Dear Judge Kestin,


1. Malicious Abuse of Domestic Violence Law

Back in 2001 the plaintiff took a missing persons flyer to the police and said that I told her, “The next time you see your child it will be on a poster like this”. I was arrested and jailed. When the whole thing came to court, I produced an email that the plaintiff wrote to her sister just 12 hours before setting me up with the police. This is Exhibit A. In the email, the plaintiff wrote about the pending divorce action, which had not been filed yet, “I am going to beat him to the punch and file charges so damn nasty that he is going to shit his pants.” The plaintiff and her sister admitted that the email was authentic and so the matter was dropped and I was allowed to return to my home. The plaintiff was never punished for bearing false witness or for abusing Domestic Violence Law.


The plaintiff filed the exact same charges against her first husband immediately prior to divorce against him. Judge Brock only allowed me in camera inspection of the complaint so I cannot include it in my appendix but it was discussed in trial before Judge Pisansky and from the transcript, Exhibit B pg 129 line 1 to pg 131 line 6, you can see the plaintiff can’t remember if her first husband kidnapped their child or not. How do you forget about something like that unless you made the whole thing up to begin with? That complaint was dismissed also. With Exhibits A and B, it is absolutely clear that the plaintiff twice used false domestic violence charges to in order to initiate divorce proceedings.


Notice on  Exhibit B page 129 line 20 to page 130 line 2, the plaintiff has asked that her first husband not be allowed to see their child until the divorce is final. This is exactly what the plaintiff is doing with me. This is why I asked for bifurcation and immediate consideration of visitation issues. The plaintiff is using my child to force my compliance in her divorce  proceedings and the evidence shows that this is the second child she has used this way.


After divorcing her first husband, the plaintiff married an illegal alien for the sole purpose of circumventing NJ Family Law that required her to remain in NJ so that her daughter would have access to her father, (the plaintiff’s first husband). This is demonstrated in Exhibit B page 131 line 7 to page 134 line 25. The alien received access to our United States for his complicity.


God does have a sense of humor however because the plaintiff never terminated her marriage to the alien before marrying me, and I never knew that she was married a second time until years after we were married. This made our marriage illegal, and the plaintiff knew this. This is why the plaintiff denied under oath ever even knowing her second husband, (the man she is still married to). Please see Exhibit B page 133 line 10


Judge Brock knew that the plaintiff had filed false domestic violence charges against me as a way of initiating divorce proceedings, and she knew that this was the second marriage she ended in this way. Judge Brock knew that the plaintiff was using visitation to force cooperation in the divorce, and she knew that this was the second child that the plaintiff used in this way. Lastly, Judge Brock knew that my marriage to the plaintiff was not legal and she forced me to endure divorce proceedings anyway. The transcripts are the only way I can prove that Judge Brock knowingly facilitated the plaintiff in abusing the law, so in the defense of justice, I must have access to those transcripts so that I can bring this case before you.

2. Why Am I Fighting So Hard?

The institution of marriage is under attack and not by the gay rights movement as so many believe. A natural process has emerged through the interaction of various parts of the divorce industry. A process that facilitates the destruction of our families. This process feeds off  the wealth that is liberated through that destruction. I am not speaking of a conspiracy where people are deliberately smashing our families like piggy banks. I am speaking of an incentive-driven economic process whereby laws, institutions, and agendas, which function as intended by themselves, combine to form a poisonous reaction. If the law is social medicine, then I am speaking of the unintended and harmful interactions that can occur when laws are combined. The interaction is described as follows:


In 1994 the Violence Against Women Act was passed into law to combat a serious problem. The act released enormous amounts of grant money to set up infrastructure and heighten public awareness.


It is now 12 year later, and the problem has been largely addressed. Shelters have been built, and a domestic violence workforce is in place. More importantly, police and judges have responded to public awareness and have zero tolerance for acts of domestic violence. The Domestic Violence Machine is serving its intended purpose and this is as it should be.


Sadly, it didn’t take women long to figure out that you could use the Domestic Violence Machine to quickly disembowel a man just prior to divorce proceedings. All you need do, is file a false domestic violence charge with the police. In the alternative, you could mercilessly provoke your husband into slugging you as a way to initiate divorce proceedings. This is actually the preferred method because it forces police and judges to separate the man from the rest of his family and leaves the woman in her home with the children. This immediately identifies the woman to the court as the “good” parent and makes it difficult for the father to see his children without cooperation from the “victim”. Well the “victim” is not likely to give the father parenting time unless he agrees to roll over in divorce proceedings and give her everything. If you think about it, a black eye is a tiny price to pay for this advantage. In fact, a black eye provides the woman with a blue badge of courage that she can use to convince herself, and prove to all, that she has every right to take everything from her husband and stop him from seeing his children.


In my case, the plaintiff could not get me to slug her so, In April of 2001, the plaintiff had me falsely jailed for “threatening to kidnap our child” and then she abducted my son right after I was cleared of the charges and freed to return to my home. She did this to upset me. In Exhibit A an email written to her sister just 12 hours before having me arrested, she says she did this to “make me shit my pants”. Well mission accomplished. I attempted to rescue my son without the help of police. This is the nonsense reason why I am still not allowed to see my son without supervision, five years later. Clearly, the plaintiff did everything in her power to provoke a domestic violence incident, and my child is still suffering for it five years after it happened. D. V. Law was not intended to be used this way.


The important thing to note here is that women have an enormous weapon in divorce proceedings that men do not have and so deterrent is removed. And when deterrent is removed, people who might otherwise workout their problems are likely to war. The point is, that thousands of women who might have found a way to make their marriages work, are being seduced into smashing their own families as if they were piggy banks because abusing domestic violence law is so incredibly easy to do. In the end however, it’s the lawyers who pick up the coins so even women are exploited by this process.


The real victims are of course the children who lose a father, a stable home, and all the wealth that would have eventually passed to them but has been rerouted to members of the divorce industry. This is why I am fighting so hard.


In twenty years or so, my son may wish to get married. If this imbalance in the Family Court System is not addressed, then he is likely to suffer loss of his marriage, jail time, loss of his children, loss of all his wealth, and loss of all his future earnings. I do not want my son to suffer what I have suffered. This is why I am fighting so hard.


Finally, I believe marriage is the foundation of the family, and that the family is the foundation of our country. I believe that abuse of domestic violence law is so widespread and well known that fewer and fewer men are choosing marriage. This means that more and more children are growing up without fathers and this is destroying our country. Many men that do risk marriage become ruined through abuse of DV Law and never fully recover their ability to earn a living. This reduces or eliminates the man’s ability to pay taxes and strains social programs. Multiply this loss of taxes and increase in social spending by the amount of men destroyed by abuse of DV Law and you start to understand the drain on our economy. Worst of all, many men never recover their ability to see their children which again forces children to grow up without fathers. My son is one of those children. This is why I am fighting so hard.


3.      Fair Judges Are Our Only Protection

     Against Abuse Of Domestic Violence Law


Lawyers know about domestic violence abuse and they profit from it when they can, but they are only doing their job and advocating for their clients. They did not create these conditions and they are in no position to stop the abuse. Abuse of Domestic Violence Law occurred as a natural result of women responding to incentive and lack of deterrent.


In order to use the Domestic Violence Machine as a weapon in divorce, you have to get a judge to participate. If the judge refuses to cooperate then DV Law can not be abused. I have seen no laws to protect men from false DV charges and if there are any, they are not enforced. Nor are there any organizations receiving government grant money to protect men from abuse of DV Law. Fair judges are our only protection. 


In most cases, judges can see right through this nonsense. So initially I was baffled by Judge Brock’s cooperation. After all, unlike the lawyers, judges do not profit through divorce. So why was she cooperating if there was nothing to gain? Part of the reason must be fear of allowing fathers to see their children in the case that they really are a danger, but  Judge Brock simply would not look at any evidence that might demonstrate that I am a good father, capable of caring for my child. It was as if the Judge Brock had already decided what I was like and then selected from the pool of evidence in order to support her preconceived conclusion. I could not help but notice that the judge was warm to the plaintiff and cold to me so I formed the hypothesis that Judge Brock had a feminist agenda. There is of course nothing wrong with feminism. Women need advocates as much as any other group in society. But if you are a judge, you must leave your personal agenda outside the courtroom and I was not so sure that Judge Brock was able to do this. Anyway I googled Judge Brock to see if I could find anything to support my hypothesis that she was bringing a feminist agenda into the courtroom and I came upon the names of some former law clerks. I called the law clerks to see if they could tell me anything about the judges beliefs and they told Judge Brock that I was asking about her. In response, Judge Brock told the sheriff’s department that she suspected that I was a threat to her life. This is exactly the same kind of crap that the plaintiff pulled to initiate divorce proceedings. The judge knew I was not a physical threat to her, but chose to do exactly what the plaintiff had done and used law enforcement to impair my ability to defend myself in court. While the judges actions never confirmed that she was operating under a specifically feminist agenda, it did confirm that her agenda had nothing to do with providing a fair trial. Since the judge herself had no problems abusing law enforcement when it suited her purpose, why is it reasonable to believe that this judge would protect the law when the plaintiff abused it? Eventually I was investigated and cleared of all charges and can now operate freely again in the Union County Courthouse.


As you can see, we have a cocktail of different laws, organizations, and agendas which promote the well being of people when operating individually, but when mixed, actually provide incentive to engage in the most brutal kind of divorce. This is causing the destruction of thousands of families across our country every year. Women are acting predictably given the huge incentive to abuse Domestic Violence Law. Lawyers will say anything and use any means to promote the interests of their clients. They are acting as the law intended.


There is only one thing that can keep these good laws, organizations and agendas from mixing to form a hazardous compound. Judges who will consider all the evidence and who’s only agenda is providing a fair trial. You are one of these judges. I know because you have allowed me to proceed as indigent which made it possible for me to come before you to plead my case. Judge Brock on the other hand knowingly accepts false evidence and rejects valid evidence in order to support a verdict consistent with her personal agenda. What is worse, Judge Brock did everything in her power to prevent the reestablishment of  parenting time between me and my child in an effort to force my cooperation with her personal agenda.


I am not the only one. As you know, I maintain that the transcripts will show that right after I made it clear that I would not turn my son’s trust fund over to the plaintiff and her lawyer, Judge Brock told me that I would not be allowed to see my child because I gave him a toy Star Wars blaster. Well I have an associate that was told by Judge Brock that he would not be allowed to see his son because he gave him a GI Joe doll. He is willing to purchase transcripts, and he is willing to come forward. I encountered this man by chance, but how many more fathers and children do you think the judge has separated in this way? How many other judges are doing this? The only way to stop this practice is to shine a light on it.


5.  Protecting Judge Brock vs. Protecting My Child

Most people were horrified to discover recently that Catholic priests were using children in their charge to satisfy their sexual needs. But people were outraged to discover that church officials knew what was happening and did nothing to protect the children. Who was worse,  the priests or the church officials. I maintain that Judge Cassidy (Presiding Judge in the Union County Family Court) used every bit of her authority to stop me from acquiring the transcripts and from bringing this case to the Appellate Court. What she did is fully described in my previous appellate motion requesting help in acquiring transcripts and in a following letter to Kim Maurer and to you. But in a sentence, Judge Cassidy actually buried two motions for help in acquiring transcripts. Had the judge considered the motions, I would have no complaint, but she chose to hide them instead. Like the priests, Judge Brock used a child in her charge for her own purpose. And like the church administrators, Judge Cassidy used her authority to cover the offences occurring in her organization. As with the church, eventually, the truth will be made public.


A Supreme Court Judge said “I don’t know how to define pornography, but I know it when I see it.” Clearly, while pornography defies definition, it has recognizable qualities. Among those qualities are exploitation, abuse and a confiscation of the subjects human dignity


Evil is also intangible and defies definition, but most people know it when they see it. They know it because it shares the same previous qualities as pornography and adds one more. It is deceitful and attempts to hide the truth. You cannot look at Exhibits A and B and fail to understand that the plaintiff has engaged in deceitful behavior that exploited my child, abused the law and stripped me of my human dignity. These are behaviors associated with evil. I am not saying that the plaintiff is evil, only that her behavior contains markers that indicate that evil acts have been committed. I further maintain, that you will not be able to read the transcripts of Judge Brocks divorce proceedings and fail to see these same markers. As such, I am asking for your help in acquiring the transcripts because the only way to fight evil is to expose it’s deceit to the light of public scrutiny.


6. All These People Can’t Be Wrong. Can they?

We have the plaintiff, her lawyer, prosecutors, two Judges, and several mental health experts who have all claimed that I am a danger and must be isolated.


Never mind that I have a letter written this week from my psychiatrist stating that I am not a danger to anyone Exhibit C, and never mind that I have a letter from my previous psychiatrist (see Exhibit I of Parenting Plan Motion filed with the Appellate Court on 2/6/2006) stating that I am not a danger to anyone. Lets forget for now that these letters are far more recent than any of the plaintiff’s expert reports. Let’s ignore the fact that the very last paragraph of the plaintiff’s expert report written over two years ago states the issue of parenting time should be revisited. And finally, lets forget for a minute that I have been investigated and cleared of being any kind of threat by Lt Frank of the Union County Sheriff’s department and Detective Lubertazzi of the NJSP Central Security Unit (609 341 5058).


Let’s only consider for a minute if it is possible that so many of the plaintiff’s advocates can be completely wrong about me. Well let’s not just consider this small group of people, lets consider an entire country. How about Germany or Chad or Rwanda, or Bosnia to name a few.  The fact is, groups of people are wrong all the time. In fact, groups are more likely to be wrong than individuals because most of the individuals in the group abdicate their responsibility to consider the facts or the morality of what they are doing. Instead, group members defer to group leaders to make these considerations and simply follow along.


Exhibit D is a photograph taken during a lynching. This photograph is extremely difficult to look at, but you can’t defeat Evil if you won’t examine it. Notice all the people standing around totally unafraid to show their faces. Clearly, these people are oblivious to the fact that they are engaged in an evil act. This highlights the deceit component that accompanies every evil act and explains why evil is able to persist among generally good people. Most of the people in this photo are engaged in this horrible evil act because they have given themselves permission to use someone else’s judgment. The court system is designed to prevent just this kind of tragedy. Judges in higher courts are supposed to consider the evidence in complete independence of the lower court rulings. But in my case, Judge Brock used the ruling of a municipal court judge on the issue of bigamy, to decide whether or not the plaintiff and I were ever married. This municipal court judge is a personal friend of the plaintiff and her lawyer and should have recused himself.  To make matters worse, this judge told me that I would not be allowed to appeal his ruling and I believed him at the time. No judge since has taken a fresh look at the issue but rather have always deferred to his ruling. The courts were not set up so that superiors would defer to the rulings of their subordinates, and when they do you get lynch mob justice


7.  What I Am Asking The Court To Do

Please Your Honor,

I am begging you to allow me to demonstrate what is happening in the lower courts. I must be allowed to present you with the transcripts and to make my case. To this end I am asking you to allow me to abbreviate the transcripts so that I can afford to purchase the significant parts which support my case. There is simply no other way I can afford to acquire them. Please see the attached certification of indigency.

2. I am begging you to reconsider my parenting plan filed on 2/6/06 with the Appellate Court. The plan simply requests that I be allowed to transport my son to the supervisors house where visitations have been successfully conducted for three years now. If you will allow this, then I can see my child every Saturday as the divorce decision mandates. If you will not allow this, then visitations will occur much less frequently (about once every few months) because the supervisor (my first wife and mother of my daughter) is not able to provide transportation on a weekly basis.


Included as Exhibit C is a letter from my current psychiatrist that states there is nothing to indicate that I am a danger to my son and that there is no valid reason to prevent me from transporting him to the supervisors residence.


Exhibit E are phone records for the previous month which shows my child initiated 22 hours of conversation with me during the past month. Please note that these are incoming calls. Clearly my child wants time with his father, but for five years now, the plaintiff, her lawyer, and Judge Brock have been doing everything in their power to prevent this. These people are interfering with the happiness and well being of a child, and I am asking you to intervene. If you have read this, then you know why I am morally obligated to use every legal means at my disposal to seek a just outcome. You know that this may take a very long time. Please, do not allow my child to grow up without his father simply because his father is seeking justice.


Thank you for hearing me,


John R Shearing


Please let this letter serve as my sworn certification that everything in this letter is true and that everything that you have received from me to date including this correspondence and it’s attachments have also been sent to Mr. Duff  (Attorney for the plaintiff) at 217 Main St. Woodbridge NJ 07095 and that I understand that if anything in this letter is knowingly false then I am subject to prosecution.