OVER 10,000 AMERICANS JOIN LAWSUIT AGAINST OBAMACARE

In a new twist on lawsuits against Obamacare, TN attorney Van Irion filed a national class action in Federal court. The suit challenges Obamacare on the basis that Congress is not authorized by the Constitution to regulate health care. Mr. Irion is asking the courts to re-evaluate the Commerce clause precedent, arguing that current precedent in effect destroys the intent of the Constitution and specifically the 10th Amendment.

(PRWEB) April 19, 2010 -- Over 10,000 Americans have joined a lawsuit against Obamacare (http://obamacareclassaction.com). In a new twist on lawsuits against Obamacare, TN constitutional attorney and congressional candidate (http://www.van4congress.org/) Van Irion filed what is shaping up to be a national class action in Federal court April 8th. The suit challenges the constitutionality of Obamacare on the basis that Congress is not authorized by the Constitution to regulate health care. Mr. Irion is asking the courts to re-evaluate the legal precedent related to the Commerce clause, arguing that current precedent in effect destroys the intent of the Constitution and specifically the 10th Amendment.

The lawsuit is a unique take on legal actions against the recently passed Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. It is the first suit that allows any US citizen to join as a plaintiff and is the only suit to directly attack the legal precedent of the Commerce clause and therefore the Constitutionality of Obamacare. Greta Van Susteren, who has been following lawsuits related to Health Care Reform on her show “On the Record with Greta Van Susteren (http://www.foxnews.com/ontherecord/)”, will interview Van Irion this week during the 10pm time slot.

“The lawsuit quickly became so popular among grassroots movements, that we set up a website to take plaintiff information and allow people to follow the progress of the case,” said Irion, The site name is Obamacare Class Action, or “OCA”, and can be found at http://www.obamacareclassaction.com. The form that captures the necessary information asks for name, address and email address. Phone number and company name is optional, but gives US companies the option of signing on as a corporate plaintiff. “Once the complaint is amended to include all the plaintiffs that have signed on, each name will be listed,” said Irion. “At that point, we expect to have tens of thousands of plaintiffs.”

Since filing suit on April 8th, the site has added 1,000 plaintiffs (http://obamacareclassaction.com/join.php) a day on average, although Irion says that rate is increasing as more people hear about the opportunity to join. “This is truly the ‘People’s Suit’. It is their name on the complaint, versus the President, Pelosi, Reid and the U.S., saying that the Obamacare legislation is wrong. It is unconstitutional and must be overturned. The chance to take this to court with a team of constitutional attorneys making the points they have been shouting for over a year is something Americans have been looking for,” said Irion. "I am one of those that have been pointing out the unconstitutionality of Obamacare and am thrilled to have the opportunity to take on this fight.”

The complaint was filed in Federal Court, Eastern District of Tennessee, Chattanooga, case file number 1:10cv-71. For more information about Van Irion, visit Van4Congress (http://www.van4congress.org/) or Law Office of Van R Irion PLLC (http://www.irionlaw.com/).

meyer: I noticed in Van's INTERVIEW with Judge Napolitano the Tennessee Pubbies have pretty much ignored his candidacy. I assume in favor of a more "acceptable" candidate???

Right now, there's several candidates running for the Republican nomination in the 3rd congressional district. I'm not following the party too deeply, but they seem to favor Tim Gobble (Bradley County Sheriff) and Robin Smith (Chairman of the Tennessee State Republican Party). Gobble's a decent candidate, but Van Irion more closely matches my views. He's a strong constitutionalist, conservative, with a dash of libertarian (with a small "L").

Van is a relative newcomer to the political scene. He's a lawyer by trade, concentrating in constitutional law, contract disputes, patents, business transactions, and civil litigation. He's well spoken - I talked with him briefly last night.

Van served in the Air Force as an air traffic controller, holds a degree in Biochemestry and later earned his JD. He has quite a resume on his web page, www.van4congress.org .

You're welcome. Here's an email update I received yesterday evening (note: emphasis is Van Irion's). Would any of your pingees be interested in this update?

Date:

Friday, June 18, 2010 10:11 PM

Subject:

Important Anti-Obamacare Case Update

Ed,

We want to stop Obamacare and we want to stop it now. That is why I've decided to file a motion for preliminary injunction and serve it along with our amended complaint. A motion for preliminary injunction is a request that a court order be issued at the beginning of a case. Such orders prevent one party from acting while the case is being heard. Our motion will be requesting that the court prevent the Federal government from enforcing any aspect of Obamacare, while our case is pending. These types of orders are typically used to prevent one party from being harmed by the other party while the case is being heard. Federal cases can take years to be resolved, so a large amount of harm can be done while you’re waiting for the court to act. That is certainly the case here.

To get such an injunction granted we must prove that 1) We will be irreparably harmed without the order; 2) we are likely to win our case; and 3) that the public will be better served by granting the order than by denying it. With strong legal reasoning and overwhelming public opposition to the government takeover of our health care, our case meets all three of these factors and supports granting a preliminary injunction.

Such motions are sometimes denied, especially when the party requesting the injunction is also arguing that well-established precedent should be overturned. However, the logic of our arguments cannot be ignored. It really boils down to whether or not we get a judge that has the guts to uphold the clear meaning of the Constitution instead of bowing to politically motivated precedent from 70+ years ago. It comes down to whether or not we get a Judge that upholds his oath of office.

Also, such a motion allows us to make our arguments in a way that grabs the attention of the government, the media, and the American people. We will be raising our voices again and making it known that we intend to win. We will not quietly sit by while dozens of new agencies are created to take away our freedom, while the IRS is empowered to become even more invasive of our privacy, nor while the the government continues to ignore the true reforms that are needed in health care.

This motion for preliminary injunction has the potential to stop Obamacare in its tracks. It will be filed in conjunction with the amended complaint that adds you and the more than 32,000 of your fellow Americans that have joined to date. Let's make a much stronger statement to the court and make that number more than 100,000! Please tell everyone you know about our effort to take back our government. Please encourage them to join us. Even if you’ve told them before, please tell them again. Most people need to hear about something at least three times before they act. If we have 100,000 plaintiffs the Judge we will be more likely to follow his Oath and grant the injunction. Let's make this happen!

In Liberty,

Van

Law Office of Van R. Irion, PLLC
Business Law / Patents / Civil Litigation
9040 Executive Park Drive, Suite 223
Knoxville, TN 37923
www.irionlaw.com/oca

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.