Main Menu

Herbert v Obama, et al (updated)

Long time visitors may remember that I had an article here on Susan Herbert who brought suit against Barack Obama in Florida. Herbert claimed that she was “the only legal acting President not placed on the ballot and who never voluntarily withdrew [her] name.”

I had some email correspondence with Ms Herbert and decided to remove the article, which included some unkind remarks from the court. I’ve had another email just this week  from her suggesting that she was not pleased that this site lacks coverage of her case. So let me include what she wrote me here (with some minimal typo correction):

This is Susan Herbert of Herbert V Obama, Roberts, Hull and the US. I’m on the case conference list and so I am now four for four with SCOTUS as on paper I have won each time I engaged them. Thus what is up with removing an article about my case as if you do that you have just removed the declaration and constitution as that is what a pro se case of authority and o.j. [original jurisdiction] is: our original government as the founders wrote it and as the founders lived it.

If you deny the truth of my lawsuit you then are denying the truth or the actual reality known as the Declaration and Constitution which is what the federal bench now does.

According to marbury [v. Madison] i had to win on paper first but then lose as marbury did – which is why roberts never filed those documents on 11/20/09 – and then i had to keep acting to then win in person as [Supreme Court Justice] roberts thus SCOTUS cannot refuse to hear a lawsuit in which they are defendants; they must hear it in person if I then exhaust federal appeals plus they already made a crucial error: SCOTUS? It is now actively in violation of marbury as they inadvertently overturned marbury upon first denying me that appearance in; person, lol. Thus, due to Marbury and USC 1331 they then placed the existence of their own Court and the Senate on the table!

all i’m doing now is proving their theory or their personal application of the law faulty and so cleaning up in person.

Conference is set for 11/06/09.

It’s a sovereignty suit and so Obama could be anyone at all. I can slowly walk you through all of the complex concepts. As it [is] a pack of physicists operating out of Rockford, IL immediately understood the legal principles involved and are now assisting me.

What’s lost on lawyers is not lost on scientists and philosophers as you will not understand my suit nor ever own the knowledge US law and case law if you are possessed of an overblown ego or if you do not unconditionally love your own person, a living constitution.

LOL! I wanted and needed a paper denial at first as that then is SCOTUS concurring as I legally claimed i am denied any and all protection of the law upon all levels, even in SCOTUS. To grant me at first would then be the Court granting me protection of the law thus I would have no case!

The real, actual reason paper is never proof in any Constitutional Republic is appearance of the paper is always deceptive…for one thing it is easy to forge and for another the words are meaningless unless you live them out as reality. Herbert V Obama, Roberts, Hull and the US? upon roberts 11/20/09 action it the became Susan and roberts versus Obama, Hull and the US no matter what the paper says; the paper is actually real – it reads exact words, Susan V Roberts – but the truth is legally real: It’s all pro se litigants against those who are not as the oath of office is I WILL not MY LAWYER WILL!

I happen to be the very first American citizen to successfully claim ownership of all of the knowledge found within the Declaration and the Constitution and then I became the first American to overcome all fear and so act upon that truth.

Susan.

At the time of my original article, the district court had just dismissed the case.  Ms. Herbert’s complaint and the order are still on the Obama Conspiracy Theories docket page. Ms. Herbert told me at the time that the case had been appealed but it wasn’t on the court docket, and I frankly forgot about it. It’s docketed now.

Update!

CERTIORARI DENIED
09-6777 HERBERT, SUSAN V. UNITED STATES, ET AL.

,

64 Responses to Herbert v Obama, et al (updated)

  1. avatar
    Adrianinflorida October 31, 2009 at 10:55 pm #

    Have we actually found someone crazier than Orly? Can it be?

  2. avatar
    JoZeppy October 31, 2009 at 11:25 pm #

    Good God! What a blathering string of meaningless psycho-babble. She makes Orly seem coherent.

    Yup…conference scheduled…I can already see SCOTUS’ response….”cert denied”

  3. avatar
    Rob in Denver October 31, 2009 at 11:47 pm #

    That was like reading the transcript from Sarah Palin’s resignation announcement, only worse.

  4. avatar
    Mary Brown October 31, 2009 at 11:53 pm #

    What? I tried to understand her logic but could not. Could we hear about mystical conversations with Madison soon?

  5. avatar
    Benji Franklin October 31, 2009 at 11:54 pm #

    Dear Adrian,

    You asked “Have we actually found someone crazier than Orly? Can it be?”

    Yes, recalling from Mathematics that infinities vary by degree, I think we can sanely estimate that this poor word-smiting (sic) soul is infinitely more crazy than the infinitely crazy Orly.

    For those who prefer a more literary and less mathematical degree comparison of these two ear-blinking utterance emitters, let me worriedly suggest that Ms.Herbert appears to thinks she’s LIVING one of Orly’s broken-English DREAMS.

    Benji Franklin

  6. avatar
    milspec November 1, 2009 at 12:00 am #

    At this moment I sort of drunk and A bit high, Ms. Herbert made prefect sense to me, BATS, BATS… OK fine now LOL

  7. avatar
    Whatever4 November 1, 2009 at 12:08 am #

    I’ve read some of her filings, and all I can say is… she is an excellent speller.

    http://www.scribd.com/doc/18226772/Susan-V-Obama-Were-Moot-Motion-To-Reconsider

  8. avatar
    Kevin Bell November 1, 2009 at 1:18 am #

    Doc,

    I have seven glasses of wine at a dinner party. Please, I hope it’s the alcohol that has impaired my comprehension and that this post is a Halloween prank.

  9. avatar
    wendy November 1, 2009 at 3:08 am #

    Hmmm. Perhaps Ms Herbert and Ms Taitz attended the same law school?

  10. avatar
    jvn November 1, 2009 at 9:46 am #

    I think it would be great if the SCOTUS granted Susan cert while denying it to Taitz, Berg and Donfrio!

  11. avatar
    BlackLion November 1, 2009 at 11:21 am #

    All I know is that I read this sober and wished that I was drunk so that maybe I could have understood her wild rantings…

  12. avatar
    elmo November 1, 2009 at 11:41 am #

    Sad.

  13. avatar
    Con Rep November 1, 2009 at 11:50 am #

    Very, very sad.

  14. avatar
    JoZeppy November 1, 2009 at 12:43 pm #

    Oh my God! What alternate universe did this slip out of? Orly briefs were just poorly written and completely wrong on the law….this…this…made no sense what so ever…what kind of drugs do you need to be doing to write this?

  15. avatar
    Robair November 1, 2009 at 1:29 pm #

    May we assume English is her 1st language??

  16. avatar
    charlie November 1, 2009 at 7:14 pm #

    why in the world did you post her letter without mocking her insanity? You do her no justice….she is clearly a very disturbed human and probably will end up in an unmarked grave in some cemetary. I agree with the last poster…very, very sad. Or maybe I have an overblown ego and I’m not a physicist. sheesh.

  17. avatar
    Kevin Bell November 1, 2009 at 8:10 pm #

    No way! I had a couple of glasses of wine I couldn’t understand it. Now I am sober and I still can’t make heads or tails out of it.

  18. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy November 1, 2009 at 8:23 pm #

    I didn’t think anything useful would come out of mocking the letter. Susan Herbert’s lawsuit is similar to a group of other lawsuits that I haven’t spent editorial time on, and some that I don’t intend to mention or list at all. I only included this one because Ms. Herbert indicated that she objected to my removal of the previous article.

    There are currently 157 federal lawsuits naming Barack Obama, most of which are from federal prisoners. There is quite a variety of claims in them, only a few actually related to Obama’s eligibility.

  19. avatar
    charlie November 1, 2009 at 9:05 pm #

    thanks….love your site……I’m just at the point, and I’m the same way with hyper “christians,” that unless we mock them publicly, they will not stfu. I feel like no good can come from pacifying these dimwits. thanks again….keep up the good work.

  20. avatar
    Rickey November 2, 2009 at 11:50 am #

    Here is a link to a 55-page rant by Susan Herbert from 2008.

    http://www.scribd.com/doc/3473513/Supreme-Court-Petition-In-Re-Susan-Herbert-A-Case-Of-Original-Jurisdiction

  21. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy November 2, 2009 at 4:15 pm #

    Look at the other way round. There are plenty of web sites mocking progressives and liberals. They don’t make me want to STFU, but rather spur me on to greater activism.

    The Bible itself says “blessed are you when men shall revile you, and persecute you, and say all manner of evil against you for My sake.” No, I do not think mocking is a productive approach.

  22. avatar
    Patrick McKinnion November 2, 2009 at 6:58 pm #

    You know, while I can mock Berg, Dr. Orly, et al, to my hearts content, I really can’t find it in my heart to mock Susan Herbert.

    Hope she gets professional help, yes. Mock, no.

  23. avatar
    JoZeppy November 2, 2009 at 7:20 pm #

    at least Orly and the others have one foot in reality….Susan? I made my way through half of it, and still had no idea what she was appealing. She mentions Bush v. Gore, but she blathers on but God only knows what. This woman needs some serious meds.

  24. avatar
    elmo November 2, 2009 at 10:56 pm #

    Unlike Orly, Ms. Herbert does not seem to be motivated by personal enmity towards the President.

  25. avatar
    misha November 3, 2009 at 12:00 am #

    No, but they are equally batty.

  26. avatar
    G November 3, 2009 at 12:01 am #

    I’m not convinced that Orly has any feet in reality…

  27. avatar
    Lupin November 3, 2009 at 2:46 am #

    The first thing that occurred to me after trying to read her screed is — does she have cats?

  28. avatar
    misha November 3, 2009 at 10:29 am #

    Hey, hey: http://www.flickr.com/photos/ubereye/2582693503/

    I’ll have you know, Max has taken umbrage at that.

  29. avatar
    Lupin November 3, 2009 at 11:42 am #

    What a beautiful cat!

  30. avatar
    Stephen November 3, 2009 at 1:43 pm #

    Can anyone give me a concise description of what Susan Herbert’s claim or issue is? I can’t quite get my brain around Ms Herbert’s ramblings. I can grasp Dr Taitz’s concern w/whether Obama is a Natural Born Citizen (she doesn’t believe the HI information and does believe the Kenya info; the SS numbers issue is a side thing as she just doesn’t want Obama). But, Ms Herbert doesn’t seem to have a cogent argument about anything.

    Through the links under your dockets I read the court report. From that I get the impression that she was not on the 2008 ballot as a presidential candidate and she thinks she should have been. The court references a case involving Ms Herbert that was filed in April 2007, a long time before the November 2008 election. Does anyone know how this all ties together?

  31. avatar
    wendy November 3, 2009 at 3:08 pm #

    lol
    I stopped by your place for a moment, and noticed Max. Thought about sending a note to you that I too have a Siamese.
    So Max and Chevy protest feline discrimination, and any disputes about being a natural born cat.

  32. avatar
    Black Lion November 3, 2009 at 3:29 pm #

    Well I think Susan has a close competitor in just crazy and insane rantings…Did anyone see what the washed up former singer Pat Boone wrote? Of course for Newsmax and WND. He decided to address the White House with his latest screed…

    “Well, the tried and true remedy is tenting. Experts come in, actually envelope the whole dwelling in a giant tent – and send a very powerful fumigant, lethal to the varmints and unwelcome creatures, into every nook and cranny of the house. Done thoroughly, every last destructive insect or rodent is sent to varmint hell – and in a day or two, the grand house is habitable again. I believe – figuratively, but in a very real way – we need to tent the White House! “

    http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=114547

  33. avatar
    elmo November 3, 2009 at 5:23 pm #

    Equally? Can’t say I agree with that. As nutty as Orly is, she doesn’t think she’s the president.

  34. avatar
    She wants judicial review November 3, 2009 at 7:05 pm #

    She wants judicial review.

    Nobody has listened to her and her rights have been violated. Easy as that.

  35. avatar
    misha November 3, 2009 at 7:32 pm #

    Yes, just remember Max is a natural born citizen cat.

    Here is proof: http://newyorkleftist.blogspot.com/2009/09/another-kenyan-birth-certificate.html

  36. avatar
    misha November 3, 2009 at 7:35 pm #

    Andy Williams said something similar:
    http://newyorkleftist.blogspot.com/2009/09/andy-williams-attacks-obama-loves.html

  37. avatar
    nbc November 3, 2009 at 7:38 pm #

    Why should anyone care to listen? Judicial review of what?

  38. avatar
    misha November 3, 2009 at 7:48 pm #

    To the birther crowd, she sounds rational.

  39. avatar
    misha November 3, 2009 at 7:52 pm #

    She thinks she is a latter day Joan Of Arc, and she truly believes she can drive Obama from office.

  40. avatar
    Expelliarmus November 3, 2009 at 8:53 pm #

    Yes, but Susan Herbert at least has pleaded a set of facts that provides a theoretical basis for standing. (If in fact she is the one, true President, then she would have an individualized, particularized interest in the litigation that sets her apart from all non-Presidents.)

  41. avatar
    milspec November 3, 2009 at 9:31 pm #

    Sure “BATS BATS BATS”

  42. avatar
    milspec November 3, 2009 at 9:40 pm #

    Pat Boone is still alive?

  43. avatar
    Black Lion November 3, 2009 at 10:10 pm #

    That is what most people say when they hear his name….Between Pat, Andy Williams, and Chuck Norris WND is trying to corner the market on washed up former celebrities…

  44. avatar
    Black Lion November 3, 2009 at 10:11 pm #

    Why does that sound like Sven just being contrary….

  45. avatar
    misha November 3, 2009 at 10:32 pm #

    So when is Chuck Norris going to win an Oscar? (snort)

    Anyone in my high school acting class is better than Norris. Fifth rate actor, fifth rate politics.

  46. avatar
    misha November 3, 2009 at 10:37 pm #

    Spam, spam, spam, spam, spam…

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=anwy2MPT5RE

  47. avatar
    nbc November 3, 2009 at 11:47 pm #

    Ouch, I actually looked at her scribd account, what a wonderful set of ‘arguments’….
    No wonder we have heard nothing of this case, it’s destined to go nowhere.

  48. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy November 4, 2009 at 7:52 am #

    Sniff, sniff… I smell a troll. I think AXJ has a new IP address?

  49. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy November 4, 2009 at 7:55 am #

    elmo: As nutty as Orly is, she doesn’t think she’s the president.

    No, she thinks she’s Patrick Henry.

  50. avatar
    Lupin November 4, 2009 at 9:57 am #

    I’d like Megan Fox too, but ain’t gonna happen.

  51. avatar
    Shreiking Wombat November 4, 2009 at 7:16 pm #

    Max is the Hero that Gotham deserves.

  52. avatar
    Rickey November 5, 2009 at 10:06 am #

    Pat Boone also was one of those who were predicting Y2K doom.

    http://www.phoenixnewtimes.com/1999-06-03/news/grist-for-the-millennium/

  53. avatar
    Rickey November 6, 2009 at 12:21 pm #

    Susan will learn on Monday that cert has been denied. Not that it’s official yet, but it’s a foregone conclusion.

    It’s curious that she claims that she has won each time she has “engaged” SCOTUS. The SCOTUS docket shows two previous petitions filed by her, and both were denied.

  54. avatar
    Susan November 7, 2009 at 3:09 am #

    Susan Herbert v US – Scotus Docket November 6 November 6, 2009
    Posted by Exploring the Natural Born Citizen Clause in Uncategorized.
    trackback
    Title:
    Susan Herbert, Petitioner
    v.
    United States, et al.
    Docketed: October 1, 2009
    Lower Ct: United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit
    Case Nos.: (09-10661)
    Decision Date: August 3, 2009

    ~~~Date~~~ ~~~~~~~Proceedings and Orders~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
    Sep 22 2009 Petition for a writ of certiorari and motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed. (Response due November 2, 2009)
    Oct 13 2009 Waiver of right of respondents United States, et al. to respond filed.
    Oct 22 2009 DISTRIBUTED for Conference of November 6, 2009.

    Susan explains to Dr C

    It’s a sovereignty suit and so Obama could be anyone at all. I can slowly walk you through all of the complex concepts. As it [is] a pack of physicists operating out of Rockford, IL immediately understood the legal principles involved and are now assisting me.

    What’s lost on lawyers is not lost on scientists and philosophers as you will not understand my suit nor ever own the knowledge US law and case law if you are possessed of an overblown ego or if you do not unconditionally love your own person, a living constitution.

    LOL! I wanted and needed a paper denial at first as that then is SCOTUS concurring as I legally claimed i am denied any and all protection of the law upon all levels, even in SCOTUS. To grant me at first would then be the Court granting me protection of the law thus I would have no case!

    The real, actual reason paper is never proof in any Constitutional Republic is appearance of the paper is always deceptive…for one thing it is easy to forge and for another the words are meaningless unless you live them out as reality. Herbert V Obama, Roberts, Hull and the US? upon roberts 11/20/09 action it the became Susan and roberts versus Obama, Hull and the US no matter what the paper says; the paper is actually real – it reads exact words, Susan V Roberts – but the truth is legally real: It’s all pro se litigants against those who are not as the oath of office is I WILL not MY LAWYER WILL!

    I happen to be the very first American citizen to successfully claim ownership of all of the knowledge found within the Declaration and the Constitution and then I became the first American to overcome all fear and so act upon that truth.

  55. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy November 9, 2009 at 11:41 am #

    Article updated:

    CERTIORARI DENIED
    09-6777 HERBERT, SUSAN V. UNITED STATES, ET AL.

  56. avatar
    Expelliarmus November 9, 2009 at 2:30 pm #

    Well, that’s a surprise. 😉

  57. avatar
    SFJeff November 9, 2009 at 5:09 pm #

    Thats a shame. I think Susan would have had a fascinating discussion with the Supreme court.

  58. avatar
    Susan December 8, 2009 at 2:27 am #

    This is long but worth it:

    You have won against SCOTUS if you enter an argument that is airtight based upon math as we don’t argue good math only bad math. Math is an inviolate law. For instance, if I know SCOTUS wrote 2 + 2 =5 and we all know 2 + 2 =4 then SCOTUS can write DENIED but can they actually deny 2 + 2 =4? Do they actually change 2+2 from 4 to 5? No, so don’t be so silly! SCOTUS can’t defeat my good math or my exact words taken directly from the Constitution; we’re not talking theoretical application here but law, actual law. It’s like SCOTUS writing “Gravity is overruled” and you all truly believe it so start jumping off of cliffs. Are you gonna start flyign only as SCOTUS rules against gravity?Wakey Wakey!

    So then if I enter the Declaration, Constitution and Marbury V Madison but SCOTUS writes DENIED, what are they saying? That only I am denied protection of the law? That only women are? That’s a crime. Are they saying that only they, SCOTUS, are above the law? SCOTUS is not even in the law as it came to exist. You mght want to read 09-6777 as my legal claim is SCOTUS is constitutional as it is organic to The People, the constitutionally set government no ot the paper. What, is SCOTUS DENYING they are legal??? Something smells rotten in DC, in an office known as office of the clerk. Go look: On 11/20/08 I achieved direct entry and direct action – after the US defaulted. If you look up case 08-6622 no response ever came from the US as in a constitutional authority case they can make only one response – we give up – so SCOTUS pulled the wool over your eyes by acting but not filing the paper to keep the knowledge from you. Well, did the Justices ever see the Emergency Application? If SCOTUS takes action you made your case so they must hear it in person so why not even file it? WHO didn’t file it: Roberts or the clerks who threatend to sink it? We don’t have to wonder as to motivation and intent as the SCOTUS clerks told me:

    Once you have a first person victim sue on their own the entire class wins, like Thurgood Marshall suing with Brown. Then it is testimony that’s sworn truth not hearsay; it’s not second or third person. The clerks told me they were NEVER going to allow a nonlawyer entry or a woman arguing her own case entry. They were not shy; we even argued case law and I won,lol. They demanded that I QUALIFY myself, lol! What, now voters – citizens – need more qualiifcations than the President??? I had proof SCOTUS lets some real scum in and FL happens to have a Sunshine law the clerks were violating. I had a sneaking suspicion as to how bad cases wrere getting in: CLERKS. Then I had to prove it. Clerks can tell me their unjust personal and institution wide policy but how do you prove it?

    Most people would accept the fact that the case for women had not been heard and its 2009 as proof bof discrimination but not the men in charge of this joint. I was told to get ‘more proof’. That can only be a docket. A docket that is irrational and maybe even criminal. In checkmate SCOTUS will have to act justly or unustly and then we’ll have the paper ‘proof’. So I cornered it and it acted unjustly – it acted but refused to file what it acted upon. The mere fact it acted is your proof that I won as it can’t act unless I enter on paper and make the case! And once SCOTUS denies living people entry in favor of dead paper it then is no longer organic to the People thus it is reugnant. BVG is SCOTUS granting standing to dead paper; Susan is merely SCOTUS employees doing it three and four times over.

    Soooooo, what could little old Susan Herbert have written that was so incendiary it caused SCOTUS to act but then caused them to hide it from you? And now causes them to insist upon renaming my case to keep “Obama” and “Roberts” out of the title? You don’t need theory when you have fact and law on your side…All you do is PROVE that since early 2007 SCOTUS knew the 2008 election was no good yet hid it from you by entering SCOTUS’ own words and actions as the proof itself – you enter SCOTUS to SCOTUS,lol – so when SCOTUS tries to tell you it can and may violate Marbury, or that it accidentally violated Marbury, you can and may laugh: No SCOTUS, that would be you reasoning your own self out of existence.

    You know it’s criminal if SCOTUS is reasoning itself out of existence so to that end I truly believe the clerks merely did what they thratened: sunk the case on purpose. I’m the first person to force SCOTUS to generate a docket it can’t reason as it is irrational, lol. It’s actually criminal. FIVE TIMES IS NO ACCIDENT. Math is never gonna magically change and neither are the words the Founders actually wrote. Hisotry is; it does not undo itself. It’s not the Constitution, it’s not the Founders and it’s not me – it’s SCOTUS.

    For a long time SCOTUS has been harming you but getting away with it as nobody could prove it and no lawyer wanted to as the system is advantageous to lawyers. You see the word DENIED and you believe it, lock, stock and barrel even if it makes zero sense. So all I did was engage SCOTUS until I had the proof: A SCOTUS docket that you can never reconcile with anything but the federal criminal code. I entered Marbury but applied it to women as in women; I entered Marbury redux as I happen to know constitutional authority inside out. I could argue it in my sleep. I knew no case is like an authority case as an authority case created SCOTUS so it will be its eventual undoing. Ready?

    Marshall responded to Marbury. YES AS YOU MAY NOT FAIL TO RESPOND TO A CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY CASE FOR IF YOU DO ITS AN AUTOMATIC DEFAULT JUDGMENT FOR ME, FOR THE PEOPLE. The People dafualted in 11/2000 upon failing to vote. The US, the sitting government, defaulted on 11/05/08 and now Obama and Roberts have defaulted. Obama won’t or can’t defend the Constitution as what he can’t defend are his own actions like claiming to be a dual citizen or signign Rsolutuon 511. So he never responded but in an authority case you must. Roberts didn’t either. Thus we have an insane Chief Justice or his clerks like Obama played fast and loose with the Constitution.

    The reason I told you to post me and poke all the fun you want? I am laughing all the way to the bank on this one. You know how funny this became? It got to the point I could write to the SCOTUS clerks a year or two in advance (I sued as far back as Feb. of 2007 and aksed the natural birth question then) and predicted everything that would happen…then it did happen exactly as I said. I’d tell them, “It isn’t ESP. It’s the nature of a constitutional republic and human beings. It’s the design of the univrse itself.” SCOTUS clerks would then act to defeat the universe, or, as if they are gods. And you lapped it up, lol!

    The real, actual reason Obama was annointed by the Dems: To keep women out but also to motivate the estimated 47% of the voters who don’t vote. They’re low income aka minority voters. Like I’m supposed ot belive the dems looked high and low and could only find one black person they could put on the ticket and so they HAD to forieginze it, as the only black person who is able and capable is foreign? You’re foreign if you aren’t ot be found on our original documents or in hte thoughs, feeligns, ideas and beliefs of our original Founders…you can be born here but be foreign. You happen to be foregin if you yourself claim to possess dual citizenship as the US has never recongized that. Even native americans may not sue for the violations of civil rights in soem cases as we don’t recongize them as being dual citizens. your also foreign if you formally resolve to violate the civil rights of The People, especially mothers and veterans. The Chief law Rnforcment Officer can’t be acting in violation of the law on his way into the office. Didn’t Nixon commit a crime while campaigning to become re-elected? Same difference. Your clue is Obaam lcaims ot be a victim of racism and slavery, of its past effects. A lie as Barack Obaam was raisded in Indonesia and Hawaai thus was the MAJORITY there; he looked liked most of the people looked. His mother is white and his father is Kentyan; neither wrere subjected to slavery. Obama is no victim but he appears to be black and the make it seems as if trick is an old nasty lawyer trick; in this case it was used to ping at your emotions and so get you to vote for a person who does not qualifiy as once you do that you are then slaves yoruselves; you are now victimizing your own self…you ‘sold’ yourself back ot britian w/o ever realizing it and why? EASY: OUR BANKING AND LEGAL SYSTEMS ARE STILL CONTROLLED BY BRITISH SYSTEMS THUS AS LONG SS THEY ARE YOU HAVE THE DISADVANTAGE AS YOU DON’T KNOW THAT SYSTEM!!! YOU LIVE IN AMERICA SO YOU OPNLY KNOW AMERICA!!! Until or unless you cast off what is British the People will always lose thus the already entrenched had plenty o’ reason to hoist a person born under the crown upno you – to prezerve those unjust systems one of which keeps you out of SCOTUS permanently.

    So on yoru behalf I blew the lid off of what now meets and exceeds federal racketeering using their own words and actions as proof to give you the advantage over the lawyers and bankers and somebody inside SCOTUS wasn’t happy as if you argue it from BVG which is actually and legally a tied ruling? SCOTUS KNEW BUT DID IT TO YOU REGARDLESS! If you pull out SCOTUS everything that is British comes tumbling down with it thus you then have the homefield advantage.

    The funniest thing I did? I deliberately never named Blackstone’s an English legal reference SCOTUS is loyal to…SCOTUS loves Blackstone as if he wrote the Constitution! I waited until just now to name it as I warned SCOTUS over and over it sohlud assuem I know everything it knows and maybe I know a little bit more as I keep kicking its butt across the room. So this time I came back with Blackstone’s and Marbury once more: “If the commission is a part of my defense then you must adjudicate it accordign to yoru patron saint John Marshall. I entered the commission to the record in at least two states and within SCOTUS as a part of my defense. The Constitution is ot be a reciprocal agreement. It’s our very nature as a Republic. It’s the design: How can any American defend the nation, defend the Constitution, if you are criminally withholding it from us?”

    So you know as you gusy get suckered by SCOTUS constantly: BVG? It has zero basis in the Constitution or US case law. It is totally devoid of standing…it’s even a politcal issue masqurading as an equal protection issue. To hear BVG? and for Bush not Gore to bring it as it is Gore V FL? You would have to rewrite the law and then rewrite all case law! SCOTUS had to deny and ignore it ever issued certain rulings. Think, since when does the “winner” appeal to a higher court and so risk losing when he did not even sue in lower court??? And if SCOTUS clerks were openly advertising they would never, ever let a nonlwyer in then the BVG lawyers knew ahead of time as did the Justices that no citizen would be allowed to enter to protect their interest and right. LAWYERS ASSUMED THE OFFICE! John Yoo is proof. Now you’re getting cases like Carhart, also totally devoid of standing and with no women present yet its about pregnancy and birth so if there’s no woman? You have zero evidence as all of your evidence is hearsay as no man can ever testify to pregnancy as a fact. SCOTUS is now telling you in cases like Carhart that men give birth to babies and you are buying it! Or in Schiavo: No rights if you are alive but only if you are dead! how can SCOTUS know death if it never efeins life first? To die you first have ot be born and so the right has to come into existence, duh. So women get rights upon death??? When htye haven’t even been born??? and never received equal protection ever??? Who’s reasonign this stuff? The most obvious breach was Anna Nicole Smith, a case that entered aunresolved and left…unresolved. WHY? Politics, money and appearances. If you can buy the Office of The Executive – you use actual money or use lawyers you pay – and/or buy a SCOTUS ruling then what you are doing is buying nand selling people.

    Corruption due to the endemic dicscrimination of women entered SCOTUS as it landed in the clerks office and clerks handle the cases first. The conflict of interest SCOTUS has? BRITAIN as it refuses to aknowledge it is not British and so clings to the system of writs when it is impossible to remove a king via a writ. There’s no due process for royalty – you go to war to remove a king or you assasinate a king. what writ covers that? It doesn’t. To inssit that we must ask for a writ is to kowtow to SCOTUS and what is British; it gives SCOTUS unequal power. And when the actual model for the constitution is not the Magna Carta but the Iroquoise Confederacy. The Maga Carta is our indirect relative; the Confederacy is our direct relative.

    In 1790 SCOTUS allowed for British crown lawyers to take over the ssytem and then violated the spearation of powers by allowing memebers of Congress entry to the bar. You guys instituted rule by lawyers and bankers but now deny it. SCOTUS sasy out loud in its own website “We are violating yoru rights” and you all roll over! If SCOTUS telsl you that it is noy yoru right ot appear then it is saying you have zero right to the protection of the Constitution. Sorry SCOTUS but John Marshall said if carfty Susan Herbert can vest that right by engaging you over and over when all you do is violate the law so she creates a docket you can never reason away then she has vested her interest and rigth to appear; just to make sure she’ll ask for HEARING IN PERSON AS HER AWARD; she’ll say I DEMAND YOU GIVE THE PEOPLE THE DAY IN COURT THEY WERE DENIED IN 2000 AND ARE STILL DENIED. She’ll prove she knows US law better than all 9 Justices thus every lawyer in this nation and SCOTUS keeps her out only as…she holds no law license! She’s not a “certified” member of the SCOTUS bar, the British Accreditation Registry.

    SCOTUS can’t have The People knowing and actign upon the idea that The People hnot SCOTUS have all of the power. Due to BVG? YOU had all of the power but didn’t know it as a tied rulign is then thrown to you so all I did was catch it and brign it back to SCOTUS only I resovled it in our favor not in favor of the lawyers.

    EVERY person on the 2008 ballot was not legal due to prior actions of SCOTUS and the discrimination of women; all I did was come along and show SCOTUS there is a chink in the process for which Blackstone’s has no answer as ithis point of law is uniquely American not British. I also poved that we now have sitting Justices who aren’t as smart as the average citizen due to politicization. You need ZERO qualifications to act as President or Chief Justice. SCOTUS can make up all the rules it wants. So what? We call it rule as its not the law. SCOTUS clerks went apolectic when I said, “sorry but the label ‘Supremen court’ doesn;t fool me. It’s still noyl ruke no matter what lebel you oalce in front of it. Now I’ll sue you personally for saying what you just said to me as you may not force me to join the criminal element to then enter SCOTUS in person as our law is come as you are. Law school did not even exist in 1776.”

    I always knew natural birth is the case for women thus The People. But only a woman can argue it. I always knew SCOTUS was the means to an end: The end of rule by lawyers and bankers and the institution of rule by scientists and philosophers. Merely: BLAME SCOTUS! In the caseo of elections? you count the institution as a whole one or you count each vote as an absolute one; you don’t mix the two. Now, why would the BVG lawyers want and need to sneak into SCOTUS?

    They were counting absolute ones. Each vote. There are enoguh FL’s that we could have swayed the vote either way; that is, upon a ruling of a new vote we could have called the election alone or upon the other sattes cryign foul a new vote in all 50 states could have called it either way. But inside SCOTUS? You only have 9 Justices; 9 can’t sway the vote at all. 1 can sway the vote: A Chief justice alone could have stood down criminal Clinton calling for a new vote or all 9 Justices could have acted unanimously.But any dissent? A tie! In SCOTUS it’s alwasy one whole court acting as one!!! Thus any dissent pitted it at 1 whole court v 1 whole court as you do not sutract. See if you count the citizens votes as only one for Gore or Bush but then count the Justices votes alone – each one – they voted twice and they then have more legal power than you. Per curiam? Asd it’s always one whole court acting it is wholly irrational to invoke per curiam; it was a ruse meant to fool you and it worked. It worked as the exact injury discrimination causes is one whereby you do not deeply own the concept of absolutes versus whole numbers (it’s why girls seem to do poorly in math around puberty, as they are then beign absoluted to death; it’s the annhilation of self) thus an injured population would fall for this nasty lawyer trick. If you’re no longer liberty aware as a nation, if you’ve lsot all selfawareness as a nation, you would fall for it but I didn’t.

    Now, even if you do not read these petitions why do you keep makign excuses for Obama when he confessed with his own mouth and when he did not know BVg for wehat it is thus could never, ever protect you from the lawyers and bankers? If he can’t accord women justice and can’t keep you safe he can’t fulfill the oath! But you keep claiming he can so the lawyers have you where they need you to be: In denial.

    If you ask your self any question ask yourself if it’s coicidence that Obama claimed to be a dual citizen and Britian was one of those dualities. Foreignization both McCain and Obama is meant to keep women out and keep one other animal out: Ethical citizens. SCOTUS may not have meant to do it but it did and now it refuses to aplogize or even so much as admit that it heard BVG, lol. SCOTUS refuses to admit it answers to The People only and they don’t have to admit it as long as you buy anything you see on the dokcet – when you have no idea who wrote it or even who saw your petition and when the word DENIAL could mean anythign -as it is depdent upno eah treh pettiton reads; you match the petition to the Constitution. If the SCOTUS docket does not square with both? SCOTUS is wrong. You know how SCOTUS casims it never has ot name a reason for not hearign a case? Nope as in authority cases it must name a reason it it refuses to hear it in person. An authority case IS the Constitution so why wouldn’t SCOTUS hear it? If it’s out to harm you, like give yoru vote away, that’s why.

    My guess is the DOJ is going to tell us that the clerks hijacked the petition as I quoted everything they told me over the phone so a clerk wouldn’t want a Justice to see it plus I heard the clerks arguing about me and the htne missing unfiled documents when I called one day. I’m not the only person to ever suffer this injury but I’m the only person who knew to file it as an authority case and the only nonlawyer who could and did enter on paper as a lawyer who suffered this injury wouldn’t have an authority case as they have unclean hands. LOL! About the sixth time a lawyer told me SCOTUS clerks were tampering with the cases filed I said, “I’m gonna find out for myself as my testimony is first person eyewitness.” Obama could be anyone but it is very, very convienent for the persons already entrenched that he’s British by birth upno his own admission. Obama would have no reason to change an unjust system that benefitted him as a lawyer, would he?

    It’s physics: In order for the Executive to be overthrown via a direct vote your judicary has already fallen or else its not possible as our Founders expressly meant to disallow the making of law via a direct vote of the People as it has never worked once in all of history. If you directly vote to violate the Constitution? It’s chaos – you’ve voted to harm yourself – and it’s another form of government but its no longer a Republic. The election of 2008 then was never going to be legal until SCOTUS began obeying the Constitution, get it? Well, it hasn’t obeyed it since soon after John Marshall’s death and if SCOTUS has its way you all be in actual chains before it gets in line with US law.

    The only actual conspiracy is one you all missed: The unethical versus the ethical.

    I can’t believe that you believe what lawyers are telling you…a judge can’t DENY sworn first person eyewitness testimony! That’s like denying the Holocaust ever happened as you killed all of the witnesses or you weren’t there. In this case the clerks and Justices were there. The point of law?

    You, a citizen, don’t know a lie when you READ one.

    Susan.

  59. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy December 8, 2009 at 8:10 am #

    I would certainly agree, and have written, that the Supreme Court is not always right, just look at Dred Scott or Plessy v. Ferguson.

    When I compare mathematical truth with legal truth, I see two parallel systems that both operate according to a set of rules. Mathematical truth for Real Analysis is governed by the application of logic to the axioms and postulates of the complete ordered field. Mathematical truth is judged by a consensus of mathematicians that the proofs are valid. Legal truth is governed by the application of logic to the US Constitution, legislation and common law. Legal truth is judged by the Supreme Court.

    The United States is nation of laws, and in the United States we are governed by what the Supreme Court says the law is. We remain free to dissent; however if we do dissent, there may be consequences.

    [I often correct the occasional typo I find in comments, but I decided not to spell correct Susan’s comment because it would alter its character.]

  60. avatar
    Rickey December 8, 2009 at 11:12 am #

    You have won against SCOTUS if you enter an argument that is airtight based upon math as we don’t argue good math only bad math.

    When we speak of “winning” a case before SCOTUS, we normally are talking about “prevailing” in the case. You certainly have not “prevailed” on any of your cases before SCOTUS, as all of them have been denied.

    No. 07-9804
    Title:
    In Re Susan Herbert, Petitioner
    v.
    Docketed: March 12, 2008

    ~~~Date~~~ ~~~~~~~Proceedings and Orders~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
    Mar 11 2008 Petition for a writ of mandamus and/or prohibition and motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed. (Response due April 11, 2008)
    Apr 1 2008 Waiver of right of respondent Federal Respondent to respond filed.
    Apr 3 2008 DISTRIBUTED for Conference of April 18, 2008.
    Apr 21 2008 Petition DENIED.
    May 7 2008 Petition for Rehearing filed.
    May 13 2008 DISTRIBUTED for Conference of May 29, 2008.
    Jun 2 2008 Rehearing DENIED.

    No. 08-6622
    Title:
    In Re Susan Herbert, Petitioner
    v.
    Docketed: October 6, 2008

    ~~~Date~~~ ~~~~~~~Proceedings and Orders~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
    Oct 3 2008 Petition for a writ of mandamus and/or prohibition and motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed. (Response due November 5, 2008)
    Nov 20 2008 DISTRIBUTED for Conference of December 5, 2008.
    Dec 8 2008 Petition DENIED.

    No. 09-6777
    Title:
    Susan Herbert, Petitioner
    v.
    United States, et al.
    Docketed: October 1, 2009
    Lower Ct: United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit
    Case Nos.: (09-10661)
    Decision Date: August 3, 2009

    ~~~Date~~~ ~~~~~~~Proceedings and Orders~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
    Sep 22 2009 Petition for a writ of certiorari and motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed. (Response due November 2, 2009)
    Oct 13 2009 Waiver of right of respondents United States, et al. to respond filed.
    Oct 22 2009 DISTRIBUTED for Conference of November 6, 2009.
    Nov 9 2009 Petition DENIED.

    So where do you go from here?

  61. avatar
    Black Lion December 8, 2009 at 12:41 pm #

    Susan, with all due respect have you ever been under the care of a mental health professional? Have you neglected to take your medication recently? Because I have somewhat of a legal mind and what you say is utter nonsense…

    “I happen to be the very first American citizen to successfully claim ownership of all of the knowledge found within the Declaration and the Constitution and then I became the first American to overcome all fear and so act upon that truth.” Do you relaize how delusional that makes you sound? If you haven’t already done so you may want to seek professional help.

  62. avatar
    Gordon December 8, 2009 at 1:24 pm #

    I think you nailed it. Anytime I see a long, rambling discourse like Susan’s, with all the indiscriminate use of caps, I suspect medication issues.

  63. avatar
    Benji Franklin December 8, 2009 at 1:50 pm #

    Dear Susan,

    You are wasting your time trying to communicate with mere mortals.

    Don’t despair! Deities have the devil’s own time trying to get a pro se fair shake from an appeal to SCOTUS!

    Magnificently, you have found a way to escape the prison of rational thought that respect for the English language compels so many of us to defer to.

    When it comes to explaining the LAW, Orly Taitz is a poor excuse for the likes of you. As a jurist and articulate communicator, she isn’t even fit to be your vestigal twin.

    Not since my pre-verbal infancy have I received the English language unfolding into utterances whose every comprising word somehow renders moot, in turn, all the words that immediately preceded it!

    Moreover, you do it without having to resort to succinction.

    Thank you for your posting; I have not been so enlightened on the Law since the last time I listened interminably to a Raven randomly quothing.

    Sincerely,
    Benji Franklin

  64. avatar
    SFJeff December 8, 2009 at 1:55 pm #

    “a pack of physicists operating out of Rockford, IL”

    Nothing is more dangerous than physicists who run in packs. I would suggest avoiding Rockford IL, especially during a full moon.