posted on Oct, 4 2009 @ 11:31 PM
And:
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
[I]at the time the Constitution was adopted[/I]. 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 [B]Anders Crenshaw[/B], 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 nowhere 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!’
And also Gun Control:
“You are never to take the law into your own hands but the Founders said you most definitely are to take the government into your own hands, as you
are the government. Grant this Writ so I can then teach The People that taking the law into your hands makes you a victimizer or worse a criminal
exactly like those who injured you; taking the government into your own hands makes you a victim who has triumphed over your oppressors the lesson
being: In America there is no such thing as an actual victim only a legal one. “Victim” is a legal designation; it is not reality until or unless
you begin to truly believe you are one. If SCOTUS fails you and The People? Take government into your own hands: Declare yourself Chief Justice, post
public notice of your appointment and confirmation and name a place where The People can access you and so the court. Trust me as you can: If a
plaintiff sues me but goes to your court, you, and not the other SCOTUS headed by Roberts? As long as you establish you were denied justice by the
other SCOTUS thus you then are the Chief Justice I’ll argue my defense in front of you. That’s how you take government into your own hands: you
empower yourself first by making the reasoned decision basing it upon your life, the Constitution and US case law - fact and law - and then act upon
it by doing something, you take action, and so you then lend that power via conscious awareness to another. If you act to post notice of you having
become the Chief Justice? When I read it I am consciously aware we may have a new Chief Justice thus I then have the human ability to go to you and
find out for myself. I can and may enter a petition to you as I have one criteria at this point: I know you’re constitutional if you have a gun as
you have proven you have the means to enforce your own rulings. You thus we can and may execute chain of command theory. Ideally you won’t need a
gun for long. Even more ideally once everyone is aware that they own all actual power upon reading this very petition the crooks will start
volunteering to leave as SCOTUS recently ruled for us albeit roundaboutly: Guns, guns and more guns. US case law now is we can and may not only shoot
in theory post the fact of the Revolution but we may first own the necessary constitutional element: A gun, and even if you live right next door to
Congress. SCOTUS ruled against the Executive, Judiciary and Congress and for The People. Buying a gun is taking government into your own hands;
shooting it before I am heard in person in SCOTUS? Before I issue the order? Before you own the knowledge it is now absolutely necessary to shoot?
That is taking law into your own hands. This is why McVeigh, Nichols and all like them are criminals not patriots: none of them accessed SCOTUS. The
People need to learn the difference as “government” and “law” are not the same things and if The People confuse them then they have confused
perceived power for actual power."
GUN is a necessary institution of government; it is not possible to execute the contract known as The Declaration and The Constitution without one!
Gun control then is an impossible standard; it is an impossible condition for you to meet. But first you have to be willing to shoot and so as
accountability and responsibility is inherent or implied in The Constitution and exactly worded in Marbury but first exactly worded in The Declaration
as we have pledged our very lives upon it, and as the Revolution is federal precedent or US case law, The Revolution is a pro se case of
constitutional authority and original jurisdiction, any gun owner who is acting in accordance with the Constitution would then be a responsible gun
owner by his very nature. If you go to a gun store or gun show or answer an ad and buy a gun your action then is the evidence that suggests you are
constitutional as you are doing it in the open. You cannot prove your case that you are constitutional as is your gun, until or unless you first own
one, duh. You own it and you use it and so I then know as you are the proof. Unless I possess evidence suggesting you are a criminal like a prior jury
conviction or a confession such as you tell me with your own mouth that you are securing the gun to then rob a store, I may not stop you from owning
that gun or using it as you see fit as nothing exists to suggest you will use it to commit a crime but only to execute US law. The rule of law is I am
to believe your testimony and you are innocent. Gun control is a joke and a crime itself. It's repugnant! It's automatically void; no court order
is necessary as anything repugnant is automatically null and voided by you yourself once you own the knowledge. Switzerland and Gun control advocates
should quit now, while they are ahead, before they are publicly humiliated by my legal argument.
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 who are lawyers and so know the law but violate it regardless. It’s not supposed to sound as if a lawyer wrote it. It sounds
as it does for constitutional reasoning!
Again: What you can do to help yourself as this case is mounted on behalf of YOU is to publicize it as the media refuses to do so and the other
branches do not want it heard as then they will be the first people to go. You must begin to demand that it be heard in person so you become
sovereign. If The People protest loudly enough SCOTUS will hear it in person as they will know they have the support of The People. My goal is to
create a situation whereby you are able to exercise actual liberty for the first time in your life thus own the knowledge of what liberty feels like
and so is...liberty is an emotion and physical sensation you experience...it is actual energy; liberty is realized as justice...you're supposed to be
feeding on this constantly if you're American and if you are living out the government our original Founders created and intended for us. 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.
I accused the bar associations and law schools of treason, sedition, subversive activities, violating RICO in an attempt to keep me from testifying
before SCOTUS in person aka to prevent me from acting as a federal witness and of price fixing. All lawyers have unclean hands!
Lastly in case you never thought of it: Titles of nobility? I’m addressing that as once I prove Obama is a foreigner then any federal agent who
accepted and cashed a paycheck then violated this clause...if I successfully restore the missing 13th Amendment then every sitting federal officer
gave up his or her citizenship by doing so.
Susan, the acting, legal President and Commander of original jurisdiction as I am, even if you refuse to believe the Constitution (or the SCOTUS
docket).