December 29, 2016- NOTE TO LOG ENTRY: If the Reply Brief we submitted on December 16, 2016 is read, one will see that the defense used a long time defense of claiming Mr. Purpura has no "standing" since he personally was never denied a carry permit. Of course, many times over in several filings it was explained that since no common citizen in New Jersey is ever issued a carry permit, just being a citizen here gives one standing.
However, several months ago, Mr. Purpura was contacted by the FBI's Terrorism Task Force and informed that he was on a Jihadist website as a potential target. Mr. Purpura lectures on the Constitution and how Sharia law is at odds with it which might explain why he is being targeted. But that information encouraged him to apply for a carry permit.
Wall Township has been long delaying a determination on his application so we subsequently prepared a letter and sent it to the Police Chief. HERE is that letter. Granted this situation and the associated documents are not technically involved with our lawsuit, but it supports in so many ways, the points which have been made in Mr. Purpura's original Brief filed in the Federal District Court of Trenton. It should be noted here that the letter sent to the Chief post dated the response Nick received on his application. In other words, our letter was sent on December 29, 2016. The Chief's letter was written on the 23rd but not mailed to Nick until December 30th. So his application for a carry permit, as you might expect, was denied but it was denied before they read Nick's letter. Nick will be appealing this denial to the Superior Court of NJ. As is his right.
December 16, 2016- After some very careful preparation, research and editing we managed to complete the Reply Brief for the Third Circuit. This document has encompassed the three Briefs submitted by the three sets of defense attorneys. As you will recall we were denied the right to submit individual responses to each defendant even though they were allowed to submit three.
The entire document that was submitted included not just the Reply Brief you see HERE also included all the required bound volumes for the court and the Defendants. Notice too that we included a Cover Letter with our filing. That letter can be seen HERE as a separate document. It is entitled "Integrity Tainted by Injustice".
October 18, 2016- The Jurisdictional Brief was formally submitted to the Circuit Court of Appeals. There may be a panel of just three (3) judges deciding this or the entire Circuit Court group of judges may be involved. Mr.Purpura requested that it go before the entire Court, legally called en banc. We will now have to wait and see just how they will handle this. The filing can be seen HERE.
October 15, 2016- Mr. Purpura received a response form Circuit Court regarding his request for page enlargement. They agreed to allow six (6) additional pages. However, since we are working on a deadline, the Brief had gone through its final editing and was complete and ready to be filed without the need for these extra pages.
October 5, 2016- Having not received a response from the Circuit Court concerning our enlargement request, the filing was edited down to the 30 page limit and all of us believe this document to be complete, impressive and the information in it will be very hard to ignore. This document will, when filed, have a TitlePage, a table of contents and a list of the authorities we used in its preparation.
October 3, 2016- As we struggled to get the Brief down to the 30 page limit Mr. Purpura prepared and sent a letter to the Circuit Court requesting an enlargement of the page limit because the filing would need to encompass three Defense Teams. See that letter HERE.
September 20, 2016- Mr. Purpura began the research needed to prove Circuit Court Jurisdiction and working with the SAPPA Group member, Dwight Kehoe, began preparing and editing this very important new filing. This task was monumental in that the information regarding the three Defense Teams needed to be compressed into a 30 page maximum filing. It also needed to include Title Page, indexes and authorities which are required to prove Jurisdiction.
September 12, 2016- The United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit issued a new Court Order in response to Mr. Purpura's filing which explained that the Circuit Court did indeed have Jurisdiction concerning the District Court's ruling. That Order, which issued a C.A. Number of 16-3173 to this case, changed its earlier Order and issued this new one which indicated that there may in fact be Jurisdiction for them. This is great news because with this new order, we can get much information to the Circuit Court that we feel they need to be aware of. We need to make it clear that this new order does not totally agree with Mr. Purpura concerning Jurisdiction but only that it has agreed to have a panel look at it. This can be considered nothing less than yet another successful maneuver by our own Pre Se, Mr. Nicholas Purpura. The Circuit Court Order can be seen HERE.
August 22. 2016- It has been just over a month since the last update. That does not mean however that nothing has been happening. Much has. In fact too much to relate completely here. So please click on this link to view a posted update on TPATH. A short summary of that article: Judge Shipp has been removed from the case. Motions were filed in the 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals. Much more. Link to the Update Article SHAKE UP IN THE FEDERAL COURT
July 28, 2016- The Circuit Court of Appeals issued a formal denial of our request for it to step in and review the District Court's Order to resubmit the entire Brief. Their reasoning for the denial was that it felt it had no jurisdictional power or authority to interfere with a Court Order ruling of a lower court. This document can be seen HERE. In response to that Circuit Court Order, Mr. Purpura prepared this document and submitted it just days after receiving the denial. That response can be seen HERE.
June 6, 2016- On June 1, 2016 Mr. Purpura received a letter which was sent to the Court by the Defense Counsel whereby they presented a weak and infirm request to not produce a Motion in response to Nick's Vacate and Recall submittal. Here is their letter: DEFENSE REQUEST TO NOT RESPOND
Mr. Purpura, having seen this type of action before, had anticipated this move by the defense and had a response template ready. All it needed was to plug in the specific charges and then be sent to the court. Here is Nick's response: REPLY TO DEFENSE LETTER OF OPPOSITION
April 21, 2016-
May 17, 2016 - Last week Nick received a letter from Judge Shipp. Whether or not he wrote it or one of his aides is not important. The letter denied Mr. Purpura his right to present information concerning the rulings of the Court and the illegal filings of the Defense. This was the first time that the Judge actually responded to the many requests for oral arguments. However, he gave no reason for that denial and therefore we feel he has no legal grounds for it. Hence, he chose to not offer anything that Mr. Purpura could upend.
It now has become ever so evident that this Judge has no intention of ruling against the leftist ideology of his Appointer and Chief - Barack Obama. Nick has known for some time that this day would come. It has now arrived. The first step to getting Judge Shipp either removed from the case or to voluntarily recuse himself is to send an informal notification of this intent. That notification has been delivered to Judge Shipp. You can read or download that letter here. Informal Request for Recusal.
May 5, 2016- As we mentioned below in the previous update, the speed and intricate attention to detail in which we prepared and filed the Recall and Vacate motion seems to have taken both Court and the defense by surprise. We also noted that it was very possible that the Court would not actually make the May 16th date. Looks like that will be the case. Nick just received a notice from the court that the defense has filed a formal request for an extension of time. The SAPPA Group has a very good reason not to object to their request. We will make that reason known to the public at a later date.
Here is the letter we sent to the court regarding our non-objection. Once again we have chosen to provide an undercurrent of sarcasm wrapped in a subtle warning. Our purpose in that is to let them know that Nick is not intimidated by them nor will he allow them to presume they will be allowed to get away with illegal activity. See our letter here>>> RESPONSE TO TIME EXTENSION
April 25, 2016- We received a particularly quick response from the Court today concerning our filing of the Recall and Vacate motion which was produced as a result of the Order and Memorandum issued last week. See below for those documents. The Court announced that it intends to make a ruling on Nick's Recall request on May 16, 2016. We gave the Court and the Defense quite a bit to ponder in the Recall, so we won't be too surprised if that date slips by without a ruling. See the Court's notification HERE.
Since the Court once again ignored the request for a conference or oral arguments, we prepared a follow up letter to Judge Shipp. Nick felt it was time to let them know our plans for the future. Those plans are explained in the letter. The letter was sent to the court on April 29, 2016. We hope it gives a few people something to ponder over the weekend.
See that letter HERE.
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 Vacate demand 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.
April 4, 2016 - 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 left wing 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! Read or download the Court Order and Memorandum HERE.
SUNDAY, MARCH 20, 2016 - We sent a letter to Judge Shipp dated March 14, 2016 and we can now report that and post it as we have confirmation that it was received by the District Court. As with every letter we have sent in the past, we have no way of knowing if or when Judge Shipp will be given this letter. The letter demands information and action on this case. The letter can be seen here:
A note on the upcoming appeal. We call this the upcoming appeal because we are certain, as we have from the very onset that the District Court will not rule in favor of the Constitution but will side with leftist ideology and therefore an appeal is a foregone conclusion. The fact that this court has delayed for almost a year now just might be a gift. If this case had been dismissed we would have to file an appeal within a short specified period. That would give the appeals court final say as the US Supreme Court would be deadlocked at 4 to 4 in the absence of the 9th justice.
So if this case is not ruled on for several more months, by the time we get it to the US Supreme Court, if the Republican Party does not blow this election, will have new conservative Justice seated.
TUESDAY, MARCH 15, 2016 - As was referenced in the last update, the scheduled ruling date by Judge Shipp and the District Court has passed without a ruling. Nick made several calls to the court seeking information on why the ruling was not made and if a new date had been set. He was told he had to send that request in an official letter request.
Subsequently, calling the court as the editor of TPATH inquiring about the status of the Purpura V. Christie I was asked for the Docket Number. When I gave it to her, she said, "one moment". She came back and said there had been no ruling on that case. I asked her if she knew why it had not been made, she then hung up on me. Our tax dollars at work.
MONDAY, MARCH 14, 2016 - It has been several weeks since we updated this log. The reason being that there really hasn't much to report. As we reported several updates ago, the Writ of Mandamus which was filed in the Third Circuit Curt of Appeals was denied by that court. It was denied on the basis that the District Court was about to make a scheduled ruling and therefore no interference from the upper court.
Two things of note concerning this. The Appeals court took over 2 weeks to notify Nick by mail of the denial and second, by the time we got the official notice, the date on which the District Court was to make a ruling had passed.
TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 23, 2016 - As of this date the court once again failed to rule as scheduled. Please read the actions Nick has taken as a result. HERE
SATURDAY, JANUARY 23, 2016 - This past week, on January 14, 2016, Nick received a very late in the game Motion to Dismiss from Defense Team of Judge Stark, one of the Defendants named in the Brief. The question begs, why have they waited so long to put this motion in? Why not months ago when the other Defense Counsels submitted theirs? Only they know why, but it's pretty clear they waited to the last minute anticipating that Mr. Purpura would not have time to review and then prepare a response before the scheduled Ruling Date which has been set for February 16, 2016.
However, once again they have underestimated Nick's expertise and preparedness. Understanding that Stark had yet to provide a Motion, understanding too that his defense would pretty much mirror the lame defense of the other Counsels, which it did, he was ready for them, before they even filed.
Making the anticipated adjustments, Nick and Dwight had a formal response ready in just three days. That response has now been filed with the District Court in Trenton along with a cover letter. You can see Nick's Opposition to Stark's Motion to Dismiss on the Documents page where you will also be able to see Stark's filings.
Please take some time to read what we have prepared for the Court and once again you will see why they appear to be worried about making illegal rulings in support of the Defendants. We are not saying that the Judge will not rule that way, but we are convinced they are worried about the repercussions of doing so.
FRIDAY, JANUARY 22, 2016 -
Since the court appears to fear making a decision which would be destroyed in appeals process, Mr. Purpura sent a letter to Governor Christie offering to meet and work out a compromise. As of this date Christie’s office has not replied, but Nick has had meetings concerning this issue with persons in the political system. See that letter here. Offer to Meet Christie.
MONDAY, JANUARY 11, 2016 - It has been awhile since this log has been updated. That is not however, because nothing has been happening. Nick and the SAPPA Group have been busy.
As of last week we have been notified by the 3rd Circuit Court that they have received the Writ of Mandamus (see below) and the associated filings. The notice informed Nick that the Writ has been accepted and a date will be scheduled for a hearing. This hearing will no doubt come after the scheduled ruling date due on February 16, 2016 by Judge Shipp and the District Court.
The US Post Office notified us that the Writ of Mandamus and the associated Affidavits had been delivered to the Third Circuit Court in Philadelphia on December 28, 2015.
Nick received notice from the Circuit Court that the Writ has been received and Docketed for adjudication on January 5, 2016 and that a Case Number had been issued. CASE NUMBER 15-4067
The District Court was issued notification of the Writ and that court was given until January 19, 2016 to acknowledge its receipt and to inform the court who will be representing the District Court in this legal action.
As we all know the District Court's ruling date is the latest of many which have been scheduled then delayed. It is very possible that Judge Shipp having been notified by the upper court, the Circuit Court, that a Writ of Mandamus has been filed against him and the activities of his court, Mr. Purpura believes that Judge Shipp will be under great pressure to finally rule on Purpura V. Christie and without further delay.
Even though there is no existing regulation or court ruling that would legally allow Judge Shipp to rule against Mr. Purpura, it is very unlikely he will not. In this day and time, ideology trumps the Constitution and Federal law. So in that light, we have the rough draft of our appeal to the Third Circuit, ready. All that remains is to plug in any statements made by the Judge in his anticipated Dismissal ruling that Mr. Purpura has not foreseen or to remove any that the Judge does not state.
There will be a need for final editing of the Appeal and we should be ready to file it within two days of Judge Shipp's ruling. For those who have been following this from the beginning you will see that it has been almost a year now since Chaplain Nicholas Purpura filed the Brief. Clearly these people are concerned about how they should rule and if they will be held accountable for ruling unconstitutionally and contrary to Federal law. And Nick has promised them, they will be.
WEDNESDAY, DECEMBER 23, 2015- This update will encompass many issues and events which have occurred during the past (9) nine days. The Writ of Mandamus discussed below has been completed and filed with the Third Circuit Court of Appeals. The support documents filed with this legal action can be viewed and downloaded here>>>
2. Exhibit A
Mr. Purpura received a Court Docketed notice of the latest date scheduled for a ruling to be made on the several Motions before Judge Shipp. This new scheduled date is about the 3rd or 4th, all of which have been canceled. It is possible that the letter which was sent to Judge Shipp on December 7, 2015, which demanded the delays be halted and suggested there would be legal action taken if the court continued to protract this litigation, may well have been the impetus for them to at least put a show on that they were moving along.
The other ruling dates which were canceled or ignored refused Mr. Purpura's request to present oral arguments. This latest docketed notification also refuses Nick his Constitutional right to be heard. Again we have been informed that the ruling will be made without the benefit of opposing views being heard.
MONDAY, DECEMBER 14, 2015- Tomorrow Nick will pull the trigger on the next step referenced below. We have prepared a Writ of Mandamus which will be filed in the Third Circuit Court of Appeals. We will post that entire document, which spells out and details to the upper court the shenanigans, delays and possible collusion between the Defendants and the District Court in Trenton. Please note that at this time, the Writ does not accuse Judge Shipp of any complicity, nor wrong doing in those proceedings. However it's quite clear that if he was not aware of the goings on, they were happening right under his nose.
We will upload the Writ of Mandamus here, after the Third Circuit Court has been served. It will also be posted on the SAPPA document page. It is important to know that this Writ is not the anticipated Appeal concerning Purpura v. Christie, which will occur when and if Judge Shipp rules in favor of a Dismissal, or if he rules that the Defendant are in default. (at which time the state will appeal) That appeal is mostly prepared and ready to go. This Writ is a new petition in that it requests that the upper court begin a serious investigation into the lower one.
FRIDAY, DECEMBER 11, 2015 - Having not received information from the District Court Chief Judge concerning our request for an investigation into the activities of the Trenton based court it was decided to take the next step we discussed earlier. On December 7, 2015 we prepared a letter to Judge Shipp informing him in a subtle, but definitive affirmation that his lack of rulings and communication with Nick was not acceptable nor will Mr. Purpura stand around and allow it to continue without taking steps to halt these protracted and no doubt, intentional delays. See that letter here: December 7, 2015 Letter to Shipp
TUESDAY, DECEMBER 1, 2015- Following the letter to Chief Judge Simandle several phone calls were made to his office inquiring as to the status of Nick's request for him to look into the proceedings of this case. Typical and not unexpected, no one there would make a commitment to any statement as to whether the Chief Judge had even seen the letter yet. We will continue to call them and will update any information we get, when we get it.
On the other front, the delay by Judge Shipp's Court regarding rulings or information has been, to say the least, unacceptable. As a result, we have prepared yet another letter to Judge Shipp informing him that this delay has gone on way too long and is beginning to border upon obstruction of justice. Please read that letter here: Letter to Judge Shipp December 1, 2015
Our next step may will be to file a "Writ of Mandamus". If and when we decide to do that we will fill everyone in on what it is and what it might accomplish.
MONDAY, NOVEMBER 16, 2015- Sufficient time has passed since the investigation request to Chief Simandle was delivered to his office in Camden, NJ. It was decided to prepare a Press Release concerning this letter and the status of the Brief. As of this time, we have heard nothing from the Chief Judge. We will post anything we get from them as soon as it occurs. We sent the Judge several documents which support our assumptions that untoward activities have transpired. By law this allegation must be looked into by the Judge. It is important to state here that no one is suggesting that Judge Shipp is or has been involved in this collusion, and in fact it appears that efforts have been made by some to prevent his timely access to many documents.
FRIDAY, NOVEMBER 13, 2015 - Mr. Nicholas Purpura believing that he had compiled sufficient evidence that there has been unethical and possibly illegal activity and collusion between the Court Clerk and the Defendant's Counsel prepared a letter the Chief Judge of the District Court. Under judicial rules the Chief Judge is required to look into any allegations of impropriety. As a result, the letter posted above was sent to Judge Simandle's office in Camden, NJ, via USPO Priority mail on November 9, 2015.
WEDNESDAY, NOVEMBER 4, 2015 - Since our last update Nick has called the Court on several occasions requesting the status of the ruling on the three Motions before the Court. Also, during those calls he asked for confirmation on the Letters Of Record which were recently sent to Judge Shipp. The court clerk claimed they did not get the latest one Oral Argument Letter of October 29,2015. This is peculiar because this letter was sent to them US POstal Service High Priority. That letter is just one of many we have sent to the Judge. As of this date not of them has been answered.
As a result it was decided to write yet another letter to Judge Shipp with two objectives. One is to ask him why he has not responded or requested that the Court Clerk respond to Nick's letters. The second purpose is to provide US Supreme Court statements and rulings concerning the pro se filings in the Federal Court System. As you know, it is our belief that the delay in rulings may be because the either the Court or the Defendants (or both in cahoots- which would be a violation of law) are searching for some technicality that would give the Defendants an out without having to provide a defense for their unconstitutional actions. See that letter here >> Letter to Shipp - November (2)
Since the Court Clerk seems to have a difficult time getting to the US Mail INBOX, on this day Wednesday, November 4, 2015 Mr. Purpura made yet another trip to Trenton. He hand delivered the October letter and this latest one Letter to Shipp-November. He got a date and time stamp for each from the Court Clerk.
Nick has decided that the things going on at that office are pushing the envelope of legality and he is considering requesting an investigation into their activities. We will keep this log advised as to the nature and procedure of that endeavor.
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"
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
TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 29, 2015- The documents required for our Response to the letter/memorandum requesting Dismissal of our Motions have been printed and bundled and have as of late this afternoon been hand carried to the District Court in Trenton. This filing consisted of the Reply and a Cover letter addressed to the Judge. Download or read them by clicking on the file name below:
MONDAY, SEPTEMBER 28, 2015- Nick worked many hours over this weekend gathering data for the response to the letter/memorandum he received this past Saturday. (See below) He sent me the draft with his findings late last night and I began preparing the final Reply at 5:00 am this day and completed it about 8:00pm.
A few back and forth discussions on content and the final document and the cover letter is ready for submittal to the Court.
SATURDAY, SEPTEMBER 26, 2015- This day Nick received yet another filing from yet another attorney. This submittal which was presented to the Court was called a letter/memorandum and is the latest effort by the State Attorneys to get the Brief thrown out, or in the terms of the lawyers, Dismissed. If there were any doubt that we have their full attention now, this flurry of activity should be proof enough that we do.
This filing by the Defense is no less faulty than those which have come before it. It is also untimely (late) and according to Federal Rules of the Court, it should not even be accepted by the Court, let alone considered. But the judicial systems, both Federal and State seem to have an aversion to following rules if they run contrary to a specific ideology. Therefore, Nick has informed me that he has begun researching the claims of the defense and will begin preparing a response since we cannot let even faulty submittals go unanswered.
TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 22, 2015 - Nick worked almost around the clock researching the references the Defense Counsel chose to use in his motion. Even as, from point to point he couldn't believe the lack of coherence and the very weakly prepared defense which comprised of their motion, each point nevertheless had to be addressed. The editing process and the finalization of our response was completed late Monday. Prepared also and to be submitted with the Reply was a cover letter which Nick addressed directly to Judge Shipp. It is a powerful letter. Also, working with Joe, one of our most esteemed SAPPA Group members, a chart was prepared that would make a visual statement reinforcing Nick's RICO violations allegations.
Today these three documents were officially submitted to the court. Download or read them by clicking on the file title listed here:
SATURDAY, SEPTEMBER 12, 2015 - We finished the letter to Judge Shipp which Nick had informed the Court Clerk (Kim) we would be filing. (See below) The letter was headlined as "Demonstration of Significant Public Importance" Since this was a Saturday, a trip down to Trenton would not get this letter in the hands of the the Judge any quicker than sending it Priority Mail and Registered on this day. So that was done. Read or download it by clicking on the letter title above.
Continuing Saturday events, after the letter referenced above had been completed, Mr. Purpura received notification that the Court had accepted a submittal form the Defense Counsel they called "The Motion to Dismiss the Petition". As we stated earlier and in our letters and motions to the Court, the Defense had run out of time to legally submit any papers. We infact had already submitted a Motion for Default and a MOtion for Summary judgment based upon their lack of compliance with the Court Order. It was then decided that Nick had to prepare a Reply to the Motion to Dismiss, in case the Judge went contrary to the law and allowed it. It now appears he intends to do just that.
FRIDAY, SEPTEMBER 11, 2015 - Today, which marked the anniversary of 9/11, Mr. Purpura received in the mail a brief prepared by the State Defendants' Attorney which demanded of the Court, a blanket dismissal of Mr. Nicholas Purpura's Petition. This submission, under normal rules of the Federal Court would have no value and would not be accepted by the Court. The reason, as we have detailed below and in several letters and motions which have been submitted to the Court, is that under the law, any filing to the Court must comply with the requirements spelled out in the Court Order.
Also, this newly assigned defense attorney prepared, for Judge Shipp, a Court Order and suggested all the Judge needed to do to end this case would be to sign it. Besides the filing being untimely, this attorney assumed he not only would get the case dismissed against those he was representing, but for those who he was not. Arrogance or lack of the law? Either way, we hope and expect that Judge Shipp will respect the rules of the Federal Court System and not accept this illegal submission.
Nick, upon seeing the submission referenced above, knew we had to prepare a written response to the Court and we began formulating that letter. See that letter in the Saturday, September 12th update above. Also Nick knew it was important to let the Court know, he knew, that this submission was untimely and should not be allowed into the records or even be considered by Judge Shipp when he makes his decision on the two Motions Mr. Purpura has before the Court.
For the first time, maybe because the Clerk and those he is consorting with are beginning to realize they may be in a legal bind with this case, the conversation became quite contentious and to say the least, unfriendly.
Here is a description of points made as prepared from notes taken during that call:
The conversation took place just after 10:00 Am, September 11, 2015
September 11th at approximately 9:20 AM after picking up Defense counsel (Benjamin Zieman, Esq), untimely Motion to Dismiss, Petitioner immediately contacted Judge Shipp's Chambers by phone speaking to Kim one of His Honor's law clerks.
Petitioner questioned whether Judge Shipp had made any decision on the Motion for Default. The Clerk stated he had not and there were - 3-motions pending (1) the Motion for default' (2) The Summary judgment and (3) a Motion to Dismiss. Note: (#3 the Motion to Dismiss) is the submission that was deceptively delayed by the Defense Counsel and the Court did not electronically notify Mr. Purpura of.
Nick informed the law Clerk, Kim, that he had just received the untimely Motion to Dismiss and that the Counsel for the State Defendants had failed to serve him that document on the date his submittal to the Court claimed he had. Nick declared this could result in a penalty for perjury. He made sure the Clerk understood that more than 4 days passed before the documents were mailed to Nick, which was over four days after the attorney claimed he had done so and 4 days after the Court had received their copies.
Nick made it clear to Kim that there could only be one reason for that intentional delay and the false claims of the attorney and that would be to prevent Nick from having the time to take the steps needed to inform the court of the illegality of that submission. Nick also asked the Clerk why they had not notified him of the filing when they got it.
Clearly, upon receipt of the Counsel's Motion, the Office of the Clerk had gone about the procedures required because the Judge's docket indicated that the Motion to Dismiss was on his schedule. So, if the Judge's Clerk was notified, why was Nick not notified? As the conversation became heated, it was apparent to Kim that Nick was suggesting that it was looking like the Defendants's Counsel and the Office of the Clerk may be colluding to interfere with Nick's ability to support his Petition. The question here would be, how could anyone think anything else?
Nick informed the Clerk that since the Motion to Dismiss was not legally submitted or in a timely manner, the Court should not entertain said Motion and nor would he respond to that Motion with a formal reply of opposition. He informed the Clerk he would be sending a letter to Judge Shipp detailing these things. (See that letter here) Nick reminded Kim that the Court was required to ignore the Motion to Dismiss because the Defendants had waived their rights, as so stated in the Federal Rules of Civil procedure and that the Federal Rules forbid the Court to accept it or grant more time.
THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 10, 2015 - Once again Mr. Purpura made a trip to the District Court in Trenton and hand delivered the Request for Immediate Judicial Intervention which was made necessary by the notice from the court as described below. Many thanks to Joe for doing the driving. Please read the Request. It is self explanatory.
SATURDAY, SEPTEMBER 5, 2015 - This week Nick received notice from the Court that the scheduled September 8, 2015 ruling on his Motion for Summary Judgement and Default had been rescheduled for October 5, 2015.
Also, Mr. Purpura was notified that the attorneys for the Defense have brought have brought in some new heavy hitters. It seems they realize now that they just might have a fight on their hands.
Read the letter we prepared for Judge Shipp in response to this latest maneuver HERE.
MONDAY, AUGUST 31, 2015- The two documents and a cover letter were completed over the weekend and were packaged and prepared for delivery to the court. Nick made another trip to Trenton and submitted the two documents and the cover letter to the Clerk of the Court. All three (3) documents were date stamped as "received" by the Clerk. You can see these documents as well as all the documents of record by going to the Official SAPPA District Court Documents and download page. >>>>>>>> HERE
Or you can see them now by clicking on them below:
SATURDAY, AUGUST 29, 2015 - Nick worked for several hours preparing a formal response to the latest attempts by the defendants' counsel to subvert the court process. Two documents were produced and edited in preparation for submittal to the court.
FRIDAY, AUGUST 28, 2015 - Today we received notice from the court that Defendants' Counsel submitted two (2) untimely documents to the Court. One was in the form of a letter and the other a motion. Neither of these two submittals were in compliance with the Federal rules of courtroom procedure. And too, they were submitted past the time and date they would be allowed.
WEDNESDAY, AUGUST 26, 2015 - Today Nick and I once again made journey to the Federal Offices of the District Court of Trenton. Once there, the two documents referenced below, The Motion for Summary Judgement and the letter requesting participation in upcoming September 8th ruling that we were notified would be made without participation of either of the litigants, were submitted. Those two documents were accepted by the Court Clerk and date and time stamped by them.
Also, at this time Nick delivered a "courtesy package" to the Clerk and addressed to Judge Shipp. This package was prepared as per the request which appeared at the top of the electronic communication which verified the Court was in receipt of previous documents. The package contained the original Brief as well as all the correspondence between the Court, the Defendants and the Petition from the first filing to this date.
MONDAY, AUGUST 17, 2015 - It had been decided to hold off sending the letter requesting Default Judgement Participation via the mail but to hand carry it directly to the Court. This was decided because it was very clear that none of the defendants had complied with the law and filed motions accordingly and as a result Mr. Purpura put the finishing touches on the Motion for Default. It needed to be hand carried and stamped at the Federal Court in Trenton. So both documents, the letter to Judge Shipp below and the Motion for Summary Judgementwas scheduled to be taken to Trenton on Wednesday, August 25, 2015.
This may get a bit confusing to some so here is a bit of clarification about the two motions Nick has filed. The first one was simply to get the acknowledgement of the Court, that the defendants had failed to respond to the Court as required. The Motion for Summary Default is different in that it shows proof of that failure and then, as required by Federal Law, demands that the Judge rule in favor of our Brief.
FRIDAY, AUGUST 14, 2015- On this day Nick informed me that he had received a letter from the Court announcing that September 8, 2015 Judge Shipp will make his ruling on the Motion for Default that was filed the previous day. In that letter he said that no participation from either the Defendants or the Petitioner would be required, unless otherwise notified.
Mr. Purpura informed us that he had considered the possibility of this action and was prepared to answer it. For certain this request and the ruling relating to it must be part of the court record and the Petitioner must be given the time and occasion to reply to any assertions made by the Judge in his ruling. Therefore Nick must be able to be present at the time of the adjudication and as such we prepared a letter to the Judge requesting that. See that letter here>>>>> Letter to Judge Requesting Default Judgement Participation
THURSDAY, AUGUST 13, 2015 - Late this day Mr. Purpura received electronic notification (an email) from District Court Clerk which notified the Plaintiff (Nick) and the Defendants (36 of them) that the Court had received, recorded and notified all parties of the Motion for Default which was filed earlier that day. See that Motion below. Also in notification the Court included the letter Nick sent requesting a General Reply Brief be allowed. This was curious because it was the first acknowledgement of that letter. As of this date, we still have not received an answer to that request letter.
THURSDAY, AUGUST 13, 2015 - Today Dwight and Nick took a drive to Trenton, NJ where we filed the Motion for Default with the Court Clerk. This motion, if the standing rules of the Federal Court System are not ignored, will require a ruling from the Court which will prevent any further filings in the defense of the government defendants. These include the Governor and all of the legislative defendants. By rule, when they failed to comply with the Court Order to present a defense in a particular time frame, they automatically lost any right to request an extension of time nor will they have the right to present an opposition paper. Under these Federal rules, not even the Judge assigned to the case has the authority to allow further litigation.
The only two defendants who are still actively able to continue to defend their actions are the two Retired Chiefs of Police from Northern Jersey. Their attorneys did file in time and Mr. Purpura is now preparing his reply brief to their opposition filing. However, since the opposition filing they presented to the court is so lame and failed to follow Federal guidelines for opposing civil rights violations and breaches of the Rico Statutes, a reply brief to it will be quite simple. More on that in the next update.
If you would like to read and download the Motion for Default that was filed today please click the link at the end of this update. For the convenience of the Deputy Attorney General we also hand carried a copy of the Motion of Default directly to her office. We thought it might be nice to give her some exciting reading material this weekend.
TUESDAY, AUGUST 11, 2015 - Today Mr. Purpura completed his Motion for Default for the defendants who are being defended by the Deputy Attorney Susan M. Scott. Those defendants, you will recall, have failed to send the required defense or request for extensions in the time demanded by the Court. Instead they sent a letter, past due, informing the Judge and the Court that they will take 30 more additional days to respond.
It is not likely that any sitting Judge would be less than outraged at this assumption of authority by the Deputy. The Motion for Default referenced above has been edited, printed and packaged with all associated documents which support that request. Thursday Nick and I will make a trip to Trenton and hand carry the Motion and hand it directly to the Court Clerk. We will also mail the Motion of Default to Deputy Scott.
As rudimentary and elementary as it is, the aforementioned Police Chiefs who's Attorneys did get their reply to the court in the allotted time Nick will have their reply answered very shortly. His Reply to the Court relating to their defense will be made available when it has been delivered and seal stamped.
After the Motion for Default has been filed and seal stamped by the Court, we will make it available for all to read and download.
MONDAY, AUGUST 10, 2015 - On this day we received a letter written to the Court Magistrate from the attorneys representing most of the legislative defendants. This letter stated that they intended to take 30 days more to respond to the lawsuit. In actuality they have no authority to claim an extension without getting that permission from the Court. And by Federal law once a defendant fails to respond in the time required, even the COurt may not issue an extension. So technically all the defendants being defended by this law firm are now in Default for failing to comply with the court order in the time frame ordered by the Court. Mr. Purpura will be filing a formal response to that effect.
Also pertaining to that response from the legislative defendants, many false claims have been included in an effort to get the Court to deny this lawsuit. All of those claims represent possible infractions of the law in regards to making false statements to the Court. The SAPPA Group has in its possession signed receipts from the legislative mailroom which proves the defendants were all served properly. Those lawyers have claimed many were not served. For certain we don't know if those who now claim they were not served threw their Brief out when it appeared in their legislative mail boxes. If they did that does not relieve them of the legal requirement to respond or to be declared to be in default.
Relating to the August 5th receipt of the reply from the Police Chief of Montville and after having picked up the 27 Page reply from Nick I scanned it into the SAPPA Lawsuit files. This document, according to Mr. Purprua could not have been prepared with less effort, less legal support or less understanding of Federal Law if it were produced by the head janitor at a second rate law school. Mr. Purpura is preparing a Reply Brief which will be filed shortly.
FRIDAY. AUGUST 6, 2015 - A letter was prepared and sent to Judge Shipp today requesting that Nick be allowed to file one General Reply Brief while responding to the replies from all the various defendants. This would help keep the paper trail less inflated and would also speed up the process. We have provided a PDF copy of that letter for you to read. See it here>>>> Letter to Shipp Requesting General Reply
THURSDAY, AUGUST 5, 2015 - Today Nicholas E. Purpura received a 27 page response from the attorneys for the Montville Police Chief, one of the Defendants named in The Brief. Thier response was typical, vacuous and unsupported by any interpretation of the Constitution, failed to address any of the charges proven and detailed in The Brief. Thier comments that none of the allegations in the suit had been proven, indicate that they believe that those unsupported comments will be blindly accepted by the Court, just as they have always been in the past.
We are in the process of getting their response from the electronic file system from the Federal clerk. It is possible we will have to pay a fee to get it. When we do we will post it here so everyone can read and see for themselves how empty and unsubstantiated their defense is. If we can't get the electronic file we will have to scan the 26 pages Nick received in the mail. If we have to do that it will be a few days before we post it here.
This response from the Township of Montville is the first we have received. There are a few days left for the rest of the defendants to reply. If they do not, a motion will be filed by Mr. Purpura for the Court to rule in favor of The Brief by default. Be advised that many or all of the Defendants may have filed for an extension with the Court. We can only say at this time, we have not been notified of any such request(s).
Since there are many defendants in this case we will have to reply to each of them as their defense is received. This of course would be a ridiculous waste of Court time so we have prepared a letter to the Court requesting permission to submit just one Reply Brief which would encompass all the responses from all the defendants.
That letter was mailed out on the morning of August 6, 2015. Click here to read or download that letter:
SATURDAY, AUGUST 1, 2015 - On this day 23 of the SAPPA Group's leadership met for the scheduled "Round Table Conference". Before we begin the announcements relating to that meeting we would like to take a second to thank all of those who came, brought food and refreshments, but most of all devoted a beautiful Saturday morning to the cause of SAPPA and the The Brief. Also we want to thank the wonderful couple who provided the venue for this conference. We are not going to mention their names, but they know who they are and we want them to know we so very much appreciate the wonderful accommodations they have so graciously provided.
The meeting opened up with an update on (status report) provided by Mr. Purpura on The Brief, what is anticipated and what steps were about to be implemented. Print outs of this log were handed out for the Round Table participants could review the history of the case.
A form sheet was handed out the members for note taking and ideas as Dwight talked about the purpose of the meeting and the need for ideas relating to how the SAPPA Group can go about getting publicity for The Brief.
Each individual, one at a time around the table, was given the floor to speak and propose ideas and suggestions. After the entire group completed their statements the conference was given to open floor discussions. During this time Dwight took as many notes as possible and then collected everyone's forms. Then, we dug into the chow.
We are now in the process of compiling the information we gathered and will produce a summary and a game plan which will be implemented during the upcoming court dates and procedures. This implementation will require much help from not just those whom attended the meeting, but by every citizen here in New Jersey and across the country. When the "Plan" is ready it will be posted on the SAPPA pages and distributed to the over 100 SAPPA Group volunteers.
WEDNESDAY, JULY 29, 2015- A final reminder went out today to the 25 people who have assumed a leadership role in the SAPPA Group. We will be having a leadership Round Table Conference this Saturday, August 1, 2015 at an undisclosed location. If you are reading this and have not received an invitation and you think you should have, contact me at once.
TUESDAY, JULY 28, 2015- The letter template for Mr. John Scott was hand delivered to him on this day by two of the SAPPA Groups members, Tony and Fredy. They reported back that President Scott looked over the information in the template and agreed to prepare a letter to the NRA on the letterhead of the CJR&PC stationary and mail it to them at once. This may prove to be the one thing we needed to get the attention of Mr. Cox of the NRA. The SAPPA Group wishes to thank John Scott for this effort as well as all the members of the CJR&PC who have been so supportive. Thank you!
FRIDAY, JULY 16, 2015- The United States Postal returns for the certified letters which the SAPPA Group sent to each of the Defendants have been coming in and are being logged and cataloged. So far just one of the defendants has refused to sign for the certified mail. For now we will keep that person's name underwraps as he may be included in a separate action.
THURSDAY, JULY 15, 2015 -The template letter for President John Scott of the CJR&PC was completed this day and sent to Mr. Purpura for his approval and a few slight edits were made and the template was declared ready for Mr. Scott.
TUESDAY, JULY 14, 2015- As of this date the clock has started. We received notification from the Court that all the defendants in this legal action have been notified and have 20 days to respond.
MONDAY, JULY 13, 2015- Over the weekend Nick prepared the 40 letters to the Defendants to be mailed to their respective offices or legislative addresses while I prepared a chart with all their names and addresses which we used for the mailing and as part of the court notification process.
On this Monday, July 13, 2015 We prepared the certified letter to the court, included with it the chart detailing whom had been notified, took it to the bank and had it notarized and then sent it certified to the court. Also this day, the 40 certified letters to the Defendants were completed and sent via USPS mail, at the cost of $4.00 each. Upon receipt of those letters the clock will begin and the defendants will have to respond or a default will be demanded by the Petitioner, as the law allows. The letter template for the Defendants was provided by the Court. We filled in the appropriate Defendants and mailed them. Here is a copy of one of those letters. As you can see, this Order gives the Defendants a specified time to respond.
This letter has the defendant's name obscured for his/her privacy. View it HERE.
SATURDAY, JULY 12, 2015 - On several occasions the SAPPA Group has tried to make contact with the NRA seeking to get some support in the way of publicity. As of this date no one from the NRA has even acknowledged that they received our correspondence. So at this point we have no idea if they will be on board for our lawsuit or not. As a result Nick contacted the President of our gun club, Mr. John Scott of the CJR&PC of Jackson and asked him if he would consider contacting the NRA on behalf of the SAPPA Group.
CJR&PC has over 4,000 members all of which are encouraged to join the NRA. While it's true there is a great relationship between the NRA and CJR&PC both have benefitted very well. President Scott said he would be glad to send them a letter because he is and has been very strongly behind the efforts of the SAPPA Group. He asked that we prepare a template which covered all the points we needed made and he would then prepare the letter and send it off to the NRA. This is great news.
FRIDAY, JULY 10, 2015- Nick received some amazing mail from the District Court this day. The first piece was a series of forms which needed to be filled out and returned. There was also a requirement that each of the 40 Defendants be served notice that the Petition was in effect and the 21 day period for a response from them had begun. Each of those letters had to be sent with a USPS tracking number. Also required was a notarized certification to be sent to the court verifying all the Defendants had been contacted.
The Court sent notification to Mr. Purpura informing him that the case had officially been reopened. ( You will recall that a court clerk had earlier prematurely closed the case presuming Nick wouldn't get the fee paid in time. He figured that, well, because they never bothered to inform Nick of the court order requiring the fee.)
TUESDAY, JULY 7, 2015- The SAPPA Group sent out an invitation for a round table discussion to the many people who have signed up to help this cause. See that request HERE. If you did not receive your invitation and would like to participate in this leadership discussion group please contact us ASAP at firstname.lastname@example.org
MONDAY, JULY 6, 2015 - Ironically, after the Court received and accepted the filing fee, Nick finally received the Court Order in the mail, on this day. The envelope was post dated June 30, 2015. It appears that they decided to mail the Court Order since the Petitioner, Nick, had already complied with it. Could look funny (suspicious, underhanded, illegal) when the appeal is in and it was found that the Court issued an order and never notified the Petitioner.
As expected the order which denied Nick his right to file as IP came with an unconstitutional explanation. Clearly they never expected Nick to find out about the order until it was too late and the file was closed, therefore no need to explain anything. When the Clerk found out that the fee had been paid, a bit of nervous scrambling must have taken place as they realized that Nick was one step ahead of them.
Also on this date Nick made some calls to the Court Clerk's office and inquired as to if the Summons and Complaints were issued to the Governor and the other Defendants as is required by law subsequent to the filing fee being paid. The Clerk to whom Nick spoke said that they had not been notified because someone closed the file on June 26th. They jumped the gun (so to speak) just a bit since there was no way that the fee would be paid on time, since they knew they didn't notify Nick of the Court Order.
Nick then demanded to be connected to the Judge's Clerk. After some conversation he was finally connected. (We are keeping this clerk's name to ourselves for obvious reasons.) Nick informed the Judge's clerk that by law, since the fee was paid and paid on time, the file could not be closed and the Defendants must be issued the Summons and Complaints.
The clerk then apologized for the premature closing of the file and agreed it would be reopened and the Summons and Complaints would be issued on July 7, 2015. The clock will then begin ticking on the Defendants. By law the Defendants must reply to the Court in 20 days. That will be approximately the end of July.
That means that Nick will be presenting his rebuttal of the Defendant's Reply in early August. Since he has seen these people in action many times, his rebuttal is ready to submit to Judge Shipp. There may be a few things that have to be refined after seeing their defense, but they are predictable and consistent so that refining will be minimal. Their defense? Legally they have none so it will mainly be a request to dismiss.
THURSDAY, JULY 2, 2015- The certified letter to Judge Shipp was sent on this day. Also confirmation of the receipt of the $400.00 filing fee was received by Nick. At this point it is still not clear if the 14 day period that Court Order gave to Nick was to begin upon his receipt of the as yet received Court Order or if it began, as the Court Order appeared to state, on May 24th.
We might appear cynical if we surmised they intentionally delayed notifying him hoping he would not get the filing fee in on time. But, the fee was paid on time. So now we await their next move which we are certain will take Nick's civil rights into complete account. No giggling please.
MONDAY, JUNE 29, 2015 - Understanding the unscrupulous activities of the existing court system Nick made several inquiries of the Clerk concerning the status of the Brief. Finally he was given the information concerning a Legal Order that Judge Shipp issued. That order denied Nick the right to file without paying the filing fee which is charged to big legal organizations.
We discovered the order was issued May 24, 2015. It gave Nick 14 days to pay the $400.00 filing fee or have the case closed. The idea it seems, was to issue this order and intentionally not inform Nick of it and then close the case. If we then wanted to continue we would have to redo the entire brief, rebind them and re file them as well as re serve the defendants.
So because of Nick's experience with corrupt officials he prevented them from pulling this nasty little action. On this day, using what was left of the donations we got from Patriots and with the help of SAPPA member Joe, the $400 money order was handed to the clerk. The case must now proceed.
Tomorrow a registered letter will be sent to Judge Shipp concerning this episode. You can download or read it here. Letter dates July 1, 2015 to Judge Shipp.
SATURDAY, JUNE 27, 2015 - As Nick warned us many times it appears that the defendants plan to seek to have this case dismissed ( most likely on the grounds that the District Court has no standing in state matters. The Obama appointed Judge Shipp will most likely be all too ready and willing to grant that request. Nick has just told me that he has a big surprise for them if they try to do that. Stay tuned on this one.
THURSDAY, JUNE 25, 2015 - Thus far it has been almost a month since we filed and Obama Appointee Judge Shipp was presented the case. Nick called the court today to find out what the status is. The Judge still has not decided whether to issue a summons and complaint. This is nothing more than another delay tactic to allow the defendants more time to present a defense. A defense by the way, that Nick believes will be impossible to mount.
FRIDAY, June 26, 2015 - We started getting a few responses back from some of the letters we sent on June 17. As expected a couple of groups we contacted which are headed by lawyers have decided not to get involved or help our cause. The fact that this suit is being filed Pro se, no lawyers requires, probably is the main reason for their decision. Not saying that lawyers are generally against lay people doing law work they could get paid to do. But who know?
FRIDAY, JUNE 19, 2015- Today Nick received the Brief which the SAPPA Group had mailed to District Court Judge Leonard Stark Chief Judge on the in Delaware who set on the 3rd Circuit Court case -- Drake v Jerejian. Stark, a defendant in this case, was served by registered mail because of his rulings in the Jarejian case.
Even though the docket number and Judge assigned to the case is on record in Trenton, Judge Stark returned the brief to Nick stating that it was not clear. Presumably he did this because the Docket number was not attached to the Brief. ( because they were mailed before a number was issued) But the real reason he sent the brief back was to create as much delay as he can. To make sure that this delay would be as short as possible, Nick attached the Docket number and the Judge's name who has been assigned to the suit, and returned it back to him the next day.
WEDNESDAY, JUNE 17, 2015 - As of this day all the letters have been mailed out to the 25 support prospects.
MONDAY, JUNE 15, 2015 - . Today we finished preparing and printing out letters to 25 individuals and groups which have been selected by the SAPPA Group as possible support for our efforts. Later this week they will be put into envelopes and snail mailed to those organizations. To see the list of those receiving letters click here> LIST OF SUPPORT PROSPECTS
The letters were slightly modified in relation to the group they are being sent to but to see a sample of one of those letters click here> LETTER TO SUPPORT GROUP
FRIDAY, June 5, 2015 - Today we sent a follow up letter to the NRA via snail mail because we have not, after about 90 days, received a response from them which was emailed. You can download or read this letter by clicking here > LETTER TO NRA
WEDNESDAY, June 3, 2015 - Nick is back working on the lawsuit after his surgery. He is preparing the reply Brief which will be in response to the anticipated request for dismissal by the Defendants.
MONDAY, June 1, 2015 - The SAPPA Group contacted over 30 news outlets and provided them with the first Press Release of this project. Read or download that document here> SAPPA GROUP PRESS RELEASE
FRIDAY, May 29, 2015 - Mr. Nicholas Purpura was notified that the Brief has been accepted by the court and a Docket Number was issued and a Judge has been assigned the case. The filing has been accepted by the court and issued Docket Number 15-03534 and has been assigned to the Honorable Judge Michael J. Shipp.
WEDNESDAY, May 27, 2015 - On this date Nicholas E. Purpura v. Governor Chris Christie was filed in the District Court in Trenton. Also on this date all 36 defendants were served and each has their very own Federal Brief with their names on it which identifies them as defendants.
MONDAY, May 25, 2015 - The final printing and binding of over forty copies of the Brief was completed. Those which were being mailed were enclosed in the proper folders and prepared for the Post Office. The remaining copies were boxed and loaded into vehicles in preparation for the trip to Trenton and the serving procedure.
NEWS & STATUS REPORTS
The SAPPA Group is providing this log of activity and events so those who have committed to this effort will be able to follow the steps we are taking as well as the obstacles we face and confront.
Copyright © TPATH.