I am losing my vision because of Court criminal abuse. My obstetrician says it's from high blood pressure. High blood pressure caused from stress from unspeakable crimes committed against me and my children. This is all of our story although we may have different physical and emotional manifestations of systemic institutional misogyny. No lawyer will take my case. No lawyer will take my case because this network won't let them unless they agree to throw the fight. I fought for over 40 years. My story is a story of judicial retaliation and family Vendetta joining forces. Organized crime is being paid for by the asleep-at-the-wheel taxpayer. We need to attack the law schools not just the Bar Association who allows this Behavior after training. It is Satan worshiping nothing less that these attorneys buy into. The details of my case are a blueprint of how these kinds of atrocities against mothers and our children are executed by the most cunning and well-connected. Hatred of women is the most prevalent hate crime on Earth globally and across time. Women have a disadvantage because we birth Humanity. We get no respect for doing so, only distain. I want to tell my story. In detail. But not to the press. To our uderground. I have The MRA Playbook. We all do. The direct targeting is akin to the KKK targeting tactics back in the day make no mistake, enlisted once a Woman dares to open her mouth. This is Domestic Terrorism. I name names and I've been told if I end up "dead on the side of the road don't be surprised. Pro tip: there is no separation of church and state in the United States of America. If women step out of line they will come for your kids, the ultimate punishment before your death or theirs. And neither is of any consequence to the secret-society, $atanic mob that is Family/Probate Court who I know up close and personal. No woman is safe. No child is safe. Our anguished cries are their most extreme pleasure. Know thy enemy. To the death.

Expand full comment

Very dissapointed to see this loss. I would encourage the class action group to appeal the dismissal and never give up exposing the issues until the court reforms their practice. Cant you take the class action to your government and the parliament!?

Expand full comment

If there were a federal standard established by an appeals court ruling that would help you in your state what do you imagine it would it be?

If you will share your thoughts, I'd appreciate it. I have a case to make at the federal level. Since I expect injustice because it is all I have ever experienced, I am working on concepts for appeal considering arguing under the bill of rights as incorporated into the 14th amendment. (explained loosely below).

17. That the defendants sought an order for binding arbitration pursuant to a framework provided by Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR), Wis. Stat. § 802.12(3)(d)(4.) and Wis. Stat. § 802.12(3)(e). That the binding arbitration was not in compliance with the requirements against concurrent action and of exclusive and continuing jurisdiction of the subject matter of the Uniform Child Custody Enforcement Act (UCCJEA), adopted in Wis. Stat. ch. 822 and required by Wis. Stat. § 767.01(2m), nor the Fair Credit Parental Kidnapping Prevention Act (PKPA) codified in 28 U.S.C. §1738A, enforceable as a federally protected entitlement right according to Violence Against Women Act (VWVA) as informed by the use of rights creating language “ (except to the extent that they are entitled to full faith and credit under federal law). ” 18 U.S.C § 2266.

18. Subject matter jurisdiction is a requirement of a fair hearing further protected by the U.S. Constitution, Fourteenth Amendment, § 1. In Wisconsin subject matter jurisdiction is required for all civil actions, and nothing in Wis. Stat. chs. 801 to 847 affects the subject matter jurisdiction of any court of this state. Wis. Stat. § 801.04(1).

19. A forum change to arbitration has been established as a material factor. See Bernhardt v. Polygraphic Co., 350 U.S. 198, 203. (1956). That regardless of the interpretation of the judgement of divorce’s ADR clause, the arbitrator clearly exceeded her power by deciding on visitation rights.

20. In the endeavor of this conspiracy the defendants concealed the father's financial misdeeds and omitted evidence of the father's abuse of the child, as was alleged by social services and MPD.

21. That the divorce was amicable up until the morning of Aug. 1, 2016. That day the child disclosed activities at his father’s home indicative of child abuse. The mother texted the father to delay the informal parenting switch. The father reacted dramatically and called the police. The mother explained to the officer on the phone that she had acted within her legal rights. In this call the mother revealed her location. The father tracked down the family and tried to abscond with the child. The police responded to the domestic disturbance, and the mother then reported the child’s disclosure of the abuse to the responding officers.

22. At the instruction of the MPD, the child was interviewed by social services on Aug. 4, 2016. the mother was issued a protective order temporarily barring the father from contact with the child, and a VARDA alarm was installed in the home. The MPD conducted an investigation based on the child’s statements. Charges of first degree sex assault - contact with person under 13, Wis. Stat. §948.02(1)(e) were referred to the district attorney. The district attorney declined to prosecute, but the declination letter clearly states the reason as a difficult case to win and states the decision is not a reflection of the father's guilt or innocence.

23. Plaintiff alleges that the defendant GAL Friedrich knew of the child abuse but failed to report it. It is a violation of Equal Protection and rights of Due Process for guardian ad litem to fail to present existing evidence of child abuse in a proceeding on custody and placement at which the court’s consideration of abuse is a required factor. Reporting child abuse is a non-discretionary ministrative task. See Baumgardt v. Wausau School District Board of Education, 475 F. Supp. 2d 800 (2007). Although the determination that a child is being abused involves discretionary acts, once that determination is made, a duty-bound individual such as guardian ad litem must act. See Cf. Chart v. Divorak, 57 Wis. 2d 92, 102, 203 N.W. 2d 673 (1973).

24. GAL Friedrich negligently and intentionally misrepresented the social services report by purporting the word ‘unsubstantiated’ as meaning ‘unfounded.’ Child protective services’ use of the term ‘unsubstantiated’ is not indicative of non-occurrence. “At times, agencies will “screen out” or “unsubstantiate” reports of alleged maltreatment and not take any further action. This does not necessarily indicate that the alleged actions did not occur.” Wis. Governor’s Council on Domestic Abuse and End Domestic Abuse Wisconsin. Domestic Abuse Guidebook for Guardian Ad Litem. at 50-51 (2017). The social services report reasons the screen out as, the mother, the custodial parent was taking steps to protect the child from further abuse and was keeping the child from seeing the abuser.

25. GAL Friedrich purported the child made up the molestation game by equivocating the phrasing “made up” to mean a lie, as opposed to how the child used the phrase to mean created. The report states the child said, he “made up the game and played it 100s of times.” Dane County Soc. Servs. R. Case -.

Expand full comment

I assume the lawsuit is off by that "miss as good as a mile."

Think about it this way. Equal Protection and fundamental right to parent of a fit parent both require criminal adjudication of the unfutness of an alleged criminal felon.

That is the U.S.Constitution requires criminal adjudication of an unfit perpetrator BEFIRE any adjudication of custody i.e. a criminal's access to child victims can be decided.

In what world are criminal child rapists allowed to live with their victims? Never happens in criminal court.

Expand full comment
Sep 18·edited Sep 18

Reposting so that you can easily see something positive and uplifting. In the case of Green v. Howser, 942 F.3d 772, 778 (7th Cir. 2019), plaintiff, Jade sued private parties under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for conspiring with state officials to violate her due process right to make decisions regarding the care, custody, and control of her child. The claim was heard in the district court, challenged on appeal based on sufficiency of evidence to the 7th circuit in 2019, and the district court's decision was not overturned. Green v. Howser, 942 F.3d 772, 776 (7th Cir. 2019) (paraphrasing original). The Court decided the conspiracy was proven based on the evidence that the Howser's had driven in from out of town and were waiting round the corner in a car to take custody of the child upon the arrest of their daughter Jade. Everything else was just their word against hers. In this comparative case, the plaintiff, “Jade claimed a group executed a plan to place her child in the Howser’s custody in violation of the procedures dictated by Illinois law, thereby also violating her Fourteenth Amendment right to make decisions concerning the care, custody, and control of her child. See Hernandez ex rel. Hernandez v. Foster, 657 F.3d 463, 478 (7th Cir. 2011) (recognizing that the Fourteenth Amendment protects parental custody rights). [. . .] the suit against the Howsers proceeded to a jury trial over which a magistrate judge presided. At the end of the trial, the jury awarded Jade $470,000 in compensatory damages and $500,000 in punitive damages, for a total of $970,000.” Green v. Howser, 942 F.3d 772, 778 (7th Cir. 2019).

The Southern District of Illinois and the 7th Circuit under Chief Wood, a WOMAN, deserve an applause for their protection of rights, specifically a young woman's equal protection and due process rights. Do NOT forget that a parents right to rear their child is a fundamental right. See Troxel v. Grandville, 530 U.S. 57 (2000).

Expand full comment

Judges do not often get a New York Times headline for a successful and honorable divorce trial, strengthening laws such as the VWVA offers little rewards. Raising our voices only when the leaders get it wrong doesn't seem to be effective, so there has to be a better way. Your state legislators need to impose a duty. "[A] duty is regarded as ministerial when it has been positively imposed by law, and its performance required at a time and in a manner, or upon conditions which are specifically designated, the duty to perform under the conditions specified not being dependent upon the officer's judgment or discretion." Sabo, 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 211258, at *32-33 (quoting Pinter v. Vill. of Stetsonville, 2019 WI 74, ¶41, 387 Wis. 2d 475, 492, 929 N.W.2d 547, 555). Then corruption as it readily exists in a divorce with an abusive element can become a clear “known danger” exception to municipal and public officer immunity. More State laws impose the duty so that the embattled women seeking protection in a court of law will be able to overcome immunity. It is "in the light of pre-existing law the unlawfulness must be apparent.” Id. (internal quotation marks omitted). Third, “the conduct involved in the case may so obviously violate [ ] th[e] constitution that prior case law is unnecessary.” Id. at 1255 (internal quotation marks omitted) (alteration in the original). This “narrow” category encompasses those situations where “the official's conduct lies so obviously at the very core of what the [relevant constitutional provision] prohibits that the unlawfulness of the conduct was readily apparent to the official, notwithstanding the lack of case law.” Id. at 1257 (internal quotation marks omitted). Loftus v. Clark–Moore, 690 F.3d 1200, 1204-05 (11th Cir. 2012). I think there must be a way to make the conduct of these subjective "professionals" more clearly against the law. Revision to State legislation must be easier than court reforms.

The judge is looking to State laws... Let's change those laws.

Expand full comment

Judges abuse their power and endanger our children. Class action lawsuits are decided by judges. Judicial rulings are questionable. Systemic male entitlement has deep roots. The good old boys stick together and work together. Judges are part of the problem. They cover for each other. They do go along to get along. Mothers have to stick together and work together to unravel this dangerous and controlling network. Our children have one childhood. These judges are destroying it for them and for us. Mothers have to shine the spotlight on the legal and the human rights violations we and our children are forced to endure. Mothers have to keep pushing for a new system. Women must channel their rage to gain the power needed to protect our children.

Expand full comment

This is scandalous!

Evaluators should not have the same immunity as judges. And if they break the law immunity doesn’t apply. No one is above the law. Neither judges nor evaluators.

From now on every parent who is sent to see an evaluator should refuse to be assessed, as there is no guarantee they will be assessed competently and without fabrication being made up.

If a judge makes an order for a parent to enter into a contract (under duress) with a third party, i.e. an evaluator (psych, counsellor, etc.) is breaching a contract law. It is beyond any judge’s jurisdiction to force parties into a contract (for consideration). Contract entered under duress is invalid.

Expand full comment