IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF FEDERAL CLAIMS

CLEMONS, HERBERT AND MORTON ET AL

Plaintiffs,

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Versus
THE UNITED STATES,
Defendant.

CIVIL ACTION NO.

______________

COMPLAINT
I INTRODUCTION

This action seeks just compensation from the United States for an absolute and
whole violation of the Plaintiffs exactly named rights and birthright and for
property taken from Plaintiffs, a declatory judgment, that the Defendant is in
active default and that actions taken by the US and its officers were arbitrary
and without any factual or lawful basis and an appropriate junction.
II JURISDICTION
This court has jurisdiction because the US is a Defendant and as this case meets
every single basis for jurisdiction named by this court itself and by the US. 28
U.S.C. 1491. Also it has been previously found twice over that the US is in
default so that this is a first time ever circumstance making this court the court
in which Plaintiffs would seek damages as this court exists to balance and then
counterbalance the US ability and capacity to cause harm without justly
compensating The People; the original intent of this courts very existence is in
play.

III PARTIES
Plaintiffs are natural born citizens of the United States of America not of the
incorporated US. One Plaintiff is being charged with a capital offense and has a
fatal disease.
Plaintiffs sue in their own right, as they are sovereign entities and as the
successors to the American Founders and their original form, The Constitution for
the United States of America circa 1789.
The Defendants are the US and its officers who are successors to the incorporation
of the US known as The Constitution of the United States circa 1871. They are also
the successors of an action named Bush V Gore that has a basis in fact but not in
law as the Petition/Argument is not the same thing as the Opinion; the Plaintiffs
do not regard the Supreme Court Justices as Defendants.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
1.

In April of 2014 Plaintiffs filed in US Claims for a second time as the first time
Plaintiffs filed a pre-existing conflict prevented this case from receiving a fair
and/or just hearing.

2.

Upon filing the second time this was ignored thus the same exact pre-existing
conflict was realized all over again as the federal judiciary seems to be in
deep denial. The only reasoning for this is false fear and false guilt.

3.

David Levitt a commercial litigator for the DOJ was assigned to represent the US
formed in 1871; Levitt seems to be confused and demonstrated that he cannot
represent the US adequately or effectively.

4.

Levitt made up whole events that never transpired, he placed blame upon the
Justices for actions they never took, he completely ignored unjust actions the
Chief Clerk and other clerks did take, he elevated case law above exactly worded
US Law when case law is not a written authority on law and will never be above
US Law, he denied default is, he confused money with currency as if they are the
same when they are not, he does not know something about woman and never
will as he is a man but he denies this, he seemed to be thoroughly confused as to
what is life versus what is a matter of paperwork only, he seemingly assumed
that the Plaintiffs no nothing about commercial law, he ignored/denied every

fact regarding the Defendants behavior which is a matter of the public record, he
denies remedy and relief is available and he authored what is a straw man
argument and a legal fallacy and his work is without logic, reason and ration.
See attached re Plaintiffs knowledge of commercial law and underwriting bonds.

5.

One of the most egregious errors Levitt makes is to claim that Plaintiffs seek
monetary compensation and that this case should be dismissed as the EP&DP
clauses are not money clauses when Plaintiffs seek a form/s of currency not
money and when Plaintiffs have already proven that the US is in active violation
of the 14th Amendment, an Amendment that may not be lawfulbefore BVG was
heard you might have been able to make this claim as one of the reasons the 14 th
exists is to prevent the US from having to pay money upon claims of its willful
violation of the EP&DP clauses as well as fiscal mismanagement but you may not
after BVG and In Re Susan Herbert; this was previously debated during the US
bond rating/bankruptcy scandal and Plaintiffs won.

6.

Levitt is actually arguing that a US dollar has value and is good when that is not
possible in light of actual reality, the actual facts and law.

7.

It is not the fault of the Plaintiffs if Levitt has been conditioned and
indoctrinated by law school and the US and/or if he is unknowledgeable where
fact and natural or universal law is concerned; it is Levitts job to learn what he
does not know and then apply it; its also his job to consider ALL fact.

8.

The federal courts are acting insane as they insist upon doing the same thing
over and over they insist upon denying a good case hearing in person and so
they deny reality but yet each time they expect a different result when that
will never, ever happen.

9.

Einstein said it and it is true: You cannot solve your problems with the very same
thinking that caused the problem. The US is attempting to apply the very same
thinking that caused their problems to the solution when that will never solve
anything and only make our problems worse the proof being all that transpired
since Plaintiffs were denied hearing in person including the police shootings in
Cleveland and Ferguson; these would not have transpired if Plaintiffs were heard
as they do possess the solution as they applied different thinking and that is the
advantage of NOT accepting a law degree or practicing law for payment i.e.
money.

10.

Employees of the US seem to believe that Plaintiffs cant make this case as if not
possessing paper law degrees and law licenses somehow causes us to be stupid
when reality is we are shut out only because we are highly intelligent so it is not
only discrimination of women but discrimination of genius. See attachment D.

11.

This case and Plaintiffs may proceed as it was never lawfully dismissed; Letow or
another employee of the US sent the dismissal via third party carrier which is
against the rule and the law as there is no such thing as a third party contract
and the rule is first class mail; also Letow used FedEx when FedEx previously
harmed the Plaintiffs by charging over $60 to their FedEx account and claiming a
US Embassy in DC did it when there are no US Embassies in DC as that would be
the Department of State and curiously this transpired after Susan Herbert acted
against Hilary Clinton during HER Benghazi Scandal which led to her resignation
and when Herbert correctly predicted that she would appear to testify wearing
the color green as green symbolizes illness, sickness, greed and jealousy. Clinton
wore a green suit.

12.

Third party carrier invalidates the dismissal. Furthermore FedEx acted insanely
as their agent yelled what was unintelligible and pounded on Herberts door
when she did not answer as she couldnt; FedEx violated its own policies which
was entirely predictable as anything but just actions will cause the injury and
harm to indemnify and thats exactly what happened.

13.

Also the US Postal Service, as they want and need their case to be heard (Herbert
is their counsel but she does not represent the Post Master General), then
delivered Levitts answer to the incorrect address to avoid serving upon her and
as they were not otherwise engaged delivering Letows response FedEx was
then the mail truck came to be in a near collision with a city bus when a Plaintiff
was on this bus and that then almost resulted in a tort but Plaintiff decided not
to pursue his claim in another court.

14.

Levitt told Herbert and all Plaintiffs exactly what he thinks of them on the front
of his envelope; Levitt admitted in plain sight and in full view of everyone who
can read that he is prejudiced against women and that he thinks Susan Herbert is
absolutely nothing. He admitted that he truly believes Herbert and other counsel
cannot hold their own against him in court. This is ridiculous. Of course the US
Postal Service would avoid delivering this to the Plaintiffs for it might constitute
a crime on Levitts part and it compounds the injury.

15.

If you turn to the attachment regarding underwriting a bond you will read
testimony that a federal judge purportedly gave in open court when a citizen
acted to underwrite their own bond; this has to do with paper and with the
Chicago stock exchange and its connection to banks; it also has to do with the
exactly named Creator as the judge claims that while the Plaintiff will win that
he will never figure it out. Never figure what out? The judge is referring to the
Creator and Plaintiffs have indeed figured it outnot only has at least one
Plaintiff died, met the Creator and returned to describe it but Plaintiffs have
discovered the smallest particle man can measure and correctly reasoned how
and why magnetic North moves; they have correctly reasoned or defined
consciousness; they united Quantum Mechanics and Relativity; they can tell
science what it does not yet know as modern organized scientists are in the same
denial federal courts are as the mechanism by which it all works? This very
knowledge. See attachment I.

16.

Levitt should know: Plaintiffs DO comprehend why there are two numbers on the
back of our Social Security cards and what the number on the back, lower right
hand corner is and means and that our Birth Cert is nothing but a certificate of
stock while that SS card is a bond; Plaintiffs understand you never, ever allow a
person who holds zero stock in a corporation to then vote at a shareholders
meeting so it is insane to let Obama vote OR sit as President as he has never
once produced the correct, good paperwork nor can he produce life; that is he
cannot testify in his own defense as he has none (Obama has zero proof) as he
was not born in the US anymore than John McCain was; Plaintiffs can follow
these numbers and reason how it all works. See Constitution & Nationality Act.

17.

What Levitt and then Charles Letow did is author what is legal fiction and then is
fiction itself; the problem with this is lawyers are taught to do this in law school
and in practice once they graduate and enter the bar; not one lawyer in America
ever stopped to reason the definition of legal fiction found in Blacks for if
they had they would know that by its very definition Blacks Law itself states
that Blacks law IS a work of legal fiction as once you account for BVG and
Obama then the entire practice of law becomes legal fiction.

18.

Read the definition; if you apply this definition to Blacks Law itself then Blacks
is legal fiction. Levitt then is advocating that we throw the baby out with the
bathwater for while we can go through Blacks page by page and clearly reason
what is logical and sound versus what is not and so doesnt apply we can also toss
out Blacks entirely as US Law and resulting case law is unique in all of the world

and it severed its ties to British Common Law upon Marbury being heard; today
we have American Common Law a body of work which was completed upon In Re
Susan Herbert being filed directly.

19.

Levitt effectively entered Blacks by fabricating legal fiction and by standing

upon what is lesser than written, exactly worded US Law; he did this deliberately
for to acknowledge US Law is to acknowledge the truth and then Levitt and along
with him the US has no case, no defense. This is perfectly correct as well as
perfectly logical as the US is in active default for the very first time and there is
no defense one can mount against the whole truth. Levitt and his defense is
dependent upon the Plaintiffs being ignorant and unknowledgeable when they
[we] arent. He counted upon Plaintiffs not knowing the whole truth but they
[we] do know. Levitts and the US only actual, legal, lawful defense is to
acknowledge reality including the reality of woman and Susan Herbert and to
settle for they have already lost via default and there is no going back; that is
once the US chose to default then it is and the US may not now revoke their
decision only as the Plaintiffs acted to collect their judgment.

20.

US Law doesnt allow for buyers remorse in this case or in any cases of
default.

21.

On March 12th, 2008 the Plaintiffs directly filed a constitutional authority case of
original jurisdiction within the Supreme Court of the US.

22.

A direct challenge to Bush V Gore henceforth known as BVG the suit was won
upon filing or else it wouldnt exist; filing and adjudication in this type of case is
simultaneous or concurrent.

23.

Plaintiff/Counselor Susan Herbert understood that the argument or theory

authored by lawyers known as BVG is bad and that according to the exactly
worded Constitution (either version) that BVG the opinion as it involves the
election of a President created what is a tie as the correct, actual math is:
BVG=1 whole court as 5 as 1 vs 4 as 1 hence 1 vs 1 or BVG =1 absolute Chief
Justice as Rhenquist opined as both a part of the whole court and alone and that
this one is pitted against the absolute citizen as 1 who rises to challenge it
thereby making the case for Marbury, making the case for EP&DP for women and
children accounting for biological distinction and making the case for the
existence of the exactly named Creator and that this then creates the venue to
test the natural birth clause.

24.

The federal question becomes: If the venue to hear the case for equality and to
test the natural birth clause does not exist then does America exist? You must
create the venue via acting to enter a case of original jurisdiction.

25.

Any way you count BVG it is always and forever a tie as the nation as a whole 1
voted for Gore and we have no popular vote according to US Law; a lone citizen
acting on behalf of The People must then call it via a direct suit as BVG seems to
be an original case but it is not as it began life as Gore V FL thus none of those
present possessed constitutional authority and BVG is not an actual original case
(actual original jurisdiction does not apply); also the winner never appeals so
Bush would not bring it to SCOTUS and in the case of a Presidential election
SCOTUS has no power to install a President plus the Constitution reads I will
not my lawyer will so both Bush and Gore had to act pro se or else all they
have proven is that they have no ability thus they cant fulfill the oath of office.

26.

Furthermore BVG was filed as an emergency when no actual emergency exists as

we have orderly transfers of power; the point of law to be had is moral authority
aka constitutional authority not legal power and not control; it is about
commanding not presiding; it is about the existence of a commission the divine
endowment - that all actual Americans are born into not permission as nobody
needs another mans permission to press suit, to ascend to the seat in actuality
or to do anything as in the US law tells you what you can do and names a single
act as criminal: treason, as you can but may not.

27.

Rhenquist effectively castled with Bush leaving the door open for the lone citizen
to rise. That citizen must file directly on behalf of the whole class of many
taking on the Chief Justice and/or the whole Court directly in order to ascend to
the seat whether they ever physically sit in it or not so to even file the case is to
have won it as you wouldnt directly appeal BVG in any other court as it was only
heard in SCOTUS; to be filed is to have won as not only is it about exact words
and good math but a pre-existing question is present:

28.

SCOTUS claims (or did at that time) on its website and in its literature that filing
is a privilege only but never a protected right; is there ever an instance whereby
filing is the protected right of a citizen and/or every citizen? YES, if SCOTUS
ever comes to hear a case concerning the outcome of a Presidential election for
if that happens then every single clause save one of The Constitution (both
versions) has been violated; all that is left is the natural birth clause meaning:

what is now an oligarchy as Jefferson predicted will become a dictatorship; its

alienation thus foreignization must transpire.

29.

You can logically reason this out plus the pattern is to break the color line first
by allowing a black man to succeed and then to break the gender line not sex
line by allowing a woman to follow. Note: Gender and sex are two different
things; gender discrimination and prejudice yet exists while discrimination and
prejudice based upon the act of sex is being addressed thus heterosexual women
are not actually gaining ground but losing ground.

30.

The reasoning this is being done is to keep all qualified women out of the offices
of Chief Justice and Commander in Chief in order to usurp their moral authority;
the corrupted thinking of a majority of men is that women are inferior to men;
that is their true belief; if it were not so then none of them would be reacting
out of fear; even if it is on the tiniest subconscious level ALL men with the
possible exception of those who are exactly named Plaintiffs do truly believe
that men are better than women and most women believe this too or else they
would not agree to participate. Note: Women yet earn about 80 cents for every
$1 a man earns, the highest paying jobs for women are all in the sex industry, sex
trafficking has exploded in the US, women comprise only 4.6% of the CEOS who
head Fortune 500 companies, only 44 have served as Senators since 1789 and
about 97% of all media decisions are made by men.

31.

Although women legally secured the vote with the passage of the 19 th
Amendment in 1920 their vote is a powerless, meaningless action as it cannot be
enforced until or unless a woman sits as Chief Justice or President and that is
because no man will have the experience of life known as pregnancy and giving
birth and men perceive the world differently than women so that they will never
own the knowledge of woman as wisdom; men are relying and depending upon
what is hearsay and suggestive only in the cases of women and each time a
woman wins suit in SCOTUS it is somehow, someway overturned or ignored by a
male majority as if no action ever transpired and as if their personal judgment
values are the law and the reality of women.

32.

Confusion exists in this unique case as people assume that the Justices answer a
suit brought against the US; incorrect as the Justices are impartial and the
responsible clerks answer first by calling the point of law regarding filing as a
right by acting to file the case or not thus to file is to win and then the US in the
form of the Solicitor General or any other person in the chain of command down

to the lone citizen acts to answer on behalf of the US and in defense of the 1871
version of The Constitution aka the incorporation.

33.

Its the Supreme Court of the United States of America as it was formed in 1803,
before the US incorporation.

34.

SCOTUS clerks and Justices never act to answer on behalf of the US therefore the
docket entries in the case of In Re Susan Herbert are bad as in false as the
SCOTUS docket claims that the Justices answered on behalf of the US; in reality?
If the Justices only receive half of a case then the US is compelled to answer
and/or default occurs as they cannot conference half of a case and would never
need to deny hearing such a case as the point of law has already been won if its
a directly filed case. Those entries make no sense; theyre illogical and they
violate or pervert the correct, actual process.

35.

This is the exact threat made against Herbert when she first contacted SCOTUS
as a clerk named Will told her that as he knew she is the case for equality that
he would sink it - he exactly said that he hated women, mothers and the pro se and who controls the files, the docket? The clerks. Making false entries is the
means to sink a case; the Plaintiffs are not the only victims of this as licensed
lawyers have filed complaints about this that are being ignored.

36.

Knowing all of this and knowing that a waiver on the US behalf in this type of
case then officially null and voids the 1871 version of The Constitution that was
never legal and which was forced upon The People without their informed
consent (women were not allowed to vote at all in 1871, not even as a
meaningless action) thereby dissolving it then the Plaintiffs logically, reasonably
and rationally expected default to follow this waiver.

37.

The US waived its right on April 1 st, 2008 (no joke). See attached docket, Exhibit
A. Note: Plaintiffs had filed their initial objection in December of 2000 as BVG
was being heard in order to preserve their suit and filed within SCOTUS before
the deprivation of the right and the birthright transpired, as they must. Plaintiffs
have already won a point of law regarding any time limit, as now there is none.

38.

Plaintiffs then returned to SCOTUS in order to secure what had to follow:

Official, legal default, as now the Plaintiffs were directly appealing the original
governing contracts as authored by our Founders and any other answer would
constitute an admission of guilt upon the US part. Plaintiffs are asking questions

regarding the exactly worded original contracts, as they are elegant or perfect;
they are universally true.

39.

Plaintiffs are also doing something else: In America we previously accepted only
three pieces of paper as proof in our courts: The Declaration, The Federalist
Papers and The Constitution for the United States of America dated 1789 not The
US Constitution or The Constitution of the United States dated 1871 as that is an
incorporated business entity or a dead institution that is real on paper but not in
actuality; no other paper is accepted as proof but only as evidence; to file In Re
Susan Herbert I & II as it was entered directly and to no other court, as it tackles
an original case and as its line of reasoning is without fault is to accept the paper
that she produced her own self without the help of any other living person as
proof so it thus she too is a written yet living authority upon matters of law.

40.

Only Plaintiffs correctly reasoned the case accounting for every single thing you
must account for including: universal law as US Law as authored by our Founders
matches universal law.

41.

The unique knowledge that Plaintiffs brought to the table concerns work Thomas
Jefferson published in the Congressional record that men have ignored and
denied as they do not and/or cannot comprehend it: Using A Summary View as
you trace allodial title to the Creator so that Jefferson authored the perfect
theological, legal and scientific case for mankinds sovereignty (we did not
popularly vote for Independence as we first reasoned our case for sovereignty
and then we issued our Declaration as a Petition!) and using Jeffersons unique,
original system of measurements that resulted in an elegant form of currency
Herbert was able to discern the correct weight of Earth and to resolve
Uniformity; she was also able to define and prove how and why magnetic north
behaves as it does and how and why people behave as they do as she had to
predict this previously unknown behavior of nature in order to prove the case
and that universal law is at work.

42.

Herbert also used Jeffersons work to define the smallest particle man can
measure in order to resolve Uniformity, or, in order to make this case for w/o it
one cannot prove the existence of the exactly named Creator. Its not the god
particle as men popularly refer to it but the Creator particle that separates man
from all other animals so Herbert jokingly calls it The Thomas Jefferson Particle
and seriously calls it the nanino; she named the force at work the Intrinsic Force
after John Marshall as he said within Marbury that politics is intrinsic.

10

43.

Without realizing it (he was knowing but not wholly aware) Thomas Jefferson was
able to define the universal mean that eluded Isaac Newton; the experiment he
conducted yields the great enough difference that Newton writes about in
Principia; it is the weight of your mind or of motive and intent as only men
possess motive and intent; using this Jefferson also arrived at the correct weight
of Earth but Lord Calvert of Baltimore was erroneously given credit for what is a
bad theory by the Royal College of Astronomers as all anybody bothered to check
is his math not his theory or whether or not he produced any proof as he didnt
as you NEVER use what you used to author your theory what you already know as your proof for it is not proof; you predict behavior in nature that you do not
know and if youre correct regarding nature then your theory is proven.

44.

Calvert strayed from Newtons parameters and used a whole range of mountains
rather than one lone mountain when Newton states that no mountain thus no
mountain range will ever yield the mean that you need to use to then weigh the
Earth; like BVG the weight of Earth is about zero both a numerical and a
philosophical concept and about absolutes versus wholes.

45.

We predict human behavior all of the time in SCOTUS and we correct for our
mistakes as we come to own more knowledge as the proof is revealed; we
become more self-aware and more Creator-aware.

46.

As no other living person understood what Jefferson had done and as we did not
track magnetic north until five years after Jeffersons death then Jeffersons
work languished upon the Congressional record and in his letters as it was
irrationally rejected in favor of a debt money system, the dollar and the metric
system as it (they) are incorrect as in wrong; in the case of metrics France
abandoned Jeffersons oscillating wooden rod method thus they did not negate
the error caused by a mans electromagnetic field interacting with the Earths
electromagnetic field within the electromagnetic field the universe is.

47.

Jefferson enshrined the truth of this universal mean, the mean that unites it all,
in a clock that he built that yet exists at Monticello for the weight would hit the
floor and so the clock would stop ticking; while it seems to be a mistake it is not;
as Jefferson cant fix what isnt broken he merely cut a whole in his floor to
accommodate the weight; this difference is the universal mean in the form of a
clock; think of this in terms that you are familiar with such as greatest weight,
balance and counterbalance for you counterbalance the interest and the

11

right both public and private; US Law works much like a finely tuned watch; it
has a heart beat and it respires exactly as human beings do and exactly as this
universe does but the paper isnt alive as The People who are the government do
live; paper is conscious as all things are conscious but it is not consciously aware
like humans are as human beings are a special arrangement of atoms; humans
have a mind of their own.

48.

Jefferson did know what he had done concerning the universal mean but he did
know what he had done concerning a system of currency this unit is also a mean
unit of currency - as he understood that money is what enslaves people and our
modern linear calendar, as time is whole not absolute, is meant to value people
as an amount of money when this monetary value is an ever-changing condition
that allows those who control this value to then control us as abusers
(authoritarian rulers) change the condition over and over and when they run out
of gas as there are no more conditions left to change they then become violent
which has happened across this nation and the world; the monetary system has
already collapsed as evidenced by the US inability to pay its debts and its bond
rating falling.

49.

Jeffersons genius idea was to discern a universal amount that is then a term of
this universe so that no man could enslave another by artificially manipulating
this value; as its a term then its a law; its value is constant.

50.

Ray Morton had also resolved Uniformity as he was working on this answer
simultaneously, that time is a matter of mass, and he was seeking the means to
bring suit against the US based upon injury and harm he suffered when he was
told Herbert had successfully done so; Morton joined the class as Counsel; Morton
has the good math and good physics formally written out on paper.

51.

The truth of Uniformity was is self-evident to counsel as original US Law as it

is written by the Founders mirrors the good language, good math and good
physics.

52.

Recently modern, organized physicists announced they had discovered the

magneton after Susan Herbert and Ray Morton had already filed their knowledge
in SCOTUS thereby patenting it on behalf of The People; they state that
unbonded magnetrons form an electromagnetic field and that bonded ones form
physical matter; they changed nanino to magneto and they did not address
conscious awareness or what that is; then in May of 2014 Max Tegmark helped

12

himself to some of Herberts and Jeffersons original intellectual property w/o

awarding either of them credit after Herbert wrote to him by claiming that he
discovered that consciousness is matter while he wholly ignores the Creator or
where this matter originates; Tegmark is not American; people all over the Earth
are stealing unique, American intellectual property w/o just compensation as
they refuse to acknowledge it is not their own original work and the US is happy
and even eager to let them steal it and w/o according Plaintiffs any named
protection; these offenders make grandiose announcements and publish
paperwork that makes it seem as if Jefferson and Herbert (and Morton) were
never born and so never lived; Hollywood has also lifted exact phrases from
Herberts work and often uses them as titles for their television shows and
movies; again if we are so wrong then why steal our work and claim it as their
own??? Why act to silence the Plaintiffs???

53.

In November of 2014 ads for a movie about Stephen Hawkings life began playing
on TV; these ads claim that Hawking proved how this universe was born when
reality is Hawking proved nothing and his work is theory only; he cannot prove
his work to be law aka reality as he doesnt have the ability or capacity to do so
and this has nothing to do with the fact that he is in a wheel chair plus he never
had Lou Gehrigs Disease as he previously claimed and he recanted when Herbert
directly confronted him about this as Herbert had to overcome more than
Hawking ever did and she proved her theories; this constitutes propaganda
meant and intended to cause you to blindly believe what science claims is true
when it is anything but and it is no accident that most of these men arent
American citizensagain, your theory itself and your written work are never,
ever proof; all Hawking did is contradict himself in his book A Brief History Of
Time and all he did is enter his work on paper but he never entered any actual
proof; the emotional tug at your heart when you see this trailer and/or this
movie is meant to cement a lie inside of you as if its true as your emotional
compass is being twistedits the same with promoting Obama as the first black
President. This is being done upon the consent of the US, the paid officers.

54.

Official legal default occurred upon November 5 th, 2008, the day after Obamas
unlawful popular election, the day the result is announced; it was officially
certified after default transpired or while the US was already in default. See
Exhibit A.

55.

Besides being in default Obama is not natural born and not a legal voter
according to law and to act nor can he defend, protect and preserve The

13

Constitution as he lacks the ability; not once has he reasoned US Law by his own
self, not once has he produced original intellectual property and not once has he
acted independently; often he signs work Anonymous or if he does sign he
changes his name completely or the spelling of it; Obama then is never held
accountable or responsible for his own actions.

56.

No other person appearing on the ballot was qualified either as they arent
natural born and they cannot fulfill the oath of office as they too lack the
ability; McCain appeared via a Resolution signed by those who were also running
for this office as he was born in the Panama Canal Zone and was not grand
fathered into the law.

57.

Plaintiffs then filed a Motion to Compel the US to respond in order to avoid

default and Obamas absolutely unlawful installation but male clerks hid this
motion within SCOTUS for about two weeks w/o filing it so that eventually a
Petition in Support of the Motion to Compel was mistakenly returned to Counsel.

58.

Counsel filed it within their local federal courthouse on the day they were
notified that the Motion had not been filed and was being unlawfully held
somewhere within SCOTUS, that justice was being obstructed.

59.

Default then means all taxes are being collected unjustly as they constitute
tribute not just taxation. Also: One can never ignore that money is an IOU.

60.

Plaintiffs then pursued remedy and relief in the other federal court as nearly
every but not every person alive ignored and denied reality going so far as to
make up facts that werent facts and that never transpired in history; they
inserted what is their own personal belief and their own fantasy within their
rulings assigning it to us as if the Plaintiffs said it or did it when they did not.

61.

Everybody knows basic contract law but yet denies the reality of it; ideally this
very filing should be one sentence long: The US defaulted in a case of
constitutional authority and original jurisdiction so we are here to collect upon
this judgment of default; see the attached docket.

62.

More than three times a federal judge ruled upon a case that the Plaintiffs had
not filed and/or that did not exist for it never happened they actually made up
facts that are fantasy only such as Herbert was convicted of felonies and is in

14

state prison so she needs to petition the warden regarding conditions when this is
completely false - so it was impossible to reason with these unreasonable people.

63.

Four events transpired in short order in 2010 and 2011: 1). The Sioux City Iowa
federal court told Plaintiffs that what it did not understand was that universal
law exists and that our law mimics it thus is also universally true and that it had
no idea that Jefferson not Calvert correctly weighed the Earth striking upon the
smallest particle man can measure; that is it knew of Jeffersons work but it was
not aware of the whole truth of it 2). Plaintiffs filed their case to the UN suing
the Un itself, then every member nation and its own IHRC for they knew Obama
was born in Kenya and that women were yet being denied their rights and the UN
was never, ever legal nor is it actually sovereign (see attached, Exhibit B); the
UN filed the case and acknowledged defeat when it countered with this ludicrous
answer, that the UN would not hear the case in person as women and Americans
are the aggressors so that they are in violation of Art. 13 of the Human Rights
Charter when this is impossible here and now 3). Upon being served in person
with the suit that was also a warrant for his arrest Barack Obama sent a US
Marshal to Susan Herberts door threatening to unlawfully imprison her and to kill
her thus the members of the class if she filed the truth in federal court again
and Sioux City court clerks informed Herbert that they too had been threatened
with false imprisonment if they filed the suit. 4). Plaintiffs filed suit in federal
court again and Susan Herbert was wrongly arrested three days later exactly as
Barack Obama threatened; the suit was placed in the mail on October 26 th and
Herbert was wrongly arrested on the 29th.

64.

Herbert spent 8 moths in jail learning what is unjust about the current criminal
system (what is broken) including what is localized only and harms women in
Duval County and in FL exclusively; Herbert volunteered to play out what
became a battle of the will in order to secure a ruling for the Plaintiffs in person
before a judge as it is not possible to deny and dismiss this case lawfully based
upon reading the filing alone as you MUST hear Counsel who are also Plaintiffs in
person or else you cant know something; you cannot know it or be aware of it by
merely reading the filing; this is a form denial takes.

65.

The single largest reason Herbert was unlawfully held as a political prisoner
other than Obamas direct threat as it came from his mouth and Herbert can
easily prove this is because Herbert informed the court of her intelligence and
that she fully intended to underwrite her own bond which is why the courts then

15

would not allow her to speak and gave her different numbers every time she
asked for the amount of her bond; Plaintiffs are not claiming what is vague.

66.

Not hearing the case is the same as not looking at something with your eyes in
order to deny its existence; its the same as claiming I did not see it with my
own eyes so I do not know when you had every opportunity to look but did not;
youre avoiding reality to then deny reality.

67.

On April 5th, 2012, almost exactly five years to the day that the Plaintiffs first
filed in a court on April 4 th, 2007, a FL State judge acting in an entirely original
venue in an entirely original jurisdiction western FL as it has never been
mapped correctly and may have been forcibly taken from the Spanish (a case
concerning this area has already been heard in SCOTUS) - found for the Plaintiffs
as FL entered the SCOTUS docket thereby literally placing the federal question
upon the table and in US Claims no less; the judge acting as Chief Justice told FL
that Herbert was correct and that no matter what else the docket said that legal
default is once the US failed to respond.

68.

Armed with this ruling and the UNs answer the Plaintiffs then filed in this very
court as this court is where one eventually lands and as the FL ruling is
ineffectual as it was created within the transcript of a sealed hearing and ruling
captioned In Re Herbert Susan, an action meant and intended to circumvent
The Constitution and SCOTUS itself as it seeks to overturn the judgment of
default and to execute Herbert via the administration of potentially lethal drugs
in order to then escape the legal consequences including individual liability when
that is illegal and unlawful; it is criminal on the part of the individuals who acted
to do this or so the injured victim/s knows.

69.

When filing in this court Plaintiffs acted to negate yet another possible threat: A
Rothchild told Susan Herbert that whoever received the case whichever judge
that would be would not hear it in person and so would deny reality thereby
violating what is law while seemingly acting insanely.

70.

The manner in which this statement was made created a situation whereby
Plaintiffs did not know if an actual threat was being made or if this person was
merely stating what is a simple fact as nobody can know who will receive the
case unless they can and do control the process; was this a threat or not?
Plaintiffs then had no choice but allow the clerks to make any decision they
pleased and to write about the Rothchilds and the families that own the bank

16

and are the Federal Reserve; Plaintiffs had to let them know that they are not
afraid and that they could do actual damage to them to those banking families
- if they so chose; while you would not address most of these facts in a court this
served to negate any threat being made if this statement was indeed a threat.

71.

It also avoided a possible conflict as this case should be directly filed to the
Chief Judge of this court as it is a case that was directly filed and won in
SCOTUS; the default judgment in question is one secured in SCOTUS w/o ever
having been in any other court; exactly as this case should have been handed to
John Roberts directly but was not then this case should have gone to the Chief
Judge of US Claims directly but by allowing the clerks to make their own
judgment call we could discover exactly what this Rothchild meant by their
statement without creating a new, insurmountable conflict with the Chief Judge
of this court.

72.

As soon as the Plaintiffs discovered that Clemons et al. vs the US had been
changed to Herbert et al. and that the assigned judge was named Wheeler the
Plaintiffs knew that the possible threat was nothing more than a simple
statement of fact for Wheeler is the judge who refused to dismiss a case brought
by David Boies and Starr International/AIG re mortgages and a government
bailout in the amount of $25 billion when the Plaintiffs previously exactly named
Boies as he was Al Gores counsel in BVG and as he told NY Magazine that he
planned to commit a crime what is wrong in SCOTUS in regards to gay rights at
the expense of all women and then he acted to do it.

73.

Plaintiffs had previously cited this and named Boies exactly and entered the
article containing his exact words some of which are that he planned upon
targeting Anthony Kennedy in order to commit this wrongful act. Boies then
acted to execute his threat.

74.

Due to the nature of the suits heard in US claims and because they are about
dollar amounts and as no pro se person/s who do not hold law licenses have ever
brought a successful suit against the US before now nor has the US ever been in
default before now then every single sitting judge except for the Chief Judge has
a pre-existing conflict that is insurmountable.

75.

The Chief Judge only has such a conflict if he or she creates it by ignoring and
denying actual reality known as contract law, default, Obamas own claims made
by he himself and the existent prejudice against women.

17

76.

In his ruling and order Wheeler says it seems as if the Plaintiffs are against all
forms of government or government itself when the Plaintiffs are clearly for our
original form as instituted by The Creator and as originally defined by the
Founders meaning that he is not aware he doesnt own what he is not aware of
and he may not make a decision against the Plaintiffs based upon the appearance
of the paper document alone and that some people are prominent i.e.
important implying that we are less important or not important at all and that
said prominent people should be immune from criticism and from the named
consequences or from law itself, as if we are less than and they are better than.

77.

Wheeler claims that Susan Herbert exactly demeaned people when this is false as
Herbert and the other Plaintiffs not Herbert alone said that those named act as if
they are more animal than human as their actions are unconscionable (fact:
animals do not possess a conscience and so are not consciously aware hence by
their very nature animals are unconscionable) and crypto-Jew is an accepted
scholarly term; it is a term that theologians and genealogists use as does Justice
Sonia Sotomayor.

78.

Crypto-Jew is a term that refers to any person whose family was Jewish
originally but who converted under force during times of persecution so that
while raised Catholic or Protestant or Muslim the original tradition of their
ancestors is Judaism; they arent Jewish now but the reason their families might
yet practice what are traditional Jewish customs is that Judaism is encoded
within their families to this day; nothing stated is demeaning and is fact and/or
factual plus:

79.

All of those named such as Obama had to act to truly demean the Plaintiffs and
all women first or else we would not be able to name them and cite their own
words as well as their own behavior; Plaintiffs cant and didnt demean anybody;
all the Plaintiffs did is act in self-defense and exercise their named rights.

80.

Wheeler also objects to our named amount, $2 billion, when that is a pittance
and it comes out of no persons pocket as it is the amount held in trust as interest
on a legal fund, a prior award, therefore it is currency not money; Plaintiffs
legally claimed it via their case and a point of law regarding this Treaty and
federal lands. The Sioux have abandoned this fund as now they are buying back
land named in the Ft. Laramie Treaty. Recently they bought back a parcel of land
deeded to a family in 1876 so this action constitutes their abandonment of this

18

fund, a fund that they never meant or intended to collect, as they want and
need justice. Again: money and currency are not the same and case law doesnt
apply.

81.

Wheeler made no such objection when Starr Intl/AIG who perpetrated wrong
doing that they acknowledged and for which they were later bailed out by the
tax payers against our will asked for $25 billion; recently Wheeler allowed Boies
and Starr International to up their claim to over $50 billion; hes allowing them
discovery and allowing them to name any amount at all even if it defies reality
while hes denying us equal treatment.

82.

Wheeler is consciously and subconsciously admitting to being possessed of

what are mistaken beliefs as his subconscious truth is all over his paperwork
which he himself authored; Wheeler does on some level believe that woman are
less than men and the pro se are less than lawyers and less than judges. In his
subconscious mind he does not believe in equality or else he would have acted to
set the case for hearing or ordered that it be transferred to SCOTUS for a hearing
based upon default alone as that is the only lawful, legal and rightful act that
now exists. Wheeler, in order to rationalize his action, is ignoring and denying
that the US defaulted (like Levitt he completely denies this fact) and facts that
Obama has not yet disputed some of which he himself stated and which caused
Obama to threaten Herbert thus the class with death; these are:

83.

Obama was born in Kenya as his grandmother reported during a live broadcast
(some parts of the world received this broadcast live not delayed so that they
watched it before it was edited; Herbert entered these satellite coordinates); his
parents did not fly from one part of Hawaii to another part of Hawaii to marry
but instead they flew to Kenya where Obama was born; at that time Kenya was a
protectorate or colony of Britain; Obama was then flown back to North America
via Canada as Canada too is a protectorate of Britain thus Canada holds the vault
copies of Obamas records as Canadians claim (Canadian officials labeled
Obamas biography a state secret as this book contradicts fact and law and
Obamas own testimony); from Canada Obama the infant entered the US in
around Vancouver, Washington making him a citizen of Britain and/or of Canada
but not a dual citizen of Britain and America as he himself previously claimed as
America does not legally recognize dual citizenship as no person can serve two
masters and America bows to no authority except the Creator; upon
independence Kenya required their citizens to choose Kenya or Britain and
Obamas mother chose Kenya and then Canada for Obama and then Obama his

19

own self choose Britain; also according to the Nationality Act Obama was born
four months too soon to be a legal voter as he has one citizen parent.

84.

Obama has more than one social security number in more than one state (he has
a CT # when he should have only a HA #) and his selective service documents
contradict his story as they too contain social security numbers other than the HA
# and may not have been not procured by he himself as mere ID was accepted as
proof plus they were not date and time stamped the same day as they were
signed.

85.

Obama also takes great pains to ensure that his representatives not he himself
make certain claims; Obama is very, very careful when he speaks so he does not
use certain words nor does he speak w/o the aid of the written word as he
always reads from pieces of paper or a TelePrompter but never spontaneously;
for instance, he alludes to the idea of slavery by using an African sounding name
and by claiming that his wifes relatives were former slaves but he himself never
claims to have been a slave, been a relative of slaves or to have been victimized
as such.

86.

While named as counsel of record on or in several suits Obama himself made no

arguments in these cases but only introduced them; in the lone case in which he
argued he appeared before an alumni of the school he himself attended and he
could not answer simple, basic questions when asked; this then means he did not
author the line of reasoning he presented but merely memorized somebody elses
work but the presiding judge has been blamed and falsely accused of showing
him favoritism. Since then others have admitted that they did create work that
Obama then took credit for and that they participated knowingly and willingly.

87.

One of Obamas first actions as President was to issue an Executive Order making
it more difficult for the citizens to secure copies of his records and that pits the
Judiciary in a battle against the Executive thus The People if these records are
requested. His latest is authoring an EO re immigration that violates the
separation of power aqs it makes law and that then grants he himself amnesty.

88.

Bill Ayers has publicly claimed to have authored Dreams Of My Father for
Obama thus it is a work of fiction not autobiography or even biography and today
this, Ayers unattributed, sole, ghost authorship, is considered to be common
knowledge; this then means that Obamas entire life story and the person he
claimed to be which he presented as true, fact and correct is not.

20

89.

Obamas actual given name, a name his mother gave him, is Blake as Stanley
Anne Dunham named him after the British artist William Blake who is one of her
named heroes; this should concern you as it points to an emotional defect so
deep and wide that Dunham was going to visit it upon her son: Not only was
Dunham psychologically driven to hate all things American as her friends and
associates claim but naming Blake as one of her idols is telling as it is Blake who,
when he experienced the very same thing James Madison experienced as he too
was jilted in love, asked a woman if she pitied him and when she said YES then
Blake decided it was love and so pity=love when it does not; Blake said he
married this woman only as she pitied him which was not the case with James
Madison; pity is not an American sentiment; the idea is this: Dunham wants you
to pity her and pity her son so that any excuse they proffer becomes a just cause
which is farcical.

90. Anybody who has taken a basic course in psychology can reason the behavior of
these people as it is self-evident; often they let the truth slip when they speak or
write down their thoughts and they are unaware they are making contradictory
statements and statements that defy reality; interestingly one Plaintiff examined
the facts of those Obama surrounds himself with in DC and pointed out that they
all share similarities such as homosexuality, drug use, involvement in major
political scandals and criminal activity, that they all seem opt be cut from the
same mind set which is anything and everything goes as if they are animals not
humans; Herbert noticed all of them play games with their given names by not
only changing it completely but by leaving out a letter or adding and extra letter
so that they can later claim it isnt their work as their excuse becomes thats
not how their [my] name is spelled if its their name at all. As mentioned above
Obama himself does this as he had an example: Dunham did this on her thesis.
91. And: Kurt Vonnegut attended the same Chicago college that Dunham did and he
studied anthropology too; Vonnegut acted against the Nazis in Dresden when he
was a prisoner of war and he paid the price for it as he was beaten; his professor
pointed him out to his class on his first day in school and said ONE person in the
class wouldnt graduate and it was Vonnegut; Vonnegut was targeted by these
people; years later Vonnegut returned and entered Cats Cradle as his thesis
claiming it was anthropological in nature so this school was forced to give him his
degree as by then he was a celebrity and a highly regarded author; it is no happy
accident or coincidence that these same people taught Dunham and seemingly
loved everything she did no matter how poorly it was executed and no matter
21

how fantastical it is as if she could do no wrong as she willingly played their

game unlike Vonnegut; you CANT claim its political as Vonnegut was a socialist
like Dunham so all thats different? MORAL AUTHORITY for those actively, willfully
and knowingly violating US Law have no moral authority.

92. All of this would reason why he, Obama, had so much to fear that he decided his
best course of action was to threaten to kill her when Susan Herbert and the
other Plaintiffs managed to serve him in person; this constitutes motive and
intent on Obamas part therefore the US part as Obama and those who aided
and abetted him seek to avoid exposure thereby avoiding the named penalty.
93. Natural born or not none of this not even Wheelers and Letows actions change
the fact that the US defaulted on November 5 th, 2008, before Obama was sworn
in but after the Plaintiffs initially objected to BVG and after the US waived all of
its right under the 1871 incorporation (this fact will never change until it is
addressed in court in person). Who represents the dead institution known as the
US? Obama, therefore even if he were natural born he would still be unlawfully
seated due to active default on the part of the US dated the very day the
results of the general election were known and publicly, officially announced.
94. Because of the pre-existing conflict and as this case should have been directly
filed to the Chief Judge and the invalidation of the most recent dismissal then
you wouldnt object to Wheelers or Letows ruling and order but you would
refile, directly to the Chief Judge; this never changes; no dismissal w/o a hearing
in person is ever good; it is never lawful and nothing will ever make it lawful as
The Founders created a form of government that says the law is the exact
opposite plus actual logic, reason and ration dictate this; any other reasoning is
fatally flawed and is not actual logic.
95. Three Plaintiffs died and Herbert became seriously ill due to one of her injuries
so she spent weeks in the hospital; then she was re-arrested.
96. On December 30th, 2013, Susan Herbert again appeared before a FL court acting
as a federal court as she was wrongly arrested on the exact same day two years
later, October 29th, 2013, and this is not a mistake, accident or coincidence;
Herbert spent a few hours in jail this time; wishing to remain before a relatively
sane judge Herbert plead No Contest knowing that she could overturn her own
jury verdict if the terms of probation were made impossible as she had been
warned they are and they were.
22

97. The action dropped dead once an employee of a county, state and federally
funded program demanded $35 or else she would call the police as she was
furious that the Plaintiffs had filed in SCOTUS and had won; she knew
immediately upon seeing the docket that she had lost and was in default as she
supported the US and so Obama; she insisted that she, a person with black skin,
couldnt be sued by a person with white skin; she reiterated this over and over;
she, when Herbert ignored her nonsense, actually told Herbert to give her $35 or
else she would call the police and falsely claim that Herbert was trespassing for
the purpose of having Herbert wrongly arrested once more when Herbert was
acting upon a valid court order (Herberts fully informed consent and Judge
Emmett Fergusons relative sanity made it valid).
98. Herbert had filed a motion to show cause pre-emptively, on her way to this court
ordered program, as Herbert could and did know what would transpire as
corruption is now endemic and these programs fail to address the cause of
violence as the cause is always people and the first cause is always The Creator
who we exactly named. The Creator is not responsible for injustice as people
are; these programs often hire victims who have become victimizers as the cause
of their victimization is never addressed.
99. Upon Herberts thus the Plaintiffs Motion To Show Cause the judge once again
recognized that DEFAULT IS and this time he went so far as to agree that the
State and Fed cannot show cause in this case, that they lack the human ability to
show cause here and now and that even if they wanted to make up a cause they
couldnt based upon reality; the State of FL did not object as it cant (that
constitutes the absolute proof); the judge and FL agreed with the Plaintiffs on all
points of law; then this judge, Judge Emmett Ferguson, fully knowing and wholly
aware that the Plaintiffs would be returning to US Claims then terminated
everything including court costs i.e. money; this is a first in Duval County as far
as the Plaintiffs can tell and it may be a first in FL but it is not a first in this
nation. See attached Credit River Ruling and see attached Duval County docket,
Exhibits C and D.
100. Herbert also addressed Fergusons mistaken belief concerning women as being
less than as he was realizing it or making it real by instructing the court to note
the dress of men for the record if they appeared wearing a tie as if this meant
they are to be respected more and/or for what might not be the reality of their
person but he never once noted the appearance of women for the record and
23

when a woman would never wear a tie; Herbert pointed this out to him and to
the fact that by claiming to fear God and by asking to be called sir he was
acting upon what is manmade, what is British, what is discriminatory and what is
not the reality of women, this nation or this universe; Ferguson stood aside by
admitting to his mistake.

101. Re-filing this case was delayed as Susan Herbert not only suffered recurring bouts
of an acute, severe illness over the past 8 or 9 months but as she then suffered a
heart attack; her heart stopped while she was ill and then on the day she was
released from the hospital she had an actual heart attack mostly due to stress;
this occurred in November; Herbert experienced clinical death for the second
time and she remembers every single event in great detail making Herbert the
only person alive who has experienced death in all of its forms including brain
death and the living death named by two major faiths although other Plaintiffs
(2) have been dead but then survived death the difference being they do not
recall all of the details.
102. Herberts illness and heart attack as it is partly the fault of the US due to an
allergy resulting from the genetic tampering of our food chain constitutes an
extraordinary circumstance especially as she is only 46 and as doctors could find
no blockage and her creatine levels were normal (the salicylic acid levels of
fruits and vegetables has been artificially raised upon the genetic level as this
acid is a natural pesticide but it is poisonous to humans in relatively small
amounts and Herberts organs could not handle this stress; she now has a
sensitivity/allergy to salicylic acid aka aspirin).
103. Herbert and other Plaintiffs possess a Romantic Liberal belief system with a
dynamic value set; one of the hallmarks of this is a conversational style yet the
US keeps erroneously claiming this is personal when it is not; the courts are
confused due to pronoun usage as it is rare for the attorneys to also be Plaintiffs
and subject/verb agreements and are acting upon an appearance only as it
seems as if. Also: Attorney/Plaintiff Herbert is the first pro se, nondegreed,
nonlicensed citizen to file in and then win in SCOTUS. No other person sans a
degree or license has ever entered SCOTUS before. See attachment.
104. As for standing Plaintiffs have the most absolute, purest standing there is not
only legally but in terms of DNA for Herbert is the direct descendant of Willem
Kiever, a person who settled in Dutchess County, NY sometime before 1640.
Herberts maternal grandfather, Ralph Keefer Brown the son of Susan Keefer, was
24

born and raised in Dutchess County and became along with his brothers and
sisters the first direct descendants of Willem to leave Dutchess County; a court
record yet exists dated around 1640 (it might be 1642) which names Willem
Kiever and evinces that he was indeed living in what is modern day America long
before it was a country; he not only experienced King Philips War but he was
charged, tried and convicted of kidnapping Natives and selling them into slavery
thereby proving Herberts claim that she is partly Native and that her origins are
rooted in incest and rape and that this has gone on in her family for thousands of
years not hundreds and that she is the very first person to escape slavery in her
family since they were first alive on Earth.

105. It is Herberts ancestors who are the people James Fenimore Cooper based Last
Of The Mohicans upon; Herberts Native ancestors on her mothers side are the
Mohican/Wappinger Falls Natives that Cooper writes about; not the Mohawk but
the Mohican, as they are two different tribes; Herbert is one of the only surviving
members of this tribe who is aware of iton her fathers side she is Scottish
(Cooper named the Scots) via her great grandmother also named Susan Herbert
who was born in Glasgow as Susan Livingstone; Livingstone entered America via
the Port of Philadelphia at age 11 months. Susan Herberts English anscestors are
the Herberts and her anscestral home in Britain is Powis Castle once owned by
William Herbert; this was the name of Herberts great grandfather who married
Susan Livingstone; all Herberts relatives did is hide in plain sight using the same
names over and over but changing locations by moving from a castle located in
Troye, Wales to a house in Troy, NY; all they did is take advantage of political and
religious upheaval in order to abandon thrones and re-settle in places with names
stating their exacting truths like Kingston, Dutchess County, NY; they successfully
assimilated and hid their true origins as they migrated across this globe in search
of liberty; no other person can claim such standing and it doesnt end there:
106. Another relative of Herberts is Stephen Hopkins who lived and worked in
Jamestown, VA; he left only to return on the Sea Venture which was famously
ship wrecked; later he would return to America aboard the Mayflower; William
Shakespeare DID base a character in the Tempest upon the life of Stephen
Hopkins and Herbert can prove this.
107. All of this makes Herbert the person on Earth who has the best, purest, most
absolute standing and who can and will make this case for she her own self is the
absolute proof; Herbert? She is genetically related to every single individual on
Earth; shes the proverbial, mythological missing link. She can trace her
25

ancestry back to the Elohim and before that back to The Creator; she can prove
this using all means including science. Via DNA then all Plaintiffs possess such
standing as the Plaintiffs did figure it out.

108. Plaintiffs have already successfully disposed of jus sanguinis, lex sanguinis and
jus soli as they do not apply and as they led to nationalism and WWII.
109. This court needs to know that the whole truth is always and forever hidden in
plain sight as your subconscious mind is self-evident; so is your very nature;
precisely as it is nature and is subconscious then until or unless you negate it by
moving it into your conscious awareness then you cannot do anything but express
whatever your truth is and you will not be aware you are acting out your truth
when you do it; you will realize your true, personal beliefs on pieces of paper
and the proof will be your actions such as your refusal to hear this case for if you
actually truly believed in US Law, if your beliefs matched US Law, then you
would acknowledge default is and you would hear the case in person instead of
denying Plaintiffs the only remedy and relief available on Earth. You would stop
attempting to do what is impossible here and now, know what you can never
know unless you meet the Plaintiffs in person. You would stop blaming the
Justices and giving the clerks undue credit; you would stop blaming the victims,
the Plaintiffs; you would stop changing the nature of this case in your opinions by
stating we made claims that we did not and that events that never transpired did
transpire for that is not legal fiction but is actual insanity.
110. Again: think differently for you cannot solve the problems you have created using
the very same thinking that caused those problems. To solve your problems
different thinking is required or you create more of the same, more problems
and so the injury and harm is compounded. Using the same thinking is what
causes us to relive history; it is why we are now acting out the fall of Rome all
over again and exactly so.
111. In light of the actual facts and in light of US Law no matter which version you use
then the US had no other viable choice but to default; the US knew exactly what
it was doing and what this then would mean (settlement!) so then;
IV SUMMARY
Women have never been accorded actual protection of the law; not once have they
been equally treated under the law in reality. They are equal on paper only but not

26

treated so in actual reality because men delusionally believe that women are created
defective or as less than men and that no woman can be born a genius; they falsely
claim that a manmade God ordains the inferiority of women, that women cannot
produce genius, that women lack the ability and capacity to command and that a
woman can only achieve with their approval and their help, as if women are not
persons in their own right so that women need their permission in order to succeed. If
any citizen challenges their irrational thinking they are punished; they the US will
teach them a lesson by making that citizen afraid and breaking their will. This is why
this case is being denied a hearing in person as that then protects the deluded, overly
privileged and overly empowered majority and forces women to exist as if they are
objects that are to be accorded less protection than animals. Finally a woman has
triumphed over them and they do not personally like it or the truth; the law is the
truth they act to avoid when no reasonably sane person can deny the qualification
known as natural birth exists or that Obama and McCain did not possess it nor did the
lawyers for BVG possess a good case let alone the good math.
The US defaulted in a case of constitutional authority and original jurisdiction and
Barack Obama is not qualified to run for or hold the Office of President and
Commander but yet was installed as a direct result of the existent prejudice against
women so we are here to collect upon the judgment of default. Do not confuse this
with EP&DP and money as Plaintiffs never sought money and named the birthright. A
violation of EP&DP caused the violation of the birthright but they are two different
things as is money and currency.

V COUNTS
1. Violation Of All Rights Including The Birthright
By violating every single one of Susan Herberts and every womens named rights
the Defendant created a situation whereby the birthright known as the natural
birth clause was violated thus all children both male and female are harmed; by
denying the Plaintiffs substantive due process in the courts the US has knowingly,
willingly and deliberately suppressed the whole and absolute truth in order to
unlawfully enforce the existence of a ruling dead institution over or against The
People and this ultimate violation serves to kill both America and the US as now,
as a direct result of prejudice against women and the institution of money the US
can not met its debt. It is bankrupt.

27

In classifying the original Petition both I & II as one of appellate jurisdiction when
it is original jurisdiction the Defendants acted arbitrarily and without any factual
basis.
2. Regulatory Takings
By first finding that all moral authority belongs to The People and that People or
Persons under the law do possess rights and are sovereign by law but then by ruling
that they are not Persons or sovereign w/o entering any evidence or proof at all
and by denying them entry to SCOTUS or any other federal court in person by
forcing the State courts to act as Federal Courts of law - the incorporated US and
its officers are then using private citizens i.e. private property for public use
without just compensation.
3. Physical Takings
By searching and then seizing Herberts original, unique intellectual property in
real time in the spring of 2007 at the public library and then denying her access to
it in real time the US (FBI) not only conducted an unlawful search but an unlawful
seizure. This also happened when the US forcibly fingerprinted her upon wholly
fabricated charges in SC and FL as her fingerprints are unique and when the Secret
Service and US Marshals Office searched her home and then denied her access to
the official complaints/reports she filed against the FBI by falsely claiming she was
vague in her FOIA request when she was not at all vague as she even named the
exact computer she was on at the library as they are numbered; further Herbert
knew details others might not as her own husband was working for the city at the
library the very day when this transpired; twice over the fed itself has ignored the
ruling of a federal appeals court as twice over they were ordered to stop this
abuse.
By confiscating and refusing to file the Motion To Compel The US To Respond the
Defendant has taken what is both private and public property belonging to the
Plaintiffs and so America for its personal use. That is the incorporated US and its
paid officers unlawfully confiscated this property based upon an irrational personal
judgment value they possess concerning The People that targets women and their
minor children as well as Susan Herbert and Ray Morton exactly.
By tampering with the official docket of the Supreme Court for the United States
of America Defendants have done the same as above as the tampered with docket
exists for their personal use at the expense of all of The People.

28

Demand For Relief

Plaintiffs demand the following:

1. Damages to compensate Plaintiffs for the taking of this property but most
importantly for the violation of every right including the birthright. The
birthright is not the same right as EP&DP and does not not fall under the 14 th
Amendment or case law re monetary damages; damages in this case does not
refer to money.
2. Hearing in person; this court can and may address any and all issues or address
only damages; hearing in person is supposed to be automatic in this type of
case as it is the only actual solution and it is law and case law; it is not
supposed to be debatable as to reason anything else is mentally ill and
insane and it might be criminal if you deny fact and law in order to force your
personal belief upon us; in this unique case the US has only one choice as they
created the situation they are now in: Settlement.
3. An injunction prohibiting Defendants from collecting tribute disguised as just
taxation from the Plaintiffs, an injunction prohibiting the Defendants from
acting against the Plaintiffs at all, that is an injunction prohibiting the
Defendants from claiming that they possess jurisdiction over the Plaintiffs,
and an injunction prohibiting Barack Obama from acting as if he is the rightful,
lawful President and Commander in Chief for he represents the Defendants only
and is not qualified according to the natural birth clause by either the original
version or the 1871 version of The Constitution. Case law does not apply.
4. A declaration that women and their children are a part of mankind so are
Persons with equal rights as the correct application of the law accounts for
biological distinction and that The People are sovereign as Thomas Jefferson
previously reasoned in A Summary View On The Rights Of British America and
with his unique system of measurements. All existing case law ignores this
biological distinction and men deny that women are not exactly excluded in US
Law or that the language is men is inside women meaning of man.
5. Any other relief this court deems necessary, as this court is to broadly interpret
this claim, as the Plaintiffs are acting pro bono and pro se.

29

____________________________
Susan Herbert, Lead Counsel
On Behalf of Herself, Co-counsel
and the other Plaintiffs

______________________
Date December 9th, 2014

Clemons, Herbert & Morton

Attorneys At Law
3760 University Boulevard South
#1102
Jacksonville, Florida 32216
904-343-1812
InReSusan@gmail.com

EXHIBITS

30

A.

SCOTUS DOCKET

No. 07-9804
Title:

In Re Susan Herbert, Petitioner

v.

Docketed:

~~~Date~~~
Mar 11 2008
Apr 1 2008
Apr 3 2008
Apr 21 2008
May 7 2008
May 13 2008
Jun 2 2008

March 12, 2008

~~~~~~~Proceedings and Orders~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Petition for a writ of mandamus and/or prohibition and motion for leave to proceed
in forma pauperis filed. (Response due April 11, 2008)
Waiver of right of respondent Federal Respondent to respond filed.
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of April 18, 2008.
Petition DENIED. [Unlawful]
Petition for Rehearing filed.
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of May 29, 2008.
Rehearing DENIED. [Unlawful; execution of threat]

No. 08-6622
Title:

In Re Susan Herbert, Petitioner

v.

Docketed:

October 6, 2008

~~~Date~~~ ~~~~~~~Proceedings and Orders~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Oct 3 2008 Petition for a writ of mandamus and/or prohibition and motion for leave to proceed in
forma pauperis filed. (Response due November 5, 2008)
Nov 20 DISTRIBUTED for Conference of December 5, 2008. [Unlawful and not legally possible
2008 as no response ever came; in such an event the case is set for hearing automatically;
SCOTUS would never respond on behalf of the US]
Dec 8 2008 Petition DENIED. [Wrong; ITS AN IMPOSSIBLE STANDARD!]

B. REASONING REGARDING UNS UNLAWFUL EXISTENCE AND ITS LACK OF

SOVEREIGNTY OVER ITSELF OR ANY OTHER NATION
Entered to SCOTUS previously:

31

Melvindaleonline says: Make sure youre sitting down for this one. We turn now to United States
Code (USC) Title 22 286 and read the following: " 286. Acceptance of membership by the United
States in International Monetary Fund. "The President is hereby authorized to accept membership
for the United States in the International Monetary Fund (hereinafter referred to as the "Fund"),
and in the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development (hereinafter referred to as the
"Bank"), provided for by the Articles of Agreement of the Fund and the Articles of Agreement of the
Bank as set forth in the Final Act of the United Nations Monetary and Financial Conference dated
July 22, 1944, and deposited in the archives of the Department of State. (July 31, 1945, ch 339,
2, 59 Stat. 512.) Short titles: May be cited as the Bretton Woods Agreements Act. "Other
provisions: Par value modification. For the Congressional direction that the Secretary of the
Treasury maintain the value in terms of gold of the Inter-American Development Banks holdings of
United States dollars following the establishment of a par value of the dollar at $38 for a fine troy
ounce of gold pursuant to the Par Value Modification Act and for the authorization of the
appropriations necessary to provide such maintenance of value, see 31 USC 449a."...The act
further transfers the assets of the United States Treasury to the IMF by stating words to the effect
of: the United States Treasury is now the Individual Drawing account of the IMF ...Think about it.
"The President is hereby authorized to accept membership for the United States in the IMF"...The
President is authorized by whom? Congress? Well, even if Congress did authorize it where did they
get the authority to so do? Certainly not from the Constitution, and Congress cant lawfully do
anything the Constitution doesnt authorize them to do. The Constitution plainly states: "The
enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage
others retained by the people Ninth amendment; and, "The powers not delegated to the United
States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States
respectively, or to the people Tenth Amendment. Further joining the IMF is obviously an
international agreement; and, any good dictionary will define, "an agreement between nations" [or
any legal entity foreign to the Sovereign The People] as a "Treaty". The Constitution is very specific
on how treaties are to be engaged in with this nation: 1st, the President signs the treaty; and 2nd,
the Senate ratifies his signature with a two-thirds majority vote. That didnt happen here. So if the
right wasnt given in the Constitution, Congress cant take it and give it to the President. This act
states that Authorization came from the U.N. instead of from Congress "provided for as set forth
in the Final Act of the United Nations": There was no treaty with the U.N. until December 20,
1945, five months later, so the U.N. COULD NOT exercise its treaty with Corp. U.S. and MAY
NOT.
[Susan: No IMF? No UN; no UN? No IMF. One cannot exist unless the other does first so its legally
impossible. Set aside all of the legal ramifications of the constitutional violations involved. You
cannot remedy them all. If the math did not add up then it never will; this is an example of the
corporation deciding the UN would exist as a legal entity so PREDETERMINING we would
enter a treaty BEFORE that legal entity ever existed. What if it never came to be? Thats just it:
It was predetermined it would exist. And after Wilsons League of Nations failed. I exactly
named predetermined judicial fate in my petitions and brief, as this is an example of the
Executive and Legislative attempting to circumvent WE thus the federal court. It is a deliberate
act meant to violate the separation of powers thus give judicial power to those the founders
said are most dangerous: The legislative department is everywhere extending the sphere of
its activity, and drawing all power into its impetuous vortex, Madison, Federalist 48. The
Corporation US makes it seem as if We, the People have a voice in the reasoning and application of
the law but the People do not as it is a done deal; that is, the Corporation US was never NOT going
to enter this treaty thus they knew to author an act that presupposes its existence and that then is
a denial of informed consent among other things. It is forced on The People as WE had no
opportunity to volunteer with full consent. We can never know if The People would have
volunteered to conduct this experiment had We been informed but the Leagues failure suggests
no. The reason to release all officers of the Government from liability is no more thus the Trust
as it exists today has out lived its purpose. You can never go back in time and make up that five

32

month disparity as it is now history thus all you can and may do? Change it in the now thus address
Obamas unconstitutional election and Bushs unconstitutional installation. See Wallstreet Collapse
and failure of the SEC to protect the People with no trustees removed and wholly invalid and
unconstitutional employee bonus contracts enforced and paid out, which is The People being
forced to pay tribute and to actual crooks as that money is funneled right back into the IMF; its
money laundering and its an actual pyramid scheme].

C.

CREDIT RIVER RULING

A WORD FROM AN ASSOCIATE JUSTICE WHO KNEW AND WORKED WITH JUSTICE MARTIN V. MAHONEY
STATE OF MINNESOTA ABOUT THE CASE:
The "Credit River Decision" handed down by a jury of 12 on a cold day in December, in the Credit
River Township Hall, was an experience that I'll never forget.
The Chief Justice of the Minnesota Supreme Court had phoned me a week before the trial and
asked me if I would be an associate justice in assisting Justice Martin V. Mahoney since he had
never handled a jury trial before. I accepted, and it took me two hours to get my car running in the
22 below zero weather.
I got to the courtroom about 30 minutes before trial, and helped get the wood stove going, since
the trial was being held in an unheated storeroom of a general store. This was the first time I met
Justice Mahoney, and I was impressed with his no nonsense manner of handling matters before him.
My object was to help pick the jury, and to keep Jerome Daly and the attorney representing the
Bank of Montgomery from engaging in a fist fight. The courtroom was highly charged, and the Jury
was all business.
The banker testified about the mortgage loan given to Jerome Daly, but then Daly cross examined
the banker about the creating of money "out of thin air," and the banker admitted that this was
standard banking practice. When Justice Mahoney heard the banker testify that he could "create
money out of thin air," Mahoney said, "It sounds like fraud to me." I looked at the faces of the
jurors, and they were all agreeing with Mahoney by shaking their heads and by the looks on their
faces.
I must admit that up until that point, I really didn't believe Jerome's theory, and thought he was
making this up. After I heard the testimony of the banker, my mouth had dropped open in shock,
and I was in complete disbelief. There was no doubt in my mind that the Jury would find for Daly.
Jerome Daly had taken on the banks, the Federal Reserve Banking System, and the money lenders,
and had won.
It is now twenty eight years since this "Landmark Decision," and Justice Mahoney is quoted more
often than any Supreme Court justice ever was.
Both Jerome Daly and Justice Martin V. Mahoney are truly the greatest men that I have ever had
the pleasure to meet. The Credit River Decision was and still is the most important legal decision
ever decided by a Jury. - Bill Drexler
IN THE JUSTICE COURT
STATE OF MINNESOTA
COUNTY OF SCOTT
TOWNSHIP OF CREDIT RIVER

33

JUSTICE MARTIN V. MAHONEY

First National Bank of Montgomery, Plaintiff vs Jerome Daly, Defendant
JUDGMENT AND DECREE
The above entitled action came on before the Court and a Jury of 12 on December 7, 1968 at 10:00
am. Plaintiff appeared by its President Lawrence V. Morgan and was represented by its Counsel, R.
Mellby. Defendant appeared on his own behalf.
A Jury of Talesmen were called, impaneled and sworn to try the issues in the Case. Lawrence V.
Morgan was the only witness called for Plaintiff and Defendant testified as the only witness in his own
behalf.
Plaintiff brought this as a Common Law action for the recovery of the possession of Lot 19 Fairview
Beach, Scott County, Minn. Plaintiff claimed title to the Real Property in question by foreclosure of a
Note and Mortgage Deed dated May 8, 1964 which Plaintiff claimed was in default at the time
foreclosure proceedings were started.
Defendant appeared and answered that the Plaintiff created the money and credit upon its own books
by bookkeeping entry as the consideration for the Note and Mortgage of May 8, 1964 and alleged
failure of the consideration for the Mortgage Deed and alleged that the Sheriff's sale passed no title to
plaintiff.
The issues tried to the Jury were whether there was a lawful consideration and whether Defendant
had waived his rights to complain about the consideration having paid on the Note for almost 3 years.
Mr. Morgan admitted that all of the money or credit which was used as a consideration was created
upon their books, that this was standard banking practice exercised by their bank in combination with
the Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis, another private Bank, further that he knew of no United
States Statute or Law that gave the Plaintiff the authority to do this. Plaintiff further claimed that
Defendant by using the ledger book created credit and by paying on the Note and Mortgage waived
any right to complain about the Consideration and that the Defendant was estopped from doing so.
At 12:15 on December 7, 1968 the Jury returned a unanimous verdict for the Defendant.
Now therefore, by virtue of the authority vested in me pursuant to the Declaration of Independence,
the Northwest Ordinance of 1787, the Constitution of United States and the Constitution and the laws
of the State of Minnesota not inconsistent therewith;
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED:
1. That the Plaintiff is not entitled to recover the possession of Lot 19, Fairview Beach, Scott County,
Minnesota according to the Plat thereof on file in the Register of Deeds office.
2. That because of failure of a lawful consideration the Note and Mortgage dated May 8, 1964 are null
and void.
3. That the Sheriff's sale of the above described premises held on June 26, 1967 is null and void, of
no effect.
4. That the Plaintiff has no right title or interest in said premises or lien thereon as is above described.

34

5. That any provision in the Minnesota Constitution and any Minnesota Statute binding the jurisdiction
of this Court is repugnant to the Constitution of the United States and to the Bill of Rights of the
Minnesota Constitution and is null and void and that this Court has jurisdiction to render complete
Justice in this Cause.
The following memorandum and any supplementary memorandum made and filed by this Court in
support of this Judgment is hereby made a part hereof by reference.
BY THE COURT
Dated December 9, 1968
Justice MARTIN V. MAHONEY
Credit River Township
Scott County, Minnesota
MEMORANDUM
The issues in this case were simple. There was no material dispute of the facts for the Jury to resolve.
Plaintiff admitted that it, in combination with the federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis, which are for all
practical purposes, because of their interlocking activity and practices, and both being Banking
Institutions Incorporated under the Laws of the United States, are in the Law to be treated as one and
the same Bank, did create the entire $14,000.00 in money or credit upon its own books by
bookkeeping entry. That this was the Consideration used to support the Note dated May 8, 1964 and
the Mortgage of the same date. The money and credit first came into existence when they created it.
Mr. Morgan admitted that no United States Law Statute existed which gave him the right to do this. A
lawful consideration must exist and be tendered to support the Note. See Ansheuser-Busch Brewing
Company v. Emma Mason, 44 Minn. 318, 46 N.W. 558. The Jury found that there was no
consideration and I agree. Only God can create something of value out of nothing.
Even if Defendant could be charged with waiver or estoppel as a matter of Law this is no defense to
the Plaintiff. The Law leaves wrongdoers where it finds them. See sections 50, 51 and 52 of Am Jur
2nd "Actions" on page 584 "no action will lie to recover on a claim based upon, or in any manner
depending upon, a fraudulent, illegal, or immoral transaction or contract to which Plaintiff was a party."
Plaintiff's act of creating credit is not authorized by the Constitution and Laws of the United States, is
unconstitutional and void, and is not a lawful consideration in the eyes of the Law to support any thing
or upon which any lawful right can be built.
Nothing in the Constitution of the United States limits the jurisdiction of this Court, which is one of
original Jurisdiction with right of trial by Jury guaranteed. This is a Common Law action. Minnesota
cannot limit or impair the power of this Court to render Complete Justice between the parties. Any
provisions in the Constitution and laws of Minnesota which attempt to do so is repugnant to the
Constitution of the United States and void. No question as to the Jurisdiction of this Court was raised
by either party at the trial. Both parties were given complete liberty to submit any and all facts to the
Jury, at least in so far as they saw fit.
No complaint was made by Plaintiff that Plaintiff did not receive a fair trial. From the admissions made
by Mr. Morgan the path of duty was direct and clear for the Jury. Their Verdict could not reasonably
been otherwise. Justice was rendered completely and without denial, promptly and without delay,
freely and without purchase, conformable to the laws in this Court of December 7, 1968.

35

JEROME DALY'S OWN ENTRY

REGARDING JUSTICE MAHONEY'S MEMORANDUM
FORWARD: The above Judgment was entered by the Court on December 9, 1968. The issue there
was simple - Nothing in the law gave the Banks the right to create money on their books. The Bank
filed a Notice of Appeal within 10 days. The Appeals statutes must be strictly followed, otherwise the
District Court does not acquire Jurisdiction upon Appeal. To effect the Appeal the Bank had to deposit
$2.00 with the Clerk within 10 days for payment to the Justice when he made his return to the District
Court. The Bank deposited two $1.00 Federal Reserve Notes. The Justice refused the Notes and
refused to allow the Appeal upon the grounds that the Notes were unlawful and void for any purpose.
The Decision is addressed to the legality of these Notes and the Federal Reserve System.
The Cases of Edwards v. Kearnzey and Craig v. Missouri set out in the decision should be studied
very carefully as they bear on the inviolability of Contracts. This is the crux of the whole issue. Jerome
Daly.
SPECIAL NOTATION. Justice Mahoney denied the use of Federal Reserve Notes, since they
represent debt instruments, not true money, from being used to pay for the appeal process itself. In
order to get this overturned, since the bank's appeal without the payment being recognized was out of
time, it would have required that the Bank of Montgomery, Minnesota bring a Title 42, Section 1983
action against the judicial act of Justice Mahoney for a violation of the Constitution of the United
States under color of law or authority, and if successful, have the case remanded back to him to either
retry the case or allow the appeal to go through. But the corrupt individuals behind the bank(s) were
unable to ever elicit such a decision from any federal court due to the fact that because of their vile
hatred for him and what he had done to them and their little Queen's Scheme, had him murdered
(same as them murdering him) just about 6 months later. And so, the case stands, just as it was.
Amazingly, if they hadn't been so arrogant about the value of their federal reserve notes and paid the
Justice just 2 measly silver dollars, or else 4 measly half dollars, or else 8 measly quarters, or else 20
measly dimes, or else 40 measly nickels, or else 200 measly pennies, they could have had their
appeal and would not have had to get blood on their hands.
As it is, they are now known for their bloody ways, and the day will come when the American people
will reap vengeance upon them for such a heinous and villainous act.
BY THE COURT
December 9, 1968
Justice Martin V. Mahoney
Credit River Township
Scott County, Minnesota
Note: It has never been doubted that a Note given on a Consideration which is prohibited by law is
void. It has been determined; by independent of Acts of Congress, that sailing under the license of an
enemy is illegal. The emission of Bills of Credit upon the books of these private Corporations for the
purpose of private gain is not warranted by the Constitution of the United States and is unlawful. See
Craig v. Mo. 4 Peters Reports 912. This Court can tread only that path which is marked out by duty.
M.V.M. .]

D. DUVAL COUNTY COURT DOCKET DATED DECEMBER 30TH, 2013

36

See http://www.
as docket wouldnt print; also see Family Court
docket as a an open case yet exists that is now about 8 years old as both presiding
judges calledi n sick to avoid hearing it thus it was never closed; both were
previously entered to the record.

IN

COURT THE JUDGE SAID

TERMINATE

COURT FEES AND

CCOURT

COSTS OUT LOUD BUT THEN

HE IMPOSED, IN WRITING, A COURT FINE AND CONVERTED IT TO A CIVIL JUDGMENT; IN DUVAL

COUNTY ALL COURT FINES ARE CONVERTED TO CIVIL JUDGMENTS AS THEY USED TO BECOME A
SECONDARY CRIMINAL CHARGE WHEN NOT PAID; IN OTHER WORDS HIS WRITTEN ACTIONS DO NOT
REFLECT WHAT THE DOCKET READS AND WHAT ACTUALLY TRANSPIRED OR WHAT HE SAID IN COURT;
DUVAL COUNTY YET HAS AN OPEN CASE REGARDING THE INTIAL FEDERAL FILING FROM SEVERAL YEARS
AGO AS IT REFUSED TO ABIDE BY THE LAW BY CHARGING US MONEY IN THE EVENT OF AN
EMEERGENCY AND BY THE JUDGES INVOLVED THEN CALLING IN SICK THUS ITS STILL AN OPEN, NEVER
AJUDICATED ACTION THAT WILL NEVER BE AJUSDICATED IN THIS

FL

COURT; AT THE TIME OF FILING

PCS DID NOT HAVE AN EMERGENCY BUTTON THEY DID NOT

KNOW HOW TO FILE AN EMERGENCY - SO THAT THEY HAD TO CHARGE US!
THE CLERKS CLAIMED THAT THEIR

YOU MAY NOT IMPOSE A CIVIL JUDGMENT I.E. A FINE AGAINST THE PLAINTIFFS
WHEN THE US IS IN DEFAULT AND WAS SO WHEN THE PLAINTIFFS ENTERED AND
AFTER YOU HAVE OPENLY ACKNOWLEDGED DEFAULT IS. IF THE DEFENDANTS
CANT SHOW CAUSE AND NEVER COULD AS PLAINTIFFS SUCCESSFULLY ARGUED
OR RATHER REASONED? THEN THERE SHOULD BE ZERO FINE AS THE JUDGMENT
IS AGAINST THE US THAT INCLUDES THE STATES.
LEVYING A JUDGMENT AGAINST THE PLAINTIFFS UPON PAPER AFTER YOU FIRST
ACKNOWLEDGE THE REALITY THAT IT IS AGAISNT THE US? ITS HOW A HUMAN BEING
VEERS BACK INTO DENIAL IN OPRDER TO AVOID THE WHOLE TRUTH, THAT WOMEN
ARE EQUAL TO MEN AND THAT THE PRO SE ARE EQUAL TO A SITTING JUDGE, THAT
ALL MORAL AUTHORITY DOES BELONG TO THE PEOPLE.

ATTACHMENT D
BELIEF SYSTEMS/VALUE SETS/FEDERALIST 10 AS A FLOW CHART
You use these charts by naming what you believe upon each level and finding it
under a columnfor instance upon a personal level you might believe what is
Romantic Liberal but upon a Familial Level you believe what is Authoritarian Rule.
Almost all human beings cobble together various beliefs from the existent belief
systemsit is rare for people to possess beliefs that are congruent and consistent
with law of the universe aka natural law. Only Romantic Liberal Belief/Dynamic
Value is congruent and consistent with universal law. Anything else is mentally ill
37

as it causes mental illness. This should not surprise you for to correctly assess the
old, original MMPI test one had to first account for their own degree of mental
illness. If a therapist failed to do this then they would blame the patient
diagnose - for what is their own issue and this has happened to some of the
Plaintiffs.
How did Susan Herbert escape mental illness and insanity? She always and forever
acknowledged and then acted upon the truth when it wasnt easy to discern what
the truth is; acting is how you learn so Herbert mastered the learning curve early
on when she lost the first authority case she ever made as her Mother ruled right
court, wrong question. At age 4 Herbert learned ALL forms of lying are insane as
who always knows? You do and the Creator does so youre not fooling anybody and
youre only harming yourself by lying. Wanna drive yourself insane? Lie and then
act out the lies youre telling.
Herbert did the same thing famed psychologist Abraham Maslow did for he began
his quest by asking himself Why did I not go insane? while Herbert asked herself,
Whats so special about me? Maslow and Herbert asked for the truth and
secured it via action. Herbert first acted upon her own volition at age 4 and then
in early 1973; the only advantage she had that is a matter of nature not of unjust,
unfair privilege? Herbert remembered her sense of self acquired at age 18 months
so she had more memory to work with.
Using the Flow Chart trace the paths named Recovery and Disease Behavior;
the Recovery Path leads you to move your subconscious into your conscious
awareness until you finally discover your unique gift endowed upon you by the
Creator. What man needs the permission of another man in order to express what
is their nature in this world? Nobody does; no woman does. The mistake humans
make is seeking permission as they want to be able to lie and to place blame; they
want to avoid accountability and responsibility. As sick as it is? With liberty comes
great responsibility so some humans would rather be slaves they like it as then
they never have to make their own decisions and they never have to deal with
realitynothing is ever their fault. When we talk about the fear of success what
we mean is the fear of the whole truth, your whole truth. Those who fear success
fear finally knowing their own whole truth.
This is how and why religion has been so successful in enslaving others via false
fear and false guilt, as people were happy to give their right and birthright away
to another as then they could theoretically commit crimes but yet be forgiven over
and over w/o ever experiencing the named penalty.

38

Who causes all of this? People do; we do. I do. You do. Want to solve your
problem/s by striking at the cause as Madison advised you to do in Fed. #10? Want
to liberate your own self? Live out the Recovery Path named on this Flow Chart.

Begins next page; if reduced you would need a magnifying glass to read this.

Attachment E
Dont believe it is discrimination and prejudice when you act against a person
only as they are intelligent? It is and theres even a federal case. The judge
erroneously ruled that you can harm those who are highly intelligent and its
not discrimination as youre requiring everybody to be dumb thus we are all
being treated equally. No we arent! Why? Intelligence is a quality of your
person like black or white is or man and woman is; you are born with genius or
39

not; do we claim that everybody is required to be white therefore if youre too

black or too woman you can be harmed and its legal as were all being held to
the same standard, white and/or male? No we dont plus SCOTUS recently
opined upon this very issue as Sotomayor ruled if no person of color could pass
a test and be promoted then no white person could either and SCOTUS found
against her unanimously. Rulings like this are what is realized once you pass the
completion of injustice and cant possibly become any more unjust than you
are, when you veer into insanity. It works like a snake eating its own tail as
eventually you devour your own sane self and others. It is a form cannibalism
takes which is why Jefferson said only humans cannibalize their own in this
manner.

Police Officially Refuse To Hire Applicants With High

IQ Scores
October 30, 2013
Political Blind Spot

It's long been rumored amongst law enforcement critics, but did you know that police departments
officially disqualify high-scoring applicants? That's not to say that all cops are stupid Just that if
you're too smart, the police simply won't hire you.

The policy became solidified as a concrete federal ruling almost a decade and a half ago with
little fanfare from the mainstream media. Back in 1999, a Federal judge dismissed a lawsuit by a
police applicant who was barred from the New London, Connecticut police force. The reason for
the disqualification was literally because he had scored "too high" on an intelligence test. The
department made it clear, they didn't want the bottom of the barrel in terms of intelligence, but
they didn't want anyone "too smart" either.

The ruling made public in September of the same year, with the ruling judge Peter C. Dorsey of
the United States District Court in New Haven confirming that it was in fact the case that the
plaintiff, Robert Jordan, 48, who has a bachelor's degree in literature, was denied an opportunity
to even interview for a job with the New London Police Department, solely because of his high
test scores.

Judge Dorsey, however, ruled that Mr. Jordan that there was no protection offered to
intelligent people from discriminatory hiring practices by individual police departments.
Why? Because, Dorsey explained, it was proven that police departments held all to this
same standard and thus rejected all applicants who scored high.

40

So next time you cross paths with a cop and wonder how someone so stupid could get hired by
their department, you now know that their stupidity might be the very thing that qualified
them for the job. end

Attachment F
Meet Your Straw Man, or, Your Birth Cert Is A Certificate of Stock, or, We Call
It A Straw Poll For Reasoning
A citizen of Britain wrote this but it applies to the US as well as you can trace
your own person on the stock exchange. He names the US. Did you know that
you appear on the stock exchange and so your person is valued at an exact
dollar amount? It works the same way across the Earth which is why Americans
are so angry that you are becoming Anglicanized all over again after you fought
and won a Revolution; its why we despise all those who engineered
Brettonwoods, the UN and our modern dollar based upon no actual value at all
and who support banks and this foreignization disguised as globalization.
Attachment G was written by an American as was J and Attachment H
addresses the Strawman as Psuedo Legal Theory:

Begins next page

Attachment G
Logical Fallacy/Straw Man, From The Fallacy Files
Note: The author forgot to account for TWO facts in his example, whether C.
Everett Koop was present at the conference of sexologists and the biological
distinction between men and women so he inadvertently used what is a logical
41

fallacy on his part to then illustrate the truth of a logical fallacyit worked as
his own readers acted to correct him but not one of them named biological
distinction:

Straw Man

Taxonomy: Logical Fallacy > Informal Fallacy > Red Herring

Etymology:

"Straw man" is one of the best-named fallacies, because it is

memorable and vividly illustrates the nature of the fallacy.
Imagine a fight in which one of the combatants sets up a man of
straw, attacks it, then proclaims victory. All the while, the real
opponent stands by untouched.
Quote

When your opponent sets up a straw man, set it on fire and

kick the cinders around the stage. Don't worry about losing
the Strawperson-American community vote.
Unquote

Source: James Lileks, "The Daily Bleat"

Example:

Some of you may have seen the 90-minute ABC network

television showentitled "Growing Up in the Age of AIDS". I
was one of nine guests on that live program. [A] single
45-second sound bite cost me a long journey and two hectic
days in New York City.
Whydid I travel to The Big Apple for such an insignificant
role? I felt a responsibility to express the abstinence
position on national television. How sad that adolescents
hear only the dangerous "safe sex" message from adults who
should know better.
What follows, then, is what I would have said on television.

42

Why, apart from moral considerations, do you think

teenagers should be taught to abstain from sex until
marriage?
[N]ot one of 800 sexologists at a recent conference raised a
hand when asked if they would trust a thin rubber sheath to
protect them during intercourse with a known HIV infected
person. And yet they're perfectly willing to tell our kids that
"safe sex" is within reach and that they can sleep around with
impunity.
Analysis
Source: James C. Dobson, in a fund-raising letter for "Focus on
the Family", February 13, 1992.
Exposition:

Judging from my experience, Straw Man is one of the commonest

of fallacies. It is endemic in public debates on politics, ethics, and
religion. A straw man argument occurs in the context of a
debateformal or informalwhen one side attacks a
positionthe "straw man"not held by the other side, then acts as
though the other side's position has been refuted.
This fallacy is a type of Red Herring because the arguer is
attempting to refute the other side's position, and in the context is
required to do so, but instead attacks a position not held by the
other side. The arguer argues to a conclusion that denies the
"straw man", but misses the target. There may be nothing wrong
with the argument presented by the arguer when it is taken out of
context, that is, it may be a perfectly good argument against the
straw man. It is only because the burden of proof is on the arguer
to argue against the opponent's position that a Straw Man fallacy
is committed. So, the fallacy is not simply the argument, but the
entire situation of the argument occurring in such a context.
Subfallacy:

As the "straw man" metaphor suggests, the counterfeit position

attacked in a Straw Man argument is typically weaker than the
opponent's actual position, just as a straw man is easier to defeat
than a flesh-and-blood one. Of course, this is no accident, but is
part of what makes the fallacy tempting to commit, especially to a
desperate debater who is losing an argument. Thus, it is no
surprise that arguers seldom misstate their opponent's position so
43

as to make it stronger. Of course, if there is an obvious way to

make a debating opponent's position stronger, then one is up
against an incompetent debater. Debaters usually try to take the
strongest position they can, so that any change is likely to be for
the worse. However, attacking a logically stronger position than
that taken by the opponent is a sign of strength, whereas attacking
a straw man is a sign of weakness.
A common straw man is an extreme man. Extreme positions are
more difficult to defend because they make fewer allowances for
exceptions, or counter-examples. Consider the statement forms:

All P are Q.

Most P are Q.

Many P are Q.

Some P are Q.

Some P are not Q.

Many P are not Q.

Most P are not Q.

No P are Q.

The extremes are "All P are Q" and "No P are Q". These are
easiest to refute, since all it takes is a single counter-example to
refute auniversal proposition. Moreover, the world being such as it
is, unless P and Q are connected definitionally, such propositions
are usually false. The other propositions are progressively harder
to refute until you get to the middle two: "Some P are Q" and
"Some Pare not Q". To refute these requires one to prove the
extremes: "No P are Q" or "All P are Q", respectively. So,
extremists are those who take positions starting with "all" or "no".
For instance, the extremists in the abortion debate are those who
argue that noabortions are permissible, or that all abortions are.
Therefore, Straw Man arguments often attack a political party or
movement at its extremes, where it is weakest. For example, it is a
straw man to portray the anti-abortion position as the claim that
all abortions, with no exceptions, are wrong. It is also a straw man
to attack abortion rights as the position that no abortions should
ever be restricted, bar none. Such straw men are often part of the
process of "demonization", and we might well call the subfallacy of
44

the straw man which attacks an extreme position instead of the

more moderate position held by the opponent, the "Straw
Demon".
Source:

T. Edward Damer, Attacking Faulty Reasoning: A Practical

Guide to Fallacy-Free Arguments (Third Edition)(Wadsworth,
1995), pp. 157-159.
Resource:

Michael C. Labossiere, "Straw Man"

Analysis of the Example:

Dobson is arguing against the "safe sex" idea of promoting

condom usage as a way to limit the spread of HIV. In order to
more easily knock down his target, Dobson portrays the
sexologists he's criticizing as telling kids "that they can sleep
around with impunity". The most prominent proponent of
condom usage was Surgeon General C. Everett Koop, who testified
before Congress to the following:
Scientific evidence indicates that abstinence is the only
completely safe way to avoid acquiring AIDS sexually. Except
for mutually faithful monogamous relationships with
uninfected partners, the use of a condom is the best method
of reducing or preventing HIV infection known at this time for
those who for one reason or another will not practice
abstinence or monogamy.
Dobson chose to attack a straw man rather than the Surgeon
General.
Source: C. Everett Koop, "Statement of C. Everett
Koop", Committee on Energy and Commerce, U.S. House of
Representatives, 2/10/1987 (PDF)
Reader Responses:
Dobson was not saying that the Surgeon General was
mistaken but rather certain sexologists. Dobson portrays the
sexologists he's criticizing as telling kids "that they can sleep
around with impunity." This was indeed a straw man if they
didn't believe this, but if they did believe this, Dobson's
45

objection is not as much of a straw man. Ordinarily, something

is a straw man if the opponent's position has been distorted,
not that a different opponent presents a different position.
If the Surgeon General was at the conference, then indeed it
was a straw man, but then that fact should be mentioned. Or if
your objection was that the sexologists Dobson criticizes hold
an extreme position, and that most people who promote
condom use don't hold such a positionwhereas Dobson
argues otherwise in his fundraising letter (I don't know if he in
fact did or not)then this too would be a straw man, but such
pertinent facts would need to be mentioned.Wade A.
Tisthammer
Dobson wasn't simply arguing against the 800 sexologists at the
conference, but against the "safe sex" message and in favor of
abstinence. I don't know whether Koop attended the conference,
but I doubt it; I have no idea who was there. As you say, either
Dobson misrepresented the views of the sexologists or he didn't. If
he did, then he was clearly committing a straw man fallacy, as you
concede.
One reason that I quoted Koop's statement was that he was
probably the most prominent proponent of condom usage, at least
at that time. Of course, statements from those who attended the
conference would be better evidence of what they believed, but in
lieu of that I offer Koop's statement as evidence of what the "safe
sex" message really was. An important thing shown by Koop's
statement is that "safe sex" and abstinence were not necessarily
contradictory messages, as Dobson implies. Koop first points out
that abstinence is the only 100% effective method of preventing
diseases from being sexually transmitted, and condom usage is
less effective. Of course, Koop never claimed that teenagers could
"sleep around with impunity".
But, even if Dobson was not misrepresenting the sexologists'
views, he still attacked a straw man. Choosing the most extreme
representatives of a view to criticize, and then treating such
criticism as a refutation of that view is itself a form of straw man
fallacy, as discussed in the Subfallacy section above. Dobson chose
to attack the sexologists rather than Koop because they would be
easier to knock down: that's a straw man.
Reader Jon Brock writes:

46

I don't think the safe sex quote is a good example of a straw

man argumentor perhaps it needs more clarification. You
pointed out that the straw man aspect to the argument was
that Dobson painted the safe sex movement as telling kids
they can sleep around with impunity. I don't think that's a
straw man, primarily because he uses the word "can" and
adds "with impunity". If Dobson said "telling kids they should
sleep around" you'd be correctthat's a mischaracterization
of safe sex. But the idea of "safe sex" is exactly that "you can
sleep around with impunity". That's the definition of safe sex.
It adds impunity to sex "for those who for one reason or
another will not practice abstinence or monogamy".
The reason Dobson is attacking that message so specifically,
with thewords "can" and "with impunity", is that as your point
from the Surgeon General pointed out, it's incorrect. The idea
that a condom reduces the chances of STD transmission, but
does not prevent them, is not at all expressed in the succinct
and catchy phrase "safe sex".
You can criticize the phrase "safe sex" on the grounds that no sex
is completely safe, but it's Dobson who characterized the
sexologists' position as one of advocating "safe sex".
If anything, the safe sex proponents who reference the
Surgeon General's statement are the ones making the straw
man argument. The Surgeon General did not say that sex with
a condom is safe, just that it is safer than sex without a
condom, and that the only safe action is to not have sex or
have a monogamous uninfected partner. Is it really a straw
man to recharacterize someone's words in a way that is
logically correct?
You're right about what Koop said, so why didn't Dobson address
himself to that instead of a bunch of unnamed "safe sex
proponents"?

47

Attachment H
Strawman Theory
Plaintiffs are aware of both sides of the strawman debate; is it psuedolaw? Plaintiffs
wish to clear this up once and for all in order to then clear up the mass confusion
concerning paper vs life and so what is reality vs what is realit is interesting to
note that the IRS, a private entity and a part of a corporation that exists on paper
only and is not US Law, claims the strawman is a form of fraud. Plaintiffs contend
that it isnt, that the strawman is real as the US the corporation makes it real on
paper so the US cant have it both ways. However to lawfully protest taxes or to
object to the US fiscal mismanagement? You do what the Plaintiffs have done, you
sue in SCOTUS directly not take whatever you want for free as everything has a
cost not a price. The US makes this all up on paper in order to deny existing law; the
US has no clue; it doesnt comprehend that what the Founders wrote down originally
matches universal or natural law so to fight it is to attempt to change or even
eradicate law such as E=MC2 or the Conservation of Energy and Matter. No man
can do that.
Dont forget: as the US knows it is making it up and that it is fantasy and delusion on
their part? And as the US is aware of both the strawman logical fallacy, the
strawman and its own unlawful incorporation? Then people like Obama run around
constantly changing their name and the spelling of their namethe US did this when
it changed the title of The Constitution. While the IRS and th3e FBI claims it is fraud?
THE PAID OFFICERS THEN GO AND DO IT IN ORDER TO ESCAPE THE LAW!
Why isnt the DOJ prosecuting them? As the FBI delusionally believes it works for
the paid officers not the people, thats whyas the FBI delusionally believes in
money, thats why. Its: EGO.
Idem sonantia: Does Barry Sortero, Blake Sortero, Blake Obamaor Blake Dunham
sound like Barack Obama or Barack Hussein Obama II? NO. Do the social security
numbers on the pieces of paper match? No. Like Plaintiffs said: The US needs to
make up its mind once and for all and stop directly contradicting itself in order to
accord unjust men special, favorable, privileged treatment.
Strawman theory
Not to be confused with the logical fallacy
Strawman theory (Also called the Strawman illusion) is a pseudolegal theory prevalent in
various movements such as sovereign citizen, tax protestor, freeman on the land, the redemption
movement and various "get out of debt free" scams.

48

The theory holds that an individual has two personas, one of him or herself as a real flesh and blood
human being and the other, a separate legal personality or person (usually written in CAPITALS) who
is the "strawman". The idea is that an individuals debts, liabilities, taxes and legal responsibilities
belong to the strawman rather than the physical individual themselves, conveniently allowing one to
escape their debts and responsibilities.[1]
Strawman theory should not be confused with the actual legal concept of a strawperson, with which it
only bears a tenuous similarity, or with the logical fallacy known as a straw man argument.
The strawman theory is recognised in law, but only as a scam: the FBI considers anyone promoting it
a likely fraudster,[2] and the IRS considers it a frivolous argument that will get you a $5000 fine if you
use it on your tax return.[3]

History
Strawman theory traces its origins to the ancient Roman legal practice of capitis deminutio ("decrease
of head"), a term used in Roman trials for the extinguishment of a person's former legal
capacity. Capitis deminutio minimameant a person ceased to belong to a particular family, without loss
of liberty or citizenship. Capitis deminutio media involved loss of citizenship and family, but not
liberty. Capitis deminutio maxima involved loss of family, citizenship and liberty (e.g. being made a
slave or a prisoner of war).[4]
The term was later revived in the US by the tax protestor and sovereign citizen movements and
combined with a misreading of the definition of person from Blacks law dictionary (an American law
dictionary). Strawman theory takes the term capitis deminutio, misspells it (commonly as "Capitis
Diminutio") and claims that capitis diminutio maxima was represented by an individuals name being
written entirely in capital letters (even though Latin only had capitals back then). This led to the idea
that individuals had a separate legal personality now called a "strawman", represented in capitals.

Theory
Strawman theory holds that an individual has two personas. One of them is a physical, tangible human
being, and the other as their legalperson, personality or strawman, often referred to as a legal fiction.
(The term "legal fiction" is used by woos as if it were synonymous with intangible rather than with its
correct meaning.)
The main use of strawman theory is in escaping and denying debts, liabilities and legal responsibility.
Tax protestors, "commercial redemption" and "get out of debt free" scams claim that ones debts and
taxes are the responsibility of the strawman and not of the real person, freeing the real person from the
need to pay them.
Sovereign citizen's movements and freemen on the land also extend this concept to law and legal
responsibilities by claiming that it is only their strawman that is required to adhere to statutory laws
such as paying taxes, having licences and obeying traffic laws. They also claims that all legal

49

proceedings in courts are taken against your strawman rather than you as a person and that when one
appears in court they appear not as themselves but as representing their strawman. The justification
for this being their false notion that governments cannot force anybody to do anything against their will.
They therefore create a strawman which being their own creation they are free to boss about at will.
Woos believe that by separating oneself from their strawman or refusing to be identified as their
strawman they can escape their various liabilities and responsibilities such as paying their debts or
obeying laws they don't like. This is typically done by denying they are a person and the same thing as
their strawman or by writing their name in various bizarre ways such as the following:

John of the family Smith

John of Smith

John:Smith

John (commonly known as)

By doing this they are refusing to represent the strawman. In addition to capitals, the use of titles such
as Mr and Mrs are claimed to indicate a reference to a persons strawman. Surnames are also typically
referred to as part of the legal fiction and advocates will often insist that they don't have a surname but
rather a family name.
Some woos believe that the strawman is created by the government when a birth certificate is filed.
Woos sometimes then try and present their birth certificate when their strawmans name is called for,
such as in court.

Debunking
It should be noted that there is a legal principle known as Idem sonans (Latin for "sounding the same")
which states that similar sounding names are just as valid in referring to a person. The relevant UK
precedent is R v Davis 1851.

If two names spelt differently necessarily sound alike, the court may, as matter of law, pronounce them
to be idem sonantia; but if they do not necessarily sound alike, the question whether they are idem
sonantia is a question of fact for the jury.
The strawman belief seems to stem from a misunderstanding of the concept of legal person-hood.
In actual legal theory there is a difference between what is known as a 'natural person' (which is not a
legal fiction) and that of a corporate person (a legal fiction known as corporate personhood, which
applies to business, charities, governments and any recognised organisation). Courts recognise
human beings as 'persons', not as a legal fiction joined to a flesh and blood human being but as one
and the same (though in the past not everyone was recognised as a person before the law). They
have never recognised a right to distance oneself from ones person, or the ability to opt out of personhood. Where this defence has been tried in court, judges have rejected it. It is impossible to dodge the

50

law by insisting that you are different from your person. If a court can establish your identity, regardless
of your consent or cooperation, then it is free to engage in proceedings and sanctions against you.
The use of block capitals to fill in forms is often used as evidence for the existence of strawmen. The
idea being that the form is asking for your strawman's identity. In reality this is done for ease of reading
by humans and computers alike; it is not evidence of some legal conspiracy.

Note: It seems its only frivolous if a Plaintiff mounts it agaisnt the US but that its
not frivolous if the US mounts it. You cannot deny that the US is allowing banks to
fabriacate money and falsify amounts in its books when reality is that money has no
value and now a less than negative value as it costs more to print that the US says its
worth and that it is essentially an IOU that the US can never, ever pay back as thats
how it is designed. Banking and the insane bookeeping practices on the part of the US
is designed to implode and every cent across the Earth is built on our backs and runs
thru the UN/IMF so that no nation is untouched; globally this ssytem, this corporation,
was designed to fail at some point and the unjust men who ddi it to us counted upon
being dead when this day cameits why they seal records for 50 or 100 years, so they
can escape the consequences escape the truth by dying before you discover the
whole truth. They deliberately violate the law but you, not them, suffer for it.

So then: If the strawman is a theory only if its real on paper only but not a law in
actuality then how come the US denies women legal personhood and then denies
them their humanity? Why is the US so afraid to accord women legal personhood if its
claim is their own reasoning is bad theory??? Why is the US now running from ethical
men??? The paid officers ARE inorganically insane as their thinking that they then act
upon is insane. Their corruption passed completion and the iharm is compounded so
they veered from mental illness into insanity as the federal judicairy refused to
acknolwedge the truth and reign them inthe Judiciary let them do it as the Judiciary
is doing it too! BTW: Herbert witnessed a judge label a Defendant crazy when she
cited this theory in open court; he did not so much as recognize it as theory; he also
labeled The Constitution crazy as she exactly quoted it.

Attachment I
Commercial Law/Admiralty Law
We do know commercial/admiralty law; we also know most of this does not
apply as of BVGits no longer true as of BVG and then In Re Susan; at the very
51

end is an article re the Bank of England acknowledging the truth of money; the
authors solution/s isnt necessarily the Plaintiffs as the amount of paperwork
is prohibitive plus the author might not be correct:

Begins next page

52

Attachment J
Bonds & Underwriting Your Own Bond
This is a transcription of a lecture given upon underwriting a bond and
following the numbers as accounting and bookkeeping are two different things.
It is followed by a letter Counselor/Plaintiff Herbert sent to some members of
the class as you need to know what future securities are and its the Chicago
Stock Exchange thats important to all of this not the NYSE. We have figured
out what no other person before us could figure out. Plaintiffs had no
reasonable expectation that paid officers would figure this out, as most of
them are agnostic or atheist no matter what they publicly claim; some stats
place this as high as 98%. In this document it is reported that a federal judge
says Youll win but youll never figure it out as HE couldnt. Never say (or
think) never especially in Americaif you look there is another number of your
SS card, on the back in the lower, bottom right hand corner. What is that
number for? What does it mean or symbolize? Like your birth cert is a
certificate of stock your SS Card is a bond so it IS a big deal that Obama can
produce neither (every copy he has produced has been proven to be invalid
with some forged; in one case the type face used did not exist at the time a
document was said to have been printed) and that he seemingly holds more
than one SS # which no American should.
People who dont hold stock do not vote at a shareholders meeting and
people who own no bond do not collect upon any of the benefit.
There are five relationships you share with a government as you are the
government; they are: Emotion, Law, Blood, Space and Fate; we share none
of these relationships with Obama or the paid officers of DC as they never
held stock or had a bond and now they are acting in complete and total
violation of the law:

Begins next page.

53

Attachment K
Logic, as most of what is entered to the courts is not logical; what you were
taught in law school is not logical; it is propaganda meant ot sway and convince
you and to indoctrinate you which is why all but one state now requires people
to attend law school. They do not mean to keep untalented, unskilled persons
from practicing law but instead to indoctrinate them as the wealthy who seek
ot maintain the status quo not only need lawyers to represent them in court
but they need politicians to make what are politically motivated appointments
to the federal benches. You might have secured your job as you can reason law
but you might be Earl Warren and so you were chosen for other reasoning. The
only way to know the truth? BY GOING HERE. Otherwise you are subjecting
yourself to living your life in a prison of your own design. Otherwise you will
never escape denial. Going here: This didnt kill Earl Warren and it wont kill
you. All that dies are the lies you may have been telling yourself:

LOGIC
Reply |Susan C to Susan H
show details 2:17 PM (6 hours ago)
You know, I'm beginning to understand why people don't understand what logic is and how it works. I
decided to Google logic and see what kind of definitions other people give for logic and it's basically
crazy making and not really a definition for what logic is but simply a description of what people use
logic for. It's all about logic being a form of argumentation. I'm thinking. . . . .are you kidding me?
This is what people are being told about logic?
So let's see if I can put my own thoughts together about logic. Logic involves truth factors that create
congruence and well-formedness. A truth factor is simply what must be there in order for something
to be called what it is and well-formedness involves what must follow in order for the structure of
what you are defining to remain sound and intact. Congruence means that it fits a particular purpose.
Anything that violates the truth factor, well-formedness, or congruence of an object, concept or event
will be illogical.
So to give an example of this, to know the logic of anything is to simply know what makes it a well
formed purposeful structure. To know what makes it well formed you start with it's truth factors. So
we can start with something like a table. What are the truth factors of a table? The truth factors are
anything that must be present in order to call an object a table. Anything else that may be present in
addition to that is not a truth factor but simply an artistic embellishment. Here are the truth factors of a
table: any solid object that is raised above the ground and that has a large enough and level enough
surface to hold other objects in such a way as to make them useful is a table. Anything that does not
conform to that original criteria of what a table is will be illogical.

54

In other words, logic is context dependent and anything that is outside of the originally defined context
or that violates the well-formedness and congruence of the structure will be illogical. So to determine
the logic of anything you must start with defining the context. The rules of logic that apply after that
will conform to that context.
The mistake that many people make with logic is that they believe that the purpose of logic is to
"prove a point" and so to justify an action. Of course, justifications of a person's actions will
involve their own truth factors which may not match the predefined context of a subject being
discussed. People justify their actions based on their own personal world view which varies from
person to person.
The purpose of logic is not about justifications but about creating well formed, congruent
structures that can be defined and described in such a way that they can be repeated and shared.
In other words, logic is simply about the principles of design.
People go "crazy" when their own truth factors are challenged or violated in some way. This is
because they think of their truth factors as being absolute rather than personal in nature. They
have the expectation that everyone shares their truth factors and so everyone's logic will follow
their own.

Attachment L
Faith As A Philosophy
Counselor/Plaintiff Susan Herbert has been legally recognized as a
constitutional physicist as noeticist does not describe what she does and is
the incorrect word as it refers to what is a bunch of hooey fiction on the
part of its creators. Herbert is a constitutionalist, a scientist and a theologian.
Another label for her and her work might be scientist-philosopher. The
philosophy that Herbert pioneered? Invented? Faith as a philosophy. The
following is the answer to a letter Herbert sent to Clemons; it evinces exactly
what we discuss during our down time as our work is our life; we are what we
do. In that way we never have a day off. Also: We have no idea what people
like David Levitt discuss with each other for fun but we can reasonably expect
it isnt ideas like thissee the Attachments previously entered to this court re
time as mass as that work was pioneered by others who did not figure it out:
FROM SUSAN CLEMONS TO SUSAN HERBERT, Aug. 23,2014
Oh boy, you never ask easy questions do you???

OK, first of all, yes everything is philosophy. And yes, everything is based on faith. You can't get
away from that.

55

When I say I am mapping consciousness I am talking about mapping consciousness itself and
not just conscious awareness. Consciousness is "What IS", or "the source" (of everything).
Conscious awareness is the tool we use for navigating consciousness. This means that the more
we can expand our conscious awareness the more areas of consciousness we have access to.

And when I say I am creating a map I am referring to creating a logical use of language that
allows people to mentally change how they think about reality and so be able to mentally navigate
what you might call "infinity".

All language is basically "map like" in nature. A story is a map of a subjective experience told
objectively so that we can understand the subjective nature of something in an objective way. A
metaphor is the same thing. The only difference between a metaphor and a story is that a
metaphor maps a singular experience and a story maps an event that includes a set of
experiences that make up a larger experience.

So what I am essentially doing is creating a "language of consciousness" where consciousness is

assumed as the source of all reality. This allows us to expand our conscious awareness to
include many forms of subjective reality AS "real" and "real" experiences.

In other words, our current language (the stories we tall ourselves) gives us a map of reality
based on the theory that matter is the source of "all" reality. I am creating a way to tell the story
(use language) that gives us a map of reality based on the theory that consciousness is the
source of "all" reality and therefore "reality" is MUCH more than what our old maps/language say
it is.

In order for us to change our perception of what it means to be "sane" or "insane", legally
or otherwise, we must change our "map of reality" to include subjective reality. -end

56