Cedric Richardson (@RepRichardson), Democrat, Louisiana, LIES about North Carolina voter ID law on C-SPAN, Monday, January 30, 2017 (1/30/2017)

Justice Department wrongly depicted that election law changes would disenfranchise up to two million voters

………………………………………………..

Justice Department “experts” predicted election reforms would lower turnout, particularly of African-Americans

——————————————————————

Dr. Steven A. Camarota

………………………………………………..

2014 PRIMARY ELECTION

Black turnout increased by every meaningful measure

Percentage of black share of the total electorate increased

Increase in turnout among blacks of voting age

………………………………………………..

VOTER TURNOUT INCREASED
May 2014 – 13.7% – Whites
May 2014 – 29.5% – Blacks

………………………………………………..

BLACK AGE-ELIGIBLE RESIDENTS
TURNED OUT to VOTE
November 2010 – 38.5%
November 2014 – 41.1%

………………………………………………..

BLACK REGISTERED VOTERS INCREASE
2010 – 40.3%
2014 – 42.2%

………………………………………………..

BLACK SHARE of all VOTES cast in ELECTION
2010 – 20.1%
2014 – 21.4%

………………………………………………..

BLACK VOTERS ABSOLUTE NUMBER
2010 – 539,646
2014 – 628,004 (16% increase)

——————————————————————

image

image

image

image

image
——————————————————————
http://www.judicialwatch.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/06/Motion-and-Brief-North-Carolina-Amicus.pdf
_________________________________________________

1:13 CV 861

CA4-16-01529

No. 16-2193

(1:13-cv-00660-TDS-JEP)
(1:13-cv-00658-TDS-JEP)
(1:13-cv-00861-TDS-JEP)

——————————————————————

Barack Obama’s (@BarackObama Barack Hussein Obama) CORRUPT Administration Politicized Eric Holder (@EricHolder) Department of Justice (@TheJusticeDept) United States of America North Carolina

State Conference of Branches of the NAACP

Plaintiffs

vs.

North Carolina

Christina Kelley Gallegos-Merrill

Judicial Watch Incorporated (@JudicialWatch)

Defendants

North Carolina

2013

Voter Information Verification Act (HB 589)

voter ID law

July 29, 2013

4 days after bill passed

American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU)

National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP)

Rev. Al Sharpton

White House

Attorney General Eric Holder

Labor Secretary (former Assistant Attorney General for Civil Rights) Thomas Perez

President Barack Obama

MSNBC

Sharpton

this governor signs the bill

Christina Kelley Gallegos-Merrill

Judicial Watch

amicus brief
_________________________________________________
In re Appeal of CHRISTINA KELLEY GALLEGOS-MERRILL
………………………………………………..
December 12 2012
——————————————————————
https://www.nccivitas.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/20121212135610916.pdf
_________________________________________________
16-1529 – US v. State of North Carolina
………………………………………………..
CA4-16-01529
——————————————————————
https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/USCOURTS-ca4-16-01529/content-detail.html
_________________________________________________
Memorandum of Law in Support of Motion For Intervention By Christina Kelley Gallegos-Merrill and Judicial Watch, Inc.(U.S. v. North Carolina Board of Elections and Kim Starch (1:13 CV 861))
………………………………………………..
December 10, 2013
——————————————————————
http://www.judicialwatch.org/document-archive/memorandum-of-law-in-support-if-motion-for-intervention-by-christina-kelley-gallegos-merrill-and-judicial-watch-inc-u-s-v-north-carolina-board-of-elections-and-kim-starch-113-cv-861/
_________________________________________________
Answer in Intervention of Defendant – Intervenors Chistina K. Gallegos-Merrill and Judicial Watch (U.S. v. North Carolina Board of Elections and Kim Starch (1:13 CV 861))
………………………………………………..
December 10, 2013
——————————————————————
http://www.judicialwatch.org/document-archive/answer-in-intervention-of-defendant-intervenors-chistina-k-gallegos-merrill-and-judicial-watchu-s-v-north-carolina-board-of-elections-and-kim-starch-113-cv-861/
_________________________________________________
December 10, 2013
………………………………………………..
22 pgs.
——————————————————————
http://www.judicialwatch.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/12/NC-Memo-of-Law-Intervention-as-filed.pdf
_________________________________________________

https://www.scribd.com/mobile/document/201236178/NC-Reply-Brief-of-Judicial-Watch
_________________________________________________
Judicial Watch Defends North Carolina Voter ID Law Additional Protections against Voter Fraud
………………………………………………..
December 11, 2013
——————————————————————
https://www.judicialwatch.org/press-room/press-releases/judicial-watch-defends-north-carolina-voter-id-law-additional-protections-against-voter-fraud/
_________________________________________________
Judicial Watch and AEF File Amicus in Support of North Carolina Election Integrity Measure
………………………………………………..
September 9, 2014
——————————————————————
https://www.judicialwatch.org/press-room/press-releases/judicial-watch-aef-file-amicus-support-north-carolina-election-integrity-measure/
_________________________________________________
September 2014
………………………………………………..
pgs.
——————————————————————
http://www.brennancenter.org/sites/default/files/legal-work/2014.9.17%20Amicus%20Brief%20of%20Judicial%20Watch,%20Inc.%20in%20support%20of%20Apellees.pdf
_________________________________________________
Order regarding Oral Argument

Moritz College of Law
………………………………………………..
September 22, 2014

3 pgs.
——————————————————————
http://moritzlaw.osu.edu/electionlaw/litigation/documents/NC65.pdf
_________________________________________________
United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
………………………………………………..
September 25, 2014

69 pgs.
——————————————————————
http://www.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinions/published/141845.p.pdf
_________________________________________________
Order Reversing in part and Affirming in part District Court’s
………………………………………………..
October 1, 2014

7 pgs.
——————————————————————
http://moritzlaw.osu.edu/electionlaw/litigation/documents/NC72.pdf
1:13-cv-0066
_________________________________________________
American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU)
………………………………………………..
October 1, 2014

5 pgs.
——————————————————————
https://www.aclu.org/sites/default/files/assets/081-1_judgment_order_filed.pdf
_________________________________________________
United States v. North Carolina Reply Brief
………………………………………………..
June 15, 2016
——————————————————————
https://www.justice.gov/crt/file/867806/download
_________________________________________________
United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit

No. 16-2193
(1:13-cv-00660-TDS-JEP)
(1:13-cv-00658-TDS-JEP)
(1:13-cv-00861-TDS-JEP)
………………………………………………..
North Carolina State Conference of Branches of the NAACP

United States of America

Plaintiffs

Judicial Watch Incorporated

denies injunction

Defendants

Judge Motz
Judge Wynn
Judge Floyd
_________________________________________________
October 19, 2016

2 pgs.
——————————————————————
http://pulse.ncpolicywatch.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/10/Order.pdf
_________________________________________________

Irvin B. Nathan, HACK Pro Vice Attorney General for the District of Columbia (Washington D.C.) wants to see how SHORT-TIMER’S DISEASE affects Herbert B. Dixon, Jr., D.C. Superior Court Judge, District of Columbia (Washington D.C.), DC TAXPAYERS and the citizens and residents of the Fifty (50) United States of America when he PREEMPTS The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA) for Obamacare

November 7, 2014 (11/7/2014)

Irvin B. Nathan, Attorney General for the District of Columbia, submitted:

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
Civil Division

KIRBY VINING,

Plaintiff,

v.

EXECUTIVE BOARD OF THE
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA HEALTH
BENEFIT EXCHANGE AUTHORITY, et al

Defendants

Case No. 14-6496
Judge Herbert P. Dixon, Jr.

MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IS SUPPORT OF
DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS THE COMPLAINT

——————————————————————

Page 2

Attorney General for the District of Columbia, Irvin B. Nathan, CLAIMED:

… DISTRICT of COLUMBIA LAW, … is

PREEMPTED

by the ACA and pertinent regulations

——————————————————————

Page 11

Attorney General for the District of Columbia, Irvin Nathan, CLAIMED:

In this case, FEDERAL LAW

PREEMPTS

the application of the LOCAL LAW establishing a 50-employee limit …

——————————————————————

Page 13

Attorney General for the District of Columbia, Nathan, CLAIMED:

II. THE ACA AND OPM REGULATIONS

PREEMPT

ANY CONTRARY D.C. LAW …

_________________________________________________

Case No. 2014 CA 006496 B
Judge Herbert B. Dixon, Jr.

February 25, 2015 (2/25/2015)

Judge Herbert Dixon, Jr. issued an:

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS THE COMPLAINT

——————————————————————

Page 2

… the Plaintiff asserts that neither the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA) nor any implementing regulation expressly

PREEMPTS

the District’s Health Benefit Exchange Authority Establishment Act of 2011

——————————————————————

Page 9

Finally, even if OPM’s administrative rules and regulations were construed as conflicting with the District’s Health Benefit Exchange Authority Establishment Act of 2011, the court would necessarily conclude that the OPM’s rules and regulations

PREEMPT

the plaintiff’s asserted interpretation of D.C. Code (Section) 31-3171.01(11).(16)(A) …

_________________________________________________

July 13, 2015 (7/13/2015)

Attorney Michael Bekesha, Judicial Watch, Inc., submitted:

BRIEF OF PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT KIRBY VINING

——————————————————————

Page – 11 –

Attorney Michael Bekesha, Judicial Watch, Inc.,

QUESTIONS

why on November 7, 2014 (11/7/2014)

did Attorney General for the District of Columbia,

Irvin B. Nathan,

on behalf of:

Executive Board of the District of Columbia Health Benefit Exchange Authority
District of Columbia Health Bewnefit Exchange Authority
Mila Kofman (in her official capacity as Executive Director of the Authority)

CLAIM:

Page 2 … District of Columbia law, … is

PREEMPTED

by the ACA and pertinent regulations
——————————————————————
Page 11 … FEDERAL LAW

PREEMPTS

the application of the LOCAL LAW establishing a 50-employee limit …
——————————————————————
Page 13 II. THE ACA AND OPM REGULATIONS

PREEMPT

ANY CONTRARY D.C. LAW …
………………………………………………..
when six (6) days later, on

November 13, 2014 (11/13/2014)

in a case filed

July 3, 2014 (7/3/2014)

his colleague:

William F. Causey, Assistant Attorney General

(who is also listed on the documents filed with the District of Columbia Court KIRBY VINING case)

had ARGUED THE EXACT OPPOSITE FACTS

and the

District of Columbia District Court

AGREED with Assistant Attorney General, William F. Causey

in a case involving the same three (3) parties as the KIRBY VINING case:

1:2014cv01138 (BAH)

Executive Board of the District of Columbia Health Benefit Exchange Authority
District of Columbia Health Benefit Exchange Authority
Mila Kofman

American Council of Life Insurers v. D.C. Health Benefit Exchange Authority,
2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 160038, 26-27
(D.D.C. Nov. 13, 2014)

Defendants argued that the ACA

DOES NOT PREEMPT

D.C. law

——————————————————————
image
——————————————————————

The U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia agreed:

[E]xpress

PREEMPTION

IS CLEARLY UNAVAILABLE

………………………………………………..

The ACA . . . squarely addresses

PREEMPTION

and provides that:

NOTHING in this title shall be construed to

PREEMPT

any State law that does not prevent the application of the provisions of this title”

………………………………………………..

Express

PREEMPTION

CANNOT APPLY

because the ACA explicitly recognizes that State laws may be required to carry out the ACA mandate to provide minimum essential health coverage

………………………………………………..

Similarly, to the extent the plaintiff seeks to invoke “field”

PREEMPTION

by referencing

“the authority of Congress to reserve for itself exclusive dominion over an entire field of legislative concern,”

THIS EFFORT IS UNAVAILABLE

………………………………………………..

The ACA expressly grants the States the choice of operating their own Exchange, pursuant to state law, rather than adopt a Federal Exchange plainly undercutting any perceived congressional intent to control the entire field of local Exchanges

American Council of Life Insurers v. D.C. Health Benefit Exchange Authority,
2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 160038, 26-27
(D.D.C. Nov. 13, 2014)

The OFFICE of the ATTORNEY GENERAL for the DISTRICT of COLUMBIA

seems to think it should be able to have it

BOTH WAYS

——————————————————————
image
——————————————————————
November 13, 2014 (11/13/2014)
——————————————————————
https://www.pacermonitor.com/public/case/3956731/AMERICAN_COUNCIL_OF_LIFE_INSURERS_v_DISTRICT_OF_COLUMBIA_HEALTH_BENEFIT_EXCHANGE_AUTHORITY_et_al
_________________________________________________
1:2014cv01138
——————————————————————
https://dockets.justia.com/docket/district-of-columbia/dcdce/1:2014cv01138/167014
_________________________________________________
1:2014cv01138
——————————————————————
http://law.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/district-of-columbia/dcdce/1:2014cv01138/167014/36/
_________________________________________________
1:2014cv01138
——————————————————————
http://cases.justia.com/federal/district-courts/district-of-columbia/dcdce/1:2014cv01138/167014/36/0.pdf?ts=1415971712
_________________________________________________

Civil Action No. 14-cv-1138 (BAH)

Judge Beryl A. Howell

MEMORANDUM OPINION

——————————————————————
image
——————————————————————

Page 12

A. ACA DOES NOT PREEMPT

——————————————————————
image
——————————————————————

Page 13

1. PREEMPTION Principles

——————————————————————
image
——————————————————————
image
——————————————————————

Page 14

Notably, a general presumption AGAINST FEDERAL

PREEMPTION

of state law exists, particularly in areas traditionally reserved to the States
………………………………………………..

… courts “start with the assumption that the historic
——————————————————————
Page 15

police powers of the States were NOT to be superseded by the Federal Act unless that was the clear and manifest purpose of Congress”

………………………………………………..

“To overcome the presumption AGAINST

PREEMPTION

[], the party asserting

PREEMPTION

must demonstrate

‘that the clear and manifest purpose of Congress’

supports

PREEMPTION

………………………………………………..

… the presumption which

“courts must consider when invoking the doctrine of

PREEMPTION,”

that

“in areas where States have exercised their historic police powers

(such as the HEALTH and safety of their citizens),

courts must start with a presumption AGAINST

PREEMPTION,

absent a

‘clear and manifest purpose of Congress'”

………………………………………………..

Consequently,

“when the text of a

PRE-EMPTION

clause is susceptible of more than one plausible reading, courts ordinarily accept the reading that DISFAVORS

PRE-EMPTION,”

since

“[t]hat approach is consistent with both federalism concerns and the historic primacy of state regulation of matters of HEALTH and safety”

………………………………………………..

This presumption AGAINST

PREEMPTION

may be overcome only if the court finds that the

PREEMPTIVE

purpose of Congress was

“clear and manifest”

………………………………………………..

2. Analysis of … PREEMPTION Claim

… express

PREEMPTION

IS CLEARLY

——————————————————————
image
——————————————————————
Page 16

UNAVAILABLE

………………………………………………..

The ACA amends, in part, the Public Health Services Act, which squarely address

PREEMPTION

and provides that:

NOTHING in this title shall be construed to

PREEMPT

any State law that does not prevent the application of the provisions of this title”

………………………………………………..

Express

PREEMPTION

CANNOT APPLY because the ACA explicitly recognizes that State laws may be required to carry out the ACA mandate …

——————————————————————
image
——————————————————————

Page 31

Moreover, the

“case for FEDERAL

PRE-EMPTION

is particularly weak where Congress has indicated its awareness of the operation of state law in a field of interest, and has nonetheless decided to ‘stand by both concepts and to tolerate whatever tension there [is] between them'”

As the defendants note,

“[h]ere, not only did Congress demonstrate its ‘awareness’ of the operation of state and local law in the regulation of the health-insurance industry in the ACA, it encouraged a collaborative approach, detailing ways in which States could generate funding to operate their Exchanges”

Accordingly, the ACA DOES NOT

PREEMPT

… as the ACA reflects the intent of Congress for the States to have broad flexibility to implement and operate State Exchanges

—————————————————————–
image
——————————————————————

United States District Court for the District of Columbia

Civil Action No. 14-cv-1138 (BAH)

Judge Beryl A. Howell

American Council of Life Insurers v. District of Columbia Health Benefit Exchange Authority et al

Memorandum Opinion

—————————————————————–
image
_________________________________________________

_________________________________________________
image

image

image

image

image

image

image

image

image

image

image

image

image

image

image

image

image

image

image

image

image

image

image

image

image

image

image

image

image

image
_________________________________________________
image
_________________________________________________
image
_________________________________________________
image
_________________________________________________
image
_________________________________________________
image
_________________________________________________
image
_________________________________________________
image
_________________________________________________
image
_________________________________________________
image
_________________________________________________
image
_________________________________________________
image
_________________________________________________
image
_________________________________________________
image
_________________________________________________
image
_________________________________________________
image
_________________________________________________
image
_________________________________________________
image
_________________________________________________
image
_________________________________________________
image
_________________________________________________
image
_________________________________________________
image

United States Senate (@SenateGOP @SenateDems U.S. Senate) CORRUPT, FRAUDULENTLY CLAIMS it is a STATE / LOCAL GOVERNMENT with Forty-Five (45) Full-Time Equivalent Employees (Disbursing Office, Washington, DC 20510) for purposes of The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA) Obamacare (as a Small Business)

image

image

image

U.S. House of Representatives (@HouseGOP @HouseDemocrats United States House of Representatives) Doing Business As (D/B/A) STAFF US House of Representatives CORRUPT, FRAUDULENTLY CLAIMS it is a STATE / LOCAL GOVERNMENT with Forty-Five (45) Full-Time Equivalent Employees (B-215 Longworth HOB, Washington, DC 20515) for purposes of The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA) Obamacare (as a Small Business)

image

image

image

US House of Representatives (@HouseGOP @HouseDemocrats United States House of Representatives) CORRUPT, FRAUDULENTLY CLAIMS it is a STATE / LOCAL GOVERNMENT with Forty-Five (45) Full-Time Equivalent Employees (US House of Representatives Members Svc Room 139A Cannon HOB, Washington, DC 20515) for purposes of The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA) Obamacare (as a Small Business)

image

image

image

Herbert B. Dixon, Jr., CORRUPT D.C. Superior Court Judge, District of Columbia (Washington, D.C.) TAXPAYERS Bend Over for Barack Obama (@BarackObama Barack Hussein Obama) OBAMACARE (ACA) CORRUPTION CON JOB by the “local/state governments” of the U.S. House of Representatives and U.S. Senate (Congress of the United States)

_________________________________________________
Vining v. DC Health Benefit Exchange Complaint
………………………………………………..
Judicial Watch (@JudicialWatch)

October 15, 2014
——————————————————————
http://www.judicialwatch.org/document-archive/vining-v-dc-health-benefit-exchange-complaint/
………………………………………………..
8 pgs.
——————————————————————
http://www.judicialwatch.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/Vining-v-DC-Health-Benefit-Exchange-Complaint.pdf
_________________________________________________
image

image

image

image

image

image

image

image
_________________________________________________
JW Files Taxpayer Lawsuit to Stop Congress from Participating in D.C’s Small Business Exchange
………………………………………………..
Judicial Watch (@JudicialWatch)

October 15, 2014
——————————————————————
https://www.judicialwatch.org/press-room/press-releases/judicial-watch-files-taxpayer-lawsuit-stop-congress-participating-district-columbias-small-business-exchange/
_________________________________________________
Kirby Vining v. Executive Board of the District of Columbia Health Benefit Exchange Authority (No. 14-0006496)
………………………………………………..
Judicial Watch (@JudicialWatch)

October 22, 2014
——————————————————————
https://www.judicialwatch.org/cases/kirby-vining-v-executive-board-district-columbia-health-benefit-exchange-authority-14-0006496/
_________________________________________________
D.C. Government Concedes Law Does Not Allow for Congress to Obtain Obamacare in “Small Business Exchange”
………………………………………………..
Judicial Watch (@JudicialWatch)

January 7, 2015
——————————————————————
https://www.judicialwatch.org/press-room/press-releases/d-c-government-concedes-law-not-allow-congress-obtain-obamacare-small-business-exchange/
_________________________________________________
Vining v. Exec Board DC Health Benefit Exchange
………………………………………………..
Judicial Watch (@JudicialWatch)

January 16, 2015

20 pgs.
——————————————————————
http://www.judicialwatch.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/Vining-v-Exec-Board-DC-Health-Benefit-Exchange-Motion-to-Dismiss-0006496.pdf
_________________________________________________
image

image

image

image

image

image

image

image

image

image

image

image

image

image

image

image

image

image

image

image
_________________________________________________
………………………………………………..
February 3, 2015

3 pgs.
——————————————————————
http://www.sbc.senate.gov/public/?a=Files.Serve&File_id=df54c3f3-cfec-4339-a90b-cb2ffe71c35f
_________________________________________________
image

image

image
_________________________________________________

………………………………………………..
February 13, 2015

3 pgs.
——————————————————————
http://www.sbc.senate.gov/public/?a=Files.Serve&File_id=4f177137-33f0-43dd-9b17-0d6b4736fa4b
_________________________________________________
image

image

image
_________________________________________________
February 25, 2015
_________________________________________________
image

image

image

image

image

image

image

image

image

image
_________________________________________________
Judge Dismisses Lawsuit over Congress, Staff Health Insurance
………………………………………………..
February 26, 2015

1 pg.
——————————————————————
https://oag.dc.gov/sites/default/files/dc/sites/oag/release_content/attachments/Judicial_Watch_Decision_Release_FINAL_REVISED.pdf
_________________________________________________
image
_________________________________________________
GOVERNMENT OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL

oag.dc.gov

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: Thursday,

February 26, 2015

Contact: Rob Marus, Communications Director (OAG): 202.724.5646; robert.marus@dc.gov

Ted Gest, Public Information Officer (OAG): 202.727.6283; ted.gest@dc.gov

Adam Hudson: (DC Health Link) 202.527.5622; adam.hudson@dc.gov

Linda Wharton Boyd: (DC Health Link) 202.351.9777; linda.wharton-boyd@dc.gov

Judge Dismisses Lawsuit over Congress, Staff Health Insurance Coverage through DC Health Link

WASHINGTON, D.C. – A judge has dismissed a lawsuit challenging the legality of Members of Congress and members of their staff obtaining health insurance coverage through the DC Health Link Small Group Marketplace, Attorney General Karl A. Racine and DC Health Benefit Exchange Executive Director Mila Kofman announced today

D.C. Superior Court Judge Herbert B. Dixon, Jr. ruled yesterday on a lawsuit filed by Judicial Watch on behalf of District resident Kirby Vining

In his ruling, the judge concluded that

“the defendant exchange authority’s action in allowing members of Congress and their staff to participate in the District’s small business health options program is authorized by federal regulations”

He added that even if federal rules and regulations conflict with the D.C. law that created the District’s Health Benefit Exchange Authority, the court would conclude that the federal regulations preempt Judicial Watch’s interpretation of D.C. law

The ruling was a

“dismissal with prejudice,”

which means that, absent reversal on appeal, Vining is barred from bringing suit again in the Superior Court

Attorney General Racine said he was pleased with the decision

“With this decision, Members of Congress and their staff will be able to continue to purchase affordable health insurance through the District’s Health Benefit Exchange Authority,”

he said

“The Court issued a correct ruling under the law, and it is an appropriate decision that promotes the health and welfare of our community”

Executive Director Kofman also welcomed the decision

“All of our customers are important to us

We are pleased that we can continue to have Congress as one of our customers,”

she said

###
_________________________________________________

………………………………………………..
April 27, 2015

35 pgs.
——————————————————————
http://www.dcogc.org/sites/default/files/vining_amicus_brief.pdf
_________________________________________________
Complaint
………………………………………………..
Citizens Against Government Waste

June 25, 2015
——————————————————————
http://www.ccagw.org/media/press-releases/ccagw-leads-coalition-calling-ethics-inquiry-over-questionable-obamacare
_________________________________________________
image

image

image

image

image

image
_________________________________________________
Vining v. DC Health Exchange appeal 242
………………………………………………..
Judicial Watch (@Judicial Watch)

July 13, 2015
——————————————————————
http://www.judicialwatch.org/document-archive/vining-v-dc-health-exchange-242/
_________________________________________________
Case Number 15-cv-242 In The District of
………………………………………………..
Judicial Watch (@JudicialWatch)

July 13, 2015
——————————————————————
http://www.judicialwatch.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/07-28-15-Vining-appeal-242.pdf
_________________________________________________
image

image

image

image

image

image

image

image

image

image

image

image

image

image

image

image

image

image

image

image

image

image

image

image

image

image

image

image

image

image

image

image

image

image

image

image

image

image

image

image

image

image

image

image

image

image

image

image

image

image

image

image

image

image

image

image
_________________________________________________
Judicial Watch Appeals to Halt Spending on Congress’ Participation on the D.C. Small Business Health Benefit Exchange
………………………………………………..
Judicial Watch (@JudicialWatch)

August 10, 2015
——————————————————————
https://www.judicialwatch.org/press-room/press-releases/judicial-watch-appeals-to-halt-d-c-monies-being-spent-on-congress-participation-on-the-d-c-small-business-health-benefit-exchange/
_________________________________________________
The Fight to Halt Congress’s Obamacare Fraud
………………………………………………..
CNS News (@CNSNews)

Tom Fitton (@TomFitton)

August 13, 2015 | 11:29 AM EDT
——————————————————————
http://www.cnsnews.com/commentary/tom-fitton/fight-halt-congresss-obamacare-fraud
_________________________________________________
Judicial Watch Appeals Court Hearing on Lawsuit to Stop Congress from Participating in D.C.’s Small Business Obamacare Exchange
………………………………………………..
Judicial Watch (@JudicialWatch)

March 1, 2016
——————————————————————
https://www.judicialwatch.org/press-room/press-releases/judicial-watch-appeals-court-hearing-on-lawsuit-to-stop-congress-from-participating-in-d-c-s-small-business-obamacare-exchange/
_________________________________________________

………………………………………………..

——————————————————————
June 2016
——————————————————————
http://cases.justia.com/district-of-columbia/court-of-appeals/2016-14-cv-1322.pdf?ts=1465482680
_________________________________________________
KIRBY VINING v. COUNCIL OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, 14-CV-1322 (D.C. 2016)

District of Columbia Court of Appeals
………………………………………………..
Filed: June 9th, 2016
——————————————————————
https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3211615/kirby-vining-v-council-of-the-district-of-columbia/
_________________________________________________

………………………………………………..
Citizens Against Government Waste

July 7, 2016
——————————————————————
http://www.cagw.org/swineline/some-are-more-equal-others
_________________________________________________
image

image

image

image

image
_________________________________________________
4/28/2015 11:21 4/23/2015 American Commitment
………………………………………………..
Committee Votes to CONCEAL Docs FALSELY Certifying Congress a Small Business
SR – 428A
——————————————————————

First order of business, is consideration of authorizing the subpoena to Mila Kofman the Executive Director of the D.C. Health Benefit Exchange Authority

Uh

Authorization to issue the subpoena requires the consent of a majority of the Committee members

Let me give a very brief background on this

Uh

I’ve been concerned, uh, having found out that our healthcare coverage and that of our staff is being procured through the D.C. Health Link Small Business Exchange

Uh

That Exchange is obviously for small businesses under, the Obamacare Act

Uh

And as, uh, Chair of the Small Business Committee this, this seemed like a conflict, to me

Now, that Act specifically defines a small employer, as a business with an average of not more than one-hundred (100) employees in the past year, and that, is outlined on this, chart right here

It also, gives States and the District of Columbia the option, of further shrinking that number to not more than fifty (50) employees, and that’s what Washington, D.C. has done

They have chosen properly under the Act, to define small employer as a business that employs an average of not more than fifty (50) employees

Now nevertheless, uh, the U.S. House and the U.S. Senate, are participating, in the D.C. Small Business Exchange, for healthcare coverage, although obviously both bodies employ far more than fifty (50) people

Uh

As we looked into this, uh, things became even more worrisome because, we got redacted versions of the applications to the Exchange from the House, and the Senate, and they clearly, contained, misrepresentations, uh, and those misrepresentations including, include, listing the U.S. House, and the U.S. Senate as State or local government, attesting that the number of employees of each body, was forty-five (45)

That’s, pretty interesting since, just among members we have over double that number in the Senate, and, in the form, in the part of the form where, the applicant has to list all the employees to be covered, there were two (2) employees listed which were fake names

And so that, again is very disturbing

Uh

We have tried to get the un-redacted copies of these applications from the D.C. Health Link Exchange

We’re

We’re just talking about nine (9) pages

We simply want the un-redacted versions

They’ve failed to comply, and so that’s what this subpoena is about

Simply requesting the un-redacted versions of those nine (9) pages

So if we issue the subpoena and get those no one will be compelled to testify

That’s the sole target of the subpoena

Those un-redacted nine (9) pages

So with that I move to vote on consent to authorize, the subpoena

‘Course it’s been properly noticed

The

The clerk will call the roll
………………………………………………..
_________________________________________________
Sen. Vitter’s request to subpoena Affordable Care Act documents is rejected by Small Business Committee
………………………………………………..
Updated on Apr 23 2015 at 11:26 AM CDT

Bruce Alpert NOLA.com | Times-Picayune
——————————————————————
https://www.nola.com/articles/15791448/_sen_vitters_request_to_subpoe.amp?
_________________________________________________
Sen. David Vitter’s Obamacare subpoena bid doomed by five GOP defections
………………………………………………..
The Washington Times (@WashTimes)

Tom Howell Jr. (@TomHowellJr)

Thursday, April 23, 2015
——————————————————————
http://m.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/apr/23/david-vitters-obamacare-subpoena-bid-doomed-gop/
_________________________________________________
Five Republicans buck GOP chairman on O-Care investigation
………………………………………………..
The Hill (@TheHill)

April 23, 2015 10:52 AM EDT
——————————————————————
http://origin-nyi.thehill.com/policy/healthcare/239843-five-republicans-vote-to-halt-gop-chairmans-obamacare-investigation
_________________________________________________
Republicans Block Vitter’s Obamacare Subpoena
………………………………………………..
National Journal (@NationalJournal)
——————————————————————
https://www.nationaljournal.com/s/28037
_________________________________________________
DISGUSTING Rand Votes to HIDE Congress’s Obamacare Exemption
………………………………………………..
Thursday, April 23, 2015
——————————————————————
http://www.targetliberty.com/2015/04/disgusting-rand-votes-to-hide-congresss.html?m=1
_________________________________________________
How Five Republicans Let Congress Keep Its Fraudulent Obamacare Subsidies
………………………………………………..
National Review (@NRO)

Brendan Bordelon (@BrendanBordelon)

May 7, 2015 1:26 PM
——————————————————————
https://www.nationalreview.com/article/418055/how-five-republicans-let-congress-keep-its-fraudulent-obamacare-subsidies-brendan?
_________________________________________________