Purpura et al. v. Sebelius et al, Standing v US Constitution, First amendment rights, Legalese cited to perpetuate legalese
“Why has Obama, for over 2 years, employed numerous private and government attorneys to avoid presenting a legitimate birth certificate and college records?”…Citizen Wells and millions of concerned Americans
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.”…First Amendment US Constitution
From Birther Report January 17, 2011.
“Government files their motion to dismiss in Purpura et al. v. Sebelius et al.. The lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey by Nicholas Purpura and Donald Laster of the Jersey Shore Tea Party Patriots and the New Jersey Tea Party Coalition. Other plaintiffs in the lawsuit include the Colts Neck Tea Party, Jersey Shore Tea Party Patriots, Jackson Tea Party Patriots, Bayshore Tea Party Group and Ocean County Citizens for Freedom. The lawsuit alleges the healthcare bill is unconstitutional on 15 separate counts including Obama’s ineligibility. Full brief embedded below. More background on the case can be found here. The lead plaintiffs discuss their lawsuit here, the video is also embedded at bottom of this post.
The government argues the plaintiffs lack standing and the court does not have jurisdiction…”
Notice from the Table of Authorities:
“Kerchner v. Obama,
612 F.3d 204 (3d Cir. 2010)”
“Lightfoot v. United States,
564 F.3d 625 (3d Cir. 2009)”
They are attempting to use legalese, “standing”, applied in earlier cases to substantiate further legalese and thus attempt to trump the First Amendment and effectively block attempts to redress government for grievances by petition.