If you're new here, you may want to subscribe to my free Email alerts. Thanks for visiting!
OBAMA-APPOINTED JUDGE FAILS TO RECUSE HIMSELF
by Sharon Rondeau
(Aug. 3, 2011) — Nicholas Purpura and Donald E. Laster, Jr., both plaintiffs and appellants in the case of Purpura v. Sebelius, have asked the Third Circuit Court of Appeals in Philadelphia to convene an en banc panel of judges to review alleged “judicial misconduct.”
The plaintiffs’ lawsuit claims that the health care bill signed in March 2010 is unconstitutional and its signatory ineligible to hold the office of president, rendering the bill and all others he has signed null and void. The case was dismissed from the U.S. District Court in April 2011 but appealed to the Third Circuit Court of Appeals, stating that they had not received proper due process.
The Post & Email previously reported that the defendants’ attorneys from the U.S. Department of Justice had missed a deadline by which to file a response in mid-July. The lawsuit was originally filed on September 20, 2010 and claims 15 counts with 19 constitutional violations, including the statement that Barack Hussein Obama is not constitutionally qualified to serve as president because he is not a “natural born Citizen” as required by Article II of the U.S. Constitution. The plaintiffs also cite four laws with which they believe the health care bill conflicts.
Two documents were submitted to the court early on Tuesday, August 2, 2011: (1) Motion to Recall and Vacate and Request for Judicial Intervention by an En Banc Court, and (2) a letter to the chief justice containing a list of motions and requests filed with the court which the plaintiffs have stated have not been addressed.
Page 2 states that there are actually “600 plus Petitioners and citizen groups” involved in the lawsuit.
The plaintiffs wrote in their Motion to Recall:
For the Republic to function properly, an honorable judiciary is indispensable to justice. According to the Judicial Code of Conduct it is the obligation of every judge to observe the highest standards of conduct to preserve the integrity of the Court.
The appellants also accused the Court of “operating as a law unto itself” as a “quasi-criminal enterprise.”
Laster told The Post & Email:
After being forced to write a motion for recusal since the Court would not tell us what Judges were on the panel and which Judges had recused themselves, Judge Thomas I. Vanaskie denied the recusal motion with a “Motion Denied” statement. The rules require a reason be stated. And we were told to put the Motion in by the Court.
Judge Vanaskie and The Honorable Judge Greenaway can not serve on the panel since they have a significant personal and financial interest in the outcome of the case. For them their jobs and salaries. The Justice Department acknowledged each and every count in the original complaint was correct by not answering the original Petition. The ‘standing’ argument was manufactured by the District Court to try kill the case since DOJ failed to answer. We won in the District Court by law.
Vanaskie and Greenaway were appointed by Obama. Vanaskie refused to recuse himself from hearing the case. The plaintiffs have argued that “Judge Vanaskie has a significant financial and personal interest in the outcome of this case that mandates his recusal.” The plaintiffs claim they have “standing” to bring the case, citing the U.S. Supreme Court decision rendered on June 26, 2011 in Bond v. United States which stated that “A criminal defendant who is indicted on charges that she violated a federal statute has standing to challenge the validity of the statute on the ground that it infringes on the powers reserved to the states under the Tenth Amendment.” The Bond case overturned a ruling issued by the Third Circuit Court of Appeals.
All of the documents filed in the case can be found here.
Update, Aug. 4, 2011: Without having first been notified themselves by the court, the two plaintiffs in Purpura v. Sebelius have discovered that all seven motions they had placed before the court for a response have been the object of a “mass dismissal” by Judge Joseph A Greenaway, Jr., who was appointed by Obama in 2010 and has refused to recuse himself from the case despite U.S. Code which states:
(a) Any justice, judge, or magistrate judge of the United States shall disqualify himself in any proceeding in which his impartiality might reasonably be questioned.
(b) He shall also disqualify himself in the following circumstances:
(1) Where he has a personal bias or prejudice concerning a party, or personal knowledge of disputed evidentiary facts concerning the proceeding…
Purpura and Laster have filed a Motion to Vacate the dismissal of their Motions which were not addressed by the court.
Regarding this most recent action, Laster stated:
Because the DOJ never answered the original Petition, the DOJ admitted each and every Count in the Petition was and is correct. By Law the case was won in the District Court by default.
The ruling in the case “Bond v. United States” recently delivered also establishes a person has standing to challenge the Constitutionality of a federal law. In this case, the challenge was based upon Amendment 10, which is also one of the Counts in our case. Many of the anti-standing arguments are that we are not affected by the law as well. But when one examines what the law does, we and all of us will be affected. That is one of the key issues of standing.
The Sixth Circuit Ruling in Thomas More Law Center v. Obama and other cases related to the “H.R. 3590” have clear and distinctly stated individuals have standing. So the idea of us not prevailing in proving standing is very dubious since case law already says we have standing – provided the Judges follow the Law.
So when people say we have no standing they are trying to pretend the law does not yet affect anyone. And while not all of the law is active yet, it will affect everyone and ‘standing’ is not dependent upon the action being immediate but that it will occur.
What has happened to America’s judiciary?