Replies

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.