Question for Members and Mods: How to organize a 10 million dollar lawsuit per petitioner?

[emilynghiem]

Dear USMB Members and Mods:
Does anyone have any references on how to launch a 10 million dollar lawsuit
per petitioner who argues the ACA mandates violates Constitutional rights and principles,
where each petitioner can set a demand, such as for 10 million in damages, be invested
by violating parties into setting up health care that DOES respect people's beliefs.

Such a lawsuit can include petitioners suing for Singlepayer since that is what they believe in,
and petitioners suing for Free Market alternatives on the same grounds. I am thinking both
Parties would need to be sued to pay for the damages (ie 24 billion estimated cost to taxpayers
for the federal shutdown due to the ACA bill being pushed through Congress without resolving
the issues of conflicting beliefs that have still not been addressed nor corrected) to be
invested into respective programs that protect the beliefs of those party members instead of violating them.

Please post if you have any ideas, references or means of support to call for petitioners
to organize and how to launch a drive to form a legal team to petition for immediate correction,
including assessing cases of DAMAGES and DISTRESS caused to citizens and investing
money into health care and medical programs that solve the problems without violating any
rights, laws or principles.

Thank you
EMILY NGHIEM
Petitioner #1

 

[emilynghiem]

SAMPLE LETTER
Can I please ask help to edit this into a formal statement
to all political and party leaders, law firms and schools, and govt officials:

Dear [T]

My friends and I have written to different Constitutional lawfirms
but have gotten no response. The argument I want to make against
the ACA mandates is that the federal govt regulations
"DISCRIMINATE ON THE BASIS OF CREED"

No other group has made that argument.
But to me it is obvious that is the root problem behind the conflicts.
There are two groups who have different BELIEFS and neither should
be favored by govt to exclude and penalize the other.
Yet the ACA mandates endorse the BELIEF that federal govt should
manage health care, and they PENALIZE citizens for not complying.

I am one of many Constitutionalists whose BELIEFS are violated
by these laws, mandates, regulations and PENALTIES.
We believe it is not a crime, abuse or violation to exercise our
beliefs in FREE MARKET solutions to paying for and providing
health care using charity, business and medical school programs,
leaving insurance a FREE CHOICE to citizens, regardless if the
federal govt regulates businesses. There was NO constitutional
precedence for regulating citizens and deciding tax penalties
based on RELIGIOUS MEMBERSHIP while penalizing citizens
based on CREED for believing in free market health care.

Even worse, the Democrats who passed the ACA refuse
govt regulations that penalize free choice of abortion, yet
enforce mandates that penalize the free choice of health care.

And this is where I argue that such Democratic politicians
have abused the govt process to DISCRIMINATE ON THE BASIS OF
CREED -- barring and penalizing beliefs in right to life and free market,
while rewarding and endorsing beliefs in the right to health care through
govt.

THESE POLITICAL BELIEFS WERE NOT TREATED EQUALLY,
but one side has been denied and penalized in violation
of the First and Fourteenth Amendments, if not the Tenth Amendment
and Civil Rights Act and principles barring "discrimination by creed."

Basically the Democratic Party Platform spells out the
"right to health care" as a BELIEF.
Democratic party members BELIEVE that health care
is the responsibility of Govt.

But most Constitutionalists do NOT believe federal govt
has that authority, only states or people by the 10th amendment.
In addition, with the BELIEFS about birth control and abortion,
the federal govt cannot make regulations without either
ENDORSING or VIOLATING the beliefs of citizens who
have POLITICAL BELIEFS regarding prolife and prochoice [issues].

I want to argue that by the First and Fourteenth Amendment,
even POLITICAL BELIEFS should be treated EQUALLY by law
[similar to Religious Beliefs], and neither ENDORSED by govt nor DISPARAGED but that
govt should remain neutral [including all equally and not penalizing free choice].

The areas of law currently affected by biases in POLITICAL
BELIEFS already passed by laws and rulings include;
1. the health care regulations involving insurance mandates
and penalties that fine citizens for noncompliance even if
the laws violate Constitutional beliefs and principles
2. the marriage laws, ruling and amendments
and rulings by courts on discrimination cases
regardling BELIEFS about homosexuality and internal orientation
that govt cannot regulate or force people to change
since opinions on this topic are FAITH BASED
and not proven by science

I am looking for help to petition and/or sue
to recognize POLITICAL BELIEFS AS EQUAL.

How much would it cost [to form or hire a legal team] to set a price, such as
10 million [per person] for prolonged distress, anxiety and suffering
since the ACA was passed and this issue of violating
political beliefs has not been addressed or resolved
but continues to cause distress to me and other
Constitutionalists who recognize that it is in violation of our right.

Thank you, [T]

I have learned to forgive the distress and rage this has caused,
because there are as many people still outraged and distressed
over past issues similar to this that have not been resolved either.
But two wrongs do not make anything right.

[Parties on] Both sides are going to have to correct both sets of violations
and stop imposing on each other. So I believe bringing this up
as a potential lawsuit would draw attention to the root problem:

The solution is agreeing to recognize political beliefs as equal
under law, and either mediating to form a consensus on policy
to satisfy both sides' beliefs, or removing policies from govt
and redirecting them to states, parties or other private groups
to create separate policies that respect their choice of beliefs.

 

[emilynghiem]

Hi daws101
You and I may see the humor in these conflicts.
But some people are in gutwrenching grief or rage over these issues.

Is there any political issue that hits you that hard?
That is what this is about. Can you name an issue that raises the roof for you?

 

[irosie91]

Emily-----I ain't no lawyer------but YOU NEED A LAWYER------you seem to have what those jerks call a CLASS ACTION thing------you would have to gather others who wish to JOIN your complaint and-----TAKE IT TO A LAWYER (I am not licensed to provide legal advice-----I is nobody)

 

[daws101]

Hi daws101
You and I may see the humor in these conflicts.
But some people are in gutwrenching grief or rage over these issues.

Is there any political issue that hits you that hard?
That is what this is about. Can you name an issue that raises the roof for you?

Long winded petitions.

 

[irosie91]

Hi daws101
You and I may see the humor in these conflicts.
But some people are in gutwrenching grief or rage over these issues.

Is there any political issue that hits you that hard?
That is what this is about. Can you name an issue that raises the roof for you?

Long winded petitions.

yeah----in LEGAL LINGO-------just a mistake in the damned petition can screw up the case

 

[emilynghiem]

Emily-----I ain't no lawyer------but YOU NEED A LAWYER------you seem to have what those jerks call a CLASS ACTION thing------you would have to gather others who wish to JOIN your complaint and-----TAKE IT TO A LAWYER (I am not licensed to provide legal advice-----I is nobody)

Yes, I am calling for others to join who are serious.
Too many people and politicians are just griping behind the scenes but waiting for someone else to take action.

I can't find a lawyer if it's just me and one friend.
If anyone else out there is SERIOUS and will GO PUBLIC MAKING STATEMENTS
maybe we can find a lawyer who will take our complaint seriously.

Given the cost of civil rights lawsuits, that are usually more for principle and not about actual damages,
that's why I am asking what price we could put on the damages and distressed caused to the public.

Could we argue to be reimbursed as taxpayers for the 24 billion dollars shutdown of federal govt over conflicts with this bill and budget
since it crossed the line with personal beliefs and could not be resolved.

If this will add up to the millions or billions, then lawyers could afford to consider it.
The Tobacco lawsuit would never have happened if it didn't mean big bucks for the lawyers.

 

[emilynghiem]

Hi daws101
You and I may see the humor in these conflicts.
But some people are in gutwrenching grief or rage over these issues.

Is there any political issue that hits you that hard?
That is what this is about. Can you name an issue that raises the roof for you?

Long winded petitions.

OK daws101 so how would you shorten it?
If there is no way to explain it briefly, that's why it gets so long.

Can you summarize the idea of political beliefs and how this has caused violations, damages and expenses to taxpayers? Appreciate your help!

What I posted here is half as long as what it was before this.
And the first draft was so long, only one person bothered to follow up and try
to help me reduce it more. So it's getting better, can you please help? Anyone?

 

[imawhosure]

Emily-----I ain't no lawyer------but YOU NEED A LAWYER------you seem to have what those jerks call a CLASS ACTION thing------you would have to gather others who wish to JOIN your complaint and-----TAKE IT TO A LAWYER (I am not licensed to provide legal advice-----I is nobody)

Yes, I am calling for others to join who are serious.
Too many people and politicians are just griping behind the scenes but waiting for someone else to take action.

I can't find a lawyer if it's just me and one friend.
If anyone else out there is SERIOUS and will GO PUBLIC MAKING STATEMENTS
maybe we can find a lawyer who will take our complaint seriously.

Given the cost of civil rights lawsuits, that are usually more for principle and not about actual damages,
that's why I am asking what price we could put on the damages and distressed caused to the public.

Could we argue to be reimbursed as taxpayers for the 24 billion dollars shutdown of federal govt over conflicts with this bill and budget
since it crossed the line with personal beliefs and could not be resolved.

If this will add up to the millions or billions, then lawyers could afford to consider it.
The Tobacco lawsuit would never have happened if it didn't mean big bucks for the lawyers.

I am also not a lawyer, but I believe the reason it can't be done is a term called "standing." You see, the logic is something like this-----------> if the citizens were allowed to do this, then every law the congress passed would be challenged by those who disagree. The remedy for this is seen by the courts, as the ballot box.

Sure, some aspects of the law could be over turned because Obama used EOs to implement, or over ride some of the law. But to take the law down? No! Congress passed it, and the Supreme Court found it all constitutional. The only thing to do is vote in people that will over turn the law; and unlike the GOP establishment..........MEAN IT!

 

[Luddly Neddite]

I'm always surprised when people ask questions like this on a message board instead of going to a professional in that field.

Anyone can say they are an attorney. Or a doctor. For example, on this board, we have Tipsycatlover who has said she is both. Emily, why don't you PM or @mention her?
Yes, that's sarcasm, but if you already believe you will get advice of professional caliber here, why not?

 

[Contumacious]

Dear USMB Members and Mods:
Does anyone have any references on how to launch a 10 million dollar lawsuit
per petitioner who argues the ACA mandates violates Constitutional rights and principles,
where each petitioner can set a demand, such as for 10 million in damages, be invested
by violating parties into setting up health care that DOES respect people's beliefs.

Such a lawsuit can include petitioners suing for Singlepayer since that is what they believe in,
and petitioners suing for Free Market alternatives on the same grounds. I am thinking both
Parties would need to be sued to pay for the damages (ie 24 billion estimated cost to taxpayers
for the federal shutdown due to the ACA bill being pushed through Congress without resolving
the issues of conflicting beliefs that have still not been addressed nor corrected) to be
invested into respective programs that protect the beliefs of those party members instead of violating them.

Please post if you have any ideas, references or means of support to call for petitioners
to organize and how to launch a drive to form a legal team to petition for immediate correction,
including assessing cases of DAMAGES and DISTRESS caused to citizens and investing
money into health care and medical programs that solve the problems without violating any
rights, laws or principles.

Thank you
EMILY NGHIEM
Petitioner #1

I fully agree with you in principle.

The so-called SCOTUS has , somehow ruled that Obama Hellcare imposes a tax.

So, if you receive a notice of deficiency , you can sue in Tax Court.

Otherwise you can pay the tax, demand a refund , if denied , sue in US District Court.


.

 

[Timmy]

Who wants to join my class action!

I'm sueing because the gov mandates that I have children . If I don't, I suffer a large tax penalty.

 

[daws101]

Hi daws101
You and I may see the humor in these conflicts.
But some people are in gutwrenching grief or rage over these issues.

Is there any political issue that hits you that hard?
That is what this is about. Can you name an issue that raises the roof for you?

Long winded petitions.

OK daws101 so how would you shorten it?
If there is no way to explain it briefly, that's why it gets so long.

Can you summarize the idea of political beliefs and how this has caused violations, damages and expenses to taxpayers? Appreciate your help!

What I posted here is half as long as what it was before this.
And the first draft was so long, only one person bothered to follow up and try
to help me reduce it more. So it's getting better, can you please help? Anyone?

there is always a way to explain it briefly ,
you need to work on brevity .
brev·i·ty
[ˈbrevədē]
conciseness · concision · succinctness

 

[daws101]

I'm not a lawyer but I play one on TV.

 

[Luddly Neddite]

I'm not a lawyer but I play one on TV.

That's okay.

emilynghiem isn't a Democrat. She just tries to play on this message board.

 

[emilynghiem]

Emily-----I ain't no lawyer------but YOU NEED A LAWYER------you seem to have what those jerks call a CLASS ACTION thing------you would have to gather others who wish to JOIN your complaint and-----TAKE IT TO A LAWYER (I am not licensed to provide legal advice-----I is nobody)

Yes, I am calling for others to join who are serious.
Too many people and politicians are just griping behind the scenes but waiting for someone else to take action.

I can't find a lawyer if it's just me and one friend.
If anyone else out there is SERIOUS and will GO PUBLIC MAKING STATEMENTS
maybe we can find a lawyer who will take our complaint seriously.

Given the cost of civil rights lawsuits, that are usually more for principle and not about actual damages,
that's why I am asking what price we could put on the damages and distressed caused to the public.

Could we argue to be reimbursed as taxpayers for the 24 billion dollars shutdown of federal govt over conflicts with this bill and budget
since it crossed the line with personal beliefs and could not be resolved.

If this will add up to the millions or billions, then lawyers could afford to consider it.
The Tobacco lawsuit would never have happened if it didn't mean big bucks for the lawyers.

I am also not a lawyer, but I believe the reason it can't be done is a term called "standing." You see, the logic is something like this-----------> if the citizens were allowed to do this, then every law the congress passed would be challenged by those who disagree. The remedy for this is seen by the courts, as the ballot box.

Sure, some aspects of the law could be over turned because Obama used EOs to implement, or over ride some of the law. But to take the law down? No! Congress passed it, and the Supreme Court found it all constitutional. The only thing to do is vote in people that will over turn the law; and unlike the GOP establishment..........MEAN IT!

Dear imawhosure
Isn't anyone forced to buy or pay for things under this ACA
affected as a taxpayer with STANDING?

Who isn't affected?

My friends who BELIEVE in Singlepayer NOT paying insurance
companies are compelled to buy insurance they can't afford or pay a fine they don't agree with either.

My friends who BELIEVE in Free Market and NOT being forced under federal regulations passed without any Constitutional Amendment
changing this from state's/people's rights to federal authority also
argue their beliefs and Constitutional principles/process/check and balances/roles or separation of power are violated.

Even my Democrat friends who SUPPORT Democratic leaders and anything the party supports are stuck unable to pay for medical costs. If we are paying for govt officials to have top health insurance, why aren't they paying for us to have equal access and protections of the same?

 

[emilynghiem]

I'm not a lawyer but I play one on TV.

That's okay.

emilynghiem isn't a Democrat. She just tries to play on this message board.

I'm as much if not more a Democrat than JakeStarkey is a Republican.

I did vote to reelect Sheila Jackson Lee as the Congress rep for my district.

Can you name anyone other than a Democrat who would support the existing Democratic leadership despite the continued failures and selling out going on. i still believe DEMOCRATS must fix the problems caused by DEMOCRATS. So I have to be part of the DEMOCRATS to address and fix that. It will take the rest o fmy life, and generations to come, to fix the problems perpetuated and exploited by DEMOCRATS. So i will be working on th is for the rest of my life, yes, as a DEMOCRAT since the Democrats I need to address will only listen to fellow DEMOCRATS. We have to fix this together, and yes I hold Democrats including myself equally responsible for fixing the problems according to party promises.

 

[emilynghiem]

CHAT posted online
Hi, I am [Operator]. How may I assist you?
Hi are you just taking messages for the legal staff, because I can contact [attorney DT] later to speak directly if that's better.

I am part of the live chat support team for the firm, and my job is to connect people with the most appropriate lawyer for their situation.
How may I help you?

Because I know a lot of people who are sincerely wronged by the ACA mandates that violate Constitutional procedures and beliefs, I would like to search for lawyers willing to form a team to petition or sue the govt officials who passed the mandates and caused harm and damage to citizens' rights, including 24 billion cost to taxpayers over the govt shut down. I would like to petition the responsible parties to pay back taxpayers the 24 billion by investing in corrections to the bill that avoid the clauses in violation of Constitutional principles, process and/or beliefs.

I understand.

is there any way to organize a team so the lawyers could get paid for the amount of work it would take to fix this problem and either separate the tracks by party or rewrite the mandates so that part is OPTIONAL and only people who BELIEVE in a certain health care program can be required to pay into it to cover their responsibilities

This could be mediated and corrected as a civil case. Or if people are not willing to correct it, isn't "conspiring to violate civil rights" a violation of criminal law. isn't that beyond civil and does it become criminal?

Okay.
Could you please share a few details about the situation so that we can best assist you?

I have done research into the different political beliefs people have, including supporters of federal health care who sincerely BELIEVE that this is a natural duty of govt; versus Constitutionalists who BELIEVE govt has no natural rights unless the people states or Constitution grant this specifically. So I and other Constitutionalists have had our BELIEFS excluded, penalized and discriminated against by the ACA mandates. These do not respect our BELIEFS in free market health care provisions, but have basically abused govt to ESTABLISH a BELIEF in nationalized health care that half the nation does NOT believe in but believe it is unconstitutional (unless an amendment was passed by the states first) I want to find lawyers wiling to argue that the mandates discriminate on the basis of CREED and regulate tax penalties and exemptions on the basis of religious affiliation and membership which is arguably unconstitutional for federal govt to do.

I understand your concern.

BTW I am a Democrat and have read in our Tx party platform the statement that Democrats "BELIEVE that health care is a right" so this is clearly admitted as a BELIEF and this area could be argued as included under laws on religious freedom and not discriminating by creed. This has not been established by precedent or in writing, so this lawsuit or petition would challenge and push the issue of how do we recognize and respect political beliefs in comparison with religions and creeds, and should federal govt be in the business of establishing these.

Okay.
Would you be seeking legal assistance for a possible case?
Yes, when I saw [attorney DT] briefly today (does he still work with your firm?) I thought of asking him if he could take on such a civil case, or would it have to be pursued as criminal in order to get enough people on board to pay the costs of litigation and lobbying

Our lawyer may be able to help you with your concern.

What makes me a little different from other Constitutionalists, is that I don't push MY beliefs about limited govt to the exclusion of liberal beliefs in using govt to establish rights, including health care. Most people are one set of beliefs or the other, and seek to bully and beat out the other by majority rule or elections and rulings. I believe in treating all beliefs equally and making laws/rulings by consensus to prevent from discriminating and excluding one or the other, but most people take sides and don't believe in equal inclusion and representation/protection as I do. Do I have to prove my political beliefs in order to sue to protect them? I am one of the few constitutionalists, much less Democrats, with this level of political belief in consensus and inclusion with respect to political beliefs. How do I find a lawyer who can help me prove my beliefs are violated and sue for corrections

Okay.

I believe the entire Democratic party, or at least Obama Pelosi and other Democratic party officials could be sued for "conspiring to violate equal civil rights" of others by passing laws that penalize people for not complying because we believe in free market health care choices and provisions through businesses and charity outside of govt

I believe the 50/50 split in Congress and in the Supreme Court shows that the Democrats should have know that there was opposition due to conflicting beliefs that could not be forced to change. This is willful ignorance, and choosing to discriminate, exclude and/or penalize people of opposing beliefs because they believe otherwise.

I see.
May I ask where you are located, city and state?

I am in Houston Texas.
Is anyone with your law firm willing to take the bull by the horns and call out "political beliefs" and bring up this issue, either through litigation or a class action or at least hold a conference on it and consult and see if it can be corrected without a lawsuit.

Thank you for briefing me on the situation.
The lawyer best suited to assist you is unavailable to chat at the moment, but I can have someone from our legal team contact you as soon as possible.
What would be the best number for us to call?

My number is 713-820-5130

The lawyer may be able to help you with that.

The only way i could afford this is to get more people on board with bigger groups willing to sue collectively. And go after reimbursement to taxpayers for 24 billion wasted due to shutting down govt because this bill was passed knowing it had this fundamental conflict in it. Even if it is past the statute of limitations, I think we could sue for continuing damages because the same beliefs were violated without correction.

I see.
Is there an email address you'd like to provide in case they miss you by phone?

I can be emailed at [email protected] what makes my position unique is I have friends with prochoice/democrat/universal care who may be willing to sue for 'singlepayer" to be set up which they believe in; and friends who are prolife/free market/conservative/Christian/Constitutionalists who believe the Democrats did discriminate and push their own agenda and beliefs and aren't able to recognize that unless we pursue a formal lawsuit so they take it seriously. They think we are just opposing politically and don't understand people's beliefs are involved that people cannot help and cannot change. So I can bring in more people willing to sue to change the ACA mandates from both sides of the opposition left and right that had their beliefs in free choice and free market both violated by these mandates.

I understand that.

I want to sue/petition for corrections, and ask the officials responsible for estimated 24 billion cost to taxpayers to pay that back and invest that much time and resources into resolving and satisfying both sets of poltiical beliefs violated here; I want to propose to separate the tracks by party, so both parties can organize programs that fit the BELIEFS of their members without interference or imposition by groups of other BELIEFS.

I'm sorry, I forgot to ask your name.

Emily Nghiem [email protected] 713 820 5130

Thank you Emily. I will request that you be contacted at the earliest opportunity.

is there any way to organize a team so the lawyers could get paid for the amount of work it would take to fix this problem and either separate the tracks by party or rewrite the mandates so that part is OPTIONAL and only people who BELIEVE in a certain health care program can be required to pay into it to cover their responsibilities

The lawyer may be able to help you with your concern.

Thank you and sorry if this would exceed the scope of your law firm. I haven't found one yet that was willing to take this on. I am hoping to form a team to handle the comprehensive implications involved in correcting the problems since there are political beliefs on both sides that were affected, and taxpayers took a huge hit on this as well. Because of the huge cost and losses, that's where I am hoping a legal team could be paid out of the compensation owed to taxpayers for passing a law that had a conflict over political beliefs built into it, knowing that there were objections for this reason and pushing it anyway.

 

[Katzndogz]

So no lawyer has contacted you. That's because your case is nonsense. I'm sorry to be the one to break the bad news. That no one has called you back should have been at least a clue.

You are presenting some sort of convoluted class action, except the only ones interested is you and one friend. What you want to do is sue the government and force obamacare to be single payer because you like that better.

No. You have not articulated any basis for a lawsuit.

Just to educate you a little bit. Private citizens cannot sue in a criminal action. Criminal is brought by the state. Civil is brought by individuals that have been harmed. You have never explained your harm.

And. I have never been a doctor nor ever said I was.

 

[emilynghiem]

So no lawyer has contacted you. That's because your case is nonsense. I'm sorry to be the one to break the bad news. That no one has called you back should have been at least a clue.

You are presenting some sort of convoluted class action, except the only ones interested is you and one friend. What you want to do is sue the government and force obamacare to be single payer because you like that better.

No. You have not articulated any basis for a lawsuit.

Just to educate you a little bit. Private citizens cannot sue in a criminal action. Criminal is brought by the state. Civil is brought by individuals that have been harmed. You have never explained your harm.

And. I have never been a doctor nor ever said I was.

Hi Tipsycatlover
I am willing to bet 10 million dollars that both
* the right to health care and
* the opposing beliefs that pushing such legislation through federal mandates
is unconstitutional (unless an amendment is passed first so that states/people consent
to govt regulation affecting civil liberties including equal exercise of religious freedom and creeds)
are BOTH
"political beliefs" that BOTH should have been treated equally under law.

The fact that govt laws/officials favored one and penalized the other
shows DISCRIMINATION.

There is just as much compelling reason for govt to support health care
as there is to make the SUPPORTERS of such a belief pay for it themselves
to protect the equal beliefs in free market and liberties reserved to people and states.

At most, these two beliefs should tie.

If health care were THAT critical then the law could just have easily been written
to make the people who believe in that pay for it and responsible for it since it
reflects THEIR BELIEFS (while at the same time requiring others to pay for
their health care through their OWN beliefs, WITHOUT federal govt DICTATING
WHICH WAY THAT PEOPLE SHOULD BELIEVE and COMPLY WITH BY LAW)

There is no proof that the 'least restrictive way' of achieving this end
is to force ALL citizens to be under the insurance mandates, including people
of opposing beliefs who are thus discriminated against as a result.
So that argument is FAITH BASED and federal govt cannot be abused
to force people to comply with THAT FAITH if they believe otherwise.

People can fund their own health care WITHOUT forcing citizens
to forego their liberties and compromise their beliefs and faith.

Tipsycatlover that's fine if you don't believe one argument
or you do believe another is justified.

Because beliefs on BOTH sides are FAITH BASED and NOT PROVEN
that is all the more reason govt should not have taken sides and
mandated ONE side over the other.

Citizens should have retained FREE CHOICE what to believe,
since NEITHER side's arguments are proven, and the mandates
should be OPTIONAL. Only if people have committed a legal violation,
incurred a cost to the public, or believe in the mandates should those
people be required to register. You either have to be convicted of a CRIME
to lose liberty by due process of law; or you can OPT to be under a FAITH BASED MANDATE if you AGREE to that BELIEF.

If you DON'T agree and DON'T BELIEVE in something,
then govt cannot be abused to force you to change your belief
or punish you for refraining from compliance due to your belief.

I'm willing to bet 10 million dollars this bill was discriminatory
on the basis of CREED and faith-based BELIEFS.

And if no lawyers, no law students or law schools are willing to
be INTELLECTUALLY HONEST enough to see past these biases,
I have offered to go on a HUNGER STRIKE to make my point.

These are BELIEFS. Some people are honest enough to admit it.
But most people have so much conflict of interest at stake,
they don't want responsibility for the change and correction it would
take if everyone were to admit that beliefs are at stake on both
sides and should be treated equally under law if everyone agreed to enforce that.

Too many people believe in bullying by majority rule instead.
Not I. I don't see how we can afford to keep bullying back and forth politically,
instead of stopping that whole trend and AGREEING to respect and
include people's beliefs EQUALLY UNDER LAW. And quit fooling ourselves
into thinking that people will put up with having their beliefs violated over and over
instead of addressing the root conflict and/or separating policies to avoid such conflict.

We either practice "Equal Justice Under Law" or we play games letting the sides take turns where the bigger bully wins by overriding the other side.

If this gameplaying cost us 24 billion with the govt shutdown,
I don't think we can afford that strategy.

Why not hire lawyers and leaders who can mediate conflict
and write solid laws that both sides can agree don't introduce objectionable biases?

If I have to sue political parties and law schools to start enforcing
standards of "equal protection of the laws" that include all beliefs,
well, at least it might EDUCATE some people as to what is going on.

And get the conversation going that we have different POLITICAL
BELIEFS being pushed that ought to be treated equally as religious beliefs.