Nicholas Purpura "The Eagle" NJ SAPPA 2nd Amendment

User avatar
bob
Posts: 22183
Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 12:22 pm

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

#26

Post by bob » Thu Nov 16, 2017 7:03 pm

The case is set for (the deadlist on) October 27.
SCOTUS:
Oct 30 2017 Petition DENIED.
Which means, of course: P&E: The Constitution Must Mean Exactly What it Says, or it Means Nothing at All:
Purpura wrote:SUPREME COURT DENIES WRIT OF CERTIORARI IN NJ SECOND AMENDMENT CASE

This first article will deal with a stolen right; the Second Amendment. Unquestionably the most important Amendment set forth in the “Bill of Rights.” Liberty and freedom as well as our Constitution itself, without it, the Constitution would be nothing more than a piece of paper containing meaningless words of wishful thinking.

Before the Supreme Court of these United States, was a “Writ for Certiorari,” Docket No. 17-280 Purpura v. Gov. Christie et al., Docketed on August 23, 2017 that; if heard, by established law and previous precedent by this same Supreme Court would restored our Second Amendment right in New Jersey and throughout the country. On October 30, 2017, void any review at all, It has been summarily denied. In fairness to the Honorable Justices on the bench, after careful investigation, it has been discovered; not a single Justice had an ‘opportunity’ to see or address the “Application to Expedite” or “Petition for Certiorari,” if they had your Second Amendment right would have been indisputably restored.

The decision not to forward the Petition to the Justices was made by a single inexperienced recent graduate of law school, chosen for the “Cert-pool.” Clerks fear sticking their necks out to recommend a pro se petition that may be dismissed as “improvidently granted.” Which would be a significant embarrassment to the clerk in question. Therefore, the risk-averse thing to do is to recommend not to take a case.” Sadly, evidence exits that indicates that only a handful of lawyers have had success in getting their petitions heard on constitutional challenges.

Justices expect authoritative arguments based upon legal precedent and established principles of law as well as the legal implications of public importance. Regardless of the public importance, a case filed by a pro se goes unread. Facts, law, reason, and the abundance of the Court’s own prior holdings, which this Petition contained, were totally ignored.

See, attached is a 12-page Application for a rehearing containing three irrefutable arguments ignored by all three Federal Courts. After reading the three questions presented on the first page: Petitioner challenges the entire “Cert-pool” as to why the Court should not grant a rehearing.
:yankyank:


Imagex4 Imagex2 Imagex2 Imagex2

User avatar
Orlylicious
Posts: 6483
Joined: Mon Apr 23, 2012 4:02 pm

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

#27

Post by Orlylicious » Thu Nov 16, 2017 7:19 pm

Gorsuch and Alito aren't in the cert pool http://www.abajournal.com/news/article/ ... rangement/

It's like they've learned nothing at all. :lol:
Papura.JPG
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.


From Michael Moore: RESISTANCE CALENDAR! A one-stop site for all anti-Trump actions EVERY DAY nationwide: http://resistancecalendar.org

User avatar
bob
Posts: 22183
Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 12:22 pm

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

#28

Post by bob » Wed Nov 22, 2017 2:29 pm

P&E: The Constitution Must Mean Exactly What it Says, or it Means Nothing at All, Part 2:
IS THE SUPREME COURT GUILTY OF SELECTIVE ENFORCEMENT OF THE CONSTITUTION?

[Editor’s Note: Please see Part 1 of this series here.]

When our nation’s highest Court can void any legal reasoning, logic, or precedent, can reject a “Writ for Certiorari” that is based upon and supported by this same Court’s prior en banc (9-0) precedent related to the validity of de facto Administrative law held to be unconstitutional, one has to ask; was this “Intentional Negligence” or “selective enforcement”?

Was the refusal to address blatant unconstitutional behavior of New Jersey’s public officials in the matter of Purpura v. Gov. Christie, et al., Docket 17-280, based upon a political ideology or because the Defendants were the political powerful defendants?

* * *

The honorable Justices of this Supreme Court are obligated by “affirmed oath” before GOD to “take care” that the ‘laws of the land’ be faithfully executed. [At this time Petitioner firmly believes the Justices never received the original Petition.

Write and request that the Supreme Court grant a “Rehearing” of Purpura v. Christie et al., Docket 17-280. (Let your letters flood the Supreme Court – let it be our “Miracle on 1st Street” so that our civil right can be restored.
Paging Orly Taitz!

Purpura's rehearing petition. :yawn:


Imagex4 Imagex2 Imagex2 Imagex2

User avatar
Sterngard Friegen
Posts: 41177
Joined: Wed Aug 05, 2009 12:32 am
Location: Trump International - Malibu

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

#29

Post by Sterngard Friegen » Wed Nov 22, 2017 3:42 pm

:yankyank:



User avatar
realist
Posts: 34021
Joined: Fri Jan 23, 2009 12:33 pm

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

#30

Post by realist » Wed Nov 22, 2017 3:47 pm

mmmmmm no. They definitely received it. As did others. Including some stupid letter Purpura sent to them.
No. 17-280
Title: Nicholas Purpura, Petitioner
v.
Chris Christie, Governor of New Jersey, et al.
Docketed: August 23, 2017
Lower Ct: United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit
Case Numbers: (16-3173)
Decision Date: April 19, 2017
Rehearing Denied: May 18, 2017

Date Proceedings and Orders
Jul 14 2017 Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due September 22, 2017)

Sep 05 2017 Waiver of right of respondents Federal Respondents to respond filed.

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

Sep 12 2017 Waiver of right of respondent Township of Montville o/b/o Richard Cook and Township of Andover o/b/o Achille Tagliatella to respond filed.

Sep 15 2017 Letter received 9-19-2017, from petitioner Nicholas E. Purpura.

Oct 04 2017 DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 10/27/2017.

Oct 30 2017 Petition DENIED.


NAME ADDRESS PHONE
Attorneys for Petitioner
Nicholas E. Purpura 1802 Rue de la Port Drive
Wall, NJ 07719

732-449-0856
Party name: Nicholas Purpura
Attorneys for Respondents
Noel J. Francisco
Counsel of Record Solicitor General
United States Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530-0001

SupremeCtBriefs@USDOJ.gov 202-514-2217
Party name: Federal Respondents
Brian William Mason
Counsel of Record Mason Thompson, LLC
50 Nelson Street
Dover, NJ 07801

bwm@masonthompsonlaw.com 973-366-9300
Party name: Township of Montville o/b/o Richard Cook and Township of Andover o/b/o Achille Tagliatella
Benjamin H. Zieman
Counsel of Record Department of Law and Public Safety Division of Law
RJ Hughes Justice Complex, 25 Market Street, PO Box 116
Trenton , NJ 08625-0116

benjamin.zieman@lps.state.nj.us (609) 292-1575
Party name: Chris Christie, Governor of NJ, et al.


ImageX 4 (have met 36 Obots at meetups) Image X 4
Image

User avatar
bob
Posts: 22183
Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 12:22 pm

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

#31

Post by bob » Wed Nov 22, 2017 4:00 pm

realist wrote:
Wed Nov 22, 2017 3:47 pm
mmmmmm no. They definitely received it. As did others. Including some stupid letter Purpura sent to them.
Purpura is pulling a Taitz and imaging that that cert. pool clerks hid his petition from the justices. (Nevermind that two of the justices aren't even in the cert. pool.)


Imagex4 Imagex2 Imagex2 Imagex2

Grumpy Old Guy
Posts: 927
Joined: Sun Oct 11, 2015 10:24 am

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

#32

Post by Grumpy Old Guy » Wed Nov 22, 2017 4:18 pm

bob wrote:
Wed Nov 22, 2017 4:00 pm
realist wrote:
Wed Nov 22, 2017 3:47 pm
mmmmmm no. They definitely received it. As did others. Including some stupid letter Purpura sent to them.
Purpura is pulling a Taitz and imaging that that cert. pool clerks hid his petition from the justices. (Nevermind that two of the justices aren't even in the cert. pool.)
Egregious corruption in the courts! :crying:
I tried to read that screed and I have no idea what issues he is complaining about.
He does agree that mental health is a reason not to have a gun, so what does he have to complain about?



User avatar
bob
Posts: 22183
Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 12:22 pm

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

#33

Post by bob » Thu Dec 07, 2017 2:31 pm

P&E: New Jersey Second Amendment/Federalism Petitioner Sends Personal Appeal to SCOTUS[*][/url]:
CITES “INCONTROVERTIBLE EVIDENCE”
Purpura wrote:OPEN LETTER FORWARDED TO SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

As the Petitioner I must preface this letter by expressing a very serious doubt that this august judicial body was ever presented with a copy of the Writ for Certiorari, Docket No 17- 280. It is also my belief that none of the individual Justices will be presented with the “Petition for a Rehearing”, a document now in the courts possession. Hence, the purpose of this letter.

This conception has not come lightly but has been forged by the knowledge as to the importance federalism plays in the liberties which Americans enjoy and that that understanding lies deep in psyche of at least a majority of the Justices now seated. Therefore, it would defy all logic and reason that any one jurist, after reviewing the Writ referenced above, would or could ignore the direct attacks on established precedent of which this judicial body has unanimously ruled.

* * *

These important points are as well known to you, the Justices on this US Supreme Court, as they are to me, the Pro Se litigant in these procedures. That is why I stated above that this Writ must not have been reviewed, for if it were, it could not have been ignored.

During these very difficult proceedings I have been warned on many occasions that the common man, a non-attorney, does not enjoy the same rights and opportunities, in the eyes of the Court, as the elites. And that the US Supreme Court will never allow a non-lawyer to present a petition to this Court. I pray that not to be true, as that policy in itself, would stand in direct violation several of our Bill of Rights Amendments.

* * *

I pray for the sake of this Republic that this quote authored (name withheld) by an elite Harvard barrister, one who has appeared before you, shall find its way to the Court Clerk’s trash bin:
They are not going to grant a petition for a writ of Certiorari on a significant issue to be argued by a pro se litigant. That is simply the way it is.
:yankyank:

SCOTUS has already denied Purpura's cert. petition; his PFR is set for denial for the Jan. 5 conference.


* Rondeau does not explain how an open letter published on her blog is a "personal appeal." :think:
Hidden Content
This board requires you to be registered and logged-in to view hidden content.


Imagex4 Imagex2 Imagex2 Imagex2

Post Reply

Return to “Lesser Lights”