“Thus here I am again, entering having already won my case as the raest of all conditions were realized in the US and only I knew it.”
You lost me here. I’m no scholar, but jeez, come on now!
I heard a radio program on the issues this lawyer tried to convey in this rant. Even then, it would take a week of studying highly litterate correspondence and discussions with the lawyers involved in this case, to understand the legal issues they are pursuing.
Here is one thing I got from the program: The original constitution was not changed to accomodate many of the changes Congress has made to it in order to accomodate the present view or state of the constitution. For example, the real constitution was not properly altered to accomodate the Federal Reserve and that changed the government from being a republic to being a corporation. The people have been made into State Corporation owned assests/slaves in which the Federal Reserve uses as collateral to gain credit. This was enacted w/o the necessary change to the constitution along with a whole trail of changes to accomodate this illegal, unconstitutional change.
The constitution has been rewritten to fit illegal changes to it, but there is an actual, real constitution on file and it is the only real and active constitution. This is the constitution Susan is saying the government refused to turn over to her and she got a court order forcing the government to submit that constitutional document to her. Still they refused to release it.
Further, she says the constitution requires the Congress to assure NBC and the response she got from a Congresscritter claimed they were dependent upon a University organization (fact check) to perform a constitutional duty assigned to congress alone. They can not delegate to Universities or anyone who is not a constitutional officer, duties of the Congress which are assigned by the constitution.
That is all I can remember. I don’t remember laws and all the detail discussed on the radio program I heard about six months ago.
You win this type of case on paper first then in person as Marbury won but lost, recall? He never acted upon leaving SCOTUS as Marshall told him to do to then claim his award -that actual paper commission - but I did thus as Roberts stood aside already upon my direct order then I re-enter IN PERSON having already won ON PAPER. See my other posts.
The word DENIAL is a deceptive appearance only. It’s not actual or legal; it exists in reality as it had to as I needed SCOTUS to manufacture the piece of paper that then proves my claim as it is a piece of paper that rises to proof: The SCOTUS docket saying DENIED is my proof as to DENY me SCOTUS had to violate Marbury thus reasoning itself out of existence thus I am correct:
NO JUSTICE EXISTS, NOT EVEN THE JUSTICES THEMSELVES EXIST AS YOU JUST REASONED YOURSELF OUT OF A JOB AND OUT OF A COURT BY VIOLATING MARBURY! I AM DENIED ANY AND ALL JUSTICE! I HAVE NO PROTECTION OF THE LAW!
SCOTUS concurred by writing DENIED. If they wrote GRANTED I’d have no case! They DENIED me thus concurring and telling me: keep acting upon leaving and so come back. They even exactly said in a letter ‘go to the one court you have not gone to yet: Federal Appeals.’ I entered directly like Marbury so I skipped Federal Appeals. So I took their advice even though it was pointless thus here I am.