Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Pardon my being simple when it comes to these types of things, but what happens if the court epic fails to respond by the allotted amount of time?

 

Usually? They ignore the fact they broke the rules and give you the bird when they finally get around to it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi All,

I probably did not make two points clear.

 

First:

The court does not call a press conference or even make a public announcement.

Remember they refused to allow anyone to be present when they make the ruling. This means that Judge Shipp probably does nothing more then send his paperwork to the court clerk who will post it into the electronic digital system.

Since they wanted NIck to pay $1,200.00 for the privilege to send and receiving court papers and we did not have the money for that, Nick will be notified by mail.

I asked Nick if he could call the court and he said that they most likely would not give that info over the phone.   He has his meeting with the Assemblyman today at 9:30am.  After that, if the Assemblyman does not have the ruling info, Nick will try to call the court.  

Anything we find out we will post here right away.

 

Second:

We fully expect this court to rule against us. As we have said many times, they will find some underhanded trick in support of the dismissal, one that will not have any legal bite to it.  This will be plugged into our appeal which is ready to go except for the fact that we don't know yet the reason Shipp will give for the dismissal.

 

On another point, Scalia's untimely death is not good news for our case.  Even if the Republicans hold strong and wait for the next president (which I hope will be Trump) to appoint there is a certain amount of worry that the new Justice will be what we hope or expect. (RE: Souter-Roberts, both Bush family appointees)

 

That's all for today. Will keep you posted. Promise!

Dwight

& Nick

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi All,

I probably did not make two points clear.

 

First:

The court does not call a press conference or even make a public announcement.

Remember they refused to allow anyone to be present when they make the ruling. This means that Judge Shipp probably does nothing more then send his paperwork to the court clerk who will post it into the electronic digital system.

Since they wanted NIck to pay $1,200.00 for the privilege to send and receiving court papers and we did not have the money for that, Nick will be notified by mail.

I asked Nick if he could call the court and he said that they most likely would not give that info over the phone.   He has his meeting with the Assemblyman today at 9:30am.  After that, if the Assemblyman does not have the ruling info, Nick will try to call the court.  

Anything we find out we will post here right away.

 

Second:

We fully expect this court to rule against us. As we have said many times, they will find some underhanded trick in support of the dismissal, one that will not have any legal bite to it.  This will be plugged into our appeal which is ready to go except for the fact that we don't know yet the reason Shipp will give for the dismissal.

 

On another point, Scalia's untimely death is not good news for our case.  Even if the Republicans hold strong and wait for the next president (which I hope will be Trump) to appoint there is a certain amount of worry that the new Justice will be what we hope or expect. (RE: Souter-Roberts, both Bush family appointees)

 

That's all for today. Will keep you posted. Promise!

Dwight

& Nick

thanks man!

 

 also...as mentioned above....record the conversation. nj is a 1 party state, making it perfectly legal for him to record the entire thing, without telling them that he is.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

NOTICE on the lawsuit ruling.

They once again did not rule.

No notice, no statement, no digital filing.

Nick called them today, the court clerk had no comment and refused to let him talk to the Judge's Clerk.

Clearly the court fears making a ruling as they know they will be included in the appeal and then will have to support it.

Thanks,

Dwight

 

Plus.......

Response to the gentleman who wants Cruz. 

I'm not about to get into a back and forth over who is best for President.

Except to say if we are supporters of the Constitution, we must support all of it.  Whether or not it suits us.

 

Please check out this video.  If you still think Cruz is eligible, that will be your prerogative.

 

https://vimeo.com/154765379

 

If this link doesn't work here you can see it on the front page of www.tpath.org

 

Again, we are all on the same side of most issues and for sure there will be disagreements on some things.

I have spent much time looking into Article II since before Obama was elected.  I am convinced that both Cruz and Rubio are ineligible. 

 

Like I said, this topic is not meant for this discussion and I don't think we should tie it up with this issue.

Please email me at [email protected] and we can discuss it a bit more or you can give me reasons why you disagree with the professor in the video Linked here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have to admit i'm losing track...at what point is someone/defedants in contempt(?) for not moving forward or ruling??? Also I'd politly suggest removing the Trump/Cruz stuff or we'll lose this thread....but it is your thread.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have to admit i'm losing track...at what point is someone/defedants in contempt(?) for not moving forward or ruling??? Also I'd politly suggest removing the Trump/Cruz stuff or we'll lose this thread....but it is your thread.

The court will never find itself in contempt.

 

Ergo 30 day for permits.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Stop it Zeke.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Lol, from my experience with other genres this is what happens.

It's like a playbook.

I'll say this, if you rule out the impossible, then anything else is possible.

I'm at a disadvantage cause I'm missing the probable part, it's been a long day

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hey All,

We prepared an update in the form of an online report.

It is too long to post here.

Please follow this link to the SAPPA pages to see it.

 

See the report here http://www.tpath.org/what-are-they-afraid-of-.html

 

This is a tough struggle. But we have a tough guy taking on these ideologues. 

The court would love to put this case to bed.  But they appear scared to take the step.

 

 

Thanks all,

Dwight

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hey All,

We prepared an update in the form of an online report.

It is too long to post here.

Please follow this link to the SAPPA pages to see it.

 

See the report here http://www.tpath.org/what-are-they-afraid-of-.html

 

This is a tough struggle. But we have a tough guy taking on these ideologues. 

The court would love to put this case to bed.  But they appear scared to take the step.

 

 

Thanks all,

Dwight

 

Thanks for the update Dwight!

 

Was there ever a meeting as you described in an earlier post with an assemblyman?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, the meeting took place.

Nick has asked that we keep the details of this under wraps a bit longer as there is now under way an effort, as a result of that meeting, to meet with a very high ranking official in Christie's administration.  

Please be patient on this.  They may be blowing smoke, but we need to take every opportunity that may present itself.

 

Thanks,

Dwight

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You guys do not appear to be foolish so you do know that the words, " They may be " should be changed to ' They are '

That being said you need to see where that path may lead to.  ;)

 

I read your report.......one thing, one tiny suggestion.......the document has no need for the following types of commentary, " Probably quicker than Bill Clinton could scan a room full of cheerleaders."

 

Should this ever make it to prime time, those types of writings, those types of silly comments, do nothing to further the case or agenda. 

 

In my honest opinion it cheapens what you are trying to do and as such can be used against you.  Maybe not procedurally, but surely perceptively by the public...just a thought.  Also where this is all going to be one is in the perceptions of others.......

Besides, Bill Clinton would stare with that creepy uncle look on his face for a long time in a room full of Cheerleaders. No Quick scans there...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Silly comments!!!!

Please notice if you will, the article I shared with you and this forum is not nor will it ever be part of any official record.
 
This post was taken from the TPATH website where you will find many articles on various subjects.  While we strive there to provide precise and accurate information it is imperative that our work is not purely clinical. As we need to be sure the reader is a little entertained and a little surprised.
 
So fear not, when and if we need to submit a legal brief or report to a court we are very capable of doing so.  If you doubt this, please check out the motions, letters and briefs we have submitted to the court over this past year.  Those documents would put most people to sleep if they had not already reached for the mouse after the first few paragraphs. I suspect that would include you too.
 
I do appreciate your suggestion but I think I'll continue writing for TPATH in the manner that has brought us 20 thousand unique visitors a week.
 
Dwight Kehoe
Editor of www.tpath.org
  • Like 1

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...