Can you explain in plain English if this is good news? It appears the case is going to *conference* but haven’t other cases been there, never to be heard from again?
This one has even less chance than most, because it is simply nuts. (The woman who filed the case says she is the "acting president" of the US?)
As for this particular case, the wording makes me wonder if it was done by someone who is a "English as a 2nd language" type person.
Interestingly, this statement is found in the SCOTUS brief overview:
Jurisdiction. According to the Constitution (Art. III, §2): “The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution
http://www.supremecourtus.gov/about/briefoverview.pdf
Apparently, "we" are all supposed to believe the party line that a question specific to Article II, Section 1 Clause 5 in the CONSTITUTION is something the "judicial" branch can not address. Stunning!
A surprisingly small number of the total cases filed ever make it to conferencing. My case is unique in all of American history as nobody else successfully sued the Chief Justice thus SCOTUS itself. how do you know as fact w/o question I successfully sued Roberts and SCOTUS?
I’m not a lawyer but I made it to that list when my case is a pro se authority case and the only other one like it is Marbury V Madison. We’ve only had two pro se authority cases. To get on that list I then had to be successful; I had to successfully make my point of law against the US for defaulting and then agaisnt Roberts and SCOTUS or else no Justice would ever post it on that list as that then constitues serving you notice.
One of my claims? SCOTUS like me was held to impossible standards in BVG and now with Obama V Anybody. The citizens injured Roberts and SCOTUS via failing to act so I then in turn was injured by Roberts and SCOTUS plus the citizens because of the same, failing to act.