New SCOTUS Case Against Obama Docketed

[The Central Scrutinizer]

Amendments to the Constitution are, by definition, constitutional.

On Earth, yes.

 

[The Central Scrutinizer]

Susan, do you have any updates for us, or have the orderlies taken away your computer privileges?

 

[MattusMaximus]

Scrut, it's obvious that THEY got to her

 

[CptColumbo]

An amendment to the Constitution is unconstitutional? That's amazing logic.

I kinda did a double-take on that too.

An attorney who doesn't know what an amendment to a constitution means, no wonder they didn't pass a bar exam?

 

[CptColumbo]

BTW the United States Declaration of Independence is not a legal document. It is basically a letter to George the Third and Parliament, whose text was approved by the congress, announcing the 13 Colonies independence and explaining why they were declaring independence from the the British Empire. It has no more bearing on US law than the Articles of Confederation (which is none). It is however a statement of the beliefs upon which the Nation was founded and was IIRC called "the stumbling block for future tyrants" by Abraham Lincoln.

 

[Darth Rotor]

It is basically a letter to George the Third and Parliament, whose text was approved by the congress, announcing the 13 Colonies independence and explaining why they were declaring independence from the the British Empire.

Some years back I had heard that a declaration had a quasi legal standing under English custom and common law, but I'd need to look that up. Your summary is good enough, and when you discuss the deliberate self delusion of people who champion "international law" you also find a sudden resort to presuming a declaration is law.

Many international lawyers, in addition, believe that the Declaration forms part of customary international law and

From the wiki discussion of Declaration of Human rights.

Unfortunately, the declaration was an Assertion of rights, which was empty unless backed up by action and retention of those rights by both action, war, and agreement, the war ending treaty signed by both parties.

Our dear International law mugs might want to revisit their presumptions regarding the cited declaration. Who and what action is backing it up? When push comes to shove, international law boil down to an older adage, called Might Makes Right?

What does this have to do with Susan and her Constant? That fact that the above is completely lost on her, and that any post made under her OP is either off topic, since her thesis statement is hard to decipher, or that any post at all is on topic, by reason of salad.

DR

 

[dudalb]

Susan, do you have any updates for us, or have the orderlies taken away your computer privileges?

I would like to know how she snuck out to file the case. From their lousy security, I think she is a occupent of Arkham Asylum.....

 

[CptColumbo]

Welcome back, Susan. It's been a while.
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=131595

I was about a third of the way through her post and said "Oh yeah, her."

 

[KingMerv00]

It's on the docket. That doesn't mean that the Supreme Court will hear the case. It means that someone, in this case Susan Herbert, who is the attorney for Susan Herbert, has filed a request for a writ of certiorari. For those of you who don't speak Scotus-talk, that means she has filed a petition asking the court to hear the case. The court will consider the petition and either grant or deny certiorari, i.e, they will take the case, or not.

http://origin.www.supremecourtus.gov/docket/09-6777.htm

If I were a betting man, I'm thinking this is one that they won't decide to hear.

Pfft...writs get through all the time.

The court denies the vast majority of petitions and thus leaves the decision of the lower court to stand without review; it takes roughly 80 to 150 cases each term. In the most recently-concluded term, for example, 8,241 petitions were filed, with a grant rate of approximately 1.1%.

Course, the writ in the OP seems to violate the zeroeth law of civil procedure: Be understood.

 

[commandlinegamer]

I started reading, but gave up after the the third ten-thousand-word paragraph.

So she's saying the Constitution's illegal?

So in that case we Brits still own America. (I've always fancied a small spot of land in Delaware; I'm not greedy, 500 acres would do just fine.)

Thanks, Susan.

 

[CptColumbo]

BTW is she arguing that the Court should use their powers under Marbury to overturn Marbury?

 

[Sabrina]

Who is this woman and why is she claiming she's the POTUS?

I know I sure as heck didn't vote for her.

What's the precedent for impeachment of a "supposed" president anyway? 'Cause I think we got a winner here!

 

[CptColumbo]

Who is this woman and why is she claiming she's the POTUS?

I know I sure as heck didn't vote for her.

What's the precedent for impeachment of a "supposed" president anyway? 'Cause I think we got a winner here!

From what I can understand from her argument (which isn't much) she claims that no one else is eligible, therefore she is President by default.

 

[Sabrina]

From what I can understand from her argument (which isn't much) she claims that no one else is eligible, therefore she is President by default.

You understood that much?

I couldn't get anything at all!

Is she saying the rest of the general US population (i.e. those born here), all 300+ million of them, are not "natural born citizens"? If so, how the heck does she qualify? I thought (I may be misinterpreting, which, given her writing style, is HIGHLY likely) that she indicated that only the Founding Fathers met the criteria set forth. If that's the case, NO ONE ALIVE would be eligible to be President!

 

[CptColumbo]

You understood that much?

I couldn't get anything at all!

Is she saying the rest of the general US population (i.e. those born here), all 300+ million of them, are not "natural born citizens"? If so, how the heck does she qualify? I thought (I may be misinterpreting, which, given her writing style, is HIGHLY likely) that she indicated that only the Founding Fathers met the criteria set forth. If that's the case, NO ONE ALIVE would be eligible to be President!

I'm also using what she provided in a previous thread to decipher her ramblings. It's linked to earlier in the thread.

 

[KingMerv00]

BTW is she arguing that the Court should use their powers under Marbury to overturn Marbury?

Seems like a bad idea. The paradox would rip a whole in reality.

Wait...the OPer doesn't live in reality and thus would live through the implosion! She's a mad genius!

 

[CptColumbo]

Seems like a bad idea. The paradox would rip a whole in reality.

Wait...the OPer doesn't live in reality and thus would live through the implosion! She's a mad genius!

Well, if she is the only one left on the planet, then she could elect herself President. Not a bad plan.

 

[Upchurch]

Some years back I had heard that a declaration had a quasi legal standing under English custom and common law, but I'd need to look that up. Your summary is good enough, and when you discuss the deliberate self delusion of people who champion "international law" you also find a sudden resort to presuming a declaration is law.

Many international lawyers, in addition, believe that the Declaration forms part of customary international law and

Maybe, but I have to wonder, legal standing for who? The US didn't even exist until several years after the DoI was signed.

 

[The Central Scrutinizer]

Oops! Case dismissed.

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/

 

[Fiona]

I am going to try to understand this.

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 understand you so far

I'm the Susan in the caption, as I'm not giving my fully vested interest and right away to anyone not even John Roberts

Means: I have brought this case personally because I do not think anyone else will represent my interests. I think

and especially not before women are ever accorded actual legal power as the Constitution will never be actual and real for women until a woman is sitting as Chief Justice or President

Means: I think that women are denied their constitutional rights because the people who hold specific high offices are men.
From this I infer that you are in favour of some type of quota arrangement which will presumably be adjusted to ensure that these offices reflect the demographic composition of the people.

as the exclusively male sitting officers refuse to obey the law

Means: those who currently hold the offices of Chief Justice and President refuse to obey the law. The connector "as" implies that this is because they are men

and now the last two and currently illegally sitting Executive refuses to obey the Constitution.

Those same people and their two predecessors also refuse to obey the Constitution.

You can't have the Chief Law Enforcement Officer violating the law!!! No matter who it is!!!

This seems to be a contradiction but if we take out "can't" and substitute "should not" it makes a little more sense

I said Clinton owes this landlord damages; I want my security deposit back times ten.

No idea. On the face of it someone called Clinton seems to have done something to a landlord which caused damage to that landlord. Ms Constant seems to think that there is either a moral or legal duty on this Clinton person to give compensation to this landlord. I cannot imagine where the security deposit comes in.

[An aside: I unseated Bush first on June 5th, 2007 at 12:12:31 PM;

I thought this meant that Ms Constant had removed someone called Bush from an office (or possibly a horse). But I am not certain.

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 the face of it this seems to mean that Ms Constant sacked every holder of government office and military rank up to and including the executive. This cannot be what it means, however, since all of those officials are still in place. But the next bit helps us a little, perhaps

On 11/05/08 I forced the US into default as the US failed to respond.

It is possible that this means that the people concerned did not quietly leave the jobs the were elected or lawfully appointed to do, even though Ms Constant told them to: it is not clear because she refers to the "US". A state cannot leave office but if we assume this is shorthand for the US government; and that the US government is in practice the officials in office we can get there. Maybe

On 11/20/08 I entered SCOTUS directly

Ms Constant went to court

and forced direct action

No idea whatsoever

and so became the first nonlawyer to enter the SCOTUS bar ever (on paper; now I'm entering in person)

No-one who is not a lawyer has chosen to represent themselves before the supreme court before, in either a written representation or in person

and the first citizen to enter directly since William Marbury in 1803.

Not even a lawyer has chosen to represent themselves since 1803

I am also the first woman to argue her own case!

The lawyers who represented themselves before 1803 were men

I actually authored Executive Orders that SCOTUS obeyed, including one addressed to the Chief Justice

No idea at all

as your one vote is equivalent in legal power and moral authority to the President and Chief Justice

The President and the Chief Justice do not enjoy any rights or powers by virtue of their office.

so any citizen can and may issue such an order if the need arises.

"I can call spirits from the vasty deep......"

I named everyone

This seems to mean that Ms Constant specifically named every citizen in the USA on her "executive order". Can you confirm you got the notification?

as you're all complacent...

You are all satisfied with the current situation and this makes you culpable in some way

this is the domestic violence exactly named in Art. 4 Sec. 4 of the Constitution as it is now perpetrated by the federal 'authorities' w/o relief and is endemic.

This article of the constitution provides that the United States will protect the States from domestic violence where asked to do so by the State legislature (or the executive of the State if the legislature cannot be convened). So I take it that there has been violent insurrection; and the States concerned have appealed to the federal government for protection; and appealed in vain. I missed that on the news but I do not keep up with current affairs as much as I should. Sorry about that.

It is also possible that Ms Constant means that the Federal Government has invaded the States because that would also be domestic violence, arguably. Again if this has happened I missed the report. It would make sense of the bit I did not understand earlier where she said that her going to court "forced direct action", though: did the supreme court invade the states as a consequence of that action? I have checked the BBC website but their search function is not all it should be......

BTW: Our law is the one and only thing you may not do is fail to act.

This cannot mean there is law against failing to commit murder. I take it that it is not intended to apply to criminal law, therefore. With the best will in the world, and trying as hard as I can to make sense of this, I can only think that Ms Constant means there is a law against refusal to make revolution in certain circumstances. I did not know that

Marbury says if it's repugnant then it's void;

Well I have now read a little about this Marbury case: it seems to have established the process of judicial review. What this seems to mean is that it elevated the constitution to its current status as the supreme law and it made the supreme court the final arbiter in cases where constitutionality is questioned. Unfortunately that bears no relation to the quote above. Indeed Marbury lost his case, though it was acknowledged that he had been wronged: so I can make nothing of this.

you do not need to wait on any paper court order as all you do is act upon your knowledge of the fact and law. A paper court order is not neccessary!!!

I wonder if Ms Constant is still talking about Marbury here? If she is it seems to me that the case establishes the opposite. Marbury did not get his commission because he did not get his order. He did not take up his job either, though he could have tried that.

If I unseated bush then I unseated him..

"Why so can I, or so can any man;
But will they come when you do call for them?"

.SCOTUS could not act on 11/20/08 if I did not move roberts and SCOTUS with reasoning and application aka fact and law so you already have the only paper you need. What? You do not know The Constitution exists?

Nope: can't follow this at all. I don't know the law in the US so someone else can help me out perhaps. Here some cases may be appealed as of right: and for some you must be granted the right to appeal. Grounds of appeal in civil cases are usually confined to points of law or perversity: the appeal court does not review the facts of the case and in that sense it is largely a matter of a challenge to process or interpretation of statute. If you can establish that you win: and normally the case is then referred back to the lower court with instructions as to what they must address; or it is determined. There is nothing unusual about that at all.

But of course I do not have the faintest idea what Ms Constant is claiming here so that may not be relevant

I support The People, the lawful, constitutionally set government of the US. As We The People are the government we are to take government in our hands but not the law. "Government" is the seats, the offices and institutions:

Er....the means by which the people take the Government into their own hands is through the electoral process, I believe. The means by which the seat are distributed is a matter of electoral law: and the power to appoint to office is also laid down in the powers which are granted to the various offices, I think. I have no idea what is claimed here

Susan Herbert V Barack Obama, John Roberts, Frank Hull And The US has been filed and docketed within the Supreme Court; it is case number 09-6777.

Ms Constant has applied to go to court again

Frank Hull is the Federal Appellate judge who issued an ruling ordering the federal court clerks to unfile documents and return them to me unfilled

Well I don't really know but it looks like leave to appeal was either not a legal possibility, or was not granted: If it was the former I would expect the papers to be returned; if the latter, I am not sure what the practice is. There has to be a record of the decision but the court does not need all the papers to reach such a decision, necessarily. For example if a point of law is required and there is no point of law the rest is mince. The only sense I can make of it is if Ms Constant's case is that the application to appeal was not properly determined: which may be the case.

which is evidence tampering, obstruction of justice and in this case treason.

See above.

As Frank Hull then was ordering the clerk to unfile the Declaration and Constitution

The Constitution is the supreme law of the land. The only reason for filing it is as evidence where it is alleged it has been breached. Unless I am missing something Ms Constant seems to say that by denying her appeal the court was denying the supremacy of the constitution. That does not seem logical to me

– the one our Founders wrote not the made up post 1871 Constitution

I will leave this to the Americans because I have no idea what this means

– and remove it from the courthouse it then rises to treason. The federal clerks did not obey this criminal order.

See above

This case is the case to restore our original government, the original documents and the original government the Founders then lived out...it restores the constitutionally set government known as We The People in lieu of all this post Civil War nonsense – dead paper such as the DC Organic Act of 1871, the IMF, Resolution 511 and exclusionary court rules that judges invoke against the pro se nonlawyer etc. etc. - that is all unconstitutional.

Every law passed since the constitution was written, or shortly thereafter, is illegal. "I" and "we" are synonymous

It makes it possible to exercise your rights of liberty, dissolution and safety.

It is not possible to exercise the right listed without a radical rejection of everything that has happened in the last couple of centuries

It makes every citizen sovereign..

Nobody should be subject to any law at all.

.it also does away with the Federal Reserve as it is wholly unconstitutional

The federal reserve is illegal under the constitution

and it was nullified by a jury in 1968

The federal reserve was shown to be illegal under the constitution in 1968. It was presumably abolished in that year and you all lived happily ever after, since that is the only possible outcome of such a finding by the supreme court

and does away with Federal Income Tax as you may not tax what is a right and as We The People check SCOTUS.

Income tax is unconstitutional. Since the right to impose tax is specifically granted in the constitution this must be in the other one.

In case you do not yet understand:

I don't

SCOTUS is organic

No, you lost me: are you saying that the institution is organic? I think not. Or that the people who hold the offices are organic? I certainly do not think that is open to dispute.

to the constitutionally set government known as We The People not the paper!

This bit makes no sense at all to me: sorry people

It answers to The People only not to any other branch.

The supreme court is appointed by itself with no vetting process at all

In 1790 a violation of separation of power occurred that has never been addressed

Something happened in 1790 which violated the separation of the three branches of government: nobody did anything about it

as SCOTUS’ jurisprudence has never been adjudicated so I’m doing it.

No idea

At Marbury we secured a do-over with SCOTUS

I am not sure what a "do-over" is.

<snip for repetition>

I needed and wanted him to create the only paper birth certificate that rises to proof that a citizen is natural born:

Ms Constant went to the Supreme Court to get a birth certificate

The SCOTUS docket naming me as both victim and pro se counsel and with the word DENIED on it.

The supreme court denied the petition

If your legal argument is that We The People have been denied justice absolutely and that even SCOTUS came to violate the Constitution

Ms Constant's petition for a birth certificate founded on the argument that the whole of the american people have been denied constitutional justice and that the supreme court is complicit in that.

then SCOTUS must write DENIED

The argument relied on is doomed before it is made

thus concurring.

The failure of the doomed argument proves the point: peace is war

If they write granted? You have no case!

If the petition is granted the petitioner has lost their case: truth is lies

DENIED allowed me to go back and name John Roberts exactly thus leveling the playing field as upon re-entry to SCOTUS the case then becomes all pro se litigants against those who are not:

Nobody who is in the new case has a right to representation. Except those who do. Who are the adversary. Or something

Susan and Roberts V Obama and the US, Corp US that is.

No idea

John Roberts and I are equivalent legal authorities that now represent We The People meaning: Susan Herbert not Barack Obama is the acting, legal President and Commander of the US government, The People.

Ms Constant is the President of the United States: not sure why John Roberts is not nor am I sure why any one of the americans here is not: but there it is

The military already sided with me as about ten years ago

The military takes its orders from Ms Constant

the Joint Chiefs issued a statement that they would support the person who was able to restore the original jurisdiction government. They were contacted again; I highly doubt they will inform John Roberts and I that they are no longer wiling to enforce the Constitution.

The military will continue to take its orders from Ms Constant

As this is the case for YOU?

Ms Constant is doing this for americans own good

The biggest thing you can do to help yourself is publicize that this case has been docketed in order to put pressure on the media and Congress..

You should make a noise about this case for your own good

.

the reason the other branches do not want it heard is ALL OF THEM THEN WILL HAVE TO GO HOME AND/OR GO TO JAIL.

The people currently elected or otherwise appointed to office will soon be sacked and/or jailed leaving Ms Constant in clear command

The media keeps pretending that history did not happen, as privateers who will also be affected by the case own the media.

They can’t ignore what The People do not ignore; if The People make a fuss they will have ot get in line with me and Roberts thus the law.

Those who will be sacked and/or go to jail own the media. Despite this they will fall into line if you shout at them

So you know: I even went so far as to challenge Sotomayor’s recent unconstitutional appointment.

A new supreme court judge is ineligible to serve for some reason

She cannot rule in this case and may not sit after I am heard

She will be prevented from doing her job because of this

depending upon her actions.

Or maybe not

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.

All the other supreme court judges are eligible to serve for some reason. They will not be able to reach a majority decision for some reason. It may be they will all decline to rule except of the chief justice for some reason.

Oh - as Obama sat and as he claimed to be an expert, a constitutional law professor?

Ms Constant doubts Mr Obama's legal expertise

His actions are criminal

Self evident

but first and foremost he has to appear pro se as the oath of Office is I WILL not My Lawyer Will.

Ms Constant interprets the Presidential oath to mean that he must do everything himself

He says he can

Obama says he can do something or other

so let's see if he can

Ms Constant would like him to demonstrate he can do something or other

as I happen to know you can swear to do the impossible, what only The Creator can do, but it won't ever happen unless you actually are The Creator,

Ms Constant has realised that she cannot spit from here to the moon even if she swears she can

lol. I'm giving him an equal opportunity to prove or disprove himself

Ms Constant believes her opinion matters to Obama

exactly as I did Clinton and Bush Jr.

and to the last two presidents, I think

Roberts and I are equals acting pro se so he too must act pro se.

If some parties to litigation decide to represent themselves that removes the right of representation from all other parties to it

If he does not he is entering a plea of no contest

Not sure: either this means the other party retains the legal right to representation but not the moral right: or it means he loses the legal right and if he chooses not to represent himself he loses by default.

and as the US is in default and has been since 11/05/08?

Ms Constant has obtained some legal judgement against the USA which it has so far failed to honour. I think it was when she sacked them all. T

As the US failed to respond at all?

They didn't clear their desks

He has to appear;

Something about the law makes it incumbent on Obama to appear in court and represent himself.

you elected him to represent you not the Solicitor General.

Obama was elected to represent the electors. Either he was not elected to represent the Solicitor General or the Solicitor General was not elected to represent you.

Plus: The Bill of Rights says I, Susan, do not need to convene a grand jury in his case!

Ms Constant is mentioned in the bill of rights?

I have no time to do any more and to be honest I am not sure I am going to learn any more if I do. So I will stop