If you're new here, you may want to subscribe to my free Email alerts. Thanks for visiting!


by Dwight Kehoe and Nicholas Purpura, ©2016, TPATH

Nicholas Purpura

(Jul. 20, 2016) — It has been just over a year since the Federal Civil Rights RICO action has been filed in the District Court in Trenton.  Nicholas Purpura v. Chris Christie et al has been successfully hidden from the public by the despicable media and even though the state of New Jersey has gone through several sets of professional legal teams combating the various filings, motions and legal requests, Governor Christie has never mentioned this law suit in public.  Why is that?

First of all it is no secret that the leftist media here in New Jersey despises Governor Christie with a passion. They have managed to turn the placement of several street cones near some stupid bridge into crimes worse than the My Lai Massacre.  So one would imagine that a Federal lawsuit filed against him and his legislative cohorts for civil rights violations would be dominating the print and TV media as relentlessly as that dastardly bridge closing was.  Well, not quite!

And here’s why.  This lawsuit was filed in defense of our Second Amendment rights, one of many parts of the Constitution which liberals loathe even more than Christie. They despise and abhor anything to do with citizens having the ability to defend themselves. Anything, that is, that does not have to do with their own use of armed guards or personal weapons.  Therefore, despite this apparent opportunity this legal action presents regarding the future demise of Christie, the media have buried this deeper than a Clinton pay-for-play extortion scandal.

To be fair, Governor Christie has done a few things which we suggested he do in the text of the Federal Brief and in several letters which we sent directly to him. But for him to now, while speaking to national audiences in support of Donald Trump and even earlier during the primaries, claim he is a staunch supporter of Second Amendment rights is not just disingenuous, but blatantly false.

The legal action taken by Nicholas Purpura was designed, prepared and supported by facts and legal precedents.  It identifies many, many unconstitutional laws on the books here in New Jersey as well as the collusion and conspiracy involved in the passing and enforcing of them.  The lawsuit does not require or request any of the defendants be fined, removed from office or incarcerated.  It only demands that these firearm laws in New Jersey be reviewed and those determined to be unconstitutional, be removed. It would also prohibit the passage of future unconstitutional legislation.  It asks that any citizen who was caught up in one or more of these outrageous laws be exonerated.  This does not include criminals who were convicted of these gun laws as a result of activities in other felonies.

If Christie is a supporter of the Bill of Rights, as he has claimed over and over again on the national stage, why then has he hired legal teams, using tax payer dollars, to fight off Purpura’s lawsuit?  Why has he not, as the Brief suggests, just simply admit the various violations and then proceed to fix them?   A move such as that would save New Jersey taxpayers money and move New Jersey closer to constitutional compliance.   Instead he has chosen to fight this action and fight it stealthily.   The only reasonable assessment or determination regarding his failure to acquiesce, could only be that he does not really support the Second Amendment.  Which of course, he does not and is why he was included in the lawsuit to begin with.

As we mentioned in the first paragraph this legal action has languished in the Federal District Court in Trenton now for over a year.  An Obama installed judge, Michael Shipp has been assigned to it from the very beginning.  We have shown and proven beyond any reasonable doubt that there has been illegal collusion between the Court Clerks and the state defendants.  We have filed motions with the court whereby the evidence included with them required that the defendants be ruled in default.  All of which have been ignored by Judge Shipp.

Several weeks ago, after almost a year of delays and missed ruling dates, the Judge finally made a decision and issued a ruling.  Not the one you might expect however.  He did not rule on the basis of law or the Constitution because he is quite aware of the many warnings issued to him by Mr. Purpura that the day will come when he will have to explain the legal basis for his rulings.  So that portion of this legal tug of war has been utterly and completely ignored.  He ruled that the lawsuit Nick filed was too complicated and that it confused the professional defense attorneys.  He issued a court order requiring that the entire Brief be reformed and then resubmitted to the court and the defendants.

This new filing, apparently needed to be easier for the defendant’s legal team and the Court to comprehend.  It wouldn’t be a bad thing either if some of those pesky and impossible to deny precedents were exorcised.   Mr. Purpura was given less than 30 days to comply or Judge Shipp would dismiss the case with Prejudice.  This move, he and his high-priced colluders figured, would create an easy exit from this legal nightmare.  The case would be removed from the docket without the need to create a court record of rulings which violate the Constitution and the Federal Rules of the Court.

But hold on here, Mr. Purpura has repeatedly warned that the delays being employed by the court were not simply the standard snail paced legal system in action, but that the Judge and the defense attorneys were trying to find some way out without being held accountable later.   They tried claiming several very weak motions, all of which Mr. Purpura immediately cut off at the knees.  Having failed at those endeavors they appear to have buckled down and come up with this refile thing. So after a year, this is the best they could come up with? Apparently so.  Too bad for them that Mr. Purpura anticipated their move before they even made it and had a response ready.

Within a few days, the court and the defendants had a Motion to Rescind and Vacate the order to resubmit.  This new Motion was in their hands before they had finished back slapping each other for the clever thing they had just done.  It is not known by us just what reaction they had to this Motion but we are quite sure they had to wonder how it was prepared and submitted so quickly.  Then, as weeks went by, while they dug deeper into the bowels of legal precedent they came up with an order to deny the Rescind and Vacate Motion and the order was accompanied by the previous threat to close the case with Prejudice.

Having knowledge of the corruption and tyrannical modes and methods of the court systems in this country, Purpura had prepared too, for that move.  Within hours of the judge’s ruling, Nick filed with the District Court a Notice of Appeal which will then, by law, be passed onto the Circuit Court for processing.  This move on the part of Mr. Purpura, while being supported by law, is not something that the Court anticipated that a non-attorney might have knowledge of.  No doubt the good judge is not a happy camper right about now. Once again he has found himself in the position of having to go on record, now with the upper court, as to what legal basis he employed to close this case.  It is doubtful Judge Shipp is enjoying these beautiful summer days of July as the temperature simmering on the hot streets of Trenton are no match for mercury rising under his robed shirt collar.

The filing of the Appeals Notice, which required about $500.00 in cost, is the first step required in the Appeals process.  As a result of this filing the Circuit Court is required to issue a Circuit Court Docket Number and should do so within two weeks.  That number will be applied to the actual Appeals Motion which will filed very shortly after the case is issued a docket number.

When this process has begun, along with several other things, the defendants will have to explain the basis from which Judge Shipp decided that Mr. Purpura’s original Brief was too complicated and confusing, to the extent that it had to be revised and resubmitted.  It will be interesting to see if the upper court is likewise confused.

The Court documents discussed in this article can be found on the District Court Document page in the SAPPA section of TPATH.




Leave a comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.