http://www.familyrightsassociation.com/members/wisconsin/henson.htm

This was not unexpected, however, it became amazing to see exactly what the agents of the state would stoop to in their efforts to retaliate against Kay for her activism, for standing up for her rights, for her associations and her exercise of free speech. There are now numerous grounds upon which to grieve the judge and the guardian ad litem (more on that following this. . .) and we must not release any pressure on responsible parties and oversight bodies.

Item ONE - Kay has filed her waiver, the first requirement to obtaining a pardon from the Governor of Wisconsin, Scott McCallum. You may access the text of this waiver at the second link above. It is time once again to ask supporters of Kay and of spanking parents everywhere to contact the Governor's office and express their support for the granting of this waiver. The fact that Kay has applied for a pardon was used against her during her custody hearing. The judge stated that she has a defiance of authority and that he believes she abused her son when she spanked him, despite *undisputed* expert testimony to the contrary (which, incidentally, was elicited by the attorney for the father/GAL team.).
    Of great importance is the fact that the court ordered her to pay over $50 a week in child support. The court did not consider special circumstances, including the fact that Kay is a stay-at-home mom with 5 children, 4 of them 6 or under, one a nursing infant. Her income was imputed based on a 40 hour work week at minimum wage. If she were to work and have to pay for day care, she would have nothing left to pay for child support. In fact her household would show a deficit. This is especially absurd when you consider that Kay has almost always been a stay-at-home mom and did not contribute income to the households.
    The real kicker is that if she doesn't pay the child support, not only will she lose her drivers license/tax refunds/etc. but she can also have her probation revoked for failure to follow that court order. Kay has reported that the father's child support obligation, while appearing to be paid, was in fact, not paid. Under a death threat, Kay was forced to pay him back for every child support payment he made to her. This ruling is unconscionable. The state of Wisconsin, in its infinite wisdom, is going to make sure this pastor's wife goes to jail because she will not admit that the spanking she gave her willfully disobedient son was wrong. They will leave a nursing baby and her siblings motherless to punish Kay for knowing, understanding and asserting her legally and constitutionally protected rights.
Once again the contact information for the Governor's office is located at http://web.archive.org/web/20030424140539/http://www.wisgov.state.wi.us/contact.asp or

Phone: (608) 266-1212      Fax: (608) 267-8983

Office of the Governor
115 East State Capitol
Madison, WI  53702

Is it the policy of the state of Wisconsin to punish parents who employ reasonable discipline as has happened to Kay? Please send a message to the Wisconsin courts, to Wisconsin Child Protection agencies, to Prosecutors and Guardians ad litem, and to Wisconsin families that Wisconsin is a safe and family-friendly place to raise your children, whether you reside there or vacation there. Grant Kay Henson's waiver for a pardon.


Item TWO
GAL Frank Lettenberger committed several violations against the Professional Code of Conduct in his efforts to deny Kay custody of her children.   We are asking supporters to file grievances against this attorney at http://web.archive.org/web/20030424140539/http://www.courts.state.wi.us/olr/Grievance_Form_Instructions.htm . Do NOT CALL IN your grievance. It has been our experience that people who call in their grievance are often talked out of it or it is summarily dismissed. Submit your grievance in writing ato establish the record. Send a copy of the grievance to the Governor's office. Please use your own words to demand an investigation and censure against this attorney who has violated the integrity of the judicial process to further his own agenda, at the expense of the children he was representing and the public trust.

Attorney's name: Frank Lettenberger 

Wisconsin Bar #1019954

Witnesses to support allegations include Kay and Slade Henson, 262-740-0451, 
Brian Fears, Family counselor, 
Kay's attorney Al Armonda, 2722 N. 21st Street, Sheboygan, WI. 53083 (262) 740-0451
Suzanne Shell, 14053 Eastonville Rd. Elbert, Colorado, 80106 phone 719.749.29

1. Please sign and date the form, then mail it to: Office of Lawyer Regulation, 110 East Main St., Room 315, Madison, WI 53703-3383

The rules of professional conduct are located at http://web.archive.org/web/20030424140539/http://www.courts.state.wi.us/olr/olr_sc_rules.htm and state, in part:
Failure to comply with an obligation or prohibition imposed by a rule is a basis for invoking the disciplinary process. The rules presuppose that disciplinary assessment of a lawyer's conduct will be made on the basis of the facts and circumstances as they existed at the time of the conduct in question and in recognition of the fact that a lawyer often has to act upon uncertain or incomplete evidence of the situation.

The following is an incomplete list of Mr. Lettenberger's violations, many of which are a matter of public record in the attendant cases or documented by audio and video tapes. Be sure to request that the investigation include accessing that documentation:

1. SCR 20:1.1 Competence  and SCR 20:1.14 Client under a disability

   In the Henson cases  - Mr. Lettenberger was the GAL for the children. He did not observe the mother interacting with the children before making his recommendations to the court. He ignored his child client's claims that the father, who was exercising physical custody, was in possession of drugs in the presence of the children and that at least one of the children has disclosed fear for her safety while in her father's care. He ignored or discounted the following facts: that the record proves and the father admitted that he committed perjury to resolve the custody dispute in his favor; that the father made numerous unsupported false allegations against the mother which Mr. Lettenberger chose to believe despite evidence to the contrary; that the father employed parental alienation according to expert testimony; that the father has a criminal history and a history of drug use and trafficking, violence and sexual assault; that a child's behavior and progress had measurably deteriorated while in the custody of his father; Mr. Lettenberger  recommended that custody of the children reside with the father. This indicates that he does not possess the requisite knowledge and skill to adequately represent the best interests of children in the capacity of a Guardian ad litem. 

2. SCR 20:2.1 Advisor

   Mr. Lettenberger aligned himself with the father against the mother in both the dependency and custody cases, rather than conducting an independent analysis and basing his decision on the best interests of the children he was representing. He was even advised by a mediator that he should look at the overwhelming evidence against the father and declined to do so. The transcript of this advice is posted at the bottom of the page at: http://web.archive.org/web/20030424140539/http://www.familyrightsassociation.com/members/wisconsin/kay_henson/second_mediation_11-19-01.htm#suggest_listen

3. SCR 20:3.1 Meritorious claims and contentions and SCR 20:3.3 Candor toward the tribunal and SCR 20:3.4 Fairness to opposing party and counsel

   Mr. Lettenberger forwarded numerous claims and contentions that lacked merit for the sole desire to harass the mother with the successful intent to cause her harm, including: presenting evidence of the mother's legal and constitutionally protected associations with family rights activist organizations as a basis for denying her custody of her children; presenting the father's numerous false allegations against the mother as factual in an effort to pile on accusations, however lacking they were in merit, in an effort to prejudice the court and CPS agency against her and then made no effort to take remedial measures when the falsity of those claims became known to him. He also repeatedly introduced evidence which was irrelevant to the mother's ability to provide a safe and appropriate home for her children; said evidence being in the nature of her legal, protected associations; her legal, protected exercise of free speech; her legal protected exercise of religion; her legal, protected right to petition the government for redress of grievances; her legal, protected right to peaceably assemble; which actions constitute the abhorrent practice of abusing his position as GAL and an officer of the court to control and/or punish  the mother's adult political behavior through the removal of her children. 

4. SCR 20:4.1 Truthfulness in statements to others

   Mr. Lettenberger has advanced false claims to the mother's probation officer and to the CPS agency for the above state reasons.

5. SCR 20:4.4 Respect for rights of third persons and SCR 20:8.4 Misconduct

   Mr. Lettenberger has made every effort to embarrass and burden Mrs. Henson's family advocate, Suzanne Shell and has used methods of obtaining evidence, specifically the intellectual property of Suzanne Shell, that violate the legal rights of Suzanne Shell. He has openly refused to recognize and respect the authority of  a validly executed Power of Attorney executed by Mrs. Henson appointing Mrs. Shell has her agent, without any legal authority to deny it. He has responded punitively against Mrs. Henson when she demanded he honor that Power of Attorney, and has ordered Mrs. Henson to cease speaking with or allowing Mrs. Shell to be present during his interactions with her. He has requested and/or supported unconstitutional court orders denying Mrs. Henson the right to use the services of an independent family advocate upon pain of contempt of court and the withholding of her children in an effort to discredit the professional services and expertise of Mrs. Shell. He has committed theft of intellectual property and copyright infringement in the value of $600,000.00 by reproducing and distributing the copyrighted web site belonging to Mrs. Shell AFTER being specifically advised in writing that he did NOT have permission to do so unless he paid her for the use of her materials. Her web site also clearly prohibits reproduction without permission. He then proceeded to use those materials in a derogatory and harmful manner which was inconsistent with the intent of the copyright holder for his own personal and professional gain and to promote his personal agenda against Mrs. Henson and to discredit family advocacy in general and Mrs. Shell in particular as a matter of public record. He circumvented the legal process to compel the production of documentary evidence and literally stole the evidence he desired to present in court without paying for it. Without proper court authority, using threats, he forced his way into the mother's house with a video camera over her (and her husband's) express objections that the camera not be allowed into her residence.
   

 
Item THREE
The judge also made some serious errors during this hearing which must also be grieved. The courts belong to we the people and we all have a legitimate interest in the fair and proper administration of justice, regardless of where we live.

Besides a willful violation of a rule of the Code of Judicial Conduct, judicial misconduct, as defined by statute, is one of the following: a willful or persistent failure to perform official duties; habitual intemperance due to the consumption of intoxicating beverages or use of dangerous drugs that interferes with the proper performance of judicial duties; and conviction of a felony.

Judge James L. Carlson, Walworth County, Wisconsin
Date offenses occurred, trial date ending August 13, 2002 case #
Domestic Relations Case
Relationship to case: Concerned Citizen

Supporting documents would include court transcripts, evidence submitted during the hearings and the court file.
Witnesses are the same as above.

To file a complaint against the judge (link to .pdf complaint form is at top of page) and to see the Code of Judicial Conduct see:
http://web.archive.org/web/20030424140539/http://www.courts.state.wi.us/judcom/

A judge is the finder of fact in a courtroom. He may only judge a case based on the facts presented before him in that case. He may not glean any evidence from other cases concerning the same party or parties, nor may he synthesize facts based on evidence that was not presented in this case. Judge Carlson did both and more:

1. SCR 60.02 A judge shall uphold the integrity and independence of the judiciary and SCR 60.03 A judge shall avoid impropriety and the appearance of impropriety in all of the judge's activities .
   1. Judge Carlson abused his discretion and undermined public confidence in the judicial process. He allowed GAL Frank Lettenberger to use illegal methods to obtain evidence that was submitted in his court, possessing full knowledge that the evidence had been obtained illegally.
      

1. SCR 60.04 A judge shall perform the duties of judicial office impartially and diligently.  
   1. A judge shall be faithful to the law and maintain professional competence in it and  A judge who receives information indicating a substantial likelihood that a lawyer has committed a violation of the rules of professional conduct for attorneys should take appropriate action . Judge Carlson failed to comply with the law in that he enabled and facilitated GAL attorney Frank Lettenberger's theft of intellectual property, after having knowledge that the evidence proposed was obtained illegally without paying for it, and distributed illegally without the permission of the copyright holder rather than compelling the production of said evidence through the approved legal processes. Judge Carlson had been advised by Frank Lettenberger that the copyright holder, Suzanne Shell, had refused him permission to reproduce and disseminate her property in writing and provided that writing to Judge Carlson before distributing her property to all parties and introducing it into evidence. This illegal use of copyrighted material was also used to harm the mother, Kay Henson, and the copyright holder, Suzanne Shell, contrary to the designed intent of the copyright holder's property.  
   2. A judge shall perform judicial duties without bias or prejudice . Judge Carlson exhibited bias and prejudice against Kay Henson (mother) and in favor of Alan Cardella (father). This was evidenced in his ruling where he denied the mother visitation on Jewish holidays stating that they were not traditional holidays. He allowed irrelevant, negatively slanted testimony regarding the mother's devoutly held religious beliefs (Messianic Jew), considering it relevant in his deliberations pertaining to mother's fitness to care for her children. He allowed the father and the GAL great leeway to introduce largely irrelevant testimony which had no bearing on the mother's fitness as a parent, including testimony and evidence about mother's legal, protected political activities, her legal protected associations, her right to petition the government for redress of grievances. By his very ruling, wherein he states that she defies authority (presumably as demonstrated by her associations and activities), he has attempted to control and/or punish adult political behavior through the removal of children. This abhorrent practice occurred during the Civil Rights movement in an effort to force activists to stop fighting for their rights. It was denounced then, but has resurfaced again in Judge Carlson's court. It was also evident in his findings where he clearly gave undue weight to the father's witnesses and evidence and completely disregarded the mother's witnesses and evidence; an indication of bias on the part of the judge.
   3. In this case, Judge Carlson had previously presided over Kay Henson's criminal case, involving the hand spanking of a ten year old child. Under coercion, Kay accepted a misdemeanor plea bargain. During the subject custody hearing, expert testimony revealed that the alleged injuries evident on a photograph could not have been caused by the mother spanking the child with her hand, but rather, had probably been caused by a board, and, given the number of witnesses who observed the mother administer the spanking, were most likely self-inflicted. This testimony was never contradicted. In his ruling, Judge Carlson completely discounted this evidence and stated that he believed Kay injured her son when she spanked him. This means the judge weighed evidence not presented at this trial to arrive at his ruling against the mother. Additionally, the ruling also indicates that Judge Carlson 'synthesized' facts which were not substantiated through evidence during this trial to justify the ruling he arrived at.
      
   4. A judge shall require lawyers in proceedings before the judge to refrain from manifesting, by words or conduct, bias or prejudice based upon race, gender, religion, national origin, disability, age, sexual orientation or socioeconomic status against parties, witnesses, counsel or others. Judge Carlson allowed the GAL and father to characterize the mother's religion, which practices are largely Judaic in nature with the exception of believing that Christ was the Messiah, as a cult and as a risk to the minor children. He allowed extensive testimony regarding mother's legal and peaceful political and activist associations as proof of her unfitness to care for her children. This manner of derogatory reporting and testimony, given and weighed into evidence, demonstrates not only prejudice, but retaliation against the mother for her exercise of her constitutionally protected rights by denying her right to raise her children as she sees fit.
      
   5. A judge shall dispose of all judicial matters promptly, efficiently and fairly .  See item 2 above. 
   6. The judge has a personal bias or prejudice concerning a party or a party's lawyer or personal knowledge of disputed evidentiary facts concerning the proceeding . See item 3 above.

 ON ADVOCACY

There has been some discussion regarding advocacy and its effect on client families. As advocates, we have legitimate concerns that our advocacy does not bring a family to harm, yet that we are able to effect results. This tightrope between doing too much or not doing enough requires a thorough knowledge of the applicable laws and policies before advancing a course of action.
    The main purpose of Family Advocacy is to insure that the entire family is afforded all protections under the law, and that the services and practices employed by state agencies and providers conform to written law and policy. Families would not need advocacy services is this were, in fact, happening.
    As a result, we find ourselves in a confrontational situation with the agencies, courts and providers. They don't like us looking over their shoulders and pointing our their mistakes, be they honest or malicious errors. Therefore, it stands to reason, that they will do everything in their power to prevent that from happening. And since, historically, they have demonstrated no compunctions against violating rights or laws in their dealings with parents, we can expect them to do the same regarding Family Advocacy. We make their job much more difficult by exposing their secrets, which is our intent. It it the natural tendency for people to protect themselves from exposure, especially if they think they are dong the right thing.
    They are not completely stupid. The realize they can do nothing to advocates, therefore they exercise their unquestioned control over our mutual clients. Most respondent parent attorneys have proven incapable of adequately defending their clients against those kinds of attacks.
    By way of example, I would like to describe two very similar cases.

1. Case one is Kay Henson. She has stood her ground regarding her rights, demanding that the agencies and providers conform to law, policy and professional standards. She has employed the services and largely followed the advice of the American Family Advocacy Center. She assigned a power of attorney before a gag order issued to circumvent any communication problems. She assigned guardianship of her minor children when seizure was imminent. She has been accused of being uncooperative, having a bad attitude and being in denial. Her CHIPS (dependency) case is closed, and all but two of her children are home. Having failed at the dependency stage, the state successfully colluded with the father to keep her two older children out of her home. They had to violate her rights and the rights of her advocate to do that. All these violations were well documented, giving  grounds for legal remedies to Kay and her advocate. They are also attempting to abuse their authority under probation to punish her for her association with AFAC and for standing up for her rights. This retaliation is also well documented and protected under the Bill of Rights. [Excerpts from Profane Justice, Second Edition - the First Amendment bars retaliation for protected speech, association and advocacy; petitioning the government for redress of grievances, religion and publication of information related to your case. North Carolina v. Pearce, 395 U.S .711; Malik v. Arapahoe County DSS 191 f.3d 1306 (10th cir. 1999); Casa Maria, Inc. v. Superior Court of Puerto Rico, 988 F.2d 252 (1st Cir. 1992); Monsky v. Moraghan, 127F.3d 243 (2nd Cir. 1997); Rizzo V. Dauson, 778 F.2d 527 (9th Cir. 1985);  Valot v. Southeast Local School District Board of Education, 107 F.3d 1220 (6th Cir. 1997); Perry V. Sindermann, 408 U.S. 593 (1972); Tarhowski V. Cty. of Lake, 775 F.2d 173 (7th Cir. 1985); Marshall v. Allen, 984 F.2d 787 (7th Cir. 1993); City of Dallas V. Staglin, 490 U.S. 19 (1989); Roberts v. US Jaycees, 104 S.Ct. 3244 (1984); Benigni v. City of Hemet, 879 F.2d 473 (9th cir. 1988); Clark V. Library of Congress, 750 F.2d. 89 (D.C. Cir, 1984);  Crowder v. Sinvard, 884 F.2d 804 (5th. Cir. 1987); Swekel v. City of River Rough, 119 F.3d 1259 (6th Cir. 1997); McKay v. Hammock, 730 F.2d 1367 (10th Cir. 1984); Buise v. Hudhind, 584 F.2d 223 (7th Cir. 1978); Smart V. Board of Trustees, 34 F.3d 432 (7th, Cir. 1994); DeLoachn v. Bevers, 922 F.2d 615 (10th Cir. 1990).]
2. Case Two is Mom and Son. This case is highly publicized, the story having been published on Good Morning America, the New York Times as well as Colorado papers and AP, and I have been solicited by Dateline, 60 Minutes II and Primetime to have the mother appear on their shows. I will not reveal the name of this mother at her request. You see, she has cooperated fully with DHS. Her child was removed without evidence that she had harmed him. She has broken her association with AFAC, she has obeyed the gag order and her treatment plan. I spoke with her this week, she had a hearing last week and they are saying she is not in compliance with her treatment plan. They look like they want to give her son to the hostile grandparents. She has done everything they asked and her son is still not home. They say she is uncooperative, having a bad attitude and is in denial (sound familiar?). He was supposed to have been returned home in July. It didn't happen. They have done the identical thing as in Kay's case - using my website against this mother - even though she is no longer associated with AFAC. She cooperated and she is facing termination of parental rights.

The point is, clearly the only distinction between parents who stand up for their rights and make good use of competent advocacy services have a better chance of prevailing in the end, AND are better able to seek remedies for violations of their rights, etc. The indisputable message here is, cooperation is no guarantee of getting your children back or being treated better or getting favorable reports by agencies and providers.
    It is important to distinguish who is actually causing the harm to families. Based on the case law cited above, a person has the protected right to free association, including the right to associate with political or advocacy groups; freedom of religion, and this doesn't mean state approved religions and it does mean the right to employ spanking if that is a devoutly held religious belief; freedom of speech - including speaking to the media, the public and advocacy or political groups; freedom of the press - including the right to publish a web page no matter how critical it is of state agencies or providers; the right to petition the government for redress of grievances, including filing complaints against therapists, GALs and lawyers and judges and probation officers, filing lawsuits, AND demanding due process in his dependency case of the presiding court. Retaliation against a person's exercise of those rights is a violation of those rights. In dependency cases, this retaliation often takes the form of negative and derogatory reports to the court, especially about activities that are unrelated to a person's ability to property care for his children.
    Any time a caseworker or GAL or CASA tell the court that "mom is hanging out with this radical Colorado group and getting advice from them which supports their assertion that mom has a bad attitude and is focusing on the wrong issues. She continues to be in denial, and oh, by the way, this radical group has published confidential information from this case on the Internet. Mom's association with this organization (or these people) are hurting her case and we recommend that the children not be returned until her attitude improves and she ceases all contact with this group."
    This is clear retaliation. These kinds of negative reports do not reflect on parenting skills or treatment issues, but rather, focus on the legal exercise of protected rights. These negative reports are nothing more than controlling adult political and civil rights activities by the removal of children and/or termination of parental rights. This practice (accusing activist parents of being unfit) was practiced during the civil rights movement and was ultimately condemned, but has resurfaced with the Family Rights movement.
    It is indisputable that parents are being harmed by this activity, but Family Rights advocacy and activist groups are also being harmed. Parents become too frightened to associate with the very organizations that can provide unparalleled support and guidance and they can even become convinced that they don't have any rights. These groups, including the American Family Advocacy Center, are being blamed for the parent's losing their children, even though they have no control over the parents, or the caseworkers and are not even parties to the case. Groups report that they can't keep their membership growing, or that the turnover is very high, and that these negative reports are primarily to blame.
    The key to success, as is being demonstrated in Kay's case, is that if you or your parents show any weakness, you are doomed. They can sense this weakness  and will go for the jugular on both of you! Both the parents and the advocates must be willing to endure these attacks and throw it back in their face until THEY are the ones who become afraid and back down. To be successful, you must KNOW THE LAW. And don't let those wimpy respondent parent attorneys back you down, they don't that much about rights, trust me.
    It boils down to the question "What is the harmful effect on this family, including the children, and WHO is causing that harm?" The agents of the state, in retaliating against parents and refusing to reunify the family because of the parents' POLITICAL and CIVIL RIGHTS activities, are solely responsible for harming the parents and the children. Not the advocates. Not the parents. ONLY the agents of the state. If there was no retaliation, there would be no harmful effect. Political and civil rights activism by parents does not, in and of itself, present any risk to a child's safety or well-being. If it did, none of our elected officials or civil rights leaders should be allowed to keep their children.
    Don't buy into the propaganda that Family Advocates are hurting parent's cases unless the advocate is advising the parent not to comply with a treatment plan after adjudication or some other similar patently harmful advice.

Until next time. . .

Suzanne Shell
Director, American Family Advocacy Center
http://web.archive.org/web/20030424140539/http://www.profane-justice.org/.

Copyright 2002, Suzanne Shell
Reproduction and distribution prohibited without permission. Permission to reproduce this page may be purchased for $5,000 per page per copy - this specifically applies to any state agency, employee, contractor or service provider.  If this intellectual property is stolen or used to harm any member family of any Family Rights group, the copyright holder will seek appropriate remedies under copyright laws.
Family Advocacy groups and members may forward this message IN ITS ENTIRETY ONLY for education and training purposes, provided the copyright notice is included.