Saturday, November 13, 2010

Prosecutors say car insurance is never mandatory



UPDATE: Chief Justice Roberts allegedly jumped ship from his Republicon party to vote with the Demorats, because he wants people to hate Hussein Obama Soetoro so much they will be stampeded to vote for Willard Mittens Romney (THE FIRED AUTHOR OF OBAMACARE). Note that private car insurance has never been called a "tax", so the Obamacare opinion has no precedential value. Tennessee already passed a law to ban Obamacare. I've now contacted my congresscritters with a campaign contribution (wink), to ensure a bill passed to require all taxslaves to purchase Pirate News on PayPal (a Bilderburg subsidiary).



Coincidentally, Obamacare was allegedly passed one day after Congress voted that US attoney General Eric Holder is guilty of felony contempt of Congress, for ordering federal police to supply 20,000 guns to the Mexican drug cartels, used to kill US cops and kill 10,000s of Mexican cops, politicians and journalists (copkilling is punished by the death penalty). Obama's Operation Fast & Furious is part of the ongoing Iran-Contra narcoterror drug-dealing crimes perpetrated by presidents Reagan/Bush/Clinton/Bush, supplying weapons to enemy nations (the crime of treason is punished by the death penalty).

"The federal government does not have the power to order people to buy health insurance. The federal government does have the power to impose a tax on those without health insurance. The payment is collected solely by the IRS through the normal means of taxation. Because the Constitution permits such a tax, it is not our role to forbid it, or to pass upon its wisdom or fairness."
-Homosexual Chief Justice John Roberts, National Federation of Independent Business et al v Sebelius Secretary of Health and Human Services et al, US Supreme Court, 28 June 2012

"President Obama’s Affordable Care Act, March 23, 2010, is similar to President Fillmore’s Fugitive Slave Act, Sept. 18, 1850. The Supreme Court’s health-care decision, June 27, 2012, is similar to its Dred Scott decision, March 6, 1857. The chief plank in the original Republican Party platform, June 1856, defended traditional marriage and the value of human life, intending to 'prohibit in the territories those twin relics of barbarism: polygamy and slavery.' America was divided geographically between: Moderate Democratic South, which said slavery may be wrong, but the country has to live with it. Though personally against slavery, they believed the right to own slaves should be protected, just made rare and few, and treat slaves humanely. Extreme Democratic South, which said slavery is good and should be expanded into Western states. They tried to justify it by twisting Scriptures, citing that Abraham owned slaves but ignoring Jesus’ teaching to “do unto others as you would have them do unto you. Extreme Democrats Speaker Howell Cobb and Senate President William King pushed through the Fugitive Slave Act of 1850, which put the slavery issue squarely in the face of the anti-slavery North, whereas before it had become an out-of-sight and out-of-mind issue occurring on Southern plantations. The Fugitive Slave Law imposed severe penalties on those who aided escaped slaves with food or shelter in their passage to freedom in Michigan or Canada. It also made it a crime to interfere with the slave catchers’ recovery of runaway slaves. A person could be held criminally liable, fined $1000 and imprisoned for six months if they failed to report a neighbor suspected of helping slaves.”
-WorldNetDaily.com

"It would give to persons of the negro race, the right to enter every other State whenever they pleased, to sojourn there as long as they pleased, to go where they pleased the full liberty of speech in public and in private upon all subjects upon which its own citizens might speak; to
hold public meetings upon political affairs, and to keep and carry arms wherever they went. No State can, by any act or law of its own, passed since the adoption of the Constitution, introduce a new member into the political community created by the Constitution of the United States. It
is now firmly settled by the decisions of the highest court in the State, that Scott and his family upon their return were not free, but were, by the laws of Missouri, the property of the defendant; and that the Circuit Court of the United States had no jurisdiction, when, by the laws of the State, the plaintiff was a slave, and not a citizen."
-Chief Justice Taney, US Supreme Court, 7–2 decision, Dred Scott v. Sandford, 60 U.S. 393 (1857)

"Stocks of hospital companies rose and insurance companies will also gain millions of premium-paying customers."
-KnoxNews.com


Nearly 20 percent of new Obamacare waivers are gourmet restaurants, nightclubs, fancy hotels in Nancy Pelosi’s district - Of the 204 new Obamacare waivers President Barack Obama’s administration approved in April, 38 are for fancy eateries, hip nightclubs and decadent hotels in House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi’s Northern California district. That’s in addition to the 27 new waivers for health care or drug companies and the 31 new union waivers Obama’s Department of Health and Human Services approved.

Latest beneficiary of ObamaCare waiver: AARP - No one seems to know what criteria HHS uses to grant or deny waivers to insurers from provisions in ObamaCare. The White House won’t release the names of those insurers and employers refused waivers or discuss denials at all. But maybe, just maybe, we could all agree that organizations that publicly pushed ObamaCare to approval should be ineligible to escape its consequences? The Daily Caller has learned that the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) rate review rules, which it finalized on Thursday, exempt “Medigap” policy providers, like the American Association of Retired Persons (AARP), from oversight when such providers increase payment rates for their supplemental insurance plans.
Insurance providers who aren’t exempt from Obamacare’s rate review rules are required to publicly release and explain some health care payment rate increases. Let’s not forget that AARP had a distinct interest in seeing ObamaCare pass, because it helped eliminate competition for AARP’s supplemental insurance program.

Tennessee governor signs health care freedom into law - On Friday, Gov. Bill Haslam signed the Tennessee Health Care Freedom Act (SB0079), making health care freedom the law of the land in Tennessee. The Tennessee Health Care Freedom Act is a direct response to the passage of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act by Congress last year. While SB0079 does not seek to nullify the federal law in its entirety, the goal of the new law is to ensure that Tennesseans are free to choose whether to participate in the federal plan, choose another plan, or not participate in any plan at all.

"It is declared that the public policy of this state, consistent with our constitutionally recognized and inalienable right of liberty, is that every person within this state is and shall be free to choose or to decline to choose any mode of securing health care services without penalty or threat of penalty. It is declared that the public policy of this state, consistent with our constitutionally recognized and inalienable right of liberty, is that every person within this state has the right to purchase health insurance or to refuse to purchase health insurance. The government may not interfere with a citizen’s right to purchase health insurance or with a citizen’s right to refuse to purchase health insurance. The government may not enact a law that would restrict these rights or that would impose a form of punishment for exercising either of these rights. Any law to the contrary shall be void ab initio."
-Tennessee Health Care Freedom Act SB 0079 2011

$796 VC 16028(A) Failure to provide evidence of financial responsibility (insurance) Note: This fine may be reduced with proof of insurance on or after the violation date. HUGE California Traffic Tickets Fines Effective 01/06/2011. The state of California is broke and NEEDS MONEY!

Tennessee Rules of Evidence
Rule 411. Liability insurance.
Evidence that a person was or was not insured against liability is not admissible upon issues of negligence or other wrongful conduct. This rule does not require the exclusion of evidence of insurance against liability when offered for another purpose, such as proof of agency, ownership, or control, or bias or prejudice of a witness.
Advisory Commission Comments. The rule restates Tennessee common law.


UPDATE 4 FEB 2011: Congress Investigates 733 Corporations Granted Waivers from Obamacare Costs - Rep. Cliff Stearns (R-Fla.) also noted the high percentage of Obama-supporting labor unions that received waivers – which exempt them from a provision in the new health care law that bans annual limits on what insurance plans will pay for medical coverage. “The American people repeatedly have been told that the new health care law is an effective and responsible plan for overhauling the nation’s health care system,” Rep. Stearns told CNSNews.com in a statement. “Yet, if the law is so good, why are so many waivers to the law being granted?” Stearns is chairman of the subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations for the House Energy and Commerce Committee, which is investigating the waivers granted to various companies, unions, non-profit organizations and states and municipalities. The United Federation of Teachers, representing New York City School Teachers, is the largest recipient of waivers so far. The UFT is a member of the American Federation of Teachers, a major contributor to the Democratic Party. In addition, several locals of the Service Employee International Union (SEIU) and the United Food and Commercial Workers union, both major contributors to Democratic candidates, received waivers.

UPDATE 31 JAN 2011: Judge strikes down healthcare reform law - A federal judge in Florida struck down President Barack Obama's landmark healthcare overhaul as unconstitutional on Monday in the biggest legal challenge yet to federal authority to enact the law. U.S. District Judge Roger Vinson ruled that the reform law's so-called individual mandate went too far in requiring that Americans start buying health insurance in 2014 or pay a penalty. "Because the individual mandate is unconstitutional and not severable, the entire act must be declared void," he wrote, "This has been a difficult decision to reach and I am aware that it will have indeterminable implications." Referring to a key provision in the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, Vinson sided with governors and attorneys general from 26 U.S. states, almost all of whom are Republicans, in declaring the Obama healthcare reform unconstitutional. "Regardless of how laudable its attempts may have been to accomplish these goals in passing the act, Congress must operate within the bounds established by the Constitution," Vinson, who was appointed to the bench by Republican President Ronald Reagan, ruled.

UPDATE 31 JAN 2011: Florida Attorney General - “Today’s ruling by Judge Vinson is an important victory for every person who believes in the freedoms granted to us by our Constitution,” said Attorney General Bondi. “This proves that the federal government requiring Americans to purchase health insurance is in fact unconstitutional. In addition, the bipartisan effort from Attorneys General across the country shows the federal government that we will not back down from protecting the constitutional rights of our citizens.”

UPDATE 31 JAN 2011: Court Order for Summary Judgment banning mandatory insurance as unconstitutional - State of Florida v US Department of Health and Human Services. James Madison, the chief architect of our federalist system, once famously observed: "If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary. In framing a government which is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this: you must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place oblige it to control itself."

UPDATE 19 April 2010: Over 10,000 Tennesseans Join Lawsuit Against Mandatory Insurance - TN constitutional attorney and congressional candidate Van Irion filed what is shaping up to be a national class action in Federal court April 8th. The suit challenges the constitutionality of Obamacare on the basis that Congress is not authorized by the Constitution to regulate health care. Mr. Irion is asking the courts to re-evaluate the legal precedent related to the Commerce clause, arguing that current precedent in effect destroys the intent of the Constitution and specifically the 10th Amendment. “The lawsuit quickly became so popular among grassroots movements, that we set up a website to take plaintiff information and allow people to follow the progress of the case,” said Irion, The site name is Obamacare Class Action, or “OCA”, and can be found at obamacareclassaction.com. The form that captures the necessary information asks for name, address and email address. Phone number and company name is optional, but gives US companies the option of signing on as a corporate plaintiff. “Once the complaint is amended to include all the plaintiffs that have signed on, each name will be listed,” said Irion. “At that point, we expect to have tens of thousands of plaintiffs.” Since filing suit on April 8th, the site has added 1,000 plaintiffs a day on average

UPDATE 31 JAN 2011: Florida Federal Judge Rules ‘Entire’ Health Care Law Unconstitutional - The judge based his ruling on the law’s mandate that citizens must purchase health care, a requirement he said violates the Constitution. The ruling affects the 26 states who had joined together to file a case against the law, yet still has implications for the entire country. U.S. District Judge Roger Vinson ruled Congress overstepped its bounds by instituting the individual mandate, but also said the entire law was unconstitutional since the individual mandate is not “severable,” Fox News reports. Vinson did not go as far as to issue an injunction blocking the law from being implemented. “I must reluctantly conclude that Congress exceeded the bounds of its authority in passing the Act with the individual mandate. That is not to say, of course, that Congress is without power to address the problems and inequities in our health care system. The health care market is more than one sixth of the national economy, and without doubt Congress has the power to reform and regulate this market. That has not been disputed in this case. The principal dispute has been about how Congress chose to exercise that power here,” Vinson wrote in the 78-page ruling. “Because the individual mandate is unconstitutional and not severable, the entire act must be declared void,” he added. “The individual mandate applies across the board. People have no choice and there is no way to avoid it. Those who fall under the individual mandate either comply with it, or they are penalized. It is not based on an activity that they make the choice to undertake. Rather, it is based solely on citizenship and on being alive,” he wrote.

UPDATE: 26 states join Obama health care lawsuit in Florida - Six more states joined a lawsuit in Florida against President Obama's health care overhaul on Tuesday, meaning more than half of the country is challenging the law. The announcement was made as House members in Washington, led by Republicans, debated whether to repeal the law. The six additional states, all with Republican attorneys general, joined Florida and 19 others in the legal action, Florida Attorney General Pam Bondi said. "It sends a strong message that more than half of the states consider the health care law unconstitutional and are willing to fight it in court," she said in a statement. The states claim the health care law is unconstitutional and violates people's rights by forcing them to buy health insurance by 2014 or face penalties. The other states that are suing are Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Colorado, Georgia, Indiana, Idaho, Louisiana, Michigan, Mississippi, Nebraska, Nevada, North Dakota, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, South Dakota, Texas, Utah and Washington.

"Government control of communications and transportation."
-Communist Manifesto, 6th Plank

Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act ("Obamacare") - Unknown various sections of Title 42 US Code

"A thorough survey of pertinent constitutional case law has yielded no reported decisions from any federal appellate courts extending the Commerce Clause or General Welfare Clause to encompass regulation of a person's decision not to purchase a product, notwithstanding its effect on interstate commerce or role in a global regulatory scheme. It's about an individual's right to choose to participate. The unchecked expansion of congressional power to the limits suggested by the Minimum Essential Coverage Provision would invite unbridled exercise of federal police powers."
-Judge Henry Hudson, MEMORANDUM OPINION, Commonwealth of Virginia v. Sebelius, 3:10CV188-HEH, 13 Dec 2010


UPDATE December 2010 Report: Blount County sheriff has no liability insurance on fleet of 300 cars - Finance Director Jennings also brought another major financial problem to this meeting. The county self-insures for liability and workers compensation. It seems that our previous Financial Director did not do the actuarial reviews necessary to assure that there was enough money in these funds to pay our insurance claims. Worse, during the previous administration, nearly $900,000 in accounting "errors" were made in calculating the amount of money in these funds. These errors went undetected by the state auditors, until this year. After Jennings reviewed all these matters, he discovered there is no money in these funds, and it will take an injection of $2.6 million of taxpayers' hard earned money to make these funds sound.

UPDATE DEC 2010: Judge torpedoes Obamacare, warns of 'unbridled fed police' - "The controversial plan was adopted by Congress, whose members admitted they did not read the thousands of pages of new requirements, limits and restrictions before their vote. It was a plan by Texas Rep. Leo Berman, R-Tyler, that would create penalties of up to $5,000 in fines and up to five years in jail for anyone guilty of the "felony" of attempting "to enforce an act, order, law, statute, rule or regulation" of Obamacare, the president's plan that effectively nationalizes the health-care decision making process. A year ago, Wyoming adopted legislation pioneered in the state of Montana that exempts guns made, sold and kept in the state from any federal regulations. Then lawmakers attached a penalty of up to two years in jail or $2,000 in fines for "federal agents" who would try to enforce regulations that violate state law."

Dragonater Note: Dozens of States' attorneys general are now suing the US Govt to overturn an alleged federal law to require every US citizen to buy medical insurance from a private corporation, or pay $10,000s in fines and go to jail. Except for the megacorporations that got exemptions. Obamacare creates no medical insurance coverage and is merely another $15-billion/year tax increase, paid directly to the jew banksters at the private offshore "Federal" Reserve Bank Corporation.

Obamacare was written by the insurance companies as a bailout of the insurance companies, and Congress was not allowed to read it. If Big Brother wants free healthcare, it can hire its own doctors and open free clinics.

Just because an illegal alien signed Obamacare into "law" does not make it law.

Since medical doctors genocide 2-million US citizens every year, why the fuck would anyone want to be forced to pay for their own Death Camp? That's like the jew Nazis pulling millions of gold teeth to pay for the bullets at the WW2 death camps.

"The most stunning statistic, however, is that the total number of deaths caused by conventional medicine is an astounding 783,936 per year. It is now evident that the American medical system is the leading cause of death and injury in the US. Using Leape's 1997 medical and drug error rate would add another 216,000 deaths, for a total of 999,936 deaths annually. Our estimated 10-year total of 7.8 million iatrogenic* deaths is more than all the casualties from all the wars fought by the US throughout its entire history. Our considerably higher figure is equivalent to six jumbo jets are falling out of the sky each day."
—Gary Null, PhD; Carolyn Dean MD, ND; Martin Feldman, MD; Debora Rasio, MD; Dorothy Smith, PhD, "Death by Medicine", March 2004 (plus 1-Million annual aborticides in USA)
http://www.lef.org/magazine/mag2004/mar2004_awsi_death_01.htm

"Harold Shipman, the British family doctor who murdered more than 200 of his patients to become one of the worst serial killers of all time, hanged himself in his prison cell."
—Reuters, "Britain's worst serial killer Dr Death dies in prison," Jan 13, 2004
http://abc.net.au/news/newsitems/s1024925.htm

UPPER MARLBORO, Md. (CN) - A man who was hurt in a car crash but was misidentified as a cancer patient claims security guards at Prince George's Hospital beat him up when he tried to leave the hospital to avoid chest surgery he didn't need - "to have a potentially cancerous mass removed from his chest." He adds that one guard repeatedly called him "bitch" as he roughed him up.
http://www.courthousenews.com/2010/08/25/29858.htm

50% of doctors and nurses still don't wash their hands.
http://women.webmd.com/news/20040706/study-doctors-dont-wash-hands-enough
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/scotland/article5375084.ece

Nurses Did Not Wash Hands, Blamed for Deaths of 90 British Patients
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,301482,00.html

247 Americans Die Every Day from Doctors not Washing Their Hands
http://www.naturalnews.com/027981_doctors_hand_washing.html

"He seemed like Superman, able to guide jumbo jets through perilous skies and tiny tubes through blocked arteries. As a cardiologist and United Airlines captain, William Hamman taught doctors and pilots ways to keep hearts and planes from crashing. He shared millions in grants, had university and hospital posts, and bragged of work for prestigious medical groups. An Associated Press story featured him leading a teamwork training session at an American College of Cardiology convention last spring. But it turns out Hamman isn't a cardiologist or even a doctor. The AP found he had no medical residency, fellowship, doctoral degree or the 15 years of clinical experience he claimed. He attended medical school for a few years but withdrew and didn't graduate. Journals that printed articles listing Hamman with M.D. and Ph.D. degrees are being contacted in case they want to correct the work. Beaumont removed him from a U.S. Department of Defense medical simulation contract that a physician at the hospital had obtained. Doctors who attended Hamman's sessions don't have to worry — the Accreditation Council for Continuing Medical Education will not revoke any education credits they earned."
-AP, Pilot duped AMA with fake M.D. claim, 12 Dec 2010




The Constitutions do not allow a govt to order a citizen to buy a product from another person. All unconstitutional laws are void from inception and may be ignored with immunity from prosecution. It is a crime of false arrest, malicious prosecution and official oppression for a govt employee to prosecute a citizen for alleged violation of an unconstitutional law. Ignorance of the law is not a valid defense in court, not even for govt employees.

There is no such State law requiring purchase of "car insurance" from private corporations -- it's called "financial responsibility" -- which has many "exemptions" under Title 55 Chapter 12 of Tennessee Code.

Basically, the only drivers required to have car insurance are non-govt employees, who can afford to buy it, who don't self-insure, who crash by their own fault and cause damage to someone else, and refuse to pay for that damage. Translation: If you don't cause a crash that injures someone else, or if you cause a crash and injure someone else but they sign a contract not to sue, or if you cannot afford to buy insurance, then you cannot be required to buy insurance. Equal protection means if a govt employee gets a right or immunity, then all citizens get the same right or immunity, no matter how wealthy they are. No one else is "required" to buy car insurance. Doh!

It's all a bluff by the insurance lobby and their bribery of govt employees to extort purchase of private insurance contracts under duress and threat of robbery, kidnapping or murder by Police State death squads. Duress voids all contracts.

If you don't like freedom, move to Commie China -- they own your mortgage or rental property anyway.

Half of US citizens cannor afford insurance. The only way to require mandatory car insurance is for the govt to pay every person a $50,000 paycheck.

Note that insurance salesman George Gordon admits that only 5% of insurance company revenue is used to pay claims. Attorney and presidential candidate Ralph Nader says insurance executives pay themselves $200,000 per WEEK salary, per person...not counting Warren Buffet, owner of GEICO Govt Employees Insurance Corp, who paid himself $30-BILLION per year, TAX FREE.

Suckas!






Obama’s Claiming More Power Over Americans Than King George III, Says Virginia Attorney General

Terrence P. Jeffrey
CNS News

Virginia Atty. Gen. Ken Cuccinelli, who has filed a federal lawsuit seeking to overturn the health-care law signed by President Barack Obama last March, says Obama and the Congress that enacted that law--which mandates that individuals must buy government-approved health insurance plans--are seeking a power over the lives of Americans that even King George III did not claim to possess.



“We now have a Congress and a president who believe they can order you to buy a product when King George III and the Parliament of Great Britain, whom we rebelled against, acknowledged that they could not,” Cuccinelli said in a video interview with CNSNews.com.

In October, U.S. District Judge Henry E. Hudson heard arguments on the merits of Virginia's case against Obamacare.



Lawyers for the U.S. Justice Department, representing the Obama administration, argued that the federal government derives the power to force individual Americans to buy health insurance from the Commerce Clause of the U.S. Constitution, which authorizes Congress to regulate commerce with foreign nations, among the several states and with Indian tribes. Virginia Solicitor General Duncan Getchell Jr., representing Cuccinelli and the state of Virginia, argued that an individual who does not buy health insurance is not engaging in commerce and that the U.S. government has never before attempted to force individual Americans to buy any good or service.

Judge Hudson said he would issue a decision on the merits of the case by the end of this year. Cuccinelli told CNSNews.com that whichever way the judge rules, one side or the other will appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit and then to the U.S. Supreme Court. Ultimately, the Supreme Court will need to decide whether in fact the Constitution does give the federal government a power it has never exercised before: the power to order individuals to buy things.

Virginia has enacted its own state law--directly countering President Obama’s health-care law--that specifically states that Virginians cannot be forced to buy health insurance.

In his interview with CNSNews.com, Cuccinelli pointed out that the First Continental Congress, convened by the American colonies in 1774, called for a boycott of British goods. When King George III and the British Parliament had the question legally analyzed by the British solicitor general, said Cuccinelli, they discovered that the colonists were within their legal rights to freely decide not to purchase a product—even if the king and Parliament would prefer that they did purchase it.

“When you have a case that’s unprecedented like this,” Cuccinelli said, referring to Virginia’s suit against Obamacare, “you literally span the length and breadth of American history in discussing the meaning of the particular power at issue. And if you go back before 1776, just two years, to 1774, go to the First Continental Congress, delegates from all 13 colonies showed up, signed a document where they ‘cheerfully acknowledged’--their phrase—‘cheerfully acknowledged' the right of the Parliament and the king to regulate their commerce and, in the same document, they boycotted British goods.”

“Go across the Atlantic and King George III and the Parliament aren’t happy about this because their merchants are taking a beating on it, just taking a beating,” said Cuccinelli. “So, of course, they call their lawyer, what everybody does--then, as now, the solicitor general--and they had a conversation and determined that, in fact, the colonists were within their legal rights and that they couldn’t compel them to buy British goods.

“Now, go forward 236 years and you see where I’m going,” said Cuccinelli. “We now have a Congress and a president who believe they can order you to buy a product when King George III and the Parliament of Great Britain, whom we rebelled against, acknowledged that they could not.”

Cuccinelli concluded that it is not possible to believe the Founding Fathers of this country invested the new federal government they created after the American Revolution with a power they had rightfully refused to grant to the British Parliament and king before the revolution.

“Now, Americans endlessly debate the meaning of each part of the Constitution,” said Cuccinelli. “But one thing that every American should be able to agree on, if you think in terms of Venn Diagrams--I was an engineer before I was a lawyer, so I do things like this--the circle of power that represents federal power under the Constitution must be entirely within the circle of power exercised by King George III and the Parliament of Great Britain. Otherwise, why rebel? And, yet, here we have a Congress and a president who are exercising power that even Parliament and King George III acknowledged they did not have.”

Cuccinelli said he believes it will take about two years for Virginia’s suit against Obamacare to reach the Supreme Court. In the meantime, however, U.S. District Judge Hudson could strike the law down as unconstitutional in Virginia as soon as next month.

In a separate case, Florida is representing a group of 20 states that also have sued the federal government claiming Obamacare is unconstitutional.


Press conference and briefs by VA AG vs Al Qaeda Dictator Hussein Obama Soetoro Dark Knight of the British Empire .




Tennessee Code

55-12-106. Exceptions to requirement of security and revocation — Additional acceptable proof of financial security. —
The requirements of security and revocation contained in this chapter shall not apply to:

(1) An operator or owner, if the owner had in effect at the time of the accident, an automobile liability policy or bond with respect to the vehicle involved in the accident, except that an operator shall not be exempt under this subdivision (1) if, at the time of the accident, the vehicle was being operated without the owner's permission, either expressed or implied;

(2) An operator who is not the owner of the vehicle involved in the accident, if there was, in effect at the time of the accident, an automobile liability policy or bond with respect to driving a vehicle not owned by the operator;

(3) An operator or owner whose liability for damages resulting from the accident is, in the judgment of the commissioner, covered by another form of liability insurance policy or bond;

(4) Any owner qualifying as a self-insurer or to any operator of a vehicle owned by a person qualifying as a self-insurer as outlined in § 55-12-111;

(5) Any operator or owner of a motor vehicle involved in an accident wherein no injury or damage was caused to the person or property of anyone other than the operator or owner;

(6) An owner of a motor vehicle, if at the time of the accident the vehicle was being operated without the owner's permission, either expressed or implied, or was parked by a person who had been operating the motor vehicle without permission;

(7) Any owner or operator who shall submit, on or before the date of revocation, proof satisfactory to the commissioner of acceptance of liability for the accident and an agreement concerning the payment of damages satisfactory to all parties claiming damages. This exemption shall not apply, however, if the owner or operator fails to carry out the terms of the agreement. The commissioner may at any time within three (3) years after the accident, upon notice of such failure, take any action that might have been taken had the agreement not been made;

(8) Vehicles owned by the United States, this state or any political subdivision of this state or any municipality therein, or to the operator of any vehicle so owned, when the vehicle is involved in an accident;

(9) Any vehicle owned and operated by a carrier subject to the jurisdiction of the department of safety or the interstate commerce commission;

(10) Any person licensed and engaged in the business of renting or leasing motor vehicles to be operated on the public highways shall be required only to furnish proof of financial ability to satisfy any judgment or judgments rendered against the person in the person's capacity as owner of the motor vehicle, and shall not be required to furnish proof of its financial ability to satisfy any judgment or judgments rendered against the person to whom the motor vehicle was rented or leased at the time of the accident;

(11) A driver or owner of a vehicle that, at the time of the accident, was parked, unless the vehicle was parked at a place where parking at the time of the accident was prohibited by any applicable law or ordinance, or unless the vehicle was parked in an otherwise unlawful manner;

(12) Any person employed by the government of the United States, while the person is acting within the scope of the office or employment and is involved in a motor vehicle accident;

(13) An owner or operator of any vehicle where there is no physical contact with another vehicle or object or person, unless a judgment has been obtained;

(14) A driver or owner of a vehicle who has submitted to the commissioner on or before the date of revocation notarized releases executed by all parties who have previously filed claims with the department as a result of the accident; or

(15) Any person who has obtained a discharge in bankruptcy that discharged all claims against the person because of the accident listed in the petition; provided, that the discharge shall not relieve the person from the requirements of giving and maintaining proof of financial responsibility as required by § 55-12-126, and the person must pay a restoration fee of sixty-five dollars ($65.00) and pass the driver license examination.

55-12-105. Security deposit following accident — Acceptable proof of financial security — Revocation of registration or operating privileges for failure to deposit security — Notice — Appeal. —

(a) The commissioner shall, upon receiving an accident report of an accident occurring in this state that has resulted in bodily injury, or death, or damage to the property of any one (1) person in excess of four hundred dollars ($400), and upon determining that there is a reasonable possibility of a judgment against the owner, operator, or both, and upon receiving notice of a claim filed against the owner, operator, or both, revoke the license and shall request the commissioner of revenue to immediately revoke all registrations of the owner, operator, or both, of a motor vehicle involved in the accident, and in case of a nonresident, the privilege of operating a motor vehicle within this state and of the use within this state of any motor vehicle owned by the nonresident, unless the operator, owner, or both, deposits security in a sum that shall be sufficient in the judgment of the commissioner, and in no event less than five hundred dollars ($500), to satisfy any judgment or judgments resulting from the accident that may be recovered against the operator, owner, or both.

(b) The following, and only the following, shall be acceptable proof of financial security:

(1) Filing of written proof of insurance coverage with the commissioner on forms approved by the commissioner;

(2) The deposit of cash with the commissioner of no less than the amount specified in § 55-12-102, or in the total amount of all damages suffered, whichever is less, subject to a minimum deposit of five hundred dollars ($500);

(3) The execution and filing of a bond with the commissioner of no less than the amount specified in § 55-12-102, or in the total amount of all damages suffered, whichever is less, subject to a minimum bond of five hundred dollars ($500); or

(4) The submission to the commissioner of notarized releases executed by all parties who had previously filed claims with the department as a result of the accident.

(c) Any notice of revocation issued under this section shall be sent by United States mail to the last known address of the operator and owner not less than twenty (20) days prior to the effective date of revocation, and shall state the amount required as security, and that the operator, owner, or both are entitled to an administrative hearing conducted by the commissioner of safety or the commissioner's delegate pursuant to a request under § 55-12-103(a). Any request for an administrative hearing must be submitted in writing on or before the effective date of the proposed revocation.

55-12-111. Self-insurers. —

(a) Any person in whose name more than twenty-five (25) vehicles are registered may qualify as a self-insurer by obtaining a certificate of self-insurance from the commissioner as provided in subsection (c).

(b) Any recognized religious sect or division having established tenets or teachings and that has been in existence at all times since December 31, 1950, may qualify as a self-insurer by obtaining a certificate of self-insurance from the commissioner as provided in subsection (c) if the department determines that all of the following conditions are met:

(1) Members of the religious sect or division operate more than twenty-five (25) motor vehicles that are registered in this state and are either owned or leased by them;

(2) The members hold a common belief in mutual financial assistance in time of need to the extent that they share in financial obligations of other members who would otherwise be unable to meet their obligations;

(3) The religious sect or division is financially solvent and not subject to any actions in bankruptcy, trusteeship, receivership or any other court proceeding in which the sect or division's financial solvency is in question;

(4) Neither the religious sect or division nor any of its participating members has any judgments arising out of the operation, maintenance or use of a motor vehicle taken against them that have remained unsatisfied for more than thirty (30) days after becoming final; and

(5) There are no other factors that cause the department to believe that the religious sect or division and its members are not of sufficient financial ability to pay judgments taken against them.

(c) The commissioner has the discretion, upon the application of the person or religious sect or division, to issue a certificate of self-insurance when satisfied that the person or religious sect or division is possessed and will continue to be possessed of an ability to pay any judgments that might be rendered against the person or religious sect or division.

(d) The commissioner may, at any time after the issuance of a certificate of self-insurance, cancel the certificate by giving thirty (30) days' written notice of cancellation should there be reason to believe that the person or religious sect or division to whom this certificate was issued is no longer qualified as a self-insurer under this section.




December 2010 Report: Blount County sheriff has no liability insurance on fleet of 300 cars

by Commissioner Jim Folts

Budget Committee 12/6/2010 - Budget options presented - still no decisions. $2.6 million problem in the insurance fund.

Last month Finance Director Jennings gave a presentation to the Budget Committee describing the serious financial problems faced by the County. The Finance Director asked the Budget Committee (Commissioners Lail, Melton, Lewis and Samples) for guidance in preparing the budget for the next fiscal year, which starts in June. His question was pretty simple. Should he prepare a budget that cuts expenses and people from the County payroll, or should he prepare a budget that includes a major (nearly 20 percent) increase in taxes. The Budget Committee avoided giving Mr. Jennings an answer. Instead, they asked him to prepare several "budget options" with different levels of spending cuts and tax increases.

At this month's Budget Committee meeting, the Mr. Jennings returned with four budget options, ranging from one which holds the existing tax rate and makes significant cuts to the County budget, to a 'business as usual' option that results in nearly a 20 percent tax increase. Once again, the Finance Director asked for guidance in preparing next year's budget.

The discussion in the Budget Committee was interesting. Concerns were voiced about cutting county workers. Concerns were voiced about asking County workers to contribute $50 per month to their medical plan costs (they currently contribute nothing). Comments were made about deeper cuts in the schools. Yet, not a word was voiced about closer scrutiny of other large budgets, like the Sheriff's department.

And, no one mentioned the terrible impact a major tax increase could have on the citizens of the County. Nearly 30 percent of the real estate transactions in the county involve foreclosed homes and properties. Ten percent of our citizens are unemployed. Nearly 20 percent of our citizens are on Food Stamps. A major tax increase will increase foreclosures and cause more small businesses to fail, further increasing unemployment. There is really no viable alternative to cutting the budget. Unfortunately, the Budget Committee again put off any decision until January.

Finance Director Jennings also brought another major financial problem to this meeting. The county self-insures for liability and workers compensation. It seems that our previous Financial Director did not do the actuarial reviews necessary to assure that there was enough money in these funds to pay our insurance claims. Worse, during the previous administration, nearly $900,000 in accounting "errors" were made in calculating the amount of money in these funds. These errors went undetected by the state auditors, until this year. After Jennings reviewed all these matters, he discovered there is no money in these funds, and it will take an injection of $2.6 million of taxpayers' hard earned money to make these funds sound. This led Commissioner Samples to openly wonder why the County is in the self-insurance business at all. Clearly, the County has not been managing their self-insurance very well.

A $40,000 budget transfer from the Civil Defense department to the Sheriff's department was discussed. It seems that the head of the Civil Defense department is a former Sheriff's deputy. He told the Commission he wanted the budget for his salary to be transferred to the Sheriff's department. He said this was necessary so that he could maintain his POST certification. He also said he would somehow continue to report to the Mayor, even though he would now be paid by the Sheriff. This sets a terrible precedent. Having a person paid out of one group, but responsible to a different group is something most well-run organizations try to avoid like the plague. Who evaluates the employee's performance? Who does the employee take orders from - the person who pays him, or the person who he is supposed to report to? Even worse, changing organizational structures and budgets to suit the convenience of an employee, makes no sense at all. Despite all these problems, the Commission voted to take this matter up at the Commission meeting. I was the only dissenting vote.

Commission Meeting 12/16/2010 – Canceled

The Courthouse was closed due to weather on Monday, December 13 and Thursday December 16. This resulted in the cancellation of the Commission meeting. If we are to address the pressing financial issues facing us, we certainly need to find a greater sense of urgency.




German insurer Munich Re held orgy for salesmen

By Stephen Evans
BBC News, Berlin
20 May 2011

The biggest insurance company in the world held a party for salesmen where they were rewarded with the services of prostitutes.

Munich Re is the world's biggest re-insurer - in other words, the company acts as an insurance company for other insurance companies.

One of its divisions, Ergo, told the BBC that the party had taken place to reward salesmen in 2007.

A spokesman said the people who organised it had since left to work at other insurance companies.

The gathering was held at a thermal baths in the Hungarian capital Budapest as a reward to particularly successful salesmen.

'Whatever they liked'

There were about 100 guests and 20 prostitutes were hired.

A German business newspaper said the prostitutes had worn colour-coded arm-bands designating their availability, and the women had their arms stamped after each service rendered.

According to Handelsblatt, quoting an unnamed participant, guests were able to take the women to four-poster beds at the spa "and do whatever they liked".

"After each such encounter the women were stamped on the lower arm in order to keep track of how often each woman was frequented," the paper quoted the man as saying.

"The women wore red and yellow wrist bands. One lot were hostesses, the others would fulfil your every wish.

"There were also women with white wrist bands. They were reserved for board members and the very best sales reps."

A spokesman for Ergo told the BBC that the party had happened, but said it was not the usual way of rewarding their employees.

The company said it had introduced a new code of conduct.

"We've taken all the right steps to prevent getting caught again," he said. "It was a mistake but we are very sure that we will keep our secrets in the future.

"The new people of the sales organisation introduced a very personal commitment that getting caught should not happen again."




Obamacare solicitor general: If you don't like mandate, earn less money*

*or work for corporations that paid bribes for Obamacare waivers

06/02/11

President Obama's solicitor general, defending the national health care law on Wednesday, told a federal appeals court that Americans who didn't like the individual mandate could always avoid it by choosing to earn less money.

Neal Kumar Katyal, the acting solicitor general, made the argument under questioning before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit in Cincinnati, which was considering an appeal by the Thomas More Law Center. (Listen to oral arguments here.) The three-judge panel, which was comprised of two Republican-appointed judges and a Democratic-appointed judge, expressed more skepticism about the government's defense of the health care law than the Fourth Circuit panel that heard the Virginia-based Obamacare challenge last month in Richmond. The Fourth Circuit panel was made up entirely of Democrats, and two of the judges were appointed by Obama himself.

During the Sixth Circuit arguments, Judge Jeffrey Sutton, who was nominated by President George W. Bush, asked Kaytal if he could name one Supreme Court case which considered the same question as the one posed by the mandate, in which Congress used the Commerce Clause of the U.S. Constitution as a tool to compel action.

Kaytal conceded that the Supreme Court had “never been confronted directly” with the question, but cited the Heart of Atlanta Motel case as a relevant example. In that landmark 1964 civil rights case, the Court ruled that Congress could use its Commerce Clause power to bar discrimination by private businesses such as hotels and restaurants.

“They’re in the business,” Sutton pushed back. “They’re told if you’re going to be in the business, this is what you have to do. In response to that law, they could have said, ‘We now exit the business.’ Individuals don’t have that option.”

Kaytal responded by noting that the there's a provision in the health care law that allows people to avoid the mandate.

“If we’re going to play that game, I think that game can be played here as well, because after all, the minimum coverage provision only kicks in after people have earned a minimum amount of income,” Kaytal said. “So it’s a penalty on earning a certain amount of income and self insuring. It’s not just on self insuring on its own. So I guess one could say, just as the restaurant owner could depart the market in Heart of Atlanta Motel, someone doesn’t need to earn that much income. I think both are kind of fanciful and I think get at…”

Sutton interjected, “That wasn’t in a single speech given in Congress about this...the idea that the solution if you don’t like it is make a little less money.”

The so-called “hardship exemption” in the health care law is limited, and only applies to people who cannot obtain insurance for less than 8 percent of their income. So earning less isn't necessarily a solution, because it could then qualify the person for government-subsidized insurance which could make their contribution to premiums fall below the 8 percent threshold.

Throughout the oral arguments, Kaytal struggled to respond to the panel's concerns about what the limits of Congressional power would be if the courts ruled that they have the ability under the Commerce Clause to force individuals to purchase something.

Sutton said it would it be “hard to see this limit” in Congressional power if the mandate is upheld, and he honed in on the word “regulate” in the Commerce clause, explaining that the word implies you're in a market. “You don’t put them in the market to regulate them,” he said.

In arguments before the Fourth Circuit last month, Kaytal also struggled with a judge's question about what to do with the word “regulate,” to the point where the judge asked him to sit down to come up with an answer. (More on that exchange here). Kaytal has fallen back on the Necessary and Proper clause, insisting that it gives broader leeway to Congress.

Judge James Graham, a Reagan district court appointee who is temporarily hearing cases on the appeals court, said, “I hear your arguments about the power of Congress under the Commerce Clause, and I’m having difficulty seeing how there is any limit to the power as you’re defining it.”

Kaytal responded by referencing United States v. Morrison, in which the Supreme Court struck down parts of the Violence Against Women Act, and United States v. Lopez, which struck down gun free school zones. In those cases, Kaytal responded, the Supreme Court set the limit that the Commerce Clause had to regulate economic activities.

The health care market is unique, Kaytal insisted, because everybody will eventually participate. With the mandate, Kaytal said, “What Congress is regulating is not the failure to buy something. But failure to secure financing for something everyone is going to buy.”

Graham acknowledged Kaytal's arguments, yet reiterated that he was “having trouble seeing the limits.”

The problem with the “health care is unique” argument – and this is me talking – is that it just creates an opening for future Congresses to regulate all sorts of things by either a) arguing that a particular market is also special or b) finding a way to tie a given regulation to health care.

For instance, the example that's come up often is the idea of a law in which government forces individuals to eat broccoli.

During the Sixth Circuit argument, Kaytal said that such an example doesn't apply, because if you show up at a grocery store, nobody has to give you broccoli, whereas that is the case with health care and hospital emergency rooms.

Yet that argument assumes that Congress passes such a law as a regulation of the food market. What if the law was made as part of a regulation of the health care market? It isn't difficult to see where that argument can go.

The broccoli example is really a proxy for a broader argument about whether the government can compel individuals to engage in healthy behavior – it could just as well be eating salad, or exercising. There's no doubt that a huge driver of our nation's health care costs are illnesses linked to bad behavior. People who are overweight and out of shape cost more because they have increased risk of heart disease, diabetes, and so on. Those increased costs get passed on to all of us, because government pays for nearly half of the nation's health care expenses, a number that's set to grow under the new health care law. Is it really unrealistic to believe that future Congresses, looking for ways to control health care costs, could compel healthy behavior in some way? More pertinently, is there any reason why that would be unconstiutional under the precedent that would be set if the individual mandate is upheld?

With most experts expecting the case to go before the Supreme Court, it seems the biggest obstacle for the Obama administration is figuring out where power would be limited if the mandate were upheld. Those challenging the law have made a clear and understandable limit by drawing a distinction between regulating activity and regulating inactivity (i.e. the decision not to purchase insurance). But simply saying the health care market is unique doesn't actually create a very clear or understandable limit to Congressional power.

The 11th Circuit hears the case next week brought by 26 states led by Florida.






Healthcare overhaul fight in pivotal Atlanta court

By The Associated Press
June 08, 2011

ATLANTA (AP) - The latest round in the fight over President Barack Obama's health care overhaul was held Wednesday in the federal appeals court in Atlanta.

A three-judge panel of the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals heard oral arguments on whether to reverse a Florida judge's ruling that struck down the law. The judges seemed receptive to arguments from critics challenging the health reforms as unconstitutional during the three-hour hearing.

Some 26 states opposing the law and an alliance of small businesses argue that Congress didn't have the power to require virtually all Americans to maintain health insurance. The Justice Department says the legislative branch exercised its "quintessential" right.

A three-judge federal appeals court panel in Cincinnati heard arguments last week about whether the law's mandate to buy health insurance went beyond congressional authority, and a federal appeals court based in Richmond, Va. heard oral arguments May 10 in another legal challenge to the law.

Lawyers on both sides have said the cases ultimately will be decided by the U.S. Supreme Court. But the appeal court panel's decision in Atlanta is being closely watched and could help shape the debate.

There's considerable legal firepower on both sides of the argument. Former U.S. Solicitor Paul Clement represents the challenging states and current U.S. Solicitor Neal Katyal will speak for the government.

It unfolded in what's considered one of the nation's most conservative appeals courts. But the randomly selected panel includes two appointees of Democratic President Bill Clinton, and observers say it's hard to predict how they'll decide. The Clinton appointees are circuit Judges Frank Hull and Stanley Marcus, while Chief Judge Joel Dubina was tapped by President George H.W. Bush.

Two similar lawsuits are pending in Virginia. Three federal judges, all Democratic appointees, have upheld the law. Two federal judges, both Republican appointees, have invalidated it.

At issue Wednesday is a ruling by U.S. District Judge Roger Vinson, a Republican-appointed judge in Florida. It not only struck down a requirement that nearly all Americans carry health insurance, but it threw out other provisions ranging from Medicare discounts for some seniors to a change that allows adult children up to age 26 to remain on their parents' coverage.

A crush of people gathered outside the 11th Circuit nearly three hours before the arguments were held to guarantee a spot, and the court opened an adjoining courtroom for the spillover crowd. The courtroom was packed with high-profile attorneys and politicians, including Georgia Attorney General Sam Olens, who sat in the front row.

The court also decided to temporarily suspend some of its own rules to sell $26 audiotapes of the arguments to those who want recordings of the court sessions.

Outside the federal courthouse in Atlanta, about 75 people gathered on the sidewalk carrying signs ranging from "Hands off my health care" to "No taxpayer funded abortion" and "Throw the socialist out of the White House." No chanting was permitted. One woman who repeated "No more Tea Party" was escorted away by a courthouse security officer.



Private "U.S." Postal Service proposes cutting 120,000 jobs, pulling out of Obamacare health-care plan

August 11, 2011

SEATTLE — The financially strapped U.S. Postal Service is proposing to cut its workforce by 20 percent and to withdraw from the federal health and retirement plans because it believes it could provide benefits at a lower cost.

The layoffs would be achieved in part by breaking labor agreements, a proposal that drew swift fire from postal unions. The plan would require congressional approval but, if successful, could be precedent-setting, with possible ripple effects throughout government. It would also deliver a major blow to the nation’s labor movement.

In a notice informing employees of its proposals — with the headline “Financial crisis calls for significant actions” — the Postal Service said, “We will be insolvent next month due to significant declines in mail volume and retiree health benefit pre-funding costs imposed by Congress.”

During the past four years, the service lost $20 billion, including $8.5 billion in fiscal 2010. Over that period, mail volume dropped by 20 percent.

The USPS plan is described in two draft documents obtained by The Washington Post. A “Workforce Optimization” paper acknowledges its “extraordinary request” to break its labor contracts.

“However, exceptional circumstances require exceptional remedies,” the document says.

“The Postal Service is facing dire economic challenges that threaten its very existence. . . . If the Postal Service was a private sector business, it would have filed for bankruptcy and utilized the reorganization process to restructure its labor agreements to reflect the new financial reality,” the document continues.

In a white paper on health and retirement benefits, the USPS said it was imperative to rein in health benefit and pension costs, which are a third of its labor expenses.

For health insurance plans, the paper said, the Postal Service wanted to withdraw its 480,000 pensioners and 600,000 active employees from the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program “and place them in a new, Postal Service administered” program.

Almost identical language is used for the Civil Service Retirement System and the Federal Employees Retirement System.

The USPS said the programs do not meet “the private sector comparability standard,” a statement that could be translated as meaning that government plans are too generous and too costly.

“FEHB may exceed what the private sector does in certain areas,” said Anthony J. Vegliante, USPS chief human resources officer and executive vice president. “It may not meet what the private sector does in other areas. So cost may be above the private sector, while value may be below the private sector.”

Bills that would rein in employee benefits or have workers pay more for the benefits have been introduced in Congress and met with vigorous opposition from federal employee organizations. Intentionally or not, the Postal Service’s proposal provides support for such legislative initiatives.

The proposals are the USPS’s latest money-saving effort in a series of moves, some as recent as a few weeks ago and others stretching over a decade.




ObamaCare Ban Verdict Sets Up Supreme Court Review

A federal appeals court struck down as unconstitutional the central provision of President Barack Obama’s health-care law requiring most Americans get coverage, bringing the 2010 act ever-closer to the U.S. Supreme Court.

The 2 to 1 ruling is in direct conflict with an earlier decision by a federal appeals panel in Cincinnati, which upheld the individual mandate. The provision exceeds Congress’s power to regulate commerce, a U.S. appeals panel in Atlanta ruled today, affirming in part a lower court in a suit by 26 states.

“This guarantees that the Supreme Court will rule on the constitutionality of the individual mandate, and makes it very likely that the court’s ruling will come by the end of June 2012,” said Kevin Walsh, an assistant professor at the University of Richmond School of Law in Virginia.

The U.S. Supreme Court often decides to accept cases where two or more of the federal appeals courts are in disagreement. Plaintiffs in the Cincinnati case have already asked the high court to review that ruling. A third federal appeals panel in Richmond has heard arguments in two cases brought over the health care law and has yet to rule.

In today’s ruling, the majority wrote that the “mandate represents a wholly novel and potentially unbounded assertion of congressional authority.” The law requires “Americans to purchase an expensive health insurance product they have elected not to buy, and to make them repurchase that insurance product every month for their entire lives.”

While throwing out the mandate, the panel overruled the lower court’s decision in that case to reject the entire health care law as a result.

‘Fully Operative’

“Excising the individual mandate from the act does not prevent the remaining provisions from being fully operative as a law,” Chief U.S. Circuit Judge Joel Dubina, a Republican appointee, and U.S. Circuit Judge Frank M. Hull, a Democratic appointee, wrote. Hull is the first judge appointed by a Democratic president to rule against the law. Dissenting in part, U.S. Circuit Judge Stanley Marcus, a Republican appointee, said he would have upheld the act in its entirety.

Stephanie Cutter, a deputy senior adviser to Obama, said in an Internet posting that “we strongly disagree with this decision and we are confident it will not stand.”

“The individual responsibility provision -- the main part of the law at issue in these cases -- is constitutional,” Cutter said. “Those who claim this provision exceeds Congress’ power to regulate interstate commerce are incorrect.”

‘Strongly Disagree’

“The Department of Justice believes -- as the Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit held, and the dissenting judge in the Eleventh Circuit concluded -- that the Affordable Care Act is constitutional,” the Justice Department said in an e-mailed statement. “We strongly disagree with the court’s decision.” The government said it’s considering the “next appropriate steps.”

The U.S. may seek a rehearing by the three-judge panel, the full U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit or petition the U.S. Supreme Court. The mandate provision isn’t scheduled to take effect until 2014.

Florida Attorney General Pam Bondi, a Republican, said in an e-mailed statement today that the “ruling by the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals upholds our position that the federal health care law exceeds Congress’ power.''

The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act was signed into law on March 23, 2010.

Then-Florida Attorney General Bill McCollum sued the same day on behalf of his state and a dozen others. Thirteen more states signed on later. The health-care act bars insurers from denying coverage to people who are sick and from imposing lifetime limits on costs. It requires almost all Americans 18 and over to obtain coverage.

Exceeded Its Power

The Atlanta court upheld portions of U.S. District Judge C. Roger Vinson’s ruling in Pensacola, Florida, that Congress exceeded its power in requiring that almost every American obtain insurance starting in 2014.

The U.S. has called the mandatory-coverage provision the linchpin of the statute because it will add younger and healthier people to the pool of the insured population, making the program viable for insurers.

Vinson on Jan. 31 ruled that Congress exceeded its powers under the U.S.
Constitution’s commerce clause when it created the requirement. Concluding that the mandate was integral to the rest of the legislation, he invalidated the entire act.
The Obama administration appealed Vinson’s ruling to the Eleventh Circuit. The three-judge panel, comprising two judges nominated by Republican President Ronald Reagan and one picked by Democratic President Bill Clinton, heard argument on June 8.

‘Most Difficult Issue’

“The most difficult issue in the case is the individual mandate,” Dubina, first nominated to the federal bench by Reagan in 1986, said at the start of the June 8 session in Atlanta. Reagan named Marcus in 1985. Hull was a 1994 Clinton nominee.

“The question you have before you is that everyone is consuming the goods; it’s about failure to pay,” Acting U.S. Solicitor General Neal Katyal told the panel during the oral argument. The solicitor general is the Justice Department’s top courtroom attorney.

“The Commerce Clause only gives Congress the power to regulate, not to compel,” states’ attorney Paul D. Clement, a solicitor general under President George W. Bush, told the court later.

U.S. Circuit Judge Marcus, in his dissenting opinion in today’s decision in Atlanta, said that while he agreed with the majority in reversing Vinson’s invalidation of the entire act, he would have upheld the mandate provision too.

‘Close Relationship’

“By ignoring the close relationship between the health insurance and health care services markets, the plaintiffs and the majority seek to avoid the hard fact that the uninsured as a class are actively consuming substantial quantities of health care services now -- not just next week, next month, or next year,” Marcus wrote, making them active participants in interstate commerce subject to federal regulation.

The Cincinnati-based U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, in its 2-1 ruling on June 29, became the first appellate panel to rule in favor of the law. The court affirmed a Detroit federal judge’s decision last year to throw out a challenge by the Ann Arbor, Michigan-based Thomas More Law Center, a Christian-based public interest law firm which has sought review by the U.S. Supreme Court.

“Not every intrusive law is an unconstitutionally intrusive law,” U.S. Circuit Judge Jeffrey Sutton, the first Republican-appointed judge to back the law in litigation across the country, said in the majority opinion.

Party Lines

Lower-court rulings have broken entirely along party lines, with federal judges appointed by Republican presidents invalidating the mandate and those appointed by Democrats upholding it.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit in Richmond on May 10 heard the Obama administration’s challenge to a lower court ruling that sided with Virginia attorney general Kenneth Cuccinelli, who filed a separate suit the same day as McCollum.

U.S. District Judge Henry Hudson in Richmond, appointed by Bush, a Republican, had struck down the individual mandate as unconstitutional while leaving the rest of the act standing.

The Richmond panel also heard an appeal by Lynchburg, Virginia-based Liberty University, which sought to reverse the another judge’s dismissal of its challenge to the law. That ruling was by Judge Norman K. Moon, who was selected by Clinton.
The appellate panel hasn’t yet rendered a decision.

The case is State of Florida v. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, 11-11021, U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit (Atlanta).



SCOTUS for law students: An introduction to jurisdiction and remedies, through the lens of the health care cases

Constitutional law cases are often flanked by important disputes over procedure and process. These disputes can take the form of threshold questions, such as whether the Court has jurisdiction to decide a case, or they can appear as questions of remedy that arise at the case’s back end, such as whether the Court can simply carve out an unconstitutional provision of a complex statute.

These issues currently flank the debate over the constitutionality of the Affordable Care Act, a topic on which the Court will hear oral argument in the spring, with a decision expected to follow in early summer. Both issues highlight the fact that constitutional litigation is often much more complex than just the central issue in a case of whether a right has been violated. Establishing jurisdiction is always a critical step, and identifying the appropriate remedy for a constitutional wrong is often challenging.


Consider the appeals over the individual mandate, a centerpiece of the law passed by Congress last year, which requires that virtually all persons in the United States have health insurance by 2014 and assesses a penalty on those who do not have medical coverage. The penalty would be collected through federal income tax returns beginning in 2015.

The constitutionality of the individual mandate has been challenged by individuals, states, and organizations. They argue that Congress exceeded its power to regulate interstate commerce when it passed the health care law that requires individuals to choose between buying insurance they may not want or paying a penalty. That question about the scope of Congress’s power under the Constitution is the heart of the legal battle over the health care law. While the Sixth and D.C. Circuits have agreed with the federal government that Congress indeed has such power, the Supreme Court has agreed to hear an appeal from the Eleventh Circuit’s holding that Congress lacked the authority to compel individuals to purchase health insurance.

Before the Court can ever get to the heart of a matter, however, the Justices must always decide whether they have jurisdiction – a determination that the case is in the right court, ready for decision without any legal impediments.

In the case of the health care law, this question turns on whether a federal law called the Anti-Injunction Act applies to the health care law. The relevant portion of the Anti-Injunction Act, passed by Congress nearly 150 years ago, says that no federal court has jurisdiction to stop the collection of a federal tax before that tax goes into effect. As a practical matter, this means that the proper way to challenge the constitutionality of a federal tax is to pay the levy first and then to question the validity of the tax while suing for a refund. If the Anti-Injunction Act applies, then the Supreme Court may have to say that there is no authority for any federal court to rule on the individual mandate until the first penalties are paid in 2015.

But does the Anti-Injunction Act apply? Congress repeatedly referred to the payment by those who fail to buy health insurance as a penalty, not a tax; moreover, it used the term “tax” in other provisions of the health care law to refer to other forms of revenue collection. Yet, the collection of the penalty would be administered through the Internal Revenue Service and paid on federal income tax returns. So it may not be a tax, but if it is a penalty that operates much like a tax, should it be covered by the Anti-Injunction Act?

The Obama Administration actually changed its position on that question. When the health care law was hit with a flood of lawsuits soon after President Obama signed the legislation, the Justice Department argued in federal district courts that the lawsuits were barred by the Anti-Injunction Act. But as the cases moved into the federal courts of appeals, the Justice Department no longer pressed that argument, maintaining that the penalty in the health care law could be distinguished from the kinds of tax collections for which the Anti-Injunction Act bars jurisdiction. Of the four federal appeals courts to rule on the Affordable Care Act, only the Fourth Circuit held that the penalty was covered by the Anti-Injunction Act and that it therefore could not reach the question of Congressional power. This view was also advanced at length in the D.C. Circuit in a solo dissenting opinion by Judge Brett M. Kavanaugh.

As part of its consideration of the individual mandate, the Supreme Court has also said it will consider whether and how the Anti-Injunction Act applies to the case. Because the Justice Department no longer argues that there is a jurisdiction problem, and because the parties challenging the law believe that Congress asserted its power under the Commerce Clause rather than its taxing power, there is no one in the case to defend the position that the Anti-Injunction Act should apply. As a result, the Supreme Court had to appoint a lawyer, Robert Long of the Washington, D.C. firm of Covington and Burling, to argue that the Anti-Injunction Act applies and deprives the Court of jurisdiction to review the individual mandate until 2015.

Another critical facet of constitutional litigation is the question of the appropriate remedy. When confronting unconstitutional legislation, should the Court try to excise the invalid provisions and save the rest of the legislation? In legal jargon, this is the issue of severability – whether one invalid piece of a law can be cut out and the rest left intact.

Should the Supreme Court make it past jurisdiction and get to the constitutionality of the individual mandate, the Justices face the severability issue, if they are inclined to strike down the provision requiring everyone to have health care or pay a penalty. Since the Eleventh Circuit was the only appeals court to strike down the health insurance requirement, it was also the only appeals court to decide that the invalid part of the law could be excised and the rest left in place. The test applied by the Eleventh Circuit may be simply summarized: would Congress have passed the law anyway without the part that is unconstitutional? But summarizing the test is far easier than answering the question it poses.

There are certainly important components of the Affordable Care Act that can be supported as important reforms in their own right – for example, provisions that limit an insurer’s ability to decline coverage for pre-existing conditions and young adults to remain on their parents’ policies, if necessary, until age twenty-five. If one of the main goals of the new law was to guarantee that everyone have health insurance, however, the individual mandate is integral to achieving that purpose. Moreover, the individual mandate was necessary to add people to the insurance rolls and revenue to the insurance coffers to spread out the cost of covering additional medical care.

Would Congress have passed the Affordable Care Act without the individual mandate? The Supreme Court has said it will consider that question, as well, as it rules on the law. And again, because no one involved in the case is defending the Eleventh Circuit’s position that the provision can be severed, the Justices appointed another lawyer, H. Bartow Farr III of the Washington, D.C. firm of Farr and Taranto, to argue that severability is the correct remedy if the individual mandate is ruled unconstitutional.

Just deciding the question of whether the health care law is constitutional would be a momentous decision for the Justices, but tackling the other issues that come with the case puts the Court on a twisting path of constitutional issues surrounded by important matters of process and procedure.







Dictator Obama's Secretary of War Vinnie Da Chin Panetta and the Pentagram Joints Chief Of Operation Northwoods testified to Congress yesterday that Obama takes his orders to invade from United Nations and NATO, not Congress.

This is the equivalent ot Caesar crossing the Rubicon with his military to invade Rome under martial law, resulting in civil war, and 5 years later every member of the Roman Senate stabbing Caesar in the back...literally on the Ides Of March (next week...).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Julius_Caesar
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crossing_the_rubicon



ATICLES OF IMPEACHMENT RESOLUTION 2012


H.CON.RES.107 -- Expressing the sense of Congress that the use of offensive military force by a President without prior and clear authorization of an Act of Congress constitutes an impeachable high... (Introduced in House - IH)

HCON 107 IH

112th CONGRESS

2d Session
H. CON. RES. 107

Expressing the sense of Congress that the use of offensive military force by a President without prior and clear authorization of an Act of Congress constitutes an impeachable high crime and misdemeanor under article II, section 4 of the Constitution.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

March 7, 2012

Mr. JONES submitted the following concurrent resolution; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

Expressing the sense of Congress that the use of offensive military force by a President without prior and clear authorization of an Act of Congress constitutes an impeachable high crime and misdemeanor under article II, section 4 of the Constitution.

Whereas the cornerstone of the Republic is honoring Congress's exclusive power to declare war under article I, section 8, clause 11 of the Constitution: Now, therefore, be it

Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate concurring), That it is the sense of Congress that, except in response to an actual or imminent attack against the territory of the United States, the use of offensive military force by a President without prior and clear authorization of an Act of Congress violates Congress's exclusive power to declare war under article I, section 8, clause 11 of the Constitution and therefore constitutes an impeachable high crime and misdemeanor under article II, section 4 of the Constitution.



Coup D’etat: Pentagon & Obama Declare Congress Ceremonial

Defense Secretary Leon Panetta’s testimony asserting that the United Nations and NATO have supreme authority over the actions of the United States military, words which effectively declare Congress a ceremonial relic, have prompted Congressman Walter Jones to introduce a resolution that re-affirms such behavior as an “impeachable high crime and misdemeanor” under the Constitution.

During a Senate Armed Services Committee hearing yesterday, Panetta and Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Gen. Martin Dempsey brazenly admitted that their authority comes not from the U.S. Constitution, but that the United States is subservient to and takes its marching orders from the United Nations and NATO, international bodies over which the American people have no democratic influence.

Panetta was asked by Senator Jeff Sessions, “We spend our time worrying about the U.N., the Arab League, NATO and too little time, in my opinion, worrying about the elected representatives of the United States. As you go forward, will you consult with the United States Congress?”

The Defense Secretary responded “You know, our goal would be to seek international permission. And we would come to the Congress and inform you and determine how best to approach this, whether or not we would want to get permission from the Congress.”

Despite Sessions’ repeated efforts to get Panetta to acknowledge that the United States Congress is supreme to the likes of NATO and the UN, Panetta exalted the power of international bodies over the US legislative branch.

“I’m really baffled by the idea that somehow an international assembly provides a legal basis for the United States military to be deployed in combat,” Sessions said. “I don’t believe it’s close to being correct. They provide no legal authority. The only legal authority that’s required to deploy the United States military is of the Congress and the president and the law and the Constitution.”

In an effort to re-affirm the fact that “the use of offensive military force by a President without prior and clear authorization of an Act of Congress constitutes an impeachable high crime and misdemeanor under article II, section 4 of the Constitution,” Republican Congressman Walter Jones has introduced a resolution in the House of Representatives.



Pentagon Launches Desperate Damage Control Over Shocking Panetta Testimony

The Pentagon is engaging in damage control after shocking testimony yesterday by Defense Secretary Leon Panetta at a Senate Armed Services Committee congressional hearing during which it was confirmed that the U.S. government is now completely beholden to international power structures and that the legislative branch is a worthless relic.

During the hearing yesterday Panetta and Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Gen. Martin Dempsey brazenly admitted that their authority comes not from the U.S. Constitution, but that the United States is subservient to and takes its marching orders from the United Nations and NATO, international bodies over which the American people have no democratic influence.

Panetta was asked by Senator Jeff Sessions, “We spend our time worrying about the U.N., the Arab League, NATO and too little time, in my opinion, worrying about the elected representatives of the United States. As you go forward, will you consult with the United States Congress?”

The Defense Secretary responded “You know, our goal would be to seek international permission. And we would come to the Congress and inform you and determine how best to approach this, whether or not we would want to get permission from the Congress.”

Despite Sessions’ repeated efforts to get Panetta to acknowledge that the United States Congress is supreme to the likes of NATO and the UN, Panetta exalted the power of international bodies over the US legislative branch.

“I’m really baffled by the idea that somehow an international assembly provides a legal basis for the United States military to be deployed in combat,” Sessions said. “I don’t believe it’s close to being correct. They provide no legal authority. The only legal authority that’s required to deploy the United States military is of the Congress and the president and the law and the Constitution.”

Panetta’s assertion that he would seek “international permission” before ‘informing’ Congress about the actions of the US military provoked a firestorm of controversy, prompting the Pentagon to engage in damage control by claiming Panetta’s comments were misinterpreted.

“He was re-emphasizing the need for an international mandate. We are not ceding U.S. decision-making authority to some foreign body,” a defense official told CNN.

However, this is not the first time that the authority of international bodies has been framed as being superior to the US Congress and the Constitution.

In June last year, President Obama arrogantly expressed his hostility to the rule of law when he dismissed the need to get congressional authorization to commit the United States to a military intervention in Libya, churlishly dismissing criticism and remarking, “I don’t even have to get to the Constitutional question.”

Obama tried to legitimize his failure to obtain Congressional approval for military involvement by sending a letter to Speaker of the House John Boehner in which he said the military assault was “authorized by the United Nations (U.N.) Security Council.”

Panetta’s testimony that the US looks to obtain “international permission” before it acts, allied with Obama citing the UN as the supreme authority while trashing the power of Congress, prove that the United States has ceded control over its own affairs to unelected international bureaucrats, just as the countries of the European Union have done likewise.



Attorney General Eric Holder, the top “legal” voice of the US regime, argued to Northwestern University law students that the US Constitution is no limit to the regime dictatorially assassinating Americans. This follows regime arguments to seize and “disappear” any person in opposition to regime dictates as “terrorist supporters,” and extracting their confessions with controlled drowning (euphemistically “waterboarding”), found by all US and international courts as torture. The regime’s followers in Congress voted for legislation (2006 Military Commissions Act, 2012 NDAA) that these dictates are consistent with the US Constitution.
http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2012/03/attorney-general-holder-degrades-us-to-fascist-assassination-nation-99-response.html



THE DRAGONATER WINS IN TRAFFIC COURT AT DEALS GAP, RAISES SPEED LIMIT TO 65 MPH ON THE DRAGON - NOLLE PROSEQUI BY BLOUNT COUNTY ATTORNEY GENERAL. NO TESTIMONY, HEARING NOR TRIAL WHATSOEVER. 60 MPH SPEEDING TICKET DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE, COSTS PAID BY THE STATE, IN BLOUNT COUNTY GENERAL SESSIONS COURT WITH JUDGE BREWER. THP TROOPER RANDALL HUCKEBY ADMITTED ON VIDEOTAPE DURING TRAFFIC STOP THAT ALL SPEEDING TICKETS NORTHBOUND ON US129 AT MILE MARKER 0.5 ARE FEDERAL JURISDICTION, NOT STATE JURISDICTION (VIDEO BY THE DRAGONATER). HUCKEBY WAS ALSO CAUGHT ON VIDEO SPEEDING AT 60 MPH ON THE DRAGON, WITHOUT THE MANDATORY EMERGENCY LIGHTS AND SIREN REQUIRED FOR IMMUNITY FROM PROSECUTION (VIDEO BY THE DRAGONATER). TDOT ADMITTED IN WRITING THAT THE MANDATORY TRAFFIC ENGINEERING SURVEY SPEED AUDIT WAS NEVER PERFORMED, IN VIOLATION OF TN CODE, THUS THE POSTED 30 MPH SPEED LIMIT ON THE DRAGON REVERTS TO THE DEFAULT 65 MPH IN TN CODE. THE DRAGONATER ALSO MADE VIDEO OF TROOPER HUCKEBY SPEEDING UP TO 60 MPH ON THE DRAGON IN A 30 MPH ZONE, WITHOUT MANDATORY EMERGENCY LIGHTS NOR SIREN, IN VIOLATION OF TN CODE, AND PERJURY IN HIS PERSONNEL FILE, WHICH SHOWED HIS $100,000+ SALARY. 2007 TDOT SAFETY AUDIT REPORT CONFESSED THAT THP'S JOB IS TO BAN ALL COMMERCIAL BUSINESSES ON THE DRAGON, SO THP TICKETS INCREASED 11,400% IN BLOUNT COUNTY. THP'S STALKER RADAR OPERATOR MANUAL CONFESSED THAT RADAR CANNOT MEASURE THE SPEED OF VEHICLES WITHIN 18 MPH OF ACTUAL SPEED. WATCH THIS SPACE FOR FULL EVIDENCE FILE. UPDATE 7 MARCH 2011

3 comments:

  1. The car insurance is not mandatory but it can be one of the useful tools to reduce the risk of loss by car accidents. Specially, the young drivers should insure their car through the simple process.
    auto transport quotes , car shipping quotes , free auto transport quotes

    ReplyDelete
  2. AvaTrade is the ultimate forex trading platform for beginning and professional traders.

    ReplyDelete
  3. From my experience the ultimate Bitcoin exchange company is YoBit.

    ReplyDelete