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)
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
No comments:
Post a Comment