SCOTUS SUIT AGAINST OBAMA & ROBERTS TO BE CONFERENCED ON 11/06/09

Can we play with this one before it gets zotted?

Who wrote this? Jeff Spicoli?

"As other judges have begun blaming SCOTUS exactly for their actions? So have members of Congress only Congress has gone one further: Granting constitutional authority to make believe, fantasy officers. They are also stating as fact that they know what is said when SCOTUS meets to discuss cases as in how they voted. Also if you merely lived here for 14 years you are natural born. YES, if you lived here in 1763 or 1777 as you left off at the time the Constitution was adopted. That would make you natural born as you were actually present when the actual Constitution both paper and People was actually naturally born, when it sprang from the minds of our Founders one of which you then are: Thus you are natural born. From a letter authored by Anders Crenshaw, my Rep, in response to why he is not addressing Obama and why he did not address the candidates on the ballot: “According to Article II of the Constitution, the eligibility requirements for the Office of the President include: 1) natural born citizenship; 2) 35 years of age, and 3) 14 years of residency in the United States. Concerned citizens have questioned whether President-elect Obama meets these minimum qualifications, and some have brought legal challenges attempting to prevent him from assuming the office based on his place of birth. However, these legal challenges to the President's citizenship have been dismissed in several states, and the Supreme Court overwhelmingly decided that it would not issue a writ of certiorari to hear an appeal of each dismissal. In addition, Hawaii's Health Director and Head of Vital Statistics examined and certified the authenticity of President Obama's birth certificate following an investigation by his office. The document has also been reviewed and deemed authentic by experts at the University of Pennsylvania's Annenberg Public Policy Center.” Policy??? Not Law? I reasoned: ‘I have new evidence. A Rep wrote and said he knew as fact and law Obama is qualified as A COLLEGE TOLD HIM SO. Not the one Obama went to either. It’s actually a matter of policy, Crenshaw’s personal policy. He is convinced we will believe his fact is the Constitution does not apply to himself or to Obama or even to SCOTUS, lol. Since WHEN is the word of a college via it’s Policy Center then constitutional authority??? We do not ask colleges to reason our application of the law precisely as they are not the constitutional authority. Why pay the Justices if colleges will tell me for free what the Constitution DOES NOT SAY as no where is “Health Director”, “Head Of Vital Statistics”, "UNIVERSITY" or "PHILANTHROPIC THINK TANK ASSOCIATED WITH A COLLEGE, THE WEALTHY AND MAYBE A POLITICAL PARTY" named? As no where is “PAPER” or “Birth certificate” named? I got a birth certificate for ya: The SCOTUS docket with my name on it pro se proving direct action took place as I directly acted to create that. I gave natural birth to it as I moved the Court to then directly act with my fact and my reasoning or knowledge and my application of the law. I proved ownership. Why pay the Rep as the Constitution and US case law is published at no cost all over the place? You’d think a Rep would act as if he is a constitutional authority not ask someone else who is not named unlike him as “Representative” is exactly named. So are the concerned citizens as “The People” are exactly named as well. A Rep, my Rep, reasoned his violation of the Constitution by citing “SUPREME COURT” exactly as the cause or reason, he names that first, and then claiming he knows the vote, as it was exactly “overwhelmingly” against The “concerned” People, the actual equal authority who have an interest and a right. SCOTUS as it exists today is not exactly named as a constitutional authority as the actual first constitutional authority, Crenshaw’s actual first cause, The People, created it ex post facto via the named Constitutional process – redress in a court of law - thus LENT THEIR CONSCIOUS AWARENESS or AUTHORITY to SCOTUS. The People not the paper empowered SCOTUS and still do. SCOTUS never acts against the citizens as that then is acting against the Constitution! Against their own selves!!! Who does that??? Who harms their own self??? Who violates their own right of safety??? We negotiate a lot of things but not the Constitution!!! So WHO does negotiate it against our will? I can’t name one Justice who is nuts and/or power hungry. I’ve met these people on paper; we have a relationship, the Constitution, so as we are related I know. Like the judges in my case and in the cases of other nonlawyer pro se litigants SCOTUS is his named excuse; SCOTUS is now the default excuse of oligarchs.’ That’s what I reasoned but I wrote back: ‘SCOTUS is not the cause. That’s not why you refuse to obey the Constitution or abide by the oath you swore. I would know as I’m IN RE SUSAN HERBERT and I live in your district. The authority, the citizens, has made a simple mistake and one they would make as you are the cause of it: They asked to see Obama’s paper as if that paper is the authority or as if they do not trust SCOTUS thus they do not own the knowledge of the Constitution or US case law...John Marshall said your action is the proof that you own the knowledge or the truth of the Constitution thus delivery or filing of the paper need not occur. He ruled as we are a living government of people then PEOPLE ACTING IS THE PROOF NOT THE PAPER. This is for anyone who does not understand why SCOTUS is so hesitant to hear a case asking Obama to produce his paper. 1, Paper is never absolute proof in any actual Constitutional nation as people or life is proof. You can't trust paper especially if a crook is producing it! The crook has will and liberty but the paper does not thus you cannot ask the paper if it was forged as it can’t answer thus can’t be questioned – you can’t charge a piece of paper with fraud thus why would you ever suspect it? - and you can't trust whatever the crook tells you. Well, you can but you shouldn’t. Trust is an emotion. Trust is for people not paper. I trust myself, The Creator and the signers who embodied the law not the paper copy and not you, Crenshaw. My fact? I never yet met a Rep I do trust. 2, Obama then can refuse to obey a Justice as a Justice cannot mount an argument back or against him thus a citizen must. The citizens protect the Justices and so SCOTUS thus the Constitution. Usually they enforce SCOTUS rulings by living them out as real but a citizen might have to defend an employee of SCOTUS or the institution itself from you or another crook. What if Obama refuses to obey an order of SCOTUS aka The People but yet still sits? What if no named 'authority' charged with the duty acts to make Obama or Biden or any of these persons comply with the Constitution? Obama would not be refusing to obey SCOTUS but the Constitution aka The People. THE authority. That's dangerous as it sets a dangerous precedent for the crooks: it tells the crooks they can do whatever they wish w/o consequence. 3, If people acting is the proof? All you can and may do then is act pro se thus leveling the playing field as Obama then has to do the same thing - enter his legal argument pro se or in person w/o a hired gun as the oath of Office says I WILL. Thus you'll soon know who is or is not the constitutionally set President; you'll know who is or is not qualified to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution aka We The People. The proof, the actual President who is a natural born American citizen will rise and you can then compare that person to Obama and both to what the Constitution and US case law states; you weigh the evidence and assign greatest weight in light of the burden of proof standard thus you know. You own the knowledge or the truth of the Constitution thus your own self: are you acting as you wrote the letter and you voted constitutionally or unconstitutionally? Trust me, as you can and may: You’ll forever know what natural born is or is not. See ya in court!"

A paragraph this long is a Class A Felony.

OK.

“Actual default is the 2000 election and BVG; legal default occurred on 11/05/09. I then appealed to Roberts directly on 11/20/09” ...”

11/05/09 and 11/20/09 haven’t happened yet.

Now, at last, it all seems perfectly clear.

IBTZ yesssss

Wow, is it just me, or is that pretty much unreadable?

"11/05/09 and 11/20/09 haven’t happened yet."

Time traveler. Apparently, we won't recognize English in the future.

“Wow, is it just me, or is that pretty much unreadable?”

It’s not just you. The syntax seems to capture the elusive essence of hysteria.

Wow, is it just me, or is that pretty much unreadable?

It is not just you.

Crackers!

A mind is a terrible thing to waste.

I think he was helped by Orly Taitz.

Anyone understand this?

Just checking the facts. Your case does exist at the Supreme Court:

Search Results

Searching for 09-6777.

Found: 1

Showing: 1

Docket for 09-6777

No. 09-6777 Title: Susan Herbert, Petitioner v. United States, et al. Docketed: October 1, 2009 Lower Ct: United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit Case Nos.: (09-10661) Decision Date: August 3, 2009 ~~~Date~~~ ~~~~~~~Proceedings

[10/24/2009] (3k)

Found: 1

Showing: 1

http://search.access.gpo.gov/supreme-court/SearchRight.asp?ct=Supreme-Court-Dockets&q1=09-6777&x=23&y=21

The syntax seems to capture the elusive essence of hysteria.

Yep. It reminds me of movies shot with a hand-held, so the picture constantly shakes to convey a feeling of anxiety.

“A paragraph this long is a Class A Felony.”

It’s not the length. Old-timers like John Milton loved to use run-on sentences and paragraphs, and they did it beautifully. The content’s the problem.

can you sum this up in clear plain english in less than 100 words, with paragraphs and stuff? what is this about and what does it mean?

"The syntax seems to capture the elusive essence of hysteria."

LOL It does.