The SAPPA Group announces  Federal Brief finalized

See associated TPATH article and read the brief.

 

http://www.tpath.org/the-police--armed-for-your-protection-.html

 

 

Thanks all,

Dwight

 

thankyou for the headsup and good luck!

Just to let you know, your submission is procedurally defective as you try to combine a complaint, a petition and a brief in one document. You need to look at the federal rules of civil procedure and the local rules for the district of New Jersey

Thanks for the info, and good luck!

I am not a lawyer, just the late dictator of the most repressive regime on earth. 

 

Seriously though, hasn't the constitutional argument been used before? If not the 14th Amendment, the 2nd Amendment is pretty clear.

 

Someone please explain how this suit is different.

I am not a lawyer, just the late dictator of the most repressive regime on earth. 

 

Seriously though, hasn't the constitutional argument been used before? If not the 14th Amendment, the 2nd Amendment is pretty clear.

 

Someone please explain how this suit is different.

Maybe not. Still, it is hard to argue against this:

"No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States"

Even harder to argue against this: A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

 

Another constitutional argument. Will this suit (not) be heard in NJ?

Glad to see someone is trying to do something in State. Good Luck!

Without the proper training I can't tell at any level if the suit has a chance. 

 

I do see some red flags, however:

• The unconstitutional “scheme” being implemented under the “color of law”
• irrefutably aware they were violating the Constitution, and unwittingly acknowledged that the NJ legislation and administrative law they were condoning was unconstitutional
• Defendant judges herein are without argument guilty of a “high crimes and misdemeanor (sic)
• This conspiracy encompasses more than the actors in New Jersey

And that's just from about one page of text. Are courts generally welcoming of statements couched in this kind of inflammatory language? This is not a trial for a mass murderer, it's a suit asking the court to visit certain legal and constitutional issues.

 

One part of me wishes them luck. The sane pessimist inside me is thinking, "oy veh."

A little proofreading goes a long way. I hope the filed brief was examined by an attorney prior to submission. Good luck to you.

...

One part of me wishes them luck. The sane pessimist inside me is thinking, "oy veh."

Obviuosly we're on the same page.  I'm not too optimistic either... 

thank you for the update!! i'm glad to see something moving forward. i've downloaded, and will read it tonight, before i put forth any opinions.

 

 thanks!!

A little proofreading goes a long way. I hope the filed brief was examined by an attorney prior to submission. Good luck to you.

I noticed several other typos/mistakes in the first few pages. Not a good sign. I'm equally concerned that they seem to be in full attack/resentment mode. I don't believe you get on a court's good side with such tactics. But what do I know?

 

The good news is at least they're not asking for money.

Good luck to Nicholas.  I hope this produces some sort of positive result for 2A rights.

 

But, I'm not sure what to think of the content.    I don't have time to read the whole thing right now.  Part of what I mean is I don't get where the quotes from Teddy Roosevelt, Thomas Aquinas and that Citizens for the Constitution group have any weight in a lawsuit. At least one of the quotes is titled a statement of fact.  I think I get that this is probably a very emotionally fired up task. Clearly, he seems passionate about it and that's great.

 

It just has a lot of stuff in it that I .. who is not a lawyer.... wouldn't expect to find is a document like this.  maybe someone who IS a lawyer can chime in.  SJGLAW  mentioned that this is actually three types of documents in one.  If that's the case, I can't imagine it's a good thing.  A court is going to look at it and toss it or send it back with some kind of instructions.

 

It was clearly a lot of work.  But I just can't find a way to be compelled with what is says... because I'm really not sure what the heck it says.

 

Maybe I'll read it all later.

For example....  this...

 

 

53.    That  being  said,  in  2008,  2013,  and  2014 (Exhibits  10,  11,  &  12) “acting in concert” the legislature and  the  Governor, those  named  and  not  named as  Defendants, who  voted  yea  for said  legislation have  with  clear intent bastardized - the  original  Graves  Act  and  co-mingled N.J.A.S. 2C to achieve absolute “gun control” that resulted in “police state” restrictions.

 

I don't know how "clear intent" is established or how a judge is supposed to evaluate the use of the term "bastardized" here.   Or "absolute gun control" and police state.

 

I'm not sure this particular part is any better than saying, "these laws suck".  And I see this sort of thing throughout this document.  Is this type of wording typically found in these lawsuits? 

Good luck to Nicholas. 

 

I don't get where the quotes from Teddy Roosevelt, Thomas Aquinas and that Citizens for the Constitution group have any weight in a lawsuit.

 

It was clearly a lot of work.  But I just can't find a way to be compelled with what is says... because I'm really not sure what the heck it says.

 

Maybe I'll read it all later.

1. Yes good luck. Stranger things have happened than something like this succeeding.

 

2. Same old shit. They usually quote Jesus of Nazareth, James Madison, and the Man from LaMancha as well.

 

3. Yes, and that is commendable. Agreed after a superficial reading that the reasoning is elusive, but I have no head for this stuff.

 

4. Legal documents are the ultimate soporific. Print it out. Next time you can't sleep don't head for the liquor cabinet, read the first page or so. You'll be in dream land before you get to the first citation.

I understand the logic behind using equal protection, and it would apply to firearms listed on the assault firearm ban as well as NFA items. I commend him for taking a different route towards the goal of repealing our asinine laws. 

I understand the logic behind using equal protection, and it would apply to firearms listed on the assault firearm ban as well as NFA items. I commend him for taking a different route towards the goal of repealing our asinine laws. 

Yes except that the Bill of Rights has always -- despite what people on here have said -- been subject to regulation. Shouting 'fire" in a crowded theatre, defamation, libel, public gatherings, etc. Since 1923 New Jersey's gun laws have been given a free pass despite clear 2nd Amendment wording. Equal protection is meaningless when state legislatures carve out special cases, e.g. that judges will be hunted down by people they sentence to jail. By justifiable need as the legislature has defined it. 

 

Some animals are more equal than others.

what needs to happen, is this state essentially needs to be rebuilt, as far as those running it. there needs to be term limits, there needs to be fresh blood, and there needs to be a way to hold every one of those in power accountable. essentially, a way to fire them.

 

 that's what i feel would fix this state not only on self defense and guns laws.....but on nearly everything, taxes included.

 

 

 that all said......i don't have any answers nor do i have any ideas of what or how to fix it.

what needs to happen, is this state essentially needs to be rebuilt, as far as those running it. there needs to be term limits, there needs to be fresh blood, and there needs to be a way to hold every one of those in power accountable. essentially, a way to fire them.

 

that's what i feel would fix this state not only on self defense and guns laws.....but on nearly everything, taxes included.

 

 

that all said......i don't have any answers nor do i have any ideas of what or how to fix it.

That's why they ask question 28 on form sts-033.

Obviuosly we're on the same page.  I'm not too optimistic either...

 

It's extremely hard to be optimistic about anything involving 2A rights in this godforsaken state, where we regard victory as a legislative session that goes by with no new restrictions.

 

Dwight, thanks for posting this. I believe you have the backing of most of us.

That's why they ask question 28 on form sts-033.

i just had to go look at that form. i don't advocate that in any way....other than voting the asshammers out...which we seem to be unable to do....

1. Yes good luck. Stranger things have happened than something like this succeeding.

 

2. Same old shit. They usually quote Jesus of Nazareth, James Madison, and the Man from LaMancha as well.

 

3. Yes, and that is commendable. Agreed after a superficial reading that the reasoning is elusive, but I have no head for this stuff.

 

4. Legal documents are the ultimate soporific. Print it out. Next time you can't sleep don't head for the liquor cabinet, read the first page or so. You'll be in dream land before you get to the first citation.

You're any angry little elf.

That's why they ask question 28 on form sts-033.

 

Here's part of that question.

 

...or which seeks to deny others their rights under the Constitution

 

So. if Sweeney answered this question honestly, why was he issued a FPID ???????

 

Seriously.  He's committed acts and been a part of an organization that seeks to deny others their rights under the Constitution.

You're any angry little elf.

 

Actually... I thought that was pretty funny....    Man of La Mancha... lol.....

Dear SJG,

This brief was prepared by individuals with a combined 70 years of experience dealing with Federal Courts.

If you read all the claims in this brief you would have seen the intent is not to win in any of the two lower courts.  Those jurists serving there are not just part of the problem they are being named as defendants.

This case will be won, if we can get the required publicity, in the Supreme Court.

Having said that, it would be nice if you had something specific you saw that we may have missed.  Generalities are not much help.

Thanks for your interest and please contact Nick at eagle4260@optonline if you do have a specific rule violation.

 

Or you can contact me at [email protected]

 

Dwight

You're any angry little elf.

I am the voice of reason. Angry, cynical, macchiavellian, all of that. 

i just had to go look at that form. i don't advocate that in any way...other than voting the asshammers out...which we seem to be unable to do....

Unwilling. We'd rather chase windmills. "Sancho, my armor!!"

Dwight, could you summarize why you and your group think this will win in the SCOTUS? What is the logic in the brief that will compel justice Kennedy to decide in favor here?

 

I'm not being a smart ass. I seriously want to understand what argument is going to make that happen. You all have spent a huge amount of time on this. Can you boil it down?

 

Thanks.