FAQ

Understanding the Collapse: A Q&A

This FAQ serves as a deeper dive into a jurisdictional heist. It tracks the trajectory of a case that began with a lost court record and culminated in a state-sanctioned assault on legal personhood, private property, and parental rights. From the fabrication of legal ghost documents to the federal civil rights challenge now underway, these answers expose the mechanics of a shadow court where institutional protection is prioritized over constitutional truth.

If you want to understand how a court operates under the color of law while lacking the authority to rule, the evidence is detailed below.

Note: Every quote, finding, and situation is anchored in official court transcripts, clinical records, and sworn filings. This is not a matter of opinion; it is, fortunately, a matter of public record.

A Demand for Transparency: Critical Questions About the Case

1. What Makes Your Case Unique Among Others? Why is This the “Diagnostic Case” for Systemic Failure?

The Short Answer: Most family court failures involve bad judicial decisions made within a valid legal process. My case is unique because it involves a total absence of authority. The court lost its jurisdiction the moment it lost our MSA and failed to follow the law to restore it. Since that point, every order has been a “legal ghost”—actions taken by a court that has no more authority over my life than a stranger on the street.

The Reality: In standard family court horror stories, a judge might make a biased or legally flawed decision, but they are (usually) doing so within a valid legal framework; they have the jurisdiction to be in the room. This case is the inverse: This isn’t a case of a judge overstepping; it is a case of a judge trespassing. The court’s primary administrative failure—losing the record—stripped it of its authority entirely. The moment that record vanished and the statutory path to restoration was ignored, the black robe became a costume. To hide this vacuum of authority, the court manufactured an illegal divorce to act as a fake key to my life. They aren’t presiding over a case; they are occupying it. Instead of following the law to fix their mistake, they chose to enslave the parties to a manufactured record to cover their own tracks.

Authority vs. Power: There is a fundamental difference between having the right to rule and the might to enforce. Because the court “reconstructed” a document it never saw and granted a divorce based on a fraudulent foundation, it forfeited its legal authority (jurisdiction). However, it continues to exercise raw power—threatening me with jail, seizing my property, and alienating my child—solely to maintain the illusion of its own legitimacy. Imagine you own a home, and a stranger breaks in, sits on your couch, and starts telling you when to eat and how to spend your money. They have no deed, no lease, and no legal right to be there—but they are holding a weapon. Because they have the weapon (power), you are forced to comply, but they will never have the legal right (authority) to be your landlord. Judge Keberlein is the “squatter” in my legal life. The court lost the “deed” (the record), but he is using the “weapon” of the bench to force compliance with a lease he wrote himself.

The Diagnostic Failure: This case is the “diagnostic case” for judicial corruption because it tests every level of the “failsafe” system and proves they are all broken:

  • The Trial Level: Proves that even when a court admits a catastrophic administrative error, a judge can fabricate a state record rather than follow the lawful procedure to fix it. Judge Keberlein acknowledged the record was lost, but instead of risking the liability and public exposure a proper correction would require, he “plugged the hole” with a fraudulent “reconstruction.” He prioritized the financial and reputational protection of the court over his oath to the Constitution.
  • The Appellate Level: Proves that “mandatory review” is a myth when the court prioritizes judicial solidarity over the rule of law. The Wisconsin Court of Appeals did more than just ratify a fraudulent record; they misapplied state law and ignored the existing record to affirm the lower court’s fiction. Their 24-hour denial of my Motion for Reconsideration confirms that no review took place; it was a clerical reflex designed to protect the lower court’s fiction rather than preserve the law.
  • The Professional Level: Proves that court-appointed “neutrals”—including the guardian ad litem (GAL) and the receiver—function as the enforcement arm of the court’s bias: GAL Attorney Moffat ignored clinical evidence of trauma and parental sabotage to protect the court’s “status quo,” proving that “the best interests of the child” is a pretext for judicial convenience while Attorney Healy utilized the fraudulent MSA as a license to seize and transfer encumbered marital property. Despite the court order specifically requiring her to investigate the status of the property before any transfer, Attorney Healy bypassed this mandatory step entirely. When I requested clarification and documentation of her actions regarding these transfers, she simply ignored my inquiries. This was not a legal division of assets; it was state-sanctioned theft through silence. By executing transfers without due diligence and refusing to answer to the parties involved, Attorney Healy became a co-conspirator in the conversion of my property while Attorney Moffat became a co-conspirator in the deprivation of my parental rights.
  • A Vacuum of Law: Usually, a case is about what the court decided. My case, however, is about the fact that the court had zero right to decide anything at all. By the end of 2022, there was no valid MSA and no valid divorce judgment. The court was effectively operating a shadow court with no statutory basis, making this the purest example of state-sanctioned lawlessness in the country.

The Bottom Line: If a court can lose your paperwork, admit the error, and then authorize a judge to forge a new “agreement,” an appellate court to “rubber-stamp” it in 24 hours, and a receiver to transfer your property without investigating the law—then no citizen is safe. My case represents a total judicial trespass into both the constitutional right to property and the sacred domain of parental rights. Because the court lacks jurisdiction, it has no legal standing to seize a bank account or dictate the placement of a child. Without authority, the receiver is committing state-sanctioned theft, and the custody orders are effectively a legalized kidnapping carried out under the color of law.

Furthermore, by falsifying my legal status through a fraudulent decree, the court has trapped me in a state of legal purgatory: I am unable to lawfully marry because my “divorce” is built on a lie. My case is the diagnostic for a terminal illness in the Wisconsin judiciary: the preference for a comfortable lie and institutional protection over a jurisdictional truth. In this system, the “professionals” (GALs and receivers) are not there to ensure equity; they are there to liquidate my life and finalize the heist.

2. How Can a Judge “Reconstruct” a Document He Admits He Never Saw?

The Short Answer: He can’t—at least not legally. A judicial record is not a rough draft; it is a permanent legal reality that must be rooted in verifiable fact. In this case, the “reconstruction” wasn’t an act of memory; it was an act of fabrication.

The Reality: Because the State is a third party to a divorce contract—responsible for either ratifying the terms of a stipulated Marital Settlement Agreement (MSA) or creating terms through a contested proceeding that ensures equitability—the entire process is governed by strict statutory requirements.

When the court lost our final, intended MSA and concluded that we had been improperly divorced under a nullified original proposal, it hit a jurisdictional dead end. At that moment, the stipulation path was legally closed because the physical evidence of the agreement was gone. Unless Adam and I executed a new stipulation, or the court properly conducted a contested trial to establish value and equity at our request, no divorce could legally occur.

Instead, Judge Keberlein chose a shortcut of extraordinary illegality by manufacturing a bridge across a jurisdictional vacuum he had no authority to cross:

  • Fabricating the Record: He admitted on the record that he had never seen the document he sought to recreate, yet he proceeded to “reconstruct” its terms anyway. By allowing perjured testimony to serve as the “reconstructed” document’s foundation, he replaced the rule of law with judicial whim.
  • The Counterfeit “Agreement”: Using Adam’s self-serving, unsworn testimony as the blueprint, the judge manufactured a counterfeit “agreement.” He then applied the backdated “approval” of a retired judicial officer—effectively forging a stipulation that I never signed and the retired officer never reviewed in order to impose a divorce.
  • The Jurisdictional Vacuum: In his rush to bridge the administrative hole left by the lost documents, Judge Keberlein bypassed essential statutory protections designed to ensure equity. You cannot build a valid legal house on a foundation of sand.

The Bottom Line: Judge Keberlein didn’t resolve a dispute; he institutionalized one. By fabricating a state record to cover a jurisdictional vacuum, he transformed a mandatory legal process into a discretionary fiction. He didn’t just lose the paperwork; he lost the authority to rule.

3. Why Didn’t Judge Keberlein Just Approve Your Divorce as of January 6, 2023?

The Short Answer: While we cannot know the judge’s internal thoughts, we can see the external results. By choosing to “reconstruct” a missing past rather than create a valid present, the court effectively buried a year of jurisdictional chaos. A clean start on January 6, 2023, would have left the 2022 “ghost period” exposed; the reconstruction acted as a retroactive “seal” on a period of mounting state liability.

The Reality: Regardless of intent, the objective effect of Judge Keberlein’s ruling was the creation of a legal fiction. On January 6, 2023, the court faced a choice: admit that the 2022 proceedings were conducted without a valid MSA (a “black hole” of authority) or pretend the record was always intact.

  • The Practical Effect of Reconstruction: By allowing Adam to testify to the contents of a document he had repeatedly admitted he did not recall—and which the judge acknowledged he had never seen—the court replaced a lost state record with unverified, self-serving testimony. This maneuver bypassed the statutory requirement for a formal evidentiary hearing during a period when no valid court order existed.
  • Institutional Protection vs. Individual Rights: In the legal world, admitting a systemic error—like a “ghost case” where the state exercised power without a record—creates a massive liability for the judiciary. By choosing to let a litigant manufacture a “finished” file rather than follow the transparent path of a new one, the court prioritized the appearance of finality over the reality of due process.

The Bottom Line: We don’t need to prove what was in the judge’s heart; we only need to look at what is on the record. By fabricating a document that bridged a jurisdictional vacuum, Judge Keberlein transformed a series of administrative failures into a permanent legal reality. He didn’t just lose the paperwork; he chose a path that ensured the court would never have to answer for losing it.

4. Why Didn’t the Wisconsin Appellate Court, the Wisconsin Supreme Court, or the U.S. Supreme Court Fix This?

The Short Answer: Institutional preservation and the shield of discretionary review.

The Reality: The judicial system is built with firewalls that allow fraud and misconduct to hide behind procedural technicalities. While the Wisconsin Court of Appeals has a mandatory obligation to review appeals, their handling of this case was a procedural sham.

  • The Flawed Affirmation: The Court of Appeals initially issued a ruling that affirmed Judge Keberlein’s January 6, 2023, ruling, effectively prioritizing the finality of a fraudulent decree over the legality of the process.
  • The 24-Hour “Review”: After pointing out their decision’s glaring legal errors in a Motion for Reconsideration, the appellate court issued a summary denial in under 24 hours. Given the complexity of this multi-year record, a substantive analysis in that timeframe is a physical and intellectual impossibility. This wasn’t a review; it was a rubber stamp intended to bury a jurisdictional disaster.

Unlike the lower appeals court, however, the Wisconsin Supreme Court and the U.S. Supreme Court operate under discretionary review. They are under no legal obligation to hear any case, regardless of the egregiousness of the claims. Therefore, a denial to review the case by the Wisconsin Supreme Court and a subsequent denial of certiorari by the U.S. Supreme Court is not a ruling on the merits; it is a statement that the court has declined to open the door.

The Bottom Line: The failure of the state appellate system and the subsequent refusals by the Supreme Courts have not validated the corruption—they have simply closed the appellate process. By refusing to self-correct, the Wisconsin judiciary has effectively moved the battlefield. This is no longer a family law dispute; it is a federal civil rights reckoning.

5. What is a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Lawsuit?

The Short Answer: A federal challenge to constitutional corruption. It is the legal mechanism used to hold government officials accountable when they use their “authority” to strip citizens of their rights.

The Reality: This case has transcended the boundaries of family court. Because the Wisconsin judiciary failed to self-correct a known fraud, the matter has evolved into a federal civil rights action centered on two powerful statutes:

  • 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Civil Deprivation of Rights): This is the primary tool for holding state actors—including judges, clerks, and court officers—liable for violating the U.S. Constitution. It applies when officials use the “color of law” (their official position) to deprive a citizen of due process or equal protection.
  • 42 U.S.C. § 1985 (Conspiracy to Interfere with Civil Rights): This is the hammer used when two or more individuals conspire to obstruct the course of justice. In this case, it targets the coordinated effort to utilize backdated documents, “ghost” approvals, and the suppression of evidence to maintain a fraudulent record.

This is no longer a private dispute; it is a challenge to a state-sanctioned fraud. The federal court is not being asked to “re-try” a divorce; it is being asked to adjudicate the systemic subversion of the law that occurred when the state court substituted a citizen’s legal identity with a fabricated fiction.

The Bottom Line: State court records are often treated as fortresses, but federal civil rights law was designed specifically to breach those fortresses when they are built on corruption. I am not seeking a “do-over” of a settlement; I am seeking relief for the deliberate subversion of the American legal system.

6. Aren’t Judges Immune from Being Sued?

The Short Answer: Usually, yes—but judicial immunity is a shield, not a crown. It does not protect a judge who acts in the “clear absence of all jurisdiction.”

The Reality: Judicial immunity is designed to protect judges from being sued over their decisions, even if those decisions are biased, legally flawed, or factually wrong. However, it is not an absolute license to rule. For a judge to be immune, they must first have the legal authority (jurisdiction) to be in the room.

When the Winnebago County Court lost the record and ignored the mandatory statutory path to restore it, Judge Keberlein didn’t just make a “bad decision”—he forfeited his authority to make any decision. By continuing to issue orders, seize property, and dictate placement based on a “re-created” record built on perjury, he stepped outside the protection of the bench. At that moment, he ceased acting as a judge and began acting as a private individual trespassing on a citizen’s constitutional rights.

The Bottom Line: You cannot claim judicial immunity for actions taken in a shadow court that has no legal record to support its existence. In the eyes of the law, a judge acting without jurisdiction is no different than a stranger on the street attempting to seize your bank account. This is the jurisdictional Achilles heel: Immunity protects the robe, but it does not protect a person who is merely wearing the robe as a costume to commit state-sanctioned fraud. I am not suing him for how he ruled; I am suing him because he had no legal right to rule at all.

7. I’m Not in Family Court—Why Does this Matter to Me?

The Short Answer: Because a court that operates without a record is a court that operates without oversight. If the foundation of a legal case can be “re-created” using the word of an interested party rather than verifiable evidence, no citizen is safe.

The Reality: My case isn’t just about a lost MSA; it’s about evidence laundering. If a judge can admit a record is missing and then allow one party to “testify” to what was in it—effectively using perjury as the foundation for a new, counterfeit record—the Due Process clause of the Constitution is dead.

This proves that your property, your parental rights, and your legal identity are only as secure as the clerk’s filing cabinet. If a judge can deputize your opponent to “re-write” the history of your case, the law is no longer a shield. While creating this counterfeit MSA on January 6, 2023, Judge Keberlein revealed his disregard for the sanctity of the record by comparing the “re-creation” of my life to a criminal conviction: “If a Court sentences someone to jail and there’s a judgment of conviction that comes from it that says — let’s say it’s silent as to any jail, but in court, the Court sentenced someone to 83 days’ jail. That, in fact, happened. Now, if the judgment of conviction has to be re-created through all sorts of different means, that’s what has to happen.”

The Bottom Line: This quote exposes the terrifying logic of the “shadow court.” The judge argues that the result (the jail time or the divorce) justifies the means (fabricating the paperwork). This is the definition of administrative tyranny: a system where the state acts first and then allows an interested party to invent the “legal” justification later. Whether it’s a jail sentence or your life’s savings, if the court allows your adversary to “re-create” the record through perjury, you are no longer in a court of law—you are in a state-sanctioned heist. See the Systemic Failures page to understand the broader implications of these findings and the risks they pose to the public record.

8. What Other Areas of Your Case were Compromised?

The Short Answer: Since January 6, 2023, the court has ceased to function as a neutral arbiter, acting instead as a protective shield for Adam’s violations, which began with the court’s loss of our final, intended MSA in 2022, creating a period of “wild west” lawlessness that Adam exploited to the extreme. Today, while I retain joint legal custody on paper, the court’s coordination with third parties—specifically the GAL, Attorney Moffat—has granted Adam de facto sole custody, rendering my parental rights functionally non-existent.

The Reality: The court ignores Adam’s documented systemic violations, then cites my attempts to enforce the law as “proof” of a conflict the court itself created. By refusing to enforce the law and its own orders, the court intentionally allows a state of lawlessness to persist, using the resulting chaos as a pretext to grant Adam unilateral control. This institutional failure is categorized into seven critical areas of compromise:

Custody Sabotage (The Conflict Trap): This bucket showcases how the court uses the high volume of litigation—which it forced by refusing to enforce the law—as the justification to deny me legal remedies. The court and GAL treat my efforts to uphold the law as an equal contribution to the “conflict,” creating a feedback loop where judicial inaction breeds the chaos the court then condemns.

  • The Foundation of Bias (July 10, 2023): Only six months after the fraudulent divorce, the conflict trap was set. During a hearing regarding Adam’s custody-related violations related to our child’s education, Attorney Moffat signaled to Judge Keberlein that the court was tired of the dispute: “We’ve got parents who, it’s not a secret, are litigious, high conflict… The best thing that they could do for [the child] is just stop already. Stop the litigation. Move on with their lives.”
  • The Judicial “Final Word” (January 17, 2025): Two years later, Judge Keberlein used this established bias to justify his refusal to grant the relief needed to protect my child and our relationship from the documented custodial violations and harms: “I will not give sole legal custody… because both parents have gone out of their way to prove, through their actions and their filings, that they cannot and they will not cooperate… Five hundred fifty-two documents filed when I printed it out; now 567 documents.”

The Significance: This is a conflict trap in its purest form. By labeling me as an equal contributor to the conflict and calling me “litigious,” Judge Keberlein and Attorney Moffat successfully shifted the focus from Adam’s obstructive conduct to my legal response. The judge used the symptom (the mountain of filings) to ignore the cause (the violations), using the very chaos the court permitted as the reason to deny relief.

Placement Sabotage (The Complexity Shield): This bucket exposes how the court dismantled its own recovery-based reunification schedule in favor of Adam’s leisure preferences, then weaponized the resulting “complexity” to grant Adam total immunity for his placement violations.

  • The Engineered Conflict: Following Adam’s initial 79-day withholding of our child, a September 9, 2022, order established a 60/40 placement schedule specifically designed for reunification. To prioritize this recovery, I restructured my entire professional life to work only on the Mondays and Tuesdays our child was scheduled to be with Adam—ensuring I would be 100% available for every moment of my placement time. Attorney Moffat was subsequently appointed as GAL to investigate the withholding, with a review set for January 26, 2023.
  • The GAL’s Interference (January 26, 2023): During that review, Attorney Moffat explicitly acknowledged the “destruction of the mother-child bond” caused by Adam’s “wild west” period of withholding. However, while she recommended reunification therapy to “restore” the relationship, she simultaneously sabotaged that goal by recommending a new schedule that prioritized Adam’s leisure over our child’s recovery. She accommodated Adam’s request to replace the reunification framework with one optimized for his personal camping weekends. This stripped me of 20% of my effective placement time and shifted my remaining days to the Mondays and Tuesdays I was contracted to work. This ensured that even during “my” time, our child was with third parties instead of me.
    • The Inequality of “Equity”: Despite Adam’s 84 total days of withholding in 2022, the GAL recommended only a fraction of the “make-up” days I was owed, further devaluing them with restrictive conditions, permitting only one make-up day per placement period. The court’s justification for this restriction was a masterpiece of irony: The court justified these limits by claiming that allowing our child “too much time” with me at once could be “harmful” and “unfair to the other parent.” This was stated with a straight face while the court simultaneously ignored the documented clinical trauma caused by Adam’s 79-day consecutive withholding, for which he received zero sanctions.
  • The Contempt Paradox (January 17, 2025): After a June 25, 2024, order voided the “camping” schedule and reverted the case to the original reunification plan, Adam simply refused to comply. I filed for contempt to restore stability. Despite undeniable proof of his defiance, Judge Keberlein ruled that Adam could not be held in contempt because the placement situation—a labyrinth of the court’s own making—was “too complex” for the court to track. In a stunning inversion of the law, the judge used his own administrative failure as a legal shield for Adam’s non-compliance.
  • The “Marathon” Hearing (March 14, 2025): I continued to push for the lawful schedule, as we were still operating under the voided “camping” version. Acknowledging the ongoing dispute, Judge Keberlein ordered me to submit a letter clarifying the correct schedule and the evidence supporting it.
  • The Final Door Slam (May 9, 2025): Despite months of exhaustive evidence provided to resolve the placement dilemma, Judge Keberlein summarily closed the door on the issue. During the hearing, he asserted that I had failed to fulfill his request for clarification—a claim flatly contradicted by the court record, which confirms I provided exactly the evidence requested. This was more than an oversight; it was a procedural execution. By falsely claiming the record was silent, the court ensured I would never receive my court-ordered make-up days, effectively cementing Adam’s legally void “camping” schedule as the permanent status quo. The court’s final act was to manufacture a “failure to provide evidence” as a pretext to finalize the theft of my placement time.

The Significance: This represents a total breakdown of the rule of law. When a court admits a case is “too complex” to enforce its own orders, justice is not just delayed—it is abdicated. By claiming the record was too confusing to navigate, the court did more than excuse Adam’s contempt; it incentivized it. The court leveraged its own self-induced complexity to exhaust my resources and bury my evidence. The result was the erasure of my make-up days and the preservation of a schedule built for an offending parent’s leisure rather than a child’s right to recovery. In this courtroom, clarity is treated as a burden, and complexity is weaponized to silence the parent seeking to uphold the law.

Communication Sabotage (The Accountability Vacuum): This bucket documents the court’s refusal to enforce its own mandates regarding parental communication. Despite a January 26, 2023, order requiring the use of Our Family Wizard (OFW)—a platform specifically mandated for transparency—the court allowed Adam to weaponize silence. Ultimately, the court rewarded this non-compliance by systematically lowering the behavioral standards required of him.

  • The 145-Day Moratorium: Following a clear court order requiring a 24-hour response time on OFW, Adam initiated a 145-consecutive-day communication hiatus. During this nearly five-month blackout, he refused to log in or acknowledge time-sensitive messages regarding the child’s school crises, medical needs, and travel schedules.
  • The “Ignorance” Prosecution: In a stunning display of bad faith, Adam utilized his self-imposed blackout to file police reports and contempt charges against me for “withholding information”—information that was sitting unread in his own OFW inbox.
  • The Contempt without Consequence (March 14, 2025): After Adam’s months of documented silence, Judge Keberlein found Adam in contempt for his 145-day refusal to communicate. However, the “punishment” was a promotion of Adam’s behavior:
    • The Step-Down Order: Despite Adam already violating an order to respond to messages within 24 hours, the judge merely ordered that Adam log in daily.
    • Zero Purge Conditions: The court issued no penalties, no fines, and no corrective requirements to make up for the 145 days of chaos that resulted in the very litigation the judge condemned.
  • The Judicial Dismissal: When I challenged the logic of replacing a “response” requirement with a “login” requirement, Judge Keberlein’s reply was a flat refusal to engage in the reality of the situation: Elizabeth: “How does that help us?” Judge Keberlein: “No. So I’ve made my order.”

The Significance: This represents the death of judicial accountability. When a judge finds a party in contempt but responds by issuing a lesser, more lenient requirement, the court signals that its own orders are optional. This accountability vacuum ensured that I remained in a state of perpetual legal and parental limbo—forced to manage my child’s needs in the dark while Adam used his own refusal to communicate as a pretext for further litigation. This is not “high conflict”; it is the court’s deliberate refusal to enforce the very transparency it mandated.

Educational Sabotage (Institutional Collusion & Witness Tampering): This bucket exposes the coordinated effort between Adam, the parochial school, and the court to strip me of my parental rights and silence the court-ordered therapist who identified the school as a source of clinical harm. It highlights a system that rewards unilateral decision-making and allows a private institution to intimidate a court-appointed therapist with zero judicial oversight.

  • The Reward for Lawlessness: During the 2022 withholding period, Adam unilaterally enrolled our child in a parochial school against my express, written objections for his 1st grade year. When the matter reached the court, FCC Michael Rust found Adam in contempt—but then effectively rewarded the violation by ordering the child to remain at Adam’s chosen school for our child’s 2nd grade year, awarding me a symbolic and insufficient $250 in attorney fees for a multi-thousand-dollar legal battle.
  • The De Novo Erasure (July 10, 2023): During this hearing, Attorney Moffat, the GAL, explicitly admitting on the record that I was the more cooperative parent, recommended to Judge Keberlein that Adam be given decision-making authority over our child’s education, a matter he had already abused: “I recognize that between the two parents, Mom tends to make more of an effort at coparenting than Dad does… [but] I’m going to recommend [educational authority] be given to Dad.” With that, Judge Keberlein refused to grant either parent decision-making authority and instead ordered our child to remain at the parochial school of Adam’s unilateral choosing through 8th grade while simultaneously stripping away the $250 in attorney fees Adam had been ordered to pay.
  • The Suppression of School Trauma: During our child’s 2nd-grade year, the court-ordered reunification therapist identified the school environment as a significant source of our child’s distress. When the judge refused to let the therapist testify on June 25, 2024, she issued a letter stating the school was clinically inappropriate.
    • The Pastor’s Ultimatum & GAL Collusion: In response to the therapist’s clinical findings, the school’s pastor launched an attack, threatening the therapist’s professional standing if she did not retract her letter. Then, on May 9, 2025, Attorney Moffat, rather than defending her own court-ordered expert, sided with the school, presenting its “concerns” to the court while intentionally burying the therapist’s concerns about the school’s harm to my child.
    • The Ostracization: Today, the school functions as a proxy for Adam’s control. I am effectively shunned from meetings while the administration openly coordinates with Adam to manage the “situation” by excluding me.

The Significance: The court utilized a period of state-sanctioned lawlessness to create an ill-gotten “status quo.” Having established this manufactured baseline, the court then pivoted to the language of “stability” to justify the permanent loss of my educational rights. By prioritizing my child’s “stability” in a traumatizing environment—one that was both ill-gotten and clinically harmful—the court has signaled that institutional loyalty and a father’s unilateral whims carry more weight than a child’s well-being or a mother’s rights.

Procedural Sabotage (The Vanishing Consequence): This bucket exposes the court’s willingness to rewrite its own mandates to shield Adam from accountability. While the court initially established a “zero tolerance” policy regarding parental disparagement and the discussion of litigation with our child, it chose to delete those protections rather than enforce them once Adam’s violations were undeniably proven.

  • The “Zero Tolerance” Mandate: On January 26, 2023, acknowledging the severe alienation our child had endured, the court issued a clear directive: “Neither party shall disparage the other nor discuss this litigation in the presence of the child… If it is determined that this behavior has continued, then this may result in a loss of placement in the future.”
  • The Proven Violations: Over the following years, I presented evidence in successive hearings proving that Adam continued to disparage me and involve our child in litigation, with court-ordered therapists confirming this behavior and documenting the direct harm it caused to my child’s psychological well-being.
  • The Erasure of Accountability: Instead of holding Adam accountable and reducing his placement time—the exact remedy outlined in the January 26, 2023, order—the court took a different path. Rather than punishing the behavior, the court changed the order.
  • The New Precedent: By removing the provision that linked disparagement to a loss of placement, the court signaled to Adam that he could continue his alienation campaign with total impunity. The court effectively admitted that the “consequence” was only a deterrent as long as Adam didn’t actually trigger it; once he did, the court protected the abuser by deleting the rule.

The Significance: This is the ultimate evidence of judicial protectionism. In a functioning legal system, a violation of a court order results in a penalty. In this courtroom, a violation by Adam resulted in the court rewriting the law to accommodate him. By removing the only meaningful consequence for emotional abuse and alienation, the court did not merely ignore the harm to the child—it authorized that harm to continue by signaling that the court’s “zero tolerance” was a hollow threat.

Record Sabotage (Character Assassination as Evidence): This bucket addresses the court’s decision to allow inflammatory, unproven hearsay into the legal record. By permitting my father to file defamatory letters, the court prioritized personal vendettas over judicial evidence. This record sabotage allowed Adam to outsource his narrative of bias to a proxy network, ensuring the court’s perception was poisoned by unsworn allegations that were never subjected to cross-examination.

  • The Evidentiary Double Standard: While Judge Keberlein silenced the court-ordered reunification therapist—denying her the opportunity to provide clinical, real-time evidence of Adam’s sabotage—the court simultaneously allowed my father to file a series of “emergency” letters. These letters contained unproven claims that only surfaced after I set personal boundaries regarding my father’s support of Adam’s 2022 “wild west” harm and legal obstruction.
  • The Character Assassination: My father’s letters were used to inject “concerns” into the record designed to trigger judicial alarm without providing a shred of proof.
    • The Fabrication of Malice: My father alleged events to create a narrative of instability: “Elizabeth… confided in me that she would beat [her] child when born if it started crying.”
    • The Medical Smear: Without any clinical standing, my father used the record to attempt a medical diagnosis of my character: “[Elizabeth] has left a trail of documents that display an emotional disorder that warrants consideration, specially when it involves the care and wellbeing of a 7-year old… I would be willing to testify regarding the concerns I have shared.”
    • The Manufactured “Emergency”: Most dangerously, these letters manufactured a safety crisis that contradicted years of his prior support of me: “I am writing this letter to you on an emergency basis… There is considerable concern for [the child’s] emotional as well as physical safety if he has continued contact with Elizabeth… I do not believe that Elizabeth has the capacity to conduct herself in a manner that is conducive for providing a proper home environment for a 9 year old [child]… Her behavior is becoming more and more extreme as she experiences little to no consequence for her radical actions that are harming her [child]… Please, Judge Keberlein, use your full authority as a circuit court judge to stop the harm that my [grandchild] is being exposed to on a daily basis when he is with his mother, Elizabeth Fitzgibbon. I truly fear for his safety.”

The Significance: This represents a calculated dismantling of the legal record where the court permitted a shadow record to be built on personal retaliation rather than fact. These allegations appeared only as a direct response to my demand that my father cease his support of Adam’s misconduct, yet the court allowed them to “contextualize” its bias against me. When a judge refuses to hear from a neutral, court-appointed therapist but treats a retaliatory smear campaign as an “emergency,” the court has abandoned its role as an impartial fact-finder. It has instead become a platform for personal vendettas, providing Adam with the ultimate weapon: the ability to transform a family conflict into a legal justification for stripping a mother of her parental rights.

Counseling Sabotage (The Suppression of Clinical Truth): This bucket documents the extensive strategic destruction of my child’s access to court-ordered therapy and the court’s active suppression of clinical evidence. It proves that even when a court-ordered medical professional sounded the alarm on Adam’s clinical sabotage, the court chose to punish me for seeking the truth, ultimately concluding that I had “weaponized” the very therapy the court had mandated.

  • The Admission of Contempt (April 13, 2023): Adam admitted on the record to preventing our child’s court-ordered therapy. Despite this confession, Judge Keberlein refused to find him in contempt, labeling this intentional obstruction as mere “negligence.” By warning me to “co-parent” with a person actively breaking the law, the court created a sanctuary for Adam to continue his interference without consequence.
  • The Erasure of Co-Parenting Accountability (January 17, 2024): After I filed a contempt action for Adam’s systemic failure to participate in court-ordered co-parenting counseling, Family Court Commissioner (FCC) Michael Rust effectively rewarded the obstruction by granting Adam a judicial reprieve. Adam’s conduct during these sessions was so abhorrent that the therapist was forced to discharge us, citing the ethical impossibility of continuing treatment where no progress could be made. During these sessions, Adam maintained a posture of total defiance, explicitly refusing to engage in substantive discussion on the grounds that he had “already gotten everything [he] wanted from the court.” When not stonewalling, he was overtly aggressive—on multiple occasions, screaming at me from the office doorway so loudly that the therapist was forced to intervene to prevent the disruption of other clinical sessions. Despite this documented sabotage, FCC Rust refused to find Adam in contempt; instead, he concluded there was not a court order requiring him to participate in the process.
  • The Perverse “Golden Ticket” (May 15, 2024): In a hearing that defied both logic and law, the court ordered Adam into individual counseling. The order outlined that if/when his individual therapist provided written confirmation of Adam’s “successful completion,” it would automatically be considered a substantial change in circumstances, granting him the right to seek more placement than we had ever stipulated. This provision was structurally unsound and deliberately skewed to favor Adam’s litigation objectives. By making individual therapy the hub of the entire case, the court created an upside-down system of rewards that bypassed actual parental fitness.
    • In a functioning legal system, intensive therapy is a remedy—it’s a path to earn back rights lost due to dangerous behavior. Here, Adam faced zero consequences for his documented “wild west” harms. Instead, the court used individual therapy to build a pedestal. Adam wasn’t being fixed; he was being given a curated shortcut to expand his control.
    • The most egregious failure was the court’s pre-determination that “successful completion” of one therapy modality equals more placement. By this flawed logic, my own “flawless performance”—years of perfect compliance with zero violations—should have triggered an automatic grant of sole custody and full placement. Instead, the court only applied this performance-to-placement pipeline to the parent with a documented history of abuse and obstruction.
    • The order placed Adam in a vacuum. It allowed him to manipulate a single provider to secure a “completion” letter without ever demonstrating behavioral change in the actual conflict zones: reunification and co-parenting. Under this framework, Adam could be “cured” in his individual therapist’s office while simultaneously continuing to sabotage our child’s therapy and relationship with me.
  • The Suppression of Clinical Evidence (June 25, 2024): Having intimate knowledge of our family dynamic and the source of the conflict, our court-ordered reunification therapist was subpoenaed and present to testify during a custody hearing. However, Judge Keberlein dismissed the hearing after only 17 minutes and refused to allow the therapist to speak. He claimed there was no significant change in circumstance to justify the hearing while simultaneously silencing the very witness who would have proven otherwise.
  • Adam’s Termination from Therapy (July 15, 2024): Less than three weeks after the court refused to hear the reunification therapist’s testimony, her attempt to continue working with Adam ended in his formal termination from the process. During a volatile session, Adam’s behavior became so aggressive that the therapist was forced to ban him from future participation. Her clinical record documents a complete breakdown of the therapeutic environment: Her clinical notes recorded: “Dad is hyperfocused on mom today and cannot be redirected. Asked him 4 or 5 times to stop… Confronted dad about lying to [the child]… Dad becomes angry and begins verbally lashing out… would not let this therapist speak and was yelling over the top of me… [The child] is unable to answer questions without first looking at dad for approval… Dad lies again… Let dad know he is not welcome in session anymore due to lying and not following recommendations.”
  • The September 4, 2024, Swarm (Coordinated Witness Intimidation): Adam’s ability to obstruct court-ordered therapy remained absolute, even after his clinical termination. When the therapist expressed concerns regarding the child’s school environment—critically relevant evidence the court had previously suppressed—Adam’s proxy network launched a coordinated intimidation campaign to discredit her. A series of letters was filed with the court by Adam’s parents, my own father, and the school’s pastor, each aimed at dismantling the therapist’s professional standing:
    • Adam’s Parents: Labeled the therapist’s clinical findings “contrived or manipulated” and demanded she be “reprimanded.”
    • My Father: Accused the therapist of “well-ingrained bias” and “erroneous conclusions,” claiming she violated HIPAA for simply performing her court-ordered duties.
    • The School Pastor: Directly threatened the therapist’s professional standing: “I respectfully ask that you withdraw your letter. If you do not, I will suggest to Mr. Fitzgibbon that he petition [the court] for a new counselor.”
  • The “Termination Loophole” (October 10, 2024): After Adam was clinically terminated from therapy for his aggression and dishonesty, I filed a second contempt motion, as his interference remained just as destructive from the periphery. The ruling by Family Court Commissioner (FCC) Kirsten Navarrette established a perverse incentive for parental obstruction: she refused to find Adam in contempt for his sabotage of the child’s reunification counseling, reasoning that because the relationship between Adam and the therapist had “broken down,” it was “no longer reasonable” to expect the process to continue with Adam.
    • The Active Sabotage: This ruling ignored the evidentiary reality that the “breakdown” was not a neutral event, but a deliberate act of contempt. By overtly signaling his hostility toward the therapist, Adam ensured the child followed suit. Even in Adam’s physical absence, his refusal to support the court-ordered mandate acted as a green light for our child to resist treatment.
    • The Precedent: Effectively, FCC Navarrette ruled that if a parent is sufficiently disruptive to be banned by a medical professional, they are rewarded with a total exemption from the court order. This transformed Adam’s misconduct into a legal “get out of jail free” card, proving that within this jurisdictional framework, the more a parent sabotages a professional, the more the court will accommodate them.
  • The Closure of Judicial Relief (November 15, 2024): In a final collapse of accountability, FCC Kirsten Navarrette refused to even hold a hearing on my motions for contempt regarding Adam’s persistent refusal to follow court-ordered counseling recommendations. Despite my formal request that the matter be routed to Judge Keberlein if the Commissioner felt unable to adjudicate the issue, she declined to do so. By refusing to calendar the motion or transfer the jurisdiction, the court effectively silenced my ability to seek relief. This procedural blockade ensured that Adam’s non-compliance remained unaddressed and unpunished, permanently insulating him from the consequences of his ongoing sabotage and stripping me of any remaining legal mechanism to protect the child’s therapeutic process.
  • The Clinical Exit and Statement of Futility (January 21, 2025): Because the court-sanctioned sabotage rendered counseling progress impossible, the reunification therapist was forced to end sessions entirely. In her final clinical summary, she explicitly identified the court’s own actions as a primary barrier to the child’s well-being: “The fact the courts will not allow this therapist to contribute knowledge to the family case as well as dad’s continued sabotage of therapy have made it impossible to continue to work effectively with this family.” While the therapist acknowledged that the clinical need for reunification remained, she concluded that the environment created by Adam—and protected by the court—made it impossible to conduct therapy safely for the child. This exit quote serves as the final proof of the jurisdictional truth: by silencing the expert and rewarding the aggressor, the court effectively dismantled the very healing process it claimed to mandate.
  • The “Weaponization” Conclusion and Institutional Silence (May 9, 2025 – Present): Despite a clear clinical record of Adam’s sabotage, Judge Keberlein concluded that the counseling process had become “weaponized.” This narrative inversion was fueled by the egregiously flawed testimony of the GAL, Attorney Moffat, who ignored documented clinical evidence in favor of a “conflict” narrative. This allowed the court to use the failure of its own order—a collapse engineered by Adam’s abuse and the court’s own lack of oversight—as the legal justification to terminate my path toward reunification.
    • The Refusal to Correct the Record: In the months following this ruling, I made exhaustive efforts to restore the truth, providing the relevant parties with point-by-point evidentiary rebuttals of the May 9 transcript. I sought to have the record corrected to reflect the clinical reality of Adam’s obstruction in an effort to restore my child’s and my access to our court-ordered reunification therapy.
    • The Advocacy Void: These efforts were met with total institutional silence. The GAL, despite being the child’s legal advocate, refused to act on the evidence or petition to correct the record. Simultaneously, the reunification therapist was reportedly prevented by her own clinical leadership from clarifying the record or challenging the court’s mischaracterization of her work.
    • The Finality of the Heist: This silence represents the ultimate failure of the child’s “safety net.” By refusing to acknowledge the documented truth, the GAL and the court have ensured that the “Comfortable Lie” of parental conflict remains the official record, while the clinical reality of abuse and sabotage remains buried.

The Significance: This trajectory represents the peak of the conflict trap, where the court created a sanctuary for the offending parent by refusing to hold them accountable for their conduct in therapy. When medical professionals are ultimately forced to withdraw due to the parent’s hostility and the court’s systemic bias, Judge Keberlein—relying on the egregiously flawed advocacy of Attorney Moffat—inverted the narrative to blame the victim for the institutional failure. By labeling the pursuit of clinical honesty as “weaponization,” the court has established a dangerous precedent: It is now legally perilous for a mother to report the truth about her child’s mental health or the sabotage of the maternal bond. This is the heist in its most clinical form: The court mandates a remedy, permits the aggressor to destroy that remedy, and then uses the resulting debris as the justification to terminate a parent’s path to reunification. By silencing the expert and ignoring the clinical record, the court ensured that the comfortable lie of co-parenting conflict was preserved, while the reality of state-sanctioned alienation remained buried.

The Bottom Line: The evidence within these seven compromised parts of the case reveals a singular, chilling truth: In this courtroom, the law is not a shield for the innocent, but a tool for the obstructive. Through the use of “The Conflict Trap,” “The Complexity Shield,” and “Procedural Immunity,” the court has successfully inverted the purpose of the family justice system. By rewarding Adam’s non-compliance and punishing my attempts to enforce court orders, the court didn’t just fail to resolve the conflict—it became the primary architect of its continuation.

When a judge admits a case is “too complex” to enforce the law, and a GAL admits one parent is “more cooperative” but recommends the other be given authority, the system has ceased to function. I continue to fight not because I seek conflict, but because the court has left me no other path to protect my child’s well-being and my fundamental rights as a mother.

This is not a high-conflict case. This is a case of high-level judicial failure.

9. Why Are You Fighting This? Is it Worth the Cost, and When Will You Stop?

The Short Answer: I am fighting because constitutional rights are not suggestions, and they are not for sale. My commitment to this cause has evolved; it is no longer just about a personal outcome. I will stop when the systemic vulnerabilities I have unearthed are addressed and the mechanisms of institutional fraud can no longer operate in the shadows.

The Reality: Many ask if it would have been “easier” to simply walk away on January 6, 2023, pointing to the years of life consumed by this battle. My response is simple: I do not own the outcomes of others’ immoral behaviors. Refusing to accept a fraudulent reality is not “stubbornness”; it is the basic requirement of a free citizen. There is a fundamental principle that guides this level of persistence: “When injustice becomes law, resistance becomes duty.”

  • The Mission of Discovery: While this began as a fight for my own rights, the journey revealed a far more dangerous truth. As I encountered hurdle after hurdle and loophole after loophole, I realized my case was the diagnostic tool that exposed a systemic infection. I had to go through the entire process—exhausting every remedy—to document exactly where and how the rule of law fails the citizen. I didn’t just find a crack in the system; I mapped the entire collapse.
  • The Moral Obligation: I launched this public campaign because the failures I documented were too calculated to be accidental. Most believe the law is a safety net; I have proven it is often an institutional “closed-loop” designed to protect its own mistakes. I have a duty to lawmakers and the public to expose these “black sites” of justice so they can be rectified for everyone. Silence in the face of this fraud is not peace; it is complicity.
  • The Cost of Compliance: If I had “gone along” with a fraudulent record, I would be validating the destruction of the very concept of legal identity. To kowtow to a judicial bully is how bullies are made; power only grows in the fertile soil of silence. If I accept a forged divorce and a “legal ghost” status today, I give the state permission to forge the lives of my children tomorrow.

The Bottom Line: I am not the source of the damage; the officials who traded their oaths for a comfortable lie are. I am simply the one who stayed in the fight long enough to find the receipts. My pursuit of accountability won’t end until the “shadow court” is dismantled and the path to justice is cleared for all who follow.

Have a Question Not Covered Here?

This record is expansive and continues to evolve. If there are specific questions you would like addressed on this page, please reach out via the Contact Form. Transparency is the only path to accountability.

For full case details, click here.

To learn how the systemic discoveries apply to you, click here.

My case provided the evidence; your voice proivdes the impact. To see how you can get involved, click here.