Herbert V Obama Federal Appeal 09-10661-c

No. 09-10661-C _____________________ IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT _____________________

SUSAN HERBERT, Plaintiff- Appellant Versus BARACK OBAMA, JOHN ROBERTS, AND THE UNITED STATES, Defendants-Appellees

On Appeal From The United States District Court For The Middle District Of Florida

BRIEF FOR APPELLANT “Judicial Review Is The Myth Of Fingerprints”

Susan Herbert 1100 Seagate Avenue 101 Neptune Beach, FL 32266 904.705.6171

1

Corporate Disclosure Statement Appellant, Susan Herbert, does not hold an interest in any corporations nor does she own any stock; she represents only herself as an absolute class of one. Not only does Susan own no stock but Susan Herbert holds no professional licenses and no diplomas as she does not believe in them, as paper proves nothing in a constitutional nation. This case meets and exceeds extraordinary circumstances thus some rule may not be applicable. Table of Contents Corporate Disclosure Statement..........................................................................................i Table Of Authorities............................................................................................................ii Oral Argument.....................................................................................................................iii Jurisdictional Statement.......................................................................................................1 Statement Of Issues..............................................................................................................9 Facts....................................................................................................................................20 Summary Of Argument.......................................................................................................60 Argument............................................................................................................................62 I. II. III.

Judicial Review Is The Myth Of Fingerprints Constitutional Authority Vested In The Lone Citizen, or, Like It Or Not Marbury V Madison Is The Law Of The US And This Universe...........................76 Forever Pro Se.......................................................................................................123

Conclusion.........................................................................................................................136 Certification.......................................................................................................................179 Proof Of Service................................................................................................................Last

2

Table Of Authorities

Bush V Gore, throughout Brown V Topeka, throughout Marbury V Madison, throughout Monell V DSS, page 60, 89 and throughout In Re Susan Herbert, 07-9804 Supreme Court of the US, throughout In Re Thomas Jefferson, 08-6622 Supreme Court of the US, throughout Kokkonen V Guardian Life Insurance, page 6 Lassiter, page 60, 89 Carhart, page 80 & throughout Schiavo De Novo, page 80 & throughout Castlerock V Gonzales page 80 & throughout Nicholson V Scopetta, page 24 Stankowsky V Kramer, page 86 Ca Evidence Code, page 39 See Exhibit O titled “US Case Law”.

Other NY, PA & FL domestic violence and child abuse law Exhibit T; Federalist 10, 23, 47, 48 and 78; the Magna Carta and the Iroquois Confederacy (Constitution).

3

Jurisdictional Statement Appellant has actual reason to author a lengthy jurisdictional statement as Appellant seeks to have a pro se case of constitutional authority and original jurisdiction heard via the granting of an appearance in person. This court does not have the legal power to hear this case as no court of law does due to the nature of the case and the facts some of which are: I am the legal power and moral authority and not this court, all offices have been unchecked due to Bush V Gore thus this court itself is unchecked, the discrimination of women now rests within the Supreme Court of the US, this court already harmed Appellant by changing the case caption which then changed the intrinsic thing it is and says when this is an exact charge I levied in the other federal court and then the recent vote which is in direct violation of the law, the office or the power of Executive order was openly purchased in 2008, Barack Obama is now acting in direct violation of the law and he recently swore he could do what is not possible for him to do according to our law and actual reality plus no precedent exists which covers my unique situation, a first in all of US history and indeed world history. In my unique case the US is in breach of both governing contracts. I am within this court due to an illegal action of the Supreme Court, which then requires me to receive an order from this court before being refiled in the Supreme Court after I already achieved direct entry on November 20th, 2008.

Under US law, Marbury and 42 USC 1983 this court may exercise moral authority only and adjudicate the actual issue which is not the latest ruling but if my human rights are violated, if judicial review is a myth or if it is even legal in my case, if the law has failed me or send it ahead to the US Supreme Court ordering the Supreme Court to hear this case in person as the rules dictate should be done. I had no desire to file within this court; as the Supreme Court kept me out unconstitutionally and then refused to acknowledge my direct entry but then did acknowledge it 4

wanted a dead piece of paper, any ruling from this court, I was forced to enter this court. I was told: We want you to be injured or even die in defense of a dead institution, a paper ruling from the federal appellate which is absolutely and wholly unconstitutional and appearing as a right is not possible which is a lie itself and that although Marbury entered directly and although Marbury V Madison states that you can and may enter directly upon a Writ of Prohibition no woman, no mother and no nonlawyer was ever going to be allowed to enter SCOTUS at all let alone directly due to policy both personal and official. Even after I did it the clerks refused to admit to the truth of it: A federal case that is heard in a lower court is not an original jurisdiction case. As SCOTUS refused to hear these cases and as lawlessness abounded injustice built up until in or around 2000 SCOTUS began hearing what it labeled cases of “original jurisdiction” which were actually cases in which the caption alone was changed to make it seem as if it is an original case or in which the courts itself were the issue thus new injury is cited upon a Writ of Certiorari but they are labeled “original jurisdiction”. For instance, Bush V Gore was not heard upon appeal from FL but the citizens truly believe it was; the caption was changed to then seize original jurisdiction so that Bush and Gore got around the FL judiciary as they wanted it to seem as if they had the approval of the FEDERAL judiciary and as a President and Commander, the winner, could then call out the national guard and/or military to then enforce his SCOTUS win. A travesty all around. As for escaping FL’s judiciary? IT IS FACT, as we in FL know it as we lived it and Justice Paul Stevens even wrote this within his ruling. These cases were not and are not actual original jurisdiction cases but the Supreme Court has allowed this perception to thrive and become instilled as actual belief, that is, the citizens have no idea that only Marbury V Madison entered SCOTUS directly with no lower court ruling as did I and that it is possible especially if you are a woman and/or pro se. Nobody but nobody thought to press suit against the Supreme Court itself and indeed the entire federal government for this practice as John Marshall created 5

judicial review thus it exists no where within our written law as Congress never amended it. Today judicial review is a myth as it does not exist at all as people no longer live it out as real. It’s not in writing and it is no longer actual and real. In my unique case? Marbury was actually violated by SCOTUS be it accident, design or both. I have no evidence a Justice ever actually read my case.

Thus far the federal court has said it is not willing to abide by the law, Marbury or its sworn oath. A Plaintiff now an Appellant cannot then reason with any person not willing as we are all volunteers and as you have no moral authority if you are not willing as moral authority is will. I am the only absolute class of one in US history and all other cases of constitutional authority have been granted an appearance in person in US Supreme Court as if they were not? It would then be impossible – impossible – for women and Susan Herbert exactly to redress the violation of fully vested, protected constitutional rights or for anyone to exercise basic 1st amendment rights. Marbury & Brown are constitutional authority cases. A constitutional authority case hinges upon the award: Did the litigant make her case and if so is remedy and relief available? If it is available may we award it? Marbury gave white men actual equal legal power and Brown gave black men actual legal power thus moral authority as well. However, Plessy and Scott are authority cases too and they were heard in person and ruled upon. Why am I being made the lone exception or am uniquely treated? Because I’m a woman and I’m pro se as in no law license. This was exactly said to me over the phone. The SCOTUS docket proves this is policy.

Federal judges refuse to acknowledge actual reality: They deny I am an authority case and/or what an authority case is and a pro se case of constitutional authority and original jurisdiction? As the Appellant must act upon Marbury V Madison before and after she or he enters and exits the Supreme Court the appellant must FIRST be unjustly denied and dismissed by the Supreme 6

Court in order to prove the clerks and/or Justices of that court do indeed possess policy and are in direct violation of our law (accessing the Supreme Court and being denied and dismissed without reason named MUST occur as then the proof – their own docket – then exists) and then SECONDLY appellant enters a lower court whereby the judges will be choosing to adjudicate their own case not hers as it is the nature of the case and as the entire government has already fallen as proven by Bush V Gore and now Obama 08 thus Appellant had to be willing to lose to then win. Plessy and Scott, the people, had to be willing to lose to then win. So did Marbury. He is a white man so we know why he did not lose – US law gave white men legal power at our founding. Marbury asked, Is it actual? Or is it on paper only? Am I or am I not equal to the President?

Federal judges do not seem to grasp this complex legal concept regarding the point of law, a part of which actually is correct jurisdiction as Marbury himself then became Marbury the precedent thus creating the Supreme Court but not as it exists today outside of our law as people are to be the living law but people do not believe SCOTUS is our law so it is not within them exactly as Susan herself will become the precedent, Susan Herbert V Obama and the US et. al, creating the Supreme Court as it will exist, within or as a part of our living law aka We, the people as I am correcting a mistaken belief the people have: That paper is proof when it is not and the Supreme Court is an authority outside of their person as it ought never to be as it should be their faith and as that mistaken belief itself violates Marbury. The people do not believe SCOTUS or Marbury are legal and are constitutional or are US law but they are. In my case the living constitution, the actual living person, becomes a living institution known as a federal court ruling in a pro se constitutional authority case IF the plaintiff makes it into Supreme Court, if SCOTUS acts upon the knowledge contained in the paper petition. I, Susan, can, will and did already adjudicate my 7

own case, that is I made my case, or else direct entry to SCOTUS would not have occurred as SCOTUS conferenced me twice and upon a third attempt, an emergency application, acted upon my reasoning and fact and so entered me directly - but then never field my case. Federal judges wrongly assume if you were denied or lost in the Supreme Court you have no case when this is not close to the truth, as you must have a point of law to be conferenced; but to be acted upon in such a way direct entry occurs? You made your case. LOSING is a great thing in this case as it is absolutely necessary to then come back and win it via gaining direct entry.

This is now about enforcing my own decision and order and informing the people as they were circumvented by SCOTUS on November 20th, 2008 after the Solicitor General failed to respond in 30 days so the US is in breach and then failed to respond at all as SCOTUS acted without any response being made but never filed the paperwork, that emergency application addressing the breach of contract. Make no mistake: I’m not asking this court for anything as a pro se case that is an actual authority? She makes demands. If I ask then I’m not the authority, am I? That’s how you know as fact I own the knowledge I am the equal of any person in any office of power and of liberty as my protected birthright.

No precedent, code or rule applies to my person; as of November 20th the US said that US law did not apply either. Then on 01/20/08 all authorities, except John Roberts as he fudged the oath and as he is not legal so he can swear Obama in however it is not legal and as he then did not act to provide any sacred work to Obama thus still is an ‘authority’, a moral one under US law and Marbury, began acting w/o the legal power to do so nor any moral authority to do so as of 1/20/09 they are not acting under the authority of the US. It is a case of doing exactly what John Marshall said to do: Reason and decide it your own self sans any outside authority other 8

than yourself as you own the knowledge and act upon your will, as that is liberty. I give my consent to appear or to be sent ahead but do not consent to what a federal judge personally believes as it is not his right but my own and this is not about personal beliefs or mores nor theoretical application but the exact words of our law and the law that rules this universe. The district courts of the United States are "courts of limited jurisdiction. They possess only that power authorized by Constitution and statute," Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of America, 511 U. S. 375, 377 (1994). In order to provide a federal forum for plaintiffs who seek to vindicate federal rights, Congress has conferred on the district courts original jurisdiction in federal-question cases--civil actions that arise under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States. 28 U.S.C. 1331. This does not apply when the issue is the Supreme Court and the jurisdiction is the Supreme Court as not one person ever made any provision for this as it has never once happened before and is the test of Marbury and as women have never yet been accorded equal protection and due process as my own life proves thus I myself am the original jurisdiction under civil actions that arise under the Constitution, laws or treaties of the US and concern my person or my children and as it should not be necessary for Congress to confer this on any body of government other than the lone citizen as that authority arises from obeying the law and from the vote but who could know all citizens would violate the law then the vote and so overthrow the Declaration and Constitution thus this nation would have zero power and zero authority save for Susan Herbert the test case herself? [An aside: I can prove Roberts still has moral authority; if this federal appellate is going to claim Roberts accidentally fudged the oath? I’m an expert in human psychology; none of it was actual accident or mistake. We can get an actual doctor to testify and so support my expert knowledge. Roberts might have known it was not legal and even a crime BUT: Did the citizens place him in an impossible situation? YES; when Alan Keyes began saying Wait a minute! I’m black! This is harming me! 9

Voters ignore him. Then the Obama camp all cut and ran. LIED. COVERED UP FACT. CHANGED THEIR STORIES. There are PLENTY of law abiding, hardworking citizens who are black in this nation who deserve the opportunity as they earned it or because they were born into the right. What about them? ]

To be perfectly clear: My claim has always been that no court has legal power or moral authority over me but now I am being asked by employees of the Supreme Court, all males, to be injured with deliberation and forethought by coming into this court only to then conform to an act, rule and/or policy that does not apply in my unique case as what they are demanding is an order, any order, from this court when paper is not proof and when SCOTUS may not demand that I be injured or suffer more injury that it knows as fact will occur and do so without any actual reason or cause other than securing that piece of paper. Did Marbury the man have to get a lower or federal appellate ruling? NO. This itself proves my case: It is unique treatment of me, a woman, or, unlike Marbury, a man. In my unique case? 28 USC 1331 is unconstitutional as our Constitution does not name SCOTUS as a constitutional authority over me as one vote levels the playing field and makes us all equals, as one vote is constitutional authority, and as Congress never amended our law to include SCOTUS and as Marbury says if an act of Congress is repugnant to the Constitution it is null and void. If anything? I’m over SCOTUS as I am its boss as it is still outside of the law and I pay its salary. If SCOTUS wanted to invoke 28 USC 1331 it should have done so by filing the paper on 11/20/08 and/or then stopped to reason: We are not legal yet, not law, but only an unproven theory of government and law known as Marbury V Madison thus until someone tests Marbury by pressing the case in this very court we will always be theory.

10

Only In Re Susan Herbert, US Supreme Court case 07-9804 and In Re Thomas Jefferson recaptioned as In Re Susan Herbert, US Supreme Court case 08-6622, thus my consent then grant this court the moral authority but not the legal power to then confer jurisdiction upon its own self or upon the Supreme Court via an order as the judgment of the district court did not proceed on the correct theory of law and its action is arbitrary, oppressive or unreasonable and represented the courts will and not its judgment. The standard is actual reality, as US law, Marbury, my person and the SCOTUS docket exist, as that is the strictest, highest standard or highest appellation of all. It is the selfless not selfish standard. We used to call this standard constitutional authority, judicial review, peer review, scrutiny and self-government. We used to call it a vote. The basis used to be common sense and reason; it used to be liberty realized as justice. Today it is known as “business as usual” but business as usual no longer works for me. I assert this appeal is from an order and final judgment issued upon January 20 th and January 21st, 2009 and now from an order denying in forma pauperis status so that an impossible standard is created as it forces me to act as if I am a criminal as it would be a violation of US law and Marbury and that dated March 11th, 2009.

I know you are not supposed to enter new evidence or other evidence upon appeal; what do you do if federal judges sitting within the federal court you are asked to go before tell you in no uncertain terms they can so they will violate the law as Congress will never act to impeach them nor will any fellow judge act against them thus you have no legal recourse or so they believe so that your rights are a matter of their personal likes and dislikes? Or if NY knowingly interferes with a federal case? If I do not name such actions then any meaningful appeal to SCOTUS or any hearing upon original jurisdiction becomes impossible; this court may never have seen this before and that is it: I’m first, the only person to gain direct entry after Marbury in 1803 thus 11

now I am dealing with the actual harm SCOTUS then caused my person directly due to acting to directly enter me but never filing the paperwork thus: After this happens any appeal then makes it so new injury becomes what SCOTUS will address as SCOTUS too is then adjudicating its own case; the named employees or Justices become plaintiffs upon re-entry to SCOTUS as only a Chief Justice can adjudicate his own case if all citizens have failed and all offices are unchecked. It becomes every man for himself or pro se. It becomes all pro se litigants versus the two who are not: Obama and the US. I can and will name the March action that is asking me to pay what constitutes tribute or any other new proof of harm as the injury is current and ongoing and is endemic or perpetrated upon every level and within every office so any new injury that has occurred and is by the hand of a judge state or federal that is supported by nothing or created out of thin air since appealing as it all goes directly to the very nature of my case – judicial review and my point of law itself - constitutional authority. This is why my case should have been heard in the Supreme Court and correct jurisdiction became a federal question.

Statement of Issues 1.

Did the local district federal court have the legal power and moral authority to adjudicate appellant's case or should it have been sent ahead to the Supreme Court of the United States as the US is in breach of the contract and was at the time the local district federal court adjudicated this case as proven by the Supreme Court's own docket? Is a case that enters the Supreme Court directly upon a claim that is pro se, constitutional authority and original jurisdiction and seeks a Writ of Prohibition and/or Mandamus against the Supreme Court or an employee thereof, namely the person sitting as Chief Justice or the person sitting as President especially if acting in direct violation of our law, is then only remedied by being granted an appearance in person in the Supreme Court itself? Did not sending it ahead as court rule states and as Marbury states one must then make the redress of the violations of appellants protected rights thus her person impossible? Did this unfairly and unjustly target all 12

women? Does it subject her to injury without relief when innocent? In appellant's case did the local district federal court then engage in, promote and condone violence against appellant and all women and their children and is this a violation of the Article 4 section 4 clause "domestic violence"? 2.

Is the refusal of the local district federal court to allow appellant any appearance in person as a plaintiff no matter the injury and no matter her claim and when it knew appellant has not once been allowed any appearance in person as a plaintiff in any court in this nation then unique treatment of her alone as no other litigant in all of US history directly entered the Supreme Court since its creation at Marbury V Madison and no nonlawyer ever gained entry except for conferencing thus she entered having been uniquely treated and this was then reinforced or constitutes the making ex post facto law? Did the magistrate judge's inclusion of all attachments in the appellant's page count within his recommendation and order but his failure to note this then constitute a violation of Article 4 Section 4 and is it defamation as it was meant to infer and confer upon appellant's person that she was mentally unstable as other citizens and news agencies reading this recommendation and order then stated this? That is, did this local federal district court intend to cause appellant's reputation to be damaged and to prevent her from securing justice by using words to make it seem as if she is "crazy" and when the judge's statement was not then a fact? Is this a deliberate act of crime against appellant? Did it then open the door to have her whole case heard and every federal question she asked since April of 2007 answered upon appeal as appellant entered to local district federal court the very application and petition the Supreme Court acted upon but refused to file?

3.

As appellant directly entered the Supreme Court after being conferenced twice but denied any and all protection and process of the law and so upon a third attempt forced the US into breach of the contract is the local federal court's order and judgment which states appellant’s chances are "slight" then unsupported by all evidence most especially all evidence rising to proof? As appellant was denied any and all protection and process of the law via official action of the Supreme Court may the local federal district court then find the appellant with law, precedent, act and with

13

rule, or, in this unique case if the law does not protect the Appellant does it then find her? 4.

Does the refusal to orally hear In Re Susan Herbert twice over or to file her follow up emergency application and petition in support of it and then deny her any appearance in any court to then address violations of fully protected rights then constitute a Bill of Attainder as it is in her name only and against her only and as it works a corruption of blood thus harms her children and all of her descendants as it remains In Re Susan Herbert and sits upon the federal docket at the 'highest' level until adjudicated? That is, in appellants case did the Supreme Court and then the local district federal court make law? If so is this a Bill of Attainder that constitutes an act of treason due to the nature of the case which is constitutional authority?

5.

Can and may a man ever offer what constitutes proof in a court of law in regards to PREGNANCY, MOTHERHOOD, WOMAN or ABORTION or is a man's testimony forever evidence that never rises to proof? That is, have the courts and the legislatures and those with privileges such as titles and advanced educational degrees begun allowing men to falsify proof as the burden of proof is not met and men are not held to it in the cases of women thus they tell the lie that a man can give birth to a baby or know pregnancy as absolute fact when that is biologically impossible? In Appellant's case did the local federal court deny biological reality and actual reality to then falsify proof - a seemingly just court ruling that is anything but just - when denying her entry and when women do not yet have actual legal power or just representation? Does this constitute evidence tampering in appellant's unique case? Does this unjustly target women and/or the ethical? Is it collusion and/or conspiracy either together or alone against this exact appellant, against all women and their children some of whom are enlisted service members and against any law abiding, ethical litigant?

6.

If the Chief Justice and President, those exact people sitting but who are not legal directly due to Bush V Gore as it sits as a tie, as 9 as 5-4 as 1 is bad math and an illegal invocation of the power of one as that must be 9 as 1 or 1 alone, as it unchecked the office of Chief Justice and then later unchecked the office of the President as Roberts appointment was not arbitrary and then due to the 2008 14

Presidential election which directly and openly violates US law, all actual reality or history before appellant entered local federal court in December as SCOTUS acted upon her application and petition in October and November which always come before December and as SCOTUS would not act upon what was not actual and real thus legal and the correct application of the law, so then both the acting Chief Justice and physically real President have no authority under the US as this violates our whole law, is anything that any local district federal judge, any state judge, any court officer, any agent of the federal and/or state government has written which is against the appellant valid, binding and legal? Did this local federal district court deny reality and commit what constitutes a criminal act known as treason as it goes beyond abuse of judicial discretion as it is the actual and legal overthrow of our law and of the acting, legal President and Commander, the appellant, as she became the constitutional authority upon direct entry to SCOTUS, as the local district court owned the knowledge as Appellant told them several times over and as they had the SCOTUS docket but then acted to cause this injury and harm in spite of this knowledge and did so in a manner that made it impossible for the Appellant to appeal her case in any meaningful way and that prevented her from executing her duties under US law? 7.

Is the federal judiciary operating outside of our law as it exists today as is the entire federal government directly due to Bush V Gore as the Supreme Court of the US is named no where in our law as the court of authority and/or last resort thus Judicial review is a myth yet not one citizen acted and then even Marbury V Madison was violated by SCOTUS thus this nation essentially unfounded itself and so is the Appellant the constitutional authority and not this local federal district court or the judiciary itself, and not the Executive or the legislative or any other appointed or elected official or any other citizen and has she been so since June 5th, 2007 as she served this exact local district federal court notice and delivered the commission via first class US mail and due to all of the effects of Bush V Gore one of which is the 2008 Presidential election? As well as due to all of the Appellant's facts as she exhausted all of the resources under our law and within her human abilities as she did not have the human ability to be placed upon all ballots in all 50 states due to the endemic and now entrenched discrimination of women so that the effects are both 15

past and current or ongoing, that is she could not purchase a slot with a one time fee as the state rules allow, and was she at the time this election was held? and as Marbury V Madison states that it matters not if a federal judge recognized her commission or not as long as Appellant knew and acted upon that knowledge? And as Appellant fulfilled every single named unfair and unjust condition, and met every unfair and unjust burden, but then had the contract known as the Declaration and Constitution rescinded only as she did fulfill it? That is, does Barrack Obama, John Roberts, William Suter, court clerks or any man or any person alive possess legal power and moral authority over the Appellant? And if the contract was breached by the Supreme Court's circumvention of the Solicitor thus the people, people who failed to vote firstly before Bush V Gore - and this was upheld by the local district court then may Appellant sue the Barack Obama, John Roberts, William Suter, Various Clerks of SCOTUS and the entire US and then even this very federal appeals court itself if justice is obstructed once again thus hold the entire nation liable for damages under contract law, under Marbury V Madison and under her own power and authority as she alone survived physical death and still acted thus then survived metaphysical death and so succeeded where all other comers failed or missed the boat completely?

Or as Appellant already proved ownership of the knowledge her

commission exists and has been delivered, as this very Federal Appeal is proof rising beyond any reasonable doubt? 8.

Can and may US law be felt as a sacred experience known as Philadelphia in addition to liberty, and if appellant is the first American to feel US law as sacred thus only her living person owns this unique knowledge, can and may any court of law deny her entry yet then rule on her claim as that ruling then is supported by nothing? Is it humanly possible for a local district judge to issue a ruling upon a claim of liberty, liberty itself or liberty denied, and/or Philadelphia if that judge never felt it, does not know what it is and has no point of reference whatsoever as proven by his or her own recommendations, decisions, opinions, judgments, orders and vote? Does this violate Zinerman as qualified persons sit upon the Supreme Court including a uniquely qualified person and so due process was readily available but denied and instead an unqualified person, the local judge, processed Appellant? As Appellant qualified or certified John Roberts as unique or rather possessing a unique experience of life and 16

so able and capable to adjudicate this case did ignoring this absolute fact of Appellant and John Roberts then constitute obstruction of justice and treason? Does it also constitute discrimination of John Roberts exactly, a denial of his right of equal protection and due process and is it unique treatment of his person? If so is Appellant still an absolute class of one or is she now a class of two? Or does his interest and right only fully vest upon hearing this case in person?

Statement of the Case I.

Nature of the Case: Constitutional Authority I, Susan Herbert, brought this action against the US when it made escaping violence

impossible and every single solitary enumerated right, all fully vested and all protected, had been violated and then when the Supreme Court of the US itself violated the very decision that created it and the Declaration and Constitution itself. In my unique case US code 1331 is repugnant and so I am the first person since William Marbury to be of the ability to go to SCOTUS directly. I did and am injured as the US then breached the contract wholly. This was to be expected as John Roberts appointment is not legal and never has been due to Bush v Gore as it unchecked the office of the President as it was not an arbitrary appointment as Bush v Gore is a Chief Justice unchecking himself so only an arbitrary appointment is then legal as the President must recheck the offices of legal power. Bush Jr. did not. Bush V Gore is a tie in two different ways that went unresolved as every single lawyer, law student, judge and authority, even the sitting President himself, Bill Clinton, and all 300 million citizens save my lone person did not know the actual reasoning it is unconstitutional: It is about the exact words of our law and the difference between whole and absolute numbers, constitutional authority over women, physical and legal custody of this nation or of is the 17

people or an illegal third party award, and what forms of the power of one the Supreme Court may or may not invoke and if the Supreme Court is even an actual legal authority over my person or any person. I, Susan, am the acting, legal President and Commander and have been since before the recent election as I alone knew and acted according to the letter and the spirit of our law and according to Marbury. I tested the law and all prior federal precedent by living it out as real but especially by living out Marbury V Madison itself. That is: Is US law elegant and is it an actual force, or, does our one vote carry the most weight of all, constitutional authority? Will it protect me, a vulnerable and defenseless person with no resources except her ethic, her own brain and her own willingness? I found out definitively as I knew as fact late Chief Justice Rehnquist fudged the math and the words - the application on purpose via invocation of the best interest standard - thus he castled with Bush by ruling as he did in the case of Bush V Gore and so ruled for We, the people, specifically women, as he left the door open for one of us to legally sue to become THE constitutional authority of this nation. This person had to be a woman or else it is political. I’m this person. I predicted this past election would happen and the overthrow of our law almost completed with it and went so far as to name Hawaii as an exact place to look in December of 2006 when I first invoked my rights as a natural born citizen of this nation and a resident of FL and filed it with the FBI, Department of Justice, Department of Defense and the Office of the Vice President. How could I know then that one of the most dangerous and deadly filings of my entire life would occur when I filed within the Supreme Court of the United States?

II.

Course of Proceedings: 1996- Present Beginning in 1996 I began pursuing justice for my self and my children in the state courts. As I was failed over and over again in direct violation of the law and in several states, and later 18

because of Bush V Gore, I then entered federal court on April 4th, 2007. Not only did the federal court deny me any and all protection of the law, and all due process, but it traded my life upon honor bound dollars, abused me, abused my children and eventually began to commit what meets and exceeds the legal definition of criminal acts. I became the first woman acting pro se, and the first unlicensed attorney acting pro se, and the very first person since Marbury himself to directly enter the Supreme Court on November 20th, 2008 as I did not give up and as the Solicitor General failed to respond at all to my petition thus breaching the contract. Directly due to the Supreme Court’s decision to rule without comment and without any response from the Solicitor, I, Susan, alone of all Americans ever who are or were born into liberty and the vote, am the one person to be given zero protection of the law when I am an innocent and am a Natural born citizen. I then landed in two separate state courts at the same time upon the same claim and while within federal court, SCOTUS itself, in December of 2008 and an other federal court January of 2008, the very same federal court that first injured me and denied me any and all protection and due process upon a federal level. I am now suing the sitting Chief Justice and the clerks as well as Obama and the US for breach of contract and for several civil rights violations some acts which are crimes personal in nature and this is the same exact claim I previously tried to press but could not as not one federal judge was willing to believe he or she has been acting in direct violation of our law and has been now for some time and then SCOTUS itself refused to believe it. This local district court only committed more crimes and more civil rights violations after SCOTUS gave me the evidence rising to proof that I needed to then make it impossible for a federal judge to deny the truth: SCOTUS’ own docket with my name upon it and action taken to conference my case without any response made by the Solicitor General. The local district federal court ignored and denied the Supreme Court docket as if it does not exist as did the 19

involved state courts. On January 21st, 2009 this local district court upheld that Susan Herbert alone of all Americans ever is to be granted no protection of the law nor can she use it as a weapon in her defense, but can and will be found by the law, by the precedent, by the acts and by the rule and be found for things and events that are not even reality, or, were created and falsified by that court and its officers or that never happened. Hence I am now here in Federal Appeals since I filed Notice on or around January 31st and was docketed February 12th, 2009. This always was and still is a pro se case of constitutional authority and original jurisdiction and due to this nation’s prior actions against me and on January 20 th, 2009, as a foreign born man who may not even be a citizen was then installed as President in open and direct violation of our law and not one judge or court clerk has yet acted to enforce, obey and uphold the law, or, to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution. Since this time a new order has been issued by the state of NY that reverses the decision of the Supreme Court without due process and which is based upon no state or US case law and contains exactly worded lies and falsehoods. It ignores all proof and ignores our Constitution as if it were never written. It is an open assault to every law abiding person and to every mother as it terminates my right of custody and any right to visit my children only as I did defend our Constitution by defending my own constitution, myself, first and as I lived out Marbury as real by acting in defiance of what I know to be unethical, immoral, illegal and in violation of our law orders. In other words I defied men and titled persons who acted as if they are gods with a divine right to give me life and liberty or take it away at their whim and will; as if they are the authority that decides if I was or was not born into inalienable rights. No matter what any court rules this case is and will always remain a pro se constitutional authority case of original jurisdiction that can be heard only in US Supreme Court as it is predestined to return there due to its very nature. Where else do you go than to the people when your issue is the 20

written law and jurisdiction is the living law if not for national family court?

Although too numerous to list the major dates and places for court proceedings (you will not understand this until you read the brief): 1996 FL 10/98 PA Not served notice; I was in the hospital due to my injuries for which I had two surgeries & PA knew this & did not serve me. ZERO services for reunification offered by PA as law says state must do. 3rd parties lawyer asked clerk to set it first on docket in morning; he later told me what he did. I found out about hearing as 3rd parties called me at the hospital to taunt me with “you’ll never see your kids again; we own you”, ran from hospital and missed it by 15 minutes! My kids were lost to me forever and I suffered abjectly for 11 years now. All because of a court clerk doing a favor for a lawyer. 05/99 NY 06/99 NY 07/99 NY 07/99 – 03/2001 PA 03/2001 – Present NY, active; filed after FL by third parties who wanted to avoid being Defendants in FL or any court and filed within my 25 day window to appeal to SCOTUS 10/2005 NY Appellate 12/2005 NY Appeals 04/04/07 – 01/09 Local District Federal Court Jax bench (2007- 2009) 06/07

Lawsuit and Executive Order & Legal grounds to assume Command of US delivered To federal judge as US law, due process and Marbury says I must do

03/08 – 04/08 Supreme Court of the US, SCOTUS breaches governing documents; US Stands down as Solicitor waives rights of entire US along with all elected and Appointed officials; via waiving right Solicitor General states US has no vested Interest or any interest at all in Declaration, Constitution, Presidential election, the Vote, the process or equal protection clauses No evidence Justices ever saw petition 10/08

Supreme Court of the US, Suit to address SCOTUS’ breach

11/08

Solicitor General response due 11/05/08; fails to answer

11/20/08 Direct entry as SCOTUS acts upon knowledge of itself & US breaching contract 21

But paperwork not filed thus US, entire government, officially in breach No evidence Justices ever saw emergency application; clerks kept it from me and The clerk handling my case had no knowledge of it being withheld; may have kept it From John Roberts; Justices never saw 3rd petition, as it was not filed as clerks refused To officially acknowledge direct entry occurred so would not file petition in support Of it although they did admit action was taken; they refused to call or label the action Direct entry 12/08

Supreme Court of United States, Denied any and all protection and process as 2nd Petition was conferenced AFTER direct entry occurred; direct entry happened Between docketing and conferencing; Justices may never have known what was Done to me or my case by the clerks as the application was Addressed to Roberts only and he uses the cert pool or so I was told

01/09

Supreme Court of US, Asked to be injured only to secure paper from Appellate

02/09 - Present Federal Appeals Suit against Obama, Roberts, SCOTUS & US 03/09 NY Family Court issues yet another criminal ruling; this action was filed in April of 2008 within my 25 day window to petition to be reheard by SCOTUS and after FL docketed an emergency change of venue petition on my behalf which FL is still sitting on a year later FL NEVER ADJUDICATED THE EMERGENCY. The NY Court knew that not only had this NY action been filed within my 25 day window but in October when it was heard the judge asked me to state for the record that I was within SCOTUS again. She deliberately, knowingly and willingly interfered with a federal case and then waited to issue her ruling upon retiring but after I appealed hoping to stop me from addressing it. IT IS WITHIN MY FEDERAL COMPLAINT. It gave me my unique federal standing. I also attached part of it as this criminal did something stupid: We all knew no lawyer could represent me. We all knew this was a scam, a paid for hearing and a means to harm me to then ‘teach you [me] a lesson for messing with us’. That was said to me. To prove this I allowed NY to try and find me a lawyer. Nobody could or would represent me; even a man said no because: The conflict of interests was too great and so was the possibility of criminal activity; I proved a crime occurred and he saw the proof and said NO, I’m not going near this case. More than one attempt was made. A pro se authority case? Like Marbury who himself was pro se but was a trained lawyer you are always pro se as you must act after the fact of the ruling. So I wrote it and Linda Griffin certified it: She certified 22

that I am an absolute class of one, the only one in US history and that no lawyer in the whole US could help me, representation was impossible, by certifying me – FOREVER PRO SE – in the court record! Officially! Linda Griffin did not realize what she was doing when she certified this; she had no idea what it meant but was merely trying to cover her tracks; to make it seem as if this travesty was fair and just. It legally means I alone stand in defense of our law and partially caused my direct entry to SCOTUS. When all offices are unchecked? NO AUTHORITY WILL EVER HELP YOU! If I never pursued justice and never tried to secure my rights an authority might have acted but what cop or government agent is going to admit ‘we did violate her rights when she first contacted us which is why we did nothing for her or for her kids ’? They refuse to tell the truth of it or to act. III.

Fact: In A Pro Se Authority Case The Fact Is Of The Victim Not The Judge As There Is No Judge But Only Justice As The Fact Is The Law Is 1. In a pro se case of constitutional authority and original jurisdiction? All fact is both legislative and adjudicative. Already my name, birth and person have been denied by a state and federal court thus my life and all of its fact can and will be adjudicated as this has become about the truth of my person and US law as this corrupted and crooked federal government made it personal when it once was not as it cannot be personal if you are suing all 300 million citizens, can it? The actions of the original third parties were always criminal; the actions of others as I pursued justice then became personal in nature. As the most extraordinary circumstances of all exist some fact will overlap but I do not exactly repeat it in my argument and most are not repeated at all. Ideally I would name 3 facts of my person but the federal court will not be satisfied no matter what I write and the citizens will remain ignorant. Thus 40 pages of my fact follow. If I could write only 3 facts? 1, I was born here into harm on 12/30/67 as a person who is a woman, a genius and ethical. 2, This harm went unaddressed by the authorities although they all owned the knowledge of it thus it eventually led to my death both physical and then metaphysical which I survived. 3, Because of not in spite of my first two facts I then became the very first person since Marbury himself to enter the Supreme Court of the United States directly on 11/20/08 and so here I am, forever pro se, suing the entire federal government. If these three findings of fact satisfy you then skip the next 40 pages as I have written them for the citizens mostly as I fully expect every clerk, judge and janitor within this court to be as able and capable as I. The citizens are my problem as they caused my

23

injury. The gold, “Judicial Review Is The Myth Of Fingerprints”, begins on page 60. Every page is actually and legally worth its weight in gold. 2. This Brief is so exceedingly long as the fact is my life and I am 41. Also I double spaced all but the “Fact” for you and that is something I did not do for SCOTUS. I have been in the courts since 1996 and then the federal court since April of 2007; this court needs to know how I ever came to have such extraordinary standing, as it seems impossible. It may begin to seem as if I am wandering in my fact, or repeating myself, but I am not. It forms a complete circle when finished so be patient as I have lived an extraordinary life. You cannot and may not separate my birth from the birth of the Supreme Court or the birth of this nation thus the birth of this universe. If I wrote the fact of the universe? You’d be dealing with 5 gazillion pages so, when tempted to quit as you are wondering Does this Appellant know what she is doing? [I do and how], instead be grateful I did not go there. If the point of law is constitutional authority aka judicial review? Everything then is extraordinary; only the Declaration and Constitution apply which is why the rules seem to have gone out the window but they have not for I did comply as best I could; to the best of my human ability. 3. On December 30th, 1967, I, appellant Susan Herbert, was born into liberty but also born into harm as Appellant’s nuclear and national family are emotionally and physically violent. I later married a violent man but realizing that this harm was the direct result of the discrimination of women sought to leave this violence. To this day I have not been able to extricate myself from this deadly situation as the counties and states and now the individual citizens steadfastly refuse to accord her as a woman, as a mother and as a non lawyer, as Susan Herbert uniquely, any and all protection of the law. Equal protection and due process do not exist in actual reality for women in the US as women have never received a Supreme Court ruling in their favor a la Brown and so men and now some women and the authorities from the lowest level to the highest refuse to apply the law equally or at all to women and their children. 4. Constitutional authority of women is granted to men some of who are guilty of committing acts of violence against women and some of who are of no relation to that woman; this happened to Appellant. Men violating the law are also charged with enforcing and upholding it thus they refuse to act for women as they are guilty or they have unclean hands. A woman’s vote has no actual legal power but is an appearance only; that is, a woman may go to a ballot box but any vote she casts is devoid of any actual legal power, as it is never realized. Proof is: We have never had a female President or Chief Justice and Congress is mostly male as is the Supreme Court of the US on which 24

one woman sits in 2009. Legal power is always skewed in favor of men and this creates an impossible standard as no man can ever give testimony rising to proof as to what it is to be a woman or live your life as a woman, as a pregnant female or a mother, thus women cannot receive a Supreme Court ruling in their favor a la Brown as 8 men can never know woman as fact thus actually being a woman is intrinsic to doing the job of Chief Justice or President as that job is: according women equal protection and due process. Further proof would be recent Supreme Court rulings such as Schiavo and Carhart in which the federal court has granted men the right to kill women who are innocent. The federal court has never granted a woman the right to kill an innocent man. Proof of death, required by a court of law, is unconstitutional as we are a living government. The only possible way then to accord women actual equal protection and due process is for a woman to rise to legal power via the invocation of constitutional authority over her own person by standing firmly upon the law in both word and spirit. This woman must meet the proof of death standard albeit unconstitutional. 5. I, in seeking to address acts of domestic violence committed against me which resulted in the awarding of my children to unrelated third parties and the actual sale of our persons across state lines to these same people for an exact dollar amount in the form of a house in direct violation of state and US law, had every single enumerated right violated, did die and did survive death thus I meet the burden the other federal court and Supreme Court have begun requiring for women only. In Schiavo and Carhart the burden of proof standard has become death as these decisions order innocent women to die at the hands of men some of whom are guilty. In Castlerock women and their female children were told physical death is not ‘enough’ proof when proof is proof and that $30 million dollars is too much for three lives that are female as is requiring men to fulfill their sworn duties, to actually perform their job requirements under US law, for the same pay as not fulfilling them. No man has ever been ordered to suffer death at the hands of a woman to then prove the application of the law or the ruling is unconstitutional and men have never had an actual dollar amount placed upon their life by a federal court. Even in the cases of slaves all federal rulings produced by the Supreme Court such as Plessy and Scott did not name a price but instead reasoning and application of law; in Brown, who is a man price or cost was not a factor. For most people – but not for me – the death standard is impossible to overcome which is why it is such a boon to unjust men. 6. My death march began in PA. I was in PA, then NY, then PA, then NY – again and after NY gave up jurisdiction the first time and when NY refused to allow me to argue any point of law to then avoid jurisdiction. NY moved the case one county over which was the plan from day one and is in the original NY court record as I named this exactly. I can 25

enter this here as SCOTUS has this record and acted upon it as this was filed an attachment to In Re Susan. NY ignored all fact as did every single court I was within; these court i.e. states had official and/or personal policy targeting women and/or I alone that then made it impossible to secure justice. Jurisdiction should have been FL as my sons were first injured there when dependents of the US Navy and as I and my youngest son had our fully vested, constitutionally protected rights violated there by a court first, as second degree felony assault charges were dropped without my consent, without reason and without my knowledge due to the policies of FL as the state attorney told me of these policies existing after the fact: Do not press charges of domestic violence if the charged spouse is a member of the Navy and Do not press charges if the victim is strangled but lived as it is expensive to do so. Both were applied to my person and my son, now 13, remains a legal unborn person in FL until his rights are secured and restored as acting counts and I acted for him. I am the first person to have legal, scientific and living proof or actual proof that life begins in the womb at 28 days post implantation of the fertilized egg as no other litigant seeking to overturn Roe V Wade has had this scientific argument as the science has never been named and/or the litigant did not had living proof - a baby once unborn and named as a legal unborn person by the state who then had his rights violated and was injured because of that federal violation and is now born and so able to testify he was a person then and is now. No other person can define life thus when the right comes into being exactly nor could they then prove it all ways. I can. It’s not rocket science for women while it is for men. Women only failed previously as they did not have a single piece of the puzzle I possess as a unique experience of life gave me insight. If they had this experience thus this insight? They would have made the case. 7. In my pursuit of justice I made it all the way up to and then within Supreme Court as I was directly entered upon November 20th, 2008 but the application and petition in support of it, that caused direct entry, was never filed. In my unique case? The Solicitor General failed to respond to a petition within 30 days thus turning this into a breach of contract suit but then the Supreme Court completely circumvented the Solicitor thus the US by acting but not filing that application without ever receiving a response from the Solicitor. As it was not filed this denied the US or the people informed consent and denied my person any and all protection and process, as I possess zero evidence it was ever seen by a Justice or that the Justices even know it exists. They might know of it. A person, a male as it was not Bader-Ginsburg and I never spoke to or dealt with a female employee in over two years, within the court usurped my right of constitutional authority and claimed it for himself. He exerted power and authority over my person where it does not exist within our law, federal precedent or even the court rules and when I proved even the act repugnant. US code can and may be unconstitutional if created anytime after 1776 as 26

built into the fabric of our law is the process to write law, amend law and repeal law. This has never happened before in all of US history at the level of the Supreme Court. 8. Rotsker V Goldberg is proof discrimination is real and is current and that it exists within the Supreme Court even and that men act upon it as the reasoning is a violation of separation of power as it gives constitutional authority of women to a mostly male Congress in direct violation of our law and as the reasoning is also faulty and not supported by any proof. A ruling can be the correct application or answer but the reasoning may be faulty or outright wrong if the case is not made to a point beyond any doubt. Within his reasoning of Rotsker Thurgood Marshall warned me: I doubt this is correct; it might be something fundamental that we’re missing; maybe it is an authority case. Also a unique experience of life taught me this reasoning not this ruling is faulty. 9. I cannot make men acknowledge actual reality if they are not willing: women vote. We possess constitutional authority of our own selves as we are now born into it. Our humanity is not a matter of debate. Actual delivery of the paper commission was not necessary but has occurred. You can even go to the Smithsonian and see the law for yourself as it hasn’t crumbled or faded away – yet. It is excuse to claim you are waiting for a decision from the Supreme Court and do not have to obey the law on behalf of women unless you see that piece of paper; it is not a valid defense to claim you did not know, either in my own case or in the case of Bush V Gore. 10. I was within the NY courts when Nicholson V Scopetta, a case concerning domestic violence and men harming women i.e. forcing them to become victims to then get the protection of the law so the state is not then liable for the injury as the state blames the woman for her injury was sent back to the Appellate and not heard in Supreme Court and the only reason ever given that made sense is Too many issues or too many rights for women and not enough privilege for men and this harmed me as if Scopetta had been heard then I could not have been injured by NY. Women are treated as if they are animals under our law not as if they are people. One of NY’s policies makes women fall under their animal abuse code, Farm & Market Act, Art. 26, and not under their domestic violence or child abuse code or even criminal code. ANY person or agency that equates abuse to the physical only is in violation of US law and is skewing power in favor of men as LIBERTY is an emotion that is then realized as justice. Thus policy that harms women, all children and me exactly exists across the board and upon every level and in every branch.

27

11. Knowing policy exists is one thing; proving it is another. How do you prove policy exists that harms you, all women and the ethical? You engage the policy. If you know it exists and it exists within the Supreme Court as a clerk told you all about it in graphic detail and not once named US code then you enter an airtight case based on math and the exact words of our law as no argument exists against math and exact words. If you are conferenced you are heard if you’re pro se so if you also included details of criminal acts as a crime is a crime whether the police prosecute it or not, it is a crime itself for clerks and Justices to do nothing as they know those exact details and have the police and hospital reports to support them. In a pro se case of constitutional authority that is also original jurisdiction it is Marbury thus the court HAS TO OFFER REMEDY & RELIEF or HAS TO COMMENT UPON WHY THEY REFUSE or else the redress of a violated protected right is not possible thus we are no longer constitutional. 12. This court can never ignore one thing: Anna Nicole Smith got in when she had no case as proven by Texas law which adequately covered her and by the fact that she left the Supreme Court without any resolution. Since when does the Supreme Court hear cases and fail to resolve them? When they have no merit and are entered for other reasons not legal like: Appearances, politics and money. If SCOTUS wants and needs street cred it should hear me not Hunt and Smith. I know millions of people like me but only two like Hunt and Smith: Hunt and Smith. We wish we could wrestle over a billion dollars. 13. In July of 2006 I achieved enlightenment directly due to my pursuit of justice and the injuries perpetrated upon me. Enlightenment is not only a spiritual or legal event; something physical happens to your body as it involves your pituitary gland, pineal gland and pineal eye. Buddha did not know enlightenment was also physical, as we did not own the medical knowledge then but he did name it “liberation” and that is it: I have now had all seven sacred experiences of God to be had on Earth. I own more knowledge of this world than any living person and men resent that, as do the unethical and atheistic. Not all atheists are unethical; they have no idea you cannot be ethical and an atheist at the same time as the metaphysic must first exist for there then to be or exist an ethic. You cannot deny the truth or knowledge of the metaphysic but then possess or own the truth or knowledge of an ethic. It cannot be both as the universe does not work this way nor do people. I am being faulted and punished for owning knowledge, for reasoning and deciding in 7th grade if a predator is allowed to walk among us and is not known for what he is, that only I knew him for what he is and so could defend myself and others, then I needed to act in this direction: I needed to become a Supreme Court Chief Justice or a President. Federal judges resent this as lawyers enter the federal court massaging their egos constantly and as they believe they are special as they were appointed or chosen 28

personally so must be some kind of special person who is better than everybody else and they are not used to dealing with an ethical litigant who does not possess a phony bone in her body. Federal judges become angry when I refuse to lie and refuse to beg and when I call a spade a spade: You’re political but not a natural born genius of my caliber and so not above me or any other citizen. Even if you are a genius? Still not above anybody else. Genius does not separate us from the pack - something else does and even then we’re equal or so people lie to my face. Without fail every judge mistakes liberty and liberation for something else. A lawyer told me: You do not act like any victim I ever met. That is a stereotype; it is discrimination, as this nation would not know what a victim acts like or not. One reason is: You’re all victims as you did not know why Bush V Gore is unconstitutional and you just cast a vote in direct violation of the law. And if some remedy and relief was already made to me in the form of enlightenment for doing nothing other than conducting this experiment, living out US law as real in both the letter and spirit no matter what was done to my person, than until you do that same thing you cannot know; it is impossible for you to know if I do or do not act like a victim. Until you stop protecting Obama and others only as they are men, personal friends, political “allies” and/or appear to be black you will never know. Until you too live out that highest of all appellations, our Declaration and Constitution along with Marbury, then you cannot know. 14. Men scream – actually scream at me – that my life story is not possible and even when they hold the proof in their hands or lay eyes on me they then try to change the conditions - change the fact even if that means changing the terms of the law – to then make it seem as if this is not possible. Once an attorney tried to convince me that I had been arrested in Duval County – an event that never happened as she did not want to represent me in NY but was appointed by the court. She kept saying, “You’re guilty.” Of what? Giving birth? Having been born? I told her: That charge is an arrestable offense. WHY didn’t the cops arrest me when I asked them to do so if I was committing a crime? I was not, that’s why and they knew it. This attorney, assigned to my person, kept insisting that I HAD TO BE GUILTY or else...this was a crime, as it meant the family court judge is a criminal. YES, I told her. This lawyer? She then dropped a bomb on me: This judge PERSONALLY asked her to represent me thus this lawyer was flattered into believing I was guilty instead of thinking and reasoning the judge was one of the only people there for all events in NY after 2000 thus must be guilty as she is still adjudicating a case she has no business adjudicating and did so while US Supreme Court had placed it upon the docket. I have no idea how this attorney was contacted. She said, “You’re guilty and this is very complicated. This is why Linda Griffin personally asked me to represent you. She chose me.” I asked her, “Can and may an attorney represent you if they believe their client is 29

guilty?” She was dumbstruck. This lawyer told me she had read the facts; this is not possible or she is crooked. She insisted that she had read them so it is: extreme denial, a named medical illness. Ego or patriarchy causes it if you confuse the things of ego for the things of id. How do I know? I asked her to pick up the Supreme Court docket and read it. At first she refused to acknowledge it then she kept skipping over my name as if it was not there and that is denial. She’s not crooked. I had named the entire state of NY and wasn’t Eliot Spitzer then found to be misusing and abusing the privileges of his offices? Of failing to do his duties? I know several members of the legislature, as these NYers never go home. I read all about Eliot Spitzer in Vanity Fair. Ted Tedisco was quoted. I know him as he was mayor of Cohoes when I went to school there. Cohoes is tiny, so tiny half of it was eaten by the Thruway. I know men and I know these players; I could know something was endemically corrupted in NY: the entire system. The FBI could have saved a lot of time and money if it asked me what was wrong with Eliot Spitzer, as I could have told them “hookers” is not it. I stated NY cannot give me a fair hearing and three times over has shown it is unwilling to do so. NY’s solution? Ban me from entering so that my case is never reconsidered no matter how large the change of circumstances is. It constitutes a permanent termination of the parental relationship without any reasoning other than I, Susan, figured out how a family court had kept up a scam all of these years concerning custody for pay and/or political or personal favor without getting caught until I came along. They all are paid either privately or by the state. They all know. I alone caught this court, as I alone knew constitutional law coming into the courtroom, a contract was at stake and I know how and why to null and void a valid one upon appeal, I have a photographic memory so did not need the transcript they have played keep away with as I can recite entire sections from it verbatim, the paid for doctor testified to something that is humanly impossible but you needed to know human behavior, child psychology, discrimination and math to then know this is not possible and this court refused to believe what is reality: I am more able and capable than they are put together. The Jax bench has all of the records proving this and laying out the chain of causation as does SCOTUS. This family court and its officers reasoned and decided they are invincible. They counted upon the federal bench calling me crazy as the federal bench is not used to a person stating fact. Instead they hear lawyers state “allegations” and dance around fact in order to avoid a lawsuit for defamation. How do I know? 15. My own lawyer said I sounded as if I were crazy. I said (very close to exact words if not the exact words), “You were standing there when this happened. Now it happened and you were there when it did so how am I crazy?” She said, “I know it happened and you know it happened but a federal judge does not. You can’t write it as a fact. You SOUND crazy.” “Why? If it is a fact of my life?” “A lawyer can’t say it as he or she might get 30

sued. You have to say alleged.” “I, Susan, am not a lawyer and even if I was a lawyer? I would not be afraid to lose my license to these people. I’m trying to get sued! I want them to sue me. You should too. As this all happened and I was there when it did? I’ll state it as fact as nothing a judge writes can then change what is history. A judge’s first clue should be: This is federal court and I’m pro se so it had better be all fact as it is a sworn statement.” Judges do not get it: I’m not alleging anything as I was present for every single event. Further, I used to live in Baltimore that is a stone’s throw from DC. How do you or how does any person reading this know if I was or was not in a room with John Roberts and/or Obama? Who knows all the fact of my life except myself? I was in a room with George Bush Jr. and Biden. 16. Fact: there are five relationships a person can have with a government, either another person or an institution: fate, space, law, blood and emotion. All relationships fall under these five as in I had a fated, spatial and legal relationship with Bush Jr. as we are American (fate) were in the same room (space) and he was believed by some to be the President but not by me (legal). The legal relationship is forced, as I was not allowed to vote. Ideally we should share a blood and emotional relationship but we do not as I do not have equal protection aka liberty, an emotion, and he denies he has a mother who shed blood over him at birth or that all people share the same DNA. Not all people that I have relationships with would know it, as I do not always announce myself. Can a President identify every single citizen by name upon sight? At a play you are in the same room, sharing the same space, but do the actors know you? Knowing is awareness thus you may know and another may not. The federal court does not know whom I do or do not know and only knows what is or is not a fact of me if it reads it as I am not saying this via a third person. You might deny others an appearance and get away with it as they do have an attorney but me? This is sworn testimony. If it’s in quotes? It is exact words or as close to exact words as I was able to recall and my recall is excellent. It’s all a fact of me; I’m a very knowing or knowledgeable person. I can and will assign reason, motivation or intent, if a person actually told me their actual reasoning. If even one federal judge, social worker or one attorney told me that he did what he did with deliberation? I can and will write, “This is deliberate” especially if it is a pattern that repeats itself and especially if it is a matter of basic human psychology – something I happen to own expert knowledge of. As I am pro se, if you read it then you own the knowledge - even if I never appear. You cannot un-own knowledge once you own it. Upon reading this the federal appellate and I have a fated, legal relationship. 17. One of my claims in my Supreme Court suit? I have been denied any and all appearances in person as a plaintiff and for a reason: Men do not want this case heard nor do the 31

unethical. The Supreme Court then committed this act over again when it violated Marbury. Judges and clerks do not get this simple law of the universe and of the US: If I put you in checkmate with airtight legal reasoning then all you can do is obey the law or commit a crime against me as not all acts of abuse of judicial discretion are a matter of discretion as some are crimes named in our law. I then looked it up, as it seemed as if all family court judges I encountered had zero fear of ever being caught and never heard of US law. I discovered three things: SECRECY in family court protects judges, social workers, paid for witnesses and lawyers - and men such as fathers who break the law inside the courtroom, that the nature of discrimination and domestic violence makes the injury then redoubled or done over again by the judge as the judge then engages in it but believes as fact they are not committing what is domestic violence and is abuse and that in MD, the state I lived in at the time, there is a MD appellate ruling in which it was decided that a family court judge acting to break the law and commit harm with deliberation could not be sued personally and this is unconstitutional as it favors a title and makes what is a crime then not a crime for one type of litigant only – the vulnerable: A woman, a child and an ethical person. It denies them the only form of remedy and relief that may be available if injured with deliberation and strips them of the right of dissolution. Thus the men breaking the law are now also in charge of upholding and enforcing it and they have reasoned and decided they do not want to go to jail or go broke and that it is too expensive to make up or remedy the injury to women. Thus they all pretend discrimination is not real and that women are not victims. NY acted upon what is political, as it had zero actual evidence and the opposing parties cited no case law to then terminate my custody and award my kids thus my person to a stranger and to other third parties only for telling the truth and invoking the law. How is it political? 18. A house was sold to the third parties for $1 in exchange for my kids and me. We were actually sold for a $1 house. The name of the seller is Garrett Murphy, the third parties grandfather; that house was mortgaged that same day of the sale for $30k. Garrett Murphy was (and may still be) the National Director of Literacy for NY. He is a Democrat. The federal court has all of this documentation. Garrett Murphy has political connections and a decent amount of money some of which is due to cheating on his taxes. My kids named two of these connections and my kids would not know this unless their testimony is fact. They volunteered it, as I did not ask. They knew: Something is going on. I found a photo in the newspaper of Linda Griffin being handed the bench by the NY Democrats. Literally, they are actually handing her something in this photo. The caption reads something like Griffin is getting this bench, as she deserves it as if it is a done deal before the election. I then went and got the campaign fund records listing the amounts of money and the offices that went to Democrats as for the longest time no party other than 32

Democratic could be elected in upstate NY. Democrat Jacob Javitz set a record, as he was mayor of Albany for 44 years. There are common denominators all share that beat the odds. It cannot be accidental. I phoned Garrett Murphy and spoke to his wife Catherine. She first denied she ever owned this house. Then she panicked when I told her the deed is a public record and that I had a copy of the mortgage. We argued. I would not let her off of the hook when she begged and began crying. Finally she told me where the money went and how much of it went to whom. Minus $1 from $30k? You have $29,999.00. Minus $20k from that? You are left with $9,999 that is exactly one dollar less than what is automatically reported to the IRS upon deposit so it is tax evasion and might be money laundering. It seems as if it is a bribe. It establishes a pattern of deceit as I secured knowledge about the third parties other tax records and in court these people even testified that they were not buying this house but that it was a “tax thing”. They perjured themselves. The amounts of money or the things do not matter. Local federal court has the deed and the mortgage. I established the connection all had and entered the paper trail to the federal court. A chain of causation is merely a chain of people as it is a chain of actions. You sort out the effects from the actual cause. 19. In my personal case the actual cause is liberty as it is the cause of me reasoning and deciding to invoke the law in my own defense in an attempt to escape a violent, abusive and controlling family both national and nuclear. The cause is not “Susan” per se as it is our law. I, Susan, am an effect of the cause known as America and US law. I’m being “chastised” and “punished” for fulfilling the promise of America! I took the founders at their exact words and actions and managed to persevere in spite of everything so I’m being made to pay for it only as all men fell short and so feel shorter than I thus they act as if they hate and resent me when they actually harbor these feelings in regards to their own person. Psychologists call this an “inferiority complex” and “acting out”. This is what discrimination is. This is what domestic violence is. 20. NY has in place a policy to not take any reports of emotional abuse in direct violation of their own code. A supervisor with the state child abuse hotline told me all about the policy. She was so alarmed by what I reported to her she said if I told her my kids were being hit then she’d go to them. I responded that NY was trying to force me to become guilty as that itself is child abuse. It is perjury and false reporting. Basically NY has a “customer service” hotline if you phone in reports of emotional abuse that meet or exceed its code. They route your call to escalations, which is how I came to speak to a supervisor who confessed to this policy. WHO does this? As abuse is abuse. NY State is knowingly breaking the law as in America emotions are protected rights and NY named

33

“emotional abuse” in at least two codes – domestic violence and child abuse. I knew then: My children and I were not safe in NY for a single second of our lives. 21. When I read the lies within the NY family court decision, and read that whole events were made up or denied, and that even testimony given upon the stand was changed, and then read that BIRTH did not count for anything I had it with NY. My appellate attorney lost the case on purpose – it is very obvious - and I confronted him and fired him BEFORE Appeals as I was going to NY Appeals my own self. He, Greg Rinckey, as he put his name on all of the public records, was shocked that I knew how and why to null and void a valid contract upon appeal and that I caught him. NY then allowed this man to appear against my will as NY did not personally believe I could and would represent myself, as I am a non-licensed lawyer and a woman. This man said he was “Supreme Court certified” so that everyone would believe him and not me as NY did (another clue we had a major legal problem upon our hands as corruption is then completed if this man is certified to argue before SCOTUS while I am kept out). He called me a “stupid housewife”. I said, exact, exact words in boldface while others almost exact, “This stupid housewife knows how to null and void a valid contract upon appeal. You’re fired. Watch me get Supreme Court certified. Then we’ll see who believes who as you can never explain away that contract which you allowed to happen and not by accident either as your facts are custom tailored to my own. This can’t happen accidentally. So, did they use you or did you know?” He hung up. We had two more run ins over a nonexistent motion he claims he filed and over the transcript he is lying about having until 2005 when he had it until 2007 according to a person within the appellate who checked their records for me and tracked down the missing transcript. I can and will provide the court with this person’s name. NY state has had three district appellates busted for taking bribes in custody cases. DISTRICT APPELLATES NOT COUNTY COURTS. Sol Wachler is the ex Chief Judge who was found guilty of domestic violence or stalking a woman. As almost all records are being withheld from me unconstitutionally and/or criminally, and as NY basically permanently terminated my rights in a de facto manner and is holding us hostage and as no authority would act due to discrimination and corruption I then made the decision to move back to FL in 2003. I lost my home due to the legal expenses involved and the burden of expenses unconstitutionally levied against me in an attempt to foil me. All costs were assigned to me but nothing was done to the third parties and no burden at all was placed upon them. They kidnapped my kids thus took me as well and murdered us all and were rewarded for it by the states. I had no house, no resources of any kind and no job so nothing was keeping me in MD. I swear: all the agencies I phoned? One after the other said if I had not been so responsible with my house payments then they could help me but as I was responsible no help for Susan! 34

Again, turn into a crook and become disabled by your own hand and then we’ll do something. I will never, ever be that person. I do not even believe in entitlements. It’s not as if I expected one. Besides, I knew God or the universe was trying to reveal something to me as I was conceived in FL while one of my kids was too and the other was born in FL. FL is not an accident or coincidence either: I was actually living in FL, in West Palm, during the vote and while SCOTUS decided Bush V Gore. I returned to MD from FL to then fight PA before it unconstitutionally turned me over to a state that had its shot and declined once already. I entered a defense to PA thus proving policy existed as I stated it for the record and the judge then acted to enforce that unwritten, unjust policy. No lawyer was willing to do it for me so I could remain in FL as they all said they were afraid of the judge and the system. I was only ever in MD as NY refused jurisdiction sending it to PA thus I moved to MD to fight the case and PA then sent it back to NY. In 2003 I gave up on both NY & PA moved back to FL for a third time. Four if you count my conception in St. Augustine. 22. The county, state and the Navy have records I have never been able to liberate. 23. The FL bar Association told me over the phone: Do not tell anyone that I said this but we all know that judges here in FL and in every court ignore or deny domestic violence as soon as the courtroom door closes. Yes, exactly like all states. If you KNOW and participate it is a crime. I heard this in every state I was in; that people knew but were and are afraid to confront the judges who are guilty. Men are allowed to use children and money in our family court to beat on and abuse women. In my case it is generational family violence and that is it too as ALL domestic violence is generational. It begins as emotional abuse and then turns into physical and/or sexual abuse. It does not happen overnight and to leave it many women have to leave their whole families like I did. 24. As the NY custody evaluator who is objective ruled for me twice in an overwhelming manner but this was ignored and denied I tracked her down. I truly believed I had discovered a pattern of deceit as in a pattern of criminal activity as these people had so underestimated my person they merely did what worked in the past. The family court decision itself is a study in human psychology as it contains some very interesting patterns. Like: repetition of certain descriptive words over and over. Why? This judge looked down at her desk the entire time we were in court and wrote. She cannot know some things if she does not look at the witnesses but she can know if she hears them. I did something deliberately in court upon the stand, I planned it with another person who is a doctor and is ethical as a means of self-defense, and the “judge” did know it in her decision thus she had the human ability to know but pretended she could not. She chose 35

whatever “facts” suited her or changed the facts. She: Lied, but did so in the 19 pages preceding a half of a page of fact. Who needs 19 pages to say that I am human garbage? But only a half of a page of fact? That is hatred and that is personal. All father figures are negated but my brother is then given the consideration of a father or of...my husband or boss. Cross out those repeating words and you are left with only three people and three unique traits: Charles, my brother, is “impressive”, Cate, a third party is “interested” and Susan is “forthright”. What? No fathers? Or is Charles my father, my husband and my boss? He truly believes he owns these kids and me. He even told me that “possession is 9/10ths of the law” re children or possessing and so owning people. Upon examination this decision is actually a decision for and a decision against; all you need to do is change a few words. Evidence rising to proof for me is hidden or buried within it so that my own attorney missed it. One thing, because of a date, stood out. It seemed as if the NY State Hotline workers might be involved but that only seems as if. In actual reality that NY policy plays into the family court’s hands as the judges know about it or so I was told as did opposing counsel but my attorney did not. I did not tell the custody evaluator what I thought I knew but only told her that the court was denying me something. Would she know how I could get this information? This person stopped cold. She said, “The way you just said that...people used to call me up all of the time asking me this question but it was the way you worded what you said that reminded me: One type of person or blank was calling me. They too had the same problem. Just now it occurred to me because of how you said it. Until you said it as you did I never made this connection. Now it seems odd.” YES, as that person would then be the target victim and for very good reasoning. She named who this person was or what qualities they possessed that are like my own. This evaluator still has no idea why I called her, as I never told her to then preserve her fact. I made this phone call a few months before entering federal court, as I knew I would need this information, as what happened to me seems as if it is impossible. No, completely possible due to secrecy, policy, discrimination, graft, corruption, favoritism and as the third parties ran from court to court and state to state with my children until they got the exact courtroom they wanted. 25. Every state I was in failed me, as each time I was about to win the judge acted to break the law instead of obeying it or everyone abandoned me. Why matters not as it happened and we all know why: The discrimination of women is real and is current not past. The effects are now not in the past. New injury is occurring with new effects. Now it harms the very men trying to resuscitate patriarchy when patriarchy has breathed its last breath. Patriarchy is a failed theory of law thus not a law at all and a bad model of government on which some religious and some scientific belief systems are also based. I have been to 47 states and lived in about 8. None protected me. I may be the 1st litigant to have ties or 36

to be known in all 50 states as my parents went to HA and AK and my sister lives in CA. Who else was failed by all 50 states? Nobody noticed my genius? A lie, as I have been unsuccessfully trying to hide it all of my life. I was failed and NY knew it first, at age 5. I can name an exact event in kindergarten. How do you escape patriarchy in a nation founded by patriarchs some of whom injected ideas that are patriarchal and are unsupported by the evidence but which this nation will not let go of? If even the original patriarchs would not condone this but it is done in their names and the system is now set up to protect the guilty parties and to kill the victims if they protest how do you fight it? 26. Study the historical record as I did: Whenever men try to act past the completion of something, when there is no more benefit to be had, then they die as a nation or group of people. Rome did exactly what we are now doing. The outside conditions have changed but otherwise it is the same. The US has entrenched patriarchy in a way it is made impossible to escape unless you are willing to commit a crime and become unethical. I am not. There is no more benefit to be had from patriarchy but only injury. Barack Obama’s election is the direct result of patriarchy gone past completion as there is no reasoning but only excuse and this was done to keep women out of two offices: Chief Justice and President and this is about COMMANDING not Presiding. Only the Chief Justice and President make law all alone. In 10th grade the universe or God told me: You will be entering US Supreme Court and it will have something to do with Marbury. Crazy? Lunacy? Insanity? Not possible? Ask anyone who knew me then. I made this decision at 5 so all I had to do was figure out how. In 6th grade I knew the direction as I had a compass: The Declaration or my own liberated self, right as in a right or righteous. In 7th grade I wrote it down. In 8th I acted upon it. In 10th grade I was told: Look in the Supreme Court; it’s that institution. In 11th grade I knew: The exactly named Creator. Maybe you sat around like a lump on a log waiting for history to sweep you away but I decided I could steer the course of history with deliberation via acting upon knowledge, as people live history and so are history. What authority ruled that you had to wait for an elected official to ask you first? Or wait to be injured and maybe even killed in an overt act of hatred first? That is against our very nature as we fired that first shot; we acted first and then we exactly named safety. As no college offers this degree all you do is draw up the plans for the revolution your own self. Did we or did we not have a Chief Justice who became the first black Chief Justice by arguing and winning a Supreme Court case named Brown V Topeka? A person can act to become a Chief Justice or a President. Thurgood Marshall may not have planned it and John Marshall may not have planned it but I did. We even call it a Marshall Plan, lol. You start with: Infrastructure, namely your own as you are a government and are the law thus repel

37

communism and give aid to your own self first. Reconstruct you not the South, as we all know how Reconstruction ended. 27. I am now called “crazy” for doing what men do every single day: arguing law and creating government from scratch. I did exactly what Thurgood Marshall did but he’s a genius and I’m crazy? And he did not plan it but I did? You may personally believe that it is not possible for one person to solve something as large as actual equal rights for humanity, God and a war but that is not true nor is it logical as this person would have motive: Saving her own life and her son’s lives for if I am going to die it is going to be for a cause and with actual reasoning. If a third party, judge, candidate or other opponent had the goods he’d bring it not hide behind paper. I can resolve the Iraq War as I did what I said I did – lived out US law to its fullest extent and so came to know: Mohammed is a constitutionalist. There is a sacred experience of Islam but it was lost to Islam as soon after Mohammed’s death they fought a civil war and so splintered into those who vote and those who do not thus they never had the ability to feel that sacred experience as the one thing necessary? Which then reasons why no other living American has felt US law or Philadelphia as sacred? PHYSICAL SAFETY, as if you are not physically safe – and women and children are not – then you cannot be emotionally safe so you will not feel liberty as sacred. I am not safe at all, either physically or emotionally. I simply answered James Madison’s question, as he could not but I know as I lived out the answer. How else do you test an answer? Test a theory re a living government? You...live it out. The God had to personally intervene in my case as this nation hunted me down by failing me or by actually hunting me via my children until it murdered me when I am innocent thus I then came to know or resolve the law known as Uniformity, the unification of quantum mechanics and relativity, and so God. It is not accident or coincidence that this occurred on July 3 and 4th of 2006 as one answer begat another like a chain of causation. Currently Muslims name no sacred experience and claim that Judaism and Christianity are valid and so “borrow” those scared experiences. Muslims have one – they misplaced it. That’s how you resolve an unwar: Decide you can and then act upon that decision. If I can start a war I can end a war. True belief is faith; you will it into being. I can will anything into being as that is totally up to me and not a court of law. I can will Susan V The US into being and no man can stop me as once it is? It is forever as actual constitutions are not subject to death. That eventuality – decay and death - is completely avoidable if you possess the will. 28. As I knew as fact without question that Bush V Gore was unconstitutional I knew I had the one and only pro se constitutional authority case of original jurisdiction in history after Marbury and could enter the Supreme Court directly upon a writ of Mandamus 38

and/or Prohibition when two events occurred: John Roberts was appointed in violation of the law as his appointment unchecked the office of the President as it was not arbitrary and only an arbitrary appointment is legal in this unique case and when Carhart awarded the death of innocent women to men when not one living woman was standing and when the men standing did not enter any proof as all evidence failed to meet the burden as men cannot prove actual human life as it is a biological fact they will never be pregnant and when life began was not defined thus it constitutes ideological warfare against women and so is itself unconstitutional. This is hardcore fact not up for debate as it is about numbers and the burden of proof standard; it is not theoretical application. It is proven as someone within SCOTUS acted upon the knowledge already. I knew then and know now as CAN is human ability while MAY is what is legal and no clerk or federal judge decides what I am humanly able to do or not. Can and may are one and the same for me as nothing has ever been impossible in my life or beyond my human ability. I knew I could sue to become the authority, the President and Commander or the Chief Justice, if I stood down the entire federal government including the entire federal judiciary including Supreme Court itself thus it is Marbury redux as Marbury has never been applied to women. We do not need to argue over what Marbury says as we can all read it - in John Marshall’s own hand even. I was already acting to stand down the government when Carhart came into being. 29. I acted upon my knowledge as soon as it was humanly possible for me to do so; I acted upon my knowledge of my unique legal situation, US law, Bush V Gore, Roberts appointment and Marbury: After getting the final piece of the puzzle, NY’s policy regarding emotional abuse, and after attempting to author a petition never having seen one, I phoned the clerk’s office of the Supreme Court on or about February 28th, 2007, to ask for a copy of the rules specifically asking how to file a pro se case of constitutional authority and original jurisdiction. The clerk insisted that I could not and that it was impossible; he cited the reasons woman and mother over and over. He cited my lack of ability, an incorrect assumption based upon the idea of women – that no woman could and that no mother could - and I countered with US case law; the clerk then said Supreme Court rule forbade it. I stated that even Supreme Court rule was rule not inviolate law; that the label “Supreme Court” did not then make rule into law, which is why we call it rule. I told the clerk that the Supreme Court was advertising an unconstitutional policy and rule on their own website and that I could not only sue to overturn Bush V Gore or rather to resolve it as it sits as tie but also sue the Court itself. The clerk then said he would “sink” my case; that the clerk’s office had decided that no woman would ever argue her own case and that the case for equal rights would never be heard; that the clerks had discussed a plan to “sink” this case as they knew what elements to be present and that 39

I seemed to be it thus if I ever filed it would be deliberately “sunk”. I told this clerk that I could then sue because of his own personal policy and the clerk angrily stated that he would not send me the Court rules. I asked for his name. He answered, “Will.” I asked him for his last name and if his name was actually Will, if that is printed upon his birth certificate, or if he was joking as I had a reason to ask: the nature of my case as it is will and liberty. He refused to give his last name. He hung up. He never cited US code. I laughed as I knew the God was telling me a joke and as I had cited Marbury and it was lost on the clerk: Keeping the paper rules from me cannot stop me as you need never deliver them to me as the only commission that counts has been delivered; it is hanging on the wall of a museum my tax dollars support so admission is free. I had every reason to believe this clerk: The Supreme Court’s own docket and own words in its decisions, their policy to except themselves from the first amendment that is on their website, every lawyer’s insistence that direct entry was impossible as was any entry at all for me alone even though Marbury the man did it once, the clerk’s attitude and the mostly male employees of the Court as well as a mostly male Court itself. This then constituted an impossible standard for me to overcome as if my issue is the Supreme Court and the jurisdiction is the Supreme Court as I am challenging two cases of original jurisdiction one of which never entered any lower court then I must enter and exit at this court itself upon a Writ of Mandamus and/or Prohibition as only the Supreme Court can hear a case that is pro se, constitutional authority and original jurisdiction as it will name the sitting Chief Justice and/or sitting President and cite direct injury personal in nature or unique to me alone. I must get past the clerks to do this. And this is impossible as they now have overly broad power to reason and decide cases. 30. The clerks can make it seem as if your case has been seen by a Justice when it may not have been as a clerk can place it on the conference list and then on the dead list. A Justice is supposed to place it upon the conference list and not a clerk. The dead list “warns” the Justices not to read your case. Thus the docket makes it seem as if it was read by at least one Justice. For me to believe a Justice read my case? But did nothing at all? We then have actual crooks sitting on the Supreme Court. I suspected a clerk might have done this but could he? I had this confirmed as possible by a former employee of the court; it not only could happen but I needed to consider that it did. I do not know exactly what process took place or exactly who did what. It matters not. To go around the clerks and to ensure due process - a Justice reading my case - I needed a federal court order. But first: I’d have to actually engage the Court and lose in an impossible way to then prove policy that is unconstitutional exists. This meant I had to volunteer to die over again on paper thus topple the Judiciary then the Court as the other two branches of government toppled their own selves for me. Their houses are built of straw not of stone. 6 years may seem as if it 40

is a long time. It only became humanly possible in July of 2006. In less than one year I did it then two years if you count going through each Senator as I stood all one hundred down individually by issuing the order based upon my legal reasoning and US law plus chain of command theory; I stood down dozens and dozens of Representatives as well, some twice and three times over and new injury occurred and damages accrued. I contacted agency after agency thus made more than a reasonable attempt to stand down all and in the end stood down all 300 million of you by making it to the case conference list twice then achieving direct entry; it matters not if any Justice ever actually saw or read my case. Is it too long? With no resources, under the constant threat of injury and/or death to my person or my children and only a class in legal research and intro to law? For one person to do what all of you could not collectively do in 220 years? 31. I knew, as I would be unseating a never legal President that I had to bring solutions with me so I did. That is the easiest part. Federal judges mocked me as if it was impossible for a WOMAN named SUSAN to know these answers. I am a born genius and an expert in several fields as I went to school for 35 years and am still in school but this was overlooked even though we named ZERO qualifications except age 35 in our law and natural born and that is for President not Chief Justice. I reasoned Bush V Gore correctly and yet I’m laughed at and Obama is not? He’s lauded? Why? We have had several of these answers for years but not one person had the courage to name them for various reasons one of which is: If you are a person who used private money and traded upon favor to then become elected you are indebted to so many people that you cannot or else your perceived power base would fall apart. Another one is: We do not elect the smartest people, do we? The truth is the only real, actual power any person has in this life is not money or any outside thing as it is internal. Actual power cannot be removed from your person as all you have to do is mail your commission, supported by your legal argument, to a federal judge and then act upon it. If you own it and act upon it you make it reality. 32. On April 4th, 2007, when I first filed in local district federal court I asked that the rule be applied and that my case be sent ahead to the Supreme Court or that an order be issued for the Supreme Court to hear it as an impossible standard existed and as any case filed but then within the incorrect court be sent to the correct court. I included a first attempt at authoring a petition for a writ for the court’s convenience and entered my entire paper trail proving every single charge I made beyond any reasonable doubt; I entered the whole chain of causation beginning at my birth and the birth of this nation as women did not possess liberty and legal power at our birth and still do not. Federal judges refused to obey the law, committed exact acts some of which are criminal in this case and are exactly named in my complaint and ignored all proof and all facts dismissing me as 41

frivolous and delusional. The federal court denied reality including exact words, math, biology and physics; it denied police reports, hospital reports, lower court decisions and even American history as this type of case must be entered in total or whole as litigant must prove she has this rarest of all standing and should be sent ahead, indirectly to the Supreme Court thus “obeying” US code. The federal judge did not personally believe what he read, not even the Declaration, Constitution or Iroquois Constitution as I entered it whole along with my birth certificate and all known strands of human DNA back to oldest matriarchal common X. This court denied and ignored my actual birth and my human DNA. FACT: In America anything is possible and a person off of the street can know the law and all of the nasty lawyer tricks better than you. I knew as fact without question something was wrong when the clerk tried to convince me to NOT enter any of my attachments and would not accept my refusal. She tried to talk me out of NO, a common tactic used by abusive people. Who or what tries to talk you out of entering what will support your claim and prove your complaint has merit and is based in fact and law? The JAX federal bench civil division and Troy, NY that’s who. 33. Although the court had my bank statement since April of 2007 and knows US law, and can read the SCOTUS docket, it continued to insist that it was legal to deny my poor persons petition or to use money as a reason to deny me any appearance in person. It uses money over and over - when I have entered the court already having proven taxation w/o representation is or else I would not have gained direct entry to SCOTUS and would not be writing this now. The court may not cite money as reason only it has nothing else and it may not write exact lies that fly in the face of actual reality such as exact lies that deny the existence of the Supreme Court docket. The CA evidence code? According to it the federal judges handling my case would be labeled unreasonable or not able to reason and/or unwilling to reason as there is no way to reasonably deny the Supreme Court docket and so would be denied entry to their own courtrooms or be asked to undergo a psychiatric evaluation. 34. Over and over again I was subjected to this treatment. To prove the discrimination of women is real and is endemic and to prove all offices are unchecked thus it is made impossible for me to secure any and all justice I then filed in every federal district as part of my plan and did not hide the facts from the courts plus they all have access to the national federal docket as it’s electronic; not one federal bench was willing to obey the law or the court rules. One seemed as if it might but took too long to then cite what it did and in the end did not allow me entry in person when that is the actual legal issue. Returning to my local district federal court acts of crime were then committed against me over again: A filed complaint was pulled, the date and time stamp tampered with as 42

“filed” was crossed out and the case number whited out with “received” written over it and then was returned to me. A clerk told me this was common practice in JAX only as “we do this here”. The actual, exact reason cited is not fact but only factual and is not remotely legal. No other bench did this. This is evidence tampering among other things. This particular complaint included proof that criminal activity was being committed against me and to other vulnerable litigants by the same judge as I found that he had actually written in a decision and order that as the Supreme Court has not yet ruled that I may not harm you I can so I will thus openly and deliberately, knowingly and willingly harmed litigants in a manner that meets or exceeds the legal definition of a crime and which makes it impossible to remedy the injury as if the other federal court illegally dismisses your case and/or refuses to allow cases in good standing to enter the injured party, a member of the injured class, will never get inside the Supreme Court to then get that ruling. Our law is you are responsible for your own actions. You do not get to blame the Supreme Court. ‘I can so I will’ is deliberation. Placing blame is motivation and intent: you seek to avoid examination of your own actions. It’s also federal domestic violence. This same man also changes your complaint within his rulings so he rules on something you never claimed. In a 25 issue lawsuit that are all EP&DP points of law or violations of separation of power? He pulled one word – “custody” – and attempted to apply the Rooker doctrine. That is how I then knew as fact the other federal bench had no idea what they are doing or in Jax are actual criminals as rooking or castling is a move in chess. I rejoiced; I said out loud, “It’s custody alright but it is federal not state!” I then began filing directly in the Supreme Court. 35. As all offices are unchecked not one agency was willing to discharge their duties and so investigate any claims of crimes or civil rights violations in spite of proof rising beyond any reasonable doubt and even any and all doubt. The assaults I suffered escalated to unimaginable heights as I pursued justice up to the highest offices of power. Every agency passed the buck or violated the law thus confrontation after confrontation occurred. When all offices are unchecked the person who is a pro se constitutional authority case of original jurisdiction will never, ever receive any assistance from elected or appointed officials nor any other agencies charged with a duty as first all agencies and all authorities had to fall thus when she contacts them and requests assistance she is injured as the injury is; it is always occurring incessantly w/o any relief or else she would not have become the authority. Eventually the only agency or authority left was the Supreme Court of the United States as women have never received a unanimous ruling in their favor and are the only injured class yet remaining. Supreme Court was and is the actual last resort in my case short of my person shooting as federal precedent states I may. I do not believe they (SCOTUS) are the authority over my life – I am - nor do I 43

need their opinion – I have my own which, unlike theirs, is the law and not a theory – but the other citizens and the elected and appointed officers do. 36. Upon docketing and conferencing in Supreme Court, the US was then informed of my legal claim, that I am the acting, legal authority and not Roberts or Bush Jr. as this type of case is airtight and is this litigant acting to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution. To mount a defense against me? A defendant must argue to overturn the Declaration and Constitution or argue to legally make the US another form of government not constitutional. A person must argue math is not math and English is not English. For seven months I argued with the clerks but finally achieved docketing and conferencing in or around March and April of 2008; one of my federal questions, since April of 2007, concerns natural birth as I knew that foreignization or the purchase of the office of the President i.e. the purchase of Executive Order was about to occur as it was already underway. I exhausted every “authority” save myself. 37. I was then denied any and all protection of the law by the Supreme Court via official action; as my case is one of constitutional authority the Supreme Court must hear me in person as well as read the case and if not heard in person must name a reason. It did not. I am the only case of constitutional authority pro se or not that was not then heard in person and not given any reason. I am the first person born into liberty to be denied any and all protection of the law. In this case the Supreme Court violated the very decision that created it as it violated Marbury. I included within my petition Executive Orders signed “The acting, legal President and Commander” which were then carried out by the Supreme Court. Thus the Supreme Court then effectively admitted it is not the authority but yet denied me entry creating what is impossible legal limbo and might be treason. However as the case was conferenced it was then up to me to take it to the people which I did. All 300 million claimed I was not heard (read) on paper or in person so then I had no valid case although they did acknowledge conferencing had occurred and so I was “lying” and/or “crazy”. The citizens denied reality and said, “This cannot happen in the US. It cannot be true.” This was to be expected as the citizens have been acting in violation of the law since before Bush V Gore was heard as the citizen’s failure caused Bush V Gore and caused my injury. Today the citizens do not believe our law is actual reality. They believed my fact; they did not believe the law empowers you if you are injured. They did not believe their one vote is the power of Executive Order, that by voting they conferred that power upon someone. The citizens do not know what a vote actually is.

44

38. While I was accessing the Supreme Court Barack Obama announced he was in favor of drafting women, that he would not make any decisions alone regarding the military especially where Don’t Ask is concerned thus he will grant the military constitutional authority over women, is in favor of abortion upon demand as a right, would use private funds to campaign and later that he could not reason the law and apply it to women. Right before it was announced that delegates would not be sent to the Democratic Convention from FL Obama snuck into and out of Jacksonville. A reporter caught him. He has never said why he had a need to sneak into and out of town. I wrote to him as early as June of 2007; I served him notice and a copy of my suit then – before any primary was held. 39. New federal injury then ensued as the US Marshal investigated me for filing this case as one of the opposing third parties attorney’s falsely reported this filing as a physical threat against the Chief Justice and made it seem as if he is the official representative of a court when he is not, and the Marshal asked me to give away my rights without cause or reason and to stop defending myself with such skill as he did not understand constitutional authority statements and as the opposing third parties and I engaged in a new custody battle directly due to the Supreme Courts failure thus I came to have an open custody case in FL and NY and within the Supreme Court all at once – another first in history. The FL and NY cases are still open at this writing and incredibly NY acted to hear the case and did so after certifying the me “forever pro se” which is a lone, absolute class of one – the only in US history – as NY could not secure adequate or even any legal representation for her as it does not exist thus knowingly interfered with a federal case as by then, October of 2008, I re-entered Supreme Court and NY was well aware of this fact and even asked me to state it for the record. The NY and federal claim were the same. My answer is my federal claim. NY and FL now refuse to act as of this writing. 40. Once is a mistake but twice is not. Two unconstitutional family court hearings (now four or five) or two federal denials would then constitute proof. Upon filing in Supreme Court in October 2008, which I had to file because of NY’s actions against my person and my children as that NY action was undertaken within my 25 day window to petition to be reheard, the case caption was arbitrarily changed without notice or consent and without just cause or reason; this then resulted in the Solicitor General failing to respond within 30 days or so I believe. I warned the Solicitor of this possibility in a letter as I knew the name I had chosen to use as it was volunteered for service thus is made available to any living American invoking the law most especially liberty would make the clerks nervous: Thomas Jefferson. Some people believe Jefferson is a sacred cow while others believe he is a nut. I know he like me acted upon what he said he believed in spite of what you thought, said or did. When the Solicitor General failed to respond to this case as the 45

response was due on November 5th and never came this then became a breach of contract suit as the US breached the contracts known as the Declaration and Constitution wholly and absolutely. You may not rescind the contract only as I successfully fulfill it. 41. I filed a breach of contract suit in the form of an emergency application as I am in mortal danger and the citizens were acting to elect a man who was purchasing the office of the Executive and who is not qualified to hold this office as he does not meet the term natural birth and as he may not even be a citizen if he traveled upon a foreign passport after the age of 18. This man admitted he held foreign citizenship and all evidence supports he is not natural born according to our law. Obama failed repeatedly in the past to obey the law, as I had to contact him when standing down Congress. This application was sent to John Roberts exactly as only a Chief Justice can and may adjudicate such a case and as this is the only legal means for Roberts to make his appointment legal as the Chief Justice must consent to review by the plaintiff/appellant thus the people as he and she are equivalent legal authorities and as authority and consent are reciprocal. If the plaintiff/appellant, Susan Herbert, agrees to give consent then Roberts may hear her in person thus submit to review by the people thus he would then be standing upon the law and his appointment would then be legal no matter the outcome of the case. Someone, I do not know who, acted upon the knowledge within the application setting Appellant’s case for conferencing without receiving any response from the Solicitor General and without filing the actual application thus the Supreme Court and now Roberts acted to circumvent the people and did something else: Susan Herbert was entered directly to the Supreme Court on November 20th, 2008 once her application was acted upon even if it was not then filed as Marbury clearly states filing or delivery need not occur as it is acting upon the knowledge that counts. I became the first person since William Marbury to achieve direct entry to the Supreme Court all of which proves I am the authority as only THE constitutional authority could ever file and enter directly in this court. 42. My case was set for conferencing on or around December 5th, 2008. I sent in my petition in support of my application. Altogether there are three petitions not two and that fourth application. I phoned the court to ask about the emergency application and petition: Was it being adjudicated with my second petition or was it, the application and a third petition, being adjudicated separately? I was told the Court was not considering the emergency application and that my petition in support of it had been returned. I informed the clerk that I had been directly entered, that the application had already been considered and acted upon when it had been to no lower or other court, and that the emergency application was never returned thus the petition should have been filed and docketed and heard. The clerk did not know the application was being held within the court and did not 46

realize that direct entry had occurred or so he said. He stated that he would ask the other clerks “what was going on”. I then heard the clerks arguing and heard a strange voice not my clerk saying exactly, “Just tell her we’ll send it to her.” The application was returned and arrived at my home after the petition was returned and after my case was conferenced once again. It was not considered in that conference or so I was told and again, the Justices may not have known it existed. I kept the returned box (and later envelopes) sealed and for great reasoning. I opened only the petition, as I needed it. And as it was the same as two other attempts – those envelopes I left sealed. If you know as absolute fact SCOTUS cannot defy reality as in history, exact words and math then you do not need to open them as nothing they cite is actual, legal reasoning. 43. One day before the conferencing I filed the application in the local federal court to then prove it existed and that the emergency is being ignored as is the law and so no person could claim they did not know. I knew the commission of a crime might be in progress and I knew injustice is. My short list of guilty parties includes: All 300 million of you. 44. On the very day of the conference the Secret Service showed up at my home with a Notice of Suit in their hands. Incredibly they admitted they had no reason or rational basis for being at my residence other than that Notice of Suit and they told me who reported me as a possible threat: My town board, as my town is exactly named as I will never, ever be forced to fund communist regimes and if a large business threatens me with frivolous and delusional litigation? I’m taking them up on the offer as this is a military town that was – is - founded upon a tax revolt. My town board is not going to lie to me, deceive me and then force me to support communist China; aren’t we at illegal war with them over oil currently? You cannot and may not force me to fund the death of the US or my own death. Once you are founded in a tax revolt, as that is the vote or equal protection, you’re always revolting. You’re revolting against those who would steal your vote from you and use your own money to do it. The Secret Service did not bother to read the suit or look at the SCOTUS’ docket. They refused to phone my reference, John Roberts, stating that he was “too busy” as he “is the Chief Justice”. I told them legally that is debatable but “YES, he is busy adjudicating my own petition (the second one and not the never filed third) this very minute.” I refused to consent to a search and warned them to stop asking me to do so as they were about to commit what would then constitute a crime. I cited US law and US case law. I gave them exact details. On their way out of my home they violated the plain sight rule and so conducted what is an illegal search. The Secret Service gave me a Bivens action as they not only conducted that search but violated the person they are charged with the duty to protect while they protected the person they are not charged with a duty to protect. 47

45. While there is a basis in fact for every person in this nation coming to believe lies known as Bush V Gore, Nancy Pelosi, self-regulating banks and/or stock brokers, socialized medicine, Dick Cheney, adjustable rate mortgages for high risk borrowers, communism, materialism, the aforementioned atheism, PACS and McCain 08 or Obama 08 there is no basis in our law for it. I’m not frivolous and delusional you are. 46. On the day he was served by me, Barack Obama’s legal representatives then called Appellant’s suit “garbage” on national TV thus they called me “garbage” as I am my case and it is my life. 47. Not once, not ever has any court state or federal addressed the emergency life and death situation I then all women and their children some of whom are enlisted service members are in but instead “pretend” it does not exist or that I did not state it is an actual emergency. Ignoring the life and death emergency is what led to me having bones broken, experiencing strangulation, my children being irreparably injured and my actual death, which I survived. I was then made to suffer metaphysical death or the Great Death, as the injury was so extreme and has been ongoing and incessant since birth. I survived this also. LIBERTY and LIBERTY DENIED are emotions thus the federal court participated in the injury that resulted in my suffering the Great Death named in Buddhism and Christianity. Also as the federal court has reasoned a complaint, brief and/or petition may not be emotional then it is violating and denying a protected right as emotions are named as rights under US law and as if a litigant is pro se then emotions are hardcore fact not conjecture and not circumstantial. If I state as sworn fact “I feel liberty denied” then I do. It is a fact of me. This too targets women and children and makes me unique as not one other living American especially one born into liberty has then been made to experience liberty denied to such an extent and degree it results in the Great Death; not one other living American can accurately describe what liberty denied feels like and not one other American pressed suit for the violation of liberty and safety as protected emotions which are protected rights as well under state and federal law. To totally erase all emotion from the law is to change what we intrinsically are as emotional reasoning capacity is our humanity as only humans act to liberate other species. I once witnessed a dog liberate other kinds of dogs but he did not act with compassion. It was not liberty. I have witnessed monkey love, monkey murder, monkey tools and even a monkey practical joke. I have never witnessed two or more monkeys conspiring in the name of liberty; in fact, I have never witnessed the prerequisite: monkey aspiration. If I ever do witness two or more monkeys in close conversation and one of them is holding a copy of the

48

Declaration or the Old Testament? A just monkey government and monkey law is born as that is liberty: Aspiration, inspiration and conspiration. Emotions. 48. Men seeking to challenge Obama who had not acted before the primaries which Marbury demands were being filed while I was not. Nothing is reason to refuse to file that application. It constitutes a crime personal in nature. I sought to file over and over and each time I was refused. Hence the still sealed returned packages. 49. I was told to file in my local federal court again by SCOTUS employees even though all knew as fact it would cause more harm and I did so – I risked my life again and sacrificed more of myself over again - and so on January 21st, 2009, the local district federal court once more denied me any appearance in person and did so when one of the claims is that I have not once been allowed an appearance in person as a plaintiff or petitioner to redress the violation of fully vested protected rights; the local federal district court also cited money as a reason in a case of already proven taxation without representation and when as I have done what all men said was not possible then my chances of winning are not “slight” as the local federal court claimed as it is dependent upon nothing more than a single appearance in person in any court of law at all as a plaintiff or petitioner as all courts are courts of constitutional authority as I can and may argue constitutional law in any court due to my unique circumstances: I have knowledge and skill you do not and I have will you do not. The local district federal court also cited the appearance of the my complaint as it objected to my form as I used the Supreme Court rules due to severe time constraints, due to this case being predestined to return to the Supreme Court of the US and as I am the authority so she knows the federal questions thus she listed them as no judge needs to tell her what they are. The judge said: She listed her questions. Thus he asked me to conform to a lower standard and lower appellation. 50. I filed an objection, which included the fact that what is now being done to me is the making and enforcing of ex post facto law and without any representation at all. It is the demanding of tribute. All of my objections and facts were ignored as was US law; in effect the violation of all of her enumerated rights was upheld, as was the sale of me and my children’s persons, as was the violence committed against me by my family members and ex husband and his relatives, as was the removal of the term natural birth and before any woman was accorded my right of constitutional authority; that is constitutional authority was stripped from women before they were ever actually accorded it due to this action.

49

51. Thus I am now forced to come before a court that cannot and may not hear this case not because it deliberately committed any act against her – it might have – but because it is unchecked and because it may not adjudicate a case that is pro se, constitutional authority and original jurisdiction. I am forced as the Supreme Court is yet holding me to impossible conditions and standards and treating me uniquely as it is refuses to admit to the fact of her direct entry, as that entry ensures her an appearance in person as a right. I cannot overcome the policy of the Supreme Court clerks or the court itself if the clerks are not willing to reason or to act in defiance of what they know to be unconstitutional policy that constitutes an unjust, unethical and immoral order of a commanding officer. My fact is: While all say they believe in the equal protection clauses they do not as people act upon their true beliefs and not merely what they say they believe. In my case each and every person acted as if they are above the law and so above me thus injured me or acted as if John Roberts and the other Justices are above them and so acted as if my person is beneath the Supreme Court. Not one person save myself has ever acted without fear and without self doubt; instead of equal and due it is run and hide or beat on women and children. I ask this nation: How scary is John Roberts? A Supreme Court Justice is exactly like you and me: human. You are in deep trouble if, in an actual constitutional nation, you are actually afraid as fear is not respect. It’s irrational to fear liberty and justice. Thus all this court can and may do? Confer upon itself the moral authority by overcoming that fear and so hear it or send it ahead with that order to be heard against Obama, Roberts, the Supreme Court and the US. 52. John Roberts, the other Justices and the clerks are all trained, professional lawyers. Are they attorneys? I guess we’ll be discovering that, as they will act pro se if they choose to become plaintiffs instead of defendants by hearing this case in person. This is another ignored fact: Discovery? There is none on my part in this type of case. The facts are known as they are a matter of public record. They are history. I might need to discover something about one of the defendants but I can ask a single question to do this. I do not need to see any hidden pieces of paper, as paper is not proof. It’s: Evidence. In my case? This paper and my federal suits are the only pieces of paper that exist that tell the truth of me at all. All the others? Except for my birth certificate and baptismal record they all contain lies and manufactured facts – not actual and not real. Reporters do not like or want the truth so they write their own truth not mine. 53. In the US the nature of reality is: Legal, actual or physically real as our law names the difference. Legally we are not at war as it is declared upon bad evidence. Actually we are at war; reality is this is war on two fronts as we are at war against women also. Legally I am the President. Actually Barack Obama is sitting. Reality is the citizens voted for him 50

in violation of the law thus we both have been acting as if although only my actions are constitutional and carry any weight in a court of law. Americans would have actual reasoning to deny reality both legal and actual if they never, ever understood it to begin with as we never taught it to them as we are first. They do not have this concept in their heads: It is possible in the US to sit but never be legal as actions define you according to our law and Marbury. At times fate, outside things you do not control or God, casts you in a role so then what do you do? “America” is not a physical place it is a feeling thus: you need only address the metaphysical to know who is or is not legal and that is proven by...actions, as you act upon true beliefs. I’m confident as I act upon my knowledge some of which is unique like the math of Bush V Gore. All of you learned about absolute and whole numbers in school; how come you did not know? I know the exact reason you did not know as I almost did not know. An event in 8th grade directly related to discrimination tipped me off. I will tell you about this in court, as it is interesting indeed and it dispels a myth men tell as fact w/o question. Anyway, a perfect example is of actual versus legal versus real is war, as when a commander is killed or abandons his post you then must act. You command in his stead. Or if you refuse a commission you act as a field captain but are never an actual captain. The post was abandoned and then taken over by lawyers who acted in violation of our law. I assumed command as any citizen can and must, as it became my duty. Marbury says it is a duty. I tested Marbury’s application of “duty” and it is the law. 54. Only after the fact did the I know that not one pro se non-lawyer has appeared in the Supreme Court thus they are violating my right to defend my own person and when other, adequate legal representation does not exist which then is another constitutional authority question as not only did we not name such a requirement in our law but federal precedent allows me to represent my own self even all the way into Supreme Court. I had to go look up pro se litigants and found one other man besides William Marbury who is a trained and licensed lawyer. I have read conflicting versions of Marbury as some say he is a lawyer and some say he is not. I believe he did not go to traditional law school as it did not exist but was trained as a lawyer. I thought I was only the first woman to argue my own case not the first person man or woman who is a non-lawyer. The lawyer who can defend me and make my case does not exist as all any lawyer can offer me is technical assistance. A lawyer can only serve to protect the class but not make the case. In two years I have never spoken to a female employee of the Supreme Court nor had any contact at all with one although I asked to do so. If i knew I was going to become the one and only non-lawyer pro se litigant? I would have acted still. Somebody’s gotta volunteer to be first. The upside to being first is you cannot make a mistake as you are going into uncharted territory; there are no examples. You’re it. 51

55. All of the involved judges knew and still twisted and perverted the truth and the law to injure and harm my children and me. Every judge that ever crossed my path acted to cause injustice and not arrest it. As I’m unique they are always personal; if my name were Sally or Jane they would not be. If even a single atom were different or a single choice had been made differently I would not be unique in such a way all acts against me are personal in nature as there is no basis for them in fact or law unless you are arguing I alone am to be denied protection under the law when innocent and I alone have zero fully vested protected rights. As of January 20th, 2009? No judge is acting upon the authority of the US as Barack Obama swore he could do the impossible on that date. So far no judge has acted against it and all I confronted broke the law or failed to act. 56. A judge may not have acted to stop Obama but a Justice did stop Obama as John Roberts messed up the oath and as upon the second attempt Roberts acted to not provide Obama with any sacred work thus Obama violated Marbury as he did not swear to any authority outside of himself thus he cannot refuse to obey unethical, illegal, immoral orders of his commanding officers – the people, as Marbury states you must reason it between you and your God as that is what disobeying a direct order is – between you and God as you hold yourself to the highest appellation of all: Perfection or elegance. No human is perfect we’re equals - but one authority is perfect: the Creator. Our law names a Creator, Supreme judge and Providence; it even exactly states “sacred”. Proof he is not able or capable would be the people ordered him to violate the law by voting him into office and he did violate the law by acting upon that order, that illegal vote, when he knew better and knew different as he claims he is an expert, a constitutional law professor. I told him so he knew. I may make the legal claim to be first among equals thus the authority but I’m possessed of extraordinary self-control and self-discipline and extraordinary intelligence. I’m Thomas Jefferson not Richard Cheney. I’m not even John Roberts. You can and may trust me; can you trust them? Cheney? No; Roberts? Maybe. Look to Alexander Hamilton and examine his actions. You have to be careful around him even, which is why you are supposed to be your own authority under or with the Creator. Roberts is not responsible for providing that sacred work and Obama is to know all of this yet he did not act to place his hand upon anything. He held it up to Roberts, a not yet legal Chief Justice thus no outside authority. Roberts does not represent us as his appointment was not arbitrary and as I never consented. Did I ever ask Roberts for anything? No – I made demands, as I knew his appointment is not legal thus he is not yet an authority and has no legal power over me. I can and do believe they had no copy of the bible, Koran, Vedas or Book of the Dead etc. etc. in all of DC or the Whitehouse but no Declaration?! This court must consider these facts, as it is no accident that the local 52

federal district court entered its decision on January 20th, which was inauguration day but entered its final judgment on January 21st, 2009. I know as fact that this is meant to prevent me from adjudicating the actual case. I know this was done to make an actual Appeal impossible for me. It failed, or so I truly believe. 57. Barack Obama’s election to the office of President, with black man cited as reason to violate US law and all of my rights, constituted the overthrow of the Executive thus the actual overthrow of our government and law. Color it anything you want, as a man is a man and injustice is injustice; a foreign birth is always a foreign birth. If black man did make the difference for women and is actual justice? Then a black man who sat as Chief Justice would have then been able to rule for women as he could have made the case himself; he almost did but could not as he never gave birth to a baby so he then did all he could do, all that was humanly possible as he left me this clue within Rotsker: Are we giving constitutional authority of women to a mostly male Congress, only as those men that are Congress will refuse to obey the ruling of this court? Are we afraid? Are we denying women the actual legal power of their vote? Are we, the Supreme Court, acting to commit what is discrimination and are we violating the separation of power our own selves? Is this even remotely legal? It was merely a matter of time after Rotsker. The only thing that makes us a constitutional nation still and stands between the US and death? My person acting. I, Susan, am this nation’s foremost expert and leading authority regarding independence, a subsistence attorney not a licensed attorney as I argue to save my own life, thus I then became the living embodiment of the law, and men can like it or not as it is. It’s: A FACT OF HISTORY. 58. There is a report from a forensic psychiatrist on file in the Jacksonville federal courthouse. It found Susan Herbert to be free of any mental defect and/or illness. This report reads: Susan is not the problem but other people are as they are unreasonable specifically where she is concerned thus they need to be removed, as you cannot reason with persons not willing to reason or who lack the human ability to reason. This report? It became an order of the court thus I am ordered, I possess an official order of a court, that I am sane and mentally stable. If you call me frivolous and delusional you are violating this order. It removes a man from this case as he is named as being unreasonable. It was made an order of the Philadelphia court. NY promptly violated this order to then grant standing to the third parties one of whom is a man not related by law or blood to me or my kids and who was allowed to file in PA for custody of me and my children when he was and is a stranger to me and NY acted as if this report does not exist. NY made him a legal relative against my will after he committed perjury and kidnapping. This report sits within the Jacksonville federal district court and has since April 4th of 2007, the day I first 53

asked the natural birth question within federal court. No man then no judge as they are all lawyers is willing to reason where I am concerned and so admit to this exact legal and scientific claim: Women give birth to it all as Susan, a mother and non lawyer, did give birth to just government and law, two boys and a Supreme Court case of authority and original jurisdiction al la Marbury, while a man does not as he will never experience one kind of birth - the birth of a living, human, baby constitution. Or so I know all of the above is fact as it happened to my person. 59. In my life each time I acted to create the opportunity for my own self the law was violated in such a way any and all opportunity was made nonexistent. If the opportunity does not exist then protecting rights is not possible and so being a constitutional nation is not possible. 60. I wrote my case out as I did with reasoning: For the citizens not for a judge or a lawyer. Not one American can play dumb and claim they did not know as any third grader can read my suit and understand it. I am suing all of the voters and all of their children as a child could have acted for my sons but did not. In the US you are your brother’s keeper – it’s the rule of law. You leave no PERSON behind as the other 99 sheep have each other but that lone sheep has no one. Judges mocked the way my complaint sounded when this happens to be one of my points of law and the only way to prove it is to write your complaint out in plain, simple conversational English instead of technically, without Latin phrases, without legal jargon and without formal, standardized grammar. If you’re mocked by federal judges but then not by clerks of SCOTUS? And if all Americans yet fail you? Point of law proven. And finally it proves that once a nation loses its language it loses self-awareness and then it loses its law; as the language goes so goes liberty and with it the law. You self-destruct from the inside out if you cannot connect what you hear to what you see and feel. 61. As I previously said it is humanly impossible for me to separate the legislative and adjudicative facts, as all are one and the same. I know why you separate them but you cannot in this type of case. I did my best. This is known in physics as a point of intrinsicity NOT synchronicity. Jung authored the theory of synchronicity; synchronicity makes it seem as if it is all the same when it is not; however it is not coincidence. Things seem to be colliding and are but synchronicity is not absolute truth only truthful. Jung also said that what you fail to acknowledge you then create meaning that it is true or false; if it is true nothing you do will ever make it go away until or unless you acknowledge it and deal with it. If it is false then it will go away, as it will never happen or it will stop. Intrinsicity is when all is one and the same; all collide or become one. It’s 54

absolute truth. I correctly predicted all of this, the events since October of 1998. If all I have written and all I say were not fact, if it were lies, opinion, theory, rumor, conjecture, circumstantial and/or personal belief none of it would have then come to be realized; none of it would have come to pass. If what I claimed was or is false? If my reasoning and application are incorrect? It would never have come to be. Men laughed at me. Now who’s laughing at whom? Nobody but nobody who is innocent runs this hard AWAY from the federal court. Innocent people? They act innocent – they run INTO federal court. BEFORE NOT AFTER or else it is political and only two men have ever been allowed to ask a political question disguised as an equal protection issue: Bush & Gore and when they are not victims. You’d rather commit suicide than elect or recognize a person who is a biological woman. Now I have federal judges running away from their own courts. 62. Thanks to “judge” Monica Morales Howard who personally hates and resents me as nothing else explains her recent behavior towards me all I have to do is slap her name in my caption and file in the Supreme Court as a case of original jurisdiction as soon as I get a ruling from this court. In March 2009 I received her order denying me status to proceed in forma pauperis which exactly states an exact lie with exact words as it claims and falsely so that I am acting in bad faith. The tone of this denial and order is angry and indifferent and indifference is proof of no liberty as it is the absence of any and all emotion or is no conscience. To continue in spite of the odds against me and in spite of what was done to me took actual faith and lots of it. Actual faith is all good. My faith is in God and myself thus US law. I have zero faith in federal judges based upon the proof. I have limited faith in the Justices, as they are not God. That’s not bad faith that’s smart faith as I reasoned where my faith should or should not rest. And: Harvey Schlesinger, of 12/30/08 fame, as my actual birthday is December 30th (how personal can you be?), was the first judge in 2007 to unconstitutionally deny me all of my rights including redress on 04/06/07. 63. Whatever you tell me I’ll overcome except: I will never turn into a biological man. That is because if you tamper with paper you tamper with evidence; if you tamper with people? You tamper with proof. We need a founding mother not yet another founding father. 64. If you allow one foreigner in or one foreign born citizen in where does this gravy train then stop? Is Arnold next? He can afford buy the office; I cannot and will not as that is treason. The reason we named it in our law? Treason is not spying! Treason is buying and selling justice thus people. It is offensive even to the Creator who forgives everything 55

under the Sun. It is knowingly, willingly and deliberately choosing death and then inflicting it upon others against their will and at a time and in a place when they are defenseless. It is plotting to cause incalculable damage with a sense of purposefulness; it is gross injury as a means to your own ends. Burr was not convicted of treason as Hamilton had unclean hands. You target the truly vulnerable and defenseless who did nothing to cause the injury or who are wholly innocent and do so with zero human compassion. You start very early in life to get to a place whereby you will knowingly or unknowingly commit what constitutes treason as first you have to harm others thus harming yourself with a thousand times over. To commit treason unknowingly if it is a matter of deliberation? You reason and decide you do not care and so you do not matter; you throw your life away needlessly and for nothing. Suicide? It is actual treason. I’m not suicidal. I REFUSE TO GIVE MY BIRTHRIGHT AWAY BEFORE EVER BEING GRANTED IT AND THEN STILL REFUSE. I PAID MY DUES, AS DID MY PARENTS, AND I SHED MY BLOOD. I ACTUALLY DIED IN DEFENSE OF THE CONSTITUTION. I EARNED THE MORAL AUTHORITY THE HARD WAY, AS IT CANNOT BE BOUGHT. 65. John Roberts had nothing to do with Bush V Gore and although I told this local district federal court several times over that of all sitting judges state or federal he was unique as he has had an experience of life not all people have had, and I could find no other judge who does, and as it is central to adjudicating this case then it is a violation of due process and of Zinerman to then refuse to send this case to a QUALIFIED person when that person and process exists and is readily available. It is medical or biologic and scientific fact: Humans produce an electric current around an iron based core – blood infused tissue - thus are the most powerful kind of electromagnet, a dynamo exactly like the Earth. If you are the person arguing when life begins physically the only kind of man that can give testimony rising to proof? A man who has had a seizure as he will know a secret of life few people know as something jolts our brains thus our bodies into life. I can name it exactly and when then how and why; he can know if I am being truthful or not. He can put all of the pieces of the puzzle together based upon his own experience of life having had a seizure as that gives him insight other men do not have. The local federal district court has always ignored this fact. 66. My longest fact: Today, April 2nd, 2009, I received a family court ruling in an action that commenced within my 25 day window to appeal the federal ruling and is due to that hearing held in NY by these same criminals and while I was still within the federal court. This action or rather this judge refused to let me appear as a plaintiff as two petitions I mailed to this NY court were never filed. They were thrown out, as in thrown in the trash. 56

Can I prove this? YES, as the second petition that was thrown out? It was the very petition that SCOTUS docketed. When it happened that first time I then made a second attempt and so mailed the lowest and highest court on the very same day. I sent a third party to place both in the mail and have a receipt. The only difference was I used the family court forms for the family court. How did one magically disappear? I sought to overturn the family court rulings as circumstances changed and changed drastically as NY’s fair hearing board threw out the only ‘evidence’ the third parties had as it was obviously manufactured and as it violated NY’s own code. I told NY it violated reality as: A social worker said I was an abusive mother. She said I abused my kids based upon stories my brother told her about me as a child, or, before they were ever conceived let alone born. Everyone is pretending that this never happened. And it gets worse as a master for the state of NY lied under oath when my attorney subpoenaed him only I did not know it until about three years after the fact. The federal court has the paper trail. Sounds incredible, right? Nope. Endemic corruption and as I was unduly processed and as no protection existed I ‘banged’ into several dozen agencies – more so than any other normal or average litigant. Acts of corruption, some deliberate but some not i.e. some actual misunderstandings or actual mistakes, overlapped with criminal acts. In physics this is called a Boson-Einstein condensate. As particles elongate and collide they overlap until it seems as if a tangible substance appears out of thin air. In my case invisible corruption and graft, people ‘elongating’ as they acted outside of the law, became realized as something you could see – a paper trail. As I kept confronting people? They had more and more to lose so acted more and more desperate. I’d tell them to their face “I know what you did and how”. If all I said was, “you were too lazy to check; all you did was take their word as absolute fact when I’m the mother and when you could have called the hospital” or “you fell for everything he said to you as he announces he is a professor emeritus; he pits me against his fancy degree...what kind of person wants his sister to be permanently separated from her children? WHY? WHO does that if he actually loves her as he says; is that how anyone truly acts out of actual love? How does a piece of paper stack up against my love for my children and win over me???” They would become upset, agitated, as they never had anybody challenge their logic and their ideas. As “authorities” with the power to keep your children from you they believe they own you, as most women are afraid of them. They go 20 years and never hear the word NO. Other times they told me they were angry as I made them feel stupid. You have to be stupid for me to make you feel stupid; you have to do stupid things like write ‘mothers have no protected right to their children only as they gave birth’ on a piece of paper and then write on the same piece of paper ‘but unrelated men do have a right to those children’ and name a nonexistent job that man never said he had as the reason only as you then did him a favor and made that lie up for him in an official court record to make it all seem 57

reasonable but that then does not match the IRS records as the IRS does not keep track of nonexistent jobs. I’d say, “You think you harmed me but you harmed your own self. Didn’t you stop to think about me getting the IRS records?” They’d be angry and/or scared and: Do things like file social services reports, write phony judgments or call in false hotline reports against me. They gave me the paper trail. None of this appeared out of thin air; it is the malice in their hearts; it is self-hatred. You know what I said? “If this is about my kids, if I was not abused, and I am the abuser, WHY am I still being abused 10 years later and when my children are no longer living with me? If I was the problem and this was about my kids being unsafe with me then the problem would have gone away when my kids did. The problem is still here and when I only see them once a year as...YOU GAVE THEM TO THE ACTUAL ABUSERS.” I would not let them make it about my kids as it was always about me not obeying them and not allowing them to turn me into an actual powerless victim. It was always about making me a victim or else. Family violence became state and federal violence as if you cannot get the person you are blaming to then accept blame? You might have to admit wrong doing. All any person had to do is know a chain of causation is actually a chain of people. NEW YORK is the number 1 common denominator and then the third parties who kidnapped my children. NY should indeed be afraid of what I can say in a federal court of law about its policies and practices as it might have to reopen all 30, 000 cases – people - who Linda Griffin handled in her courtroom as that is the number named by a local paper and as several other people have now come forward and told me their horror stories. Anyway: This judge said no change of circumstances would ever satisfy her, would not allow me to call witnesses, knew I was within the Supreme Court of the United States as she asked me to state it for the record and knew it was the same complaint, allowed the criminal guardian ad litum to visit my children without ever notifying the court in an attempt to intimidate them and me as she wanted to know what they might say about her on the witness stand and when she was asked for a reason to ‘force’ me to have only supervised visits with my own children that were kidnapped and then held unconstitutionally from me by the NY courts for no named cause whatsoever but only what is falsified, and was tossed out by NY itself, and when we all knew this meant I’d never see my children which always was the point, the guardian ad litum said, and I kid you not, the reason to recommend supervised visits is “The mother talks to the [kids] about the courts” as in US law and civil rights not any particular court action. In other words: The mother is teaching them that we violated their rights. This guardian ad litum? She is a neighbor of the third parties or was; she lived on the same street about a half a block down and nobody named this conflict as if they all could not read. This new family court ruling? You have to read it to believe it. Linda Griffin says I am not remorseful; NO I AM NOT, as that implies I am guilty of a crime. Criminal charges are not heard in family court and still NY has not 58

named any actual reason or cause. If NY is waiting for me to learn my lesson and so be sorry I ever acted to defy it or opened my mouth and told on it NY has a looooong wait. I’m not sorry and I do not regret it. I will never regret it. In fact I’m glad 1776 happened. If I had my way it’d be 1776 all of the time. She also says that her first ruling was based upon the fact that I am or rather was unstable hence implying she had actual reason to do what is almost unheard of and is only done in the most extreme circumstances - award children to a third party when a parent is standing - when she did not and when it flies in the face of all evidence (as all of it was for my person not against my person): her own above named court evaluator, the objective one not the guardian who ruled for me twice, the PA court ruled for me, the doctor the third parties hired in PA ruled for me (Dr. Gerald Cooke’s above mentioned psychiatric report). The third parties picked and paid a doctor who ruled against them and removed one of them which PA made an order of the court. See why they had to run from PA? You know what else? I could have been the most unstable person in the world then; let’s pretend it is true. So, what about NOW? A therapist will tell you and this court can look it up: Denying reality in this way? It is a known, named tactic of batterers and abusers called “crazy making”. It is listed in the DSM. People deny your reality in such a way they try to convince you that you’re crazy; that what happened did not happen and what never happened did happen. They try to talk you out of reality; they use emotions to make it feel as if to reinforce the words. They try to assign guilt. A battered woman might read she is to blame in a family court ruling; if she then feels guilty she might start to believe she deserved to be abused or deserved to lose her children. It does not work on me but it does work on other women. It actually kills them as they give up. In my case? Federal judges then engaged in it. Think: Susan – she’s so crazy; why would all of us want to harm her? Ego and fear of being publicly outed or caught. Nobody plotted against me exactly; I merely refused to go away quietly so injury accrued. You as a bystander would never, ever know what happened behind the scenes if all you had was the paper ruling; you would need opening and closing arguments and the Exhibit list. You’d wonder if all of this is true, fact and correct, and supported by documentation and even the Appellant’s attorney can testify to it WHY isn’t anybody acting? All offices are unchecked, that’s why. State judges like the idea that they are all buddies. Federal judges like the idea that Congress will not impeach them. The problem with that? You now have 20 dirtbags and worse or so I personally believe for every ethical judge actually trying to do their job sitting upon our judicial benches and lawyers get all the court privileges while the pro se are not allowed entry in person. It’s a money pit. The actual honest, ethical, moral and just persons who are judges are so outnumbered as are the citizens actual justice is made impossible. If you’re beginning is lawyer? Chances are not so good that you’ll manage to rise above that; how many judges ever get over lawyer? If it becomes possible to buy or sell a court ruling? YOU FIRST 59

HAVE TO BUY THE BENCH! It already happened. Or worse, it is a pay for play monopoly of power due to our two party system so unfit persons are elected or appointed due to political favor. I am better off being harmed by a misogynist or a crook any day of the week than some person who has zero interest in my case and is only there to fill the seat; at least if the judge hates me or resents me it is still an emotional investment in me. If the judge is on the take? At least they have an interest in collecting the bribe. NY has had three district appellate courts caught taking bribes in custody cases; all I did was uncover a fourth. I cannot state as fact that the district appellate was in on it BUT: You’d think a state district appellate judge would know he may not write an exactly worded violation of the Bill of Rights in his decision and that he would know to look for the nasty lawyer trick of writing the lie “the mother did not fulfill the contract” and slapping it on the last page of the third parties brief thus invalidating a contract I did fulfill upon appeal so that I could not then sue for the breach thus collect monetary damages as in taking that $1 house out from under them. I cannot say it is deliberate as absolute fact but he has a connection to Linda Griffin and somehow not one other sitting district appellate judge that signed off of this ruling read that exactly worded violation of the Bill of Rights and had an issue with it. So that plus the attorney who was allowed to appear after I fired him and who was custom tailored to my life, my fact, makes it seem as if the state district appellate judge is guilty as sin too but the lower federal district bench says I’m a bad girl for being so smart (I never did find out how I won that lottery as in how in the world NY came to randomly assigned this man to my case; that must be some process. A lawyer inside did let something slip: Postmarks. On poor persons forms. She tried to tell me I needed a very exact postmark or she’d ‘get in trouble’. What? Does NY have legal elves going over postmarks with a magnifying glass? MAYBE). Unfortunately for me I was not wired and now the federal court pretends it cannot read or hear and will not look at me as they can’t look me in the face. Guilt does that to you. I could not write this story if I wanted to; as it is I have a national best seller on my hands and I still have not written it up as it yet astounds me at times. You can attempt to blame me or say it is crazy, crazy Susan again but: Work the odds out on a sheet of paper. It is I; it is I and justice versus them and injustice. Once you factor in NY? It cannot be my fault. My brain could be removed from my skull and it could not be my fault. I DID NOT CHOOSE NY – THEY DID AFTER RUNNING AWAY FROM ALBANY NY; THEY WENT BACK - WHY? It is TROY NY exactly. The other family courts had policy; but did they do the things this court or this state did? NO. In the other family courts all women got screwed the same way; we were all screwed in exactly the same way but in TROY NY I was screwed uniquely. Also: Let’s say I’m crazy, I mean certifiable. So then, are you telling me that crazy people never have their rights violated? Linda Griffin? Whom I openly accused of trading political favor and of manufacturing a court ruling that in no way matches NY’s 60

code, US law or just about any real life event and who had knowledge of everything being done to me and participated in it willingly? She is not crazy; she is calm, cool and collected. Very sane. She retired on Tuesday, March 31, 2009 announcing this AFTER receiving the news that I entered SCOTUS directly and upon receiving a copy of my Federal Appellate Brief. She is counting upon me not entering the federal court at all or on not bothering to appeal this up to NY’s highest court, or if I do then NY doing exactly what it did the first time: Nothing. She is banking upon the fact that either I will grow too old to care or she will no longer be around by the time I do secure justice. I am very secure in the fact that God and this universe is just; I know exactly what is in store for these people and they will indeed be made to suffer the effects of what they have caused in this world as it is malicious, and it harms many more people than my one person. However, dissolution in actual reality is not enough; dissolution only occurs if it’s made legal too. It is not justice for her to walk away after what she did over the last decade. For all I know she did it her whole career. If I’m so able and capable how many people did not make it, as they do not have my skills? How many kids lost a parent for good? If she did this to me how many others did she harm? It’s family court; like Thurgood Marshall said it is our most fundamental court so then how many children did she disable? How much harm is that? Can you ever add it up? Do you, as a community, ever truly recover? It really is “working a corruption of blood”. Griffin knows judicial review is a myth: Judges protect each other not the citizens and not the Constitution. That’s anything but respect for the law. As it is my fully vested protected right I have decided I am going to shoot soon. I will not have blood on my hands this federal government will. This is not to be taken as a threat as it is an actual promise as it is my right and not a threat. If it is taken as a threat? What are you going to claim, that I threatened to exercise a right SCOTUS has upheld over and over and even with an exact ruling? Threatening someone without just cause or as a means of revenge is a crime; acting as a judge and jury without an actual trial or without making any effort to secure justice via legal means is a crime as we are to go through the process. I exhausted the process. Thus acting self-defense is not a crime in this case. I will do whatever I need to do in order to make me whole and so if a criminal trial is it I know exactly how to get that. I did not say whom I will shoot. I’ll give you a clue: It is an adult. Maybe two or three as like things attract so I’m sure to find them all in one place. It is not 1st degree premeditated homicide if one of them happens to die if no law protects you. SCOTUS has said: A person may commit a crime but if the law to protect them or to cover their situation does not exist? If remedy and relief is not otherwise available? You cannot then find them as the law has failed them first. Our law exists on paper only now not in actual reality. So we can all shoot. I named this potential ruling and told the lower federal court Griffin would do this; I detailed it as it was already in progress. The Jax federal bench has the documentation which is why all they ever rule 61

on is money: to avoid it. The only person actually showing no remorse is Griffin and the entire Jax federal bench. Linda Griffin did act in conjunction with the federal court as she acted upon her expert knowledge of the law: She incorrectly reasoned that once appealed I could not name her ruling so she waited to issue it and did so upon retiring and after notified of my suit as I too acted upon my expert knowledge: I already legally attacked her pension. I can and may enter this to an appeals court, or to SCOTUS, as this court may not refuse to consider this brand new ruling based upon an action filed within my 25 day window to appeal, and in an action that commenced after SCOTUS claimed it and then was heard simultaneously to SCOTUS’ hearing it and was heard after FL first filed it where it yet sits unajudicated. I beat them to the punch in federal court and in FL; I filed first as a plaintiff and the players in this NY court then acted as if they are possessed by the devil so desperate are they to keep me from talking. Innocent people do not act this way. Now, how did NY end up hearing it? And why is FL still sitting on it? Because: Susan is never going to give up so this will only continue to escalate and become more complex until someone is shot and killed as that will get your attention. I’m tired of being the only man left in this nation when I’m a woman. How in the world did I end up being the last line of defense against a nearly insane public? How did not one person ever come to my defense? If it goes to the very heart or nature of my claim, and speaks to its substance and if the appellate knows an impossible standard is being created and if I named this exact person, this exact court, these exact third parties and correctly predicted this exact ruling then the federal appellate court cannot now deny it. A JUDGE MAY DO WHATEVER THEY DEEM NECESSARY TO SECURE JUSTICE; A JUDGE MAY EVEN RULE ON AN ISSUE THE LITIGANTS DID NOT NAME IF IT IS AN EXTRAORDINARY CASE OR IF IT IS NECESSARY TO THEN EXECUTE JUSTICE. A judge is not as disabled and not as helpless as they keep telling me they are. I have found several judges who will do just about anything to violate the law but I have yet to find a single judge willing to uphold it. That’s too difficult or “I can’t”. My last word on this particular legal issue? Judges should think twice before assuming they are smarter and craftier than I. By law I can and may now shoot; with three exceptions, one being an actual Philadelphia lawyer, all actual guilty parties reside in upstate NY, in the Troy, NY area, and Griffin has just issued a court order demanding that I be made to travel to this area and did so fully knowing she was acting to commit felonies against me and my children. I have been thinking about going to NY. Now I have a reason: an actual court order, signed and certified and everything. If the federal court comes to have blood on its hands? You may exactly blame and fault Linda Griffin as some orders I will gladly obey, especially if it gets me what I need: JUSTICE.

62

Summary of Argument I, Susan, am the constitutional authority and the legal, acting President. See Marbury V Madison, Monell V DSS, Lassiter, Bush V Gore , In Re Susan Herbert and In Re Thomas Jefferson. See also the entire Declaration and Constitution both of which are commissions that have been delivered to Susan Herbert and to all women. She owns the knowledge within them as delivery of the paper is not necessary but it has occurred as they are hanging on the wall of a museum our tax dollars support and as she owns a bound copy of both with an introduction by Warren Burger who, as a former Chief Justice, is not a person to go around signing sloppy, mistake riddled copies of our law. I, Susan, know as fact without question that my one vote is an Executive Order and may be wielded as such in an emergency or if the need arises in any way. The need arose.

See Bush V Gore which sits as a tied decision of the Supreme Court due to bad math, exact words in our law and accidents by design. In fact, it is a two-way tie that I resolved in my own favor as anybody claiming to be the President and Commander? They had better vote for themselves and then act pro se as the oath of office reads I will not my lawyer will.

This then is me ordering Barack Obama to stand down as he is acting in direct and open violation of US law and as he qualified himself as an expert, a constitutional law professor, may be acting in a manner that constitutes treason. Fortunately for him while I do believe he purchased this office I in no way believe he is an expert in the practice of law. For if he is? He’d have answered my lawsuit, as that argument does exist. He can but he has not. This then means that I am the authority and so am the acting legal President – not the person physically sitting in the chair or behind the desk but the legal person who is acting upon the knowledge of US law as our law names the difference between actual reality and legal reality. As of June 5th, 2007 Barack Obama 63

and all comers had to unseat me as I unseated Bush Jr. with a legal argument and math. Marbury V Madison states: It does not matter if federal judges are willing to recognize my authority or not as it is as my actions make it so. Acting is proof; acting is moral authority as you act upon ownership of the knowledge; acting or will, as you are willing, is the measure of an American constitution and not paper as paper is a dead institution. As I acted upon my true belief in all ways possible then I’m the authority and not any other citizen. And as WOMAN is intrinsic to doing the job of President and Commander I can and may openly discriminate based upon MAN alone and so I do, as a man can never, ever accord women justice as to do that you first have to know it by experiencing it. Unless Obama can give birth to an actual human baby he can never own the knowledge of woman. Thus I’m the person with the vested interest and the vested right and not he for even if he is natural born he possesses no vested right as to fully vest your self? You have to obey US law to its fullest extent as much as humanly possible.

Insert joke here as: What member of Congress or any branch of this government is in compliance with US law? No matter how you add it up according to the law known as math and the exact words of our governing documents Bush V Gore is a tie that I resolved and I am the lone person in this nation who knew it and acted upon it as I had no liberty thus no choice. Not one sitting person, elected or appointed, is now acting according to our law or its spirit. Every single office from the lone citizen to the Executive has fallen and now the US as a whole is in breach as they voted to circumvent the process when the process is a part of the fabric of who and what we are as a nation. Who said girls cannot do math? Men who do not realize it is delusional and frivolous to act upon the mistaken and corrupted belief they can violate the law that rules this nation and this universe and yet triumph.

64

As for this natural born American who is a woman? I wish to have no connection with any ship that does not sail fast; for I intend to go in harm's way, into the federal court of the United States.

Argument I. Judicial Review Is The Myth Of Fingerprints As People Not Paper Are Proof Judicial review is a myth. It is the myth of fingerprints as it proves nothing, not even that our founders lived as you will not find it within our law. If anything judical review may serve to prove our founders never lived or that what historians say happened did not as John Marshall did not sign our governing documents. Not only does it not exist within our written law but the pieces of paper our courts produce? They prove nothing except a person lived and so authored them; what identifying marks other than a signature that might be forged exist to tell you who wrote that piece of paper? It is like fingerprints as no fingerprint then tells me whether it was left by a saint or a sinner. A fingerprint can be forged as well. And then too what is that fingerprint found on? A vase? A gun? I know saints who own guns and I know sinners who would have you believe they are angels sent straight from heaven and who could and would hit you over the head with a vase only because they felt like it, kill you and not think about it or you ever again. A gun can be covered with fingerprints. All that proves is somebody, a saint or a sinner, held that gun. It does not prove who pulled the trigger. A dead body? You might have a body. Then again you might have 4 or 5 pints of blood soaking the walls and the floor but no body – could any person lose that much blood and live? Isn’t that blood proof of life and proof of murder? Proof of death not proof of murder as blood does not prove deliberation. You might have the body as proof. We can reasonably assume a person once lived, that this body was once alive, but was it ever a life? Can you prove murder or what 65

can not be seen or heard as it lurks in the heart and mind of another man? Does blood prove if a gun was used? What if the written word killed a person instead of a bullet? How do you ever prove words on a piece of paper caused another person to lose 4 or 5 pints of blood and so murdered him or her?

Words do not magically jump off of a page and attack you. Somebody has to act upon them and first somebody has to have an idea and then put that idea on paper. It’s one thing to have an idea; it is all together another to then write it down and still another then write it in such a way you incite others to act upon those words with the result being death. Thus the fingerprints are on the weapon as those fingerprints are more telling than the loops and swirls on your fingertips as they are the thoughts, feelings, ideas and true beliefs of the culprit. I know of a few pieces of paper that have killed more people than any others but that have also given life to ten times the number of people they ever actually killed and have given life to millions –billions – who are yet unborn. They also have the power to bring the dead back to life. They are the papers produced by the “United States Federal Government” most especially US dollars and court rulings with family court and federal court being by far the most deadly of all. I know as I acted upon my knowledge and so willed my own death as when a family court judge murdered my children I fought evil with unconditional love by invoking the most lethal words of all in the English language: We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

My invocation of that idea, a right, and my true belief or faith in it caused my suffering and eventual death. I was crucified, died and was buried on the Suprme Court docket. I rose from 66

the dead. I walked around for about 40 days preaching the gospel of Philadelphia and then ascended into the office of the President and Commander where I now sit because the Solicitor General of the US failed to respond. All of this was by my own hand and upon my own will and liberty as I meant for this to happen. I never had to die a second time on paper in December and in spite of actual reality – I directly entered on 11/20/08 so it is unconstitutional to then deny me redress in person as that is the absence of any and all moral authority on SCOTUS part - as one denial and one denial of rehearing was enough to prove my case. I do not control what SCOTUS and the NY family court did to make that second death neccessary. I always knew I am a pro se constitutional authority case of original jurisdiction and to actually kill me and the ideas I have you are going to have to work a lot harder than that as failing to act has always been my ticket to heaven as once you fail to act I then own all of the power as the only real, actual difference in power in the US is moral authority as we all have one vote. If you violate the law or its spirit or better yet fail to act then all actual power is mine. Or so I truly believed. Now I know as absolute fact that moral authority separates the men from the monkeys and/or the pieces of paper. Moral authority or will is apsiration!

It is the will or moral authority of the people acting upon those words that is the proof as in America life is proof not paper. Paper is a dead instiution; even our Declaration, the actual piece of paper itself, is a dead institution of government. Documents are never, ever alive and do not have life. People do thus people live out the Declaration and Constitution or not in spite of anything the Supreme Court or any court or any body of government writes within a ruling, act, decision, code, bill, report, order or judgment. None of that is actual law; it might be law and even if it is law it may not apply to you thus the only difference is you and your moral authority. The only words after those upon our two governing documents that are actual 67

written law of the US? Marbury V Madison but you would not know it if you took the advice of the ‘accepted’ US legal establishment and its official, formal, sanctioned authorities or if you judically reviewed the actions of the citizens over the past two decades or so.

These ‘authorities’ would be an authority when it comes to telling lies only as they are the best liars in the business and some of these people lie without saying a word. Thank god John Marshall warned me: “Susan, if their words and actions do not match the paper? Run as the only other consideration is where we are standing and this is the United States; you don’t wait until injury or death happens you act before - as soon as you know.”

John Marshall reasoned no authority is outside of your person; at best I am your legal equal but as for a moral authority over you, above you or outside of you? I am only as I act. The highest appellation of all is our law and we exactly named the Creator and that is our standard of excellence. I’m John Marshall. As close as I come to perfection? I’m not perfect, only God is. However as long as I compare myself and hold myself to the law which names the Creator? You have zero excuse to do anything less. Anything less makes us something other than a constitutional nation as it makes us a nation of unjust men and injustice, as it causes death, is against our very nature: life. Never, ever answer to another man as in the end it is always between you and your Creator. I, Susan, will add: He wasn’t perfect but he did something humans do every once in a great while: He expressed perfection or elegance upon a piece of paper. As much as it pains me to admit Mabury V Madison is brilliant and not only an actual flash of true genius but it is sheer elegance.

68

When evalauating whether or not written work is elegant linguists consider only the exact words and punctuation. They do not consider design; they do not stand back and examine the construction of a document. Thus they claim our Declaration is one of only three pieces of perfect writing in English. However once you consider the actual design or construction of the whole document in question? The American founders produced three pieces of perfect writing in word and design: The Declaration, The Constitution and Marbury V Madison. All law of the US and this universe as it exactly matches the design of the universe and the manner in which this universe actually works no matter what science or theology claims. If it is elegant and it is of this universe you will find it within these three documents once you learn how to see and hear with your whole brain and your whole heart instead of your eyes only as you will never come to own exactly worded proof and some of your proof will be yours and yours alone. My proof is myself and other people not the words and not the numbers as personhood is the fingerprint I know to be truly unique. Marbury is a unique fingerprint and is covered with unique fingerprints.

Thomas Jefferson is fundamentally responsible for Marbury as it is his idea and he issued the order but who is legally and actually resonsible? Legally Madison executed the order but actually John Adams is the cause as he issued the actual paper commission and so is Alenexander Hamilton as he gave birth to the ideas that were the Federalist Party as well as wrote the Federalist Papers along with Madison and our first Chief Justice John Jay and he, unlike Adams and Jefferson, was present at the Constitutional Convention plus he cast the ethical and moral vote he never wanted to cast but knew he needed to cast as he had no other choice but to be who he is, a moral authority answering only to himself and so willing to act upon it at all costs, thus he broke the tie that then awarded the election of 1800 to Jefferson. It 69

is an elegant chain of causation whereby from the smallest to the largest particle of light it is perfect; it is matter turning into energy and back again and its design folds back in on itself and explodes exactly as our universe does. It is the creation of energy, an event that is not supposed to be possible but it is as I am the proof: 205 years after the fact it is the energy that caused me to achieve enlightement and then propelled me directly into the Supreme Court itself without ever petitioning a lower court as a pro se litigant, never having been inside a court as a petitioner or plaintiff and finally directly entering, something else that is supposed to be impossible. Literally I produced or created energy spontaneously by converting the thoughts, feelings, ideas and beliefs of other people into energy. We know this as fact as I’m on the Supreme Court’s docket and something caused action to be taken on November 20th, 2008, 15 days past November 5th, the day the Solicitor General’s response was due but never came and it was not the Solictor so it had to be my idea and my action that moved the clerks thus: We have either gotten our science wrong or gotten US law wrong as entering directly is supposed to be impossible, humanly impossible for any person.

Science is incorrect upon many levels as what you will find in science text books and journals is not how this universe actually works and in fact something we have acccepted as fact and reality from Isaac Newton’s day and which we always believed to be a fundamental law is not however science authorities, those deemed by other scientists to be knowledgeable and accepted or official, do not know this as I have not revealed this knowledge to any named scientific institution as a part of my unique knowledge is: Next to actual babies and the atomic bomb? US law is the most stunning creation man has yet come up with all on his own. Partly deliberate, partly accident, partly mistake, partly knowing and partly grace or providence but all of it willful it comes together within US law and is elegant. It’s the people 70

who have a long way to go before they match the paper some of which is not visible ot the naked eye or naked ear via living it out as real and so, as I myself became perfected where else would I go to reveal what I know save for the American people, specifically US Supreme Court as our law names unique intellectual property in Article I Section 8? I wouldn’t publish this anywhere else as I am Native American.

I volunteered to conduct the experiment and did. I might present my results to a scientific journal to secure accolade and acclaim or I might write a best seller to then earn millions or I will return it to its rightful owners as I did not invent absolute and whole numbers anymore than I invented DNA - the Creator did. True knolwedge is wisdom and that is a gift of God so humanity owns it not any one person. An actual gift is unconditional; to then return that gift you take it straight to the people and that is the Supreme Court of the United States.

US law is unconditional as it is inviolate terms as a contract is not good if you do not own the knowledge of the terms if they are conditions that change after you vote and so enter it. The terms of our law are inviolate as to change them our law is you enact an exactly named process thus one of our inviolate terms is due process and the ability to amend our law via a vote of Congress. Due process is itself inviolate as process is a part of the fabric of who and what we are as we served Great Britian with a paper petition and we informed the people. No person was forced to fight on our side and reasoned it for themselves. Britain had notice as we refused to be as they were: unjust. You can’t actually and legally win a Revolution if you act unjustly in return. You never own your victory and other people can and will question it. We defied an Earthly authority who claimed divine right by making the legal claim that God loves us just as much as you and if anything that actual crown is getting in God’s way as you aren’t 71

hearing or feeling it when he comes knocking. Our money is riding on this idea: If the law is on our side and it seems to match the law of nature then God must be on our side too thus you will lose and lose decisively. Finding my own self embroiled in an actual war and fighting completely alone without reinforcements and none in sight I reasoned and decided: Marbury. I will create the court and so the jurisdiction. I will defy authority I know to be criminal, corrupt, malicious, unjust and morally bankrupt until I triumph or until I die, whichever comes first as giving up on US law is not an option.

John Marshall told me that if I thought I could or would receive any Earthly award like money or fame for defying Earthly authority I needed to think again as in the end it was not about me and any other person but a matter of my own conscience which is another way of saying between my own person and God. He also cautioned me that if I did anything less? I might end up paying a price I could not afford to pay as physical death might then be a relief as living with your actions and the good or bad you effect or realize in this world is the true cost. He only named liability to give me an added incentive as most Americans these days are actually selfish and greedy and Marshall saw this one coming from far, far away. Liability? There’s all kinds of liabilty in this world such as moral liability; it is not always a matter of money but you would not know that looking around this nation today.

“Unconditional” means exactly no conditions but only terms which is why we have Supreme Justices not supreme judges as US law constitutes justice. My nation can resent me and hate me, absolutely despise me, and change the terms as they please and subject me to unfair and ever changing conditions; my nation can injure and harm me until I am dead and even abandon me and leave me to suffer a living death but the first time I allow that to affect my 72

person I have lost my cause: I, Susan, a living constitution who is forever pro se. I’m not about to give up on myself or that which I have won as I am victorious and I, Susan, plan upon leaving my fingerprints all over this weapon so people own this knowledge: I’M GUILTY! I DID IT! I DEFIED AUTHORITIES OF ALL KIND THAT WERE UNETHICAL, IMMORAL AND UNCONSTITUTIONAL AND OBEYED THE DECLARATION, THE CONSTITUTION AND MARBURY IN WORD AND SPIRIT UNTIL I PROVED US LAW IS ELEGANT, MARBURY IS WRITTEN LAW NOT MERELY FEDERAL PRECEDENT AND THE SUPREME COURT IS UNWRITTEN LAW. THE INSTITUTIONS ARE PERFECT; ITS THE PEOPLE WITHIN THEM OR REFUSING TO LISTEN TO REASON THAT ARE KILLING ME. I’M ALSO GUILTY OF RELYING UPON ACTUAL DEAD PERSONS WHO CAME EXTREMELY CLOSE TO PERFECTION FOR AID AND ASSISTANCE IN MAKING THIS CASE, IN SURVIVING UNTIL I COULD GET HERE AND FOR ENTERING THE CHURCH OF PHILADELPHIA AS NO LIVING PERSON IS WILLING.

Proof of life? John Marshall and Thurgood Marshall are my co-counsel of record and Hamilton’s been dead for over a hundred years but he advised me to argue honor bound contracts as a life and death safety issue. He also pointed out that he is on a ten dollar bill for a reason and it is not because he was President: So I would then connect that to having $1.27 in the bank, 1+2+7, not 10 but 1 as ten is whole but one is absolute and he’s on our money and was an absolute but whole, an actual commander who literally threw himself into a literal breach during a Revolutionary War battle but escaped unscathed to war funding. MONEY. As money was not his reason for being shot by Burr but honor and safety was. Money is a contract. 54 Wall Street his old address. 1054, 1954, 2054 or the Schism, Brown and the North 73

Pole. North, a metaphysical direction as ‘righteous’ not ‘right’ is. A man standing for his daughter. Why pick a man standing for a girl and not a woman standing for her son? A ruse; a plan. Marshall plan. 54 is the design. 27 is my ‘lucky’ number and that is half of 54. 5-4 decisions of the Supreme Court. Bush V Gore from out of FL where I live now and 5-4 is 1 but not per curiam. 54 Wall? The stock exchange and a slave market; NY where I was born...Hamilton was not born here but in the French carribbean...honor bound contracts? He, Washington and Jefferson shook hands over one of the biggest land deals in history which was also a legal issue and an issue about: MONEY. North versus South. War debt. That deal became Washington, DC where SCOTUS is and where that 5-4 decison sits as a tie. Where I am going. North...and I live in FL where there happens to be more varieties of poisonous snake than almost any other place on the planet except Australia, snakes as in lawyers as we have more of them too and deadly ones and what do I live on? On one of the only rivers in the whole world to flow north, the St. John’s River as in John the Baptist. About the only other river to do so? The Nile where the pyradmids are and a pyramid is on the back of our dollar! According to Madison’s notes the founders said upend that pyramid if this happens. It’s all one and the same. Intrinsic force, the force I named after Marshall’s Marbury ruling as he said politics is intrinsic...could this be bigger than I ever realized: Proof of life? Uniformity?

Thurgood Marshall signed on as co-counsel with Rotsker. He said I was wasting my time mailing attorneys; he said you’re never, ever going to get a lawyer as it is not “lawyer”. Then he said it was not “black” or “man”. He said it is not his person or co-counsel but might be “Marshall”. I said, “Wait one minute. You pulled that name off of a list of names. Lots of names come before Brown and Brown is no accident as it exactly describes your case. And Brown is not Ruby but a man standing for his daughter Linda and my aunt Linda hated me 74

only because of my name. I was told, we hate you because your name is Susan. Like that is reason, actual reason to justify hate. Linda is spanish for pretty. Susan is Hebrew for Lily. My family never knew it is Hebrew and they are Catholic but Einstein was a Jew and today you are a Jew by choice. White is the ‘Jewish’ race. But the Iroquis were here first; we reunited here, letter and spirit. One langauge: the law. Thurgood Marshall, you did this to me on purpose and I hate you as you could have made a different choice! You knew and you could have but you did not! You planned this.” I was angry, so angry I was on the verge of tears. I wanted to kill Thurgood Marshall; he was fired! Then it hit me. It was as if Thurgood was in the room. As if he was sitting next to me. I looked at him and said, My mother’s maiden name is Brown. You did plan this and I’m the difference. Me, a woman, Brown’s daughter all grown up. You could not know my exact name but you knew I would exist and I would figure it out because anybody can run their fingers over Brown V Topeka as it is in our history books: Brown is legal power for black men only! Not black women! Obama is the proof! Thurgood Marshall was so damn happy I finally figured it out he started laughing at me.

OMG! I looked inside of me but not at me. I never considered my appearance. How dumb could I be? And the number one clue was staring at me every time I looked in a mirror. I’m white or so it appears; it seems as if I do have legal power but I do not and now men have robbed me of moral authority by giving us away to batterers and then kidnapping my kids! Legal power is not actual for any woman! If she claims it as I did then men target her moral authority by violating her person! That’s what domestic violence is and now it is federal. Dumb, dumb, dumb. No, as first the opportunity has to exist or else it is impossible. I had to create my own opportunity as none existed. I had to make the impossible then possible. I had to exist, me exactly. And the person I’m named after only became Susan Herbert legally after 75

coming to America. She came from Glasgow; her actual birth name was Susan Livingstone. Livingstone. Solomon’s temple. Walking through a stone Chinese wall...to get inside SCOTUS. THE LAW. Design! The Creator. Either I’m St. Patrick and I’m going to drive the snakes out of FL and DC or I’m the Creator and I know I’m not the God as I met parts of him seven times until I finally met him. But St.Patrick? That is my brother’s middle name and is the name of the church I was baptised in as an infant. John the Baptist strikes again. This brother is the not one who killed me, the other one who first took my children is that brother, but Kevin Patrick is the one who told me a President decides a tie in the Supreme Court...we were talking about an election. A Presidential election. I thought people would be up in arms. But they weren’t. Why not? We had this conversation in the 70’s. He meant a 4-4 split or an exact tie. But I know you can tie a decision over an election two other ways in the Supreme Court because of the Chief Justice being an equivalent legal authority and an equivalent moral authority. No other person is equivalent both ways but only legally, not even a President is both my legal and moral equal – he might be - but a Chief Justice is as it is the design or nature of the office due to Marbury.

It has to do with the military and children. Thus in

Supreme Court it never goes “back” to a lower court but forward, to the people. Accident by design as Bush V Gore is a tie no matter how you count it due to extraordinary circumstances and I am not St. Patrick but my father’s name is the same as George Bush’s name, even the Jr., and my hair is red...now who could have designed this? My short list includes three suspects: Thomas Jefferson, Susan Herbert and the exactly named Creator.

I went with the Creator and John Adams as I was not going near Jefferson with a ten foot pole and Adams was willing to act as President of the Senate even after they shut him up which is the very first civil rights violation disguised as a vote of the Senate in US history as well as is 76

the first corruption of our law and he issued Marbury’s paper commission plus he makes me laugh, thus the two Marshall’s became my co-counsel along with several other dead persons as only the Creator makes mistakes this beautiful as he cleans up the messes we create which is what an accident by design is. Nothing but nothing surprises the Creator of it all. If the Creator isn’t cleaning it up a human might as a part of the Creator’s plan but if a human does? Humans never know it as they are it. How could John Marshall know as absolute fact he would be cleaning up our mess in 2008 or 2009? Or that what he wrote is elegant as he wrote it? He could not know as he was it and as he did it in 1803. John Marshall could not know it as he was first, an actual Revolutionary: MARBURY V MADISON IS ELEGANT AND IS OUR LAW BUT ONLY IF THE LONE CITIZEN LIVES IT OUT AS REAL AS US LAW AND SCOTUS DOES NOT WORK IF THE PEOPLE ACT UPON THE MISTAKEN BELIEF SCOTUS IS AN ULTIMATE AUTHORITY OUTSIDE OF THEIR PERSON.

SCOTUS only works and is law if the citizens understand that by casting a vote we agree to award our custody both phyiscal and legal to the President and Chief Justice. They check each other. When SCOTUS issues a decision? BEFORE they ‘rule’ we are to author an americus brief if we own knowledge they do not. But clerks get in our way. AFTER they ‘rule’? When they call the fight we then are agreeing to live out that ruling as reality or apply it to our lives thus conducting the experiment and then, having the results, if we know it to be unconstitutional or if we know it to be ‘off’ point or if we know there is a fault line in their resoning we are supposed to go back to the court but clerks get in our way. Clerks told me why they were in my way: Woman, mother and no law school. Then: no Federal Appellate ruling not even upon a writ of prohibition. I could only act pro se if I was a man or if I had a law license. I could never, ever enter directly not even if Marbury says you can and may and 77

not even if one man did so it was not equal and due to deny a woman. NEVER, I was told. I thought, OMG. It’s worse than I knew. SCOTUS is giving the only power it has away to Congress and the states are two away from an unconstitutional convention. I acted for myself: Accidentally by design but mostly deliberate, knowing and willful design I crafted a lawsuit that was acted upon but never filed gaining me direct entry as John Marshall already awarded this round to WE, the people: Actions define you and so acting upon our law makes us a constitutional nation thus your life, not death and not dead paper, is proof.

Accidentally by design when Marshall authored Marbury V Madison the words of our law and the spirit of our law united as one. Faith and reason met and married at long last but we would not know it for another 200 years as a volunteer was going to have to put those exact words to the test. I’m that volunteer as I know Bush V Gore is unconstitutional and the real, actual reasons for it and that is it is an extreme test of chain of command theory directly due to Clinton perjuring himself and Congress making him an exception to the law by denying reality and so excusing crimes against women which is how it then resulted in an illegally declared war and a foreign born man ascending to the office of the Executive via circumventing the process enitrely. I, Susan, despise Clinton, Congress, most of the citizens and the lower courts including the lower federal court but I am in love with Marbury V Madison and Bush V Gore. I can’t marry a piece of paper but I do indeed have an intense emotional relationship with those two documents. Unique fingerprints as Supreme Court Justices authored them and they are found only in America as our high court is not legislated.

I, Susan, the jury am still out as to whether I despise or love John Roberts and the unique institution known as the Supreme Court of the United States. 78

II. Marbury v Madison: Constitutional Authority Vested In The Lone Citizen, or, Like It Or Not Marbury Is The Law Of The US And This Universe

This is a case of original jurisdiction as Bush V Gore is an illegal award of our custody and an illegal violation of separation of power as the Supreme Court assumed the power of one, a power clearly granted to the single citizen and the person who is President only.

To ask the Supreme Court to decide a presidential election holds the Court to an impossible standard as it then must predict the future and no court can know if the sitting President will do his duty and if not, can and will another citizen act? Bush V Gore is a tie, 5 as 1 versus 4 as 1, as it cannot be 9 or the Justices have voted twice for President and either way the person who is President is to have issued a reasoned decision of his own and/or an executive order. 9 as 5-4 as 1 is not constitutional in the case of Bush V Gore as it is about the difference between whole and absolute numbers; it is one citizen one vote which in this case is equivalent to one body of government one vote or 9 as 1. That is our law as we are a never-ending chain of command and are peers; no single vote has more or less power than my own. William Clinton failed to act as a President decides a tie.

The only form of the power of one the Supreme Court as a whole may ever invoke is unanimous and the only form it may invoke as an absolute is the Chief Justice alone standing down the sitting President. However the Chief Justice may not be able to stand the President down due to conditions he does not control: A citzenry who refuses to exercise their rights and fails to act over and over and a Congress that violates the law by excusing a criminal act only as the person who is President commits it and/or because their own members are guilty of the 79

very same things: extramarital affairs and sexual harrassment. Unfortunately the actual charge was then and remains now PERJURY. Congress was at the time of Clinton’s impeachment and is now guilty of perjury as well. In this unique case then a Chief Justice may not be able to stand down the President citing perjury as it would constitute double jeopardy and another able and capble citizen must be available to assume command as a Chief Justice cannot hold both offices. If such a citizen exists? The Chief Justice cannot appoint he or she as that is unchecking himself. No matter how you reason it unless a citzen brought suit? The citizens via failing to vote and failing to uphold our law thus creating Bush V Gore placed the Chief Justice in an imposible situation; it is an imposible standard and an impossible condition to meet. In any event:

A Chief Justice may not negate our vote and thus uncheck himself as the Chief Justice and the President check and balance one another. They are equivalent legal authorities. In this way then the people check the Supreme Court; they check and balance the court via their whole vote vested in the person who is President and/or by direct legal challenge. Bush v Gore then was a two way tie as it was and is also 1 whole court aside the Chief Justice, or 9 –5-4 as 1 for Bush versus the whole popular vote, We the people, 1 for Gore or 1 versus 1, a tie. The Eletoral College? It matters not as that institution carries no moral authority. It posesses moral authority only if it acts upon an ethic and that is not a part of the nature of that office as it is the Chief Justice; the last Elector to do his job? The lone Elector who voted for Anderson in 1980 to protest the crisis he saw looming in front of us: A nation that is selling its vote and a two party monopoly that refuses to obey our law and controls the process. So then it would yet be 1 verus 1, that lone elector, a third party versus both the People or the Court, or the College versus the People as the Court is a part of the People and we do not have 155 or 538 80

Justices but only 9. It is a tie no matter how it is counted due to the whole vote of the People or any one vote being equal to an Executive Order according to Marbury. The difference is always moral authority not legal power as we all have but only one vote thus placing it between the sitting Chief Justice and a lone citizen.

If the sitting Chief Justice dies after negating the whole vote effectively castling with the person being installed as President to counter any in violation of the law acts that person or his administration might commit? Power has been consolidated in the Chief Justice and whole court. The sitting President then must appoint an already sitting Justice whom he did not nominate or nominate a person already sitting but based upon something that is arbitrary such as old age or longest tenure to then begin rechecking the offices of government. If he does not he has unchecked the office of Executive, his own office, and so chain of command is not only interrupted but completely severed; the violation of separation of power is endemic or gross. If the President nominates a person who is not an arbitrary appointment or is not already sitting whom he did not nominate thus there is a conflict of interest? And the office of executive is unchecked? The law is about to be overthrown. Congress (Senate) must act to refuse to appoint that person. If Congress fails? The law is overthrown. As Marbury sued the President by suing Madison a citizen will have to sue the Commander by suing the Chief Justice as the direct result of unchecking the office of President after first unchecking the Chief Justice (Bush V Gore is the cause of unchecking Chief) will be: WAR, against innocent women or declared on bad evidence or military called out against innocent civilians. Logic and reason dictates this will happen at some future point as the point our law is really, actually and legally overthrown has to be about the office of Commander. Why? The citizens failed to vote; if a failure to vote is the first cause then you have not ‘elected’ a President but instead 81

had a Commander forced upon you because Bush’s and Gore’s lawyers are criminal but not stupid. Whoever won Bush V Gore could then call out the National Guard or the military to then enforce it. If citizens protest squash it with the National Guard. And that is known as a military dictatorship. Thus the point of actual overthrow, the point of law, was always going to be about the Commander or war. You can know the issue not the exact details.

So then, if you know this you can then reason something else: Any single citizen can then sue to either remove the illegally appointed Chief Justice, to remove the illegally installed President or to be placed upon the ballot in all 50 states. In this case you may not sue to remove the Chief Justice unless he has displyed incompetence or has failed to perform his duties. Issuing a ruling you do not personally approve of, relying upon faulty reasoning or even issuing a ruling that violates our law is not failing to fulfill his duties nor is it proof of incompetance: 1, If he is acting we know he is willing 2, His oath is to the best of his ability whatever that ability may be and 3, An illegally appointed Chief Justice who is sitting illegally? He is not in violation of the law unless he knows and he would have to know something he cannot know, it is not humanly possible, until the lone citizen presses suit as it is not about his appointment as logic dictates it has to be a fact of the peitioner as the Chief Justice subjected himself to review of the Senate thus we know his fact so he then is to get at least one lone opportunity to become a legal appointment once he owns the knowledge the petitoner brings forth as the equal protection and due process clauses apply to him; a Chief Justice is not the exception to the law as he is Chief Justice – if anything he is never excepted from our law as he has the highest, strictest standard.

82

Logically, and via application of past federal precedent, and in consideration of the conditions that exist now, and in consideration of the nature of the injury, only one kind or type of citizen meets the burden, meets the standard, has pure or absolute standing and so can and will make this case: A citizen who is a mother.

I was illegally denied my vote in 2000, 2004 and 2008. I’m now suing for civil rights violations, for breach of the contract known as US law and for direct, personal injury by the clerks and/or the Chief Justice and as offical unjust policy exists within the Supreme Court that harms me and all women and then all ethical persons. It was acted upon in my unique case. I have never been granted protection of the law or due process. Some of the effects of equal protection and due process being denied my person and denied to other women is that no woman or minority has been of the ability to become the legally elected President, unfit persons have been on the ballot and/or elected and that this office has been openly bought and sold. Only mothers and veterans have a constitutionally protected right to this office and we have been denied this right and this privilege and mothers grossly so as the people then elected a man not able to apply the law to women or to fulfill the oath of office and when I and other women are able and capable thus the 2008 election was not legal and went forward when my federal case went unadjudicated due to no fault of my own.

A violation of my rights and a violation separation of power continues to this day as the power of one, Executive Order, and the power of one, my vote and then the whole vote, rests within the Supreme Court as evidenced by Bush V Gore, Schiavo, Castlerock and Carhart and other rulings concerning women which are all de facto executive orders that deny us equal protection and due process and self determination, our safety and hope, all rights, and now this violation of 83

separation of power serves to deny us our very lives when we are innocent and when we are made vulnerable and kept vulnerable.

The entire federal government from the lone citizen to the office of the President has fallen and is now refusing to accord women and Susan Herbert alone and their innocent children some of who are enlisted service members any and all protection of the law, as legal power, a vote, no longer exists in actual reality but is merely a matter of arbitrary federal court rulings and as the federal court at its highest level, US Supreme Court, is now awarding the death of innocent women to men and asking innocent women to meet the unconstitutional proof of death standard. The federal government is now acting upon the following belief as true and fact when it is not real and is not biologically possible: That a woman cannot reason and decide life and death issues concerning her person or any persons as she is defective in the logic and reasoning department thus men must possess absolute authority over her and that men can and do give birth to living constitutions – live human babies. The federal government is insisting that women and children are safe and Susan Herbert herself is safe, and that equal protection and due process exist in actual reality, when that is impossible if the federal court, almost exclusively male, is now demanding that Susan Herbert die and stay dead or that she never be born. From In Re Susan Herbert, 07-9804:

“I first was made to act alone and later chose to act alone; to this day this choice is not mine but one that is forced upon me as I will never acquire the human ability to write with the technicality of an attorney nor will I ever be of the human ability to follow the rules exactly. I cannot do what is humanly impossible for me and I cannot force or make any person do a job or obey a law if they are not willing to do so. I cannot make another have faith in our law. I acted upon my own faith in the law, our written Declaration and Constitution, and then my own moral authority and the advice given to me in Bush V Gore by the Justices and then all prior Supreme Court decisions regarding equal protection and due process as the citizens are of a mistaken belief and that is that this court does not give advice. This is not fact as all Supreme 84

Court decisions are advice to and for the citizenry and so George Bush Jr. and I receive exactly the same advice from the Supreme Court. I willed myself to know what I did not and to become what I was not. I stopped fighting a county court that was embroiled in graft as it was pointless and instead, in 2000, began planning my assault upon the county, state and federal judiciary and the unjust men and now some unjust women running this nation that do nothing or act against me and my children. I decided I would not allow them to use money or female as reason when it is excuse. I decided I would not enter my petition until I could argue on my own behalf and due to my children being abused I had to wait until they would never need to testify, only want to testify if safe. Because of a physical injury and lack of resources I must argue orally as I cannot prepare a brief, and I knew I needed to be of the ability to argue all equal protection and due process issues and then all constitutional law and so had to teach myself due to the past effects of the discrimination of women and due to what this now endemic domestic violence has done to Americans: Not one other citizen recognized that late Chief Justice Rhenquist gave standing to pieces of paper and lawyers not the persons vying for the office who were to take the presidential oath and did so when he knew they had no equal protection and due process issue as a similar situation has occurred in the past and never went to the Supreme Court. The Electoral College yet exists; Congress failed to act and so did our Governors as they do have the power of one and could have sued as a third party on behalf of their states citizens as they are a states legal custodian and no single citizen was ever likely to have the ability to sue. Neither Bush nor Gore defended their own constitution and instead allowed lawyers, snakes, to whisper in their ear and to lie to the Supreme Court and the American public by creating a brand new claim, one that would set new precedent, in order to gain access to the federal judiciary and do so at the highest level possible as a case of original jurisdiction. These snakes made it seem as if their claim was heard upon appeal from the Florida courts and was legally sound; they made it seem as if there was an equal protection issue and due process issue present when there was not, only issues and problems these men created for themselves over the course of 200 years by acting to deny legal voters their right and by acting to keep women from the offices of legal power. Bush V Gore itself was a case of the domestic violence named in Article 4 Section 4 occurring, perpetrated by lawyer-like snakes and an irresponsible press calling itself and its placing of blame, its blurring of the facts and its catering to political agendas “journalism”; it was aided by a Congress and the citizenry not willing to act and refusing to uphold and enforce the law, otherwise known as doing their job and/or exercising their rights that then served to deny all a Republican form of government. It was and is an absolute violation of our law as it violated the whole vote and thus our whole law. I knew actual reality was that Justice Rhenquist and the others by hearing Bush V Gore effectively liberated all Americans from the created barriers now in place - from the snakes, from the money, from the political parties and from the made up rules - that stand in our way and that keep us from this office unfairly and unjustly and so set new precedent: the Supreme Court bit the snakes right back by allowing each American to duly process themselves and so sue for the equal opportunity to become the elected President. In essence, all decisions of the Supreme Court are a sort of “per curiam” as it is a one whole court upholding the whole law via a whole majority. A Presidential election must be decided either a lone, absolute one, the Chief Justice standing down the sitting President (in which case 85

our government and law has been overthrown as the President must then be a criminal if he cannot or will not obey the law, or, we have a rogue Chief out to make himself a king via consolidation of power but in both cases we have 300 million citizens who failed) or 9 as 1, the whole court upholding the whole law via a whole majority aka the whole vote. In this way 9 as 1 is a whole one and an absolute one as it is a matter of absolute law: one man one vote, or, one body of government one vote. This is why actual “per curiam” is not used in this court as the math does not always add up due to this very issue, the election of a President aka constitutional authority, and as it is inherent or implied only issues of social importance or constitutional challenges are heard here. As it stands Bush V Gore is an unresolved, unrecognized tie. 9 as 5-4 as 1 is not legal or good math as it is actually 9 as 5-4 as 2, 5 as 1 for Bush and 4 as 1 for Gore or 1 versus 1, a tie. This door must not remain open as wide as it is now for it makes me and any American citizen a sovereign nation unto their self, a state acting upon their own and able to do anything the actual President can as long as they did not support Bush V Gore in any way as it makes us his equal in legal power as you cannot hold us to a contract you broke and Marbury says one must defy illegal orders or be liable for damage. I did not obey and I did not pay taxes except when forced to by an illegal order of the court and by illegal seizure. As I own the argument that places me in the office of the President and a second argument that also places me in the office of Commander in Chief no authority is above me. What citizen would act to enforce or uphold a law that they do not believe is real for them? Or act to enforce a law that does not seem or feel as if it protects and empowers their own person? The effects of the endemic discrimination of women and Bush V Gore serve to render our citizens willing victims, as their spirit is broken. I am the only example they have of a person acting on their own in spite of the odds and so they tell me that I am delusional, I am not being truthful, that it is impossible to have had my life unfold as it did, that I do not know our law or cannot apply it correctly and that if I am ever heard in court that I will be silenced or denied justice as they assume the Supreme Court is actually all those false things it has been labeled: political, corrupt, self-serving, unjust, unfair and intent on trashing and violating our law for their own personal gain or to enhance their egos. They willingly believe the lies they are told and believe the emotions they feel as facts of other people and so have become victims, citizen lambs to the slaughter and do not uphold the honor bond. The one thing our founders were not is willing victims. The one thing our founders were was accountable and their names upon the Declaration support this. The other thing they actually were? Responsible, for when their original Articles of Confederation did not work they invented a new form of government from scratch and then lived it out as real even when it was seemingly impossible and even when it was painful to do so. They admitted to their mistakes more quickly than they claimed their successes. The lives of Washington, Adams and Hamilton support this as their specific acts and specific words in specific places with specific people serve to prove their personal beliefs as authentic and genuine or facts of them. They are men who found themselves upholding the honor bond and fulfilling duty to the point it was physically and emotionally uncomfortable for them at times and even though it took Hamilton's life. They did so for those of us alive today. I, my own self, am proof the first patriots lived and were actual humans, real people alive in or around 1776 and 1787. I, my own self, prove they acted as they did and that what the historians 86

say happened did actually happen and is fact. No photographs exist to prove they lived; no paper is proof of them. No museum, created record or title in a book of history makes the words on any document the truth. The words are myth unless lived out as true belief as fingerprints, photographs and words prove nothing not even actual life. It is I, Susan, acting on her own that is proof as the fingerprints our founders left behind are all over me and inside my person and have become my faith. I, Susan, am proof that our American story now a legend and soon to become a myth unless I am heard was and is history. I seek not to dissolve our law but to dissolve instead a shadow government of people who have mistaken beliefs of our founders, this nation, this law, this world and themselves as Americans as anytime a person gives away their legal power and moral authority they are then a shadow government as we are supposed to be a living government and living law of people, thriving and striving and not a semi-dead or even half-awake government. To be half-awake is to be a shadow of our former selves and a shadow of what our founders intended for us. To choose the easy road and to make the easy decisions, the comfortable ones only, or to fail to act, is to be a shadow of who and what you might become; it is to use only a sliver of your power as a person. It makes us all ghosts of the founders instead of the living embodiment of their spirits. I am not a ghost. I alone among 300 million plus citizens understood perceived reality was not actual reality and that the Chief Justice and other Justices were dangling a shiny, red apple directly in front of our faces. I thought to plunder history just as our founders did as that was the one and only example I had - our founders - and so knew that snakes do not reason as they have no emotion and are cold blooded; they are after “I” and never “We” as We the people all appeared in court that day and lost as a reasoned decision for a runoff election and an executive order against all able bodied citizens directing them to fulfill duty and vote does not pay. I recalled Genesis: ‘And I will place enmity between you and the snake and you will strike at his head while he strikes at your heel and kills your children.’ I witnessed the snakes go for our Achilles heel, our Supreme Court, or the appearance of possessing constitutional authority over our humanity and so I struck back in conjunction with the Supreme Court in order to save myself and then my children as I knew after the Supreme Court is the President or my one person as that is chain of command theory. I knew without a unanimous decision the Supreme Court was opening a door not closing one as any dissent throws it to the people embodied by the sitting President and if he and all others fail it then goes to the lone person who caught it when Justice Rhenquist threw it: I, Susan.” – In Re Susan, 079804 I, Susan Herbert, became the constitutional authority by living US law and federal precedent out as real thus coming to know US law is elegant as it is written, that Marbury is law as is the existence of the Supreme Court as a not the court of authority or is a constitutional referee, that the resolution of uniformity sits within our law but physicists and all others failed to notice this, 87

that life or personhood thus the right comes into being at an exacting point before birth, that the exactly named Creator is actual reality, that our one vote if wielded correctly and if experienced as equivalent will and liberty is an actual physical force and that the case for equal rights, which I have made as I lived it, is also the case for the unification of faith and reason. This is also the case for the Supreme Court itself as an institution as except for the Justices I may be the only American who knows what the Supreme Court is and I’m now wondering if the Justices know as the clerks do not seem to know. I, Susan, the living person prove I am the most able and capable American citizen of all as I accepted your unfair conditions and succeeded against any obstacle whatsoever placed in your path and I prove that discrimination is real and does prevent a woman from ever actually ascending to the offices of President and/or Chief Justice as no way is possible except federal lawsuit if you are not willing to violate the law. I prove beyond any doubt that our law is just and our law actually empowers the most disadvantaged person there is as I defied those orders and still triumphed by entering Supreme Court directly thus I actually and legally ascended to the office of President and so no authority is above me. Barack Obama sits in reality; nothing makes that actual or legal. All I encountered along the way said this was not actual, real, legal or even possible – a lie - as George Washington did it before me and so did another, William Marbury, but I had an advantage they did not as I have Marbury v Madison itself, Bush V Gore and physics.

I may have had to endure abject suffering, torture, broken bones, hunger, isolation, forced separation from my children for over a decade, exposure, extreme fear and enforced poverty but I triumphed never the less as our founders did not promise me money or things but something far rarer and more valuable than all the things in all of this universe: The blessings of liberty. I actually received the blessings of liberty or so I truly believe as those were not of Earth and this 88

lawsuit will then tell me if the US’ promised Earthly blessings, named in the Preamble, are one and the same. I truly believe they are.

All court rulings in my case both state and federal violate the law and are abuse of power, abuse of judicial discretion and are arbitrary and capricious; none of them find any actual fact, some create the facts they want but do not have as the event never happened i.e. I did not write or do that thing – it never happened - and/or I never complained to that thing or made that point of law, or I am not that label such as claiming I filed as a woman only when I filed as a human being and some constitute crimes. In short whenever I trumped a judge’s or clerk’s reasoning that judge or clerk then committed what then became a crime instead of applying the law to my person equally or at all. I was faulted for being more intelligent and more able and capable than the elected and appointed officials and for knowing when agents were acting in violation of our law as all I ever did was hold the state of PA to the law and precedent known as Stankowsky V Kramer which says that a sate must knock itself out in making the attempt to reunite children with their parent if separated and that a parent may use the foster care system if necessary but this alone does then terminate any right as a parent can and may ask the state for assistance. I asked for protective custody and so volunteered BEFORE my children were injured thus the state could not blame me or hold me liable; it could not charge me with failure to protect as I invoked Marbury as well and that is what set all of this in motion in 1998 as PA had no way around my legal argument except to silence and control me, to attempt to injure me in an irreparable manner, by then handing me and my children over to known abusers and batterers some named as felons. PA offered zero services for our reunification; it placed my children in protective custody and then turned right around and handed them back to the very people named as the people we needed protection from. Then my children were spirited away into NY w/o the knowledge of anyone including the 89

court. NY then followed suit and as an actual dollar amount changed hands in the form of the sale of a house for one dollar as an incentive to harm us so we were sold across state lines and into human bondage only so PA and NY did not then have to pay liability to women as both states have secret unjust policy that I uncovered. It is secret as it is kept from women but all the attorneys and all the social workers and all the judges know of it. That’s collusion. It might be conspiracy. My mistake? Telling the “authorities” I know what you did and are doing and I am telling on you; I am telling the Supreme Court of the United States and do not think for one hot minute I need some $500 an hour self-righteous windbag to do it. I know the duties you are charged with under the law and I know the law! What are you going to do? Argue that you need to murder me because I was born and I survived to tell on you?

My reasoning and application of Bush V Gore and all of our law and then all of federal precedent is not wrong or mistaken; if I say it is a hardcore fact that Bush V Gore is a tie then it is as it is not a matter of personal belief but of reality as in history, exact words and math. If I say a woman sheds her blood and risks her life giving birth then she does, as that is a medical fact as it is our biology as well as a legal fact as we are a living government of people. No court may deny me or defeat me unless it: Unconstitutionally denies me any appearance in person, as the winning argument against this case does not exist. You can argue it but you will not then win. If this court or any person at all actually, truly believes it can argue against our law and against humanity as in legally kill our law and so kill humanity then be my guest, as that requires an appearance in person, doesn’t it? That person will be arguing to physically murder my children and me and do so with the permission of a court or arguing to overthrow our law with the permission of a court, or that person will be pleading temporary insanity.

90

This case can never be removed from Marbury, Bush V Gore, Austin V Herbert, In Re Susan Herbert, In Re Thomas Jefferson or the 2008 Presidential election as all are now inextricably linked. I am the constitutional authority and not you or any other person on Earth. God granted me what are inalienable rights thus no man can or may steal them from me or deny them to my person unless I allow it and I would first have to believe that is possible and then have to believe that I am powerless to defend myself. As I can read and I can count and do so better than any man alive or else he would be a co-appellant or I would have legal representation then I will never, ever believe anything that you write upon a piece of paper except for 9-0 FOR Susan Herbert as my legal argument is I AM A HUMAN BEING WHO IS A WOMAN AND A NATIVE AMERICAN THUS BIOLOGICALLY DISTINCT AND THEN INDIVIDUALLY UNIQUE SO AM EQUAL AS NO TWO PEOPLE NOT EVEN TWO MEN ARE EXACTLY THE SAME BUT ARE UNIQUE. IT IS NOT EQUAL RIGHTS BUT EQUIVALENT RIGHTS. We are not exactly the same as men and women. We are distinct but equal. As individual people we are unique.

The person who makes the case for equal rights for women and children then is, as the vote has to be violated and our law overthrown so she becomes it as she alone stands forever pro se in defense of our law, the constitutional authority of this nation. This person has to be a woman as no biological man can ever know pregnancy, he will never be pregnant, so then can never know when life begins as actual, legal and scientific fact as the knowledge is dependent upon the experience of having been pregnant thus is an actual biological fact of a woman and not a man. A man cannot own knowledge he will never have as a biological fact as all he can own is the exact words of our law and the exact words of science but never own actual proof beyond any doubt. Thus a person who is a man cannot make the case for equal rights yet they keep trying and the 91

federal court and indeed the entire federal government keeps allowing them to try via making law and authoring federal cases and so flies in the face of actual reality. The federal court has begun allowing male “authorities” to falsify proof as the argument and testimony of a man never rises above suggestive and circumstantial evidence in the case of woman or birth of another human.

How can a mostly male federal government reason and apply the law to women if it cannot reason and know life as a fact and cannot reason and know natural birth as a fact? If it cannot count? If this were possible then Barack Obama would not be running around as the physically real but not legal President so Obama is my proof beyond any doubt and I do not ever need to see his birth certificate or passport records to prove this as life itself is proof as Marbury V Madison states it is your actions that prove you as you act upon what you truly think, feel and believe. If actual reality, your words and actions and the state of my life and/or this nation, does not match the paper known as the Declaration and Constitution? Unjust men have hijacked this nation and our law thus we are no longer constitutional.

My right to press this case and to appear in person within the Supreme Court as a right fully vested as I acted and I match the paper. Lassiter states we have no right to legal representation in family court which the Supreme Court is in the case of an election but Bush and Gore had it while I do not and did not; Monell V DSS says a citizen may sue to enforce the law; Bush V Gore says I may sue for custody of the US; Marbury says I must act before and after and that we are all our own authorities in the end and so must as a duty defy illegal, immoral, unethical and unconstitutional orders or be held liable. The CA evidence code says some things, like the Holocaust, the Supreme Court’s own docket, our law or our American Revolution are so 92

universally known as fact and reality that they cannot be denied in any reasonable fashion. Thus I acted upon all of my knowledge. I did not breach the contract but the people, the Solicitor General exactly, the acting but never legal President exactly and the Supreme Court exactly did breach it. Thus I won my case from a time before I entered. All I need?

An appearance in person as until then my life and my children’s lives are not safe and are in mortal danger. This court needs to check and balance itself when it has heard a past case in which the legal argument is and remains: I need justice so I, a man, want to be allowed to kill my innocent wife, a woman and do so in an action which does not define life thus defines what it can never know – death, as to be dead you must first be a life and bodies do not prove life and death nor does paper and so reasons that death of the innocent is awardable only to men by men when they seek to kill innocent women and innocent children as actual reality is that case is going to the Supreme Court of the US as is my own and that court is and has always been a male majority since the birth of this nation and since Marbury was heard thus SCOTUS is not then a jury of my peers nor is it just representation so that women and children will always lose and lose their lives; they will always and forever be paying taxes unjustly and they will pay with their lives. Justice will never be theirs – ever – unless a woman is the Chief Justice or the President thus can and will stand alone, pro se, and make law.

I applied for both jobs and secured them as the Supreme Court’s own docket proves and so until or unless I can make Roberts appointment legal by appearing in person then this court has no power or authority over me and has no authority over any woman as if it did? This case would be captioned Susan Herbert V Obama and the US et. al and not Susan Herbert V The United States as the Supreme Court already decided this issue thus we have a federal appellate court 93

overturning a decision of the authority who is my person, then of the local federal court and the Supreme Court in spite of custom and without due process and without actual, legal reason or just cause.

I, Susan, entered a court already in violation of the law as it knows Schiavo to be unconstitutional and knew then and it knows it may not arbitrarily change the caption of a case especially if it then changes the very nature of the case and knew when it did it. KNOWING but then ACTING TO DO IT or FAILING TO ACT is a crime and this federal appellate court may not then blame the Supreme Court or me. What sane litigant would then agree to allow a corrupted court be it deliberate, inability or an actual mistake to then adjudicate her case? To exercise legal power and/or moral authority over her? She would not; if forced into that court she would act to defend herself and so I did. I’ll tell this court and whatever judge and citizen is reading this what I told the Supreme Court in my own notice of suit as I did not wait on the other federal court to act thus served them notice of suit which also served as a statement of the issue before this court did as I knew my rights would be violated as a fact: “It is unconstitutional and not effective or practical to let the inmates run the asylum as at some point asylum will no longer exist. Actual reality is no liberty, no justice and so no America. As goes the law so goes this nation and the eventuality is death. This eventuality is avoidable. James Madison warned us against the temporary passion of the people. He exactly said the people can and may become “possessed” of a “temporary passion”. The DSM names this as a mental illness. Liberty is choice so you choose: Are you possessed and/or mentally ill? I own the knowledge the Supreme Court and its Chief Justice may be misguided at times mostly due to attorneys missing the argument or presenting what is a lie as it is not the whole truth but I do not truly believe they are crooks who intend to cause harm and who have motive to do so as that is not a legal or just choice, is it? The law is: You are presumed to be innocent until proven guilty and as that choice – Justices who are actual crooks - then would mean I am going to have to find a foreign nation willing to allow me to liberate it in which to make my home. While I could poll the jury by asking all 9 Justices whom they voted for that is not necessary. For a Justice or myself the law is crook is not an option. Period. If you are a President and Commander? Crook is not supposed to be an option; you may be forced to act extra-constitutionally but never unconstitutionally. This citizen knows the difference...I’d find you guilty but you acted to dismiss and deny me unconstitutionally thus did not fail to act as that then is my means to sue for breach of 94

contract...it is as I said: Sometimes in life you are blamed while at other times you are credited; who wants to accept credit for Susan Herbert, the largest, greatest, most elegant point of law in all of world history, as it is the case for THE UNITED STATES VERSUS THE REST OF THE WORLD? You may take credit for this – me - as you caused it and you may blame me for this as I accept full responsibility for my actions and myself. Now, as it is up to me if you exist as a legal institution of government or not what is it going to be? Will you act pro se or not?” The applicable standard of review is always constitutional authority: “The Constitution states in Article III that: “The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one Supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish… The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution…” The legal case Marbury v. Madison, the basis for the exercise of judicial review in the United States, is an interpretation of the Constitution as applying to the law and government. It implies the power of federal courts to consider or overturn any congressional and state legislation or other official governmental action such as an election deemed inconsistent with the Constitution, Bill of Rights, or federal law. Opponents of judicial review have charged that the Supreme Court's power to invalidate Federal and state laws or actions has no counterpart in common or civil law, and has no textual basis in the United States Constitution. The law of the United States derives in great part from the common law traditions the colonies inherited from Britain, which arguably have vested the power of judicial review in the people since the signing of the Magna Carta in 1215. US law also borrows this from the Iroquois as our law uses their model; the Iroquois checks and balances extend into the nuclear family thus there are rarely authority court cases, judical review is not neccessary, as it is practiced from birth and as Iroquois men and women are interdependent. Proponents of the doctrine argue that while it is true that judicial review is not mentioned in the Constitution, it is also true that the Constitution makes no explicit mention of the adversarial system, stare decisis, or virtually any other specific aspect of the common law. The argument is 95

therefore made that these concepts were necessarily implicit in what the Framers understood by the term "the judicial power," and therefore should govern the Constitution's interpretation. See Barnett, “The Original Meaning of the Judicial Power.” In other words: We make it up as we go along. Sometimes we hit the mark and sometimes we miss. We know it is true or false, or mistaken or incorrect, by living it out so some proof we do not have yet as we are the proof. The Framers? See Federalist 78, quoted here as the citizens may not have read it: “It is far more rational to suppose, that the courts were designed to be an intermediate body between the people and the legislature, in order, among other things, to keep the latter within the limits assigned to their authority. The interpretation of the laws is the proper and peculiar province of the courts. A constitution is, in fact, and must be regarded by the judges, as a fundamental law. It therefore belongs to them to ascertain its meaning, as well as the meaning of any particular act proceeding from the legislative body. If there should happen to be an irreconcilable variance between the two, that which has the superior obligation and validity ought, of course, to be preferred; or, in other words, the Constitution ought to be preferred to the statute, the intention of the people to the intention of their agents... It only supposes that the power of the people is superior to both; and that where the will of the legislature, declared in its statutes, stands in opposition to that of the people, declared in the Constitution, the judges ought to be governed by the latter rather than the former. They ought to regulate their decisions by the fundamental laws, rather than by those which are not fundamental... These sometimes extend no farther than to the injury of the private rights of particular classes of citizens, by unjust and partial laws. Here also the firmness of the judicial magistracy is of vast importance in mitigating the severity and confining the operation of such laws. It not only serves to moderate the immediate mischiefs of those

96

which may have been passed, but it operates as a check upon the legislative body in passing them; who, perceiving that obstacles to the success of iniquitous intention are to be expected from the scruples of the courts, are in a manner compelled, by the very motives of the injustice they meditate, to qualify their attempts. This is a circumstance calculated to have more influence upon the character of our governments, than but few may be aware of... Considerate men, of every description, ought to prize whatever will tend to beget or fortify that temper in the courts: as no man can be sure that he may not be to-morrow the victim of a spirit of injustice, by which he may be a gainer to-day...To avoid an arbitrary discretion in the courts, it is indispensable that they should be bound down by strict rules and precedents, which serve to define and point out their duty in every particular case that comes before them; and it will readily be conceived from the variety of controversies which grow out of the folly and wickedness of mankind, that the records of those precedents must unavoidably swell to a very considerable bulk, and must demand long and laborious study to acquire a competent knowledge of them. Hence it is, that there can be but few men in the society who will have sufficient skill in the laws to qualify them for the stations of judges. And making the proper deductions for the ordinary depravity of human nature, the number must be still smaller of those who unite the requisite integrity with the requisite knowledge.. Upon the whole, there can be no room to doubt that the convention acted wisely in copying from the models of those constitutions which have established good behavior as the tenure of their judicial offices...” - Hamilton Federalist 47 and 48: “The reasons on which Montesquieu grounds his maxim are a further demonstration of his meaning. "When the legislative and executive powers are united in the same person or body," says he, "there can be no liberty, because apprehensions may arise lest the same

97

monarch or senate should enact tyrannical laws to execute them in a tyrannical manner." Again: "Were the power of judging joined with the legislative, the life and liberty of the subject would be exposed to arbitrary control, for the judge would then be the legislator. Were it joined to the executive power, the judge might behave with all the violence of an oppressor." Some of these reasons are more fully explained in other passages; but briefly stated as they are here, they sufficiently establish the meaning which we have put on this celebrated maxim of this celebrated author.” Federalist 48: “It was shown in the last paper that the political apothegm there examined does not require that the legislative, executive, and judiciary departments should be wholly unconnected with each other. I shall undertake, in the next place, to show that unless these departments be so far connected and blended as to give to each a constitutional control over the others, the degree of separation which the maxim requires, as essential to a free government, can never in practice be duly maintained....It is agreed on all sides, that the powers properly belonging to one of the departments ought not to be directly and completely administered by either of the other departments. It is equally evident, that none of them ought to possess, directly or indirectly, an overruling influence over the others, in the administration of their respective powers. It will not be denied, that power is of an encroaching nature, and that it ought to be effectually restrained from passing the limits assigned to it. After discriminating, therefore, in theory, the several classes of power, as they may in their nature be legislative, executive, or judiciary, the next and most difficult task is to provide some practical security for each, against the invasion of the others. What this security ought to be, is the great problem to be solved...Will it be sufficient to mark, with precision, the boundaries of these departments, in the constitution of the government, and to trust to these parchment barriers against the encroaching spirit of power? This is the security which appears to have been principally relied on by the compilers of most of the American constitutions. But 98

experience assures us, that the efficacy of the provision has been greatly overrated; and that some more adequate defense is indispensably necessary for the more feeble, against the more powerful, members of the government. The legislative department is everywhere extending the sphere of its activity, and drawing all power into its impetuous vortex.” -Madison What else did the framers say about the Judiciary, specifically the idea of the Supreme Court? From James Madison’s notes: Hugh Williamson asked James Wilson if he meant to have a council of the Executive and judges. He said No. He said, “A council serves oftener to cover, than prevent, malpractices.” Elbridge Gerry opposed the idea of a council including judges. “They would have a sufficient check against enroachment on their own department by their exposition of the laws, which involves a power of deciding their constituionality. In some states the judges have actually set aside law as being against the constitution.” Gerry assumed national judges could set aside laws found to be unconstituional and it was NOT commented upon. Judical review was discussed by some delegates. It seems as if it was presumed to be a part of the judical process or was it? Madison later said, “A law violating the Constituion established by the people themselves would be considered by the judges to be null and void.” The founders are assuming that the Legislative, the Judiciary and the Executive are the people and that authority to null and void a law against the constitution rises from the people standing upon the law, a law established by the people and a constituion established by the people – via the vote. They are not separate. To reason that the people can and may violate the law thus violate their own vote is ludicrous as WHO harms their own self? Why bother having a constitution or a vote then as a King can harm you without one so why then jettison what works if that is your plan?

99

This nation, US law, presumes the people will not act to violate their own vote as they do know thus ignorance is no excuse BUT it may be an actual reason in rare cases as we are a unique nation. In short, you cannot know until you live it out as real if you, America, are the one and only example. If you’re first then you are it; how can you know? We said, by not naming it, ‘Judicial review may exist if the need arises as we must conduct the experiment and as the people may become possessed as that is the evidence rising to proof which we do have’ as our evidence rising to proof is the historical record of Earth and Jefferson asked Washington why a Senate as that is a failed institution of government and Washington answered, not an exact quote, “So we’ll know what the people (House of Reps) are up to before it gets here”. Elected officials are supposed to be the people and are supposed to be standing upon the law. The need or emergency isn’t supposed to exist – not after 200 plus years of practice. Exigent emergencies are dealt with in Federalist 23; factions are dealt with in Federalist 10. Madsion and all of the founders knew: The people might become possessed as all past great governments have fallen because of this. The need was found to exist as no other nation allows you to challenge the ruler directly as legal power is arbitrary and/or not actual reality but not the need as the last resort or as the constituional authority as we are all volunteers and our ‘rulers’ are subject to re-election thus you check the Supreme Court with your vote or a direct lawsuit. We had the vote on paper but did we have it in real life? Are we actually equal in legal power? You can write it down but is it reality? Marbury V Madison answered this question definitively for men as legal power was made real in 1803 for men who appear to be white. In 1954 men who appear to be black had legal power realized. For women legal power has never been actual reality and today men have now made their legal power an arbitrary decision of the federal court as they have given that power and their authority away to the Supreme Court.

100

Marshall never meant to strip the citizens of constitutional authority but only to force them to live the law out as real thus coming to own the knowledge of it as proven by his actions after Marbury: He authored almost all rulings alone as he knew this could turn into a small group wielding great power and no man can know if that group will always act justly thus he set the example. He held himself to the same standard as Jefferson who also acted extra-constitutionally as he too had to do so. A citizen then could challenge Marshall and indeed William Marbury could have acted and forced another showdown. Marbury lost only as he never acted as the living emobodiment of the law ex post facto. If he did one of his actions would have been ruled unconstitutional or void and then Marbury could have sued again - as he would have been brought into court. Marshall wins again as does Marbury: The citizen is to be the living embodiment of the law thus a constitutional authority and so if any citizen went Marbury as a Justice they then were agreeing he is an authority with legal power to act. You may not agree but then disagree and opt out only if you personally do not like the decision you your own self made or the consequences of that decision, as no person forces you to do anything in the US as we are all volunteers. If you knew then you knew; your action is proof. Only under extraordinary circumstances would you not know something and that something would have to be about Marbury, Madison or Marshall as...Marbury never had to ‘obey’ Marshall and Madison never had to ‘obey’ the original order issued by Jefferson, did he? Jefferson did not matter in the end as Marshall wrote him out and for a very good reason as Jefferson might not have been able to defeat Marshall in person but he could have on paper and did so only he never published it: Jefferson authored a petition against the federal government on behalf of VA asserting state’s rights over a federal tax. He was advised not to enter it and he did not, as he knew he was correct but that it would cause more damage than good and so we might not exist today as we are sorely in need of actual authorities. He sent this petition to Madison as he wanted but did not need his 101

opinion and Madison was surprised and taken aback as he knew what it meant: The dissolution of the central federal government. Madison chose his words carefully and cautioned Jefferson against entering it although historians wrongly assume Jefferson would have lost in court. Historians assume many things but do not know why: John Marshall wanted and needed Jefferson out of the picture as Jefferson, like me, had faith in the people. Like me it could not be tempered as we believe you can will the citizens into becoming via setting the example. This does not always work due to things we do not control and so we passionate idealists often need to have a calculating realist ground us: By acting as Jefferson’s equal Marshall forced the issue to become one whereby Marbury or Madison had to challenge him as he accepted accountability and responsibility thus relieving Jefferson of it. Jefferson, like I, would not have been able to walk away from this point of law as it is so very important. Marbury was a means to avoid a direct confrontation with Jefferson, direct being on paper first and when that gave Jefferson the advantage. But Marbury V Madison was not designed merely to avoid Jefferson or to chastise Jefferson, or as a means to act around the Executive or the Legislative. It also provided a check against an imperial Presidency and/or dictator-like Commander either via your one vote or via the Chief Justice acting alone as not every person is Jefferson anymore than every person is Marshall. Marshall can only know himself as absolute fact; what if we do elect a runaway President? Or Congress does give up the ship? Marbury became an insurance policy against a temporarily possessed people and in defense of the exactly worded governing documents and the spirit in which they are written. Marbury V Madison is for all the right reasons as those reasons are righteous not self-righteous. The argument was changed to: Was this a petty disagreement between rivals? History books say it is. Some of these books go so far as to label the involved men as petty. It had nothing to do 102

with a petty rivalry as ultimately Marbury V Madision gave Jefferson what he needed and wanted: Legal power and moral authority as it is a decision whereby Marshall said, Disobey this very decision if you must thus it conferred constitutional authority upon all of us. The danger is exactly what Jefferson stated: Ownership of knowledge as if the people do not own their power as they have never before in all of world history lived under conditions that allowed them to actually exercise will and liberty thus feel it and so own it then they might give it away to the judiciary accidentally as people can read but they yet doubt their ability and capability and so go to federal court asking a question like “Can I?” People do not reason their own cases. US law is you can; the point of the law? You may as it is up to you to figure that out via life experience. Once you own the knowledge you can, and then own the knowledge you may, the question becomes: Will you? No judge, Justice or President or any other person can tell you what you can or may do as “can” is a given and no other person but you your own self knows all of your fact and so what is right for your own person or your children under any conditions. Only you know and so only you can make that decision. If you ask the federal judiciary for advice? You are limiting your liberty as every decsison you make in life is an exercise of liberty. As you can emotionally reason? You already know what is or is not against our law. You do not need a Justice or a President telling you what is or is not legal as your commission has been delivered as you are alive and as the paper sits in plain sight upon the wall of a national museum supported by your federal tax dollar thus admission is free. Ignorance is not an excuse and should not be an excuse but in a truly extra-extraordinary case? Ignorance might be the actual reason. How could any citizen know as fact without question that Marbury V Madison is elegant itself as the idea it contains is within our law but the exact institution – Supreme Court as the court of constitutinal authority or an authority equal to your own person but not outside or above you – is 103

not until or unless a citizen like myself lived it out as real thus testing it? John Marshall crafted what is elegant law not theory and not application; it exactly matches law of this universe that is unwritten as it is authored by the exactly named Creator and is known as physics. Marbury V Madison would be lived out in a way that mistakenly placed the Supreme Court over us as we believed lies, sold our vote thus sold justice and refused to accord women equal rights; it would be questioned, debated, denied and argued until or unless the need arose and so a citizen was forced to put it to the most extreme test of all: Not only the written law but chain of command theory as Marshall adressed both duties of the Executive and the law that rules war is written nowhere. A Commander exercises moral authority; he or she wills life into being where there is none via acting even if that means their death. A Commander removes the dead institutions and replaces them with living constitutions; she wills life as she is willing to trade her life for yours. No matter Marshall’s motivations he had insight so far reaching it was bound to confuse the citizens and even repel them as it demands you hold yourself to the perfect ideal even in death thus only a citizen so extraordinarily injured that she would literally and figuratively have nothing left to lose could or would act upon it wholly and go so far as to die to then be able to issue actual Executive Orders that carry the full authority or weight of the law. Her weight would be greatest as she had to become absolutely fearless by venturing into the unknown and so standing down fear until or unless death occurred or until she stood aside the Creator. What is the number one thing in this world that holds citizens back from claiming their liberty and acting upon it? From defending their own person first? Fear of the unknown. It is human nature and it is history: As death is one of the terms and as we are first we constantly engage fear and constantly encouter the unknown and at least one American has always been willing to go there on behalf of all other citizens. Jefferson, Adams, Marshall, Madison and 104

Marbury went to the unknown for all of us alive today and as humans live only about 80 years they then had only some of the results of their experiement – defying Earthly authorities and true power born of the internal God spark or as is our nature as humans as equal creators – and so could not tell us what they did not know and what had not yet come to pass. We had to live it out ourselves. Directly due to their actions I then had the idea to invoke Marbury and so live it out as reality thus testing it once and for all as the citizens are flopping around like fish on dry land gasping for air when it comes to ethical and moral issues and when it is a matter of justice. Justice is; no person should be afraid or indecisive when it is about actual justice. The citizens? They no longer reason, decide and then act decisively as the question of judicial review goes unanswered and injustice abounds so they look for someone or something to blame: I can’t do anything. Someone should get rid of the Supreme Court. How can something be an actual law if it is not within our law? How is it possible for one person to go up against an institution like the Supreme Court and win or how can any one person become the President if it is an emergency? How can you fight what you cannot even see? Why am I shut out? How can anyone solve this? Because: The spirit of the law is born of your actual power as a person as you can make any choice you wish to make but ownership of that power, or knowledge of it, wholly rests upon making the decisons that are most righteous and just as they are the most difficult of all to live with as you live with the consequences after the fact of it. Some consequences are good and some are bad; some are devastating. You do not always want to make these decisions but you know you have to do so; anything less would be giving up on yourself and God. It would be giving up on your nation or other people which then is everything you ever thought you knew and truly belived in and that is not a choice you can ever make as that will only serve to deny you actual liberation. Securing proof of life, making those most difficult of all decisions and

105

taking the ethical and moral high road no matter what, and acting in defense of others not able and not capable like other women and children, will require death and that might be physical death but it could be spiritual death. You can never know exactly. You can do it but will you? If you owned other knowledge such as this is about your humanity and your children being sentenced to death or sentenced to life and the winner of this legal battle takes all – the wisdom of the ages – you would indeed. You would act pro se and state PA’s unjust policy exactly for the record when the Philadelphia County judge asks you if you want him to consider anything to then prove it exists and prove judges are acting upon it he does exactly what all lawyers, social workers and court officers said he would do. You would throw yourself under an oncoming train as you know your children will be destined to live what you lived and never escape as you could not as nothing would change, or the third parties would follow through on their promise and never stop hounding you for the rest of your life, or that women and children who did not have all the ability and capability God gave you were being injured and/or dying and nobody was doing anything for them. People who could and were charged with the duty were not lifting a finger. You would if you knew as fact without question: I can do this; I never failed at anything I set my mind to doing, not once not ever. I can access the Supreme Court all by myself and they can’t. Everyone keeps saying I’m different and its me; that attorney knew when he heard it: courage; ability; fearless; principle; actual power. This will never end unless I act and I know so I have to act...I cannot do anything less. You can’t negotiate justice and be a just nation. You can’t reason and decide to harm the most vulnerable and survive. Philadelphia is the City of Brotherly Love and this universe has to be just; God wouldn’t let me fail. God would not let me lose. The reward has to be what they say it is: Wisdom.

106

You would rise above all others as you own the knowledge of that highest of all appellation. Any idiot can choose to become the cause of injury and harm but only those of will and liberty, actual power that cannot be removed from their person and that survives beyond the grave, are able and capable of choosing possible death and then living with and owning the effect of their actions in such a way energy is created. People who own actual power and so exert will and liberty after they are dead? They are the fruit of the tree known as liberty as they are humans who became actual souls and so their humanity is unconditional; if the Declaration, Constitution and Marbury equally protect and duly process you? The gift is wisdom. You alone make the choice to go there; you alone own the sacrifice. You become uncompromising thus justice is. Marbury makes it so even the most disadvantaged of us can succeed and achieve against the most extraordinary odds that exist. Marbury makes it so if you did receive a cash settlement or forty acres and a mule? Then you do have actual disadvantage where the woman who received less than zero has all of the benefit: She has only herself and her knowledge, and no outside thing she is beholden to or that owns a piece of her. Outside validation does not exist for her as it will always be internal. She won actual liberty the most difficult way possible – according to the Marbury rules - and forty acres and a mule would have served to slow her down or impede her or even stop her. Marbvury V Madison? It’s an insurance policy against laziness and sloth; it is an insurance policy againt excuses as it leaves you with no excuses but only actual constitutional reasoning and actual just cause as the reason and the cause is YOU: The issue is always you and the jurisdiction is always you. I’m a born Commander thus I can command. May I? I never asked you that did I? As that is up to me and not a federal court ruling. I can and I may so I did as the need arose. The only actual question to ask if two men come before this court vying for the power of Executive Order is, 107

“Would an actual President and Commander even ask?” No, they would act as I did: I resolved a tie of the Supreme Court known as Bush V Gore in my own favor as I pressed suit and issued Executive Orders and signed them the “Acting, legal President and Commander”. All citizens failed, even the former sitting President and both candidates who then became federal litigants. It is not coincidence that Gore brought this suit to court in FL or that Bush then brought it into Supreme Court or rather their lawyers did when the oath of office clearly reads “I will” and not “My lawyers will”. Al Gore had another choice. So did every living American citizen 35 or over. If you have to ask the Governor or Chief Justice Who is the authority? You then are not it. Why or how did you ever come to believe you could award moral authority? Or now, that you could take it via a popular vote? You are awarding and taking nothing as you cannot award and take what is not real for you; you are causing injustice. WHO ever told you that you were not a court of constitutional authority? If it actually is inalienable then it is; it exists now and always has existed; you are born into it; why would you ever ask? I asked no one as the Declaration is; the Revolution is; the Constitution is; Marbury V Madison is; and even Bush V Gore is thus I am. I am, thus Jefferson is correct: The Revolution is about individual energy and you are it and so no central or outside authority need exist. If every person is acting as if an authority why would you need a central government? The only reason to have central federal government as an entity? You use it to iron out the wrinkles while you conduct the experiemnt but then: The people refuse to behave themselves. Disobeying the law is good for those charged with the duty to interpret the law or to enforce the law. It is not so good for the person who never breaks it. The citizens complain about large government while they then create the need for it. The citizens want someone to authorize their bad behavior some of which is criminal activity. I’m not authorizing it nor am I letting them blame me, the Supreme Court or God. The citizens are

108

accountable and responsible for my injury and the breach of the contract and so I name them and I hold them liable. I’m the test of Marbury; reality dictates that we need a referree just like the heavy weight matches not a last or final authority. No other person can or will know all of my fact. Under just conditions? I would never need a federal agency and I would defeat it every time if dragged into court. I have successfully, legally avoided an unjust tax since I was 5. I disobeyed. I threw it right back to the federal agency and told them to fight the Catholic Church or rather my father did in my name. When I could then I did. I acted alone. I moved the battle from Susan to the Vatican and back again as the US is going to think twice before suing the Vatican. I learned early on: There is a legal way out of any problem you have...if two people have such a huge disagreement that it becomes a federal case? One of them is getting shafted as what can’t you resolve on your own if you’re an authority? An actual authority can leverage it. “Don’t make a federal case out of it” means exactly that. The IRS is only scary if you: Cheat. What can they do to you if you use the truth? Nothing. The Vatican? Like the IRS it is only as powerful as you believe it is. In my case that means: I’m just as powerful or maybe more so. If the IRS told me “No; you, Susan, have to go ask the Vatican”? I would and I’d bill the US for travel expenses. Don’t believe me? I “sold” sue the Pope for something we need and want instead of money over Ebay as I authored a legal argument against the Vatican in case I ever did become an actual federal case. I knew: I may have to leverage this someday. The citizens have been conditioned to fear the meaningless name or title and the entity itself. They’ve finally given away their authority. They are afraid of what is not reality. Now we do not even care if a living person is standing! We are arguing ideas only – something Jefferson and Marshall avoided as proven by Jefferson’s refusal to publish a competing account of US history 109

he authored only to counter John Marshall’s version. Ideaological warfare is what communists, socialists and military or religious extremeist governments do. It how they act: Unjustly and unethically and often insanely. The actual people in charge hide behind a popular figurehead. Words and emotions are used to convince you that lies are the truth. People lose all sense of direction and lose the ability to defend their own persons. It’s the cult of personality not reason and not justice. SCOTUS is never to engage in ideaological warfare. Philosophical debate, what US government and law constitutes as it is a philosophy of politics thus all actual federal questions are philosophical questions as you can never remove human compassion or moral authority, is not ideaological warfare. Of all institutions only SCOTUS has moral authority built into its design as does the Commander. All of its power is moral authority as it has no legal power other than each Justice having one vote as it is not named in our law thus it is liberated from the Executive acting as the President and Congress and answers directly to the people as its existence is totally dependent upon the people’s moral authority or willingness to appear and then willingness to live out its rulings, disobey its rulings or come back to argue it over again at some point besed upon results and so ownership of new knowledge. The lone citizen, mothers, soldiers, SCOTUS as a whole, the Chief Justice alone and the Commander posess moral authority but for the Commander and SCOTUS it is a part of the design as citizens, mothers and soliders, bring it or not. A Commander and Chief Justice is it. The Legislative and Executive? Ideally they are to bring moral authority into the office with them but it is only as it acts; moral authority is not built into the instituion as a part of the design. It is built into your one vote and all power is derived from authority and consent which is reciprocal but you are volunteers and so not forced to obey.

110

Your vote is legal power and moral authority but moral authority? Your actions are the only measure of that and that is what then separates us. The lone citizen, mothers, soldiers, SCOTUS as a whole, the Chief Justice and the Commnader in Chief not the President all possess moral authority as all have volunteered to die if neccessary. Death can be emotional or physical; you are willing to do whatever you truly believe to be just and/or safe. You might have to do a lot of things you never saw coming and you never know the exacting consequences. You are willing to pull the trigger if neccessary. SCOTUS and its Chief answer directly to us only not to any other office or institution with the person who is President and Commander being the legal and moral equaivlaent of the Chief Justice. A Chief Justice like the lone CIVILIAN citizen can and may assume command of this nation and its military if neccessary which is why a President and Commander may call out the National Guard or the US military to then enforce a decision of this court. The President and Commander can also call them out to prevent a decission from being enforced. Ideally the President, as that is legal power, authors an Americus brief if he or she has knowledge that can and will affect a case as why are you fighting each other if it is about justice? Actual justice? You wouldn’t but you would if our Presidents do not exercise their power and instead make law or make decisions via committee or if the citizens fail to act or if...nobody knows what the Supreme Court is! It is not subject to political whims or to any institution such as Congress. Watch me exercise my right of dissolution: Congress enacted USC 1331 which says that I cannot take a case of original jurisdiction to SCOTUS first; instead I must go to the Federal Appellate. Nice try Congress! YOU did not create SCOTUS – the People did. It isn’t named in our law as it came to exist or at all except for the exact words “Supreme Court”. But as it exists? Not named at all! Thus what makes you actually believe you can violate Marbury and so make yourself unequal to me? Did 111

you read Federalist 48 about the legislative being a greedy vortex? Why, USC 1331 is the legislative branch acting as if it is the judiciary and so re-ajudicating or overturning Marbury. It is the making of actual ex post facto law that harms me alone and women alone; it is a gross violation of separation of power. If I do have a case of original jurisdicition or a suit against SCOTUS employees? 1331 violtates so many clauses that it is ridiculous. We can start with the equal protection clauses. And in my case as no othercourt allowed me an appearance at all then the 1st amendment fell too. If your argument is that 1331 applies not to SCOTUS but to the citizens then my argument is not to this citizen! VOID! Congress cannot and may not steal legal power unless I let it and as for moral authority? Nobody can legislate that. You can make the attempt to tell me with a piece of paper that you can reason and decide which cases SCOTUS can or cannot hear or what they will or will not hear but SCOTUS? It does not answer to you but to I and then WE and it answers directly via lawsuit and our vote for President. How can you legislate what is not even within our law, or, tell a make believe institution that we made up out of thin air, that we caused with our ideas about law and justice and our will or faith, that does not LEGALLY or ACTUALLY exist within our US law what to do via law? LOL! You cannot! You may not! SCOTUS is what we use to check Congress and the Executive as the last few Executives and WE, the people did not see eye to eye. We were reading the two governing documents; the Executive was reading “The Metamorphosis” for its ideas and the Congress was reading “The 7 Habits of Highly Ineffective Bodies: Not So Powerful Lessons In Impersonal Stagnation” for its ideas as it was not our law they were reading. Congress can make all the law it pleases concerning SCOTUS but the paper does not make it legal, actual or real. WE DO. And now Congress who resolved to violate the term natural birth in order to favor members of Congress only at the expense of all women and in violation of a fully vested protected right for some of those women has a brand new problem: As of 01/20/09? Congress is 112

no longer acting under the authority of US law or the United States but under the authority of Kenya (Kenya is ranked 147th out of 180 countries for corruption with least corrupt countries at the top of the list with Denmark 1st, US 18th and Somalia 180th; it is estimated the average urban Kenyan pays 16 bribes per month) or Indonesia (126th today was 144th; it is 11 years since the downfall of Suharto who held Indonesia in the grip of a military dictatorship for 33 years following a bloody coup and clampdown that cost an estimated 700,000 lives; I do not know about you but I am what I was raised in and around and what my parents acted out as they truly believed it; so is Obama as he is a citizen of whatever nation or state is offering him the benefits at the time or a member of whatever religion is most popular. He changes colors like Congress...hmmm, it is as it acts). Now do you understand my point of law Federal Court? The US should be 1st , the least corrupt and most just, as we have elegant law. All other great governments fell due to the people becoming temporarily possessed plus patriarchy reigned past completion and is about to do os again thus men give their legal power and moral authority away; as unjust rulers slowly fill all positions of power the intrinsic thing that government is changes due to corruption and it becomes impossible for any one lone citizen or even a group of citizens to rise to power and so restore justice. The thing that must exist at the founding of any great government is extreme selfawareness and that same thing must exist as a great government dies if it is to survive death but two other things must also exist and accidentally by design America is the great government that was destined to succeed where all others failed as you need, absolutely need, a Supreme Court that is not within your written law so it is indpendent and Marbury V Madison which empowers the lone citizen or makes him or her independent so that citizen exerts moral authority or will aka actual independence to then fight the corruption and the unjust men in charge. This makes

113

the Supreme Court unwritten law and makes Marbury written law, actual law of the US and the universe. It makes the lone citizen an actual force. A great government cannot survive its own success any other way nor can it survive endemic corruption. First you must be of the ability to act against it; then you must be willing. You need people willing to live the law out as real making it law as they then know the result of the experiment thus own the knowledge if it is or is not actual law and then you need at least one single citizen (as court cases) willing to test it and so prove to the citzens that they never, ever want to act against the words and spirit of their law, they always do want to support the Supreme Court as that stands between them and ultimate overthrow and they should never allow any person or other branch of government to negate or overturn Marbury as in the end when all legal power is stripped from you? Moral authority, the law of this universe, is all that remains and so is actual law of the US. Will actually, legally and really is to grace as the horse is to the rider. If we live it out as real it is and it is law if we have proven it works and is supported by the evidence rising to proof: Are you realizing justice or injustice? SCOTUS may never be written law and should never be written down at least for the next few decades or so and maybe never as then Congress could control SCOTUS thereby perverting justice. The lone citizen, mothers, soldiers, SCOTUS, the Chief Justice and the Commander have the highest standard and cannot by law trade honor bound dollars upon the law as that is selling people which is why a Justice cannot retire and make a fortune like a President can and may: It is assumed a Justice has expert knowledge of the law a President and Commander might have but usually does not have and moral authority is the difference as a President does, as a part of his job, sign off on law which is then our budget. Money does trade hands if you are the President. A Justice never has money passing through his or her hands unless it is their paycheck which by the way I sign as does

114

every citizen as any paycheck that says US or FEDERAL makes me Congress’ and the Executive’s boss not the other way around but in SCOTUS case? It makes us equals. Not employer/employee but equals as Marshal said, but our first our law and all of our actions when we founded this nation say, The lone citizen is to hold themselves to the highest appellation and the strictest standard and that is justice; the founders made all citizens Presidents, Commanders and Justices and then willed it into being via acting. The founders fully expected office holders other than the Judiciary and the President to act as if they were immoral recks, and even expected a few judges would fall and so made provisions for this as perceived power tends to do that to a person and as the entire historical record of Earth supported this as fact with one lone exception: The Iroquois Confederacy. Franklin realized it was indissoulable and I came to know why checks and balances extend all the way down into the family like my own parents did with my person as they empowered me to defy authority figures and taught me titles and uniforms do not make a man - never assume a title or uniform means that person lives that title or uniform out as actions count and always reason your case, considering proof of life, as you can and must say no but with actual reasoning and you must intervene when you witness another being harmed - but they never counted on other persons having no faith in US law or becoming so morally bankrupt I’d be the last one standing and that my exertion of actual power would cause the unjust to target me and would make me unsafe my entire life as my ability to tell the truth at all costs and live it exposed these people for what they are: Animals and not men. I never counted on SCOTUS succumbing to appearances and money; I never counted upon SCOTUS clerks not knowing what and why or the actual reasoning. I never, ever for one moment thought clerks would obey Congress and 1331 and/or not realize this constitutes the buying and selling of justice. I never counted upon SCOTUS clerks not realizing why Justices

115

canot earn millions but members of Congress can and do or why Congress may never legislate SCOTUS in any way or invoke any code that interferes with SCOTUS’ operation: Congress is charged with funding legislation and funding war. Sorry Congress: You cannot trade money upon the lives of mothers and soldiers thus you have zero authority over SCOTUS except for approving nominations and even that? You MAY interrogate a Justice. It’s semi-legal as you’re supposed to inform the public not criminally prosecute or interrogate a person but it is not mandatory. SCOTUS, AS IT EXISTS TODAY, OR, AS WE LIVED IT OUT, IS NOWHERE WITHIN OUR LAW AND IS THE DIRECT RESULT OF MARBURY V MADISON AND THE PEOPLE’S WILL. THE PEOPLE WILLED IT INTO BEING. NOT CONGRESS. THE PEOPLE CONTROL SCOTUS AND CAUSE IT TO EXIST BY VOLUNTERING, EXACTLY LIKE THE PEOPLE REALIZE THE US ARMED FORCES. WE DO NOT PAY SOLDIERS AND MOTHERS FOR THE SAME REASON WE DO NOT PAY JUSTICES OR A PRESIDENT WHILE HE OR SHE IS IN OFFICE: YOU CANNOT PAY THE PEOPLE WHO VOLUNTEER TO DIE A FORTUNE AS THEN PERSONS INTERESTED IN MONEY ONLY WOULD VOLUTEER FOR ALL THE WRONG REASONS THUS CORRUPT AND PERVERT JUSTICE. As I’m pressing suit to overturn Bush V Gore, uphold the law on behalf of women and their children some of whom are enlisted service members, uphold the term natural birth and invalidate an election as the candidate the people elected is sitting indirect violation of our law even if he was born here and even if he did not buy the office as he did not know what Bush V Gore is or says and has no idea what SCOTUS is and as the evidence I do have is that he is foreign born and may not be a citizen as he might have traveled on a passport not American after age 18 (See my attachment US case law and all of my attachments all entered to federal court)

116

and as he never acted to address the bad declaration, abused the War Powers Act and used money to lame duck the sitting Commander thus denying service mebers equipment and troops and in so doing caused some of them to die and as the US is in breach of the contract due to the Solicitor’s General failure to respond? I, Susan, answer only to SCOTUS specifically John Roberts and not to any other person or institution and I answer only to Roberts as my equal once this case is set for hearing in person or else he is not a legal appointment. I make him legal or not. We know he’s willing or has moral authority as he volunteered and we know a person within SCOTUS acted upon my never filed application thus SCOTUS do have moral authority no matter how or why it came to pass but all other citizens and institutions have fallen. I have proof Roberts has moral authority: Carhart as his answer is mostly correct but his reasoning is faulty as only men appeared and not one of them had the correct argument or any proof. Bader-ginsburg has the mostly correct answer but even her reasoning is not true and she was not able to reason this wholly, to a level of proof, for the other Justices thus Carhart, while giving the moral authority of women away to men and so is unconstitutional is also imbued with moral authority as the Justices were willing to tackle this question. The mistake? If you do not own proof either way as to when life begins or as to why a woman who is a mother as she is if she’s pregnant can never be told if she can or cannot pull the trigger as you would never tell a soldier this? Wait for a living woman to come along and hear it as an emergency but Carhart in no way proves the court is not yet possessed of moral authority. It’s suggestive evidence not proof; life disproves it. Only moral authority vested in my person and SCOTUS remains. Due to the Solicitor’s failure and Obama 08 only we stand because of Marbury V Madison. While you might argue SCOTUS violated Marbury in my case 1, We do not know if a Justice was involved and 2, We do know that SCOTUS could not know something unless it heard me in person or another court did. Until

117

or unless a court allowed me an appearance in person SCOTUS could not know but not one sitting federal judge would listen to reason as they are sexist, racist, political, unable and afraid. The Jax bench and the employees of that federal court are acting criminally and that is a charge I can prove beyond any doubt whatsoever and I will never veer from it. Other federal benches I accessed on paper were not acting criminally. My point of law went over their heads no matter what I wrote, even when I told them why I could not author a brief two years ago as I always knew I was going to have to present this case orally as it is its nature: it is the case for proving acting and not the paper counts and so is proof thus the case will never translate to paper wholly as I know something men do not and as my dominant hand was crushed but no services were made available to overcome this. They could not grasp something but were too egotistical and too scared to allow me to appear and so find out or they did not understand that it might be written on the paper, Artilce II does exist in writing, but it is not actual and real if Congress refuses to abide by it even when I sued all 100 Senators and several Representatives individually as Congress had no motivation to obey the law as they have skewed all power in their favor. Federal judges couldn’t see it or if they did know it were so stunned by my complaint they refused to believe it. One Sioux City judge seemed as if she were actually reasoning it but in the end had the incorrect answer and still denied me any appearance in person. This court did obey the spirit of our law. All others dismissed me without considering my evidence rising to proof or my point of law saying as Article II existed so I could not address the ballot or accused me of asking a political question when I stated my fact that I have never belonged to any political party as I do not participate in criminal activity. They adjudicated my asked for remedy and relief and not my point of law! First you adjudicate the point of law and then the asked for award. I know they were also upset as I claimed I can and will act as President; they want a litigant who is placing another person in Obama’s stead; if I claimed Obama is not legal but then propped up 118

another person to replace him especially a man they would have no problem but the idea that a woman could reason and decide she can act as President and Commander is repulsive to them; it is frivolous and delusional to belive you can and may if you are a woman or a nonlawyer as the law does not apply to you and never will if they have their way. State and federal judges, especially federal judges, are openly hostile to pro se ltigants and they are able to shut us out only as Congress is not babysitting them. I then realized once SCOTUS seemed as if it violated Marbury that SCOTUS had to violate Marbury. Not because it was giving away its moral authority to Congress due to 1331 or by refusing me direct entry (which in the end it did not refuse even if it never filed the paper thus Congress got nothing) but because: Like Marbury until SCOTUS created the docket, their own docket, I had no proof rising beyond any and all doubt to then overcome the federal judges denial of reality and the clerks denial of reality to enter to a federal court thus establishing the violation of separation of power is gross thus no actual legal power for anyone and that chain of command had been severed completely thus no moral authority or no ethic. No will. I could not overcome this denial of reality until it was shattered by SCOTUS seeing they denied it while they then went and did it as you canot know if you are it and you’re in it and also a part of it. I needed the docket so they could step back and see it to then own the knowledge via insight that if We, SCOTUS, did it then she really has been denied any and all rights and any and all protection of the law upon every level and within every office all the way up to SCOTUS; she realy is going to be murdered and she really will never see her kids again. SCOTUS itself, as this has never happend before ever in world history and as the conditions are so very extraordinary, could not know it as hardcore fact until it created its own docket exactly like Marshall creating his own court. It’s own docket is elegant! It’s accident by design!

119

How do you reasonably deny the SCOTUS docket if you are a federal judge? And I attach it to my complaint and you can then look it up for good measure? There exists only one explanation: discrimination. I owned all of this knowledge as absolute fact but I’m a natural born genius. And my genius became greater by obeying US law and Marbury in word and spirit so one of the results of my experiment is US law and Marbury? Legal power and moral authority or absolute justice? It makes you so wise you actually become smarter than you were before as it unlocks or allows you to access unused parts of your brain and heals the physical injury discrimination causes. Thurgood Marshall knew of this injury; he could not define it but he used proof of life to make his case: black children choosing white dolls over and over as if their brains were changing and so were the people they are. Well, the federal judges are now injured by patriarchy; by not hearing me in person they did not heal the injury; they did not even try to own new knowledge or to shake denial. Sometimes that denial took the form of resentment: No woman who never attended law school could know this when I did not. I was hated for everything I am including my exact name: My nuclear family hated Susan while federal judges and some clerks flinched at Herbert, Bush Jr.’s name because of the nature of my claim. This nation is now stopping me from being who I am as the Creator made me. “Genius” is what drove my oldest brother to kidnap my children as he was trying to beat it out of me as in destroy me as he has this driving need to be known as a genius when he is not. He has always been physically violent with me, expressing resentment, jealousy and hate as he truly believes “genius” makes one person better than another when we all possess the same potential but genius expresses itself differently in every person and that if your standards are not his, all those things of ego, you must be made wrong or proven to be defective so he then feels as if he is right, self-righteous. I will never have

120

much of an interest in money or things and I cannot return genius and I would not if I could. My genius is physics, government and law, theology, logic and the military - the ability and capacity to reason – or anything that you need to hear to know such as language or human pyschology because I can discern fine differences in words and emotions plus I’ve been watching for this since I was small but knew it, I knew it, when: Judicial review first fell and fell hard as a President got away with a crime known as perjury as if the piece of paper proved him guilty or not when paper proves nothing. As if he never did it and it never happened or if he did it then it was legal as he is above our law. And he said it was a mistake; no, as a mistake happens only once. Geroge Bush Sr. was correct but people ignored him as he said, he begged Americans to listen to him, ‘It is a pattern of deceit’ and then Clinton and all of his administration began saying ONLY A PAPER CONVICTION PROVED GUILT THUS IF THE PAPER DID NOT EXIST YOU WERE NOT GUILTY. Then Congress began saying it. Excuse me? That – paper - is not judicial review. It’s not proof of guilt or inocence. Paper is not justice. People are as justice is the product of an idea , law, and emotions, liberty and safety, which only people produce thus cause justice and not dead paper. Paper never feels liberated and paper cannot keep you safe; paper won’t answer you if you talk to it; it cannot tell you its fact. Can a piece of paper tell you I was born at Mohawk Paper Mill? Or I feel happy to see you? A person can write anything on a piece of paper but it is not a person’s fact unless they act upon it. Clinton is proof as are members of Congress and individual judges as their actions are causing injustice and physical injury and death no matter what they write down. They caused me to act and caused me to create this lawsuit. I’m proof beyond any doubt that I’m innocent of everything anyone has ever accused me of or charged me with on paper as my actions do not match it nor do my words; my lawsuit is evidence rising to proof beyond a reasonable doubt I’m

121

innocent but I’m proof beyond any doubt. The SCOTUS docket? Proof beyond any doubt as a person had to act on 11/20/08 to then circumvent the Solicitor Genral thus we know I authored and mailed in an application that was never filed as I MATCH THE PAPER EXACTLY AS I’M PRO SE AND MY CASE SHOULD HAVE BEEN ENTERED DIRECTLY AND WAS THUS LITERALLY I AM MY CASE. Once in a while like Marshall and Marbury, the person matches the paper exactly or is elegant so very rarely paper can become proof beyond any doubt (mistakes are a part of my package as I’m human and not a lawyer thus in my case they are elegant) but a person must act to write it and then live it out; the person is always first and then the paper exists and then people serve to prove or disprove what is written on the the paper. Our Declaration and Constitution became proof beyond any doubt that: The Founders lived and were real people who believed those words and so acted upon them or we would not exist! We however proved that what is written on the paper is fact of this universe not only of our founders. I would not be able to author a lawsuit like this! SCOTUS would not exist! Was Jesus a real person? Living people prove he was. I have little evidence he was ever crucified or that those exact miracles happened as I cannot know how much of the bible is edited and changed or corrupted, I was not there, few Christians live out those words and as our government does not but says it does but I do have proof those events called miracles could have happened as it is physics and so I know as absolute fact Jesus was a real person with those actual thoughts, feelings, ideas and beliefs because of living people including my own self. Anybody can read only the words attributed to him in the Greek and Latin Vulgate thus know. Anybody can read parts of the gnostic gospels as we found them. Use more than one translation to make certain it is correctly translated exactly as you might read more than one court ruling or opinion. My own parents sent me to a Catholic school; they acted upon those “Jesus” ideas as I act upon our founders thoughts, feelings, ideas and true beliefs including constitutional authority. He, neither 122

Jesus or Marshall, signed the two governing documents; was John Marshall a real person who participated in the Revolution? People or life is proof not paper in any actual constitutional nation. I know as absolute fact without question Marshall is a real person as now I’m dealing with his baby: SCOTUS. I made an educated guess but then used the crib notes, a biography, to know: He was at Yorktown; he witnessed it. He would not corrupt our law or act as if he is petty when it came to justice. He applied the law to himself. Nobody but the lone citizen – I, Susan - and then SCOTUS are “above” or “outside” the written law as we never gave up our moral authority and we did not volunteer to die in defense of institutions instead of constituions plus neither one of us is named in the law thus we possess constitutional authority. So moral, so willing am I that SCOTUS effectively ruled by directly entering me but not filing the paperwork and by denying me any and all protction and process of our law twice over: This kid is the one exception to the law, a sovereign nation unto herself, and does not need the protection of our law. She can and may do whatever she wants even shoot to kill as she even toppled us. Either this is an impossible standard that no other person can ever meet, we are missing the point of law, we never saw the paper as clerks kept it from us or Susan Herbert is the acting, legal President and Commander.

It’s the last thing, President and

Commander. ONLY denying me any protection of the law but then directly entering me when SCOTUS never filed the paper proves I am operating on the purest of standing and with the most moral authority as I am the proof not the paper! I’m still acting as Marshall told me I must as William Marbury failed to do that and as I know that due to Marbury the ruling now existing I also needed to act before so I did – before any primary was held, long before as I first acted in December of 2000 and first entered fedreal court in April of 2007. Like SCOTUS I am unwritten law as you will not find SUSAN HERBERT in our law exactly or even woman exactly but my

123

words and my actions constitute law. By making my case I created government and law from scratch all by myself exactly like a founder. I willed life into being where there is none and I willed death out of being where there was some. I, a Native American, acted in the name of Philadelphia thus a just government and just law is reborn as wherever and whenever any American acts in the name of Philadelphia, brotherly love, justice is born. THE MOST MORAL AUTHORITY AS I SECURED LEGAL POWER VIA ACTING UPON AN IDEA, US LAW AND MARBURY, AND SO VOTED FOR MYSELF. WITHOUT YOUR PERMISSION. I DEFIED CONGRESS AS A WHOLE. THE SCOTUS CLERKS PROVE THAT AS THEY DIRECTLY ENTERED ME. WHY, SCOTUS CLERKS AND/OR A JUSTICE INVOKED MORAL AUTHORITY AND DEFIED CONGRESS AND WENT RIGHT OVER THE CORRUPTED SOLICITOR GENERAL’S HEAD IN DEFENSE OF I. SUSAN AND WE, THE PEOPLE OR OUR DECLARATION AND CONSTITUTION EVEN IF THEY DO NOT YET REALIZE IT. THEY VOLUNTEERED: THEY EQUALLED THEMSELF TO ME. FEDERAL JUDGES RAN WHEN THEY SAW ME. SCOTUS DID NOT RUN. SCOTUS IS GOING TOE TO TOE WITH ME. OR, SHOULDER TO SHOULDER; ASIDE. I WIELDED MY ONE VOTE AS A WEAPON AND SO LEVELED THE PLAYING FIELD ALL BY MYSELF. I PROVE ONE VOTE IS AN ACTUAL FORCE; IT IS ACTUAL POWER. I PROVE THE FOUNDERS THEORY IS A LAW OF THIS UNIVERSE AS THEY THEORIZED RIGHTS WERE OF THE CREATOR AND SO INALIENABLE THUS ACCIDENTALLY BY DESIGN I PROVED THAT THEORY TO BE A LAW OF THIS UNIVERSE AS ITS PHYSICS AND AS I HAD A SACRED EXPERIENCE, ALL SEVEN TO BE EXACT, THUS RIGHTS ARE OF THE CREATOR OF IT ALL AND WE ARE BORN INTO THEM.

124

I claimed or commandeered my vote to then be able cast a vote only I am not The Fisher King named Perceval so I know: Casting a vote? Fish for men and not actual fish as you cannot live on will alone. That is what a subsistence attorney is: A fisher of men. The US has always fished for men. We as attorneys argued for Independence to save our lives and other lives to then become a life. Until Congress voted for war upon bad evidence that is and failed to act after it was known. Enlisted service members began to die in defense of paper not life. No enlisted service member is to die in defense of a dead institution. EVER. That is anathema to who and what we are as we were born in a war in defense of life and so living constitutions. The practice of law used to honorable; it used to make you a guardian or a knight. Today unethical and immoral lawyers are killing this nation by infilitrating the offices of power and so ruling from behind the scenes; they are willing to do anything it takes even lie, cheat and steal. Just a few day ago a federal judge appointed a special prosecutor as lawyers for the Department of Justice acted so criminally that he threw out a conviction and acted to have these men charged. In my life that is the first time a federal judge acted to uphold the law and broke all of the ‘accepted’ rules as he can and may if it is about justice and as he now may as no due process exists as of 01/20/09. I never thought I’d live to see the day a just judge acted in defense of the law thus in my defense but it is so bad he had to throw out a conviction to do it! I’m willing to be injured having a conviction over theft and graft thrown out if the greater good is served but in America we are never, ever supposed to be forced to make that kind of choice and as the Department of Justice is the last ‘authority’ that should be acting criminally but as that Department harmed me several times over? With deliberation and so much so I was almost killed and had to ask the cops and state attorney of FL to intervene? That judge may never know but he actually acted for me personally by doing what he did.

125

If I see our judiciary is falling? If I know we are about to enter that event horizon - death - then I act; and if we pass it? I act and act like a person possessed as my sons were already dying in defense of a piece of paper and later did die in defense of it: A family court ruling issued by Linda Griffin out of NY. That ruling actually caused me gross physical injury of which I have photographs and then caused my death which I survived so I knew: I cannot stop acting; I must go back and forth between courts until finally I can enter the Federal Appellate with proof: The SCOTUS docket and a brand new NY family court ruling as that, in conjunction with my person and my lawsuit, is evidence rising to proof beyond doubt no person can deny as it covers the entire judiciary from our ‘lowest’ most fundamnetal court, family court, to our our ‘highest’ most fundamental court, SCOTUS or national family court, and once SCOTUS falls as it will if I am not heard? HOW CAN YOU BE WITH NO LEGAL POWER AND NO MORAL AUTHORITY? YOU NEED A JUDICIARY TO BE A JUST NATION AND WHAT SEPARATES US FROM THE REST OF THE WORLD? FEDERAL COURTS; SCOTUS, AN ACTUAL, LEGAL AND REAL COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS. NO JUDICIARY AS PEOPLE ARE NOW DYING IN DEFENSE OF DEAD PAPER ONLY W/O CAUSE OR REASON OR BECAUSE OUR US LAW IS ABSOLUTELY IGNORED AS IF IT DOES NOT EXIST MEANS WE ARE THEN DEAD WITH NO POSSIBLE WAY TO RECOVER AS IT IS PHYSICS. Death hasn’t happened yet as damage is not irreperable.You cannot turn back but only go straight on ahead as this, no moral authority, is a black hole and light only escapes a black hole by going though it and out the other side not by fighting against it. Some eventualities like equality you want to realize. You go with it as in with a willing Federal Appeals Court and/or with SCOTUS. God does not abhor naked singularities: We are one. 126

III. Forever Pro Se Judicial review as it exists today is a myth as justice is regardless of the paper. I will do whatever I need to do to secure justice no matter what the sitting judiciary of this nation personally believes as it is mostly male and it does not have to live under the same conditions that I do one of them being: A nation that has collectively reasoned and decided that they may break the law and harm me, a woman, any way they choose including kidnapping my children to then control me and silence me as no court ruling ever makes that not kidnapping and not crime. No court ruling ever undoes the assault to my human dignity and none of it magically goes away until or unless it is acknowledged so I will act even if I have to act alone and indefiance of 300 million people or even 6 billion people as my interest vested when that first shot was fired and my right vested when that first vote was taken. I, a Native American, became legal, actual and real when I acted upon my knowledge that the paper is merely an outside symbol of the internal power my one vote or person is as I am a constitution. The actual federal question is: If a crime is committed in the woods and there are no witnessess except the victim/s, and later a judge writes that the act of crime never happened and/or that it is the victim/s own fault when that is not possible, does the victim/s make noise or not? If all deny it has a crime occurred or not? In my case a crime did occur, I am not afraid and the victim does protest as I own the knowledge that while I am a victim I am anything but a powerless victim but instead a powerful victim as US law is thus I always have recourse. Always. I can and may so will step over that criminal and that piece of paper and keep going as liberty is inviolate and inalienable as long as I

127

am willing to act and I am not not willing to suffer for any reason on Earth as suffering is forced upon you by other men and unjustly so. Sacrifice is not suffering as you choose it. In my unique case the actual federal question and federal answer is this: You can but may you? You may but will you? I, Susan, a person who is a woman, will as: I am a constitution; I stand alone as I am a Native American, or, I am forever pro se. A piece of paper does not make it legal after the fact unless the law is amended and unless it does not constitute the making of ex post facto law. Well, if you’re elegant as is just about every single law after the fact of the Declaration and Constitution is making ex post facto law. It’s mostly opposing forces attmepting to skew power in their favor. No matter how just it seems to be you must always go back to the original and re-examine your actions and all of the effects if injury begins to accrue as it is not the paper it is you. Acting ex post facto does not make it legal if you never were legal to begin with. It is or is not based upon ownership of knowledge; if even one person knows and he or she acts? IT IS. It is a law or it is a crime; it is justice or injustice. And even then some things are the will of God and not the will of man and cannot be amended or destoyed. What court has the power to overturn the Creator as in claim that I do not exist or that my giving birth did not happen or is not an issue? That I was not born in America or that I as a woman who knows the truth may not vote and may not run for office? That an unrelated man and now a foreign born or even foreign one have a fully vested protected right to custody of me and my children three or four times over when the process has been circumvented and when the law has not once protected us? The only reason I need this federal case refereed is the citizens are in breach and the citizens deny the law states what it states; they refuse to admit to the truth of the crimes committed against me as the truth

128

is not pretty. I myself tell the truth. I myself am responsible. The other citizens? They want an easy way out. You pay a price for actual power: Ownership of knowledge, the truth, and all of the emotions that come with it. If wisdom were an easy thing to come by it would not be so highly valued. It wouldn’t be without price but with price. It would be legal to buy the offices of power, to buy human beings or to sell yourself. We actually could auction off our vote at Sotheby’s. If I hear you blaming SCOTUS? You are denying the truth as you are your own authority. I’m going to draw up some plans to topple SCOTUS by overturning Bush V Gore only in a way that is not supposed to be possible thus proving: It’s all your fault. That is my truth and I will prove it beyond any doubt as I paid the highest price of all to be of this ability. It is the citizens who completely made up the Supreme Court as THE court of last resort and THE court of constitutional authority thus their boss in their own heads. The citizens made SCOTUS their enemy when it is not. That is a figment of their imagination, based in fact but not in law. A former Justice said: It is law only if we say it is and no citizen protested plus no unlicensed lawyer acting pro se has ever been allowed entry and that is on the clerks as they posess the discriminatory belief you aren’t ‘good enough to enter in person’ unless you went to law school. The clerks seem to let you in on ppaer but are they even taking pro se cases seriously? A clerk told me to my face over the phone: WE, THE CLERKS, DO NOT ALLOW PRO SE LITIGANTS ENTRY IN PERSON; IF YOU MAKE THE CASE WE WILL SINK IT. IT HAS NEVER HAPPENED AND IT WILL NEVER HAPPEN. I may be the first person who is pro se who ever heard of this as I cited case law and out argued him so he became angry and blurted it out in anger. Most pro se litigants cannot argue US case law. I also used human pyschology to get him

129

to ‘confess’ why he was denying reality as he said NO cases of original jurisidcition are heard and I cited Marbury and Bush V Gore. So the citizens based their false, mistaken and corrupted beliefs in fact but not in law. The citizens now blame the Supreme Court for their own actions as do some federal judges when the Court is not even named within our law as the authority over them or at all as it exists and even after Marshall ruled You must disobey illegal orders or be held liable; it is your duty to disobey what is not legal or is unethical and/or immoral even this very order itself as this very decision is the order of a commanding officer. Madison ‘argued’ via his action that his true belief is he was obeying his commanding officer; Marshall said (to Marbury) ‘right point of law, you are equal to the President so your vote does have legal power but you forgot to ask if you’re equal to the Commander thus wrong court as you are the jurisdiction who decides that so no award’ to relieve Madison of the burden but he then gave Marbury exact instructions to then enable him to win the asked for award: He said, Merely command; you do not need the piece of paper as the law is and as a Commander is willing to act and does act so it is about your moral authority thus go out and act as if; that way if you did not own the knowledge coming into this court you’ll own it after leaving as acting will define you and teach you or you can and may do nothing. Jefferson did not then act against it by standing down Marshall as it was not illegal but only potentially unconstitutional and potentially harmful plus Marbury failed to then act thus the results were never realized. Marbury ‘violated’ the words of the law as they were not and are not there but not the spirit of the law.

130

You conquer fear and learn by doing – acting - which is why Jefferson also never vetoed a Bill while in office. He let Congress act without interference and let the Bills fall wherever they might as you come to own knowledge via insight based upon life experience and that then is wisdom. And if the law you live under exactly names the Creator? If all the rest of it is fact then what? I had my suspicions. I was afraid of the federal court as I knew something. I forced myself to go past that fear, a very rational fear. I was correct to be afraid as the danger was potentially lethal but I did it and lived although it was close. I tested Marbury V Madison by entering lower federal court with a Petition for a Writ for SCOTUS upon a case that is Marbury - pro se, constitutional authority and original jurisdiction - and then went directly to SCOTUS and asked for Cert, Mandamus and Prohibition upon direct entry as I may as I am a woman and Marbury granted legal power only to men and has only been applied to men, as women are not yet ‘allowed’ to violate orders issued by men no matter how unconstitutional or unethical. Force of all kinds is used against women. Now the proof of death standard is used agaisnt women as physical force was not enough: SCOTUS told MI ‘this woman is not yet before this court; if you ever meet this woman, if she is ever born, then you can and may kill her’. That is not justice. Period. We will not be debating this. I acted to stand down John Roberts and then the whole court as they may not know if they have not yet created their docket or heard me at all as no court will grant me an appearance and as cI know what it means when a Justice pseaks in dissent from the bench as Bader-ginsburg did as that is a clarion call for an American to act. Upon my third attempt, an emergency application and petition that fell between the first and second conferences but which was never filed, docketed or conferenced, I gained direct entry! Standing upon US law and

131

invoking Marbury, in exact word and spirit I ordered action. I did not ask as I Commanded and so claimed what has always been mine but is denied me. My legal problem would be resolved if other citizens ‘believed’ it. They do not as I was not heard in person so they can deny it; they can deny it and get away with it as no authority is left to check them and so enforce our law and accord me my human rights. If you are not heard in person? Citizens truly believe you are lying or your case is no good. They claim if any of this were real and true SCOTUS would have heard me in person. They do not own this knowledge: if you’re pro se? Conferencing is hearing - on paper as SCOTUS ‘hears’ it in their minds and as its your sworn testimony not your lawyers thus it is not hearsay or circumstantial. So, I’m a liar and I’m crazy or SCOTUS is criminal. The citizens say SCOTUS is criminal and the so-called authorities claim I’m lying and crazy. Neptune Beach Police called my lawsuit a ‘diatribe’ in a report and Linda Griffin called it ‘incoherent’ in family court. People do not act upon what they do not truly believe. The cops and Griffin are acting upon the belief they are guilty of violating my rights and US law as my suit is not either one of those things as SCOTUS DOES NOT CONFERENCE DIATRIBES OR INCOHERENT DRIVEL. I ignored both comments as I own the knowledge I’m a genius, US law is just, at least one other just person must exist, my case is airtight and I directly entered. Fact of history. I acted against the force employed against me and then all women and am now injured permanently and I have the scars to prove it. I keep acting. I disobeyed the men harming me at their whim and will, I disobeyed John Marshall and then I disobeyed the Supreme Court itself as I also disobeyed a brand new unconstitutional orders in addition to Marbury V Madison: Bush V Gore and then Obama ’08. I tested the law as I compared

132

results then, 1803, versus now, 2008, as history is the result of our experiment. The injury to my person proves the Court is not acting justly in the cases of women and nonlawyers but my life and my direct entry proves that EVERY CITIZEN IS THEIR OWN CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY AS I ISSUED EXECUTIVE ORDERS ON PAPER AND IN PERSON WHICH WERE OBEYED. IT MATTERS NOT HOW OR WHY. I REASONED AND DECIDED I WOULD WILLINGLY DIE IF NECCESSARY IN ORDER TO THEN MAKE THIS CASE IF DEATH WAS TO BE THE TEST. DEATH IS A KNOWN CONSEQUENCE AS MARSHALL NEVER SAID YOU COULD DISOBEY AND NOBODY WOULD HARM YOU. HE SAID YOU MUST DISOBEY NO MATTER THE PERSONAL COST. THE PERSONAL COST OF ACTING TO REALIZE JUSTICE BY LIBERATING YOURSELF OR ANOTHER HAS ALWAYS BEEN DEATH. It is assumed acting in defense of humanity is extraordinarily dangerous as it is our very nature as we were born in an act of war and as we give birth, a still potentially lethal condition, as we are a living government. To be and to live you must risk death. I wrote this down upon a piece of paper in 7th grade. I actually wrote that I would be dead at or before age 40 as acting on behalf of humanity and in the name of justice would be a suicide mission, as there is no other way. If you know it will be your death as fact it is voluntary thus suicidal but it is constitutional in this case as it constitutes self-defense, as actual suicide is treason (elegance as the punishment fits the crime; only the crime of treason is named in US law and its punishment is death; how perfect is it that killing yourself who is a living constitution is named?). I was not blind and I did die at age 38. I never reasoned I’d survive it. Imagine my surprise. Now I disobey Barack Obama’s

133

election. I have already had the Secret Service in my home as you can arrest me but I can get off Dred Scott free if you arrest me for threatening the life of the President when I did not and when I am that person not Barack Obama. I can and will avoid Scott’s fate as I know the results of that experiment.

You’re spending my federal tax dollar in a manner that keeps me unsafe and is unconstitutional. Who volunteers to pay to then have their own rights violated? Not this person. The IRS harrassed me relentlessly until the mailman asked me if I knew my own name as so many letters came to my home and then forcibly took $4k after I exacted from it a promise to stop harassing me which is not legal. The IRS agreed to stop pursuing me for someone else’s debt when my signature was forged in exchange for money. I believe the IRS might have been overly upset with me for disobeying since I was 5. You’re still spending my tax dollars illegally then as when I stopped volunteering to pay illegal taxes you then took it and still are...do I benefit at all from even the expenditure of a single penny? Nope. I have no representation as Bader-Ginsburg will forever be out voted 5-4, the court is still 8 men to 1 woman, Congress is still mostly male as are state legislatures and now this nation believes I will pay a foreign born man who may not even be a citizen a salary for holding an office – the office - for which he does not qualify, while I do and while I possess the ability and capability he does not. He has zero ability to fulfill the oath of office and yet the citizens believe he can overcome his birth and his prior actions. The citizens blame the federal court when they are the federal court. They blame Congress when they are Congress. They blame the Executive when they are the Executive. They blame money when they cause the value of our dollar to rise or fall based upon whether or not they uphold the honor bond by obeying the word and spirit of our law or by acting justly. The citizens blame everyone and everything except: Their own person. Why? It is known as FAULT not BLAME. Fault is the citizen being

134

accountable and responsible for their own actions. Blame proves the citizen has been unaccountable and irresponsible. Guilt? SCOTUS is not guilty. You, the citizen, are. The Supreme Court's jurisprudence has never been articulated by any U.S. court or by Congress, and it is disputed by the United States legal establishment for the following reasons: While American constitutional law derives many of its forms and traditions from the common law, it is important to note that the constitutional order of the United States was very different from that of the United Kingdom. As the Marbury vs. Madison Supreme Court ruling states, “the Constitution's written nature, and the formal enumeration of the powers of government would be empty promises if there were no means to measure the actions of the government against the Constitution, and strike down those found wanting (see Marbury, supra, at 177) ("[c]ertainly all those who have framed written constitutions contemplate them as forming the fundamental and paramount law of the nation, and consequently the theory of every such government must be, that an act of the legislature repugnant to the constitution is void").” It is the predominant view in United States constitutional jurisprudence that, because the Magna Carta is only the distant progenitor of the Due Process clauses, the Constitution is far from vesting judicial review in United States juries. This predominant view is incorrect as it forgets the Iroquois Confederacy is a precursor to our US law, is a model and is older than the Magna Carta1 but the "final authority" regarding the United States Constitution is not the Supreme Court but the political will of the people, acting through the powers granted them by way of the Article V amendment powers (i.e., amendments are either proposed by Congress or by way of constitutional convention mandated by the state legislatures. Then they are either approved or rejected by 3/4 of the states through representatives of the people. So then: As you, all citizens and state and federal judges are voters and SCOTUS’ equal and you can and may access SCOTUS and demand an answer or hold it accountable but with Congress you cannot unless you are elected this then is why you need to wholly embody the law, allow us to appear in person, decide cases justly, elect honorable persons to Congress and invoke Marbury and so defy unjust persons and/or unjust orders: So Congress and all elected persons like SCOTUS is then your will and is your equal. So that Congress, the Judiciary 135

& Executive is the people aka the law and not the thing it is and does at its whim and will in violation of the law and in defiance of the people’s will. The will of the people is to be US law! A ¾ vote? Did I miss that vote? Or was it never taken? Are you attempting to amend our law in such a way I will not be able to defend myself via a constitutional convention or a popular vote? I have news for the citizens or rather the states: Not all constitutional conventions are actually constitutional. If you never, ever applied the law to women or if you never, ever had power and authority but only said you did then you have not conducted the experiement; you cannot know what does or does not work. As for popularity contests? US law and Marbury is not a matter of popularity; it is matter of overcoming peer pressure and doing what is righteous and just: Obeying the law. Last time I checked we did not hold a convention constitutional or not or pass a Bill making it law to then remove the term natural birth and/or to make the trading of justice or of actual people upon honor bond dollars legal; we did not repeal the equal protection clauses nor write a new term, that “Susan Herbert” is the lone exception to the law. That would be a Bill of Attainder and slavery and we outlawed that with the Emancipation Proclaimation and the 19th Amedment. Bills of Attainder were never legal. It works a corruption of blood as genrations to follow are then harmed and without relief. If the citizens wish to make SUPREME COURT, NO SUSAN, NO WOMEN, BLACK, FOREIGN, LAW NOT APPLYING TO JUDGES ONLY, DEMOCRAT, REPUBLICAN, or CROOK the law then Congress needs to vote for it and/or one citizen must sue. As for 28 USC 1331? If I, Susan Herbert, have a constitutional issue with any employee of the Supreme Court related to official business of the court, THE LAW, or the elected President legal or not then I will take it there directly no matter what US code states as any and all third person intervention in creation is unconstitutional which illegally intervening in a life and death honor bound contract then is, or, violating a constitution – another person - then is as it is between two parties or two constitutions and then God

136

not Congress thus 28 USC 1331 is repugnant to me alone and is void. I’ve proven my true belief which I am willing to act upon at any cost: I’m equal in legal power and moral authority to the President and Chief Justice thus I earned direct entry as a fully vested right in spite of US code. I will act in defiance of it as always. I entered the bar when I entered directly; I am licensed to argue in the Supreme Court of the US or all 50 states. I don’t do state ‘law’ as most isn’t. But I will fight for or against it if it’s a federal question as some state law is actual law and/or falls under liberty and self-determination. In my case? I do not recall a single state or federal judge citing this code when denying me any and all entry to SCOTUS or to all other courts as a plaintiff. Not one judge supported SCOTUS’ actions by citing this code. Remember, to test the federal jusdiciary against the Constitution and Marbury? I ‘asked’ for indirect entry and charged my right to appear in court in person as a plaintiff aka redress had been denied and I was denied an appearance in person or redress all over again thus we know I was denied only as it is actual, active discrimination of my person and/or the point of law is beyond the sitting judges human ability and human capacity. However, if you do not have the ability and capacity to express and act upon human compassion? You’re unfit for Command. The citizens, Obama and the Jax federal bench and every single court I have ever been in (and I’ve been in all except court of claims, tax court or patent court - the money courts as that is not justice as money exists today) not only abused its discretion but it did so by injuring me emotionally and going so far it became physical injury and denied and ignored reality known as US law and biology: Only women give birth to live humans, men who are not veterans have no protected right to custody of children or of this nation but only the privilege as that right never fully vests, math is math and no matter how it happened if I was denied any and all protection of the law then law and rule cannot find me. You may not arbitrarily apply rule or even precedent to my person but not the law and you may not treat me uniquely, or, unlike William Marbury. SCOTUS might have

137

done this as well; I will only know as fact if it was deliberate or not on SCOTUS part when heard in person. As for the actions of the clerks and Justices that harmed my person as a result of my own prior just actions? They are not extra-constitutional as they do violate written law and federal precedent as if you want to overturn any part of Marbury, institute policy as the rule of law or make the Supreme Court a legal institution of government with defined power that is named within our law inside people’s hearts and heads or inside the living constitution not actually on or in our paper constitution thus making it actual and legal at last then hear the case thus they had another just choice. But I cannot assign guilt without a confession as I know the Court did not know something as it is not possible and that it had a reason to fear something. However fear is no excuse. If I overcame fear with nothing and no one to help me do it then grown men with all the power, privilege, wealth and resources including each other can over come it. I have settled upon the words PARTLY CONSTITUTIONAL to describe these actions as the actions of the clerks and Justices are either constitutional or unconstitutional in direct proportion to the citizen’s, as a whole, violation of the law. Like “partly sunny” or “partly cloudy” it is relative. Barck Obama is committing an actual crime against me and all natural born ethical citizens especially women who are mothers as we are at actual but not legally declared war. Due to Bush V Gore, the denial of any and all protection of the law to my person, Obama 08 and due to the circumvention of the Solicitor General on 11/20/08 that constitutes a circumvention of the people or a denial of informed consent so that all federal taxes are levied unjustly and all of the effects thereof one of which is finanacial industry criminals have now been awarded twice over for violating and skirting the law and stealing from the tax payers instead of being held to the consequences of the law and another of which is all offices are now unchecked

138

and chain of command is severed completely and so not one single agent of this government or one other citizen is now acting according to US law and/or under the authority of the US, or, if not for my one person our law is overthrown, thus named defendants are not immune from suit. To be immune they would have to be acting under the authority of the US aka according to or under our law and they are not or they would have to be a person who did nothing that caused me injury and harm, they would have had to take no action agaisnt me and none that is against our law or its spirit. If such a person exists I have not yet found them or they have not yet come forward thus all named parties are not immune from lawsuit. Whether or not I may collect monetary damages from a never legal Chief Justice is another issue but may I sue a never legal Chief Justice and ask for redress in his very court? Or demand he be made to obey the law and apply the law to my person or to abide by the very decision that created his office and court of law? YES as I am Marbury; as he sued the President I must sue the Commander; as he exactly sued Madison for obeying the order I must exactly sue Roberts for accepting the commission; as Marbury is our cornerstone I then am our capstone: Upon adjudication in person within SCOTUS we have been founded at long last. The pyramid or monument to man having aspired and met that highest appellation of all is finished as all of humanity is then at the bar; we then all start from the same point rather than with some of us behind or not included at all. It is as Ephesians states: “Put on the full armor of God so that you can take your stand against the devil's schemes. For our struggle is not against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the powers of this dark world and against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly realms. Therefore put on the full armor of God, so that when the day of evil comes, you may be able to stand your ground, and after you have done everything, to stand.” That is all I was promised: I’d stand. John Marshall told me in Marbury that whoever this person is that person would remain and so stand in 139

defense of the Declaration and Constitution as if Marbury was granted legal power then the next soul who ventured into this territory would be doing so as legal power is then denied their person in absolute and whole violation of our law including Marbury V Madison so his own words and his own court would be at stake; this person would be standing as the lone moral and legal or constitutional authority exactly as Marshall himself once did. John Marshall knew as fact as he could reason what conditions would have to exist but he did not dare write it down in 1803: This person is going to be a woman; it will have to be a woman as that then is the other half of humanity; first other races of men and then finally a woman. I stand as that woman. The Kaiser is gone, Hitler is gone, Clinton is gone, Bush Jr. is gone, the USSR is gone, most of eastern Europe is gone, the World Trade Center is gone, Jesse Helms is gone, the Berlin Wall is gone, ancient China is gone, Chief Justice Rehnquist is gone, King George is gone and my own father is gone but I’m still standing. I will still be standing after Obama is gone as he is going sooner rather than later as this case is made at long last: Women possess constitutional authority thus custody, care and control of their own persons. If I, the Appellant, had been allowed an appearance in person to execute the contract and if federal judges then abided by the letter and spirit of our law then the I would have secured the bessings of liberty for myself and all people as I caused, fought and won the second American Revolution known as Susan V The Entire Federal Government. In this case the injury thus equity, as I am not the lone injured person and as until all women are liberated all men will remain in prison and our nation will soon be dead physically as well as legally, favors hearing me in person or else it becomes impossible for anyone to redress the violation of vested, protected rights as we no longer exist as a constitutional nation at the point I am denied any appearance in person. Who acts upon a bad case containing no fact, no law and no evidence rising to proof? The Supreme Court would not so we already know my reasoning and my point of law is good as it was acted upon. I asked for placement on the ballot in all 50 states as an award. This court cannot know if I would or would not have won the election as it denied me the opportunity unjustly. I am 140

Marbury and if he got in then at least one woman gets in as that is equal and due and as I did not make Marbury’s mistake as I acted after the fact of my loss as losing was always a part of my plan. I never dreamed I’d lose a second time and spectacularly so as it was handed to me upon a silver platter. You see “foolish” and “stupid” and even “defective” where I see gold as I am gold that has been tested in fire, as I come into this court having already won my case. I am your equal. It is history as it is upon the Supreme Court’s own docket. It is self-evident.

Conclusion I am no longer willing to be known as an American citizen. My fact is I am no longer willing to be an American citizen let alone labeled as one.

Judicial review is nothing more than the myth of fingerprints as this nation can produce all the paper it wishes but nothing on those pieces of paper proves if we are or are not a just nation. We already have two pieces of paper known as the Declaration and Constitution. Do they prove anything? According to some of those pieces of paper I was never born, my kids were never born or if we are born then I am a monster and a piece of garbage or worse, I am a drug addicted child abuser and hateful, spiteful, mean, angry, selfish person.

Other pieces of paper give the benefits of American citizenship to

foreigners, terrorists, naturalized citizens and men who do not have the protected right. Paper is evidence that a person lived and a person picked up a pen at some point. Then again I’ve seen monkey art and monkey writing. Maybe a monkey did it. That person, or perhaps but not very likely a monkey as they have not aspired yet, had an idea as ideas are the cause of everything. No matter what that paper says? The only actual proof is life: Are those words causing justice or injustice? Did the person who wrote them live them

141

out? Did anyone else? Did anyone act against them? Did they cause any other person to then have an idea of their own? If a Declaration and Constitution is in writing and both fall in the Supreme Court but nobody is around to see them or hear them fall, have they fallen? Only if you feel them fall and for that? You need living people, as all those ideas that cause all the things in this world including emotions such as liberty are the product of people. PEOPLE ARE THE CAUSE OF IDEAS AND IDEAS CAUSE EVERYTHING. Then those people need to be willing to realize and/or actualize those ideas. This court may as well take our Declaration and Constitution and use it as toilet paper and then flush it away as my life proves definitively that this has already happened and is still in progress as you read this:

John Conyers and the House Committee on the Judiciary first resolved to violate our law without equal protection for women and without due process for any citizen by approving of Resolution 511 in which Obama and other Senators actually resolve to break our law by violating the term known as natural birth and the EP&DP clauses and then released a report (01/13/09) that is nothing but a laundry list of crimes by the Bush administration that Congress has reasoned and decided to allow to go unpunished and unanswered only as “The votes to obey, uphold and enforce the law do not exist. Congress is not willing.” Of course those votes do not exist: We just voted to not be able to vote anymore. We voted to end the vote. We voted to make the overthrow of our governing documents permanent. We voted to allow the purchasing of the office and/or to install a foreign born person who may be an actual foreigner and criminals only, to install male foreigners (an actual American would obey the law) and criminals (natural born or naturalized but all politicians and lawyers) only and never women. We unfounded our nation.

I am a natural born American citizen who is a woman who had to find out that her life was worth nothing nor are the lives of her children and I discovered this in the most devastating of all ways: Two sitting federal judges colluded to suppress a complaint or so I allege and then at the very highest level possible, in the Supreme Court of the United

142

States, an institution that derives all of its power from moral authority alone as it is not named with our law, several clerks played games with my petitions and an emergency application thus played games with my life or so I truly believe. As for my prior two petitions? I possess no evidence whatsoever that a Justice ever saw them or read them but proof they did not: Would the Justices reason and decide they wanted to overturn Marbury V Madison or to make their own court an in violation of the law institution? Clerks who are named might. They wouldn’t know they were violating Marbury or that I am indeed a legal genius while they are not as their mistaken and false belief is no woman and no nonlawyer can know US law and so argue within SCOTUS and they would not know what no court would let me inform them of as I was denied any and all appearance in person. The state of my life tells me: I need to consider a Justice or all nine of them did the same as the clerks as anything is possible and in my unique case? The truly extraordinary happens because I am the extraordinary circumstance.

I knew that day in May of 2007 when those two sitting federal judges acted to keep their prior violations of my rights and our law from ever being exposed to the light of day in a manner that could not be coincidence or accident based upon a fact I have never revealed that I am a person who had been living in exile in my own nation only for being a genius and able and capable beyond what most human beings are and beyond what a man mistakenly believes a woman can be, and for being ethical, moral and uncompromising when it came to my own principles, protected rights and US law. That day I owned new knowledge: If I had been born as a man my life would have gone in an all together different direction. This nation never cared about my life and never will because of woman only. The only way I’ll ever know this as fact and truth is by moving to another country as the harmful conditions and terms I am subject to in the US never changes and will never change as it is our very nature: PEOPLE. If other people are my problem then I am living in the wrong country and I might be living on the wrong planet.

143

If this nation is at a point whereby judicial review is the myth of fingerprints so that citizens blindly and thoughtlessly do anything the corrupted and criminal persons “in charge” order them to do, if paper is now absolute proof beyond any and all doubt and so endemic is this that citizens believe anything they read and so ignore or deny the actual proof which is my person acting, so that even when I give an FBI agent the paper ‘proof’ he asks for he then tells me he is too scared to act for me because it involves persons with perceived power as he reads titles people have on a document, power that is only real as the citizens are mistaken, discriminatory, corrupted, lazy and/or criminal and are desperate to believe their actions are perfectly acceptable when they know that is the lie of their lives, then I need to take my children and leave.

I am not safe in this nation only as I do possess faith – faith in myself, in US law and in God. If I am the last person standing and the only one willing to tell the truth, that Austin V Herbert is a lie, Bush V Gore is a lie, Iraq War is a lie, In Re Susan Herbert Denied is a lie and Obama 08 is a lie, and only one of these lies is even remotely legal to tell and that would be Bush V Gore as the Supreme Court told it and told it with actual reasoning and cause, the cause being to protect, preserve and defend the law and so now I am injured only for confronting men with it when I know late Chief Justice Rehnquist decided to tell it so that a citizen like myself could rise to power upon moral authority alone and so possibly save whatever is left of our founders original ideals, than I need to become a citizen of a nation who wants and needs to be liberated as wherever I go? I bring The Declaration, The Constitution and Marbury V Madison and then 200 years of federal court rulings with me along with the knowledge of what is or is not constitutional and exactly what not to do if you are living under these governing documents: Negotiate your safety; you negate God and deny its existence while replacing it with nothing but material garbage and cheap thrills so that you finally become animals instead of human beings. That is you act like animals devoid of compassion, common sense and reason and willing to do whatever you believe you can without getting “caught” and chase money as if it is

144

water or blood until you have become actual animals so then I not only want to leave this nation I need to leave.

‘Authorities’ never met a woman who entered SCOTUS all by herself. They know this is horrific; my life is so badly ruined that if my case is heard? It is what judges term a nightmare case: Third parties and other defendants who will stop at nothing and have the money and the political influence to make a judge’s life a living hell. So basically my case has been decided: WHO CARES IF SUSAN HERBERT’S LIFE IS A LIVING HELL FOR THE NEXT FORTY YEARS? WE SENTENCE SUSAN HERBERT TO 40 MORE YEARS OF HELL ON EARTH SO THAT WE DO NOT HAVE TO SUFFER ONE SINGLE SECOND FOR WHAT WE DID TO HER OR FOR FAILING TO ACT IN HER DEFENSE.

If I am never going to be allowed entry to a court of law as a plaintiff/appellant/petitioner and never allowed into the only court of law that can or will adjudicate my case, US Supreme Court when I have already made my case and already directly entered on paper, and the only reasoning is government agents and lawyers do not want to lose their jobs or sitting state and federal judges do not want it known that an average person, a POOR, UNEDUCATED AS IN NO COLLEGE, DEFECTIVE, WOMAN that they openly maligned and deliberately injured can and did walk into federal court with a case of original jurisdiction which she had the audacity to reason and decide herself as if she were a licensed attorney or a judge herself, as if she knew US law best of all and not that judge or as if she is her own judge and jury? As in better than I, an actual judge with a title, robe and degree and when I, a judge, am so special and so much above this piece of trash as I went to college, I was appointed for life, a politician choose me as I’m the expert and I have money, lots of things, awards and important friends so then how dare Susan Herbert tell me the answer to her federal questions or tell me how to decide her case? Who does this bitch think she is? If that is it? Then this court and this nation do

145

not need to tell any more lies or rather write any more lies upon a piece of paper. People left enough fingerprints on me already and I have the physical scars to prove it.

All this court has to do is write: “BARACK OBAMA and the people who kidnapped her children are better than SUSAN HERBERT or so this court believes. Furthermore SUSAN HERBERT deserves to be punished for telling this nation the ugly truth of who and what it is and deserves to suffer only as we feel like making her suffer. This court believes SCOTUS clerks did the right thing by keeping her emergency application under lock and key. This court upholds every decision or ruling ever made against her and her children. The truth is: This court is not willing to hear this case or order the Supreme Court to hear it as it means judges will have to begin obeying the law. This court has no intention of applying the law to itself.” Or write this alone: “This court is not willing.” It is that simple. I’ll always know the truth and so will this court but all you gotta do is write “I, the judge, am not willing” because I do not care exactly what you’re not willing to do, your actual reason does not interest or concern me so you do not have to write that down as it is only one thing as it can only be one thing and we both know it so there is no need to add to the myth of fingerprints we call judicial review but my children will need the truth someday. They will need an actual reason.

Actual judicial review that is proof of life? For that to exist you have to be an actual constitutional nation and we are not and have not been since William Jefferson Clinton was allowed to commit perjury in a case concerning a crime committed against a woman and was not impeached for it and was later excused for it by falsely claiming he made a mistake and was sorry. First he said that, then Congress repeated it and then almost every citizen in this nation did. A LIE AND A CRIME. Chain of command was interrupted then and Susan Herbert acted: She wrote to Bill Clinton telling him to move over and get out of her way as now she knew why the state of FL had dismissed 2nd degree felony assault charges in her name and in her unborn sons name, now born, w/o her knowledge, w/o her consent and w/o ever so much as speaking to her or letting her speak for herself, only

146

because of a policy to never press cases if the spouse was a Navy spouse as the Navy would come down on her so hard that she would not be able to testify and why FL had told her We did not know you were special; we did not know you were the one woman who could have stood up to the US Navy or we would not have done this to you but no other woman has ever been able to follow through because of the pressure they use against her so that real, actual reason wasn’t that policy it is: The offices of moral authority have fallen so that it, Commander, now sits within US Supreme Court as you, Bill Clinton just abandoned your post both legally via perjury and morally via abusing power to then abuse women and this nation, and by excepting yourself from our law as you are to hold yourself to it no matter what Congress says as you know what you did and only I know what this means in the US under our law – judicial review is no more as a President is saying the paper or failure to convict makes him not guilty and as if he never did it and as if he does not have to abide by the equal protection and due process clauses; it is a President claiming unless the piece of paper says I’m guilty I am not; in fact it never happened. Clinton did what Nixon said a President could do - break the law but it then not be a crime only as a President did it and in this case only as a man did it to a woman so then next to go is the Supreme Court itself as that is moral authority alone so they’ll issue paper rulings against women that people obey in violation of our law as citizens now believe the paper is the proof or is justice or is our law as in changes the words in our law and not one other person will see it when it comes down the pike. No citizen acted. SCOTUS cannot act to press suit or press charges; a citizen has to do it. I wrote to him and said:

“At least Nixon had the guts and the resolve to resign. He was willing to resign so we know he had at least a molecule or two of an ethic left. What is your sorry excuse? Richard Nixon proved he has moral authority where Bill Clinton has none. William Clinton this is an Executive Order: As a mother and as a civilian I command the United States military not you as you have committed a crime under our law and I as a mother and as a law abiding citizen have legal power, the right, where you no longer do and I

147

have the most moral authority as you do not wear a uniform and never have, we are not at war and you as a man do not give birth to living constitutions. The protected right is not yours nor is the vested interest and you abused the privilege. You are to stand down as you are acting in open and direct violation of our law and your actions have disrupted chain of command at the highest level thus the people, including the United States military, no longer have moral authority or will. This is because the people come after the President and Commander so for you to sit in direct and open violation of our law means the people have already given their legal power and moral authority away to dead pieces of paper and unjust men. It is done. Your actions also directly and personally caused my unborn son now born to suffer gross emotional and physical harm from which he will never recover until or unless I become the President and Commander in Chief and I, Susan, happen to know exactly how to do it; I happened to have been charged with this duty by my father when I was 9 as I asked him what I was to do if and when the President ever acted to break the law and ‘got away with it’. He said NOBODY gets to violate US law so I was to take my case to the Supreme Court first. And if that failed? If we had a court willing to break the law as it too had given away its moral authority as that is all it has as it has zero actual legal power other than each Justice having one vote? He told me if the President would not volunteer to obey the law or order the Court to obey the law, so both institutions fell, I was to then take it straight to the people as then this made me the President and Commander. He ordered me to do so; he did not tell me as fact but ordered, “You have to” and “You keep going and do not stop until you get there because nobody but nobody gets to violate US law and get away with it not even the President”. As I know physics I know what will happen in this nation someday soon thus I WILL so if you do not stand down? You have been stood down as Commander. It is done. All I have to do is wait for a President to fail or fall legally not morally. I can never know when or how that will happen; I cannot know exact details all I can know is it will happen until or unless a person rises and restores chain of command. If another person presses a lawsuit before I do? I highly doubt any other American has stood you down as a person in uniform cannot thus it can only be a woman as a man not in uniform never has the

148

protected right or vested interest as they do not give birth to the babies that grow up to then volunteer to join the military thus do not have the most moral authority. WOMEN realize the military via childbirth and as they shed blood in so doing they have the protected right and the vested interest not any man. A woman who is a mother has to do it as that is the only legal way and only possible way under our law and chain of command theory. FL finally told me the truth: IT’S YOU SUSAN. YOU’RE SPECIAL. I never knew why this extraordinary stuff kept happening to me but the state attorney felt guilty so I promised him I’d never use his name if only he’d tell me the truth so he did but it wasn’t the policy he told me about. That policy has always been there. After he told me about the policy I asked him WHY in my case was he willing to go talk to his boss and try to challenge the policy and even the statute of limitations, why me and not any other woman? And he said YOU ARE DIFFERENT THAN ANY WOMAN I EVER DEALT WITH. Bill, what he heard was moral authority or will as in Commanding. As in uncompromising. He gave me an answer I have been seeking my entire life: What is different about me as a woman that causes me so much harm? Now I know: Marbury V Madison. I can make an educated guess and so know something else: I’m it. So are you. I finally know. It might take 10 years or twenty years or even happen after I am dead but SUSAN HERBERT and WILLIAM CLINTON are destined to meet on paper or in person and when we do? I am writing you out of the history books. What you did to me and to my children as Navy dependents? I can put a bullet in your head and it is legal. In case you do not get it: Under the law I am charged with the duty to unholster my side arm and shoot you dead if you refuse to stand down. So we’re destined to meet someday. Lucky for you my side arms happen to be the Declaration and Constitution and that the bullets they are loaded with are the Federalist Papers but make no mistake: those weapons are deadlier than an actual gun. Marbury V Madison means we are meeting in US Supreme Court. I know why but I bet you and your lawyers do not know why: Because I am a natural born woman who is a legal genius and we do not recognize genius in women nor do we recognize legal genius at all in anybody. Who singles out a child who is female as a genius? It happens once in a great while as in never. That girl has to

149

become a grown woman and fight for herself before she is recognized for her genius but a child singled out as they are a legal genius instead of math or music genius? An adult singled out as they are a legal genius? That has never happened in all of world history – ever - as there is only one place it can happen: The United States. JUSTICE! Chief Justice! See ya in court! Susan Herbert, the Commander in Chief of the United States.”

These were almost my exact words if not exact as I happen to have a photographic memory I use at will and as I have been thinking about this every day of my life since 1996 when I complained and 1998 when I issued the order. I had to hear this nation make those sorry excuses to then know it is me: I know what moral authority actually is and that only the Chief has it, Commander in Chief and Chief Justice. Your mother, as in chief cook and bottle washer. I received no answer. Nothing; not even a visit from the Secret Service. I emailed him in late 96 or early 97 & 98. I sent an innocuous email ranting about domestic violence. I received a response from the Whitehouse. A form letter. Both times. So either the people in Whitehouse flagged my correspondence and so own the knowledge the law is on my side or the post office magically does not deliver my mail only. Only my mail is lost. Hmm, years later I email Cheney with exact charges asking for help and for him to make amends and the FBI illegally invokes the Patriot Act to then seize my intellectual property. An accident? No. I then serve Bush Jr. with my suit at his Whitehouse addy via 1st class mail. No response. Three times nothing. I then snail mailed a request for a Christmas card (a third person did it for me using my return address). Two years in a row the Whitehouse and the “President” can respond to a Christmas card request but not a lawsuit? Proof of life: Ownership of the knowledge Cheney knows he’s guilty of pressing Bush V Gore and deliberately shaking the faith the people once had in SCOTUS and using a Justice, a man beyond reproach to do it (I know as I tried my best to reproach him in all ways possible and nothing stuck) and then allowing all to blame that Justice and ownership of the knowledge they all know that my case is airtight and so are hiding as that place is crawling with lawyers and the nasty lawyer game is as long as we do not respond we can claim we never got her letter /

150

lawsuit (Richard Cheney’s entire life is one, long chain of deliberate acts; he’s no more a happy, random accident than this universe is; you do not ‘accidentally’ ask your friend of 20 years to go duck hunting, your friend’s favorite activity when you know you have a case coming before the court and then say nothing when the people and the press go wild; I can prove it was deliberate or I would not state this; doesn’t this act then constitute kidnapping a Justice?). You can play that game and it might work but not if I managed to get on the Supreme Court’s case conference list as that then is informing the public as you cannot reasonably deny that you never saw the SCOTUS docket as it is a duty so no matter what clerks do to my petitions as in if they never give them to a Justice? Or even if a Justice sunk my case and with deliberation? You knew. For good measure I served Clinton at his Clinton center or whatever that place is and served Hilary Clinton in Albany as she carpet bagged into NY and bought that Senate seat out from under me only to use it to access the Whitehouse, signed 511 and told me I was not her constituent. She refused repeatedly to do anything at all about the criminal and corrupted NY courts as it might hurt her bid for President. SCOTUS and the lower federal court have my proofs of service. Like Obama and local federal judges I received no response after informing her she was acting outside the law and as if she were mentally ill as anybody could clearly read I was born in NY and my court case is in NY as our my children and ALL CITIZENS ARE YOUR CONSTITUENTS IF YOU ARE RUNNING FOR PRESIDENT.

The last time I was in federal court all I asked for was a passport and a one way ticket out of here. DENIED! Well guess what? I do not need your permission or your money. I never thought I would be embarrassed and ashamed to be an American but I am. And as I have been denied every one of my rights and all benefits of citizenship including my children and even my own life and now my vote and redress is made nonexistent? If I am never, ever going to be able to see my children again and I might be murdered for good or I am never going to be able put my genius to use as men will not “allow” it, if I am never going to appear in court and will never hold a decent job that pays more than $8 an hour and it will be a job that feels as if it is torture as I will not be using my gifts only because

151

men say I can’t or only because people keep telling me I must be defective if I am a genius and so lived this life as they refuse to believe discrimination is reality and discrimination kept me from ever using my genius and caused this tragedy? I want out and I need out so I am getting out one way or another: Airplane or gun.

This nation must choose: Life or death? I’ll get over my injury, patriarchy or discrimination aka Austin V Herbert, Bush V Gore, In Re Susan Herbert and now Obama 08 when this nation gets over the Supreme Court, not law itself but the correct invocation of the spirit of our law. Marbury V Madison is elegant so is written law while the baby it gave birth to, the Supreme Court, is unwritten law and so is not theory but its weight is derived from your ownership of the knowledge of our law and of Marbury itself thus its legal power is or is not only as you are or are not. Every ounce of authority Marbury V Madison and/or the Supreme Court carries or holds over you is directly born of your willingness to obey the law and its spirit at all costs, to do whatever is necessary and justifiable according to the law and Marbury and most of that is not written down for you. It will never be in writing. Judicial review is or is not based only upon you judging your own self first without deception or duplicity and devoid of artifice. It is purely id and not ego. This love/hate affair the citizens have with the law and with the Supreme Court ends for good today. From here on out it’s all love, brotherly love, or somebody is going to be shot and killed. I have reasoned and decided and so conclude the US is:

Guilty but actually ignorant of the knowledge of their own power. The citizens did cause harm some of it irreparable and with all manner of forethought and deliberation but they were ignorant of another way, invocation of Marbury V Madison, which is vesting their interest in the process and vesting their right to appear in SCOTUS via acting against corruption as they did not own this concept: The most important words within our governing documents are not written down but exist between the written words and written sentences as liberty is an idea and then a feeling and will is acting upon that whole concept; you cannot read what is not there and so know it by sight. You cannot feel

152

what is not there – within your person – and so know it by hearing. The most important concepts in our law exist between two people. You need a compass or the Declaration, to decipher and so follow a chart, the Constitution, as that charted course is you. You have to first reset your compass, as your aim is not true which reasons why you’ve been wandering all over this map: You have no idea the only actual and real undiscovered country is you, that you and only you know where to draw the starting line in the sand. You must, as a duty to yourself, conduct the experiment and this experiment? Like it or not basic, simple spiritual truths are the parameters. Experiment or act outside of those parameters? You have contaminated the results: We, the people. The myth of judicial review?

The myth is you.

From In Re Susan, 07-9804, as I wear my heart, liberty, on my sleeve and leave it all over petitions entered to the federal judiciary so that they sound like no others as you have to feel it to own it: “Americans have not only lost their way they have no national identity. This may repeat many things I have already stated but it is my most important reasoning and says it best. Americans do not see themselves as Americans and most have never felt as if they are American. My evidence? This is proof you will know as fact without meeting me: Any American who places any label other than person or American upon themselves first is then stating they are less than human as those words - American, person and human - are equivalent. Americans still cling to this idea we are African American, Irish American, gay American or Italian American. We still believe ourselves and others to be only black, only women or only Mexican. We believe it so deeply we act upon it. No matter what citizens state is their true belief it is their actions that belie their words. While all those things shaped who we are and shaped what we believe as truth and real, we are not those things. If you cut a person open you do not see any of those things except for woman. You see male or female and that is because we are both as every cell is the product of an egg and sperm and so we are human. We are distinct powers and birth, the ability to give it, levels the playing field for women as it itself is an actual power equivalent to physical strength. Those distinct powers come from the union of an egg, a sperm and intrinsic force. All people then are born whole yet distinct and then become absolute or unique. Women cannot feel what they have never experienced as this is impossible. One cannot then teach what one has never known, is not allowed to experience or was never taught. My parents taught me the law as faith. I had to figure out America's lack of faith. It has one cause and its effects are many but partly it's 1, A language problem as we have lost our language and 2, It isn't one reason its reasoning! It is objective, critical thinking based 153

upon provable, documented fact including your own fact: your own experience of life and your own emotions which may never be a provable fact of any other person. You cannot fact check another person's heart! In America you check and balance your own self first. If you're one of the results of the founders experiment then you must fine tune you, who has now become the experiment itself. You do not stop fine tuning you until justice is perfected. I am a person who had to decide the clock began ticking for me, my humanity was born, in 1776 and again in 1787. I had to decide we became an actual power and an actual nation when Cornwallis surrendered to Washington and then when he raised his hand or otherwise voted to ratify our Constitution as he was there before, during and after and so he was our parent and both a mother and a father to us. I owe my actual life to Washington, my actual body and my actual spirit. In any other nation I would be dead. I would not have survived. Before 1787 there was no federal property, no definitive citizenship and no outside federal governmental body of any kind but only an idea. I had to meet the founders the only way I could - through their words and actions with other people and in perspective of this universe not the nation or the planet as I soon realized that our Revolution was one of the short quick bursts of evolution we experience. I had to reset that clock to the very beginning of time once I knew our law to be elegant and a form of energy as it is the unifying force. Once I did that I could see that our founders were like gases swirling and coalescing and forming particles, rocks, meteors and then planets. There really was an invisible big bang here on Earth, a document was written that was all the energy of every human being who had come before then turned into another form - our law. We were created; then we were born. Universes are born as all things are born; everything has parents. Even rocks have parents as they are born of other dead planets that become the gases that form a new solar system. Parents are here before, during and after our creation. Even if one does not know their parents they know other humans and they have an idea of God, the creation force. The Declaration and Constitution are the legal or spiritual parents of all Americans and as many Americans do not live here and will never be citizens as it is an idea first, America is a universe as it has no edge; it is always growing, expanding and dying as we lose or give up those mistaken beliefs such as women are less than men and we are always making new or other decisions. I was of the ability to use those two documents to move through solid walls and enter buildings without keys and without using any actual door or window. I saw the unseen as I knew what was not written but was inherent and I knew the truth from a lie. I read documents I have never laid eyes upon and heard conversations I was not privy to and that occurred in secret. I met people, old persons who have been dead for more than a hundred years as children, babies even, as I came to know Hamilton as an infant in the Caribbean, saw Washington almost end his career before it had begun by finding himself in a situation in which he named a fort “Necessity” out of actual necessity, witnessed Deborah Sampson disguise herself as a man in order to fight and answered James Madison’s question: What exists at the founding of any great government? long after he first asked it himself. I was in the room when they opened the Constitutional Convention under a gag order. I rode with

154

Washington when he saw Valley Forge green once in his life and like Patrick Henry, I smelled a rat. I laughed with Lincoln when he was told Grant was drinking and he replied, “Find out what and give it to the other generals.” I told Lincoln, “I'll have some of what Washington DC has been smoking as drunk generals are a lot more coordinated and cooperative than Congress.” When the news reported they had found a scrap of paper, garbage from the Constitutional Convention now worth millions, I had to know why some of us were not even worth an appearance in the trash. I had to know why we are still considered garbage. So now I know: we are all in or on those documents someway, somehow as it is the words you do not see that carry the greatest weight as these people were ordinary human beings like me who rose to meet a challenge God threw down before them like a gauntlet or a dare and did so in an extreme place in an extreme time and so it should have been impossible but it wasn't. They did not write some of those words as in “Native”, “slave” or “woman” but they did act. They left it up to us to write those words across our own hearts first and then upon a piece of paper. To know your Americaness you have to learn about the world historical record and then about the lives of these people. We are millions of pieces, absolutes, that make one whole nation and one whole portion of history known as American history. It's important to know John Adams represented the British soldiers accused of the killings we call the Boston Massacre. It's important to know Benjamin Banneker used his knowledge of the sky to plot the capital. It's important to know Jefferson owned a copy of the Koran and was furious the British burned our Library of Congress and that Abigail Adams blossomed in France but still chose to leave or that Mary Pickersgill made a fortune for herself sewing early American flags. You must ask yourself how Robert Smalls could decide to steal a ferry or blow himself and his family up trying and why the Sundance was so sacred almost no records of it exist. You need to wonder how we ended up losing so many of our founders overseas and why many of them died in poverty. You need to know why you do not hear Martin Luther King the way others do and why Thomas Paine participated in the failed French revolution. It changes things if you know the first European born here whose birth was recorded was named Virginia Dare as your heart will ping: God really did dare our virgin souls, the blank slates called "American ". It's important, all of it, and to live in a big country you need a big heart. When you know the world and all of your facts you can reason your life and those facts guide you in the right direction. You will feel and hear other hearts before they are born or after they are dead. Then you, your own self, are an American founder: you are a President, Commander and Chief Justice. You are a mother and a warrior. Our founders managed to author two documents that invoke the universal truths of this world. Those documents are not based upon Christianity and Americans become less than when they tell this lie as those documents include every person on this planet and the universal truth of every major world religion or philosophy. What our founders did was bring every human experience they ever had to the table plus a unique experience, the Iroquois Confederacy. They understood that they were standing alone with a new idea and

155

a very special opportunity before them: destiny meeting fate as this continent was settled last and so they had the entire historical record including the missing link, Native America and the idea of participatory democracy. Our founders added aspiration, the idea of God, to political conspiracy and so gave birth to universal law whether they knew it or not. Because of this, conspiring politically with each other to then conspire politically with each other and God, we thus conspire with the universe and so Americans pray when they vote, pray when they litigate or pray when they spend money. An American’s life is a prayer. The record reflects they did know what they were doing. They used the word “providence” and not “fate”. As I reasoned the founders and then my own life I knew I could prove God and prove predestination; not fatalism but destiny we are born into as uniquely our own. There is reasoning Adams and Jefferson were not at the Convention and it has little to do with ability but everything to do with choice and is very, very important today. There is reasoning Jefferson hated transubstantiation so much he insisted people swear they did not believe in this before holding office. Could they know being absent from the Convention or expressing hate would lead me to own an answer I would need to make this case? Could they know it would lead me to solve a seemingly unsolvable problem? Could they choose to do these exact things by reasoning, “We should travel to France and not participate in a convention we know nothing about yet because in 220 years Susan will be reasoning her case” or “I'm going to make you swear on a bible that you do not believe in this because Susan will need this as supporting evidence in about 200 years.” No, and that is God. There is reasoning in all life and for all life. Thinking about my own self in this way and as them making those decisions led me to know a mystery of this universe and answer one of the biggest questions in all of human history both legal and scientific and the entire time I had no idea others were working on answering the very same questions. I had no idea a physicist at Harvard was close but as she did not know Constitutional law missed uniformity and predestination. It dawned on me: all of our founders were ordinary people. Most of them were not born geniuses but merely curious. Others were born into poverty and broken families. Some had disabilities, some had no education and all were born into harm. Like me, born into harm. They took advantage of opportunity when it came their way. They were of the ability to conquer fear when it was most important. They did not think of themselves as heroes. We will never know the names of most as thousands, millions, never set foot inside Independence Hall. They saw a future that was theirs to create and so duly processed themselves by accepting God's challenge and daring God right back and so shot their own person like time's arrow into 2007. They became extraordinary; they fully embraced their humanity and the idea of God in them by deciding, by making the seemingly insane decision to sit down and write up an actual paper petition - a manifesto declaring that their creation was beyond their control and so it was a given: They were human and while they may have been born into harm were also born into inalienable rights endowed by that Creator. Their humanity was no longer going to be debated. On a piece of paper they wrote we are of this universe, signed it and then made it real by willing it, by acting upon it. They did not have a federal courthouse; there were no police officers. They just acted upon their knowledge and their faith. They made choices and were accountable and responsible for the results. They were willing to accept blame or take credit for me, me

156

being one of the results. They adjudicated their own case; they decided, opined, ruled and finally, voted for themselves. They were literally and figuratively children of fortune and so then I am too and I became what I was born to be by doing exactly what they did: I made a single decision and then willed it. Then I made another decision and willed it. I kept making decisions and willing them until I could sit down and declare my own self to the world. I went into the federal court even writing “This is my declaration”. I was stunned when the court denied my facts, refused to allow me to appear in person and broke the law. They even mocked my faith in our law! So I made another decision: I would write a petition and enter it to the Supreme Court. I was stricken when I discovered I had to reason the whole universe in only 40 pages as it seemed as if it was not possible but I could not fail to act; that was the only thing I could not do. I decided I would never stop acting. The innate potential we all possess as Americans is waiting for us to decide to use it. Chief Justice John Marshall told me in Marbury: a person must claim their commissions in life. You must decide, then act; you must be deliberate, willful and knowing as it works both ways. Am I the only one who heard him? Am I the last or the first American? To look at me one would think I was white and Irish. But I am not. Ireland is not my home. I am not that history. I am a person who came to know that when Malcolm drew an “X” after his name he marked a spot upon my own heart and so I too deliberately, knowingly and willingly went looking for my real parents and my real family. I know that my physical body came into being in Africa. When I saw a professor looking across the ocean as seen out the door of the last place a person who was African stood before boarding a ship for America I did not cry with sadness. It is a fact of me that while slavery was a tragedy I owe my very life to all of those persons who came here and all of those persons who never made it. I owe who and what I am to those people who found the will to live and the will to run; people who made the decision that those documents applied to their persons and it was worth the risk to act. It is the God knowledge and star knowledge they brought with them that shaped my own self, the idea that no matter the outside conditions you too could aspire for more or different. I owe my Americaness to them and to those same brave decisions and unbelievable choices and know that they were never alone as when they were suffering they had the idea of me with them. I was there. I was being created. I was enslaved; I knew to follow those same stars because of their example. I borrowed their will. That twinge of sadness quickly turned into a deep and abiding serene assurance that I was loved long before the idea of me was ever realized. I know that Sojourner Truth, Marcus Garvey, Frederick Douglass, Rosa Parks, John Brown or Dred Scott could not have turned to me and extended their hand so that I myself could stand alone if all of these people had not come before me and lived their exact and absolute lives. It is the same with American Indians. The Trail of Tears they were made to walk I had to walk. It is the endless, ceaseless journey of history and those tears become a well of souls if you can somehow own the early hatred and the pain Geronimo felt and acted upon to understand that you must be like him, and you must not allow anyone to be of the ability to build a prison from which you cannot escape by liberating your own spirit first. No piece of

157

paper liberates you. No outside thing liberates you. I came into this court with the Natives seeking to uphold the broken Ft. Laramie treaty. I am not in the photograph of these men standing in front of the court building but I was there. I knew not to allow anyone to place a price or a condition upon my humanity because of their example. A human must never name or act upon a price. They left refusing to accept a huge cash settlement as that is not justice and so it still sits untouched collecting interest. They stood alone on my behalf and entered the Supreme Court with will and liberty and left it that same way, with their honor intact, as to live in wealth but within that invisible prison is not what God wants for any of us and neither did the European founders. The idea of will Natives yet live had to be my own and I had to look upon our shared history and my own life not as a singular act or even collective acts of hatred but as the universal struggle that is life: it is the God struggle or the creation struggle, coming to own the idea of God in you and so we are all equals. We are all human beings of and by God; We are all written in the stars. It is the endless cycle of birth and death. How do you win this and own this as faith and as right if you do not engage in the battle? If you are not allowed to engage in the battle? When I was standing in that African doorway I felt as if I were a Titan or a Colossus of Rhodes and that my white skin was representative of those early Europeans but my heart was American, and that while I would always and forever have one foot planted in Africa and the other in North America among the Natives, I was all of these things across the planet as the founders brought the world and then the universe to me and so I was uniquely American and belonged to no other nation or people. Like our founders I was able to sever my ties with those other histories and lose those mistaken beliefs of personhood and family. I know why my first memory is the moon landing and why America was fated to accomplish this; if I made a mistake and my father was not thinking of me when this happened it was an accident by design that sent me tumbling head over heels in the right direction no matter how tragic my life might seem to have been. I would not change a single, solitary second of it as it all counts. Claiming my commission so I could enter the Supreme Court forced me to triumph over the idea of a king, and I am all those men known as Washington, Adams, Jefferson, Madison and Marshall. I am even Bush Sr. jumping out of a plane into the South Pacific. I am a founder. I hope therefore I am. Feel how far we swam in only an instant? In only the blink of an eye? I jumped from a kitchen in Philadelphia and landed in Florida but made the leap of a lifetime as my heart went all the way to the ends of the universe and back again on faith alone. I was born again, for the last and first time as this was by my own will. I was deliberate! I liberated my own self! I am a Native American warrior who is a woman and so had no choice: I had to will myself to power. I had to use sheer will alone to survive those intent on killing the very idea of me as that is the actual threat I am, an inviolate, true belief which I act upon. To do this I had to go to the source, the same exact source our own European founders went to, the entire human record beginning with God, then Adam and Eve. I reasoned myself; I reasoned my heart. Then I attacked the actual problem. I had more to work with as I had Darwin, Einstein and 220 years of federal court rulings and American history. I had to go even further and reason all equal protection issues, all other

158

constitutional law and then define the creation force and develop a unified theory of everything. I did the impossible. I performed a miracle. Or did I? I came into this world knowing how to cry like a man but was made to cry like a woman. I always knew what I was then forced to learn all over again: If you want proof do exactly what Thomas Paine said to do, examine all of creation starting with yourself as you are the proof beyond doubt. I never thought of myself – ever – as less than a man. I never thought that any man had more than I or was better than I or that God created me as less than. I was and am the most able and capable person I know. Why be less than you already are? Why want that? Then do what Paine said was not necessary: read all of the founding documents we call sacred writings and Scripture. But do so after you become American, not before as words alone are not proof of anything. Do so after owning the historical record of this world most especially the historical record of America. You might then want to fact check yourself and your suspicions by going to the record we call salvation history. As Paine was first he was American salvation history, he was it and so he could not possibly know it but he would if he were alive today. All of the founders would know they were it and so they are with me now as in America the dead can testify; the dead can appear in court and receive justice. I can bring Thomas Paine, John Paul Jones and all of the other founders especially women and Natives home at last. The truth, the fact of my life is: Other people are the salvation history of me. The founders, all of them including myself, are the salvation history of me. Our most amazing feat was fostering and preserving the salvation history of humanity until we came to have our very own. America’s salvation history is that we save ourselves as we are a nation that can violate the Constitution absolutely but yet still have a way home as the Declaration is our spontaneously beating heart. We collected God knowledge and human knowledge from all over the planet due to our law and our Bill of Rights and so legislated the creation force. Americans plant and grow souls; that is the fruit of the tree known as liberty. God designed human beings for the purpose of discovery! You bang around the universe exercising your rights and making decisions and so come to know yourself and God. You have no choice due to that heart and that vibrant clash of everyone else's beliefs as belief, proof and faith are three different things and while we all may have differing beliefs and our own proof is that - our own - our faith is a single universal truth: God equally protects and duly processes us all so any American can and may equally protect and duly process themselves as that is our inviolate law. It is exactly worded. America and American law is one giant rescue mission whereby you decide to rescue your own self and then will it. The founders did not write it down as it is a given: God helps those who help themselves! To be American is to deliberately, knowingly and willingly use the Declaration and use the Constitution; the law contains the invisible blueprints for building a bridge of human hearts so that you can cross to the other side. You will then possess a map of your own soul and

159

know your reasoning for being here. When one does this they become American, as big as the planet and know they are not only a part of the universe but an actual universe unto themselves, a special and unique creation with a special and unique gift they are born to realize. I know why America came into being and we were meant to survive our early brushes with extinction as a new nation: America is where the Holy Grail and Excalibur came to rest at last. The Declaration is the Grail as it gave birth to us or is our mother. The Grail was the once real chalice lost in Britain and it is our will as Christ was teaching the Apostles how to have will in the face of all odds. Men do not give birth and so Christ's physical suffering was him experiencing the pain women feel and the danger, even death, they expose themselves to when they give birth. All women have will as they possess the potential to give birth but men must come to own it through sacrifice. In all suffering there is birth. That is being a mother. You do not aspire to suffer or die but you must be willing, as that is how you defend life. The Constitution is the blade, our father, as it is our legal power or our weapon. It is Excalibur of the Arthurian legend based upon once real persons. It is the means of using the intrinsic power of our humanity the Declaration birthed. You must be of the ability to wield the blade, as you must act upon your will. Will alone is not enough as even in death things are born; death can be the defense of life. You do not aspire to kill another and you never come to want to kill but you must be willing, as that is being a father. As parents, as ethical creators, Americans give birth to actual people and to thoughts, feelings, ideas and beliefs. We also kill actual people and kill thoughts, feelings, ideas and beliefs. So far, we have excelled at killing mistaken beliefs but have failed miserably at killing other people. I'm worried we're becoming successful. The blade has been denied to women for so long they were not and are not of the ability to defend themselves or their children, nor can they teach their children our law as faith as our corruption passed completion as we sought to keep women from entering the offices of legal power in this nation and as we invoked the name of Jesus and even God to deny them our sons then became corrupted. Americans no longer have will as we set up a system that keeps women out unless they too become corrupted or marry into it - political influence or money - which is not actual power but only perceived power. We have mistaken the blade for a piece of paper in the Smithsonian, religion, money, weapons, a uniform or a singular office or title when it is not any of those things but a piece of an actual physical force or real, actual power inside a person who is a constitution, and intrinsic force when exerted can make the impossible happen. If you have read the Arthurian legend, the Lady of the Lake reclaims Excalibur as Arthur lay dying. Bedivere hurled Excalibur into the lake. The Lady reappeared several centuries later but no one seems to have recognized she is standing in NY's harbor and that her torch is our clue: together the chalice and the blade are the science behind miracles as that, the law, is the reasoning for our miraculous survival and phenomenal success. Chief Justice Rhenquist castled as a king and a rook do and hurled Excalibur as we lay dying. I caught it and kept it hidden as one rule of military engagement is: Always arrive on the scene of battle with at least one secret weapon. No one in FL, PA or especially Rensselaer County,

160

NY knew I possessed Excalibur and no one knew to look for the chalice as they deny it exists: the distinct power of a woman. The Lady of the Lake is representative of the mythical Titan of female memory and of all the Titans only she and her brother did not marry. America is where male and female memory meet and wed at last as this is the perfect idea God has of us as perfect absolutes. Male and female is an outside condition but it is also an inside condition; it is a quality of being human which is an actual force and so all of us are both woman and man. We all have chalices and blades inside of us which we as Americans realize as our one vote, and as men and women it is interdependent not totally independent we should aspire to become as that is how we came into being - as We, the people. Liberty’s torch? An angel with a flaming sword guards the tree of knowledge in Eden after the fall of man. Our law is a map that led me to this exact knowledge. For centuries people have searched for this in vain. This is the treasure the founders left for us. It is fact: Our founders were guided by the hand of God. We have to will ourselves to make more of the impossible possible. We have to make miracles happen with deliberation. Native Americans say that once we can stand upon the roofs of our houses we must not go back inside them. Once you liberate yourself you must remain liberated, defiant even, and not give aid and comfort to the old enemies of your state. We cannot seek to rectify or change the past. You must live in the present for the future or else all is lost. Seeking to undo what is done is how history becomes myth and America and its potential must not become myth. Myth is history, fact that then becomes a story, then a legend and then a myth. In all myth there is truth. The difference between the myth of fingerprints and the proof of life is living people. The difference is I. I sprang from the founder's heads like Athena from Zeus! The egg laid in Philadelphia and hatched all over this Earth that we call our law was inside the chicken and inside that egg is an unrealized vote that yet contains another egg containing an unrealized vote and so on and so on that then becomes 300 million votes as one, and then a whole universe, and it all began when that first person looked into the stars and wondered Who? and Why? It became real when a group of men, supported by a group of women, had the courage to declare to the world in 1776 that they were who and I was why; that God was who and We were why. These people moved across the water, rolled over mountains and stirred in the desert so that I could claim for my own self that very same thing. I was their reasoning. I was able to stand upon the roof of my American soul as if it were a ship and sail among the stars and throughout all of time because of self-evidence: the feelings, the words, the acts and the compass and the chart that are their fingerprints and is proof of their lives. My creation and my facts are proof of God but my person, who I am, is proof of July 4th, 1776 and December 15th, 1787. I, Susan, am a national treasure as I am gold that has been tested in fire. I, Susan, rose to the level of proof by making that same, first, terrifying leap of faith.

161

I can teach every American what it is to be and feel as if they are American. I can teach every American how to use their one vote and the law to do the very same thing I have done, drink from the Chalice and wield Excalibur so that they too become proof beyond doubt and may then live this factual claim as their true belief or faith: I am a Native American, an indigenous person of Earth.” Barack Obama had to unseat me, a Native American, not Bush. Not one choice on the ballot was legal as they did not know Bush V Gore for what it is thus they are not safe and did not possess the human ability to preserve, protect or defend our law. No citizen could make a just, liberated choice as the only just choice was to press suit pro se before the first primary was held and name all of our problems and solutions to them thus proving you are willing, able and capable and so earning a slot upon the ballot and I am the lone citizen who did. I am not to be faulted for the lower federal judges refusing to obey our law and refusing to fulfill their duties. I am not to be faulted for what is nothing but acts of blatant discrimination of me as a woman and as Susan Herbert exactly. I am not to be punished only as I am more or even most intelligent and so wounded male egos abound and follow behind me like a trail of breadcrumbs carried away by birds as you cannot see ego but you can feel it as that is the injury: Liberty denied. My whole case must be considered not only this one brief, as it is not wholly representative of my case or me as this case is my life.

One vote makes us legal equals. If this nation takes its victim as it finds her unjust men have made a fatal error in judgment as it has injured the exact, most perfect, most right person this time: Finally the bully known as the federal government picked on someone their own size but only because it appeared as if she is stupid and weak; the truth is the

162

exact opposite as woman is a disguise that is of the Creator and one which the people refuse to look past to their own detriment as woman is not relative but is intrinsic. This nation then victimized its own self as it found itself unwilling to act to obey, uphold and enforce the law by first acting to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution aka I, Susan, as I as a woman who is a mother am the living keystone that holds all of this together for you cannot be a living government of people if you produce no new baby constitutions.

I will never ask any court of law for what is mine by right. Never. I am appearing in person as it is my birthright and I claimed it. Jesus knew a rule of law; he said let he who is without sin cast the first stone. If you are a just judge, fine then. If you are an unjust judge? Duck.

I demand the opportunity be created for me to finally overturn the family court’s heinous, libelous, false and even criminal orders against my person, as well as the local federal district court’s orders as they are nothing more than the maligning of my name and a demand for tribute, to end the victimization of all women, to legalize the existence of the US Supreme Court as it has been lived out as a referee but not as an outside ultimate authority that cannot be disobeyed and make its policy a rule of law, to fine tune Marbury V Madison as the real, actual reason for Marshall to deny entry upon mandamus? It implies or infers the President and/or Chief is unable and incapable or unfit and for the President and/or Chief to fail? The man asking for mandamus had to fail first thus he will have unclean hands as he did not fulfill his duties under our law but now we know this

163

may not be the case and to become the President and Commander via official recognition of this court and the people in the form of a judgment granted and/or an appearance in person within the Supreme Court to give oral argument thereby acknowledging the contribution of my one person, my sons and all women thus proving women do indeed possess the ability to create law from scratch or Preside and the capability to create government from scratch or Command and that our law is elegant and was inspired by the exactly named Creator as our founders held themselves to the highest and most difficult standard of all, the same standard to which I compare my own self: What is actual, ethical, just and is history in spite of what we personally wanted or desired and in spite of what is popular. We stood aside God not another man. We leveled the playing field by comparing ourselves to God. [Another reason to deny mandamus upon direct entry? If you’re John Marshall then Jefferson might be at your courtroom door 8 o’clock Monday morning if he might petition you upon a writ of mandamus because he can and will].

We as a nation were born in an act of self-defense by invoking our rights of safety and liberty, as they are inalienable so that now we are born into our vote and that constitutes an entire lifetime in an actual ocean of wisdom; it is our means of defending our persons until we come ashore at last. Our vote is actually paid for with our very blood. It is the Creator who ultimately reasons and decides which among us will be born under these skies and within this country and so be of the ability to wield that vote which is the greatest weapon of mass creation man has ever wrought. What is of the Creator and that we are then born into no man can or may put asunder as he will have to go through a

164

woman first – I, Susan – and this American refuses to negotiate as an actual American never negotiates her safety. My one vote? NON-NEGOTIABLE.

I will settle for nothing less than this nation’s unconditional surrender to the Declaration and Constitution, as those are the inviolate terms that absolutely and wholly define our humanity and so make us a living government and living law known around the world as We, the people – the Americans.

I have told the Supreme Court I can and will give the shortest legal argument ever in their history and win a unanimous decision in my favor and in favor of all women and their children and I am not a person to make promises lightly which means this case will be over and done with in under seven minutes according to their own record. I claimed: I will make this case in three minutes or less, not counting your [their] questions.

Remedy and Relief To sum it all up and in case a citizen with a even so much an ounce of common decency ever does bother reading this the remedy and relief I seek is: Injunctive and Declarative. An injunction against Obama preventing him from acting as if he is the legal President as I can and will perform those duties immediately and even if he is natural born then bought this office and preventing all states from acting upon policies which deny women and children full protection and process of the law or which violate state code and exactly naming NY, PA and FL and; an injunction against the states preventing abortions upon demand after 28 days post the act of sex as I have proven with

165

hardcore science and proof of life that the right comes into being at this time or that a fetus is a person at this time who can feel emotion, feel pain and hear and preventing the states them from awarding custody of children to fathers as a protected right as for a father that interest and that right never fully vests unless he is or was a member of the military and saw action and; an injunction against the third parties the Austin’s and the state of NY which stops any and all action against me in the state of NY and recognizes that as of 11/20/08 all orders against me are invalidated as they are wholly unconstitutional and are based upon zero evidence as the Austin’s entered none but only upon hearsay and perjured testimony thus they must return my children to my person immediately no matter the monetary cost and; a declaration that I became the legal President and Commander upon June 5th, 2007 and that this was at last recognized by a federal court on 11/20/08 as SCOTUS acted to directly enter my case upon this claim and that; women are persons and equal to men as human beings with fully protected rights under our law or that actual civil rights are human rights not men’s rights and women’s rights as you would not know men believe women or children to be human based upon the state of our nation. I became the legal President and Commander as unlike William Marbury I acted ex post facto to then claim my commission:

I followed through and I acted after the fact of leaving SCOTUS to then claim my award; I told Linda Griffin to her face in open court that I was not now and would never would be sorry for defending myself or the Declaration and Constitution and that her actions were and are criminal; I clearly stated for the record that she was acting against the legal President and Commander, the constitutional authority, and this is a fact of history

166

whether she ever comes to personally believe the SCOTUS docket or not as our history and our law is not a matter of her personal belief. I also clearly stated the smallest and largest change of circumstances which she then ignored: My children suffered little material harm until she awarded them to the Austin’s and did so only by denying every single solitary piece of proof I entered including what she her own self saw in her own courtroom: my physical scars. By retiring early upon notice that I entered SCOTUS directly less than one month later as this federal action was already in progress at the time of the Austin’s filing in NY and when before her and she knew this she then proved my claim for me as her actions are the proof beyond any reasonable doubt. Her words in her newest decision and order seal her fate as she is no victim aka passive participant anymore than Barack Obama is passive or is a victim.

The election is invalidated. It is no good. You can and may deny the proof aka deny actual reality but your denial in no way makes it not reality or makes this invalidated election that was purchased, my right of custody and all my rights now violated, the discrimination of women and now the discrimination of the ethical, the hostility and even hatred of the federal bench towards pro se litigants or abortion after 35 days post the act of sex then being murder if you know then go away as if by magic. I have proven: Legal power is nonexistent for women, the federal courts are now closed to living people with pure cases (a case re justice not money) and SCOTUS is not now real or actual for any woman nor any person at all unless they are wealthy or are a licensed lawyer. Men and licensed lawyers, some of whom are unjust, can and may and do purchase legal power thus usurping our moral authority and until or unless a woman defends herself and/or a

167

unanimous decision is issued for women in which it is proved via hardcore science that women are indeed the equals of men then men will yet defy our law and this government will yet murder innocent women and children. It is not my problem or any women’s problem if men are humiliated and mortified that they did not know Bush V Gore for what it is or that if upon my person informing them they were then too afraid to act upon the knowledge. Federal judges are only stunned by my claim as I am reasoning that I am the acting, legal President rather than reasoning some other person should be as men do. If I reasoned Obama is not legal and then propped up another person not myself in his stead you’d accept that; you just can’t have a confident and capable woman acting as she does not need the counsel of men or of criminals be they male or female. That is what you fight so hard against: A woman who is able and capable thus confident. I and all women and then all ethical persons are not to be faulted if Barack Obama, his lawyers and other unjust persons do not want anyone to know that they openly and directly violated our law and did so by engaging in ideological warfare and by manipulating the public’s emotions thus manipulating or violating our law until it is unrecognizable and even nonexistent; that they targeted able and capable women.

I’d injunct Congress and declare it void but we’d be here three or four months or more. I’d injunct the federal court but that seems pointless. I can and will check both of these branches and this very suit is then me checking the federal court. Then;

An apology from John Roberts and the clerks and an acknowledgement that I did enter US Supreme Court directly (some clerks know but some do not; I have no idea if the

168

Justices know); an appearance in person in US Supreme Court; this court or the Supreme Court finally defining itself and its power as a legal institution of government responsible for refereeing the Constitution as all courts are to be courts of constitutional authority as is the lone citizen and the people are the court of actual last resort and as the people, by casting a legal, valid and binding vote in accordance with our law and its spirit then agree to this as the Chief Justice and President are equivalent legal authorities; the Supreme Court must remove from its website the statement that no person may enter the Supreme Court as a matter of right as I tested this policy or rule and found it to be not only unconstitutional but false and as it then removes the Court from the our right to access the courts plus grants blanket immunity to the acting President, Justices and clerks even for crimes personal in nature; the Supreme Court must fine tune its unjust policy that no person can enter directly at all to then become no person may enter directly unless that person is suing one of the Justices or the clerks personally and because of an act related to official court business which violates US law and can support it with evidence rising to proof, or unless that person meets the highest, strictest standard of all, pro se constitutional authority, and this has happened only once in US history after the creation of the court as this litigant discovered the policy was and is unconstitutional but that it then was not actually unjust for her person but unfair as she overcame it and used it to her advantage, that is, a policy like this one may exist and may seem to be unjust but may be extra-constitutional and/or partly constitutional and so it is in the eye of the beholder as the victim/plaintiff is then forced to become the appellant/attorney and then the petitioner/human via addressing the policy or not so the Supreme Court can and may have policy like this one as long as it is openly advertised thus is then overcomeable as

169

secrecy made this policy unconstitutional; the Supreme Court must make a greater effort to hire more women especially as clerks; custody of my children returned to me via the overturning of all lower state court rulings in my case as all are unconstitutional and false; the acknowledgement that almost every piece of paper in existence concerning my person including the above judgments, some legal arguments, medical records and police reports is false due to patriarchy and discrimination as my word or sworn testimony was never accepted as fact but changed to conform to societal standards and the mores of the reporter some of which are not actual reality but are only personal unsupported beliefs; the recent election overturned in my favor and a runoff election held once I inform the citizens and Congress of the law and of the effects of Bush V Gore plus what Bush V Gore is and says so that just, safe candidates are upon the ballot (I will sit and act as the authority until this election is held perhaps this upcoming November as we can then return to the regular Presidential election cycle); my name upon the ballot and in the top slot in all 50 states from among those safe choices when this election is held and monetary damages which all involved should volunteer to pay, including those not named in my caption as that was made impossible for me to do. When I did name them all in 2007 federal judges refused to believe my sworn statement.

A new election while I sit and act as the authority is a price that men most of whom are guilty and all of whom have unclean hands can afford to pay in order to accord women and children justice. No actual price is too high a price to pay for what is actual liberty and is actual justice. A new election also re-checks all offices up to the office of Chief Justice and then the office of the President - if that elected person does not violate the

170

terms to then become elected, as it is not possible to be constitutional if you are in violation of the law upon entrance to this office! This relief can be granted and should be granted or else we are as we have become something other than constitutional. To prevent a nasty lawyer trick: Each asked for award is to be addressed separately so do not write that ALL of my remedy and relief is being denied based upon one thing only as I know men will be furious when they read NEW ELECTION as they threw bad money after bad money and are desperate to hold onto perceived power at any cost. This nasty lawyer trick was already used against me as a federal judge reasoned, decided and then ordered that he could tell me what would or would not make me whole. That’s my decision not the court’s. I may not ask for remedy and relief that is impossible to grant or that is injurious as in the equities do not favor it. “Equities” are not “possible consequences” that may never come to pass which is why the court is never to consider the possible consequences of justice, as fear and/or self-doubt may prevent actual liberty and justice from ever being realized. I not once asked but made demands; politeness when out the window once federal judges acted to injure me with deliberation and knowing. I’m seeking to remedy the actual injury not make it worse by pretending it cannot be done or by ignoring it or by lying and saying anyone, even a woman, can become President but then when they do reveal my actual truth by changing the terms or by denying that it, that person and/or the law, exists. We recall other politicians like a CA governor to then favor a foreigner who is a man so why not recall a President or null and void his election in favor of humanity as that is equal and due and is US law?

It would not be justice to install me as the President for an entire term without a new vote as each citizen must recheck and rebalance their own persons thus reclaim constitutional 171

authority. A new election in which people write the name of the candidate in the blank space reserved for such an emergency from among some just named choices is the only way as a citizen must connect their vote with reality as in their vote causes or cures injustice; that not only must they vote but that they must reason that action. I submitted a plan to the federal court; merely cross out Bush’s name and add just choices after I am heard. Article II allows Congress to address the candidates upon the ballot and there exists the means to do so. It will not cost too much money. Does our money even have value today? No. Can you ever reason justice has an actual price? No. This nation went down that road and it got us nowhere. It’s why our money lost all value. To me $5.3 billion is dirt cheap. That’s all you value yourself at? I truly believed $27 million was a fire sale when I asked for it in protest and $5.3 billion would be as well. How much do you value the truth? What could I charge for the Resolution to Uniformity and Proof of God? How much is the mystery of living things – life itself bestowed in the womb - worth? How much is your single life worth? I had to answer that question once and I reasoned one life was worth all of humanity combined so I would trade my own life not for that one exact life but for all of humanity. You told me that you value all of creation including Earth, the moon and the other stars at $5.3 billion dollars as the US actually carries creation on her back as the entire world resides here as does almost all of its knowledge and our law is universal. WHO put this universe up for sale?

I have been acting as President since June 5th, 2007 as I delivered my commission to a federal judge via 1st class US mail when it became an emergency thus I could no longer wait. Then I posted it upon the Supreme Court of the US’ docket and case conference list and later on the web so all had access to it. If it is claimed that they (voters) did not read

172

it that is only because it is titled In Re Susan Herbert and does not have a man’s name, a famous name or a “versus Obama” - yet, as I could not sue him before he won and before he acted but only as I did: as a member of Congress and a candidate as it is treason. The citizens had no objection up to this point. I can continue to act for 30 or 60 days or even until this November while we hold a new election.

Other remedy and relief some of which this court can award and some it cannot and/or may not award but other branches and/or the citizens can: I need and want a check for back pay with interest dated to June 5th of 2007. It needs to be made out to “The President and Commander in Chief of the US Susan Herbert”. I need to wise up and ask for back pay as a Justice dated to December of 2000 and/or early 2001 as that is when I began my tenure as a Justice by reasoning and deciding to take this on and entering it to a court of law, a Philadelphia court of law and then a NY court of law, so it is matter of the court record. I could charge for my services dating back to age 5 or age 13 as those are the dates of the two most crucial decisions I ever made in my life unless you count my stealing chocolate pudding when I was 4 thus learning what ability versus capacity is and that I had both so that if I am going to do something then stand up and say I DID IT as either I do have reasoning that is legal or I do not and if I do not? Then do not do it but the earliest I owned this whole case is 1996. I was not 35 until 2002, December of 2002 after the election cycle of 2002 and after the Presidential election cycle of 2000 but I did place it upon the record in 2000. How could I know at 4 that my reasoning for stealing was so good that I created the court by creating the issue and the jurisdiction? That I outfoxed John Marshall, my mother, by not telling her, by claiming my award based upon my own reasoning against her NO vote and then eating my award before she could decide to take it back or decide not to award it a second time over? How could my mother know that the issue was not chocolate pudding, as all kids would steal that if given an opportunity but that it was FEAR OF THE UNKNOWN? In 1996 I knew this; I owned the knowledge: “At 4 I learned what others did not: Ability versus capacity. Will, as you should not fear what you do not yet know as life experience gives you the knowledge, or

173

you should not be made to fear what you do know, the US Navy, thus I must know actual LIBERTY & JUSTICE while all of America does not. Aren’t the Congress and the US Navy supposed to be on my side??? Aren’t we rooting for the same exact thing, the Constitution??? Doesn’t FL, Congress or the Navy know this???” My mother answered my question; she said it’s the Navy but that she did not recognize the modern military so blame Congress and the Executive as that is all that changed. I thought YES as Vietnam is their fault; not the war but the loss. If it were the war itself or the military then Vietnam would not be green today and we would have won as ten years is will in spades thus it is the other branches abusing the process and breaking the law; it is a Commander making decisions via a committee not as a Commander and is a President who is afraid of law makers.

The domino effect is real only it is about injustice

masquerading as various forms of just government as money is a smokescreen as Congress truly believes it controls us with money and China truly believes material goods make or break a “constitutional nation” when they do not. Now Americans believe this! You can and may call it a Chinese constitution, a European union or a federal budget; is it actually constitutional? Just? Elegant? No. Money is the opiate of the people. Fear is the people’s motivation. I have to resolve that. I need other parents to teach their children this same thing regarding ability, capacity, fear and will as now I am banging into and being harmed by all those kids now adults who never learned this. I need the military to know that I resolved their problem: What would you say if the state or existence of the military was not dependent upon money or fear? If you knew I could pull the rug out from under China’s feet with the truth about their entire power base which is fear based thus it is not reality as in not possible according to the laws that rule this universe? That I can use math and science to prove it is not possible and support it with empirical data that you can measure? That Hiroshima and Nagasaki make it seem as if it is possible when it is not? That nobody else considered one thing that I knew to consider and so factor in? I’d say: no power for China. Then I’d say: no fear based war in Iraq because of China’s massive consumption of oil but instead a resolution as I took care of an alternative source of power as well. I need Americans to know: Some citizens have

174

excellent ideas as I’ve been listening and thinking thus reasoning them. You’d be stunned at the treasures within patent offices across the planet. If you know the science you can then chase an idea most of which have been realized as patents. Our intellectual property law is not the same thus that property often remains in foreign offices even if it is not on file here anymore for whatever reason. If you tell me we are fighting a war over religious based terrorism but I know as fact it is over China and oil then I’m going to conduct the experiment: I’m going to sell my car as at the least that will keep me chained to a desk or a computer thus forcing me to work on my case and at the most I’ll discover the truth; I’ll know if making yourself valuable to the enemy, your own nation, is a rule or a law. Thus: I need to tell Americans that the rule is you make yourself valuable to the enemy if it is another nation but if it is your own nation you must make yourself extremely valuable thus the law is it, the value you must meet or exceed, is directly proportional to the existing and perceived but not actual fear based threat. So then: I need a new bicycle, preferably a beach cruiser that is bright orange as I learned more than I ever thought I would like cars make you less self aware and isolate you masking actual reality and this car thing is mostly about the crooked credit card industry which is just as deadly as banks as compared to standing unjust and unethical armies as it is one and the same industry. I need to travel to the top of the Statue of Liberty - to the torch – as it was closed when I was in NYC; I need a ride in a Navy jet – the type that travels straight up and down like it is gunning for the water; to take off and land upon an aircraft carrier and; to visit Monticello - alone, when it is closed to the public. I need to return something I borrowed from the Sioux and; to travel to CA, Alaska and Hawaii. I need a passport and new driver’s license. I need to travel through the Panama Canal. I need to tell two Secret Service agents who met me in person that they protected the wrong President, a guy who is not, and after I quoted the law to them too and after they saw my red hair and my exact scars. I need Professor Gates to research my immediate family tree as almost all of that is lost to me save a few names that mean little or nothing. I need to go to those places to

175

then know the truth. I need to return the sacred experience of Islam to Islam as they misplaced it. I need to visit St. John the Divine Cathedral in NYC as I left something there. I need to tell former Cardinal Ratzinger what John Paul II told me before he died, as I do not believe he told anyone else as it is about what I alone discovered re the church and this universe (the federal court would not know as fact what Popes I have or have not met and which ones sent me messages via a third party; when I state “extraordinary circumstances exist” I mean it as if there’s one thing Catholics can do it is reason law as the Catholic Church produces some of the most extraordinary legal arguments I’ve ever read only they call it doctrine). I need to visit Galapagos as we are Darwin’s finches thus I need to re-examine the evidence as it is one thing but it is not monkeys; humans as we exist today were never monkeys; once will and liberty enters the picture you are a new animal and so not that same creature you once were; monkey like but actual monkeys? NO, or so I believe there’s no monkey common ancestor. Monkey is relative not intrinsic; you can be related to monkeys but without ever actually having been one. I need to pay two attorneys, as I owe them about $25k. I need to reveal what the seemingly embedded code of the universe is as it’s there and it’s embedded but it is not exactly a code, it’s anything but secret and only I have the ‘key’. I need to give Bruce Cathie the piece of the puzzle he does not have plus I need him to calculate something for me. I need to talk to Max Tegmark as he is closer than he thinks and he is driving me crazy as he is so close. Crazy we have in common as he too is called a “crackpot” as many scientists are. “Crackpot” unlike “frivolous” is a compliment in some circles. He and Neil Degrasse Tyson owe me an apology as well as it is not up to a physicist to reason the reality known as US law anymore than it is up to our federal courts to reason physics - unless your case is faith and reason and unless you are a constitutional physicist and so far I’m it, the only one ever. I told them where to look, on the Supreme Court’s own docket as I had done the seemingly impossible; I smashed particles all by myself and before France! Guys, I stand out like a sore thumb so how could you miss that?! I thought it is self-evident but obviously it is not. There is only one force on the docket – me, as to be an actual power, actual energy, a newly defined force, you would have to act pro se and gain direct entry.

176

You would have to know how to defy gravity. You would have to know how to travel in time and to pass through solid walls of stone. You would have to read minds. How did I get in and how was I acted upon if I never left FL? If I do not have a key? My name is there all by itself. It took more skill than buying postage and postage is a story in itself as stamp machines ‘magically’ give up stamps at no cost for me and they even read Liberty Forever...I did not know it is unique or newly defined. I assumed you already knew it but you didn’t. I’d name a famous string theorist but I do not know any. They all look alike to me. This court forgets: Einstein, Edison, the Wright Brothers and Franklin did not have billion-dollar equipment so why does it believe that I need it to do what I did? That I needed school or a license? That only a whole university could do what I did? If your professors could not teach you then what could they teach me? The answer is not within a book or within a school. All schools of law failed as painful as that is to admit. No person had this answer which is why we call it unique intellectual property and why entering US Supreme Court is then a copyright or patent as only we produce federal court rulings in which the lone citizen triumphs over the powers that aren’t. It is also why lawyers resent me as I dispel the myth of necessity they have created. Like federal judges they are not used to being told their legal opinion is not wanted or needed. If the kidnappers would obey the law and my orders plus a Philadelphia court order I would not even be in court, as my children would have been returned ten years ago or never snatched to begin with. The opposing third parties need and want the federal court. My true belief is: I need this government to prosecute these persons to the fullest extent of the law as they volunteered to become the example. Most discoveries happen outside of the lab – or outside of the courtroom - exactly like most sex happens outside of the bedroom and many happen as accidents by design, like the telephone or vulcanized rubber. Why is it that of all people ever ONLY “Susan Herbert” cannot make a discovery according to the federal court? The universe named me exactly as the three ships that sailed to Jamestown are: The Godspeed, The Discovery, and The Susan Constant. I traveled as fast as the speed of light squared. I squared the

177

circle – Earth. I have a witness or two. Americans need to know: The speed of light and time is not constant. It can become constant but it is not always the same as the speed of light varies and the speed of time is relative. I even have an equation. Infinity? All time is actually no time as what’s one day compared to a billion as it is infinite? They don’t compare, as they are the same. All time now is the ‘absence’ of time. Time is not linear but geometric or dimensional. A clock on a wall, flat planes ‘moving’ from point to point, does not measure the actual reality of time. Clocks were invented by men to turn human beings, their work or energy, into dollars. We needed a means to measure it. So first we annihilated ancient concepts of time and then beat you over the head with the round, flat clock. All of this is born into time; time is shaped like a spiraling strand of DNA; think of a slinky joined end to end. You travel within time but through space. Sort of sideways so that events seem to repeat themselves and complete themselves but it is infinite and you can do what I did rather quickly once you realize what is actually going on in the universe thus your world as YOU are nature and are light. Walking around the courthouse? Or your house? You are walking around space not through it, as ‘space’ is the stuff between the particles of light. The unified field, the human psyche and the God consciousness are three different things. There goes the space continuum. Don’t ‘believe’ me? Let me guess: If I ran out and got it published so then an ‘authority’ ordained it to be true and fact then you’d believe it. Who ordained Einstein? Madison? Nobody. Go read who publishes most of those so-called scientific journals or what ‘requirements’ you must meet. Truth isn’t one of them. Neither is fact. Hey! Just like court. For that matter: Maybe I do not know I need what I never had, a billion dollar lab. I’ll find out, as I’ll take the Jefferson Lab, as this nation has no idea what to do with it and a girl can always use an extra particle accelerator, as you never know what you might have to dissolve. I mean smash. [An aside: Jesus and Einstein? Lawyers.] I need Americans to know: Sea turtles and salmon make an amazing journey as they find their way back to the place they were born but humans make the most incredible journey of all as we are creatures of will and liberty thus we have to find our way back to a metaphysical place – without any assistance, without an actual map and without any tools other than our own selves.

178

Nobody even so much as points you in the ‘right’ direction. It’s more difficult than anything a sea turtle does as not only is our brain most complex but due to that will and liberty? We operate on something other than instinct and making our own decisions means we come into conflict with the most dangerous predator or all: Other men. I know as I encountered that predator. Being one of the few humans who made it all the way home I can tell you: While it is worth every second of the struggle it does not have to be as deadly and as complicated as you are making it as the most lethal decision of all is made when you reason and decide I can’t and so then you can’t thus the attempt is never made or you act to foil another’s attempt as what you ‘can’t’ have is another person proving You can but will not. Humans are the highest form of evolution there is. It is closest to the God state. Human beings are the single most fascinating, interesting and talented creature of all; do you have any idea, any concept, of exactly how many skills you possess that you do not use based upon the lie that “It is impossible”? What is truly impossible? Knowing what is impossible, as we cannot define the impossible based upon it has not yet happened as it can, will and might. You can never know what is impossible but only possible, as someone does it thus proving: It can be done and so it is possible. You should see all of the seemingly impossible things I can do. While people are telling me it is impossible I am in the middle of actually doing it; they “can’t believe” their ears or eyes. Maybe they need an ear doctor or eye doctor or maybe...they’re wrong and you’re wrong. One of my problems in life was I had no idea other people heard the words “can” and “will” differently as nothing has ever been beyond my human ability so if you can? You will, it’s a given, or so I believed. Another person had to tell me that he heard those words differently as in ability he did not have versus permission. Do you know how much confusion this caused other people as they gave me grief for insisting they could? For truly believing or knowing as fact they could as ability or permission is a given as it is up to them alone? How do you know you can’t author a petition heard in US Supreme Court if you never sat down and made the attempt? Lawyers kicked me out of their offices for saying this, for saying I believe you can! I believe in you! What, you want a client who doesn’t believe you know what you’re doing? Yes, as most of you are faking.

179

It’s not as much pressure if your client does not know the law or bother to obey it. Those people need lawyers. It is like my friend Bruce says it is. His 90 year old parents died and he was not in a good place. I happened to ask him where he was going one day soon afterward. As he passed me he said, “To St. Luke’s.” Then he looked back and added, “To the church not the hospital.” Yes, sometimes you need the church and other times you need the hospital. You never need lawyers. Check yourselves in America. Both are open 24 hours a day. As for any American who wishes to criticize me? You need to examine your own self and your sorry attempt, or your failure to act at all, as until you can say you too went all of the way? Until you too exhaust your human resources? You will always compare yourself to me in your own head and feel resentful and less than. It’s you not me. You had better believe this is a trust issue, a public and personal trust issue. I do not trust you.

Another thing I need to tell the citizens as they are supposed to be reading federal complaints but do not? Submitting yourself to the review of the people which is peer review is not evaluating any ruling in my case as in if you personally like it or if it is legal or not. You’re not an authority, are you? As I’m appearing and I’m arguing we know it is constitutional. Reviewing a Chief Justice and/or President is reviewing their qualifications and/or the performance of their duties. If you never had a problem with John Roberts, Samuel Alito or even George Bush Jr. that was so extraordinarily injurious that you sued before then you do not have standing to sue or rather to complain now. If they were fit and their qualifications never bothered you before what has changed? Nothing except you, as you have now discovered how badly you have behaved and how harmful your laziness and deliberate ignorance is as people have died and as you can never make up ten years in the case of my children, can you? How do you give back a person’s entire childhood? Or restore a life? You can’t. This is not about a ruling for or against my person; it is about justice. As justice is all that you can restore? You might want to consider reviewing your own selves at that church or at that hospital. Or an AA 180

meeting as you’re all dry drunks addicted to the idea of money you have which is false and to junk, disposable junk. I’ll be perfectly fine regardless of any ruling for or against my person as long as I appear in person; the citizens refused to come to my aid when I needed it and when there was still time. I would not accept your ‘help’ now if you paid me to take it as YOU are the reason my children are dead and are no longer recognizable as the people I once knew and only the Creator knows how that is going to turn out. As it is now? I’m over that injury, as when the Creator adjudicated my case he found me not guilty and not even accountable or responsible. But he told me that I did everything a human being has to do save one thing and so I needed to do it. He said, “Susan, you need to experience the grief a human being feels over the death of a child. You need to feel the death of your children as you have not felt actual human grief over the loss of a child or a parent [and both your father and your sons died]. I know that you truly believe you felt actual grief but you have not. You need to feel grief. Are you willing?” And that is how the Creator finally stopped the third parties from being able to scare me by threatening my children with deadly harm and so I entered the kingdom of God within as I answered YES, I AM. No fantastic visions, no booming voices, no flashes of lightning and no parting waters but only a sacred experience. If my kids got shot and killed or struck by a car and killed it would not matter. They were murdered a long time ago and I already dealt with it because even if every single living person on Earth abandoned me the Creator did not. If the Creator had not gotten me over this? I would not have survived as my son came to me and said he felt as if he was dying and asked why him. I had to talk to my son about death and will beyond the grave in a Kmart parking lot. I knew if I ever saw him again it would not be him; he would be dead. And I could do nothing because of a NY family court judge and satan-like third parties calling themselves saints when I knew: This kid is actually dying. And he did. That kind of pain is not only emotional it is physical; it is so big and deep that you actually think the physical pain of it will kill you. No human being was ever going to get me through or over that but you never offered did you? For 8 years day after day after I had to live with people harming me and threatening 181

to kill my children and watching it happen; it was actual torture, so much so I know what happens to a prisoner of war. I know exactly what you have to do to break someone as it was done to me and my children until finally the Creator directly intervened as even the Creator was offended at last. What thing do you have to give me that I would need to own? That is your entire problem, your actual legal issue: Justice is not a want it is a need. If you’re human. Oh yeah I forgot – you’re not, are you? And so you, the citizen, make no mistake: Turn the other cheek implies deliberation, as you actually have to reason it and then act. You have to overcome an emotional hurdle. Jesus never said stand still and let someone slug you; he got angry; he threw a punch or two. Jesus would be the first one to tell you that you are out of your gourd if you truly believe you can do whatever you want and make it all okay by saying, “I’m sorry.” The guy on the cross next to Jesus? He was actually ignorant; until that very second he did not know. You? You knew. You know. Sorry does not cut it. And: You would not be qualified to know if I did or did not have an actual sacred experience; you would not be qualified to know if rights are inalienable as they are of the exactly named Creator as you never practiced it. If I discover a personal belief is not supported by the proof? I amend or lose that belief not the proof. I stop lying to myself. How could I ever know what would happen exactly when or if I died? I had no choice as murderers were not being stopped so my death was inevitable and I owned one piece of evidence rising to proof: My own father ‘died’ of a massive heart attack around age 40. For years he would not say what he experienced. Finally he told me: He willed himself back from the brink of...he was not sure of what only that he heard his name being called and knew it would be permanent if he went there. So he decided to ‘stop’ and ‘turn’ back. He gave me an idea: I can will death as easily as I will life; if I can avoid taxes than I can avoid death. I met my Creator as I had a total absence of fear. Truth does that to you. Innocent, truthful people do not fear the existence of God. Mostly they fear all you nonbelievers might be correct and this physical life might be the sum total of our experience; that this is it. It’s not.

182

I need to tell this court that I filed pre-emtively in the Supreme Court, as I may as the countdown begins 60 days after final judgment is entered or not at all. I suspected this court would not obey the law as I had all kinds of proof it would not. I had: Prior treatment, first person eyewitness testimony of the lawyers and the litigants that came before it and its own words and the facts - all offices are unchecked thus this very court is unchecked. Only a judge not afraid of getting caught by the appellate aka the people uses money as a reason in a case of taxation without representation that already is as it is history thus is proven to be a fact before she states an exact lie to support her excuse: in bad faith. Slander, libel, defamation, blackmail and emotional assault and battery – exactly what I’m suing for as I named emotional distress for the breach of the contract and not abuse of judicial discretion, and she knew as I told her. It is a blatant demand for tribute and in case it is lost on Howard, “Millions for defense but not one cent for tribute!” was said at a banquet in John Marshall’s honor. I predicted what then happened to me as it constitutes a pattern and this physicist knows a pattern when she sees it, as the anomaly is a part of the pattern. We constitutionalists call it “unique treatment”. If Susan is anywhere near a court on paper or in person then the law is being broken and not by Susan but by the judge and other court officers. Hopefully this repeating pattern will end soon.

I need Barack Obama to know that I considered him to be in the class of people above and that he may not fight fair but I fight justly. You may thank the citizens as the shortest response ever to an appellee's brief - a one sentence response – is going to be your undoing. It’s already prepared and ready to be delivered. I could not have done this unless the citizens fully vested their disinterest. This one sentence response? It is why I never need to see your birth certificate or passport records. I would file it pre-emtively as I’m so confident I’ve got this one in the bag but I do not believe the federal appellate would allow it. Let me know if you’re showing up at the OK corral or not. If you aren’t but your lawyers are? I’ll bring legal size rocks. 183

I do want the federal appellate’s opinion in regards to your [judiciary’s] own actions: As the federal court has now said several times over that the founders, the governing documents, my person, the federal judiciary itself and exactly John Roberts himself is “without any basis in fact or law”, does this mean I won my case against Roberts but then lost it exactly like Marbury? as it seems as if you can’t reason if you do not exist or I cannot collect if I do not exist and/or cannot gain entry to a court in person thus cannot act upon the knowledge of my victory. This is not true, fact or correct as my existence thus whether I act to collect is not a matter decided by your opinion as only I reason and decide that. Thus if John Roberts has no basis in either fact and law so is a dead institution, if I concede to that one point, are we all then agreeing that I won from a time before I ever set foot in any federal courthouse? My fact is his only basis is within the precedent I am creating, a precedent that is not your fact or so you said over and over. As I did not place the words “Chief Justice” before his name as my fact is he isn’t – yet – do your actions then say we are all in agreement? Or after reading this do you still believe there’s no basis in fact or law for US law?

If I think of anything else I will name it. I already gave a complete list to the FBI and other federal court and now some of that remedy and relief is no longer a need. I have discovered that people like believing in ideas like US law, the Koran and New Testament only when they are not true. If you prove it? Suddenly it is not possible. Even when you remind a federal judge that it cannot be both, that either US law is true or not but not only true for men or only true for dead men, or only true if it is not proven, which makes no sense whatsoever, they insist that they can deny reality yet then be actual true believers. That’s not faith! How can you deny the truth and yet be a true believer? How can you act as a federal judge if you do not truly believe in US law? You can’t; you may not. You’re either a true believer or a believer and they are not the same. Believers? They are gullible and how. Their words and actions do not constitute law. What exactly does an untrue 184

believer then believe in? I’ve answered some difficult questions in my time but this one has me stumped.

What is so scary about being proven? Why do the unethical seek to suppress the truth? Why is SUSAN HERBERT perceived to be such a big threat? You cannot lie, cheat and steal anymore and get away with it once the people know Marbury rules.

Recommendation, Decision, Order and Judgment This is an Executive Order and should be considered as such; as this order carries the same weight as the order of a Commanding officer during a time of actual war which this is failure to obey, uphold and enforce the Declaration and Constitution of the US in spite of your personal beliefs and fears will be a treasonous action on your part as I am wholly and absolutely standing upon US law and all prior federal precedent most especially Marbury V Madison as well as chain of command theory. I am the test of Marbury thus this is your test as I have passed my own as proven by this very order. This Federal Appeals Court is hereby ordered to choose one of the following:

1. Hear this case in person with an order against Obama and Roberts compelling them to appear in person and upon a finding of all lower court judgments against my person unconstitutional and in open and direct violation of the Declaration and Constitution as every one of them is arbitrary and capricious and is nothing more than blatant discrimination of my person, a claim which is supported to the level of proof by this very Brief and by the Supreme Court’s own docket OR;

185

2. Send this case to the appropriate venue, the Supreme Court of the United States which then is the people, with an order to hear it in person via the granting of oral argument and based upon a finding of fact that direct entry already occurred but filing or delivery of the paper did not thus Marbury is violated, my right to redress is violated, the recent election is in direct and open violation of the terms and those terms were violated without due process or without a ¾ majority vote of Congress and that the people were circumvented or denied informed consent as no response ever came from the Solicitor General who is to represent their interests and so the only remedy and relief available is to then grant said original jurisdiction case oral argument as the people cannot then act in their own defense if they do not know. The purpose of this order is to inform the people. It is not a finding of guilt or innocence.

The wording of the execution of one of these choices is up to this court’s discretion. Not hearing this case in person, either in this court or in the Supreme Court, is not one of this court’s choices.

In this most extraordinary of all cases the contract known as US law, our Declaration and Constitution, are breached and so the US is in default including this federal appellate. This then too addresses this appellate court’s default and so removes it from any claim of liability for acts personal in nature as it then removes it from the chain of causation and in so doing begins to restore chain of command. Either one of the above choices is constitutional and secures justice for myself and all citizens most especially women and their children some of whom are enlisted service members but only does so if Obama and Roberts appear in person in this court or within US Supreme Court. As they are in breach

186

of the contract and not acting under the authority of the US as that is not possible if you are not acting or sitting according to our law then the ‘right’ or something that is due to a person or governmental body by law, tradition, or nature is not theirs but mine as I never breached US law in word or spirit not even via accident or mistake. They can choose to ignore the order of this court or to fail to appear but may they? No, and so if they are willing to commit what constitutes treason and are unwilling to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution then I WILL, BY ANY MEANS NECESSARY AS IT IS NOT ONLY MY RIGHT BUT IT IS MY DUTY.

For all of these reasons as there is only one as constitutional authority is within our law and Marbury, my children will be returned, damages will be awarded, all my remedy and relief will be granted and the decisions and judgments against me will be overturned and/or tossed in the wastebasket.

We have had the Slaughterhouse Cases. Now we will have the Proof of Life Cases.

Susan Herbert, The acting, legal President and Commander in Chief, as I am, As my will, my one vote, the equal protection and due process clauses and Marbury make it so

187