Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Hi,

Turncoat asked if we were worried about the bad guys reading this forum.

The answer is no.  What we are doing is to the letter of the law and we have nothing to hide.

Also they have no legal way to respond to the lawsuit.  The only way they can weasel out of this is by technicality.

 

The delay, which continues up to this moment, is not due to them "blowing" us off.   This is a legally filed  Federal lawsuit.

It MUST be either answered or dismissed on a technicality.  It is our guess that the delay is the result of an ongoing effort to find something that will allow them to do that.

 

Thanks All,

Dwight

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi,

Turncoat asked if we were worried about the bad guys reading this forum.

The answer is no. What we are doing is to the letter of the law and we have nothing to hide.

Also they have no legal way to respond to the lawsuit. The only way they can weasel out of this is by technicality.

 

The delay, which continues up to this moment, is not due to them "blowing" us off. This is a legally filed Federal lawsuit.

It MUST be either answered or dismissed on a technicality. It is our guess that the delay is the result of an ongoing effort to find something that will allow them to do that.

 

Thanks All,

Dwight

Your guess sounds accurate

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hey All,

I just finished a meeting with Nick late yesterday.

I'll be posting some information on TPATH later today.

There is no earth shattering news, but it is a bit interesting.

 

I'll be back later with a link to the update.

 

Dwight

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi All,

To make it easier for many on this topic to find out the latest news without having to go to the SAPPA web pages I have decided to start posting passages form the SAPPA log.  SOme of them will have links to documents you might want to read or download.

 

Here is the latest Log entry:

THURSDAY, OCTOBER 16, 2015- After not hearing anything as a result of the several letters we wrote to the Judge requesting an oral argument,  relating to several times now delayed ruling, Nick once again called the Court Clerk requesting the status of the letter and the Judge's response to it.  Nick was told that the letter had just "yesterday" been posted in the digital Court Record. That would be Wednesday, October 15th. 

 

Understanding that this letter was sent, registered and priority mail on October 5th, Nick asked why it was just now being included in the Court Record.   The Clerk's response to this is quite interesting.  Nick was told that the letter has been in "Chambers" and was just returned to the Clerk's office with orders to post it into the system.  "Chambers" of course means, the Judge and his Clerk. 

 

Nick feels and I agree with him, that concern is growing within those Chambers as they realize that denying a citizen to present oral arguments in a Civil Rights case may have dire consequences for the future careers.

 

And finally, Nick said that the demeanor of those he has spoken with seems to be changing.  While they were never rude in the past, they were curt and cold.  Nick said he sensed a very nice warming of relationships as those he has spoken to these past few days have been, almost friendly. 

 

It seems Nick and his lawsuit have gone from being considered an unpleasant irritant to someone and something that requires not just profound consideration but respect as well.  We shall see how long this continues.   So, as of this date, there has been no ruling on any of the filings for dismissal or default.  

 

WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 7, 2015- ​As a followup to the registered letter Nick sent to Judge Shipp on Monday of this week, he called the Court and asked if the Judge had received the letter and that it had been made "Part of the Court Record" as requested.  The Clerk claimed to know nothing of the letter.  The Clerk then, after being asked, told Nick that there was no indication from the Court Chambers that the ruling would be made on the October 8, 2015.  This may appear to be a delay and part of what the system usually does, but in this case we think these delays are the result of concerns understanding that any ruling will be scrutinized by another court and possibly the people.  We don't know this for sure, but it seems likely.

 

​​TUESDAY, OCTOBER 6, 2015- As a result of many people inquiring about the documents which have been submitted by the various Defense Counsels we  have today, scanned all of them into SAPPA Directory and then uploaded them all for downloading or reading.  You can see these documents as well as the documents sent by the District Court on the District Court Document Download Page

 

MONDAY,  OCTOBER 5, 2015 - On this day we finished preparing another letter to Judge Shipp, requesting, once again that Nick be given his right to present an oral argument at the time of the Judges' rulings now scheduled for October 8, 2015 which will encompass the several Motions before the Court.  In this letter Nick references the Supremacy Clause.  This letter was then brought down to the US Post Office and sent registered priority mail.    Here is a copy of that letter   >>>>  REQUEST FOR ORAL ARGUMENT- SUPREMACY CLAUSE

 
 
Thanks again for all the support this Forum has given to this effort.
 
Dwight
and
Nick

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"almost friendly", "warming of relationships" are just sounds of snakes hissing in the grass- dont let your guard down! j/k, I know you're on top of things as best as you can be.... and again thanx for the updates.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Mr. Purpura should start targeting the "oath breakers" that are in office as well.     There is a law on the books pertaining to this,  I believe it falls under perjury. 

I believe he has the oath part covered! Perjury is lying while under oath to tell the truth. Purpura is going much deeper in an all out conspiratorial approach!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

perhaps they are contemplating issuing Nick and Dwight  permits to make this thing go away?     
 
On another note has the police chief in the town Sweeny lives in started any investigation on his permits and his falsification of his applications for answering "no" to question 28?
  ( "or which seeks to deny others their rights under the Constitution" )  His voting record in the senate is all the proof they need.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

perhaps they are contemplating issuing Nick and Dwight  permits to make this thing go away?     

 

On another note has the police chief in the town Sweeny lives in started any investigation on his permits and his falsification of his applications for answering "no" to question 28?

  ( "or which seeks to deny others their rights under the Constitution" )  His voting record in the senate is all the proof they need.

I like it!!!  Good thinking revenger! I'm pretty sure though that Sweeney and the West Deptford CLEO are best buds!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

perhaps they are contemplating issuing Nick and Dwight  permits to make this thing go away?     

 

On another note has the police chief in the town Sweeny lives in started any investigation on his permits and his falsification of his applications for answering "no" to question 28?

  ( "or which seeks to deny others their rights under the Constitution" )  His voting record in the senate is all the proof they need.

THAT sir is a fucking great angle!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If "regular" citizens can be arbitrarily denied by a chief for forgetting about an incident that may have occurred 25 or so years ago I think these fifth columnists who are CURRENTLY violating the law should be dealt with as well.  from STS-033  "Falsification of this form is a crime of the third degree as provided in NJS 2C:39-10c."                                                                          Almost ALL politicians currently in office in NJ should also be charged with False Swearing as NJ laws says it should be                                                                                                               41:3-1. False swearing, affirmation of declaration; perjury
If any person shall willfully and corruptly swear, affirm or declare falsely, in or by any oath, affirmation, declaration or affidavit, required to be made or taken by any statute of this state, or necessary or proper to be made, taken or used in any court of this state, or for any lawful purpose whatever, such person shall be deemed guilty of perjury and punished accordingly.

41:1-2. Persons required to take oath of allegiance
The governor for the time being of this state, and every person who shall be appointed or elected to any office, legislative, executive or judicial, under the authority of this state, or to any office in the militia thereof, and every counselor, solicitor and attorney at law, shall, before he enters upon the execution of his trust, office or duty, take and subscribe the oath of allegiance prescribed by section 41:1-1 of this title.

41:1-1. Oath of allegiance; form
Every person who is or shall be required by law to give assurance of fidelity and attachment to the Government of this State shall take the following oath of allegiance:

"I, , do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of the State of New Jersey, and that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same and to the Governments established in the United States and in this State, under the authority of the people So help me God."
 
  It's time to start charging ANY official who falls into the definition of 41: 1-2 with perjury if they falsely swore an oath to  support the constitution of the United States and than use their elected position to vote against the very same constitution they swore to support!!!!    

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If "regular" citizens can be arbitrarily denied by a chief for forgetting about an incident that may have occurred 25 or so years ago I think these fifth columnists who are CURRENTLY violating the law should be dealt with as well. from STS-033 "Falsification of this form is a crime of the third degree as provided in NJS 2C:39-10c." Almost ALL politicians currently in office in NJ should also be charged with False Swearing as NJ laws says it should be 41:3-1. False swearing, affirmation of declaration; perjury

If any person shall willfully and corruptly swear, affirm or declare falsely, in or by any oath, affirmation, declaration or affidavit, required to be made or taken by any statute of this state, or necessary or proper to be made, taken or used in any court of this state, or for any lawful purpose whatever, such person shall be deemed guilty of perjury and punished accordingly.

 

41:1-2. Persons required to take oath of allegiance

The governor for the time being of this state, and every person who shall be appointed or elected to any office, legislative, executive or judicial, under the authority of this state, or to any office in the militia thereof, and every counselor, solicitor and attorney at law, shall, before he enters upon the execution of his trust, office or duty, take and subscribe the oath of allegiance prescribed by section 41:1-1 of this title.

 

41:1-1. Oath of allegiance; form

Every person who is or shall be required by law to give assurance of fidelity and attachment to the Government of this State shall take the following oath of allegiance:

 

"I, , do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of the State of New Jersey, and that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same and to the Governments established in the United States and in this State, under the authority of the people So help me God."

 

It's time to start charging ANY official who falls into the definition of 41: 1-2 with perjury if they falsely swore an oath to support the constitution of the United States and than use their elected position to vote against the very same constitution they swore to support!!!!

The real hard angle here is can you charge the judges? They are the new God

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Even a SCOTUS justice can be impeached. But I'm sure you can appreciate the Herculean effort in doing something like that...

I do,

The only thing I've learned so far politically( recall Sweeney, my Enduro club, life)

It takes $$$$$. Nothing but $$$$.

I guess that's why we are where we are now

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hey,

Here is our last update.

THURSDAY, OCTOBER 29, 2015 - It has been awhile since our last update because there has not been anything new to report.  There still has been no response from the Court on the several letters which were sent requesting that the 3 Motions before the Court not be ruled on without oral arguments.  As we stated in several postings it is Nick's belief  that there is a mad scramble to find some way to dismiss this case without having to rule on the Constitutional issues.  The simple fact that several dates have passed which were supposed to be "ruling dates" may indicate that they are finding the easy way out, not so easy to find.

 

Nick decided to keep the pressure on the Court and to increase the number "documents of record" concerning the right for oral arguments, we prepared and sent via special delivery another letter.  Please click here to read or download today's letter.   Oral Argument Letter of October 29, 2015

 

Also, the SAPPA Group in cooperation with TPATH put together a short 21 minute video explaining some of the things that have occurred to date.  You might find it interesting.

See it here on YouTube.    "In Defense of the Bill of Rights"

 

Check out the Document Page if these two links do not work.

http://www.tpath.org/sappa-district-court-documents.html

 

The only thing we really do know is if they thought they had an easy dismissal, they would have done it long ago.  We have warned them that they would be held to task for any decision they make. Nick says they have a team of researchers looking for an out.  Since they have not ruled yet, they must be having a bit of difficulty in that endeavor.

 

Thanks everyone,

Dwight

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

.......

 

  It's time to start charging ANY official who falls into the definition of 41: 1-2 with perjury if they falsely swore an oath to  support the constitution of the United States and than use their elected position to vote against the very same constitution they swore to support!!!!    

Thats why you hardly, if ever, hear any of Antis say they are against Constitution or against 2nd Amendment.  They always proclaim they fully support Constitution, are in favor of Second Amendment........... Every judicial ruling always includes verbiage around how they "love" Constitution and then turns around claims 2A is reserved for someone other than normal joe or only at home or...whatever.. 

 

Remember, even Nazi's claimed their love for their country, constitution, how they are "duty bound" to eliminate "criminals" and "low lifes" off the society for "larger benefit of People". All the while making so called laws that would criminalize and marginalize any population that doesn't fit the agenda. 

 

And thats exactly whats happening here. 

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

    • We never let then inside.  Last re-evaluation was 6-7 years ago, wife politely told him that he was welcome to look around the property and he could look in the windows. He saw two white resin chairs in the basement and told her that this constituted a finished basement. And everything in the basement is bare concrete/ cinder block, and mechanical systems. Nothing finished about it. Ultimately he relented and I'm sure that was a ploy to coerce us to allow him in
    • I use an Alien Gear cloak tuck (IWB) with my Shield.  Neoprene back - in the summer it does feel warm but doesn't rub or chafe.   https://aliengearholsters.com/ruger-lcp-iwb-holster.html Could also go with the shapeshift as it has multiple options - OWB/IWB, Appendix... https://aliengearholsters.com/ruger-lcp-shapeshift-modular-holster-system.html
    • The  12-1 compression ratio L88 is long gone. This is GM's updated version. it might be  pump gas 10-1 engine The L88 was a aluminum head  cast iron block engine with a nasty solid lifter cam. the  ZL1 was a all aluminum  12 or 13-1 compression ratio engine with the best forged internal parts at the time and had a even nastier solid lifter cam 
    • I like my regular carry holster.  OWB leather with belt slots.  I've been carrying for over a year and it was comfortable and I hardly even noticed it.  I carry (usually) a Ruger LCP .380 - light, convenient, tiny. But...today I ended up taking it off an leaving it home after a few hours. I cut down a big maple tree a few days ago and I spent 3/4 of today loading and unloading firewood into the back of my truck and a trailer.  It was a warm day, I was dirty, tired, sweaty, and my holster was rubbing against my side.  The leather and exposed metal snap was no longer comfortable. I'm thinking about adding a layer of something to that part of the holster to soften the contact.  Anything insulating will make it worse.  I don't want a sweaty, hotter holster against my skin.  I'm imagining something thin, breathable, that won't absorb sweat, and softer than leather, metal snaps, and rivets.   But I have no idea what would work. I'm hoping somebody else has already figured this out and I can just do what they did. Any suggestions appreciated.
    • Check the primers on the ammo you didn't shoot yet. Are they fully seated? If the primer is not just below flush with the back of the case, the first hit can seat it better then the second hit ignites it. 
×
×
  • Create New...