Welcome to Scribd, the world's digital library. Read, publish, and share books and documents. See more
Download
Standard view
Full view
of .
Look up keyword
Like this
6Activity
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
Purpura v. Sebelius - Motion to Recall and Vacate

Purpura v. Sebelius - Motion to Recall and Vacate

Ratings: (0)|Views: 3,988 |Likes:
Published by Terry Hurlbut
MOTION FOR EXPEDITE REARGUMENT PURSUANT TO RULE 21 TO RECALL AND VACATE AND ALLOW PARTICIPATION ON March 26-28, 2012 - “Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act” “H.R.3590”
MOTION FOR EXPEDITE REARGUMENT PURSUANT TO RULE 21 TO RECALL AND VACATE AND ALLOW PARTICIPATION ON March 26-28, 2012 - “Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act” “H.R.3590”

More info:

Published by: Terry Hurlbut on Jan 29, 2012
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial

Availability:

Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less

11/22/2013

pdf

text

original

 
 No.11-7275In the Supreme Court of the United StatesTERM, 2011 NICHOLAS E. PURPURA,PETITIONER V. UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES;KATHLEEN SEBELIUS, individually and in her Official Capacity as theSecretary of the United States Department of Health and Human Services;UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY;TIMOTHY F. GEITHNER, individually and in his official capacity as the Secretary of the United States Department of the Treasury;UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF LABOR; and HILDA L. SOLIS, individually andin her official capacity as Secretary of the United States Department of Labor, ______________ Petition for a Writ of Certiorarito the United States Supreme Court _______ MOTION FOR EXPEDITE REARGUMENT PURSUANT TO RULE 21TO RECALL AND VACATE AND ALLOW PARTICIPATION ONMarch 26-28, 2012 -
 Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act 
” “H.R.3590” ______________ 
 NICHOLAS E. PURPURA1802 Rue De La PortWall, New Jersey 07719(732) 449-0856 DONALD B. VERRILLI, JR.
 Pro se
[s]
 Petitioner 
 
Counsel for Appellee/Defendants(Self-in-Law)
Justice Joseph Storey’s great Commentaries on the Constitution says;
That although the spirit of an instrument, especially of a constitution, is to berespected not less than its letter, yet the spirit is to be collected chiefly from the letter. It would be dangerous in the extreme to infer from extrinsic circumstances that a case, for which the words of an instrument expressly provide, shall be exempt from its operation…. No construction of a given power is to be allowed which plainly defeats or impairs itsavowed objectives…. This rule results from the dictates of mere commonsense, for everyinstrument ought to be constructed as to succeed, not fail…. While, then. we may well resort to meaning of single words to assist our inquires, we should never forget…that must be truest exposition which best harmonizes with the instrument of governments’ design, objects, and general structure.”
 
INTERVENING CIRCUMSTANCES OF SUBSTANTIAL CONTROLLINGEFFECT THAT REQUIRES A RECALL & VACATE
“But what end is equivalent for a precedent so dangerous as that where the Constitutionis disregarded by the Legislature
 
 , and that disregard is sanctioned by the judiciary?Where then, is the safety of the people, or freedom which the Constitution meant to secure? One precedent begets another, one breach will quickly be succeeded by another,and thus the giving way in the first instance to what seems to be the case of publicconvenience in facts prepares the way for the total overthrow of the Constitution.—Statev. -----, Hayw. 28 N.C.1794
The compelling reason to “Recall and Vacate” the decision of January 9, 2012 is that itconflicts with black letter law, and ignores the Constitution contract as written
1
Not toallow Petitioner to be heard on March 26-28, 2012 is to effectively discard the text of theConstitution in favor of a system in which men decide what laws will be addressed.
Substantial Grounds Not Previously Presented
:Petitioner had presented irrefutable proof with specificity throughout each Count thatrequired adjudicated. Now more than ever, in light of recent hearing that took place in inthe great State of Georgia on January 26, 2012 before the Hon. Michael Malihi, in whichthe Office of State Administrative Hearing (OSAH) involving the challenge of Mr.Obama legal right to be place on the Georgia “Ballot” in November related to eligibilityto hold the Office of the Presidency; goes to the heart of Petitioner’s Count 6. Now more than ever 
 Purpura v Sebelius
, Case No. 11-7275 must take precedent over anyand all cases to be heard at oral argument scheduled for March 26-28, 2012.Petitioner alleged and proved (
 see
, Count 6) that Mr. Obama was ineligible to sign the“Act” “H.R.3590” or any other legislation into law, appoint federal judges, or make anyregulation. This Honorable Court as well as those under its jurisdiction overlooked proper  judicial procedure by failing to address this constitutional question that affects the entireCountry.1
The United States, as a whole, emanates from the people… The people, in their capacity as sovereigns, made and adopted the Constitution…”
i
 
Please Take Special Judicial Notice: Federal Courts throughout the nation arereceiving constitutional challenges on the issue of whether Mr. Obama’s is eligible tobe placed on the ballot in primary elections of President and Vice-President, andgeneral elections of Presidential Electors. (Georgia is just the beginning.) This is theonly comprehensive Petition that deals with both the constitutionality of the“Health-care” legislation and “eligibility” issue that is having a profound effect onthe entire nation.It is incumbent upon this Court to settle the issue of ‘eligibility’ post haste to affordthose in the Democrat Party an opportunity to choose an “eligible” candidate to beon the ballot in November. To do otherwise disenfranchises all voters and continuesthe constitutional crisis that has been escalating since the Courts refused to addressHillary Clinton’s 2008 Presidential campaigns challenge. To ignore thisconstitutional challenge will have devastating consequence which this Court bearsfull responsibility for failing to perform its fiduciary duty pursuant to your swornoath taken by every Member of this Court.
 Purpura v. Sibelius
, Case No. 11-7275 is the only case pending before this HonorableCourt that could alleviate what could be a constitutional crisis of untold consequences.This Honorable Court is charged with the positive duty of administering the law asspecifically enumerated to protect, preserve and defend the people’s unalienable rights!To disregard the law is to open the door to anarchy.Petitioner alleged 19-violations of the U.S. Constitution and 4-statutory laws in thespecific text of the law that no legal expert or defendants; [who forfeited no less thanthree times in violation of FRCP 8(b)(d)] have been able to refute. In light of prior rulingin
 Bond v the United States
and the fact that most of these constitutional challenges arenot on the calendar to be considered, and the Court will be addressing inadequate briefingmakes a mockery of the “Black letter law”. To deprive Petitioner the right to be heard, thePeople of the United States are being deprived of a “
 full and fair 
” hearing concerning theunconstitutionality of the “Act”, the “
 Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act 
”. And,the settled question whether Mr. Obama can legally sign any legislation or makeappointments to the Federal bench.The controlling factors concerning the constitutionality of this legislation before theCourt demands adjudication in there entirety or is this Court in essence is saying: it permissible for any branch of government to deviate from or alter any Article or Amendment of the Constitution? The questions presented are whether:ii

Activity (6)

You've already reviewed this. Edit your review.
1 thousand reads
1 hundred reads
silverbull8 liked this
Jack Ryan liked this

You're Reading a Free Preview

Download
/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->