Tuesday, April 29, 2008

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.

Devendra Makkar

Thursday, April 17, 2008

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

Devendra Makkar

Thursday, April 3, 2008

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)