These are the latest updates to this case in descending order

Click here for documentation in pdf format

See this page in ascending order

02/10/2006: (10:30am) John Fleming telephones judge's law clerk and informs him that the intake office again neglected to forward the papers to the judge. John Fleming is told that the judge has ordered a hearing between him and ex-spouse to be heard on 03/17/2006.

02/10/2006: (9:00am) John Fleming goes into the intake office and checks the case file. Intake office records reveal the orders were never given to the judge.

02/10/2006: (8:30am) John Fleming appears before Judge Ciuffani. John Fleming argues that there is clear and convincing evidence that the FRO was filed in error because plaintiff did not meet the requirements to get the TRO; A person cannot use previously dismissed allegations to get a new TRO and use that TRO to get a new FRO.  John Fleming also argues that a person cannot possibly defend allegations that he is not aware of and is restricted from examining in violation of his rights to cross-examine all witnesses against him as provided by the US Constitution. John Fleming is told that A: Motion to dismiss FRO is denied because it was not appealed within 45 days of the time it was ordered and he did not file any orders prior to this hearing.   B: Motion to Enforce Litigants Rights is denied because John Fleming did not file any orders and the judge needs to do an "in camera inspection" of the DYFS documents. John Fleming argues that he did give the orders to the intake office and they never filed it with the judge and the intake office had repeatedly done this many times. John Fleming argues that none of the other litigants has appeared, failed to provide for any part of requested discovery and that no cross-motions were filed in violation of court rules. That argument is ignored. Motion for visitation is not heard. Hearing is ended. John Fleming thanks judge for hearing him.

01/31/2006: John Fleming is again taken from the MCACC (jail) before Judge Jane B. Cantor, judge ROR's him, after unlawfully being held 21 days in jail. Also note that municipal appeals must be filed in 20 days.

01/31/2006: The family law attorney sends an angry fax to the Middlesex County Prosecutor's Office in regards to John Fleming's right to be represented by the OPD.

01/30/26: John Fleming is again taken from the MCACC (jail) before Judge Jane B. Cantor. Upon enetering the courtroom, the judge "had to go" for unrelated reasons.

01/27/2006: John Fleming is taken from the MCACC (jail) before Judge Jane B. Cantor of the Criminal Division of the Superior Court. John Fleming argues that it is not only not a violation to file those motions with his ex-spouse, it is required by court rules to do so and that under the statute in the 2C law book, there is case law that clearly specifies it. County assistant prosecutor Michael Weiss argues, without proof, that it is a violation. John Fleming argues that his constitutional right for representation has been unlawfully denied. The assistant prosecutor rebutts saying that John John Fleming does not have a right to representation and he may contact Middlesex County Legal Services or the Middlesex County Bar Association for representation. The judge denies motion for ROR.

01/16/2006: John Fleming contacts a family law attorney for help. The attorney contacts the OPD informing them they are required by law to represent John Fleming and they inform him that they are not required.

01/16/2006: The Middlesex County Public Defender's office, Brenda Smith, informs John Fleming that they do not represent persons in relation to family matters.

01/11/2006: John Fleming writes the public defenders office for representation for the indictable offense.

01/10/2006: John Fleming appears at New Brunswick municipal court, perjury trial of ex-spouse. Municipal prosecutor informs John Fleming that a no bail warrant for violating the FRO was issued earlier that day and to proceed to the courtroom. Ex-Spouse's public defender Richard W. Veitch does not appear. Prosecutor informs judge of the warrant. Judge John Leonard informs complainant John Fleming of Metuchen case law that private citizens cannot prosecute criminal matters. Judge asks prosecutor what his position to prosecute is. Prosecutor responds "I do not have a position". Judge dismisses case. John Fleming is taken into custody in the courtroom.

01/10/2006: (early afternoon) Ex-spouse informs the Piscataway police department, officer James W. Richards, badge 1096, that John Fleming mailed several motions and a parenting plan to her. The officer files complaint# 1217 W 2006 26, Piscataway police case number 6000699, violation of NJS 2C:29-9b. Court Administrator Debra J. Hamah signs a no bail warrant for John Fleming.

01/03/2006: John Fleming files two motions with the family court; A: Dismiss FRO.  B: Enforce Litigant's Rights. John Fleming, as required by court rules, and ordered by a letter from the state attorney general's office, cc'd to Judge Frank M. Ciufanni,  and ruled by Judge Fred Kieser (on 05/05/2004) sends copies to all parties by certified mail.