Is there a place where we can read the dismissal?

Work permitting I will be there. Assume Nick will be at Wednesday's club meeting?

 

But what a corrupt pile of garbage some of these judges are in NJ. It's really sickening that they ignore the law and just do whatever the hell they want.

 

How I would look forward to putting these judges on trial and doing whatever the hell I wanted to them as pay back.

And when did Judges in THIS state start being held to their oaths???

Right after the tree of Liberty is refreshed and they're arrested and tried.

 

Hey....... I can dream....

Not to get technical, but this case is in federal court. The judge is not a New Jersey appointee. That being said, I have no doubt he colluded with our corrupt state government.

Way too predictable...maybe in the end after all avenues of recourse have been denied there is a lucrative expose book deal to be had. You heard it here first. And what about that meeting???

https://docs.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/new-jersey/njdce/3:2015cv03534/319402/47

Read the several page document.  I'm concerned about the length of time to write such a simple denial, on page eight the bottom paragraph is absurd.  They expect you to become a felon before showing proof of burden.  Only in NJ.

It will be difficult to overcome this judge's decision. Mr. Purpua never applied for a permit to carry in New Jersey, and never stood in front of the judge and said it is my constitutional right to have this give it to me. It is difficult to argue you have been denied a permit to carry, when you have not asked for one.

Was looking at the Heller decision to how that looked.  I found this.

 

Plaintiffs:

Shelly Parker A software designer and former nurse who had been active in trying to rid her neighborhood of drugs. Parker is a single woman whose life had been threatened on numerous occasions by drug dealers who had sometimes tried to break into her house.^[7][8]

 

Tom G. Palmer A colleague of Robert A. Levy at the Cato Institute and the only plaintiff that Levy knew before the case began.^[6] Palmer, who is gay, defended himself with a 9mm handgun in 1982. While walking with a friend in San Jose, California, he was accosted by a gang of about 20 young men who used profane language regarding his sexual orientation and threatened his life. When he produced his gun, the men fled. Palmer believes that the handgun saved his life.^[9][10]

 

Gillian St. Lawrence A mortgage broker who lives in the Georgetown section of D.C. and who owns several legally registered long guns which she uses for recreation in nearby Chantilly, Virginia. It had taken St. Lawrence two years to complete the registration process. She wanted to be able to use these guns to defend herself in her home and to be able to register a handgun.^[11][12]

 

Tracey Ambeau (now Tracey Hanson) An employee of the U.S. Department of Agriculture. Originally from St. Gabriel, Louisiana, she lives in the Adams Morgan neighborhood of D.C. with her husband, Andrew Hanson, who is from Waterloo, Iowa. They live in a high-crime neighborhood near Union Station in D. C. She grew up around guns and wanted one to defend her home.^[13][11]

 

George Lyon A communications lawyer who had previously contacted the National Rifle Association about filing a lawsuit to challenge the D.C. gun laws. Lyon held D.C. licenses for a shotgun and a rifle, but wanted to have a handgun in his home.^[14]

 

Dick Heller A licensed special police officer for the District of Columbia. For his job, Heller carried a gun in federal office buildings, but was not allowed to have one in his home.^[15] Heller had lived in southeast D.C. near the Kentucky Courts public housing complex since 1970 and had seen the neighborhood "transformed from a child-friendly welfare complex to a drug haven". Heller had also approached the National Rifle Association about a lawsuit to overturn the D.C. gun ban, but the NRA declined.^[11]

 

**The court's opinion first addressed whether appellants have standing to sue for declaratory and injunctive relief in section II (slip op. at 5–12). The court concluded that of the six plaintiffs, only Heller – who applied for a handgun permit but was denied – had standing.

^^^^this

 

So only Heller had standing according the the Court, because he was the only one that actually possessed a handgun while in DC and applied for a permit to carry it loaded in his home.  I'm not sure why Gillian St.Lawrence, who owned two long guns and wanted to use them (load them) and use them for home defense, was said to not have standing.  Maybe she never applied to keep it loaded/carry it.

 

So yes, it seems like that's a problem.

 

But something else bugged me, which is probably not a surprise.  Breyer's dissent included this.  [that the "militia" preamble and exact phrase "to keep and bear arms" demands the conclusion that the Second Amendment touches on state militia service only]

 

In other words, in his opinion, the 2A says nothing about citizens even being permitted to own a firearm.  The other Three Stooges joined in his dissent.  So we have four SC justices who believe, and are on record as saying, that regular citizens of the United States have no right to own a firearm.

 

There's no way to conclude that the 2nd Amendment, part of the Bill of Rights, pertains to some government agency (Breyer's version of a militiia). What the hell would the framers be doing enumerating the rights to some part of the gov't in the Bill of Rights.  The "people" are the militia.  Idiots.

 

It's remarkable how 4 justices can just ignore the law and issue opinions based on their ideology.  If that's what they want to do, the four of them, along with all the leftists, should take advantage of the lifting of travel bans to Cuba and go live there.  It's their Xandu.  Hell.. Bernie Sanders even said back in 1985... "Castro isn't perfect, but he's done a lot of good."   Hasta la vista Bernie.

 

edit:  ok... a little off topic.... 

 

Below .....vvvvv...  Rysdad.  Hopefully that's the case.  I'm sure they thought this through.  But I have no idea how these arguments work.  Seems to me that right denied doesn't have to be requested if it's denial is implicit.   For example... "No Blacks on This Bus"

 

Why would someone have to be thrown off the bus in order to have standing to sue?

I am not even going to attempt to put forth the argument that Nick is.  But I will say that this is not your regular " I'm suing because you won't give me a permit" lawsuit.  This suit is about violations of the RICO statutes.  There is a much different set of rules involved when it comes to RICO and violation of constitutional rights.  This is simply a way for this corrupt court to ignore what he is actually saying with this lawsuit and dismiss it like it wasn't viable.

the court did a nice job of winnowing it all down to the didnt apply/ so no harm angle. What this whole case boils down to isnt about  RICO- its about the ruling class abdicating itself.. So we wait again.

So it was dismissed becasue the original complaint was to long, with to much info/references, used hypothetical examples to demonstrate why the laws are broken vs. actually getting arreated and last, certainly not least, was too complicated for teams of lawyers and a judge & his staff to follow, which supports that our laws are all sorts of messed up, in my opinion

 

Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk

So it was dismissed becasue the original complaint was to long, with to much info/references, used hypothetical examples to demonstrate why the laws are broken vs. actually getting arreated and last, certainly not least, was too complicated for teams of lawyers and a judge & his staff to follow, which supports that our laws are all sorts of messed up, in my opinion

 

Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk

 

 

Maybe, but it seems like they may have actually read it.  Not to validate it.  To invalidate it.  They handily found the issue with "standing" to sue.... and ran with it.  I don't understand the process to predict what happens with the appeal, but I hope they get somewhere with it.

 

An an aside... the NRA was asked to help with the Heller case... and passed.  They later submitted an amicus brief.  woo hoo for them. Thnx .. for nothing Wayne....

Maybe, but it seems like they may have actually read it.  Not to validate it.  To invalidate it.  They handily found the issue with "standing" to sue.... and ran with it.  I don't understand the process to predict what happens with the appeal, but I hope they get somewhere with it.

 

An an aside... the NRA was asked to help with the Heller case... and passed.  They later submitted an amicus brief.  woo hoo for them. Thnx .. for nothing Wayne....

they passed, because they.....like most of the firearms lawyers.....don't want the laws fixed.

they passed, because they.....like most of the firearms lawyers.....don't want the laws fixed.

That would be bad for business.

Hey All- As promised- An update prepared for this Forum.

 

 

OUTRAGEOUS RULING BY OBAMA’S JUDGE

April 6, 2016 ~TPATH~ On March 31, 2016, after months and months of delay, after missing numerous ruling dates, and what appears to be collusion between the defense and the District Court Judge Shipp, an Obama appointee, finally issued his ruling on several motions related to Purpura v. Christie,  a Federal law suit which was filed early last year.  It detailed proof of collaboration and conspiracy by New Jersey state officials, political, judicial and law enforcement to deny New Jersey citizens their Constitutional rights under the Second Amendment.  The Brief showed conclusively that this conspiracy was a Civil Rights violation of the Federal RICO Statutes.

 

Much to our shock, (just kidding, no surprise at all) Obama’s Judge showed total disregard for the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and ruled in favor of the Defendants, granting their procedurally infirm Motion(s) to Dismiss.  This ruling was issued despite the fact that the Defense wholly failed to file an affirmative defense or a timely response as required and mandated by law.  If America were still a land of laws, those two violations of the regulations would have created an automatic declaration of default.  

 

Judge Shipp, an ideologue placed on the Court by the leftwing Obama, in total disregard for established law and rules of procedure which have been consistently and routinely supported by Supreme Court precedent, ignored those rules and denied Mr. Purpura’s Motion for Default and Summary Judgment.   His ruling not only despoils the Federal Court’s regulations but also violates existing RICO statutes which have been defined in the Petition.   

 

In a veiled and disgraceful attempt to further protract this litigation, Judge Shipp, using underhanded procedural tactics, not only denied Purpura's Motions “without prejudice”, which would normally have allowed Mr. Purpura to appeal his Order and the supporting Memorandum Opinion, added a caveat to the Order.   Mr. Purpura was given until April 29th to amend the Complaint.  If he fails to do so, the Complaint shall be dismissed, this time “with prejudice”.  Thereby making it almost impossible to appeal this case to the Third Circuit Court!  This caveat, as if there were not already substantial evidence that this Judge is working hand-in-hand with the Defendants as opposed to being an impartial jurist, is quite clearly designed in support of those Defendants and their history of Civil Rights violations.

 

 

Let it be known, "No Fair and Impartial” hearing ever took place. Let it also be known that Mr. Purpura will submit an Amended Complaint within the time frame ordered by the Court.  This filing will prove that the District Court in the State of New Jersey has and continues to act in connivance with the Defendants.  Mr. Purpura will further prove that "Due Process" was blatantly denied!  One example is/was the District Court's repeated refusal to allow an oral argument or even a conference. These denials were issued so as to preclude the possibility of any written record which could and would have been used against them in an appeals process.  Mr. Purpura’s Amended Complaint will show that this tactic has been repeatedly used by the District Court (Trenton).  These collaborators may have avoided making potentially embarrassing and harmful statements during oral arguments but they will not escape much longer as the Amended Complaint Mr. Purpura files will become part of the Official Record.             

Nevertheless, ignoring numerous rules, statutes, and Supreme Court precedence, as well as the United States Constitution, Obama’s Judge ruled in favor of the Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss.  Why would this sociopolitical jurist, Judge Shipp, misinterpret, manipulate and ignore his duty to uphold the Constitution?  Quite simple. He is reasonably confident he can get away with it.

One case in point in his ruling, which appears to be the main thrust of his Dismissal Order, declares Mr. Purpura had no standing because he was not actually denied a carry permit.  This arrogance ignores the fact that everyone not connected to law enforcement or some form of security work in New Jersey who applies, is summarily denied.  Even retired police officers.  Mr. Purpura was told on several occasions not to bother to apply, since he would be wasting his time and money, as have by the way, thousands of other NJ citizens.  While there may not be an official record personally for Mr. Purpura, there are many, many recorded videos of Police Chiefs telling citizens the same thing.  NJ2AS has a video of a Police official from a rather upscale town in Northern New Jersey telling an applicant that not one person in his entire town during the 20 plus years he has been there, has been issued a carry permit.  Simply put, as surely as gravity would plunge Mr. Purpura to the ground if his parachute failed to open, his application for a carry permit would be denied.  He knows it, the Court knows it.  As does every citizen in the state of Liberty and Prosperity.   So as surely as the earth orbits the sun, Mr. Purpura and every NJ citizen has standing in this case.

If there is any good news in this outrageous and legally unsupportable ruling is that the case was dismissed “without prejudice”.  This will require Mr. Purpura to file a motion of appeal back to the Obama appointed judge’s District Court.  It becomes legally complicated at this point because the motion will once again be reviewed by the same Obama appointed judge and no doubt there will be more collusion between the defense and the Federal Court as they once again ponder ways to ignore the law in regards to the points Mr. Purpura will make in his Amended Complaint as well as on appeal up to and including the Supreme Court of these United States!

TPATH will continue to post updates as well as post every document submitted to the District Court of New Jersey –

It's time to expose these low-life reprobates!

Prepared by:

Dwight Kehoe and Nicholas Purpura

For the njgunforum.com

 

NOTE: Mr. Purpura will be holding a lecture and a Q&A forum very soon.  We will post the details when they become final.

Please bury these sons of bitches, it seems to me they opened Pandora's box with this one.  Good job Dwight and Nicholas!

wow, way to be thorough guys. That is obnoxious to say the least

Keep it up fellas.  Tough battle, but you seem motivated and prepared.

 

But I was wondering why no prior app to carry.  Was it the case that it's not required in your view?  Seems like it might be helpful along the lines of eliminating the basis for the opposition's argument against the case.

 

Thanks.

 

ps:  It's ironic isn't it, that the judge is considered the opposition?  Judges are supposed to be impartial arbiters.  How far into the slime this state has sunk....

Keep it up fellas.  Tough battle, but you seem motivated and prepared.

 

But I was wondering why no prior app to carry.  Was it the case that it's not required in your view?  Seems like it might be helpful along the lines of eliminating the basis for the opposition's argument against the case.

 

Thanks.

 

ps:  It's ironic isn't it, that the judge is considered the opposition?  Judges are supposed to be impartial arbiters.  How far into the slime this state has sunk....

Sadly it seems to be just beyond the point of no return.

Sadly it seems to be just beyond the point of no return.

Practice makes perfect

Practice makes perfect

Good Grief, aren't they perfect enough by now?

When I saw the report on Bloomberg about Tepper leaving the state, I about fell off the couch. It really is THAT bad. This state needs an enema...

 

In case you missed it: http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-04-05/tepper-s-move-may-affect-new-jersey-budget-forecaster-warns

It was actually in the ledger 2 weeks + ago

Yea I saw a few articles about it when Appaloosa was moved but didn't really think much of it. It never occurred to me that a hedge fund and billionaire moving out of the state would cause, what amounts to a partial budget rework. Makes the state's fiscal outlook...Oh shaky, I guess.

bump

Hey All,

We have been seriously busy preparing our response to Judge Shipp's order to resubmit the entire Brief.

Will be posting an update very soon.

Dwight

Hey All,

We have been seriously busy preparing our response to Judge Shipp's order to resubmit the entire Brief.

Will be posting an update very soon.

Dwight

thank ya sir!! figured as much....just didn't wanna let the thread get too far buried.

Hey All,

We finished the reply to the Court's Order and Memorandum and served the Court Friday afternoon.

 

The amount of work required to get this done in time put a strain on both Nick and I.  But we were determined to not let them off the hook on a fabricated technicality.  

 

Here is a pasting from the SAPPA News and Update Log.  You will be able to download or read all the latest documents which includes our Cover Letter to the Recall and Vacate request, the order and memorandum issued by the Court.

 

There is much to read in our filing, but keep in mind the hours and days it took us to research and prepare this filing

We will keep you posted on any resulting developments.

 

Dwight

and 

Nick

 

___________________

.​April 23, 2016 - Mr. Purpura and I have been working on a response to the Court's Order and Memorandum pretty much non-stop since the day we received it just over two weeks ago.  As we mentioned in the last update, the court has taken almost 4 months to prepare its Dismissal and Memorandum and then gave Mr. Purpura less than 3 weeks to resubmit his entire Brief or the case would be closed "with prejudice".

Something in that seems just a bit lopsided, but nothing that Nick had not anticipated.  Even though he had not anticipated that the Court would demand the entire Brief be resubmitted, Nick had been able to do some research in preparation of what the Court would try.  So even though the format for our reply changed as a result of that cowardly Order and Memorandum, we had done enough work to promptly begin our response.  Why did I call this Court action cowardly?  Well, because that is exactly what it was.  Here is why.

As we have been saying since the inception of this law suit, it could not lose based upon Federalism, the Constitution or Supreme Court precedents. The only way this Court could save the Defendants, which of course has been its sole enterprise from the moment it had been filed, was to find some way to close this case without having to rule on the merits.  Which of course they could never be done.

As we have chronicled early on, several dirty tricks were pulled by both the Court and the Defendants.  All of which, by the way, Mr. Purpura stopped in their proverbial tracks.  This latest effort to not rule on the law, thereby providing cover for his legacy, Judge Shipp decided to issue an Order that he knew could never be complied with in time.  Again, the Court underestimated Mr. Purpura. 

However, Nick decided not to comply with the Order and Memorandum, since it was quite clear why it had been issued.  Which had nothing to do with what Judge Shipp referenced in his Order but everything to do with avoiding the need to make a ruling based upon law.  A ruling that would surely follow him and his legacy beyond his working years.

So instead Nick issued, as was his legal right, a Recall and Vacate submittal.  A demand that the Court Recall and Vacate the poorly supported and legally unsound Order.  Along with the Recall and Vacatedemand we prepared a cover letter, which while not quite being an olive branch, it does offer the Judge a way out.  

Both the Cover Letter and the Recall and Vacate submission can be seen or downloaded here.    COVER LETTER      and    RECALL AND VACATE DOCUMENT

Both of these documents, much to what we suspect will be a not so wonderful surprise to either the Court or the Defendants, have been served on the Court in Trenton on April 22, 2016. 

The Cover Letter and the Recall and Vacate filing, once read, will fully illuminate the underhandedness and deceitful intentions behind the Court Order and Memorandum.  It will take some time to read it, but not nearly as much time as both Nick and myself spent researching and preparing it. 

While it’s very likely that the Court will deny Nick’s Recall and Vacate filing and it is just as likely that Judge Shipp will, without further warning, issue what he hopes will be the end of this legacy killing affair and dismiss this case “with prejudice”.   If he tries that, once again Mr. Purpura has a little surprise in store.  Stay tuned my friends. 

Well done Sirs! Your combined efforts do not go unnoticed here at NJGF! Thank you both for your tireless effort

to expose those who violate their Oath to Preserve, Protect and Defend the Constitution of The United States of America!

Godspeed!

thank ya sirs!!!!