I have to hand collate the petition so its taking longer to enter it.

I wanted it out by last Thursday but it will have to be by this Thursday. He confessed on national TV folks. What if the Justices never read my petition or if they did had no idea what I was saying as they could not know that BVG is a crime as they are the victims??? If you're a victim you'd know, correct? Wrong! I reasoned it briefly for you in a way you should understand - easily. If you tell me that you do not understand this then you're no constitutionalist but only say you are as it is not possible (let me know if you get all of this or if it breaks up as email can't translate it): Steven Breyer: I Possess A Piece Of Paper With Your Name On It; Does It Prove Guilt? I could not figure out why the Justices did not seem to understand this point of law; at times I had to wonder if they were delusional. Are they actually adjudicating medical licenses as proof that a man could know woman as if he did have a baby or could in the future? The citizens insisted that the Justices had to be guilty of treason. It may seem as if but I have no proof; and if they are delusional then are they guilty if I do prove treason at some point? The citizens do not understand what it means to prove criminal intent. I do; often I can prove criminal intent via the paper but my proof is the person who wrote it not the paper itself. Are these guys truly believing the lying lawyers before them??? Don’t they know these lawyers have motive and intent other than justice? I began thinking about the Justices; often people ask how I know something. I tell them: It’s a gift. Take Antonin Scalia: I know Antonin Scalia. I speak fluent human being; I know people. I can hear him say that he needed to tell lawyers to look at him and to not read from their brief when arguing as he can read the brief and did. Did he read my brief? And I needed to remember that the lawyers aren’t looking at him thus are they nervous, lying about their intentions or fascists? Needing to read from notes is a problem as: People do not need to memorize the truth; if your argument is your truth, what you truly believe to be the law and the correct application of it, then who needs to read from paper? Justice is not about being perfect as it’s about being human…it’s not reasonable to ask for perfection from humans as they are not machines and so cannot work like machines. I can write to Scalia and I did: Antonin Scalia, if you do not hear this case in person soon then you will be forced to find a way to magically insert and magically erase words from the Constitution. How are you

gonna do that? And then: The gun control case opinion. I heard Americans screaming that Scalia added words to our Constitution. Do I have ESP? Maybe: Scalia is an originalist; I’m the case thus the absolute proof so I included my gun control argument as my application is correct as well as my 13th Amendment Argument plus I know men and the end of a belief system when men refuse to acknowledge the truth of women thus begin to invent complex, convoluted reasoning that’s wrong so I could know: There’s only one prefatory anything, our Preamble, the founders statement of intention, and there’s a comma you will find in only two copies of the original Constitution that I know of so maybe he is adding whole clauses and maybe he’s going to name the comma but reactionary citizens will react w/o doing the research. And I could know this: It’s a political coup; of course we can shoot back as that’s what The Founders intended even if you do live in DC, next door to Congress. Political coups are okay but military coups are not? What about a Judicial coup? Or a coup by the string theorists? They change their numbers too and they too believe numbers – the numbers on the paper they create - is absolute proof. Then I was thinking about Justices I have not named. I do not need to look up facts or read an entire ruling, as I can know if I know the person as I know myself and as I healed the injury so I’m the constant. Lawyers who believe they can study facts and words on paper to then know a person make me laugh as first they have to be mentally sound as in emotionally sound so good luck to lawyers as that ego thing will defeat your attempts every time. The universe may not be self-defeating but lawyers are. I happened to look at a calendar a few days later. I never know what day The People believe it is as I do not use calendars or watches as I know time differently as I’m orienting myself as being within time; I know time to be intrinsic and relative to the person experiencing it. Whole weeks will go by and I won’t know it if I’m not reminded of the “date”. According to the linear “lie”? It was Jefferson’s birthday, April 13th. But Jefferson was born before the institution of the Gregorian calendar; do you add days to his birthday thus is he born on another day? Do you know his actual birthday or only the day the linear calendar claims? The founders often used the notation “O.T.” for old time. Our own birthday, the day The People were born, is July 4 th but Adams and others

claim July 2nd as that is when they signed the paper. Is the act of signing ownership of the knowledge? You could say July 8 th as that is when it was read to the public. I told The People I would make the attempt to enter something to the Court on that date; all I could do is mail the Chief Clerk a very first draft of the argument so he would know where it is going as I had to warn the clerks: You might have to take a hit for the Constitution as I could know it would get ugly so I would have assign guilt to historical fact to then later be able to prove innocence or guilt to The People based upon the accusations I was hearing. Are lawyers assaulting and battering the employees of the Court and they do not know it? SCOTUS doesn’t realize it too is the victim of domestic violence or did it incapacitate itself by only allowing lawyers entry in person? And then right after the letter was in the mail on Jefferson’s birthday I discovered the truth: Channel surfing I saw Steven Breyer on TV. Normally I would surf on by but I know when the universe is pinging me. I heard Steven Breyer, a Justice I never named, talking about the truth. He said that the court had decided a case regarding May the paper note be admitted as absolute proof and I was surprised as I knew of that case but did not realize it was decided. OMG: Steven Breyer: didn’t you read petition 07-9804 or my brief “Judicial Review Is The Myth Of Fingerprints”??? What’s absolute proof and what isn’t??? Is it a paper chase or a people chase??? If you haven’t that’s on you not a clerk as I’m first since Marbury – you of all the Justices should have jumped - and as my brief contains the largest single point of law a human being can ever make and the largest, most important point of law an American can ever make as I had to live it. From Judicial Review: “Judicial review is a myth. It is the myth of fingerprints as it proves nothing, not even that our founders lived as you will not find it within our law. If anything judicial review may serve to prove our founders never lived or that what historians say happened did not as John Marshall did not sign our governing documents. Not only does it not exist within our written law but the pieces of paper our courts produce? They prove nothing except a person lived and so authored them; what identifying marks other than a signature that might be forged exist to tell you who wrote that piece of paper? It is like fingerprints

as no fingerprint then tells me whether it was left by a saint or a sinner. A fingerprint can be forged as well. And then too what is that fingerprint found on? A vase? A gun? I know saints who own guns and I know sinners who would have you believe they are angels sent straight from heaven and who could and would hit you over the head with a vase only because they felt like it, kill you and not think about it or you ever again. A gun can be covered with fingerprints. All that proves is somebody, a saint or a sinner, held that gun. It does not prove who pulled the trigger. A dead body? You might have a body. Then again you might have 4 or 5 pints of blood soaking the walls and the floor but no body – could any person lose that much blood and live? Isn’t that blood proof of life and proof of murder? Proof of death not proof of murder as blood does not prove deliberation. We can reasonably assume a person once lived, that this body was once alive, but was it ever a life? A heart can beat; is it then a life lost only as it stops beating? Can a living person be dead? Can you prove murder or what can not be seen or heard as it lurks in the heart and mind of another man? Does blood alone prove if a gun was used or if a knife was used? What if the written word killed a person instead of a bullet? How do you ever prove words on a piece of paper caused another person to lose 4 or 5 pints of blood and so murdered him or her? Words do not magically jump off of a page and attack you. Somebody has to act upon them and first somebody has to have an idea and then put that idea on paper. It’s one thing to have an idea; it is all together another to then write it down and still another then write it in such a way you incite others to act upon those words with the result being death. Thus the fingerprints are on the weapon as those fingerprints are more telling than the loops and swirls on your fingertips as they are the thoughts, feelings, ideas and true beliefs of the culprit. I know of a few pieces of paper that have killed more people than any others but that have also given life to ten times the number of people they ever actually killed and have given life to millions –billions – who are yet unborn. They also have the power to bring the dead back to life. They are the papers produced by the “United States Federal Government” most especially US dollars and court rulings with family court and federal court being by far the most deadly of all. I know as I acted upon my knowledge and so willed my own death as when a family court judge murdered my children I fought evil with unconditional love by invoking the most lethal words of all in the English

language: We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. My invocation of that idea, a right, and my true belief or faith in it caused my suffering and eventual death. I was crucified, died and was buried on the Supreme Court docket. I rose from the dead. I walked around for about 40 days preaching the gospel of Philadelphia and then ascended into the office of the President and Commander where I now sit because the Solicitor General of the US failed to respond. All of this was by my own hand and upon my own will and liberty as I meant for this to happen. I never had to die a second time on paper in December and in spite of actual reality – I directly entered on 11/20/08 so it is unconstitutional to then deny me redress in person as that is the absence of any and all moral authority on SCOTUS part - as one denial and one denial of rehearing was enough to prove my case…My reasoning and application of Bush V Gore and all of our law and then all of federal precedent is not wrong or mistaken; if I say it is a hardcore fact that Bush V Gore is a tie then it is as it is not a matter of personal belief but of reality as in history, exact words and math. If I say a woman sheds her blood and risks her life giving birth then she does, as that is a medical fact as it is our biology as well as a legal fact as we are a living government of people. No court may deny me or defeat me unless it: Unconstitutionally denies me any appearance in person, as the winning argument against this case does not exist. You can argue it but you will not then win. If this court or any person at all actually, truly believes it can argue against our law and against humanity as in legally kill our law and so kill humanity then be my guest, as that requires an appearance in person, doesn’t it? That person will be arguing to physically murder my children and me and do so with the permission of a court or arguing to overthrow our law with the permission of a court, or that person will be pleading temporary insanity…” Thus: We are adjudicating the PAPER COMMISSION as the refusal to deliver the commission has now become the violation of the right itself so that makes SCOTUS GUILTY! I know as I have a note signed by “The Supreme Court”. It reads “DENIED” and “The People are finding you with Article III although The People deny you any and all protection of the law.” Does my paper then prove SCOTUS is guilty? Of homicide or suicide? Is “In Re Susan” a note proving homicide and BVG a note proving suicide?

I also have a note signed by one “Steven Breyer”. He said that he did not know the truth then and he does not know the truth now and so maybe that’s the truth, that we’ll never know the truth. Yes we will as I am more than willing to tell it to you. Let’s go there as I’ll write the meaning not the exact words of what Breyer said: Steven Breyer: The victim left a note. May it be admitted to the body evidence? That’s the question. My colleagues decided to begin this voyage by going to BLACKWELL’s. I thought this is odd but there’s a rational basis for it so I was willing to go there. Susan: Odd? I thought this is wrong. Blackwell’s, Blackwell’s, Blackwell’s: the holy bible of lawyers and federal judges. I’m dying to know as I reserved the right to ask the Justices some questions of my own: Steven Breyer how did you know that the first decision, Blackwell’s, was not correct? Rational yes as Blackwell’s is inside Marbury as Marshal brought it with him but does paper ever prove paper? Is it self-proving as in does paper then prove intention and motivation? I mean, are we being asked if this guy is the murderer or are we being asked what the death certificate says??? What body of evidence are you admitting it to, SCOTUS Justices or the state court judges? Does the body of evidence only rise to proof of a criminal act if we admit the piece of paper to the juries brains? What is this? Are we the judge and jury a la British courts of admiralty and civil convictions? Steven Breyer: But then I watched them go to a document before that like King James’ something or other. Now I’m really curious; I know this is not right but I’m going to find out where this is going. Susan: When I heard you say this I thought, “Do not tell me that I need to send a search and rescue team after 5 Justices wandering around in the mists of time.” OMG, OMG, OMG. They didn’t. Steven Breyer: They did. So now I’m thinking “Are we really going here?” as the size of this argument hit me - I didn’t name it – so my instincts went off as the Justices then went to the MAGNA CARTA and so I decided “I’m opting out; this

is where I opt out”. I then headed for home: the Constitution, the Declaration, Marbury as I’m not reasoning myself out of existence, the Constitution again and US case law. But I’m disturbed as this was so odd; it is different. Susan: YES IT IS!!! Steven Breyer: We have a dead body. A dead victim. The note says her husband did it. Scalia in his dissenting opinion said [looks to Scalia to make sure he is not putting words in Scalia’s mouth] blah blah blah – [Scalia nods yes] but I don’t know the truth. Susan: The truth is PEOPLE! People gave rise to AMERICAN COMMON LAW so you’d never adjudicate this paper nor would you use law that then is British common law. I’m the absolute proof that this experiment worked so now we have American common law. Only allowing lawyers entry to SCOTUS then injured you so you, Justices, mistakenly relied upon what is British not American. I’m a body of evidence; I’m the proof. I knew I’m Marbury as I lived it thus I never even went to Blackwell’s as that’s not my problem in life – unjust Officers are. I’m creating the paper as I live it exactly as Marshal did. Paper can’t answer you. “I’d like to call my first witness, the note. Note: what’s written on you? Did the victim ever write on you? I’d ask you to read the words on you but as you don’t have eyes I won’t. Oops! No mouth either so you could not testify, could you?” Let’s ask Blackwell’s…”Blackwell’s, is it true that federal judges LOVE your form? Do you prove a murder has been committed? Are you proof that the paper should be entered or not? Or are you the British common law that Americans yet suffer from as now the Justices have brought the aristocracy home with you? Or do you prove the Justices have been assaulted and battered by lawyers bearing paper that contains lies upon it as the intention and motivation of the lawyer is not necessarily the intention and motivation of the victim?” I heard a man make an comment from the audience; Breyer said “But the difference is the victim is dead”. Correct so then you know YOU’RE THE VICTIM AS YOU STEVEN BREYER AND THE OTHER EMPLOYEES OF SCOTUS ARE ALIVE. You need living victims or else you’re dead as a Republic…you ARE Marbury thus a People must come forward to then overturn BVG and remove Obama to then remove dead paper and so replace death with life, The People. You go from Britain to Jamestown in 1607 but then you go to

Plymouth in 1620 as that’s the Mayflower Compact. It’s Jefferson and Adams. It’s also Harvard lawyers beginning in 1636. We are not alive, born, until Jefferson has an idea and then writes it down in A Summary View as he claims will and liberty is allodial or inalienable as it is joined in man by God and later we Declare ourselves in 1776 but what model did we use? The Iroquois Confederacy as that’s older and that’s The People not the aristocracy…the Europeans deliberately tried to erase this from our books of history. If you back from the Magna Carta what do you land at? The invention of paper and so the invention of writing thus you need people. Eventually you land in Eden at the apple tree and so hopefully the 5 lost Justices have Bader-Ginsburg with them as: WHO picks the apple and eats it, Adam or Steven? You need women or else you die as no new baby constitutions. That’s your mistake; you go from Eve as government is born to Adam who votes for Eve not for himself – he blames Eve while she doubts herself – thus false ‘fear’ or created fear is inserted into man and so death ensues with the promise of everlasting life and we part ways at the Tower of Babel only to land in America as that’s the Iroquois when they complete the journey North and then the Four Corners upon the Great Deluge as the Hopi land there after going West. The rest of us do not finish the trek South and East until Jamestown and the slave trade although some persons who are black came as free men. The Founders? As we had no American common law we then had to use what is British like the system of writs and the bar but the founders never meant to force this upon us or make us British as that then would make us dead. Jefferson said all power and authority belonged to The People not to the paper. Paper governments failed until we used the Iroquois as our model thus made The People the government not a separate entity. Plymouth in 1620 but Jamestown in 1607; it’s known as idea diffusion and its way humans transmit information as one group gives an idea to another who comes in contact with them. Sequoia is an example as via watching white settlers he had the idea to create the Cherokee alphabet even though he had never seen any alphabets and had not been exposed to any books. He observed people talking and made the connection between speech and what is written upon paper and their success thus he had the idea to form a system of writing for the Cherokee. It’s own of the only original alphabets in the world in that it arose on its own as Sequoia had no outside influences when he first had the idea. Can you imagine

having a flash of genius that big? I can as I did. My truth is: As I never went to law school then I was not indoctrinated by law school professors who teach Marbury and several other points of law incorrectly only as they are to lazy to visit them for the first time or to revisit them. I was not indoctrinated by reading everything in the third person such as “The appellant stated”. I had original ideas no person could squash as they are the truth and you cannot kill the truth. Some of my applications were not so original at all as I am told my missing war check and balance is something we once practiced but abandoned and so the question becomes: do we fine tune what we have now or jettison it for the original? The truth: you can never change what was; what was happened and so will always be. All you can do is change it in the now. All of the constitutional ramifications of everything I bring up? They’ve been realized as we died. Death is the end result as a foreigner sits in the Office of the Executive, a unjust war wages on and women have never had any legal power. All the ‘bad’ things you imagine already are, now, so all you do is acknowledge them to then resolve them. Steven Breyer told me that he does not know the truth, then or now. I, Susan, can and will tell you the truth of the whole universe but: If Breyer wrote anything other than “I do not know the truth” on the paper opinion did he lie? Did he commit treason? Is a SCOTUS opinion ever treason and if so are the people guilty or at fault? Is Breyer himself the proof or is his signature? I would like to enter another note as evidence. This note names a victim, names the killer, names the motivation and intention and names the cause of death as well as names I, the other victim, who is yet alive and so is before the Court now: We have a body: Thomas Jefferson is dead and buried in VA. He left us a note that names King George III as the man who is responsible but he names despotism as his killer. He exactly wrote the cause is liberty and that King George never meant to do less than kill him via paper like the Stamp Act. He says his repeated petitions fell on deaf ears and so it is by his own hand that he risked his life but that he had some cohorts in crime and that his reasoning is all men are created equal and so no dead institution of government like paper can or may hold him hostage thus this is not a coup but a Right. He says he must

leave Britain and things British behind so that I might be born. Before he died he left other notes pertaining to Kingly, papery abuses of his person; he wrote that he despised lawyers then who now wield law licenses as if they, that paper, are absolute proof and that "trial by jury in all matters of fact triable by the laws of the land [as opposed the law of admiralty] and not by the laws of Nations [i.e. not by the law of admiralty]." If I’m testing Marbury and so adjudicating the paper commission may the Declaration and Constitution be admitted as evidence? Or is it proof? Did the paper murder Jefferson? Which paper? BVG or Election 2008? Does an electronic ballot count as much as a paper ballot? Or am I, Susan, the absolute proof that King George III fell under his own delusion thus equality is and so is American common law? My opinion is: I am with Scalia; but I dissent as unless there are living witnesses, people, and living victims, more people, then we may not admit the paper as they will not conduct the investigation and as the paper did not murder anybody as it cannot. No piece of paper stormed SCOTUS and screamed, ”Admit me!” Lawyers did that. My opinion is lawyers killed Jefferson. You can, may and must admit the paper Declaration and Constitution if testing Marbury but if ‘creating the venue’ to then adjudicate the natural birth clause you must admit a life, Susan, as she’s one of the victims, she has no paper yet she’s the counsel and without her there is no case and no equality let alone a body known as American common law and/or The People:

I, my own self, am proof the first patriots lived and were actual humans, real people alive in or around 1776 and 1787. I, my own self, prove they acted as they did and that what the historians say happened did actually happen and is fact. No photographs exist to prove they lived; no paper is proof of them. No museum, created record or title in a book of history makes the words on any document the truth. The words are myth unless lived out as true belief as fingerprints, photographs and words prove nothing not even actual life. It is I, Susan, acting on her own that is proof as the fingerprints our Founders left behind are all over me and inside my person and have become my faith. I, Susan, am proof that our American story now a legend and soon to become a myth unless I am heard was and is history.

When the purple sea parted with red states on one side and blue on the other I, Susan, saw the promised land, SCOTUS, and William Rhenquist was before me holding out a bright, shiny red apple named BVG so I ran from my slave masters and into liberty. I truly believe Rhenquist was deliberate as he named exacting numbers and paper ballots over and over to the point of exhaustion after he named one, himself, so that I or any natural born citizen could equal him thus level the playing field although he may not have informed the other Justices. Steven Breyer seems to prove this absolutely. I phoned an American in Arizona: Do you realize just how huge the truth is that came from Steven Breyer? What if Rhenquist never told any other Justice? What if Breyer does not know we died as only lawyers are allowed entry to SCOTUS in open and direct violation of the law once BVG went there as he can’t see or hear the proof, as he is the proof? I happened upon that same apple as Breyer and took a bite. I took the biggest bite I could, as I’m the most willing as I had no doubts then and I have no doubts now. I’m not afraid, as I own the knowledge of the truth. I’m no ghost; I’m not a shadow body of government as I’m a living spirit. Not once did I believe that I, a People, could not enter SCOTUS only as snakey lawyers are my problem or as I am not a lawyer as I do not need one: I’m SCOTUS certified and my cert number is 07-9804/08-6622. I want to be blamed for this: The Proof Of Life Cases as judicial review – paper - is the myth of fingerprints. Steven Breyer is The People’s absolute proof of life. Here’s some paper that rises to proof but not absolute proof: I had to name all I did to then be able to leverage the power of my one vote; what do you do if the UN refuses to apply the human rights clause to you that it and the federal court apply to any corporation sailing a ship between two ports one of them international as it first refuses to acknowledge our 1871 incorporation as a business entity? You remind the UN that you know we never had a treaty with it when we quit claimed the US Treasury, The People, to it and to the IMF thus the UN might want to rethink their action and so recall they did codify sea law. It can reason itself out of existence or into existence as a sort of modern day

Nuremberg only this time we hope to avoid the very worst of Nazi Germany. What law says that you must wait for a Hitler in the making to actually become the Hitler? You fight back with knowledge – the truth. How could every American be informed and so give consent in 1871 or even 1944 w/o the existing technology? And weren’t the Nazis Nationalist Socialists at first, before they were Nazis? Hasn’t America been the prize from day one for power hungry egomaniacs the world over? Didn’t Japan attack us like the Saudis attacked us? What you’re witnessing as you live it is unjust people taking advantage of the situation as it arises. The more lawless we became the easier it became for unjust men to do this; nobody orchestrated some great big plan unless you count me although they tried for generations. Every Rockefeller truly believes he’s the Nero who won’t play the violin when Rome burns so this time he plays a saxophone and everyone acts as if it never happened. Rome is burning; who cares what instrument or what song you play? Why repeat what has never worked in the past? You’re the successful, magnanimous, humanitarian Nero? The Founders would laugh – and cry. It’s like my business card says: John Jay weeps. All I did was steal a play from the Founders own playbook only I kept repeating what worked. The Founders invented a few of these plays so we’re the first; all I did was drag them out of the closet. If Washington attacked the drunken Hessians on the day after Christmas then I could attack the drunken power brokers on the day after the election, 11/05/08. All that needed to happen? Process, even if it is undue process it could and would work. Who knew how perfectly it would work? I did as on Christmas day 2007 I sent a copy of my petition to Ralph Nader and said “These people are unsafe at any speed.” I could possess inviolate faith in myself as the existence of my American person is not an accident. Thus: If a giant physical chain worked for the Founders than a giant metaphysical chain should work for me, as your one vote is both physical and metaphysical. It’s your first and last line of defense. Ideally you cause change with your vote as I do. I worked it and worked it until I could cause direct change via direct action. I moved the sitting illegal President with

the truth. Everybody has this same ability – you do not use it. Now you must as a dictator does not go away by ignoring him away. It’s what Jews have been telling you for years: These unjust people can’t operate in the open thus you need to act as witnesses and slaughter them with the truth of who and what they are; you may not ignore it or you might be next. No person needs to suffer injustice. We suffer only if we know yet let others suffer. I made a different decision as I turned suffering into sacrifice via acting upon the truth. This became an actual emergency when I mailed this petition as I have looked and looked and I have not found a single case of a sitting US President legal or not threatening to falsely imprison and/or kill a citizen for filing a lawsuit against him in federal court so what do I know that Barack Obama is desperate to silence? What would ever drive him to act as if he really is insane? The exact phrase used was “falsely imprison” even though I’m quite certain the paper does not say this as the US Marshal never read from it. He escalated it to death; what could Obama be so desperate to hide? Everyone knows he is foreign but does he realize this truth or does he truly believe he has us fooled? Riddle this: Remembering that the US Government has admitted it did issue an order for the National Guard to fire upon citizens in Ohio, why then would the US government who calls itself “they” as if it is a separate entity other than The People want to keep the name of who issued the order to fire a secret? Because it is chain of command theory: If a President ever issues this order he or she has to do it in person so the National Guardsman has an opportunity to stand aside or down thus Barack Obama has to shoot me himself. A Guardsman, as we violated the law to form the guard from state militias, would then be able to object thus refuse to obey as per Marbury and so hand his gun to the President issuing the order as there is no person in between the ‘lowest’ Guardsman and that order but the President. It’s all The People in this case; it’s not a military action. People who are guardsmen then guard the people represented by one of the people, the president. Chain of command then is Guardsman and President as the President is ordering the Guardsmen to fire

on his own people thus if a guardsman cannot refuse then you have a fascist, dictator, military regime not a Republic. If the sitting President is not before you then how would you ever know the order was actual and not a forgery? Only a sitting President, the living embodiment of The People, has the power and authority to order the Guardsman and/or the US Military to open fire on The People as that then is opening fire on your own self so it’s a massacre or a Revolution. A revolution is inherently, intrinsically just while massacres are not. You can impersonate another human being on the phone; you can forge their signature on paper but in a living government you yourself must issue the order. If you’re dealing with National Guardsman then no person is between the lowest guardsman holding the gun and the President as that is the presidential chain not the command chain. No actual constitutional government ever opens fire on its own citizens thus if it does you’re watching the rise of fascism which would not occur here as rapidly as it would elsewhere due to our form. No matter how hard he tries Obama can never, ever prove he owned this answer at all or else he would never have issued this type of order as it constitutes treason and he never would have sent a witness by creating one as in sending it down via chain of command until it came to rest at the US Marshal’s Service as now we can follow it to Obama. Fact is: if every one of those people dropped dead we could yet follow it as how did my paper and what is on it that came out the Marshal’s mouth ever get to him IF Obama never discussed the case? Obama is “not guilty” if Obama never becomes President as this HAD to go to the President and I intended it to go to him when I wrote it. If Ralph Nader became President then it would have gone to Ralph Nader. I can and will prove it several times over. Obama himself said “Louisiana Purchase”. That’s our absolute proof. No person forced Obama to say that phrase and several million Americans heard it. I designed the experiment and conducted it as once I am denied by SCOTUS then nothing is a crime for me as I made myself a sovereign entity and the last time I checked? A citizen can and may sue a legal sitting President thus filing a lawsuit is not a crime and is one reason we exist as a nation. If you look I was very careful to ORDER the other citizens not to shoot and that if they did then they are guilty of a crime, as the process was not

exhausted yet and I would inform them when it is. If you own the knowledge you claim you own then you would not be threatening Nancy Pelosi or flying airplanes into buildings. It was not personal until Obama made it personal but all that action did was make it easier for me to sue him as a citizen can and may sue a sitting President for direct injury while he’s sitting legally or not (a threat is a criminal act and if you knowingly commit a crime while in office? You’re no longer legal even if you once were; we never protected sitting Presidents from guilt regarding their own direct actions [we’re past Marbury so it comes back to Obama not the US marshal] and as I have pointed out to invoke Executive Privilege first you have to be the legal Executive and Obama must know he is not or else I wouldn’t have been threatened). If Chester Arthur were yet alive I’d sue him and he was born in NY. Obama can make the attempt but it took me over 20 years to answer this question: Why shouldn’t a constitutional Republic violate it own terms only to favor men and others already overly privileged and overly powerful? Egomania also known as death as you should vote for yourselves first as: The People is the constitutionally set government of the US not the Officers. So then: How do I tell Antonin Scalia in a nice judicial way that he might as well have been agreeing with Breyer that he's actually insane? Breyer could have been saying "I believe Justice Scalia meant to claim he's a nut" and Scalia could have been nodding his head yes and we'd still have an actual fascist in the Whitehouse as only Breyer seems to realize a crime has been committed as death has entered SCOTUS? At BVG and In Re Susan's DENIAL OF REALITY "LAWYER" became the constitutionally set government as SCOTUS is closed to nonlawyers. An open-ended system became a closed system thus died and apparently only the Justices do not know, lol. And: If your ego died so none of it is outsized in relationship to your id then you no longer possess the human ability to write like a lawyer as that itself - third person narrative that is mostly or all a lie - is an affectation. You are thus I am. Enlightenment does that

to you. all affectations fall away. For some of us its a bigger fall than for others. As I do not subscribe to authoritative belief systems - I am my own authority then it was not such a fall for me. Think: I can forge any voice on a piece of paper. You tell me who and I'll forge a document so good that you'll truly believe that person wrote it. Recall Hitler’s diaries? That's easier than you think it is as people tend to be stilted upon paper so the nuances that make you YOU are lost in translation. Who's voice can't be forged then? My own as there's no record of it except what I create!!! I'm not in any book so if you wanted to forge my voice you couldn't do it. And: it is unique among all voices as I'm the first to do this. That's a benefit to volunteering to be first: you then are the only example. It sounds funny to say it but I can't even forge my own voice as I never know what I'll say until it’s in the mail so I can't take it back or edit it. I’m writing it in the now, at that very moment. Who can't know if I wrote something as it sounds like me uniquely? Even my typos are common or unique to me. How could I do what Donofrio, Berg and Taitz could not do all working together? Ask the clerks what I'd write to them, lol. I talked about everything but law as the legal assumption is they know the law or they wouldn't be SCOTUS clerks. Donofrio called them and spoke to the stay clerk for 7 minutes. That's interminable. I have not spoken to them for 7 minutes total in over three years. Donofrio obstructed justice so he received no justice; imagine that. What happens when you obstruct justice? Do little judicial elves bring justice to your front door wrapped up like a Christmas present? What, no liberty only for you or none for anyone who obstructs justice thus obstructs liberty? You do not know how badly I wish I had a copy of In Re Thomas Jefferson as I wrote it as if I'm Jefferson only here and now as that gave me certain liberties with the Justices as he volunteered his name so its in the public domain and he is fundamentally responsible for Marbury. I describe it like this (If I never told you): if Bob Bauer thought that an octopus lawyer was responsible for In Re Susan then he took one look at In Re Thomas and thought "This is no octopus. This is the work of a Humboldt squid." It's intelligent and disturbing as you know I'm not wrong but right. If you do not believe in everlasting life you will after reading it, lol. Look - John Adams came true: Jefferson yet survives.

America: In case you're still lost? I took on every single lawyer in America and won. That's why they are fighting me so hard. I mean if you're Harvard Law, you were first in 1636 and you graudated Obama with nothing to show for it as he can't argue the law on his best day so he paid for a worthless degree and you're about to go down it'd be much easier if one of your own did it rather than me, a non-lawyer, non-degreed, poor woman. I'm Professor Kingsfield in the Paper Chase telling his students to take a dime and call their mother to come pick them up now that they are playing with the big boys and they suck. By suing the Surpeme Court I sued every lawyer and law school in America as they produced the BVG lawyers and then could not argue their own cases!!! One of the very first lessons my mother taught me was if you're going to be a criminal be a smart criminal as good crooks do not get caught. In my most recent petition? I took it back; Dick Cheney is not Satan as Satan, THE Satan, would be a semi-worthy adversary and Cheney went down with one blow, the very first time I engaged him. I truly believe THE Satan would last at least two full rounds. Cheney? I did not even need to waste so much as a postage stamp. I emailed his office with my BVG reasoning as he can't defeat math and out came the rats: January 3rd, 2007. Entering SCOTUS directly and firstly? It's known as a supermagical square in mathematics. The knight moves landing on each square of the chess board once and then exists on the same square from which he he entered. Your first move is your end game then. Ben Franklin found a 'new' supermagical square as they are rare and so did I; if he was looking at the same thing as I maybe he only saw the square on the chessboard not in the law. When I read that the road around Rennes Chapel is named Pass of the Rook I laughed as what's a rook? You use a rook to castle as did I to castle but a rook is chariot in chess and a swindler and a cheat in other games. How many Americans can castle in chess especially if its a court of law not a kingly court a la BVG? I thought, Okay God: I'll bite! It might scare you but as I'm a physicist by my nature its all science to me.

History does not repeat itself people do. So here I am making the same mistake over gain after avoiding them my first time around: I never went to Europeanized American schools in the 1950's and 1960's designed to force you to accept authority w/o question thus crush critical thinking skills and I never fell for hypnotic language designed to sway you and convince you so that you never make any actual choices. I swear: I truly believed you were all nuts until a person told me that no, you honestly believed all this crap you were taught. How did i first come to know what you were taught that is garbage? I made a bet and i bet on myself as I have had a skill since birth that people insist is not reality as it scares them; I’ll do it in front of them and they'll pretend they never saw me do it. I knew you had been taught something that is utterly garbage so I went to the library and set my autopilot on God literally; it's sincerity; anybody can do it if you know that feeling. I knew god would show me the book when I came to it so I started walking up and down the aisles until I saw the book. I even told someone that I was doing this and they laughed. I said whatever knowledge I needed would reveal itself. Hey. if I'm really fighting Hitler when they were still Nationalist Socialists I need god, THE god. I saw the edge of a book and had that feeling so I knew it was THE book I was supposed to read. I ran down the aisle and pulled it off of the shelf. The title of this book? THE CASE FOR A CREATOR. Are you guys for real??? This is junk science; J U N K . J U N K. Miller should have sent you off of the deep end. Who believes this??? My Catholic School told me: you have to figure out what the truth is for your own self. nobody is supposed to be dictating the truth to kids. Darwin is just as bad as fundamental Christianity in that respect. You CAN'T legislate beliefs. NONE OF THIS IS LAW. DARWINISTS DO NOT BELIEVE CHARLES DARWIN TODAY ACCORDING TO THEIR OWN TESTIMONY. You can't legislate beliefs as people are the absolute proof so you are your own best or worst proof. How do you know what is the truth if you only know one thing? The truth falls somewhere in the middle. It gets very tricky in the US as we accidentally did legislate morals w/o realizing it but a national ethic - do not lie, cheat and steal as your life depends upon it - is not

then legislating beliefs. It's as I say: to possess an ethic first you must possess a metaphysic; no metaphysic? No ethic. You can't annihlate the idea of God w/o annihliating yourself in the US but you can't inflict your personal god upon anyone either. It's a very, very, very splippery slope then. What of the Founders leveld the playing field in such a way you're equal to the earthly concepts of god? That's what you are if you are yoru own power and authority. But if that's you? Then you would not be violating anybody's rights either especially not for profit. By "God" I mean the general concept that's intrinsically and inherently just. The word "liberty" is all over the bible. It's fun to believe this is a myth we live, that this is science or that this is divine in nature but the truth is it's a little of it all as myth is history, fact that then becomes a story then a legend and then a myth. A scholar will tell you that to believe Jesus or Buddha never lived is to believe over half the planet fell for the same mass delusion at separate times; it's not possible if you reason it. Do you know what it would take to inflict that type of mass delusion over the centuries w/o any proof? The Church is The People not the institutions; people would abandon it. People always abandon what does not work. Is it possible that Jefferson never lived? What if you were sold that lie only it is packaged as BVG? Or Obama? If you can be any mythological creature as you're living the history out then why not pick a Founding Knight? Why not pull the sword from the keystone and so slaughter them with sloppy math and their own exacting words and actions as they all come tumbling down? A lawyer will be so very careful he'll make what I call "careful mistakes": you need to be a scientist to recognize them. So then: Start writing like John Adams said. Write yourself into the books you were once written out of. Join the class and so declare yourselves independent. When I mail the newest petition in as the case ripened when Obama threatened Roberts as it is direct injury I can prove absolutely I will warn you so you can look for it. You can attach yourself as a third party petitioner. It's a very short form; copy the one from BVG that was denied off of the internet only

tweak it to make it personal. LICENSED LAWYERS HAD NO THIRD PARTY STANDING BUT THE PEOPLE DO. Copy any SCOTUS third party filing. I can then represent you as you are not likely able to make this case on your own so invoke Willowbrook v Olech. Then use the federal highway funds, unjust taxes, to then prove you've been humanly trafficked as you did not want to move but were forced to do so by corporate America which 'government' America is since the US Treasury, YOU, was quitlcaimed to the IMF/UN when we did not even have a legal treaty with the UN. Then you can mail it in a day or so after I do so that you'll arrive at SCOTUS after me. If you've never moved then find another way federal tax money was used to force something upon you unjustly. Like: Wall street bailouts reward the criminal element afoot, businessmen who are lawyers. No body pays Susan to then commit trillion dollar crimes. Have you ever heard of rewarding the crooks??? With your tax dollar??? I don't know about you but if "Susan Herbert" just stole back the US Treasury, right from under the crooks noses and while they were watching her do it, and when she warned them she was coming and how she would look and so what they should not argue if they wanted to win, making her the world's greatest thief ever, then I'd want my share of the 'prize'. All they could not do? Tell a lie. So they did not: It reads AFRICAN, lol, as black Africans do not call or refer to themselves 'black'!!! Ask an African. I want to say duh Oprah. Susan. P.S. More truth:"When people talk of the freedom of writing, speaking or thinking I cannot choose but laugh. No such thing ever existed. No such thing now exists; but I hope it will exist. But it must be hundreds of years after you and I shall write and speak no more." Adams. I, Susan, can make that dream be realized in America. I can

make it come true. I can and will embody that idea. I can become the fruition of that dream as I'm the absolute proof John Adams is not wrong. I prove Adams absolutely so I'm the fruit of the tree known as liberty. It's known in the law as ripening, as a case ripens. If you happen to see Obama in person taunt him with this poem by Thomas Campion; chant "cherry ripe" as he'll know who its from as he now understands I'm not for sale - you can't steal liberty if I'm standing around the orchard - so its like telling him you know he cried uncle recently:
There is a garden in her face Where roses and white lilies blow; A heavenly paradise is that place, Wherein all pleasant fruits do flow: There cherries grow which none may buy Till 'Cherry-ripe' themselves do cry.

Those cherries fairly do enclose Of orient pearl a double row, Which when her lovely laughter shows, They look like rose-buds fill'd with snow; Yet them nor peer nor prince can buy Till 'Cherry-ripe' themselves do cry.

Her eyes like angels watch them still; Her brows like bended bows do stand, Threat'ning with piercing frowns to kill All that attempt with eye or hand Those sacred cherries to come nigh, Till 'Cherry-ripe' themselves do cry.

P.P.S. Africans;look at "chinese africans": Further information: Demographics of Africa Sub-Saharan Africa is a common if imprecise term that encompasses African countries located south of the Sahara Desert. It is commonly used to differentiate the region culturally, ecologically, politically and, more controversially, racially, from North Africa, which has historically been part of the Mediterranean sphere. Because the indigenous people of this region are primarily dark-skinned, it is alternatively called "Black Africa".[12] Some criticize the use of the term, because, having become in many quarters synonymous with Black Africa, it can leave the mistaken impression that there are not indigenous Black populations in North Africa. Furthermore, the Sahara cuts across countries such as Mauritania, Mali, Niger, Chad, and Sudan, leaving some parts of them in North Africa and some in sub-Saharan Africa. Owen 'Alik Shahadah argues that the term sub-Saharan Africa has racist overtones: Sub-Saharan Africa is a racist byword for "primitive", a place which has escaped advancement. Hence, we see statements like “no written languages exist in Sub-Saharan Africa.” “Ancient Egypt was not a Sub-Saharan African civilization.” Sub-Sahara serves as an exclusion, which moves, jumps and slides around to suit negative generalization of Africa.[13] However, some Black Africans prefer to be culturally distinguished from those who live in the north of the continent.[14] Cultural ideas of a black race South Africa In South Africa during the apartheid era, the population was classified into four groups: Black, White, Asian (mostly Indian), and Coloured. The Coloured group included people of mixed Bantu, Khoisan, and European descent (with some Malay ancestry, especially in the Western Cape). The Coloured definition occupied an intermediary position between the Black and White definitions in South Africa. The apartheid bureaucracy devised complex (and often arbitrary) criteria in the Population Registration Act to determine who belonged in which group. Minor officials administered tests to enforce the classifications. When it was unclear from a person's physical appearance whether a person was to be considered Colored or Black, the "pencil test" was employed. This involved inserting a pencil

in a person's hair to determine if the hair was kinky enough for the pencil to get stuck.[15] During the apartheid era, those classed as 'Coloured' were oppressed and discriminated against. However, they did have limited rights and overall had slightly better socioeconomic conditions than those classed as 'Black'. In the post-apartheid era the government's policies of affirmative action have favored 'Blacks' over 'Coloureds'. Some South Africans categorized as 'Black' openly state that 'Coloureds' did not suffer as much as they did during apartheid. The popular saying by 'Coloured' South Africans to illustrate this dilemma is: Not white enough under apartheid and not black enough under the ANC (African National Congress) Other than by appearance, 'Coloureds' can be distinguished from 'Blacks' by language. Most speak Afrikaans or English as a first language, as opposed to Bantu languages such as Zulu or Xhosa. They also tend to have more Europeansounding names than Bantu names.[16] In 2008, the High Court in South Africa has ruled that Chinese South Africans are to be reclassified as Black people.[17] In the Middle East Arab world See also: Afro-Arab Black African and Near Eastern peoples have interacted since prehistoric times. [18][19] Some historians estimate that as many as 14 million black slaves crossed the Red Sea, Indian Ocean, and Sahara Desert in the Arab slave trade from 650 to 1900 CE.[20][21] The Moroccan Sultan Moulay Ismail "the Bloodthirsty" (1672– 1727) raised a corps of 150,000 black slaves, called his Black Guard, who coerced the country into submission.[22][23] The Afro-Asiatic languages, which include Semitic languages such as Arabic and Hebrew, are believed by some scholars to have originated in Ethiopia.[24] This is because the region has very diverse language groups in close geographic proximity, often considered a telltale sign for a linguistic geographic origin. In more recent times, about 1000 CE, interactions between black people and Arabs resulted in the incorporation of extensive Arabic vocabulary into Swahili, which became a useful lingua franca for merchants. Some of this linguistic exchange occurred as part of the slave trade; the history of Islam and slavery shows that the major juristic schools traditionally accepted the institution of slavery.[25] As a result, Arab influence spread along the east

coast of Africa and to some extent into the interior (see East Africa). Timbuktu was a trading outpost that linked west Africa with Berber, Arab, and Jewish traders throughout the Arab World. As a result of these interactions many Arab people in the Middle East have black ancestry and many black people on the east coast of Africa and along the Sahara have Arab ancestry.[26] Kenya is in East Africa. According to Dr. Carlos Moore, resident scholar at Brazil's Universidade do Estado da Bahia, Afro-multiracials in the Arab world self-identify in ways that resemble Latin America. He claims that black-looking Arabs, much like black-looking Latin Americans, consider themselves white because they have some distant white ancestry.[27] Moore also claims that a film about Egyptian President Anwar Sadat had to be canceled when Sadat discovered that an African-American had been cast to play him. In fact, the 1983 television movie Sadat, starring Louis Gossett, Jr., was not canceled. The Egyptian government refused to let the drama air in Egypt, partially on the grounds of the casting of Gossett. [28] The objections, however, did not come from Sadat, who had been assassinated two years earlier. Sadat's mother was a black Sudanese woman and his father was a lighterskinned Egyptian. In response to an advertisement for an acting position he remarked, "I am not white but I am not exactly black either. My blackness is tending to reddish".[29] LOL! I said that too; I said I'm an apple Indian only in reverse. Fathia Nkrumah was another Egyptian with ties to Black Africa. She was the late wife of Ghanaian revolutionary Kwame Nkrumah, whose marriage was seen as helping plant the seeds of cooperation between Egypt and other African countries as they struggled for independence from European colonization, which in turn helped advance the formation of the African Union.[30] In general, Arabs had a more positive view of black women than black men, even if the women were of slave origin. More black women were enslaved than men, and, because the Qur'an was interpreted to permit sexual relations between a male master and his female slave outside of marriage,[31][32] many mixed race children resulted. When an enslaved woman became pregnant with her Arab captor's child, she became “umm walad” or “mother of a child”, a status that granted her privileged rights. The child would have prospered from the wealth of the father and been given rights of inheritance.[33] Because of patrilineality, the children were born free and sometimes even became successors to their ruling fathers, as was the case with Sultan Ahmad al-Mansur, (whose mother was a Fulani concubine), who ruled Morocco from 1578 to 1608. Such tolerance, however, was not extended to wholly black persons, even when technically "free," and the notion that to be black meant to be a slave became a common

belief.[34] The term "abd," (Arabic: ‫" ),عبد‬slave," remains a common term for black people in the Middle East, often though not always derogatory.[35] In the first 200 years that black people had been in the United States, they commonly referred to themselves as Africans. In Africa, people primarily identified themselves by ethnic group (closely allied to language) and not by skin color. Individuals would be Ashanti, Igbo, Bakongo or Wolof. But when Africans were brought to the Americas they were forced to give up their ethnic affiliations for fear of uprisings. The result was the Africans had to intermingle with other Africans from different ethnic groups. This is significant as Africans came from a vast geographic region, the West African coastline stretching from Senegal to Angola and in some cases from the south east coast such as Mozambique. A new identity and culture was born that incorporated elements of the various ethnic groups and of European cultural heritage, resulting in fusions such as the Black church and Black English. This new identity was now based on skin color and African ancestry rather than any one ethnic group.[13] In March 1807, Britain, which largely controlled the Atlantic, declared the transatlantic slave trade illegal, as did the United States. (The latter prohibition took effect January 1, 1808, the earliest date on which Congress had the power to do so under Article I, Section 9 of the United States Constitution.) By that time, the majority of black people were U.S.-born, so use of the term "African" became problematic. Though initially a source of pride, many blacks feared its continued use would be a hindrance to their fight for full citizenship in the US. They also felt that it would give ammunition to those who were advocating repatriating black people back to Africa. In 1835 black leaders called upon black Americans to remove the title of "African" from their institutions and replace it with "Negro" or "Colored American". A few institutions however elected to keep their historical names such as African Methodist Episcopal Church. "Negro" and "colored" remained the popular terms until the late 1960s.[41] The term black was used throughout but not frequently as it carried a certain stigma. In his 1963 "I Have a Dream" speech,[42] Martin Luther King, Jr. uses the terms Negro 15 times and black 4 times. Each time he uses black it is in parallel construction with white (e.g., black men and white men).[43] With the successes of the civil rights movement a new term was needed to break from the past and help shed the reminders of legalized discrimination. In place of Negro, black was promoted as standing for racial pride, militancy and power. Some of the turning points included the use of the term "Black Power" by Kwame Toure (Stokely Carmichael) and the release of James Brown's song "Say It Loud - I'm Black and I'm Proud". In 1988 Jesse Jackson urged Americans to use the term African American because the term has a historical cultural base. Since then African American and black have essentially a coequal status. There is still much controversy over

which term is more appropriate. Some such as Maulana Karenga and Owen Alik Shahadah argue African-American is more appropriate because it accurately articulates geography and historical origin.[13] Others believe the term black is inaccurate because African Americans have a variety of skin tones.[44][not in citation given] Surveys show that when interacting with each other African Americans prefer the term black, as it is associated with intimacy and familiarity. The term "African American" is preferred for public and formal use.[45] The appropriateness of the term "African American" is further confused, however, by increases in African immigrants from Africa, the Caribbean and Latin America. The more recent African immigrants may sometimes view themselves, and be viewed, as culturally distinct from native descendants of African slaves.[46] The U.S. census race definitions says a black is a person having origins in any of the black racial groups of Africa. It includes people who indicate their race as "Black, African Am., or Negro," or who provide written entries such as African American, Afro American, Kenyan, Nigerian, or Haitian. However, the Census Bureau notes that these classifications are socio-political constructs and should not be interpreted as scientific or anthropological.[47] A considerable portion of the U.S. population identified as black actually have some Native American or European American ancestry. For instance, genetic studies of African American people show an ancestry that is on average 17–18% European.[48] One drop rule Historically, the United States used a colloquial term, the one-drop rule, to designate a black person as any person with any known African ancestry. [49] Legally the definition varied from state to state. Thomas Jefferson had slaves who were legally white (less than 25% Black) and legally slaves (mother was a slave). Outside of the US, some other countries have adopted the practice, but the definition of who is black and the extent to which the one drop "rule" applies varies from country to country. The one drop rule may have originated as a means of increasing the number of black slaves[50] and been maintained as an attempt to keep the white race pure. [51] One of the results of the one drop rule was uniting the African American community and preserving an African identity.[49] Some of the most prominent civil rights activists were multiracial, and advocated equality for all. President Barack Obama self-identifies as black and African American interchangeably.[52] According to a Williams Identity Survey conducted by Zogby International interactive poll conducted November 1–2, 2006, among those who voted, 55 percent of white voters and 61 percent of Hispanics voters classified him as biracial instead of black after being told that his mother is white, and 66 percent of Black voters classified Obama as black.[53] Another poll conducted by

the same group returned results that 42 percent of African-Americans voters described Tiger Woods as black, as did 7% of white voters.[54] Color? It's an experience of life as it is what other people truly believe about you not what you truly believe about yourself. If I truly believed what you truly believe about woman, lawyers, genius and money? You'd be sunk. Obama can't be African American as he is not American and black is legally debatable. British is not. Obama "selfidentifies"? You mean lies??? WHO DOESN'T KNOW HE WROTE A BOOK CLAIMING TO BE BRITISH VIA HIS FATHER???? He himself said his wife's not his relatives were former slaves. I know overly careful lawyer-ese when I hear it. If any living Rockefeller wants to come to court, hold up his book and claim "I did not know Obama's father is not American but Kenyan" then come on down and look like the lunatic you are as I named the Rockefellers exactly and the Council of Foreign Relations as well as the Bildebergers. The People will bring the video of Oprah and Obama mugging it up with his book for the cameras. black Africans do not even call Obama black, lol, he'd be an Arab African as Arabs settled this part of Africa: According to Dr. Carlos Moore, resident scholar at Brazil's Universidade do Estado da Bahia, Afro-multiracials in the Arab world self-identify in ways that resemble Latin America. He claims that black-looking Arabs, much like black-looking Latin Americans, consider themselves white because they have some distant white ancestry. If you look in petition 07-9804, it might be in the attachments or perhaps within 08-6622, I said that Egypt is in Africa not the Middle East but traditionally people believe it to be Middle Eastern. Ready? Moses climbed up a hill but came down a mountain as Sinai is a mountain, MT. Sinai. The appearance of it all is deceptive. Can you imagine Washington leading a charging army of flamingos who can't even defeat other flamingos??? Nazis are shrimps in real life; read all about how they appeared and behaved at Nuremberg once the illusion was gone...they acted worse then defeated, as if hey were actually smaller in size; reporters could not get over it...if a flamingo could not defeat a shrimp then they would not be pink so I know you can defeat an actual shrimp at the very least. Practice being American thus forever pro se by declaring yourself when I enter this petition. Start now and you should finish in a day or two. The entire form to petition SCOTUS? it's about six pages and on most of them there is one or two words like "FACTS" and "QUESTIONS". An actual monkey might do this and soon which is why I say if you ever see two monkeys in close conversation one and of them is holding a copy of the New Testament or the Declaration then a just monkey government and monkey law is born! Per usual, disseminate this.

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful