Kim Butler
ARDC Intake Division - Chicago
One Prudential Plaza
130 E Randolph Dr, Ste 1500
Chicago, IL 60601-6219
Re: Complaint, Deborah A. Caldwell-Stone
in relation to
Dan Kleinman No. 2022IN03640
Dear Kim Butler,
A shocking response from Deborah A. Caldwell-Stone. She is under investigation for a serious attorney ethics violation by the official body investigating such matters, the ARDC, and her response is to make a tersely worded “categorical” denial (“I categorically deny …”) based on more misrepresentation of facts and the law, only this time directly to the ethics body during its investigation, as if ethics does not apply to her, maybe because she is the lead lawyer at the American Library Association and the Director of the Office for Intellectual Freedom and also the Director of the Freedom to Read Foundation. Goodwill for librarians is massive; perhaps she knows no one would ever hold her to account. A simply shocking response to continue to act the way she does, as if there were no consequences because everyone loves librarians.
First, set aside that the largest paragraph of her response was to attack me personally. I’m not the issue. Her professional ethics are at issue. Any determination will be made solely on her actions, not on whether I’m from SafeLibraries and I’m allegedly “a long-time critic of the American Library Association’s position on intellectual freedom and the right to read.” You bet I am. Here she is openly stating she knows material is sexually inappropriate for children but it is to be “reframed” as diversity and inclusion in the very complaint I have initially filed. She’s training and has trained librarians to hold that position. And they do. School children are being sexualized nationwide with graphic child pornography that has been “reframed” as diverse and inclusive, and as a direct result of Illinois attorney Deborah A. Caldwell-Stone is training librarians.
Later we will see how she trains librarians that parents may only affect the book reading choices of their own children, meanwhile nationwide librarians are pushing on children the anything-goes views of an unethical lawyer from Chicago, IL. It’s a chilling and harmful double standard, all occasioned by a fundamental disregard of the Rules of Professional Ethics—and non lawyer librarians, namely everyone else in the American Library Association, are not even aware what this lawyer is doing, so it continues unabated.
Children do not have a right to read graphic child pornography, nor it is intellectual freedom for children to learn in graphic detail how to use sexual lubes to engage in anal sex, then wash their hands afterwards, or how to take selfies then get on phone sex apps to meet up with numerous men close to them to be molested by them. Does this sound inappropriate to raise to an ethics tribunal that she is the tip of the spear on this nationwide issue, thus has violated RPC 8.4?
Well this is the exact type of content, only with multiple graphic pictures from all angles, including internal, that Deborah A. Caldwell-Stone seeks to “reframe” as diversity and inclusion for children. That’s why I’m telling you this. The material is so graphic that media will not broadcast it, social media sites will freeze accounts of those who post such pictures until the pictures are removed, and school boards will blithely violate open government laws to silence parents complaining about such materials by displaying graphics or reading the words aloud. As such, I am happy to be “a long-time critic of the American Library Association’s position on intellectual freedom and the right to read” because the organization is sexualizing children nationwide, and Deborah A. Caldwell-Stone is the leader of the divisions doing the most damage to children—and all based on deception that violates Rule 8.4.
So did I report in my publications about what actions she has taken and what counteractions I have taken? She complains about my doing this in her response. You bet I did, and I’ll keep doing it until she stops. But it all has absolutely zero to do with whether or not she has violated the Rules of Professional Conduct. So let’s hope my past efforts as citizen reporter to report on her activities is not part of the calculus of whether her actions amount to violations of attorney ethics expectations. There are hundreds of thousands of attorneys. Certainly the Illinois bar doesn’t need one actively sexualizing children in violation of her ethical obligations; certainly the ethics tribunal will not ignore this simply because of her employment with the American Library Association.
Deborah A. Caldwell-Stone claims that I “amplified that [prior ethics complaint] on his blog and social media, in what I believe is an effort to attack my reputation and the reputation of my employer. He has also done so with this complaint.” That’s projection. That’s called attacking the messenger. I’m a reporter. I’m reporting. I’m not attacking her reputation by reporting on her reframing graphic child pornography as diverse and inclusive. I’m simply reporting that’s what she has done, and I backed it up with an exact quote, a video of her saying that exact quote, and the full webinar in question, all sourced to her employer’s social sites, so that full context was available to my readers to enable them to make up their own minds. That’s what reporters do. If anyone is attacking her reputation, it is herself passing off sexually inappropriate material for children as diverse and inclusive and doing it as the Director of the Office for Intellectual Freedom, as if children have the intellectual freedom to read material she admits knowing is sexually inappropriate for them.
In the end, my publication of my ethics complaints has absolutely nothing to do with whether or not she committed a Rule 8.4 violation, especially as the ethical violation occurred before I even became aware of the issue that led to my complaint. Basically, she’s arguing that since I publish my reporting on what she is doing, she’s not guilty of anything I mention about her therein. So much for First Amendment free speech and press freedoms from the Freedom to Read Foundation’s Director.
Let’s look at the facts she has completely misrepresented so as to claim innocence from ethical violations. The facts are what she said in the training that is the subject of this complaint. What she said in the response to the complaint about that training are not the facts. She has intentionally reworded in her response what she said in the training to imply there’s no there there.
In the training she said what’s needed when crafting legislation, a task usually performed by lawyers, is “sustained … messaging that reframes this issue … that takes it away from the idea that these are inappropriate for minors, or sexually inappropriate for minors, and promotes them as diverse material and programming that are about inclusion…” In her response she says, “the books discussed during the webinar — books written for children and young adults that include LGBTQIA+ characters or address the lives and experiences of LGBTQIA+ persons — are appropriate for minors and are the works that are inclusive of marginalized groups and reflect the diversity of society.” You can see the difference right there and how she has misrepresented what she said in the webinar that is the subject of this ethics complaint. In the webinar she acknowledged some books are sexually inappropriate for children, while to the ethics tribunal she says the books are appropriate for children since the lived experience of lesbian, gay, and bisexual people “are appropriate for minors.” That may or may not be the case, but that is not what she said in the webinar that is the subject of this ethics complaint. She is attempting to mislead the ARDC.
What she said in the webinar and what is a violation of her ethical obligations is that she knows “these are inappropriate for minors, or sexually inappropriate for minors,” but they should be reframed as diversity and inclusion, then “sustained messaging” will be needed to get that implemented into legislation. Her knowledge of the sexually inappropriate nature of the books for children, combined with her “reframing” the issue into something it isn’t is the crux of her ethics violation and of my ethics complaint. Certainly the Illinois bar doesn’t believe someone knowingly trading off sexually inappropriate material as suddenly appropriate because of diversity and inclusion isn’t violating its ethical code. That’s what I raised in the ethics complaint.
And her response doesn’t address that at all. It merely says lived experiences are important for children. No, anal rape and hooking up with adults for sex is not appropriate for children, even if this is the “lived experience” of a few victims of such crimes—and she knows this, even calling this “sexually inappropriate for minors”—before she “reframes” it as diversity. There’s your ethical violation, and in her response she completely ignores that and misleads about the importance of “lived experiences” for children. As to the facts, she is intentionally misleading the ethics tribunal during its investigation of her ethical violations.
She argues, “Mr. Kleinman offers no substantive support for his claims of dishonesty, fraud, or misrepresentation other than his disagreement with my opinion that the books discussed during the webinar … are appropriate for minors and … are inclusive … and reflect … diversity…” Not true. The substantive evidence is what she herself said during the webinar in question. Her efforts to mislead the ARDC as to what she said, as discussed above, does not equate to my allegedly not offering substantive support. Her own words are the violation and are the substantive support, not her misleading opinion in her response as discussed above, and not whether I have a “disagreement with her opinion” about reframing sexually inappropriate materials for minors as diverse and inclusive. Everyone I know is shocked when they read her words. School boards are filled with parents opposing graphic child pornography she has reframed as diversity, sometimes hundreds of parents at a time, such as in Dearborn, Michigan. Everyone has a difference of opinion with her, if that’s how she wants to frame it. So arguing “difference of opinion” as my alleged substantive argument when that is not the issue here and indeed is irrelevant is just part of the ethical problem with this unethical attorney.
As a practical example of the harm this attorney is doing, look at “Book Censorship Debate: Controversy Over ‘Gender Queer: A Memoir,’” by Blair Paddock, WTTW News (a PBS station), November 22, 2021, https://news.wttw.com/2021/11/22/book-censorship-debate-controversy-over-gender-queer-memoir. Deborah Caldwell-Stone is interviewed with no counterbalance whatsoever. Notice she leaves out the part where she knows the material to be sexually inappropriate for children. Instead, she follows her own advice given in her own training underlying this ethics complaint to reframe such material as something else that is irrelevant to the issue she knows to be the problem. It’s fundamentally deceptive. And I’m not basing my response to her response on what she said on WTTW News, rather I’m just showing that she’s practicing what she preaching, to reframe such material in a deceptive manner, as raised in my ethics complaint.
On WTTW News, Deborah Caldwell-Stone reframed the knowingly sexually inappropriate material issue as censorship, the protection of civil liberties, the right to read anything one likes, then stated school librarians should be trusted. The ones she trained to reframe the issue of sexually inappropriate material should be trusted.
When specifically asked about which parts of a book illustrating graphic child pornography, namely “Gender Queer, A Memoir,” are inappropriate, she basically said none, because the book is about “sexual activity,” and many books deal with that. She says students may have sexual issues and gender identity issues. She says a parent may guide her own child’s reading but may not choose for the community—only librarians trained by an unethical attorney may do that. She then says there’s a campaign to remove LGBTQ-themed and transgender material from schools. She says demands to remove the books have a stigmatizing effect on children and removing such books makes children feel unwelcome in a community. She then says libraries are inclusive institutions bound by the First Amendment and students have First Amendment rights—there’s that word “inclusion” again she used in her training. Removing these materials is a “denial of their agency and their lives.” She says organized groups are targeting the books for removal.
Do you see what she did not address? She did not address that she knows the books are sexually inappropriate for children. She has completely reframed the issue from being books sexually inappropriate for children to something completely different. This is the essential deception of what she is training, while employed for her employer. She’s practicing what she’s preaching, and all in violation of Rule 8.4. This is an Illinois lawyer training librarians nationwide to make excuses for what everyone knows is sexually inappropriate material for children, even herself, and schools nationwide are spreading graphic child pornography to children. If this is not an ethics violation for an attorney doing this, I don’t know what it. But there’s more.
This is not an ethics complaint for me to promote my view, as she will claim or has claimed. My view is irrelevant. Her ethics violations have nothing to do with me. This ethics complaint is about her lack of ethics or unprofessional conduct. I am providing this detailed explanation to exemplify her carrying out her training that lies at the base of this ethics complaint. She’s on public broadcasting stations reframing the issue of sexually inappropriate material for children as an issue of inclusion and First Amendment rights. She is misleading people. And we know from her admitting the material is sexually inappropriate that she is knowingly misleading people.
Mind you, her reframing of the issue also allows her to flat out lie to the public, anyone following her training does the same, and one way is specifically about the First Amendment. She’s an Illinois lawyer and she effectively lying to the public. She said school books about sexual activity are protected under the First Amendment. That’s true. But that’s not the issue. By reframing the issue that way, that books are about sexual activity instead of simply being sexually inappropriate for children, the basic deception that leads to this RPC 8.4 violation, she ignores Board of Education, v. Pico, United States Supreme Court, 1982. That case found pervasively vulgar books may be removed from schools forthwith—there’s no First Amendment right to graphic child porn in public schools. None. But by reframing the issue as she has, she gets to mislead people about the law, and given her position, schools nationwide now feature graphic child pornography and training on how to go online to be victimized by child rapists, and the like. A lawyer misleading people about the law, about the US Supreme Court, in a manner that sexualizes children nationwide by essentially making an end run around the Pico case, that’s Deborah Caldwell-Stone, Director of the Office for Intellectual Freedom and the Director of the Freedom to Read Foundation, both at the American Library Association, and it’s unethical and unprofessional at the very least.
On misleading people about the law, she misleads the ARDC as well. Look at the Rules of Professional Conduct. She lies about them right in her response to you, the ethics tribunal responsible for enforcing those Rules. This is simply shocking to me. She argues her actions during the webinar have nothing to do with attorney ethics, per Rule 8.4, so again her argument is there’s no there there. She argues, “Nor was I engaged in the practice of law, as contemplated by Rule 8.4.”
But what do the Rules of Professional Conduct say? They say the exact opposite. Deborah A. Caldwell-Stone has written to you a response that is the exact opposite of the Rules you are required to uphold. The exact opposite.
The Rules have a Preamble. In the Preamble it says some of the Rules apply even when one is not engaged in the practice of law. It then gives a single example of such Rules. And the example? Yes, RPC 8.4. Specifically, the Preamble states:
“[3] … In addition, there are Rules that apply to lawyers who are not active in the practice of law or to practicing lawyers even when they are acting in a nonprofessional capacity. For example, a lawyer who commits fraud in the conduct of a business is subject to discipline for engaging in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation. See Rule 8.4.”
Well Deborah A. Caldwell-Stone states in her response, “He bases his claims on information I shared during a webinar sponsored by the American Library Association, my employer.” So we know two things. One, she is an employee of the American Library Association. Two, the webinar where she violated attorney ethics was sponsored by her employer, so she was conducting business for her employer.
Recall Deborah A. Caldwell-Stone argues, “Nor was I engaged in the practice of law, as contemplated by Rule 8.4.” Recall the Preamble states, “a lawyer who commits fraud in the conduct of a business is subject to discipline for engaging in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation. See Rule 8.4.” Deborah A. Caldwell-Stone admits she was acting in the conduct of a business, but claims that Rule 8.4 does not apply when the Preamble says the exact opposite and even uses Rule 8.4 as an example of “Rules that apply to lawyers who are not active in the practice of law or to practicing lawyers even when they are acting in a nonprofessional capacity.”
Now according to the American Bar Association, “Rule 8.4 Misconduct - Comment” (https://www.americanbar.org/groups/professional_responsibility/publications/model_rules_of_professional_conduct/rule_8_4_misconduct/comment_on_rule_8_4/), “Lawyers may engage in conduct undertaken to promote diversity and inclusion without violating this Rule by, for example, implementing initiatives aimed at recruiting, hiring, retaining and advancing diverse employees or sponsoring diverse law student organizations.” Certainly advising librarians to reframe sexually inappropriate material for children as diverse and inclusive would represent conduct that *does* violate Rule 8.4. Her “reframing” ploy still violates Rule 8.4 even if diversity and inclusion is a good goal since there’s a fundamental deception to reframe graphic child pornography and guidance on how to meet men for sex using phone apps as diversity and inclusion. Boys meeting men for sex is not inclusion but child abuse. Children tucking into anal sex is not diversity. We would not even be here having this discussion were it not for the American Library Association and specifically Deborah A. Caldwell-Stone saying the unethical things I raised in my original complaint and being in a leadership position to enforce it. If that’s not a violation of the Rules of Professional Conduct, then I wouldn’t know what is.
Looking now at RPC 8.4, Comment 5: “Lawyers holding public office assume legal responsibilities going beyond those of other citizens. A lawyer's abuse of public office can suggest an inability to fulfill the professional role of lawyers. The same is true of abuse of positions of private trust such as trustee, executor, administrator, guardian, agent and officer, director or manager of a corporation or other organization.” Well, Deborah A. Caldwell-Stone, as an employee of the American Library Association, is the Director of ALA’s Office for Intellectual Freedom and the Director of ALA’s Freedom to Read Foundation. She is a “director” of an “organization.” As such she “assume[s] legal responsibilities going beyond those of other citizens.” So if any ordinary librarian said to reframe sexually inappropriate school books as diversity, that would not be so egregious as the Director of two separate entities within American Library Association saying as much. She has a legal responsibility greater than the average attorney precisely because she is a Director, twice over, no less. Training librarians to dishonestly reframe sexually inappropriate material she knows to be inappropriate as diversity and inclusion in her position as Director of the Office for Intellectual Freedom and Director of the Freedom to Read Foundation at the American Library Association compounds her ethical violations per Comment 5 of RPC 8.4.
Lastly, regarding “The Right to Read Act of 2022,” whether or not she was “the actual or proximate cause for the introduction of S. 5064” is irrelevant to the ethical and professional considerations at hand. She specifically stated “sustained messaging” that “reframes” materials “sexually inappropriate for minors” as “diverse” and “inclusion” “needs to happen most, and it needs to happen before these bills are introduced.” Whether or not her unethical, unprofessional actions were the cause for one law or another is irrelevant to Rule 8.4 application.
So Deborah A. Caldwell-Stone has misrepresented or lied about the facts, and she has lied about the law. It’s not advocacy to advocate directly opposite of what the law states. That too is an ethical violation, compounded again by her dual positions as Directors. Her response to you may represent yet another ethical violation. This is why I am so shocked by her response to my ethics complaint. I had no idea when I brought this complaint that she would compound her ethics violations by misleading you about the facts and lying to you, the ARDC, about the law—on the very Rules of Professional Conduct themselves, no less.
I’m hoping there are significant consequences for her. I’m hoping her wrapping herself in the cloak of a librarian who simply cares about diversity and inclusion does not turn you aside from applying the Rules to any lawyer, and all lawyers, and ones who are Directors per Comment 5. I’ll bet there’s no similar ethical precedent of an attorney knowingly reframing harmful material for children as helpful, because her actions are so egregious that no previous lawyer has pushed this particular envelope. I am asking you to, please, give serious consideration to my complaint about a possible violation of Rule 8.4, and her disingenuous response, and perhaps you’ll have your own additional violations occasioned by that response containing lies and misrepresentations about both the law and the facts.
Children have no one to represent them. Not lawyers, not unions, not even parents who are intentionally misled by people passing off harmful materials for children as helpful—from a high perch within the American Library Association as Director. I’m hoping ARDC’s careful investigation and determination of what happened will end up being to the benefit of the children and the community as a whole, indeed the nation in this case, in part the very purpose for which the Rules of Professional Conduct where drawn up in the first place.
Thank you for your consideration.
Respectfully,
/Dan Kleinman/
Dan Kleinman
SafeLibraries® brand library educational services
641 Shunpike Rd #123
Chatham, NJ 07928
- - - 30 - - -
- "Right to Read Act Ethics Complaint," by Dan Kleinman, SafeLibraries, 27 October 2022.
Below is her response to which I responded as allowed by the ARDC, and I left out her large attachment of the so-called Right to Read Act:
URL of this page:
safelibraries.blogspot.com/2022/11/attorney-ethics-complaint-response.html
Follow @SexHarassed
safelibraries.blogspot.com/2022/11/attorney-ethics-complaint-response.html
Follow @SexHarassed
