SusanConstant
Scholar
- Joined
- Aug 26, 2008
- Messages
- 50
The Parthenon is said to be a reverse illusion as the Greeks stated what is obvious then constructed a building embodying this that then fools or tricks the viewer as all is not what it seems: The Parthenon has almost no actual right angles. So then, reverse illusions legally or reversing Hitler’s Big Lie:
The "crazy" feeling you get reading physics or legal arguments and that I give you sometimes? Hitler’s big lie. The slippery nature of English. Unjust people wandered so far down the garden path to hell that they then HAD to begin denying their own work and contradicting themselves. They came full circle but realize they don't make sense – on some level they know they don’t make reasonable sense – so they go into denial but as it's about reconciling the truth and the subtle differences in words across fields of study most people do not hear it. Hearing, sight and emotion never line up! If they hear it they do not feel it and vice versa. You'll have GIANTS like Sagan, Gould, Ratzinger and Sotomayor going back on their own words and the 1871 Constitution, actual reality even, and within one piece of work. The Constitution might never have been real for them but is it actual reality?
All I did was take the illusion these people put up, state the obvious or state actual reality and then reverse the illusion thus exposing the delusion by using their own words against them in light of actual fact, law and logical reasoning - THE TRUTH - so that I'm , in the form of my paper, the reverse illusion. If you're a crook I'm the reverse illusion shattering your false and mistaken beliefs - the delusion - so a sane, honest person might hear or read it and feel 'crazy' as...you're not a crook! Most likely you attended school sometime after 1952, you were taught to ignore and so deny unique identifiers in algebraic equations when that does not apply (work) with higher equations and you took a college level course in logic yet never knew that across the board every logic textbook contains an error. Thus you are a victim but not a victim as if you’re American the Founders gave you the means to defy victimization: One vote.
You find fault in the US not place blame. So then:
If you begin to discern the truth from the lies you can act as a reverse illusion and you'd probably do it better than I would as English shifts back and forth like the tides or like ocean waves once you hit upon its elegance. The "thing" I hear everywhere I go is a rhythm that you might not hear - yet. It's like lapping yourself and then falling back upon yourself; in one sentence? I might fall back on me, or the pronouns you, he, we and us; I might turn their real into legal reality 4 or 5 times...it'll never be actual reality; they WANTED to believe whatever lie they told you. This is why you want to believe the person not the paper or the PC a screen that are flat planes upon a flat surface not multidimensional:
You might assign "liberty", "justice”, "sane", "sage" and "genius" to licensed lawyers. You'll fall for the license and forget WHO is holding it up, blocking your view. You’ll confuse historical fact versus legal fact so that guilt is then a crime rather than a matter of: wrong, in error or mistaken.
Reverse Legal Illusions:
Gravity: you GIVE greatest weight. You aren't weighed down. You throw your weight; if you throw your weight behind a dollar thus anchor it? Not free floating but supported by you. Throw your weight behind yourself - anchor yourself like a tree planting roots - so that you can throw it behind me. Native Americans have a story: You see those two massive oak trees standing so closely together? They're not beating each other when they reach out. Susan says: Yes, but they do not vote either. Science says: Right, matter gives rise to consciousness. Susan: Wrong as I discerned and measured the difference thus have the WEIGHT of CONSCIOUSNESS or TIME. You not only anchor yourself with weight but you balance the load by accepting the weight; you can jump on the scales of justice or "move" across to the other side; "gravity" under the law does not always mean burden. You're supposed to obtain lightness of being making moral and ethical decisions over your own life so that you can Preside and Command, flying like time's arrow. You, the experiment and the result, are supposed to turn a talent into a skill set thus you then do accord others safety which liberty guarantees.
THE ILLUSION IS THAT UNJUST MEN AND ACTS OF INJUSTICE CAN AND DO KEEP YOU SAFE; IF YOU ARE AFRAID AND IF YOU PARTICIPATE - IF YOU FALL UNDER THEIR SPELL THUS COMMIT UNJUST ACTS OR VOTE FOR THEM - THEN YOU CREATE AND MAINTAIN THE DELUSION.
Usually you do not experience this so immediately as chain of causation or chain of custody means you, the cause, injure another so you then effect that person who in turn may or may not cause new effects. The injury you are and the harm you cause spread out like ripples on a pond but if you keep it up and keep it up? Upon compounding the injury as much as possible you'll strike out and harm your own self; it comes back to you then and there. It's like throwing a stone at your own self. It's: Jail, insanity or death.
On the other hand if you understand you're energy effecting yourself then you can powerup, "target" your mark and drop an atom bomb in the laps of unjust men or at or upon any target: I acted and acted until I was and now am opposite and diametrically opposed...the authority and power is mine as I can cast the idea of my unique person out from me and land on my mark; I the person does not need to "go" anywhere. It's fission and fusion as you're not actually smashing and splitting atoms. Actually smashing and splitting atoms? That mistaken belief as the appearance of the illusion is so good then led to the God delusion and maintenance of this delusion which is nuclear energy as a threat or means to control you with physical and emotional force that then led to the God delusion tipped on its head. First you tell me nukes are what you're afraid of and today you say it's Obama and if not him "they the government". Who, me? Who's this mysterious "they"? YOU ARE THE GOVERNMENT. You're afraid of your own self! Why? What's so scary if you don't have a vote to hide behind? Lol! It’s a secret ballot not an in secret ballot.
The truth is: LAWYERS did not believe it was possible for The People to enter SCOTUS directly; The People? Not one of them told me it was impossible. LAWYERS have a mistaken belief about People that they adopted as law via mere belief and failure of lawyers to police themselves that every lawyer holds as true aka law and endemically so thus they then dumped or assigned this lie upon or to you. Lawyers protected other lawyers thinking you could not sue as in it is not possible. Obama has this idea in his head as if it's inviolate law, that you can't enter directly so you can’t sue him thus forcing him to make an appearance pro se. Yes, you can, as first it enters your head and then you act upon it; who needs an actual building or sitting Justices? The venue is Me; it's You; it's here. It's why Obama reacted when I landed on his desk (See Obama’s Freudian slip “Louisiana Purchase” in a healthcare interview as the skeptics may not be up to date on this) so he may not have known something until I told him. Like:
WE NEVER NEED TO SEE YOUR PAPERWORK. WE BELIEVE YOUR TESTIMONY, THAT YOUR FATHER WAS BORN IN KENYA AND WE BELIEVE THAT IT’S POSSIBLE YOU WERE BORN IN HA ALTHOUGH EVEN IF YOU ARE YOUR MOTHER DID NOT LIVE THERE FOR FIVE YEARS PRIOR THUS YOU CAN'T SO MUCH AS ESTABLISH THE POSSIBILITY EXISTS THAT YOU ARE NATURAL BORN BUT ONLY THAT YOU DID NOT COMMIT VOTER FRAUD. "Natural born Obama"? IT'S IMPROBABLE HISTORY, AS IN IMPOSSIBLE HISTORY AS IT DID NOT HAPPEN EVEN IF YOU WERE - ARE - BORN IN HA. LEGALLY WE HAVE ALL THE PAPER WE EVER NEEDED, THE DECLARATION AND THE CONSTITUTION, AS YOU ESTABLISH LEGALITY VIA YOUR FATHER. IT'S WHY WE USED TO CALL THE CHILDREN OF UNWED MOTHERS ILLEGITIMATE AS NO FATHER IS LISTED SO YOU COULD BE KING GEORGE'S SON SEEKING YOUR REVENGE ON THE US. IT'S WHY WE HAVE THE 5 YEAR RULE. SO WE CAN INFECT YOU BEFORE BIRTH. THEN YOU *MIGHT* BE LEGITIMATE. UNTIL THEN? YOU DERIVE YOUR AUTHORITY FROM NO ONE AND NO THING. IT'S NON-EXISTENT.
The greatest weight would be YOU, you ARE the detailed written plans everyone's been looking for that don't exist as the plan is to vote thus there is no time; all time now is then no time. Vote Now, as in every second of every day not along lines as if we are enemies. We’re the same, interdependent, as time is consciousness and is all now then what exists outside of it or around it must too be conscious. "All That Is":
You can argue this once you know the pattern - the equation - but if you do? This is the infinite number that will leave you catatonic so you can know the NATURE of it but cannot know it exactly. You can know it exactly ONLY within your human limitations but know it, the WHOLE ALL THAT IS? Never. As a human being I experienced this; I know the nature of this and I know exactly but only within my human limitations. Are my limitations like yours but then unique? Yes, so a part of this is unique to me but the law at work is universal. I had a peek at what exists in the state we call "chaos" and the actual structure of time and I had a taste of what ruminating upon that infinite number feels like and is. You can know the truth of nature's law and nature's God thus the universe within the limits of your humanity. Limits upon unjust men? If your proof is more paper you have no limitations.
On paper they're arguing nature - they believe they are - when actually they're arguing the nature of the injury not nature itself. They are arguing theory NOT nature, not actual reality, not US law. They, deluded men, also believe you can't know the human psyche so that they can keep secrets like “it's criminal” but in plain sight. Once you tolerate this in plain sight crime even if all you are tolerating is a personal wrong? You have created the delusion for them and now you maintain it! This is what always sinks a government: Criminal corruption in plain sight that the voters sit back and accept as well as then maintain.
This indicates: Your will is broken. If you had no other reason to stop the 2008 election it was and is women as domestic violence is meant to change the conditions to then keep the disenfranchised powerless and nobody can justify the nonsense men who are lawyers act out in an attempt to maintain the delusion that they're stronger. Better. Smarter. WORTH MORE MONEY!!! Greater than women so it was only a matter of time, literally and figuratively, until you weighed your own selves down instead of up. ETHICAL MEN came to be valued at a dollar amount less than the fools they, other men, elected.
You are utterly powerless against the truth - The Creator or Universe - so your only actual power lay in being honest. Honesty with my own self & God was my best policy and lucky for me that turned out to be the essence of the EP&DP clauses. Hearing and seeing reality in print for the first time such as reading the SCOTUS docket may feel odd. The language is "slippery" like a reptile is. The truth feels slippery but is it? "Carry that weight" - tell the truth of you and your actions - to then lighten your load. If you can't tell the truth as you're pathological or sociological or if you won't tell the truth? I'll create a reverse illusion in writing then shattering your delusion when I hit you between the eyes with the truth of you, the truth that you believed you had hidden or that nobody knew. Upon reading it if you're a scientist, a lawyer or a politician criminal then: You're 'hit'!
Trust me, it can make me feel seasick. I lap myself on paper and forget which end is up, lol. They argue 'nature of injury', injure you further and then argue 'injury from arguing nature of the injury not nature itself'. Then I'm writing: "Okay: injury from injury from not arguing nature itself but arguing nature of the injury? You just argued your paper did it to you, as if you the innocent lawyer were attacked by words on pieces of paper that arose out of matter and have no conscience, or, that you did not write your own self. No conscience? That's you the lawyer not the paper. That's you the injury or you are your own willing victim not the paper so it might actually be you the person. Based upon this legal argument The People might consider a plea of insanity and might make you insane by writing it down. If you ARE a lawyer and some how, some way came to sit as President who then needs a lawyer outside of himself to avoid ever having to argue as a lawyer live in court before and after the election - you know, FOREVER - thus you really can't defend your own self then: Are you the US President who actually does have an actual fool for a client? Personally, I believe only an actual criminal who is a fool would throw this one to The People and/or claim that as he produced no paper we can't sue the paper thus can't sue him. As for the words on the paper or lackthereof: You can only violate the letter of the law so much; eventually you the lawyer will discover the pronoun known as 1st person as it's a letter that is by itself independent and a part of the team known as the alphabet at the same time."
All they fine-tuned from Nixon's heyday to Cheney's and Co. is they decided to have a legal excuse down on paper BEFORE they violated the law. You sue and they produce their prearranged argument as if they BELIEVE they'll get off or never be charged to begin with then they go for it. This would be case law proving case law to be US law in spite of what the Constitution reads already and in spite of time or history, "We Won The Revolution And Know About It; We're Consciously Aware Cornwallis Surrendered, Nixon Resigned And Then Susan Entered The Office Directly Upon Constitutional Authority". Ideally this board of anti-constitutional gluttons is supposed to scare you away without you making an attempt (it would constitute failure to act on your part) when they never had anything real over you and then they decided to have no paper, lol, so it's imaginary. This is where they nailed you with Souter as Rudman and others wanted you to believe he had no paper trail when Souter had a mile long state court record it's all federal as it all rises automatically as it begins with you and ends at you. Wakey wakey kids:
Q: David Souter, what did you know, when did you know it and when did you first act upon it? See Marbury.
A: "The first lesson, simple as it is, is that whatever court we are in, whatever we are doing, whether we are in a trial court or an appellate court, at the end of our task some human being is going to be affected. Some human life is going to be changed in some way by what we do, whether we do it as trial judges or whether we do it as appellate judges, as far removed from the trial arena as it is possible to be. And so we had better use every power of our minds and our hearts and our beings to get those rulings right", or, 'This is me, David Souter, acting upon the truth of The Constitution as I know I'm a judge affecting you, humans, right now."
I, Susan, fell out laughing as WHO didn't hear this? I still don't know if it's the best or worst SCOTUS nominee testimony I ever heard. This is why I keep saying, "The only thing that surprised me about BVG was David Souter's silence." After his testimony you would think BVG would clue him in: He's A People. The only actual point of law is the fairy story they aren't telling: test of Marbury as now, these guys are testing my limits. BVG is the breach by lawyers; Souter was you breaching it or maybe Nixon is. Maybe you never should have won the Revolution. Don't be silly. When's the first realistic opportunity you had if you were in school at any time after 1952? In Re Susan.
Illusory legal arguments are the problem as they make case law and what is fantasy then seem to be law. Who enforces opinions? They're only re-writing the Constitution in that you keep following along. Does David Souter really hold the power of life and death over you? Is he affecting your life? It's possible: He affected my life so I sued him right back. The illusion makes you feel powerless when the truth should make you feel powerful. Can and may a lawyer, an Officer of the Judiciary, sue any other Officer in their legal capacity within the Judiciary, a civil court? No, so lack of a law license is golden. So then;
After Nixon as it was made to seem as if a tape recording or paper is the proof of guilt or the proof of actual reality as Nixon was pardoned and as people started to sue over "policy" they then decided no paper is the key. They mean to play against your unrest with women, race, feelings of powerlessness and no paper trail thus causing you to question - doubt - yourselves. THEY MEAN AND INTEND FOR YOU TO FEEL LIKE YOU'RE GOING CRAZY! Think:
"Africa + no paper = no slave now when really its all slave now”. Slave owners used to worry that slaves would FORGE the manumission documents if they could read and write. Lawyers and Administration Officials are worried that if you learn constitutional law and logical deduction you'll forge a SCOTUS case against them? Make as in create an actual case in your own defense? Learn the truth of BVG and/or In Re Susan and you'll revolt again with or without a paper court ruling as you don't need nor do you want the permission of a criminal?
They do not realize they're canceling their own selves out. Like this: You have no paper ruling from SCOTUS and guess what? Neither does Obama, lol. Guess what else? Any federal office holder like a Senator can and may enter SCOTUS directly so all Nancy Pelosi, McCain or Obama ever had to do was enter SCOTUS directly NOT wait for a popular vote on a bill or: Wait for you to sue. Unfortunately we know no paper means Obama and then all unjust men some of whom are women do not have the Constitution on their side nor do they have actual reality. But they impart this lie to you:
If Obama has no birth certificate and has no paper record then you can't sue him, Obama thus us, the Officers and Officials; no paper trail means you can't know the truth so you can't sue...seriously, as if you CAN'T sue the person but can only sue the paper, lololol!
When you tell me that I need paper to sue like I need 12,371 ballots, 34,012 chads, a HA COLB, work in Harvard's law review, a SCOTUS opinion calling me not you a liar, a Nobel Peace Prize for Politicking or $1 billion? I can and did sue to tell the truth thus create paper, one vote on the SCOTUS docket as that's paper trail enough. You know how you track an animal? His poop or lacktherof. No joke.
Sue the paper? I'll 'try':
Susan V Harvard Law Review as "paper" is a pretty complex idea for Harvard Law the 1st Corporation in the US to have all by its self as first it has to have “tree”. I met the bar but Harvard? Their counsel is Obama. He has no paper so how and when is he going to have 'tree' if he is not even at or on paper? Harvard, you sue the paper by suing the Chief Justice testing Marbury thus uphold the law or the contract upon appeal. THE TREE IS LIBERTY. THE PLAN, PAPER AND REALITY, IS THE VOTE. You planned to hijack the vote while I planned to sue you, HARVARD.
PRO SE before SCOTUS is itself a reverse auditory, visual and emotional illusion. I'm reversing the illusion of licensed lawyer as the authority for you. Undoing the harm. I have built "The Parthenon of Paper".
I was able to go back and run them around and write about it today, as if it's self-fulfilling prophecy when I merely used the natural forces and what I knew to be law of the universe as it matches US law. See the unfiled application for a stay as its online. I also used what I know about the human psyche; it's rather easy to affect lawyers. You too could do this easily; you can use their own nasty tactics and their own words against them.
I'm the reverse, the obverse of a lawyer, tipped right side up. You can do or be this also. The paper form is about 5 pages long, 6 at the most.
In closing, I'll make an attempt to reverse John Woo: "We have no argument. John Woo told me he is a master criminal via his actions: He went to work for Dick Cheney. The legal presumption is he is telling the truth. Therefore as I now have cause to doubt he is a "master" based upon "The John Woo Memos" as no self-disrespecting Nazi would claim this as his own work. I'm suing him for: Illegal malpractice for if this isn't ideological warfare what is? A master criminal would not be caught or if caught successfully avoid a panel of Congressmen - you, know, other criminals who aren't masters? What master criminal lawyer can't successfully scapegoat himself thus can't rise above the likes of Congress? I give you a master, one who can and did rise: In Re Susan." It's ILlegal malpractice a he never promised me that he'd practice the law but only what is unlawful.
If you can argue the EP&DP clauses 360 degrees aka test Marbury then they have no argument as you have them surrounded. You're on the line of demarcation so it doesn't matter to you if they're inside the circle or outside of the circle. Either way? They are out of gas as you can run them to the ends of the earth: It's The People circling their wagons.
WHO's waging psycho-ideological-warfare best, "In Re Susan" or "The Lawyers Who Are Politicians"?
Bob Bauer took my marching orders; “Ethics Czar” indeed. They are mutally exclusive. Plus: Czars are Marxist or soviet but: Russian. I: Suggested he do this, as I had to serve him previously. I know a narcissist when I meet one.
Susan.
P.S. You should have seen – read - the field day I had answering Bob Bauer's letters to other lawyers who unsuccessfully sued his client, Obama, before a judge who is a lawyer and who is himself a lawyer. Obama and Bauer are lawyers; wait - everybody involved is a lawyer except for the ORIGINAL guy who hired one. I was bored so I looked for fun and the very first letter FROM Bob Bauer or WRITTEN BY Bob Bauer to the other lawyer not the original guy who hired him as if the paid lawyer himself sued Obama that I pulled read, "I'll sue you for frivolous legal action in spite of my actual actions"!!!
The "crazy" feeling you get reading physics or legal arguments and that I give you sometimes? Hitler’s big lie. The slippery nature of English. Unjust people wandered so far down the garden path to hell that they then HAD to begin denying their own work and contradicting themselves. They came full circle but realize they don't make sense – on some level they know they don’t make reasonable sense – so they go into denial but as it's about reconciling the truth and the subtle differences in words across fields of study most people do not hear it. Hearing, sight and emotion never line up! If they hear it they do not feel it and vice versa. You'll have GIANTS like Sagan, Gould, Ratzinger and Sotomayor going back on their own words and the 1871 Constitution, actual reality even, and within one piece of work. The Constitution might never have been real for them but is it actual reality?
All I did was take the illusion these people put up, state the obvious or state actual reality and then reverse the illusion thus exposing the delusion by using their own words against them in light of actual fact, law and logical reasoning - THE TRUTH - so that I'm , in the form of my paper, the reverse illusion. If you're a crook I'm the reverse illusion shattering your false and mistaken beliefs - the delusion - so a sane, honest person might hear or read it and feel 'crazy' as...you're not a crook! Most likely you attended school sometime after 1952, you were taught to ignore and so deny unique identifiers in algebraic equations when that does not apply (work) with higher equations and you took a college level course in logic yet never knew that across the board every logic textbook contains an error. Thus you are a victim but not a victim as if you’re American the Founders gave you the means to defy victimization: One vote.
You find fault in the US not place blame. So then:
If you begin to discern the truth from the lies you can act as a reverse illusion and you'd probably do it better than I would as English shifts back and forth like the tides or like ocean waves once you hit upon its elegance. The "thing" I hear everywhere I go is a rhythm that you might not hear - yet. It's like lapping yourself and then falling back upon yourself; in one sentence? I might fall back on me, or the pronouns you, he, we and us; I might turn their real into legal reality 4 or 5 times...it'll never be actual reality; they WANTED to believe whatever lie they told you. This is why you want to believe the person not the paper or the PC a screen that are flat planes upon a flat surface not multidimensional:
You might assign "liberty", "justice”, "sane", "sage" and "genius" to licensed lawyers. You'll fall for the license and forget WHO is holding it up, blocking your view. You’ll confuse historical fact versus legal fact so that guilt is then a crime rather than a matter of: wrong, in error or mistaken.
Reverse Legal Illusions:
Gravity: you GIVE greatest weight. You aren't weighed down. You throw your weight; if you throw your weight behind a dollar thus anchor it? Not free floating but supported by you. Throw your weight behind yourself - anchor yourself like a tree planting roots - so that you can throw it behind me. Native Americans have a story: You see those two massive oak trees standing so closely together? They're not beating each other when they reach out. Susan says: Yes, but they do not vote either. Science says: Right, matter gives rise to consciousness. Susan: Wrong as I discerned and measured the difference thus have the WEIGHT of CONSCIOUSNESS or TIME. You not only anchor yourself with weight but you balance the load by accepting the weight; you can jump on the scales of justice or "move" across to the other side; "gravity" under the law does not always mean burden. You're supposed to obtain lightness of being making moral and ethical decisions over your own life so that you can Preside and Command, flying like time's arrow. You, the experiment and the result, are supposed to turn a talent into a skill set thus you then do accord others safety which liberty guarantees.
THE ILLUSION IS THAT UNJUST MEN AND ACTS OF INJUSTICE CAN AND DO KEEP YOU SAFE; IF YOU ARE AFRAID AND IF YOU PARTICIPATE - IF YOU FALL UNDER THEIR SPELL THUS COMMIT UNJUST ACTS OR VOTE FOR THEM - THEN YOU CREATE AND MAINTAIN THE DELUSION.
Usually you do not experience this so immediately as chain of causation or chain of custody means you, the cause, injure another so you then effect that person who in turn may or may not cause new effects. The injury you are and the harm you cause spread out like ripples on a pond but if you keep it up and keep it up? Upon compounding the injury as much as possible you'll strike out and harm your own self; it comes back to you then and there. It's like throwing a stone at your own self. It's: Jail, insanity or death.
On the other hand if you understand you're energy effecting yourself then you can powerup, "target" your mark and drop an atom bomb in the laps of unjust men or at or upon any target: I acted and acted until I was and now am opposite and diametrically opposed...the authority and power is mine as I can cast the idea of my unique person out from me and land on my mark; I the person does not need to "go" anywhere. It's fission and fusion as you're not actually smashing and splitting atoms. Actually smashing and splitting atoms? That mistaken belief as the appearance of the illusion is so good then led to the God delusion and maintenance of this delusion which is nuclear energy as a threat or means to control you with physical and emotional force that then led to the God delusion tipped on its head. First you tell me nukes are what you're afraid of and today you say it's Obama and if not him "they the government". Who, me? Who's this mysterious "they"? YOU ARE THE GOVERNMENT. You're afraid of your own self! Why? What's so scary if you don't have a vote to hide behind? Lol! It’s a secret ballot not an in secret ballot.
The truth is: LAWYERS did not believe it was possible for The People to enter SCOTUS directly; The People? Not one of them told me it was impossible. LAWYERS have a mistaken belief about People that they adopted as law via mere belief and failure of lawyers to police themselves that every lawyer holds as true aka law and endemically so thus they then dumped or assigned this lie upon or to you. Lawyers protected other lawyers thinking you could not sue as in it is not possible. Obama has this idea in his head as if it's inviolate law, that you can't enter directly so you can’t sue him thus forcing him to make an appearance pro se. Yes, you can, as first it enters your head and then you act upon it; who needs an actual building or sitting Justices? The venue is Me; it's You; it's here. It's why Obama reacted when I landed on his desk (See Obama’s Freudian slip “Louisiana Purchase” in a healthcare interview as the skeptics may not be up to date on this) so he may not have known something until I told him. Like:
WE NEVER NEED TO SEE YOUR PAPERWORK. WE BELIEVE YOUR TESTIMONY, THAT YOUR FATHER WAS BORN IN KENYA AND WE BELIEVE THAT IT’S POSSIBLE YOU WERE BORN IN HA ALTHOUGH EVEN IF YOU ARE YOUR MOTHER DID NOT LIVE THERE FOR FIVE YEARS PRIOR THUS YOU CAN'T SO MUCH AS ESTABLISH THE POSSIBILITY EXISTS THAT YOU ARE NATURAL BORN BUT ONLY THAT YOU DID NOT COMMIT VOTER FRAUD. "Natural born Obama"? IT'S IMPROBABLE HISTORY, AS IN IMPOSSIBLE HISTORY AS IT DID NOT HAPPEN EVEN IF YOU WERE - ARE - BORN IN HA. LEGALLY WE HAVE ALL THE PAPER WE EVER NEEDED, THE DECLARATION AND THE CONSTITUTION, AS YOU ESTABLISH LEGALITY VIA YOUR FATHER. IT'S WHY WE USED TO CALL THE CHILDREN OF UNWED MOTHERS ILLEGITIMATE AS NO FATHER IS LISTED SO YOU COULD BE KING GEORGE'S SON SEEKING YOUR REVENGE ON THE US. IT'S WHY WE HAVE THE 5 YEAR RULE. SO WE CAN INFECT YOU BEFORE BIRTH. THEN YOU *MIGHT* BE LEGITIMATE. UNTIL THEN? YOU DERIVE YOUR AUTHORITY FROM NO ONE AND NO THING. IT'S NON-EXISTENT.
The greatest weight would be YOU, you ARE the detailed written plans everyone's been looking for that don't exist as the plan is to vote thus there is no time; all time now is then no time. Vote Now, as in every second of every day not along lines as if we are enemies. We’re the same, interdependent, as time is consciousness and is all now then what exists outside of it or around it must too be conscious. "All That Is":
You can argue this once you know the pattern - the equation - but if you do? This is the infinite number that will leave you catatonic so you can know the NATURE of it but cannot know it exactly. You can know it exactly ONLY within your human limitations but know it, the WHOLE ALL THAT IS? Never. As a human being I experienced this; I know the nature of this and I know exactly but only within my human limitations. Are my limitations like yours but then unique? Yes, so a part of this is unique to me but the law at work is universal. I had a peek at what exists in the state we call "chaos" and the actual structure of time and I had a taste of what ruminating upon that infinite number feels like and is. You can know the truth of nature's law and nature's God thus the universe within the limits of your humanity. Limits upon unjust men? If your proof is more paper you have no limitations.
On paper they're arguing nature - they believe they are - when actually they're arguing the nature of the injury not nature itself. They are arguing theory NOT nature, not actual reality, not US law. They, deluded men, also believe you can't know the human psyche so that they can keep secrets like “it's criminal” but in plain sight. Once you tolerate this in plain sight crime even if all you are tolerating is a personal wrong? You have created the delusion for them and now you maintain it! This is what always sinks a government: Criminal corruption in plain sight that the voters sit back and accept as well as then maintain.
This indicates: Your will is broken. If you had no other reason to stop the 2008 election it was and is women as domestic violence is meant to change the conditions to then keep the disenfranchised powerless and nobody can justify the nonsense men who are lawyers act out in an attempt to maintain the delusion that they're stronger. Better. Smarter. WORTH MORE MONEY!!! Greater than women so it was only a matter of time, literally and figuratively, until you weighed your own selves down instead of up. ETHICAL MEN came to be valued at a dollar amount less than the fools they, other men, elected.
You are utterly powerless against the truth - The Creator or Universe - so your only actual power lay in being honest. Honesty with my own self & God was my best policy and lucky for me that turned out to be the essence of the EP&DP clauses. Hearing and seeing reality in print for the first time such as reading the SCOTUS docket may feel odd. The language is "slippery" like a reptile is. The truth feels slippery but is it? "Carry that weight" - tell the truth of you and your actions - to then lighten your load. If you can't tell the truth as you're pathological or sociological or if you won't tell the truth? I'll create a reverse illusion in writing then shattering your delusion when I hit you between the eyes with the truth of you, the truth that you believed you had hidden or that nobody knew. Upon reading it if you're a scientist, a lawyer or a politician criminal then: You're 'hit'!
Trust me, it can make me feel seasick. I lap myself on paper and forget which end is up, lol. They argue 'nature of injury', injure you further and then argue 'injury from arguing nature of the injury not nature itself'. Then I'm writing: "Okay: injury from injury from not arguing nature itself but arguing nature of the injury? You just argued your paper did it to you, as if you the innocent lawyer were attacked by words on pieces of paper that arose out of matter and have no conscience, or, that you did not write your own self. No conscience? That's you the lawyer not the paper. That's you the injury or you are your own willing victim not the paper so it might actually be you the person. Based upon this legal argument The People might consider a plea of insanity and might make you insane by writing it down. If you ARE a lawyer and some how, some way came to sit as President who then needs a lawyer outside of himself to avoid ever having to argue as a lawyer live in court before and after the election - you know, FOREVER - thus you really can't defend your own self then: Are you the US President who actually does have an actual fool for a client? Personally, I believe only an actual criminal who is a fool would throw this one to The People and/or claim that as he produced no paper we can't sue the paper thus can't sue him. As for the words on the paper or lackthereof: You can only violate the letter of the law so much; eventually you the lawyer will discover the pronoun known as 1st person as it's a letter that is by itself independent and a part of the team known as the alphabet at the same time."
All they fine-tuned from Nixon's heyday to Cheney's and Co. is they decided to have a legal excuse down on paper BEFORE they violated the law. You sue and they produce their prearranged argument as if they BELIEVE they'll get off or never be charged to begin with then they go for it. This would be case law proving case law to be US law in spite of what the Constitution reads already and in spite of time or history, "We Won The Revolution And Know About It; We're Consciously Aware Cornwallis Surrendered, Nixon Resigned And Then Susan Entered The Office Directly Upon Constitutional Authority". Ideally this board of anti-constitutional gluttons is supposed to scare you away without you making an attempt (it would constitute failure to act on your part) when they never had anything real over you and then they decided to have no paper, lol, so it's imaginary. This is where they nailed you with Souter as Rudman and others wanted you to believe he had no paper trail when Souter had a mile long state court record it's all federal as it all rises automatically as it begins with you and ends at you. Wakey wakey kids:
Q: David Souter, what did you know, when did you know it and when did you first act upon it? See Marbury.
A: "The first lesson, simple as it is, is that whatever court we are in, whatever we are doing, whether we are in a trial court or an appellate court, at the end of our task some human being is going to be affected. Some human life is going to be changed in some way by what we do, whether we do it as trial judges or whether we do it as appellate judges, as far removed from the trial arena as it is possible to be. And so we had better use every power of our minds and our hearts and our beings to get those rulings right", or, 'This is me, David Souter, acting upon the truth of The Constitution as I know I'm a judge affecting you, humans, right now."
I, Susan, fell out laughing as WHO didn't hear this? I still don't know if it's the best or worst SCOTUS nominee testimony I ever heard. This is why I keep saying, "The only thing that surprised me about BVG was David Souter's silence." After his testimony you would think BVG would clue him in: He's A People. The only actual point of law is the fairy story they aren't telling: test of Marbury as now, these guys are testing my limits. BVG is the breach by lawyers; Souter was you breaching it or maybe Nixon is. Maybe you never should have won the Revolution. Don't be silly. When's the first realistic opportunity you had if you were in school at any time after 1952? In Re Susan.
Illusory legal arguments are the problem as they make case law and what is fantasy then seem to be law. Who enforces opinions? They're only re-writing the Constitution in that you keep following along. Does David Souter really hold the power of life and death over you? Is he affecting your life? It's possible: He affected my life so I sued him right back. The illusion makes you feel powerless when the truth should make you feel powerful. Can and may a lawyer, an Officer of the Judiciary, sue any other Officer in their legal capacity within the Judiciary, a civil court? No, so lack of a law license is golden. So then;
After Nixon as it was made to seem as if a tape recording or paper is the proof of guilt or the proof of actual reality as Nixon was pardoned and as people started to sue over "policy" they then decided no paper is the key. They mean to play against your unrest with women, race, feelings of powerlessness and no paper trail thus causing you to question - doubt - yourselves. THEY MEAN AND INTEND FOR YOU TO FEEL LIKE YOU'RE GOING CRAZY! Think:
"Africa + no paper = no slave now when really its all slave now”. Slave owners used to worry that slaves would FORGE the manumission documents if they could read and write. Lawyers and Administration Officials are worried that if you learn constitutional law and logical deduction you'll forge a SCOTUS case against them? Make as in create an actual case in your own defense? Learn the truth of BVG and/or In Re Susan and you'll revolt again with or without a paper court ruling as you don't need nor do you want the permission of a criminal?
They do not realize they're canceling their own selves out. Like this: You have no paper ruling from SCOTUS and guess what? Neither does Obama, lol. Guess what else? Any federal office holder like a Senator can and may enter SCOTUS directly so all Nancy Pelosi, McCain or Obama ever had to do was enter SCOTUS directly NOT wait for a popular vote on a bill or: Wait for you to sue. Unfortunately we know no paper means Obama and then all unjust men some of whom are women do not have the Constitution on their side nor do they have actual reality. But they impart this lie to you:
If Obama has no birth certificate and has no paper record then you can't sue him, Obama thus us, the Officers and Officials; no paper trail means you can't know the truth so you can't sue...seriously, as if you CAN'T sue the person but can only sue the paper, lololol!
When you tell me that I need paper to sue like I need 12,371 ballots, 34,012 chads, a HA COLB, work in Harvard's law review, a SCOTUS opinion calling me not you a liar, a Nobel Peace Prize for Politicking or $1 billion? I can and did sue to tell the truth thus create paper, one vote on the SCOTUS docket as that's paper trail enough. You know how you track an animal? His poop or lacktherof. No joke.
Sue the paper? I'll 'try':
Susan V Harvard Law Review as "paper" is a pretty complex idea for Harvard Law the 1st Corporation in the US to have all by its self as first it has to have “tree”. I met the bar but Harvard? Their counsel is Obama. He has no paper so how and when is he going to have 'tree' if he is not even at or on paper? Harvard, you sue the paper by suing the Chief Justice testing Marbury thus uphold the law or the contract upon appeal. THE TREE IS LIBERTY. THE PLAN, PAPER AND REALITY, IS THE VOTE. You planned to hijack the vote while I planned to sue you, HARVARD.
PRO SE before SCOTUS is itself a reverse auditory, visual and emotional illusion. I'm reversing the illusion of licensed lawyer as the authority for you. Undoing the harm. I have built "The Parthenon of Paper".
I was able to go back and run them around and write about it today, as if it's self-fulfilling prophecy when I merely used the natural forces and what I knew to be law of the universe as it matches US law. See the unfiled application for a stay as its online. I also used what I know about the human psyche; it's rather easy to affect lawyers. You too could do this easily; you can use their own nasty tactics and their own words against them. I'm the reverse, the obverse of a lawyer, tipped right side up. You can do or be this also. The paper form is about 5 pages long, 6 at the most.
In closing, I'll make an attempt to reverse John Woo: "We have no argument. John Woo told me he is a master criminal via his actions: He went to work for Dick Cheney. The legal presumption is he is telling the truth. Therefore as I now have cause to doubt he is a "master" based upon "The John Woo Memos" as no self-disrespecting Nazi would claim this as his own work. I'm suing him for: Illegal malpractice for if this isn't ideological warfare what is? A master criminal would not be caught or if caught successfully avoid a panel of Congressmen - you, know, other criminals who aren't masters? What master criminal lawyer can't successfully scapegoat himself thus can't rise above the likes of Congress? I give you a master, one who can and did rise: In Re Susan." It's ILlegal malpractice a he never promised me that he'd practice the law but only what is unlawful.
If you can argue the EP&DP clauses 360 degrees aka test Marbury then they have no argument as you have them surrounded. You're on the line of demarcation so it doesn't matter to you if they're inside the circle or outside of the circle. Either way? They are out of gas as you can run them to the ends of the earth: It's The People circling their wagons.
WHO's waging psycho-ideological-warfare best, "In Re Susan" or "The Lawyers Who Are Politicians"?
Bob Bauer took my marching orders; “Ethics Czar” indeed. They are mutally exclusive. Plus: Czars are Marxist or soviet but: Russian. I: Suggested he do this, as I had to serve him previously. I know a narcissist when I meet one.
Susan.
P.S. You should have seen – read - the field day I had answering Bob Bauer's letters to other lawyers who unsuccessfully sued his client, Obama, before a judge who is a lawyer and who is himself a lawyer. Obama and Bauer are lawyers; wait - everybody involved is a lawyer except for the ORIGINAL guy who hired one. I was bored so I looked for fun and the very first letter FROM Bob Bauer or WRITTEN BY Bob Bauer to the other lawyer not the original guy who hired him as if the paid lawyer himself sued Obama that I pulled read, "I'll sue you for frivolous legal action in spite of my actual actions"!!!
Last edited:
