My Photo
Location: Springfield, NJ, United States

Thursday, July 13, 2006

Judge Anzaldi: Pro Corruption & Racism DECISION

568 Ashwood Rd., Springfield, NJ 07081. Tel. 973 416 1600 Fax: 973 416 1500

MAKKAR V. STATE OF NEW JERSEY ET AL, MAKKAR V. WILF ET AL, UNN L 308 06 & 1007 06 CIVIL ACTION FILED AGAINST 189 POLITICIANS including Governor Corzine, Assemblyman Chivukula AND attorneys Warren Wilentz, John Anzalone, Torregrossa-O’Connor, Wiletz, Goldman, Spitzer, Seema Singh etc., state & municipal employees AND some individuals FOR LEGALIZED CORRUPTION & RACIAL SEGRAGATION. (Summary of the Transcripts):

Dave: All these attorneys are more intelligent than me. All of them are more...

Judge Ross R. Anzaldi: I think you’re very intelligent. You’re putting together. You know you are making your effort to do what you feel is appropriate.

Dave: They are more intelligent than me. they are missing the point. These people are in an advantageous position and are more equal than others. If a person like me, who is FOB, fresh off the boat, can pinpoint the corruption. These people are part of the corruption and doing corruption and helping corruption. That’s very pathetic. I’m living in the most corrupt state of United States. 8.5 Million people are being governed by 566 Mayors, 600 Police Chiefs, 3,000 Councilmen. All kind of nonsense. You go to New York City, 8 Million people they have only 1 Mayor, 51 Councilmen and 1 Police Chief. This case involves massive corruption. (

Judge: What Mr. Makkar does express, repeatedly, and most strongly, because I am convinced he feels this sincerely, is that there is corruption afoot, not only in the township of Springfield, but in the County of Union and in the state of New Jersey, That it’s systemic. He alleges that it’s systemic throughout the governmental agencies. Though I’m convinced he feels this sincerely, there is requirements that this Court must address. Therefore, I am compelled to dismiss.....his complaints....

(ha! ha! ha! my loyalty is towards Politicians who has put me in this office. Why I should care about the Residents they don’t have any role when it comes to my promotion or re-confirmation, so why I should I treat this case as “Public Interest Litigation”

I’m disappointed. (

Judge: I can appreciate your frustration. (

Dave: Is not frustration. These are the facts, I’m an illiterate person. And I’m dealing with very well educated people and they’re themselves involved in corruption. That’s it.
(For info: www.

8,000 sq. miles 588 governments with a budget of $32 billion for the state & 34 billion for local governments and has a debt of $33 billion. Over 9,000 Elected officials, 250,000 state& municipal employees. Property tax collection $19 billion. Against National average $8,000 NJ Cost to educate a student $18,000 & $29,000 in Abbott Districts still 250,000 students can not comprehend in basic education. There is no match to NJ in the entire world. It is legally corrupt & racist.





Wednesday, July 12, 2006



On Jan 23, 2006 we filed a Civil Action # UNN L- 000308 06 in the Superior Court of NJ in Union County against Political Corruption etc. Every Attorney who responded representing the morally, ethically and professionally corrupt politicians, business owners, attorneys, state/Springfield officials, had a very selective eyesight and selective understanding of social justice. Every one of them dishonestly pointed, “The Plaintiffs are not attorneys.” “I do not find a Devendra Makkar in the 2006 Lawyer’s Diary.” “Plaintiff Devendra Makkar is not an attorney licensed to practice law in the State of New Jersey.” “No certification as required by Rule 4:5-; 1;” The Complaint has not been filed in proper format/Drafted (like the one drafted by an attorney). None of the defendants have been personally served with the Complaints which were sent to them by Certified Mail R.R. Defendants challenge the sufficiency of process and have not filed Answer to the Complaint! “The trial Court must dismiss the Plaintiffs Complaint.” All these so called “Custodians of Law” should be striped of their Driving Licenses because all of them are blinds, they should not be allowed to drive on the roads of NJ. They are a public threat and danger to their lives and their own lives. The fact is clearly mentioned in the Complaint itself in bold letters that the we (Plaintiffs) are not attorneys and are representing ourselves because we could not find an Honest Attorney who has the morality, courage and willingness to stand against massive Political Corruption, Judicial Corruption, Racial Discrimination in NJ and in Springfield as well as the Injustice, Racial Discrimination, Intimidation, Humiliation, Coercion and Bias/Hate Crimes suffered by the Plaintiffs at the hands of the Custodians of Law, Elected/non-elected officials and few individuals all belonging to majority community of Springfield. Dishonestly to increase the cost of Service of Summons they want “Personal Deliveries.” The case was dismissed dishonestly by Hon. Judge Ross Anzaldi WITHOUT PREJUDICE on 3-17-06 for the reason too many defendants (165) are clubbed together. His advise was to file separate law suits for each group like do not club Media & Politicians & Attorneys together.

Plaintiffs migrated to USA from a very corrupt democracy India (According to US Media; “India a democracy representing the will of organized minorities “The Thugs”) with a hope that here in New Jersey the corruption is contained to a large extent. In India all the Political Crimes, Corruption and Racial Discrimination is being committed or supported by the people wearing white that is in the name of Religion. Unfortunately here in NJ practically all the Political Crimes, Corruption and Racial Discriminations are being committed, supported and has been legalized by the people wearing black, by the so called Custodians of Law in the name of Law. In my opinion based on data, research and facts India is less corrupt then New Jersey. The State of New Jersey is the most corrupt place to live in the whole world. Most pathetic is Corruption and Racial Segregation is legal here for select few. What the Media has to say about this?

All those attorneys should be ashamed of themselves for calling the complaints on corruption scandalous, impertinent, and abusive; just because it is raising the issues of massive Political Corruption, Political Crimes, Racial Discrimination and Judicial Corruption in Municipal Courts in NJ? Judge Anzaldi of Superior Court should be more ashamed for calling the issues of systematic corruption in Springfield, Union County and New Jersey as mere frustration of the Plaintiff. All the Municipal Courts, City Halls and State House are acting as grave yard for ethics, morality, secularism, honesty, fiduciary duties and proprietary? If these attorneys have any ethics, morality, honesty and courage left in them, let them raise the issues of massive Political Corruption and Criminalization by both Political Parties in NJ, Judicial Corruption by Municipal Judges, Prosecutors, Defendants and Town Attorneys all of which is being openly supported by their fellow attorneys as members of both Political Parties and from out side by these attorneys.

These “Custodians of Law” are forgetting what the nation’s founding father and first President Honorable George Washington said in his first address to both houses of Congress on Aug. 08, 1790; “If the laws are to be so trampled upon, with impunity and a minority is to dictate to the majority there is an end put, at one stroke, to republican government.”

Monday, July 10, 2006

Judge Anzaldi: Pro Criminal Developers DECISION



UNN L 001007 06 Filed 3-20-06 Decision 4-12-06
Originally filed on 2-23-06 under docket # UNN L 000308 06 dismissed Without Prejudice on procedural grounds on 3-17-06 by Hon. Judge Ross R. Anzaldi, P.J.C.

Hon. Judge Ross R. Anzaldi, P.J.C.
Superior Court of New Jersey, Union County

UNN L 001007:Case against:Zygmunt Wilf, K & K Developers, Inc., Springfield Twp. Planning Board members and its officials etc. for criminal conspiracy, bribes, damage to the Environment & Wildlife permanently by killing more than 700 trees and chopping off the crown of the Hill by 60 feet to construct 5 storey high rise with 2 levels of parking for 93 luxury condos all in one building of 670 feet long with the support of a more then 18 feet high Retaining Wall of 4500 linear feet to wrap around the Hill on a parcel of land with more than 65% Steep Slopes of 25% and higher grades by endangering the lives and properties of Baltusrol Way & Baltusrol Village and Evangical Church residents & devotees. This project The Monument of Corruption will be facing our National Monument “The Baltusrol Golf Club” famous around the world for National & World Golf Championships. No other Municipality in America or most corrupt third world countries will ever allow such a Project involving massive corruption with total disregard to Environment, Wildlife, Human lives and applicable laws for construction on Steep Slopes or Critical Areas which are as sensitive as Wet Lands for protection from Floods.

Court: Mr. Makkar’s motion to restrain development of certain lots at Wilson Rd. And cross motion filed by Wilf. The Township planning Board and K & K Developers for failure to state a claim. Some of the questions of law are similar, though not exclusively the same as to what was discussed in the earlier motion. (UNN L 000308 06) The Court will address the motions filed by Defendants because, I believe, those motions will be dispositive of the Plaintiff’s motion to restraint. Again Plaintiff writes very well and he presents his arguments, perhaps, in a very broad brush stroke.
But, what he is seeking is, basically, an appeal by way of prerogative writ, though he doesn’t label it that, to bar or to challenge, slash, appeal the decision of the Planning Board that was entered, I believe, verbally 1-4-06 and then publication 1-12-06.
There are number of questions raised by the Defendants. Including, but not necessarily limited to, the procedural grounds. One the appeal is out of time. Two the plaintiff has no legal standing to challenge any action of the Planning Board.

The concern the Court has is that at this juncture Mr. Makkar is not a resident any longer of the twp. of Springfield. He is not a property owner, to my knowledge, in the twp. of Springfield.

Makkar: I live in Springfield, Sir. 568 Ashwood Rd. Springfield.

Page 2 (UNN L 001007 06)

Court: Okay. Let us then hear from the Counsel for the Planning Board.

Moore: Our position is that the Plaintiff has not filed this action within 45 days called for under Rule 4 : 69, and therefore, it should be dismissed. In addition, my review of the complaint indicates that the Plaintiff does not allege, in any way, how he has been affected by the particular actions of the Planning Board. And as such, it does not meet the definition of an interested party under the statue. So, it’s our position that even if the 45 days was not applied by the Court, that he still wouldn’t have standing of the case.

Court: Mr. Pitman (Counsel for K & K Developers, Inc.)

Pitman: First of all I concur in the contentions made by Counsel for the Planning Board. We think that Rule 4 : 6 – 4, first and foremost, is applicable and appropriate. The allegations are really, I hate to be projaractive (sic), but just wild claims of corruption, of bribery, of dishonesty, et cetera, without a scintilla of factual support. There is no scintilla of basis that the Court can see, in his papers, that would demonstrate any irreparable harm whatsoever to him or to any other resident of the State. I believe the complaint against K & K Developers must be dismissed.

Court: Mr. Glazer (Counsel for Zygmunt Wilf)

Glazer: While agreeing and concurring with all that was stated, you know, also he’s named Zygmunt Wilf personally. He may be principal to some other parties here, it should not be on a personal cause of action, as well.

Court: Mr. Makkar.

Makkar: The Counsels contention that I’m out of time is wrong. I filed the case on 23rd. (Feb. 23, 2006) I cannot quote the law like them. I cannot quote cases like them. I ‘m quoting all the facts and the truth. And the truth is Counsel Pitman himself is in this fraud. In 2000 this particular land was - -

Court: I just want to stop you at this stage we’re not talking about the merits or the facts behind the claims that you are making. The objections or the motions that have been filed by the Defendants are motions filed more on procedural grounds. So, try to stay focused on what’s before us today. You may continue.

Makkar: As far as procedural grounds are concerned, I’m pro se. I cannot match these attorneys. And, As far as truth is concerned they’re not talking about the truth. They talking about lies and nothing else.
This particular development has a question of Global Stability that has not been answered.
This particular development has a DEP requirement. That has not been answered.

Page 3
(UNN L 001007 06)

This particular development has all kind of stuff. You are trying to blow up a mountain, which is 60 feet of the mountain will be gone.
The properties in the vicinity will lose at least 50% value. My property will lose value.
Then their contention that this will be inhabited by empty nesters. Old couples are not going to live on a hill to walk 14 percent slope.
Everything they are saying is wrong. They’re (attorneys) just trying to shoot down that my procedures are wrong. My thing is wrong. Whereas everything in this application (K & K Developers) has been done wrong.
I want to bring it to the notice of the Court this particular attorney Pitman he opposed this development and after 5 years he is for it.

Court: Is there anything else?

Makkar: I can talk about the land or not?

Court: Well again, I’m not gonna - - as to whether or not the decision of the planning Board had merit or no merit. But that’s not before me today.
As I’ve indicated over and over, I do read these papers. I have read Mr. Makkar’s papers. This complaint certainly has a better focus than his prior complaint. (UNN L 000308 06) The argument appears that he saying that their (Planning Board) decisions were wrong. They shouldn’t have decided to allow this. They made a mistake. Then he says, well, the only way they must have decided it this way. In light of all the facts that he believes would go against this decision. And then there must have been something improper that occurred for them to allow this type of construction or project or development. In any event, that is going to a question that would be down the road. The motions that are filed today say that under our law someone challenging a decision of a Planning Board has to do so within a period of time under Rule 4 : 69 within 45 days of the publication of notice.
Now, Counselors, if the publication was on the 12th, what would be 45 days thereafter?

Moore: The 27th, Your Honor.

Pitman: I concur in that, Judge.

Court: The 27th of February? Correct?

Moore: That’s - -

Pitman: That’s correct Judge.

Court: And the complaint was filed in March of - -

Pitman: The 21st.

Page 4 (UNN L 001007 06)

Moore: March 21st.

Makkar: February 23rd. 2006. (UNN L 000308 06)

23rd, 21st, in any event, they were giving you two days earlier. That is beyond 45 days.

Makkar: Your Honor can I interrupt?

Court: One second, sir, and then I’ll hear you again. Based upon that, the complaint was filled, is clearly beyond 45 days. And therefore, procedurally this action would be barred by the statue. Now, you wish to be heard on that question?

Makkar: I filed the complaint on February 23rd (UNN L 308) and Your Honor dismissed it on 17th March. That gives me 30 days to re-file and I re-filed it in three days. (3-20-06)

That’s a different situation and let me address that for you. Your original complaint did not make reference to the actions of the Board in January 2006. Your original complaint made reference to the actions of the Board in the year 2005.

Makkar: Your Honor, that complaint includes both. If you look at the old complaint it includes this plan to develop Lot 26 and 27 also.(Mountain View and K & K Developers)

It may have, but it did not make reference to the Board’s conduct.

Makkar: Because the twp is not willing to provide me paperwork. They provide me paperwork at their own sweet will. Like the resolutions and everything, I have been provided three, four days ago. (Gross violations of Open Public Records Act)

Court: All right. Thank you.

Makkar: It’s a question of corruption. It’s a question of gross misuse of public office and public trust. And these attorneys are involved in that.

Court: I appreciate your concern. In any event, the second question raised by the Defense is that he lacked standing.
Mr. Makkar has failed to allege that the grant of the land use application at issue, has in any way affected his right to use, acquire and enjoy property. He makes some reference today in his comments.
What he (Makkar) does express, repeated, and most strongly, because I’m convinced he feels this sincerely, is that there is corruption afoot, not only in the Township of Springfield, but in the County of Union and in the State of New Jersey. That it’s systemic.

Page 5 (UNN L 001007 06)

He alleges that it’s systemic throughout the governmental agencies. And as a result, this action was an example of that, and therefore, the decision must be set aside. Though I’m convinced he feels this sincerely, there is requirements that this Court must address. And therefore, I am compelled, because I am satisfied that the Statue is clear on its face, that the action challenging the January 2006 decision, was filed out of time, and therefore, the motion filed by Mr. Makkar is denied.
The case is dismissed with prejudice and that conclude this matter.

Makkar: I’m disappointed.

Court: I can appreciate your frustration.

Makkar: Is not frustration. These are the facts, I’m an illiterate person. And I’m dealing with very well educated people and they’re (inaudible: themselves involved in) corruption. That’s it.