Do one or more Constitutional violations exist in the ACA?

Issues Presented | This case originated in US District Court Southern District of Texas on 2/4/2016. Despite the government’s admission at least in part to a violation of Constitutional Rights, on 6/14/2018 the Court finally and completely dismissed case 4:16-cv-307. It was appealed to the 5" Circuit, case 18-20440. The case was fully briefed on 3/12/2019. On 8/7/2019 the case was placed in abeyance in favor of Texas v. United States, case 19-10011 in the same court. | filed a Response Letter objecting to this action by the court. On 3/9/2020 in response to the government’s 28(j) | Letter, the court requested Supplemental Briefs. The government in their Brief requested yet another Stay. | filed for Certiorari and on 9/29/2020 the Supreme Court denied the petition. On 10/15/2020 the 5" Circuit Appeals Court did not rule on the merits but vacated the decision of the District Court and remanded for additional analysis of jurisdictional questions. The lower courts have unjustly delayed this case and will probably continue to do so. It is possible this case will : become moot by a Supreme Court decision in the California v. Texas No. 19-840 consolidated case before the issues in this case can be properly heard. | therefore request this case be granted Certiorari and set for hearing as soon as possible. Issues presented to the Court for decision: 1)Do one or more Constitutional violations exist in the ACA? Subsidiary to this question and suggested by the Claims in the Complaint and subsequent papers are multiple violations which may require the court to decide such questions as: a)Does the HHS Mandate violate one or more of the RFRA, the 1* amendment, or equal protection? : ee Oo i b)Do the religious Exemptions in the ACA violate RFRA, the 1st amendment, or due process? . c)Does the ACA violate freedom of association, privacy rights, equal protection, or due process? 2)Does the Constitutional violations of the ACA constitute a law which is so corrupt, “unreasonable” and “capricious” as to goals and implementation to make it unseverable? 3)Can the principle of the Consent of the Governed be restored to some degree by a declaration properly defining “direct tax” and “consent of the governed?” | ii