Sunday, November 28, 2010

Prudential Financial Associate Fraud

Interviewed Aug 2009 in Champaign, IL (took 4+ weeks)

I was contacted by the local recruiter via email. After reading over a hundred reviews on sales positions at various companies i.e. farmers, metlife, northwester mutual, etc. I decided Prudential was the best of the group and decided to contact the recruiter and go in for an interview.

The first interview was 1:1 with a relatively young lady who asked me some very basic questions about myself based on the information on my resume. Most of her questions were aimed at my networking ability, work ethic, and commitment. Next she told me a little about the company and asked if I had questions. Following that, I took an aptitude test that lasted about 1.5 hrs. Before I left, I was told to take a personality assessment online within the next 24hrs.

I did extremely well on both and was told to come back in for another meeting with the manager of sales and training about 1 week later. I began to have second thoughts due to my ability to quickly establish networks that would generate sales (college grad/non-local). After talking more with the recruiter I decided to go back in and speak with her concerning those issues. The meeting went well and I committed myself to finishing the interview process.

Next week, I went in and discussed the marketing project. I had 4 days to complete it. Upon completing it I went in to meet with the manger of training and of sales sequentially. Both meetings went extremely well. I learned more about my future bosses and the work atmosphere which I describe as one filled with a strong work ethic, positive thinking, personal growth oriented, and mentorship, which is great if you are a very competitive/durable individual.

About 10-15 mins after I left, I received a phone call from the recruiter who told me they both liked me as a very solid candidate as well as her of course and the next step is to get the ok from the big guy which is pretty much a yes with a nod from all three of them. She even told me the start date.

I'm going back in next week to meet with the big guy and presumably to accept the offer.

In summary its a very intense and through interview process. I can tell this is certainly not a job for the weak hearted.

Interviewed Oct 2009 in Melville, NY (took 2 months)

I was contacted by a representative of Prudential who found my resume on-line. She Scheduled an interview with my manager. I met with him briefly very comfortable and easy interview. I then was introduced to the recruiting manager who briefly met with me and put me on the computer to fill out the application. I was then told they would schedule me to come back for a math test. I returned about 2 days later and met briefly with the recruiter who asked me some great questions and made me feel at ease. She described more about the process and asked if I had any questions. She then set me up to take the math test it took about an hour. Very easy math concepts just take your time and its easy. I was then told they would review it and call me. The next day I was sent a link for the personality test . No problem just answer the questions truthfully or you will wash out. You are only cheating yourself. I was then contacted by phone and told I did extremely well. I was then scheduled to come in for a meeting with my manager. I first met with the recruiter who described more of the process .. very informative. I then met with my hiring manager he went over a book I received and how I was to complete it along with project 200 This is all designed to help you and get you in the frame of mind that you are going to need to be in. It also includes 10 interview you need to do 5 on the phone 5 in person. I am now waiting for the next interview . However I am extremely happy so far. All this time and steps taken have done nothing more than help reassure me that I am making the right decision . You need to keep in mind you will need some sort of way to make money other than Prudential during this time it is long and you do not find out when you start if you start for some time. Look at it as an investment into your future. All good things take sacrifices.
http://www.glassdoor.com/Interview/Prudential-Financial-Services-Associate-Interview-Questions-EI_IE2944.0,10_KO11,39_IP3.htm

 

Interviewed Nov 2009 in Latham, NY (took 2 weeks)

I got a call, Prudential had found me because I had posted my resume on a website. Its a very straightforward interview process they tell you step by step what you are going to do. I was first sent a online background and resume application to fill out; although I have had to fill out a lot of these for jobs I find them frustrating because after spending hours upon hours perfecting my resume I have to copy and paste it into little boxes. I found it a little strange because there was no place to put my job title and only 35 characters allowed for describing job responsibilities. This took an hour and a half. You go in take a math exam ( about an hour), I considered it more of a reasoning skills exam you would not need to be good at math to take this exam and you get as much time as you need. When you get home you have a personality test to take online within the next 48 hours. There were a lot of questions about how your boss views you and how you view yourself compared to other people you have worked with in the past. I got a call telling me I had done very well on both exams and was invited back in to have a "career path" interview. Theres really only one career path you are allowed to take-financial services associate. I was given a Project 200 packet to complete. I think anyone who took the time and completed this packet would have a 100% chance of getting this job. All in all its a very straight forward and timely process which makes applying here a lot less stressful and confusing than most jobs.

http://www.glassdoor.com/Interview/Prudential-Financial-Services-Associate-Interview-Questions-EI_IE2944.0,10_KO11,39_IP2.htm

Interviewed Jun 2010 in Pittsburgh, PA (took 1 week)

First I took an aptitude test with several word problems (some that you didn't even have to solve, simply say whether or not there was enough information to answer). Then a sales-based test was applied as well. After that I listened to a presentation of what the job entails/how the company runs. I am now working on the 200 name project, which is a bit of a pain...

Interviewed May 2010 in Portsmouth, NH (took 5 weeks)

I first heard about an information session that Prudential was hosting and decided to attend. When I arrived, I filled out an application and took a skills test that took about 2 hrs. The test consisted of about 50 multiple choice questions, some which were challenging and others which were easy. I then was sent a personality test, and afterwords contacted to come in again. We met in the same group that attended the information session, minus a few people, and further discussed what a career at prudential is like and the hiring process. Afterwords, we were given the 'project 200', which consists of a list of 200 people and their information such as address, telephone number, marital status, number of children, occupation, hobbies, interests, household income, ect. It was very tedious to complete and I was uncomfortable giving some of the information to Prudential. It also consisted of several 'exercises'. This is a 30+ hour project. I then met with the hiring manager, who evaluated my project 200 and asked me a few basic interview questions. I then returned and met with the office manager who did a more extensive interview. I am now waiting to meet with the regional manager, which will be my final interview. If I am offered a job, I will take a drug test before finalizing employment.

Interviewed Aug 2010 in Bellevue, WA (took 3 weeks)

First went in for a pretty informal 1 to 1 interview, they basically told you about the company and the position. Then completed a aptitude test the same day (which took 1-2 hours). They emailed a personality test for you to complete within 48 hours.
Then went in for a 2nd interview with the manager. It was not very formal either. The manager was nice, he described your tests results, and guide you through deciding whether you would like to do this (giving you a head up that this is a straight commission job and you won't be making any money the first 3 months during your licensing & training period). If you think that's ok, they will give your Project 200 to complete (put down a name, telephone, address, etc. list of 200 people you know). Together with Project 200, you must do marketing survey with 10 people.
After finishing the project, they contact you and ask you to go in for a Structured interview (with Manager and Trainer 2-3 people), which they are supposed to ask some standard interview questions. And then there should be two more interviews after this:
http://www.glassdoor.com/Interview/Prudential-Financial-Services-Associate-Interview-Questions-EI_IE2944.0,10_KO11,39.htm

How to spot a crook?

Although dishonesty is a character or content issue that requires greater level of suspicion and skepticism in order to be identified, yet, I believe that their are common features among crooks, or dishonest people.

Crooks feast on reasonable people who grew up believing that every thing must have a reason.  Even though that appears straight forward, the problem is that those reasons are too numerous to be accounted for with your own limited experience.

The test of "what to gain from dishonesty?" is the most reliable of all. Some crooks make living, gain status, live comfortable, lazy, and secure life by defrauding others.

Let us depart from the character and content nature of dishonest behavior since those will always fool people with little experience and little exposure to the complex reasons for why people choose the dishonest way of life.

Among many recent and old exposures to crooks, John Burke was an interesting specimen for my analysis. Burke has an email technique of trapping his victims. It starts with this email.

_____

From: Letter [mailto:letters@route.monster.com]
Sent: Sunday, November 14, 2010 2:15 PM
To: service@shaymaa-publishing.com
Subject: your resume on monster.com

Hello Confidential -
I saw your resume on the Internet, and wanted to get in touch with you
regarding an opportunity I am working on that may be of interest to you.  I
believe that your background may be applicable to this position.

My name is John Burke - I am an Agency Recruiter with Prudential Financial.
At the present time we are expanding our operation in our Paramus location.
We are seeking highly motivated individuals to join our team in a Financial
Services Associate role.  There are several career paths that the FSA
position can lead to at Prudential.  Although helpful, no prior financial
services experience is required for this position. Our most successful
people come to us from all types of backgrounds and industries.  This
position features a competitive compensation package, with full benefits.

If you would like to learn more about this position, or would have an
interest in reviewing a complete job description, please either reply to me
via email at john.burke@prudential.com or call me at 201-445-5300 x7262.  I
would like to discuss this opportunity with you further.  We are going to be
conducting interviews for this position within the next few days.

Sincerely,

John Burke
Prudential Financial
Office: 201-445-5300 Ext. 7262
john.burke@prudential.com

Letter Value: 295176-106C72
____________________________________________________________
See Our Daily Stock Picks
Get Penny Stock Picks By The Pros. Our 2009 Average Was 300%!
http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL3141/4ce03e569d14e2ab2edst02vuc











NOTICE: PrudentialExhibits Of The Prudential Insurance Company Of America may occasionally contact you through
E-mail with information on products and services designed
to meet your needs. If you do not wish to receive these
messages from Prudential please send a message via
E-mail to "do_not_email@prudential.com". IMPORTANT:
Type "Remove" in the subject field. In the alternative, you can
call 800-236-6848 toll free to opt out of receiving future electronic
communications.

***********************************************************************
The Prudential Insurance Company of America and its affiliates,
which issue insurance and annuities, are authorized to transact
business in all U.S. states and the District of Columbia. They are
Prudential Financial companies located in Newark, NJ. The availability
of these and other products varies by carrier and state. Each issuer
is solely responsible for its own financial condition and contractual obligations.

The confidentiality of Internet E-mail cannot be guaranteed.
Information you send us over Internet E-mail could be
viewed by persons other than the intended recipients.
Therefore, you should not include your Prudential
account numbers, credit card numbers, passwords,
home address or other private information in your E-mail
messages. Also, Prudential will not accept, buy, or sell orders,
address changes, funds transfer requests or other instructions
normally requiring your signature by E-mail.

The sender of this communication offers securities as a Registered
Representative of Pruco Securities, LLC (member SIPC), a Prudential
Financial company, located at 751 Broad Street, Newark, New Jersey 07102-3777,
1-800-201-6690.
***********************************************************************

 Then, Burks follows up with this email:

Thanks for getting back to me.  I have included a detailed job description for the Financial Services Associate position we currently have available.  Please review the details of this position.  If this position sounds like it would be viable for you to pursue, please let me know by replying to this email, and we will schedule you for an interview.  If you do have any questions, I can be reached at 201-445-5300 x7262.  During our phone conversation I will be happy to provide more details regarding this position and answer any questions you may have.  We are starting the interview process for this position within the next couple of days.


FINANCIAL SERVICES ASSOCIATE JOB DESCRIPTION:
 
Position Summary
The Financial Service Associate (FSA) position is a sales position with Prudential Financial selling insurance and financial services.  FSA’s participate in a comprehensive 2-year development program, developing product knowledge, and selling experience while offering appropriate insurance and investment products to help clients meet their financial goals.
 
After the 2-year program, many will continue to be financial services generalists, assisting clients with a range of insurance and investment needs; others will go on to develop a specialty, such as fee-based financial planning, insurance for business needs, or estate planning needs.  There are career paths into management or even to other divisions within Prudential.
 
Overall Duties and Responsibilities
Sell new insurance and investment products.
Solicit new customers through approved techniques and methods.
Conserve existing insurance and investments products.
Service the insurance and investment needs of all owners of policies issued or offered by Prudential Financial companies.
 
Required Skills, Knowledge, and Experience
Prudential Financial is looking for men and women who are ready for a rewarding career opportunity selling insurance and financial services products…a career committed to making an impact in the lives of people we touch.  We’re seeking individuals with these attributes:
 
Customer Service Focused
Revenue Focused (Sales Influence and Persuasion, Sales Resilience, Sales Initiative)
Self Confident and Autonomous
Drive and Initiative
Responsible and Committed
Excellent Interpersonal Skills
Good Business Communication Skills
Ability to Problem Solve, and develop ideas
Ability to use basic math skills to problem solve
Good Critical Thinking



Thanks again for your time,
 
John
***********************************************
John Burke
Prudential Financial
11 Sunflower Avenue, Paramus NJ 07652
Office: 201-445-5300 Ext. 7262
john.burke@prudential.com
www.prudential.com
***********************************************

 Squeezing Burke in a tight corner with the following inquiry:

Hello John:
I hope you could help me with some clarification in order for me to come to the interview of November 24, 2010.
In an Internet Search, I learned that the Prudential FSA position is purely a commission-based position and requires the project 200 to be completed. 
I hope you could be straight forward in confirming or denying those statements. That would save both of us time and resources before we go any further.
Thank you.
 Yield the following response:
 
 
From: John Burke [mailto:john.burke@prudential.com]
Sent: Tuesday, November 23, 2010 6:20 AM
To: service@shaymaa-publishing.com
Subject: RE: I hope you could help me with some clarification


Hello Confidential-

Sorry for the delay in getting back to you.  This position is primarily a commission based position (not 100% commission, but pretty close).  We do require a Project 200 to be completed as part of our interview process.  Hope that helps - please let me know if you would like to continue in the interview process.  Thanks!

John

***********************************************
John Burke
Prudential Financial
11 Sunflower Avenue, Paramus NJ 07652
Office: 201-445-5300 Ext. 7262
john.burke@prudential.com
www.prudential.com
***********************************************
I wanted to see John Burke eye-to-eye. I got his business card:


Here is how the scam works:
John Burke and few similar miserable fellows are trained on how to prey on unwary people.  John Burke needs 200 names and details of families to whom he could sell life insurance. You are to provide them such enormous and confidential information. 

You get the boot. They get what? 

wait. John is a young male in very poor physical condition. His legs, butts, and low back appeared to fit an eleven year old child. He was in his early forties, polite, confused, and insecure.  The other guys were no different. Suing those poor crooks would do what?

Complicating Justice


SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY


State of New Jersey,
Plaintiff
-Vs-

Mohamed F. El-Hewie,

Defendant, Pro se

CRIMINAL DIVISION ESSEX VICINAGE

Municipal Appeal No. MA-2010-058

Motions


Motions to set aside the judgment of the municipal court,
for trial by jury, and to consolidate pending appeal in the superior court of Paterson

            Pursuant to Rule 3:10-1, defendant-appellant, Mohamed F. El-Hewie, files the following three motions:
(1)               Motion to set aside the judgment of Bloomfield Municipal Court;
(2)               Motion to request trial by Jury; and
(3)               Motion to consolidate a pending appeal in the Superior Court of Paterson with the present appeal.
Grounds for the sought relief
            Defendant-appellant, Mohamed F. El-Hewie, seeks relief against two police officers, the State of New Jersey, the Division of State Police of the New Jersey Department of Law and Public Safety, and the offices of the prosecutors of the involved police departments or municipal courts, for violating defendant’s civil rights by imposing arbitrary, excessive, and improper citations that deprive defendant from his driving privileges and imposes enormous financial burden on defendant and that resulted from the poor training of the involved police officers and their abuse of discretion in conducting their official duties.
            Wherefore, the mere reversal, by this court, of the judgments of the involved municipal courts would not resolve the pervasive violations of civil rights by the poorly trained and poorly educated police officers, or the lawlessness of the prosecutors of the municipal courts, trail by jury is warranted. The actions of the involved police officers and prosecutors of the municipal courts constitute violation of Section 1983 of Title 42 of the Civil Rights Act, which states:
Every person who, under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage, of any State or Territory or the District of Columbia, subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States or other person within the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws, shall be liable to the party injured in an action at law, suit in equity, or other proper proceeding for redress, except that in any action brought against a judicial officer for an act or omission taken in such officer's judicial capacity, injunctive relief shall not be granted unless a declaratory decree was violated or declaratory relief was unavailable. For the purposes of this section, any Act of Congress applicable exclusively to the District of Columbia shall be considered to be a statute of the District of Columbia. 


Facts
1.                  In the State of New Jersey, most moving traffic violations are plea-bargained and most citizens opt to accept such plea bargains in order to avoid the lengthy and expensive trials.
2.                  In most plea-bargains, the prosecutor of the municipal courts sides with police officers and most, if not all,  municipal courts judges find defendants “guilty as charged”.


3.                  In the present legal action, the state witness, Trooper Richard Alam, was called to the scene of an accident, on July 9, 2010, that involved minor vehicular collision, in a weather of heavy rain. Trooper Alam admitted on the record that:
(a)                     he arrived after the accident took place;
(b)                     he never saw defendant operating his vehicle;
(c)                     he did not seek the condition of the break-lights of the other vehicle;
(d)                     he did not ask the other driver whether he changed lanes abruptly or not;
(e)                     he did not inquire about the weather conditions when the accident occurred.
4.                  Despite the facts that Trooper Alam did not witness the accident and did not gather the proper information, he issued an 8-point citation against this defendant which would result into enormous hike in insurance and deprivation from employment, in jobs that seek clean driving records. 



 5.                  Specifically, Trooper Alam issued the following citation:
“39:4-97, careless driving, which is the offense charged by the trooper indicates as follows. "A person who drives a vehicle carelessly or without due caution and circumspection in a manner so as to endanger or be likely to endanger a person or property shall be guilty of careless driving." 
 6.                  Trooper Alam admitted on record that he did not assess the amount of damage of any property, despite the fact that the trooper was involved in 500 accidents and worked for six years as a state trooper.
7.                  Trooper Alam claimed that defendant was “careless” despite not witnessing the accident or gathering the proper and relevant information that could support his conclusion.  
8.                  Trooper Alam involved in 500 accidents, yet could not tell whether defendant opted to choose a minor accident than to act abruptly and cause greater harm to the busy traffic that would have resulted in grave consequences to others.
9.                  The prosecutor of the municipal court, Mr. Sant’ Ambrogio, claimed that defendant was driving too close or too fast.   Mr. Sant’ Ambrogio omitted the fact that defendant was in heavy traffic where due consideration must be given to other vehicles that might not all be adhering to perfect or safe driving pattern.
10.             The municipal court judge, Honorable John A. Paparazzo, J.M.C. based his sentence on mere speculation or prior driving record, which was obtained by plea bargain and has no connection to the events of the current legal matter.
Legal arguments
I.          The State of New Jersey is in violation of a federal Decree to comply with ten-provisions in order to prevent the pervasive violations of the civil rights of citizens.

            Defendant-Appellant’s legal matter constitutes the failure of the State of New Jersey to comply with the Decree entered on 30th day of December 30, 1999, in the United States District Court of Trenton, in Civil Action Number 99-5970 (MLC) entitled: “UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v. STATE OF NEW JERSEY and DIVISION OF STATE POLICE of the NEW JERSEY DEPARTMENT OF LAW AND PUBLIC SAFETY,    In said Decree, The United States filed its Complaint against the Defendants alleging violations of 42 U.S.C. §14141 and 42 U.S.C. §3789d(c). The Complaint alleges [a pattern or practice of conduct by troopers of the New Jersey State Police that deprives persons of rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution and the laws of the United States.]         
            Defendants deny that the State Police has engaged in a pattern or practice of conduct that deprives persons of rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution and laws of the United States, yet agreed to the proposed Decree, which includes the following provisions:  
1) Policy Requirements (¶¶26-28): State troopers may not rely to any degree on the race or national or ethnic origin of motorists in selecting vehicles for traffic stops and in deciding upon the scope and substance of post-stop actions, except where state troopers are on the look-out for a specific suspect who has been identified in part by his or her race or national or ethnic origin. The State Police shall continue to require that troopers make a request for consent to search only when they possess reasonable suspicion that a search will reveal evidence of a crime, and all consent searches must be based on the driver or passenger giving written consent prior to the initiation of the search.  
2) Traffic Stop Documentation (¶¶29-34): State troopers engaged in patrol activities will document the race, ethnic origin, and gender of all motor vehicle drivers who are the subject of a traffic stop, and also will record information about the reason for each stop and any post-stop action that is taken (including the issuance of a ticket or warning, asking the vehicle occupants to exit the vehicle and frisking them, consensual and non-consensual vehicle searches, uses of force, and arrests).  
3) Supervisory Review of Individual Traffic Stops (¶¶35-39): Supervisors regularly will review trooper reports concerning post-stop enforcement actions and procedures, and patrol car video tapes of traffic stops, to ensure that troopers are employing appropriate practices and procedures. Where concerns arise, supervisors may require that the trooper be counseled, receive additional training, or that some other non-disciplinary action be taken. Supervisors also can refer specific incidents for further investigation, where appropriate.  
4) Supervisory Review of Patterns of Conduct (¶¶40-56): The State will develop and implement an early warning system, called the "Management Awareness Program," that uses computerized information on traffic stops, misconduct investigations, and other matters to assist State Police supervisors to identify and modify potentially problematic behavior. At least quarterly, State Police supervisors will conduct reviews and analyses of computerized data and other information, including data on traffic stops and post-stop actions by race and ethnicity. These reviews and analyses, as appropriate, may result in supervisors implementing changes in traffic enforcement criteria, training, and practices, implementing non-disciplinary interventions for particular troopers (such as supervisory counseling or additional training), and/or requiring further assessment or investigation.  
5) Misconduct Allegations (¶¶57-92): The State Police will make complaint forms and informational materials available at a variety of locations, will institute a 24-hour toll-free telephone hotline, and will publicize the State Police toll-free number at all State-operated rest stops located on limited access highways. The State also will institute procedures for ensuring that the State Police is notified of criminal cases and civil lawsuits alleging trooper misconduct.  Allegations of discriminatory traffic stops, improper post-stop actions, and other significant misconduct allegations will be investigated by the Professional Standards Bureau inside the State Police or by the State Attorney General's Office. All investigations will be properly documented. Where a misconduct allegation is substantiated concerning prohibited discrimination or certain other serious misconduct, discipline shall be imposed. Where a misconduct allegation is not substantiated, the State Police will consider whether non-disciplinary supervisory steps are appropriate.  
6) Training (¶¶93-109): The State Police will continue to implement measures to improve training for recruits and incumbent troopers. The training will address such matters as supervisory issues, communication skills, cultural diversity, and the nondiscrimination requirements of the Decree. The State Police also will take steps to continue to improve its trooper coach program for new troopers. The Independent Monitor selected by the parties will evaluate all training currently provided by the State Police regarding traffic stops, and will make recommendations for improvements.  
7) Auditing by the New Jersey Attorney General's Office (¶¶110-113): The State Attorney General's Office will have special responsibility for ensuring implementation of the Decree. The Office will conduct various audits of State Police performance, which will include contacting samples of persons who were the subject of a State Police traffic stop to evaluate whether the stops were appropriately conducted and documented. The Office also will audit State Police implementation of the Management Awareness Program, and procedures used for receiving, investigating, and resolving misconduct allegations.  
8) State Police Public Reports (¶114): The State Police will issue semiannual public reports containing aggregate statistics on certain law enforcement activities, including traffic stop statistics.  
9) Independent Monitor (¶¶115-121): An Independent Monitor, who will be an agent of the court, will be selected by the United States and the State of New Jersey to monitor and report on the State's implementation of the Decree. The responsibilities of the Monitor will include evaluating samples of trooper incident reports, supervisory reviews of incidents, and misconduct investigations, supervisors' use of the Management Awareness Program, and the use of non-disciplinary procedures to address at-risk conduct.  
10) Decree Term (¶131): The basic term of the Decree will be five years, however, based on the State's record of compliance, the United States and the Independent Monitor may agree to a request by the State to shorten the term of the Decree if the State has been in substantial compliance for at least two years. Joint entry of this Decree is in the public interest since it provides for expeditious remedial activity and avoids the diversion of federal and State resources to adversarial actions by the parties. Additionally, the proposed Decree does not conflict with the collective bargaining agreements between the State Police and its troopers, as noted in the Decree at ¶128. For the reasons discussed above, entry of the Decree is lawful and appropriate. Therefore, the United States and the State jointly move for entry of the Consent Decree.  

II.         Appellant’s pending appeal in the Superior Court of Paterson entails the same pattern of deprivation of civil rights under color of law.

            On August 10, 2010, another police officer, from the township of Little Falls, spotted defendant’s 1987’s Acura-Legend, stopped the defendant, did not like the “beat-up” old car and issued two citations to defendant.
            At trial, in the Little Falls’ Municipal Court, the involved police officer lied about his motive in stopping defendant’s car, his motive for issuing the two citations, and could not tell whether he was driving west or east on the street where he stopped defendant’s car.  The prosecutor of the Little Falls’ Municipal Court and the presiding judge colluded to find defendant guilty and fined Plaintiff $354.00 without stay of judgment.
            As such, in a matter on merely one month, appellant was sentenced by two municipal court judges based on mere speculations by police officers who failed to exercise their official duties with due diligence.
            For all the aforementioned reasons, Appellant’s pending legal matter in the Superior Court of Paterson should be consolidated with the above entitled action and presented to a jury. 

III.        Defendant is entitled to trial by jury in face of the blatant deprivation of his constitutional rights by state officers acting under color of law

            Defendant-appellant brings this action against the State of New Jersey after many years of being subjected to the collusion of police officers, prosecutors and judges of municipal courts in promoting the abuse of discretion by poorly trained and poorly educated police officers.  As stated above, two police officers, from two different towns, imposed harsh citations based on either mere speculation or mere disliking of the car, color of skin, or national origin of defendant.
            A trial by jury is a constitutional right in criminal procedures where defendant would be subjected to severe financial punishments and deprivation of driving privileges and persistent harassment by lawless police officers. 


prayer
            Wherefore, this legal matter involves two police officers, who acted under color of law to deprive defendant of rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution and the laws of the United States, and to which the State of New Jersey have agreed to comply with the [ten provisions] ordered by Honorable Mary L. Cooper, U.S.D.J., on 30th day of December 30, 1999, defendant-appellant prays that this court shall grant his request for trial by jury in order to expose the pervasive violation of the civil rights of citizens by the state agencies and state officials.  

Respectfully submitted.
Mohamed F. El-Hewie

Not Guilty Aappeal to the Superior Court

The corrupt judge;: An inquiry into bribery and other high crimes and misdemeanors in the federal courtsNow, I am charged with careless driving with a police officer who did not see me driving, did not have any idea on how minor the damage was, and did not know how sever the weather was, and did not ask the other driver if he jumped into the traffic abruptly, and did not verify if the other vehicle has working brake light.


Saturday, November 27, 2010

Guilty as charged

MUNICIPAL COURT
ESSEX COUNTY
BLOOMFIELD, NEW JERSEY
DOCKET NO. SP4-874971

STATE OF NEW JERSEY, Plaintiff, vs. MOHAMED F. EL - HEWIE, Defendant.
TRANSCRIPT • OF • TRIAL

Place: Bloomfield Municipal Court
Law Enforcement Building
Bloomfield, N.J. 07003
Date: August 31, 2010

BEFORE: HONORABLE JOHN A. PAPARAZZO, J.M.C.
APPEARANCES: PAUL SANT' AMBROGIO, ESQ.,
Municipal Prosecutor for the Township of Bloomfield, Attorney for the State.

MOHAMED F. EL-HEWIE, Pro Se, Defendant,
\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\
METRO TRANSCRIPTS, L.L.C.
Kelly Ford
316 Ann Street
Randolph, New Jersey 07869
(973) 659-9494
\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\
INDEX
8/31/10
WITNESS
FOR THE STATE
TROOPER RICHARD ALAM
By Mr. Sant'Ambrogio
By Mr. El-Hewie
FOR THE DEFENDANT
MR. MOHAMED F. EL-HEWIE
By the Court
By Mr. Sant'Ambrogio
COURT DECISION
COURT SENTENCE 19

Colloquy 3
MR. SANT'AMBROGIO: Mohamed El-Hewie. That's a trial, Judge. And it's your first. He's here. He's
ready to go. Are you okay?

THE COURT: Sir, you're Mohamed El-Hewie?
MR. EL-HEWIE: Yes.

THE COURT: You're charged with a State Police Complaint 971, careless driving. Sir, in regard to this matter, it says it was an accident. You have the right to be represented by an attorney. Judge Connelly advised you of that on July 28th. Do you wish to speak to a lawyer before you proceed?

MR. EL-HEWIE: No, Your Honor. I will represent myself.
THE COURT: Okay. You're pleading not guilty. Is that correct?

MR. EL-HEWIE: Correct.
THE COURT: Is the State ready?

MR. SANT'AMBROGIO: It is.
THE COURT: Call your first witness.
MR. SANT'AMBROGIO: Trooper Alam.
THE COURT: Trooper, just raise --
MR. SANT'AMBROGIO: Could you put your left hand on the Bible and raise --
THE COURT: Raise your right hand, please.

TROOPER R I C H A R D A L A M, STATE'S WITNESS,

DIRECT CROSS REDIRECT RECROSS 4
Alam - Direct/Sant'Ambrogio SWORN.

THE COURT: All right. Sir, please state
your full name and spell your last name.

THE WITNESS: Richard Alam, A-1-a-m, Badge
No. 6342 with the New Jersey State Police.

THE COURT: Your witness, Mr. Prosecutor.




DIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR. SANT'AMBROCIO: 5
Q Trooper Alam, you were on duty and working on July 9, 2010?
A Yes.

Q And on that date did you have occasion to become in the company of the defendant here, Mr. Mohamed El-Hewie?
A Yes.

Q And what were the circumstances under which you observed him on that occasion?
A It was a motor-vehicle accident that I responded to and investigated.

Q And what was the location?

A It was on the Garden State Parkway, northbound at Milepost 149.1.

Q Is that here in Bloomfield?
A Yes. Yes.

Q Did you actually see Mr. El-Hewie operate his vehicle?












Alam - Direct/Sant'Ambrogio 5
A No.
Q When you got to the -- that location, what did you observe?
A I observed the defendant's vehicle. It had impact with a vehicle directly in front of it in the left lane. That's a three-lane highway at this point.
Q Did you have a conversation with Mr. El-Hewie how it is that his vehicle came into contact with the vehicle in front of it?
A Yes. He -- he stated, and I have the report in front of me, and I quote, "He stopped short and stopped, but it was not" -- "it" -- "but it was wet out."
Q Now when it says he stopped short, who -- who -- who is Mr. El-Hewie referring to?
A He was referring to -- to the vehicle in front of him.
Q Okay.
A Directly in front of him.
Q So it was clear it was a rear-end accident.
A Yes.
Q And could you describe the weather conditions?
A It was wet, raining, and traffic was moderate.
Q Would you describe the extent of the damage











Alam - Direct/Sant'Ambrogio 6
to either the leading vehicle or Mr. El-Hewie's vehicle.
A There was damage on the rear portion of the vehicle that was in front of the defendant's vehicle. It was minor - -
Q And just to provide that --
A -- minor - -
Q -- okay. Minor. Okay.
A -- minor damage, but defendant's vehicle suffered moderate damage, and it was subsequently towed from the scene. It was not driveable.
Q It was not operable as a result of this impact?
A Correct.
Q Okay. Now did you have a conversation with Driver No. 1 concerning this?
A Yes. Yes.
Q And what did Driver No. 1 articulate?
A Again, I'll quote from the report. "We were in traffic, and he hit me."
Q Referring to Mr. El-Hewie.
A Correct.
Q Okay. Did you have any further conversation with the defendant about this?
A Not that I could recall.

Alam - Direct/Sant'Ambrogio 7

1 Q And how long have you been a trooper?
2 A Six years.
3 Q And in that time, how many accident cases
4 have you been involved with as an investigating officer
5 or in your tour of duty?

6 A I would estimate over 500.
7 Q Okay. And what do you ascribe the cause of
8 the collision to?
9 A Just driver inattention. The defendant wasn't
10 paying attention.
11 Q Under those weather conditions --
12 A You're -- you're supposed to drive adequate to the
13 weather and traffic conditions and road conditions.
14 And if the defendant would have paid attention, he
15 would have stopped in time.
16 MR. SANT'AMBROGIO: I have no other
17 questions, Your Honor.
18 THE COURT: Sir, any questions you have of
19 the trooper? Any questions you want to ask the
20 trooper?
21 MR. EL-HEWIE: Yeah, sure.
22 CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR. EL-HEWIE:
23 Q Did you witness the accident?
24 A No. No.
25 Q Did you make an investigation to see if the











Alam - Cross/El-Hewie 8

car in front of me has brake light working or not?
A Has --
Q Brake lights working or not.
A Brake lights working or not.
Q Was the brake light of this car, did you
inspect the brake light?
A No, I don't -- did not inspect it.
Q Did you ask the driver where did he come from
in front of me?
A I may have. I generally do, but I do not recall
asking him.
Q Do you have any idea how was it happened --
the accident happened?
A Yes. Based on the investigation on the scene and
your statement and the -- the other driver's statement.
Q So you did not see the -- the cars collide
into each other.
A No, I did not see the cars.
Q So you came after the -- you were called
after the accident, correct?
A Correct.
Q And do you remember how much time it took you
to arrive?
A I don't recall.
MR. EL-HEWIE: Your Honor, I -- I --

Colloquy 9

1 MR. SANT'AMBROGIO: Any other questions?
2 THE COURT: Yes, any questions you have.
3 It's direct questions.
4 MR. EL-HEWIE: No, I don't have any.
5 THE COURT: Okay.
6 Mr. Prosecutor, any other evidence you have?
7 MR. SANT'AMBROGIO: No, Your Honor.
8 THE COURT: Okay. The State rests?
9 MR. SANT'AMBROGIO: It does.
10 THE COURT: Mr. El-Hewie, the State has
11 rested, which means we're in your case. You have a
12 right to remain silent. Your silence cannot be used
against you. You could produce evidence, produce
14 witnesses. We're in your case. Whatever you'd like to
15 do we will do.
16 What would you like to do at this time?
17 MR. EL-HEWIE: Your Honor, I will proceed.
18 THE COURT: Okay. Raise your right hand,
19 sir.
20 M O H A M E D F. EL-HEWIE, DEFENDANT, SWORN.
21 THE COURT: Put your hand down.
22 QUESTIONS BY THE COURT:
23 Q You're Mohamed El-Hewie of West Paterson, New
24 Jersey?
25 A Correct.

El - Hewie - Questions/Court 10

Q All right. Sir, I'll direct your attention
to July 9th, 2010, Garden State Parkway northbound,
Bloomfield in Essex County, approximately 2:46 in the
afternoon. Tell me -- 12:46. I'm sorry. Tell me what
happened?
A Your Honor, we -- I was driving in the heavy rain,
heavy traffic. We were driving very slow. Suddenly
the rain just poured from the sky. Everybody tried to
manage to slow down see what happen. I don't know what
exactly, where's the car in front of me came from, but
it seems like the -- the driver took suddenly in the
left lane. I hit the brake pretty hard. By the time I
get to his car, slightly collided with him. There was
not much -- the reason why I got my car towed was my --
a plastic piece came in front and I don't want to drive
my car. As soon as I got my car out of the road, I
drove it back home. There was no permanent damage.
There was no loss. The State lose -- lose nothing.
I -- Your Honor, I don't think this case should
have never came to court. I think it's a bunch of - -
Q Well, we're here now, so we might as well
proceed.
A Yeah, this is -- this is not a reckless driving.
It is not -- it's an act of God. I exercise all the
caution I have. The weather was extreme. An accident

El-Hewie - Questions/Court 11
doesn't mean a person -- an accident doesn't mean a
person did not exercise --
Q You're charged with careless, not reckless.
A Yeah, whatever the situation, Your Honor, I never
have an accident. This is the first accident in my
entire life, and I'm 68 years old. I -- I don't think
your other guy's -- the argument of the State is -- is
objective. I think it's most guessing. If -- if you
exercise all the -- the caution that you want, the --
the weather -- the machine does not perform in extreme
weather.
Your Honor, there was no damage whatsoever. Just
(indiscernible) of punishment the State is going to
punish me. And I just ask the Court to dismiss the
case.
Q Okay. Thank you.
THE COURT: Mr. Prosecutor, any questions you
have of Mr. E1-Hewie?
CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR. SANT'AMBROGIO: 12
Q Isn't it true, sir, that you were involved in
an accident prior to this one on July 9th?
A I never had an accident in my life.
Q Back on December 27th, 2008 weren't you
involved in an accident and the police reported?
A No, sir. I have no idea what kind of accident.

El-Hewie - Cross/Sant'Ambrogio 12

I've never had an accident.
Q Okay. That's your answer. That's your
answer.
A It's not an accident I -- I (indiscernible) be
guilty.
Q Okay.
THE COURT: Go ahead. I'm sorry. Go ahead.
Q Isn't it true that prior to the impact you
were actually traveling at too great a speed to stop in
terms of anything that might occur --
A No, there's people --
Q -- the vehicle in front of you stopping as
vehicles tend to do?
A No, the speed was never over two miles an hour.
At that type of traffic we were driving pretty slow.
Q Isn't it true that you actually didn't keep
enough distance between the front of your vehicle and
the rear of the front -- of the other -- the rear of
the other vehicle in order to stop in time were a
vehicle such as this one to put on -- apply its brakes?
A No. Of course if I was very close I would have
hit him hard. I was not very -- I was not close at
all. I have it -- the distance -- the weather was too
slippery for anybody --
Q Yeah, but it rains -- when it rains we all

El-Hewie - Questions/Court 13

slow down, right, and allow for -- okay.
MR. SANT'AMBROGIO: I have no other
questions.
I do have evidence to the contrary on his statement about prior accident. I can introduce that through a rebuttal?
THE COURT: One more second.
QUESTIONS BY THE COURT:
Q Mr. El-Hewie, you made a -- and I may have misunderstood, I apologize -- but you said there was no damage to your vehicle or the other vehicle?
A Your Honor, there was not -- nobody did damage. My --
Q No. No. No. I'm not saying it clearly. But did after the accident, whether it was at the scene or the day later, did you look at your car? There was no damage?
A No, my car has -- my car has damage. Just not significant.
Q Oh. Okay. Well, no, significant, unfortunately in today's world, is very small scratch is significant.
A I not --
Q You had damage to your vehicle, correct?
A But I did not give him damage, Your Honor.

El-Hewie - Questions/Court 14

Q How about the back of your vehicle? Any damage to that vehicle?
A Your Honor, (indiscernible).
Q You have -- you have to answer my question.  Was there -- forget any claims. I don't care about insurance companies. I don't care about police officers. I care about was there damage. Was there damage to the vehicle?
A You'll have to ask the other driver. I'm not sure. So I can't --
Q But did you look at his car?
A Yes, I did.
Q Did you see any damage?
A I do -- Your Honor, I do have a picture for his car. (Indiscernible).
Q I don't need a picture. I'm just asking you did you see damage on his vehicle?
A I do see minor damage, Your Honor.
Q Okay. All right. Thank you.
THE COURT: Mr. Prosecutor, you indicated you had a rebuttal?
MR. SANT'AMBROGIO: Yes.
THE COURT: Go ahead.
TROOPER R I C H A R D A L A M, STATE'S WITNESS,
PREVIOUSLY SWORN.

Alam - Direct/Sant'Ambrogio 15
DIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR. SANT'AMBROGIO:
Q Trooper, are you familiar with the certified driving abstract of the defendant?
A Yes, sir.
Q And did you cause our office to procure a copy for today?
A Yes, sir. Correct.
Q Okay. And directing -- is that what I'm holding in my hand?
A Yes, sir, it is.
Q And it speaks for itself, but it does demonstrate a prior accident in the one --
A On December 27th, it does indicate. Yes.
MR. SANT'AMBROGIO: Thank you, Your Honor. If Your Honor would like to see that, I can submit it
as S-1.
THE COURT: Okay. Thank you.
Mr. El-Hewie, anything further you want me to hear before I address the decision in this case?
MR. EL-HEWIE: No, Your Honor, I just want to know exactly what kind of accident --
THE COURT: It's okay. Don't worry about that. Anything else you want to tell me about the
-- the facts of this case?

Court Decision 16
1 MR. EL-HEWIE: No, Your Honor. The facts are clear.
THE COURT: With regard to this matter, the State called Trooper Alam with regard to the investigation on July 9th, 2010, Garden State Parkway northbound in Bloomfield in Essex County at about 12:46 p.m. Indicated he's been a trooper for six years. He has investigated over 500 -- 500 motor-vehicle accidents.
He was traveling on the Garden State Parkway northbound. He went to a location in Bloomfield to investigate a motor-vehicle accident. Upon investigation, he determined that a motor vehicle -- two motor vehicles were traveling in the left lane, it's a three-lane highway in that location. That one vehicle impacted the rear of another vehicle, causing damage to the front of the second vehicle and damage to the rear of the first vehicle. This all occurred in the left lane of the Garden State Parkway. He also took statements from both parties involved in the accident. The one statement was from Mr. El-Hewie who indicated that the vehicle in front of him stopped abruptly or short, and he also stopped -- it was wet out, it was wet, rainy and moderate traffic, and Mr. El-Hewie hit the back or rear of the first

Court Decision 17
1 vehicle.
2 The trooper did indicate that the damage was
3 minor and that Mr. El-Hewie also said minor damage, but
4 he said his vehicle was not operable at that time.
5 On cross-examination the trooper indicated
6 that he did not witness the happening of the accident.
7 He did not inspect brake lights on the first vehicle.
8 And he had no idea where the first vehicle that was
9 involved in the accident came from.
10 Mr. El-Hewie testified that he was driving
11 slowly. It was heavy traffic. He said the skies
12 opened up, it was pouring. He says he has no idea
13 where the car in front of him came from, but he hit his
14 brakes hard, and he collided with the vehicle in front
15 of him. He indicated the damage was minor to both
16 vehicles.
17 A 39:4-97, careless driving, which is the
18 offense charged by the trooper indicates as follows. "A person who drives a vehicle carelessly or without
due caution and circumspection in a manner so as to endanger or be likely to endanger a person or property shall be guilty of careless driving." There's the old famous case that indicates that the mere happening of an accident is not careless driving. If a trooper came upon a scene and just saw an accident, it may not be Court Decision  careless driving because there'd be other factors that caused the accident. But in this case the trooper not only made the observations of a rear-end accident, but he took testimony or statements, I'm sorry, from both -- both operators of the vehicles and clearly there was bad weather. Clearly Mr. El-Hewie did not have enough distance from the vehicle in front of him to come to a complete stop.
As the Prosecutor questioned in cross examination, on clear weather, maybe speed can be a little bit higher. On poor weather, snowy days, icy days, rainy days, you have to drive sometimes on the Parkway, you know, two miles and hour if the weather is so bad. But you have to keep a proper distance. Careless driving also incorporates other Title 39 statutes, which state that you must keep a proper distance from a vehicle in front of you. You must operate your vehicle based upon the conditions. I find, based upon the conditions, that this
defendant did not keep a proper distance, did not have control of his vehicle, and did not stop his vehicle in
sufficient time to avoid an accident. I must enter a finding of guilty. Mr. El-Hewie, I do have your abstract here. Is there anything you want to tell me, sir, before I
Court Sentence 19
impose sentence?
MR. EL -HEWIE: Your Honor, there's -- there
is -- my car was -- it was driveable. I did drive my
car home.
THE COURT: Uh - huh.
MR. EL - HEWIE: Number two, the assessment
that I did not have enough distance is not accurate. I
did have enough distance.
THE COURT: Well, then why'd you hit the car?
MR. EL -HEWIE: Your Honor, the -- the -- the
weather -- any machine can fail in that kind of
circumstances that I was in.
THE COURT: Well, if you're claiming you had
-- brakes were bad, you have to bring an expert in and
tell me that, but that's not before me.
MR. EL - HEWIE: Your Honor, just because
you're in an accident does not mean that
(indiscernible).
THE COURT: I understand that. Well, you have 20 days to file an appeal. I'm also looking at your abstract. You have one, two, three, four, five, six motor-vehicle violations from 2001, three unsafes. You have -- well, one is not important, failure to notify of address; 2007 speeding and 2008 obstructing the passage of a motor vehicle, which you're not

Court Sentence
supposed to do, but that's okay. And now careless driving. Based upon your record, based upon the  statements, it's a 256 fine; $33 court costs; you have 20 days to file an appeal. MR. SANT'AMBROGIO: Thank you, Your Honor.
Thank you, Trooper. Have a nice day.
TROOPER ALAM: Thank you, Judge.
THE COURT: Go out to the window, sir.
They'll talk to you there.
MR. EL-HEWIE: Thank you.
(Proceedings concluded)

2 CERTIFICATION
34
1, Kelly Ford, the assigned transcriber, do hereby
5 certify the foregoing Transcript of Proceedings in the
6 Bloomfield Municipal Court, on August 31, 2010 and
7 recorded on CD No. 8-31-10, Index No. 11:30 to 11:45,
8 is prepared in full compliance with current Transcript
9 Format for Judicial Proceedings and is a true and
10 accurate compressed transcript of the proceedings as
11 recorded.
16. KELLY FORD, AOC 561
17 METRO TRANSCRIPTS, L.L.C.
19 Date : (51