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