Listen to actual trial audio of a child being used to create hysteria and collect false evidence against his own father. This same practice was used in court during the witch hunts of the 1600s and in Nazi Germany as well.
In this first recording my son's mother gives believable but false testimony during divorce proceedings that I had given my son an arsenal of toy weapons.


Notice the creative use of the word "Columbine" at the end of this second recording for added hysteria.

In this third recording, you will hear that my son was dressed Rambo style and photographed for the judge with the two Star Wars Blasters I had given him. These were the worst two toys they could find to support their testimony that I had given him an arsenal of toy assault weapons. At 77 seconds into the recording you hear the judge put words into my 8 year old son's mouth. She says, "That's not from the $10". My son corrects her, "It was from my $10 dollars." What's happening here is that the judge wrote an order preventing me from spending more than $10 a week on gifts and she is trying to use my 8 year old son to violate me on that order. At 106 second into the recording, you can hear Judge Brock doing this again. Children should not be use to collect evidence against their own parents. Again, this was common practice during the witch trials 400 years ago and despite the pretense at progress, not much has changed.

In this forth recording, you will hear that my 8 year old son is the only sane person in these proceedings. Notice how the judge fishes with the broad question "How did you get interested in guns?", but when my son does not give her the answer she is looking for, she asks the narrower question, "How do you think your dad feels about guns?" This judge is looking for a reason to buy into his mother's hysteria but my eight year old son denied her.
You can not hear all this testimony and fail to understand how parents are advised by their lawyers to give outrageous testimony concerning their children's relationship with their other parent. They do this for the sole purpose of creating courtroom hysteria. This is the very definition of witch hunting. I am not a gun crazy father preparing my son for a school shooting. I am a normal loving father enjoying Star Wars pretend play with my son. Lawyers exploit children to create hysteria in court because they can get away with it. And they get away with it because judges like Judge Kathryn A. Brock are not looking for the truth. Judge Brock was supposed to be interviewing my child to see how he could best be served by the court. Instead Judge Brock was working with lawyer Howard Duff of Nemergut & Duff to pump information out of this 8 year old boy that could be used against his own father. This case is under appeal, but after paying $8,800 dollars for transcripts, I find that they didn't include this interview. This is how judges exploit children in the lower courts and yet remain invisible to the people responsible for checking their behavior. We can protect children from abusive judges. As a finale demonstration of how deep hysteria runs in the mind of this judge, I note that on page 18 of her decision, the judge writes, "When asked about the large toy guns he was holding in a picture of him taken while he was standing on his bed, he described them as blasters, which are imitations of real blasters used in the latest Star Wars movie which his father had given him." Hello!! Earth to Judge Brock! There is no such thing as a real blaster. Real blasters weren't used in the movie because real blasters don't exist. What if I had given my son a magic wand like the one used in Harry Potter? Would she say that I had given him an imitation of the real magic wand used in the latest Harry Potter movie? Of course not. Judge Brock understands that blasters are fantasy, but her enormous emotional bias was controlling her choice of words. Court is the one place in our society where hysteria and emotional bias are not permitted, because when they are, you wind up with a witch hunt instead of a trial. See case history in cartoon format