Reasoning To Grant Stay
Some of but not all of the constitutional reasoning which invalidates the results of this election, as appearances are deceiving and ‘black’ is not the issue the voters should be citing. Instead voters should be citing my injury, the discrimination of women, lies made to seem like the truth and illegal actions that are made to seem as if they are legal:
A majority, the whole court even, is likely to rule for me thus securing their constitutional authority once again by upholding Marbury on behalf of myself then all women and their children both male and female thus all Americans and applicant is likely to prevail on the merits as it is math and exact words of our law plus the exact words of prior federal precedent as well as actual biology. My case is supported by proven scientific fact, my own experience of this American life and eyewitness testimony. I am the only person ever to be granted the standing of pro se, authority and original jurisdiction and I have done it twice over. I have chosen to say too much rather than not enough thus proving I can make this case if this stay is granted and win on the merits of my case so that my cases now before this court as one are adjudicated and so I am able to file and/or orally argue Susan Herbert V Barack Obama and the United States alone or in conjunction with In Re Susan Herbert. I know one usually would not outline the case to be filed in a application for a stay but my case is unique in all of US history and federal judges have ignored all of the case law I cited as well as actual reality: I am not a lawyer.
The caseload I am now forced to assume all alone would crush any other pro se litigant or any licensed attorney acting alone. It would crush several firms of attorneys working together. Time may run out or the injury may become too severe to then be addressed as irreparable injury, possibly the physical death of my person or my children, may occur. My children have already had their will broken and so their injury is; they have died emotionally and are no longer recognizable. I have already had bones broken and was physically dead once; my injury is now; my death is imminent but not inevitable. This court once granted a like stay to a man who would not have suffered irreparable injury although he claimed he would and when a team of attorneys with all the resources of a firm was working on his behalf yet he, not they, sought the office of President. This application fully satisfies the criteria that govern the propriety of granting a stay, because (1)* there is “a reasonable probability that four Members of the Court will consider the issue sufficiently meritorious to grant certiorari[an extraordinary writ],” Graves v. Barnes, 405 U.S.1201, 1203 (1972) (Powell, J., in chambers); (2) there is “a fair prospect that five Justices will conclude that the case was erroneously decided below,” Lucas v. Townsend, 486 U.S. 1301, 1304 (1988) (Kennedy, J., in chambers); and (3) it is likely that irreparable injury will result if a stay is denied. Id.; California v. American Stores Co., 492 U.S.1301, 1304-07 (1989) (O’Connor, J., in chambers). In appropriate cases, the Circuit Justice may “balance the equities to determine whether the injury asserted by the applicant outweighs the harm to other parties or to the public.” Lucas, 486 U.S. at 1304. *From Bush V Gore.
1. This election was never legal as Bush V Gore was not legal and remains a tied decision. No Presidential election and indeed, no election at all, is legal and so valid unless Bush V Gore is addressed. By addressing Bush V Gore and In Re Susan and now Susan V Obama, you then address all others. Bush V Gore is an extreme test of chain of command theory which is how and why it became an illegally waged war; Bush V Gore is the citizens unchecking all offices up to Chief Justice by refusing to obey the law, reason their vote and/or obey the spirit of our law; it is the citizens reasoning and deciding they are powerless victims and so actually becoming powerless victims.
2. Bush V Gore is a Chief Justice unchecking himself, the Justices voting twice for President, 9 as 5-4 as 2 or 5 as 1 v 4 as 1, a tie, and an illegal third party custody award of my person to lawyers – men – not on the ballot. It is also two persons proving they cannot fulfill the oath of office, as they did not act pro se. See Exhibits L & M .
3. Bush V Gore then became a never legal President then unchecking the office of President, Chief and the whole court as the only legal appointment of a new Chief Justice must be one that is arbitrary like old age in this unique case as the only way to recheck the offices is by arbitrary appointment. Thus all offices of government were then unchecked; no person is in charge and/or all separation of power is grossly violated; not one authority is fulfilling his or her oath of office or discharging their duties and no person knew the actual reasoning to then overturn Bush V Gore when ignorance is not an excuse. Whole schools of law failed. Not one authority I contacted obeyed the law and some even broke it. The citizens violated Marbury first as they obeyed the unconstitutional, unethical and immoral orders of their commanding officers thus they are then liable as proven by their willingness to continue to pay taxes levied unjustly (w/o representation) and their willingness to suffer the Bush administration; they began volunteering to die in defense of the invention of the institution, office of Chief Justice and President who is also Commander, as all male. As a government and law they became dead institutions. The election of 2004 was no good as Bush should not have been on the ballot. I had no choice so had no liberty and my right to vote was denied me yet again. It is still denied me.
4. The declaration of war is no good as it is based upon bad evidence. Congress declares war therefore Congress is to address this declaration by issuing a new one based upon good evidence, invalidating the bad one and not re-issuing it and/or presenting new evidence to then support the bad one thus making it good. Congress did no such thing thus our Constitution was violated in an absolute fashion. May a Congress declare a war upon bad evidence and then act as the Commander? Congress has acted to usurp the duties of the commander via commanding by committee – a vote of Congress and abuse of the War Powers Act – and this is not legal nor practical. You do not command via committee; Barack Obama has already said he cannot and will not make decisions alone. See Exhibit E ‘no decisions re “Don’t Ask” by himself’.
5. Congress then used money to prevent the person the voters believed to be the legal Commander when he is not from discharging his duties and from waging ‘effective’ war. Thus enlisted service member’s lives were traded upon the dollar. Enlisted service members are the innocent children of women who are mothers; they are all volunteer and the military is controlled by the civilians – us. We even have a civilian Commander. Congress is supposed to represent or be WE, the people. It does not and is not; one of the most grievous offenses any office holder can commit is trading the lives of the innocent upon money, especially enlisted service members and mothers then all women and children and so all Americans. Not one member fulfilled his oath of office thus NO MEMBER OF CONGRESS CAN THEN OVERCOME THE CONFLICT OF INTERESTS TO THEN ACT AS COMMANDER. Obama and McCain equally then were automatically excluded from the ballot as YOU do not get to amend our law in a manner not legal or to elect persons not able to fulfill the Presidential oath of office. The voters are creating a situation that is not only absolutely and wholly unconstitutional but that then denies enlisted service members, mothers and all other women and children their liberty rights and so zero opportunity. No liberty then no justice. Our common interest is to be the law; obviously Congress has reasoned and decided then forced it upon the voters as the voters allowed it and even condoned it: Congress no longer obeys the law at al; it does not have to so it will not. It only seems as if and even that façade is quickly deteriorating. Recently Congress has been printing up or creating energy – money – that does not exist and doing do to protect private interests at my expense. Congress’ interest is money and the privilege they are accorded via a title. It is perceived power. The voters have given them power that is not theirs by voting them into office over and over even when they admit they have behaved criminally and/or do not know the law. The voters violated the separation of powers first.
