Thursday, February 10, 2011

Superior Court Appellate, County & Municipal Court Judges in cahoots in the illegal Traffic Ticket Quota Racket in Union County

Officer Anthony Cavallo of Union Police is a liar and a serial exaggerator for concocting a story about the Defendant that he jumped Red Light out of whole cloth. Under oath he repeatedly said he was Parked on the other side of the intersection by the Chase Bank and at the same time kept on denying he was not parked in the Handicapped Parking!

Second time Officer Cavallo followed the Defendant for more than 15 minutes and gave him a parking ticket with his blinkers still on without issuing any Summons to other vehicles belonging to Whites parked there for hours eating inside the bakery. Defendant was still outside the Blue Ribbon Bakery holding its door to get in just to pick up a big pie kept ready for him. When the Defendant took pictures of other parked vehicles in loading zone Cavallo made an obscene gesture to the Defendant F*** You.

Judge Stuart Piem of Superior Court of Union County & Judge Jeffery Angelo of Roselle Park both found Officer Cavallo very credible who had all the help of a Racist Prosecutor Robert Donovan who made the remarks inside the Court room, “It is a free country you can raise the issue of Racial Profiling or Racial Bias at any place but not in my Court. Every one with traffic violation ticket raises these questions. I am not concerned what happened to you or in the case in the last 1 year.

This Prosecutor Donovan intentionally created commotion and havoc in the Court of Judge Angelo by taking away his Copy of Motion & Photographs as well as of the Defendant despite the fact he had his own copy of the Motion and Photographs. The Court Transcripts are proof of this commotion & havoc by Racist Robert Donovan. Then he tried to create confusion that Defendant was not able to see the Traffic Light & Officer Cavallo parked in the handicapped parking where as the facts are totally against his fraud assertions.

Under Home Rule of NJ rather Gang Rule Judge Stuart Piem also denied oral arguments to the defendant. Judge Piem & Angelo both found the testimony of a liar Anthony Cavallo credible and found nothing wrong in his making F*** You gesture to the victim of Racial Profiling & Selective Enforcement of Law.

Judge Kelly Waters of Union Municipal Court is actively involved in legalizing an illegal Traffic Summons Quota Racket run by Union PD & Union Twp. In the matters of Summons # UNN 637580 & 638639 issued under Racial Profiling and Selective Enforcement of Law under an illegal Traffic Summons Quota by Union PD Judge Waters transferred the case to Roselle Park after more than 9 months without addressing the issues raised by the Defendant and without providing any Discoveries requested going back to Nov. 2007. Twice she issued arrest warrants of the defendant on fabricated grounds to muzzle his voice. Then Judge Waters/Union Municipal Court itself failed to provide discoveries and is a co-accused along with Union Twp & its PD to cover up the issue of Racial Profiling and illegal Traffic Summons Quota practiced by Union Police against minorities.

It looks like Judge Piem, Judge Angelo, Judge Waters and Prosecutor Donovan are still living in the past and do not understood the meaning of the comments made by our first African American Attorney General Eric Holder, “We are a nation of cowards when it comes to race matters”. Judge Piem, Angelo & Waters have failed in their legal duties in addressing the issue of Racial Discrimination, Selective Enforcement of Law and illegal Traffic Summons Quota practiced by Union Police initiated by Union Twp & legalized by Union Municipal Court with the blessings of the Superior Court of the Union County .
SUPERIOR COURT OF NJ APPELLATE DIVISION: To Hon. Judge Weffing: your biased orders of 1-20-11 is nothing but a dishonest exercise to save the various state actors from exposure and embarrassment for running an illegal racket of Traffic Summons Quota for minorities. These orders further confirms to Appellant’s believes that New Jersey is Governed by Unionized Gangs posing as Politicians, Bureaucrats, Law Enforcement and Judiciary.  Especially when the victim has very limited resources and do not belong to any of the preferred minority community like Jews; justice is an illusion for people like the Appellant. The biased and unethical order in the above referred matters is gross injustice to the Appellant and mockery of our justice system. Illegal Traffic Summons Quota for minorities is a public interest matter and Judge should have considered the above matters as Public Interest Litigation.

Home Rule=GANG RULE Superior Court Appellate Division and County Superior Courts are in cahoots with Municipal Courts in legalizing Traffic Summons Quota, Racial Profiling & Selective Enforcement of Law initiated by Politicians to raise revenue for the comforts of largest elected more than 1 scoundrel & over 50 employees per square mile in the world in Banana Republic of New Jersey. To protect them there are more than 10 Pimps/Attorneys per square miles majority of the times with Tax Payers money.

Important Statements made by Union PD, Twp Officers

Officer Rad Sangster while parked illegally in the presence of a Petrol Car # 224 outside Marina News he made a remark, “they are under pressure to write Summons because they have to fill their Traffic Summons Quota”.

Sgt. Fenton of Springfield PD while processing Bail Papers for arrest warrants issued & executed in 5 days by Union MC on fictitious grounds, “Although we are not supposed to have it but Springfield also has a Traffic Summons Quota.”

Sgt. Elliott: it has been a long time since any Cultural or Racial Sensitivity Training has been conducted for Union PD. Officer Cavallo who is in the force for last 31/2 yrs only never had any such training!

Officer Jovic’s unprovoked voluntary statement after writing a Summons on the intersection knowingly that NJDOT has made it unsafe & inconvenient, “Do not pay the fine, make sure you come to court on Oct. 23rd & talk to the prosecutor. If you send the fine you will have 1 point on your license. We hate to do what we are doing but we are being forced by our Bosses to do it.”

Town Administrator James Bradley: “it has been the position of the township since reconfiguration of the intersection, that the State of New Jersey returns the intersection to its original design.” The complainant should take up this matter with NJDOT. He further added, “We will forward a copy of your letter and concerns to NJDOT so that they may take your recommendations into considerations.”

Sgt. Rego of Union PD while conducting a sham internal affair investigation without any complaint, “I know that it is a bad system and traffic is backing up to Springfield . City was against it and still the State implemented it. State can do whatever they want to do. NJDOT I believe is going to make changes to this pattern. You know how the State works; it will take a while for them to do any thing.”

NJDOT: never replied to various correspondences some sent under certified mail & e-mail. Finally on 3-30-09 they rectified the problems on the intersection which has become a Financial Bonanza for the Union Twp & its Police Department meeting its illegal Traffic Summons Quota may be to get more over time pay!

New Jersey Attorney General’s office: Attorney General Ann Miligram to Paula Dow with 586 Dumb, Deaf & Blind Assistant Attorney Generals besides thousands of Junior Attorneys since Nov. 2007 has not replied to any of the correspondences some sent under Certified Mail R R concerning Racial Profiling, Selective Enforcement of Law & illegal Traffic Summons Quota practiced by Union Police on behalf of the Union Twp and legalized by Union Municipal Court with the blessings of the Superior Court of the Union County.

Devendra Makkar, Defendant (Pro Se)
568 Ashwood Rd., Springfield, NJ 07081
973 416 1600 Fax: 973 416 1500

Please accept this letter in lieu of a formal brief in reply to government’s opposition letter.

The Prosecutor has asked the Court to give deference to the municipal judge that adjudicated this matter. However, Judge D’Angelo refused to pay attention to the Defendant’s testimony and seemed to just want the matter swept away quickly as a simple parking ticket case. With respect to the summons regarding crossing a red light, the Defendant’s pictures demonstrate that the Defendant could clearly see the red light and Officer Cavallo. See Exhibit 1 and 2. There was no reason why he would have crossed the red light especially since the traffic was moving extremely slowly at 15 miles an hour. It makes no sense. Furthermore, the Court should not give deference to Officer Cavallo’s statements and Judge D’Angelo’s reliance on such statements because Officer Cavallo blatantly misrepresented where he was parked. The Defendant has repeatedly stated that Officer Cavallo was parked in the handicap parking on the corner in front of Chase Bank. Officer Cavallo denied this in court. However, as the photograph clearly demonstrates, the only place that Officer Cavallo could have had a clear unobstructed view from the corner was the handicap parking spot. See Exhibit 1. The fact that Officer Cavallo lied about this issue makes all his statements suspect. In addition, as discussed below in this Brief, the issue at hand is that Officer Cavallo subjected the Defendant to selective enforcement and racial profiling due to the fact that the Defendant is an Indian- American.

The Prosecutor’s brief is misleading and disingenuous because the Prosecutor fails to address the fact that the Defendant’s Fifth Amendment right to due process was violated by Officer Cavallo’s decision to only issue a summons for illegal parking to the Defendant who is Indian while to not issue summons to similarly situated persons who were white. The question is not whether the Defendant was illegally parked. Instead, the issue was whether Officer Cavallo violated the Defendant’s civil rights by subjecting him to racial profiling.
The Defendant did not base his case of racial profiling simply on a hand gesture. In addition, the Prosecutor’s assertion that the “Fuck you” hand gesture by Officer Cavallo was ambiguous is insulting to the Defendant. The Prosecutor’s Brief fails to address the fact that Officer Cavallo decided not to issue tickets to similarly situated non-Indians. Officer Cavallo was aware that the drivers of the other illegally parked cars were white because he watched as the Defendant took photographs of the other illegally parked cars and their white drivers (as they were entering their respective cars). These other illegally parked cars were next to or near the Defendant’s car and were parked for considerably longer periods. However, Officer Cavallo did not write them any summons. The photographs taken by the Defendant clearly illustrate that the drivers’ of the other illegally parked cars were white/Caucasian. Officer Cavallo watched from his car while the Defendant took photographs of the other illegally parked cars and their drivers.
Under the equal protection component of the Fifth Amendment's Due Process Clause, the decision whether to prosecute may not be based on an arbitrary classification such as race or religion. Oyler v. Boles, 368 U.S. 448, 456 (1962). Officer Cavallo’s decision can only be reasonably explained as resulting from racial profiling and selective enforcement of the law. The question is why Officer Cavallo decided to issue a summons to the Defendant while ignoring the other illegally parked cars. Thus, a reasonable person can conclude that the only reason Officer Cavallo issued a summons to the Defendant while not issuing one to the other illegally parked cars was due to racial profiling and bias.

Basically, the Defendant’s civil rights were violated by the Police Department’s implementation of a traffic summons quota. The Police Department is committing two wrongs: first, they have instituted a traffic summons quota and second, the police officers target minorities when they seek to fulfill their quota. Unfortunately, the Prosecutors’ Office has decided to fail in its responsibility to uphold the U.S. Constitution and to behave in a disingenuous manner by avoiding any of Defendant’s evidence or statements regarding the violation of civil rights and to instead focus on the narrow issue of whether the Defendant parked illegally. The Defendant has spent time and energy on this issue not to defend himself against a parking ticket but because he is disturbed by the blatant violation of civil rights by the very police officers who are supposed to uphold and defend the Constitution of this country.
The Defendant’s constitutional rights were violated when the RP Court ruled that the Defendant was not entitled to discovery regarding on his claim the Officer Cavallo singled him out for prosecution based on the color of his skin and his race. The Prosecutor’s Brief points to State v. Kennedy, 247 N/J/ Super. 21 (App. Div. 1991), a 1991 case from the Appellate Court of New Jersey. The Prosecutor’s Brief fails to mention United States v. Armstrong, 517 U.S. 456 (1996), which is not only more recent than Kennedy but also is a United States Supreme Court case and thus holds the highest precedential value. Armstrong held that “[f]or a defendant to be entitled to discovery on a claim that he was singled out for prosecution on the basis of his race, he must make a threshold showing that the Government declined to prosecute similarly situated suspects of other races”. Here, the Defendant met the standard established by the United States Supreme Court. The Defendant has clearly shown that Officer Cavallo declined to issue summons to similarly situated suspects of other races by providing photographs of other cars that were illegally parked at the same time and place as the Defendant. There is colorable basis for the claim of selective enforcement of law. Thus, pursuant to the United States Supreme Court and New Jersey courts, the Defendant was entitled to discovery regarding the claim of selective enforcement of law.

The Defendant’s discovery requests were all narrowly tailored and of probative value in that he requested information regarding the number of tickets given for the exact crime he was charged with, the copy of the internal affairs investigation, and information about the sensitivity training given to the police officers. All the information requested would have been useful in determining whether the police agency officially sanctioned selective enforcement of minorities or had a de facto policy in place. Since the Prosecutors Office and the Police Department repeatedly stated either that they would not comply or did not have the requested documents and the Defendant was entitled to discovery pursuant to Armstrong, the Municipal Court should have dismissed the case against the Defendant.
In addition, the Municipal Court has specifically informed the Defendant that “I am required to send it directly to Union County Prosecutor’s Office. So this case will be sent to UCPO. They will then investigate the allegations of racial profiling.” However, as per the Defendant’s knowledge, the UCPO has failed to conduct any investigation. Since the UCPO has failed to timely investigate this matter, the matter should have been transferred to the Attorney General’s office as per the Municipal Court.

The Municipal Court’ failure to return the bail on January 22, 2008 violated the Fifth Amendment, otherwise known as the Takings Clause, and was an improper use of judicial authority. Once the Municipal Court was aware that the arrest warrant against the Defendant was erroneously issued, the bail amount should have been returned to the Defendant since it was a direct result of the erroneously issued arrest warrant. The Prosecutor’s Brief fails to address this issue.
For the reasons outlined above, the Defendant humbly requests this Court to overturn the Defendant’s conviction.

The Defendant would like to request that this Court reinstate oral arguments in this case since the matter concerns violations of the Defendant’s constitutional rights.


Devendra Makkar

cc: Hon. Anne Milgram, Office of the Attorney General
Brent Bramnick, Esq. Assistant Prosecutor Union County
Maryann Harrington, Criminal Case Management


State of New Jersey v. Devendra Makkar

Appellate # A-4610-08T4 Municipal Appeal # 5904


Honorable Judges:

How can the Honorable Court deny these visible merits for which the Honorable Judges does not have to read the Full Brief:

1. The very important Merit Court is ignoring Appellant is not looking for any kind of financial or other compensation. He is only demanding Justice and Equality which is his constitutional right.

2. Appellant is fighting against gross injustice, humiliation, mental & physical torture along with illegal arrest warrants for more than 2 years since Nov. 2007 and has spent substantial amount of time and money in his quest to get Justice and Equality from the Mob Rulers of NJ.

3. It looks like Honorable Court never read any of the Appellant’s Motions on the issue of incompetence, corruption and racist behavior of Municipal Judges Waters and Angelo along with other actors to promote illegal Traffic Summons Quota by local Police which is primarily being used for racial profiling. Then they are also protecting equally corrupt, racist and incompetent County Prosecutor who is still the Prosecutor despite Appellants repeated request that this case must be prosecuted by State Attorney General’s Office.

How can the Judge pass an order “Defendant must submit a brief that complies with the rules of the court” when 9 copies of the Brief were submitted as per the rule on Dec. 28, 2009? They may not confirm to the fancy cosmetics appearance as desired by the Judges who are least bothered about the mental, emotional, financial and physical sufferings of the appellant spanning over 2 years. Why Judge has ignored numerous request of the Appellant made since Jan. 7, 2010 to case Manager Ms Morales and various Motions to accept Brief As Is that all the 9 copies (5 to the Court and 2 each to State AG & County Prosecutor) must be returned to the Appellant so that cosmetics changes can be made according to the whims and fancies of Judges who are more concerned about Cosmetic Appearance of the Brief rather than dispensing justice in a Public Interest Litigation.

Appellant also wrote that he will pay for the mailing expanses for all the 9 copies of the Briefs mailed back to him so that he can fix the cosmetic appearance if the Court Clerk does not wish to fix the cosmetic appearance; why Judge has not addressed this?

When there is nothing missing in the Brief submitted other than cosmetic appearance why the Judge is reluctant to read it; especially when it is a Public Interest Litigation against the corrupt system of governance, illegal Traffic Summons Quota for minorities and racial profiling? How could Judge for her whims & fancies for cosmetic appearance of Brief submitted by a Pro Se Appellant can financially penalize the Appellant to prepare again the voluminous 9 copies of the Brief along with numerous photographs & transcripts to cover the various Municipal Court proceedings spanning over 11/2 year?

Respectfully submitted


Devendra Makkar (Appellant Pro Se)

Governor Chris Christie

Attorney General of New Jersey

Prosecutor’s Office, Union County, NJ.


Anonymous said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Anonymous said...

IS VERY GOOD..............................