Nicholas Purpura "The Eagle" NJ SAPPA 2nd Amendment

User avatar
Orlylicious
Posts: 9375
Joined: Mon Apr 23, 2012 4:02 pm
Location: With Pete Buttigieg and the other "open and defiant homosexuals" --Bryan Fischer AFA

Nicholas Purpura "The Eagle" NJ SAPPA 2nd Amendment

#1

Post by Orlylicious » Wed Sep 24, 2014 8:29 am

Nicholas Purpura has a fabulous new idea, people of NJ and America! Yoo Hoo, Chris Christie! Important Notice Concerning SAPPA“THE TIME HAS COME TO ACT”September 23, 2014Dear Patriots,As most of us know there are many states in this country which have sworn allegiance to the United States Constitution but have, over the years, ignored that agreement. Liberal politicians from both of the major parties have joined together in an unprecedented collusion, which has been a very successful effort to infringe on its citizens’ rights. New Jersey is but one of those states, but it holds the dishonor of being one of the most egregious perpetrators. TPATH, TeamNJ and several other groups (which will be named later) have decided enough is enough.Every day the possibility of terrorist attracts grows more an more likely as Islamic radicals are emboldened and our borders remain unsecured. Rioting and civil unrest has shown, too, to be a very real threat to law-abiding citizens. The latest financial indicators point to massive bubbles far more dangerous than the housing crisis of a few years ago. When they burst, chaos from Wall Street to Main Street will reign. Any number of occurrences could create power outages across the country, as our grid remains poorly maintained and poorly protected from sabotage.People of America and New Jersey, any one of these things or all of them could manifest themselves [hlyellow]in a matter of hours or days[/hlyellow]. You will be in the untenable position, thanks to your elected officials, of being unable to protect your family and your property as a result of the unconstitutional firearm laws which illegally reside on the books. There will be no time to acquire weapons and ammunition for defense of your home and you may not have the opportunity to have in your possession a weapon that could save your life. You will find yourself in that position for two main reasons. One, of course, is the fact that your elected officials have placed you in that danger. The other reason is, you failed to stop them from doing so. Story at: http://www.boards2go.com/boards/board.c ... minerman54
Avatar Photo: Dedicated to Slim by the International Brotherhood of Weasels.
Don't miss Fogbow's favorite show, "Mama June: From Not To Hot: "The Road To Intervention"

User avatar
Piffle
Posts: 6987
Joined: Sun Sep 26, 2010 12:39 pm

Nicholas Purpura "The Eagle" NJ SAPPA 2nd Amendment

#2

Post by Piffle » Wed Sep 24, 2014 11:18 am

:o George Washington, schooled of history and prescient of the future stated; “Firearms stand next in importance to the constitution itself. They are the American people’s liberty teeth and keystone under independence … from the hour the Pilgrims landed to the present day, events, occurrences and tendencies prove that to ensure peace security and happiness, the rifle and pistol are equally indispensable … the very atmosphere of firearms anywhere restrains evil interference — they deserve a place of honor with all that’s good.” Uh huh, riiiight. A direct quote from George Washington. :^o [-X http://www.guncite.com/gc2ndbog.html

User avatar
mimi
Posts: 31130
Joined: Tue Jan 27, 2009 12:01 am

Nicholas Purpura "The Eagle" NJ SAPPA 2nd Amendment

#3

Post by mimi » Wed Sep 24, 2014 12:38 pm

Nick got himself some publicity a few months back. The Blaze: Crowd Erupts in Applause at Army Veteran’s Rousing Gun Rights Speech to Dem Lawmakers in a Video You Likely Haven’t Seen http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2014/04 ... vent-seen/ They really should vet these guys before making them heros. For the noobs, Nick Purpura is a birther who was represented by Apuzzo. Mario got his ass handed to him. LOL That is chronicled under the Fogbow topic: New Jersey Ballot Challenge - Apuzzo... But before that, he came up with the genius idea to claim Obamacare unconstitutional cuz... birf. That one is chronicled under the Fogbow topics:Purpura v. Sebelius (D.N.J.) and PURPURA v SEBELIUS - ACT II (THIRD CIRCUIT) & III (SCOTUS) There's a youtube of a meeting where they explained their plan to the tea party. We had it here somewhere. I remember a guy in the back wanted to leave the birther stuff out of the suit, but 'We The Purple' would not hear of it. It was crazy stuff. They then wanted the judge to recuse. Other than his work defending the Constitution, We The Purple is best know for his divorce. Here is just a wee bit on that uncoupling: March 26 2005:Never give up... even on divorceFormer Bear Stearns partner Nicholas Purpura and his ex-wife Barbara finalised the terms of their divorce last week. Purpura was ordered by a court to sell his turn-of-the-century Staten Island home - boasting 17 rooms, six fireplaces and a running stream in the grounds with goldfish the size of carp, if reports are to be believed. Sad, you may think, for a once-loving couple to part, but nothing unusual in an age where more than a third of marriages end in divorce. Slightly less usual is that it has taken the couple more than 21 years to get this far, making it the longest divorce in New York State history. Pupora and his wife were legally divorced in 1988 but the pair have since spent more than $100,000 on six different divorce lawyers to get the details right. A second marriage has come and gone. Four of the dozens of jurors who have heard evidence in various court wranglings have since died. NYPost did one a few weeks earlier with more details: http://nypost.com/2005/03/13/21-years-w ... e-history/ then... http://nypost.com/2005/04/11/score-one- ... r-divorce/

User avatar
Chilidog
Posts: 9786
Joined: Mon Jan 09, 2012 11:36 am

Nicholas Purpura "The Eagle" NJ SAPPA 2nd Amendment

#4

Post by Chilidog » Wed Sep 24, 2014 12:48 pm

He's the purple drank.

User avatar
Northland10
Posts: 8208
Joined: Sat Jan 23, 2010 9:19 am
Location: Chicago area - North burbs

Re: Nicholas Purpura "The Eagle" NJ SAPPA 2nd Amendment

#5

Post by Northland10 » Sat Mar 18, 2017 4:07 pm

He tried suing everybody who passed a gun law, judges (including one who had died the year before he filed the suit) and courts that upheld the law and attorneys and police that enforced the law. He sued as:
NICHOLAS E. PURPURA
a sovereign citizen, and for people similarly situated in New Jersey that hold citizenship in United States
And it was dismissed, sort of.
Purpura v Christie et all order dismissing.pdf
03/31/2016 47 MEMORANDUM OPINION filed. Signed by Judge Michael A. Shipp on 3/31/2016. (mmh) (Entered: 03/31/2016)
03/31/2016 48 ORDER that Plaintiff's motion for entry of judgment by default (d.e. 11 ) is DENIED; that Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment (d.e. 17 ) is DENIED; that Defendants' motions to dismiss (d.e. 25 , 42 ) are GRANTED. Plaintiff's Complaint is DISMISSED without prejudice.Plaintiff shall file an amended amended complaint by 4/29/2016 that complies with Rule 8(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. If Plaintiff does not file an amended complaint by such date, the Complaint shall be dismissed with prejudice. Signed by Judge Michael A. Shipp on 3/31/2016. (mmh) (Entered: 03/31/2016)
He was supposed to file an amended complaint but instead filed some motion to vacate the order and stuff. The court denied it. He appealed, so it is not lingering in the appellate court.

Rharon wrote about it.

Earlier in the suit, Purpura requested a writ from the appeals court to get the district court to do what he wants. It was dismissed.

http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu ... rcuit_2016

He is also suing J.P. Morgan Chase over some loan, though he did not include the Sovereign text. I don't have time to wander through that mess. It is filled with letters to the court instead of motions. It appears the court got annoyed with having to type up responses to the letters so the judge hand wrote a denial of his request on a copy of the letter.
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.
North-land: of the family 10

UCC 1-106 Plural is Singular, Singular is Plural.

User avatar
Sterngard Friegen
Posts: 44478
Joined: Wed Aug 05, 2009 12:32 am
Location: Over the drawbridge

Re: Nicholas Purpura "The Eagle" NJ SAPPA 2nd Amendment

#6

Post by Sterngard Friegen » Sat Mar 18, 2017 4:32 pm

Purpura is another idiot desperate for attention. And wasting Government time and money. Is he on the dole, too?

User avatar
bob
Posts: 26821
Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 12:22 pm

Re: Nicholas Purpura "The Eagle" NJ SAPPA 2nd Amendment

#7

Post by bob » Wed Jul 19, 2017 4:07 pm

P&E: SAPPA Group Makes an Announcement:
Dwight Kehoe wrote:THE FINAL PHASE

* * *

From the outset we were told that this legal action had no future. As this effort, inspired by Mr. Purpura, researched, editorialized, made trips to Trenton, paid fees piled upon fees, avoided obstacles, new and old, which which have been laid in his path, he continued on. Professional law groups warned us of the futility, the NRA and other organizations refused to join this effort, naysayers on Facebook and national gun forums gave us a shorter survival period than a DNC hacker.

* * *

Understanding the powerful documents that lay before them, they did what they had to do, that being nothing. With the pressure mounting, Judge Shipp finally took the proverbial low road and ordered Mr. Purpura to resubmit his original Brief. The grounds for this? It seems that after a year and a half, this judge, no doubt brainstorming and in collusion with the Defense, declared that the non-attorney’s Brief was too detailed and complicated.

After several unpleasant encounters with the next level federal court, the 3rd Circuit, they reluctantly admitted that they were not just jurisdictionally able to hear the appeal but were required to. Surprisingly enough, okay, not so surprising, the Appeals Court also refused to rule on the merits and used language similar to and as vacuous as that of the lower court. Next stop, The United States Supreme Court.
The 3d Cir.'s April 2017 affirmance. (Executive summary: ... waaaaaaiiit for it! ... No standing.)

* * *
Northland10 wrote:He is also suing J.P. Morgan Chase over some loan, though he did not include the Sovereign text. I don't have time to wander through that mess. It is filled with letters to the court instead of motions. It appears the court got annoyed with having to type up responses to the letters so the judge hand wrote a denial of his request on a copy of the letter.
Bonus: Pupura failing at avoiding his mortgage (D.N.J. dismissed).
Imagex6 Imagex2 Imagex4 Imagex2

User avatar
Rickey
Posts: 192
Joined: Mon Dec 20, 2010 2:29 pm

Re: Nicholas Purpura "The Eagle" NJ SAPPA 2nd Amendment

#8

Post by Rickey » Wed Jul 19, 2017 5:42 pm

Purpura once filed a cert petition with SCOTUS on his never-ending divorce case.

In all he has filed three cert petitions, and in each case he moved to proceed IFP.

User avatar
Notorial Dissent
Posts: 12381
Joined: Thu Oct 17, 2013 8:21 pm

Re: Nicholas Purpura "The Eagle" NJ SAPPA 2nd Amendment

#9

Post by Notorial Dissent » Wed Jul 19, 2017 6:01 pm

He took a divorce cast to the USSC???? O. M. G. If it was anywhere near as incoherent as this hot mess, he is a real tool.
The fact that you sincerely and wholeheartedly believe that the “Law of Gravity” is unconstitutional and a violation of your sovereign rights, does not absolve you of adherence to it.

User avatar
Sterngard Friegen
Posts: 44478
Joined: Wed Aug 05, 2009 12:32 am
Location: Over the drawbridge

Re: Nicholas Purpura "The Eagle" NJ SAPPA 2nd Amendment

#10

Post by Sterngard Friegen » Wed Jul 19, 2017 6:43 pm

Nicholas Purpura -- a ridiculous and awful human being we used to refer to as "We The Purple."

User avatar
Rickey
Posts: 192
Joined: Mon Dec 20, 2010 2:29 pm

Re: Nicholas Purpura "The Eagle" NJ SAPPA 2nd Amendment

#11

Post by Rickey » Wed Jul 19, 2017 10:14 pm

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

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

User avatar
Orlylicious
Posts: 9375
Joined: Mon Apr 23, 2012 4:02 pm
Location: With Pete Buttigieg and the other "open and defiant homosexuals" --Bryan Fischer AFA

Re: Nicholas Purpura "The Eagle" NJ SAPPA 2nd Amendment

#12

Post by Orlylicious » Wed Aug 30, 2017 9:58 pm

:lol: Breaking :lol:

Leading at the Post and Email with this TPATH story:
Breaking! The United States Supreme Court Has Issued Purpura v. Christie a Docket Number 17-280
On Wednesday, August 30, 2017 No Comment
LONGSTANDING SECOND AMENDMENT CASE WILL GET ITS DAY IN COURT
by Dwight Kehoe, Editor, TPATH, ©2017

(Aug. 30, 2017) — The United States Supreme Court Clerk has accepted the Writ as of July 14, 2017 and issued a Docket Number 17-280.

Next Step- Show the Court that there is huge public interest in this 2nd Amendment legal action.

[Editor’s Note: Follow this link for more information and documents on this case.

http://www.tpath.org/ussc-docketed.html ]
PURPURA v. CHRISTIE
Pur.JPG
104 page writ: http://nebula.wsimg.com/b8a8f6b8a95986f ... oworigin=1
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.
Avatar Photo: Dedicated to Slim by the International Brotherhood of Weasels.
Don't miss Fogbow's favorite show, "Mama June: From Not To Hot: "The Road To Intervention"

User avatar
bob
Posts: 26821
Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 12:22 pm

Re: Nicholas Purpura "The Eagle" NJ SAPPA 2nd Amendment

#13

Post by bob » Tue Sep 19, 2017 8:16 pm

Students for a Better Future BTR: How Sharia Law is at Odds With the Constitution/Discussion of SAPPA:
Also for discussion tonite is how the Second Amendment is being violated.

Guest: Constitutionalist Nicholas Purpura .
Tomorrow. :yawn:
Imagex6 Imagex2 Imagex4 Imagex2

User avatar
bob
Posts: 26821
Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 12:22 pm

Re: Nicholas Purpura "The Eagle" NJ SAPPA 2nd Amendment

#14

Post by bob » Tue Sep 19, 2017 8:19 pm

"For completeness": Purpura v. Christie, SCOTUS Dkt. No. 17-280:
Jul 14 2017 Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due September 22, 2017)

Sep 05 2017 Waiver of right of respondents Christie, Gov. of NJ, et al. to respond filed.

Sep 11 2017 Waiver of Christie, Gov. of NJ, et al. of right to respond submitted.

Sep 14 2017 Waiver of Township of Montville o/b/o Richard Cook and Township of Andover o/b/o Achille Tagliatella of right to respond submitted.
Soon to the dead list, and then denied.
Imagex6 Imagex2 Imagex4 Imagex2

User avatar
Sterngard Friegen
Posts: 44478
Joined: Wed Aug 05, 2009 12:32 am
Location: Over the drawbridge

Re: Nicholas Purpura "The Eagle" NJ SAPPA 2nd Amendment

#15

Post by Sterngard Friegen » Tue Sep 19, 2017 10:43 pm

Purpura is another Terry Trussell wanna-be, without Rodger B. Dowdell, Jr, egging him on. Truly a despicable human being.

User avatar
bob
Posts: 26821
Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 12:22 pm

Re: Nicholas Purpura "The Eagle" NJ SAPPA 2nd Amendment

#16

Post by bob » Sun Sep 24, 2017 11:33 pm

P&E: Pro Se Litigant’s “Federalism,” Second Amendment Case Reaches U.S. Supreme Court:
“DIRTY POOL”

* * *

The plaintiff, Mr. Nicholas E. Purpura, told The Post & Email in an interview on Thursday that although the surface issue is the curtailment of the Second Amendment by the New Jersey legislature, governor and other government functionaries, the underlying and more important issue is one of “federalism.”

* * *

Purpura added that the “docket number” does not necessarily mean that the case will be granted oral argument by the high court. “What we have to be careful of is the clerks. They have a pool of clerks, and a lot of them get there by political connections. Many of them have political ideology of ‘left lane.’ I have it from a law professor at Notre Dame that they often tell the chief clerks for the Justices, ‘It’s not worth hearing this,’ and they ignore it; they don’t read it. The only way we’re going to get anywhere is by publicity.”

* * *
Purpura wrote:I’m not arguing this; what I’m doing is confirming the arguments previously made by the Supreme Court of the United States. This not a Second Amendment case; this is about federalism.

The point is this: here you have limited speech now from our First Amendment; the Second amendment is ignored totally because they don’t like it. The Fifth Amendment on due process is a farce, because what they do is dispose of any matter…they say, “Oh, technicalities do not work on a pro se case.”

The other thing they do is say they don’t have “subject matter jurisdiction.” That’s not true, either, if you read my brief. If you look at the original petition, I’ve covered that with 50 Supreme Court precedents. There are hundreds of them out there.

The biggest thing is the illegal behavior of the judiciary. These judges violated the law.

* * *

The defense’s attorneys failed to adhere to the law, and the judges gave them extra time which they had no jurisdiction to do. They did everything to dispose of this matter. They demanded that I redo it. I wasn’t going to redo it; I stood firm on my brief.

* * *

I started at the federal court because it’s a federal question. The state court in New Jersey is a cesspool of left-wing judges who could care less about the law. The case here involves RICO. The state legislature had no authority to write it into law because it violates the Constitution. You can’t do what they did.

They ignored the statute and federal law. They turned around and had the audacity to say, “Your brief was too complicated.” It wasn’t complicated if they read it. What it was is that there was no way for them to refute it, so what they did is try to use the excuse that they didn’t have subject matter jurisdiction, which is a complete farce, because one always has subject matter jurisdiction on a constitutional challenge. I could have written it on a napkin, and they had to read it and answer.

Standing? You mean to tell me that I haven’t incurred any injury? Injury could come 13 years from now and they would have to hear it. There’s imminent risk of harm. Justice Ginsburg said, “Hey, folks, you don’t have to have injury if someone’s rights are violated. You could argue this for a third party, so you can’t have a law that is no law at all.”

* * *

That was in Bond v. U.S. in 2014. So that argument didn’t work. So what they did was say, “You were supposed to put in a short argument as to why we should hear this case.” No: the statute is explicit. When you bring a RICO action, the defendants must answer every question with particularity. They never answered any argument, because there is no argument. They tried to depend upon a technicality.

The Supreme Court said, “No, you can’t dump a case because you don’t agree with it on a technicality.” He also said that they can’t hold a pro se petitioner to the same standard as an attorney. So when they asked me to do it over, I was upset; I said, “No” and stood by my brief.

They also tried to cite a law which says that they can’t hear a case unless it’s a final decision for a district court. I proved that the district court lied and didn’t follow the instructions, and I took the next laws which follow the one they cited and they were forced to say, “Yes, we have to hear it.”

They refused to hear the case but were forced to.

I named two of the judges in the Circuit Court as defendants. When the Third Circuit heard it, they said they agreed with the District Court, but they couldn’t agree with the District Court because they violated the statutes, refused to hear the matter and was forced to, and the Third Circuit was “agreeing” but omitting the facts of the case.

One of the major facts in this case that I find very interesting is that the judge in the District Court gave false testimony in his reply, and so did the Circuit Court. Both of them. They refused to address the evidence, and the other side refused to address the evidence.

I addressed all of them. I was allowed so many words to address the reply. I had three defense teams I fought, not one: the attorney general’s office, which is loaded with lawyers; I fought the federal government, the Department of Justice attorney; and the private attorneys. So I said, “OK, fine, all of them are going to put in briefs, so you’re telling me that I can answer each one separately.” “Oh, no, you get to answer them all in one brief, and you’re limited to” whatever it was; I can’t remember exactly.

What was really interesting in this case is that this same judge, Judge Shipp, who eventually removed himself from my case, had a case that followed based on the Second Amendment and ruled on everything in favor of the plaintiffs but ignored by case. The plaintiff won the case.

This judge did everything to aid the State of New Jersey in my case. What he did was so unorthodox that he had to remove himself. Why? Because he allowed them to continue arguing without jurisdiction. He could actually be sued personally. He had no jurisdiction to allow them to put in late briefs and do what they did: not answer. Rule 6 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure states that if they don’t answer in time, you can’t give them any space. They didn’t even put in motions; they just did whatever they wanted. So there was no proper due process during this entire case.

When I went to the Circuit Court, they fought everything, bu they couldn’t go against their own judges. They just agreed with the lower court.

I went to the Supreme Court, and the defense wouldn’t even answer. They waived their right to answer in the Supreme Court, knowing that they might get the pool of liberal clerks who would say, “Don’t hear the case,” and no one would know about it.

But that wasn’t going to work. It opened it up so that I had to write a special letter to all the judges and the court. The judge that they put on this case in the District Court, which was meaningless because it was in the Circuit Court, Judge Brian Martinotti, I was supposed to answer within 30 days. A year later, the judge wrote (paraphrased), “We’re dismissing this case with prejudice because Mr. Purpura did not answer within the time frame.”

It was a year old, he had no jurisdiction, he had no hearing, and he put false and misleading evidence into the court record…all so that they had something to hang their hat on to dismiss this. You know what this is? Dirty pool.
Please look for Part 2 of our interview with Mr. Purpura in the near future.
:yankyank:
Imagex6 Imagex2 Imagex4 Imagex2

User avatar
Suranis
Posts: 16653
Joined: Sat Nov 20, 2010 7:04 am

Re: Nicholas Purpura "The Eagle" NJ SAPPA 2nd Amendment

#17

Post by Suranis » Mon Sep 25, 2017 12:22 am

Image
Learn to Swear in Latin. Profanity with class!
https://blogs.transparent.com/latin/lat ... -in-latin/

User avatar
Sterngard Friegen
Posts: 44478
Joined: Wed Aug 05, 2009 12:32 am
Location: Over the drawbridge

Re: Nicholas Purpura "The Eagle" NJ SAPPA 2nd Amendment

#18

Post by Sterngard Friegen » Mon Sep 25, 2017 1:03 am

:rolleye:

User avatar
bob
Posts: 26821
Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 12:22 pm

Re: Nicholas Purpura "The Eagle" NJ SAPPA 2nd Amendment

#19

Post by bob » Fri Sep 29, 2017 10:15 pm

Please look for Part 2 of our interview with Mr. Purpura in the near future.
P&E: New Jersey “Federalism” Case Reaches Supreme Court, Part 2:
“THE ISSUE HAS ALREADY BEEN ADJUDICATED”

* * *

Purpura is a constitutional scholar, educator and Christian chaplain who sees it as his duty to expose government corruption and constitutional violations. He claims that New Jersey’s “laws” restricting the rights of the people to carry firearms in any situation for self-protection, outside of those declared mentally-ill or convicted felons, trespass on the “federalism” guarantee to each state by the U.S. Constitution.

* * *

Purpura is a constitutional scholar, educator and Christian chaplain who sees it as his duty to expose government corruption and constitutional violations. He claims that New Jersey’s “laws” restricting the rights of the people to carry firearms in any situation for self-protection, outside of those declared mentally-ill or convicted felons, trespass on the “federalism” guarantee to each state by the U.S. Constitution.

* * *
Purpura wrote:Now it’s at the Supreme Court of the United States, and they’re still not respecting the law. As Professor Matthew E.K. Hall at Notre Dame told me, “If you don’t get any publicity, they’re not going to hear it because it’s too controversial.” Behind closed doors, there’s political influence.

* * *

I brought three arguments before the Supreme Court. I should win this case, by law, on each of those three arguments. They’re totally irrefutable.

* * *

I have essentially won the case because administrative law “is no law at all.”

* * *

I brought a RICO action, which means two or more people are involved in a conspiracy. So now we have the legislature, instituting “law” without authority; the Department of Law & Public Safety, which enforces the unconstitutional laws; the governor, who signed it into law; and the judiciary, which is not really the third branch of government; its role is to police over the acts of the legislature and executive officer. They have to decide whether the acts of those defendants were constitutional or unconstitutional, whether or not they like it. It’s irrelevant. They have to follow it until certain law is repealed by Congress, not apply their ideology.

* * *

Thirdly, the issue is “held.” That should stop them from even arguing this issue. I won on that.
* * *

In our next installment, Purpura will discuss how his case differs from Drake [v. Jerejian].
:yankyank:
Imagex6 Imagex2 Imagex4 Imagex2

User avatar
Whip
Posts: 3850
Joined: Mon Nov 09, 2015 12:31 pm

Re: Nicholas Purpura "The Eagle" NJ SAPPA 2nd Amendment

#20

Post by Whip » Fri Sep 29, 2017 10:21 pm

He claims that New Jersey’s “laws” restricting the rights of the people to carry firearms in any situation for self-protection, outside of those declared mentally-ill or convicted felons, trespass on the “federalism” guarantee to each state by the U.S. Constitution.
um, yeah. we really don't have a problem here.

User avatar
Sterngard Friegen
Posts: 44478
Joined: Wed Aug 05, 2009 12:32 am
Location: Over the drawbridge

Re: Nicholas Purpura "The Eagle" NJ SAPPA 2nd Amendment

#21

Post by Sterngard Friegen » Fri Sep 29, 2017 10:28 pm

Purpura is a constitutional scholar . . .
:rotflmao:

User avatar
Notorial Dissent
Posts: 12381
Joined: Thu Oct 17, 2013 8:21 pm

Re: Nicholas Purpura "The Eagle" NJ SAPPA 2nd Amendment

#22

Post by Notorial Dissent » Fri Sep 29, 2017 11:13 pm

Sterngard Friegen wrote:
Fri Sep 29, 2017 10:28 pm
Purpura is a constitutional scholar . . .
:rotflmao:
So's my long dead Siamese cat and I would bet on his being right before I would the purple one.
The fact that you sincerely and wholeheartedly believe that the “Law of Gravity” is unconstitutional and a violation of your sovereign rights, does not absolve you of adherence to it.

User avatar
bob
Posts: 26821
Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 12:22 pm

Re: Nicholas Purpura "The Eagle" NJ SAPPA 2nd Amendment

#23

Post by bob » Fri Sep 29, 2017 11:26 pm

He claims that New Jersey’s “laws” restricting the rights of the people to carry firearms in any situation for self-protection, outside of those declared mentally-ill or convicted felons, trespass on the “federalism” guarantee to each state by the U.S. Constitution.
Imagex6 Imagex2 Imagex4 Imagex2

User avatar
bob
Posts: 26821
Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 12:22 pm

Re: Nicholas Purpura "The Eagle" NJ SAPPA 2nd Amendment

#24

Post by bob » Sat Oct 14, 2017 3:48 pm

P&E: Second Amendment/Federalism Case at the U.S. Supreme Court, Part 3:
“WHERE LAW ENDS, TYRANNY BEGINS”

New Jersey pro se plaintiff Nicholas E. Purpura believes that the U.S. Supreme Court has a “fiduciary duty” to not only hear, but also rule favorably in his case, Purpura v. Christie, et al, to which the court clerk assigned a docket number in late August.

* * *

Purpura contends that the issues he raised when filing his case more than two years ago at the District Court in Trenton beg the questions, “Do we want our rights back? Are we a free state? Do we have a Constitution? Will you do your duty?”
* * *

My wish is for “Miracle on 34th Street” to happen in this case. Let this be our Miracle on 34th Street that we get the publicity for the case to be heard. People can write to the Supreme Court to ask them to hear this case.
The case is set for (the deadlist on) October 27.

Much more :yankyank: at the link.
Imagex6 Imagex2 Imagex4 Imagex2

User avatar
Sam the Centipede
Posts: 7059
Joined: Thu Aug 30, 2012 3:25 pm

Re: Nicholas Purpura "The Eagle" NJ SAPPA 2nd Amendment

#25

Post by Sam the Centipede » Sat Oct 14, 2017 10:35 pm

The evil part of my soul imagines a more Judge Dreddish Supreme Court:
Purpura: ... and that is why the right to bear and use firearms is sacred.
Supreme Judge: Your arguments are persuasive, so ...
Judge pulls out gun from beneath his robe and shoots Purpura between the eyes.
Supreme Judge: That's one fewer gun fetishizing nutters.

Post Reply

Return to “Lesser Lights”