PURPURA v SEBELIUS - ACT II (THIRD CIRCUIT) & III (SCOTUS)

TollandRCR · **Posted:** Thu Sep 15, 2011 1:10 pm

A Legal Lohengrin wrote:

...
I remember the beautiful blue skies on that day, as I drove to give blood that apparently the Red Cross just threw away. I remember that, too.

Offtopic :

A word on that from one of my favorite lectures for first-year students. The Red Cross issued its call for blood donations while it was still thought there would be many, many victims who survived. Hospitals throughout the area were standing by for mass emergency admissions; off-duty medical personnel had been called in. Almost nobody showed up at the hospitals. Apart from the first responders, there were almost no injuries to be treated.

Everywhere people queued to give blood. It was a way that someone in Omaha or Tucson could do their bit to help. Often, it was all that they could do. The volume of blood donations was far beyond what could have been used even if there had been many survivors. Some of the donated blood was indeed thrown away, but some of it was used elsewhere and some of it was processed and stored.

I don't think any of it was wasted. It was very important to let people offer their help. It turned out to be like some of the donation drives during World War II. For example, people were asked to store bacon grease and turn it in, with the supposition being that it would be used to lubricate artillery. That hardly ever happened, and it was known in advance that it would not happen, but it offered civilians a way to be a part of the war effort. The disappearance of color from margarine was similar, in that it was a symbol of a nation sacrificing for its troops and its survival. It is possible that gas rationing was also just a symbolic act.

Another way that people helped was to come to NY. A church band arrived from (I believe) Atlanta and ended up leading a parade every day for a couple of weeks. The streets were packed to cheer those going into the pit. St. Paul's Chapel, the refuge for first responders, was staffed by volunteers who would come for a week from all over the country and then go back home. While there was need, there was always someone there. St. Paul's still serves as a refuge for those who have found the site hard to bear. Alcoholics Anonymous set up 24/7 meetings on two sides of the pit, because crossing it took so much time and effort; those meetings were heavily attended by people who were so hurt by what they were seeing that they feared they would turn to drink. As it turned out, many of them did in the aftermath.

This is how societies respond to crises. I think of it as being like Battle at Kruger. We can band together when we need to do so.

realist · **Joined:** Fri Jan 23, 2009 1:33 pm **Posts:** 23524

I don't have the documents yet, but I've been informed that the Third Circuit has ruled in Purpura v Sebelius and has (reportedly) affirmed the lower courts decision.

be back shortly

New Docket Entries...

Quote:

09/29/2011 Open Document NOT PRECEDENTIAL PER CURIAM OPINION Coram: SCIRICA, SMITH and VANASKIE, Circuit Judges. Total Pages: 5. (JK)

09/29/2011 [link]Open Document,http://www.scribd.com/doc/66836160/PURPURA-v-SEBELIUS-THIRD-CIRCUIT-JUDGMENT-Transport-Room[/link] JUDGMENT, Affirmed. Costs taxed against Appellants. (JK)

TexasFilly · **Joined:** Mon Sep 28, 2009 12:52 pm **Posts:** 10643

realist wrote:

I don't have the documents yet, but I've been informed that the Third Circuit has ruled in Purpura v Sebelius and has (reportedly) affirmed the lower courts decision.

be back shortly

That is SHOCKING!

Filly, hoping for some color commentary from the 3rd Circuit [-o<

Sterngard Friegen · **Posted:** Thu Sep 29, 2011 1:21 pm

A very brief and straightforward brush off: http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/112303np.pdf

GOOMFC

I hope the Purple One and We the People don't take that for an answer!

Ramp up the crazee!

bob · **Posted:** Thu Sep 29, 2011 1:26 pm

3d Cir. wrote:

Like Patient Roe‟s complaint, appellants‟ complaint here is “barren” with respect to standing: appellants have provided no information about themselves beyond the fact that they are New Jersey residents and believe that the Act is unconstitutional. These allegations are insufficient to establish standing. See id. at 13; [highlight]see also Kerchner v. Obama[/highlight], 612 F.3d 204, 207-09 (3d Cir. 2010).

The gift that keeps on giving; thanks, Apuzzo!

realist · **Joined:** Fri Jan 23, 2009 1:33 pm **Posts:** 23524

Quote:

As discussed in New Jersey Physicians, this case is distinguishable from Thomas More Law Center v. Obama, -- F.3d --, 2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 13265, at *17-*18 (6th Cir. June 29, 2011), where the plaintiffs “demonstrated sufficient predicate facts” to establish standing. See New Jersey Physicians, 2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 15899, at *13 n.6. This case is also distinguishable from Florida v. United States HHS, -- F.3d ---, 2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 16806, at *26 (11th Cir. Aug. 12, 2011), where the “government expressly concede[d] that one of the individual plaintiffs . . . ha[d] standing.”

Quote:

In support of their standing argument, appellants cite Bond v. United States, 131 S. Ct. 2355 (2011), for the proposition that federal courts possess jurisdiction over an action as long as that action presents a federal question. However, contrary to appellants‟ argument, Bond did nothing to upend the well-established standing rules detailed above. Rather, as relevant here, the Court held that “Bond‟s challenge to her conviction and sentence satisfies the case-or-controversy requirement, because [her] incarceration constitutes a concrete injury, caused by the conviction and redressable by invalidation of the conviction.” Id. at 2362. Appellants here have shown no such concrete injury.2

TexasFilly · **Joined:** Mon Sep 28, 2009 12:52 pm **Posts:** 10643

hey! That means Cordwood has standing!!!!

tjh · **Joined:** Wed Oct 07, 2009 4:18 pm **Posts:** 2472

A small victory ... The court took appropriate note of "We the People" ...

Quote:

— they purport to represent “[w]e the people of the United States,”

Sterngard Friegen · **Posted:** Thu Sep 29, 2011 1:41 pm

From now on I'm going to refer to the two plaintiffs in this case as "We the Purple."

TexasFilly · **Joined:** Mon Sep 28, 2009 12:52 pm **Posts:** 10643

Sterngard Friegen wrote:

From now on I'm going to refer to the two plaintiffs in this case as "We the Purple."

I also liked this footnote:

Quote:

3 We also reject appellants‟ claim that the defendants‟ motion to dismiss was untimely. Appellants served their complaint on defendants, at the earliest, on December 15, 2010, and the defendants filed their response less than 60 days later. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(i), 12(a)(2).

That will certainly be the subject of an extensive Motion for Rehearing En Banc. $\:D/$

Butterfly Bilderberg · **Posted:** Thu Sep 29, 2011 3:15 pm

We should re-post that video of We the Purple addressing the teabaggers where Purple brags that This is The Case that will succeed. Some pointing and snickering are certainly in order.

TexasFilly · **Joined:** Mon Sep 28, 2009 12:52 pm **Posts:** 10643

Butterfly Bilderberg wrote:

We should re-post that video of We the Purple addressing the teabaggers where Purple brags that This is The Case that will succeed. Some pointing and snickering are certainly in order.

Given Purpura's history of long and vexatious litigation, this one is far from over.

Sterngard Friegen · **Posted:** Thu Sep 29, 2011 3:30 pm

TexasFilly wrote:

Butterfly Bilderberg wrote:

We should re-post that video of We the Purple addressing the teabaggers where Purple brags that This is The Case that will succeed. Some pointing and snickering are certainly in order.

Given Purpura's history of long and vexatious litigation, this one is far from over.

Agreed. Petition for rehearing and rehearing en banc. Then a petition for certiorari. And, along the way, at least one motion to recuse Justices Sotomayor and Kagan.

realist · **Joined:** Fri Jan 23, 2009 1:33 pm **Posts:** 23524

TexasFilly wrote:

Butterfly Bilderberg wrote:

We should re-post that video of We the Purple addressing the teabaggers where Purple brags that This is The Case that will succeed. Some pointing and snickering are certainly in order.

Given Purpura's history of long and vexatious litigation, this one is far from over.

Well, yeah, that's a given, but why not post it again now, and then again at every denial along the way. :mrgreen:

lyssandri · **Posted:** Thu Sep 29, 2011 4:30 pm

Offtopic :

TollandRCR wrote:

The Red Cross issued its call for blood donations while it was still thought there would be many, many victims who survived. Hospitals throughout the area were standing by for mass emergency admissions; off-duty medical personnel had been called in. Almost nobody showed up at the hospitals. Apart from the first responders, there were almost no injuries to be treated.

I remember seeing an interview with one of the doctors who had come in to be ready to help the wounded and how he and his colleagues felt as they realized that there weren't a significant number of injured people. Most either escaped from the towers will or they died in them. It was absolutely heartbreaking. He talked about how it left him feeling hopeless because as a doctor, he's used to being able to step into a life or death situation and make someone who is sick well again or someone who is injured whole again. In many ways, his purpose is to help those who can't help themselves. Yet on that day, even though he knew there was blood being shed all around the site, he couldn't do anything to help any of them. It's one of the things from that day that helped make the enormity of it all clear to me.

Edit: [Edited because one sentence didn't make a whole lot if sense]

bob · **Posted:** Thu Sep 29, 2011 4:31 pm

Hurlbut (on Tuesday): NJ anti-HCR activists cry vindication on search and seizure of medical records

Quote:

Kathleeen Sebelius, Secretary of Health and Human Services, has proposed a new rule. Under it, all insurers must put all their clients’ medical records on-line, and HHS will manage them. ... [T]wo New Jersey activists noted a third [objection to this proposed rule] a year ago: this is an unreasonable, and unwarranted, search and seizure. They noted this in their fifteen-count lawsuit against the health care reform bill.

[...]

This Examiner spoke to both men today. Purpura, with a hearty laugh, said, “I could not ask for a better gift than this.” Purpura said that the proposed rule directly violates the Constitution and the current HIPPA [sic] Privacy Rule. In fact, Purpura said that by proposing this rule, Sebelius now “[highlight]open[s] the door for further litigation[/highlight].”

Laster agreed, and quickly pointed out that theirs is the [highlight]only pending lawsuit that even mentions this obvious violation of the Fourth Amendment[/highlight] to the Constitution.

The case of Purpura v. Sebelius is now before the Third Circuit Court of Appeals. [highlight]A lower court dismissed the case by saying that Purpura and Laster had no standing. But the proposed rule weakens that argument[/highlight], by subjecting all medical records to immediate search and seizure.

Also:

Quote:

In related news, Purpura said that the Obama administration walked into a trap yesterday. The case of Florida ex rel. Bondi et al. v. HHS et al. will go directly to the Supreme Court, not to an en banc rehearing before the Eleventh Circuit. The split in the circuits between the Eleventh and Sixth Circuits almost forces the Supreme Court to take the Florida case. Purpura would not speculate on why the administration wanted an immediate Supreme Court hearing.

No article thus far on their latest "vindication."

realist · **Joined:** Fri Jan 23, 2009 1:33 pm **Posts:** 23524

Quote:

The case of Purpura v. Sebelius is now before the Third Circuit Court of Appeals. [highlight]A lower court dismissed the case by saying that Purpura and Laster had no standing. But the proposed rule weakens that argument[/highlight], by subjecting all medical records to immediate search and seizure.

I'd love to help these guys out, but the last time someone went over to Hurlbut's and informed them of rulings in their own case, Hurlbut got all pissy and banned a buncha folks.

keokuk · **Joined:** Mon Mar 02, 2009 1:36 am **Posts:** 297

realist wrote:

I'd love to help these guys out, but the last time someone went over to Hurlbut's and informed them of rulings in their own case, Hurlbut got all pissy and banned a buncha folks.

Looks like he did it again. Purpura had a piece at Hurlbut's site about Chris Christie where he mentioned his "pending" case before the Third Circuit. Someone pointed out in the comments that the Third Circuit affirmed Judge Wolfson, but the comment was quickly deleted.

Most of the comments Hurlbut deletes on this are phrased neutrally, so he can't hide behind some sort of claim that he only wants conservatives posting there. The only explanation is that he simply doesn't want people pointing out bad news, even in the form of, "You already lost the case you said is pending."

mimi · **Posted:** Tue Nov 01, 2011 11:09 pm

Hurlbutt uploaded some stuff to scribd.

3 p.
20111031 Purpura v. Sebelius Supreme Court in Forma Pauperis A...

Uploaded by: Terry Hurlbut — Affidavit in support of petition in forma pauperis, per Rule 39 of the Rules of the Supreme Court

Reads:
10
Uploaded:
11/01/2011

.
6 p.
20111031 Purpura v. Sebelius Supreme Court Motion to Expedite ...

Uploaded by: Terry Hurlbut — Motion to Expedite a Petition for Writ of Certiorari, pursuant to Rule 21 of the Rules of the Supreme Court

Reads:
9
Uploaded:
11/01/2011

32 p.
20111031 Purpura v. Sebelius Supreme Court Petition for Writ o...

Uploaded by: Terry Hurlbut — Petition for writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court.

Reads:
9
Uploaded:
11/01/2011

http://www.scribd.com/terry_hurlbut

nbc · **Joined:** Thu Mar 19, 2009 12:38 am **Posts:** 2529

what a bunch of garbage and ignorance of law. And I am not even a lawyer...

bob · **Posted:** Wed Nov 02, 2011 1:40 am

Examiner: NJ anti-HCR activists head to Supreme Court]NJ anti-HCR activists head to Supreme Court

Hurlbut wrote:

Nicholas E. Purpura of Wall Township, NJ, and Donald R. Laster Jr of West Long Branch, NJ, filed a petition for a writ of certiorari to the United States Supreme Court. They also filed a motion to expedite their case. They hope to have the Court consider their case, in their scheduled November 10 administrative meeting. The court has several cases challenging the health care reform bill now before it. Court observers expect the Court to decide, at that meeting, which cases they will hear and which not.

[...]

The Federal District Court in New Jersey ruled that Purpura and Laster lack standing. The court held that they had not shown an injury in fact that the health care reform bill would do to them. The Third Circuit agreed. But the two plaintiffs hope to show that both courts have violated the Federal Rules of Civil and Appellate Procedure on several counts. Hence their Supreme Court challenge.

[...]

Purpura and Laster have never felt that severability alone was enough to strike down the health care reform bill. They point out in their petition that no other case raises as many as 15 violations of the Constitution and other laws (that the bill did not revise). More to the point, Purpura v. Sebelius raises many counts that no other case raises. The citizenship and Senate-origin counts are but two of them.

And did you know?:

Quote:

Normally, a certiorari petition to the Supreme Court goes before a magistrate, and then before one or more panels. They decide which cases will ever reach the nine Justices in their chambers. As Purpura explained to CNAV this evening, the Supreme Court receives 10,000 petitions or appeals a year.

A Legal Lohengrin · **Joined:** Tue Oct 26, 2010 9:56 pm **Posts:** 9321

bob wrote:

And did you know?:

Quote:

Normally, a certiorari petition to the Supreme Court goes before a magistrate, and then before one or more panels. They decide which cases will ever reach the nine Justices in their chambers. As Purpura explained to CNAV this evening, the Supreme Court receives 10,000 petitions or appeals a year.

I am so glad that my ignorance has been dispelled. I had this bizarre idea that the Supreme Court had this thing called a "cert pool," which consists of a group of law clerks, who screen cert petitions. All Justices may, however, opt out and either have their own clerks screen petitions or do so themselves. A number of Justices, including Justices Stevens and Alito, have opted out of the pool. It is not obligatory.

I suppose I have to admit that I am completely ignorant, however, since I somehow managed to be completely unaware of the input of magistrate judges in this process. I bow before the superior wisdom of We, the Purple. I am sure his gibberish is controlling in the 0th Circuit.

bob · **Posted:** Wed Nov 02, 2011 11:55 am

ObP&E: Another Obamacare Lawsuit Reaches the Supreme Court

Quote:

IS A NATIONAL HEALTH CARE MANDATE CONSTITUTIONAL?

[...]

The plaintiffs, Nicholas Purpura and Donald R. Laster, Jr., have named Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius, U.S. Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner, and U.S. Department of Labor Secretary Hilda L. Solis as defentants. The plaintiffs are acting pro se.

Laster is Treasurer of the Jersey Shore Tea Party Patriots organization, and Purpura is an At-Large Board Member. Laster told The Post & Email that he and Purpura have appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court because the Third Circuit Court of Appeals “ruled against all of the motions.” Laster added, ” Two Judges were required by Title 28 Section 455 to recuse themselves since they have a financial interest in the outcome. They participated in the violations. The Third Circuit violated their own rules from the outset and lied in their opinions. Nick believes, and I concur, the Third Circuit was trying to stall expecting us to appeal to a [sic] En Banc court.”

Cert. pet. not yet docketed.

1Lishell · **Joined:** Fri Feb 20, 2009 7:51 pm **Posts:** 342

New purpoopies up at CN&V:
http://www.conservativenewsandviews.com ... e-details/

Quote:

Health care reform bill challenge details

A comprehensive legal challenge to the health care reform bill and to the judiciary itself is on its way to the Supreme Court. The plaintiffs in that case began by alleging fifteen separate violations of the Constitution and various anti-trust and civil-rights laws. Now they allege collusion between government and a judiciary that will not even follow its own rules.
...
Purpura and Laster believe that the District Court and the Third Circuit Court have broken their own rules repeatedly. For that reason, their petition for a Writ of Certiorari asks whether:
1. Any federal court can refuse to adjudicate a constitutional challenge. (Earlier case law says that any citizen has standing to complain that a law is unconstitutional.)
2. Amendments I (Right of Petition) and V (Due Process of Law) allow any citizen to assert that an act is unconstitutional if it limits judicial review. The health care reform bill does this.
3. Courts can break several statutes, the Federal Rules of Civil (and Appellate) Procedure, earlier case law, and the United States Code to stop a constitutional challenge.
4. Purpura and Laster have shown that the health care reform bill does them an injury-in-fact, and
5. Whether individual jurists can flout law and precedent and, say the petitioners, try to break them financially with “unfair costs.”
...
The Supreme Court has received many other challenges to the health care reform bill. It will devote its entire regular end-of-week administrative meeting on November 10 to deciding which cases to accept or reject. Purpura and Laster want the Court to consider their case at that meeting.

mimi · **Posted:** Thu Nov 03, 2011 2:31 pm

For privacy reasons, "We The Purple" declines to reveal his finances, but let him file for free.

or something like that.

Number 6 on that 3rd scribd document at 1L's link. The 3-page document.

Privacy reasons?

Privacy?

Falsehoods unchallenged only fester and grow.

PURPURA v SEBELIUS - ACT II (THIRD CIRCUIT) & III (SCOTUS)

Who is online