• Embed Doc
  • Copy Link
  • Readcast
  • Collections
  • CommentGo Back
Download
 
Jurisdictional Statement
Appellant has actual reason to author a lengthy jurisdictional statement as Appellant seeks tohave a pro se case of constitutional authority and original jurisdiction heard via the granting of anappearance 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 andmoral authority and not this court as all offices have been unchecked due to Bush V Gore thusthis court itself is unchecked, the discrimination of women now rests within the Supreme Courtof the US, the office or the power of Executive was openly purchased in 2008, Barack Obamaacts in direct violation of the law recently swearing he could do what is not possible for him todo according to our law and as no precedent exists which covers my unique situation, a first inall of US history. In my unique case the US is in breach of both governing contracts. I am withinthis court due to an illegal action of the Supreme Court, which then requires me to receive anorder from this court before being refiled in the Supreme Court
after I already achieved direct entry on November 20
th
 
 
 , 2008. 
Under US law, Marbury and 42 USC 1983 this court may exercise moral authority only andadjudicate the actual issue which is not the latest ruling but if my human and civil rights areviolated and if judicial review is a myth or if it is even legal in my case or send it ahead to theUS Supreme Court ordering the Supreme Court to hear this case in person as the rules dictateshould be done. I had no desire to file within this court; as the Supreme Court kept me outunconstitutionally and then refused to acknowledge my direct entry but then did acknowledge itwanted 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 
1
 
 possible
which is a lie itself and that although Marbury entered directly and although Marbury VMadison states that you can and may enter directly upon a Writ of Prohibition no woman, nomother and no nonlawyer was ever going to be allowed to enter SCOTUS at all let alone directlydue to policy both personal and official. Even after I did it the clerks refused to admit to the truthof it: A federal case that is heard in a lower court
is not 
an original jurisdiction case. As SCOTUSrefused to hear these cases and as lawlessness abounded injustice built up until in or around 2000SCOTUS began hearing what it labeled cases of “original jurisdiction” which were actuallycases in which the caption alone was changed to make it seem as if it is an original case or inwhich the courts itself were the issue thus new injury is cited upon a Writ of Certiorari but theyare labeled “original jurisdiction”. For instance, Bush V Gore was not heard upon appeal fromFL 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. Thesecases were not and are not actual original jurisdiction cases but the Supreme Court has allowedthis perception to thrive and become instilled as actual belief, that is, the citizens have no ideathat only Marbury V Madison entered SCOTUS directly with no lower court ruling as did I andthat 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 as it is being lived out.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 allvolunteers and as you have no moral authority if you are not willing as moral authority
is
will. I2
 
am the only absolute class of one in US history and all other cases of constitutional authorityhave been granted an appearance in person in US Supreme Court as if they were not? It wouldthen be impossible – 
impossible
– for women and Susan Herbert exactly to redress the violationof fully vested, protected constitutional rights or for anyone to exercise basic 1
st
amendmentrights.Federal judges do not seem to grasp this complex legal concept regarding the point of law, a partof which actually is correct jurisdiction as Marbury himself then became Marbury the precedentthus creating the Supreme Court but not
as it exists today outside of our law
 
as people are to bethe living law but people do not believe SCOTUS is our law so it is not within them exactly
asSusan herself will become the precedent, Susan Herbert V Obama and the US et. al, creating theSupreme Court as it will exist,
within or as a part of our living law
 
aka We, the people
as I amcorrecting a mistaken belief the people have: That paper is proof when it is not and the SupremeCourt is an authority outside of their person as it ought never to be as it should be their faith andas that mistaken belief itself violates Marbury. In my case the living constitution, the actualliving person, becomes a living institution known as a federal court ruling in a pro seconstitutional authority case IF the plaintiff makes it into Supreme Court, if SCOTUS acts uponthe knowledge contained in the paper petition. I, Susan, can, will and did already adjudicate myown case, that is I made my case, or else direct entry to SCOTUS would not have occurred asSCOTUS conferenced me twice and upon a third attempt, an emergency application, acted uponmy reasoning and fact and so entered me directly - but then never filed my case. Acting is proof not paper. Federal judges wrongly assume if you were denied or lost in the Supreme Court youhave no case when this is not close to the truth, as you must have a point of law to beconferenced; but to be acted upon in such a way direct entry occurs? You made your case.3
of 00

Leave a Comment

You must be to leave a comment.
Submit
Characters: ...
You must be to leave a comment.
Submit
Characters: ...