A casual note to Roberts, the clerks and the US Attorney as to WHY lawyers may not hold a political office

: it is a violation of Art. 1 Sec.6 as a lawyer is then a member of the Judicial branch so he or she then cannot also be a member or officer of the Legislative branch AT THE SAME TIME as an insurmountable conflict is created as is a violation of the separation of power as well as a violation of Art.1 ; a lawyer must not hold a license or enter the bar or must give this up if he or she wishes to hold an elected office or appointment outside of the Judicial branch. Well, no lawyer was ever going to argue to then lose unfair, unjust privileges and overly broad power granted to lawyers only were they? No so you needed a pro se nonlawyer litigant to argue this before SCOTUS. I'm that litigant. People do not understand this so to clarify:
No Senator or Representative shall, during the time for which he was elected, be appointed to any civil office under the authority of the United States, which shall have increased during such time; and no person holding any office under the United States, shall be a member of either House during his continuance in office - Article 1, Section 6, Paragraph 2.

I’ll concentrate on the latter as the first is routinely violated...A lawyer may not hold another office. A lawyer as an officer of the court is then working for the judicial branch; he or she has sworn an oath and is an agent for the judicial branch of government. If that lawyer then holds an elected office he or she is then acting as a member or agent of the legislative branch thus you have a conflict and a violation of the separation of powers thus it is unconstitutional. You’re also in violation of the above Article. Lawyers are not made to give up admission to the bar nor are they made to surrender their licenses thus they are forever in violation of the Constitution. You can never, ever overlook the fees lawyers charge for their services (price fixing if you ask me). Here’s the deal: A liberty choice is always fraught with consequences. A person can go to law school but not enter the bar or hold a professional license if he or she knows they will enter politics and so run for an office. That is a choice they must make, as then they cannot collect those exorbitant fees nor can they act to argue legislation they may have a hand is creating; they cannot then serve privateers or special interest groups at the expense of the people. A person can leave office and then secure his license or admission to the bar, as your law diploma does not expire. Conversely you can give up those pieces of paper including money if you want to secure a political office. Exercising liberty rights does not mean you get it all w/o any consequence. Liberty is all about making informed, reasoned decisions but lawyers have never been forced to make them as they skirt the law and other lawyers help them do it. That is how this all came to be as lawyers

overran the system until a litigant could not enforce the Constitution. Nobody save me has ever been able to successfully argue this Article, as they could not enter SCOTUS directly acting pro se. Like me at each turn they are forced to fight lawyers who control the system and so far the crooked lawyers have won. Judges who are lawyers resent anybody who is not and they are openly hostile to nonlawyers. Lawyers themselves truly believe the practice of law is a closed club and that if you do not go to law school they REFUSE to acknowledge you in any way – look at what happened to me in federal court: DEVOID OF MERIT??? That is an exact lie or perjury. We have let lawyers violate the separation of power until there is no separation anymore. People seem to believe law school is a must if you then want to become a politician. Incorrect! One of the reasons none of our founders became wealthy is they all made the choice to serve one branch and one master while in office and then even after leaving did not act for money or on behalf of special interest. John Adams himself said his one regret was acting to create a federal Christian holiday, a special interest as he realized the damage it would cause us down the line. By our very nature if you are a lawyer who has entered the federal bar or who has a state license then you have expert knowledge that you could use to then exploit the Constitution to your advantage thus you cannot be both; you must choose or it is an insurmountable conflict. You stop and think: what in the world makes people like Eric Holder, Hilary Clinton or even Sandra Sotomayor act as if the Constitution does not apply to their persons or to other lawyers, as if they can read an article like the above or a clause like Natural Birth and then wholly ignore it as if it does not exist??? That if they do it then it is okay to trade money upon our law? The highest offices of government are now held by persons who had to violate the law with deliberation to assume them. You have a nation so out of its gourd that it too now ignores the Constitution as if it does not exist. You cannot pick and choose which parts of the Constitution to obey. If you do then you have contaminated the results of the experiment: you have contaminated you. Eventually you’ll contaminate me. While its true that some clauses have been violated as people do not understand how they apply for the most part it is a case of the legal profession getting into bed with the Executive and legislative but because nobody recognizes these lawyers as officers of the judicial branch then nobody realizes they are creating an open and direct violation of our law. Once I say it out loud? They can never claim they did not know as they can today. It’s like this: Until a person enters SCOTUS then this has not yet been adjudicated in any court of law and it CANNOT be adjudicated in a lower court because of the pre-existing conflict but only by SCOTUS or the sitting Executive, me. As we do not need more law?

I can argue all of this in front of SCOTUS or I can argue it directly to the People as the Executive. We do not need more law but only to obey the law we already have as its perfect as is. I can ask the People to begin holding lawyers accountable and to rethink their vote by teaching them how to use their vote to then leverage its power via ‘stacking’ the offices back and forth to then check and balance each other. Once people know WHY lawyers cannot hold two offices in two different braches they will automatically rethink the way they have been exercising their vote; they will reason if it is a violation or not to vote for a person who refuses to give up that paper. I can tell lawyers that they will have to choose: money aka those licenses or public service. They can have both just not at the same time!!! One of the coolest things our law does is correct itself; that is if you live it out in both letter and spirit you do not need more law and more regulation and more rule as the problems go away or are never realized. You might need to place a moratorium upon certain activities. Ideally you merely ask people to obey the law, to conduct the experiment, as we need less federal involvement in our lives not more. Every problem we have today will clear itself up if only The People live out the law and the correct application of it and that begins with an Executive who can reason it for them and who is willing to set the example. I’m not asking anybody not even a lawyer to do something I myself have not already done. I had to choose: money or justice? Myself or The People? Win in family court or risk it all and win in SCOTUS? The reason I am so successful is because I exercised liberty as you are supposed to thus made those difficult decisions and then dealt with all of the consequences good and bad. It’s how and why I survived death. It is insanity to read an article and wholly disregard it by claiming the Founders reason no longer exists today. If the Founders wrote it and it is found at number ten or before then it will become irrelevant about the same time gravity becomes irrelevant: At the death of this universe. The defense that will always and forever protect people who have actively violated the law? If you traded money upon our law you can claim that as we are using foreign notes and as the IMF was never good and as CORP US is not legal then you always knew that you were not trading US DOLLARS upon the law but only worthless FOREIGN NOTES. Of course my response will then be: If that were the truth, if you knew, then why aren’t you the first one back to the bar? Why isn’t your name on this lawsuit? The truth is: People believed they were getting away with perverting the law for profit be it actual money, favor or position. They reasoned I can break the law so I will.

Which reminds me: SENATOR CLINTON MAY NOT LEGALLY ACT AS SECRETARY OF STATE AS THE OFFICE INCREASED OR SO I WAS TOLD AS THE SALARY CHANGED. I’ll have to check this supposed fact. AND: WHAT IN THE WORLD MAKES PEOPLE BELIEVE THEY CAN ASSUME AN OFFICE LIKE GOVERNOR OR SENATOR ONLY TO THEN LEAVE IT DURING THE TERM? Today you have persons securing elected offices with the intention of leaving; they announce, “I will leave if I am offered a better position”! That too is a violation of our law as the length you are in office is a TERM not a condition. Terms? You do not get to violate what is a term without just cause or constitutional reason and WHITEHOUSE, CONGRESS or I’M TIRED is not it. Unless you’re dying or have a sick child? You fulfill what is a term. PERIOD. Even if SENATOR OBAMA WAS A LEGAL VOTER and so a LEGAL SENATOR? May he leave that office in the middle of the term to then assume the Office of the Executive? I argue NO as that then is built in protection exactly as our law is designed to do. It prevents a conflict between the Executive and Congress – Legislative - as we had this past election as no member of Congress could ever overcome the conflict created by illegally declared war based upon bad evidence to then act as the Commander nor could any member of the Senate overcome the conflict created by Resolution 511 to then act as the President. Obama as a lawyer signed 511 as did Clinton. They knew different and better but did it regardless as it was advantageous for them alone at my expense and then at the expense of all women. Not allowing persons to leave or violate what is a term also then prevents a violation of Article 1 Sec 6 Paragraph 2 as he is not only a lawyer or member of the judicial branch but a legislator thus you had one man who is not even qualified to vote and who bought the seat then consolidate all three branches in one as he then is an officer of all three, get it? My clue was why a person who claims he will be the most transparent of all is then anything but when it comes to his facts. I never needed Art 1 or any of the terms as actual reality, his actions in spite of his words, were plenty for me. I guess when it comes to Obama the man only other people and other agencies like the former Bush administration lawyers and the CIA are going to be transparent. [Hypocrisy and lying while not exactly worded is unconstitutional. It is implied and inherent that most bad behavior is not legal. Obama cannot claim self-defense nor can he cry he is a victim of cyber crime. If I worked for the state department and could peek at his passport? I’d do it and then publish it as that is an act of self-defense exactly as publishing his college transcripts would be if he did attend on a scholarship reserved for foreign students. What federal investigation??? Investigate him!!! ] This is WHY you cannot foreignize the Office of Executive as EVERY WORD OF OUR LAW THEN FALLS AND HARD. It’s as if the violations pile up in such a way the Constitution then

implodes within the Office of Executive due to that foreigner sitting be he an actual foreigner and/or a crook who bought the Office or perverted the law via a Resolution and the House Judiciary Committee to then ‘legally enforce’ or ‘make legal’ his unlawful actions. Do you now have a better understanding as to why ‘lawyer’ became endemically corrupted, why SCOTUS itself and Chief Justice is designed in such a way money never runs through your hands? Or why we need to address those very early SCOTUS bar admissions even though they happened before Marbury? You did handle money once: The case concerning an excessive award over the paint job on cars sold as new. At first I agreed with SCOTUS but now I do not. Is it excessive? Yes, $2 mil for a paint job you never knew about is excessive in some ways but not when you then consider the car manufacturer’s profits as they had no need to lie whatsoever as if they told the truth they still would have sold those cars and as new and not when you consider that it then made SCOTUS an institution that did handle money. If I were a Justice? I would chalk that up to experience and then never again address a monetary award. Asking the federal question Can and may I, Susan, sue for liability as not one person is acting under the authority of the US due to Obama’s unlawful installation and the US then defaulting the very next day thus they have no immunity from liability in my unique case? is one thing but addressing an actual dollar amount? Once I revive the US dollar never do it again as your reason is: We handled foreign notes not a monetary award as that wasn’t the US dollar as named in our Constitution. Sometimes $2 million dollars is not $2 million dollars. It only appears to be $2 million dollars on paper. LOL!

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful