See How to Stop a Modern Day Witch Hunter.

As you listen to lawyer, Howard Duff lose his shit over how much it's costing him to prosecute this baseless stalking charge and how he has little hope of recovering his investment, you will understand that the only way stop a witch hunter is to force him to prove his charges. Don't settle because it's less expensive than proving your innocents. Kick a witch hunter right in the change purse. That's how you end a witch hunt.

But stopping a witch hunter's harvest is not quite as easy when the judge is working with him. Hear the Hon. Kathryn A. Brock soothe Mr. Duff and assure him that there is plenty gold in her proceedings for him no matter how baseless the charges.

Why was the judge so blatantly biased? Because she didn't know that the entire planet could hear and she doesn't believe that anyone will help. We shall see.

When most of us think of witch hunters we imagine people running around with pitch forks carrying off old women and burning them at the stake. But this is not what happened during the witch hunts of the 1600s in Europe and America. Almost all of these 40,000 people were given trials before being burned. The court records still exist. Burning witches was extremely expensive. Huge piles of wood had to be chopped by hand and the trials themselves were expensive too. So where did the money come from to do this? Well the money was acquired by confiscating the property of the defenseless widows being tried and burned. A certain amount was given to the courts for presiding over the harvest, expert witnesses (priests) were paid, and the rest the lawyers got to keep. The eye witnesses were usually people with grudges against the widows and they were the ones that brought the cases to the lawyers. The public supported the whole affair because the lawyers were able to exploit the public's fear and ignorance buy creating hysteria. Does any of this sound familiar? How much has really changed in 400 years?

Everyone now knows that magic isn't real. So lawyers no longer accuse people of being witches. But people are terrified of rape and domestic violence and we all know that these people really do exist. When a man harms a woman we are all outraged and very quick to help. This is as it should be. But the mere thought a man harming a woman also incites outrage in all of us and this is what modern day witch hunters are counting on. When people are outraged, two things happen to them; they experience a high level of anxiety and they're capacity for objective thinking is diminished. In this state of mind the likelihood that man will be convicted of these crimes is related more closely with the level of outrage a lawyer is able to incite in judge or jury then with the actual facts presented. This is because outraged people are eager vent their anger and return to a normal relaxed state and defendants provide that outlet. Find out how the Innocence Project has freed large numbers of innocent men by doing new DNA testing on old evidence.

The point is that all the elements of witch hunting still exist today. Instead of neighbors with grudges, lawyers are hired by unfulfilled wives seeking to cash out of their marriages. Instead of rich widows accused of witchcraft, lawyers now falsely accuse rich men of domestic violence and rape for advantage in divorce. When it is the woman who has the wealth, then their husbands often bring false charges. Instead of paying priests for expert testimony on the effects of witchcraft, lawyers now pay psychologists to give expert testimony about mental anguish. Some things have not changed. When the relationship between judges and lawyers is adversarial, lawyers are forced to make their proofs, and the legal system generally works. But when judges work closely with lawyers and refuse to examine evidence objectively, the innocent are often punished and the guilty often go free.

Howard Duff of Nemergut & Duff 217 Main St. Woodbridge, N.J. and Judge Kathryn A. Brock provide us the unusual opportunity to study a modern day witch hunt using actual trial audio.

First allow me to provide you with the case background so that you can compare it with the information provided above. In this case we had an 8 year old boy with a trust fund which was given to him by me, the boy's father. My son was not represented by a lawyer and I was unable to afford one so I was representing myself. My son's mother was suing for divorce but oddly enough was not legally married to me. So in order to cloud the issue and create hysteria, my "wife" goes to the police and claims that I threatened to kidnap my son. I was placed in jail and forced to appear before the Hon. Kathryn A. Brock. Judge Brock would likely have revoked my parenting rights but I was able to produce an email my wife wrote to her sister just 12 hours before making her false claim to the police. In the email she writes "I am going to hit him with charges so damn nasty that he is going to shit his pants". Upon seeing the email and hearing my wife admit that it was authentic, the judge dismissed the case but did nothing to punish my wife for bearing false witness against me. Emboldened by this wink by the Judge, my wife abducted my son. I recovered him without the help of police. For this a restraining order was placed on me and I was officially labeled an anger management problem and a danger to my son. A few years later, my wife again abducted my son and removed him from the United States. By this time I had figured out how to get help from the courts and my son was recovered and my wife's passport was confiscated by a different judge. It is now about 4 years after the original complaint for divorce and the case finally comes to trial before Judge Brock. This was the very same judge that failed to do anything when she knew that my wife falsely accused me of threatening to kidnap my child. The divorce complaint contains false accusations of rape during the marriage. In deposition under oath, my wife claimed I raped her 3 times. Then she changed it to 5 times. Then she finally claimed in deposition that I had raped her 500 times. At about two or three days into the divorce trial (remember no marriage existed to dissolve), Mr. Duff asked the judge to stop the divorce trial and hear an emergency motion that expands the 4 year old restraining order on me because my wife now claims I am stalking her. You are hearing a portion of this "emergency motion to expand the restraining order".

The audio starts with me trying to read testimony into the record that would help the judge understand my character and the source of my well being. This very same document was read directly into the record before the Hon. Katherine R. Dupuis of the Union County Superior Court who granted my request that I not be required to attend court mandated anger management. How often do judges grant that?

Next you hear Mr. Duff, who is being paid by the hour, ask the judge to read the document herself to save time. But I need to read this into the record so that the appellate judge who will hear this case will have clear concise testimony about my character to read in the transcript.

Next you hear the judge change her mind about allowing me to read my testimony into the record by saying "It's not a sworn thing". But I am under oath and I am making the declaration that I am making sworn testimony. The judge knows this.

Here is where Duff loses it and exposes his weak character and flawed values. This is not a man seeking truth, understanding or justice. He just wants money and he is afraid he's not going to get any. This was an important moment for me because I now know he is just as weak as my wife's first two lawyers who quit when they found out I would fight every false charge made against me with every legal means at my disposal. Why is Mr. Duff so weak? Because he is driven by desire for profit and dominance and not guided by principals greater than his own desires.

The most telling statement is next made by the judge at 97 seconds into the recording. Here she says "Well there is council for the request". For those of you who don't speak witch hunter, that means you are getting your hourly fee for making this request. Notice she didn't say "If I find him guilty". In other words, no matter how baseless the stalking charges are, the judge is going to make me foot the bill. This is why most men never bother to protest their innocents in court. The price of justice is more than most people are willing to spend. But if everyone realized the hidden cost of not receiving justice they would spend every penny they have and every penny they ever will have. This tiny statement says volumes about the relationship between this lawyer and this judge. Metaphorically speaking, Mr. Duff is a bully who is getting his ass handed to him by the weakest kid on the playground. And Judge Brock is wiping away his tears and saying don't worry baby, mommy will help you.

Next you hear Mr. Duff who is still crying, "Mr. Shearing has no intention of paying anything".

At 103 seconds into the recording you can hear Judge Brock say "Well, he's a young man". That's true, I am a young man, and I have the rest of my life to devote to rooting out corruption in our justice system. Judge Brock still thinks she is presiding over a harvest. She still has no idea that she and Mr. Duff are subjects in an investigation of judicial corruption that the entire planet is witness to.

At 105 seconds into the recording, Mr. Duff Responds "Yeah, with a lot of stock that he hid." Mr. Duff still doesn't understand what that stock really is. If left undisturbed it is an education or a first house for my children. To the plaintiff is lots of spending moo and sweet victory. To Mr. Duff, it is the only chance he has of getting paid for this witch hunt. But for me, that trust fund is nothing more than a Petri dish for the growth and study of witch hunters. I will never touch a penny of that stock because I understand that the only way that Mr. Duff and Judge Brock can harm me is if I own property or have money. Being poor is the best possible inoculation against witch hunters. It was never my choice to be homeless and indigent. This situation was forced upon me by a corrupt family court system. But now that I am, there is very little these people can do to harm me. So I am now totally free to move about the witch hunters corrupt environment as I devote my life to reforming the broken justice system that they exploit.

Next you hear me maintain that I am trying to defend myself against a baseless motion.

Then the judge finally rules that she will not allow me to read my testimony into the record. She said "We will do it later when visitation is considered". But later never came because the judge had no intention of allowing me to see my son unless I turned over his trust fund.

Finally, the judge admits with a laugh that Mr. Duff interrupted the trial with this motion and brought it without a petition and that she allowed it to happen. This is not the first time that Mr. Duff blind sided me like this. In one trial after he realized that no one would believe my wife on the rape allegations, he asked in front of a jury "Isn't it true that you forced the plaintiff to become pregnant by secretly removing your condom during sex?" I didn't know what to say so I just said "what?!!" But nothing like that was ever claimed in the complaint or in deposition. It was just the closest he could come to making the false charge of rape. That trial is also under appeal. The Docket No is A-006160-04T2

The motion hearing on the charge of stalking took 3 days to complete during which time I vigorously defended myself. By this time the judge knew me very well and was aware that I would appeal if she found me guilty. In the end, the judge could not find me guilty of any wrong doing just as in the first trial where I had been accused of threatening to kidnap my child. Still the judge expanded the restraining order so that my wife could "feel more comfortable". I didn't care to have any contact with my wife anyway so I never appealed the expansion of the restraining order. This was a mistake because the judge was aware that I would appeal the ruling on divorce (there was no legal marriage to dissolve) so she noted in her decision that she was required to expand the restraining order without noting that she did it for my wife's comfort and not because I had done anything wrong. This was a clear attempt to vilify me in front of the appellate judge who will hear the divorce appeal. The divorce appeal is listed under Docket No A-001476-05T1

In 400 years, a lot has changed for the better.
Mr. Duff and Judge Brock do not have the power to tie me up and throw me in a pond to see if I float or sink, but Vice President Dick Cheney has confirmed that U.S. interrogators subject al-Qaida suspects to an interrogation technique called "water-boarding", which creates a sensation of drowning. Oddly, this technique was invented during the witch hunts of the 1600s. If this technique were available to Judge Brock would she use it to force me to roll over in her proceedings? We can't possibly know. The only thing we know for sure is that she used every power she does possessed in an attempt to force me to abandon my defense. Still Judge Brock has been able to confiscate all my money and property using false charges and I have been jailed on false charges as well. Finally, when none of that worked she prevented me from seeing my child. I could have tolerated the loss of my property and being jailed on false charges. But they went to far when they took my son hostage in an attempt to harvest his assets. It is now more then five years since my son was abducted and I had recovered him without the help of the police. Since that time I have never been in any kind of trouble and yet still the courts will only allow me to see my son in the presents of a court appointed supervisor. This is pay back for protecting his trust fund from Judge Brock and Howard Duff. That is why I started the Justodians and that is why I dedicate every day of the rest of my life to raising public awareness about witch hunting, judicial harvesting, and judicial hostage taking.

We can prevent judges and lawyers from abusing the courts. Follow these links to find out how.
Legislation mandating that the courts publish all trial audio on the Internet
Using statistics to reclaim our justice system
Learn about common forms of judicial misconduct
Understanding how and why our judges become corrupt