Posted on 10/28/2009 10:48:59 AM PDT by susanconstant
bttt
ROFL!
Very good advice, especially if you split your toga.
I’m only trying to help.
“Wow, is it just me, or is that pretty much unreadable?”
It’s not just you.
;-)
Anyone has Standing to remedy actions contrary to the actual text of the Constitution:https://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=7466841558189356289&postID=4039680668846636808"Chief Justice Warren determined that the only critical one in this case was whether there was a "textually demonstrable constitutional commitment" to the House to determine in its sole discretion the qualifications of members.563 In[p.695]order to determine whether there was a textual commitment, the Court reviewed the Constitution, the Convention proceedings, and English and United States legislative practice to ascertain what power had been conferred on the House to judge the qualifications of its members; finding that the Constitution vested the House with power only to look at the qualifications of age, residency, and citizenship, the Court thus decided that in passing on Powell’s conduct and character the House had exceeded the powers committed to it and thus judicial review was not barred by this factor of the political question doctrine.564"
http://www.law.cornell.edu/anncon/html/art3frag27_user.html
Powell v. McCormack
4. The Court has subject matter jurisdiction over petitioners’ action. Pp. 395 U. S. 512-516.
(a) The case is one "arising under" the Constitution within the meaning of Art. III, since petitioners’ claims "will be sustained if the Constitution . . . [is] given one construction and will be defeated if it [is] given another." Bell v. Hood, 327 U. S. 678. Pp. 395 U. S. 513-514.
(b) The district courts are given a broad grant of jurisdiction by 28 U.S.C. § 1331(a), over "all civil actions wherein the matter in controversy . . . arises under the Constitution . . . ," and, while that grant is not entirely coextensive with Art. III, there is no indication that § 1331(a) was intended to foreclose federal courts from entertaining suits involving the seating of Congressmen. Pp. 395 U. S. 514-516.
5. This litigation is justiciable because the claim presented and the relief sought can be judicially resolved. Pp. 395 U. S. 516-518.
(a) Petitioners’ claim does not lack justiciability on the ground that the House’s duty cannot be judicially determined, since, if petitioners are correct, the House had a duty to seat Powell once it determined that he met the standing qualifications set forth in the Constitution. P. 395 U. S. 517.
(b) The relief sought is susceptible of judicial resolution, since, regardless of the appropriateness of a coercive remedy against House personnel (an issue not here decided), declaratory relief is independently available. Pp. 395 U. S. 517-518.
6. The case does not involve a "political question," which, under the separation of powers doctrine, would not be justiciable. Pp. 395 U. S. 518-549.
(a) The Court’s examination of relevant historical materials shows at most that Congress’ power under Art. I, § 5, to judge the "Qualifications of its Members" is a "textually demonstrable constitutional commitment . . . to [that] co-ordinate political department of government" (Baker v. Carr, 369 U. S. 186, 369 U. S. 217) to judge only standing qualifications which are expressly set forth in the Constitution; hence, the House has no power to exclude a member-elect who meets the Constitution’s membership requirements. Pp. 395 U. S. 518-548.
(b) The case does not present a political question in the sense, also urged by respondents, that it would entail a "potentially embarrassing confrontation between coordinate branches" of the Government, since our system of government requires federal courts on occasion to interpret the Constitution differently from other branches. Pp. 395 U. S. 548-549.
7. In judging the qualifications of its members under Art. I, § 5, Congress is limited to the standing qualifications expressly prescribed by the Constitution. P. 395 U. S. 550.
http://supreme.justia.com/us/395/486/index.html
Actually, the radio program was something goofy like that. Made about as much sense to me as does Susan’s screed. ;)
ok
ok
Excellent find .. if anything, this issue has brought
me new appreciation for our Founding Fathers and this
country’s first creators and builders and much more
insight and information that I ever dreamt I’ve have
about our precious Constitution.
In the absence of any evidence of purposeful negligence the Founders have applied as they conjured this country and her leaders going forward after themselves, it’s difficult to believe they did not provide at least a hint of a remedy for all possible scenarios regarding potus within the words they so carefully constructed.
I’m not yet ready to believe they didn’t provide a way.
But were that to be the likelihood, and that is what we’re left with as our fate as a nation in this matter, then it seems the end stage would be only our empty and fruitless mourning at the poverty of character that allowed the many authorities in places of fiduciary responsibility along the various stages to be accountable and to be held accountable for malfeasance and severe negligence in the application of their Constitutional duties.
And the Constitution .. the foundation of our country and her laws .. will have been mortally wounded.
I pray it is not so.
It may be easier to just storm Washington, round them up and lock them up for life in Leavenworth.
I don’t get much, but for some reason I totally understand what she is saying!
I will hope and pray for you. I bet you are going to blow them out of the water! Everything our government has done is unconstitutional. They have the Constitution on file as it is. This is the rule they are to follow. We the people are in control and SCOTUS works for us and our protection, not for the government’s protection.
How can I see what she is doing - but I can????? You go girl!
Bookmark - middle of 109
Save for later!
I’ve tried to understand but apparently don’t have enough brain cells.
Could you explain it to me? I am serious, not scornful.
Quote:
As We The People ARE the government we are to take government in our hands but not the law. “Government” is the seats, the offices and institutions...if you know then you act with or without a court order as that is what a natural born American does. Marshall said you need not wait on any paper as you already have the only paper that counts – The Declaration, The Constitution and Marbury V Madison itself!
End Quote:
What she is stating here is that We the People have full rights over all government. We do not work for government, they work for us and we have the papers to prove it. SCOTUS is not law, but must ensure that the Constitution is followed for We the People and we have every right as American citizens to walk right in and demand our rights. (this is what I read here)
Quote:
Susan Herbert V Barack Obama, John Roberts, Frank Hull And The US has been filed and docketed within the Supreme Court; it is case number 09-6777 set for conferecne on 11/06/09. Frank Hull is the Federal Appellate judge who issued a ruling ordering the federal court clerks to unfile documents and return them to me unfiled which is evidence tampering, obstruction of justice and in this case treason. As Frank Hull then was ordering the clerk to unfile the Declaration and Constitution – the one our Founders wrote not the made up post 1871 Constitution – and remove it from the courthouse it then rises to treason. The federal clerks did not obey this criminal order.
End Quote:
Here she is stating that by unfiling her case they were defaulting on her right as an American citizen to be heard as our Constitution and Declaration states. A treasonous act....
There is so much that she is stating in this extremely lengthy writing - it was really hard to decipher, but I read paragraphs again and again and it all started clicking on what she was trying to say.
Here is another quote that hit me:
In case you do not yet understand: SCOTUS is organic to the constitutionally set government known as We The People not the paper! It answers to The People only not to any other branch.
End Quote
SCOTUS answers to us (We the People) not the government. I believe further in her writing Roberts refused to hear her which put him in a position where she could now file against an unconstitutional Judge (her vs Roberts) which puts her right in to the Docket.
Here is where she states this:
Quote:
In 1790 a violation of separation of power occurred that has never been addressed as SCOTUS’ jurisprudence has never been adjudicated so I’m doing it. At Marbury we secured a do-over with SCOTUS but not one nonlawyer was ever allowed entry to the bar until I was on 11/20/08...I entered directly and forced direct action and the Chief Justice obeyed an Executive Order I issued thus stood aside We The People. I needed and wanted him to create the only paper birth certificate that rises to proof that a citizen is natural born: The SCOTUS docket naming me as both victim and pro se counsel and with the word DENIED on it. If your legal argument is that We The People have been denied justice absolutely and that even SCOTUS came to violate the Constitution then SCOTUS must write DENIED thus concurring. If they write granted? You have no case! DENIED allowed me to go back and name John Roberts exactly thus leveling the playing filed as upon re-entry to SCOTUS the case then becomes all pro se litigants against those who are not: Susan and Roberts V Obama and the US, Corp US that is. John Roberts and I are equivalent legal authorities that now represent We The People meaning: Susan Herbert not Barack Obama is the acting, legal President and Commander of the US government, The People. The military already sided with me as about ten years ago the Joint Chiefs issued a statement that they would support the person who was able to restore the original jurisdiction government. They were contacted again; I highly doubt they will inform John Roberts and I that they are no longer wiling to enforce the Constitution.
End Quote
I wish the whole thing was fresh in my mind to explain it better, but this just completely blew me away when I got it. She is not very good at writing, but from what I can gather - this girl has an extremely high IQ which makes it difficult for her to come across to normal people without sounding crazy. I needed to absorb this, so I read it and read it. And I really think I understand what she is saying.
She wrote so much that makes perfect sense if you can get past hard to read sentences.
Let me know if this helps you out! I only went through the first couple of paragraphs to give you an idea of what I was interpreting.
???? eglf fame Was ist das?
Dude.
That was like, totally awesome and stuff.
Any updates???
I looked up the file number and found nothing changed?
Case No. 09-6777
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
JACKSONVILLE DIVISION
SUSAN HERBERT,
Plaintiff,
vs. CASE NO. 3:08-cv-1164-J-20TEM
BARACK OBAMA and
THE UNITED STATES OF
AMERICA,
Defendants.
___________________________________
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION (Dec. 2008)
http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/wp-content/uploads/2009/02/herbert-obama-report.pdf
Excerpt:
The “judgment” to which Plaintiff refers in the title of this construed complaint, and against which Plaintiff seeks an “emergency stay of enforcement,” are the presidential election results that will lead to the installation of Senator Barack Obama as the next president of the United States (see Doc. #1, p.7 of 50 of main document).
Throughout Plaintiff’s complaint, Plaintiff sets forth her account of the myriad of ways in which she believes she has been harmed because her name was allegedly illegally kept off the voting ballot for the 2008 presidential election (see generally, Doc. #1).
Plaintiff also claims, among other things, she was the “only acting legal President not placed upon the ballot and who never voluntarily withdrew [her] name. . .”
(see Doc. #1, p. 6 of 50 of main document), “[o]nly mothers and veterans have a protected right to hold this office. . .”
(see Doc. #1 at p.23 of 50 of main document), that other federal judges violated the law to silence Plaintiff and keep her off the ballot (Doc. #1 at p.29 of 50 of main document), and through a flash of genius she created “ the means to enter the US [sic] Supreme Court directly. . .” (Doc. #1 at p. 46 of 50 of main document).
However, Plaintiff has failed to allege facts sufficient to indicate she even took the steps necessary to qualify as a presidential candidate. See Fla. Stat. §§ 103.21, 103.22.
It is also noted that the allegations and facts set forth in the complaint somewhat mirror those from previous cases Plaintiff has filed.
See Herbert v. USA, Civ. Action No. 3:07-cv-315-J-20HTS; Herbert v. USA, Civ. Action No. 3:07-cv-699-J-25TEM; Herbert v. USA, Civ. Action No. 3:07-cv-776-J-12MCR, Herbert v. United States, et al., Civ. Action No. 3:07-cv-964-J-33TEM.
Indeed, in Herbert v. USA, Civ. Action No. 3:07-cv-315-J-20HTS, filed on April 19, 2007, the court dismissed the action on June 12, 2007, upon finding “Plaintiff[’s] claims are clearly fantastic and delusional and her requested relief is beyond the Court’s authority.” (Order of Dismissal Without Prejudice, Doc. #8, pp. 2-3).
RECOMMENDATION
Based on the foregoing, the Court finds the allegations contained the complaint to be frivolous as defined herein. Accordingly, it is recommended:
1. The motion to proceed in forma pauperis be DENIED.
2. The case be DISMISSED without prejudice to filing a properly amended paid complaint.
See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i).
DONE AND ENTERED at Jacksonville, Florida this 8th day of December, 2008.
Copies to all counsel of record
and pro se parties
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.