You may need to enable Active X controls in your browser to hear the audio on this page.
On slower Internet connections it may take some time for the audio file to down load.
When download is complete, it will start to play automatically.
The audio can be heard clearly if good speakers or a headset is used.
The recording starts out with me asking Judge Brock to examine the document that the plaintiff claims is proof of annulment.
The judge asks, "Didn't we already establish that the exhibit is not an order of annulment?"
The plaintiff's lawyer tries to assert that it had been proven, in a municipal court bigamy trial, that an annulment has been granted.
The Judge Brock counters that the trial only determined that the plaintiff didn't commit bigamy by marrying me.
The fact is that the municipal court judge (Judge Ericksen of Rahway NJ) would not allow me to cross examine the plaintiff or present any evidence at the bigamy trial. I can not post the trail audio because the municipal court will not release it. I do, however, have the transcript and I will post that shortly. Unfortunately, I can not post the friendly chat that Judge Ericksen and the plaintiff's lawyer had before the trial started because those conversations never get recorded. That was actually the most important part of the trial because that is where Judge Ericksen made his decision.
A lot of people tell me that I could have gotten a fair trial if I had only retained a lawyer of my own, and of course they are right. But the way wild life photographers get those dramatic shots of ocean predators is by chumming the water. Well when I show up in court without a lawyer, I must appear to judges the same way a thrashing bloody fish appears to sharks. It certainly wasn't my intention, but my circumstances created the opportunity to document legal predators with actual trial audio that the entire planet can hear. If this helps to shine a light on the judicial corruption and helps to enact legislation that mandates the posting of all trial audio on the Internet, then every citizen will benefit.
Next we hear Judge Brock say that she was hoping to rely on the municipal court judge's ruling. Then she states that she must to rely on the ruling.
Of course higher courts do not need to rely on lower court rulings. If they did there would be no need for higher courts. And civil courts do not need to rely on the rulings of municipal/criminal courts because if they did the parents of Oj Simpson's murdered wife would not have been able to sue in civil court for the murder after Oj was found innocent in criminal court. The point is that the law required Judge Brock to make her own determination on whether or not my marriage to the plaintiff was valid and she refused to examine the matter.
Next after some rambling from the plaintiff's lawyer, you can hear Judge Brock ask the plaintiff if the document in question is proof of annulment. The plaintiff answers "Yes, that is it".
After the plaintiff answers, you can hear the judge babble something about Guatemala where the document was purchased for about $10 American dollars. Then the judge is heard saying "That's enough of that. She believes that document is proof of her annulment."
Then I ask the judge if I may show the document to the plaintiff to refresh her memory.
The judge is heard saying "No this was about credibility. What's your next question?"
I responded, "But you didn't allow me to prove she was lying."
The Judge replied, "This is a back door way to prove why you're not really married to her, but I ruled on that already."
I said, "Your honor, I am simply trying to prove whether she is a credible witness or not. She already testified that she got a valid annulment. She says that this is it..."
Then the judge is heard interupting: "If you want to ask her if this is what she is talking about and I will mark it that's fine. Do you want to do that?"
I answered, "Yes I do."
Finally you can hear the judge mark the document as D-10 and you can see this in the upper right hand corner of the first page.