Case Details

The Author of a State-Sanctioned Fiction

At the outset of the January 6, 2023, hearing, Judge Keberlein admitted the absence of a legal foundation for his proceeding. He explicitly acknowledged that the case had moved outside the bounds of the Family Code, stating, “I don’t have a memorialization of what was agreed to… So to me, this is not a family issue right now; this is a contract issue.” By declaring the matter a “contract issue” while simultaneously acknowledging the absence of a written instrument, Judge Keberlein signaled his intent to bypass the high statutory guardrails of Wis. Stat. Chapter 767.

Despite admitting that no documented MSA existed, Judge Keberlein declared his intent to manufacture a consensus by judicial fiat, stating, “I’m going to determine what our [lost] MSA [proposal] is going forward.” This statement confirmed that he was no longer acting as a neutral adjudicator of facts, but as an active author of a state-sanctioned fiction.

Under Judge Keberlein’s direction, Adam was sworn in to “reconstruct” the lost MSA from “memory”—a memory that had only recently and miraculously returned. Adam complied and submitted to Judge Keberlein an edited, self-serving draft. However, when I was ordered to perform the same “reconstruction” fiction, I refused to participate in the fabrication. I reasserted that I could not, consistent with my oath and the penalty of perjury, attest to terms I did not agree to and could not recall. Attorney Vesely immediately intervened, highlighting the inherent illegality of forcing a party to testify to a known impossibility:

“Both parties in the record of this case have stated they don’t recall [the terms of the lost MSA], including Mr. Fitzgibbon… They both said that they didn’t recall, [FCC Bermingham] ordered them to reconfigure [a new MSA]… It’s an impossible task to try to reconstruct what happened… I think, on the credibility of both parties, they said they don’t recall. And that’s part of the record in this case from both parties. And, you know, I don’t know how we can, at this juncture, force terms on them when they both have said earlier they don’t recall… How do you reconstruct it and say with any degree of certainty these are the terms, but yet I didn’t recall them earlier without perjuring yourself?”

Judge Keberlein dismissed these foundational objections with a startling admission of his intent to rule by whim rather than record: “If they can’t remember, I’m going to take the pieces that I have as a jumping-off point… Is it a fair, accurate representation of your agreement? Yes. How can they say it’s not?” He then proceeded to declare he was “not forcing terms on them”—while simultaneously doing exactly that.

Judge Keberlein then announced his intent to retreat to chambers to perform a “credibility determination” on the draft MSAs in private, stating, “I’m going to create what is the MSA that I think they agreed to.”

The Suppression of “Exhibit G”

Upon returning, Judge Keberlein utilized Adam’s perjured submission as his template and deliberately avoided any inquiry that would expose the fabrication, specifically failing to:

1. Address the “Miraculous Recovery”: Judge Keberlein ignored Adam’s eight-month history of claiming the lost document was irreproducible.
2. Reconcile Financial Inconsistencies: Judge Keberlein ignored the irreconcilable differences between Adam’s new “memory” and his sworn Financial Disclosure Statements, as well as his December 27 and 29, 2022, filings.
3. Confront the Strategic Pivot: Judge Keberlein allowed Adam to abandon his year-long obsession with the “missing pages” of the nullified original MSA proposal from January 7, 2022, the moment a new lie became more profitable.

Most critically, Judge Keberlein ensured that the one piece of evidence capable of proving the fraud—”Exhibit G,” my contemporaneous, line-item asset schedule that disproved Adam’s “reconstructed” figures that was repeatedly referenced throughout the hearing by Attorney Vesely and me—was buried. The transcript revealed a calculated administrative suppression:

Missy, “Do you want me to pull and mark Exhibit G, Judge?” Judge Keberlein: [No answer] …  Missy, “We have filed exhibits, but until they’re marked and offered, they’re just sitting in a queue that you cannot see.” Judge Keberlein, “That’s okay. I don’t need to right now.” …  Missy, “And then I’m going to just reject all of these exhibits since none of them were offered or received, correct?” Judge Keberlein, “Okay.”

With a single word—“Okay”—Judge Keberlein summarily excluded the one document capable of exposing the financial inaccuracies within Adam’s fabricated MSA. By refusing to review this evidence, Judge Keberlein ensured the countereit MSA remained unverified, effectively suppressing the documentation necessary to restore procedural fairness and substantiate my credibility.

Judge Keberlein’s “reconstruction” of the MSA relied exclusively on Adam’s untested and inconsistent assertions, resulting in a credibility finding that contradicted the established record. Judge Keberlein stated, “Adam noted that there was a change [in E-Trade and Voya]… weighing the credibility of the witnesses… I’m going to eliminate ‘E-Trade’ and add ‘half of the Voya account.’”

In elevating Adam’s contradictory claim over all documentary evidence—and over my testimony, which had remained consistent since February 7, 2022—Judge Keberlein inverted the very concept of credibility. The only witness whose account had shifted repeatedly and strategically became the “reliable” one, while the only witness whose testimony never changed was sidelined. Judge Keberlein grounded an MSA not in law, but in the manufactured narrative of the least credible participant in the room.

The Temporal Paradox and “Martial [sic] Settlement Agreement”

Using Adam’s testimony as a foundation, Judge Keberlein declared the lost MSA “reconstructed,” despite admitting on the record that he had never seen the document he claimed to have reproduced. To finalize this “reconstruction,” he executed the following legal and temporal impossibilities:

1. Retroactive Incorporation: Judge Keberlein incorporated the document created on January 6, 2023, into a final judgment of divorce, then backdated that judgment to the fatally flawed February 7, 2022, hearing before FCC Bermingham. This created a temporal paradox where a 2023 invention served as the basis for a 2022 proceeding.
2. Fraudulent Certification: Judge Keberlein then certified that FCC Bermingham had reviewed and approved this counterfeit document for equity on February 7, 2022. This certification is facially impossible, as FCC Bermingham had retired and surrendered his law license on June 10, 2022, months before the counterfeit instrument ever existed. Furthermore, FCC Bermingham explicitly stated on April 26, 2022, that he had never seen or reviewed the final, intended MSA that Judge Keberlein purported to reconstruct.

Ironically, however, the document produced by Judge Keberlein announced its own illegitimacy on its face. Appropriately titled “Martial [sic] Settlement Agreement,” the counterfeit creation bore no signatures and memorialized no meeting of the minds. Despite a boilerplate opening claiming that “both parties agree,” the document remained a one-sided draft, failing to meet the mandatory statutory requirements for a valid divorce under Wis. Stat. § 767.34. Recognizing the absence of Adam’s and my consent, Judge Keberlein bypassed the signature lines entirely, instead inserting a self-authored disclaimer, “As ordered by the Court to reconstruct the Marital Settlement Agreement that was lost after filing with the Clerk of Courts. Hearing held on January 6, 2023.”

The January 6, 2023, hearing concluded with Attorney Vesely addressing my outstanding Motion for Declaratory Relief (pursuant to § 806.07). This motion was a protective filing seeking a formal declaration that the purported February 7, 2022, “divorce” was void. However, in a complete inversion of judicial function, Judge Keberlein repurposed my challenge to the court’s jurisdiction as a pretext to exercise it. Rather than adjudicating the motion to protect my due process rights, Judge Keberlein utilized the filing to justify the fabrication of the counterfeit MSA—effectively using my plea for protection as the instrument of my injury.

The judge’s own statements on the record confirmed that he had abandoned standard legal procedure in favor of a self-styled “extraordinary” process. He admitted:

“I’m attempting, through contract law, to reconstruct what the parties agreed to. I think that given the very unique, exceptional, in that I’ve never heard of it happening before, MSA being lost by the family court commissioner/clerk of courts, that there had to be some type of extraordinary step taken.”

Judge Keberlein further acknowledged the instability of this approach, stating: “I anticipate there’s more litigation coming out of this case… today, we have a starting point.” By his own admission, he was not applying settled law to a final agreement, but was instead inventing a “starting point” for future litigation through a process he conceded was unprecedented.

Laundering the Record

The fabrication of the record culminated on January 12, 2023, through the coordinated actions of the Clerk of Courts. Tara Berry, in her official capacity, formally entered the counterfeit MSA and the backdated fraudulent divorce judgment into the record as Record #127. This act served to launder the legally deficient documents, giving them the appearance of authentic judicial entries within the state’s record-keeping system.

Given her role and direct coordination with the court’s officers, she knew—or had reason to know—that the documents she was processing were legal impossibilities. Specifically:

1. Knowledge of Retirement: Tara was aware that FCC Bermingham had retired and surrendered his law license on June 10, 2022, more than six months prior to the entry of the judgment.
2. Functus Officio: Despite knowing the official in question was functus officio (without further authority), she processed a record falsely claiming that the retired official had approved and finalized a document that did not exist during his tenure.

By entering these fabrications into the CCAP system, Tara provided the final veneer of legality to the deprivation of my rights. This entry was the essential final step in a scheme to retroactively paper over a 333-day jurisdictional vacuum. Through this act, a factual and legal fiction was transformed into an enforceable state record, inflicting concrete harm by depriving me of the procedural protections afforded by a legitimate judicial process.

Administrative Muscle: The Child Support Agency

The veneer of legality was extended through the coordinated participation of the Winnebago County Child Support Agency (CSA). While the January 6, 2023, fabrication of the MSA resulted in me receiving payments for the first time since my separation from Adam, this was not a good-faith financial remedy. Rather, it was a tactical maneuver designed to provide administrative legitimacy to Judge Keberlein’s fraudulent order. The CSA’s sudden activation of the case revealed a knowing acquiescence to the scheme, directly contradicting the agency’s own year-long refusal to act during the 2022 “ghost case” period.

Throughout 2022, I contacted the CSA to inquire about the support obligation established at the February 7, 2022, hearing and during the April 26, 2022, conference. At that time, the only document the State possessed was the nullified original MSA—the proposal that had previously been reviewed and signed by CSA representative Devin Suess. Yet, despite the existence of a signed document that ostensibly authorized support, the CSA informed me that no record of the case existed. This year-long refusal to act served as a powerful, objective validation that no lawful divorce had been entered into the State system.

The CSA’s involvement in the fraud became undeniable when it began processing Record #127. The January 6, 2023, intrument manufactured by Judge Keberlein lacked any signature or approval from a current CSA official. Despite this facial defect, however, the CSA—under the direction of Julie Mabry—immediately processed payments and backdated arrears to February 7, 2022.

This created a damning evidentiary contradiction: The CSA refused to transfer funds in 2022 when it held a signed document, yet it rushed to act in 2023 based on an unsigned, counterfeit record. By effectively porting a 2022 signature onto a 2023 fabrication—mimicking Judge Keberlein’s own tactic of forging a retired official’s approval—the CSA provided the administrative muscle necessary to sustain a legal impossibility. Had the CSA approved the document ex nunc (from that point forward) as of January 6, 2023, it would have legally confirmed the 2022 jurisdictional void. Instead, the agency chose to support Judge Keberlein’s fraudulent narrative that a valid divorce had occurred in 2022—a claim directly refuted by the agency’s own year of prior inaction. This multi-agency coordination ensured I was trapped in a catch-22: The State’s sudden “approval” of funds was weaponized to administratively “cure” a void judgment and validate the very fraud that stripped me of my rights.

The most egregious aspect of this deception was the exploitation of the marital estate. Because the divorce was a legal fiction, Adam and I remained legally married, and the estate remained undivided community property. Consequently, the “child support” I received was not a transfer of Adam’s independent income—it was a distribution from a collective marital well to which I already held a 50% legal claim. Under the guise of “support,” the State facilitated Adam’s continued financial dominance, allowing him to maintain the appearance of compliance while holding exclusive, unchecked control over our undivided marital assets.

The Appellate Ratification

On April 10, 2023, I appealed the January 6, 2023, judgment. This process culminated on May 29, 2024, when the Wisconsin Court of Appeals—Justices Lisa Neubauer, Maria Lazar, and Shelley Grogan—issued a decision affirming Judge Keberlein’s January 6, 2023, order, ignoring the fact that FCC Bermingham—the official purportedly authorizing the 2022 divorce—had retired and surrendered his license six months prior to the document’s creation. Furthermore, the Justices disregarded FCC Bermingham’s own sworn testimony that he had never seen or approved any instrument other than the nullified original MSA. By invoking a court commissioner’s general authority to grant divorces, the Justices intentionally bypassed the admitted fact that this judicial official had not authorized this divorce via that document. In doing so, the Appellate Court effectively ratified a fraudulent record and gave the state’s imprint of authority to a legal fiction.

On June 19, 2024, I filed a Motion for Reconsideration with the Court of Appeals, detailing its misrepresentation of the facts of the case and the physical impossibility of a “reconstructed” agreement disavowed by its supposed signatory. The motion was denied in less than twenty-four hours. This summary rejection, issued without substantive review of the internal contradictions presented, finalized the state-level collusion and solidified the entry of the counterfeit judgment into the permanent record.

Following the failure of the state appellate court to intervene, I filed a petition with the Wisconsin Supreme Court, which subsequently declined to review the case. With all state-level avenues for justice exhausted, I moved to file a Petition for Certiorari with the U.S. Supreme Court, intending to finally secure a lawful divorce and force the correction of the judicial record. In the interim, however, the uncorrected state-level record provided the necessary pretext for the administrative lockdown that followed.

The Trap Snaps Shut

The endgame began on January 17, 2025, when Judge Keberlein turned his hostility toward the unprecedented volume of the case record—a record necessitated solely by his own departure from the law. In a calculated opening statement, he attacked the complexity of the file, citing the 552 documents as evidence of “staggering” and “needless” litigation that had supposedly “taken away resources from Winnebago County taxpayers.”

The audacity of this grandstanding was profound. Judge Keberlein dismissed the case as a “straightforward family situation”—a phrasing that intentionally erased the legal chaos he and Winnebago County had created—while simultaneously condemning the volume of de novos and appeals. In reality, that volume was the direct reflection of the court’s failures; every filing was a necessary attempt to correct a record that the court refused to fix.

He then characterized my exercise of constitutional rights as an “abuse” of the system, and comparing my legal defense to “911 or emergency room abuse,” he initiated an administrative lockdown. He began by stripping me of my right to de novo review, mandating that all future matters be heard exclusively by him. In doing so, he dismantled the most accessible and cost-effective mechanism for challenging a court decision, effectively pricing me out of immediate justice. To complete this procedural fortress, he further imposed a restrictive one-page “gag order” and placed me on notice that any filing (current or future) deemed “frivolous” by his own subjective standard could be met with sanctions, fines, or incarceration.

To further ensure my silence, Judge Keberlein concluded the hearing by stating he would investigate whether he could mandate that I be represented by an attorney. Having been unrepresented for some time, I had become a direct threat to the court’s fabricated record. By attempting to force me into counsel, Judge Keberlein sought to strip me of my pro se voice and replace my unwavering resistance with a court-appointed intermediary who would be easier to manage and less likely to expose the court’s procedural fortress.

The Marathon Ambush: March 14, 2025

The campaign of intimidation reached a fever pitch on March 14, 2025, when Judge Keberlein manufactured a “marathon hearing” designed to bury my efforts to protect my child and my constitutional rights. He shoehorned more than two dozen actions into a single day’s docket—including high-stakes custody motions that required multi-day evidentiary hearings. By compressing these life-altering issues into a single, chaotic window, he effectively weaponized the clock to bypass the truth.

During this orchestrated blitz, Judge Keberlein found me in contempt for my refusal to “legalize” the January 6, 2023, fraud by signing quitclaim deeds to inequitably transfer encumbered marital property to Adam. Simultaneously, he reactivated Guardian Ad Litem (GAL) Attorney Trista Moffat to “investigate” the custody-related crises I had persistently brought to the court’s attention—specifically the reunification therapy court-ordered to repair the mother-child bond that was destroyed following the court’s loss of the MSA that allowed Adam to alienate our child from me for years without consequence. My “contempt,” and Attorney Moffat’s findings, were set for a final showdown on May 9, 2025.

The Weaponization of “Reunification” Therapy

The May 9th hearing was the ultimate exercise in judicial cowardice. Knowing I was in Washington D.C. filing my Petition for Certiorari with the U.S. Supreme Court, and having denied my multiple requests to adjourn, cancel, or appear virtually, Judge Keberlein proceeded with the hearing in my absence. While I was petitioning the highest court in the land, Judge Keberlein appointed Attorney Kathleen Healy as Receiver to forcibly execute the property transfers on my behalf.

But the corruption extended beyond property; it involved the systematic destruction of my parental bond. Attorney Moffat provided perfidious testimony that maliciously inverted the clinical record. Crucially, she suppressed the fact that the court-ordered therapists remained willing to continue treatment for my child and me, provided the court began backing their clinical decisions and prohibited Adam’s interference. This was information Attorney Moffat possessed prior to the hearing, yet she refused to relay it to the court or correct the record when Judge Keberlein began his distortion of the facts.

This suppression allowed Judge Keberlein to declare on the record: “I’m concerned that, again, the counseling, like the legal system, may have become weaponized.”

By validating Attorney Moffat’s testimony, Judge Keberlein created a clinical impossibility. He ordered a therapeutic “cure” that could not proceed in the toxic environment he refused to fix, then used the resulting stalemate to claim there was “no relationship between the [child] and the provider to protect.” This wasn’t a failure of counseling; it was a state-orchestrated trap. The very healthcare ordered by the court to repair the mother-child bond became an impossibility because the court used the contraindicated environment—which it created—as the pretext to strip my child and me of our right to heal.

The Procudeural Fortress

On that same day, Judge Keberlein summarily denied my two heavily-sourced motions for a change of venue. By sitting in judgment of his own conduct and personally denying the challenge to his own authority, Judge Keberlein transformed the court into a procedural fortress. This act ensured my child and I remained trapped in a jurisdictional vacuum where every path to redress was guarded by the very official whose misconduct was the subject of the challenge. It was the ultimate “fox guarding the henhouse” maneuver, rendering all matters unresolvable by design.

The Financial Hostage: A Unique Constitutional Injury

The property theft reached its calculated conclusion on October 6, 2025—the exact day the U.S. Supreme Court denied certiorari. With my final federal appellate remedy exhausted, the Receiver, Attorney Healy, moved immediately to execute the deed transfers to Adam. By timing this final seizure to coincide with the end of my federal appeal, the court utilized a state-appointed proxy to finalize a theft rooted in a void and fraudulent decree.

The forced transfer of the property titles to Adam resulted in a unique and ongoing constitutional injury. Although the transfer was purportedly intended to allow Adam to refinance the mortgage, that condition remains unfulfilled. Consequently, I have been stripped of my ownership interest and equity in both the residence and separate land without receiving any compensation for either asset.

Because Adam has failed to refinance, I remain the primary borrower on the marital residence, effectively forcing me to act as a non-consensual guarantor of Adam’s debt. This arrangement allows Adam to exploit my financial identity and credit standing to maintain an exceptionally low interest rate for his own windfall, while I am legally barred from accessing my equity, being relieved of my liabilities, or securing financing for a home.

The State has effectively granted Adam exclusive ownership of my assets while forcing me to retain 100% of the financial risk. This is not a “division of property”; it is state-sponsored financial servitude.

The Institutional Sabotage of the Mother-Child Bond

While I maintain custodial rights on paper through the counterfeit MSA and fraudulent divorce judgment, the reality is a state-sanctioned erasure of my role as a mother. By allowing Adam to make every unilateral custodial decision without consequence, the court has effectively granted him de facto sole custody, rendering my legal rights a “dead letter.”

Moreover, the “reunification therapy” ordered by the court remains a clinical impossibility. This is not just due to Adam’s sabotage, but because the GAL, Attorney Moffat, and the therapeutic institutions themselves refuse to correct the court’s fraudulent record. By ignoring the contraindicated nature of the environment they collectively contributed to, they have ensured that the very “cure” ordered to repair the mother-child bond remains unreachable. The State has not just failed to protect my rights; it has actively guarded the very environment that destroyed them.

The Hijacking of Legal Status

The result of this multi-year assault on my rights is as absurd as it is illegal: I have yet to achieve a lawful divorce, and my legal status remains hijacked by a closed-loop system that prioritizes concealing its own errors over the entry of a constitutional judgment.

While every matter within the state court remains unresolved, the judiciary has deliberately engineered an ecosystem in which they are unresolvable. By stripping away procedural rights and fortifying a fraudulent record, the court has traded the rule of law for a manufactured administrative stalemate.

The State’s attempt to “close” this case, however, is a fiction, as this tactical obstruction has moved the battlefield to a federal reckoning. Through a federal civil suit under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983 and 1985, I am challenging the conspiratorial deprivation of my constitutional rights and the systematic fraud used to bridge the gap between state-level inaction and federal accountability.

This website serves as the definitive indictment of a system that would rather perpetuate a fraud than admit to a catastrophic failure. The state record may currently be impenetrable, but the federal pursuit of accountability has only just begun.