[brief] DESPOTISM UPON WHICH RESPONDENTS DENIED DISABILITY ACCOMMODATION TO THE APPELLANT’S 92 YEARS OLD DISABLED MOTHER, BECAUSE OF HIM.  On February 15, 2019 pursuant to C. 39:4-197.6. and C. 39:4-197.5 the appellant’s then 87 years old mother (“the Mother”) filed an application with the respondents (“the Application”) and requested from them to place a reserved handicapped parking space in front of her house (Pa6).  The Mother filed the Application based on her needs and qualification as a NJMVC recognized disabled driver (Pa1).  The Application was materially supported by two notarized affidavits, which articulated factual basis of why she needed the reserved handicapped parking space (Pa14 – Pa15).  The Mother filed the Application as she co-owned her house with the appellant, who lived independently on the second level of the dwelling.  On March 25, 2019 respondents’ investigator, P.O. [...], investigated the Application and stipulated in his official report, “I would recommend the installation of a handicapped parking space” (Pa18).  On August 05, 2019 the respondents’ police chief [...] (“[...]”), acting within the scope of his employment under the respondents obstructed the implementation of the said recommendation, as he stipulated via email to the respondents (their clerk), “I have determined to deny [...]’s request” (Pa19).  The Application was by and for an 87 years old disabled female, but it was denied in such way by [...], because of the applicant’s son, the appellant?  This was done, when the respondents own public records showed that they had liberally approved about seventy (70) similar applications (Pa60).  This apparent arbitrary and capricious (discriminatory) act by [...] was done, when he had long history of abuse of power against the appellant, including (1) taking him to mental hospital under false pretenses and Under Color of State Law after he had called police as a victim, (2) orchestrating entrapments Under Color of State Law against the appellant to criminally implicate him, (3) mailing him false non-moving summonses (all dismissed via due process), and (4) attributing to his false conviction, which was reverse and remanded by the Appellate Division (Docket No. [...]) (Pa87).  On December 14, 2020, the Mother sent notice via certified mail to the respondents and informed them about the said abuses of power and discrimination against her executed under their authority (Pa82).  In support, the Mother sent to the respondents the January 21, 2021 certification by her physician, which showed the medical basis of her need and qualification for such reserved handicapped parking (Pa4).  In response, on December 28, 2020 the respondents’ attorney, [...] of [...] ("[...]"), send a harassing letter to the Mother, stipulating the following (Pa35):  “Please be advised that if you pursue a claim in State Court seeking relief ’-‘ the Borough will deem such an action frivolous as set forth above and for any other reasons that further review will determine and will seek all appropriate sanctions and remedies pursuant to Court Rule. ”  In lieu of educating the respondents on laws and proprietors, [...] was orchestrator and an actor, who used his privileges as a member of the Bar to dissuade the 92 years old disabled from seeking disability accommodation.  Respondents did not even officially notify the Mother for the denial of the Application, which their own Chapter 126 Code required (Pa39).  Proofs / records cited above came by way of about forty (40) OPRA-requests by the appellant from the respondents, who systematically and selectively obstructed release of key records.  II.