress built as they deny this is the house that that Jack, John Adams, built.

    From a Petition (I use the words God and Creator interchangeably as I don’t possess judgment values):

    “I ask that history be corrected and that it be known that late Chief Justice Rhenquist was not a person who broke our law but who upheld it in favor of We, the People, most especially women, the poor and those not Christian and crafted a decision every bit as clever as John Marshall’s when he had less to work with as he did not have Adams, Madison or Marbury the living people; and that Thomas Paine be known as a person who had a deep and abiding faith in God and was not an atheist but was what he himself stated: a “citizen of the world whose religion is to do good” and that Alexander Hamilton be known as a person whose passions were born of his early experiences of life, of being born into poverty in the Caribbean, abandoned by his father, given passage to America by friends who recognized his gift and his studies having been interrupted by the Revolution, and that he was not elitist but understood the massive obstacles he himself was forced to overcome and the seemingly astronomical odds against him ever having succeeded and so was acting upon his concern for the future of our nation as it is few people who are what Justice Rhenquist, Paine or Hamilton are: pure energy as they traveled faster than the speed of light while they were alive and may not have come to know this while they lived.

    I ask that this court issue a paper decision stating the Revolution was actually fought, the Americans actually won, the law actually exists, the 19th amendment was actually ratified, the universe is actually lawful, God or The Creator is a real, tangible being who is the creation force and that women are actually equivalent to men in all ways and are loved by God as much as men and that they were not created to serve men, as the citizens do not own this as fact. This decision might read in part: “Like Bush v Gore, Adam and Eve is an unrecognized, unresolved tie. It stands at 1 for God versus 1 for both Adam and Eve and so once again the Americans have won the Revolution that counts for everything as tying with God was the impossible standard they set out to meet in 1776 and again in 1787 and the rule of law is first one to the bar wins. The question has been answered: Which came first, the chicken or the egg? God, as the egg was inside the chicken and it took a male and a female to realize the potential of that egg. God is inside of We, the people and it took men and women who are Americans to realize the potential of humanity.”

    Lastly, I ask that it be known by an official decision of this court as this history and this truth is now denied that it was the contribution of the Iroquois Confederacy that inspired our European founders as they not only knew of it but also had discussions at length with Native Americans about their Constitution and way of life. This document has been recited every year for nearing a thousand years and was not written down for centuries as it came to them in a dream directly from the Creator; nothing else explains their ownership of this government and law and the evidence of this rises to proof so its origination is fact and not a matter of belief. Not only is this the missing link but also it was the inspiration for me to then explore salvation history as the other, greater migration story of mankind. It is no accident that I grew up in the shadow of the Confederacy, that I was marked although I did not know it then in the shadow of the Rosebud Reservation and that I first felt myself born again as God made me when I heard the Eve creation words in the shadow of Turtle Mountain Reservation. My actual birthday is in December so my birthstone is turquoise, which is a blue rock, the color of the sea and sky and this rock has veins like a living person. Peter may have built a church upon a rock but We, the People, went one better and built a faith upon a rock as our law rules the third rock from the Sun, Earth, and then all of the planets in the universe.

    We are the first indigenous persons of Earth as all living Americans were born into this law and most all into the vote and it is those alive now who will make E=(G+L)(W+Lb)2, equivalent rights or US Law as universal law, a reality. We ourselves will travel faster than light and in so doing light the way for a new world.” -end

    Wanna laugh? Read the Iroquois prophecy concerning a great boy seer and read the myth Little Scarface as I’m Little Scarface. I lived out those stories but did not realize it until 2008 or so. Native America? Unique intellectual property that we own as we are it that has been preserved w/o corruption unlike other salvation history. Natives have yet to give up all of our salvation history as we’re worried you – the rest of Earth – will corrupt it. Did you corrupt US Law? Yup. It was the most natural thing in the world for me to put on Jefferson’s shoes and go waltzing into SCOTUS just like Little Scarface. I had no idea it wasn’t supposed to be my right, lol. That I wasn’t supposed to have faith in US Law thus the Creator and so the People.

    You’re supposed to see yourself in the myths we choose to tell and retell as some things are universally true, true for all human beings, and as history is fact that then becomes a story, then a legend and then a myth so there is truth in all myth. Plus it is as Jefferson said: This fight has been the same since Eden. You’re living out the same fight regarding slavery, the same story, over and over but you do not realize it.

    Your life as an American IS a fairy tale and the ink is coming off of the pages as you live the words out as actuality.


  40. Make no mistake: IN PERSON not on paper: I Can Cut Your Heart Out as I honed an inborn talent into a fine skill set. It doesn’t work on paper. But the FCC attorney I know? Oh, he can cut your heart out on paper.

  41. In answer to your question, Susan: Yes. Yes, you are insane. You need professional help. Please look into it at once.

  42. “I am under the impression that every person born in the United States must be considered a citizen of the United States, notwithstanding one or both of his parents may have been alien, at the time of its birth.” Secretary of State Marcy, 1854.

    Oh no, they got to the state department.

    “a free white person born in this country of foreign parents is a citizen of the United States.” Attorney General Black, 9 Ops. Atty. Gen. 373.(1859)

    Oh, no they got to the justice department too. LOL. No one understands what “citizen of the United States” means. If only Mario was around to school them.

  43. Obama birther debate has merit in a nation with so many illegals, and unregulated immigration, not for whether he is qualified so much, but because of his appeal, and why he was elected to the Presidency.

    America has long ignored its black population, and failed to elevate it to authoritative parity much as it has its women – in business or in government, in essence, squandering its opportunity to do so. When a person like president Obama comes along in the electoral arena, therefore, with charisma, doesn’t it also matter if they were born in the U.S., or might any alien, or invader do?

    Equal opportunity means equal opportunity to do business, or to govern, if unrestricted. It’s always been what America has been about. Shall we reserve that opportunity only to white men, privileged women, and well placed aliens – or is it all about being American? America owes itself the questions, as well as the answers to that question! Who is America for if not natural born citizens? Free for any takers?

  44. Free for any takers?

    Free for any of its citizens and permanent residents at a minimum I would argue.

    Since President Obama is born on US soil, the issue remains largely moot, legally speaking at least.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s