President of America has less rights than NJ Patrolman

May 23, 2008
Office of the Attorney General
P. O. Box 080
Trenton, NJ 08625-0080

Re: Traffic Summons Quota for Minorities in Union & Springfield, Summons #
UNN638639 & 637580, my complaint dated 12-03-07, 12-15-08 & 3-29-08

Hon. Anne Milgram:

It is very disturbing that your office has not taken any action in more than 5 months in the above referred matters. Union Twp & Administrative Offices of the Courts have conducted 2 sham investigations; Internal Affair investigation by Union PD and other by Union County Municipal Division Manager. Now the Court has told me on 5-19-08 that there will be a 3rd investigation by the Union County Prosecutor’s office. When it is an established precedent that Mayor of Towns are under obligation to request a State or Federal investigation on the mere suggestion of Racial Bias, why Union Mayor opted for sham investigations to cover up Racial Profiling, Selective Enforcement of Law, Racial Bias by Patrolman Cavallo and the illegal Traffic Summons Quota in the Twp of Union?

Every one in government knows that Internal Affair investigations conducted by Police departments in all the 566 Towns of NJ are a public eye wash and waste of Tax Payers money. For those who don’t understand, it may be very hi-tech non-partisan investigations but the fact is; it is an insult to New Jerseyans. What interest an officer has to nail his own colleague with whom he had a cup of coffee in the morning, shared lunch in the afternoon and probably going to wine & dine together in the evening? What interest Politicians of the same Town have to nail a Police officer belonging to Unionized NJ Police representing a big chunk of more than 325,000 voters; who can legally finance Election Campaigns of these Politicians thru their Union and lobbyist?

It took Union PD to complete the IA investigations almost 3 months and another 1 month to let the defendant know the known out come of their sham investigations. Now they are refusing to provide the copy of the same to the defendant when he has also participated in this investigation. It looks like they are holding Patrolman Cavallo who is accused of Racial Profiling, Selective Enforcement of Law and of making obscene gestures; above the President of America and treating their sham IA report more classified secret than highly classified famous and top secret Pentagon Papers. The defendant is pointing to United States vs. Richard Nixon, 418 U.S. 683 (1974) where a “generalized interest in confidentiality” by even the President of the United States was insufficient to prevail over the fundamental demands of due process of law in the fair administration of criminal justice. Then it is an established precedent that public release or publication denial is acceptable only in the most exceptional circumstances, not even the claims of threat to Millitary Security swayed the US Supreme Court in Landmark 1971 ruling that allowed the publication of the Top Secret Pentagon Papers.

In the above referred matters second sham investigation has already been completed by Municipal Division Manager of Union County and third is to be conducted by Union County Prosecutor. Union Municipal Division Manager Michael D’Ecclessis & County Prosecutor Theodore Romankov is important players of so called Home Rule (Elite Club Rule to save Rulers) both lack credibility and are racially biased. Mr. D’Ecclessis had failed to take any action against a racist Democrat Judge Steven Firsichbaum for allowing his Court Room to be used as Ethnic Party Room for eating & drinking by his community members, for allowing a Racist Cop Kahora to stop 5 & 9 year old children with her hand on the Gun and allowing his Racist crook attorney friend Keith Beibelberg to do all kinds of frauds to intimidate, discriminate, threaten, harass and torture a woman and her entire family from a minority Hindu community all under racial bias just to save a habitual traffic speed violator Steven Sobel from their community in Springfield.

Then Prosecutor Romankov had failed to take any actions against Springfield Democrats and its Police Department for violating the Freedom of Free Speech Rights and Racial Discrimination on the complaint of the Defendant in some other matters. Worst of all, he also failed to take any action against a racketeer Lunatic Zygmunt Wilf for doing wholesale permanent destruction to the environment by materially influencing or bribing Springfield & Union County Democrats and various officials including Superior Court Judges. This kind of massive permanent environmental destruction is not allowed in rest of the 49 state of America and even in most corrupt countries around the world.

Looking at all the above to maintain the sanctity of our Legal system; Defendant request an investigation by State Attorney General’s office in the matters of Racial Profiling, Selective Enforcement of Law and illegal Traffic Summons Quota in the Twp of Union and Springfield as well as the ongoing massive destruction to the environment done by a racketeer financier to Democrats Zygmunt Wilf in the Twp of Springfield. At the same time all pending requests of the Defendant for discoveries must be complied in full by Union Twp, its Municipal Court & Police Department and Municipal Division Manager.

Respectfully Submitted,

Devendra Makkar

www.citizensfordemocracynj.org

www.profilingrace.blogspot.com

Union Police sham IA Report more classified than Pentagon Papers

May 20, 2008

Sgt. James Purcell
Police Department,
1976 Morris Ave., Union, NJ 07081

Re: Summons # UNN638639 & UNN637580 my Request for Information under
OPRA pending since 11-29-07 & Your response of May 12, 2008

Dear Sir:

I am not at all surprised with your additional misrepresentations on the matters of various Discovery requests pending since 11-29-07 in the above referred Court Matters. You’re writing that your Court Coordinator Mrs. Shaw has supplied me with all the discovery in this case on 4-18-08 is an insult to the intelligence of the Defendant. What she has supplied is the copies of the 2 summons issued to the defendant by Patrolman Cavallo just to frustrate, intimidate and financially hurt the defendant.

Coming to the dates of Racial/Cultural Sensitivity Training for Union PD which now you are referring for your convenience as Racial Profiling Training; the defendant once again wants to remind you that it was you, who on 11-29-07 denied the request for Training Dates in writing. Then Sgt. Elliott on 12-18-07 made a statement that it has been a while that such training has been conducted and as far as Patrolman Cavallo is concerned he is fairly new in the force for 31/2 years only he never had such training. After that it was Chief Thomas Kraemer who could not come up with dates when specifically asked for on the floor of the Town Hall on 4-22-08. Now very conveniently after 5 months you are coming up with Training dates 10-15-05 for Chief Kraemer and 12-05-05 for Patrolman Cavallo conducted by Lt. Davis with material provided by The New Jersey Attorney Generals Office and The Union County Prosecutors Office. Looking at your credibility and the other officers involved; please provide the copy of the Material/Curriculum Used in such training conducted for Chief Kraemer and Patrolman Cavallo. Also provide the names of other Union PD officers who underwent the so called Training with Chief Kramer and Patrolman Cavallo. I am sure this training was not exclusively for Chief Kramer or Patrolman Cavallo only; there must be few other officers also.

Then again your denial under NJSA 47:1A-10 to my request for Internal Affair Investigation report is unwarranted, unlawful and unjustified. I have already cited in my letter of 5-6-08 South Amboy Municipal Judge Joseph Hoffman’s Ruling of 2-13-07 in the matters of State vs. Rajnikant Parikh Complaint # 06-00193001 to release the Internal Investigation to the defendant. Moreover the right of a defendant to obtain Internal Affair investigation reports and other similar evidence is well established under both United States and New Jersey Law. State v. Harris, 316 N.J. Super 384 (App. Div. 1998) and State v. Ewtushek, App. Div. 2005 WL 1802099 (7-1-05)

Likewise, the same principle has been established in Federal Law since at least UNITED STATES V. RICHARD NIXON, 418 U.S. 683 (1974) where a “generalized interest in confidentiality” by even the President of the United States was insufficient to prevail over the “fundamental demands of due process of law in the fair administration of criminal justice. The generalized assertion of privilege must yield to the demonstrated, specific need for evidence in a pending criminal trial.” Id at 713.

Then these reports are Public Record it may be politically embarrassing to Democrat administration and Unionized Police Department of Union Twp. who can legally finance Lawmakers Election campaigns thru their Unions. This is a First Amendment case Plain and Simple. Union PD’s denial could be as offensive to-day as was the government application & high handedness to halt the Publication of Pentagon Papers in 1971. It is an established precedent that public release or publication denial is acceptable only in the most exceptional circumstances, not even the claims of threat to Military Security swayed the US Supreme Court in landmark 1971 ruling that allowed the publication of the Top Secret Pentagon Papers.

Moreover where a law enforcement investigation has been completed, the State’s interest in confidentiality of Internal records related to the investigation is substantially reduced. Shuttleworth V. Camden, 258 N.J. Super. 573, 585 (App. Div. 1992), certif. den., 133 N.J. 429 (1993).

Your contention that defendant can appeal your decision to the Government Record Council or the NJ Superior Court is nothing but intimidation and violation of defendant’s constitutional rights. It looks like you are more worried to cover up the existence of illegal Traffic Summons Quota in Union Twp, Obscene gestures and Racial Profiling under selective enforcement of Law done by Patrolman Cavallo.

It looks like you are holding Patrolman Cavallo on a much higher pedestal than US President and your sham internal investigation to cover up Traffic Summons Quota as well as Racial Profiling more sensitive and more classified than Pentagon Papers. The defendant in the present case himself has provided statements to the Internal Investigation. Such statements are clearly discoverable to the defendant for use in cross examination. There is no rationale to withhold discovery. Under R. 3-313 (f) (1) and R. 7:7 (e) (1), a court, on a motion and for good cause, may consider an application for a protective order to withhold evidence from discovery under only certain circumstances.

Moreover in the instant case, any Police need for confidentiality that too for a cover up of their unlawful activities pales in comparison for Defendant’s discovery needs under his constitutional rights to present an effective defense against an offense which he has not committed, a Parking violation in which he is being selectively cited, Racial Profiling and obscene gestures by a Uniformed officer all under racial bias and selective enforcement of Law to meet an illegal Twp Quota for Traffic Summons.

The Union Township, Police, Prosecutor and Court are knowingly indulging in Information Discrimination. They are knowingly denying Knowledge and Information to the defendant for which Defendant has constitutional rights. Since Nov. 2007 collectively and individually all of them are intimidating the Defendant by deliberately delaying and denying Knowledge and Information by sending him from post to pillar. Then individually and collectively they have hurt the defendant mentally, physically, emotionally and financially by issuing Arrest Warrants on fabricated charges and Notices of Failure to Appear with threat of Arrest on fabricated charges.

Union Municipal Judge Kelly Waters has already conveyed to the defendant on 5-19-08 they may reconsider its earlier decision to Recuse itself from the above matters once another (sham) investigation by Union County Prosecutor (Democrat Romankow an important Player in corrupt Home Rule System) is over. This is the same Prosecutor who failed to take any action in a complaint of violation of Freedom of Free Speech Rights by Democrats of Springfield, a complaint against a racist Democrat Judge Steven Firsichbaum for using his Court Room as ethnic Party Room and allowing his attorney friend Keith Beibelberg to do all kinds of frauds to save a habitual speed law violator, a Springfield Cop Kahora stopping 5 & 9 yr old children with a hand on Gun, a Lunatic Zygmunt Wilf; financier to Democrats blowing up a Hill in Springfield doing wholesale massive permanent damage to Environment by bribing the Springfield, Union County and Trenton Democrats. Union Municipal Court has failed to understand that it has lost its credibility by issuing Arrest Warrants & Notice of Failure to Appear all under fabricated charges. It has failed to address the allegations of Racial Profiling by the defendant including execution of his arrest warrants at lightning speed by Union & Springfield PD under Racial Bias. Then it has failed to address the issue of Discoveries for more than 5 months. This Court has no moral and legal sanctity left in the above matters. So it will be in the best interest of the Justice to maintain Court’s sanctity; for it to Recuse itself in prosecuting the defendant by transferring matters to some other Court.

Defendant believes all the above reasons are more than enough for Union Police Department, Municipal Court and various Union Twp. departments to release the IA investigation reports and other pending discoveries as requested, to the defendant. This must be done to uphold the sanctity of our Legal system and the doctrine of “Equal Justice” as guaranteed by the US Constitution.

Sincerely,
Devendra Makkar

President Nixon, IA Reports & Union Cops

May 6, 2008

Sgt. James Purcell
Police Department,
1976 Morris Ave.
Union, New Jersey 07081

Re: Summons # UNN638639 & UNN637580 my Request for Information under
OPRA pending since 11-29-07 & Your response dated 4-30-08 received 5-5-8

Dear Sir:

Please be advised initially the following request for Discoveries:

Number of summons issued & their copies under 38: 4-138G Loading Zone out side Union Theater & Blue Ribbon Bakery at 988 Stuyvesant Ave. on:

Oct. 23, 2007 from 11.00 AM to 11.55 AM.
Nov. 21, 2007 from 10.00 AM to 11.55 AM
Nov. 24, 2007 from 10.45 AM to 11.55 AM
Nov. 27, 2007 from 5.15 PM to 5.55 PM

was made to Union Municipal Court on 11-29-07 and the Court advised on 1-22-08 the same should be made to Municipal Prosecutor. The Defendant complied the orders of Hon. Judge Waters immediately and provided the copies of the request to Prosecutor Wittenberg in the Court. The Municipal Prosecutor Mark Cassidy wrote on 4-18-08 that this request be made to Union Twp Police Department; defendant complied to this demand also. Now you are writing on 4-30-8 that the Discovery request be made to the Municipal Court. The Defendant leave it to all the 3 Departments operating under Home Rule who are joining against a resident of the state to protect each other; to decide who is responsible for providing the discoveries requested by the Defendant on Nov. 29, 2007.

Coming to your writing that Chief Krammer on 10-15-05 and Pat. Cavaollo on 12-05-05 had the Racial Profiling Training does not give any comforts to the defendant. Sgt. Elliot made a statement on 12-18-07 that it has been a while the Union Police Dept. had any racial/cultural training and this particular officer (Cavaollo never had any such training. Then Chief Krammer on the floor of the Town Hall on 04-22-08 could not come up with specific dates on being asked for such training dates in specific. Moreover you yourself wrote to the defendant on 11-29-07 that, “the above request is being denied because the request is not an identifiable record as required by OPRA.” Now after almost 5 months you have come up with the dates; how convenient to misrepresent? Looking at the credibility of the department and its officers; the Defendant request that name of the instructor and the state department who provided such training; be provided to him.

Then your denial under NJSA 47:1A-10 to my request for Internal Affair Investigation report is not enough reasons for the denial. First it took your department more than 3 months to complete the investigations on 3-10-08 and then another month to mail me the decision based on cooked up investigations that officer has done nothing wrong on 04-11-08. Most disturbing was after rendering the decision on 03-10-08 in favor of Patrolman Cavaollo; why investigator Sgt Elliott came to my business on 03-25-08 to pick up the photographs I had taken on 11-21-07? Under these circumstances what ever credibility this report or investigating Officer Sgt Elliot and other officers involved has must be determined by the Court. For this reason alone this Report must be disclosed.

Most recently the right of a Defendant for IA investigations was upheld by Honorable Judge Joseph Hoffman of South Amboy Municipal Court on Feb. 13th, 2007 in the matters of State vs. Rajnikant Parikh under complaint # 06-00193001.

Then the right of a defendant to obtain Internal Affair investigation reports and other similar evidence is well established under both United States and New Jersey Law. State v. Harris, 316 N.J. Super 384 (App. Div. 1998) The right of confrontation requires disclosure of (police personnel records) where a defendant advances some factual predicate making it reasonably likely that information in the file could affect the officer’s credibility. Id 387. The Court noted that “[t]he Sixth Amendment of the United States Constitution and Article 1, section 10 of the New Jersey Constitution guarantees the right of an accused in a criminal prosecution to be confronted with the witnesses against him” (citation omitted) and that “[t]he essential purpose of confrontation is to secure for the defendant the opportunity of cross examination. Cross examination is the principal means by which a witness’ credibility is tested.”

Thus, under New Jersey Law, so long as defendant shows “some factual predicate” that would make it reasonably likely that information in the desired file is relevant or could affect a witness’s credibility, disclosure shall be made. The review and release of such records is now fairly common. State v. Ewtushek, App. Div. 2005 WL 1802099 (7-1-05)

Likewise, the same principle has been established in Federal Law since at least UNITED STATES V. RICHARD NIXON, 418 U.S. 683 (1974) where a ‘generalized interest in confidentiality” by even the President of the United States was insufficient to prevail over the “fundamental demands of due process of law in the fair administration of criminal justice. The generalized assertion of privilege must yield to the demonstrated, specific need for evidence in a pending criminal trial.” Id at 713.

The defendant in the present case himself has provided statements to the Internal Investigation. Such statements are clearly discoverable to the defendant for use in cross examination. There is no rationale to withhold discovery. Under R. 3-313 (f) (1) and R. 7:7 (e) (1), a court, on a motion and for good cause, may consider an application for a protective order to withhold evidence from discovery under only certain circumstances.

In the instant case, the factual basis underlying the production of the Internal Affairs reports does not present sufficient confidentiality concerns to justify withholding them from discovery. The Union Police Department investigation has been concluded they have nothing to fear by releasing the contents of the report. Where a law enforcement investigation has been completed, the State’s interest in confidentiality of Internal records related to the investigation is substantially reduced. Shuttleworth V. Camden, 258 N.J. Super. 573, 585 (App. Div. 1992), certif. den., 133 N.J. 429 (1993).

Moreover in the instant case, the Union Police have completed their investigation. Any Police need for confidentiality pales in comparison for Defendant’s discovery needs under his constitutional rights to present an effective defense against an offense which he has not committed, a Parking violation in which he is being selectively cited, Racial Profiling and obscene gestures by a Uniformed officer all under racial bias and selective enforcement of Law to meet an illegal Twp Quota for Traffic Summons. There is a prima facie evidence that this Quota is primarily being used against individuals belonging to minorities & colored communities.

The Union Township, Police, Prosecutor and Court are indulging in Information Discrimination also and are knowingly denying Knowledge and Information to the defendant for which Defendant has constitutional rights. Since Nov. 2007 collectively and individually all of them are frustrating the Defendant by deliberately delaying and denying Knowledge and Information by sending him from post to pillar. Then they have hurt the defendant mentally, physically, emotionally and financially by issuing Arrest Warrants on fabricated charges and Notices of Failure to Appear with threat of Arrest on fabricated charges.

Defendant believes all the above reasons are more than enough for Union Police Department to release the IA investigation reports to the defendant. Union Municipal Court also must reconsider its earlier decision to Recuse itself from the above matters. This Court has lost its credibility by issuing Arrest Warrants & Notice of Failure to Appear all under fabricated charges and has failed to address the issue of Discoveries for more than 5 months; so it must Recuse itself in prosecuting the defendant and must transfer the matters to some other Courts.

Sincerely,


Devendra Makkar

Union Municipal Court request for Discoveries

April 28, 2008

Ms. Pat Nasta, Certified Court Administrator
Union Twp Municipal Court
981 Caldwell Ave.
Union, New Jersey 07081

Re: Summons # UNN638639 & UNN637580
Request for information under Discovery Rules

Dear Ms. Nasta:

Please provide the following information under Discovery Rules which I intend to use for my defense in the above referred court matters.

From July 1st to Dec. 31st, 2007

How many Arrest Warrants were issued against defendants under 39:4-81 for very first non appearance; especially when the defendant’s written request for adjournment is on record delivered in person to the Court staff.

How many Notices of Failure to Appear under 39:4-138G was issued despite Defendant being present in the Court for previous appearances.

Defendant wants to remind the Union Municipal Court that it is Defendant’s constitutional right to defend himself against a moving violation which he has not committed, against a parking violation in which he has been singled out because of his ethnic background both under Racial Bias. Then Patrolman Covallo has also violated defendants basic Right of Racial Equality by making obscene gestures to him.

Then this Court has denied the Defendant’s Recusal Motion of 1-22-08 despite defendant raising question of Prejudice and Racial Bias as well as no faith in the Home Rule system prevailing in all the Municipalities of New Jersey. Since the Defendant is raising the issue of Prejudice, Racial Bias and Racial Profiling he must be provided with the above discoveries as per the this request in timely fashion; so that effective defense can be prepared for the Trial on May 19, 2008 in above matters.

Thank you for your anticipated help.

Sincerely,
Devendra Makkar

A typical Sham Internal Affair Enquiry by NJ PD

April 16, 2008

Chief of Police Thomas Kraemer
Union Township
981 Caldwell Ave. Union, New Jersey 07081

Re: Your letter dated March 10, 2008 Received on April 14, 2008
Summons # UNN 637580 & 638639

Dear Sir:

I am not at all surprised with your departments biased investigations conducted on their own without any demand or request made by the victim of Racial Profiling and selective Enforcement of Law. As I told the Investigating officer Sgt. Elliott on Dec. 12, 2007 itself while participating in this sham investigations that I do not have any trust at all under these types of Internal Affair Investigations conducted in the 566 Towns of New Jersey under the so called “Home Rule”.

I have two very simple questions which I had raised in the past to Attorney General Office, its Biased Crime Unit, a Senator, an Assemblyman, a Mayor as well as Human Relations office and ACLU. I am reproducing them again for your comments:

What interest an officer from your department has in nailing or holding guilty their own colleague with whom he had cup of coffee in the morning, shared lunch in the afternoon and probably going to wine & dine in the evening? This can only be possible if the officer being investigated has become a thorn in the eyes of the other colleagues in the department or in the administration.

What interest the politicians governing the town/state and supposed to be policing the Police Department has in nailing any cop when the Police Force is Unionized and can legally donate money for the campaign of these crooked Politicians?

Coming to your writing that the officer has followed the appropriate department policies and procedures; according to you the following are also acceptable:

Officer can park in the Handicap Parking.

Officer is not supposed to get out of his car if the traffic has stopped for some reasons especially when they are on human hunting under Racial Bias.

Officer can decide after looking at the faces of the driver which one to be issued summons and put his blinkers on after making sure about the color of the person who is to be handed over Summons for a violation which he may not have committed just to meet the Traffic Tickets Quota (for minorities) of the Town.

Officer is supposed to talk in rude language, not supposed to wish back and can dictate in threatening language if he does not like the color or race of a person.

Officer can park illegally facing an intersection.

Officer under Racial Bias can indulge in human hunting if the person is colored and is not supposed to enforce Parking Laws within 1 block on either side where he is waiting to hunt colored & minorities to full fill their Traffic Tickets Quota.

Officer is not supposed to write Parking Violations to white even if he is writing summons to a Car with blinkers on just parked behind the other illegally parked vehicles belonging to whites.

If the colored victim of Racial Profiling and Selective enforcement of Law is taking pictures of the other illegally parked vehicle it is very much as per Union Police Department Policies and Procedures for the officer to make obscene gestures with cruelty and hate reflecting for the race of their victims.

Dear Sir, you may not endorse or support my religious, political or other views, whatever they may, in fact be. I fully respect and honor your judgments because you are entitled to them, at least in America, to freely express your views on any subject. In fact I will defend your right to do so even though your views may be diametrically opposed to mine. For all the above cited reasons the way New Jersey’s 566 Kingdoms including Union are being governed under “Home Rule”; in my opinion is nothing but a Gang Rule. Princely Rulers and their cronies all ganging up against the constituent they are governing.

Any way thank you very much for your biased Investigations based on fabricated lies, which took your department almost 3 months to conduct and another one month to mail to the victim. By the way what your department did with those pictures which your officer Sgt. Elliott picked up from my business on March 25, 2008 at 10.05 AM.? Further do you want to make any comments or denials or modifications on the admissions of your own officer Sgt. Elliott that it has been a long time since any Cultural or Racial Sensitivity Training conducted for Union PD & Patrolman Covallo who is in the force for last 31/2 yrs only never had any such training! Do you want to make any comments on the statement of off duty officer about the existence of Traffic Tickets Quota

Sincerely,
Devendra Makkar

Arrest warrants for exercising Right to Information in Minor Traffic Matters

April 2nd, 2008

Hon. Judge Jonathan Rosenbluth
Union Twp Municipal Court
981 Caldwell Ave.
Union, New Jersey 07081

Re: Summons # UNN638639 & UNN637580 & Motion For Recusal 1-22-08
Court Appearance date 4-08-08 & Bail Forfeiture Notice

Hon. Sir:

The way the above referred matters are being handled that raise serious credibility questions and ability to do fair & equal justice on the part of the Honorable Court.

First of all on fabricated lies Arrest Warrants were issued and over zealous Union Police got them executed at a lightning speed thru their equally racist counterparts Springfield PD that too for a minor Traffic matters against the Defendant who is a respectable law abiding citizen of this country. Then despite Defendant being present in the Court on Jan 22, 2008 a Notice of Failure to Appear with a threat of arrest were issued on 2-01-08; all of these to cause mental, emotional, financial and physical agony to the Defendant.

Now Bail Forfeiture Notice despite Judge Waters who was very apologetic on 1-22-08 after admitting Arrest Warrants was issued by mistake. She also said that Bail Money will be returned. On the issue of Recusal Motion, Judge Waters said she will take a decision in “WRITING” by 1-29-08.

Under the Law as well as Judge Waters own admittance rather than sending written decision on the Recusal Motion the Court thru Union County Municipal Division Manager Mr. D’Ecclessis sent a message dated 3-24-08, “that Judge Waters has denied your Motion and has set a new trial date of April 8, 2008 at 9.00 AM. Next day I did received the Notice for new Court date signed by Your Honor dated 3-25-08 without any decision, which makes it very obvious Mr. D’Ecclessis has taken the decision on behalf of Judge Waters. Under these circumstances and Court’s failure to provide the defendant with discoveries clearly demonstrates that Defendant will not get any justice in this Court and has serious doubts on the credibility and impartiality of the Court.

Defendant’s Recusal Motion is based on precedents in a similar case of Traffic Matter in which Springfield Municipal Court transferred the matters to New Providence Municipal Court. Further Hon. Judge Donald Bogosian up held the defendants Constitutional Right for discoveries so that defendant can prepare his defense properly to prove the complaining officer have indulged in Racial Profiling and Selective Enforcement of Law.

The defendant once again wants to remind the Honorable Court, “In cases where prejudice or bias is raised for recusal, it is unnecessary to prove actual prejudice or bias; instead the mere appearance of prejudice or bias may be sufficient to require disqualification. In the above referred matters as per the Court Records the defendant is accusing the complaining Patrolman Covallo for both the above referred summons of Racial Profiling, Selective Enforcement of Law and for making obscene gestures to the defendant. Then Twp of Union is also accused of collaboration to cover up the existence of illegal “Traffic Summons Quota” in the Twp of Union. This quota; may be it was or is still being used against Colored persons and Minorities. Union Twp’s refusal to provide information under OPRA and their lies on Quota issue has been exposed by Sgt. Eliot of Union PD; who admitted it has been almost a decade “Racial/Cultural Sensitivity Training has been provided to the Union Police Force and Patrolman Covallo who is fairly new being in the force for less than 4 years never had any such training.

If the Honorable Court still wants to decide the above referred matters then it must provide the Defendant with the discoveries requested under defendant’s constitutional rights for a Fair and Open Public Trial. Defendant does not deserve a Trial by surprise or ambush or a trial bull dozed on him in violation of his basic human & civil rights.

Since the Defendant has not been provided with the Discoveries; it is his understanding that his April 8, 2008 Court Appearance is a mere formality. No testimony will be given and no testimony will be taken. In the interest of Equal Justice a fair trial is only possible if Defendant’s discovery requests as per his Constitutional Rights to defend himself have been addressed in a timely and proper manner. Under these circumstances and all the wrong done to him under racial bias, defendant still has faith that Your Honor will take the right decision to uphold the integrity and sanctity of the court. Your Honor will Recuse from the above referred matters in the name of Equal Justice. The Courts in this country are the only forums to provide redress to people of color. It is the moral obligation of the Judiciary to ensure that principles embedded in the Constitution, Statues and Common Law are honored regardless of what the Majority thinks.

Respectfully Submitted,

Devendra Makkar (Defendant)

Sham Investigations by Municipal Div Manager under Home Rule

March 27, 2008

Superior Court of NJ, Union Vicinage
Municipal Division Manager
Union Court House
Elizabeth, New Jersey 07081

Re: Summons #UNN 638639 & 637580 & Your Letter dated 3-24-08

Dear Mr. D’Ecclessis:

I am not at all surprised with your response full of misrepresentations in the above referred matters. When you can not take any action against a communal, corrupt & incompetent municipal Judge Steven Firsichbaum of Springfield for allowing his court to be used as Ethnic Party Room for eating & drinking, false witnesses, non-existent fabricated evidences, woman cop Kahora stopping 5 & 9 yr old at gun point and a colored woman racially abused, coerced, intimidated and called con artist by the racist members of this judge’s community; then how I can expect any justice from you? For your information it is now almost 2 years that Springfield has yet to deliver Transcripts of that case and you were also notified about it but you prefer to take no actions.

As per your investigations/misrepresentations that I failed to appear in the Court on 12-3-07, where as the fact of the matter is I have filed for written adjournment till I am provided with discovery requests and clubbing of both summons (copy enclosed). This can also be verified from the transcript of the court for 1-22-08 in which Judge Waters was very apologetic on the issue of issuing my arrest warrants on 12-7-07. The same day without getting into the details I requested the Judge that I do not want to be prosecuted by Michael Witenberg another racist person who was involved with the Springfield matters and sarcastically told me in his chambers that he knows me from Springfield.

If you have really reviewed all the correspondence and attachments as you claim in your letter why you have not answered a simple question concerning Irvington Municipal court and my last 10 years experience with the Courts. For almost a decade I have never seen such a lightning speed of issuing Arrest Warrants that too in a small Traffic Matter on the very first non-appearance and getting it executed in less than a week. My experience is no judge issue arrest warrants on the very first non-appearance and no Police Department is willing to get the Arrest Warrants executed thru a different Town’s PD and in the case of Irvington PD not in their own Town also. I can tell you so many incidents where arrest warrants are pending for 2-3 years for serious check frauds. For your satisfaction in more recent incident arrest warrants issued on 7-16-07 for S2007-2020-22 by Irvington Municipal Court are still pending against Natasha Johnson who till last month was running 2 Child Care Centers in Irvington for writing bad checks.
Union County Municipal Division Manager

March 27, 2008 Page 2

In my case Arrest Warrants were issued under racial bias deliberately and knowingly that there is a written request with the Court for adjournment and clubbing of both the above referred matters. Above all I am raising the issue of Traffic Summons Quota in the Township of Union which may be primarily used for Colored and Minorities. Then I am also raising the question of no training to Union PD for Racial/Cultural Sensitivity for more than 5 years and the Patrolman Covallo who wrote both the summons have done it knowingly under racial bias and selective enforcement of Law.

Then your letter is totally silent on the issue of Notice of Failure to Appear issued against me on 1-22-08 with a threat of Arrest Warrants and demand to Pay $64.00 before 2-13-08? Where as the fact of the matter is I was present in the Court on 1-22-08 and Judge Waters told me that she will decide by 1-29-08 on the issue of her recusal. Till date I have not heard any thing from the Judge rather your letter is informing me that she has denied my Motion for her Recusal and my next Court appearance is 4-8-08 that too knowingly that I have not been provided with the discovery requests made to the Court on 11-29-07 without that no Fair Trial can be held because that is my constitutional right to have discoveries so that I can effectively prepare my defense.

All the above facts proves that all your reviews and response are based on imaginary or fabricated facts and misrepresentations. You still think I will get justice in the Union Municipal Court who has issued first my arrest Warrants then Notice of Failure to Appear and has yet to provide me with the discovery requests all under racial bias just to intimidate me, harass me mentally, emotionally, financially and physically?

Very truly yours,
Devendra Makkar

www.savethehills.blogspot.com

Home Rule breeds corruption in Municipal Courts

Jan. 22, 2008

Hon. Judge Jonathan Rosenbluth
Union Twp Municipal Court
981 Caldwell Ave.
Union, New Jersey 07081

Re: Request for Transfer of matters related to Summons # UNN638639 & UNN637580
to some other Courts or Adjournment till the Defendant is provided with discovery
requests made in full, copy of the Internal Affair Investigation conducted by Union
Police and decision taken on the Pending Complaint against Union township & Union
Police with Attorney General’s office for having a Traffic Summons Quota

Honorable Sir:

Looking at the over zeal of the Honorable Court in issuing an Arrest Warrant for the Defendant in a minor Parking matter despite written request to combine all matters and non-cooperation of the Union Twp in providing Discovery; it will be in the interest of the Justice that the Honorable Judge Recuse himself from the above referred matters.

The defendant is a respectable citizen and has been running a check cashing store for almost a decade and has never seen such a lightning speed of issuing Arrest Warrants & getting it executed for very first non-appearance even for complaints filed for doing check frauds & writing bad checks. Just to give an example to the Court; arrest warrants issued by Irvington M.C. on 7-16-07 S2007 2020-22 for 2nd non appearance in the Court against Ms. Natasha Johnson for writing bad checks are still pending. The most interesting is defendant Ms. Johnson’s business Rise & Shine Day Care Center is ½ block from the Plaintiff besides one more location she has on Chancellor Ave. in Irvington. Ms. Johnson freely drives from Irvington to her home in Edison 5 days a week. Defendant can quote numerous cases where the Arrest Warrants are pending for more than a year.

Why all this special efforts by Union Police & Court despite a written request for adjournment for some one who had nothing in his record other than helping the Law Enforcement with his own life & money in the arrest of people doing financial & identity frauds?” Why all these special efforts, because I happen to be a brown skin who has raised his voice against Racial Profiling, Selective Enforcement of Law, Obscene Gestures by a Union Patrolman in uniform and above all existence of unconstitutional Quota for Traffic Summons which can be misused for dark skin & minorities?

Further an Internal Affair Investigation was conducted in this matter by the Union Police and Defendant’s statement was recorded by Sgt Elliott on 12-18-07. Defendant asked some questions to the Sgt. (Copy enclosed) which clearly demonstrates the Patrolman Covallo who issued Racially Biased Summons under selective enforcement of Law and made obscene gestures had not gone any kind of Cultural Sensitivity Training as well as any training in basic manners and etiquettes. Most disturbing is; it has been a while such trainings were conducted for the Union Police Force. If the IA investigation has been concluded Defendant has the Right to a copy of the Report which may be helpful in the defense of the Defendant.

On top of this Defendant has filed a Complaint against Union township and Union Police for having an illegal Traffic Summons Quota to the Attorney General’s office. (Copy enclosed). In that Defendant has expressed his fears that this Quota is primarily misused for Dark Skin & Minorities. Before any Fair Trial can be held; it will be prudent on part of the Court to wait for the out come of this complaint as well as IA report.

Defendant wants to bring on Record that existence of Traffic Summons Quota in Union Twp was confirmed by some one claiming to be off-duty Cop on 11-27-07. This person objected to Defendant taking pictures of his SUV ULM 11R parked in between 2 cars EMF 19 Altima on back & USW 46 H in front out side 988 Stuyvesant Ave. in the Loading Zone. Unfortunately the existence of such a Quota in Springfield was confirmed by on Duty Sergeant in Uniform inside the premises of Springfield PD on 12-13-07.

On Recusal: NJ rules of courts provides, in pertinent parts, that a judge should disqualify himself sua sponte in any proceeding where the judge’s impartiality may reasonably be questioned, including instances where: (1) “the judge has given an opinion [on] a matter in question in the action”; (2) “the judge is interested in the event of the action”; and (3) “where there is any other reason which might preclude a fair and unbiased hearing and judgment, or which might reasonably lead counsel or the parties to believe so”. R. 1:12-1.Any party may also request a judge’s disqualification on motion made to that judge delineating the reasons for the recusal requests. R. 1:12-2. The initial decision on such motion is of course discretionary. While the initial decisions are entrusted to the sound discretion of the judge whose recusal is sought, it is improper for a judge to withdraw from a case merely because of suggestions. In cases where prejudice or bias is raised as basis for recusal, it is unnecessary to prove actual prejudice or bias; instead the mere appearance of prejudice or bias may be sufficient to require disqualification. Nevertheless, determinations of appearance of bias or unfairness must be predicated upon a standard of objectivity and reasonableness. Id. In more specific terms, the judge who hears a motion for recusal should clearly set forth the “objective and subjective bases for the ultimate decision.” Id at 67. Since this is a discretionary decision, looking at the gravity and seriousness of the matters; Your Honor will take the right decision to uphold the integrity and sanctity of the Court. The Courts in this country are the only forums to provide redress to people of color. It is the moral obligation of the Judiciary to ensure that principles embedded in the Constitution, Statues and Common law are honored regardless of what the Majority thinks.

Respectfully Submitted,
Devendra Makkar (Defendant)

cc: Hon. Ann Milgram, Office of the Attorney General, POB 680 Trenton, NJ 08625