New Jersey “Federalism” Case Reaches Supreme Court, Part 2

“THE ISSUE HAS ALREADY BEEN ADJUDICATED”

by Sharon Rondeau

(Sep. 29, 2017) — Last Saturday, The Post & Email published the first installment of an interview with Mr. Nicholas Purpura, a pro se plaintiff in a case challenging not only the State of New Jersey’s firearm laws, but also whether or not state officials have the authority to enforce laws which deviate from the provisions of the U.S. Constitution and Bill of Rights.

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.

In May 2015, Purpura filed a civil suit, Purpura v. Christie, et al, at the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey in Trenton.  Having been denied oral argument by both the District Court and Third Circuit Court of Appeals, the case was given docket number 17-280 by the clerk of the U.S. Supreme Court late last month.

As New Jersey “law” now stands, an individual applying for a pistol carry permit must demonstrate a “justifiable need” in order for it to be granted, which Purpura says is a constitutional violation his fellow New Jerseyans have lived with since 1966 when the stricter statutes were adopted.

The Third Circuit has previously upheld the “justifiable need” statutes, but a challenge to a California “good cause” requirement to carry a firearm publicly was upheld by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in 2014.  The Second and Seventh Circuit Courts of Appeals have similarly been split on whether or not such laws are constitutional.

In May 2014, the U.S. Supreme Court declined to hear the case of Drake v. Jerejian, which also challenged the “justifiable need” provision in the New Jersey statutes.  Purpura faulted the Third Circuit’s Drake decision, stating that it “placed the value of an ideologically produced and incomplete study in higher regard than the U.S. Constitution.”

In his lawsuit, Purpura characterized the actions of New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie, state legislative leaders, the superintendent of the state Department of Law & Public Safety, police chiefs and judges as part of a RICO conspiracy carried out to deprive New Jersey citizens of their constitutional right to self-protection.

As a pro se litigant, Purpura said he performed all of his own research in writing his briefs.  “No attorney aided me in any way, nor would they.  If you go against New Jersey, they will destroy you.  That’s the way it works here; this is a rogue state,” he said.

In an interview last week, Purpura gave credit to Dwight Kehoe’s TPATH, which has published all of the documents associated with the case and publicized each new development.

“On 18 occasions, I wrote the court and told them about violations of law, statutes and the illegal behavior of the defendants.  He would not reply; he ignored everything,” Purpura said of Judge Shipp of the U.S. District Court.  “Under the code of conduct, the judge had an obligation to hear that and to address it, but he ignored it.  So what we had, in reality, was nothing more than a kangaroo court.”

He continued:

It’s disrespect for the law.  The court disrespected the law. Three teams of attorneys were unable to stop me at any juncture, and they had no respect for the law.

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 wrote in an article, 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.

Here’s your key, and it’s open:  there are three sets of attorneys for the defendants.  The public has to say, “We want this heard.  This has to stop.”  This issue is not the Second Amendment; it’s all the amendments; it’s federalism.  We either have federalism or we don’t.  We either have a constitution or we don’t.

Hall said that the Supreme Court is constrained in cases where the justices fear the implementation of their decisions.  They have to be careful.  He is telling us, flat-out, that if we don’t get publicity, we can’t expect to be heard, whether we’re right or wrong.  We need everyone to say, “I want restoration of my rights.”  Write them a letter and tell them, “Hear 17-280.”  Why? “Because you’ve already ruled on it.”

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.

In 2011, the entire court ruled in Bond that “administrative law” is no law; it’s unconstitutional.  Justice Ginsburg wrote the opinion on that.

[Editor’s Note:  On page 19 of the Bond decision, Ginsburg’s concurring brief stated, “In short, a  law ‘beyond the power of Congress,’ for any reason, is ‘no law at all.’ Nigro v. United States, 276 U.S. 332, 341 (1928).”

Then there was the Department of Transportation case. The entire court, both left and right, unanimously voted that there was no authority to institute any law that violates the Constitution.  Justice Thomas issued the opinion on that.

I have essentially won the case because administrative law “is no law at all.”  The Supreme Court said that in Norton v. Shelby County:

An unconstitutional act is not a law; it confers no rights; it imposes no duties; it affords no protection; it creates no office; it is in legal contemplation as inoperative as though it had never been passed.

So right then and there, I won.  There are no arguments that can be presented, and there is no argument that has ever been presented over the last two years.

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.

So what we have is all the players, and we showed how all of those players violated the law. We know that the legislature has no authority. In fact, the New Jersey legislature has written up about 20 laws, waiting for a new Democrat governor, which is an outrage.  New Jersey is a police state.

Now we go to the judiciary in New Jersey, the ones who are supposed to protect our rights.  They, in turn, as part of this conspiracy to keep the people under their thumb and deny them their constitutional rights, ruled unconstitutionally.  So you have three of them.  Then you have the police chiefs who enforced illegal law.

So far we have a RICO action that was never answered.  So automatically, they forfeited.  The case is over; they lost.  Administrative law is no law at all.  Then we go into the RICO action; you did not answer; therefore, you forfeited.

Now, this is a key that is lost in the forest:  The issue has already been adjudicated.  There’s a precedent.

We hear all these pundits say, “Well, Heller says we have a Second Amendment right; McDonald says we have a Second Amendment right; Caetano says we have that right, but “limited rights.”  But you can’t limit the right; it’s a right, and you cannot infringe upon that right.  But that’s what we’ve seen over the last number of years.

What took place prior that makes the whole issue is stare decisis.  In other words, the issue is settled. The only way you change this is to go to Congress and say, “Change the Second Amendment.”  They can’t change what they ruled.

Thirdly, the issue is “held.”  That should stop them from even arguing this issue.  I won on that.  Tell me one of those cases which have been overturned?  None.

Which one of the three arguments can you refute?  You can’t refute one of them.

In our next installment, Purpura will discuss how his case differs from Drake.