Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Sounds like you guys are promising Dwight - I didnt get a change to read the whole thread but would love to learn more about your case and the plans for the SAPPA - hoping it gives NJ the freedom it deserves after a 9th Justice who upholds the 2A is in there

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Follow up on the last update:

May 5, 2016- As we mentioned below in the previous update, the speed and intricate attention to detail in which we prepared and filed the Recall and Vacate motion seems to have taken both Court and the defense by surprise.  We also noted that it was very possible that the Court  would not actually make the May 16th date.   Looks like that will be the case.   Nick just received a notice from the court that the defense has filed a formal request for an extension of time.  The SAPPA Group has a very good reason not to object to their request.  We will make that reason known to the public at a later date.

 

Here is the letter we sent to the court regarding our non-objection.  Once again we have chosen to provide an undercurrent of sarcasm wrapped in a subtle warning.  Our purpose in that is to let them know that Nick is not intimidated by them nor will he allow them to presume they will be allowed to get away with illegal activity.    See our letter here>>>  RESPONSE TO TIME EXTENSION

 

On another note; Our next steps will require a massive printing and binding of appeal documents.  Nick reported this to the CJRPC last night.  The members voted unanimously to donate a good portion of the cost  for the appeal.   Both Nick and I want to extend our warmest regards and thanks to the President John Scott and the membership.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi All,

Several people has asked through emails and this forum how they can help the SAPPA Group get through these next stages of our lawsuit.

 

Here is a link to the PAY PAL button on the SAPPA page.  Anything you give will surely help.  HERE

If you are not comfortable with PAY PAL you can send a check or money order directly to Nick.

Here is his address.  If you send a check please put SAPPA in the FOR: line

Also, just so you know, any donations to the SAPPA Group will not be tax deductible.

 

Nicholas E. Purpura

1802 Rue De La Port

Wall, New Jersey  

08724

 

There are other ways we will need help that will be coming up very soon.  Once the Brief is illegally dismissed we will begin preparing for the  Third Circuit Court of Appeal.  This will take up much of our resources as 40 or more bound copies of the documents on record will need to be prepared and delivered to the appropriate addresses.  We will be making a list of those whom need to be served and then ask that some of the supporters of this  endeavor volunteer to deliver some of them.  When the time comes we will put out a detailed paper on how this needs to be done.

 

Also and even more important, as this moves to the Circuit Court, it will be time to get as much publicity as is possible.  We will then be looking for volunteers to call radio stations such as 101.5 and Hannity in an effort to get them interested.  The underhanded tactics by the District Court and the Defense should make great talking fodder.  So, any of you know people who have spoken to these hosts or have done so yourself, please contact us at [email protected]   And we have plans to pay for ads on local cable shows and radio programs.  This too will take some considerable financing.  Nick and I feel this will be a very important step in this process as these judges will understand that whatever they will see the light of day.

 

Nick and I will be creating a very short scenario that can be used by callers when they get the screeners on the phone.  How quickly and interestingly this is proposed to them will be critical to getting our callers on the air. 

 

Thanks everyone.  We are in the process of preparing another nice surprise for the District Court.  They will see this within a day of the upcoming dismissal. 

 

Regards,

Dwight

and Nick

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hey All,

A bit more action has taken place.

Here is an excerpt from the SAPPA Log page.

----

May 17, 2016 - Last week  Nick received a letter from Judge Shipp.  Whether or not he wrote it or one of his aides is not important.  The letter denied Mr. Purpura his right to present information concerning the rulings of the Court and the illegal filings of the Defense.  This was the first time that the Judge actually responded to the many requests for oral arguments.   However, he gave no reason for that denial and therefore we feel he has no legal grounds for it.  Hence, he chose to not offer anything that Mr. Purpura could upend.

 

It now has become ever so evident that this Judge has no intention of ruling against the leftist ideology of his Appointer and Chief - Barack Obama.   Nick has known for some time that this day would come.  It has now arrived.  The first step to getting Judge Shipp either removed from the case or to voluntarily  recuse himself is to send an informal notification of this intent.  That notification has been delivered to Judge Shipp.  You can read or download that letter here.  Informal Request for Recusal. 

-----

We are now preparing the formal request for recusal that will be presented to the Chief Judge of the District Court.  That document will detail the many failings and questionable activity of the Court.

 

Thanks,

Dwight

 

I guess most of you have seen the Circuit Court Ruling in DC that puts a temporary ban on the practice of having to "shoe a special need" to carry a weapon.   That DC law is pretty much a carbon copy of the one here in NJ.

DK

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hey All,

A bit more action has taken place.

Here is an excerpt from the SAPPA Log page.

----

May 17, 2016 - Last week  Nick received a letter from Judge Shipp.  Whether or not he wrote it or one of his aides is not important.  The letter denied Mr. Purpura his right to present information concerning the rulings of the Court and the illegal filings of the Defense.  This was the first time that the Judge actually responded to the many requests for oral arguments.   However, he gave no reason for that denial and therefore we feel he has no legal grounds for it.  Hence, he chose to not offer anything that Mr. Purpura could upend.

 

It now has become ever so evident that this Judge has no intention of ruling against the leftist ideology of his Appointer and Chief - Barack Obama.   Nick has known for some time that this day would come.  It has now arrived.  The first step to getting Judge Shipp either removed from the case or to voluntarily  recuse himself is to send an informal notification of this intent.  That notification has been delivered to Judge Shipp.  You can read or download that letter here.  Informal Request for Recusal. 

-----

We are now preparing the formal request for recusal that will be presented to the Chief Judge of the District Court.  That document will detail the many failings and questionable activity of the Court.

 

Thanks,

Dwight

 

I guess most of you have seen the Circuit Court Ruling in DC that puts a temporary ban on the practice of having to "shoe a special need" to carry a weapon.   That DC law is pretty much a carbon copy of the one here in NJ.

DK

 

Awesome letter to this corrupt judge.  Love the last paragraph.

 

Well done gentlemen.

 

And great job by my fellow CJRPC members to step up and support this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A continued thanks for the many long hours and days of hard work you guys are putting into this.

  

A continued thanks for the many long hours and days of hard work you guys are putting into this.

  

A continued thanks for the many long hours and days of hard work you guys are putting into this.

You must really be appreciative.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Based on NJ CCW requirements, wouldn't everyone in NJ with a CCW be in the news since they should be constantly defending themselves due to their justifiable need?

 

If Sweeney hasn't been attacked recently he should have to return his license since he really didn't need it.

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Based on NJ CCW requirements, wouldn't everyone in NJ with a CCW be in the news since they should be constantly defending themselves due to their justifiable need?

 

If Sweeney hasn't been attacked recently he should have to return his license since he really didn't need it.

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Well that's an interesting angle.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hey Guys,

A few things have happened since our last update.

After we filed the "Recall and Vacate" motion the defense apparently felt they had no way of arguing against it so they did what they have done from the beginning.  They ignored the points we made and wrote their own letter to the Judge asking that he too ignore the law.  That of course forced Nick to prepare an answer to that letter.

 

Here is an excerpt from our SAPPA webpage update.  Included there are the two documents referenced here.   If the links don't work in this notice both of the documents can be seen and downloaded from the SAPPA District Court Documents page. A link can be found in the blue menu box at the top of the TPATH Front Page.  www.tpath.org

 

 

June 6, 2016- On June 1, 2016 Mr. Purpura received  a letter which was sent to the Court by the Defense Counsel whereby they presented a weak and infirm request to not produce a Motion in response to Nick's Vacate and Recall submittal.  Here is their letter:  DEFENSE REQUEST TO NOT RESPOND

​Mr. Purpura, having seen this type of action before, had anticipated this move by the defense and had a response template ready.  All it needed was to plug in the specific charges and then be sent to the court.  Here is Nick's response:  REPLY TO DEFENSE LETTER OF OPPOSITION

 

Thanks all,

Dwight

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Dwight, thank you for the update.

 

I earlier asked about the letter from Judge Shipp to Nick referred to in the May 17th update.  I believe it was going to be posted on the SAPPA documents page per your reply:

 

Hi,

Yes! We will be posting the Judge's letter, later today, on the SAPPA page which has all the District Court Documents.

When it is posted you will be able to read or download it here>>> DISTRICT COURT DOCUMENTS

Dwight

 

I don't see it posted as of this writing.  Have I missed it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Dwight,

 

I have discussed this with lawyer types, and they made note that the fact that you guys have not personally been denied the right to carry could affect your standing in the suit.

As a suggestion, applying for and getting denied couldn't hurt.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Fred,

This subject has been dealt with in several of our motions and letters to the court.

Among other points too lengthy to relate here,  we have proven by statistics  that every citizen in NJ is affected by the illegal NJ laws. Simply by living here.  We have testimony from Police Chiefs who are on record as saying, don't bother to try, you are not getting a carry permit.

 

And also, there are Supreme Court rulings that held anyone can file a civil rights lawsuit even if not personally affected.  

But remember, if you live in NJ, you know you are affected and the courts know it too.

 

Ask your lawyer friends to take some time and read our submittals.  I would like to know their responses.

They can all be seen here:  http://www.tpath.org/sappa-district-court-documents.html

 

Thanks,

Dwight

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In addition to Dwight's response, I'd also be worried that applying could give the defense the option of granting him/Nick a permit to carry in an attempt to nullify that argument.  "Here's your permit.  Now what are you complaining about?"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Dwight,

 

Thanks for the response, I tend to be a Belt and Suspenders guy, and want to make sure that the enemy does not have a leg to stand on. You guys are the only ones that I think can get this done, so thanks for all you have done so far.

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...