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)

No comments: