A federal judge exactly lied and said a 50 page complaint was 173 pages so here is 176 as

some lies I will gladly live up to if it secures justice. Another judge said no entry as my
complaint was not also my brief so now it is. And one judge said PAY ME or else. John
Marshall got up and walked out of his grave at that. Kids, direct entry to SCOTUS as a
fully vested protected right is possible and I did it on 11/20/08:

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

being openly purchased in 2008, Barack Obama acting in direct violation of the law and recently

swearing he could do what is not possible for him to do according to our law and as no precedent

exists which covers my unique situation, a first in all of US 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 and civil rights are

1
violated and if judicial review is a myth or if it is even legal in my case 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

wanted a 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

2
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

judicial review thus it is a myth as it exists no where within our written law. Today judicial

review 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, so were Plessy and

Scott and they too were heard in person and ruled upon. Why am I being made the lone

exception or am uniquely treated? Because I a woman and I’m pro se as in not law school

trained. This was exactly said to me over the phone. The SCOTUS docket proves this is policy.

3
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

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

4
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

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 it however is not legal or he can but may not and

5
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 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 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

6
fudged the oath? I’m an expert in human psychology; that is his conscience acting out when

placed in an impossible situation under impossible conditions; 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! Then they 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

7
should have done so 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.

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 was 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

8
that your rights are a matter of their personal likes and dislikes? 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 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

9
 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
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

10
 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
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?

11
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
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

12
 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
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

13
 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
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 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

14
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

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?

15
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

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
16
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

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

17
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

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
04/2008 – Present FL, active
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

18
 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
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. She is not a legal
genius so she does not know I can address it as 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

19
 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 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 50 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

20
 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
injury. The gold, “Judicial Review Is The Myth Of Fingerprints”, starts 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 whom are guilty of

committing acts of violence against women and some of whom 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

21
 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
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.

22
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
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

23
 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
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,

24
 all children and me exactly exists across the board and upon every level and in every
branch.

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

25
 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
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

26
 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
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

27
 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
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.

28
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
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

29
 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
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

30
 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
“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:

31
 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!
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

32
 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
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

33
 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
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:

34
 Infrastructure, namely your own as you are a government and are the law thus repel
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

35
 after Marbury and could enter the Supreme Court directly upon a writ of Mandamus
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

36
 had discussed a plan to “sink” this case as they knew what elements to be present and that
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

37
 own selves for me. Their houses are built of straw not of stone. 6 years may seem as if it
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

38
 exactly named in my complaint and ignored all proof and all facts dismissing me as
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

39
 over again: A filed complaint was pulled, the date and time stamp tampered with as
“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

40
 may. I do not believe they (SCOTUS) are the authority over my life – I am - nor do I
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.

41
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

42
 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

43
 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.

44
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

45
 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.

46
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

47
 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.

48
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

49
 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

50
 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

51
 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

52
 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 electromagnetic, 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.

53
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

54
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

55
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

56
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

57
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

58
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.

59
 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

60
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.

61
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

can not be seen or heard as it lurks in the heart and mind of another man? Does blood prove if
62
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

the dead. I walked around for about 40 days preaching the gospel of Philadelphia and then

63
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

written law of the US? Marbury V Madison but you would not know it if you took the advice

64
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.

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

65
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

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

66
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

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 perefected where

67
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

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

68
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

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

69
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 PEREFECTION 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

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

70
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; 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

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

71
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

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

72
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

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

73
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

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

74
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.

75
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

76
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

77
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

78
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 place 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.

79
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

80
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
81
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
82
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
83
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, 07-
9804

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,

84
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

85
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

86
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.

87
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

88
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

89
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

90
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
91
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

92
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

93
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

94
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

95
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?

96
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.

97
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

98
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

99
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

100
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

101
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

102
taking the ethical and moral hgih 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.

103
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,

104
“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

105
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

106
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.

107
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

108
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 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. Congress and I have never seen 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. 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

109
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 ot do os

again thus men give their legal power and moral authority away; as unjust rulers slowly filled all

positions of power the intrinsic thing that government is changed due to corruption and it became

impossible for any group of citizens or even one lone citizen to rise to power and so restore

justice. The thing that must exist at the founding of any great government is extreme self-

awareness and that same thing must exist as a great governemnt 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

110
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. Then you need at least one single citizen 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? I managed to prove Marbury

beyond any doubt. SCOTUS may never be written and should never be written down as then

Congress could control SCOTUS thereby perverting justice. The lone citizen, mothers, soldiers,

SCOTUS, the Chief Justice and the Commander have the higest standard – life - 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

111
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 ttile or uniform means that person lives that title or uniform out as

actions count and always reason your case, 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

112
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 veterans 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)

113
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 they [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.

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

114
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 benc and the employees of that federal court are acting criminally and that is a charge I

can prove beyond any doubt whatsoever. Other federal benches I accessed on paper were not

acting criminally. My point of law went over their heads no matter what I wrote as 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 belive 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! 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

115
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!

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 oyur 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 whote 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. I can’t change “genius” or get rid of

116
it; 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 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 preople 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

117
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

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

an 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 THUS 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. Our Declaration and Constitution became proof beyond any doubt

that: The Founders lived and were real people who belived those words and so acted upon them

or we would not exist! 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 and I was not there and as few Christians live out those words and as

our government does not but says it does, but I do have proof those events called miralces 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. Anybody can read only the

words attributed to him in the Greek and Latin Vulgate thus know. Anybody can read parts of the

118
gnostic gospels as we found them. Use more than one translation to make certain it is correctly

translated. My own parents sent me to a Catholic school; they acted upon those ideas as I act

upon our founders thoughts, feelings, ideas sand true beliefs including constitutional authority.

He did not sign 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 he is a real person as now I’m dealing with his

baby: SCOTUS. I made a 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

119
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 June 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

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

120
AND AS I HAD A SACRED EXPERIENCE, ALL SEVEN TO BE EXACT, THUS RIGHTS

ARE INDEED OF THE CREATOR OF IT ALL AND WE ARE BORN INTO THEM.

I claimed or took 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 ‘accpeted’ 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

121
to intervene? That judge may never know but he actually acted for me personally by doing what

he did.

If I see this one coming? Our judiciary has fallen? 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 physcial 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 the 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? NO UNITED STATES WITHOUT A JUDICIARY.

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. SCOTUS AND/OR

THIS FEDERAL APPEALS COURT CANNOT BE ALLOWED TO FALL. It hasn’t

happened yet as changing my case caption is not irreparable injury nor is losing my CIP and as I

can still be heard in person. I’m it; the test.You cannot turn back but only go straight on ahead as

122
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. You go with it as in with a willing Federal

Appeals Court and with SCOTUS.

God does not abhor naked singularities: WE are one.

I’m the proof of US law or judicial review and you can weigh me against any living man any day

of the week and the scales will always tip in my favor - if your standard or constant is the

Declaration and Constitution. Judicial review as it exists today is a myth as justice is; 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 and the victim does protest as I own

123
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 even if that means it will take a decade

and/or that I must access the Supreme Court and do so as my own attorney in spite of policies

enacted agaisnt me or that in the end if all else fails I may be forced to shoot, as no judge and no

other person can erase the fact of my life. 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 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. Sacrifce is not suffering as you choose it. In my case the federal

question and federal answer is this: You can but may you? You may but will you? I WILL as: I

am a constitution; I stand alone as 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. And even then some things are the will of God and not the will of

man and cannot be amended. 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

124
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 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

125
pyschology ot get him 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 soem 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 he was acting upon the belief his action was ethical and just and 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; go out and act as if as 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. Brilliant. Elegant.

Jefferson did not then act against it by standing down Marshall as it was not illegal but only

potentially unconstitutional and potentially harmful. It violated the words of the law as they were

not and are not there but not the spirit of the law (Is this due process? Marbury asked, didn’t he?

Did he get a hearing in person and an answer or was he equally protected and duly processed?

Yes. And all citizens did win as Marbury and Jefferson ‘won’ as did I as Marshall gave us

constitutional authority over our own persons. It is like Bush V Gore as all citizens won as I won

as that door was left open by Rehnquist. Nothing says you cannot fudge the math on purpose or

126
act extraconstitutionally by illogically invoking per curiam if it’s in our best interests or if the

citizens leave you with no other choice. You can but may you?You may but will you or do you

doubt yourself? Do you have faith? Are you afraid?).

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 did what Jefferson did not: 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 as well as 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. Upon my third attempt, an

emergency application 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 invoking

127
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. 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 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

128
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 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

129
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 hwne they
cause the value of our dollar to rise or fall besed upon whther or not they uphold the honor bond
by obeying the word and spiirt of our law and if act justly. The citizens blame everyone and
everything except: Their own person. Why? It is known as FAULT not BLAME. Fault is the
citizen being 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

130
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 Carta 1 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 &
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,

131
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 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

132
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 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

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.

133
Barck Obama is committing an actual crime against me and all natural born ethical citizens

especially women as we are at actual but not legally declared war.

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.” I

may not be in the greatest shape but I am still standing when all others are not. That is all I was
promised: I’d stand. Nobody ever commented upon what I’d look or feel like or if I would be

alone but only that I’d stand. 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.

134
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 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. It is history as it is
upon the Supreme Court’s own docket.

It is self-evident.

1
Most anthropologists have traditionally speculated that this constitution was created between the middle 1400s and early
1600s. However, recent archaeological studies have suggested the accuracy of the account found in oral tradition
which argues that the federation was formed around August 31, 1142 based on a coinciding solar eclipse (see Fields and
Mann, American Indian Culture and Research Journal, vol. 21, #2) – Rose, last name with held, Methow, WA, USA. [The
Iroquois know their own history as they have been repeating it via living it without error for almost a thousand years so
what can any anthropologist tell them about who they are or when they were founded as a government of living people???
The Iroquois are not to be faulted if we used lies, guns, germs and steel – force - against them and so interrupted their lives
but not their oral tradition. It was our error not theirs. The anthropologists need to be corrected as they are not an authority
and neither is the science if they do not consider all evidence rising to proof like: American Indians use a lunar calendar or
a 28 day calendar, American Indians understand time as all now or geometrically constructed as it actually is and
American Indians rely upon oral tradition that is not only unbroken and unchanged but some of which is still hidden or
kept secret from those of you who are not American Indians and who might be self-deluded anthropologists. My point of
law is also the Iroquois’ point of law: life itself is proof. Of course it helps if you were raised in the Albany, NY area, grew
up truly believing you are a Native American as you were born here – into the law - and so are unique intellectual property
found only in America and all evidence rising to proof supported this belief such as your father’s testimony, your mother’s
threat to impeach you, your ability to cause change in your world, your travels in the West and then all over this country,
your own life lived among the Sioux and the Navajo Code Specialists which you never did not know of as it was
declassified in 68 or 69 and you were born in 67, and you paid attention in school thus own the knowledge of the Albany
Plan of Union proposed by Franklin or that on June 11th, 1776, the Iroquois gave a speech to the men debating formal
Independence from Britain. How do you so conveniently never learn this or forget this, especially if you are an American
anthropologist? I’m sick of my tax dollars supporting the citizens’ education, as that seems to be a waste of my dollar. If
you do not learn anything while you’re in school as a child? Or do not bother to do so when you are an adult and discover
how much you do not know? I’m being taxed unjustly as you and your ignorance are the cause of injustice. – Susan]

Conclusion

135
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 prove 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 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 are the product of people. PEOPLE ARE THE CAUSE OF IDEAS AND

IDEAS CAUSE EVERYTHING. Then those people need to be willing to realize 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:

136
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 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 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

137
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 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.

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 although he truly believes my testimony as my actions prove it - the absolute proof

138
- because it involves persons with perceived power as he read 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 water or blood

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

139
‘Authorities’ never met a woman who entered SCOTUS. 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 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 clerks and/or Justices of that court 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 or 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? 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 not need to tell any more lies or rather write any more lies upon a

140
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

141
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 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:

142
“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 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,

143
“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 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

144
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 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

145
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 and then allowing all to blame that Justice (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 constitute

kidnapping a federal judge? A Justice?) and ownership of the knowledge that my case is airtight

and they all know it 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 / lawsuit. 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 carpetbagged into NY and bought that Senate seat out

from under me only to use it to access the Whitehouse (she admitted it), signed 511 and told me I

146
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 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

147
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 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

148
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 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 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

149
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 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

150
“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 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
151
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 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
152
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 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.

153
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 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
154
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 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
155
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, 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.

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

156
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 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,

157
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 may not be the case [another reason? If you’re John Marshall then Jefferson

might be at your courtroom door 8 o’clock Monday morning if he may petition you upon a writ

of mandamus because he can and will] 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

158
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.

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 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

159
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 a

declaration that women are persons and equal as human beings with 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’d

injunct Congress but we’d be here three or four months or more. The election is invalidated. It is

no good. 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 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
160
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 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 new,

runoff election held once I inform the citizens and Congress of the law and of the effects of Bush

161
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); my name upon the ballot and in the top slot

in all 50 states from among those safe choices 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 terms. This relief can be granted and should

be granted or else we are something other than constitutional. To prevent a nasty lawyer trick:

Each 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 courts. 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 and I’m seeking to remedy the

actual injury not make it worse by pretending it cannot be done or by ignoring it. We recall other

politicians like a CA governor to then favor a foreigner who is a man so why not recall a

162
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 without a new vote as each citizen must

recheck and rebalance their own persons thus reclaim constitutional 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. 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. It will not cost too much money and can you ever reason

justice has an actual price? This nation went down that road and it got us nowhere. To me $5.3

billion is dirt cheap. 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 so 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 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. I can continue to act for 30 or 60

days while we hold a new election. Other remedy and relief:

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.

163
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 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 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 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

164
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. 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

165
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 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 is time 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? How do they compare? They don’t compare, as they are the same. All time now is the

absence of time. Time is not linear. 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 energy,

work, 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. 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. 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. There goes the space

continuum. Don’t ‘believe’ me? Something had to give for me to be able to do this all alone. Let

166
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? I have news for you: 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 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 then know the truth.

I do not want to talk to Congress but I need to address it. I despise Congress as it exists now

more than the Supreme Court, John Marshall and Alexander Hamilton combined and that is

saying a lot by 18th century standards.

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

167
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 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.

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

168
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. 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 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. 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

169
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 meeting as you’re all dry drunks addicted

to the idea of money you have which is false and 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

170
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. 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 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 even want 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

171
angry; he threw a punch or two. Jesus would be the first one to 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.

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 you’re lawyers are? I’ll bring legal size rocks.

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

172
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.

I have discovered that people like believing in US law and ideas like the Koran and New

Testament only when they are not true. If you prove them? 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 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.

173
 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;

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

174
 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 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.

175
For all of these reasons as is there is only one as constitutional authority is contained in 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.

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

176
131