Jump to content

Leaderboard


Popular Content

Showing content with the highest reputation since 01/03/2023 in all areas

  1. 13 points
    Never thought I'd see this in NJ. Convenience store on corner of 571 & S. Stump Tavern in Jackson. Just up the road from CJRPC.
  2. 9 points
    From Kurt Lundy on FB: (((ANJRPC Lawsuit Update))) Personal Transcript From Today's Hearing with Judge Williams _______________________________________ Judge Williams Enters the Courtroom at 1:36 PM ((( CONSOLIDATION ))) Judge Williams thinks its fair to say that both parties want to consolidate but maybe have not agreed on which judge to consolidate with. Angela Cai makes it a point to say that she doesn't want to wait until the courts start making rulings for parties to sway their opinions on which Judge one may favor that leans towards their argument. The Judge brings up the letter David Jensen from the Koons case submitted around noon just before the court hearing. The letter pretty much had to do with the reasonings why he doesn't believe Koons should be consolidated to another Judge. Dan states that he did not see the letter from Jensen however the Judge gave him a quick summary. Dan thinks that at this point the state has stepped in quicksand. Factors in Rule 42 more so favor consolidation into the Koons case rather than Koons into Siegel. Dan honestly believes that it's highly unlikely for Judge Bumb's outcome in her TRO decision to change in the preliminary injunction stage. He believes that the state only wants this in order to pick a favorable judge. Judge Williams says no one has any idea on how she will rule on a firearm's case. Especially seeing how she hasn't ruled on one yet. Dan thinks the state doesn't want to go with Judge Bumb because she has already ruled against them. First filed rules state that the first filed judge makes the decision on how consolidation is handled, however it does not say which way the consolidation goes. Dan makes it a point to say that the dockets were filed within minutes of each other. 4763 and 4764. Associated numbers come in when you open the shell. Koons was technically filed first. Dan thinks that if the state really wanted to save money they would prefer the case to be consolidated into the Koons Lawsuit. Angela Cai thinks that Dan only wants Judge Bumb because it provided a favorable ruling the plaintiffs. Koons succeeded in their order to show clause. The Siegel case is way behind even though Williams had the earlier docket number. Judge Williams was very surprised when she went to set a court date but noticed that Judge Bumb already set her first hearing for a date sooner than she was able to in the system. Williams' says to thinks that anybody would want to Judge shop her to view both cases is a bit disingenuous seeing how she's the newbie. Angela Cai states that decisions in consolidations always goes to the 1st docket number. She believes that the main reason to consolidate is to prevent inconsistencies. The Siegel case is much more vast than Koons. Cai says that they haven't submitted an appeal yet. Mentions that the Preliminary Injunction hearing dates haven't been set. Wanted to wait until today's ruling to submit. ((( TRO AND PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION ))) From what I got Dan is looking for a TRO on just the Sensitive Places and the Preliminary Injunction on most of the other sections in the lawsuit. The Standing, Historical Tradition and Irreparable Harm argument from the state is basically the same. Dan thinks standing in his case is much stronger. The analysis to historical traditions applies to all of the other sensitive places. Very little has to be done based on Judge Bumb's opinion. The Judge Williams questioned Dan saying that if Judge Bumb Has already resolved most of the issues, why does he need a decision from her? Dan Believes that consolidation should be decided before the TRO in Siegel. Judge Williams was surprised by this and ask Cai if she agrees with what Dan said. Cai says the decision is solely up to her on that matter. This saves Judge Williams from having to use extra resources in order to make a ruling. Dan thinks most of the work is already done. He believes that Judge Williams should use Judge Bumb's 60 page opinion to make a ruling, seeing how 98% of the work is technically already completed. He tells Judge Williams that she should map out the analysis already done by Bumb because it can be directly applied to all the other sensitive places. Dan says the state has interpreted Bruen wrong by picking and choosing sections of it without full context. Bruen provides a broad sense of self defense outside the home. The state and legislators went on record saying how they will undermine the Bruen decision. On December 22nd the day the law was signed, The Governor, The Attorney General, Gifford's, Assemblyman and the Speaker all gave their personal and unconstitutional reasons on why they believe citizens shouldn't be able carry firearms. The moment you walk out of your front door you have to lock up your firearm under this law. Which defeats the purpose of the right to carry. The state uses outliers to explain historical tradition but it wasn't long standing. They cited Texas law that only lasted a year. The State is trying to make up artificial context to support their argument . Heller and McDonald both dealt with possession. Bruen is all about outside the home. All three cases dealt with modern handguns. Dan cites Page 21-33 of Bruen/Sensitive Places. We had pretty much the same so called sensitive places back in 1791. There are no new sensitive places in 2023. On Tuesday the brief from the state claims that Bruen invited States to interpret which it didn't. Bruen says there should be a broad sense of carry except in places where core governmental functions happen. Dan says crowds don't count. Everywhere is crowded. New Jersey is the most dense and crowded state in the United States. Reminding the court on standing. The Attorney General is by constitution the Chief Law Enforcement Officer in New Jersey. The Court could trump the AG to make sure he doesn't do anything inconsistent. The Judge asked how does the 5 sensitive places in the Koons case translate here? Cai doesn't think the Judge should look at those in this Lawsuit. Judge Williams has a suspicion that the state wants her to reverse Judge Bumb's Decision. She asks why she shouldn't think this? Judge has been struggling with the motion to consolidate for the past 2 days. Says she favors Bumb more on this matter. It appears that Kai thinks it would be better to consolidate the other way. Siegel has many more provisions. Judge Williams questions whether the only thing left is a Preliminary Injunction and to consolidate this case into Koons. Cai states that she doesn't think the remaining places correlate to Judge Bumb's opinion. Judge says again that she doesn't think she needs to deal with the temporary restraining order at all. She mentions that the plaintiffs have conceded to the consolidation attempt. Williams' thinks that Bumb's opinion holds a lot of weight. Judge Williams reminisced on the fact that Dan mentioned that this case is 98% done. She then ask him if there's another 14 or so sensitive places that have not been discussed what is the other 2% that hes talking about seeing how Bumb only spoke about 5 places so far. Dan says that the 2% includes actually entering the order on the remaining sensitive places. There's no additional Bruen analysis that needs to be done in order to add those extra places. The state's historical examples on both cases are all the same. Cai claims that she has more evidence that Judge Bumb doesn't have to support not granting a temporary restraining order in the remaining places. Cai cites exhibit.... *5 - a location being used as a polling place during the conduct of an election and places used for the storage or tabulation of ballots; *8 - a child care facility, including a day care center; *10 - a park, beach, recreation facility or area or playground owned or controlled by a State, county or local government unit, or any part of such a place, which is designated as a gun free zone by the governing authority based on considerations of public safety; *22 - a facility licensed or regulated by the Department of Human Services, Department of Children and Families, or Department of Health, other than a health care facility, that provides addiction or mental health treatment or support services; The claims and evidence are only currently before Judge Williams and have not been visited by Judge Bumb yet. Section 9 - a nursery school, pre-school, zoo, or summer camp Section 10 - Parks and Beaches are only talking about merit problems. Cai Brought up the fact that places like Central Park and (I believe she referred to Fairmont park) banned firearms and that many other parks followed their restrictions soon after. She also brought up the following Sections..... *11 - youth sports events, as defined in N.J.S.5:17-1, during and immediately preceding and following the conduct of the event, except that this provision shall not apply to participants of a youth sports event which is a firearm shooting competition to which paragraph (3) of subsection b. of section 14 of P.L.1979, c.179 (C.2C:58-6.1) applies; *18 - a casino and related facilities, including but not limited to appurtenant hotels, retail premises, restaurant and bar facilities, and entertainment and recreational venues located within the casino property; *23 - a public location being used for making motion picture or television images for theatrical, commercial or educational purposes, during the time such location is being used for that purpose; Cai Went on to say that these sections simply didn't exist in the founding time period. Says places like airports didn't exist either. She also cited Texas law where public shows would restrict firearms and it could also tie into movie sets. Judge Williams then cuts Cai off and says that all she thinks she's hearing is to revisit Bumb's opinion. Williams honestly believes that one judge should be deciding these things. It serves the best interests of everyone. Bumb's opinion on Bruen is extensive and exhaustive. Visually viewing the stress on Judge William's face she says that she's struggling with how to address what's before her today. She goes on to say that Bumb has the perfect roadmap to reach a resolution. Cai brings up the Supreme Courts Decision to uphold the 2nd Circuit's Stay on NY's carry law and that she saw how they respected the judicial process. Judge Williams saw what they said and wasn't tricked by the ruling. Judge Williams' then goes on to say that The Supreme Court has spoken. Sometimes we wish they were less ambiguous however this isn’t the case this time, is it. Mic Drop As Cai proceeds to go deeper into her argument the judge has more and more concerns about not consolidating. Cai thinks the Judge should reach a decision on the remaining places. Williams goes on to say that both parties brief and supplemental briefs were written and submitted in superb fashion. Dan says that Justice Alito's opinion yesterday shows that he isn't happy with what's going on. He further presses that Koons reasoning carries over to the remaining sensitive places. Dan mentions that the state never Brought up churches and their unique situation. One of the plaintiffs houses of worship is attached to a school. So it effectively eliminates their ability to carry under this law. He then cites the Multi Use Purpose/Law is too overbroad. Judge Williams then goes on to question if this portion of the law is worthy of TRO?(meaning should it be pushed into the PI stage) Dan responds by saying that this is a major 2nd amendment problem. Places like strip malls have multiple stores that are attached to each other in a development. If one of the stores is an educational institution then the entire building would be considered a sensitive place including the parking lot. Which poses a major risk to plaintiffs and their right to carry. Cai's response to this is to refer back to standing. Judge Williams then starts to think for a moment, then proceeds to call for a 15 minute recess. When she returns she states that when it comes to the 5 sections of the law that a TRO was placed on, She finds no reason to have a different result than what Judge Bumb granted. She then goes on to say that consolidation of Siegel into Koons is the appropriate course of action. It would save many of the court's resources and also mentions that the court has discretion due to the unique situation, based upon the close timing of both cases being filled. There's a couple different ways to look at it but technically the Koons case was filed first. Preliminary Injunction briefing schedule is set to be made soon. Judge Williams also said that her opinion and orders will be released either tonight or tomorrow. More than likely tomorrow.
  3. 9 points
    Siegal has been Consolidated into the Koons Case. Notes coming Soon
  4. 9 points
  5. 8 points
    NJ: Our law is rooted in history and tradition. We wouldn't have passed this law without it. Judge: Show me NJ: Fuck...
  6. 8 points
    "Transcription" (Really more notes) from an attendee to the TRO hearing:
  7. 8 points
    This is such an optimistic time for us gun owners. Its not over yet but for once we have the momentum and the law on our side. I have to say, I've been seeing some infighting lately and it is doing absolutely nothing but stroking internet egos. This is far from over, but there is great work being done on our behalf. No one ever thought carry would come to NJ or NY, and you know what, if everyone had that defeatist mentality, then no one would have taken the torch to bring the fight to court. All this naysaying does nothing but demoralize and does not help the cause. So while its your freedom of speech to always point out the worst case scenario, you are doing nothing to support and motivate. Being aware of negative outcomes is one thing, but constantly being told we will fail is something else. If that is you, I'm sure the community would rather you sit in a corner and let better men take up the fight to restore rights that you insisted wouldn't happen but will get to enjoy nonetheless if successful. Let's keep it up. Donate when you can. Take a friend to the range.
  8. 8 points
  9. 7 points
    ANJRPC has given us this handy dandy list. As of 1/9/2023 - here is the official list of places that you may carry by Code Section (PL 2022 Ch 131) 7(a)(12) - public libraries and museums 7(a)(15) - bars, restaurants and places that serve alcohol 7(a)(17) - entertainment facilities, including but not limited to theaters, stadiums, museums, racetracks anywhere where concerts are performed 7(a)(24) - private property 7(b)(1) - while operating a motor vehicle That's it. All other elements remain in effect and this list only remains enjoined until an appellate court grants a stay (if they do). As of 1/30/2023 - the TRO has been expanded to cover: 7(a)(10) a park, beach, recreation facility or area or playground owned or controlled by a State, county or local government unit, or any part of such a place, which is designated as a gun free zone by the governing authority based on considerations of public safety; NOTE - PLAYGROUNDS are still off-limits N.J.A.C. 7:2–2.17(b) [preexisting law]: State Park Service property. 7(a)(18) a casino and related facilities, including but not limited to appurtenant hotels, retail premises, restaurant and bar facilities, and entertainment and recreational venues located within the casino property; The Court also acknowledged the State’s concession that “school, college, university, or other educational institution” is to be read narrowly to apply to traditional schools such as are regulated by the State. Thus, the prohibition on carrying in schools does not apply to, for example, motorcycle classes, firearms training, Sunday school within a church, karate classes, and music lessons. Further, the Court acknowledged the State’s concession that notwithstanding the very broad language used in the statute (“any part of the buildings, grounds, or parking area”) the scope of prohibition on multiuse property (strip malls, office buildings, churches with schools, etc.) is limited only to the actual prohibited use itself and not other uses and also does not include shared features such as shared parking lots, hallways, elevators, etc. You cannot carry in the following locations: 7(a)(1) a place owned, leased, or under the control of State, county or municipal government used for the purpose of government administration, including but not limited to police stations; 7(a)(2) a courthouse, courtroom, or any other premises used to conduct judicial or court administrative proceedings or functions; 7(a)(3) a State, county, or municipal correctional or juvenile justice facility, jail and any other place maintained by or for a governmental entity for the detention of criminal suspects or offenders; 7(a)(4) a State-contracted half-way house; 7(a)(5) a location being used as a polling place during the conduct of an election and places used for the storage or tabulation of ballots; 7(a)(6) within 100 feet of a place where a public gathering, demonstration or event is held for which a government permit is required, during the conduct of such gathering, demonstration or event; 7(a)(7) a school, college, university or other educational institution, and on any school bus; 7(a)(8) a child care facility, including a day care center; 7(a)(9) a nursery school, pre-school, zoo, or summer camp; 7(a)(10) Playgrounds 7(a)(11) youth sports events, as defined in N.J.S.5:17-1, during and immediately preceding and following the conduct of the event, except that this provision shall not apply to participants of a youth sports event which is a firearm shooting competition to which paragraph (3) of subsection b. of section 14 of P.L.1979, c.179 (C.2C:58-6.1) applies; 7(a)(13) a shelter for the homeless, emergency shelter for the homeless, basic center shelter program, shelter for homeless or runaway youth, children’s shelter, child care shelter, shelter for victims of domestic violence, or any shelter licensed by or under the control of the Juvenile Justice Commission or the Department of Children and Families; 7(a)(14) a community residence for persons with developmental disabilities, head injuries, or terminal illnesses, or any other residential setting licensed by the Department of Human Services or Department of Health; 7(a)(16) a Class 5 Cannabis retailer or medical cannabis dispensary, including any consumption areas licensed or permitted by the Cannabis Regulatory Commission established pursuant to section 31 of P.L.2019, c.153 (C.24:6I-24); 7(a)(19) a plant or operation that produces, converts, distributes or stores energy or converts one form of energy to another; 7(a)(20) an airport or public transportation hub; 7(a)(21) a health care facility, including but not limited to a general hospital, special hospital, psychiatric hospital, public health center, diagnostic center, treatment center, rehabilitation center, extended care facility, skilled nursing home, nursing home, intermediate care facility, tuberculosis hospital, chronic disease hospital, maternity hospital, outpatient clinic, dispensary, assisted living center, home health care agency, residential treatment facility, residential health care facility, medical office, or ambulatory care facility; 7(a)(22) a facility licensed or regulated by the Department of Human Services, Department of Children and Families, or Department of Health, other than a health care facility, that provides addiction or mental health treatment or support services; 7(a)(23) a public location being used for making motion picture or television images for theatrical, commercial or educational purposes, during the time such location is being used for that purpose; 7(a)(25) any other place in which the carrying of a firearm is prohibited by statute or rule or regulation promulgated by a federal or State agency. Duty to inform and Insurance requirements do not take effect until July 2023.
  10. 7 points
    You are new here, maybe a new gun owner too, so you may not know. There is no point trying to apply logic to anti-gun laws. None was used in writing them. If you try, you will only give yourself a headache and still have crappy gun laws.
  11. 7 points
    Koons is the narrow case trying to block the sensitive areas part of A4769. They initially asked for a TRO, preliminary injunction and permanent injunction. Since the exchange of briefs for the TRO, they are now asking that the temporary injunction is granted. This is being run by SAF/FPC/CNJFO/NJ2AS with Jensen as the lead attorney and is being heard by Judge Renee Marie Bumb. Siegel is the much broader challenge to A4769 and other statutes and regulations. This case challenges almost every part of A4769. e.g. A4769 expressly declared parks as sensitive areas, which is duplicative of the Admin Code for State Parks, so if A4769 is unconstitutional in that respect, so is the pre-existing Admin Code. This is being run by ANJRPC with Schmutter as the lead attorney and is being heard by Judge Karen M. Williams. Both these cases were initially filed on the day A4769 was signed by the Governor. Koons is on a slightly faster track, but there is currently only a couple of days difference. NJ had to file their response to Koons last Friday, 12/30/22 and Jensen had to file his reply by yesterday, 1/3/23. The hearing in Federal District Court is tomorrow, 1/5/23 at 11am. The Koons case can be followed here: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/66677437/koons-v-reynolds/ NJ had to file their response to Siegel last Friday, 12/30/22 as well, but the reply from Schmutter is not due until today, 1/4/23. The hearing is scheduled for 1/9/23. The Siegel case can be tracked here: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/66677439/siegel-v-platkin/ Parallel to this, NJ has requested that both cases are consolidated. The decision on the consolidation is expected 1/17/23 or soon after.
  12. 7 points
    I am not a lawyer, but I think that is a legal ‘bitch slap’ to the State of NJ.
  13. 6 points
    Some initial observer feedback on today's hearing:
  14. 6 points
    Just stared watching this…. SCOTUS is holding 2nd Circuit’s feet to the fire and forcing them to expedite 5 cases related to NY anti carry laws. I really hope that Thomas and Alito wind up getting ahold of this..
  15. 6 points
    The mistake that many made was about Judge Karen Williams. She is a Biden appointee but has proven to be a moderate, fair and even handed jurist. Whatever way the case went the result would have been the same. We read that the Murphy administration would have preferred Judge Williams thinking that she could legislate from the bench on the carry ban but she stuck with strict constitutional principles and applied them fairly. Judge Williams has earned my respect and its a sure thing that the left is not very happy with her today. .
  16. 6 points
  17. 6 points
  18. 6 points
  19. 6 points
    STOP! Just stop. There are posters who like to check in, take a quick glance at a few choice threads, and catch up on what's going on with these important cases - they don't need to have their time wasted by having to wade through 50 snarky comments. Get this thread back on track - keep it to updates on what's happening with the legislation and other relevant info. Next person to start attacking someone will be sitting in the clink. Act like brats, you'll be treated accordingly.
  20. 6 points
    That's an interesting analysis... and I hope it's true. I'm not sure the author even went far enough though. Although Roberts and the other SC justices would understandably feel grateful to the armed agents that protect them... I can't help but wonder if they also harbor some level of distrust in the system that was supposed to offer them vigorous protection, but arguably FAILED. After all, under Federal law, those protestors in front of justices' houses after the Roe vs. Wade leak could (and should!) have been removed IMO for trying to intimidate the justices... yet, they weren't! Some of those protestors were even advertising that they knew where Amy Coney-Barrett's kids attended school. If that's not intimidation, what is? And to have someone fly cross country with a gun and show up in front of Kavanaugh's house with essentially a murder kit in his car? Out of control! I was astounded day after day at how little was being done to protect them. If I, a casual observer, felt that way - can you imagine how the justices themselves felt? It wouldn't surprise me in the least if some SC justices are "newly armed". If (and it's still a big "if") Roberts has a newfound respect for the 2A, I would argue it's NOT because he's feeling charitable towards us normies, but more likely because he himself (and his fellow justices) were left feeling vulnerable and in need of self-defense (in addition to protection from agents).
  21. 5 points
    Wow…. Both of those guns are inherently capable of scoring 100% on a HQC - Meaning they are mechanically accurate enough to get scoring hits at 25yards. I have qualed with a JFrame and a Ruger LCP with no issues. Instead of wishing for an easier test, practice harder to be a better shot. It’s a win-win.
  22. 5 points
    I'm not a lawyer, but you would be wise to abide by the rules of an order you were given by the court. If you don't agree with the stipulations in the order or if you feel that there is new legislation that renders the stipulation in the order moot, then you should contact the court and get THEM to provide you with an updated order (or a letter indicating the order is rescinded). You can't ignore a court order.
  23. 5 points
    Just remember, shitty attitudes often make for shitty outcomes. You do you.
  24. 5 points
  25. 5 points
  26. 5 points
    For those too tired to click, lol, their theory is: The move suggests that legislative leaders may not be satisfied with the Attorney General's work, and/or that they have tried and failed to get the Attorney General to make arguments that the AG was not willing to make. Not a lawyer, but that sounds pretty logical. Agree with what @DAHL stated a few posts up... this sounds to me like the wailing and clenched-fist tantrum one would expect from toddlers, not from the heads of state legislative bodies! The AGs office has likely chosen not to embarrass themselves in the courthouse (well, any more than they already have anyway) by going along with this nonsense. These legislators are a JOKE! An embarrassment! And they presume to be speaking "for the public"? Oh, yeah? Really? What about the domestic violence victim who has a creepy ex- who keeps cropping up in her life as an omnipresent threat? Do they represent her? Or the guy whose work (like getting cash out of vending machines) takes him into bad neighborhoods that pose unique risks? Or hell, for that matter, what about the perfectly ordinary NJ residents who face NO "unique" threats at all, but merely read the news, use their critical thinking skills, and realize that CRIME can happen to ANYONE, at ANYTIME, ANYWHERE, and they'd simply like to have the means to protect themselves that their Constitution guarantees them? Maybe they'd just like to be treated like equal and full U.S. citizens (like their brethren right across the river in PA, for instance)? These 2 birdbrains don't "represent the public". Far from it!! Mealy-mouthed, moronic little attention-seekers with no respect for the law. They should both be recalled IMO and bounced to the curb!
  27. 5 points
    Courtesy of PAFOA. Notice the expression on the lady in the chair.
  28. 5 points
    Still, $200 is fucking nuts to exercise a constitutional right..
  29. 5 points
    I think the whole "leave it in the car" is bullshit. I would never leave my gun in the car. Too many assholes around here looking to steal my car. They can have the car but I'll never be responsible for some punk ass thug walking around with any of my guns.
  30. 5 points
  31. 5 points
    I always carry 10+1. The law clearly states a maximum magazine capacity. Nothing is said about how many rounds you can have total.
  32. 5 points
  33. 5 points
    Imagine passing a law and having it struck down within a "week". Really is a straight slap to the face.
  34. 5 points
  35. 5 points
  36. 5 points
    The reply by Schmutter in the Siegel case is here: https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.njd.506026/gov.uscourts.njd.506026.17.0.pdf It is another well reasoned and easily understood piece of writing from Dan - I encourage everyone to read it.
  37. 5 points
  38. 4 points
    Stop insulting other posters...! Enough of that. It's inappropriate, against forum rules and frankly, if comes off belligerent and bratty. I'm sure you can do better! And I hope everyone else on here knows they shouldn't be taking rash-sounding legal advice from strangers on the Internet... do I even need to say that? Hopefully not!
  39. 4 points
    ANJRPC will have a brief breakdown today and a FULL report by Dan Schmutter ASAP! -
  40. 4 points
    I spent a good amount of time reading this on AR15.com, and thought you guys might find it interesting. Many of you are probably familiar with Henderson Defense (aka Battlefield Vegas). They run a ‘shooting experience’ range in Vegas. I’ve been a time or two, and it’s a very cool experience. Highly recommend if you are in the area. Over the years, they have collected extensive data on weapon failure points, round counts, and other bits of data on all kinds of weapons. Many manufacturers are covered. I found it interesting, and I thought some of you data nerds like me would also like it. Warning, it’s quite the rabbit hole to go down. https://www.ar15.com/forums/AR-15/High-round-count-AR-M4-s-over-100-000-rounds-and-how-they-have-handled-on-our-range/118-677135/
  41. 4 points
    And another (Not Mine) informal transcript:
  42. 4 points
    Finally!!! 128days total Handed in Sept 19, got to courts Dec 20, Recvd today from PD. (CamdenCo)
  43. 4 points
  44. 4 points
    You all know we have court Thursday to remove all that extra illegal requirements?
  45. 4 points
    Gloucester county judge says carry any firearm legally owned by permit holder.
  46. 4 points
  47. 4 points
    The consolidation order is out from Judge Williams in the Siegel case: https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.njd.506026/gov.uscourts.njd.506026.34.0.pdf
  48. 4 points
  49. 4 points
  50. 4 points


  • Newsletter

    Want to keep up to date with all our latest news and information?
    Sign Up
×
×
  • Create New...