Dr. Elizabeth Morgan’s case is the second in Women’s Coalition’s “History of the Custody Crisis” series. Her case began in Washington DC in 1983 and went on until 1997.
Our first case profiled, Mary Lou’s, began and ended in the late ‘70’s, with Mary Lou never seeing her daughter again. Elizabeth’s case had a happier ending, bit still tremendous trauma and torture inflicted upon her by a Family Court judge.
Jun 27, 2023Liked by Womens Coalition International
An absolute gem of a deep dive to help understand how family court can fail, how the protective mother is left with extreme choices, and the grand finale… hearing the adult survivor- who grew up to become a well spoken professional, clearly able to speak out about child sexual abuse and trauma survivors.
Bravo Women’s Coalition once again for bringing light to the darkness.
Jun 26, 2023Liked by Womens Coalition International
Quick note: Five months passed before Dr. Morgan joined Elena; only when the Morgans were found she was able to get her passport back from the court and traveled to New Zealand.
The accused person here was written about by his fourth wife. Although she could be considered unreliable (she was a heavy drinker at the time) she states the man physically and verbally abused her. She mentioned the custody battle when she paid money to have her name kept out of the press so it wouldn't hurt her own career. When she told him she was leaving, he said "But what about my custody battle?"
Jun 26, 2023Liked by Womens Coalition International
Family court judges do not care about women and children. Elizabeth and Elena highlight their inhumanity. Family court judges only care about elevating their status. Judicial power is maintained and elevated through their indifference to the pain and suffering of women and children. Mothers and their children are rendered powerless. There is nothing that can be done. Submitting complaints to the disciplinary committee do no good. They only tell you that it's the judge's opinion and that's what matters. They tell you that women are not discriminated against in family court. They also tell you that there are female judges making custody decisions not just men. Male and female family court judges only care about keeping and increasing their power. They knowingly continually send children to abusers and rapists. They destroy lives. When suicides occur it publicly confirms their false accusations against mothers and their children. Family court judges see suicides as support for their false accusations of craziness. Systemic male entitlement is maintained and strengthened by judicial abuse of power. Judicial abuse of power is rewarded and strengthened by systemic male entitlement. Women are discriminated against in family court. Women and their children are sacrificed without remorse. Family court judges must be stripped of their power. Child custody cases must be heard by a jury. The lives of women and children depend upon it. Family court judges do not protect mothers and their children.
Please consider voicing your opinion to the Attorney General's office, Phone: (608) 266-1221.
I am a 42-year-old white college educated mom in Wisconsin with a §1983 claim based on the Fair Credit Parental Kidnapping Prevention Act (PKPA), codified under 28 U.S.C. §1738A, an enforceable right, an entitlement according to the 18 U.S.C § 2266, Violence Against Women Act (VWVA), 28 U.S.C §1738A. I'm currently pro se, and I need your help because Attorney General Josh Kaul has forgotten The Ending Qualified Immunity Act, or betrayed his party and checked his principles at the door of the Court becuase he asserted the 11th amendment defense as part of the official capacity claim against Supreme Appeals Court Clerk for the office’s role in the corruptly procured arbitration award modifying custody and placement. STATE AND LOCAL OFFICIALS!
Remind AG Josh Kaul that the Fourteenth Amendment, Section 5 provides, “The Congress shall have the power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.” The most influential woman in politics, Sen. Warren, Elizabeth and Sen. Bernie Sanders sponsored this legislation, S.492 - Ending Qualified Immunity Act, 117th Congress (2021-2022), identical bill H.R.1470 - Ending Qualified Immunity Act 117th Congress (2021-2022), read twice. The Act’s stated purpose is “[t]o amend the Revised Statutes to remove the defense of qualified immunity in the case of any action under section 1979, and for other purposes.” The other purpose is explained as to “reiterate the standard found on the face of the statute” at the time of the violation. Those standards are reiterated in the Act’s concretional findings “(2) Included in the Act was a provision, now codified at section 1983 of title 42, United States Code, which provides a cause of action for persons to file lawsuits against people acting under color of State law, including State or local officials, who violate their Federal legal and constitutionally secured rights.” Congress further found that “(4) Section 1979 has never included a defense or immunity for government officials who act in good faith when violating rights, nor has it ever had a defense or immunity based on whether the right was “clearly established” at the time of the violation.” (Ending Qualified Immunity Act)
The annotated U.S. Constitution states under §5.4 “the Court allowed that Congress’s power to legislate to deter or remedy constitutional violations may include prohibitions on conduct that is not itself unconstitutional, the Court also held that there must be a congruence and proportionality between the means adopted and the injury to be remedied.” City of Boerne v. Flores, 521 U.S. at 533. The Ending Qualified Immunity Act was written in such a way that it meets that congruence and proportionality test, and expressly states its rational basis for the legislation as responsive to or designed to prevent unconstitutional behavior, because the deterrent effect of legislation which allows liability innately meets the rational basis test. The Act recognized the pattern of the reiteration by recounting history which needed correction. The legislation also presented the need “(9) This doctrine of qualified immunity has severely limited the ability of many plaintiffs to recover damages under section 1983 when their rights have been violated by State and local officials. As a result, the intent of Congress in passing the law has been frustrated, and Americans' rights secured by the Constitution have not been appropriately protected.” (Ending Qualified Immunity Act).
The Ending Qualified Immunity Act is the express authority that abrogates the State’s sovereign immunity in a §1983 claim. "Congress may abrogate the States' constitutionally secured immunity from suit in federal court only by making its intention unmistakably clear in the language of the statute." Atascadero State Hospital v. Scanlon, 473 U.S. 234, 242 (1985); Welch v. Texas Highways Public Transp. Dept, 483 U.S. 468, 471-72 (1987), and Congress has abrogated in the year 2021.
The State’s choice of law, Will v. Michigan Dept. of State Police, 491 U.S. 58, 66 (1989), it wisely and very logically states:
Congress enacted § 1 of the Civil Rights Act of 1871, 17 Stat. 13, the precursor to § 1983, shortly after the end of the Civil War "in response to the widespread deprivations of civil rights in the Southern States and the inability or unwillingness of authorities in those States to protect those rights or punish wrongdoers." Felder v. Casey, 487 U.S. 131, 147 (1988). Although Congress did not establish federal courts as the exclusive forum to remedy these deprivations, ibid., it is plain that "Congress assigned to the federal courts a paramount role" in this endeavor, Patsy v. Board of Regents of Florida, 457 U.S. 496, 503 (1982).
Section 1983 provides a federal forum to remedy many deprivations of civil liberties, but it does not provide a federal forum for litigants who seek a remedy against a State for alleged deprivations of civil liberties. The Eleventh Amendment bars such suits unless the State has waived its immunity, Welch v. Texas Dept. of Highways and Public Transportation, 483 U.S. 468, 472-473 (1987) (plurality opinion), or unless Congress has exercised its undoubted power under § 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment to override that immunity. That Congress, in passing § 1983, had no intention to disturb the States' Eleventh Amendment immunity and so to alter the federal-state balance in that respect was made clear in our decision in Quern. Given that a principal purpose behind the enactment of § 1983 was to provide a federal forum for civil rights claims, and that Congress did not provide such a federal forum for civil rights claims against States, we cannot accept petitioner's argument that Congress intended nevertheless to create a cause of action against States to be brought in state courts, which are precisely the courts Congress sought to allow civil rights claimants to avoid through § 1983.
Will v. Michigan Dept. of State Police, 491 U.S. 58, 66 (1989).
Based upon the reiterated congressional intention of §1983 in the Ending Qualified Immunity Act, the reasoning upon which Will v. Michigan Dept. of State Police, 491 U.S. 58, 71 (1989), is predicated no longer leads to the finding upon which the Attorney General relies. Will v. Michigan Dept. of State Police, 491 U.S. 58, 66-71 (1989). Now, congress has reiterated the law as clearly including State officials, as well as Local officials. My claim is well within the legislative intention of §1983.
Please consider voicing your opinion to the Attorney General's office, Phone: (608) 266-1221.
An absolute gem of a deep dive to help understand how family court can fail, how the protective mother is left with extreme choices, and the grand finale… hearing the adult survivor- who grew up to become a well spoken professional, clearly able to speak out about child sexual abuse and trauma survivors.
Bravo Women’s Coalition once again for bringing light to the darkness.
I 've known of Dr Morgan and her saga's muck since the mid 1980s, ... ... , and, back then as well,
the beginnings of the bureau of L O S S = my own saga.
Dr Maas.
Quick note: Five months passed before Dr. Morgan joined Elena; only when the Morgans were found she was able to get her passport back from the court and traveled to New Zealand.
The accused person here was written about by his fourth wife. Although she could be considered unreliable (she was a heavy drinker at the time) she states the man physically and verbally abused her. She mentioned the custody battle when she paid money to have her name kept out of the press so it wouldn't hurt her own career. When she told him she was leaving, he said "But what about my custody battle?"
Family court judges do not care about women and children. Elizabeth and Elena highlight their inhumanity. Family court judges only care about elevating their status. Judicial power is maintained and elevated through their indifference to the pain and suffering of women and children. Mothers and their children are rendered powerless. There is nothing that can be done. Submitting complaints to the disciplinary committee do no good. They only tell you that it's the judge's opinion and that's what matters. They tell you that women are not discriminated against in family court. They also tell you that there are female judges making custody decisions not just men. Male and female family court judges only care about keeping and increasing their power. They knowingly continually send children to abusers and rapists. They destroy lives. When suicides occur it publicly confirms their false accusations against mothers and their children. Family court judges see suicides as support for their false accusations of craziness. Systemic male entitlement is maintained and strengthened by judicial abuse of power. Judicial abuse of power is rewarded and strengthened by systemic male entitlement. Women are discriminated against in family court. Women and their children are sacrificed without remorse. Family court judges must be stripped of their power. Child custody cases must be heard by a jury. The lives of women and children depend upon it. Family court judges do not protect mothers and their children.
Please consider voicing your opinion to the Attorney General's office, Phone: (608) 266-1221.
I am a 42-year-old white college educated mom in Wisconsin with a §1983 claim based on the Fair Credit Parental Kidnapping Prevention Act (PKPA), codified under 28 U.S.C. §1738A, an enforceable right, an entitlement according to the 18 U.S.C § 2266, Violence Against Women Act (VWVA), 28 U.S.C §1738A. I'm currently pro se, and I need your help because Attorney General Josh Kaul has forgotten The Ending Qualified Immunity Act, or betrayed his party and checked his principles at the door of the Court becuase he asserted the 11th amendment defense as part of the official capacity claim against Supreme Appeals Court Clerk for the office’s role in the corruptly procured arbitration award modifying custody and placement. STATE AND LOCAL OFFICIALS!
Remind AG Josh Kaul that the Fourteenth Amendment, Section 5 provides, “The Congress shall have the power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.” The most influential woman in politics, Sen. Warren, Elizabeth and Sen. Bernie Sanders sponsored this legislation, S.492 - Ending Qualified Immunity Act, 117th Congress (2021-2022), identical bill H.R.1470 - Ending Qualified Immunity Act 117th Congress (2021-2022), read twice. The Act’s stated purpose is “[t]o amend the Revised Statutes to remove the defense of qualified immunity in the case of any action under section 1979, and for other purposes.” The other purpose is explained as to “reiterate the standard found on the face of the statute” at the time of the violation. Those standards are reiterated in the Act’s concretional findings “(2) Included in the Act was a provision, now codified at section 1983 of title 42, United States Code, which provides a cause of action for persons to file lawsuits against people acting under color of State law, including State or local officials, who violate their Federal legal and constitutionally secured rights.” Congress further found that “(4) Section 1979 has never included a defense or immunity for government officials who act in good faith when violating rights, nor has it ever had a defense or immunity based on whether the right was “clearly established” at the time of the violation.” (Ending Qualified Immunity Act)
The annotated U.S. Constitution states under §5.4 “the Court allowed that Congress’s power to legislate to deter or remedy constitutional violations may include prohibitions on conduct that is not itself unconstitutional, the Court also held that there must be a congruence and proportionality between the means adopted and the injury to be remedied.” City of Boerne v. Flores, 521 U.S. at 533. The Ending Qualified Immunity Act was written in such a way that it meets that congruence and proportionality test, and expressly states its rational basis for the legislation as responsive to or designed to prevent unconstitutional behavior, because the deterrent effect of legislation which allows liability innately meets the rational basis test. The Act recognized the pattern of the reiteration by recounting history which needed correction. The legislation also presented the need “(9) This doctrine of qualified immunity has severely limited the ability of many plaintiffs to recover damages under section 1983 when their rights have been violated by State and local officials. As a result, the intent of Congress in passing the law has been frustrated, and Americans' rights secured by the Constitution have not been appropriately protected.” (Ending Qualified Immunity Act).
The Ending Qualified Immunity Act is the express authority that abrogates the State’s sovereign immunity in a §1983 claim. "Congress may abrogate the States' constitutionally secured immunity from suit in federal court only by making its intention unmistakably clear in the language of the statute." Atascadero State Hospital v. Scanlon, 473 U.S. 234, 242 (1985); Welch v. Texas Highways Public Transp. Dept, 483 U.S. 468, 471-72 (1987), and Congress has abrogated in the year 2021.
The State’s choice of law, Will v. Michigan Dept. of State Police, 491 U.S. 58, 66 (1989), it wisely and very logically states:
Congress enacted § 1 of the Civil Rights Act of 1871, 17 Stat. 13, the precursor to § 1983, shortly after the end of the Civil War "in response to the widespread deprivations of civil rights in the Southern States and the inability or unwillingness of authorities in those States to protect those rights or punish wrongdoers." Felder v. Casey, 487 U.S. 131, 147 (1988). Although Congress did not establish federal courts as the exclusive forum to remedy these deprivations, ibid., it is plain that "Congress assigned to the federal courts a paramount role" in this endeavor, Patsy v. Board of Regents of Florida, 457 U.S. 496, 503 (1982).
Section 1983 provides a federal forum to remedy many deprivations of civil liberties, but it does not provide a federal forum for litigants who seek a remedy against a State for alleged deprivations of civil liberties. The Eleventh Amendment bars such suits unless the State has waived its immunity, Welch v. Texas Dept. of Highways and Public Transportation, 483 U.S. 468, 472-473 (1987) (plurality opinion), or unless Congress has exercised its undoubted power under § 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment to override that immunity. That Congress, in passing § 1983, had no intention to disturb the States' Eleventh Amendment immunity and so to alter the federal-state balance in that respect was made clear in our decision in Quern. Given that a principal purpose behind the enactment of § 1983 was to provide a federal forum for civil rights claims, and that Congress did not provide such a federal forum for civil rights claims against States, we cannot accept petitioner's argument that Congress intended nevertheless to create a cause of action against States to be brought in state courts, which are precisely the courts Congress sought to allow civil rights claimants to avoid through § 1983.
Will v. Michigan Dept. of State Police, 491 U.S. 58, 66 (1989).
Based upon the reiterated congressional intention of §1983 in the Ending Qualified Immunity Act, the reasoning upon which Will v. Michigan Dept. of State Police, 491 U.S. 58, 71 (1989), is predicated no longer leads to the finding upon which the Attorney General relies. Will v. Michigan Dept. of State Police, 491 U.S. 58, 66-71 (1989). Now, congress has reiterated the law as clearly including State officials, as well as Local officials. My claim is well within the legislative intention of §1983.
Please consider voicing your opinion to the Attorney General's office, Phone: (608) 266-1221.