Would anyone know why NJ's 2A groups are not getting behind this?  Seems like a victory for SAPPA would benefit all of us.  

I posted the link to this on Calguns. Seems most think it is too long of a long shot to get behind.

Sent from my XT1585 using Tapatalk

Dwight & Nick - emailed you to get "on the list" for info about the meeting. I'm not certain I'm able to attend yet.

NJ@AS has worked with us a little.

They posted info on their news letter.  We here at SAPPA are big supporters of NJ2AS. They have done some great work.

As to the group of gun-guys who think this is a long shot and not worth their time, they are correct of course. Their time may be too valuable to taking a chance on righting so many wrongs. But it's been two years and our long shot is still carefully aimed at those who want to destroy our rights.  Long shot or not, Nick, Tony, Joe, myself and many others are in it til the bitter end.  Countless hours, much money and tons of resources we have already expended.  We have no intention of quitting until we have lost or my friends, have won.

Dwight

Keep up the fight. My mother always told me there is no such thing as can't and quitters never win and winners never quit. I will continue to try and spread the word.

Sent from my XT1585 using Tapatalk

I wish you luck, but the problem with the approach was the notion that they give a crap about the technicalities of the law, or that they accept the notion that the systemic deprivation of a right in any matter is a civil rights violation. While I agree that the law says what it says on paper, and that if it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck, the duck laws should apply, but we know the law doesn't matter in a NJ court. At the appellate level the law is selectively applied, and the only chance it was going to be applied was if a ruling against SAPPA's case endangered rulings they cared about. Which is wouldn't, so circuit 3 wasn't going to entertain your argument. 

Which leaves SCOTUS. There's going to be at least one judge who thinks the entire thing is pointless arguing of bullshit minutiae. Given that, you are going to have to get 5 people who love the issue. You don't even get the choice of protecting precedent because it'll be a simple denial and doesn't work that well for undermining precedent set on similar logic. 

My 1st place odds go to simply denying cert. 

2nd place goes to remanding it to the lower court to come up with an argument better than nuh-uh. 

At the root of the flaw with this case is that as far as I can tell, it generalizes the RICO charges of conspiracy to actions generally considered within the perview of government. Without a specific, well formed case they want to side with as clear denial, they aren't going to undermine that right. For example, they might be willing to shoot down a background check law if you can demonstrate that being black was sufficient to fail the check. But more likely, they will rule that sanctions would be placed for discrimination, because they accept without question the right to perform a background check for felons and other prohibited individuals. They believe there are prohibited individuals and it is the government's job to delineate them and prevent them from exercising said right that they don't have. 

Which in the end gets to the problem with RICO. it's a law targeted at a generalized group of people, not a set of illegal behaviors. Everything one does to get a RICO rap is considered just fine if done for the government. It's a law written by one gang against the other gangs. It itself should likely be unconstitutional, and nobody wants to address that either. But it does run into punishing a pattern of behavior. For example if the above background check says that good cause is discretionary to the investigating officer, but race definitely isn't a disqualifier, even though nobody up the food chain ever said screen out the black folks, if someone down the food chain does it, it's a conspiracy. You just have to be functionally related to the process. being an unwitting accomplice protects you not at all by letter of the law. The public at large is protected from the overreach of RICO by investigator and prosecutor discretion. They sure as hell don't intend to hold public office holders to a standard they are sunbjecting the general public to. 

So you will get what you will generally get. The judicial as a whole will ignore the problems of law and assure themselves that it is fine, because everyone will do the right thing when it needs doing.  

 

SAPPA GROUP MEETING TIME/PLACE/DATE  SET

 http://www.tpath.org/sappa-meeting-set.html

Hey All,

The SAPPA Group posted a Press Release and is in the process of distributing it to the major newspapers. We are putting a link to it here so a few can read it and hopefully pass it on to your local newspapers or favorite website news.

Thanks,

Dwight and Nick

These two filings we just did cost a pretty penny.  Nick asked me to thank everyone from this forum who has helped.  And boy, it has helped.  He intends to send each of you a letter later on when we get a chance to catch our breath.

THE SAPPA GROUP 7.27.17 Press Release.pdf

I sent a few bucks your way.  Wish I could do more.  Thanks for fighting for us.

Not to be a nay-sayer, and recognizing the effort you have made for the cause, I will be shocked if the Supreme Court grants your petition, and if they do, you will not get a ruling on the merits, but most likely a remand, which will put you through 3 more years of litigation. I hate to say this but you guys need a  reality check.  Not withstanding, you are to be commended for your dedication and I respect you for trying, but your case has so many procedural deficiencies and convoluted legal theories that this does not bode well for a grant of certification in your case. The court looks for "clean cases" that raise the issue. The recent pro second amendment DC case is a clean case. There is another case in the Ninth Circuit, that is a clean case, that will be argued in that Circuit this fall. I am sure this is why none of the 2nd Amendment Groups have gotten behind you. 

No reality check needed Buddy

If you have been with us from the start you would know we never fooled ourselves for one moment.  We knew we had less chance than a snow bunny in a wolf pack.  But that did not stop us from trying.  Even if we lose this case both Nick and I would do it all over again.  Working to save our Second Amendment was not about walking a way with a win. It was purely about doing the right thing.  Nick and I never dreamed we would have been able to outlast several groups of high priced attorneys and over see the removal of an incompetent judge. But indeed we did.

Our reality is that we tried. We gave it all we had. Left nothing on the table.  We have kept this forum informed because we promised to do that.  Believe me when I tell you we sometimes got more flack here than from the libs.

I haven't had a chance to check your profile so I don't know how old you are. Nick and I operate on the Star Trek mode.  You may be too young to know what that is.  It is, simply put. No matter the odds if there is one chance in a million to survive, you take it.  If we in anyway help to save the second amendment that is all the reality check we need.

But thanks for taking the time to comment.

Dwight

Live long and prosper Dwight and Nick. I speak for many here who appreciate your efforts. PLEASE keep up the good fight! Don't let the naysayers win!

Dwight and Nick, 

I understand that some people feel that there's not much of a chance for success (not my opinion) but the sum total of what they are doing is..."read something, wish it were so, experience doubts from previous experience, comment as a nay-sayer and then feel a little better about themselves". That's all well and good, but YOU guys (as you describe above) have fought the fight, have made years of preparations, spent life and treasure, and are STILL IN IT! You HAVE beat the slimy bastards at their own game, repeatedly. You HAVE turned out a creep of a judge and he has received some amount of justice. 

One commenter noted the "pedestrian" or "regular guy" tone of your case as a detriment. Personally if I was a supreme court justice I would be VERY interested in looking at a case that came all the way to us through a corrupt craphole like NJ. The "pedestrian" nature of it would make me even more interested than if it had been brought by professional attorneys. So I don't buy that argument.

I don't know if SCOTUS will entertain your case, but you have taken it there and I applaud your determination and success. I for one am happy to cheer on an underdog. Thank you sincerely for your fight, and there are many, many, many of us behind you.

 

12 hours ago, JohnnyB said:

Live long and prosper Dwight and Nick. I speak for many here who appreciate your efforts. PLEASE keep up the good fight! Don't let the naysayers win!

Nice reference for us old guys.  I could not agree more!

Hey Guys,

Things are going fast and furious.

Here are a couple of links to help you keep up.

    http://www.tpath.org/sappa-invites.html 

SAPPA Activity Log; http://www.tpath.org/sappa-news-and-reports.html

Signup to attend SAPPA meeting: http://www.tpath.org/sappa-meeting-signup.html

SCOTUS Denies Forma Pauperis: http://www.tpath.org/sappa-nick-denied-poor-man-filing.html

TPATH Front Page:http://www.tpath.org/

That's all for now.  There is yet another development we will update you on when it becomes more clear.

Regards,

Dwight & Nick

2 hours ago, SAPPA said:

Hey Guys,

Things are going fast and furious.

Here are a couple of links to help you keep up.

    http://www.tpath.org/sappa-invites.html 

SAPPA Activity Log; http://www.tpath.org/sappa-news-and-reports.html

Signup to attend SAPPA meeting: http://www.tpath.org/sappa-meeting-signup.html

SCOTUS Denies Forma Pauperis: http://www.tpath.org/sappa-nick-denied-poor-man-filing.html

TPATH Front Page:http://www.tpath.org/

That's all for now.  There is yet another development we will update you on when it becomes more clear.

Regards,

Dwight & Nick

Muscle!

I take it he gets a "do over"  is that how this translates.

also,  what about all the court violations by Shipp that led up to this,  any charges coming on this.

RELATED ARTICLE ON TPATH

http://www.tpath.org/people-control.html

Have you thought about contacting Fox News?  With all the "fake news" and burying of real news that they talk about it seems your story would fit in (obviosly on the real news being buried side of things).  Nobody is talking about this and it is a great story.  Individual citizen taking on governmemt.  Government trying to wait them out or ignore the citizens complaint and usimg dirty tricks in attempt to have suit thrown out!  Citizen winning little by little, fighting sole battle against the behemoth.  Petitioning to Supreme Court.

There is A LOT of sizzle hear AND it fits Fox's message that real news is being ignored, as your story obviously is, by the MSM.

Here's their email to notify them of news stories.  Describe in a few paragraphs what has transpired.  Connect it with main stream media burying and ignoring this story.  Include link you have to website showing your history / updates.  I would be surprised if you didn't receive a reply from them.

[email protected].

 

Things are moving quickly.

Here are a few important links.

Meeting location and time:  http://www.tpath.org/sappa-meeting-set.html

Form letters to help contact SCOTUS and politicians:  http://www.tpath.org/sappa-form-letters.html

Meeting Agenda: http://nebula.wsimg.com/82e47399c06011eb335f0567e26f157f?AccessKeyId=3221A0C50080D1C903B6&disposition=0&alloworigin=1

That's it for now.  Hope to see some of you at the Middletown meeting tonight.

Dwight and Nick

On ‎8‎/‎2‎/‎2017 at 6:52 AM, gleninjersey said:

Here's their email to notify them of news stories.  Describe in a few paragraphs what has transpired.  Connect it with main stream media burying and ignoring this story.  Include link you have to website showing your history / updates.  I would be surprised if you didn't receive a reply from them.

[email protected].

 

Done, thanks for the link.

Hey Glen and All,

We took your advice and sent a letter to FOX News.  I attached it here.

Thank you for that information and suggestion.  I'll let you know if we get a response.

On other news, the reformatted Writ has been transcribed and printed and delivered to SCOTUS. We should be getting the SCOTUS filing number later this week.  At that time we will begin implementing all the great ideas proffered at last week's meeting.

Also we were given permission to deliver the expedite motion to all 9 justices.  Those are being mailed today.

Finally we will be having some news later this week concerning an addition to our SAPPA Group.  This will be a very good step in getting our case accepted. We are thrilled at the prospects of this very professional patriot.

 

That's it for now,

Dwight & Nick

Letter to Fox News.docx

Here is an update.

READ MORE AT TPATH.ORG

Congratulations on getting this far!

I would really, really, like to see your case get heard.

You are bringing an important issue to the courts, and even if your case is not heard, they will pick up on the issues, and find a case that give us our rights back.

Does the docket number being issued really mean anything. I fully support this action because anything is worth a shot, but I don't want to get people's hopes up over nothing.

Mr Papura didn't you have a docket number issued by SCOTUS for your divorce?


No. 01-9804 Status: DECIDED
Title: Nicholas E. Purpura, Petitioner
v.
Barbara Purpura
Docketed: Lower Ct: Court of Appeals of New York
April 23, 2002 (Mo. No. 987)

~~Date~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~Proceedings and Orders~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Apr 16 2002 Petition for writ of certiorari and motion for leave to proceed in
forma pauperis filed. (Response due May 23, 2002)
Apr 23 2002 Motion of petitioner to expedite consideration of the petition
filed.
May 3 2002 Waiver of right of respondents Barbara Purpura, et al. to respond
filed.
Jun 5 2002 DISTRIBUTED for Conference of June 20, 2002
Jun 24 2002 Petition DENIED.


Sent from my XT1585 using Tapatalk

20 hours ago, capt14k said:

Does the docket number being issued really mean anything. I fully support this action because anything is worth a shot, but I don't want to get people's hopes up over nothing.

Mr Papura didn't you have a docket number issued by SCOTUS for your divorce?
...

Really capt14k?  That's what you chose to do with your Saturday night, research mud to sling at a guy who's trying to help all of us?

Maybe the case is legit, maybe it isn't, but I do know that SAPPA is trying to help the NJ RKBA cause.  If you're not going to support them, at least leave them alone.

Really capt14k?  That's what you chose to do with your Saturday night, research mud to sling at a guy who's trying to help all of us? Maybe the case is legit, maybe it isn't, but I do know that SAPPA is trying to help the NJ RKBA cause.  If you're not going to support them, at least leave them alone.    

 

Actually didn't research at all other than typing in Purpura gets SCOTUS docket number. Then I copy pasted the previous case from another site which was the first search result. I think I also said I support any effort. I wouldn't support this one monetarily, but I support it none the less. However I want to know if docket number actually means anything. Purpura has filed 3 other writs with SCOTUS so he should know.  I am curious why SCOTUS was petitioned for a divorce case. 

 

I also believe it is important if it is legit or not because if people are donating money towards something that is not, that is money being taken from something that could be. I thought this was a novel idea from the beginning but I was disheartened to see a divorce case petitioned to SCOTUS.

 

Personally I think this case is going nowhere, and for that matter no 2A Case will go anywhere until Trump gets another Justice on the Court. Ideally Kennedy will be stepping down in a year. God willing Ginsburg will be gone too.

 

 

Thanks for all those who put that dingbat in place.  Going after a person's personal life is a low down leftist nasty trick. It is usually done to distract and deter another agenda.  It appears this forum has a very sneaky anti-second amendment lurker.  But it is still a free country. At least until the leftists take over .

As far as the previous USSC action Nick was involved in all those who may think that case was just about a divorce are sadly ignorant.  Mr. Purpura was at one time a multi-millionaire working for a huge financial organization.  He uncovered criminal activity and decided he would try to stop it.  That is when all the power and resources of that institution turned on him, destroyed his career, his marriage and his bank account.  His ex-wife who had blood ties with the big shots used their attorneys to ruin Nick. 

He fought back, but in the end he lost everything. Properties and bank accounts were seized and he was left with no means of employment and not one penny. 

His history, devastating as it was to him, is what has given him the experience and know how to not just fight the Federal Court scoundrels in this battle for our civil rights but it has made it possible for him to anticipate their every underhanded move.  

Dwight