New SCOTUS Case Against Obama Docketed

[drkitten]

So you know: I even went so far as to challenge Sotomayor’s recent unconstitutional appointment. She cannot rule in this case and may not sit after I am heard depending upon her actions. This then means one of two things: SCOTUS can tie it thus throwing the decision ot you or Roberts can rule all alone a la Marshall thus supporting the Executive Order I issued against Obama.

Or a third thing. The SCOTUS will deny cert to an obviously meritless case.

Susan, what are you going to do when the SCOTUS declines to hear your case?

 

[Peephole]

what

 

[Cleon]

Susan, what are you going to do when the SCOTUS declines to hear your case?

Talk to Orly Taitz.

 

[quixotecoyote]

Talk to Orly Taitz.

That would be so perfect.

 

[SusanConstant]

11/06/09

I'm set to be conferenced once again on 11/06/09. SCOTUS dockets but does not conference meritless cases and in this case?

Only SCOTUS can hear the case; if they do not allow an appearance in person in this case then the Constitution is not actual or real for anybody but lawyers. You have zero protection of the law exactly like women have always had zero protection of the law. Thus justice would be nonexistent in the US for men now. Also Roberts cannot overcome the conflict any other way but hearing in person. I highly doubt Roberts will harm his own person! He wouldn't have any protection of the law if he refuses ot hear the case in person, get it?

It's known as peer review as SCOTUS must now subject itself to the review of The People as SCOTUS answers to The People only.

Let's see...so far I have managed to do what every single person said was not humanly possible and I've done what no other American has ever done: forced the Chief Justice to stand aside on 11/20/09.

I'm four for four as you are supposed to abide by a pro se constitutional authority case of o.j. when SCOTUS sets it for conferencing as hearing in person is not supposed to be neccessary as you are to know US law thus anyone not abiding by my ruling and order? Which then is the Declaration and Constitution? You know, actual reality known as those two documents and US history?

You're now liable.

John Marshall said: You aren't supposed to wait for a court to rule to obey the law; he said no court ruling is neccessary as ignorance of the law is not an excuse. Exactly as YOU and YOUR ACTIONS prove the paper not the other way around as YOU are the government and law! You're the constitution; that other stuff? Institutions. You are living they are dead. You emote and you reason; you are endowed with will and liberty - paper is not!!! The paper did not do a damn thing for you as rights are inalienable; all the paper did was make you consciously aware your rights are inalienable.

Some you have slept through both American Revolutions and are yet asleep!

 

[uk_dave]

I like Ranch dressing with my salad.

 

[Brainster]

Susan, I have good news and I have bad news. The good news is that you will be invested with the power of the presidency next Saturday.

The bad news is that you are now personally liable for the $43 trillion owed to Ambassador Leo Wanta.

 

[Foolmewunz]

Unfortunately, I've run through Susan's original thread here and know this is not a put up job. Otherwise I'd be certain this is designed to make NYCCAN and Orly Taitz seem reasonable and normal.

 

[Darth Rotor]

Unfortunately, I've run through Susan's original thread here and know this is not a put up job. Otherwise I'd be certain this is designed to make NYCCAN and Orly Taitz seem reasonable and normal.

One must admit, the entertainment value is greater than zero.

DR

 

[ToddH]

 

[ktesibios]

An aside: I unseated Bush first on June 5th, 2007 at 12:12:31 PM; I then went after every single candidate on the ballot and then stood down every single office holder between myself and the Office of the Executive including the military. On 11/05/08 I forced the US into default as the US failed to respond.

Considering the fact that George W. Bush continued to serve as President until the inauguration of Barack Obama on Jan. 20, 2009, your claim cannot be reconciled with reality.

You keep using the word "treason". I do not think it means what you think it means

Considering those facts, along with the nature of your OP, which is a disjointed word salad cobbled together out of tidbits of long-since debunked tax denier conspiracy theories and your previous performance on this forum and the fact that you claim to be the President and able to issue Executive Orders which top-level Federal officials are compelled to obey, I can only conclude that if you are not an insane person you are doing an excellent job of playing one on the Internet.

 

[Travis]

I move that the OP be declared the Constitution for the new nation of Discordania!

I'm set to be conferenced once again on 11/06/09. SCOTUS dockets but does not conference meritless cases and in this case?

You think that alone means your case has merit?

Only SCOTUS can hear the case; if they do not allow an appearance in person in this case then the Constitution is not actual or real for anybody but lawyers.

Which is only your opinion.

You have zero protection of the law exactly like women have always had zero protection of the law.

The woman across the street from me, whose husband is now in jail because I reported him for domestic violence, would beg to differ.

Thus justice would be nonexistent in the US for men now. Also Roberts cannot overcome the conflict any other way but hearing in person. I highly doubt Roberts will harm his own person! He wouldn't have any protection of the law if he refuses ot hear the case in person, get it?

Except only you think your case is some proving ground for the inherent rights of US citizens. I can think that telephones are powered by wizard magic and mate with hamburgers to produce tornado's as offspring. Thinking something does not make it so.

It's known as peer review as SCOTUS must now subject itself to the review of The People as SCOTUS answers to The People only.

Only in bizzaro world civics class.

Let's see...so far I have managed to do what every single person said was not humanly possible and I've done what no other American has ever done: forced the Chief Justice to stand aside on 11/20/09.

So Roberts will be recusing himself?

I'm four for four as you are supposed to abide by a pro se constitutional authority case of o.j. when SCOTUS sets it for conferencing as hearing in person is not supposed to be neccessary as you are to know US law thus anyone not abiding by my ruling and order? Which then is the Declaration and Constitution? You know, actual reality known as those two documents and US history?

I'm trying very hard to follow your train of thought here.......You think the setting of a conference will someone mean that your case will lead to new "ruling and order?" There's also something about "actual reality" as it pertains to the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution...........you've lost me.

You're now liable.

John Marshall said: You aren't supposed to wait for a court to rule to obey the law; he said no court ruling is neccessary as ignorance of the law is not an excuse. Exactly as YOU and YOUR ACTIONS prove the paper not the other way around as YOU are the government and law! You're the constitution; that other stuff? Institutions. You are living they are dead. You emote and you reason; you are endowed with will and liberty - paper is not!!! The paper did not do a damn thing for you as rights are inalienable; all the paper did was make you consciously aware your rights are inalienable.

Some you have slept through both American Revolutions and are yet asleep!

So....... the paper took away our rights....which we always had....because we are alive and paper is not.......and we're asleep.

I sure hope you do a better job articulating your ideas at this conference than you did here.

 

[Tricky]

I have zero proof the 16th is constitutional but tons of proof it is not.

Amendments to the Constitution are, by definition, constitutional.

 

[Eyeron]

I move that this thread is like Hungry Hungry Hippos. Hungry for saying a lot without actually saying anything.

 

[MattusMaximus]

 

[Gord_in_Toronto]

I move that this thread is like Hungry Hungry Hippos. Hungry for saying a lot without actually saying anything.

So who's the naughty person who lost all the marbles?

 

[WildCat]

Unfortunately, I've run through Susan's original thread here and know this is not a put up job. Otherwise I'd be certain this is designed to make NYCCAN and Orly Taitz seem reasonable and normal.

It's actually a Turing test project.

 

[tyr_13]

Amendments to the Constitution are, by definition, constitutional.

TRAITOR!

 

[The Central Scrutinizer]

Susan V Obama, Roberts, Hull and the US: I told you I'd make this case...I could not know exactly when only that I would. I'm the Susan in the caption, ....

blah blah blah blah blah

Granting this Writ then is an actual stimulus package.

tl;dr

I'm assuming it's a loony-tune rant? Could you give us your loony-tune theory in 100 words or less?

 

[The Central Scrutinizer]

I'm set to be conferenced once again on 11/06/09.

You misspelled "committed".

Some you have slept through both American Revolutions and are yet asleep!

I hate myself for asking this, but just out of curiosity, was the one in 1776 the first or second? Either way, can you give the dates of each?