Purpura v Sibelius – Clueless
Purpura, again, is not happy that the Supreme Court, once again, rejected their request to have their appeal heard. But rather than accepting the wisdom of the courts, they appear to be blaming the courts for their own failures:
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.
NBC: Translation: Refusing to obey the United States code means that Purpura et al failed to impress sufficient judges for a hearing. Of course, the claim that they refuse to obey the code, is one founded only in the fantasy and imagination of the plaintiffs.
Purpura v Sebelius – SCOTUS – Rehearing denied
No surprise here although the plaintiffs may have been somewhat surprised as they claims
“What I told them flat-out is that you have no choice but to hear this,”
ROTFL
No. 11-7275
Title:
Nicholas E. Purpura, et al., Petitioners
v.
Kathleen Sebelius, Secretary of Health and Human Services, et al.
Docketed: November 9, 2011
Lower Ct: United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit
Case Nos.: (11-2303)
Decision Date: September 29, 2011~~~Date~~~ ~~~~~~~Proceedings and Orders~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Oct 31 2011 Petition for a writ of certiorari and motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed. (Response due December 9, 2011)
Nov 25 2011 Request for recusal received from petitioner
Dec 9 2011 Waiver of right of respondents Kathleen Sebelius, Secretary of Health and Human Services, et al. to respond filed.
Dec 15 2011 DISTRIBUTED for Conference of January 6, 2012.
Jan 9 2012 Petition DENIED.
Jan 16 2012 Petition for Rehearing filed.
Feb 1 2012 DISTRIBUTED for Conference of February 17, 2012.
Feb 21 2012 Rehearing DENIED.
Purpura v Sebelius –
Purpura et al have been failing all over ever since they were unable to properly serve the defendants. After various attempts to get a default motion, the respondents finally took pity and filed for a motion to dismiss, which was promptly granted. The Appeal fared not much better and now they are hoping that the Supreme Court will here there case, even though the only issue pending is the motion to dismiss, they somehow believe they can get to argue their complete case. Pro se’s can be so funny.
The Fogbow reports
The Post & Email has just learned
that the U.S. Supreme Court will be conferencing today to decide whether or not to hear the case of Purpura v. Sebelius, which challenges the constitutionality of the health care bill and Obama’s eligibility to hold office.
Plaintiffs Nicholas Purpura and Donald R. Laster, Jr. call their challenge the “We the People” brief.
[...]
Purpura has stated that “the reason they don’t want to take the case and why they’re most frightened is Count 6,”
which claims that if Obama is not eligible to serve as President, the bill is null and void.
[...]
A new 17-page brief with 15 pages of argument sent to the Supreme Court was dated January 27, with Purpura representing himself. “What I told them flat-out is that you have no choice but to hear this,” Purpura told The Post & Email. “Count 6 is the most important.”
Purpura also said that “Sotomayor and Kagan cannot hear this case” because of their conflict of interest, having been appointed to the court by Obama.
Hurlbut explains why Purpura will be denied cert
Our ‘reporter’ does appear to grasp why the Supreme Court will refuse cert
Purpura and Laster say that the Obama eligibility issue is more important than any other single challenge to the health care reform bill. The reason, they say, is simple: primary elections have begun, and the Obama eligibility issue will be supremely important to this fall’s general elections. “Georgia is just the beginning,” the motion says. This is correct: four States (Georgia, New Hampshire, Alabama, and Illinois) have now seen challenges to Obama’s right to be on the ballot. Any of those cases would take too long to reach even its respective State Supreme Court. But the Purpura case could decide the Obama eligibility question now.
For that reason, Purpura and Laster argue that their case should take precedence over every other challenge to the health care reform bill.
I am sure that almost anyone understands how poor a legal argument this really is…
But then, just when you think they understand, you get this
The only thing that the government has argued thus far is that Purpura and Laster have no standing to object to the health care reform bill. They have never defended the bill on its merits. Should the Supreme Court say that the plaintiffs have standing, the case is forfeit and they win.
No, it will then return to the lower court to be argued. My goodness sake… Of course, the Supreme Court is not going to hear this case which is all about a minor issue of standing. They have better things to do with their valuable time. What a circus.
Purpura v Sebelius – SCOTUS – Petition for Rehearing
They keep on trying… Expect no miracles… It’s a meaningless case as it was dismissed for lack of standing so that’s the only part that can be argued on appeal and SCOTUS is not going to be interested in hearing plaintiff’s musings. Note that they did not even ask the respondent to file and Sebelius waived the right to a response. I liked the following.
Indisputable Fact: Defendants at no time presented a valid argument in opposition. By the text of the law, they have legally forfeited! [Three times]. Yet, this Court refused to allow Petitioner his day in court without any legal justification or reasoning.
ROTFL….
No. 11-7275
Title:
Nicholas E. Purpura, et al., Petitioners
v.
Kathleen Sebelius, Secretary of Health and Human Services, et al.
Docketed: November 9, 2011
Lower Ct: United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit
Case Nos.: (11-2303)
Decision Date: September 29, 2011~~~Date~~~ ~~~~~~~Proceedings and Orders~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Oct 31 2011 Petition for a writ of certiorari and motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed. (Response due December 9, 2011)
Nov 25 2011 Request for recusal received from petitioner
Dec 9 2011 Waiver of right of respondents Kathleen Sebelius, Secretary of Health and Human Services, et al. to respond filed.
Dec 15 2011 DISTRIBUTED for Conference of January 6, 2012.
Jan 9 2012 Petition DENIED.
Jan 16 2012 Petition for Rehearing filed.
Feb 1 2012 DISTRIBUTED for Conference of February 17, 2012.
Purpura v Sebelius – Ripping away
P&E reports:
Purpura has written a brief titled “Motion for Expedite [sic] Reargument” which he told The Post & Email has been received by the court today. He states that in it, he “rips the government apart.” The 29-page submission tells the justices that “You have failed us and betrayed our country by abandoning our law.”
ROTFL, just because he could not properly serve the defendants and because court after court found him wanting… Poor Purpura, he is not getting the respect he believes he deserves and blames others. Another dead end. The hilarious part is that nothing he does will have any effect. And he is angry oh so angry that the courts ignore his arguments, as poor as they are…
Purpura v Sebelius – Purpura Reacts
Nick Purpura, the lead plaintiff, first learned of the denial when CNAV reached him. He reacted in outrage.
How can this court willfully ignore nineteen separate violations of the Constitution and applicable statutes?
Because under our Constitution they can only address the issue of appeal which is the ruling that the plaintiffs lacked in standing. Anything else is irrelevant. Furthermore, just because the plaintiffs allege 19 separations of the Constitution, reality suggest to me that the plaintiffs failed to properly understand the Statutes and our Constitution.
He then vowed to re-argue his case and to list the nineteen violations all over again. He suggested three reasons why the Supreme Court might have acted as it did:
- They did not want to judge whether Barack H. Obama is, or is not, a natural-born citizen. Many observers have suggested that this is a non-issue. If it were, then the Court could easily say so.
- They did not want to judge whether the Senate acted improperly in passing the entire health care reform bill as an “amendment in form of substitute” of an unrelated House-passed bill, nor whether the House of Representatives acted improperly by accepting the substitution as valid. Thus the leaders of the House seemed to pretend that the health care reform bill originated in their chamber when it did not.
- They want to protect two Justices, and several other federal judges, who would lose their jobs if Purpura and his fellow plaintiffs prevailed.
Purpura v Sebelius – SCOTUS denies petition
Dec 15 2011 DISTRIBUTED for Conference of January 6, 2012.
Jan 9 2012 Petition DENIED.
Ain’t that a surprise
Purpura v Sebelius – Supreme Court – Waiver of right of respondents filed
Another case where the Government waived its right to respond. Makes sense. Why waste time and effort on a case which is dead and which Scotus is not going to hear? The case is all about the motion to dismiss based on lack of standing.
—-
11-7275
Title:
Nicholas E. Purpura, et al., Petitioners
v.
Kathleen Sebelius, Secretary of Health and Human Services, et al.
Docketed: November 9, 2011
Lower Ct: United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit
Case Nos.: (11-2303)
Decision Date: September 29, 2011
~~~Date~~~ ~~~~~~~Proceedings and Orders~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Oct 31 2011 Petition for a writ of certiorari and motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed. (Response due December 9, 2011)
Nov 25 2011 Request for recusal received from petitioner
Dec 9 2011 Waiver of right of respondents Kathleen Sebelius, Secretary of Health and Human Services, et al. to respond filed.
Purpura v Sibelius – Helping out the ‘Examiner’
Terry Hurlbut, Essex County Conservative Examiner, writes
Nicholas E. Purpura and Donald R. Laster Jr, both of Monmouth County, yesterday filed a motion for recusal in their case, Purpura et al. v. Sebelius et al. (Docket No. 11-7275). They contend that Justices Elena Kagan and Sonia Sotomayor should not take part in any deliberation, either on whether to grant certiorari in their case, or in hearing oral argument, or in deciding their case or any motion thereon. The reason: both these Justices owe their jobs to Barack H. Obama, and both would lose their jobs should the Court uphold one of their fifteen counts against the massive health care reform bill.
Source: Examiner
The problem is that Purpura’s case was dismissed based on standing and thus there are no issues for the Supreme Court to address which are relevant to the issue at hand namely the constitutionality of the Healthcare Reform Act. Remember that the case was dismissed because of lack of standing and that the Appeal’s Court similarly found lack of standing.
It’s the continued unfamiliarity with our legal system which has caused Purpura to fail time after time. Not that the actual arguments have any merit either but I find it hilarious how they failed to properly serve the defendants… This appears to be a consistent problem amongst some of the more successful birthers. Successful in the sense of getting their case dismissed summarily while believing that they should have a default judgment.
All the Supreme Court could do is disagree with the Appeal’s Court and send it back down the chain for the Courts to review. For all practical purposes, the case is a non-issue when it comes to the Healthcare Reform Act.
Purpura v Sebelius – Supreme Court Filings
Purpura et al are trying to get in on the action and have filed some funny motions in which they claim to not have to pay for the filings under a strange reading of a Court ruling related to access to Government functions and where they are unwilling to divulge their finances for vague reasons. Furthermore, they have filed a motion to expedite. Give that their claims were properly rejected as lacking standing, there is little doubt that the Supreme Court will take on this lawsuit, which fails to present any legal arguments that survice the laugh test. Still, for historical reasons:
Purpura v. Sebelius Supreme Court in Forma Pauperis
Purpura v. Sebelius Supreme Court Motion to Expedite
Purpura v. Sebelius Supreme Court Petition for Writ of Certiorari
All downloadable here. The whole case is a deja vu of a Scotus filing by Purpura during his divorce, which was one of the longest divorce cases in US history. The following ruling helps understand the irony
In a motion purportedly brought pursuant to CPLR 5015, the defendant former husband sought to vacate the parties’ 1990 divorce judgment, rendered after trial, this Court’s 1993 affirmance thereof (see Purpura v Purpura, 193 AD2d 793 [1993]), and all subsequent related orders and judgments, on the ground that the trial court lacked “subject matter jurisdiction” to set the date of commencement of the trial as the date for determining the value of the marital assets.
The Court was not impressed and approved of the sanctions for his frivolous filings.
Additionally, the Supreme Court properly exercised its discretion in finding that the defendant’s filing of a motion for leave to reargue constituted “frivolous conduct,” as defined in 22 NYCRR 130-1.1 (c), and, accordingly, in imposing a sanction on him and awarding costs and an attorney’s fee to the plaintiff.
Purpura v Sebelius – Court of Appeals 3rd Circuit – affirms lower court dismissal
As expected…
Remember how they plaintiffs had somewhat foolishly argued that Bond v US supported their standing. As the Court laid to rest this confusion it observed as many had already predicted…
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.
Another one bites the dust… And so expectedly… Nothing about their default… For good reasons, they forgot to properly serve the defendants… Pro se’s… All they have done is present some ‘barren’ complaints about their beliefs, but nothing that amounted to a foundation for standing.
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).
Was it not recently that our poor friend claimed in a speech to tea-baggers that this case would be successful… And it seems that the plaintiffs are not taking well to the news of yet another defeat. The Fogbow reports
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.
Reality is sometimes hard to swallow.
Purpura v Sebelius – Hearing w. NO oral arguments
09/06/2011 Open Document CALENDARED for Thursday, 09/15/2011. (PM)
Purpura v Sebelius – Denied again…
The tragicomedy known as Purpura v XXXX continues, with the En Banc Court once again denying Purpura’s motion. They do not waste the Court’s valuable time and resources
The foregoing motion is DENIED.
OMG!!! Classic “in your face”… The Court apparently does not suffer fools lightly…
08/18/2011 Open Document ORDER (MCKEE, Chief Judge, SLOVITER, SCIRICA, RENDELL, AMBRO, FUENTES, SMITH, FISHER, CHAGARES, JORDAN, HARDIMAN, GREENAWAY, JR. and VANASKIE, Circuit Judges) denying Motion for Oral Argument before an En Banc Court and for Removal of Judges Vanaskie and Greenaway , Jr. from any Panel filed by Appellants Nicholas Purpura and Donald R. Laster, Jr., filed. Panel No.: ECO-065. MCKEE, Authoring Judge. (DW)
Purpura v Sebelius – Pro Se Reply brief
Now accusing the respondents… Wow… This is just too funny for words… Poor chaps. Yep, as expected still clueless on the issue of standing.
08/15/2011 Open Document PRO SE REPLY BRIEF on behalf of Appellants Donald R. Laster, Jr. and Nicholas Purpura, filed. Pages: 17. Certificate of Service dated 08/13/2011 by US mail. (MKH)
Jedi Pauly Speculations and flawed assumptions
P&E’s resident ‘legal expert’ is arguing that
When reviewing what the judges who refused to recuse themselves and the en banc Court has done, one must use the light most favorable to the state to interpret their decisions. In this light, then, it must be assumed that Judge Greenaway and the en banc Court don’t believe that there is any conflict of interest even if Obama is not a natural born Citizen, or they believe that he is a natural born Citizen so that the motion to recuse has no merit.
Or more likely they just do not believe that there is any merit to the claim because? But the Court has not provided us with its reasoning, just a plain old, denied, just like the judge did. In fact, a dismissal of a motion to recuse is reviewed on abuse of discretion, not a ‘de novo’ review.
There is no point in even addressing the issue from the point of view of the Court believing that Obama is a natural born Citizen, because it was already established by default in the lower Court that he is not a natural born Citizen.
Again, no such thing has been established, since the defendants did not default as the plaintiffs had failed to properly serve them. No default was entered by the lower court.
Even if the court ignores that default fact from the lower Court, it is simply not plausible to accept that a judge can possibly believe that Obama meets the understanding and definition of what is meant by “natural born” in Article II, since it is common knowledge and publicly admitted by Obama himself that he was born to a foreign non-U.S. citizen father. That automatically disqualifies Obama from natural born status and from being a legitimate President or from qualifying under Article II. Every layman knows this.
In fact, the Courts, the scholars and lay-persons all know that natural born means simply ‘born on soil’. Why Jedi believes otherwise remains unexplained.
It is beyond all credibility that what is obvious to an ordinary layman is beyond the comprehension and cognition of a federal appeals court judge.Therefore, we can assume that the Court’s behavior is based upon its belief that even though Obama is not legitimate, their appointments would still stand (de facto) and therefore there is no conflict of interest. There is a major problem with this line of reasoning by the Court.
Since Jedi is not privy to the reasoning used by the Court and since a denial of a motion to recuse is reviewed on abuse of discretion, the standards described above are what is known as a ‘strawman’: easily knocked down but without any relevance to the case. Since Jedi’s assumption is flawed, the conclusions should be rejected as well.
Motion to recuse judge. Reviewed under abuse of discretion standard.Murray v. Scott, 253 F.3d 1308, 1310 (11th Cir. 2001); McWhorter v. City of Birmingham, 906 F.2d 674, 678 (11th Cir. 1990).
Jedi continues
In this light, then, it can be interpreted that the Third Circuit en banc Appeals Court is seeking political protection from a higher court and has actually given a new opportunity of appeal to the petitioners, Nicholas Purpura, Donald Laster, Jr., and also to natural born sovereign Citizens throughout the country. It would seem that the Court has decided that the issue before it is beyond its station and so is ripe for the United States Supreme Court, since this refusal to recuse under these unique circumstances in history creates a unique injury case in legal history that has never occurred. The Court has unanimously sent a message to the United States Supreme Court that there is a unique and important legal issue of first impression that the Court must address, and the issue is obviously a constitutional one.
The only issue that can be appealed is the decision of the Court to refuse to have the judges recuse themselves. That’s hardly a constitutional issue. Furthermore a denial by the Court may not even be a final order and thus is likely not appealable. Purpura will have to wait until a their case has been denied, after which they can try to appeal the decision, including the motion to dismiss to the Supreme Court. It is highly unlikely that the Supreme Court would take such a case. Under exceptional circumstances a writ of prohibition could be filed but the circumstances are hardly exceptional.
Purpura v Sebelius – Defendants respond
Note that according to the plaintiffs, the defendants are too late in their filing of a response, even though they asked and received a customary extension. Yes my friends, because they followed the rules, they must be punished 
Some salient quotes:
The court explained that “[g]laringly absent from the Complaint . . . are any factual allegations concerning how Plaintiffs Purpura and Laster will be affected by the Act or any of its provisions.” Pl. App. 11 (Op. 5). The court held that many of plaintiffs’ claims were,“at best, generalized grievances for which Plaintiffs have no standing.” Pl. App. 21(Op. 15). The court further held that “neither the Complaint nor the supporting documents nor the voluminous briefs sufficiently allege — or for that matter, allegeat all — that Plaintiffs will be subject to the Act’s Individual mandate provision.” Pl.App. 23 (Op. 17). The court examined the allegations found to be sufficient to create standing in other cases challenging that provision and concluded that no other court had found standing in a case where there were no allegations showing that plaintiffs“are or will be subject to the Act’s provisions.” Ibid
Because plaintiffs lack standing, there is no reason for the Court to address plaintiffs’ contention that they were entitled to “default summary judgment” on the ground that the government’s motion to dismiss was untimely. Pl. Br. 6. Moreover, even if the government’s motion had been untimely, plaintiffs would not have been entitled to default summary judgment. In fact, the government’s motion was timely filed. Plaintiffs never properly served their complaint on the United States. See Pl. App. 41 (Dec. 7, 2010 letter from the district court noting that “Plaintiffs have failed to properly effectuate service upon the United States”). In December 2010, the U.S. Attorney’s Office received a mailing from plaintiffs containing their “Request for Declaratory Judgment.” That mailing did not include a summons as required by Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(i)(1)(A)(i). The government nevertheless indicated that it would file a motion to dismiss. See Docket No. 20-1. The government received an automatic extension to January 4, 2011, pursuant to Local Rule 7.1(d)(5), and an additional extension to January 17 by order of the district court. Pl. App. 35 (order). The government filed its motion to dismiss on January 17, 2011, consistent with that order. See Docket No. 26 (motion to dismiss).
08/10/2011 Open Document ECF FILER: ELECTRONIC BRIEF on behalf of Appellees Timothy Geithner, Kathleen Sebelius, Hilda A. Solis, US Dept Health, US Dept Treasury and US Dept of Labor, filed. Certificate of Service dated 08/10/2011 by US mail. (DK)
Purpura v Sebelius – En Banc denial of motions
Well, they got what they wanted, an en banc denial of their motions to recall and vacate… ROTFL. This time a two-liner… Must be driven our pro-se’s crazy…
08/08/2011 Open Document ORDER (MCKEE, SLOVITER, SCIRICA, RENDELL, AMBRO, FUENTES, SMITH, FISHER, CHAGARES, JORDAN, HARDIMAN, GREENAWAY, JR. and VANASKIE, Circuit Judges) denying Motion to Recall and Vacate the Court Order entered June 28, 2011 and denying Motion to Recall and Vacate the Court’s Order entered August 01, 2011. , filed. Panel No.: ECO-061. MCKEE, Authoring Judge. (DW)
Purpura v Sebelius – Another one…
Another fine filing by our confused friends… Oh the entertainment value… Time for some sanctions… Or will the Judge let these poor pro-se’s off the hook? So clueless about the law, so clueless about the rules, so clueless… Pro-se’s the best lawyers money cannot buy…
08/04/2011 Open Document MOTION filed by Appellants Donald R. Laster, Jr. and Nicholas Purpura to Recall and Vacate Order dated 08/01/2011 denying Motion to Recuse Judge Greenaway, Jr. and Second Request for Judicial Intervention by an En Banc Court. Response due on 08/18/2011. Certificate of Service dated 08/03/2011. (DW)
Oh and as to the extension of time, the court followed its own rules: 3rd Circuit L.A.R. 3.14
A party’s first request for an extension of time to file a brief must set forth good cause. Generalities, such as that the purpose of the motion is not for delay or that counsel is too busy, are not sufficient. A first request for an extension of fourteen (14) calendar days or less may be made by telephone or in writing. Counsel should endeavor to notify opposing counsel in advance that such a request is being made. The grant or denial by the clerk of the extension must be entered on the court docket.
The plaintiffs may have confused the use of the term ‘generalities such as that counsel is too busy’ with a rule which states that extensions cannot be granted because counsel is too busy. In order for counsel to make such an argument they have to explain WHY they are too busy. Making unfounded accusations that the defendants are somehow conspiring with the court and the clerks is just not really a legal argument.
Sigh… Amateurs…
As to the motion for default, they should really read the rules a bit more carefully. Since the motion to extend time was granted, a motion for default should have been denied. Sigh…
Finally, a hint: While the President NOMINATES judges, Congress needs to consent to them. And of course, there is the de-facto officer doctrine which makes such appointments legally binding, even if the President were somehow at a later time found to be ineligible.
Purpura v Sebelius – Denied Denied…
08/01/2011 Open Document ORDER (SLOVITER, JORDAN and GREENAWAY, JR., Circuit Judges) The appellant’s motion for an injunction pending appeal is denied. Appellant’s motion to vacate the order granting the government an extension of time to file a response brief is denied. Appellant’s motion for default of appeal and order for declaratory relief is also denied. Appellant’s motion requesting that the court disclose the names of those judges who have recused themselves from this case is denied. Appellants motion for entry of default is denied., filed. Panel No.: BLD-236. GREENAWAY, JR., Authoring Judge. (DW)
The appellants’ motion for an injunction pending appeal is denied. The appellants have failed to meet their burden of showing that they are likely to succeed on the merits of their appeal or that they will be irreparably injured absent an injunction. See Republic of Philippines v. Westinghouse Elec. Corp., 949 F.2d 653, 658 (3d Cir. 1991).
The appellants’ motion to vacate the order granting the government an extension of time to file a response brief is denied. We are satisfied that the government has shown “good cause” for its request. See 3d Cir. L.A.R. 31.4. Appellants’ motion for default of appeal and order for declaratory relief is also denied.
The appellants’ motion requesting that the Court disclose the names of those judges who have recused themselves from this case is denied. The Freedom of Information Act, upon which the appellants rely, does not require federal courts to disclose their records. See 5 U.S.C. §§ 551(1)(B), 552(a)(3).
The appellants’ motion for entry of default is denied.
08/01/2011 Open Document ORDER (GREENAWAY JR., Circuit Judge) denying Motion to Recuse Judge Greenaway, JR. filed by Appellants Nicholas Purpura and Donald R. Laster, Jr., filed. Panel No.: BLD-236. GREENAWAY, JR., Authoring Judge. (DW)
In the mean time the Plaintiffs have been sending an angry letter and motion arguing that the Court has denied ruling on their motions. But see above…. Fail…
Purpura v Sebelius – Amateurs
07/25/2011 Open Document MOTION filed by Appellants Donald R. Laster, Jr. and Nicholas Purpura for Entry of Default. Response due on 08/08/2011. 
Certificate of Service dated 07/25/2011. (DW)
Enjoy the musings of these funny people…
Amateur night at the Courts – Purpura
07/15/2011 Open Document MOTION filed by Appellants Donald R. Laster, Jr. and Nicholas Purpura for Recusal of Judges Joseph A. Greenaway, Jr. and Thomas I. Vanaskie. Response due on 07/28/2011. Certificate of Service dated 07/15/2011. (DW)
Amateur night… The want to have two judges recuse themselves because they were nominated by President Obama… Oh my…
Purpura v Sebelius – Motion for default
Undeterred by legal reality, rules and prior warnings, the appellants continue to file foolish motions. Time for sanctions anyone?… Remember that the appellees had been granted an extension by the Court to file their response. The appellants insist that the Court’s extension is illicit… I kid you not… Pro-se’s you gotta love’em…
07/12/2011 Open Document MOTION filed by Appellants Donald R. Laster, Jr. and Nicholas Purpura for Default of Appeal and Order for Declaratory Relief. Response due on 07/25/2011. Certificate of Service dated 07/10/2011. (DW)
Purpura v Sibelius – Appeal
Prepare for quick dismissal. Enjoy the ‘arguments’ … The plaintiffs failed to properly effect service and they are now arguing that “DUE PROCESS” was violated because of their own errors and mistakes. The plaintiffs also refuse to accept that the Court failed to have jurisdiction because of lack of standing, a concept clearly outlined by the Courts. Some Question I is simple: No the Court followed clear precedent which outlines the requirements for Standing. Question II has no relevance as there is no legal requirement for the Courts to accept someone as ‘natural born’ or ‘sovereign citizen’. The Court admitted them as plaintiffs in a legal action. Furthermore no law was created that was not valid for all classes. Question IV is easily addressed by observing the lack of standing, which precludes the Court from continuing. Well, as I said, this is another easy dismissal
05/12/2011 33 NOTICE OF APPEAL … DONALD R. LASTER, JR, NICHOLAS E. PURPURA. ….
TO THE HONORABLE COURT, DEFENDANTS AND THEIR ATTORNEYS OF RECORD, AND ALL INTERESTED PARTIES:
COMES NOW Nicholas E. Purpura and Donald R. Laster, Jr., et al. (Petitioners) to file this timely Motion of Notice of Appeal, and Motion to Expedite the Order of April 21, 2011 (Exhibit 1) Dismissing Petitioners’ Petition based upon lack of subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedures (FRCP) 12(b)(1); that will have grave consequence by the precedent it would establish if left standing. Petitioners’ respectfully request this Honorable Circuit Court reverse said fmding Order in its entiety.
The District Court action stripped Petitioners’ of their Constitutional Rights and virtually erased the Constitution, Statutory law, as well as rendered Circuit and Supreme Court precedent null and void.
The Defendants in this action failed to address a single allegation as required by FRCP 8(b), and Rule 8 (d) In the interest of substantial justice Petitioners pray they can come before the Circuit Court as soon as possible to plead their case. And it will be based upon the facts, law, and Federal Rules of Procedure that this matter will be adjudicated by this Court. Petitioners say, this Petition has been intentionally protracted in the District Court. Petitioners have also been denied proper procedural “due process”. If this action is protracted any longer Petitioners as well as the American people as a whole will continue to suffer ill reversal damage that strips Petitioners of the Constitutional Rights.
JURISDICTION
This Honorable Court has Original Jurisdiction to hear all matters involving Constitutional and Civil Rights violations. No doctrine, law, statute or moral reason exists that would bar this Federal Court from addressing the merits of Petitioners’ complaint due to the violations of Petitioners federally protected guaranteed federal civil rights.
QUESTIONS PRESENTED
I. Whether the District Court erred in dismissing Petitioners’ claims pursuant to ‘lack of jurisdiction’ arbitrarily and capriciously without any legal bases. And whether the Court, by its own admission, had not reached or examined the merits of the claims;
II. Whether the District Court refused to recognize Petitioners’ political status as sovereign “Natural Born” “Citizens’ of these United States”. Thereby disenfranchised Petitioners’ from our government thus creating law valid for one political class of citizens, but not valid for all classes;
III. Whether Petitioners Constitutional rights have been abrogated, thus denying Petitioners “due process” and “equal protection” Rights guaranteed under the Constitution.
IV. Whether the District Court failed/refused to adhere to proper judicial procedure resulted in the deprivation of Petitioners Constitutional civil rights as a Citizen of these United States by failing to conduct a straight-forward inquiry into the ongoing violation of federal law and Constitution of the United States. By failing to do so placed Petitioners’ and all Americans in jeopardy of political persecution by allowing one branch of government to unconstitutionally force citizens to obey an unconstitutional law through wrongful use of threatening … or fear of economic harm …. to surrender a federally protected rights.
V. Whether the District Court suspended the Constitution and decided to interrupt law and authorities to suit a political purpose suspended Petitioners civil rights by:
Ruling upon its own interpretation of what the law should mean, redefming established Constitutional authority, statutes, and the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure;
As a fact-finder failed in its fiduciary duty by ignoring the explicit facts presented;
By judicial fiat created a counterfeit “standing argument” claiming the Court “lacked of jurisdiction” to challenge a branch of government’s unconstitutional exercise of power;
Refusing to weight arguments as written and/or meaning of the text and laws. The text’s and law’s purpose and customary practices associate with the Constitution, statutory regulations and meanings as outlined in the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (hereafter FRCP). Thus deprived Petitioners of their Constitutional rights;
Acted with deliberate indifference, and obstruction of justice aiding and abetting in the unconstitutional actions of Defendants and their attorneys;
Whether the District Court by judicial fiat ruled to suit a personal ideology or benefit, violated its fiduciary duty essential to controlling protected rights set forth in the Constitution that indicates the end of the “rule of law”.
VI. Whether District Court usurped Supreme Court precedent by violating proper procedural “due process” and “equal protection” by denying Petitioners’ the required “evidentiary hearing” in a matter of finality.
VII. Whether the District Court without proper jurisdiction ruled on an issue that was not properly before the Court; that contradicted the Court’s previous order of January 4th 2011. Clearly usurped the FRCP by granting procedurally infirm extensions of time void any proper motion for an enlargement of time for good purpose pertaining to a Motion or Order [A practice that took place throughout these legal proceeding].
VIII. Whether Petitioners’ should have been granted an automatic judgment in their favor by law as set forth in the FRCP, see Rule 8 (d) for failure to put forth any opposition. Thereby admitting Counts 5, 6, 7, 12, 13,and 14 that the assetion are correct and factural.
IN CONCLUSION
It is also inarguable Petitioners’ litigation was intentionally protracted by the District Court that failed and refuse to address the merits, consistently suffered abusive improper judicial procedure. Petitioners realize that law sometimes tends to sleep, but it is not dead. The United States Constitution is the Supreme law of the land and has been rendered “null and void’ by “H.R. 3590″ that shedded the United States Constitution.
Nicholas E. Purpura,
cc: Ethan P.
Purpura v Sebelius
Egging on Purpura, Terry Hurlbut argues
By releasing this document, Obama has as much as admitted that he is not a natural-born citizen. This release alone goes directly to our argument of standing.
They lost on standing, Obama already admitted to his Father’s Kenyan citizenship so there is nothing really here. Oh the follies…
Purpura v Sebelius – Dismissed
Another one bites the dust, just as I had predicted… No standing… Duhh…
HT: Whatever4 at the Fogbow
04/21/2011 32 ORDER that Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss is GRANTED. Signed by Judge Freda L. Wolfson on 4/21/2011. (mmh) (Entered: 04/21/2011)
04/21/2011 31 OPINION filed. Signed by Judge Freda L. Wolfson on 4/21/2011. (mmh) (Entered: 04/21/2011)
Text below
Purpura v Sibelius – Letter from Plaintiffs requesting that the Court issues a ruling
Purpura is getting impatient and insists the Court rules for the plaintiffs. Given the lack of much of any foundation of such a request, and the likelihood that the Court will just dismiss the claim
04/07/2011 30 Letter from Plaintiffs requesting that the Court issue a ruling for the Plaintiffs. (mmh) (Entered: 04/07/2011)
Their understanding of law appears to be quite limited. And their insistance to insult the Judge will not be very helpful either.
It’s been quite a trip
Update: OK, with Orly’s follies and Trump’s attempts to make the Birthers look even more foolish, and turn the Republican hopes into chaos, it is hard to remain retired…
It’s the journey, not the destination that matters. Few relevant cases remain, and I predict that the Judge in Purpura will grant the motion to dismiss.
Purpura v Sibelius – Some progress updates
It seems that the Plaintiffs are working hard missing the point of the response filed by the Government in Purpura v Sibelius, arguing instead that they failed to answer every single count, and that they waived personal jurisdiction.
Note that the motion to dismiss can be raised at any time, thus even if the defendants were to have waived personal jurisdiction, they can still bring the motion to dismiss.
So, having for the moment laid to rest the non-issue of personal jurisdiction, the real issue that the Defendants need to overcome is the obvious lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
Until the defendants can establish subject matter jurisdiction, the Court has no other recourse but to dismiss the case. And while they Plaintiffs can appeal the decision, they can only appeal the dismissal.
So effectively, the case will most likely come to an end when the Judge grants the motion to dismiss.
And while the motion to dismiss based on subject matter jurisdiction is likely to be granted, the defendants have also outlined for most of the claims why they are poorly argued, confusing etc, or why they are at odds with the facts and thus fail to state a claim.
In the end, I observe at best one claim which may survive the failure to state a claim motion but which will fail due to lack of subject matter standing.
Missing the point
With regard to Amendment X (Count 15), the lawsuit specifically cites the mandated Medicaid eligibility expansion as infringing upon a State’s reserved powers. The defense maintains, essentially, that the Commerce Clause gives the federal government the right to make any regulation that it wants in this regard, and that in any event, only the States may challenge the federal government on this ground. As it happens, at least one State has: Virginia, in Cuccinelli v. Sebelius. The court in that case has already upheld Virginia’s challenge, both as to standing and on its merits. Nor does the government’s brief address the extra tax burden that every citizen of any given State would have to bear, to pay the extra taxes that the States would have to impose in order to fund the expanded Medicaid benefits adequately.
The fact remains that 10th Amendment challenges cannot be made by individuals. The end… Next claim…
To the extent plaintiffs challenge the ACA’s expansion of Medicaid eligibility in 2014 as a burden on New Jersey, an individual plaintiff lacks standing to raise this sort of anti-commandeering challenge; such claims may be advanced only by a State itself. See Tenn. Elec. Power Co. v. Tenn. Valley Auth., 306 U.S. 118, 144 (1939) (private parties had “no standing . . . to raise any question under the [Tenth A]mendment” “absent the states or their officers” as parties to the litigation).
Purpura v Sibelius – Slight confusion about standing?
The Examiner writes
The defense maintains that the plaintiffs lack standing, but in these cases do not state what sort of entity would have standing to complain on these counts. And in any case, FRCP Rule 12(h)(1) plainly states that a defendant waives certain defenses if he does not raise them on time in a responsive pleading, or by a motion made within the deadline. These defenses are:
- Lack of personal jurisdiction (i.e., standing)
- Improper venue
- Insufficient process
- Insufficient service of process
Continue reading on Examiner.com: DOJ failure to answer all claims in NJ anti-HCR lawsuit – Newark Essex County Conservative | Examiner.com http://www.examiner.com/essex-county-conservative-in-newark/doj-failure-to-answer-all-claims-nj-anti-hcr-lawsuit#ixzz1BVGuWKTz
Lack of personal jurisdiction can be waived but lack of subject matter jurisdiction, which is the real issue here, cannot be waived by the parties and can be raised at any time, even sua sponte by the court. Any finding that the plaintiffs lack subject matter jurisdiction is fatal to the case which becomes void and moot.
Recent Comments