Convicted play Lawyer
Mrs.Suzanne Shell & Gregory A. Hession breach of ethics?
First of all, we have MRs.
Shell posing as someone else
(Dawnishari) on AFRA Helpline.
This violates the terms of the AFRA group she was banned from,
which are the same as the terms on her own group.
AFRA Helpline is a private group. According to the group's
terms, no information is to be shared from group to group or
otherwise disseminated. Obviously MRs. Shell had access to that
private information by violating the terms of membership of AFRA
Helpline.
From dawnishari@... Fri Aug 10 18:08:28 2007
Return-Path: <dawnishari@...>
X-Sender: dawnishari@...
Received: (qmail 13870 invoked from network); 11
Aug 2007 01:08:22 -0000
Received: from unknown (66.218.66.68)
by m47.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 11 Aug 2007 01:08:22 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO n12a.bullet.sp1.yahoo.com) (69.147.64.109)
by mta11.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 11 Aug 2007 01:08:22 -0000
Received: from [216.252.122.219] by n12.bullet.sp1.yahoo.com with
Received: from [66.218.69.1] by t4.bullet.sp1.yahoo.com with NNFMP;
11 Aug 2007 01:06:40 -0000
Received: from [66.218.66.92] by t1.bullet.scd.yahoo.com with NNFMP;
Date: Sat, 11 Aug 2007 01:06:40 -0000
To: FamilyRightsAdvocacyIMPROVEMENTProject@yahoogroups.com
Message-ID: <f9j230+boar@eGroups.com>
User-Agent: eGroups-EW/0.82
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Mailer: Yahoo Groups Message Poster
X-Yahoo-Newman-Property: groups-compose
X-Originating-IP: 69.147.64.109
X-eGroups-Msg-Info: 1:6:0:0
X-Yahoo-Post-IP: 75.104.85.39
From: "Dawni" <dawnishari@...>
Subject: Kicked off AFRA
X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=289637314;
y=qZdRNO4AZQd1lUcdlTWs2F4CDR3RckjDxGHbFs06IfNAOgXotA
X-Yahoo-Profile: dawnishari
I just got kicked off of AFRA helpline. NO warning, no explanation. You
guys are right about AFRA.
Here's what I posted about some woman who had someone else's littel girl
and then the mom got clean and wanted the girl back:
>I have to agree with this. She isn't your child.
>
> There looks like a lot of support here for people who take kids
away
> from there parents or who don't want to return kids to there
parents
> when they get their act straighted up. That's no different from
CPS.
> If this group is for supporting those people, what about the real
> parents? It looks like the fosters have taken over.
Then Mark jumped my sh*t and I was off the group:
Next we have Gregory Hession, a licensed attorney,
responding to the private posts from Helpline.
How did he gain access to those private posts?
In his response, he gives what I see as case information
the public would not have access to.
Cases involving minors are traditionally NOT public cases.
Adoptions are NOT normally public cases. This private complaint
by a member of a private group was a call for suggestions in how
to handle what this member believed to be unethical behavior by
her attorney. If she had posted it on a public forum, such as
a blog, in an attempt to discredit her attorney, I could see why
Mr. Hession would be upset. She didn't. It was Mr. Hession
himself who brought the information to the public after receiving
that information in violation of the terms of membership of the
private group. Is it a violation of his fiduciary duty to his
client to keep that information confidential? Did he receive the
information by legal means, or was this an act of stalking? Would
you put your trust in an attorney who would publicize information
about you?
Gregory A. Hession wrote:
Dear All:
Evelyn Treadwell has posted messages around the internet
about her guardianship case involving a little girl she was caring
for. She lost the case, and the child was returned to the natural
mother. She has blamed everyone but herself for the outcome, most
especially me, her lawyer.
But she is not telling you why she lost the case. She did
something so dishonest and underhanded that the judge said,
"The Court finds the behavior of the guardian to be OUTRAGEOUS."
Here is a brief review of what happened.
Evelyn started caring for the young child of a friend who
used drugs and danced at strip joints. The mother left her with
Evelyn for long stretches, and was irresponsible. Evelyn eventually
became the legal guardian of the child. However, Mom finally
claimed to get her "act together" and wanted the child back.
Evelyn understandably had a hard time with that because the child
was attached to her. Evelyn wouldn't budge about letting the
mother back into the child's life, so the mother filed a motion
in family court to vacate the guardianship.
Meanwhile, without telling the mother, Evelyn filed a
separate petition for adoption of the child in the same court.
She told the court that she did not know where the mother was, and
asked for notice by "publication". (That is where they put a
"legal notice" in the paper, in the fine print no one sees or reads.)
Evelyn actually did find out where the mother was during the
"publication" period, and saw the mother at several hearings
on the guardianship case, but NEVER TOLD HER ABOUT THE ADOPTION CASE
involving her child.
Then I came on as counsel, and she did not tell me about
the adoption either. Nor did she tell the court the cases were
linked, and the busy judge didn't spot the overlap.
Since the mother didn't know about the adoption, and didn't
come forward to contest it, the adoption of the child was granted by
default. The mother only found out when Evelyn told her that she was
now the adoptive mother. I found out after that. When the judge
realized he had been duped, he was RIPPED. He quickly vacated his
previous adoption order, calling what Evelyn did "OUTRAGEOUS".
Even so, I stayed on as lawyer, and still tried to help
Evelyn keep the child, based on her claims that the biological
mother was unfit. The judge appointed all kinds of investigators
and lawyers to check out the mom and the child. I hired a private
detective to follow her. The Mom checked out in every way as being
fit. Evelyn was heartbroken.
But instead of working with the mom to stay involved with the
child, Evelyn dug in her heels. If she had worked something out,
Evelyn could have had a close and continuing relationship with the
child as honorary "aunt". But she would not - it was all or nothing.
At that point, I withdrew as lawyer, and she got another one.
She lost the guardianship case, which was predictable if a parent
is fit.
Then Evelyn started attacking me. She complained to the
State Bar overseers, who dismissed her complaint. Next came waves
of internet attacks, without ever mentioning her secret adoption
case, which is what started the case going sour.
Some others have taken up Evelyn's cause, and posted
messages criticizing me, without getting the facts. A person
calling herself "Mark", (who I understand is really Renee), has
even gone beyond that, and attempted to stir up a lot of strife
over all kinds of things. I have never met her or talked with this
"Mark". No one mentions Evelyn's secret adoption trick.
That would put a very different spin on the story.
For anyone who has been moved by the apparent
injustice of Evelyn's story, the information here will bring some
balance. To anyone who still insists on stirring up strife and
criticizing someone she doesn't know, please reconsider the honesty
and morality of making false allegations, and what harm is done to
others by lies.
Gregory A. Hession J.D.
Finally MRs. Shell used the information she
received personally by
posing as someone else, and the information from Greg Hession to
further discredit the former client of her former attorney, using
her true identity to have a conversation with one of her other
identities to make it appear to the public that Mr. Hession is the
victim. How involved is this attonrey in MRs. Shell's "practice" as
she calls it? Was he involved enough to know about her alter egos?
Was he involved enough to know that she was having conversations with
herself to manipulate the public? Did MRs. Shell and Mr. Hession
conspire to discredit a former client? These questions could only
be answered by a thorough investigation.
