BAR GRIEVANCE AGAINST GINGER ANN SHOCKLEY WEATHERSPOON, MAY 16, 2026

追加: 2026-05-21

[00:00:00]My name is Jeff Morgan. I am from Dallas, Texas. The last video I did, I talked about admitting fraudulent statements, making fraudulent statements to a court. And uh those are the statements that I talked about with Ginger and Shockley Weatherspoon. It is my belief, my assertion that the statements that she presented before the courts are fraudulent and false and they're designed to create prejudice against the court against me. They are designed to be used as a leverage tool against me and there's no factual basis for them at all. So, as a followup to that, I have now filed a grievance with the Office of the Chief Disciplinary Council of the State Bar of Texas. The Office of the Chief Disciplinary Council, State Bar of Texas, Post Office Box 12487, Austin, Texas 78711-2487, telephone number 1800-9321900.

[00:01:09]Now I finished this complaint, this grievance yesterday and I after that I went and I had it notorized and then from there I sent it certified. So the so the office of the chief disciplinary counsel should be receiving my grievance against Ginger and Shockley Weatherspoon very quickly sometime this week perhaps tomorrow perhaps in the next couple of days I don't know but the grievance is against Ginger and Shockley Weatherspoon Texas State Bar of Texas number her bar number is 24-51 583 and this is all public knowledge So, I'm not disclosing anything that is supposed to be secretive. So, I am the complainant and I the respondent attorney that I am complaining about to the state bar of Texas to the office of the chief disciplinary counsel is Ginger Anne Shockley. Once again, her Texas bar number is 24051583.

[00:02:11]She is with the Weatherspoon Law Firm out of Hurst, Texas. Again, that's public information. And that's all the further I'm going to go with that. So, what is the grievance about? What is the underlying matter that has caused me to file this grievance against Ginger Anne Shockley Weatherspoon in the matter of the marriage and it's between my wife and me, Jeffrey Steven Morgan. Cause number DF-25-09534.

[00:02:43]The original action was filed in the 301st Judicial District Court of Dallas County, Texas on July the 8th, 2025.

[00:02:53]I did not know about this at the time. I certainly was not in agreement with it.

[00:02:57]I still to this day do not even know why the cause of action has been taken. I have no clue whatsoever except that my wife, whom I still love, who I still ask prayers for, uh has filed this action. And I'm not going to go into anything. I am not doing anything that I'm trying to at all say anything negative about my wife. If anything, I would just say I love her and I request prayers for us for our reconciliation that our marriage would be above and beyond anything that we ever could have envisioned in the past.

[00:03:31]So the action was filed again in the 301st Judicial District Court of Dallas County, Texas on July the 8th, 2025.

[00:03:40]And after that time there were five judicial recusals. The first p the first judge that I tried to recuse and I was unsuccessful in this honestly. I filed the recusal against judge Mary Brown.

[00:03:52]Bloody Mary Brown. And uh my I did not have the form done properly. So Ray Wheelis denied my recusal. But when Mary Brown saw it, she recused herself voluntarily. It was a voluntary self-recusal. I later found out that the same month that she recused herself, I believe it was the same month or that she got the notice of my action to recuse her was when she decided to retire. And uh so she retired in January of 2026. And for those people that feared having Mary Brown as a judge, she's gone. She is out of there. So, you might have a chance of justice because we know that Mary Brown, I filed ethical complaints against her with the Texas Ethics Commission for campaign law violation. I called CPS on her while she was actually having a trial because she was abusing a child. From what I saw, CPS did not get involved, but the call is recorded and it's online. It's on my YouTube channel. Done many other things against Mary Brun. There were other people that did things as well. Bloody Mary is the one who sent James Younger, Jeff Younger's son, full well knowing that he was going to be going over there to be chemically castrated, socially castrated by Jeff Younger's ex-wife, uh who's a who filed an anulment, by the way. And so basically, she could say, "Well, I was never married because the marriage was an like as if it never happened." Anyway, Bloody Mary is gone.

[00:05:24]and and after that it went to Sandra Jackson of the 302nd district court and uh she recused uh same day she got it to the best of my knowledge she recused herself and then there was Judge Leitra Atkins of the 303rd district court she had it for a little bit of time and then she recused herself and then there was Judge Andrea Plumbley of the 330th district court she got it and she recused herself again these are voluntary self-reusals and then finally after that it went to judge Kimberly Brown of the 254th District Court and she recused herself. So, it is currently sitting in the 255th Judicial District Court, Dallas County, Texas, before the Honorable Vonda Bailey. And by the way, I did get to interview Vonda Bailey years ago uh several years ago when she was running for uh judge down in in Dallas County. I went to an event and there were a couple of Democratic judges and I just went in there because doesn't make a difference to me. Republican judges, Democratic judges. I am trying to make sure that our interests, interests as parents, interests as men, interests as women, interests for the family are represented to the best that I can because these judges can destroy families or alternatively they can make a they can propose actions that would possibly help reunite families. In my specific case, because of the constitutional challenge to unilateral no fault divorce, the Texas Family Code 6.00 001 I have a constitutional challenge which I submitted to the court. Uh I believe that that was the reason that these judges have all recused themselves. In fact, the first law firm that my wife had also recused themselves. I wrote to the I think one of the founders or one of the partners in the law firm and he said that's quite a letter uh something. He said that's a very nice letter very good letter. And then my wife found Ginger Anne Shockley Weatherspoon, who in addition to being a family law attorney, claims to be a constitutional attorney. Maybe she is. I don't know. I've never met her in person. And she is also a lawyer who represents LGBT.

[00:07:34]How about that? Another LGBT attorney. Representing LGBT.

[00:07:42]Right away, that signifies a lot of things to me. I do not believe that any person who is a Christian should be using an attorney who was an LGBT attorney. LGBT is a sin against God. And I believe that if you have an attorney who's taken up these matters, and I've seen a number of them, that we should automatically be telling them that that as individuals, we should never never use them as an attorney. By the way, I am self-represented and I'm fighting this vigorously because I believe the biggest evil in our society at least on from a cultural level and the attack on the family comes down from this issue of unilateral no fault or no defense divorced force divorce divorce on demand divorce for any reason for no reason.

[00:08:30]You can make up a reason. And as I will show sometime here in the very near future in the interrogatories which Ginger and Shockley Weatherspoon I believe guided my wife through. All you have to do is have a subjective belief.

[00:08:46]No evidence of misconduct, no evidence of malfeence, nothing. But if you have a subjective belief that the marriage is insupportable, the other person has no constitutional defense. Has no defense.

[00:08:59]That's what the interrogatories say.

[00:09:01]That is the way that Ginger and Shockley Weatherspoon believes the law acts in family court. So there are numerous constitutional violations that are being that that that take place with unilateral no fault divorce or no defense divorce. We are supposed to have constitutional protections against a tyrannical government. and unilateral no fault forced divorce, divorce on demand for any reason for no reason is one of the most tyrannical things out there in our courts. You can be like I am accused of nothing and a judge will try to take over and say I'm dissolving your legal marriage, a marriage in which you have vested legal rights and interests, liberty interests for no reason whatsoever. This is the essence of tyranny and it happens in our anti-family courts throughout the state of Texas which is why I am challenging the statute Texas family code 6.001 facially for everyone.

[00:10:06]It does not get rid of divorce completely. There are still reasons to have divorce as tragic as it is. But unilateral forced divorce I am challenging because it violates numerous numerous constitutional protections that we are afforded in our US and in our Texas constitutions. It is tyrannical.

[00:10:27]It is immoral. It is evil. It is unjust.

[00:10:30]I go so far as to say it's satanic. It's Karl Marx and Frederick Engles and Vladimir Lennon's vision of what they want in our society. It's Alfred Kinsey's vision and Hugh Hefner's vision of what they wanted to see in society.

[00:10:44]Anyway, that I am there appearing prosay representing myself in front of Ginger and Shockley Weatherspoon who was representing my wife. Now, in this complaint, I've asked I've addressed the issue why this grievance should be classified as a complaint. See, this grievance is not about some type of litigation tactics. It's not about her being aggressive on behalf of my wife.

[00:11:12]It's not about disputed facts. It is a grievance about objectively verifiable misconduct provable from the documentary record alone. Documentary record alone.

[00:11:26]On September 25th, 2025, the respondent attorney served verified discovery responses in which her client swore under oath that evidence of complainants specific actions, behaviors, or conduct is neither relevant to the petitioner's claim or relevant to the respondent's claim and is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. What she is admitting there is that conduct does not matter when it comes to divorce. You can get a divorce for any reason, for no reason. Make up a reason. And as the interrogatory show, as long as you have a subjective belief, you can get a divorce. You can force a divorce on your spouse, you can destroy a family. And that is the way that Ginger and Shockley Weatherspoon believes that this law works. So after she said that on the very same day she also filed a first amended petition. The original petition was talking about insupportability but because of the constitutional challenge that I had I believe that this is the reason that she amended the petition and she included 6.002 which is a crueltybased statute. No cruelty was ever done. No cruelty had ever been asserted. I believe Ginger and Shockley Weatherspoon put it in there simply to try to undermine my constitutional challenge.

[00:12:56]It was a slimy and dishonest attack by Ginger and Shockley Witherspoon. Did it hurt me? It absolutely did. It practically crippled me. I was just devastated. I was crushed because I have never done any of these things. And then when a conversation took place with her, which I recorded.

[00:13:18]And by the way, whenever you're speaking with your attorneys or the opposing council attorney, I had to contact her according to what the court said. So, I did contact her. I made sure to record the conversation. And that's when she admitted that my cruelty was the fact that I have been speaking about no fault divorce and debating it in public. I have been doing this for over 10 years.

[00:13:40]My son was in town over the weekend. He helped me write a he wrote a script for me. Actually, I've got 2,481 YouTube videos online. Approximately 355 of them deal with the issue of no fault divorce and the marriage law. For 10 years, I've been doing this starting from 2016 up until the current day. 10 years I've been talking about the issue of no fault divorce. In 2019, I was given an award from the Ruth Institute for the for the ACT activist of the year because of my efforts to try to get rid of No Fault Divorce. Who was it accompanying me? My wife. She videotaped me at that event down in Lake Charles, Louisiana. Her parents used to live there. So, we got to see a little bit of the town. We had a wonderful time together. She was there. She knows I've been speaking about no fault divorce since the time we got married. Now, when you file a 6.002 cruel treatment claim, you the statute also requires proof of specific conduct that is intentional, extreme, and outrageous. And if you look at Twimman versus Twineman uh Texas case decided in 1993, it will state that. So, on the one hand, she says no conduct is necessary to get a divorce.

[00:15:05]And then she says, "We are amending our petition to include evidence conduct that took place within the marriage."

[00:15:16]And she admitted, "No, it really wasn't that. It was your speech issues that took place after your wife filed for divorce." This was extremely dishonest.

[00:15:26]It amounts to attorney misconduct, which is why I'm filing this complaint with the State Bar of Texas.

[00:15:34]So these two positions cannot coexist.

[00:15:36]You cannot have a petition that says no conduct is necessary. It's completely irrelevant. We don't have to answer this question. It's harassing. It's oppressive. It this has leads to nothing that is actionable. and then turn right around on the very same day afterwards and then say, "But now we're going to file a conductbased uh reason for divorce, which conduct that never took place except after my wife filed for divorce." And it actually wasn't conduct, it was actually speech, debating, posting videos, which I had been doing for 10 years at least online, which my wife was fully cognizant of.

[00:16:17]And all of a sudden, according to Ginger and Shockley Weatherspoon, my wife didn't like it. Didn't like it me talking about it publicly, though I had been doing it for 10 years already.

[00:16:30]These two positions cannot coexist. A lawyer cannot cause her client to swear that conductbased evidence is irrelevant to a claim in a case. Then at the same time file a claim that requires precisely conductbased evidence. It's got to be one or the other. She's doing a contradictory thing. This was a slimy tactic, a slimy dishonest filing done by Ginger and Shockley Weatherspoon. And by the way, if she is an a constitutional attorney, which she claims to be, she should know that in Charles versus Salazar that Justice Neil Gorsuch wrote the opinion on on March 31st, 2026, only 45 days ago, the Supreme Court once again affirmed that speech is not conduct. One month later after this filing took place on October the 17th, 2025. Again, this is when I recorded my conversation with her. I had to talk with her about something. And at that point in time, I was so broken. I was crying. I felt weak. I thought, "How am I being accused of cruelty? I've never done these cruel things. If anything, I've gone above and beyond."

[00:17:46]And everyone would tell testify to that.

[00:17:48]And now I'm being accused of cruelty. I understood a little bit what some people go through when they're being accused of sexual molestation against their children. Falsely accused. How false allegations, fraudulent allegations can be weaponized against a person simply to gain an advantage in divorce.

[00:18:07]Ginger and Shockley Weatherspoon reminds me of assistant district attorney Lesie Levy who gave the seminar to de to divorce attorneys, the family law attorneys on how to use uh protective orders to gain an advantage in divorce.

[00:18:21]I have to wonder if maybe Ginger and Shockley Weatherspoon was not there at that seminar maybe taking notes. I don't know, but it's a question that I definitely would like to hear her respond to.

[00:18:35]Regardless what she claimed uh because I had the audio, I took it to a uh certified transcriptionist who transcribed the entire factual record for me about the cruelties claim which took place post filing of divorce. So you can't have a filing for divorce on something that happened after you filed for divorce. That in itself is dishonest.

[00:18:58]Well, first off, there's nothing here.

[00:19:00]And now, because he responded because there's nothing there and he's trying to keep his marriage together. Now, we're going to manufacture a claim against him, a fraudulent claim that Ginger Anne Shockley Weatherspoon was overseeing at the at the time that my wife signed this thing, probably, and I'm only guessing and I'm only speculating here, but possibly she was counseling her on if we do this, we can kneecap him. we can him in a certain way. And again, she almost did, but for the grace of God, I would have been another person that would have been kneecapped by a dishonest, reprehensible family law attorney. So, of course, Ginger and Shockley Weatherspoon stated that Facebook, Instagram, YouTube commentary about Texas divorce legislation. She stated, "That's why we amended it to talk about after what's occurred." But, you know, a lot of it's going public with it. I guess that would be the main thing, and that is directly from the transcript. My grievance consists of five interconnected violations, but each one is grounded in the documented record that I have of that conversation from her and the interrogatories that she had my wife draft and submit under oath.

[00:20:23]Grievance number one, under the Texas Disciplinary Rules of Professional Conduct 3.0 0 A1 cander toward the tribunal and yet she submitted same day contradictory sworn positions. Grievance number two of the rules of professional conduct 8.04A3 conduct involving dishonesty or misrepresentation.

[00:20:55]Violation number three of the rules of professional conduct 3.01, filing a claim for an improper purpose which is admitted on the certified transcript.

[00:21:14]Violation number four of the rules of professional conduct 3.02 02 unreasonably increasing costs and burdens of litigation and violation number five of the rules of professional conduct for her that she is under 4.04A using means with no substantial purpose other than to burden a third party.

[00:21:47]This grievance has now been submitted with the office of the chief disciplinary counsel of the state bar of Texas and I hope that they would rule in my favor. The details will be forthcoming in the next few videos. Thank you.