Survivalist Forum banner

1 - 1 of 1 Posts

·
Banned
Joined
·
46,784 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
Nicholas E. Purpura 1802 Rue De La Port Wall, New Jersey 07719 (732 449 0856

Chief Judge U.S. District Court November 9, 2015 Hon. Jerome B. Simandle, 402 E. State Street Trenton, New Jersey 08608

Re. PURPURA v. Christie et al; Case No. 15-3534 Request for Judicial Intervention TO BE MADE PART OF THE OFFICIAL RECORD
Dear Judge Simandle,


Respectfully, I am writing to you today, in your official capacity as Chief Administrator of the U.S. District Court (Trenton), to alert you to what I believe to be questionable behavior regarding the legal action of Purpura v. Christie et al. I will list and define my reasoning for this letter which will serve not only as a notification of these problems but will also make this an official request, in the interest of substantial justice, that Your Honor take immediate notice.

First, allow me to categorically iterate, this Petitioner is not requesting Your Honor’s intervention in the decision making process which is before the Honorable Michael A. Shipp. This Petitioner has no evidence that Judge Shipp has knowledge of the things I am about to describe and therefore I honestly believe that Judge Shipp is non complicit in any manner, of the problematic behavior that has taken place in the Clerk’s Office.

To begin, Petitioner’s suspicions were aroused by Defense Counsels [Dept. Of Law & Public Safety] apparent belief that because they are representing powerful political figures, they are exempt from any and all restrictions and proper legal procedures, as mandated in the FRCP.

To enforce and detail this allegation I am attaching herewith several pieces of correspondence I have submitted to the Court with instructions for them to be forwarded to Judge Shipp and to be made “Part of the Official Record”. Those documents will elucidate a disturbing chronology of what has taken place. The sequence of events clearly demonstrates a “pattern of activity” by the defense team and possibly others that could rightly bring one to conclude intentional obstruction of justice has taken place. Since the scope and directive of my Petition runs contrary to ideological views of the politically powerful Defendants, it appears they are being permitted leeway far beyond what is allowed by law. The intent is not hidden from this Petitioner in that there is an all-out effort allow the officials in the State of New Jersey to continue to violate the U.S. Constitution.

A reading of each letter I have sent to Judge Shipp will illuminate a concise and recognizable “pattern of activity” by the defense teams, as they repeatedly violate the FRCP by submitting untimely and procedurally infirm papers, which were then accepted and Docketed by the Clerk’s Office.
Your Honor, at this junction I wish to make it very clear, I am not stating as fact that there has been or is an ongoing connivance. However, a review of the facts listed below, raises serious questions as to whether someone in the Clerk’s Office is acting in complicity with the defense team. It will become obvious that the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, in the matter at bar, have not just been unenforced but ignored, as relates to the Defense.
Clerk’s Office

1) On June 24, 2015 an order was issued by Judge Shipp that denied IP status which was never forwarded to Petitioner by Clerk’s Office, [order wasn’t mailed until June 30, six Days after order was docketed] Petitioner only discovered a decision was issued after numerous phone calls (6/29)– Immediately thereafter on June 29th Petitioner submitted the $400.00 filing fee only to discover that on June 26, 2015 the Clerk’s office without authority or in compliance with the Court rules or an order from Judge Shipp, “Closed Petitioner’s case”

After communicating with Judge Shipp’s Chambers (Kim) confirmed no documents exist that shows an order to close the case. Thereafter Petitioner received correspondence from Judge Shipp’s Chambers (not the clerk’s office) that the case was still active, and Judge Shipp to his credit, ordered the “Summons” to be issued.

2) Petition was served on May 25, 2015 and May 26, 2015and the Court issued a Summons on July 6, 2015 and electronically mailed, as required for an affirmative defense in a RICO Action. Defendants Attorneys chose to ignore the Petition.

Several Important Facts.

First: all counsels’ clients and the Attorney General were served with the Petition in May, months earlier than the date of the Summons. Second: defense counsel failed to submit a timely affirmative reply required by FRCP in a RICO action; Third: counsel, failed to submit any Motion for an enlargement of time citing for good reason. Forth: no Motion to Dismiss or Reply Opposition was submitted within the imposed 20-day time period as required by the Summons, nor was permission granted by the Court for any extension of time. Rule 6, forbids even the Court from ordering an extension of time without a prior motion and/or an order granting an extension.

Petitioner

On August 13, 2015 Petitioner put forth a Notice and Motion for Entry for a Judgment by Default as required by law. The Clerk of the Court either failed or refused to comply with the FRCP rule and did not enter the Judgment for Default as required.

Petitioner, thereafter was notified the Default Judgment was to be decided on the papers; see Docket Text #11 on September 8, 2015.

The Court Clerk, after receiving numerous untimely and procedurally submissions by the Defense Team, the matter was re-scheduled for October 8, 2015, and again to be decided based upon papers.

3) Due to the repeated illegal submissions of numerous untimely and procedurally infirm and misleading documents relating to the Opposition to the Petition, I wrote to Judge Shipp, once again requesting the need for oral argument; [see letter dated October 5, 2015].

On October 14, 2015 I called the Clerk’s office asking if any decision had come down on either of the three (3) Motions pending or if Judge Shipp had ruled on whether he would allow oral argument. The Clerk informed me that nothing had been received or posted since September.

I questioned as to why the October 5th letter had not been docketed — the Clerk stated “no such letter existed”. I asked to be transferred to Judge Shipp’s Chambers and when connected, I asked if they had received my correspondence. Judge Shipp’s clerk (Kim) said “no letter was ever received by his Honor”.

Concerned now that Judge Shipp may be making a ruling without knowledge of my request for oral argument, I informed Kim that I would forward that letter to her. It was my intent to hand carry it the following day, but before making the trip to Trenton I called the Clerk’s Office. It was now October 15th, and during this call the Clerk’s Office claimed they just received a copy of the October 5th letter and that they would be Docketing it. They claimed the letter was just “sent down” from Judge Shipp’s Chambers. Question; how could the Judge’s Chambers have this letter before the Court Clerk? Is that not exactly opposite of procedure? Is someone not telling the truth? It appears so. The U.S. Postal Service confirmed delivery of that letter on October 7, 2015. I am in possession of the Return Receipt signed by the Clerk’s Office of the District Court. Also, how could that letter be sent down when Judge Shipp’s Chambers disavowed that any such letter existed. The standard procedure is for all correspondence to be docketed by the Clerk’s Office and then courtesy copies are put in the Judges mailbox
.
4) On October 29, 2015 due to significant public importance in the matter before the Court and the Court’s failure to reply to any correspondence, Petitioner wrote to Judge Shipp requesting, once again, the need for oral argument. See that letter with the certified Return Receipt attached.

On November 4, 2015, having not received any notification from the Court that this latest letter had been docketed, I called the Court and inquired as to the receipt and status of it. I also wanted assurance that a courtesy copy of the letter had been forwarded to Judge Shipp. As with the last letter, the Clerk’s Office disavowed knowledge of the October 29th letter. Immediately thereafter I prepared another letter dated November 4, 2015 and attached a copy of the October 29th correspondence to it. The November 4, 2015 letter reinforced my request for oral argument and support for pro se submittals by citing several US Supreme Court holdings.

Both of these letters were hand carried by me to the Court Clerk in Trenton on November 4, 2015. I included prepared courtesy copies for the Judge.
Relating to the above, once again the Clerk’s Office appears to have lied. I have the USPS confirmed receipt showing the October 29th letter was signed for on November 2, 2015. An investigation into why Judge Shipp wasn’t immediately given the courtesy copies of this and other correspondence submitted by me, the Petitioner, seems to be of great importance. Clearly Judge Shipp could not be counted on to make timely and legal rulings if he has been denied access to all the pertinent documents. It looks like that was exactly someone’s intent
.
The above four incidents should raise “red flags” especially since it appears that someone has consistently endeavored to prevent the contents of these letters from reaching Judge Shipp, in anticipation that his rulings or decisions would be made without knowledge of them. The Court, as a matter of integrity, it would seem, would like to find out who that may be.

Throughout my correspondence with the Honorable Judge Shipp, I have repeatedly requested oral argument and/or an evidentiary hearing. The Defense team, in its untimely submissions, has stated they are against oral argument. It is clear that they would not like to be questioned or have to respond to, on the record at an oral argument, why their submissions should even be accepted by the Court. If my letters were prevented from getting to Judge Shipp, in a timely manner, the Defendants could very well be permitted not to have to answer those questions. They of course, cannot be blamed for wanting to be relieved of supporting the unsupportable. The question I proffer here is, is someone in the Court assisting them?

As Your Honor reviews the correspondence attached herewith, a clear demonstration will emerge that the defense team has consistently and with impunity, violated the FRCP. I use the term with impunity because these people are attorneys, trained and learned of the Federal Rules of the Court. It is my belief that they relied upon some collusion or promise that this case would be closed and therefore they failed to provide a timely or substantive defense. When that assumption or promise was denied to them, given that they are professionals and in total possession of the knowledge that they were required by law, in any RICO action, to provide an affirmative defense, and they had failed to present one, a continued collusion was required to prevent their defendants from suffering a forfeiture.

As I understand the Judicial Conduct Rules, it shall be the duty of any Judge to take or initiate appropriate investigation and disciplinary measures for professional misconduct that he may become aware of. I believe that misconduct has occurred and I believe too that I have provided you with enough information to warrant a preliminary investigation.

Judge Simandle, I want to thank you for your time. This letter raises substantial issues relating to whether or not the common man can expect equal treatment, within a large Federal System as the powerful and the connected. I await your response and I will provide any further information you might require as you look into this matter. I truly do hope that there has been no collusion to deny me my proper and legal day in court. But if that has happened, it needs to be addressed and remedied. And soon.

I await your response or questions, respectfully,

Chaplain Nicholas E. Purpura

----------------------------------------------------

Doesnt look good :mad:
 
1 - 1 of 1 Posts
Top