In the Matter of Rangers Renal Holding, LP; US Renal Care, Inc.; Dialysis Parent, LLC; and Dialysis HoldCo, LLC # 00002

Submission Number:
00002
Commenter:
Mark Etchieson
State:
Washington
Initiative Name:
In the Matter of Rangers Renal Holding, LP; US Renal Care, Inc.; Dialysis Parent, LLC; and Dialysis HoldCo, LLC
Matter Number:

151-0215

As the report cites several US codes below: _____________ The Commission ’s Complaint alleges that the proposed acquisition, if consummated, would violate Section 7 of the Clayton Act, as amended, 15 U.S.C. § 18, and Section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission Act, as amended, 15 U.S.C. § 45, ________________________ My comment directs me to first question if the laws specifically noted are valid without the enacting clause on any of them to identify the authority of the laws? It has been long established historically that the requirement for a law to be valid is some form of authority on the law of who was the one that passed it? Today there are no valid laws in the code sections of US laws simply because they do not state the enacting clause so they are nullified automatically and no one is bound to follow them and no courts can enforce them. This brings up the question of Subject matter jurisdiction of the court to hear the case. If the law is invalid by defect then the court does not have a crime or complaint to decide. Next is the right of free enterprise in America. The free enterprise system is the best and so commerce should not be regulated and that means the anti-competition laws should be abolished regardless of the possibility of monopoly's. AT&T was the perfect example when it was broken up. This has created higher consumer costs despite more competition. It was better then AT&T should have stayed as a simple unified phone company for all local and long distant services across the United States. The comment is to say that the company should be left alone and allowed to do what it chooses without government interference at all unless there is actual proof of any physical harm to an individual by the company in the way of negligence, malpractice, or fraudulent behavior.