Trial audio downloads automatically. When download is complete, it will start to play. The audio can be heard clearly with good speakers or headset.
Listen to the Plaintiff Admit to Lying Under Oath About Even Knowing Her Second Husband.
First you can hear me ask the plaintiff if she would ever misrepresent anything to the judge.
The plaintiff answers "No".
Then I ask the plaintiff if she would lie in deposition.
Again she answers "No".
The plaintiff's lawyer Mr. Duff objects to my question so I rephase it and ask the plaintiff "Did you lie in deposition."
The plaintiff answered "Yes I did".
Next I ask the plaintiff "Why did you lie in deposition".
Judge Brock asks, "lie about what?"
Then I said "About knowing her second husband."
The plaintiff then proceeds to give a convoluted explanation about why she lied but concludes that she misrepresented on purpose.
Most of us call that lying. Even while she admits to lying about knowing her second husband, you catch her lying about having her marriage to him annulled. If you believe her explanation that an annulment allows you to deny the existence of a former husband, then why didn't the plaintiff deny the existence of her first husband to whom she also claims to have annulled her marriage? Clearly the plaintiff denied the existence of her second husband because she never dissolved her marriage with him and that makes her marriage to me null and void. And if our marriage never legally existed, then she can't legally divorce me and she can't get alimony or equitable distribution because those benefits can only be obtained from a legal marriage, and she can't get me to pay legal fees on the divorce because you can't legally divorce people that were never married.
The judge understands all this but is determined to get me to pay alimony, equitable distribution and legal fees regardless of the facts and regardless of the law. That is why she won't even read the document that the plaintiff claims is an annulment and then blindly accepts the plaintiffs claim that she believes the document in question is a judgment of annulment. Please read on.
Next I ask the plaintiff if she lied in deposition about exchanging emails with Ronald Pierce.
You can then hear the plaintiff admit that she lied in deposition and that she did indeed exchange emails with Ronald Pierce.
Then I ask the plaintiff if she claimed that I fabricated those emails.
Next you can hear the plaintiff admit that she lied when she said I fabricated the emails.
The emails were in fact love letters from a prisoner at the Rahway State Prison where she worked as a social worker. The prisoner, Ronald Pierce, is a convicted murderer with active contacts on the outside. In the love letters, he was trying to convince the plaintiff to modify his prison records. When his cell was searched my child's address was found with in his cell. The plaintiff was eventually fired for having this relationship.
Finally, you can hear me ask the plaintiff if she said under oath in deposition that I raped her during the marriage.
She had first claimed in deposition that I raped her once. Later in deposition she changed it to three times and still later she changed it to 500 times. But I have a report from the plaintiff's therapist stating that I never forced her to have sex. Judge Brock would not accept that report into evidence, but rather accepted the plaintiff's finally number of 500 rapes.
In the following cross examination I refer to a 10 page Dear John letter the plaintiff has written me. In the letter she goes on and on about all the reasons she is leaving me. Everything has to do with disagreements over how the children are raised. Never once in the letter are any of the 500 alleged rapes mentioned. The interesting thing is Judge Brock refused to allow this letter into evidence. Did I rape the plaintiff? Listen to this cross examination and judge for yourself.
Judges like Judge Brock are a big reason why so many women abuse domestic violence law for advantage in divorce proceedings; Why so many men after spending years in jail for rape are only now being released as new DNA testing proves they have been falsely accused. If the audio for those trials had been posted on the Internet where the public could hear how bias judges can be when admitting or rejecting evidence, maybe some of those innocent men would not have had to suffer those years in jail.