Judge Anzaldi: Pro Criminal Developers DECISION
SUMMARY OF TRANSCRIPTS
MAKKAR V. WILF, TWP. OF SPRINGFIELD ET Al
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.
MAKKAR V. WILF, TWP. OF SPRINGFIELD ET Al
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.
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)
Court: 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)
Court: 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)
Court: 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.
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)
Court: 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)
Court: 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)
Court: 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.
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.
www.attorney-judge-corruption.blogspot.com
www.njpoliticians.blogspot.com
www.savethehills9.blogspot.com
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.
www.attorney-judge-corruption.blogspot.com
www.njpoliticians.blogspot.com
www.savethehills9.blogspot.com
posted by Citizens For Democracy | 10:19 AM
8 Comments:
i n my case dont be corrupt but dont solve problem my jail injustice mr roberto irineu marinho chairman globo tv
have you looked into Judge John Mott and his wife Brenda.
She stole in excess of 500,000 bucks and is paying it back 200 bucks a month..do the math.
search brenda mott on youtube.
When Zionist can not their crimes they start yelling from their roof tops the B S word "Anti-Semitic". Prove it the Zionist Zygmunt Wilf has not committed crimes of bribing the Zoning Board, Judiciary to permanently damage the environment.
union county is so denocratically corrupt in all levels. have personal experience with bielelberg firm and i was also sold out in a large accident case.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JpZ-kzzJfX8
View this video of a long line at Queens County Criminal Court,which is the response of New York City revenue deficit: arresting tax payers.
I like your blog, but I get personally offended, when you claims that NJ is more corrupt than California...
YOU AIN'T SEEN NOTHING YET...
We had the United Nations Human Rights Council issue an official staff report, referring to "corruption of the courts and the legal profession"...
WHAT HAVE YOU GOT TO SHOW FOR NJ??? ANYTHING EVEN CLOSE???
Joseph Zernik, PhD
Human Rights Alert (NGO)
___
Flag Counter: 119
http://inproperinla.blogspot.com/
http://inproperinla.wordpress.com/
http://human-rights-alert.blogspot.com/
Total Reads: 443,060
Followers: 669
http://www.scribd.com/Human_Rights_Alert
http ://twitter.com/inproperinla
http://www.liveleak.com/user/jz12345
Total Item Views: 355,338
http://www.examiner.com/x-38742-LA-Business-Headlines-Examiner
FOR JOSEPH ZERNIK
show me another state other than New Jersey on earth or any planet where in 8000 sq miles for 8.5 resident inmates there are 566 racially segregated Towns/Kingdoms with 587 local governments besides a state gov with over 9,000 Elected Scounderals & 466,000 employees with little or no work appointed for political reasons.
THAT MAKES NJ MORE CORRUPT & RACIST THAN CA
http://www.flickr.com/photos/37407895@N02/5751350027/in/photostream
New Jersey WORLD'S most corrupt & racist state with largest per capita deficit, most elected representatives, employees & attorneys per sq mile in the world.
Congratulations! This is the best thing, Thank you so much for taking the time to share such a nice information.
New Jersey Attorney
Post a Comment
<< Home