02/11/06 John Shearing, 55 E Joseph St. Moonachie, NJ, 07074  (732) 406 6934    Pro Se

 

ELISA GONZALEZ,

 

                        Plaintiff,

 

-vs.-

 

JOHN R. SHEARING,

 

                        Defendant.

:::::::::::

Superior Court of New Jersey
Appellate Division
PO Box 006
Richard J. Hughes Justice Complex
Trenton, N.J. 08625 – 0006

 

Kim Maurer: Case Manager

(609) 633-0811

 

DOCKET NO. A-001476-05T1

 

Civil Action

 

Motion For Free Transcripts Or Suggested Alternative And

Motion On Child Welfare Issues

Contents:

serves as a summary of the entire motion and as event timeline

 

1. Listing Of Items In Appendix

 

2. Point Headings

1)      Children’s Money Fueling This Lawsuit

2)      Forced to Divorce A Woman To Whom I Was Never Legally Married.

3)      Proof Of A Legitimate Appeal-Case Background

4)      Nov 1 2005, A $10,000 Trust Fund Is Discovered

5)      Nov 3 2005, I Filed Notice Of Appeal Filed With The Appellate Division Along With Motion To Proceed As Indigent.

6)      Simultaneously, I Filed Motion In Family Court Requesting:

a)      Indigency

b)      Stay Pending Appeal

c)      Transcripts Of Divorce Be Purchased With $10,000 Trust Fund

7)      My Motions Buried In Family Court Under Indigency Issue

8)      Dec 16 2005, Plaintiff Was Granted Motion To Have My $10,000 Tax Trust Fund While My Motion To Use It For Transcripts Sat Buried

9)      Dec 16 2005 Judge Cassidy Limits My Communication With The Court

10.  Back to Nov 21 2005, Plaintiff Asks For Passport And  Permission To Take Child To Bahamas

11.  I Advised Judge Cassidy That Plaintiff Is Flight Risk

12.  Dec 16, 2005, Judge Cassidy Returns Passports to Plaintiff and Allows Her To Take Our Son To The Bahamas (specifically)

13.  Plaintiff Defied Judge’s Court Order:

a)      Child Taken To Guatemala Against Order And Without Proper Medication

b)      Childs Location Hidden Also Against Order

14.  Our Child Became Sick

15.  I filed Motion To Take Child To Doctor And To Show Cause

16.  Plaintiff Refused To Take Child To Doctor

17.  Judge Cassidy Confiscated Plaintiff’s Passport Again And Orders Child To Doctor

18.  Plaintiff Hides Child’s Medical History From Doctor.

19.  Plaintiff Attempts To Strong Arm Visitation Supervisor.

20.  Plaintiff Forces Child To Tears By Using Him To Pass Her Demands To Me 

21.  Judge Cassidy Hears Motions On Following Issues Feb 10 2006

a.       Stay Pending Appeal Of The Divorce Trial. (Deferred)

b.      Reconsideration On Giving The $10,000 Trust Fund To Plaintiff Until Appellate Judge Could Decide Whether Or Not I Could Use The Fund To Purchase Transcripts. (Denied)

c.       Reconsideration Of Motion To Show Cause As Plaintiff Is Still Violating Court Orders And Harming My Son. (Denied)

d.      Reconsideration On Limiting My Rights To Access The Family Court As My Opponent Was Not Held To Same Restrictions (Denied)

e.       Cross Motion Preventing Me From Filing More Motions With Out Approval Of Judge Cassidy. (Granted)

 

22.  Child Suspended For Threatening To Defend Himself With Gun

23.  What I Am Asking The Court To Do

 

Appendix

Please note: Many exhibits are located in an appellate motion filed 2/6/06. The motion is entitled Motion To Consider Parenting Plan

 

List of Exhibits Included with this motion:

A.     Letter From Brian Schwartz of Ceconi and Cheifetz Re: Tax Trust Fund

B.     Judge Whitken’s Court Order Creating The Trust Fund

C.     Appellate Div Court Order Granting Indigency On Jan 11 2006 

D.     Motion Filed With Family Court For:

a.       Free Transcripts

b.      Stay Pending Appeal

c.       Permission to File the Above As Indigent.

E.      Judge Cassidy’s Decision On Indigency

F.      Envelope Judge Cassidy’s Decision On Indigency Came In

G.     Plaintiff’s Motion Certification Requesting

a.       Permission To Take Child To Bahamas

b.      Return Of Passport

c.       To Have My $10,000 Tax Trust Fund

H.     Shows Opponent Can Use Any Desired Method Of Communication With Court.

I.        Judge Cassidy’s Court Order That:

a.       Defers Decision Of Stay Pending Appeal

b.      Denies Reconsideration To Give $10,000 Trust To Plaintiff.

c.       Denies reversal of decision to restrict my communication with the courts to regular mail only.

d.      Denies my request that plaintiff be ordered to refrain from using child to pass demands to defendant and visitation supervisor.

e.       Denies my request that plaintiff be order to attend Trans-Parenting Course.

f.        Denies my request that I be allowed to attend Trans-Parenting Course at a different time than the plaintiff.

g.       Denies my request for verification that my child has medical insurance.

h.       Denies my request that plaintiff appear in court to show cause for contempt of court when: absconding with child to Guatemala, Hiding his location, Interfering with court ordered visitation, and Interfering with court ordered telephone contact.

i.         Denies my request that plaintiff appear in court to show cause for perjury when lying about intended destination for taking my son.

j.        Denies my request that plaintiff be restricted from using denial of telephone contact as a method of punishing my son as this would require interference with court ordered telephone contact.

k.      Denies my request to enforce divorce order that requires my son’s school to provide his records to me.

J.       Brief Included With Motion For Reconsideration

K.    Plaintiffs Cross Motion Requesting That I Not Be Allowed To File Motions Without Preapproval From Judge Cassidy

L.      My Response To Cross Motion Requesting I Not Be Allowed To File Motions Without Preapproval From Judge Cassidy

M.   Cover Letter Sent With Letter Discussing My Son’s Threat To Defend Himself With Gun

 

 

Motion For Free Transcripts Or Use Trust Fund To Purchase, And

Motion On Child Welfare Issues

Your Honor,

     I am John Shearing the defendant. I am appealing a divorce from a woman to whom I was never legally married. I have been living in a tent in the woods since June and for two years prior to that, I have been living in my van until it was repossessed. I am existing this way because all my time and money is going towards my defense in these proceedings and in a civil suit that originated from the same complaint. Thanks to the Honorable Howard H Kestin, I was granted indigency status on  Jan, 11, 2006, and am now making the most of the opportunity he gave me to seek a just outcome in these proceedings. Please accept the following as my motion brief.

 

Please note: Many exhibits are located in an appellate motion filed on 2/6/06. The motion is entitled Motion To Consider Parenting Plan

 

1.     Children’s Money Fueling This Lawsuit 

Central to this case are two separate trust funds. One trust fund contains $10,000 and  was setup by Judge Whitken to pay taxes that resulted from liquidating all my assets which were used to pay my support obligation. In this brief I will be requesting that this fund be used to pay my taxes and purchase transcripts of the divorce being appealed.

The other one was set up for my children and contains stock in my family’s company. I can not and will not removed assets from that fund unless ordered to by the courts. The facts that I am representing myself, that I have no expert witnesses, and that I live outside, demonstrate that this fund is only for my children’s future. In point heading 2 you will see that my children’s trust fund is the pot of gold at the end of the rainbow for the plaintiff and her lawyer Mr. Duff.

2. Forced To Divorce A Woman To Whom I Was Never Married.

I filed an appeal of my divorce because I was never legally married to the plaintiff. She was married to another man when she took her vows with me. Judge Brock refused to look at my evidence and responded that I must not love my son. Nothing could be further from the truth. I raised these issues to protect my sons trust fund which Judge Brock intended to invalidate and confiscate in order to pay the plaintiff’s lawyer (transcript will prove this). But children shouldn’t be required to pay for their parents divorce, especially if the parents were never married to begin with. Finally, as the judge was unable to break the trust, she used equitable distribution laws to award a portion of my children’s trust to the plaintiff. But since their was no marriage, there can be no equitable distribution and so the plaintiff and her lawyer have no right to any of my children’s assets. That is why the appeal is so important. Later in the Trial, I asked to introduced this evidence in reference to the character of the plaintiff. The evidence was a simple certification of facts written in Guatemala but  with a certified English translation. Please see [Appellate Motion filed 2/6/06 Exhibit A]. The judge told me that she would not be able to understand this simple certification without an expert witness in Guatemalan law. Finally, after making it clear that I would not turn over my children’s trust fund without exhausting every possible appeal and using every form of legal resistance, the judge threatened to stop me from parenting my son because I gave him a toy Star Wars blaster. Specifically, she said that  she thought perhaps I had damaged my son’s psyche by giving him the toy and that she would need to personally perform an expert psychological evaluation on my son before he could visit with me. Give me a break; the judge holds a doctor’s degree in law but needs an expert to understand a simple certification, yet somehow she has the qualifications to do and expert evaluation on my son’s psyche? The threat was loud and clear. "IF YOU WANT TO SEE YOUR SON, THEN TURN OVER THE TRUST FUND." I never did sign over my children's trust fund, and so the judge made good on her threat by assigning a visitation supervisor who was known to be unavailable. She knew because I told her. The transcript I ask for will show all this. Finally, at one point in the trial, the plaintiff’s lawyer was standing over me as I was sitting. In order to maintain eye contact I was leaning back in my chair (I should have been in the witness box at eye level with my opponent). At this point the  judge told me to “Sit up like a big boy”. Then one of her guards struck me from behind (This is all on the transcript and the recording. Also, [Exhibit B of Appellate Motion filed 2/6/06] is a complaint made with the Sheriffs Department on the incident). Now, fearing for my safety, I left the courtroom and they continued the trial without me. The transcripts will prove all of what I just told you. Lt Frank of the Sheriff’s Department took my statement on the officers assault.

3. Case Background and Proof Of A Legitimate Appeal

Please see [Point Heading 3 of Appellate Motion filed 2/6/06] for full brief and supporting evidence of a legitimate appeal.

4. November 1 2005,  A $10,000 Trust Fund Is Discovered

On November 2 2005 while preparing my notice of appeal for the divorce and a motion for free transcripts, I received, a letter from my former lawyer, Brian Schwartz of Ceconi and Cheifetz Exhibit A. The letter states that he is holding by authority of a court order signed by Judge Whitken, $10,000 which according to the court order Exhibit B was to be held to pay my taxes resulting from the liquidation of assets that were used to pay my support obligation. It then occurred to me that after I pay my back taxes, I would have enough money to purchase transcripts which is why I am filing this motion.

5.  Notice Of Appeal Filed With The Appellate Division Along With Motion To Proceed As Indigent On November 3 2005.

On November 3rd,for the reasons stated above, I filed a notice of appeal with the Appellate Division (received November 7th) along with a motion to proceed as indigent. Indigency was granted on Jan ,11 ,2006 Exhibit C.

6.      Simultaneously, I Filed Motion In Family Court Requesting: Indigency, Stay Pending Appeal, And Transcripts Of Divorce Be Purchased With The $10,000 Tax Trust Fund.

On this same day of November 3rd along with a motion for stay pending appeal I filed a motion for free transcripts with the family court or in the alternative requesting to use the recently discovered $10,000 trust fund to pay for them. Unfortunately as I am penniless, I also filed a motion to proceed as indigent because I did not have the money to pay the $30 motion fee. Exhibit D is the motion I filed with the family court.

7. My Motions Buried In Family Court Under Indigency Issue

On Dec 16 2005, I received a decision from Judge Cassidy that she would not allow me to proceed as indigent. This is enclosed as Exhibit E. Exhibit F is the envelop it came in. Please notice the post mark dated Dec 15 2005. Because indigency was denied, she never even considered the issues of free transcripts or in the alternative to use the $10,000 trust fund of mine for this purpose. Stay pending appeal was not considered either. Ironically, the appellate division looked at the same information and granted me indigency on Jan 11 2006.

 

8.     Plaintiff Was Granted Motion To Have My $10,000 Tax Trust Fund While My Motion To Use It For Transcripts Sat Buried

The plaintiff filed a motion on November 21 Exhibit G to request the $10,000 trust fund be used to pay the judgment that I am appealing. This  is the same money that I had asked in my  prior motion, to be used to pay for transcripts in my appeal. Had the judge made a timely decision on the matter of indigency, I would have had a chance to come up with $30 required for consideration of my motion to use the trust fund for transcripts. Instead, I received notice on the very day that my opponents motion was granted, that my motion would not even be considered, yet my motion was filed two weeks prior. For this reason, I feel I was deprived of due process and the opportunity to use the last of my assets to defend myself. It is bad enough that the false divorce proceedings have made me penniless (there was no legal marriage to dissolve), but now the delayed decision on indigency perverted a process that is supposed to give penniless people a chance to be heard. This decision seems even more errant when you consider that the Honorable Howard Kestin of the Appellate Court looked at the same information and granted my motion for indigency.

 

Another reason that Judge Cassidy’s decision seems errant is that the issue was already out of her jurisdiction. Since Judge Cassidy awarded the money to pay a judgment that was already under appeal, and since she was required to overturn Judge Whitken’s court order in order to do this, Exhibit B, the whole matter was already out of her jurisdiction. I would not have know this had  Judge Cassidy not demonstrated as follows:

 

On or about November 16 2005, I filed a motion for modified visitation with my son. But in the Judge’s Decision of Dec 16 2005, [Exhibit L of Appellate Motion filed 2/6/06], she proclaims that the issue of visitation is out of her jurisdiction because the issue is already set to be heard on appeal. I maintain that Judge Cassidy’s decision, also made on Dec 16, to grant my $10,000 tax fund to the plaintiff [Exhibit M of Appellate Motion filed 2/6/06] was also out of Judge Cassidy’s jurisdiction for the same reasons. How can she be administrating the law and yet have it both ways?

 

Finally, this decision to obstructs my ability to appeal my divorce because if I can not get the transcripts, then Judge Cassidy knows that I can not appeal. This appeal is far too important to be squashed because if I can get you those transcript’s I can prove that Judge Brock (the judge who conducted the divorce) engaged in judicial hostage taking where I was denied parenting time in direct response to my refusal to cooperate in the false divorce proceedings. This is a children’s rights issue and it must be heard.

 

9. Dec 16 2005, Judge Cassidy Limits My Communication With The Court.

Also in Judge Cassidy’s decision [Exhibit L of Appellate Motion filed 2/6/06], is the order that all communication with the court must happen through regular mail. I was further told by Elina, Judge Cassidy’s clerk, that I would not be allowed to come to court to pick up a copy of the decision. Then I was told that I would not be allowed to call the court by phone in the future or make any faxes. I can find nothing in the court rules supporting this and can think of no valid reason to make these demands. Furthermore, Exhibit H shows that my opponent Mr. Duff  is not required to adhere to the same restrictions. Please notice the method by which these items were sent. While I may write arguments that the judge finds disagreeable, I have never been disrespectful, or threatening in anyway. Nor, I have never taken more of anyone’s time than the official business at hand required. Finally, In my 5 years dealing with the courts, my motions and letters have been lost by the court many times. By making personal deliveries to the court, I have been able to get receipts for all the documents submitted. This is essential when documents are lost. Of course I will use regular mail whenever possible, but when the situation requires it (emergent motions for example), I request that I be given the same access to the courts as any other member of the public. So for the reasons stated, I request that this provision of the order be reversed.

10.  Back to Nov 21 2005, Plaintiff Asks For Passport And  Permission To Take Child To Bahamas

On Nov 21, the plaintiff filed a motion with Judge Cassidy to regain her passport and my son's so that she could take my son out of the country to the Bahamas Exhibit G.

 

11.  I Advised Judge Cassidy That Plaintiff Is Flight Risk

I agreed to this on the condition that she provide proof of her destination prior to a court decision. Please see [Exhibit Q of Appellate Motion filed 2/6/06]  (I believed she was a flight risk and so did the courts otherwise they would not have confiscated the passports in the first place). The judge declined to hear oral argument on the matter.

 

12. Dec 16, 2005, Judge Cassidy Returns Passports to Plaintiff and Allows Her To Take Our Son To The Bahamas (specifically)

On Dec 16 2005 Judge Cassidy granted the plaintiff’s motion and provided a court order [Exhibit L of Appellate Motion filed 2/6/06] that allowed her to reclaim her passport (Previously Confiscated) and to take our child to the Bahamas.  The judge also mandated that I was to be told the exact location of  our child. The judge did not however check for verification of the plaintiff’s destination as I had implored.

 

13. Plaintiff Defied Judge’s Court Order:

a.      Child Taken To Guatemala Against Order And Without Proper Medication.

b.      Childs Location Hidden Also Against Order

In the end, it turned out that my son was taken to Guatemala (not the Bahamas as the court order [Exhibit L of Appellate Motion filed 2/6/06] specified) and which was just as [Exhibit Q of Appellate Motion filed 2/6/06] predicted. Further, I was not told his location until his return. I was told by my son who was afraid to tell me but thought it was important. Examination of the passports proved my 8 year old son correct and that I had reason to believe that the plaintiff would lie to Judge Cassidy. To make things worse, the plaintiff deprived my child of inoculation and medication recommended by The Center for Disease Control when traveling to Guatemala.

14. Our Child Became Sick

Since my sons return from Guatemala he had been suffering from flu like symptoms and had been sleeping in school. While I prayed to God he was only suffering the flu, was quite possible that he had picked up a tropical disease from Guatemala as most of these diseases start out with flu like symptoms.

15. I filed Motion To Take Child To Doctor And To Show Cause.

 

Upon finishing my research, I determined that my son may be at risk so I filed an emergent motion with Judge Cassidy to have my child examined by his doctor to be sure he was well [Exhibit S of Appellate Motion filed 2/6/06]. This motion also requested that the plaintiff show cause for lying to the Judge and for defying the judges order.

16. Plaintiff Refused To Take Child To Doctor

In response to my motion, the plaintiff filed a reply [Exhibit T of Appellate Motion filed 2/6/06] stating that she had no intention of taking my son to the doctor. This was after becoming aware of Center For Disease Control recommendations.

17. Judge Confiscates Passports Again and Orders Child To Doctor But Does Not Require Plaintiff To Show Cause.

The Judge considered the facts and provided a court order [Exhibit V of Appellate Motion filed 2/6/06] that:

a. confiscated the plaintiff’s passport and our child’s again.

b. ordered that the plaintiff is not to travel outside a 100 mile radius of her home.

c. ordered that the plaintiff take our child to the doctor within 24 hours, and to tell the doctor where the child had been.

d. Ordered the plaintiff to get medical insurance for my child in compliance with divorce decision.

18. Plaintiff Hides Information From Doctor.

 

I called my son’s doctor and asked if he was indeed examined and he was. The doctor volunteered over the phone that usually the parents come in before a trip and tell the doctor where they are going, the doctor will then inoculate and medicate as required to protect the child. The doctor also told me that she asked the plaintiff if my son had fever or chills and that the plaintiff said no. And so the doctor did not order a blood test. As you know from above, my son had flu like symptoms which is why I requested that he be examined.

19. Plaintiff Attempts To Strong Arm Visitation Supervisor.

My first wife Irene who has a valid court order to supervise visitations with my son and has done so for about a year and a half had stopped supervising last June because it was exhausting all of her free time and was having a negative impact on her health. I was sad about this but I supported her decision. We remain good friends. As chance would have it, Irene bought a Christmas present for my son Jack and wanted to give it to him. She also wanted to give me a nice surprise because my birthday is coming up. So she wrote to the plaintiff and offered to care for Jack one day, which worked out to be January 14th. [Exhibit W of Appellate Motion filed 2/6/06] are emails between Irene and the plaintiff. The exhibits show that the plaintiff agreed to the visitation although as visitation is court ordered, her agreement is not required. Moving along the time line a few days to court order [Exhibit V of Appellate Motion filed 2/6/06], you see that the plaintiff has just had her passport yanked and her movement was limited to a 100 mile radius of her home. Furthermore, the plaintiff was compelled to take our child to the doctor and pay for it. Worst of all, she understands that she has almost completely destroyed her chances of winning two huge law suits that she had been banking on for years. The plaintiff is angry and it shows in the next exhibit. [Exhibit X of Appellate Motion filed 2/6/06] shows another email from the plaintiff to Irene (the email is reprinted below).

 

Irene,

It has come to my attention that you have yet to appear in front of the Court to testify to the seriousness of your commitment to supervise any future visitation between John R. Shearing and Jack, as was ordered in the Final Judgment of Divorce of Oct. 14, 2005, paragraph 2:a, by Judge K. Brock. (Attached)

 

This provision was entered for good cause. I am allowing this one time Christmas visit only with the understanding and agreement that any future supervised visitation will be scheduled only after you have complied with the aforementioned Court Order and can provide proof of same.

 

Please reply that you are in full agreement with this at your earliest convenience.  If I don't hear from you,  I'll assume that you are not in agreement with this and the visit for Saturday, Jan. 14th, 2006 is cancelled.

 

Elisa Gonzalez

 

As you can see, the plaintiff claims to have found a provision in Judge Brock’s divorce decision [Exhibit Y of Appellate Motion filed 2/6/06] mandating that Irene appear before Judge Brock before anymore visitations can take place. But if you read the provision (reprinted below), you can see that this is simply not what the judge wrote.

1.      The defendant’s parenting time shall remain supervised by Irene Shearing.

a.       His present schedule of parenting time every Saturday from 9:00 a.m. until 8:00 p.m. may be expanded to alternate weekends from Saturday morning until Sunday evening if the defendant files a post-judgment motion to expand his parenting time and Irene Shearing certifies or testifies that she is willing to provide the necessary supervision.

 

It seems to me that the plaintiff wants every other weekend without any children and so she twisted Judge Brocks words in an attempt to force the visitation supervisor into accepting those conditions. Please imagine for a minute if I told one of the Union County Supervision Volunteers that they had to supervise for the whole weekend or there would be no supervision at all. It’s just nuts. In any case, the plaintiff knows that all communications of a legal nature must go through her lawyer Mr. Duff. So I advised Irene not to respond to the emails because answering them would only invite trouble.

 

20.  Plaintiff Forces Our Child To Tears By Using Him To Pass Her Demands To Me And By Threatening To Prevent A Planned Visitation.

On Friday the 13th, the night before the visitation was to take place, the plaintiff forced my son to call me and demand that Irene call her. My son told me that his mother would not allow him to visit if Irene did not call. I told my son that his mother my not use him to pass messages. I explained that Mommy has a lawyer for that. I then told my son not to worry and that we would be there to pick him up at the correct time and that his mother would allow him to visit because I had the judges permission.

 

My son then called me again soon after. There was a lot of stress in his voice. Again he told me that Irene must call the plaintiff or she would not allow use to see each other. I tried to comfort and reassure my son, but it was impossible. I begged him not to worry and to get some sleep. Still, I don’t think my child slept well that night.

 

On Saturday morning, my son called me again. This time he was crying hard. He told me that the visit was off. I told him that we would be there at the correct time and that we would have our visit.

 

Soon after, my son called again crying even harder. He told me that he and his mother would not be there when we arrived and that this was the last time we would speak together because his mother was taking his phone away from him. I told him I was still coming and that I would call the police to help us work it all out if required. My son told me that he didn’t want his mother to go to jail, so I assured him that no one was going to jail and that the police were only going to explain the law to his mother.

 

Finally I got a call from my son telling me that he would be allowed to visit after all. Of course he would be allowed to visit, I had a court order mandating the visitation. But why did my son have to suffer so? On this issue I will ask you to look at the back of the Trans-Parenting guide book distributed by Don Shapiro at the Union County Courthouse [Exhibit AA of Appellate Motion filed 2/6/06].  There you will see a Bill of Children’s Rights. Please notice Point Nine which states, “To be a child and not asked to lie, spy, or send messages between my parents.”  Clearly, my child’s basic right to be a child has been violated and has suffered for it. The truth is that my son has been suffering for years. He suffers every time the plaintiff puts her needs before his and uses him to manipulate me.

21.  Judge Cassidy Hears Motions On Following Issues Feb 10 2006.   

f.        Stay Pending Appeal Of The Divorce Trial. (Deferred)

g.      Reconsideration On Giving The $10,000 Trust Fund To Plaintiff Until Appellate Judge Could Decide Whether Or Not I Could Use The Fund To Purchase Transcripts. (Denied)

h.      Reconsideration Of Motion To Show Cause As Plaintiff Is Still Violating Court Orders And Harming My Son. (Denied)

i.        Reconsideration On Limiting My Rights To Access The Family Court As My Opponent Was Not Held To Same Restrictions (Denied)

j.        Cross Motion Preventing Me From Filing More Motions With Out Approval Of Judge Cassidy. (Granted)

On issue of Stay Pending Appeal, Judge Cassidy deferred to Judge Brock who heard the divorce for which there was no legal marriage to dissolve. Exhibit I is Judge Cassidy’s court order. This is now the second time this issue has been postponed. If you remember from above, I filed for stay pending appeal on Nov 3 2005 with the Family Court, but the motion was buried until Dec 16 2005 when the Judge Cassidy refused to consider the issue on the grounds that I did not qualify as indigent. But the appellate court granted indigency on Jan 11. Mean while I am exposed to jail time because I am indigent and have no money to pay alimony on  a marriage that never existed in the first place.

 

On the issue of Free Transcripts or in the alternative Use The $10,000 Tax Trust Fund To Pay For Transcripts: The motion was first buried from Nov 3 until Dec 16 2005 when the judge refused to consider it because I filed as indigent. Exhibit E is the court order. Then the money was given to the plaintiff on the same day  (Dec 16) on a different court order  that was filed after mine. [Exhibit M of Appellate Motion filed 2/6/06] is that court order. Oddly, on the same day, Judge Cassidy provided another order refusing to consider my parenting plan because the issue was already in the jurisdiction of the Appellate Court[Exhibit L of Appellate Motion filed 2/6/06]. I maintain that the issue of transcripts, and whether or not the plaintiff was entitled to the $10,000 was also in the jurisdiction of the Appellate Court. Were the two decisions consistent, then I would have nothing to complain about. But because the decisions are so inconsistent, it supports my claim that I Judge Cassidy is both punishing me for daring to appeal this case and is also doing everything in her power to prevent this case from being heard in the Appellate Court. Anyway, I raised these issues on motion for reconsideration which was heard on Feb 10 2006, and the judge dismissed my motion without comment and then provided an order preventing me from filing anymore motions without first having them approved by her. This is a problem, because if I can only file motions that Judge Cassidy is predisposed to grant, then the appellate court will never hear any issues that Judge Cassidy doesn’t want you to hear. This in effect makes Judge Cassidy a reining monarch with absolute authority and no accountability. Judge Cassidy says that I file to many motions, but this is only because the plaintiff is violating court orders time and time again, and my child is suffering. Lets take a look at the motions I filed since the divorce and I will demonstrate that each is merited.

 

1.      There is the divorce appeal for which you have seen proof that the plaintiff was married to another man at the time she married me. Again, a brief and conclusive evidence is included with [Appellate Motion filed 2/6/06 under Point Heading 3].

2.      I filed a motion for indigency which Judge Cassidy denied but the Appellate Court Approved. So there is no question on the merit of this motion.

3.      I filed a motion for free transcripts or in the alternative to use my $10,000 trust fund which is reasonable in light of my indigency.

4.      I filed a motion which included a request that my passport be returned. Since the motion was granted, it was understood to have merit.

5.      I filed a motion for reconsideration of Judge Cassidy’s decision to give my $10,000 trust fund to the plaintiff which was reasonable because Judge Cassidy herself determined that the case was already out of her jurisdiction when the decision was made.

6.      I filed an emergent motion to take my child to the  doctor which was granted. So it is assumed to be reasonable.

7.      I filed a motion that the plaintiff show cause because she defied Judge Cassidy’s order and absconded with my child to Guatemala. If this motion had no merit, then why did Judge Cassidy yank the plaintiff’s passport and restrict her to a 100 mile radius of her home?

8.      I filed a motion for stay pending appeal which is reasonable because I can not approach the appellate division with this request until I have a written decision from the trial court on this matter.

9.      I filed a motion for reconsideration of  the previous motion to show cause because the plaintiff continued to violate court orders after Judge Cassidy cut her a break during the previous hearing. Had the  plaintiff not interfered with court ordered visitation, not strong armed the visitation supervisor, not and used my son to communicate her demands, and not interfered with court ordered telephone contact, then I would not have filed for reconsideration. Exhibit J is the motion I filed. It follows reason that if Judge Cassidy would like me to file less motions, then she should advise the plaintiff not to violate court orders. That is the purpose of asking her to show cause. But after all these violations, Judge Cassidy has never even compelled the plaintiff to appear in court for any reason. When I argued my case on Feb 10, that the plaintiff should come before the judge to show cause; the judge refused to look at the evidence or consider my child’s suffering. First, the judge told me that she wouldn’t look at the plaintiff’s threatening emails [Exhibits X and Z of Appellate Motion filed 2/6/06] because I could have forged them. So I told the judge that the plaintiff admitted to sending the emails in a sworn certification sent to Judge Cassidy herself. The plaintiff even included one of the emails with the certification. Exhibit K is the certification and the email. Then Judge Cassidy told me that she didn’t have time to look at the certification. Then I asked the judge to phone the visitation supervisor to confirm that the plaintiff was trying to strong arm her and the judge said that she didn’t have time to do that either. Oddly, the judge phoned a litigant in the case just before mine. Finally, at the end of the hearing, the judge decided on a cross motion that I would not be allowed to bring anymore motions before her without first having her approve them. If you agree that all my motions have merit, then how can this restriction possibly be warranted? The message was absolutely clear. “Don’t Bring Your Child’s Problems To Me, I Am Overwhelmed”. I maintain, that if the judge would administrate justice, then peace would follow. Instead, the judge ignores violations of the law and the suffering of my child. Then she wonders why I keep showing up in her court. Luke :18 deals specifically with this issue and there are number of Bibles within the judge’s reach so why is the judge confused? Clearly, Judge Cassidy is confused because she is not serving justice, she is serving her own agenda, and she can’t tell the difference between the two. This latest restriction is proof of that. I am begging you to investigate this issue and reverse the judges order if you find it unjust. So that you can make an informed decision, I am including the plaintiff’s cross motion as Exhibit K and my response as Exhibit L.

10.   Most importantly, were requests in the motions mentioned to address the well being of my son who is suffering terribly. If you have read up to this point, you can tell the plaintiff is angry, is using my son as a weapon, and is involving him in this legal battle. For this reason, I have asked the Judge Cassidy to mandate the Trans-Parenting course given by the Union County Family Court for both the plaintiff and myself (attending at different times of course). The course is devoted to teaching parents how to protect children from the trauma of family breakup. Who on earth needs this more than the plaintiff and I? The answer of course is my son. Judge Cassidy denied my request. For this reason, I am begging the Appellate Court to mandate this course for both the plaintiff and I so that we can learn what is necessary to keep my son from being further traumatized and so that we can learn to be better parents. Of course, the plaintiff will argue that she does not need to know how to be a better parent, but this belief unchallenged can only harm my son. All the evidence and five years of war make it clear that intervention is required.

11.  Finally, when it was discovered that the plaintiff did not have medical insurance for my son in violation of a court order, I requested that Judge Cassidy mandate that the plaintiff either get medical insurance for my son, or allow me to do it. Judge Cassidy mandated that the plaintiff get the insurance [Exhibit V of Appellate Motion filed 2/6/06], but provided no means for verification. I thought this was necessary in light of the fact that the plaintiff violated the order to insure my son in the first place, refused to take my son to the doctor, and when finally ordered to do so, withheld information from the doctor about my son’s medical history. Further more, the plaintiff defied Judge Cassidy’s order and took my son to Guatemala with out inoculations or medicine recommended by the Center for Disease Control to prevent Malaria and then hid his location, also against the order. Anyway, in my motion for reconsideration, I requested that the plaintiff provide verification of insurance. Judge Cassidy denied this. What I can’t figure out is why the judge would confiscate the plaintiff’s passport and limit her to a 100 mile radius of her home, order her to take my child to the doctor and provide proof of the visit, but not require her to prove that she has insurance for my child. For this reason, I am appealing to you to provide a mechanism of verification so that we can be sure that my child has medical insurance.

22. Child Suspended For Threatening To Defend Himself With Gun.

Full details of this incident are included in [Exhibit CC of Appellate Motion filed 2/6/06]. Sadly I couldn’t ask help from the Appellate Court specific to that issue  because that help involved enforcement of court orders which I understood from R.2:9-1 to be in the jurisdiction of the Family Court. I discussed this with Judge Cassidy’s clerk Elina, and she instructed me to send Judge Cassidy a letter explaining what happened and what help I thought my son needed. I sent this letter on Jan 25 2006. This letter is included as [Exhibit CC of Appellate Motion filed 2/6/06]. The reason Judge Cassidy needed to know about this was because the plaintiff was using the situation as an excuse to prevent me from talking with my son over the phone. This was a violation of a court order that granted me daily conversation with my son. Please see [Exhibit Y of Appellate Motion filed 2/6/06]. I told Elina that I understood the judge would not be able to handle all the issues, but that she needed to know the whole story so that she could deal with enforcement of the court order granting telephone contact with my son as this was still in her jurisdiction under rule 2:9-1. and enforcement issues were to be heard on Feb 10 under the motion for reconsideration. Cover letter Exhibit M is my proof of intent and conversation with Elina. Elina received the letter and told me over the phone that Judge Cassidy would address the issue at the up coming hearing. Well at the hearing on Feb 10 2006, Judge Cassidy said that it was inappropriate for me to send her the letter and did not deal with any of my son’s needs. Instead, she used it as a reason she to prevent me from filing motions without prior approval. This is crazy because I sent her the letter at the request of her clerk Elina and never filed it as a motion. When I told this to the judge, she just ignored me. Anyway, as Judge Cassidy declined to hear this issue or help my child, I feel I have the right to bring this issue before Appellate Court. So for the reason’s above, I am asking for the following relief.

 

23.  What I Am Asking The Court To Do.

1.      I am asking that the court order the plaintiff to return the my son’s cell phone so that I may call him as is my right according to the divorce judgment and so that he may call me as is his right under court orders previous to the divorce judgment. Please note that using this phone is the only way I can initiate communications with my son because calling on the plaintiff’s phone would violate a five year old restraining order. The plaintiff may argue that the divorce judgment implicitly makes an exception in the restraining order that allows me to make one call a day to the plaintiff in order to reach my son, but I talked to Rahway police officer Lt Greyhill about this and he told me that the police would arrest me for making a call to the plaintiff if the restraining order was not changed. Further more, any judge who understands the enormous level of animosity that exists between the plaintiff and myself would provide a mechanism whereby I can parent my son without the need for contact with the plaintiff. The cell phone is that mechanism. By preventing my son from talking to me the plaintiff is only adding to my son’s isolation and is hiding my son’s needs from the courts.

2.      I am asking that the plaintiff be restrained from using my son to communicate with defendant or visitation supervisor.

3.      I am asking the court to address the issue that my son is unsupervised and unprotected after school as demonstrated by the bullying/gun threat incident. Again, please see [Exhibit CC of Appellate Motion filed 2/6/06] for a full understanding of what happened.

4.      I am requesting an order that I be notified by the Roosevelt School any time my son’s well being is at issue.

5.      I am asking the Roosevelt school be ordered to initiate dialog with me on the issue of school bullying as it relates to my son’s situation.

6.      I am asking that the Roosevelt school investigate my son’s claim that he was bullied by David and that a report be provided to the plaintiff and myself as required under NJ Anti-Bullying Law.

7.      I am asking that the Roosevelt School pay punitive damages for withholding information about my child against court orders and that the money be used to bring a motivational speaker into the school to address students and teachers on the issue of school bullying. If the connection between school bullying and school shootings is understood [Exhibit CC of Appellate Motion filed 2/6/06], then it should be understood that this small step will at least relive the suffering of children and at most may prevent a horrible tragedy.

8.      I am asking that the plaintiff be required to enroll in a short anger management program directed toward protecting children from the trauma of divorce. The Trans-Parenting course given by Don Shapiro of the Union County Court would serve this purpose. In the alternative, I am asking that the plaintiff appear before the court to show cause for perjury and contempt when absconding with my child to Guatemala, hiding his location, interfering with visitation, and preventing phone contact.

9.      I am asking that I also be allowed to attend the Trans-Parenting course given by Don Shapiro of the Union County Court but at a different time than the plaintiff to avoid conflict.

10.  I am asking that the court secure proof that my child (Jack Shearing) has medical insurance.

11.  I am asking that Brian Schwartz of Ceconi and Cheifetz receive $500 for his work administrating the $10,000 tax trust fund over the past 5 years. Money for payment would come out of the $10,000 trust fund itself.

12.  I am asking that the Appellate Court reverse Judge Cassidy’s previous decision to grant my $10,000 Tax Trust Fund to the plaintiff but rather leave the $10,000 fund in the possession of Brian Schwartz (my previous lawyer) until the Appeals Court decides whether or not I can use it to purchase transcripts and pay my back taxes and until the Appeals Court decides whether or not the plaintiff and I ever had a legal marriage or if she is even entitled to the money based on the possible reversal of the divorce.

13.  In the alternative to permitting me to purchase transcripts with the $10,000 tax trust fund, I am asking for free transcripts as I am indigent and have no means to pay for transcripts of the divorce trial.

14.  I am asking that the diamond ring which was handed over to the plaintiff under the divorce decision be returned to Brian Schwartz until the Appellate Court has had a chance determine if the plaintiff was ever in a position to make good on her promise to marry the me.

15.  I am asking for a reversal of Judge Cassidy’s decision that all communications with the Family Court be required to go through regular mail. I am asking rather that this be left to the to the discretion of the defendant as I have in no way abused my rights in accessing the Family court system and because the plaintiff is not  required to adhere to this order and has violated it already. The most important reason to reverse this decision is because this order prevents me from addressing the family court in an emergency as in the recent emergent motion to take my child to the doctor.

16.  I am asking for a reversal of Judge Cassidy’s decision that all motions must be preapproved by her before I can file them because I have never abused my right to access the family court, have never filed a meritless motion, and because I have never filed a motion for any other reason than to solve a real problem that only the family court could address.

17.  I am asking that in the future, all issues of court order enforcement and child welfare that would normally be routed through the Union County Family Court be routed instead to the Appellate Court because Judge Cassidy simply will not deal with these issues.

 

In conclusion, I realize that I am asking for a lot, but that is because a lot needs to be done. The list may be long, but the list is complete and is directed toward ending my child’s suffering and protecting his well being. I am begging you to give this matter consideration.

 

 

Respectfully,

 

 

John Shearing

 

 

 

CC Judge Cassidy, Howard Duff