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

There's a new SCOTUS suit you want and need to know about...case 09-6777. I'll win and when I do? YOU CAN SUE SITTING OFFICERS FOR LIABILITY THUS DISSOLVE THEM AS THE US DEFAULTED VIA FAILING TO RESPOND TO A PRIOR SCOTUS SUIT ON 11/05/08, the day after the election, lol. 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 and forced direct action thus I won on paper. Now all I am doing is acting to collect my award: Hearing in person aka winning in person. You can and may enter SCOTUS as right no matter what SCOTUS claims as SCOTUS does not make law nor may they invoke rule as law. SCOTUS is organic to the living constitution, The People, and not the paper Constitution as it exist within Marbury only thus it answers to The People alone. So I engaged SCOTUS and won on paper four times and this culminated in SCOTUS entering me directly and acting directly but then NOT FILING MY PAPER DOCUMENTS as John Marshall said 'filing or delivery of the paper is not necessary as you all know what US law says...the only paper you need is the Declaration and Constitution and my own ruling, Marbury V Madison. Act upon ownership of this knolwedge when you leave this Court'. I did! Thus here I am again, entering having already won my case as the raest of all conditions were realized in the US and only I knew it.

The US defaulting is not as funny as the Solicitor General waiving every citizen's interest in the Constitution and every citizen's Constitutional rights on April 1st, 2008 when I first filed thus he later could not respond as the only response possible then is GUILTY! As ignorance is not an excuse how do you not know you have an acting, legal President of original jurisdiction, me, Susan? A constitutionally set President? Think people: In what kind of case is it impossible for the illegally sitting US government to respond and if it does fail to respond thus defaults may a Chief Justice then circumvent the US completely via acting to address the default w/o ever getting any response as he did on 11/20/08? If that happens - if a Chief Justice STANDS ASIDE a petitioner thus The People - you have a new President as that's the only way it can and may happen...as the case is a pro se case of constitutional authority and original jurisdiction. It's a citizen checking and balancing the Chief Justice and SCOTUS via invocation of chain of command! It makes the plaintiff or petitioner who is both victim and counsel THE constitutional authority, the legal President:

I support The People, the lawful, constitutionally set government of the US...it's foreign if it is not related to the Constitution our Founders authored and then lived out as real. You can be a foreign body of government but be born here as running around calling yourself American does not make it so any more than calling yourself natural born makes it so. 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! Read on, as I'll attempt to reason SOVEREIGNTY for you but you really should read my "Motion to Reconsider Your Own Destiny And Fate" on the website listed or on SCRIBD as it clearly reasons the point of law:

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.

This case is the case to restore our original government, the original documents and the original government the Founders authored and then lived out as reality...it restores the constitutionally set government known as We The People in lieu of all this post Civil War nonsense – dead paper such as the DC Organic Act of 1871, the IMF, Resolution 511 and exclusionary court rules that judges invoke against the pro se nonlawyer etc. etc. - that is all unconstitutional. It makes it possible to exercise your rights of liberty, dissolution and safety. It makes every citizen sovereign...it also does away with the Federal Reserve as it is wholly unconstitutional and it was nullified by a jury in 1968 and does away with Federal Income Tax as you may not tax what is a right and as We The People check SCOTUS.

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. 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.

As this is the case for YOU? The biggest thing you can do to help yourself is publicize that this case has been docketed in order to put pressure on the media and Congress...the reason the other branches do not want it heard is ALL OF THEM THEN WILL HAVE TO GO HOME AND/OR GO TO JAIL. The media keeps pretending that history did not happen, as privateers who will also be affected by the case own the media. They can’t ignore what The People do not ignore; if The People make a fuss they will have to get in line with me and Roberts thus the law.

So you know: I even went so far as to challenge Sotomayor’s recent unconstitutional appointment. She cannot rule in this case and may not sit after I am heard depending upon her actions. This then means one of two things: SCOTUS can tie it thus throwing the decision to you or Roberts can rule all alone a la Marshall thus supporting the Executive Order I issued against Obama.

Oh - as Obama sat and as he claimed to be an expert, a constitutional law professor? His actions are criminal as he expllited that expert knowledge but first and foremost he has to appear pro se as the oath of Office is I WILL not My Lawyer Will. He says he can so let's see if he can as I happen to know you can swear to do the impossible, what only The Creator can do, but it won't ever happen unless you actually are The Creator, lol. Some powers are reserved to the exactly named Creator alone as rights are inalieanable. I'm giving him an equal opportunity to prove or disprove himself...Roberts and I are equals acting pro se so he too must act pro se. If he does not he is entering a plea of no contest and as the US is in default and has been since 11/05/08? As the US failed to respond at all? He has to appear; you elected him to represent you not the Solicitor General. Plus: The Bill of Rights says I, Susan, do not need to convene a grand jury in his case!

From the actual petition, written for the nonlawyer citizen NOT a jduge who already knows the law thus I employed colloquial english not legal jargon and not formal standard English as upon conferencing I am then serving the entire nation notice of suit:

"I practice or live what I teach, US law: As further proof we are no longer a Constitutional Republic and are paying what is tribute Obama is now acting to investigate the CIA as he said his administration would be the most transparent but then he promptly acted to hide his facts by hiding his paper thus everyone but Obama is being made transparent or is subject to Obama’s arbitrary enforcement of the law. He is violating the equal protection clauses as if SCOTUS, the CIA and Susan must obey the letter and the spirit of the law so must he but he does not. He is arbitrarily picking and choosing what he will live out and what he will enforce. Proof is he first said he would not investigate the activities of the CIA but then acted to do it. That then is arbitrary, it is conditional, and as no other condition changed Obama then is the condition that changes and there is nothing lawful or equal and due about it. Obama changed his mind and upon what only he knows as our Constitution did not change nor did new case law arise nor do we have a new CIA director since he installed himself as the Executive and appointed one. The chief law enforcement officer enforces the law, period. He applies it to everyone including himself. Ideally he never violates it. But Obama has not once lived up to the letter or the spirit of our Constitution or so I truly believe and he falsely claims that he is an innocent victim of crime. Thus: I never need to see a single paper to then prove Obama is not the acting, legal constitutionally named or set President and Commander as I have what our Founders gave me: life. Plus the paper trail exists and I already entered it as Obama and CORP US hid the wrong paper. I previously stated that they failed to hide Resolution 511; I now state that they failed to hide the Declaration, Constitution and Marbury as well as Bush V Gore, the SCOTUS docket dated 11/05/08 & 11/20/08 with my name only upon it as both the victim and pro se counsel, several SCOTUS rulings that set federal precedent, the text of the missing 13th Amendment, the dates on the IMF/UN legislation, the UN Treaty, the Albany County Police report dated JUNE of 98, the Albany County Court record dated JULY of 98, the Philadelphia County Court record dated DECEMBER of 2000, the Middle District of FL court record dated APRIL 4, 2007, the Middle District of FL court RULING & ORDER dated JANUARY 20th & 21st, 2009 and the Federal Reserve as it is named on the paper being passed off as US dollars when they are not: Our money reads FEDERAL RESERVE, a private concern, and NOTE. I exactly entered a picture of a $500 NOTE as an attachment to my acted upon emergency application that has John Marshall on it; he would turn over in his grave if he knew he was pictured on a foreign note passed off as constitutional when it is not! I believe this was also entered to lower federal court. My fact is Obama and CORP US did not manage to hide one single piece of paper evidence that rises to proof. The paper they hid never rises to proof thus I never need to see it. Obama and his lawyer, Bob Bauer, can keep Obama’s birth certificate, passport and college records to themselves for all eternity as what he has to do is give birth to a record that he does not have the human ability to forge: He would have to change the exact words of our Declaration of Independence. The Constitution provides for no method of amending the Declaration. Neither does Marbury. Even the whole of SCOTUS, the Chief Justice himself and the President all working together and with every resource at their disposal cannot amend the Declaration as we won the Revolution or so I allege. This Writ needs to be granted so I can teach Americans what constitutes proof and what does not and so they learn that no piece of paper ever actually proves a thing about who and what you are or who and what we are as a nation. We The People serve – live - to be or become proof of the paper!"

"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!"

The whole petition is online as I asked SCOTUS to adjudicate one question and then let The People govern themselves. My audience is The People not judges and politicians. It’s not supposed to sound as if a lawyer wrote it. It sounds as it does for constitutional reasoning!

This suit is meant to end rule by egomaniacs, lawyers and businessmen and institute rule by scientists and philosophers - YOU - as if your nation is a living philosophy of politics then The People are the scientists conducting the experiment and evaluating the results and The People are the very philosophers James Madison said should decide the issues via a constitutional convention. Jefferson could never get Madison to understand this in their day, as back then Madison believed the elected persons were the philosophers who should decide the issues but Madison never had to deal with Incorporated US, did he? Jefferson truly believed all authority belonged to The People and so The People hold such a convention... I always knew the way to do that is via SCOTUS with a pro se constitutional authority case as then you are making your case directly to The People as SCOTUS is of us, for us and by us and not of any other branch, exactly like the military is an all volunteer civilian force commanded by a civilian. Besides: WHO wants to keep paying income tax???

Reason #50 to Grant this Writ: "Federal income taxes: Grant this Writ so they are then made just as even if we turn tribute back into just taxes how taxes are currently levied is not constitutional, as our Founders never intended People or a right to be taxed and as today the burden is placed almost exclusively on the middle income classes. The very poorest and wealthiest people do not pay taxes. Upper income classes do not pay anything close to their fair share. Harlan was correct in Pollack but he missed something. We are supposed to develop the means or the reasoning. For instance if SCOTUS rules the current income tax is not constitutional? The government or The People are then to develop a plan that is legal. We still have to run this thing...Grant this Writ so I can toss this idea into the ring: Income from property and/or stock is not a burden, at least not all of it. Stick with me: I own a rental property. Any income derived from rent was not earned DIRECTLY by the sweat of my brow. The renters DIRECTLY earned it and then I INDIRECTLY ‘earned’ it as profit. I subtract my salary as property manager, my employees salaries and expenses for maintenance then the rest is taxed. Salaries and expenses are not taxable; anything else is. Stock? The GE employees directly earn or cause profit; I indirectly earn it via stock ownership. I might only own a few shares thus it is all taxed but it should be as I’m not expending any sweat to then take in the profit. A guy who owns millions of shares? He’s using stockbrokers and secretaries and money managers. He should be able to subtract their salaries as they do burden it. And if I know whatever I pay my employees is not going to the fed? I’m going to pay them more only to keep it from the fed. I’ll be overly generous, lol, as I want The People to have the power not the federal institutions. In 1913 or 1916 we may not have had any means to keep track of who owns what and who is claiming what but today technology makes tax levied this way feasible as we can account for it. The problem before was tracking the money and then apportioning it as indirect taxes are apportioned geographically. We had no way to apportion it. Today we do. We now have the Social Security index too and that did not exist then. Besides, it is up to The People to make their fellow citizens account for their actions. The People are not to be depending upon the IRS to baby-sit the wealthy. If I say I am worth ten billion it might be true, maybe I can prove it, but if Oprah Winfrey says she is worth ten billion we know it is not the truth as she only takes in so much and her net worth is not anything close to ten billion dollars (or so the media reports). The IRS should want to get an up close and personal look at a person claiming they are worth ten billion dollars and/or worth more than they are taking in. I truly believe we can revisit the federal income tax. Also: This then frees up a whole lot of money. Money is a symbol; money represents the energy The People expend. There’s only so much energy in the US. Contrary to what Congress would have you believe they cannot create energy thus violate the law of this universe as that is a power reserved to The Creator thus all of this create money to cover the cost of legislation is unconstitutional. “Minting” is not “Printing at will”. We will have more money thus more energy circulating. The People can then pay off their debts, as nobody is to escape paying them as they chose to enter those contracts. You pay the debt off and never enter those contracts again. The People can spend what they do have. Congress can’t spend what does not exist in this universe and what is not constitutional for them to take from us if The People are informed as The People (or the President) check SCOTUS not Congress. A ruling isn’t supposed to leave SCOTUS and go straight to Committee but this one did in 1909 and so it was made ‘law’ in less than a year (See the 1911 & 12 rush to ratify to then circumvent The People and see Appendix S re the 16th’s questionable legal status and see the 1912 Presidential election as it seems to have been engineered; at the very least a massive conflict existed). Nobody checked Pollack as the power to tax is derived from Art 1 Sec 8. If The People do not know they check SCOTUS they can’t. I have zero proof the 16th is constitutional but tons of proof it is not. I, Susan, do not work for CORP US and 16 says only federal employees are subject to the federal income tax, a fact the IRS takes great pains to avoid naming in any of its literature. I engaged the IRS and they violated the law. FL, PA and VA never took 16 up. Granting this Writ then is an actual stimulus package."

Susan, the acting, legal President and Commander of original jurisdiction as I am, even if you do deny the reality known as the Constitution (and/or the SCOTUS docket). Actual law is not matter of your personal belief as it is! Your person, your living constitution, either embodies the law or not as all paper is dead. You, your own self, then ARE a body of belief, get it? Mine is purely and wholly constitutional.

The following can be found in the comments section on Attorney Apuzzo's blog by a "Mark" on October 21, 2009 10:37 AM:

Anyone has Standing to remedy actions contrary to the actual text of the Constitution:
"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

https://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=7466841558189356289&postID=4039680668846636808

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.

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:

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.

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.