The State of Georgia vs. Wendy Jane Titelman
Case No. 00-9-4681-40
April 23-27, 2001

Who gets custody? What is in the child’s best interest? Are the massive federal dollars flooding father’s rights groups and family court administrator’s coffers to insure every child has access to both parents, regardless of outcries of abuse, being used to insure this presumption?

From the Transcripts of The State ofGeorgia vs. Wendy Jane Titelman, April 23-27, 2001.
Cobb County Superior Court Judge Robert Flournoy, III’s statement to
Attorney Michael Hirsh’s evidentiary argument prior to the final divorce decree.

"But you've got -- you have
very effective witnesses, Dr. Silberg, you had Dr.
Matherne, very effective witnesses to testify that, in
their opinion, she was acting very reasonably, did
what any concerned mother would do.  And actually, I
think you've conveyed to the jury that they could draw
the inference that, in fact, the Cobb County justice
system did shut down on Wendy Titelman and didn't give
her redress, et cetera, et cetera."

Evidence Presented to Court Appointed Evaluator & Kennesaw Police

Federal Lawsuit

Notes on Judge Bodiford's rants hearing on motion to transfer 07/21/05

MOTION TO TRANSFER TO THE JUVENILE COURT AND TO AMEND AND CORRECT ITS OWN PROCEEDINGS

Supporters of Wendy Titelman, recently acquitted of charges of interstate interference of custody and lost another round in her attempts to protect her children, don’t think so. [See Attorney Richard Ducote’s letter regarding the Cobb Grand Jury inquiry below.]  After the State’s inept attempt to prosecute her, several jury members who acquitted her in record time and later sent a letter to the Cobb County District Attorney Pat Head criticizing the prosecution and the family court custody award of Wendy's two young daughters to the father, Andy Titelman.  Mind you, the jurors weren’t the only ones writing letters of outrage. At least 30+ others joined in faxing, phoning or mailing their complaints to Head and Governor Roy Barnes. Yet for some inexplicable reason, threats of a defamation suit have been made against the jury foreman.

Here’s the jury letter:

Bryan Wilson, Jury Foreperson

State of Georgia vs. Wendy Titlemen

Dear Honorable Judge Bodiford and Mr. Pat Head:

My name is Bryan Wilson and I recently served as a juror on a trial (Apr 23-27, 2001) in the Cobb County Superior Court of Georgia. Several members of the jury have requested that I write a letter summarizing our thoughts and concerns pertaining to the case we heard; State of Georgia v. Wendy Titlemen. To understand why this case even made it to trial was a question each of us had to ask while we were deliberating on Friday. We were perplexed as to why our State would pursue such a case so diligently when there were obvious errors in the indictment and credible reports indicating sexual and emotional abuse to two small children and the prosecution of the mother who sought to protect them from harm's way.

We, the jury felt that the "State of Georgia" did in fact, neglect to protect these children and furthermore, did not have the children's best interests at heart. It appeared they wished to cover up blatant miss-steps by an agency (DFACS) that appears to have made several errors in judgment. I would like to take an opportunity to summarize these areas of concern. I sincerely hope that action can be taken to correct these situations in the future. Not only will this save the State of Georgia the expense of prosecuting such flimsy cases, but will also serve to better protect the ones who need it most, the CHILDREN of our State.

Conclusions

1. The "Indictment". The indictment was very poorly written and poorly executed. The dates were inconsistent with the prosecution's effort to paint the mother as a "law breaker and flight risk". Based on the information we received, the dates listed in the indictment were within the legal limits spelled out in the final divorce decree's visitation schedule. It is incredible to believe that our court system would put a decent woman in jail for doing something completely legal during the indictment's window! Very poorly written indictment in our opinion.

2. The charge of "Fleeing Justice". Based on the evidence presented, we, the jury, were unanimous in agreeing with and supporting Ms. Titlemen in her beliefs that there was probable cause to protect her children. The evidence gave strong indication the children were being sexually molested by their father. Ms. Hakes, the Assistant Prosecutor, in her closing statements called Ms. Titlemen a "zealot" 'like Timothy McVeigh for wanting to take the law into her own hands and protect her children. I believe the majority of us on the jury have children. It was also unanimous that had we felt there was reason to believe our children were being abused or neglected in any way, and when seeking help, found the state (who is supposed to protect our children) unwilling to review the evidence in an unbiased light, would have reacted in similar ways.

3. "Taking the law into her own hands". We, the jury, saw Ms. Titlemen as someone desperately trying to use the legal system in Georgia to its fullest extent to protect her children, but to no avail. Then, when discovering more evidence of abuse, was left with no choice but to apply to the State of Mississippi for help. Although Ms. Hakes painted Ms. Titlemen as a manipulator and extremist, we felt that she was justified in using whatever means necessary to protect her children. Ms. Hakes said over and over during her cross-examinations the State of Georgia knows best how to protect its children". We are not so sure after sitting on the jury and seeing first hand the types of "guardians" and "counselors" that the State of Georgia appoints to protect our most precious resources and future taxpayers. Dr. King admitted under oath, the children told her they were being abused. Why then do the children remain in the custody of the accused when the State does not appear to have proved otherwise?

4. "Does Not Deserve Justice!" We, the jury, were horrified when Ms. Hakes told us in her closing statements that Ms. Titlemen didn't deserve justice. What does that mean? Doesn't everyone deserve justice and aren't we all innocent until proven guilty? For the Assistant Prosecutor to openly say that a citizen doesn’t deserve justice is an outrage and an insult to our justice system.

5. Court appointed zealots. The court appointed Guardians and Counselors were not credible and did all they could not to disclose real findings or intentions. Ms. Woods defied a State of Mississippi court order (within 24 hours) to protect the children from their father until additional hearings could take place and certain evidence be reviewed. Ms. King (a supposed expert) interrogated the children for two and one-half hours without taking any notes, or tapes, etc. She then appeared to try and cover up the disclosure of the sexual abuse to the court when asked in direct questioning. Therefore, we found that there were several disclosures of sexual abuse but little evidence at all of recantations. Ms. Whitaker went so far as to say the children were "abducted"! This accusation further alienated the jury by displaying such blatant bias against the mother, Ms. Titlemen.

6. "Paid Expert Witnesses". Ms. Hakes was very careful to point out numerous times that the defense had hired “expert” witnesses who were paid for their services. Where is this wrong? We all got paid for doing what we considered our civil duty. Ms. Hakes gets paid, the state appointed guardians and counselors get paid, the judge and court employees get paid, so why did she feel this was such a big deal? Ms. Hakes tried to make it a huge deal by claiming the defense had “hired guns”. The State's witnesses were pathetic in our opinion. They were poorly rehearsed, poorly accredited and overtly biased. At one point, Ms. King, when asked a direct question about the children confiding to her that they had been abused by their father, turns to the judge and says, "I don't want to answer that, they may get mad at me". Would the State really get "mad" if she told the truth under oath?

In conclusion, the jury collectively felt that the divorce of Wendy and Andy Titlemen contained deep dividing issues. It was our wish that more information could have been disclosed to assist our decision. We all agreed that the children were in all likelihood being sexually abused by their father. Also, the custody and well-being of these minor children should be a major concern to Cobb County. A new group of unbiased experts needs to re-evaluate this case and bring closure regarding visitation that satisfies all parties if appropriate. It has been an honor to serve as the foreperson of this jury. I feel that this jury has served justice, and that the state's mishandling of this case has cost the taxpayers of Cobb County, Georgia a lot of money.

Regards,

Bryan Wilson

Foreperson

Donna M. Kimball

Anne E. Klueter

Vicki L. Croft

Kimberley J. Savransky

Cynthia P. Winter

This case, was influenced by the one of finest fathers’ rights legal advocacy group known to mankind the American Academy of Matrimonial Lawyers “AAML”, John Mayoue, who along with Academy affiliates, also known as the ‘Big Boy Club’, litigates the majority of the big money cases in Atlanta. They invariably use Dr. Richard Gardner’s [He stabbed himself to death.] widely discredited parental alienation syndrome “PAS” against the mother and PAS affiliated psychologists who cook evaluations on behalf of their clients.

htEven Mayoue's non-divorce cases pack high profiles. Former Atlanta Hawk Dominique Wilkins is a longtime client, and Johnnie Cochran Jr. of O.J. Simpson fame is a colleague on a pending case. Mayoue was Marieanne Gingrich’s attorney and judge in the Titelman case, Judge Bodiford’s wife, Nancy, was employed by Newt Gingrich as a constituent coordinator at his Marietta Senate Headquarters, served as Superior Court Clerk Jay Stephenson’s administrative assistant and during the Titelman custody case she worked in the Cobb County Sheriff’s office where the bogus lie detector reports were prepared.

“Atlanta divorce attorney John C. Mayoue, who represents Marianne Gingrich and Janice Holyfield in divorce cases against famous husbands (politician and boxer), also believes anti-male prejudice lingers among some judges, though he sees great strides toward fairness. "Real, shared custody is far more commonplace today than it was even five years ago, though it can still be a difficult, expensive battle. I do not accept the principle that anyone with money can get custody," he said. "The cynical view of custody battles sees them as a financial ploy, but this is far too broad an indictment. There are, however, financial incentives in some jurisdictions for one spouse or the other to have sole or primary custody -- particularly in those states that look solely or principally to the income/assets of the non-custodial parent," such as in Illinois.”

The evaluator, Dr. Elizabeth King, ex-wife a leading Atlanta AAML attorney, Barry McGough, and mother of his children, co-founded Peachtree Psychological Associates. In between Wendy’s criminal trial and the so-called Grand Jury Investigation, King’s associate, Carol Webb, McGough, several AAML attorneys, the guardian ad litem, Diane Woods, Wendy’s divorce attorney who did same to the first Mrs. Titelman; and the Judge in her criminal trial, who wouldn’t allow prior evidence of abuse entered into testimony, Judge Robert Flournoy, III were all at the beach no doubt conferring on future venues of family fun:

19th Annual Family Law Institute
Trial Strategies for Domestic Cases

THURSDAY - SATURDAY • May 24-26, 2001
Amelia Island Plantation
Amelia Island, FL • 1-800-874-6878

	8:30		STRATEGIES FOR DIRECT AND CROSS EXAMINATONS OF A PSYCHOLOGIST Psychologist: Carol Webb, Ph.D., [Elizabeth King’s partner] @ Peachtree Psychological Associates, http://nafcj.org/PeachtreePsych.htm Atlanta Attorneys: Stephen C. Steele, Moore, Ingram, Johnson & Steele, Marietta Frank A. DeVincent, Davis, Matthews & Quigley, P.C., Atlanta
	9:15		STRATEGIES FOR DIRECT AND CROSS EXAMINATIONS OF A GUARDIAN AD LITEM GAL: J. Diane Woods, Huff, Woods & Hamby, Marietta Attorneys: Jeffrey D. Hamby, Huff, Woods & Hamby, Marietta Hylton B. Dupree, Jr., Dupree, Johnson, Poole & King, Marietta
	10:15		BREAK: "WHO WANTS TO BE A FAMILY LAWYER?"
	PRESIDING: The Honorable Robert E. Flournoy, III, Judge, Superior Court, Cobb Judicial Circuit, Marietta
12:00		WHAT TO DO WHEN THE JURY COMES IN . . . ÒTOO GOOD TO BE TRUEÓ OR ÒTOTAL EXTINCTIONÓ? Edward E. Bates, Jr., Warner, Mayoue & Bates, P.C., Atlanta Barry B. McGough, McGough, Huddleston & Medori, Atlanta

More Family Law Fun in November:

FRIDAY – SATURDAY
November 16 – 17, 2001
Emerald Pointe Resort and
Conference Center
Lake Lanier Islands, GA 770-
932-7275

Friday – November 16, 2001

CUSTODY DISPUTES— CAN THEY REALLY BE MEDIATED?

Moderator:
Honorable James G. Bodiford, Judge, Superior Court of Cobb County, Marietta

Panelists:
Lauren Alexander, Attorney at Law and Mediator, Roswell
Elizabeth King, Ph.D., Peachtree Psychological Associates, Atlanta
Richard Shiffman, Attorney at Law and Mediator, Atlanta http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1175/is_1_32/ai_53479125/print
J. Diane Woods, Attorney at Law and Mediator, Marietta

Pat Head, a former family law attorney; Diane Woods, former president of the Cobb County Bar Association, Bettie King, who is on the same State Bar Family Courts Committee as is the father’s attorney, John Mayoue; Dr. Frank Pittman, a father’s rights psychologist, testified as an expert witness in this case here he is on the National Fatherhood Initiative’s recommended reading. Pittman advocates sex between older women and teenage boys:

“In Never on Sunday, introducing virginal boys to the joys of sex was always a holiday for the Piraeus prostitute of Melina Mercouri….Matings between women who have been around and boys who have not are generally portrayed as acts of generosity and mercy, rather than as child molesting. As long as the older women don't expect the liaison to be permanent, they won't frighten boys who want to be sexual but aren't ready yet to be grown-up.”

Frank Pittman, Hypocrite of the World on the Smart Marriages 'Christian' Web Site

Frank Pittman,on Burning Bibles

From ABC News' Jessica Yellin: "Mike McManus is founding partner of Marriage Savers and also a syndicated columnist. He received grant money from the Administration of Children and Families (which is within HHS) to promote their marriage initiative. ACF acknowledges that McManus received this money -- as a subcontractor for the Lewin Group. And they acknowledge he was also a syndicated columnist. Wade Horn, the head of ACF, was a founding board member of Marriage Savers (McManus' group) until his government appointment. The McManus' phone has been disconnected. Wade Horn sent out a statement to ACF employees late today informing them of a new policy prohibiting the agency from using journalists or columnists as consultants or contractors."

And Wade Horn Assistant Secretary for Children and Families and co-founder of the National Fatherhood Initiative resigned. "In the Department of Health and Human Services, Horn oversaw a $46 billion budget and 65 programs that serve vulnerable children and families. He is best known for his work on issues embraced by social conservatives, such as more money for faith-based groups and organizations that work to help couples improve their marriage."

Loreta Whitaker, a social worker who worked on  Francie Hakes’s, prosecution team as an expert adviser -- even sat at the prosecutor's table with her -- ganged up against Wendy at a grand jury hearing on charges to indict Andy Titelman for child molestation.

None of Wendy's expert witnesses were called to testify and the results went according to plan. 

No indictment.

Two young girls, 6 & 8-years-old, who were terrified that they would never get to see their mother again after disclosing sexual abuse time after time, have been cut off completely from any contact with Wendy.

This from a court that receives federal funding to provide equal access to both parents?

According to Marv Bryer, who uncovered family court corruption in Los Angeles County, [See "Is Justice for Sale in LA?", lawyers, judges and evaluators gather at County Bar Association functions and pass checks to the County Courts Judicial Association. Bryer actually found checks in the judge’s bank account from his daughter’s opposition, the attorney representing the father, written to the judge in the case. According to Cobb County Court Administration, the Cobb Judges Association is shared with the Ninth Judicial District. I confirmed this through numerous phone calls, but the administrator refused to send me copies of their accounts.

Superior Court Judge James G. Bodiford stripped Wendy of her children when the guardian ad litem, Diane Woods, called an emergency hearing with Dr. Elizabeth King’s PAS evaluation in hand claiming that Wendy was damaging the children by “parental alienating” them and planting false memories of sexual abuse. Mind you the children drew described the father to a psychologist in an art therapy session, as dressing up in a purple dress, pink shoes, a wig, make-up and drew a picture of this with a third leg which they described as looking like a dragon’s tail. They also described bathing nude with their father, jumping up and down on his tummy while he lay in the bathtub, wallowing around wet on the bathroom floor, dancing around naked while throwing artificial flowers about and then rushing to clean up the mess before mommy got home. Andy Titelman, a Sterling Institute/Cult member, was given temporary custody by Bodiford.

Woods and King pontificated in unison how incredulous this scenario was especially since it occurred in context of a divorce. Never mind that this was the second time Andy Titelman took custody away from a fit mother, the primary caretaker and proceeded to do the same with his second wife. [See Robert Titelman’s Affidavit to court in behalf of his mother keeping custody of his younger sister.] In closing arguments, Woods went so far as to chastise Wendy for not wanting a divorce from an alleged child molester which led her to believe that she wouldn’t protect her children.

___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

<< Dear friends,

     The attached message was e-mailed to Lorita Whitaker
in response to her threatening letter to the
Foreperson of the criminal jury who wrote to the DA
and Judge Bodiford.  I encourage you to share this
with others.

Wendy

Note: forwarded message attached.>>

From:	Ducotelaw@aol.com
Date:	Tue, 3 Jul 2001 00:34:05 EDT
Subject:	Your letter to Bryan Wilson re: Wendy Titelman
To:	lbwhitaker@mindspring.com
CC:	Mrhirsh@netzero.net, bryan.wilson@sun.com, defender4aj@yahoo.com

Dear Ms. Whitaker,

      I am one of the attorneys representing Wendy Titelman in the custody
case in Cobb County.  Your letter to Bryan Wilson, the foreperson of the
criminal jury which quickly acquitted Ms. Titelman on April 27, 2001, has
been forwarded to me.  Apparently Diane Woods and Dr. Elizabeth King have
selected you as the "point man" to attempt to undo the damage done to the
three of you by your own actions in this case, because they perceive you as
being the least vulnerable.  It is interesting that the jury letter addressed
to Pat Head and Judge Bodiford does not mention you by name, although Dr.
King and Ms. Woods are named and vehemently criticized in the letter.  Yet,
you are the one now attempting to bully Mr. Wilson and the other jurors who
correctly analyzed the situation here by threatening to sue them for what are
obviously privileged and immune communications on their part.   If you want
to sue someone, sue Wendy Titelman. She has, and will continue to state
publicly that your work on this case was incompetent and that you are
coveringup the sexual abuse of the girls.  She would welcome your suit,as she
would welcome suits by Dr. King, Ms. Woods, and Andy Titelman.  Be my guest.  
If you believe that she fabricated the sexual abuse allegations, please have
the courage to state so.  You will then be promptly sued and a jury can sort
it all out.  Let's examine your letter to Mr. Wilson, point by point:
      1) "The grand jury heard all of the evidence last week and voted 19-0
in favor of Andy Titelman and found Wendy's prosecution to be malicious."  
The grand jury inquiry was led by Pat Head, despite a motion brought by Ms.
Titelman to recuse him because of his conflict of interest.  Pat Head
"cooked" the grand jury just the way he wanted them.  He, you, Andy Titelman,
Diane Woods, Dr. King, etc. all got together and planned the grand jury
presentation.  None of the evidence presented at the criminal trial in Ms.
Titelman's defense was presented to the grand jury.  No Dr. Matherne, no
Laurie Caldwell, no Bajda Daniels, no Dr. Silberg -  and very importantly,
none of the Pat Head/Diane Woods/Betty King/Andy Titelman team had to be
cross examined!!!  So you guys went to the grand jury with hours of your
"cover your rear" testimony, and the Wendy Titelman is malicious and crazy
slander, and since you were not challenged by anyone, you pulled it off.  Mr.
Head was very clever in instructing the grand jury to avoid taxing Ms.
Titelman with costs, despite the finding of "maliciousness" because under the
law, she could then expose everything presented to the grand jury by you guys
to defend the financial assessment.  Ms. Whitaker, your own testimony proved
your incompetence:  A) The absolutely foolish "Wendy was feeding the kids to
the alligators" opinion, B) Your complete ignorance of the standard
professional sexual abuse treatises, which you thought were "self-help
books," C) Your opinion that you could spot molesters by looking at them, D)
Your bizarre criticism of Dr. Matherne because he discussed their reports of
abuse with the children, D) You, as the children's therapist, acting as Ms.
Hakes' s assistant, E) Your refusal to speak to Ms. Titelman, Dr. Matherne,
etc., and on and on.  In summary, your presentation was shockingly pathetic.  
The continual cover-up for the benefit of Ms. Woods and Dr. King is
illustrated by the very unusual step taken by the court in not requiring Dr.
Pittman's grand jury testimony to be transcribed, and by ordering Ms.
Titelman (and all of the witnesses for! the appearance of equal treatment) not
to contact the grand jurors, which is otherwise her right.  Also, the names
of the grand jurors are now sealed, despite the fact that such is public
record.
      2) "No evidence prior to August 4, 2000, was allowed."  I accurately
predicted that this defense would be used by you guys.  You all know that it
was Pat Head, Francie Hakes, Diane Woods, and Andy Titelman who had Judge
Flournoy rule that nothing prior to August 4 could be presented in the
criminal trial.  Ms. Titelman strongly opposed that ruling, and tried at
every step of the criminal trial to open all of the facts to the jury.  So,
it is a bit disingenuous to use this line.  In fact, the reason you all
opposed the pre August 4 evidence is because it explains why Ms. Woods and
Ms. King  in their minds had to lie about the children's disclosures to
themselves and Dr. Matherne in order to protect themselves for their early
positions that Andy Titelman should have custody.  Why would Dr. King and Ms.
Woods refuse to let the jury know that they were the ones who were
responsible for the children being with their father, despite the children's
reports and the independent eye witness testimony of others in community
proving the sexual abuse prior to August 4?
      3) "Power of the individuals involved." This is indeed the most
paranoid thing I've heard in this case.  To whom are you referring?  The only
power here, Ms. Whitaker and company, is the truth-  your only enemy.

      I think the criminal jurors should get legal assistance so they can
sue you immediately upon your continuation of your baseless hostility against
them.  I doubt that you can find an attorney to sue any of them.  But, by all
means, feel free to sue Ms. Titelman. She will continue to publicize your
errors and incompetence in her children's case. In fact, rest assured that
this letter will get broad internet circulation. Have your attorney call me
so we can accept service and get to trial immediately.  I, and others, would
relish the opportunity to cross examine you and your associates in this case.
 Finally, as Robert Burns, the great poet once observed, "O, wad the power
the giftie gie us, to see ourselves as eithers see us."

                                          Sincerely yours,

                                          Richard Ducote
                                          Attorney at Law
                                          731 Fern Street
New Orleans, LA 70118
                &nbs! p;                         (504) 314-8400
                                          (504) 314-8600  [fax]

"The ideals that have lighted my way and time after time have given me new courage to face life cheerfully, have been Kindness, Beauty and Truth."

Albert Einstein

_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

6/7/2001 Response to D.A.

Hi everyone,
     There has been some confusion expressed regarding
why the Grand Jury came to a totally opposite
conclusion from that of the Jurors of the criminal
trial.  I will try to explain again.
     The Jurors from the criminal trial heard all the
testimony from witnesses called by the prosecutor and
from witnesses called by me.  They were able to make
informed conclusions. 
     The Grand Jury investigation was done in secret.
The public was not made aware nor are privileged to
hear any part of it.  I nor my attorneys were allowed
to hear or see any part of it.  Grand Jury
investigations are led by the DA.  In this particular
investigation the DA (Pat Head) and his office was
also to be investigated.  That is why we filed an
emergency petition and an emergency motion to have him
disqualified from any investigation.  The Cobb County
Superior Court ignored our requests, and Pat Head led
the investigation (thus, the fox guarding the chicken
coop).  Pat Head called the prosecutors witnesses and
refused to call any of my witnesses including every
doctor who has substantiated sexual and emotional
abuse of [my daughters].  The Grand Jury doesn't know
they didn't hear all the testimony.  That's why I
likened it to the school teachers teaching
incorrectly.  What are the children to believe?  Diane
Woods, Elizabeth King, Francie Hakes, Dr. Pittman,
Andy Titelman and Katie Titelman were called to
testify.  I was invited at the last minute to testify
if I wanted.  Dr's Hill, Brentnall, Pearce, Matherne
and Silberg were not invited or subpoenaed to testify.
The supervisors who witnessed sexualized behavior
from [my daughters] and heard their disclosures of
abuse and saw strange behavior of Andy were not
invited to testify.  The lay witnesses who saw abusive
behavior and sexual behavior of Andy and the girls
were not invited to testify.  Experts on Parental
Alienation Syndrome and the danger of its use were not
invited to testify.  The Grand Jurors were deceived by
the limited testimony that remains a secret.
     Further, it has been ordered that the testimony
of Dr. Frank Pitman before the Grand Jury may not be
made known for any reason.  Now why would they do
that?  (I think he is afraid of being sued.)  Also, it
has been ordered that I may not contact or talk to the
May-June Grand Jurors for any reason.  It has also
been ordered that the May-June Grand Jurors names
(which is public information) may not be given out to
anyone for any reason.  (By the way, I've got the list
if you want it.)  Now why would they do that?  Pat
Head, Diane Woods, Elizabeth King and Lorita Whitaker
and the State of Georgia have a lot to lose at this
point.  They are doing everything they can to cover up
the abuse of [my daughters].  The children mean
nothing to them.  Their own hides mean everything. 
     That is why I ask for your help.  They want us to
roll over and go away and stop exposing them.  I will
not.  Richard and Michael will not.  We will continue
to use all legal resources and our right of speech to
expose what they have done and are doing.  They are
liable for the damage they are doing to not only my
children but others as well.
     I hope this explains.  Let me know.
Love, Wendy

June 27, 2001

Dear friends,

I am sending to you in several attachments various
motions and petitions we have made over the last month
and giving you an update of what has occurred as a
result.

On June 4th, I petitioned the May-June Grand Jury to
do a full fledged investigation of Andy Titelman,
Diane Woods, Betty King, Lorita Whitaker, DFCS, and
the DA's office in regards to child molestation of [my

daughters] Deana Williams and I delivered this
petition to the foreperson per the law.  Grand Jury
investigations are assisted and directed by the DA.
So on June 4th I also filed with the Cobb County
Superior Court an emergency petition to disqualify
Patrick Head and to appoint a substitute district
attorney.  Throughout June we fought with the Court
for a response.  The Court refused to respond.  A
subsequent emergency motion was filed.  This was heard
(by Judge Bodiford) 2 days after the completion of the
investigation that was led by Patrick Head.  Judge
Bodiford refused to recuse himself and ruled on the
disqualification of Pat Head as a "moot" point.

With the Grand Jury investigation, DA Head called the
prosecution's witnesses and refused to call any
witnesses that knew anything about the sexual and
emotional abuse of [my daughters] I was invited by
mail to testify (if I wanted to) before the Grand
Jury.  I received this in Mississippi about 21 hours
prior to the time I was to appear.  I did testify.
However, when I arrived the jurors rolled their eyes
at me and called me a liar.  I testified for almost 3
hours after they had already heard 7 hours from the
prosecution team.  Very simply stated - it is like 5
teachers going in to a class of first graders and they
all teach that 2+2=5.  They also teach that a 6th
teacher is going to come and tell them that 2+2=4, but
that she is crazy and doesn't want them to know the
truth.  When the 6th teacher comes in and tells them
2+2=4, the kids don't believe her.  They have been
deceived.  The Grand Jury investigation can be likened
to the fox guarding the chicken house.  We will be
appealing.

Also on June 4th I filed an affidavit with the
Magistrate Court in support of the issuance of a
warrant for the arrest of Andy Titelman.  Along with
it was substantiation of abuse by several doctors and
the jurors letter stating their findings.  Magistrate
Judge Laura Austin shared that she recognized I needed
help.  She said she had to be very careful what she
did in this action because of what had already
transpired.  She said this is a classic case of the
good ole boys sticking up for each other.  She told me
not to go around the Court without a witness.  She
also said that I desperately need the media, that Cobb
County is scared to death of the media.  After several
hours, she called me and said she was asking for
another investigation to be done and denied the
warrant.  Thus far, no one who knows anything about
the abuse of [my daughters] have been contacted, and
the investigators name given to me, Det. Bishop,
cannot be located with Cobb County Crimes Against
Children.

During the hearing with Judge Bodiford on June 22,
2001, he made open threats to me and the jurors who
wrote the letter to him and Pat Head.  He accused my
attorneys and me of writing the letter and coercing
the jurors to sign it.  He said they libeled Andy by
calling him a child molester and that they were going
to lose their cars and their houses for it.
Interesting that this is after Pat Head has stated
that the jurors did not find Andy guilty of child
molestation.  This was a scare tactic to get people to
leave them alone for what they have done to Alex and
Jenny.  Richard, Michael and I would so love for them
to try to sue us. 

All this is separate from the civil proceedings.  We
still have a lot outstanding.  First the recusal of
Bodiford, Woods, King and Whitaker. Second, a motion
for retrial and change of custody.  I'm sending these
attachments to you also.  They are public record, and
I want you to be fully aware of what is happening.
The recusal shares the criminal behaviors of these
individuals as well as the motion for retrial. 

Some of you may be led to do something about this.
Some of you may not care enough and do nothing.  I
give you all the information so that you can make that
decision.  [my daughters] are now 7 and 9 years old.
The system has failed them, and the good ‘ole boys are
protecting each other for the mistakes that have been
made.  Richard, Michael and I will not stop pouring
light on the deception of darkness that has prevailed
up until Richard and Michael became involved.  It is
infuriating those involved in the deception.
Eventually [my daughters] will be protected.  It is
taking a tremendous toll on them, on me, and on
Richard and Michael.  The time, money, and energy that
it takes to fight this is monstrous.  We need your
help, and I pray that you will not be silent to what
is happening.

Love,

Wendy

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF GEORGIA

IN AND FOR COBB COUNTY

IN RE: DISQUALIFICATION )

OF PATRICK H. HEAD, ) CASE NO.

DISTRICT ATTORNEY, )

PURSUANT TO )

O.C.G.A §15-18-5 )

______________________________ )

EMERGENCY PETITION FOR DISQUALIFICATION AND APPOINTMENT OF SUBSTITUTE DISTRICT ATTORNEY

To: The Honorable Michael Stoddard

Chief Judge, Cobb County Superior Court

Now comes Wendy J.Titelman, pro se, respectfully petitioning this Honorable Court, upon information and belief, pursuant to O.C.G.A.§ 15-18-5 to disqualify Patrick H. Head, District Attorney for Cobb County, from any decisions or other involvement in any potential or actual prosecution of Andrew Charles Titelman, a resident of Cobb County, for any crimes he may have committed against the minor daughters of Petitioner and Andrew Charles Titelman, and, thereafter, that this Court make a requisition to the Governor for the services of the Attorney General pursuant to O.C.G.A.§ 15-18-5 (a)(3), or otherwise appoint a substitute District Attorney pro tem as set forth in O.C.G.A. § 15-18-5 (a), for the following reasons:

1) Petitioner is the mother of two female children referred to herein by their initials A.T. (dob:5/26/92) and J.T. (dob: 3/30/94).

2) Andrew Charles Titelman, a resident of Cobb County, is the children’s father and legal custodian. He and the Petitioner are divorced.

3) The children have disclosed to Petitioner, other adults, health care providers, and inter alia, J. Donald Matherne, Ph.D., a Mississippi forensic and clinical psychologist, that Andrew Charles Titelman has committed the crime of child molestation against them in violation of O.C.G.A. §16-6-4 by coming into their beds at night in their father’s home in Cobb County and fondling their genitalia with his hands.

4) In response to this evidence, rather than prosecute Andrew Charles Titelman, Patrick H. Head has prosecuted Petitioner for “Interstate Interference with Custody” in violation of O.C.G.A. §16 -5-45(c)(2) in this Court in Case No. 00-9-4681-40 because she had the children seen by Dr. Matherne in Mississippi, and then complied with a Mississippi chancery

court order placing the children in emergency foster care for their protection as a result of Dr. Matherne’s report.

5) Petitioner was tried on those charges before the Honorable Robert E. Flournoy, III and a Cobb County jury on April 23-27, 2001, and was acquitted after a very short jury deliberation.

6) Not only did the jury acquit Ms. Titelman, but the jury has written a letter to District Attorney Head and the Hon. James Bodiford, the judge assigned to the Titelman custody case, expressing outrage that Petitioner was ever prosecuted, that the District Attorney’s office was so absurdly hostile and prejudiced against Petitioner, that there is sufficient evidence to conclude that the children were being sexually abused by Mr. Titelman, and that the sexual abuse of the children has been covered up by Cobb County officials and professionals [See Exhibit A, Jury Letter].

7) Furthermore, in response to Petitioner’s trial and the District Attorney’s office’s conduct in the course of the trial, numerous outraged citizens of Cobb County, the State of Georgia, and other states -including witnesses with direct knowledge of evidence supporting the child sexual abuse allegations against Mr. Titelman - have deluged the District Attorney with letters of protest and calls for remedial action to seek proper justice and to act to protect the children from their father [Exhibit B, copies of only a few of the letters sent to Mr. Head].

8) In response, D.A. Head has sent out a reply which very clearly demonstrates prejudice against Petitioner and absolutely no interest or intent to take any action to protect the child victims [Exhibit C].

9) Thus, D.A. Head has a conflict of interests. Should he successfully prosecute Andrew Titelman for the child molestation, it would confirm that all of the criticism from the community and the jury is accurate and justified. Therefore, it is in D.A. Head’s interest to decline the prosecution of Andrew Titelman, despite the plethora of evidence of his guilt.

10) Petitioner intends to immediately seek all legal avenues to commence the arrest and prosecution of Andrew Titelman, and fears that such legitimate efforts will be thwarted and blocked by D.A. Head to protect his own self-interests.

11) Thus, in light of the intense criticism of D.A. Head and his response thereto, D.A. Head has a personal and political interest in the possible or actual prosecution of Andrew Titelman and, therefore, he must be disqualified and either the Attorney General or some completely independent private prosecutor appointed pursuant to the statute to make all decisions regarding this case. As the Georgia Supreme Court stated in Nichols v. State, 17 Ga.App.593, 606, 87 S.E. 817 (1915), “The administration of the law, especially that of the criminal law, should, like Caesar’s wife, be above suspicion, and should be free from all temptation, bias or prejudice, so far as it is possible for our courts to accomplish it...”

12) Petitioner attaches hereto and incorporates herein a copy of the transcript of her own sworn testimony in her criminal trial as Exhibit D, the transcript of Dr. Matherne’s sworn testimony from Petitioner’s criminal trial as Exhibit E, and a copy of Dr. Matherne’s psychological report as Exhibit F.

WHEREFORE, IT IS PRAYED that this Honorable Court will invoke the statutory remedies to disqualify and replace D.A.Head.

Respectfully submitted,

________________________________

Wendy J. Titelman, Petitioner pro se

2222 17^th Street

Gulfport, MS 39501

(228) 868-2057

Sworn to and subscribed before

me, Notary Public, in and for the

State of Georgia, this ___ day of

June, 2001.

___________________________

Notary Public

Defendant Wendy J. Titelman’s Proffer of Evidence Necessary to Support her Justification Defense

In support of her justification defense under Sec. 16-3-20 (5) & (6), Defendant Wendy J. Titelman submits that she intends to offer the following essential evidence to explain her reasoning for filing the action in Mississippi, instead of in Cobb County. All of this evidence predates the August 4, 2000, final orders:

1. It was clear to her that any effort to protect the children from sexual abuse by Andy Titelman in the Cobb County Superior Court would be useless and dangerous to the children because Dr. Elizabeth King, the court appointed evaluator in the prior custody case and Diane Woods, the court appointed guardian ad litem, would do everything possible to discredit the true allegations of sexual abuse, to return the children to Andy Titelman’s custody, and to severely restrict Defendant’s access to the children in order to protect themselves from potential civil liability and professional embarrassment and humiliation for their having negligently, incompetently, and erroneously previously taken the position that Wendy Titelman was mentally ill, suffering from the discredited and bogus, and pro-pedophile Parental Alienation Syndrome promulgated by Richard Gardner, or planted “false memories” in the children’s minds.

2. In February, 2000, Andy Titelman in an emergency court hearing prompted by Diane Woods and Dr. King was granted custody of the children and Defendant’s visitation with the children was ordered supervised at the urging of King and Woods because the children were reporting that their father was sexually abusing them. Woods and King negligently, incompetently, and erroneously convinced the court that these reports by the children were the result of Parental Alienation Syndrome and defendant’s “mental illness” for believing the children. At that time, and during the custody trial in May-June 2000, King gave conflicting opinions that the children were coached and that at the same time defendant was sincere in her belief about the abuse.

3. Defendant intends to call a number of lay witnesses to whom the children reported that their father was molesting them, or who observed the children’s sexualized behavior or other indicators of sexual abuse, including the professional supervisors of Defendant’s visitation with the children. Defendant gave Woods and King the names addresses and phone numbers of these witnesses, including letters from the witnesses documenting the reports. King and Woods refused to talk to them. Instead, King and Woods urged further restrictions of Defendant’s visitation and the termination of the supervisors because the children were reporting molestation to the supervisors.

4. Defendant intends to call lay witnesses who observed inappropriate behavior between Andy Titelman, including another mother who observed Andy Titelman with the girls at their ballet class. He had the girls sliding up and down his crotch, while he moaned "“touching, touching, touching” in a quiet singing voice. Woods and King were not interested in this witness.

5. Defendant intends to call Diane Pearce, Ph.D. a local psychologist with expertise in child sexual abuse, who had treated and evaluated the children. She was convinced that Andy Titelman had molested the children, and informed Woods, King, and Defendant of that opinion. King and Woods dismissed her as a “quack.”

6. Defendant intends to offer evidence that Woods and King also dismissed the reports from two other local Ph.D. psychologists, Dr. Lynn Brentnall and Jaqueline Hill that the children were being molested because they called them quacks and hired guns.

7. Diane Woods as guardian ad litem first took the formal position that Andy Titelman should have sole custody of the children in May of 1999, and at that time falsely and fraudulent reported to the court that a local psychologist, Dr. Frank Pitman, knew Defendant and Andy Titelman far better than anyone else because he had treated them throughout their marriage for a period of eight years. She later relayed this same information to Dr. King in September, 1999. Defendant intends to offer Dr. Pittman’s records into evidence to show that Pittman had no contact whatsoever with Defendant for a 6 ½ year period from 1992-1998. There were only 2 contacts with the Defendant in 1998 after the divorce had been filed.

8. After the children began reporting their father’s sexual abuse in March, 1999, and after Woods already committed herself to the position that Andy Titelman should have custody, the children continued to report their father was molesting them. Diane Woods them prompted the court to appoint Dr. King to do a custody evaluation in July-August, 1999.

9. However, Defendant intends to offer into evidence King’s records which demonstrate that on September 30, 1999, Woods sabotaged King’s evaluation by convincing her that the sexual abuse allegations were false, and by falsely and maliciously telling King that Defendant had attacked a police officer.

10. Defendant intends to show through documents and Woods’ testimony that Woods sabotaged the sexual abuse investigations conducted by the police and the Department of Children and Family Services by telling those agencies that there was no abuse, and then later using the findings of the sabotaged investigations to bolster Woods and King’s opinions that there was no abuse.

11. Defendant intends to offer into evidence the audiotaped sessions between the children and Dr. King to prove that Dr. King’s “evaluation” was totally incompetent, and that when the children reported the sexual abuse to her, that she discouraged the reports, and encouraged them to criticize Defendant.

12. Defendant intends to offer competent expert testimony that Dr. King’s evaluations and conclusions were grossly incompetent and misleading, based on King’s own records and audiotapes.

13. Defendant intends to offer volumes of professional literature and Richard Gardner’s own writings to prove that his theories are propedophile and totally inappropriate to use in a sexual abuse evaluation, as was done by Dr. King.

14. Defendant intends to offer into evidence a videotape produced by Andrew Titelman in April, 2000, showing himself and his girlfriend bullying the children to recant their sexual abuse allegations and to claim that their mother and her friends made the children falsely report the abuse. Dr. King and Woods incompetently used this tape to prompt the emergency removal of the children from Defendant, to be placed in their father’s custody, in May, 2000. This tape is critical to show that there is proof that Andrew Titleman has a documented history of bullying the children into recanting the abuse, and that this is the most probable explanation for the children recantation of their reports of sexual abuse in September, 2000.

15. Defendant also intends to offer competent expert testimony regarding the incompetence of Dr. King and Ms. Woods in relying on this tape to discredit the abuse reports.

16. Defendant intends to offer competent witnesses and documentary evidence to support all of the above.

17. It is all of this information which convinced Defendant that the children reports of molestation to her in September, 2000, were indeed accurate,and that Diane Woods and Betty King would kill any efforts to protect the children in the Cobb County Superior Court.

18. The reason Defendant lost custody of the children in May, 2000, and in August, 2000, was solely because of King’s and Woods’ false, incompetent, and self-serving argument that defendant was either mentally ill or guilty of the bogus parental alienation syndrome for believing the abuse reports.

The Criminal Trial

5/1/2001

If it weren't for the pathetic state the girls find themselves at present, still living in the custody of the "alleged" cross-dressing child molester, editorializing would be a cathartic blast. We could get really silly and call this travesty “Pat Head Ped Gate” for the man responsible for this circus, Cobb County District Attorney Pat Head and his trusty sidekick Tom Weathers, who wanted no part of sitting in on the original custody trial, reading transcripts [now he says he did read them] or investigating the both sides of this case.  

Oh, but they were there mid-week, Wednesday, May 2, 2001, after two days of deliberations, when the state's case began to unravel.

When I first heard about Wendy's arrest, I contacted Weathers and told him he needed to hear me out, but all he did was shout me down -- kept telling me over and over, I needed to shut up and listen to HIM -- had he listened, he would have known he didn't have a case.

Yesterday, Head's seemingly only interest was in defending Diane Woods' and Sam Huff's guardian ad litem program.  

He said the jury thought Wendy was guilty but that they didn't want her prosecuted.  Funny, that's not what I heard them say after the trial, hanging around for over an hour, as they hugged Wendy, voicing their disgust and making plans to coordinate a letter writing protest campaign.  Head lost.  Wendy won.

Sadly, Wendy still has hoops to jump and custody to litigate, before she can offer any protection for her girls.  

It is important to remember that Wendy did not kidnap her daughters.  There was nothing in the Order stopping her from leaving the State of Georgia.  She previously took her daughters to Florida for a week at the beach and returned them to their father.  It wasn't until they called her up threatening to run away did she become alarmed. The A.D.A. made a big stink about not contacting Cobb County Police [who also wanted no part of fact finding] while she was on Labor Day vacation when they disclosed that their father started molesting them again.

When Wendy got to Mississippi, a six hour drive [not half way across the country as Hakes opined] she contacted her lawyer, who sent them to a forensic psychologist, who believed the girls' latest outcries. The girls were due back that Monday night at 6:00 p.m., but they couldn't get a hearing until Tuesday, after the holiday.  Instead of retuning to Cobb County they appeared before a Mississippi judge who took the children into custody, under the color of Mississippi law, which allows the court to take jurisdiction in emergency situations to protect children from abuse.  Georgia statutes charge parents to protect their children from abuse.

This is why she's not going to jail: thanks to an astute jury of her peers, expert witnesses, Cobb County attorney, Michael Hirsh and Internationally renowned attorney and advocate for domestic abuse victims, Richard Ducote.

These closing statements from Cobb County's finest, Assistant District Attorney Francy "Banshee from Hell" Hakes, were Ducote's faves:

1.  "Wendy Titelman does not deserve justice."

2.  "She is like Timothy McVeigh." [Who BTW did get justice]

3.  "Just because she didn't disappear, didn't mean she didn't want to disappear."

I liked Hakes statement "I'm just worried about his [Hirsh] ineffective appearance of counsel."

Also noteworthy was Hakes' comparison of Randy Burton's Internationally respected Justice for Children [Justice For Children Web Site] to a "fringe" group somehow tied to a sinister "underground railroad" where people really do disappear.  Hakes begrudgingly had to apologize to