=))

These guys are absolutely nutzoid... fun, but nutzoid.

From the onset, Petitioners allege no legal argument exists to prevent the said forth relief request herein granting Petitioners request for a temporary restraining order on any further enforcement or implementation of "H.R.3590" until this action is fully adjudicated.

Healthcare reform plaintiffs seek injunction

The two pro se plaintiffs suing the government over the health care reform bill are asking an appeals court for an injunction against it. They also have moved to revoke an extension of time that the chief clerk for the Third Circuit Court of Appeals granted to the government, saying that the clerk exceeded her authority under court rules.

Grounds for Enjoining the Health Care Reform Bill

The two plaintiffs, Nick Purpura and Don Laster, want to stop the government from carrying out the health care reform bill (HR 3590). They claim “irreparable injury,” in that the government is already carrying out parts of the bill, and violating citizens’ constitutional rights while doing it. Specifically they say that the bill infringes on powers that do not appear in the long list in Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution, and not forbidden to the States. Amendment 10 reserves such powers to the States or to the people.

In addition, Purpura and Laster have always held (see Purpura v. Sebelius) that the health care reform bill will ruin the health insurance market. The McKinsey Study, that shows that 30 percent of employers would drop health care insurance for their employees, gives the best evidence yet of such damage. The Obamacare Waiver phenomenon gives even more evidence.

[SNIP-boilerplate about appeal, boilerplate misunderstanding of standing requirements, etc. ]

Extension of time

The plaintiffs also filed a formal motion to remove an extension of time that Chief Clerk Marcia Waldron granted to the government. The Third Circuit’s Local Appellate Rules allow the clerk to extend time to file a brief—but for up to fourteen days. Ms. Waldron extended the Department of Justice’ time for thirty days.

[SNIP-portion quoting from their letter to Waldron]

All that the DOJ counsel did, was to say it was too busy, and to say why it was too busy. But extensions of time ought to involve something more important, like having to wait to develop more evidence that is not yet available. Evidence isn’t at issue in this case, because facts are not at issue. The law and the Constitution are at issue.

Whenever a judge or clerk grants an extension by telephone, the party getting the extension must let the other party know in writing within seven days. The Third Circuit now proposes to change that rule. The proposed version says that users of the electronic docketing system can expect an automatic notice of the change. Counsel must let non-users of that system know about any extension within the seven days, so that they will still hear about the extension. Purpura complained to your editor that he would not have known about the extension if he hadn’t called the clerk’s office to ask after another matter, namely why so many judges have recused themselves from the case.

[Rest of article is recitation of conspiracy of judges protecting Obama]

bwahahaha

New Docket Entries...



links shortly

07/01/2011 Open Document ECF FILER: Response filed by Appellees Timothy Geithner, Kathleen Sebelius, Hilda A. Solis, US Dept Health, US Dept Treasury and US Dept of Labor to Motion to vacate order, Motion for Restraining Order, Motion motion filed. Certificate of Service dated 07/01/2011. (DK)

The court further held that “neither the
Complaint nor the supporting documents nor the voluminous briefs sufficiently allege
— or for that matter, allege at all — that Plaintiffs will be subject to the Act’s
Individual mandate provision.” Id. at 17; cf. Purpura v. Bushkin, Gaimes, Gains,
Jonas & Stream, 317 Fed. Appx. 263, 266 (3d Cir 2009) (discussing plaintiff
Purpura’s “abusive and vexatious litigation in this Circuit”).

Commerce, Health Care, and Distortion
The question everyone will ask is how will the ruling in Thomas More Law Center, et al. v. Obama, et al., case number 10-2388 affect our case Purpura et al. v Sebelius et al.1, case number 11-2303. The ruling actually helps our case. The Court uses fatally flawed reasoning about the commerce clause. The court also reaffirms our standing to sue in our case.

First, the ruling clearly rejects the DOJ and Judge Freda Wolfson’s fake standing argument that they used to reject the case in the Federal District Court of Trenton NJ. Pages 5 through 11 gives a detailed discussion of standing and ripeness. The discussion clearly shows that Judge Wolfson ignored existing Supreme Court rulings. So we, and the other people petitioning, had and have standing to challenge “H.R. 3590”. The Bond v United States ruling reinforces this.

[SNIP]

Why our case is so much stronger

So why is Purpura v Sebelius et al., Case 11-2303, not effected by this ruling? Unlike the many other cases and this case challenging “H.R. 3590” our case is not limited to Article 1, Section 8, Paragraph 3 and Amendment 10.

We read the whole bill. It took 36 hours over 2 weeks. We took notes. We examined how the bill conformed to or violated the U.S. Constitution. Not everything in the bill violates the U.S. Constitution. We examined, as did Judge Vinson, the origination of the bill. This bill raises revenue, but originated or was written by the Senate. We looked at “was the bill constitutional signed into law?” These two (2) Counts are external to the actual text of the bill.

In the first reading of the bill, we found 17 specific violations of the U.S. Constitution. The violations range from illicit taxes, violations of equal protection and treatment, illicit imposition of involuntary servitude, privacy violations and other issues. The Individual Mandate is involuntary servitude. Our case addresses all the constitutional violations we found in the bill, its unconstitutional creation and its unconstitutional signing into law. All identified by a single reading of the bill. We have since identified Amendment 8 – excessive fines – violations.

This is why Department of Justice could not answer our brief. We addressed all the issues and they obviously could not dispute them. When forced to, they wrote ridiculous non-answers. Even now they are continuing their attempts to stall, hoping this case will go away.

Nick Purpura now has his own account at Conservative News & Views, and his first post is, well, wow.

Laster is responding to comments, in case any Obots have completed their assignments and are looking for bonuses.

John says:
July 4, 2011 at 8:59 pm

Could you provide your 17 specific violations of the Constitution? I would much like to read that.

Thank you.

Donald R Laster Jr says:
July 4, 2011 at 10:40 pm

Here is your list of violations identified. Keep in mind we read the bill from one end to the other. We looked at what the sections did based upon the real meaning of the words.

Article 1, Section 7, Paragraph 1

Article 1, Section 8, Paragraph 3
Article 1, Section 8, Paragraph 12
Article 1, Section 8, Paragraph 14
Article 1, Section 8, Paragraph 15
Article 1, Section 8, Paragraph 16

Article 1, Section 9, Paragraph 3
Article 1, Section 9, Paragraph 4
Article 1, Section 9, Paragraph 5
Article 1, Section 9, Paragraph 6

Article 2, Section 1, Paragraph 5

Article 4, Section 2, Paragraph 1

Article 6, Paragraph 3

Amendment 1
Amendment 4
Amendment 5
Amendment 8
Amendment 10
Amendment 13
Amendment 14
Amendment 16

HIPPAA
[highlight]Posse Comitatus[/highlight] [really? ]
Title VII
Anti-Trust Laws

John says:
July 4, 2011 at 11:53 pm

I’m sorry, I really, really appreciate the information, but what you’ve given me is a little hard to follow.

Is there any way you could provide which specific parts of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act correspond to which violations of the Constitution? That would be quite helpful.

Thank you for your time, I’m keen to see your specific examples as I’d like to understand more about your case.

There's really only one way to respond to these two morons...



and



Okay... two ways.

The Ark case recognized that children born to actual immigrants were a citizen under Amendment 14. Illegal aliens, visitors and diplomats do not create citizen. They are not subject to the jurisdiction – citizenship allegiance not criminal. This is what is referred to as Positive Law versus Natural Law. It did not say that Wong Kim Ark was a natural born citizen – just that he was a citizen because his parents were immigrants and not here as diplomats or representatives of China.

You should also look at the Elk case which also discusses the fact that just because a person is born inside the US one is not always a citizen.

The Ark case did not declare Wong Kim Ark a natural born citizen – it declared him a citizen under Amendment 14. A natural born citizen is a person born in the country of parents who are citizens. The French work that defines natural born citizen is

Les Naturels, ou Indigènes font ceux qui font nés dans le pays, de Paren Citoyens.

In the 1760 English translation of this work this sentence is translated as

"Its natives are those who are born in the country parents who are citizens."

The later translations translate this sentence as

The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens.

Besides the information here look at

http://www.thepostemail.com/2011/06/30/ ... n-a-nexus/

http://www.thepostemail.com/2011/06/28/ ... president/

and

http://theobamafile.com/ObamaNaturalBorn.htm

Citizenship from nature (i.e. natural born) and citizenship from positive law is not the same.

07/07/2011 Open Document Reply to Appellees' Response to Motion to Vacate the clerk's order dated 06/23/2011 and Motion for Temporary Restraining Order by Appellants Donald R. Laster, Jr. and Nicholas Purpura., filed. Certificate of service dated 07/06/2011. (DW)

Appellants will address both ingenuous, fallacious, or should we say juvenile responses now before this Honorable Court.

These guys are definitely nutz... but fun.

New Docket Entry...



link shortly

I'm just glad they found each other. Wonder which one is Don Quixote and which is Sancho.

My fave: "Please take special judicial notice." When regular judicial notice isn't good enough.

And apparently they are upset the government found another case where that court told them GTFOOMC....

And apparently they are upset the government found another case where that court told them GTFOOMC....

In sum, Purpura's complaint is precisely the kind of action that the Rooker-Feldman doctrine is designed to preclude. Accordingly, because the District Court lacked subject matter jurisdiction, we must vacate and remand. On remand, the District Court is directed to enter an order dismissing Purpura's complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction for the reasons explained in this opinion.

On a final note, we urge Mr. Purpura to carefully consider the potential consequences of continuing to pursue this matter. The [highlight]New York state courts already have sanctioned him numerous times for what they perceived to be frivolous and abusive litigation[/highlight]. The District Court denied certain defendants' requests to sanction him again and to [highlight]enjoin him from filing additional claims in federal court[/highlight]. That ruling is not before us for review, but we note that it showed restraint. We likewise decline to consider imposing sanctions sua sponte at this time. [highlight]If Purpura continues his abusive and vexatious litigation in this Circuit, however, any future requests for sanctions may well find a sympathetic ear[/highlight].

07/07/2011 Open Document Letter filed by Appellants Donald R. Laster, Jr. and Nicholas Purpura which the Court may wish to construe as a Motion to Review the Clerk's Letter Dated June 21, 2011 [highlight]and a Request under the Freedom of Information Act[/highlight]. (As the Court may construe Appellants' letter as a motion, the Clerk has forward a copy of the letter to opposing counsel on July 7, 2011 through the Court's ECF system). (PD)