Jump to content

Recommended Posts

There was a development that created the need to contact the Circuit Court of Appeals.

We can't tell you more than that now.  Hope you understand.

But know this, there have been significant things happening and all of them good,

We will be able to get more info out in a few days.

Dwight

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi All,

SAPPA Status Update

 

Instead of writing narrative here to inform you of the latest on our Federal Lawsuit I decided to just paste in the latest update from our SAPPA Log which can be found on the SAPPA Pages of www.tpath.org

 

Nick and I would like to note that even though we are moving through the federal court system pretty much as Nick had predicted (except for the extensive delays) as we have always said, the only place this legal action will ultimately prevail is in the Supreme Court.  Right now, with the Court being 4 to 4 liberal/conservative, we do not want this case getting there until the 9th Justice is seated.  Any ties in Supreme Court cases revert back to the lower court.  This we cannot allow.

 

So please, some of you on this forum do not like Trump.  Understand you are not voting for the man, you are voting for his policies and the future of our gun rights.  One or more liberals on the Supreme Court and hundreds of judges on the other lower Federal Courts will destroy this country for 50 years and possibly forever.

 

Here then is the latest update from the SAPPA web pages.  There is much good news in this update.

Thanks to all of you,

Dwight

&

Nick

 

 

=====================

October 18, 2016- The Jurisdictional Brief was formally submitted to the Circuit Court of Appeals.  There may be a panel of just three (3) judges deciding this or the entire Circuit Court group of judges may be involved.  Mr.Purpura requested that it go before the entire Court, legally called en banc.  We will now have to wait and see just how they will handle this.  The filing can be seen HERE.

 

October 15, 2016- Mr. Purpura received a response form  Circuit Court regarding his request for page enlargement.  They agreed to allow six (6) additional pages. However, since we are working on a deadline, the Brief had gone through its final editing and was complete and ready to be filed without the need for these extra pages.  

 

October 5, 2016- Having not received a response from the  Circuit Court concerning our enlargement request, the filing was edited down to the 30 page limit and all of us believe this document to be complete, impressive and the information in it will be very hard to ignore.  This document will, when filed, have a TitlePage, a table of contents and a list of the authorities we used in its preparation. 

 

November 3, 2016- As we struggled to get the Brief down to the 30 page limit Mr. Purpura prepared and sent a letter to the Circuit Court requesting an enlargement of the page limit because the filing would need to encompass three Defense Teams.   See that letter HERE.

 

September 20, 2016- Mr. Purpura began the research needed to prove Circuit Court Jurisdiction and working with the SAPPA Group member, Dwight Kehoe, began preparing and editing this very important new filing.  This task was monumental in that the information regarding the three Defense Teams needed to be compressed into a 30 page maximum filing.  It also needed to include Title Page, indexes and authorities which are required to prove Jurisdiction.

 

September 12, 2016- The United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit issued a new Court Order in response to Mr. Purpura's  filing which explained that the Circuit Court did indeed have Jurisdiction concerning the District Court's ruling. That Order, which issued a C.A. Number of 16-3173  to this case, changed its earlier Order and issued this new one which indicated that there may in fact be Jurisdiction for them.  This is great news because with this new order, we can get much information to the Circuit Court that we feel they need to be aware of. We need to make it clear that this new order does not totally agree with Mr. Purpura concerning Jurisdiction but only that it has agreed to have a panel look at it.  This can be considered nothing less than yet another successful maneuver by our own Pre Se, Mr. Nicholas Purpura.  The Circuit Court Order can be seen HERE.    

 

August 22. 2016- It has been just over a month since the last update.  That does not mean however that nothing has been happening.  Much has.   In fact too much to relate completely here.  So please click on this link to view a posted update on TPATH.  A short summary of that article:  Judge Shipp has been removed from the case.  Motions were filed in the 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals.  Much more.   Link to  the Update Article  SHAKE UP IN THE FEDERAL COURT

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

TPATH and the SAPPA Group posted an article for our readers.

It is called "Over A Year and Still Standing".

Thought some of you might like to see it.

You can see it on www.tpath.org  HERE

Or you can download it in PDF format  PDF HERE

 

Also you can download or read the Circuit Court Appeal   HERE

 

Will keep you all informed right here if any news breaks.

Regards,

Dwight

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hey,

Sorry, I forgot to mention that we here at the SAPPA Group are working on something very important.  Many of us have worked for Trump during the primaries and therefore are on a list that allows us access to NJ State Campaign managers.  We have approached them with a basic view of our plan.

We were told that they are interested in it and will, after we present it to them, pass it on to the National Campaign. 

 

I can't tell you more right now but understand that this will show how far Mr. Trump is willing to go, as he says in his rallies, to  "protect your Second Amendment".   We shall see.

 

Dwight

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Dwight, thanks for the update... The circuit court will probably not do anything good...we really NEED a Constitutionally-conscious SCOTUS, which means we need Trump as President, which is a long shot. He has to win by a vast majority or the contest will be twerked by the powers-that-be. Our second-best hope is a Republican Senate for when Hillary starts proposing radicals for a bench seat.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Dwight, thanks for the update... The circuit court will probably not do anything good...we really NEED a Constitutionally-conscious SCOTUS, which means we need Trump as President, which is a long shot. He has to win by a vast majority or the contest will be twerked by the powers-that-be. Our second-best hope is a Republican Senate for when Hillary starts proposing radicals for a bench seat.

 

So against all odds, we now have that.  Let's hope this can finally move forward.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi,

Yes, much is new.  We are in process of filing 3 Appeals to the Circuit Court.  Appeals that the Court refused to hear because of what they called "lack of jurisdiction".  After filing an encompassing letter to the Court, pointing out precedent for what we asked, they changed their mind and decided to look at it.

 

As you know our lawsuit deals with three groups.  The executive branch violators, the judicial and the municipal.  As a result we need to file a separate Brief in the Appeals Court for each one.   

 

Nick and I have prepared and completed the Municipal Brief, the Executive Brief is in its final editing,  the Judicial has not been prepared yet as we are awaiting their response to the Circuit Court.  They are having trouble, we presume, putting together a defense because they have requested and been granted an extension. We have anticipated much of what they will try and we are pretty well prepared for them.

 

Once the three Appeal Briefs are filed, we will be posting them on the SAPPA Pages of TPATH.  I will drop a note here when they are posted.

 

I know many of us had little faith that a pro se could survive even a week against crooked judges and the combined efforts of three groups of professional attorneys, but here we are, almost 18 months and we have witnessed several hot shot lawyers being replaced and a District Court Judge, removed.  We know the Circuit Court is trying to find some way they can dump our case, without ruling on the merits.  The District Court tried that and those geniuses have been sent packing.  If the Circuit Court is foolish enough to try the same thing, it will provide much for our case when it gets to the Supreme Court.  Hopefully after Trump appoints a strong 2nd Amendment Justice. 

 

Finally, once it leaves the 3rd Circuit and we begin preparing for the Supreme Court, we will for the first time begin asking for help, both monetary and social media wise. Because at that time publicity, publicity, publicity, will be our greatest weapon regarding getting the attention it needs so that the Supreme Court will take special notice of it when deciding which cases to hear.

 

That's all for now.  I'll keep you posted.

Dwight

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hey,

Sorry, I forgot to mention that we here at the SAPPA Group are working on something very important.  Many of us have worked for Trump during the primaries and therefore are on a list that allows us access to NJ State Campaign managers.  We have approached them with a basic view of our plan.

We were told that they are interested in it and will, after we present it to them, pass it on to the National Campaign. 

 

I can't tell you more right now but understand that this will show how far Mr. Trump is willing to go, as he says in his rallies, to  "protect your Second Amendment".   We shall see.

 

Dwight

Stupid question. Why were you working for Trump in NJ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hey All,

As promised here is an update on the federal lawsuit.  Rather than rewrite all that has happened I will paste in the latest log entries with active links.

Please be advised that at any time you can go to the SAPPA Pages of TPATH to see the documents that have been generated and filed.

 

On another note, but related to our Federal lawsuit, Mr. Purpura has taken on a battle with the Chief of Police in his hometown of Wall.  SOme of you may know already that Nick's name turned up on a Jihadist website as a target for death.  The FBI informed not just him, but Monmouth County Officials and the Wall Police Department.  As a result Nick filed and was denied a carry permit by his Chief of Police.  A man named Brice.

We are now in the process of appealing that denial in the Superior Court of NJ.  We will be posting those documents on a separate web pages very soon.  I'll update this forum when we get that done.

 

Here now the latest info and update on our Federal Lawsuit:

December 29, 2016- NOTE TO LOG ENTRY: If the Reply Brief we submitted on December 16, 2016 is read, one will see that the defense used a long time defense of claiming Mr. Purpura has no "standing" since he personally was never denied a carry permit.  Of course, many times over in several filings it was explained that since no common citizen in New Jersey is ever issued a carry permit, just being a citizen here gives one standing.

 

However, several months ago, Mr. Purpura was contacted by the FBI's Terrorism Task Force and informed that he was on a Jihadist website as a potential target.  Mr. Purpura lectures on the Constitution and how Sharia law is at odds with it, which might explain why he is being targeted.  But that information encouraged him to apply for a carry permit.  

 

Wall Township has been long delaying a determination on his application so we subsequently prepared a letter and sent it to the Police Chief.  HERE is that letter.  Granted this situation and the associated documents are not technically involved with our lawsuit, but it supports in so many ways, the points which have been made in Mr. Purpura's original Brief filed in the Federal District Court of Trenton.  It should be noted here that the letter sent to the Chief post dated the response Nick received on his application.  In other words, our letter was sent on December 29, 2016.  The Chief's letter was written on the 23rd but not mailed to Nick until December 30th.   So his application for a carry permit, as you might expect, was denied but it was denied before they read Nick's letter.  Nick will be appealing this denial to the Superior Court of NJ.  As is his right.

 

December 16, 2016- ​After some very careful preparation, research and editing we managed to complete the Reply Brief for the Third Circuit.  This document has encompassed the three Briefs submitted by the three sets of defense attorneys.  As you will recall we were denied the right to submit individual responses to each defendant even though they were allowed to submit three.  

 

The entire document that was submitted included not just the Reply Brief you see HERE  also included all the required bound volumes for the court and the Defendants.  Notice too that we included a Cover Letter with our filing.  That letter can be seen HERE as a separate document. It is entitled "Integrity Tainted by Injustice".   

 

October 18, 2016- The Jurisdictional Brief was formally submitted to the Circuit Court of Appeals.  There may be a panel of just three (3) judges deciding this or the entire Circuit Court group of judges may be involved.  Mr.Purpura requested that it go before the entire Court, legally called en banc.  We will now have to wait and see just how they will handle this.  The filing can be seen HERE.

October 15, 2016- Mr. Purpura received a response form  Circuit Court regarding his request for page enlargement.  They agreed to allow six (6) additional pages. However, since we are working on a deadline, the Brief had gone through its final editing and was complete and ready to be filed without the need for these extra pages.  

 

October 5, 2016- Having not received a response from the  Circuit Court concerning our enlargement request, the filing was edited down to the 30 page limit and all of us believe this document to be complete, impressive and the information in it will be very hard to ignore.  This document will, when filed, have a TitlePage, a table of contents and a list of the authorities we used in its preparation. 

 

October  3, 2016- As we struggled to get the Brief down to the 30 page limit Mr. Purpura prepared and sent a letter to the Circuit Court requesting an enlargement of the page limit because the filing would need to encompass three Defense Teams.   See that letter HERE.

 

September 20, 2016- Mr. Purpura began the research needed to prove Circuit Court Jurisdiction and working with the SAPPA Group member, Dwight Kehoe, began preparing and editing this very important new filing.  This task was monumental in that the information regarding the three Defense Teams needed to be compressed into a 30 page maximum filing.  It also needed to include Title Page, indexes and authorities which are required to prove Jurisdiction.

 

September 12, 2016- The United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit issued a new Court Order in response to Mr. Purpura's  filing which explained that the Circuit Court did indeed have Jurisdiction concerning the District Court's ruling. That Order, which issued a C.A. Number of 16-3173  to this case, changed its earlier Order and issued this new one which indicated that there may in fact be Jurisdiction for them.  This is great news because with this new order, we can get much information to the Circuit Court that we feel they need to be aware of. We need to make it clear that this new order does not totally agree with Mr. Purpura concerning Jurisdiction but only that it has agreed to have a panel look at it.  This can be considered nothing less than yet another successful maneuver by our own Pre Se, Mr. Nicholas Purpura.  The Circuit Court Order can be seen HERE.   

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is so friggin infuriating. Look at the rest of the damn country you jerks. I can't believe in this day and age that Jersey is still pulling this crap.

 

Every time you contact these d-bags, be sure to remind them to never leave New Jersey because 47 states allow people to carry guns. And, Yes, people carry guns at Disney World, too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is so friggin infuriating. Look at the rest of the damn country you jerks. I can't believe in this day and age that Jersey is still pulling this crap.

 

Every time you contact these d-bags, be sure to remind them to never leave New Jersey because 47 states allow people to carry guns. And, Yes, people carry guns at Disney World, too.

http://nj1015.com/reasons-why-new-jerseyans-are-leaving-in-droves-djs-top-picks/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is so friggin infuriating. Look at the rest of the damn country you jerks. I can't believe in this day and age that Jersey is still pulling this crap.

 

Every time you contact these d-bags, be sure to remind them to never leave New Jersey because 47 states allow people to carry guns. And, Yes, people carry guns at Disney World, too.

47 states yes. Disney World no.

 

Sent from my XT1585 using Tapatalk

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

47 states yes. Disney World no.

 

Correct.  Disney and the other "tourist" businesses are some of the strongest anti-gun forces in Florida. I think they are part of the reason why Open carry failed last year (ie. their support of the committee chairs that killed the legislation).  But it's already back on the table for 2017.  In fact, the first FL Senate committee hearings are scheduled for Jan. 10th.  And the one committee chair that bottled up all the bills (Sen. Diaz De La Portilla) was voted out of office!  Also, the bills committee routing bypasses the one committee that still has a Dem. chair. 

 

We think it just might pass this year!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.



  • olight.jpg

    Use Promo Code "NJGF10" for 10% Off Regular Items

  • Supporting Vendors

  • Latest Topics

  • Similar Content

    • By 124gr9mm
      Received this last night.
      Sent a message to all the contact names on the list they provided at the link:
       
       HONEST GUN OWNERS TREATED
      THE SAME AS MURDERERS FOR
      INADVERTENT, TECHNICAL LAW VIOLATIONS   No Violent Crime Required Rot in Jail for Years While Awaiting “Trial”
      Tell Lawmakers to Fix or Oppose This Poorly-Crafted Bill
      On Monday, March 14 at 1:00 p.m., the New Jersey Assembly Law and Public Safety Committee is scheduled to consider A2426 – an apparently well-intentioned but badly botched piece of legislation whose intended purpose appears to be to throw the book at violent gun criminals – which law-abiding gun owners actually support.
        But as written, the bill does not distinguish between violent criminal behavior and innocent technical infractions for the draconian presumption against bail to apply.  Law-abiding gun owners who inadvertently violate NJ’s thicket of hyper-technical firearms possession laws would be treated exactly the same as murderers—thrown in jail to rot for years without bail while they await trial someday for their “crimes.”
      This is not an imagined concern, as the Garden State has a well-documented track record of throwing the book at honest gun owners for innocent technical infractions.  As written, this bill adds insult to injury and would throw honest gun owners in the gulag for years while they await trial for “infractions” like:
      -Stopping for food, fuel, going to the bathroom, or medical treatment on the way to or from the target range.
      -Transporting firearms to or from one’s place of business, a gun store, hunting, fishing, target shooting competitions, target ranges, re-enactments, gun buyback events, vacation homes or other destinations.
      -Widows or widowers turning in firearms of their deceased spouses.
      -Possession of antique and black powder firearms (even these firearms could trigger the draconian penalties under this bill).
      PLEASE IMMEDIATELY CLICK HERE TO EMAIL EVERY ASSEMBLY MEMBER AND TELL THEM TO EITHER FIX OR OPPOSE A2426.  The law should distinguish between MERE POSSESSION of firearms by honest gun owners, vs. MISUSE of firearms by violent gun criminals, and draconian penalties like presumptive denial of bail should only apply to violent criminals who misuse firearms, and not to innocent mistakes of honest gun owners like technical possessory infractions where no violent misconduct is present.  Honest gun owners should not be treated the same as murderers!  Throw the book at the bad guys but take extreme care not to lump the good guys in with the bad.  The bill can easily be amended to make it clear that its penalties apply only to persons accused of violent criminal behavior.
       
       
    • By NJGF
      Judge Kavanaugh and the Second Amendment
      http://www.scotusblog.com/2018/07/judge-kavanaugh-and-the-second-amendment/
      "....Kennedy sided with his more conservative colleagues in finding a Second Amendment right to have a handgun in the home, and there is no reason to believe that Judge Brett Kavanaugh, if confirmed, is likely to disagree"
      "....We know from his recorded dissents from the denial of review that Thomas would vote to review and overturn some existing gun laws, and we know that Gorsuch – at least to some extent – agrees with him. But it takes four votes to grant review in a case, and we do not know whether Roberts and Alito also agree with Thomas but have opted not to say so publicly, or whether they instead are content to leave the court’s gun-rights jurisprudence as it is."
      ".... just this week, the 9th Circuit struck down Hawaii’s ban on carrying weapons openly outside of the home; even if the case goes to the full 9th Circuit, the losing party is almost certain to ask the Supreme Court to weigh in."
    • By NJGF
      Second Amendment challenge to New York state stun gun ban
      https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2016/12/07/second-amendment-challenge-to-new-york-state-stun-gun-ban/?utm_term=.8affecbeea72&wpisrc=nl_volokh&wpmm=1
       
      A law suit was filed that challenges New York's stun gun ban based on second amendment issues.
       
      The filing is here:
      http://14544-presscdn-0-64.pagely.netdna-cdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/12/New-York-sued-in-federal-court-over-Taser-ban.pdf
       
      The suit cites Heller, McDonald, and the more recent Caetano v. Massachusetts decision.
       
      If NY falls then maybe NJ will be next.
       
    • By NJGF
      Don Kates, the father of the modern Second Amendment revival, has died
       
      https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2016/11/04/don-kates-the-father-of-the-modern-second-amendment-revival-has-died/?utm_medium=twitter&utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_term=.c54f683896c7
       
      Don wrote “Handgun Prohibition and the Original Meaning of the Second Amendment,” 82 Mich. L. Rev. 204 (1983), the first modern article in a major law review arguing for the individual-rights view of the Second Amendment.
       
    • By JibbaJabba
      http://www.gunssavelife.com/?p=11186
       
       
      Gun confiscation is one step closer in Connecticut. The mainstream media spins it as “one more chance” for non-compliant gun owners who failed to register their scary guns before the January 1 deadline.
       
      In reality, these letters - 106 to rifle owners, and 108 more to residents with standard capacity magazines – are the first step in the Connecticut State Police beginning to round up guns arbitrarily made illegal last year in that state. These guns include America’s favorite rifle, the AR-15 and magazines over 10 rounds, which include the standard capacity magazines made for that America’s favorite rifle.
       
      Failure to register is now a felony now in Connecticut.
       
      How long will it be before there is bloodshed over this law? We’re not sure, but we’re confident it is coming unless the law is rescinded or struck down by the courts.
       
      Mike Vanderboegh of the edgy Sipsey Street Irregulars released an open letter a couple of weeks ago, warning of what’s coming to Connecticut. The Connecticut State Police aren’t listening. Yet.
       
      We suspect attitudes may change after the first few rounds of bloodshed.
       
      As it stands right now, the best estimates are that 4% of newly-regulated guns and magazines in The Nutmeg State have been registered, leaving a hundred thousand or more newly classified potential felons looking over their shoulder.
       
      Editor’s note: We’re not going to link to the article because they are hiding most of the content behind a paywall and we won’t drive thousands of readers to their website.
       
      One more chance for gun owners
       
      Posted: Monday, February 24, 2014 3:35 pm | Updated: 3:36 pm, Mon Feb 24, 2014.
       
      Manchester, CT (Journal Inquirer) – When state officials decided to accept some gun registrations and magazine declarations that arrived after a Jan. 4 deadline, they also had to deal with those applications that didn’t make the cut.
       
      The state now holds signed and notarized letters saying those late applicants own rifles and magazines illegally.
       
      But rather than turn that information over to prosecutors, state officials are giving the gun owners a chance to get rid of the weapons and magazines.
       
      This entry was posted on February 24, 2014 at 5:55 pm and is filed under Blog. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.
       
      -------------------------------
      100 letters don't seem like much, but it might be their strategy to tackle a little at a time when it comes to the overall 100k non-compliant gun owners. I'm giving strong consideration to the idea of making future purchases outside state lines.
  • Posts

×
×
  • Create New...