SCOTUS suit you may not know about...

Southern Maryland Online ^ | Nov. 30, 2008 | Susan Herbert

[Deepest End]

This is a suit that has been in and out of SCOTUS and is back within it once again as Marbury was violated in my unique case and as I have been suing since April of 2007 to stop what is happening in our nation. Currently I have a case to be conferenced on December 5th, 2008. It is In Re Susan 08-6622; attached to it as if it has never been heard is the previous case, In Re Susan 07-9804. A third action is also present as I filed an application for a stay as the solicitor genral failed to respond to me within 30 days.

Guess what? The response was due November 5th thus this election is invalidated as you may not hold an election if Marbury is overturned. I then mailed the court an actual petition to support my app. for a stay; I do not know if they will docket it separately or attach it ot the case set for conference the 5th.

[Deepest End]

This is a lot of reading and seems convoluted (I admit I did not read it all). However the case (08-6622) is distributed for conference at the SCOTUS on December 5, 2008 (same day as Donofrio):

http://origin.www.supremecourtus.gov/docket/08-6622.htm

This all goes back to bush v. gore. Can someone more informed shed some light on this?

[Congressman Billybob]

I filed the winning brief in Bush v. Gore. This woman doesn't have a clue. She not only knows next to nothing about the law, she has trouble writing a simple, declarative, English sentence.

Whatever happens concerning Barack Obama, it will NOT have any connection to this woman's rambling, incoherent pleadings (if they may be called pleadings).

Congressman Billybob

Latest article, "The Prince of Dark Corners"

The Declaration, the Constitution, parts of the Federalist, and America's Owner's Manual, here.

[Old Student]

“This is a lot of reading and seems convoluted (I admit I did not read it all).”

Looks like another nutcase to me, but I must admit I didn’t read it all, either. The editor in my brain kept balking at all the typos. That is pretty bad, as I don’t usually do Grammar or Typo NAZI.

[Congressman Billybob]

Correction: I filed the winning brief in Bush v. Gore, Round I. That was a unanimous decision to strike the Florida Supreme Court decision from the record, causing the Florida Court to readdress the matter.

Florida blew it, and the Supreme Court was required to rule on the merits in Round II. There, the Court ruled 7-2 that the Florida Court was wrong.

John / Billybob

[Tanniker Smith]

I filed the winning brief in Bush v. Gore.

Seriously??
I've seen your name before on FR but I figured the screen name was something of a joke.

...just checked your profile. Got me some readin' to do.

[Congressman Billybob]

Be sure to note my correction. My brief concerned Round I, not Round II.

John / Billybob

[Red_Devil 232]

Who in their right mind could read it all?

[freedomwarrior998]

Can someone more informed shed some light on this?

It's Lunacy.

[Deepest End]

Looks like another nutcase to me, but I must admit I didn’t read it all, either. The editor in my brain kept balking at all the typos.

I agree with nutcase. It appears she has 8 years worth of pent up delusion. Thus my curiosity on why her case would be distributed for conference at all, but especially on Dec. 5. Is there a link to Donofrio (good or bad) perhaps?

I also noticed that the SCOTUS docket did not indicate which justice referred it to the court.

[mia]

Good luck. I hope you also win this one. ; )

[MissDairyGoodnessVT]

the lady is wacko and off her meds serioulsy.look at the writing-has definite consipiratorial tone.

[Deepest End]

Who in their right mind could read it all?

Only a lawyer with a sleep disorder.

No offense fightinJAG et al

[Deepest End]

ping

[NellieMae]

Exactly, Eats, shoots and leaves. I left.

*+*+

[Congressman Billybob]

I am not directly involved in any of the Obama citizenship cases. I would not get near this particular case if someone put a gun to my head.

John / Billybob

[mia]

Wise man.

[George Smiley]

If this doesn’t qualify as an IBTZ, then nothing does.

As a down-home friend of mine would say, “They got PILLS for that.”

[George Smiley]

I went to her site and looked.

One comment.

Just one.

But it’s a keeper.

“Can I have the brief summary please?”

[George Smiley]

I misspoke. I went back and looked again. Originally Posted by puggymom

Can I have the brief summary please?

1. Bush was not legally elected.
2. Susan proved this so now she's president.
3. Obama can't legally be president either.
4. Everyone is conspiring to deny Susan's rights.
5. Everyone else is covering it up.
6. The cow jumped over the moon.
7. Susan had enough money to file a petition for writ of mandamus with SCOTUS, but she didn't have enough money to hire a lawyer so that her legal arguments were coherent.
8. On December 5th, the Justices of SCOTUS will share a short moment of comic relief before they go back to the important business of making decisions on real petitions and applications.

[Deepest End]

Excellent summary, except #8. Do you really thing the SCOTUS would distribute a case to conference for “comic relief”. Perhaps I’m being paranoid, but this nutcase being heard makes me nervous.