Many still believe we are living in a Constitutional Republic governed by the Rule of Law. Unfortunately, America is at a crossroads in which the freedoms we once enjoyed and are protected by our Constitution are rapidly eroding.
I write this article not as a disgruntled litigant, but as an American that fears and trembles for the course his country has taken. The Constitution was once the bulwark of our freedoms and protections. Now a government filled with tyrants in black robes has morphed it into something that our Founders would barely recognize.. The Courts, that exist to check and balance our other two branches of government, willingly rubber-stamp legislation that is clearly unconstitutional. One can only guess their motives, but their behavior violates their oath of office to protect and uphold the Constitution of these United States. It is a sacred oath that the Framers created to protect our Rule of Law from despots and usurpers.
We now live under a federal judiciary that no longer seems concerned about protecting our Constitution, but means to reinterpret it to accommodate their ideologies. These men and women believe that the state is the giver of rights and they have been known to quote international law as a guiding principle. . They also believe that the once foundation of our republic, the Constitution, is archaic and no longer necessary or timely.
The saga begins
The saga I will be writing about began after Congress passed the “Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act”(“The Act”). That Act is anything but a health-care piece of legislation and is not “affordable” by any stretch of the imagination.. I intend to argue that this “Act” grants total government control over the American people and lays the foundation for a police state.
When the Act passed in a most unusual way, patriots throughout our nation turned to our Courts in protest. This article starts with the most comprehensive Petition brought by “We the People” against this egregiously unconstitutional legislative act: Purpura v. Sebelius, Case No. 11-7275.
The series of constitutional assaults climaxed on February 21st when the U.S. Supreme Court without explanation denied re-argument in the matter of Purpura v. Sebelius, and thus denied us the right to take part at oral argument to be held on March 26-28, 2012 on the constitutionality of the Health-care “Act” known as ObamaCare.
The District Court
This judicial sham began in the District Court (Trenton) New Jersey before Judge Freda L. Wolfson. Not only did Judge Wolfson completely disregard the Federal Rules of Procedure, but she also denied us “due process.”
Unbelievable as it sounds, I believe proof abounds that this jurist openly connived with the defendants, and aided and abetted the “obstruction of justice.” She had gone so far as to:
Rule on issues not properly before the court,
Intentionally ignore evidence, fact, and law, and
Disregard three consecutive forfeitures by the Department of Justice.
Wolfson is a prize example of why judicial reform is necessary, and lifetime appointments are unacceptable.
The Third Circuit
We next had to make an appeal that should never have been necessary. We submitted our appeal to the Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit. This court, as the District Court had done earlier, ignored their own rules of procedure, overlooked evidence, and denied “due process”.
The Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit did no better. They violated the law openly and ignored federal rules of procedure, evidence, and any standard of proof.
Going forward, two judges, Joseph A. Greenway and Thomas I. Vanaskie, authored two decisions and orders, and did so without judicial authority. They, ignoring the Judicial Conduct Code and the United States Code, see 28 USC Section 455. The man currently occupying the White House appointed these two men. By law, on account of the “People’s” Count 6, they were restricted from taking part in any proceeding concerning this matter. Why? Because they had a financial interest in the outcome of the proceedings. The honorable and expected thing for them to do was to recuse themselves.
The Supreme Court
Thereafter, “We the people” (Petitioners) were left with one last hope for justice. Surely the Supreme Court of the United States would never allow lower courts to usurp the U.S. Constitution, U.S. Code, the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and “due process.” The men and women who make up this Court swore an oath to protect the rights and freedoms of the American people guaranteed by the Constitution. This was our third branch of government that the Founders created to make sure the law of the land would be upheld. And we had great hopes that this Court would not fail us and would not fail the American people.
Once again the issue arose of Justices who ought to recuse themselves, but didn’t. Two of the Justices, Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan, owe their appointments to Mr. Obama.. And, by law, their financial interest in the outcome meant that they must recuse themselves. Surely they would honor the law and . obey the Judicial Conduct Code and U.S. Code. We were sadly mistaken.
On January 9, 2012 “The People” received notice that the Court had denied their “Writ of Certiorari” without explanation. True, the Court need not explain their decision. But in this case a question of law arises: did Sotomayor and Kagan take part, and in so doing, violate the law?
“The people,’” still believing in our system of justice, submitted a motion for re-argument to “recall and vacate” based upon many issues that the Court had overlooked. The most important of these is whether or not Sotomayor or Kagan took part in the decision-making process. Clearly if they did, they violated the law and the Court would be required to rehear without their participation.
As we stated above on February 21st , we once again received a notice without explanation: “The petition for rehearing is denied”. I called the Court and asked if Sotomayor or Kagan participated. The answer was: “It was denied; we’re not required to tell you anything.” Keep in mind that both these two jurists (one an affirmative action activist and member of La Raza, the other a direct advocate for the legislation), are going to sit in judgment on the constitutionality of the Health-care legislation. God help the United States. By refusing to obey the United States Code, these two judges show that they are unqualified and have little or no respect for our laws. Sadly the other justices, will hear oral argument based upon inadequate and limited briefings on the most dangerous piece of legislation ever written by Congress.
Contemplate this for a moment. Article III, Section 2 of the Constitution says:
“The judicial powers shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States,…”
Now I ask what all Americans should be asking: if the “We the People” brief Case No. 11-7275 contained 19 well-supported violations of the United States Constitution and 4 statutory laws, how does the Supreme Court protect the freedom and rights of the American people by refusing to address these constitutional challenges without explanation? And, by that refusal, does not this Court leave the American people without recourse?
Based on the history of the “People’s Case” it is hard to believe that, oral argument by Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli on the “individual mandate,” will receive a higher degree of justice. Unfortunately, Mr. Cuccinelli, like many of his counterparts, thoroughly failed to read the entire “Act.” By failing to do so, he ignored the true dangers in the legislation that totally shreds the United States Constitution.
How in God’s name could this Court in good conscience ignore 19 violations of the Constitution? Even should the Court find the individual mandate unconstitutional, how can they fail to understand that the remaining provisions violate Article 1, 2, 4, and 6, Amendments 1, 4, 5, 8, 9, 10, 13, 14, and 16? Let’s not forget that it violates the “Posse Comitatus” Act, “Anti-Trust” Provisions, “Title VII of the Civil Rights Act” and lastly, “The Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996.”
Over the last two years, we put forth an open challenge to every University and College Professor of Law, or any group of left-wing attorneys, to hold a mock trial or open debate to prove the allegation put forth by the “We the People’s” petitioners in our brief are incorrect. Not a single taker has stepped forward.
Do the legal eagles and the men and women in black robes fear those in the White House; do they not understand our Constitution; do they believe it is archaic and not suitable for 21st century living; or do they prefer international law to our Constitutional Republic? Whatever their motives, they have failed to honor their oath of office and they have failed to check and balance the other two branches of government. Unfortunately, the American people are suffering the repercussions of their inadequacies.
To be continued…
- Call to prayer
- Obama eligibility challenges explode
- Obama eligibility challenges go forward
- Certiorari denied
- Recusal issues
- Recusal motion 2
- Two cases
- Press release
- Challenge details
- Supreme challenge
- Privacy violations
- Opposition brief
- Revised motion
- Legal confusion
- More motions
- Recusal motion
- Default motion
- Appeal skirmish
- Commerce, health care, and distortion
- Plaintiffs seek injunction
- Appeal delayed
- Plaintiffs have standing after all
- DOJ wants more time on HCR appeal
- Another appeal
- Hazardous to your health
- Court dismissal
[amazon_carousel widget_type=”ASINList” width=”500″ height=”250″ title=”” market_place=”US” shuffle_products=”True” show_border=”False” asin=”B00375LOEG, 0451947673, 0800733940, 0062073303, 1595230734, 1936218003, 0981559662, 1935071874, 1932172378″ /]
- Christianity Today
- Constitution 101
- Creation Corner
- Entertainment Today
- First Amendment
- Foundation of our Nation
- Guest Columns
- Human Interest
- Ignite the Pulpit
- Let's Talk
- Money matters
- Racial Issues
- Tea Party
- Trump elevator pitch
- World news
Judicial5 days ago
Texas judge rules gun ban for felony defendants is unconstitutional
Media4 days ago
Analysis: With midterms approaching, Democrats are spending the most on appealing to pro-abortion voters
Education3 days ago
Sen. Tim Scott proposes bill to defund schools that hide children’s gender transitions from parents
News2 days ago
California becomes fifth state to legalize human composting
Let's Talk2 days ago
Stacey Abrams and ideological corruption
News18 hours ago
Tudor Dixon doubles down on jokes comparing Whitmer kidnapping plot to lockdown policies
Let's Talk3 days ago
Inflation – that’s what’s important
Human Interest4 days ago
Low birth rate – why?