Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 28

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

I wanted it out by
last Thursday but it will have to be by this Thursday. He confessed on national
TV folks. What if the Justices never read my petition or if they did had no idea
what I was saying as they could not know that BVG is a crime as they are the
victims??? If you're a victim you'd know, correct? Wrong! I reasoned it briefly for
you in a way you should understand - easily. If you tell me that you do not
understand this then you're no constitutionalist but only say you are as it is not
possible (let me know if you get all of this or if it breaks up as email can't
translate it):

Steven Breyer: I Possess A Piece Of Paper With Your Name On It; Does It
Prove Guilt?

I could not figure out why the Justices did not seem to understand this point of
law; at times I had to wonder if they were delusional. Are they actually
adjudicating medical licenses as proof that a man could know woman as if he
did have a baby or could in the future? The citizens insisted that the Justices
had to be guilty of treason. It may seem as if but I have no proof; and if they are
delusional then are they guilty if I do prove treason at some point? The citizens
do not understand what it means to prove criminal intent. I do; often I can prove
criminal intent via the paper but my proof is the person who wrote it not the
paper itself. Are these guys truly believing the lying lawyers before them???
Don’t they know these lawyers have motive and intent other than justice?

I began thinking about the Justices; often people ask how I know something. I
tell them: It’s a gift. Take Antonin Scalia: I know Antonin Scalia. I speak fluent
human being; I know people. I can hear him say that he needed to tell lawyers
to look at him and to not read from their brief when arguing as he can read the
brief and did. Did he read my brief? And I needed to remember that the lawyers
aren’t looking at him thus are they nervous, lying about their intentions or
fascists? Needing to read from notes is a problem as: People do not need to
memorize the truth; if your argument is your truth, what you truly believe to be
the law and the correct application of it, then who needs to read from paper?
Justice is not about being perfect as it’s about being human…it’s not
reasonable to ask for perfection from humans as they are not machines and so
cannot work like machines. I can write to Scalia and I did: Antonin Scalia, if you
do not hear this case in person soon then you will be forced to find a way to
magically insert and magically erase words from the Constitution. How are you
gonna do that? And then: The gun control case opinion. I heard Americans
screaming that Scalia added words to our Constitution. Do I have ESP?
Maybe: Scalia is an originalist; I’m the case thus the absolute proof so I
included my gun control argument as my application is correct as well as my
13th Amendment Argument plus I know men and the end of a belief system
when men refuse to acknowledge the truth of women thus begin to invent
complex, convoluted reasoning that’s wrong so I could know: There’s only one
prefatory anything, our Preamble, the founders statement of intention, and
there’s a comma you will find in only two copies of the original Constitution that
I know of so maybe he is adding whole clauses and maybe he’s going to name
the comma but reactionary citizens will react w/o doing the research. And I
could know this: It’s a political coup; of course we can shoot back as that’s what
The Founders intended even if you do live in DC, next door to Congress.
Political coups are okay but military coups are not? What about a Judicial
coup? Or a coup by the string theorists? They change their numbers too and
they too believe numbers – the numbers on the paper they create - is absolute
proof.

Then I was thinking about Justices I have not named. I do not need to look up
facts or read an entire ruling, as I can know if I know the person as I know
myself and as I healed the injury so I’m the constant. Lawyers who believe they
can study facts and words on paper to then know a person make me laugh as
first they have to be mentally sound as in emotionally sound so good luck to
lawyers as that ego thing will defeat your attempts every time. The universe
may not be self-defeating but lawyers are.

I happened to look at a calendar a few days later. I never know what day The
People believe it is as I do not use calendars or watches as I know time
differently as I’m orienting myself as being within time; I know time to be
intrinsic and relative to the person experiencing it. Whole weeks will go by and I
won’t know it if I’m not reminded of the “date”. According to the linear “lie”? It
was Jefferson’s birthday, April 13th. But Jefferson was born before the institution
of the Gregorian calendar; do you add days to his birthday thus is he born on
another day? Do you know his actual birthday or only the day the linear
calendar claims? The founders often used the notation “O.T.” for old time. Our
own birthday, the day The People were born, is July 4 th but Adams and others
claim July 2nd as that is when they signed the paper. Is the act of signing
ownership of the knowledge? You could say July 8 th as that is when it was read
to the public.

I told The People I would make the attempt to enter something to the Court on
that date; all I could do is mail the Chief Clerk a very first draft of the argument
so he would know where it is going as I had to warn the clerks: You might have
to take a hit for the Constitution as I could know it would get ugly so I would
have assign guilt to historical fact to then later be able to prove innocence or
guilt to The People based upon the accusations I was hearing. Are lawyers
assaulting and battering the employees of the Court and they do not know it?
SCOTUS doesn’t realize it too is the victim of domestic violence or did it
incapacitate itself by only allowing lawyers entry in person? And then right after
the letter was in the mail on Jefferson’s birthday I discovered the truth:

Channel surfing I saw Steven Breyer on TV. Normally I would surf on by but I
know when the universe is pinging me. I heard Steven Breyer, a Justice I never
named, talking about the truth. He said that the court had decided a case
regarding May the paper note be admitted as absolute proof and I was
surprised as I knew of that case but did not realize it was decided. OMG:
Steven Breyer: didn’t you read petition 07-9804 or my brief “Judicial Review Is
The Myth Of Fingerprints”??? What’s absolute proof and what isn’t??? Is it a
paper chase or a people chase??? If you haven’t that’s on you not a clerk as
I’m first since Marbury – you of all the Justices should have jumped - and as my
brief contains the largest single point of law a human being can ever make and
the largest, most important point of law an American can ever make as I had to
live it.

From Judicial Review: “Judicial review is a myth. It is the myth of fingerprints as


it proves nothing, not even that our founders lived as you will not find it within
our law. If anything judicial review may serve to prove our founders never lived
or that what historians say happened did not as John Marshall did not sign our
governing documents. Not only does it not exist within our written law but the
pieces of paper our courts produce? They prove nothing except a person lived
and so authored them; what identifying marks other than a signature that might
be forged exist to tell you who wrote that piece of paper? It is like fingerprints
as no fingerprint then tells me whether it was left by a saint or a sinner. A
fingerprint can be forged as well. And then too what is that fingerprint found on?
A vase? A gun? I know saints who own guns and I know sinners who would
have you believe they are angels sent straight from heaven and who could and
would hit you over the head with a vase only because they felt like it, kill you
and not think about it or you ever again. A gun can be covered with fingerprints.
All that proves is somebody, a saint or a sinner, held that gun. It does not prove
who pulled the trigger. A dead body? You might have a body. Then again you
might have 4 or 5 pints of blood soaking the walls and the floor but no body –
could any person lose that much blood and live? Isn’t that blood proof of life
and proof of murder? Proof of death not proof of murder as blood does not
prove deliberation. We can reasonably assume a person once lived, that this
body was once alive, but was it ever a life? A heart can beat; is it then a life lost
only as it stops beating? Can a living person be dead? Can you prove murder
or what can not be seen or heard as it lurks in the heart and mind of another
man? Does blood alone prove if a gun was used or if a knife was used? What if
the written word killed a person instead of a bullet? How do you ever prove
words on a piece of paper caused another person to lose 4 or 5 pints of blood
and so murdered him or her?

Words do not magically jump off of a page and attack you. Somebody has to
act upon them and first somebody has to have an idea and then put that idea
on paper. It’s one thing to have an idea; it is all together another to then write it
down and still another then write it in such a way you incite others to act upon
those words with the result being death. Thus the fingerprints are on the
weapon as those fingerprints are more telling than the loops and swirls on your
fingertips as they are the thoughts, feelings, ideas and true beliefs of the culprit.
I know of a few pieces of paper that have killed more people than any others
but that have also given life to ten times the number of people they ever
actually killed and have given life to millions –billions – who are yet unborn.
They also have the power to bring the dead back to life. They are the papers
produced by the “United States Federal Government” most especially US
dollars and court rulings with family court and federal court being by far the
most deadly of all. I know as I acted upon my knowledge and so willed my own
death as when a family court judge murdered my children I fought evil with
unconditional love by invoking the most lethal words of all in the English
language: We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created
equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights,
that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

My invocation of that idea, a right, and my true belief or faith in it caused my


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

Steven Breyer: The victim left a note. May it be admitted to the body evidence?
That’s the question. My colleagues decided to begin this voyage by going to
BLACKWELL’s. I thought this is odd but there’s a rational basis for it so I was
willing to go there.

Susan: Odd? I thought this is wrong. Blackwell’s, Blackwell’s, Blackwell’s: the


holy bible of lawyers and federal judges. I’m dying to know as I reserved the
right to ask the Justices some questions of my own: Steven Breyer how did you
know that the first decision, Blackwell’s, was not correct? Rational yes as
Blackwell’s is inside Marbury as Marshal brought it with him but does paper
ever prove paper? Is it self-proving as in does paper then prove intention and
motivation? I mean, are we being asked if this guy is the murderer or are we
being asked what the death certificate says??? What body of evidence are you
admitting it to, SCOTUS Justices or the state court judges? Does the body of
evidence only rise to proof of a criminal act if we admit the piece of paper to the
juries brains? What is this? Are we the judge and jury a la British courts of
admiralty and civil convictions?

Steven Breyer: But then I watched them go to a document before that like King
James’ something or other. Now I’m really curious; I know this is not right but
I’m going to find out where this is going.

Susan: When I heard you say this I thought, “Do not tell me that I need to send
a search and rescue team after 5 Justices wandering around in the mists of
time.” OMG, OMG, OMG. They didn’t.

Steven Breyer: They did. So now I’m thinking “Are we really going here?” as the
size of this argument hit me - I didn’t name it – so my instincts went off as the
Justices then went to the MAGNA CARTA and so I decided “I’m opting out; this
is where I opt out”. I then headed for home: the Constitution, the Declaration,
Marbury as I’m not reasoning myself out of existence, the Constitution again
and US case law. But I’m disturbed as this was so odd; it is different.

Susan: YES IT IS!!!

Steven Breyer: We have a dead body. A dead victim. The note says her
husband did it. Scalia in his dissenting opinion said [looks to Scalia to make
sure he is not putting words in Scalia’s mouth] blah blah blah – [Scalia nods
yes] but I don’t know the truth.

Susan: The truth is PEOPLE! People gave rise to AMERICAN COMMON LAW
so you’d never adjudicate this paper nor would you use law that then is British
common law. I’m the absolute proof that this experiment worked so now we
have American common law. Only allowing lawyers entry to SCOTUS then
injured you so you, Justices, mistakenly relied upon what is British not
American. I’m a body of evidence; I’m the proof. I knew I’m Marbury as I lived it
thus I never even went to Blackwell’s as that’s not my problem in life – unjust
Officers are. I’m creating the paper as I live it exactly as Marshal did. Paper
can’t answer you. “I’d like to call my first witness, the note. Note: what’s written
on you? Did the victim ever write on you? I’d ask you to read the words on you
but as you don’t have eyes I won’t. Oops! No mouth either so you could not
testify, could you?” Let’s ask Blackwell’s…”Blackwell’s, is it true that federal
judges LOVE your form? Do you prove a murder has been committed? Are you
proof that the paper should be entered or not? Or are you the British common
law that Americans yet suffer from as now the Justices have brought the
aristocracy home with you? Or do you prove the Justices have been assaulted
and battered by lawyers bearing paper that contains lies upon it as the intention
and motivation of the lawyer is not necessarily the intention and motivation of
the victim?” I heard a man make an comment from the audience; Breyer said
“But the difference is the victim is dead”. Correct so then you know YOU’RE
THE VICTIM AS YOU STEVEN BREYER AND THE OTHER EMPLOYEES OF
SCOTUS ARE ALIVE. You need living victims or else you’re dead as a
Republic…you ARE Marbury thus a People must come forward to then overturn
BVG and remove Obama to then remove dead paper and so replace death with
life, The People. You go from Britain to Jamestown in 1607 but then you go to
Plymouth in 1620 as that’s the Mayflower Compact. It’s Jefferson and Adams.
It’s also Harvard lawyers beginning in 1636. We are not alive, born, until
Jefferson has an idea and then writes it down in A Summary View as he claims
will and liberty is allodial or inalienable as it is joined in man by God and later
we Declare ourselves in 1776 but what model did we use? The Iroquois
Confederacy as that’s older and that’s The People not the aristocracy…the
Europeans deliberately tried to erase this from our books of history. If you back
from the Magna Carta what do you land at? The invention of paper and so the
invention of writing thus you need people. Eventually you land in Eden at the
apple tree and so hopefully the 5 lost Justices have Bader-Ginsburg with them
as: WHO picks the apple and eats it, Adam or Steven? You need women or
else you die as no new baby constitutions. That’s your mistake; you go from
Eve as government is born to Adam who votes for Eve not for himself – he
blames Eve while she doubts herself – thus false ‘fear’ or created fear is
inserted into man and so death ensues with the promise of everlasting life and
we part ways at the Tower of Babel only to land in America as that’s the
Iroquois when they complete the journey North and then the Four Corners upon
the Great Deluge as the Hopi land there after going West. The rest of us do not
finish the trek South and East until Jamestown and the slave trade although
some persons who are black came as free men. The Founders? As we had no
American common law we then had to use what is British like the system of
writs and the bar but the founders never meant to force this upon us or make us
British as that then would make us dead. Jefferson said all power and authority
belonged to The People not to the paper.

Paper governments failed until we used the Iroquois as our model thus made
The People the government not a separate entity. Plymouth in 1620 but
Jamestown in 1607; it’s known as idea diffusion and its way humans transmit
information as one group gives an idea to another who comes in contact with
them. Sequoia is an example as via watching white settlers he had the idea to
create the Cherokee alphabet even though he had never seen any alphabets
and had not been exposed to any books. He observed people talking and made
the connection between speech and what is written upon paper and their
success thus he had the idea to form a system of writing for the Cherokee. It’s
own of the only original alphabets in the world in that it arose on its own as
Sequoia had no outside influences when he first had the idea. Can you imagine
having a flash of genius that big? I can as I did. My truth is: As I never went to
law school then I was not indoctrinated by law school professors who teach
Marbury and several other points of law incorrectly only as they are to lazy to
visit them for the first time or to revisit them. I was not indoctrinated by reading
everything in the third person such as “The appellant stated”. I had original
ideas no person could squash as they are the truth and you cannot kill the truth.
Some of my applications were not so original at all as I am told my missing war
check and balance is something we once practiced but abandoned and so the
question becomes: do we fine tune what we have now or jettison it for the
original?

The truth: you can never change what was; what was happened and so will
always be. All you can do is change it in the now. All of the constitutional
ramifications of everything I bring up? They’ve been realized as we died. Death
is the end result as a foreigner sits in the Office of the Executive, a unjust war
wages on and women have never had any legal power. All the ‘bad’ things you
imagine already are, now, so all you do is acknowledge them to then resolve
them.

Steven Breyer told me that he does not know the truth, then or now. I, Susan,
can and will tell you the truth of the whole universe but: If Breyer wrote anything
other than “I do not know the truth” on the paper opinion did he lie? Did he
commit treason? Is a SCOTUS opinion ever treason and if so are the people
guilty or at fault? Is Breyer himself the proof or is his signature? I would like to
enter another note as evidence. This note names a victim, names the killer,
names the motivation and intention and names the cause of death as well as
names I, the other victim, who is yet alive and so is before the Court now:

We have a body: Thomas Jefferson is dead and buried in VA. He left us a note
that names King George III as the man who is responsible but he names
despotism as his killer. He exactly wrote the cause is liberty and that King
George never meant to do less than kill him via paper like the Stamp Act. He
says his repeated petitions fell on deaf ears and so it is by his own hand that he
risked his life but that he had some cohorts in crime and that his reasoning is all
men are created equal and so no dead institution of government like paper can
or may hold him hostage thus this is not a coup but a Right. He says he must
leave Britain and things British behind so that I might be born. Before he died
he left other notes pertaining to Kingly, papery abuses of his person; he wrote
that he despised lawyers then who now wield law licenses as if they, that
paper, are absolute proof and that "trial by jury in all matters of fact triable by
the laws of the land [as opposed the law of admiralty] and not by the laws of
Nations [i.e. not by the law of admiralty]." If I’m testing Marbury and so
adjudicating the paper commission may the Declaration and Constitution be
admitted as evidence? Or is it proof? Did the paper murder Jefferson? Which
paper? BVG or Election 2008? Does an electronic ballot count as much as a
paper ballot? Or am I, Susan, the absolute proof that King George III fell under
his own delusion thus equality is and so is American common law? My opinion
is: I am with Scalia; but I dissent as unless there are living witnesses, people,
and living victims, more people, then we may not admit the paper as they will
not conduct the investigation and as the paper did not murder anybody as it
cannot. No piece of paper stormed SCOTUS and screamed, ”Admit me!”
Lawyers did that. My opinion is lawyers killed Jefferson. You can, may and
must admit the paper Declaration and Constitution if testing Marbury but if
‘creating the venue’ to then adjudicate the natural birth clause you must admit a
life, Susan, as she’s one of the victims, she has no paper yet she’s the counsel
and without her there is no case and no equality let alone a body known as
American common law and/or The People:

I, my own self, am proof the first patriots lived and were actual humans, real
people alive in or around 1776 and 1787. I, my own self, prove they acted as
they did and that what the historians say happened did actually happen and is
fact. No photographs exist to prove they lived; no paper is proof of them. No
museum, created record or title in a book of history makes the words on any
document the truth. The words are myth unless lived out as true belief as
fingerprints, photographs and words prove nothing not even actual life. It is I,
Susan, acting on her own that is proof as the fingerprints our Founders left
behind are all over me and inside my person and have become my faith. I,
Susan, am proof that our American story now a legend and soon to become a
myth unless I am heard was and is history.
When the purple sea parted with red states on one side and blue on the other I,
Susan, saw the promised land, SCOTUS, and William Rhenquist was before
me holding out a bright, shiny red apple named BVG so I ran from my slave
masters and into liberty. I truly believe Rhenquist was deliberate as he named
exacting numbers and paper ballots over and over to the point of exhaustion
after he named one, himself, so that I or any natural born citizen could equal
him thus level the playing field although he may not have informed the other
Justices. Steven Breyer seems to prove this absolutely. I phoned an American
in Arizona: Do you realize just how huge the truth is that came from Steven
Breyer? What if Rhenquist never told any other Justice? What if Breyer does
not know we died as only lawyers are allowed entry to SCOTUS in open and
direct violation of the law once BVG went there as he can’t see or hear the
proof, as he is the proof? I happened upon that same apple as Breyer and took
a bite. I took the biggest bite I could, as I’m the most willing as I had no doubts
then and I have no doubts now. I’m not afraid, as I own the knowledge of the
truth. I’m no ghost; I’m not a shadow body of government as I’m a living spirit.
Not once did I believe that I, a People, could not enter SCOTUS only as snakey
lawyers are my problem or as I am not a lawyer as I do not need one: I’m
SCOTUS certified and my cert number is 07-9804/08-6622. I want to be
blamed for this:

The Proof Of Life Cases as judicial review – paper - is the myth of fingerprints.

Steven Breyer is The People’s absolute proof of life.

Here’s some paper that rises to proof but not absolute proof: I had to
name all I did to then be able to leverage the power of my one vote; what do
you do if the UN refuses to apply the human rights clause to you that it and the
federal court apply to any corporation sailing a ship between two ports one of
them international as it first refuses to acknowledge our 1871 incorporation as a
business entity? You remind the UN that you know we never had a treaty with it
when we quit claimed the US Treasury, The People, to it and to the IMF thus
the UN might want to rethink their action and so recall they did codify sea law. It
can reason itself out of existence or into existence as a sort of modern day
Nuremberg only this time we hope to avoid the very worst of Nazi Germany.
What law says that you must wait for a Hitler in the making to actually become
the Hitler? You fight back with knowledge – the truth. How could every
American be informed and so give consent in 1871 or even 1944 w/o the
existing technology? And weren’t the Nazis Nationalist Socialists at first, before
they were Nazis? Hasn’t America been the prize from day one for power hungry
egomaniacs the world over? Didn’t Japan attack us like the Saudis attacked
us? What you’re witnessing as you live it is unjust people taking advantage of
the situation as it arises. The more lawless we became the easier it became for
unjust men to do this; nobody orchestrated some great big plan unless you
count me although they tried for generations. Every Rockefeller truly believes
he’s the Nero who won’t play the violin when Rome burns so this time he plays
a saxophone and everyone acts as if it never happened. Rome is burning; who
cares what instrument or what song you play? Why repeat what has never
worked in the past? You’re the successful, magnanimous, humanitarian Nero?
The Founders would laugh – and cry. It’s like my business card says: John Jay
weeps.

All I did was steal a play from the Founders own playbook only I kept repeating
what worked. The Founders invented a few of these plays so we’re the first; all I
did was drag them out of the closet. If Washington attacked the drunken
Hessians on the day after Christmas then I could attack the drunken power
brokers on the day after the election, 11/05/08. All that needed to happen?
Process, even if it is undue process it could and would work. Who knew how
perfectly it would work? I did as on Christmas day 2007 I sent a copy of my
petition to Ralph Nader and said “These people are unsafe at any speed.” I
could possess inviolate faith in myself as the existence of my American person
is not an accident. Thus: If a giant physical chain worked for the Founders than
a giant metaphysical chain should work for me, as your one vote is both
physical and metaphysical. It’s your first and last line of defense. Ideally you
cause change with your vote as I do. I worked it and worked it until I could
cause direct change via direct action. I moved the sitting illegal President with
the truth. Everybody has this same ability – you do not use it. Now you must as
a dictator does not go away by ignoring him away. It’s what Jews have been
telling you for years: These unjust people can’t operate in the open thus you
need to act as witnesses and slaughter them with the truth of who and what
they are; you may not ignore it or you might be next. No person needs to suffer
injustice. We suffer only if we know yet let others suffer. I made a different
decision as I turned suffering into sacrifice via acting upon the truth.

This became an actual emergency when I mailed this petition as I have looked
and looked and I have not found a single case of a sitting US President legal or
not threatening to falsely imprison and/or kill a citizen for filing a lawsuit against
him in federal court so what do I know that Barack Obama is desperate to
silence? What would ever drive him to act as if he really is insane? The exact
phrase used was “falsely imprison” even though I’m quite certain the paper
does not say this as the US Marshal never read from it. He escalated it to
death; what could Obama be so desperate to hide? Everyone knows he is
foreign but does he realize this truth or does he truly believe he has us fooled?

Riddle this: Remembering that the US Government has admitted it did issue an
order for the National Guard to fire upon citizens in Ohio, why then would the
US government who calls itself “they” as if it is a separate entity other than The
People want to keep the name of who issued the order to fire a secret?
Because it is chain of command theory: If a President ever issues this order he
or she has to do it in person so the National Guardsman has an opportunity to
stand aside or down thus Barack Obama has to shoot me himself. A
Guardsman, as we violated the law to form the guard from state militias, would
then be able to object thus refuse to obey as per Marbury and so hand his gun
to the President issuing the order as there is no person in between the ‘lowest’
Guardsman and that order but the President. It’s all The People in this case; it’s
not a military action. People who are guardsmen then guard the people
represented by one of the people, the president. Chain of command then is
Guardsman and President as the President is ordering the Guardsmen to fire
on his own people thus if a guardsman cannot refuse then you have a fascist,
dictator, military regime not a Republic. If the sitting President is not before you
then how would you ever know the order was actual and not a forgery? Only a
sitting President, the living embodiment of The People, has the power and
authority to order the Guardsman and/or the US Military to open fire on The
People as that then is opening fire on your own self so it’s a massacre or a
Revolution. A revolution is inherently, intrinsically just while massacres are not.
You can impersonate another human being on the phone; you can forge their
signature on paper but in a living government you yourself must issue the
order. If you’re dealing with National Guardsman then no person is between the
lowest guardsman holding the gun and the President as that is the presidential
chain not the command chain. No actual constitutional government ever opens
fire on its own citizens thus if it does you’re watching the rise of fascism which
would not occur here as rapidly as it would elsewhere due to our form. No
matter how hard he tries Obama can never, ever prove he owned this answer
at all or else he would never have issued this type of order as it constitutes
treason and he never would have sent a witness by creating one as in sending
it down via chain of command until it came to rest at the US Marshal’s Service
as now we can follow it to Obama. Fact is: if every one of those people dropped
dead we could yet follow it as how did my paper and what is on it that came out
the Marshal’s mouth ever get to him IF Obama never discussed the case?
Obama is “not guilty” if Obama never becomes President as this HAD to go to
the President and I intended it to go to him when I wrote it. If Ralph Nader
became President then it would have gone to Ralph Nader. I can and will prove
it several times over. Obama himself said “Louisiana Purchase”. That’s our
absolute proof. No person forced Obama to say that phrase and several million
Americans heard it. I designed the experiment and conducted it as once I am
denied by SCOTUS then nothing is a crime for me as I made myself a
sovereign entity and the last time I checked? A citizen can and may sue a legal
sitting President thus filing a lawsuit is not a crime and is one reason we exist
as a nation. If you look I was very careful to ORDER the other citizens not to
shoot and that if they did then they are guilty of a crime, as the process was not
exhausted yet and I would inform them when it is. If you own the knowledge
you claim you own then you would not be threatening Nancy Pelosi or flying
airplanes into buildings. It was not personal until Obama made it personal but
all that action did was make it easier for me to sue him as a citizen can and
may sue a sitting President for direct injury while he’s sitting legally or not (a
threat is a criminal act and if you knowingly commit a crime while in office?
You’re no longer legal even if you once were; we never protected sitting
Presidents from guilt regarding their own direct actions [we’re past Marbury so
it comes back to Obama not the US marshal] and as I have pointed out to
invoke Executive Privilege first you have to be the legal Executive and Obama
must know he is not or else I wouldn’t have been threatened). If Chester Arthur
were yet alive I’d sue him and he was born in NY. Obama can make the
attempt but it took me over 20 years to answer this question: Why shouldn’t a
constitutional Republic violate it own terms only to favor men and others
already overly privileged and overly powerful? Egomania also known as death
as you should vote for yourselves first as:

The People is the constitutionally set government of the US not the


Officers.

So then: How do I tell Antonin Scalia in a nice judicial way that he might as well
have been agreeing with Breyer that he's actually insane? Breyer could have
been saying "I believe Justice Scalia meant to claim he's a nut" and Scalia
could have been nodding his head yes and we'd still have an actual fascist in
the Whitehouse as only Breyer seems to realize a crime has been committed
as death has entered SCOTUS? At BVG and In Re Susan's DENIAL OF
REALITY "LAWYER" became the constitutionally set government as SCOTUS
is closed to nonlawyers. An open-ended system became a closed system thus
died and apparently only the Justices do not know, lol. And: If your ego died so
none of it is outsized in relationship to your id then you no longer possess the
human ability to write like a lawyer as that itself - third person narrative that is
mostly or all a lie - is an affectation. You are thus I am. Enlightenment does that
to you. all affectations fall away. For some of us its a bigger fall than for others.
As I do not subscribe to authoritative belief systems - I am my own authority -
then it was not such a fall for me. Think: I can forge any voice on a piece of
paper. You tell me who and I'll forge a document so good that you'll truly
believe that person wrote it. Recall Hitler’s diaries? That's easier than you think
it is as people tend to be stilted upon paper so the nuances that make you YOU
are lost in translation. Who's voice can't be forged then? My own as there's no
record of it except what I create!!! I'm not in any book so if you wanted to forge
my voice you couldn't do it. And: it is unique among all voices as I'm the first to
do this. That's a benefit to volunteering to be first: you then are the only
example. It sounds funny to say it but I can't even forge my own voice as I
never know what I'll say until it’s in the mail so I can't take it back or edit it. I’m
writing it in the now, at that very moment. Who can't know if I wrote something
as it sounds like me uniquely? Even my typos are common or unique to me.
How could I do what Donofrio, Berg and Taitz could not do all working
together? Ask the clerks what I'd write to them, lol. I talked about everything but
law as the legal assumption is they know the law or they wouldn't be SCOTUS
clerks. Donofrio called them and spoke to the stay clerk for 7 minutes. That's
interminable. I have not spoken to them for 7 minutes total in over three years.
Donofrio obstructed justice so he received no justice; imagine that. What
happens when you obstruct justice? Do little judicial elves bring justice to your
front door wrapped up like a Christmas present? What, no liberty only for you or
none for anyone who obstructs justice thus obstructs liberty? You do not know
how badly I wish I had a copy of In Re Thomas Jefferson as I wrote it as if I'm
Jefferson only here and now as that gave me certain liberties with the
Justices as he volunteered his name so its in the public domain and he is
fundamentally responsible for Marbury. I describe it like this (If I never told you):
if Bob Bauer thought that an octopus lawyer was responsible for In Re Susan
then he took one look at In Re Thomas and thought "This is no octopus. This is
the work of a Humboldt squid." It's intelligent and disturbing as you know I'm
not wrong but right. If you do not believe in everlasting life you will after reading
it, lol. Look - John Adams came true: Jefferson yet survives.
America: In case you're still lost? I took on every single lawyer in America and
won. That's why they are fighting me so hard. I mean if you're Harvard Law,
you were first in 1636 and you graudated Obama with nothing to show for it as
he can't argue the law on his best day so he paid for a worthless degree and
you're about to go down it'd be much easier if one of your own did it rather than
me, a non-lawyer, non-degreed, poor woman. I'm Professor Kingsfield in the
Paper Chase telling his students to take a dime and call their mother to come
pick them up now that they are playing with the big boys and they suck. By
suing the Surpeme Court I sued every lawyer and law school in America as
they produced the BVG lawyers and then could not argue their own cases!!!
One of the very first lessons my mother taught me was if you're going to be a
criminal be a smart criminal as good crooks do not get caught. In my most
recent petition? I took it back; Dick Cheney is not Satan as Satan, THE Satan,
would be a semi-worthy adversary and Cheney went down with one blow, the
very first time I engaged him. I truly believe THE Satan would last at least two
full rounds. Cheney? I did not even need to waste so much as a postage
stamp. I emailed his office with my BVG reasoning as he can't defeat math and
out came the rats: January 3rd, 2007.

Entering SCOTUS directly and firstly? It's known as a supermagical


square in mathematics. The knight moves landing on each square of the
chess board once and then exists on the same square from which he he
entered. Your first move is your end game then. Ben Franklin found a
'new' supermagical square as they are rare and so did I; if he was looking
at the same thing as I maybe he only saw the square on the chessboard
not in the law. When I read that the road around Rennes Chapel is named
Pass of the Rook I laughed as what's a rook? You use a rook to castle as
did I to castle but a rook is chariot in chess and a swindler and a cheat in
other games. How many Americans can castle in chess especially if its a
court of law not a kingly court a la BVG? I thought, Okay God: I'll bite! It
might scare you but as I'm a physicist by my nature its all science to me.
History does not repeat itself people do. So here I am making the same
mistake over gain after avoiding them my first time around:

I never went to Europeanized American schools in the 1950's and 1960's


designed to force you to accept authority w/o question thus crush critical
thinking skills and I never fell for hypnotic language designed to sway you and
convince you so that you never make any actual choices. I swear: I truly
believed you were all nuts until a person told me that no, you honestly believed
all this crap you were taught. How did i first come to know what you were taught
that is garbage? I made a bet and i bet on myself as I have had a skill since
birth that people insist is not reality as it scares them; I’ll do it in front of them
and they'll pretend they never saw me do it. I knew you had been taught
something that is utterly garbage so I went to the library and set my autopilot on
God literally; it's sincerity; anybody can do it if you know that feeling. I knew god
would show me the book when I came to it so I started walking up and down
the aisles until I saw the book. I even told someone that I was doing this and
they laughed. I said whatever knowledge I needed would reveal itself. Hey. if
I'm really fighting Hitler when they were still Nationalist Socialists I need god,
THE god. I saw the edge of a book and had that feeling so I knew it was THE
book I was supposed to read. I ran down the aisle and pulled it off of the shelf.
The title of this book? THE CASE FOR A CREATOR. Are you guys for real???
This is junk science; J U N K . J U N K. Miller should have sent you off of the
deep end. Who believes this??? My Catholic School told me: you have to figure
out what the truth is for your own self. nobody is supposed to be dictating the
truth to kids. Darwin is just as bad as fundamental Christianity in that respect.
You CAN'T legislate beliefs. NONE OF THIS IS LAW. DARWINISTS DO NOT
BELIEVE CHARLES DARWIN TODAY ACCORDING TO THEIR OWN
TESTIMONY. You can't legislate beliefs as people are the absolute proof so
you are your own best or worst proof. How do you know what is the truth if
you only know one thing? The truth falls somewhere in the middle. It gets
very tricky in the US as we accidentally did legislate morals w/o realizing it but a
national ethic - do not lie, cheat and steal as your life depends upon it - is not
then legislating beliefs. It's as I say: to possess an ethic first you must possess
a metaphysic; no metaphysic? No ethic. You can't annihlate the idea of God
w/o annihliating yourself in the US but you can't inflict your personal god upon
anyone either. It's a very, very, very splippery slope then. What of the
Founders leveld the playing field in such a way you're equal to the earthly
concepts of god? That's what you are if you are yoru own power and authority.
But if that's you? Then you would not be violating anybody's rights either
especially not for profit. By "God" I mean the general concept that's intrinsically
and inherently just. The word "liberty" is all over the bible.

It's fun to believe this is a myth we live, that this is science or that this is divine
in nature but the truth is it's a little of it all as myth is history, fact that then
becomes a story then a legend and then a myth. A scholar will tell you that to
believe Jesus or Buddha never lived is to believe over half the planet fell for the
same mass delusion at separate times; it's not possible if you reason it. Do you
know what it would take to inflict that type of mass delusion over the centuries
w/o any proof? The Church is The People not the institutions; people would
abandon it. People always abandon what does not work. Is it possible that
Jefferson never lived? What if you were sold that lie only it is packaged as
BVG? Or Obama?

If you can be any mythological creature as you're living the history out then why
not pick a Founding Knight? Why not pull the sword from the keystone and so
slaughter them with sloppy math and their own exacting words and actions as
they all come tumbling down? A lawyer will be so very careful he'll make what I
call "careful mistakes": you need to be a scientist to recognize them. So then:
Start writing like John Adams said. Write yourself into the books you were once
written out of. Join the class and so declare yourselves independent. When I
mail the newest petition in as the case ripened when Obama
threatened Roberts as it is direct injury I can prove absolutely I will warn you so
you can look for it. You can attach yourself as a third party petitioner. It's a very
short form; copy the one from BVG that was denied off of the internet only
tweak it to make it personal. LICENSED LAWYERS HAD NO THIRD PARTY
STANDING BUT THE PEOPLE DO. Copy any SCOTUS third party filing. I can
then represent you as you are not likely able to make this case on your own so
invoke Willowbrook v Olech. Then use the federal highway funds, unjust
taxes, to then prove you've been humanly trafficked as you did not want to
move but were forced to do so by corporate America which 'government'
America is since the US Treasury, YOU, was quitlcaimed to the IMF/UN when
we did not even have a legal treaty with the UN. Then you can mail it in a day
or so after I do so that you'll arrive at SCOTUS after me. If you've never moved
then find another way federal tax money was used to force something upon you
unjustly. Like: Wall street bailouts reward the criminal element afoot,
businessmen who are lawyers. No body pays Susan to then commit trillion
dollar crimes. Have you ever heard of rewarding the crooks??? With your tax
dollar???

I don't know about you but if "Susan Herbert" just stole back the US Treasury,
right from under the crooks noses and while they were watching her do it, and
when she warned them she was coming and how she would look and so what
they should not argue if they wanted to win, making her the world's greatest
thief ever, then I'd want my share of the 'prize'.

All they could not do? Tell a lie. So they did not: It reads AFRICAN, lol, as
black Africans do not call or refer to themselves 'black'!!! Ask an African.
I want to say duh Oprah.

Susan.

P.S. More truth:"When people talk of the freedom of writing, speaking


or thinking I cannot choose but laugh. No such thing ever existed. No
such thing now exists; but I hope it will exist. But it must be
hundreds of years after you and I shall write and speak no more." -
Adams. I, Susan, can make that dream be realized in America. I can
make it come true. I can and will embody that idea. I can become
the fruition of that dream as I'm the absolute proof John Adams is
not wrong. I prove Adams absolutely so I'm the fruit of the tree
known as liberty. It's known in the law as ripening, as a case ripens.
If you happen to see Obama in person taunt him with this poem by
Thomas Campion; chant "cherry ripe" as he'll know who its from as
he now understands I'm not for sale - you can't steal liberty if I'm
standing around the orchard - so its like telling him you know he
cried uncle recently:

There is a garden in her face


Where roses and white lilies blow;
A heavenly paradise is that place,
Wherein all pleasant fruits do flow:
There cherries grow which none may buy
Till 'Cherry-ripe' themselves do cry.

Those cherries fairly do enclose


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

Her eyes like angels watch them still;


Her brows like bended bows do stand,
Threat'ning with piercing frowns to kill
All that attempt with eye or hand
Those sacred cherries to come nigh,
Till 'Cherry-ripe' themselves do cry.
P.P.S. Africans;look at "chinese africans":

Further information: Demographics of Africa

Sub-Saharan Africa is a common if imprecise term that encompasses African


countries located south of the Sahara Desert. It is commonly used to differentiate
the region culturally, ecologically, politically and, more controversially, racially,
from North Africa, which has historically been part of the Mediterranean sphere.
Because the indigenous people of this region are primarily dark-skinned, it is
alternatively called "Black Africa".[12] Some criticize the use of the term, because,
having become in many quarters synonymous with Black Africa, it can leave the
mistaken impression that there are not indigenous Black populations in North
Africa. Furthermore, the Sahara cuts across countries such as Mauritania, Mali,
Niger, Chad, and Sudan, leaving some parts of them in North Africa and some in
sub-Saharan Africa.

Owen 'Alik Shahadah argues that the term sub-Saharan Africa has racist
overtones:

Sub-Saharan Africa is a racist byword for "primitive", a place which


has escaped advancement. Hence, we see statements like “no
written languages exist in Sub-Saharan Africa.” “Ancient Egypt was
not a Sub-Saharan African civilization.” Sub-Sahara serves as an
exclusion, which moves, jumps and slides around to suit negative
generalization of Africa.[13]

However, some Black Africans prefer to be culturally distinguished from those


who live in the north of the continent.[14]

Cultural ideas of a black race

South Africa

In South Africa during the apartheid era, the population was classified into four
groups: Black, White, Asian (mostly Indian), and Coloured. The Coloured group
included people of mixed Bantu, Khoisan, and European descent (with some
Malay ancestry, especially in the Western Cape). The Coloured definition
occupied an intermediary position between the Black and White definitions in
South Africa.

The apartheid bureaucracy devised complex (and often arbitrary) criteria in the
Population Registration Act to determine who belonged in which group. Minor
officials administered tests to enforce the classifications. When it was unclear
from a person's physical appearance whether a person was to be considered
Colored or Black, the "pencil test" was employed. This involved inserting a pencil
in a person's hair to determine if the hair was kinky enough for the pencil to get
stuck.[15]

During the apartheid era, those classed as 'Coloured' were oppressed and
discriminated against. However, they did have limited rights and overall had
slightly better socioeconomic conditions than those classed as 'Black'. In the
post-apartheid era the government's policies of affirmative action have favored
'Blacks' over 'Coloureds'. Some South Africans categorized as 'Black' openly
state that 'Coloureds' did not suffer as much as they did during apartheid. The
popular saying by 'Coloured' South Africans to illustrate this dilemma is:

Not white enough under apartheid and not black enough under the
ANC (African National Congress)

Other than by appearance, 'Coloureds' can be distinguished from 'Blacks' by


language. Most speak Afrikaans or English as a first language, as opposed to
Bantu languages such as Zulu or Xhosa. They also tend to have more European-
sounding names than Bantu names.[16]

In 2008, the High Court in South Africa has ruled that Chinese South
Africans are to be reclassified as Black people.[17]

In the Middle East

Arab world

See also: Afro-Arab

Black African and Near Eastern peoples have interacted since prehistoric times.
[18][19]
Some historians estimate that as many as 14 million black slaves crossed
the Red Sea, Indian Ocean, and Sahara Desert in the Arab slave trade from 650
to 1900 CE.[20][21] The Moroccan Sultan Moulay Ismail "the Bloodthirsty" (1672–
1727) raised a corps of 150,000 black slaves, called his Black Guard, who
coerced the country into submission.[22][23]

The Afro-Asiatic languages, which include Semitic languages such as Arabic and
Hebrew, are believed by some scholars to have originated in Ethiopia.[24] This is
because the region has very diverse language groups in close geographic
proximity, often considered a telltale sign for a linguistic geographic origin.

In more recent times, about 1000 CE, interactions between black people
and Arabs resulted in the incorporation of extensive Arabic vocabulary into
Swahili, which became a useful lingua franca for merchants. Some of this
linguistic exchange occurred as part of the slave trade; the history of Islam
and slavery shows that the major juristic schools traditionally accepted the
institution of slavery.[25] As a result, Arab influence spread along the east
coast of Africa and to some extent into the interior (see East Africa).
Timbuktu was a trading outpost that linked west Africa with Berber, Arab,
and Jewish traders throughout the Arab World. As a result of these
interactions many Arab people in the Middle East have black ancestry and
many black people on the east coast of Africa and along the Sahara have
Arab ancestry.[26] Kenya is in East Africa.

According to Dr. Carlos Moore, resident scholar at Brazil's Universidade do


Estado da Bahia, Afro-multiracials in the Arab world self-identify in ways
that resemble Latin America. He claims that black-looking Arabs, much like
black-looking Latin Americans, consider themselves white because they
have some distant white ancestry.[27]

Moore also claims that a film about Egyptian President Anwar Sadat had to be
canceled when Sadat discovered that an African-American had been cast to play
him. In fact, the 1983 television movie Sadat, starring Louis Gossett, Jr., was not
canceled. The Egyptian government refused to let the drama air in Egypt,
partially on the grounds of the casting of Gossett. [28] The objections, however, did
not come from Sadat, who had been assassinated two years earlier.

Sadat's mother was a black Sudanese woman and his father was a lighter-
skinned Egyptian. In response to an advertisement for an acting position
he remarked, "I am not white but I am not exactly black either. My
blackness is tending to reddish".[29] LOL! I said that too; I said I'm an apple
Indian only in reverse.

Fathia Nkrumah was another Egyptian with ties to Black Africa. She was the late
wife of Ghanaian revolutionary Kwame Nkrumah, whose marriage was seen as
helping plant the seeds of cooperation between Egypt and other African
countries as they struggled for independence from European colonization, which
in turn helped advance the formation of the African Union.[30]

In general, Arabs had a more positive view of black women than black men, even
if the women were of slave origin. More black women were enslaved than men,
and, because the Qur'an was interpreted to permit sexual relations between a
male master and his female slave outside of marriage,[31][32] many mixed race
children resulted. When an enslaved woman became pregnant with her Arab
captor's child, she became “umm walad” or “mother of a child”, a status that
granted her privileged rights. The child would have prospered from the wealth of
the father and been given rights of inheritance.[33] Because of patrilineality, the
children were born free and sometimes even became successors to their ruling
fathers, as was the case with Sultan Ahmad al-Mansur, (whose mother was a
Fulani concubine), who ruled Morocco from 1578 to 1608. Such tolerance,
however, was not extended to wholly black persons, even when technically
"free," and the notion that to be black meant to be a slave became a common
belief.[34] The term "abd," (Arabic: ‫عبد‬,) "slave," remains a common term for black
people in the Middle East, often though not always derogatory.[35]

In the first 200 years that black people had been in the United States, they
commonly referred to themselves as Africans. In Africa, people primarily
identified themselves by ethnic group (closely allied to language) and not by skin
color. Individuals would be Ashanti, Igbo, Bakongo or Wolof. But when Africans
were brought to the Americas they were forced to give up their ethnic affiliations
for fear of uprisings. The result was the Africans had to intermingle with other
Africans from different ethnic groups. This is significant as Africans came from a
vast geographic region, the West African coastline stretching from Senegal to
Angola and in some cases from the south east coast such as Mozambique. A
new identity and culture was born that incorporated elements of the various
ethnic groups and of European cultural heritage, resulting in fusions such as the
Black church and Black English. This new identity was now based on skin color
and African ancestry rather than any one ethnic group.[13]

In March 1807, Britain, which largely controlled the Atlantic, declared the trans-
atlantic slave trade illegal, as did the United States. (The latter prohibition took
effect January 1, 1808, the earliest date on which Congress had the power to do
so under Article I, Section 9 of the United States Constitution.)

By that time, the majority of black people were U.S.-born, so use of the term
"African" became problematic. Though initially a source of pride, many blacks
feared its continued use would be a hindrance to their fight for full citizenship in
the US. They also felt that it would give ammunition to those who were
advocating repatriating black people back to Africa. In 1835 black leaders called
upon black Americans to remove the title of "African" from their institutions and
replace it with "Negro" or "Colored American". A few institutions however elected
to keep their historical names such as African Methodist Episcopal Church.
"Negro" and "colored" remained the popular terms until the late 1960s.[41]

The term black was used throughout but not frequently as it carried a certain
stigma. In his 1963 "I Have a Dream" speech,[42] Martin Luther King, Jr. uses the
terms Negro 15 times and black 4 times. Each time he uses black it is in parallel
construction with white (e.g., black men and white men).[43] With the successes of
the civil rights movement a new term was needed to break from the past and
help shed the reminders of legalized discrimination. In place of Negro, black was
promoted as standing for racial pride, militancy and power. Some of the turning
points included the use of the term "Black Power" by Kwame Toure (Stokely
Carmichael) and the release of James Brown's song "Say It Loud - I'm Black and
I'm Proud".

In 1988 Jesse Jackson urged Americans to use the term African American
because the term has a historical cultural base. Since then African American and
black have essentially a coequal status. There is still much controversy over
which term is more appropriate. Some such as Maulana Karenga and Owen Alik
Shahadah argue African-American is more appropriate because it accurately
articulates geography and historical origin.[13] Others believe the term black is
inaccurate because African Americans have a variety of skin tones.[44][not in citation given]
Surveys show that when interacting with each other African Americans prefer the
term black, as it is associated with intimacy and familiarity. The term "African
American" is preferred for public and formal use.[45] The appropriateness of the
term "African American" is further confused, however, by increases in African
immigrants from Africa, the Caribbean and Latin America. The more recent
African immigrants may sometimes view themselves, and be viewed, as
culturally distinct from native descendants of African slaves.[46]

The U.S. census race definitions says a black is a person having origins in any of
the black racial groups of Africa. It includes people who indicate their race as
"Black, African Am., or Negro," or who provide written entries such as African
American, Afro American, Kenyan, Nigerian, or Haitian. However, the Census
Bureau notes that these classifications are socio-political constructs and should
not be interpreted as scientific or anthropological.[47]

A considerable portion of the U.S. population identified as black actually have


some Native American or European American ancestry. For instance, genetic
studies of African American people show an ancestry that is on average 17–18%
European.[48]

One drop rule

Historically, the United States used a colloquial term, the one-drop rule, to
designate a black person as any person with any known African ancestry. [49]
Legally the definition varied from state to state. Thomas Jefferson had slaves
who were legally white (less than 25% Black) and legally slaves (mother was a
slave). Outside of the US, some other countries have adopted the practice, but
the definition of who is black and the extent to which the one drop "rule" applies
varies from country to country.

The one drop rule may have originated as a means of increasing the number of
black slaves[50] and been maintained as an attempt to keep the white race pure. [51]
One of the results of the one drop rule was uniting the African American
community and preserving an African identity.[49] Some of the most prominent civil
rights activists were multiracial, and advocated equality for all.

President Barack Obama self-identifies as black and African American


interchangeably.[52] According to a Williams Identity Survey conducted by Zogby
International interactive poll conducted November 1–2, 2006, among those who
voted, 55 percent of white voters and 61 percent of Hispanics voters classified
him as biracial instead of black after being told that his mother is white, and 66
percent of Black voters classified Obama as black.[53] Another poll conducted by
the same group returned results that 42 percent of African-Americans voters
described Tiger Woods as black, as did 7% of white voters.[54]

Color? It's an experience of life as it is what other people truly believe


about you not what you truly believe about yourself. If I truly believed
what you truly believe about woman, lawyers, genius and money?
You'd be sunk. Obama can't be African American as he is not
American and black is legally debatable. British is not. Obama "self-
identifies"? You mean lies??? WHO DOESN'T KNOW HE WROTE A
BOOK CLAIMING TO BE BRITISH VIA HIS FATHER???? He himself
said his wife's not his relatives were former slaves. I know overly
careful lawyer-ese when I hear it. If any living Rockefeller wants to
come to court, hold up his book and claim "I did not know Obama's
father is not American but Kenyan" then come on down and look like
the lunatic you are as I named the Rockefellers exactly and the
Council of Foreign Relations as well as the Bildebergers. The People
will bring the video of Oprah and Obama mugging it up with his book
for the cameras. black Africans do not even call Obama black, lol,
he'd be an Arab African as Arabs settled this part of Africa:
According to Dr. Carlos Moore, resident scholar at Brazil's
Universidade do Estado da Bahia, Afro-multiracials in the Arab world
self-identify in ways that resemble Latin America. He claims that
black-looking Arabs, much like black-looking Latin Americans,
consider themselves white because they have some distant white
ancestry.

If you look in petition 07-9804, it might be in the attachments or perhaps


within 08-6622, I said that Egypt is in Africa not the Middle East but
traditionally people believe it to be Middle Eastern. Ready? Moses
climbed up a hill but came down a mountain as Sinai is a mountain,
MT. Sinai. The appearance of it all is deceptive. Can you imagine
Washington leading a charging army of flamingos who can't even defeat
other flamingos??? Nazis are shrimps in real life; read all about how they
appeared and behaved at Nuremberg once the illusion was gone...they
acted worse then defeated, as if hey were actually smaller in size;
reporters could not get over it...if a flamingo could not defeat a shrimp then
they would not be pink so I know you can defeat an actual shrimp at the
very least. Practice being American thus forever pro se by declaring
yourself when I enter this petition. Start now and you should finish in a day
or two. The entire form to petition SCOTUS? it's about six pages and on
most of them there is one or two words like "FACTS" and "QUESTIONS".
An actual monkey might do this and soon which is why I say if you ever
see two monkeys in close conversation one and of them is holding a copy
of the New Testament or the Declaration then a just monkey government
and monkey law is born! Per usual, disseminate this.

Вам также может понравиться