Is it proper for an appeals court to raise the bar for standing and mootness to an unattainable level despite evidence of continuing violations and admitted guilt by defendants?

Issues Presented This case has a history of over 8 years. This document will focus primarily on events dating from the the issuance of the Motion for Clarification from the District Court Judge, which I requested as little or no statements from the court had been made other than tacit agreement with the defendants. That memorandum also qualifies as an analysis of mootness and standing required by the 5" ; Circuit Appeals Court after they remanded and vacated the initial dismissal by the district court. The 3AC contains 21 claims against the government most of which violate Constitutional rights. Other than the previous Appeals court decision, which made no decision of the merits but requested a mootness and standing analysis by the district . court, this memorandum by the District Court is the only ; document produced by the court regarding its position in this case. Although the following issues existed previous to this Memorandum, they were crystallized in this document and form the basis for this appeal. This petition is grounded in Supreme Court Rules 10(a) and (c). , 1) Is it a proper exercise of discretion for an Appeals Court to sanction raising the bar presented by the elements of standing and mootness to a virtually unattainable level despite an admission of guilt by the defendants, evidence of continuing and expanding violations to which they admitted culpability, and for the growing injuries caused by these violations especially in the pleading phase as indicated by Supreme Court precedent? Rule 10(a) and (c) is . involved here. 2) The lower court decisions conflict with Janus v. : AMERICAN FEDERATION OF STATE, COUNTY, AND MUNICIPAL EMPLOYEES, COUNCIL 31, No. 16-1466 (U.S. June 27, 2018) as the ACA in like manner creates a compelled association thus evoking rule 10(c). 3) Much evidence indicates that the health insurance companies are “State Actors,” which violate Constitutional Rights of citizens on behalf of the government. The evidence 1 is greater than that presented in previous cases, and the : ACA may have served as a template for the government’s continuing coercion of other business. Rule 10(c) is again evoked. 4) The 7th circuit decision Korte v. Sebelius, 735 F.3d 654, 672 (‘7th Cir. 2013) indicated that RFRA’ provides an entitlement to prospective relief as well as retrospective relief. The District Court ruled in my favor for , : retrospective relief after the remand and vacatur but ; denied prospective relief. The appeals court upheld the lower court ruling thereby setting up a conflict between the . circuit courts on this issue evoking rule 10(a). 5) The religious exemptions in the ACA provide certain religions an advantage of less government regulation but the exemptions have no relationship to the stated goals of the ACA. Therefore these exemptions are in contradiction to Larson v. Valente, 456 US 228 (Supreme : Court 1982) and Estate of Thornton v. Caldor, Inc., 472 US 703 (Supreme Court 1985). By refusing such relief to other ; religions, the ACA creates a ghetto based upon religion rather than race as in Brown v. Board of Education, 347 US. 483, 74S. Ct. 686, 98 L. Ed. 873 (1954). Thereby the government has also created an unequal playing field for . some market participants. Rule 10(a) and (c) is evoked here as well. 6) As this case is over 8 years old and has not had a fair hearing on the issues, I would ask this court to rule on the merits of each of the other claims in the 3AC not mentioned above and provide the requested relief. Any further delay will result in a gross miscarriage of justice and continued harm to the public. As the lower court decisions are in conflict with previous decisions of this court, Rule 10(a) and (c) are evoked. Without very specific instructions and directions from this court, similar subterfuge can be expected from the lower courts if any further litigation would be required ii