Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login

Site Notices
11/20/2019 5:07:11 PM
Posted: 7/22/2010 7:25:32 AM EST
[Last Edit: 7/22/2010 7:26:33 AM EST by AlvinYork]
We have nearly 200,000 active members here. Most of us appear to resent the government telling us what to do. Most of us appear to resent the passing of the bill taking over the healthcare system of the country. Most of us resent the lies given to us in order to achieve the goal of taking over the healthcare system. We have to do something other than sit in our studies, our parent's basement ( I'm sitting in my own basement so that doesn't count for me), our office work stations, or whatever and bellyaching about the situation. We have to do something. I am half way through Alinsky's book, I say why not take a page from him and fight them with their own game. If McDonald v. Chicago and DC v Heller have taught us anything, it is that we can take them on and win.

To wit: ( any advice from lawyers out there would help on this) What if we each took the time to file an individual lawsuit against the government challenging the legality, validity, constitutionality and in the end morality of the program. I have no idea what it would take to file, the cost, or if we would actually need a lawyer to file, but the idea is to start to push back. We can sit at our keyboards and complain all we want, but this would be an actual push back. The cases would, I think have to individual cases, not a class action suit. Individual cases would necessarily clog up the different federal courts around the country. Doing it with individual cases we are working with the situation that the government has to win every case, we have to win only one. It would cost for filing fees, but I have little knowledge of what else. There are probably quite a few of us who could afford to file, and probably some that would be able to help out others with their expenses. I also suspect that there are at least a couple of lawyers here that might be able to take the case on Pro bono in their federal districts.

This is only a thumb nail sketch, or idea but what does the hive think?
Link Posted: 7/22/2010 7:29:32 AM EST
A lawsuit in .fed court is very expensive, the court fees alone are astronomical and there probably isn't a sitting federal judge alive that would hear a self represented case filed against the federal government.

just sayin...
Link Posted: 7/22/2010 7:43:37 AM EST
Originally Posted By SuperSixOne:
A lawsuit in .fed court is very expensive, the court fees alone are astronomical and there probably isn't a sitting federal judge alive that would hear a self represented case filed against the federal government.

just sayin...

Maybe so, but what if we could find some one to take the cases on pro bono? and pursue a path similar to the Miranda case? I mean use the courts the same way he did?
Link Posted: 7/22/2010 7:54:21 AM EST
From the Detroit News, this is who will probably decide the outcome of FBHO's crap:

Battle over Michigan health care suit begins in court
Doug Guthrie / The Detroit News

Detroit –– A federal judge heard arguments Wednesday in a Michigan lawsuit that is being watched nationwide for its challenge of congressional authority to reform health care in a way that would penalize citizens who fail to obtain their own health insurance.

"There is no precedent for this power grab," Robert Muise, an attorney with an Ann Arbor-based legal advocacy group espousing religious principles, told U.S. District Judge George C. Steeh.

The Thomas More Law Center's case on behalf of four Michigan residents was among the first of about 20 lawsuits filed throughout the country after President Barack Obama's March 23 signing of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act.

Muise said Congress can regulate economic activity, but a decision to not purchase health insurance is nonactivity and beyond the scope of government regulation. Arguments on Wednesday were over a request for an injunction to block the program on claims that it overreaches government authority by taxing residents for doing nothing.

"Congress has authority to do any number of things to improve health care," Muise said. "But the Constitution limits Congress to what it can impose on individuals. We are here because the Congress violated the U.S. Constitution by forcing individuals to engage in a commercial activity."

Ian Heath Gershengorn, deputy assistant attorney general in the Department of Justice's Civil Division, defended the new law and legislative efforts to bring run-away health care spending under control.

"What Congress has done here is target an interstate market, and an important one that represents 17 percent of the national economy, and fixed it," Gershengorn told Steeh.

Gershengorn said it is not unusual for government to mandate the purchase of insurance to protect the public from assuming risks taken by others, like the purchase of flood insurance by those who build in flood plains. And he said there are other instances of government penalizing citizens for inaction, such as in cases of failure to serve jury duty, sign up for selective service or pay taxes.
Case being watched

Michigan Attorney General Mike Cox joined a lawsuit in Florida on behalf of the residents of Michigan with 19 other state attorneys general.

Joy Yearout, spokeswoman for Cox, said the lawsuit before Steeh is only the second to result in hearings. A federal government request to dismiss another lawsuit in Virginia already has been heard, and a decision is expected in about 30 days.

"We are watching this case because these early cases give us information on the types of arguments the federal government is making," Yearout said. "We use that to craft our arguments later."

The federal government has moved to dismiss the Florida lawsuit. Oral arguments are set for Sept. 14. Steeh indicated Wednesday that he would rule soon on the Michigan case.

"I would say we are leading the way in this respect: We asked for a preliminary injunction on the merits, that Congress doesn't have the authority to do what it did. That makes our argument unique and we know the nation is watching," Muise said.

The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office has said the reform extends coverage to 32 million Americans who lack it, bans insurers from denying coverage on the basis of pre-existing medical conditions and cuts deficits by an estimated $138 billion over a decade. The expansion of coverage would include 95 percent of all eligible people younger than 65.

Supporters argue the health care reform that passed in March will reduce the national debt by $140 billion in the first 10 years after major changes take effect in 2014 and will reduce it another $1.4 trillion in the second decade.

But opponents of the reform have warned the $940 billion plan is a government takeover of health care that will push the nation toward socialism and bankruptcy.
A case for no coverage

It was during the heated debate in Washington before the reform act was adopted in March that John Ceci volunteered at his Brighton church to become a plaintiff in the lawsuit. Ceci, 42, an attorney in Brighton, said Muise had come to Ceci's church to talk about legal challenges taken on by the Thomas More Law Center.

Ceci said he hasn't been to a doctor in five years and sees no reason to spend thousands of dollars every year on insurance that is a bet against his good health.

"I don't think insurance companies are working in people's best interests," Ceci said. "The only way for them to make money is to pay out less than they take in, which means denying people's claims. I don't know of any other way for them to make money and I'm not interested in having the government tell me I have to participate in that."
Top Top