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


Kevin Collins: Case Manager

(609) 292-6999


DOCKET NO. A - 006160-04T2


Civil Action




Defendant’s Reply

To Plaintiff’s Response

Of Original Appeal Brief 





John Shearing,

155 E Joseph St. Moonachie,

NJ, 07074


(732) 406 6934    johnshearing@gmail.com






Note: Please see the original appeal brief for a procedural history, statement of facts, and table of citations.


Note: No appendix listing has been included because the only documents I refer to in this reply brief is my original appeal and my opponent’s response.




Page 1     Introduction



Page 3     Refuting Statements On Page 19 Of My Opponents Response

                Concerning My Children’s Trust Fund


Page 4     Disproving Opponents Counter Statement Of Facts

1.      Plaintiff Married Alien To Circumvent NJ Family Law.

2.      Plaintiff Was Already Married When She Took Vows With Me.

3.      Plaintiff Uses Child To Provoke Incident For Advantage In Divorce.

4.      Plaintiff Was Fired For Relationship With Inmate.



Page 6     Refuting Point 3 On Page 12 Of My Opponents Response

                The Next Best Thing To Rape Charges


Page 8     Conclusion


Page 10   Certification And Certification Of Service



Your Honor,



On June 3rd 2006 my good friend and legal mentor, Madeline Davidson Di Quarto of the New Jersey Council For Children’s Rights died in front of a Judge in Family Court. She was arguing to have custody of her only remaining child who was constantly running away to her. The other child committed suicide after the courts had taken him away from her. Due to elevated blood pressure caused by the stress of the proceedings, a blood vessel broke in her brain and she died. She was awarded custody of her child posthumously.


Madeline always maintained that her ex-husband and his lawyer were using custody and parenting time as a weapon to force her to turn over money that she had received in an insurance settlement. In an attempt to help her last remaining child, Madeline became a paralegal. As a result of her studies, Madeline fell in love with the law and volunteered her life to the service of others in her situation. I am one of the people she helped.


Madeline taught me everything I know about doing legal research, and writing legal briefs. More importantly, Madeline helped me understand how and why our children are being exploited and encouraged me to join her in fighting this exploitation.


So if going forward, you find my briefs less skillful, it’s because I can no longer speak with Madeline. But if you find my determination increased, it is for the same reason.


Madeline believed that you could get justice if you worked within the court system. I have no such expectation and believe that only new legislation can prevent further abuse. So while I am determined to use every judicial proceeding available to me, I have no false expectations on my chances of succeeding. My only expectation is that I will learn more about how and why the courts are being exploited and my only hope is that I will discover ways to help turn things around.


My life is now dedicated to fighting exploitation of the courts. My only weapons are the truth, and the Internet. I intend to arm everyone. Winning this appeal will not change my focus and losing can not stop me from seeking to reform the justice system. I dedicate my work to Madeline.


Because all my time and money is going into my defense, I can not afford an apartment or even a room, so I now live in a tent and move around from place to place. I am only able to earn enough to eat each day and to care for my child when we are together. My only belongings I carry on my back. I have proven tough enough to live outside in winter and creative enough to live productively and happily in jail, (I spent time in jail for giving my child a toy and was later released when it was determined that this was not a crime). I am resourceful, loving, and blessed enough to remain deeply involved with my children despite more threats of jail. And finally, I have no fear of any kind because I have complete faith in the Lord. Simply put, I am truly free to pursue justice and reform.  


It was not my choice to have this new life; it was created for me when these proceedings destroyed my old one. Still, I have never been happier and so except for more time with my son, I want nothing back from my old life and have no intention of returning to it. When I lived in a house with the plaintiff, I was required to take 3 different psychiatric medicines each day just to face her. In my new life, I am happy and at peace. The only psychiatric medicines I take are thanks giving and time with family and friends.


Refuting Statements On Page 19 Of My Opponent’s Response.

As I have no assets, my children’s trust fund is the only reason this lawsuit exists. On page 19 of his response, my opponent uses my children’s trust fund as proof that I can pay the judgment against me. I can not and will not use the trust fund for anything except as it will directly benefit my children. The trust fund has never been disturbed and never will be until my children are old enough to receive it. This fact is made absolutely clear on page 16 of my appeal brief.  My opponent’s objective is to acquire my children’s trust fund for the plaintiff and receive a large chunk of it for himself. Mine is to protect it for my children. To my opponent, Mr. Duff, the trust fund represents the spoils of war. For my children, it means braces, college or a first home. To me, it is a Petri dish for growing and studying divorce lawyers. Mr. Duff is the plaintiff’s third. The other two quit. When Mr. Duff quits, there will be more. No matter how many come for it, I will not turn over my children’s trust fund without using every form of legal resistance and exhausting every possible appeal.



Refuting Counter Statement Of Facts

The very first thing my opponent writes in his counter statement of facts is that the plaintiff and I were married. We could not have possibly been married because the plaintiff was married to another man when she took her vows with me. She is still legally married to this man but denied his very existence under oath in deposition. She later admitted to marrying this man for the purpose of circumventing NJ Family Law which prevented her from leaving the state with her first child. The man involved in this second marriage received help in obtaining citizenship to our United States (Transcript Jan 25 2005 starting pg 132 line 18 until pg 134 line 17). This whole situation is being handled under divorce appeal Docket No A-001476-05T1.


So if I wasn’t married, what was I? I was confused. I was confused because I was doing everything I could possibly imagine to stay in marriage that didn’t even exist and wasn’t intended to last. In the meantime, the plaintiff was doing everything in her power to provoke a domestic violence incident so that she could separate herself from me without separating herself from my assets. In the second paragraph on page 2 of my opponent’s response, the plaintiff recalls an incident where I grabbed her and held her against a banister. The plaintiff and I were having an argument because I allowed my first wife and my daughter from that marriage to attend a family function that the plaintiff and I were not able to attend. The plaintiff was furious and told me “that I had no balls” and other such things. I knew she was trying to provoke a fight and so I told her to leave me alone. But she persisted in taunting me and so I told her if she didn’t stop I would call the police. She just laughed in my face and told me that I wasn’t a man because I need police protection from a woman. Finally, I told her that I was leaving the house. The Plaintiff, realizing that she was losing the opportunity to provoke me, said “Oh no, your not leaving. I am leaving and I am taking Jack (our son)”. The plaintiff was well aware that I had been kidnapped as a child and knew that this would provoke me. At this point I grabbed her right arm with my left hand and her throat with my right hand. I held her against the banister and told her she would not be taking our son. The plaintiff encouraged me to push her over the banister. She said, “Go ahead, do it”, but I released her instead. The plaintiff called the police but no arrest was made. The plaintiff claimed I threatened to take our child if she filed charges. This is false. No charges were filed because Elisa was unmarked. She would not make this mistake again. Next time, she would be sure to become marked. Still, despite years of merciless and constant provocation, this was the first of only two times that I ever put my hands on the plaintiff. The second and last time was provoked when the plaintiff abducted my son Jack at the end of our relationship. She yanked him right out of my arms and disappeared with him while I was in municipal court cleaning up some false charges she had made to secure an advantage in the pending divorce. I called the police, but they informed me that they could not get involved for 24 hours. I believed she would flee to Guatemala because she told me she would if I gave her trouble. She has wealthy family there. So I hid in my home with my brothers hoping that the plaintiff would return for something and indeed she did. When the plaintiff came in the house she left my child in the car. So I left through another door and ran to the car. My intention was to take my child to safety. The plaintiff heard me and reached the car while I was still fumbling with the lock. Again I restrained the plaintiff by holding her neck as I instructed my brothers to take my child to safety. Elisa predicted correctly that because I had been kidnapped as a child, she could trigger a reaction in me by kidnapping my child. My brothers also believed that the plaintiff was a flight risk. I am not arguing that I had a right to put my hands on the plaintiff. Of course I should have let the police and courts handle the situation. All I am saying is that the situation was deliberately provoked by the plaintiff for the purpose of gaining advantage in divorce proceedings on a marriage that never existed in the first place. How can she be allowed to profit from this?


On page 6, the plaintiff claims to have been unable to work at the Rahway Prison after the incident, because of post-traumatic stress syndrome but in fact she was fired for having a relationship with an inmate who was a convicted murderer and gang member with active contacts on the outside. The inmate was trying to manipulate the plaintiff into falsifying his jail records and he had my child’s address in his cell. (Transcript Jan 25 2005 pg 138 pg 162). Whatever mental problems the plaintiff had, started long before I ever met her.


Refuting Point 3 On Page 12 Of My Opponents Response

On page 12 under point heading 3, the plaintiff says that I am asking for a new trial because he called me a “nasty man”. He can call me whatever he wants, that not my concern. I am seeking judgment not withstanding the verdict or alternatively a new trial because the plaintiff’s lawyer slandered me by telling the jury I got the plaintiff pregnant by secretly removing my condom while having sex (Transcript Jan 27 2005 pg 45). But this conflicts with her testimony in divorce proceedings stating that the condom broke the night she became pregnant with my son and that is exactly what happened. Divorce transcripts are now on order. Further more, this allegation was never in the complaint but was rather made up at the last minute to secure a victory in court. I maintain that it is impossible for a jury to hear such things without being moved to passion against me. And the fact that the allegations were never in the complaint, made it impossible for me to defend myself. As you know from Exhibit A, the plaintiff accused me of raping her. In deposition she accused me of raping her 1 time, then she changed it to 5 times, and finally, she changed it to 500 times. The false allegations of rape simply became more and more ludicrous and unbelievable as the discovery process continued and so the plaintiff’s lawyer decided to go for the next best thing to rape. That was suggesting that I forced the plaintiff to become pregnant by secretly pulling off my condom. And since the allegation was never in the complaint, it never had to withstand the scrutiny of the same discovery process which showed the rape charges to be so preposterous.


On page 20 of his response, my opponent admits he told the jury that I was not paying child support. This is absolutely false. I have already paid $80,000 in child support which is more than I owe. The problem is that my opponent felt that the $80,000 should be applied to his lawyer’s fees first and so he makes the claim that no money was paid in child support. In any case, child support is being handled in the divorce case which was bifurcated from the civil matter. If my opponent believed child support was a real legal issue he should have sought relief by filing a motion in family court and the mater would have been heard. Instead, he made the complaint in front of the jury in the civil trial as a means of slander. In general, people hate dead beat dad’s almost as much as they hate rapists and Mr. Duff, managed to present to the jury that I was both yet I was never charged with either and I never had the opportunity to defend myself. Mr. Duff knows that people in this country are predisposed to believe that men are rapists and abusive in the same way that people are predisposed to believe that fat people are lazy and the black man walking up to you might hurt you. There is no statistical evidence to support any of this but people act on these beliefs and suffering is the result. The huge amount of convicted rapists now being released from jail as a result of the new DNA testing proves that in general, our estimation of how likely a man is to be a rapist is linked more closely with our level of outrage at the crime in the abstract than it is with the specific situation. In other words, the more outraged we are, the more likely we are to convict. Mr. Duff understands this and enraged the jury with false charges that were never included in the original complaint and were never tested against the discovery process.


Mr. Duff received a double bonus for doing this: The huge amount of damages awarded to the plaintiff must also have been based to some extent by the level of outrage experienced by the jury. But what were they outraged about? Was it the false assertion that I wasn’t paying child support? Was it the false allegation that I forced the plaintiff to become pregnant by secretly pulling off my condom? Or was it that I tried to rescue my son from the threat, I and my brothers perceived, that he might be taken out of the country? Well since most mammals agree that protecting your young is normal behavior, I expect it was outrage from the false, untested allegation of not paying child support and the false untested allegation of forcing the plaintiff to become pregnant that caused the jury to award such high damages. The plaintiff must not be allowed to profit from this kind of slander.




“People respond to incentive”. This statement is the foundation of the study of economics. The courts provide incentive for restraint by punishing men who commit acts of domestic violence. But the extreme latitude given to women in bringing domestic violence charges is also providing incentive; incentive for women to solve their marital problems by filing false domestic violence charges. Women are not liars they are people, and people respond to incentive. If the courts don’t change their incentives, then we will all start to develop the same outrage towards women who bear false witness, as we already have with men who commit acts of domestic violence. When this happens, it will be extremely difficult for women to get the protection they need because general outrage obstructs our ability to make rational decisions in specific cases.


Only a few weeks ago, our own marines massacred more than 20 people including many women and children immediately after a roadside bomb went off and killed two of their own. You simply can not hear about this and fail to understand the link between outrage and poor decisions. Mr. Duff understands this link and exploits it in the very place our society has set aside for rational thought. The plaintiff has done the same in our courts long before she ever met Mr. Duff. Do you now see why I have dedicated my life to studying and reporting on these people?


General outrage over false DV charges is spreading and getting louder with each marriage that ends this way. Men who have been abused this way are finding each other on the Internet and their voices are resonating. If the courts don’t start recognizing and addressing the issue, the small level of general outrage that now exists over false DV charges will grow. Eventually, there will most certainly be fewer arrests and fewer convictions of real offenders and that will make the world a much more dangerous place for women.


My relationship with the plaintiff never had to end like this. I presented her with divorce papers which she had every legal right to contest in court. Instead, the plaintiff filed false charges against me saying that I threatened to kidnap our child exactly like she claimed when separating herself from her first husband. And when the judge didn’t believe her she provoked a real incident by abducting my son. She was acting on incentive which thus far has been rewarded with $210,000. You simply can not reward this behavior without expecting this kind of activity to spread and political backlash to occur.


Let justice be served and people will follow the incentive toward peaceful behavior.

Respectfully Submitted



John R Shearing


Certification and Certification of Service


Please let this 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.

John R Shearing



CC Howard Duff