October 14, 201511 yr Author 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
October 14, 201511 yr 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
October 16, 201511 yr Author 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
October 16, 201511 yr Author 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
October 16, 201511 yr "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.
October 18, 201511 yr 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.
October 19, 201511 yr 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!
October 23, 201511 yr Author Still Nothing from the Court. The SAPP Group and TPATH just posted an information video presentation on the origin and status of the lawsuit. See it on Utube https://youtu.be/WVfG-xLnv6U Thanks Dwight
October 23, 201511 yr 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.
October 23, 201511 yr 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!
October 24, 201511 yr 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!!
October 24, 201511 yr 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; perjuryIf 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 allegianceThe 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; formEvery 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!!!!
October 24, 201511 yr 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
October 24, 201511 yr The real hard angle here is can you charge the judges? They are the new God Even a SCOTUS justice can be impeached. But I'm sure you can appreciate the Herculean effort in doing something like that...
October 24, 201511 yr 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
October 31, 201511 yr Author 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
October 31, 201511 yr ....... 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.
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.