NICHOLAS E. PURPURA, a sovereign citizen, and for people similarly situated in New Jersey that hold citizenship in. Plaintiff 42 USC 1983/1985/1986

Transcription

1 DISTRICT COURT OF NEW JERSEY TRENTON NEW JERSEY CIVIL ACTION, Docket No. 15: 3534 NICHOLAS E. PURPURA, a sovereign citizen, and for people similarly situated in New Jersey that hold citizenship in United States. MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT Plaintiff 42 USC 1983/1985/1986 v TITLE 1331 Governor CHRIS CHRISTIE, Pres. Senate Steven M. Sweeney, et, al, Assembly Speaker Vincent Prieto, et al., named on separate page Superintendent Firearms Division, Joseph R. Fuentes, John & Jane Do, et al,. Defendants Nicholas E. Purpura, Deputy Attorney General 1802 Rue De La Port Dr. Susan M. Scott, Esq. Wall, Wall, New Jersey, Market Street pro se for Petitioner Trenton, New Jersey Counsel for Defendants Dorsey & Semrau c/o Dawn M. Sullivan, 714 Main Street P.O. Box 228 Boonton, NJ "When a man knows the right thing to do and does not do it, he sins." James 4:17 i

2 Authorities Anderson v Creighton, 483 US 635, 646, n.6 (1986) Armstrong v. Manzo 380 U.S. 545, 552 (1965) Baldwin v. Hale, 68 U.S. (1 Wall) 233, 233 (1863) Bond v the United States, Cite as 564 U.S. (2011) Bridgestone/Firestone Reseach, Inc. v. Automobile Club De LQuest De La France, 245 F3 1359, 1361 Continental Airlines, Inc. v. Intra Brokers, Inc., 24 F3 1099, 1103 Department of Transportation et al v. Association of American Railroads Dugan v. Brooks.a.A..6 (Ohio) 1987, 818 b F2d 513. Eisenstadt v Baird, U.S. 438, (1972) Farrell v Pike, 342 F. Supp. 2d 433, M.D.N.D.N.C Frost v Railroad Commission, 271 US 583 S. Ct 605 (1926 F.T.C. v National Bus Consultants, Inc., 376 F3d 317, 322 Gonnzalez-Gonzalez v. United States, 257 F3d 31 Hale v Henkle, 201 US 43, 74 Hunter v Bryant, 502 U.S. 1991) Hutto v. Davis, 454 U.S.370, 375 (1982). Libbra v. City of Litchfield, Ill., 1995, 893 F.Supp. 13. Lockwood v Wolf Corp. 629 F2d 603, 611 (9 th Cir) Marbury v. Madison, Michigan So. RR v St Joseph Counties Rail Users Ass n, 287 F3d 568, 573 (6th Cir.) Murdock v. Pennsylvania, 319 U.S. 105 Nigro v. United States, 276 U.S. 332, 341 (1928) Northern Pipeline Construction Co. v. Marathon Pipleline Co., 458 at S. Ct 2858 (1983). ii

3 Phelps v. McCellan, 30 F3d 658, 663 Ponce v. Sheahan, 1997 WL (N.D. Ill. 199, Thornton v United States of America, et al., 2004 U.S District LEXIS U.S. v Local 560, International Brotherhood of Teamsters No slip op (1984) U.S. v. Pa. ( S. Ct. 977, 526 U.S. U.S. v Sutherland, 656 F (5 th Cir.1980) United States v Turkette, 452, US 566, 69 L.Ed 2d 246, 101 S. Ctr., quoting United States v Culbert, 45 US 371, , 55 L. Ed 2d 349, 98 S. Ct ) iii

4 MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGEMENT AGAINST RICHARD COOK & ACHILLE GIL TAGLIATELLA Statement of Fact 1. Defendants Counsel, Dawn Sullivan, Esq., seems to be totally confused as well as unfamiliar with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (FRCP). 2. Defendants Counsel s cover letter to Petitioner received on August 7, 2015 sets forth an Answer and Separate Defenses on behalf of Richard Cook & Achille Gil Tagliatella in their former roles as Chiefs of Police. Counsel submitted to this court 19-pages with a general denial, thereafter, as Separate Defenses Counsel cites 21 unsupported statements which are lacking of any specific or cognizant reasoning why this Court should even entertain such a poorly formed defense. They are void of any legal precedent or judicial arguments pointing to where Petitioner is in error concerning the violations as set forth in the seven (7) Claims for Relief set forth in the Petition. 3. By law, Defense Counsel was required to raise an affirmative defense 1. The burden of proof requires Defendants prove their argument by presenting certifiable validation which would be supported by legal precedent. Defendants were obligated to set forth in their filing which Articles in the United States Constitution or Amendments of the Bill of Rights awarded authority to Defendants or any State official to institute legislation which violates the scope and breadth of those Founding Documents. Counsel for the Defendants failed to comply with those regulations. 4. Petitioner has demonstrated a pattern of activity necessary to establish a RICO action as well as violations of Title 1983, & 1331 which mandate those Claims be addressed with specificity and particularity. In each of the Defendants Counsel s replies relating to all 163 paragraphs in their filing, they not only failed to comply with this requirement, they made no effort to do so. Defendant Tagliatella makes no answer Defendant Cook makes no answer 1 1 If Defendant(s) counsels are unaware of what an affirmative defense and burden of proof read FRCP and refer to the following authorities; See F.T.C. v National Bus Consultants, Inc., 376 F3d 317, 322; Gonnzalez-Gonzalez v. United States, 257 F3d 31; Bridgestone/Firestone Reseach, Inc. v. Automobile Club De LQuest De La France, 245 F3 1359, 1361 ; Continental Airlines, Inc. v. Intra Brokers, Inc., 24 F3 1099, 1103 [Defendants utterly failed to disprove each and every constitutional challenge set forth in the petition.

5 Federal Rules of Civil Procedure are unambiguous: 5. Established law dictates, remaining silent to the allegations to avoid adjudication requires forfeiture. By law, the burden fell upon Defendants Counsel to address the allegations. Conclusory statements made by Counsel, sans legal precedent or federal law, does not make them so. 6. Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h) (3). A Federal court has subject-matter jurisdiction if a case brought before it raised a Federal question. Generally, a case brought pursuant to a federally enacted statute which raises a Federal question, the Court must address that Petition. Thereafter Defendants are mandated by federal law to answer each Claim with specificity and particularity based upon evidence and supported by federal law. Petitioner alleged and provided concrete proof demonstrating a Pattern of Activity in combination within the seven (7) Claims for Relief, necessary to establish a RICO Action. 7. The Petition encompassed violations of Articles 2, 3, 4, 5, Amendments 2, 5, 8, 9, 14 2, U.S. Codes 42 USC 1983, 1985, 1986, & , which are all federal challenges. Petitioner set forth seven (7) Claims for Relief. The Defendants Counsel failed to address or contradict a single allegation related to Defendants role in an enterprise of Constitutional violations. 8. Defendants Counsel s conspicuous and evasive denials are understandable given that no legal defense exists. Instead of an affirmative defense, as required pursuant to FRCP 8 (b) (d), defendants remained silent. Not a single Constitutional violation, alleged and proven, in the Petition has been addressed by Counsel. Not a shred of evidence to demonstrate the allegations of the Petition were either incorrect or unsupported by legal precedent has been offered. Pursuant to inter alia, Title 28 USC 1331 a reply or forfeiture is mandated. The reply clearly has not come. The forfeiture, therefore, must. Please Take Special Judicial Notice: The liberal notice pleading standards of Rule 8 is tempered by Rule 9. As this court is aware, RICO actions as well as a Title 1983, civil rights actions trigger the Rule 9-(b) exception that provides; certain categories of allegations must be pleaded with specificity and particularity 2 2 Similarities exist between the Supremacy Clause and Privileges or immunities Clause of the 14 th Amendment. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States.

6 Legal Argument in favor of Summary Judgment: 9. FRCP 8(d): Requires Defendants to respond to all allegations in a complaint and creates no exception for so-called legal conclusions : See Phelps v. McCellan, 30 F3d 658, 663 Lockwood v Wolf Corp. 629 F2d 603, 611 (9 th Cir) by law, each allegation was to be treated as if defendants do not deny the allegations. When defendants fail to submit an affirmative defense supported by documented proof, such as the case at bar each allegation must be treated as if defendants have admitted to them. 10. Petitioner set forth no misapplication of Rule 12 nor did Petitioner submit or provide any unsubstantiated conclusions in place of a well-reasoned argument. Defendants Counsel would have this court ignore FRCP 8(b) (c); 9 (b); 12 (1) which requires an affirmative defense. See Ponce v Sheahan, 1997 WL (N.D.Ill.199) Farrell v. Pike, 342, F. Supp.2d (2004). 11. Defendants Counsel failed to address or contradict the Petition s facts but brazenly proposes to have this Court ignore the FRCP in an attempt to draw this Court into an act of connivance which would result in the shredding of a Constitutional right and unlawfully exonerate Counsel s clients. Please note that the rules do not permit Defendants to avoid responding to complaints of legal allegations. 12. Defendants failed to state matters of policy, reason, principle, and general prevailing fact to actually justify their Answer and Separate Defense. Again, FRCP 8 and 12 (b) (6), prohibits unsubstantiated conclusions in place of well a reasoned argument. See FRCP 8(b) (c) (d), 9 (b) (d), 12 (1). Please Take Judicial Notice: The Supreme Court. in United States v Turkette, 452, US 566, 69 L. Ed 2d 246, 101 S. Ctr., quoting United States v. Culbert, 45 US 371, , 55 L. Ed 2d 349, 98 S. Ct. 112 (1978) held: the courts are without authority to restrict the application of a statue! 3

7 13. Defendants individually and in their official capacity as part of the enterprise by coercive intrusion enacted and enforced unconstitutional de facto legislation and administrative law under the color of law. Those activities are direct violations of federalism. The S. Ct. in Hale v Henkle, 201 US 43, 74 held: his rights are such as existed by law of the land long antecedent to the organization of the state, and can only be taken from him by due process of law, and in accordance with the Constitution. It is not necessary to challenge the proposition that, as a general rule, the state, having power to deny a privilege altogether, may grant it upon such condition as it sees fit to pose. But the power of the state is that respect is not limited, and one of the limitations is that it may not impose conditions, which require the relinquishment of constitutional rights. If the state may compel the surrendering of one constitutional right as a condition of its favor, it may like manner, compel a surrender of all. It is inconceivable that guarantees embedded in the Constitution of the United States may be manipulated out of existence. THE ANALYTICAL BREAKDOWN OF THE SEPARATE DEFENSES 14. A party, in order to legally raise an affirmative defense, has the duty to present a factual basis for each defense, prove to the court that Petitioner erred and not make conclusive claims. Defendants Counsel has set forth 21 substantively vacant separate defenses each of which failed to state or answer with specificity and practicality as mandated in a RICO action. Failure to apply each defense to a Claim for Relief should necessitate forfeiture according to the rules. see FRCP As will be shown below No Factual Basis was set forth. 15. Defense Counsel says: #1, Plaintiff lacks standing to pursue these claims against Defendant Cook & Tagliatella Preposterously, the claim of the Defendants Counsel states that this Court lacks subject-matter jurisdiction to adjudicate these violations of federal law. That claim conforms to no coherent theory of law, logic or reasoning and is not supported by precedent. As a matter of law, the issue of fact must be resolved in order to determine whether the behavior of Defendants violated federal law. See, Hunter v Bryant, 502 U.S. 1991) also, Anderson v Creighton, 483 US 635, 646, n.6 (1986) 4

8 The gravamen of RICO is the conduct of the enterprise through a pattern of racketeering activity and not merely commission of the predicated acts; a nexus must exist between the enterprise and the pattern of activity. 18 U.S.C.A (4, 5,) 1962, 1962(c). Specific Intent to violate RICO: See, District Court of New Jersey, U.S. v Local 560, International Brotherhood of Teamsters No slip op (1984): U.S. v Sutherland, 656 F (5 th Cir.1980) The Supreme Court has instructed Federal Courts to follow the continuity plus a relationship test in order to determine whether the facts of a specific case give rise to an established pattern. Predicated acts are related if they have the same or similar purposes, results, participants, victims, or method of commission, or otherwise are interrelated by distinguishing characteristics and are not isolated events. H.J. Inc. v Northwestern Bell Telephone Co.) Continuity is both a closed and open ended concept, referring to either a closed period of conduct, or to past conduct that by its nature projects into the future with a threat of repetition. Individual Standing: The Hon. Justice Antonin Scalia wrote: When an individual who is the very object of a law s requirement or prohibition seeks to challenge it, he always has standing. (Doctrine of Standing as Essential Element of Separation of power, 17, Suffolk U;L Rev. 881, 894 (1983) The Supreme Court unanimously held individuals have standing to challenge unconstitutional legislation and renders the matter stare decisis. The Supreme Court precedent is unambiguous: See, Frost v Railroad Commission, 271 US 583 S. Ct 605 (1926), The District courts shall have original jurisdiction of all civil actions arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States. 28 USC Therefore any assertion that this court lacks jurisdiction is not correct. As this Court is aware Plaintiffs rights are affirmed through the 9 th Amendment which states: the enumerated of certain rights in the Constitution shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people. Defendants acted individually and in their official capacity by coercive intrusion with unconstitutional de facto legislation as well as administrative law under the color of law 3 that violates federalism. See Hale v Henkle, 201 US 43, 74 S. Ct. held: 3 Simply put, Defendants on numerous occasions denied individuals a concealed carry permit, a violation of their 2 nd Amendment Constitutional right. Petitioner as well as every citizen of the State of New Jersey is required to pay for a permit as well as pay a fee to purchase any handgun. Based upon de facto administrative law those regulations violate US Supreme Court precedent. See, Murdock v. Pennsylvania, 319 U.S. 105; No state shall convert a liberty into a privilege, license it, and charge a fee therefore,

9 But the power of the state is that respect is not limited, and one of the limitations is that it may not impose conditions, which require the relinquishment of constitutional rights. If the state may compel the surrendering of one constitutional right as a condition of its favor, it may like manner, compel a surrender of all. It is inconceivable that guarantees embedded in the Constitution of the United States may be manipulated out of existence. In accordance with 12(b) (1), dismissal for lack of jurisdiction is only applicable if no federal questions are at issue. See Michigan So. RR v St Joseph Counties Rail Users Ass n, 287 F3d 568, 573 (6th Cir.) commenting that a claim will generally survive motion to dismiss if Plaintiff shows any arguable basis in law for claims alleged. It is universally held; any deprivation of a right secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States and a deprivation committed under the color of law relief is warranted, U.S. v. Pa. ( S. Ct. 977, 526 U.S. The Supreme Court of the United States held, see, Thornton v United States of America, et al., 2004 U.S District LEXIS 13849: A federal District Court has subject-matter jurisdiction if the case brought before it raises a federal question. A case brought pursuant to a federally enacted statute raises a federal question. A case alleging, in this action, a violation of the Second, Fifth, Eight, Ninth, Fourteenth Amendments, also present a federal question. 28 U.S.C. Section 1331 grants federal District Courts original jurisdiction over all civil actions arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States. 16. #2) & #12) Plaintiff claims against Defendant Cook & Tagliatella are barred by the failure to state a claim against Defendants upon which relief may be granted. (12) Defendant(s) Cook & Tagliatella reserve the right to move at or before trial to strike the complaint as to defendant (s) on the grounds that Plaintiff failed to state a cause of action as a matter of law. Clearly, Defenses Counsel appears to be unfamiliar with the 1 st Amendment which explicitly grants unfettered legal and Constitutional rights to petition the government for redress of grievances. No law, statute, or Amendment yet enacted abrogates that sacred Constitutional Civil Right., and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. The issue at bar is the restoration of a constitutionally guaranteed civil right which has been illegally invalidated under the color of law. (12) Defendants are estopped from moving to strike 4 since they ratified the Petition through performance and set forth their argument. 6 4 Counsel chose not submit a Motion to Dismiss, but, rather chose to answer. Their next option is to appeal to the Third Circuit, if of course Petitioner prevails.

10 Universally agreed upon in United States Courts is that dismissals are disfavored and, in view of the rules, notice pleading requirements are not routinely granted, especially when Defendants fail to cite any material evidence needed to demonstrate Petitioner would not prevail at trial. See, Thornton v United States of America, et al., 2004 U.S District LEXIS 13849: A complaint should not be dismissed for failure to state a claim unless it appears beyond doubt that plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of his claim which would entitle him to relief. 17. #3) Defendants Counsel takes issue with Petitioners emphasis requesting Judicial Notice upon certain facts set forth in the Petition. This requires no response. 18. #4) Plaintiff s cause of action is barred by the applicable statutes of limitation. No RICO 1985/86 action was ever pursued regarding the issues at bar. Second, even if one had been pursued prior to this Petition, any event taking place within the 10-year period, tolls the statute, and the clock continues for the next 10-years concurrently. 19. #5) & (#13) Plaintiff s cause of action is barred and plaintiff does not have standing to bring a class action on behalf of similarly situated persons against Defendant (s) Cook & Tagliatella as the Plaintiff is not an adequate class representative. (13) Defendant(s) Tagliatella violated no legal duty owed to Plaintiff. This is not a class-action lawsuit. Is it possible that Defendants Counsel failed to fully read and comprehend the Petition? However, even if it were a class action, let Counsel point to where in the Constitution it restricts an individual of good moral standing from representing others similarly situated, especially concerning restriction of Constitutional rights: In short, a Law beyond the power of Congress, for any reason is no law at all. See, Nigro v. United States, 276 U.S. 332, 341 (1928) Defendants Counsel needs to review Bond v the United States, Cite as 564 U.S. (2011) the en banc decision and the concurring decision of the Hon. Justices Ginsberg and Breyer: The Court must entertain the objection and reverse the conviction even if the right to equal treatment resides in someone other than the defendant, See Eisenstadt v Baird, U.S. 438, (1972) 7

11 20. #6. & #21 Plaintiff s cause of Action is barred as to Defendant(s) Cook & Tagliatella as these Defendants) assert all protections under the doctrine of qualified immunity. (21) Plaintiff s claim angst defendant a barred by the doctrine of absolute immunity. No legal justification exists to invoke immunity when acting under the color of law in absence of subject matter jurisdiction. Nor does any authority exist to violate federally protected rights that guarantee procedural due process and equal treatment & protection. This claim arises from repeated and intentional acts and rulings absent constitutional authority by judges and enforcement by Police Chiefs who acted under the color of law in concert with legislators to aid and abet the enterprise to illegally achieve gun control. All Defendants swore an oath to uphold the Constitution and laws of these United States, as did Petitioner and Your Honor. They violated that oath when they enforced unconstitutional laws. 21. #7. Plaintiff has failed to join all indispensable parties To establish a RICO action the only proof needed is to establish with certainty that two (2) or more parties conspired, and to show the pattern of activity, and in this case at bar, the denial of a Constitutional right. Petitioner was clear, to list all the parties who participated in the denial of a Constitutional right was unnecessary. What was necessary was to prove a pattern of activity by the enterprise. Defenses Counsel made no attempt to show where a factual basis exists to invoke this defense. 22. #8. There is insufficiency and lack of proper service If that statement is correct, which it is not, the question the Court has to ask is Why did you answer the Petition and thereby ratify said Petition instead of submitting a Motion to dismiss based upon improper service? That being said, to now claim this position, assuming arguendo, even if service was improper they are estopped by the doctrine of laches. More so, is Defendants Counsel now disputing that they were served electronically? See, Civ. Rule 5.2 Electronic Service and filing Documents, Also see, Rule 5(b)(2)(d). 8

12 23. #9. & #10 Plaintiff s claims against Defendant(s) Cook & Tagliatella are barred by Title 59:1 et seq., The New Jersey Tort Claims Act. And (10) Defendant(s) Cook & Tagliatella was a public employee, being sued in such a role, within the contemplation of New jersey Tort Claims Act, is entitled to all the provisions, immunities, exemptions and limitations of said Act, and consequently, is not liable to the Plaintiff, or if liable, on as limited by the Act. Hereto, is Defendants Counsel saying the State of New Jersey is exempt from adhering to the U.S. Constitution? Is Counsel also saying that New Jersey law trumps the federal statutes? State law is subservient to federalism, exactly what this Petition is all about. To be clear, State law before a Federal Court is of no moment, period! 24. #11. Defendant(s) Cook & Tagliatella reserve the right to amend his (their) Answer and to assert additional defenses and/or supplement, alter and change the Answer upon the revelation of more definite facts by Plaintiff, and completion of further discovery and investigation. The hubris of Defendants Counsel appears to know no bounds. All that is or was required, by Counsel, was the submittal of proof that the Petitioner set forth an incorrect Petition. A Petition which has proven that Counsel s clients endeavored and in fact did, deny Petitioner and those similarly situated their Constitutional right to carry a concealed weapon. Defendant(s) Cook and Tagliatella failed to deny their part in the enterprise and for certain, repeatedly refused to issue a concealed carry permit. Activities which were in conjunction with Superior Court Judges, voided subject-matter jurisdiction based upon de facto administrative law and legislation enacted by the legislature and/or signed by the Governor, in conflict the 2 nd, 9 th and 14 th Amendments. #12, see, above #2 #13, see, above #5 25. #14, & #15 Defendant(s) Cook & Tagliatella reserve the right to move before the Court for an Order severing any and all of Plaintiff s claims against this (these) Defendants from any other alleged parties or claims as well as dismissal of the Jury Demand" as to the claims asserted against this (these) Defendant(s). In the same breath, Counsel says (15) Defendant(s) Cook & Tagliatella includes all separate defenses applicable to this matter which have been raised by any other defendant or third party defendant in this matter, as if fully set forth herein, sand makes the same, to such extent that it does not imply liability as to this Defendant(s), jointly and severally, this Defendant s defenses. Interesting, Defenses Counsel appears to want it both ways: 9

13 26. #16. & (#19) This action is barred because there is no actual or justiciable controversy between Defendant(s) Tagliatella & Cook and Plaintiff. (19) Defendant (s) Cook & Tagliatrella denies that there existed any warranties, either express or implied, between he (them) and the Plaintiff. Section 1983 does not punish conspirators; rather a practical matter, proof of civil conspiracy simply broadens scope of liability under 1983 to include individuals who were part of the conspiracy but did not act directly to deprive Plaintiff of his Constitutional rights, See, Libbra v. City of Litchfield, Ill., 1995, 893 F.Supp #17. Plaintiff has failed to exhaust his administrative remedies. Since when does a state s Administrative law take precedent based upon a Constitutionally invalid law? As stated in the Petition it is crucial to acknowledge the ongoing eradication of rights, freedoms and liberties. The US Supreme Court so affirmed this in their unanimous 9-0 decision in Bond v. United States. As well, a concurring decision by the Hon. Justices Ginsburg and Justice Breyer, they included a supporting statement in which the Supreme Court implicitly recognized the importance to stop unlawful as well as the enforcement of actions by the state and any and all governmental agencies of Administrative laws. In fact recently on March 9 th of 2015 the S. Ct in Department of Transportation et al v. Association of American Railroads the Court unanimously held that agencies laws and rules were forbidden. Separation of Power is one of the central principles of constitutional governance. Professor of Law Columbia Law School, Philip Hamburger and Hilda Fried, insist that administration law is more honestly described as extralegal power. Administrative agencies exercise power not through law, but outside of it. Also see page 16 of Petition. If there lays such claim, that there has been a violation of the substantive component of due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, Petitioner may maintain a federal civil rights action, irrespective of whether there is a state remedy available. Dugan v. Brooks.a.A..6 (Ohio) 1987, 818 b F2d #18. Plaintiff s claims are barred by the doctrine of res judicata and/or collateral estoppel. Defendants Counsel, grasping at straws and void of any citation on record, appears to be attempting to have this Court believe this matter has been previously adjudicated. 10

14 29. #20. Plaintiff s claims are barred by the doctrine of laches and unclean hands, First the doctrine of laches is of no moment. Petitioner has been vigilant and is well within the time limit to adjudicate this matter before this Honorable District Court. Next, claiming unclean hands demonstrates Counsel s lack of knowledge of State and Federal law. Petitioner comes before the Court with clean hands. It is counsel s clients who have acted with unclean hands when they chose to violate the rights of those who came before them for the issuance of a permit to carry a weapon for self-defense. A right, as held by the majority of Circuit Courts and the US Supreme Court and the United States Constitution. Defendants chose to act as part of the enterprise to enforce unconstitutional gun control. In fact, a perfect example of this is the action of Andover Township Police Chief s engagement in reckless endangerment relating to his refusal to issue a carry permit to Albert Almedia even after proof was provided concerning death threats to Mr. Almedia. See, (Exhibit 17 of the Petition) Conclusion (Reason for Granting the Petition) 30. Before this Honorable Court, as a threshold matter, does the Constitution of the United States still have meaning? 5 Do the First, Second, Fifth, Eighth, Ninth, and Fourteenth amendments still protect the individual rights of all the citizens of New Jersey? 31. Defendants named herein have continually and consistently behaved as if the citizens of the State of New Jersey have no civil rights at all, effectively erasing the numerous Amendments of the Bill of Rights. 32. The compelling reason to grant this Summary Judgment, as well as the Default Judgment, is simple. No valid legal argument exists to refute the unconstitutional behavior of Defendants 6 named in Petition. Nowhere in either this reply or the non-reply by the State, has there been a demonstration, with the accompaniment of proof, that the Petitioner was in error in his allegations relating to the usurpation of the rights set forth in the Constitution. Surely, if one existed, Defendants Counsels would have presented their argument to this Court with specificity as required Article III of the Constitution, States do not have the authority to nullify federal law. This is reaffirmed in the Ninth Amendment. 6 Governor(s), Legislators, Police Chiefs, and Judges

15 33. In lieu of facts and substance, Defendants Counsels, the Deputy Attorney General and Dorsey & Semrau, lacking any cogent argument, expect this Court to ignore the Constitution, Federal Rules of Civil Procedure as well as United States Supreme Court precedent. Such a ruling would by all certainty, not only make a mockery of American jurisprudence but would as well, assault the integrity of our judiciary system. 34. At bar, does federalism prevail or will it be those men and women who wield unconstrained power over the people and who believe their ideology empowers them to ignore and usurp the Constitution? 35. The question before this Court; is it permissible for any branch of government to deviate or alter the Articles and Amendments of the U.S. Constitution? Is it not the fiduciary as well as the sworn duty of this Court vested with the judicial power to correct, any and all injustices that include legislation which exceeds the legislative power granted under the Constitution? 36. The Petition leaves no doubt, Defendants clearly demonstrated a pattern of activity in the enforcement of unconstitutional gun control. 37. Regardless of whether Defendants intentions were based upon their view of the requirements of public safety or their political ideology or if they truly believed their actions were justified, the fact remains they violated their oath of office and the civil rights of Petitioner and the citizens of the State of New Jersey. Perceived good intentions, founded in reality or not, harbor no legal excuse for violating sworn oaths of office or adherence to the Constitution. The Constitution does not vest a State or state officials with the right or authority to employ legislative powers that only Congress can legally perform. This Petition challenges whether any State, can usurp federalism. It is as simple as that. 38. Petitioner was specific, this action is not about punishment or damages, it is about restoring a Constitutional Civil Right. It is about federalism and whether we are or will remain a nation of laws for which no one, no state or no official will be permitted to abrogate. 39. Indisputably, equity, justice, principle and a preponderance of evidence, constitutional law, statutory law, and U.S. Supreme Court precedent introduced in this Petition demonstrates Defendants actions, born of the arrogance embedded in elitism, have soiled the fabric of our Republic and the integrity of the judicial system as well. 12

16 40. If this Court finds sufficient connections to the allegations and violations of Petitioner s Civil Rights, as well as those of our citizens, Petitioner must prevail to safeguard the civil liberties of all. If freedom and liberty are to have meaning and the infringements on our founding documents are to be halted, this Petition must prevail. Our entire system of government must be predicated on the application Constitutional law. Wherefore, Petitioner also requests that this court issue a Summary Judgment and all the relief requested in the Petition be granted. Respectfully submitted, Nicholas E. Purpura 13