See the case history in comic strip format
Listen to the plaintiff admit to lying under oath about even knowing her second (current) husband and to lying about various other things as well..
Listen to the plaintiff admit that she lied under oath about her annulment to her second (current) husband.
Hear Judge Brock refuse to examine this document and then accept the plaintiff's assertion that it's a valid annulment. It's nothing of the kind. Read it yourself.
Did I rape the plaintiff? Listen to this cross examination and judge for yourself.
See the order confiscating my wife's passport for absconding with my child from the United States.
Listen to the plaintiff's lawyer (Howard Duff) rant about not getting paid. Hear the judge assure him that there is plenty of money in her proceedings for him.
Hear Judge Kathryn A. Brock tell this homeless man to go sleep in the street.
Hear a child being exploited to create hysteria in court. Hear this child ask to see his father. Why is his voice unheard?.
Listen to Howard Duff declare his contempt for the miracles of Jesus Christ.
Hear Judge Kathryn A. Brock pretend concern for a child as she suppresses evidence that would protect him.
"Would you like your son to be illegitimate?" this judged asks, as I present evidence of my wife's bigamy. As if it was in my power to make him so. As if any human being could be illegitimate. As if the act of bigamy itself has no relevance to her question. "I thought your biggest concern was your son" she says. But if I say nothing, then my children's trust fund goes to the plaintiff and her lawyer under equitable distribution law and would be used to pay legal fees for divorce on a marriage that never existed in the first place. The judge understood this. The judge didn't care about my son. She used him as a strawman. For those uninitiated in dirty courtroom tactics, a "straw man argument" is a bogus, distorted or deliberately flawed interpretation of an otherwise valid position that has been altered so it can be more easily attacked and delegitimized. A straw-man argument may succeed in persuading people, but it is in fact misleading, because the opponent's actual argument has not been refuted. In other words, by calling into question the legitimacy of my son, the judge tried to side step the issue of whether or not the marriage was legitimate and whether or not the plaintiff was entitled to a divorce considering that she was knowingly married to another man when she took her vows with me. Isn't the institution of marriage and divorce supposed to protect children? Aren't judges supposed to look at all of the evidence and then make judgments in view of the law? In this case the Hon. Kathryn A. Brock is exploiting my son's honor in order to confiscate his property. Why would she do this? Because no one else besides my 8 year old son had any money to pay the plaintiff's lawyer (Howard Duff of Nemergut & Duff 217 Main St.Woodbridge, N.J.). And Howard was applying pressure to get paid. Listen an actual recording of that whiny greedy weasel crying to the judge because he can't figure out how to squeeze any money out of me. Well sorry Howard, you are an adult and you had a choice not to take this case when you knew that two previous lawyers quit because the plaintiff couldn't stop perjuring herself or follow the law. My son however did not ask to be dragged into this and he didn't offer to pay you.
Judge Brock refused to look at my evidence and tried to force me to abandon my claims by threatening to deny me parenting time with my son. She has done the same thing to other fathers and children and they are willing to come forward.

What exactly was Judge Brock trying to cover up?: Read on to find out.
The plaintiff married an illegal alien for the express purpose circumventing an N.J. law that prevented her from leaving the state with her child of a previous marriage. The law was intended to protect the child's right to see her father (the plaintiff's first husband) who also lived in N.J.. The alien received access to our United States of America for his complicity. Although the plaintiff left this man right after she moved to Florida, she never divorced him and never had the marriage annulled. The plaintiff did try to start the process of annulment in Guatemala where she has wealthy family but never got past filing a certification of facts which is a preliminary step in getting an annulment. Trying to use this certification as proof of annulment is like using a marriage license as proof of a marriage. Still, Judge Brock accepted this document as proof of annulment over my objection and the case is now under appeal.

Perhaps at this point you might be thinking that forgetting to have your previous marriage dissolved before marrying again is just a small over site. But the plaintiff did something else that demonstrates she started the marriage with the end in mind and that she never intended to build a life together with me. She initiated our divorce proceedings in exactly the same way she did with her first husband; by making exactly the same charge in a false domestic violence complaint. The complaint she made was that her first husband and I threatened to kidnap our children. I was arrested, jailed and forbidden to see my son but thank God, I was able to produce and email from the plaintiff to her sister written only 12 hours before having me arrested. In the email she writes "I am going to hit him with charges so damn nasty that he is going to shit his pants". Well guess who the judge was that heard the case. You guessed it; the Honorable Kathryn A. Brock. Judge Brock dismissed the charges against me when she heard the plaintiff admit that the email was authentic she but never punished the plaintiff for making the false charges.

The plaintiff will never be punished for filing false domestic violence claims in two different divorces. She will never be punished for marrying an alien for the sole purpose of taking her first child out of state and away from her father. She will never be punished for taking vows with me while she was (and still is) legally married to this alien. She will never be punished for destroying my health and tricking me into turning over to her all my liquid assets in an attempt to save a marriage that she fully intended to destroy. And she will never be punished for lying under oath. Judge Brock knows all this and still she is suppressing evidence in order to carry out divorce on a false marriage that was never intended to last. Clearly, this judge is desperate to get big alimony and my children's trust fund for the plaintiff no matter what the law says or how it was intended to be used. Further more this judge has used every power at her disposal to try and break my will and get me to drop my claims.

Why does Judge Brock refuse to protect children and refuse to administrate the law? Why does she use her power to harm men and to protect women no matter what they have done? Because she has a personal agenda. There is very little information available about the behavior of judges. This is because people are afraid to come forward. A vicious judge can confiscate all your property, force you to pay more alimony and child support than you have, put you in jail if you can't pay, force you to pay your opponents legal fees, and prevent you from seeing your children. All of these things have been done to me.

Also when Judge Brock discovered that I was asking questions about her, she claimed that I was a physical threat to her and for a short time I was denied access to the courthouse and was unable to defend myself. Fortunately, I was given a quick and fair investigation by the Union County Sheriff's Department and by the New Jersey State Police Central Security Unit and I was allowed to resume my defense.

One time I was jailed for a period of 3 days for giving my child a toy. Fortunately, the matter came before another judge, The Hon. Frederick R. McDaniel, and I was released because it is not illegal to give toys to your children.

As you can see, there are plenty of honorable judges and law enforcement officers out there. But the point is, there is no protection against bad judges with personal agendas. Judge Brock has ordered that I can not see my son without a supervisor because I gave him a Star Wars blaster purchased at Toys R Us. This was in direct retaliation for declaring that I would not turn over my son's trust fund without exhausting every possible appeal and using every form of legal protest. A friend of mine that I met at the New Jersey Council for Children's Right's was denied parenting time with his child by Judge Brock because he gave his child a Gi-Joe action figure. Of course the real reason was that he refused to roll over in Judge Brock's proceedings. This recording will also be posted shortly. There are a few more that we know of, but there must be hundreds of father's and children that Judge Brock has done this to that we don't know of because they are terrified to come forward. And it's not realistic to believe that Judge Brock is the only bad judge out there. Conservatively, there must be thousands of Americans who's lives have been shattered by judges with personal agendas. There is a way to stop bad judges from destroying lives.
1. We need legislation now that requires the courts to post all trial audio on the Internet.
2. We need to use the posted trial audio to compile statistics on judges.
These two steps will ensure fair judges who are administrating our laws and not their own.

The actual divorce appeal A-001476-05T1 can be read by clicking here
The reply to the plaintiff's response of the divorce appeal can be read by clicking here
The Appellate Court's decision can be found by clicking here
The motion to the Appellate Court for reconsideration of their decision A-001476-05T1 can be read by clicking here
The Petition for Certification of Divorce Case in the Supreme Court of New Jersey can be read by clicking here
The motion to reconsider the Petition for Certification of Divorce Case in the Supreme Court of New Jersey can be read by clicking here

The divorce case is now under appeal in the United States Supreme Court.
A docket number has not yet been assigned.
The documents filed with that court can be found on the following pages
Questions Presented
Statement of the Case
Reasons for Granting the Appeal

The US Supreme Court Declined to hear the case on March 30 2009
The motion to The US Supreme Court for reconsideration of the petition to hear the case can be read by clicking here