INTRODUCTORY STATEMENT REGARDING CONSTITUTIONAL FAIRNESS AND JUDICIAL ACCOUNTABILITY Petitioner is also currently booking slots for a story on three different news channels, four different podcasts and working with four other litigants under the same treatment of the same court official, This is no longer coincidence, this is pattern behavior. I had further let the court know about the bribing incident from back when I first filed my properly filed and served motion, that my son called me from his father's house all upset because his father and his grandmother were attempting to bribe him to move back in with a new gaming setup, in the contempt hearing pictures. You will see the exact gaming setup that I let the court know about and I let the guardian ad litem know about. I have sent the guardian ad litem the text messages from my son, the phone calls log from my son and also the screenshot of the message I sent to his dad to tell him to stop and leave the child alone. I also sent the messages that I had sent to Mr Beck that he forwarded to the minor child. Conversations between myself and Mr Beck were screenshot and sent to the minor child, the minor child was extremely upset and it exacerbated the fact that he did not want to visit his father. This notice also goes to let the court know that the petitioner has brought forth to the court very severe and serious issues regarding respondent Mr Beck's engagement in bribery and incentivizing counseling, Guardian ad litem visits, and before court dates. This was brought to the court's attention and furthermore the petitioner brought to the court's attention that the behaviors continued after the court was aware of this, Mr Beck went as far as making a decoy cash app account and making another account so that he could further incentivize the minor child and bribe him. The 17-year-old minor child actually came directly to the petitioner because he felt extremely guilty about what his father had been saying and doing that he showed me the decoy cash app account and the new cash app account which had even further transactions on the exact dates of counseling, Guardian ad litem visits and one day before court. Petitioner Jamie Lynn Haeuser respectfully submits this Notice to address serious concerns regarding the structural fairness and constitutional integrity of the proceedings currently before this Court. The authority of the judiciary rests not merely upon the power of the bench, but upon adherence to the rule of law and the constitutional guarantees that protect every litigant who enters a courtroom seeking justice. Courts exist to apply the law impartially, to safeguard due process, and to ensure that the rights of the parties are evaluated by a neutral and unbiased tribunal. When circumstances arise that reasonably call into question the impartiality of the proceedings or the adherence to those constitutional principles, it becomes necessary to place those concerns clearly on the record. The law does not require litigants to remain silent in the face of potential violations of due process or judicial neutrality. To the contrary, the preservation of such issues is essential to maintaining both the fairness of the individual proceeding and the integrity of the judicial system as a whole. Accordingly, Petitioner submits this Notice to ensure that the record accurately reflects the constitutional concerns raised in this matter, including issues related to judicial impartiality, severe judicial misconduct, structural due process protections, and the appearance of fairness in these proceedings. This filing is made in good faith and with the express purpose of preserving the record for any review that may become necessary within the appellate courts or other appropriate forums charged with safeguarding the rule of law. Petitioner Jamie Lynn Haeuser respectfully files this Notice to address issues of judicial impartiality and to preserve constitutional objections arising during these proceedings. PETITIONER’S LEGAL STUDY AND GOOD-FAITH RECORD PRESERVATION Petitioner further places on the record that she has undertaken significant effort to understand the legal principles governing these proceedings. Over the course of approximately one year, Petitioner has studied legal materials relating to family law procedure, constitutional protections, and court process on a consistent and disciplined basis—approximately 3 days per week, for sessions averaging two-three hours each. This study had been undertaken In high school while attending an alternative school in Waukesha called the Lauer Center. Extremely qualified attorneys would come in to the school just to educate me because I had dreams back then of becoming an attorney. After realizing the corruption in the courts and the corrupt attorneys, I decided not to pursue legal studies. Becoming an attorney is something I could never do to because I couldn’t ever do to other families what has been done to so many wonderful parents in the past. Not even documenting the complete injustice and complete corruption surrounding these proceedings. Petitioner has further been studying law online since first filing for primary placement and child support in 2025 so that petitioner could meaningfully participate in these proceedings, properly preserve procedural and constitutional objections, and ensure that the record accurately reflects the issues presented to the Court. Petitioner therefore appears in this matter not merely as a self-represented party, but as a serious litigant who has made substantial efforts to understand the law, the procedural posture of this case, and the importance of building a clear and accurate record for review if necessary. Petitioner respectfully notes that careful record preservation is essential in any case where constitutional rights, corruption, fraud from both opposing counsel and gaurdian ad litem, fraud arising judicially, discrimination in open court, continued discrimination even after the court had been put on notice. Issues of judicial impartiality are implicated. Accordingly, the objections and concerns raised in this Notice are presented deliberately and in good faith to ensure that the record reflects the full scope of the legal issues involved in these proceedings. Petitioner further states that the objections and concerns raised herein are presented intentionally to ensure that any issues involving judicial impartiality, structural due process violations, or deprivation of constitutional protections are clearly preserved within the record, recognizing that such issues may require careful review by higher courts should appellate or supervisory jurisdiction ultimately be invoked. Petitioner therefore respectfully notes that the purpose of placing these matters clearly on the record is to ensure that the procedural history and constitutional issues presented in this case are accurately documented, so that any reviewing court, if called upon to examine the record, will be able to fully evaluate the fairness and integrity of these proceedings. The authority of a court is derived from the rule of law and from the public’s confidence that judges will faithfully uphold that law. When the conduct of a proceeding raises serious concerns regarding impartiality, fairness, or adherence to constitutional protections, those concerns cannot be ignored or delayed. Courts exist to enforce the law—not to depart from it—and every judge is sworn to administer justice in a manner that protects due process, preserves neutrality, and maintains public confidence in the integrity of the judicial system. Accordingly, Petitioner places the Court on notice that concerns regarding judicial impartiality and structural fairness in these proceedings remain active and unresolved and it seems as if there is a conspiracy to deprive petitioner of her civil and constitutional rights. This filing is submitted to preserve the record, to ensure that the issue of recusal is properly documented, and to reaffirm that the right to an impartial tribunal is a constitutional guarantee that cannot be forfeited simply because litigation is ongoing and that there is no time limit for judicial recusal when it comes to the importance of the public confidence and the right to an impartial tribunal. PRESERVATION OF RECORD FOR POTENTIAL CIVIL AND FEDERAL REVIEW Petitioner further places on the record that the minor child should have never been removed from her household in the first place and never should have been placed back with his father as well. The evidence of hearsay is not a proper or legal avenue to take away a parent's right to raise their child. The state intervened for no reason, there was no drug problem, the evidence put forth was fraudulent and the petitioner made you guys well aware of the fact, it is your fault for continuously ignoring her and silencing her. Petitioner is fully aware and ready to seek appropriate justice where Justice has not been served, a family court is supposed to put children first and the best interest of a child before anything, all this family court did was destroy a child's steady and stable life and place him with the exact person that kept on denying placement and abusing the minor child. The court has furthermore underestimated the lengths the petitioner will go through and to for her children. Petitioner further places on the record that the issues raised in this filing are preserved not only for purposes of appellate review within the Wisconsin court system, but also for any civil or federal review that may become appropriate should constitutional violations or actions taken under color of law ultimately require examination outside of the present proceedings. Petitioner respectfully notes that courts operate within a framework of accountability designed to ensure that constitutional protections are upheld and that litigants receive fair and impartial proceedings. When concerns arise regarding due process, judicial neutrality, or the misuse of governmental authority, the law provides mechanisms through which those issues may be examined by reviewing courts and, when appropriate, through civil remedies designed to protect constitutional rights. Accordingly, Petitioner places these concerns clearly on the record in order to preserve the procedural history and factual context necessary for any future review that may become necessary. Petitioner further states that her efforts to document these issues are motivated not only by the desire to protect her own rights and the welfare of her child, but also by a broader concern that no other families should be subjected to circumstances that undermine confidence in the fairness and integrity of the judicial process. Petitioner therefore respectfully affirms her determination to pursue every lawful avenue available to ensure that the issues raised in this matter are fully examined and that the protections afforded by law are meaningfully upheld for all litigants who rely upon the courts for justice. STRUCTURAL DUE PROCESS VIOLATIONS The right to a fair hearing before a neutral decision-maker is among the most fundamental guarantees recognized under both the United States Constitution and the Wisconsin Constitution. Due process requires not only the existence of procedures but the presence of a tribunal that is neutral, unbiased, and committed to applying the law fairly. When the neutrality of the tribunal itself becomes compromised, the error is considered structural. Structural errors are among the most serious defects recognized in the law because they undermine the reliability and legitimacy of the entire proceeding. Judicial bias or the appearance of bias strikes directly at the framework of the judicial process. When such concerns arise, the issue cannot be treated as a minor procedural matter. Instead, it raises constitutional questions that affect the integrity of every ruling issued within the proceeding. Courts have repeatedly recognized that even the appearance of bias can erode public confidence in the judiciary and may require disqualification in order to preserve the fairness of the process. For that reason, concerns regarding judicial impartiality must be addressed whenever they arise. ONGOING CONCERNS REGARDING JUDICIAL IMPARTIALITY AND POTENTIAL CONFLICTS OF INTEREST Petitioner further places on the record concerns regarding the appearance of judicial partiality throughout the course of these proceedings. Petitioner asserts that a consistent pattern has emerged in which rulings have repeatedly favored the Guardian ad Litem and Respondent, while motions and filings submitted by Petitioner have frequently been delayed, deferred, or left unresolved. When viewed collectively, Petitioner believes this pattern raises concerns regarding the appearance of unequal treatment before the Court. Petitioner also places on the record concerns regarding a potential conflict of interest arising from the professional relationship between the Court and the appointed Guardian ad Litem. During proceedings, the Court reportedly stated words to the effect that the Court had known the Guardian ad Litem for over a decade and trusted her judgment. While a long-standing professional relationship between members of the legal community is not uncommon and does not inherently constitute a conflict of interest, Petitioner respectfully notes that such statements may raise concerns when serious allegations regarding the conduct of the Guardian ad Litem are simultaneously being presented by a litigant. Petitioner states that, in such circumstances, the appearance of fairness requires that concerns raised by a party be carefully evaluated rather than dismissed solely on the basis of professional familiarity. The judicial obligation to maintain impartiality requires that all parties have confidence that allegations of misconduct will be evaluated independently and without predisposition. Petitioner also places on the record concerns regarding communications and coordination among legal actors within the proceedings that Petitioner believes may raise questions about the neutrality of the process. Petitioner asserts that certain actions taken during the course of the litigation—including alleged communications outside the presence of both parties and conduct that Petitioner believes has enabled violations of court orders—have contributed to a perception that the proceedings are not being administered with the impartiality required by due process. Petitioner further states that these concerns are raised because the welfare and safety of the minor child are at the center of the case, and the “best interests of the child” standard requires careful, objective evaluation of evidence and allegations presented by all parties. Petitioner asserts that misinformation regarding alleged substance use was introduced early in the proceedings and that the continued reliance upon those allegations has had serious consequences affecting the minor child. Petitioner respectfully submits that when issues of this nature arise—particularly in matters involving the safety and welfare of a child—the Court has an obligation to ensure that all concerns are examined thoroughly and that the proceedings remain free from the appearance of bias, favoritism, or predetermined conclusions. For these reasons, Petitioner places these concerns clearly on the record so that the full context of the proceedings may be preserved for any review that may occur within the judicial system. UNQUALIFIED INTERPRETATION The Guardian ad Litem has made medical and toxicological conclusions without qualifications. BIAS AND ONE-SIDED ADVOCACY The Guardian ad Litem: - Dismissed evidence favorable to Petitioner; - Reinforced Respondent’s narrative; - Failed to investigate impartially. - Has acted more as a rubber stamp for opposing counsel rather than independent. The proof is in the contempt motion where the guardian ad litem states that I tried to change the individual counselor of the minor child, followed by an email from opposing council stating that she knows I did not try to switch the individual counselor. This correlates because the guardian ad litem demands no evidence to proceed with claims by opposing counsel and does not investigate before stating something that can strengthen opposing counsel. HARM TO CHILD AND PROCEEDINGS This conduct has: - Undermined best interest analysis; - Contributed to unreliable court decisions; - Compromised the integrity of proceedings. OUTSIDE SCOPE OF IMMUNITY The actions described exceed the scope of quasi-judicial immunity and constitute actionable misconduct. PATTERN OF PROCEDURAL IRREGULARITIES AND ESCALATING PREJUDICE Petitioner further places on the record that the concerns raised in this Notice do not arise from a single isolated event but from what appears to be a developing pattern of procedural irregularities and escalating prejudice within the course of these proceedings. Courts have long recognized that the cumulative effect of repeated irregularities may raise serious concerns regarding the fairness and integrity of a judicial process, particularly when those irregularities affect one party disproportionately. When procedural decisions, delays in ruling on motions, inconsistent treatment of evidence, or dismissive treatment of legitimate legal objections occur repeatedly within a single matter, the issue ceases to be a routine disagreement between a litigant and the court. Instead, it raises legitimate questions regarding whether the proceedings are maintaining the neutrality and fairness required by due process. Petitioner respectfully places these concerns on the record because patterns of procedural irregularities, when viewed collectively, may demonstrate prejudice or the appearance of prejudice in a way that isolated events might not. Appellate courts frequently evaluate such issues by examining the totality of the circumstances and the cumulative impact of judicial conduct throughout the course of a proceeding. For that reason, Petitioner believes it is necessary and appropriate to document these issues as they arise so that the full procedural history of the case is accurately reflected within the record. This filing is therefore intended to ensure that the record clearly reflects the concerns raised regarding judicial neutrality, procedural fairness, and the preservation of constitutional rights throughout these proceedings. Petitioner respectfully submits that when viewed collectively, the procedural irregularities and concerns outlined in the record may reasonably give rise to questions regarding the fairness and neutrality of the proceedings, making careful record preservation both necessary and appropriate. HOSTILE BENCH AND JUDICIAL INTIMIDATION CONCERNS Petitioner further places on the record concerns regarding conduct that has created the appearance of a hostile bench environment. A courtroom must remain a neutral forum where parties are heard fairly and without intimidation. Judicial authority is accompanied by a duty to maintain impartiality and to treat litigants with fairness and respect. When the atmosphere of the courtroom appears hostile or intimidating toward a party, the fairness of the proceeding may reasonably be called into question. Judges are sworn to uphold the law, not to depart from it. Their authority is not unlimited power but authority exercised within the constraints of constitutional protections, judicial ethics, and the rule of law. Because of this responsibility, courts have long recognized that judges must avoid not only actual bias but also the appearance of bias, hostility, or favoritism. Petitioner respectfully places these concerns on the record in order to preserve the fairness and legitimacy of the proceedings. Legal Knowledge: INTRODUCTORY STATEMENT REGARDING CONSTITUTIONAL FAIRNESS AND JUDICIAL ACCOUNTABILITY Petitioner is also currently booking slots for a story on three different news channels, four different podcasts and working with four other litigants under the same treatment of the same court official, This is no longer coincidence, this is pattern behavior. I had further let the court know about the bribing incident from back when I first filed my properly filed and served motion, that my son called me from his father's house all upset because his father and his grandmother were attempting to bribe him to move back in with a new gaming setup, in the contempt hearing pictures. You will see the exact gaming setup that I let the court know about and I let the guardian ad litem know about. I have sent the guardian ad litem the text messages from my son, the phone calls log from my son and also the screenshot of the message I sent to his dad to tell him to stop and leave the child alone. I also sent the messages that I had sent to Mr Beck that he forwarded to the minor child. Conversations between myself and Mr Beck were screenshot and sent to the minor child, the minor child was extremely upset and it exacerbated the fact that he did not want to visit his father. This notice also goes to let the court know that the petitioner has brought forth to the court very severe and serious issues regarding respondent Mr Beck's engagement in bribery and incentivizing counseling, Guardian ad litem visits, and before court dates. This was brought to the court's attention and furthermore the petitioner brought to the court's attention that the behaviors continued after the court was aware of this, Mr Beck went as far as making a decoy cash app account and making another account so that he could further incentivize the minor child and bribe him. The 17-year-old minor child actually came directly to the petitioner because he felt extremely guilty about what his father had been saying and doing that he showed me the decoy cash app account and the new cash app account which had even further transactions on the exact dates of counseling, Guardian ad litem visits and one day before court. Petitioner Jamie Lynn Haeuser respectfully submits this Notice to address serious concerns regarding the structural fairness and constitutional integrity of the proceedings currently before this Court. The authority of the judiciary rests not merely upon the power of the bench, but upon adherence to the rule of law and the constitutional guarantees that protect every litigant who enters a courtroom seeking justice. Courts exist to apply the law impartially, to safeguard due process, and to ensure that the rights of the parties are evaluated by a neutral and unbiased tribunal. When circumstances arise that reasonably call into question the impartiality of the proceedings or the adherence to those constitutional principles, it becomes necessary to place those concerns clearly on the record. The law does not require litigants to remain silent in the face of potential violations of due process or judicial neutrality. To the contrary, the preservation of such issues is essential to maintaining both the fairness of the individual proceeding and the integrity of the judicial system as a whole. Accordingly, Petitioner submits this Notice to ensure that the record accurately reflects the constitutional concerns raised in this matter, including issues related to judicial impartiality, severe judicial misconduct, structural due process protections, and the appearance of fairness in these proceedings. This filing is made in good faith and with the express purpose of preserving the record for any review that may become necessary within the appellate courts or other appropriate forums charged with safeguarding the rule of law. Petitioner Jamie Lynn Haeuser respectfully files this Notice to address issues of judicial impartiality and to preserve constitutional objections arising during these proceedings. PETITIONER’S LEGAL STUDY AND GOOD-FAITH RECORD PRESERVATION Petitioner further places on the record that she has undertaken significant effort to understand the legal principles governing these proceedings. Over the course of approximately one year, Petitioner has studied legal materials relating to family law procedure, constitutional protections, and court process on a consistent and disciplined basis—approximately 3 days per week, for sessions averaging two-three hours each. This study had been undertaken In high school while attending an alternative school in Waukesha called the Lauer Center. Extremely qualified attorneys would come in to the school just to educate me because I had dreams back then of becoming an attorney. After realizing the corruption in the courts and the corrupt attorneys, I decided not to pursue legal studies. Becoming an attorney is something I could never do to because I couldn’t ever do to other families what has been done to so many wonderful parents in the past. Not even documenting the complete injustice and complete corruption surrounding these proceedings. Petitioner has further been studying law online since first filing for primary placement and child support in 2025 so that petitioner could meaningfully participate in these proceedings, properly preserve procedural and constitutional objections, and ensure that the record accurately reflects the issues presented to the Court. Petitioner therefore appears in this matter not merely as a self-represented party, but as a serious litigant who has made substantial efforts to understand the law, the procedural posture of this case, and the importance of building a clear and accurate record for review if necessary. Petitioner respectfully notes that careful record preservation is essential in any case where constitutional rights, corruption, fraud from both opposing counsel and gaurdian ad litem, fraud arising judicially, discrimination in open court, continued discrimination even after the court had been put on notice. Issues of judicial impartiality are implicated. Accordingly, the objections and concerns raised in this Notice are presented deliberately and in good faith to ensure that the record reflects the full scope of the legal issues involved in these proceedings. Petitioner further states that the objections and concerns raised herein are presented intentionally to ensure that any issues involving judicial impartiality, structural due process violations, or deprivation of constitutional protections are clearly preserved within the record, recognizing that such issues may require careful review by higher courts should appellate or supervisory jurisdiction ultimately be invoked. Petitioner therefore respectfully notes that the purpose of placing these matters clearly on the record is to ensure that the procedural history and constitutional issues presented in this case are accurately documented, so that any reviewing court, if called upon to examine the record, will be able to fully evaluate the fairness and integrity of these proceedings. The authority of a court is derived from the rule of law and from the public’s confidence that judges will faithfully uphold that law. When the conduct of a proceeding raises serious concerns regarding impartiality, fairness, or adherence to constitutional protections, those concerns cannot be ignored or delayed. Courts exist to enforce the law—not to depart from it—and every judge is sworn to administer justice in a manner that protects due process, preserves neutrality, and maintains public confidence in the integrity of the judicial system. Accordingly, Petitioner places the Court on notice that concerns regarding judicial impartiality and structural fairness in these proceedings remain active and unresolved and it seems as if there is a conspiracy to deprive petitioner of her civil and constitutional rights. This filing is submitted to preserve the record, to ensure that the issue of recusal is properly documented, and to reaffirm that the right to an impartial tribunal is a constitutional guarantee that cannot be forfeited simply because litigation is ongoing and that there is no time limit for judicial recusal when it comes to the importance of the public confidence and the right to an impartial tribunal. PRESERVATION OF RECORD FOR POTENTIAL CIVIL AND FEDERAL REVIEW Petitioner further places on the record that the minor child should have never been removed from her household in the first place and never should have been placed back with his father as well. The evidence of hearsay is not a proper or legal avenue to take away a parent's right to raise their child. The state intervened for no reason, there was no drug problem, the evidence put forth was fraudulent and the petitioner made you guys well aware of the fact, it is your fault for continuously ignoring her and silencing her. Petitioner is fully aware and ready to seek appropriate justice where Justice has not been served, a family court is supposed to put children first and the best interest of a child before anything, all this family court did was destroy a child's steady and stable life and place him with the exact person that kept on denying placement and abusing the minor child. The court has furthermore underestimated the lengths the petitioner will go through and to for her children. Petitioner further places on the record that the issues raised in this filing are preserved not only for purposes of appellate review within the Wisconsin court system, but also for any civil or federal review that may become appropriate should constitutional violations or actions taken under color of law ultimately require examination outside of the present proceedings. Petitioner respectfully notes that courts operate within a framework of accountability designed to ensure that constitutional protections are upheld and that litigants receive fair and impartial proceedings. When concerns arise regarding due process, judicial neutrality, or the misuse of governmental authority, the law provides mechanisms through which those issues may be examined by reviewing courts and, when appropriate, through civil remedies designed to protect constitutional rights. Accordingly, Petitioner places these concerns clearly on the record in order to preserve the procedural history and factual context necessary for any future review that may become necessary. Petitioner further states that her efforts to document these issues are motivated not only by the desire to protect her own rights and the welfare of her child, but also by a broader concern that no other families should be subjected to circumstances that undermine confidence in the fairness and integrity of the judicial process. Petitioner therefore respectfully affirms her determination to pursue every lawful avenue available to ensure that the issues raised in this matter are fully examined and that the protections afforded by law are meaningfully upheld for all litigants who rely upon the courts for justice. STRUCTURAL DUE PROCESS VIOLATIONS The right to a fair hearing before a neutral decision-maker is among the most fundamental guarantees recognized under both the United States Constitution and the Wisconsin Constitution. Due process requires not only the existence of procedures but the presence of a tribunal that is neutral, unbiased, and committed to applying the law fairly. When the neutrality of the tribunal itself becomes compromised, the error is considered structural. Structural errors are among the most serious defects recognized in the law because they undermine the reliability and legitimacy of the entire proceeding. Judicial bias or the appearance of bias strikes directly at the framework of the judicial process. When such concerns arise, the issue cannot be treated as a minor procedural matter. Instead, it raises constitutional questions that affect the integrity of every ruling issued within the proceeding. Courts have repeatedly recognized that even the appearance of bias can erode public confidence in the judiciary and may require disqualification in order to preserve the fairness of the process. For that reason, concerns regarding judicial impartiality must be addressed whenever they arise. ONGOING CONCERNS REGARDING JUDICIAL IMPARTIALITY AND POTENTIAL CONFLICTS OF INTEREST Petitioner further places on the record concerns regarding the appearance of judicial partiality throughout the course of these proceedings. Petitioner asserts that a consistent pattern has emerged in which rulings have repeatedly favored the Guardian ad Litem and Respondent, while motions and filings submitted by Petitioner have frequently been delayed, deferred, or left unresolved. When viewed collectively, Petitioner believes this pattern raises concerns regarding the appearance of unequal treatment before the Court. Petitioner also places on the record concerns regarding a potential conflict of interest arising from the professional relationship between the Court and the appointed Guardian ad Litem. During proceedings, the Court reportedly stated words to the effect that the Court had known the Guardian ad Litem for over a decade and trusted her judgment. While a long-standing professional relationship between members of the legal community is not uncommon and does not inherently constitute a conflict of interest, Petitioner respectfully notes that such statements may raise concerns when serious allegations regarding the conduct of the Guardian ad Litem are simultaneously being presented by a litigant. Petitioner states that, in such circumstances, the appearance of fairness requires that concerns raised by a party be carefully evaluated rather than dismissed solely on the basis of professional familiarity. The judicial obligation to maintain impartiality requires that all parties have confidence that allegations of misconduct will be evaluated independently and without predisposition. Petitioner also places on the record concerns regarding communications and coordination among legal actors within the proceedings that Petitioner believes may raise questions about the neutrality of the process. Petitioner asserts that certain actions taken during the course of the litigation—including alleged communications outside the presence of both parties and conduct that Petitioner believes has enabled violations of court orders—have contributed to a perception that the proceedings are not being administered with the impartiality required by due process. Petitioner further states that these concerns are raised because the welfare and safety of the minor child are at the center of the case, and the “best interests of the child” standard requires careful, objective evaluation of evidence and allegations presented by all parties. Petitioner asserts that misinformation regarding alleged substance use was introduced early in the proceedings and that the continued reliance upon those allegations has had serious consequences affecting the minor child. Petitioner respectfully submits that when issues of this nature arise—particularly in matters involving the safety and welfare of a child—the Court has an obligation to ensure that all concerns are examined thoroughly and that the proceedings remain free from the appearance of bias, favoritism, or predetermined conclusions. For these reasons, Petitioner places these concerns clearly on the record so that the full context of the proceedings may be preserved for any review that may occur within the judicial system. UNQUALIFIED INTERPRETATION The Guardian ad Litem has made medical and toxicological conclusions without qualifications. BIAS AND ONE-SIDED ADVOCACY The Guardian ad Litem: - Dismissed evidence favorable to Petitioner; - Reinforced Respondent’s narrative; - Failed to investigate impartially. - Has acted more as a rubber stamp for opposing counsel rather than independent. The proof is in the contempt motion where the guardian ad litem states that I tried to change the individual counselor of the minor child, followed by an email from opposing council stating that she knows I did not try to switch the individual counselor. This correlates because the guardian ad litem demands no evidence to proceed with claims by opposing counsel and does not investigate before stating something that can strengthen opposing counsel. HARM TO CHILD AND PROCEEDINGS This conduct has: - Undermined best interest analysis; - Contributed to unreliable court decisions; - Compromised the integrity of proceedings. OUTSIDE SCOPE OF IMMUNITY The actions described exceed the scope of quasi-judicial immunity and constitute actionable misconduct. PATTERN OF PROCEDURAL IRREGULARITIES AND ESCALATING PREJUDICE Petitioner further places on the record that the concerns raised in this Notice do not arise from a single isolated event but from what appears to be a developing pattern of procedural irregularities and escalating prejudice within the course of these proceedings. Courts have long recognized that the cumulative effect of repeated irregularities may raise serious concerns regarding the fairness and integrity of a judicial process, particularly when those irregularities affect one party disproportionately. When procedural decisions, delays in ruling on motions, inconsistent treatment of evidence, or dismissive treatment of legitimate legal objections occur repeatedly within a single matter, the issue ceases to be a routine disagreement between a litigant and the court. Instead, it raises legitimate questions regarding whether the proceedings are maintaining the neutrality and fairness required by due process. Petitioner respectfully places these concerns on the record because patterns of procedural irregularities, when viewed collectively, may demonstrate prejudice or the appearance of prejudice in a way that isolated events might not. Appellate courts frequently evaluate such issues by examining the totality of the circumstances and the cumulative impact of judicial conduct throughout the course of a proceeding. For that reason, Petitioner believes it is necessary and appropriate to document these issues as they arise so that the full procedural history of the case is accurately reflected within the record. This filing is therefore intended to ensure that the record clearly reflects the concerns raised regarding judicial neutrality, procedural fairness, and the preservation of constitutional rights throughout these proceedings. Petitioner respectfully submits that when viewed collectively, the procedural irregularities and concerns outlined in the record may reasonably give rise to questions regarding the fairness and neutrality of the proceedings, making careful record preservation both necessary and appropriate. HOSTILE BENCH AND JUDICIAL INTIMIDATION CONCERNS Petitioner further places on the record concerns regarding conduct that has created the appearance of a hostile bench environment. A courtroom must remain a neutral forum where parties are heard fairly and without intimidation. Judicial authority is accompanied by a duty to maintain impartiality and to treat litigants with fairness and respect. When the atmosphere of the courtroom appears hostile or intimidating toward a party, the fairness of the proceeding may reasonably be called into question. Judges are sworn to uphold the law, not to depart from it. Their authority is not unlimited power but authority exercised within the constraints of constitutional protections, judicial ethics, and the rule of law. Because of this responsibility, courts have long recognized that judges must avoid not only actual bias but also the appearance of bias, hostility, or favoritism. Petitioner respectfully places these concerns on the record in order to preserve the fairness and legitimacy of the proceedings. TIMING OF RECUSAL REQUESTS Recusal concerns are Fairness & Impartiality: INTRODUCTORY STATEMENT REGARDING CONSTITUTIONAL FAIRNESS AND JUDICIAL ACCOUNTABILITY Petitioner is also currently booking slots for a story on three different news channels, four different podcasts and working with four other litigants under the same treatment of the same court official, This is no longer coincidence, this is pattern behavior. I had further let the court know about the bribing incident from back when I first filed my properly filed and served motion, that my son called me from his father's house all upset because his father and his grandmother were attempting to bribe him to move back in with a new gaming setup, in the contempt hearing pictures. You will see the exact gaming setup that I let the court know about and I let the guardian ad litem know about. I have sent the guardian ad litem the text messages from my son, the phone calls log from my son and also the screenshot of the message I sent to his dad to tell him to stop and leave the child alone. I also sent the messages that I had sent to Mr Beck that he forwarded to the minor child. Conversations between myself and Mr Beck were screenshot and sent to the minor child, the minor child was extremely upset and it exacerbated the fact that he did not want to visit his father. This notice also goes to let the court know that the petitioner has brought forth to the court very severe and serious issues regarding respondent Mr Beck's engagement in bribery and incentivizing counseling, Guardian ad litem visits, and before court dates. This was brought to the court's attention and furthermore the petitioner brought to the court's attention that the behaviors continued after the court was aware of this, Mr Beck went as far as making a decoy cash app account and making another account so that he could further incentivize the minor child and bribe him. The 17-year-old minor child actually came directly to the petitioner because he felt extremely guilty about what his father had been saying and doing that he showed me the decoy cash app account and the new cash app account which had even further transactions on the exact dates of counseling, Guardian ad litem visits and one day before court. Petitioner Jamie Lynn Haeuser respectfully submits this Notice to address serious concerns regarding the structural fairness and constitutional integrity of the proceedings currently before this Court. The authority of the judiciary rests not merely upon the power of the bench, but upon adherence to the rule of law and the constitutional guarantees that protect every litigant who enters a courtroom seeking justice. Courts exist to apply the law impartially, to safeguard due process, and to ensure that the rights of the parties are evaluated by a neutral and unbiased tribunal. When circumstances arise that reasonably call into question the impartiality of the proceedings or the adherence to those constitutional principles, it becomes necessary to place those concerns clearly on the record. The law does not require litigants to remain silent in the face of potential violations of due process or judicial neutrality. To the contrary, the preservation of such issues is essential to maintaining both the fairness of the individual proceeding and the integrity of the judicial system as a whole. Accordingly, Petitioner submits this Notice to ensure that the record accurately reflects the constitutional concerns raised in this matter, including issues related to judicial impartiality, severe judicial misconduct, structural due process protections, and the appearance of fairness in these proceedings. This filing is made in good faith and with the express purpose of preserving the record for any review that may become necessary within the appellate courts or other appropriate forums charged with safeguarding the rule of law. Petitioner Jamie Lynn Haeuser respectfully files this Notice to address issues of judicial impartiality and to preserve constitutional objections arising during these proceedings. PETITIONER’S LEGAL STUDY AND GOOD-FAITH RECORD PRESERVATION Petitioner further places on the record that she has undertaken significant effort to understand the legal principles governing these proceedings. Over the course of approximately one year, Petitioner has studied legal materials relating to family law procedure, constitutional protections, and court process on a consistent and disciplined basis—approximately 3 days per week, for sessions averaging two-three hours each. This study had been undertaken In high school while attending an alternative school in Waukesha called the Lauer Center. Extremely qualified attorneys would come in to the school just to educate me because I had dreams back then of becoming an attorney. After realizing the corruption in the courts and the corrupt attorneys, I decided not to pursue legal studies. Becoming an attorney is something I could never do to because I couldn’t ever do to other families what has been done to so many wonderful parents in the past. Not even documenting the complete injustice and complete corruption surrounding these proceedings. Petitioner has further been studying law online since first filing for primary placement and child support in 2025 so that petitioner could meaningfully participate in these proceedings, properly preserve procedural and constitutional objections, and ensure that the record accurately reflects the issues presented to the Court. Petitioner therefore appears in this matter not merely as a self-represented party, but as a serious litigant who has made substantial efforts to understand the law, the procedural posture of this case, and the importance of building a clear and accurate record for review if necessary. Petitioner respectfully notes that careful record preservation is essential in any case where constitutional rights, corruption, fraud from both opposing counsel and gaurdian ad litem, fraud arising judicially, discrimination in open court, continued discrimination even after the court had been put on notice. Issues of judicial impartiality are implicated. Accordingly, the objections and concerns raised in this Notice are presented deliberately and in good faith to ensure that the record reflects the full scope of the legal issues involved in these proceedings. Petitioner further states that the objections and concerns raised herein are presented intentionally to ensure that any issues involving judicial impartiality, structural due process violations, or deprivation of constitutional protections are clearly preserved within the record, recognizing that such issues may require careful review by higher courts should appellate or supervisory jurisdiction ultimately be invoked. Petitioner therefore respectfully notes that the purpose of placing these matters clearly on the record is to ensure that the procedural history and constitutional issues presented in this case are accurately documented, so that any reviewing court, if called upon to examine the record, will be able to fully evaluate the fairness and integrity of these proceedings. The authority of a court is derived from the rule of law and from the public’s confidence that judges will faithfully uphold that law. When the conduct of a proceeding raises serious concerns regarding impartiality, fairness, or adherence to constitutional protections, those concerns cannot be ignored or delayed. Courts exist to enforce the law—not to depart from it—and every judge is sworn to administer justice in a manner that protects due process, preserves neutrality, and maintains public confidence in the integrity of the judicial system. Accordingly, Petitioner places the Court on notice that concerns regarding judicial impartiality and structural fairness in these proceedings remain active and unresolved and it seems as if there is a conspiracy to deprive petitioner of her civil and constitutional rights. This filing is submitted to preserve the record, to ensure that the issue of recusal is properly documented, and to reaffirm that the right to an impartial tribunal is a constitutional guarantee that cannot be forfeited simply because litigation is ongoing and that there is no time limit for judicial recusal when it comes to the importance of the public confidence and the right to an impartial tribunal. PRESERVATION OF RECORD FOR POTENTIAL CIVIL AND FEDERAL REVIEW Petitioner further places on the record that the minor child should have never been removed from her household in the first place and never should have been placed back with his father as well. The evidence of hearsay is not a proper or legal avenue to take away a parent's right to raise their child. The state intervened for no reason, there was no drug problem, the evidence put forth was fraudulent and the petitioner made you guys well aware of the fact, it is your fault for continuously ignoring her and silencing her. Petitioner is fully aware and ready to seek appropriate justice where Justice has not been served, a family court is supposed to put children first and the best interest of a child before anything, all this family court did was destroy a child's steady and stable life and place him with the exact person that kept on denying placement and abusing the minor child. The court has furthermore underestimated the lengths the petitioner will go through and to for her children. Petitioner further places on the record that the issues raised in this filing are preserved not only for purposes of appellate review within the Wisconsin court system, but also for any civil or federal review that may become appropriate should constitutional violations or actions taken under color of law ultimately require examination outside of the present proceedings. Petitioner respectfully notes that courts operate within a framework of accountability designed to ensure that constitutional protections are upheld and that litigants receive fair and impartial proceedings. When concerns arise regarding due process, judicial neutrality, or the misuse of governmental authority, the law provides mechanisms through which those issues may be examined by reviewing courts and, when appropriate, through civil remedies designed to protect constitutional rights. Accordingly, Petitioner places these concerns clearly on the record in order to preserve the procedural history and factual context necessary for any future review that may become necessary. Petitioner further states that her efforts to document these issues are motivated not only by the desire to protect her own rights and the welfare of her child, but also by a broader concern that no other families should be subjected to circumstances that undermine confidence in the fairness and integrity of the judicial process. Petitioner therefore respectfully affirms her determination to pursue every lawful avenue available to ensure that the issues raised in this matter are fully examined and that the protections afforded by law are meaningfully upheld for all litigants who rely upon the courts for justice. STRUCTURAL DUE PROCESS VIOLATIONS The right to a fair hearing before a neutral decision-maker is among the most fundamental guarantees recognized under both the United States Constitution and the Wisconsin Constitution. Due process requires not only the existence of procedures but the presence of a tribunal that is neutral, unbiased, and committed to applying the law fairly. When the neutrality of the tribunal itself becomes compromised, the error is considered structural. Structural errors are among the most serious defects recognized in the law because they undermine the reliability and legitimacy of the entire proceeding. Judicial bias or the appearance of bias strikes directly at the framework of the judicial process. When such concerns arise, the issue cannot be treated as a minor procedural matter. Instead, it raises constitutional questions that affect the integrity of every ruling issued within the proceeding. Courts have repeatedly recognized that even the appearance of bias can erode public confidence in the judiciary and may require disqualification in order to preserve the fairness of the process. For that reason, concerns regarding judicial impartiality must be addressed whenever they arise. ONGOING CONCERNS REGARDING JUDICIAL IMPARTIALITY AND POTENTIAL CONFLICTS OF INTEREST Petitioner further places on the record concerns regarding the appearance of judicial partiality throughout the course of these proceedings. Petitioner asserts that a consistent pattern has emerged in which rulings have repeatedly favored the Guardian ad Litem and Respondent, while motions and filings submitted by Petitioner have frequently been delayed, deferred, or left unresolved. When viewed collectively, Petitioner believes this pattern raises concerns regarding the appearance of unequal treatment before the Court. Petitioner also places on the record concerns regarding a potential conflict of interest arising from the professional relationship between the Court and the appointed Guardian ad Litem. During proceedings, the Court reportedly stated words to the effect that the Court had known the Guardian ad Litem for over a decade and trusted her judgment. While a long-standing professional relationship between members of the legal community is not uncommon and does not inherently constitute a conflict of interest, Petitioner respectfully notes that such statements may raise concerns when serious allegations regarding the conduct of the Guardian ad Litem are simultaneously being presented by a litigant. Petitioner states that, in such circumstances, the appearance of fairness requires that concerns raised by a party be carefully evaluated rather than dismissed solely on the basis of professional familiarity. The judicial obligation to maintain impartiality requires that all parties have confidence that allegations of misconduct will be evaluated independently and without predisposition. Petitioner also places on the record concerns regarding communications and coordination among legal actors within the proceedings that Petitioner believes may raise questions about the neutrality of the process. Petitioner asserts that certain actions taken during the course of the litigation—including alleged communications outside the presence of both parties and conduct that Petitioner believes has enabled violations of court orders—have contributed to a perception that the proceedings are not being administered with the impartiality required by due process. Petitioner further states that these concerns are raised because the welfare and safety of the minor child are at the center of the case, and the “best interests of the child” standard requires careful, objective evaluation of evidence and allegations presented by all parties. Petitioner asserts that misinformation regarding alleged substance use was introduced early in the proceedings and that the continued reliance upon those allegations has had serious consequences affecting the minor child. Petitioner respectfully submits that when issues of this nature arise—particularly in matters involving the safety and welfare of a child—the Court has an obligation to ensure that all concerns are examined thoroughly and that the proceedings remain free from the appearance of bias, favoritism, or predetermined conclusions. For these reasons, Petitioner places these concerns clearly on the record so that the full context of the proceedings may be preserved for any review that may occur within the judicial system. UNQUALIFIED INTERPRETATION The Guardian ad Litem has made medical and toxicological conclusions without qualifications. BIAS AND ONE-SIDED ADVOCACY The Guardian ad Litem: - Dismissed evidence favorable to Petitioner; - Reinforced Respondent’s narrative; - Failed to investigate impartially. - Has acted more as a rubber stamp for opposing counsel rather than independent. The proof is in the contempt motion where the guardian ad litem states that I tried to change the individual counselor of the minor child, followed by an email from opposing council stating that she knows I did not try to switch the individual counselor. This correlates because the guardian ad litem demands no evidence to proceed with claims by opposing counsel and does not investigate before stating something that can strengthen opposing counsel. HARM TO CHILD AND PROCEEDINGS This conduct has: - Undermined best interest analysis; - Contributed to unreliable court decisions; - Compromised the integrity of proceedings. OUTSIDE SCOPE OF IMMUNITY The actions described exceed the scope of quasi-judicial immunity and constitute actionable misconduct. PATTERN OF PROCEDURAL IRREGULARITIES AND ESCALATING PREJUDICE Petitioner further places on the record that the concerns raised in this Notice do not arise from a single isolated event but from what appears to be a developing pattern of procedural irregularities and escalating prejudice within the course of these proceedings. Courts have long recognized that the cumulative effect of repeated irregularities may raise serious concerns regarding the fairness and integrity of a judicial process, particularly when those irregularities affect one party disproportionately. When procedural decisions, delays in ruling on motions, inconsistent treatment of evidence, or dismissive treatment of legitimate legal objections occur repeatedly within a single matter, the issue ceases to be a routine disagreement between a litigant and the court. Instead, it raises legitimate questions regarding whether the proceedings are maintaining the neutrality and fairness required by due process. Petitioner respectfully places these concerns on the record because patterns of procedural irregularities, when viewed collectively, may demonstrate prejudice or the appearance of prejudice in a way that isolated events might not. Appellate courts frequently evaluate such issues by examining the totality of the circumstances and the cumulative impact of judicial conduct throughout the course of a proceeding. For that reason, Petitioner believes it is necessary and appropriate to document these issues as they arise so that the full procedural history of the case is accurately reflected within the record. This filing is therefore intended to ensure that the record clearly reflects the concerns raised regarding judicial neutrality, procedural fairness, and the preservation of constitutional rights throughout these proceedings. Petitioner respectfully submits that when viewed collectively, the procedural irregularities and concerns outlined in the record may reasonably give rise to questions regarding the fairness and neutrality of the proceedings, making careful record preservation both necessary and appropriate. HOSTILE BENCH AND JUDICIAL INTIMIDATION CONCERNS Petitioner further places on the record concerns regarding conduct that has created the appearance of a hostile bench environment. A courtroom must remain a neutral forum where parties are heard fairly and without intimidation. Judicial authority is accompanied by a duty to maintain impartiality and to treat litigants with fairness and respect. When the atmosphere of the courtroom appears hostile or intimidating toward a party, the fairness of the proceeding may reasonably be called into question. Judges are sworn to uphold the law, not to depart from it. Their authority is not unlimited power but authority exercised within the constraints of constitutional protections, judicial ethics, and the rule of law. Because of this responsibility, courts have long recognized that judges must avoid not only actual bias but also the appearance of bias, hostility, or favoritism. Petitioner respectfully places these concerns on the record in order to preserve the fairness and legitimacy of the proceedings. TIMING OF RECUSAL REQUESTS Recusal concerns are not limited to a single moment at the beginning of litigation. Judicial bias often becomes apparent through conduct occurring during hearings, rulings, and procedural decisions throughout the life of a case. Courts therefore recognize that recusal concerns may be raised whenever the facts giving rise to such concerns become apparent. Which the petitioner is privy to this information and knows that there is no exact time frame of when a judge can and cannot recuse themselves, rather an impartial and bias tribunal can do far more damage than a rightful recusal would ever do. A litigant cannot reasonably be expected to challenge bias before the conduct demonstrating that bias has occurred. For that reason, concerns regarding judicial impartiality remain timely whenever they arise during the course of proceedings. Petitioner therefore respectfully places on the record that objections related to judicial impartiality are ongoing and have not been waived. WHY IMMEDIATE INTERVENTION IS NECESSARY The preservation of judicial neutrality is essential to the integrity of the legal system. When questions arise regarding the impartiality of the tribunal itself, the issue cannot simply be postponed until after final judgment. If the structural fairness of the proceedings is compromised, the resulting harm cannot easily be remedied later. Addressing such concerns promptly is necessary to ensure that the proceedings remain lawful and constitutionally sound. Failure to address issues of judicial impartiality risks undermining the legitimacy of the proceedings and may ultimately require review by higher courts in order to protect the constitutional rights of the parties involved. For that reason, Petitioner respectfully places these concerns on the record and preserves the right to seek appropriate review if necessary. APPEARANCE OF JUSTICE AND PUBLIC CONFIDENCE IN THE COURTS The judiciary occupies a unique and critical role within a constitutional system of government. Courts are entrusted not only with resolving disputes between parties but also with preserving public confidence in the rule of law. For that reason, the United States Supreme Court and numerous reviewing courts have repeatedly emphasized that justice must not only be done, but must also be seen to be done. The legitimacy of judicial proceedings depends not only upon the actual fairness of the process but also upon the appearance of fairness to the parties involved and to the public at large. When circumstances arise that reasonably call into question the impartiality of the tribunal or the fairness of the proceedings, those concerns must be addressed carefully and transparently. The appearance of justice is essential to maintaining confidence in the judiciary and ensuring that litigants believe their rights have been heard and evaluated in a neutral forum. Petitioner respectfully raises the issues contained within this Notice not out of disrespect for the institution of the Court, but out of respect for the principle that the judiciary must remain a place where the law governs outcomes rather than the exercise of unchecked authority. Preserving the appearance of justice is particularly important in family court matters, where the rights of parents and the welfare of children are directly affected by the decisions of the Court. Ensuring that proceedings are conducted in a manner that reflects neutrality, fairness, and adherence to the rule of law serves not only the interests of the parties but also the integrity of the judicial system itself. For these reasons, Petitioner respectfully submits that placing these concerns clearly on the record is necessary to preserve both the fairness of these proceedings and the appearance of justice that the public is entitled to expect from the courts. CONTINUED PROCEEDINGS UNDER THE CURRENT CIRCUMSTANCES RISK IRREPARABLE HARM Petitioner respectfully notes that concerns regarding judicial impartiality and structural fairness are not merely theoretical matters. When such concerns arise during active proceedings, the continuation of those proceedings without addressing the underlying issues may result in irreparable harm that cannot easily be remedied after the fact. Courts have long recognized that certain violations—particularly those involving due process, judicial neutrality, and the structural integrity of the tribunal—cannot always be cured through ordinary appellate review once proceedings have concluded. If a proceeding continues under circumstances where the neutrality of the tribunal is reasonably in question, the resulting decisions may carry consequences that cannot be fully undone, particularly in family court matters involving the welfare of a child and the fundamental rights of parents. For that reason, issues involving judicial impartiality and structural due process are often addressed promptly when raised, in order to ensure that the proceedings themselves remain constitutionally sound from the outset. Addressing such concerns early protects not only the rights of the parties but also the integrity of the judicial process. Petitioner therefore respectfully places these concerns on the record to ensure that the fairness of the proceedings is preserved and that any reviewing court, if called upon to examine the matter, will have a clear understanding of the constitutional concerns raised during the course of this case. Petitioner respectfully states that a judge is supposed to make recusal requests independently. However when asked by the petitioner to recuse ones self on the record, the court instead turned to opposing counsel and the guardian ad litem to ask their opinion on recusal. Then proceeded to deny recusal because of the opinion from the opposing counsel and guardian ad litem. The exact people who continue to gain advantage from Judge Jack Pitzo not recusing. CONCLUSION AND PRESERVATION OF THE RECORD Petitioner files this Notice in order to ensure that the record clearly reflects the following: • Concerns regarding judicial impartiality remain active and unresolved • Objections related to structural due process have been preserved • Recusal concerns remain timely whenever bias becomes apparent • The fairness and neutrality of the proceedings must remain paramount Judicial Temperament: INTRODUCTORY STATEMENT REGARDING CONSTITUTIONAL FAIRNESS AND JUDICIAL ACCOUNTABILITY Petitioner is also currently booking slots for a story on three different news channels, four different podcasts and working with four other litigants under the same treatment of the same court official, This is no longer coincidence, this is pattern behavior. I had further let the court know about the bribing incident from back when I first filed my properly filed and served motion, that my son called me from his father's house all upset because his father and his grandmother were attempting to bribe him to move back in with a new gaming setup, in the contempt hearing pictures. You will see the exact gaming setup that I let the court know about and I let the guardian ad litem know about. I have sent the guardian ad litem the text messages from my son, the phone calls log from my son and also the screenshot of the message I sent to his dad to tell him to stop and leave the child alone. I also sent the messages that I had sent to Mr Beck that he forwarded to the minor child. Conversations between myself and Mr Beck were screenshot and sent to the minor child, the minor child was extremely upset and it exacerbated the fact that he did not want to visit his father. This notice also goes to let the court know that the petitioner has brought forth to the court very severe and serious issues regarding respondent Mr Beck's engagement in bribery and incentivizing counseling, Guardian ad litem visits, and before court dates. This was brought to the court's attention and furthermore the petitioner brought to the court's attention that the behaviors continued after the court was aware of this, Mr Beck went as far as making a decoy cash app account and making another account so that he could further incentivize the minor child and bribe him. The 17-year-old minor child actually came directly to the petitioner because he felt extremely guilty about what his father had been saying and doing that he showed me the decoy cash app account and the new cash app account which had even further transactions on the exact dates of counseling, Guardian ad litem visits and one day before court. Petitioner Jamie Lynn Haeuser respectfully submits this Notice to address serious concerns regarding the structural fairness and constitutional integrity of the proceedings currently before this Court. The authority of the judiciary rests not merely upon the power of the bench, but upon adherence to the rule of law and the constitutional guarantees that protect every litigant who enters a courtroom seeking justice. Courts exist to apply the law impartially, to safeguard due process, and to ensure that the rights of the parties are evaluated by a neutral and unbiased tribunal. When circumstances arise that reasonably call into question the impartiality of the proceedings or the adherence to those constitutional principles, it becomes necessary to place those concerns clearly on the record. The law does not require litigants to remain silent in the face of potential violations of due process or judicial neutrality. To the contrary, the preservation of such issues is essential to maintaining both the fairness of the individual proceeding and the integrity of the judicial system as a whole. Accordingly, Petitioner submits this Notice to ensure that the record accurately reflects the constitutional concerns raised in this matter, including issues related to judicial impartiality, severe judicial misconduct, structural due process protections, and the appearance of fairness in these proceedings. This filing is made in good faith and with the express purpose of preserving the record for any review that may become necessary within the appellate courts or other appropriate forums charged with safeguarding the rule of law. Petitioner Jamie Lynn Haeuser respectfully files this Notice to address issues of judicial impartiality and to preserve constitutional objections arising during these proceedings. PETITIONER’S LEGAL STUDY AND GOOD-FAITH RECORD PRESERVATION Petitioner further places on the record that she has undertaken significant effort to understand the legal principles governing these proceedings. Over the course of approximately one year, Petitioner has studied legal materials relating to family law procedure, constitutional protections, and court process on a consistent and disciplined basis—approximately 3 days per week, for sessions averaging two-three hours each. This study had been undertaken In high school while attending an alternative school in Waukesha called the Lauer Center. Extremely qualified attorneys would come in to the school just to educate me because I had dreams back then of becoming an attorney. After realizing the corruption in the courts and the corrupt attorneys, I decided not to pursue legal studies. Becoming an attorney is something I could never do to because I couldn’t ever do to other families what has been done to so many wonderful parents in the past. Not even documenting the complete injustice and complete corruption surrounding these proceedings. Petitioner has further been studying law online since first filing for primary placement and child support in 2025 so that petitioner could meaningfully participate in these proceedings, properly preserve procedural and constitutional objections, and ensure that the record accurately reflects the issues presented to the Court. Petitioner therefore appears in this matter not merely as a self-represented party, but as a serious litigant who has made substantial efforts to understand the law, the procedural posture of this case, and the importance of building a clear and accurate record for review if necessary. Petitioner respectfully notes that careful record preservation is essential in any case where constitutional rights, corruption, fraud from both opposing counsel and gaurdian ad litem, fraud arising judicially, discrimination in open court, continued discrimination even after the court had been put on notice. Issues of judicial impartiality are implicated. Accordingly, the objections and concerns raised in this Notice are presented deliberately and in good faith to ensure that the record reflects the full scope of the legal issues involved in these proceedings. Petitioner further states that the objections and concerns raised herein are presented intentionally to ensure that any issues involving judicial impartiality, structural due process violations, or deprivation of constitutional protections are clearly preserved within the record, recognizing that such issues may require careful review by higher courts should appellate or supervisory jurisdiction ultimately be invoked. Petitioner therefore respectfully notes that the purpose of placing these matters clearly on the record is to ensure that the procedural history and constitutional issues presented in this case are accurately documented, so that any reviewing court, if called upon to examine the record, will be able to fully evaluate the fairness and integrity of these proceedings. The authority of a court is derived from the rule of law and from the public’s confidence that judges will faithfully uphold that law. When the conduct of a proceeding raises serious concerns regarding impartiality, fairness, or adherence to constitutional protections, those concerns cannot be ignored or delayed. Courts exist to enforce the law—not to depart from it—and every judge is sworn to administer justice in a manner that protects due process, preserves neutrality, and maintains public confidence in the integrity of the judicial system. Accordingly, Petitioner places the Court on notice that concerns regarding judicial impartiality and structural fairness in these proceedings remain active and unresolved and it seems as if there is a conspiracy to deprive petitioner of her civil and constitutional rights. This filing is submitted to preserve the record, to ensure that the issue of recusal is properly documented, and to reaffirm that the right to an impartial tribunal is a constitutional guarantee that cannot be forfeited simply because litigation is ongoing and that there is no time limit for judicial recusal when it comes to the importance of the public confidence and the right to an impartial tribunal. PRESERVATION OF RECORD FOR POTENTIAL CIVIL AND FEDERAL REVIEW Petitioner further places on the record that the minor child should have never been removed from her household in the first place and never should have been placed back with his father as well. The evidence of hearsay is not a proper or legal avenue to take away a parent's right to raise their child. The state intervened for no reason, there was no drug problem, the evidence put forth was fraudulent and the petitioner made you guys well aware of the fact, it is your fault for continuously ignoring her and silencing her. Petitioner is fully aware and ready to seek appropriate justice where Justice has not been served, a family court is supposed to put children first and the best interest of a child before anything, all this family court did was destroy a child's steady and stable life and place him with the exact person that kept on denying placement and abusing the minor child. The court has furthermore underestimated the lengths the petitioner will go through and to for her children. Petitioner further places on the record that the issues raised in this filing are preserved not only for purposes of appellate review within the Wisconsin court system, but also for any civil or federal review that may become appropriate should constitutional violations or actions taken under color of law ultimately require examination outside of the present proceedings. Petitioner respectfully notes that courts operate within a framework of accountability designed to ensure that constitutional protections are upheld and that litigants receive fair and impartial proceedings. When concerns arise regarding due process, judicial neutrality, or the misuse of governmental authority, the law provides mechanisms through which those issues may be examined by reviewing courts and, when appropriate, through civil remedies designed to protect constitutional rights. Accordingly, Petitioner places these concerns clearly on the record in order to preserve the procedural history and factual context necessary for any future review that may become necessary. Petitioner further states that her efforts to document these issues are motivated not only by the desire to protect her own rights and the welfare of her child, but also by a broader concern that no other families should be subjected to circumstances that undermine confidence in the fairness and integrity of the judicial process. Petitioner therefore respectfully affirms her determination to pursue every lawful avenue available to ensure that the issues raised in this matter are fully examined and that the protections afforded by law are meaningfully upheld for all litigants who rely upon the courts for justice. STRUCTURAL DUE PROCESS VIOLATIONS The right to a fair hearing before a neutral decision-maker is among the most fundamental guarantees recognized under both the United States Constitution and the Wisconsin Constitution. Due process requires not only the existence of procedures but the presence of a tribunal that is neutral, unbiased, and committed to applying the law fairly. When the neutrality of the tribunal itself becomes compromised, the error is considered structural. Structural errors are among the most serious defects recognized in the law because they undermine the reliability and legitimacy of the entire proceeding. Judicial bias or the appearance of bias strikes directly at the framework of the judicial process. When such concerns arise, the issue cannot be treated as a minor procedural matter. Instead, it raises constitutional questions that affect the integrity of every ruling issued within the proceeding. Courts have repeatedly recognized that even the appearance of bias can erode public confidence in the judiciary and may require disqualification in order to preserve the fairness of the process. For that reason, concerns regarding judicial impartiality must be addressed whenever they arise. ONGOING CONCERNS REGARDING JUDICIAL IMPARTIALITY AND POTENTIAL CONFLICTS OF INTEREST Petitioner further places on the record concerns regarding the appearance of judicial partiality throughout the course of these proceedings. Petitioner asserts that a consistent pattern has emerged in which rulings have repeatedly favored the Guardian ad Litem and Respondent, while motions and filings submitted by Petitioner have frequently been delayed, deferred, or left unresolved. When viewed collectively, Petitioner believes this pattern raises concerns regarding the appearance of unequal treatment before the Court. Petitioner also places on the record concerns regarding a potential conflict of interest arising from the professional relationship between the Court and the appointed Guardian ad Litem. During proceedings, the Court reportedly stated words to the effect that the Court had known the Guardian ad Litem for over a decade and trusted her judgment. While a long-standing professional relationship between members of the legal community is not uncommon and does not inherently constitute a conflict of interest, Petitioner respectfully notes that such statements may raise concerns when serious allegations regarding the conduct of the Guardian ad Litem are simultaneously being presented by a litigant. Petitioner states that, in such circumstances, the appearance of fairness requires that concerns raised by a party be carefully evaluated rather than dismissed solely on the basis of professional familiarity. The judicial obligation to maintain impartiality requires that all parties have confidence that allegations of misconduct will be evaluated independently and without predisposition. Petitioner also places on the record concerns regarding communications and coordination among legal actors within the proceedings that Petitioner believes may raise questions about the neutrality of the process. Petitioner asserts that certain actions taken during the course of the litigation—including alleged communications outside the presence of both parties and conduct that Petitioner believes has enabled violations of court orders—have contributed to a perception that the proceedings are not being administered with the impartiality required by due process. Petitioner further states that these concerns are raised because the welfare and safety of the minor child are at the center of the case, and the “best interests of the child” standard requires careful, objective evaluation of evidence and allegations presented by all parties. Petitioner asserts that misinformation regarding alleged substance use was introduced early in the proceedings and that the continued reliance upon those allegations has had serious consequences affecting the minor child. Petitioner respectfully submits that when issues of this nature arise—particularly in matters involving the safety and welfare of a child—the Court has an obligation to ensure that all concerns are examined thoroughly and that the proceedings remain free from the appearance of bias, favoritism, or predetermined conclusions. For these reasons, Petitioner places these concerns clearly on the record so that the full context of the proceedings may be preserved for any review that may occur within the judicial system. UNQUALIFIED INTERPRETATION The Guardian ad Litem has made medical and toxicological conclusions without qualifications. BIAS AND ONE-SIDED ADVOCACY The Guardian ad Litem: - Dismissed evidence favorable to Petitioner; - Reinforced Respondent’s narrative; - Failed to investigate impartially. - Has acted more as a rubber stamp for opposing counsel rather than independent. The proof is in the contempt motion where the guardian ad litem states that I tried to change the individual counselor of the minor child, followed by an email from opposing council stating that she knows I did not try to switch the individual counselor. This correlates because the guardian ad litem demands no evidence to proceed with claims by opposing counsel and does not investigate before stating something that can strengthen opposing counsel. HARM TO CHILD AND PROCEEDINGS This conduct has: - Undermined best interest analysis; - Contributed to unreliable court decisions; - Compromised the integrity of proceedings. OUTSIDE SCOPE OF IMMUNITY The actions described exceed the scope of quasi-judicial immunity and constitute actionable misconduct. PATTERN OF PROCEDURAL IRREGULARITIES AND ESCALATING PREJUDICE Petitioner further places on the record that the concerns raised in this Notice do not arise from a single isolated event but from what appears to be a developing pattern of procedural irregularities and escalating prejudice within the course of these proceedings. Courts have long recognized that the cumulative effect of repeated irregularities may raise serious concerns regarding the fairness and integrity of a judicial process, particularly when those irregularities affect one party disproportionately. When procedural decisions, delays in ruling on motions, inconsistent treatment of evidence, or dismissive treatment of legitimate legal objections occur repeatedly within a single matter, the issue ceases to be a routine disagreement between a litigant and the court. Instead, it raises legitimate questions regarding whether the proceedings are maintaining the neutrality and fairness required by due process. Petitioner respectfully places these concerns on the record because patterns of procedural irregularities, when viewed collectively, may demonstrate prejudice or the appearance of prejudice in a way that isolated events might not. Appellate courts frequently evaluate such issues by examining the totality of the circumstances and the cumulative impact of judicial conduct throughout the course of a proceeding. For that reason, Petitioner believes it is necessary and appropriate to document these issues as they arise so that the full procedural history of the case is accurately reflected within the record. This filing is therefore intended to ensure that the record clearly reflects the concerns raised regarding judicial neutrality, procedural fairness, and the preservation of constitutional rights throughout these proceedings. Petitioner respectfully submits that when viewed collectively, the procedural irregularities and concerns outlined in the record may reasonably give rise to questions regarding the fairness and neutrality of the proceedings, making careful record preservation both necessary and appropriate. HOSTILE BENCH AND JUDICIAL INTIMIDATION CONCERNS Petitioner further places on the record concerns regarding conduct that has created the appearance of a hostile bench environment. A courtroom must remain a neutral forum where parties are heard fairly and without intimidation. Judicial authority is accompanied by a duty to maintain impartiality and to treat litigants with fairness and respect. When the atmosphere of the courtroom appears hostile or intimidating toward a party, the fairness of the proceeding may reasonably be called into question. Judges are sworn to uphold the law, not to depart from it. Their authority is not unlimited power but authority exercised within the constraints of constitutional protections, judicial ethics, and the rule of law. Because of this responsibility, courts have long recognized that judges must avoid not only actual bias but also the appearance of bias, hostility, or favoritism. Petitioner respectfully places these concerns on the record in order to preserve the fairness and legitimacy of the proceedings. TIMING OF RECUSAL REQUESTS Recusal concerns are Communication: INTRODUCTORY STATEMENT REGARDING CONSTITUTIONAL FAIRNESS AND JUDICIAL ACCOUNTABILITY Petitioner is also currently booking slots for a story on three different news channels, four different podcasts and working with four other litigants under the same treatment of the same court official, This is no longer coincidence, this is pattern behavior. I had further let the court know about the bribing incident from back when I first filed my properly filed and served motion, that my son called me from his father's house all upset because his father and his grandmother were attempting to bribe him to move back in with a new gaming setup, in the contempt hearing pictures. You will see the exact gaming setup that I let the court know about and I let the guardian ad litem know about. I have sent the guardian ad litem the text messages from my son, the phone calls log from my son and also the screenshot of the message I sent to his dad to tell him to stop and leave the child alone. I also sent the messages that I had sent to Mr Beck that he forwarded to the minor child. Conversations between myself and Mr Beck were screenshot and sent to the minor child, the minor child was extremely upset and it exacerbated the fact that he did not want to visit his father. This notice also goes to let the court know that the petitioner has brought forth to the court very severe and serious issues regarding respondent Mr Beck's engagement in bribery and incentivizing counseling, Guardian ad litem visits, and before court dates. This was brought to the court's attention and furthermore the petitioner brought to the court's attention that the behaviors continued after the court was aware of this, Mr Beck went as far as making a decoy cash app account and making another account so that he could further incentivize the minor child and bribe him. The 17-year-old minor child actually came directly to the petitioner because he felt extremely guilty about what his father had been saying and doing that he showed me the decoy cash app account and the new cash app account which had even further transactions on the exact dates of counseling, Guardian ad litem visits and one day before court. Petitioner Jamie Lynn Haeuser respectfully submits this Notice to address serious concerns regarding the structural fairness and constitutional integrity of the proceedings currently before this Court. The authority of the judiciary rests not merely upon the power of the bench, but upon adherence to the rule of law and the constitutional guarantees that protect every litigant who enters a courtroom seeking justice. Courts exist to apply the law impartially, to safeguard due process, and to ensure that the rights of the parties are evaluated by a neutral and unbiased tribunal. When circumstances arise that reasonably call into question the impartiality of the proceedings or the adherence to those constitutional principles, it becomes necessary to place those concerns clearly on the record. The law does not require litigants to remain silent in the face of potential violations of due process or judicial neutrality. To the contrary, the preservation of such issues is essential to maintaining both the fairness of the individual proceeding and the integrity of the judicial system as a whole. Accordingly, Petitioner submits this Notice to ensure that the record accurately reflects the constitutional concerns raised in this matter, including issues related to judicial impartiality, severe judicial misconduct, structural due process protections, and the appearance of fairness in these proceedings. This filing is made in good faith and with the express purpose of preserving the record for any review that may become necessary within the appellate courts or other appropriate forums charged with safeguarding the rule of law. Petitioner Jamie Lynn Haeuser respectfully files this Notice to address issues of judicial impartiality and to preserve constitutional objections arising during these proceedings. PETITIONER’S LEGAL STUDY AND GOOD-FAITH RECORD PRESERVATION Petitioner further places on the record that she has undertaken significant effort to understand the legal principles governing these proceedings. Over the course of approximately one year, Petitioner has studied legal materials relating to family law procedure, constitutional protections, and court process on a consistent and disciplined basis—approximately 3 days per week, for sessions averaging two-three hours each. This study had been undertaken In high school while attending an alternative school in Waukesha called the Lauer Center. Extremely qualified attorneys would come in to the school just to educate me because I had dreams back then of becoming an attorney. After realizing the corruption in the courts and the corrupt attorneys, I decided not to pursue legal studies. Becoming an attorney is something I could never do to because I couldn’t ever do to other families what has been done to so many wonderful parents in the past. Not even documenting the complete injustice and complete corruption surrounding these proceedings. Petitioner has further been studying law online since first filing for primary placement and child support in 2025 so that petitioner could meaningfully participate in these proceedings, properly preserve procedural and constitutional objections, and ensure that the record accurately reflects the issues presented to the Court. Petitioner therefore appears in this matter not merely as a self-represented party, but as a serious litigant who has made substantial efforts to understand the law, the procedural posture of this case, and the importance of building a clear and accurate record for review if necessary. Petitioner respectfully notes that careful record preservation is essential in any case where constitutional rights, corruption, fraud from both opposing counsel and gaurdian ad litem, fraud arising judicially, discrimination in open court, continued discrimination even after the court had been put on notice. Issues of judicial impartiality are implicated. Accordingly, the objections and concerns raised in this Notice are presented deliberately and in good faith to ensure that the record reflects the full scope of the legal issues involved in these proceedings. Petitioner further states that the objections and concerns raised herein are presented intentionally to ensure that any issues involving judicial impartiality, structural due process violations, or deprivation of constitutional protections are clearly preserved within the record, recognizing that such issues may require careful review by higher courts should appellate or supervisory jurisdiction ultimately be invoked. Petitioner therefore respectfully notes that the purpose of placing these matters clearly on the record is to ensure that the procedural history and constitutional issues presented in this case are accurately documented, so that any reviewing court, if called upon to examine the record, will be able to fully evaluate the fairness and integrity of these proceedings. The authority of a court is derived from the rule of law and from the public’s confidence that judges will faithfully uphold that law. When the conduct of a proceeding raises serious concerns regarding impartiality, fairness, or adherence to constitutional protections, those concerns cannot be ignored or delayed. Courts exist to enforce the law—not to depart from it—and every judge is sworn to administer justice in a manner that protects due process, preserves neutrality, and maintains public confidence in the integrity of the judicial system. Accordingly, Petitioner places the Court on notice that concerns regarding judicial impartiality and structural fairness in these proceedings remain active and unresolved and it seems as if there is a conspiracy to deprive petitioner of her civil and constitutional rights. This filing is submitted to preserve the record, to ensure that the issue of recusal is properly documented, and to reaffirm that the right to an impartial tribunal is a constitutional guarantee that cannot be forfeited simply because litigation is ongoing and that there is no time limit for judicial recusal when it comes to the importance of the public confidence and the right to an impartial tribunal. PRESERVATION OF RECORD FOR POTENTIAL CIVIL AND FEDERAL REVIEW Petitioner further places on the record that the minor child should have never been removed from her household in the first place and never should have been placed back with his father as well. The evidence of hearsay is not a proper or legal avenue to take away a parent's right to raise their child. The state intervened for no reason, there was no drug problem, the evidence put forth was fraudulent and the petitioner made you guys well aware of the fact, it is your fault for continuously ignoring her and silencing her. Petitioner is fully aware and ready to seek appropriate justice where Justice has not been served, a family court is supposed to put children first and the best interest of a child before anything, all this family court did was destroy a child's steady and stable life and place him with the exact person that kept on denying placement and abusing the minor child. The court has furthermore underestimated the lengths the petitioner will go through and to for her children. Petitioner further places on the record that the issues raised in this filing are preserved not only for purposes of appellate review within the Wisconsin court system, but also for any civil or federal review that may become appropriate should constitutional violations or actions taken under color of law ultimately require examination outside of the present proceedings. Petitioner respectfully notes that courts operate within a framework of accountability designed to ensure that constitutional protections are upheld and that litigants receive fair and impartial proceedings. When concerns arise regarding due process, judicial neutrality, or the misuse of governmental authority, the law provides mechanisms through which those issues may be examined by reviewing courts and, when appropriate, through civil remedies designed to protect constitutional rights. Accordingly, Petitioner places these concerns clearly on the record in order to preserve the procedural history and factual context necessary for any future review that may become necessary. Petitioner further states that her efforts to document these issues are motivated not only by the desire to protect her own rights and the welfare of her child, but also by a broader concern that no other families should be subjected to circumstances that undermine confidence in the fairness and integrity of the judicial process. Petitioner therefore respectfully affirms her determination to pursue every lawful avenue available to ensure that the issues raised in this matter are fully examined and that the protections afforded by law are meaningfully upheld for all litigants who rely upon the courts for justice. STRUCTURAL DUE PROCESS VIOLATIONS The right to a fair hearing before a neutral decision-maker is among the most fundamental guarantees recognized under both the United States Constitution and the Wisconsin Constitution. Due process requires not only the existence of procedures but the presence of a tribunal that is neutral, unbiased, and committed to applying the law fairly. When the neutrality of the tribunal itself becomes compromised, the error is considered structural. Structural errors are among the most serious defects recognized in the law because they undermine the reliability and legitimacy of the entire proceeding. Judicial bias or the appearance of bias strikes directly at the framework of the judicial process. When such concerns arise, the issue cannot be treated as a minor procedural matter. Instead, it raises constitutional questions that affect the integrity of every ruling issued within the proceeding. Courts have repeatedly recognized that even the appearance of bias can erode public confidence in the judiciary and may require disqualification in order to preserve the fairness of the process. For that reason, concerns regarding judicial impartiality must be addressed whenever they arise. ONGOING CONCERNS REGARDING JUDICIAL IMPARTIALITY AND POTENTIAL CONFLICTS OF INTEREST Petitioner further places on the record concerns regarding the appearance of judicial partiality throughout the course of these proceedings. Petitioner asserts that a consistent pattern has emerged in which rulings have repeatedly favored the Guardian ad Litem and Respondent, while motions and filings submitted by Petitioner have frequently been delayed, deferred, or left unresolved. When viewed collectively, Petitioner believes this pattern raises concerns regarding the appearance of unequal treatment before the Court. Petitioner also places on the record concerns regarding a potential conflict of interest arising from the professional relationship between the Court and the appointed Guardian ad Litem. During proceedings, the Court reportedly stated words to the effect that the Court had known the Guardian ad Litem for over a decade and trusted her judgment. While a long-standing professional relationship between members of the legal community is not uncommon and does not inherently constitute a conflict of interest, Petitioner respectfully notes that such statements may raise concerns when serious allegations regarding the conduct of the Guardian ad Litem are simultaneously being presented by a litigant. Petitioner states that, in such circumstances, the appearance of fairness requires that concerns raised by a party be carefully evaluated rather than dismissed solely on the basis of professional familiarity. The judicial obligation to maintain impartiality requires that all parties have confidence that allegations of misconduct will be evaluated independently and without predisposition. Petitioner also places on the record concerns regarding communications and coordination among legal actors within the proceedings that Petitioner believes may raise questions about the neutrality of the process. Petitioner asserts that certain actions taken during the course of the litigation—including alleged communications outside the presence of both parties and conduct that Petitioner believes has enabled violations of court orders—have contributed to a perception that the proceedings are not being administered with the impartiality required by due process. Petitioner further states that these concerns are raised because the welfare and safety of the minor child are at the center of the case, and the “best interests of the child” standard requires careful, objective evaluation of evidence and allegations presented by all parties. Petitioner asserts that misinformation regarding alleged substance use was introduced early in the proceedings and that the continued reliance upon those allegations has had serious consequences affecting the minor child. Petitioner respectfully submits that when issues of this nature arise—particularly in matters involving the safety and welfare of a child—the Court has an obligation to ensure that all concerns are examined thoroughly and that the proceedings remain free from the appearance of bias, favoritism, or predetermined conclusions. For these reasons, Petitioner places these concerns clearly on the record so that the full context of the proceedings may be preserved for any review that may occur within the judicial system. UNQUALIFIED INTERPRETATION The Guardian ad Litem has made medical and toxicological conclusions without qualifications. BIAS AND ONE-SIDED ADVOCACY The Guardian ad Litem: - Dismissed evidence favorable to Petitioner; - Reinforced Respondent’s narrative; - Failed to investigate impartially. - Has acted more as a rubber stamp for opposing counsel rather than independent. The proof is in the contempt motion where the guardian ad litem states that I tried to change the individual counselor of the minor child, followed by an email from opposing council stating that she knows I did not try to switch the individual counselor. This correlates because the guardian ad litem demands no evidence to proceed with claims by opposing counsel and does not investigate before stating something that can strengthen opposing counsel. HARM TO CHILD AND PROCEEDINGS This conduct has: - Undermined best interest analysis; - Contributed to unreliable court decisions; - Compromised the integrity of proceedings. OUTSIDE SCOPE OF IMMUNITY The actions described exceed the scope of quasi-judicial immunity and constitute actionable misconduct. PATTERN OF PROCEDURAL IRREGULARITIES AND ESCALATING PREJUDICE Petitioner further places on the record that the concerns raised in this Notice do not arise from a single isolated event but from what appears to be a developing pattern of procedural irregularities and escalating prejudice within the course of these proceedings. Courts have long recognized that the cumulative effect of repeated irregularities may raise serious concerns regarding the fairness and integrity of a judicial process, particularly when those irregularities affect one party disproportionately. When procedural decisions, delays in ruling on motions, inconsistent treatment of evidence, or dismissive treatment of legitimate legal objections occur repeatedly within a single matter, the issue ceases to be a routine disagreement between a litigant and the court. Instead, it raises legitimate questions regarding whether the proceedings are maintaining the neutrality and fairness required by due process. Petitioner respectfully places these concerns on the record because patterns of procedural irregularities, when viewed collectively, may demonstrate prejudice or the appearance of prejudice in a way that isolated events might not. Appellate courts frequently evaluate such issues by examining the totality of the circumstances and the cumulative impact of judicial conduct throughout the course of a proceeding. For that reason, Petitioner believes it is necessary and appropriate to document these issues as they arise so that the full procedural history of the case is accurately reflected within the record. This filing is therefore intended to ensure that the record clearly reflects the concerns raised regarding judicial neutrality, procedural fairness, and the preservation of constitutional rights throughout these proceedings. Petitioner respectfully submits that when viewed collectively, the procedural irregularities and concerns outlined in the record may reasonably give rise to questions regarding the fairness and neutrality of the proceedings, making careful record preservation both necessary and appropriate. HOSTILE BENCH AND JUDICIAL INTIMIDATION CONCERNS Petitioner further places on the record concerns regarding conduct that has created the appearance of a hostile bench environment. A courtroom must remain a neutral forum where parties are heard fairly and without intimidation. Judicial authority is accompanied by a duty to maintain impartiality and to treat litigants with fairness and respect. When the atmosphere of the courtroom appears hostile or intimidating toward a party, the fairness of the proceeding may reasonably be called into question. Judges are sworn to uphold the law, not to depart from it. Their authority is not unlimited power but authority exercised within the constraints of constitutional protections, judicial ethics, and the rule of law. Because of this responsibility, courts have long recognized that judges must avoid not only actual bias but also the appearance of bias, hostility, or favoritism. Petitioner respectfully places these concerns on the record in order to preserve the fairness and legitimacy of the proceedings. TIMING OF RECUSAL REQUESTS Recusal concerns are Timeliness: INTRODUCTORY STATEMENT REGARDING CONSTITUTIONAL FAIRNESS AND JUDICIAL ACCOUNTABILITY Petitioner is also currently booking slots for a story on three different news channels, four different podcasts and working with four other litigants under the same treatment of the same court official, This is no longer coincidence, this is pattern behavior. I had further let the court know about the bribing incident from back when I first filed my properly filed and served motion, that my son called me from his father's house all upset because his father and his grandmother were attempting to bribe him to move back in with a new gaming setup, in the contempt hearing pictures. You will see the exact gaming setup that I let the court know about and I let the guardian ad litem know about. I have sent the guardian ad litem the text messages from my son, the phone calls log from my son and also the screenshot of the message I sent to his dad to tell him to stop and leave the child alone. I also sent the messages that I had sent to Mr Beck that he forwarded to the minor child. Conversations between myself and Mr Beck were screenshot and sent to the minor child, the minor child was extremely upset and it exacerbated the fact that he did not want to visit his father. This notice also goes to let the court know that the petitioner has brought forth to the court very severe and serious issues regarding respondent Mr Beck's engagement in bribery and incentivizing counseling, Guardian ad litem visits, and before court dates. This was brought to the court's attention and furthermore the petitioner brought to the court's attention that the behaviors continued after the court was aware of this, Mr Beck went as far as making a decoy cash app account and making another account so that he could further incentivize the minor child and bribe him. The 17-year-old minor child actually came directly to the petitioner because he felt extremely guilty about what his father had been saying and doing that he showed me the decoy cash app account and the new cash app account which had even further transactions on the exact dates of counseling, Guardian ad litem visits and one day before court. Petitioner Jamie Lynn Haeuser respectfully submits this Notice to address serious concerns regarding the structural fairness and constitutional integrity of the proceedings currently before this Court. The authority of the judiciary rests not merely upon the power of the bench, but upon adherence to the rule of law and the constitutional guarantees that protect every litigant who enters a courtroom seeking justice. Courts exist to apply the law impartially, to safeguard due process, and to ensure that the rights of the parties are evaluated by a neutral and unbiased tribunal. When circumstances arise that reasonably call into question the impartiality of the proceedings or the adherence to those constitutional principles, it becomes necessary to place those concerns clearly on the record. The law does not require litigants to remain silent in the face of potential violations of due process or judicial neutrality. To the contrary, the preservation of such issues is essential to maintaining both the fairness of the individual proceeding and the integrity of the judicial system as a whole. Accordingly, Petitioner submits this Notice to ensure that the record accurately reflects the constitutional concerns raised in this matter, including issues related to judicial impartiality, severe judicial misconduct, structural due process protections, and the appearance of fairness in these proceedings. This filing is made in good faith and with the express purpose of preserving the record for any review that may become necessary within the appellate courts or other appropriate forums charged with safeguarding the rule of law. Petitioner Jamie Lynn Haeuser respectfully files this Notice to address issues of judicial impartiality and to preserve constitutional objections arising during these proceedings. PETITIONER’S LEGAL STUDY AND GOOD-FAITH RECORD PRESERVATION Petitioner further places on the record that she has undertaken significant effort to understand the legal principles governing these proceedings. Over the course of approximately one year, Petitioner has studied legal materials relating to family law procedure, constitutional protections, and court process on a consistent and disciplined basis—approximately 3 days per week, for sessions averaging two-three hours each. This study had been undertaken In high school while attending an alternative school in Waukesha called the Lauer Center. Extremely qualified attorneys would come in to the school just to educate me because I had dreams back then of becoming an attorney. After realizing the corruption in the courts and the corrupt attorneys, I decided not to pursue legal studies. Becoming an attorney is something I could never do to because I couldn’t ever do to other families what has been done to so many wonderful parents in the past. Not even documenting the complete injustice and complete corruption surrounding these proceedings. Petitioner has further been studying law online since first filing for primary placement and child support in 2025 so that petitioner could meaningfully participate in these proceedings, properly preserve procedural and constitutional objections, and ensure that the record accurately reflects the issues presented to the Court. Petitioner therefore appears in this matter not merely as a self-represented party, but as a serious litigant who has made substantial efforts to understand the law, the procedural posture of this case, and the importance of building a clear and accurate record for review if necessary. Petitioner respectfully notes that careful record preservation is essential in any case where constitutional rights, corruption, fraud from both opposing counsel and gaurdian ad litem, fraud arising judicially, discrimination in open court, continued discrimination even after the court had been put on notice. Issues of judicial impartiality are implicated. Accordingly, the objections and concerns raised in this Notice are presented deliberately and in good faith to ensure that the record reflects the full scope of the legal issues involved in these proceedings. Petitioner further states that the objections and concerns raised herein are presented intentionally to ensure that any issues involving judicial impartiality, structural due process violations, or deprivation of constitutional protections are clearly preserved within the record, recognizing that such issues may require careful review by higher courts should appellate or supervisory jurisdiction ultimately be invoked. Petitioner therefore respectfully notes that the purpose of placing these matters clearly on the record is to ensure that the procedural history and constitutional issues presented in this case are accurately documented, so that any reviewing court, if called upon to examine the record, will be able to fully evaluate the fairness and integrity of these proceedings. The authority of a court is derived from the rule of law and from the public’s confidence that judges will faithfully uphold that law. When the conduct of a proceeding raises serious concerns regarding impartiality, fairness, or adherence to constitutional protections, those concerns cannot be ignored or delayed. Courts exist to enforce the law—not to depart from it—and every judge is sworn to administer justice in a manner that protects due process, preserves neutrality, and maintains public confidence in the integrity of the judicial system. Accordingly, Petitioner places the Court on notice that concerns regarding judicial impartiality and structural fairness in these proceedings remain active and unresolved and it seems as if there is a conspiracy to deprive petitioner of her civil and constitutional rights. This filing is submitted to preserve the record, to ensure that the issue of recusal is properly documented, and to reaffirm that the right to an impartial tribunal is a constitutional guarantee that cannot be forfeited simply because litigation is ongoing and that there is no time limit for judicial recusal when it comes to the importance of the public confidence and the right to an impartial tribunal. PRESERVATION OF RECORD FOR POTENTIAL CIVIL AND FEDERAL REVIEW Petitioner further places on the record that the minor child should have never been removed from her household in the first place and never should have been placed back with his father as well. The evidence of hearsay is not a proper or legal avenue to take away a parent's right to raise their child. The state intervened for no reason, there was no drug problem, the evidence put forth was fraudulent and the petitioner made you guys well aware of the fact, it is your fault for continuously ignoring her and silencing her. Petitioner is fully aware and ready to seek appropriate justice where Justice has not been served, a family court is supposed to put children first and the best interest of a child before anything, all this family court did was destroy a child's steady and stable life and place him with the exact person that kept on denying placement and abusing the minor child. The court has furthermore underestimated the lengths the petitioner will go through and to for her children. Petitioner further places on the record that the issues raised in this filing are preserved not only for purposes of appellate review within the Wisconsin court system, but also for any civil or federal review that may become appropriate should constitutional violations or actions taken under color of law ultimately require examination outside of the present proceedings. Petitioner respectfully notes that courts operate within a framework of accountability designed to ensure that constitutional protections are upheld and that litigants receive fair and impartial proceedings. When concerns arise regarding due process, judicial neutrality, or the misuse of governmental authority, the law provides mechanisms through which those issues may be examined by reviewing courts and, when appropriate, through civil remedies designed to protect constitutional rights. Accordingly, Petitioner places these concerns clearly on the record in order to preserve the procedural history and factual context necessary for any future review that may become necessary. Petitioner further states that her efforts to document these issues are motivated not only by the desire to protect her own rights and the welfare of her child, but also by a broader concern that no other families should be subjected to circumstances that undermine confidence in the fairness and integrity of the judicial process. Petitioner therefore respectfully affirms her determination to pursue every lawful avenue available to ensure that the issues raised in this matter are fully examined and that the protections afforded by law are meaningfully upheld for all litigants who rely upon the courts for justice. STRUCTURAL DUE PROCESS VIOLATIONS The right to a fair hearing before a neutral decision-maker is among the most fundamental guarantees recognized under both the United States Constitution and the Wisconsin Constitution. Due process requires not only the existence of procedures but the presence of a tribunal that is neutral, unbiased, and committed to applying the law fairly. When the neutrality of the tribunal itself becomes compromised, the error is considered structural. Structural errors are among the most serious defects recognized in the law because they undermine the reliability and legitimacy of the entire proceeding. Judicial bias or the appearance of bias strikes directly at the framework of the judicial process. When such concerns arise, the issue cannot be treated as a minor procedural matter. Instead, it raises constitutional questions that affect the integrity of every ruling issued within the proceeding. Courts have repeatedly recognized that even the appearance of bias can erode public confidence in the judiciary and may require disqualification in order to preserve the fairness of the process. For that reason, concerns regarding judicial impartiality must be addressed whenever they arise. ONGOING CONCERNS REGARDING JUDICIAL IMPARTIALITY AND POTENTIAL CONFLICTS OF INTEREST Petitioner further places on the record concerns regarding the appearance of judicial partiality throughout the course of these proceedings. Petitioner asserts that a consistent pattern has emerged in which rulings have repeatedly favored the Guardian ad Litem and Respondent, while motions and filings submitted by Petitioner have frequently been delayed, deferred, or left unresolved. When viewed collectively, Petitioner believes this pattern raises concerns regarding the appearance of unequal treatment before the Court. Petitioner also places on the record concerns regarding a potential conflict of interest arising from the professional relationship between the Court and the appointed Guardian ad Litem. During proceedings, the Court reportedly stated words to the effect that the Court had known the Guardian ad Litem for over a decade and trusted her judgment. While a long-standing professional relationship between members of the legal community is not uncommon and does not inherently constitute a conflict of interest, Petitioner respectfully notes that such statements may raise concerns when serious allegations regarding the conduct of the Guardian ad Litem are simultaneously being presented by a litigant. Petitioner states that, in such circumstances, the appearance of fairness requires that concerns raised by a party be carefully evaluated rather than dismissed solely on the basis of professional familiarity. The judicial obligation to maintain impartiality requires that all parties have confidence that allegations of misconduct will be evaluated independently and without predisposition. Petitioner also places on the record concerns regarding communications and coordination among legal actors within the proceedings that Petitioner believes may raise questions about the neutrality of the process. Petitioner asserts that certain actions taken during the course of the litigation—including alleged communications outside the presence of both parties and conduct that Petitioner believes has enabled violations of court orders—have contributed to a perception that the proceedings are not being administered with the impartiality required by due process. Petitioner further states that these concerns are raised because the welfare and safety of the minor child are at the center of the case, and the “best interests of the child” standard requires careful, objective evaluation of evidence and allegations presented by all parties. Petitioner asserts that misinformation regarding alleged substance use was introduced early in the proceedings and that the continued reliance upon those allegations has had serious consequences affecting the minor child. Petitioner respectfully submits that when issues of this nature arise—particularly in matters involving the safety and welfare of a child—the Court has an obligation to ensure that all concerns are examined thoroughly and that the proceedings remain free from the appearance of bias, favoritism, or predetermined conclusions. For these reasons, Petitioner places these concerns clearly on the record so that the full context of the proceedings may be preserved for any review that may occur within the judicial system. UNQUALIFIED INTERPRETATION The Guardian ad Litem has made medical and toxicological conclusions without qualifications. BIAS AND ONE-SIDED ADVOCACY The Guardian ad Litem: - Dismissed evidence favorable to Petitioner; - Reinforced Respondent’s narrative; - Failed to investigate impartially. - Has acted more as a rubber stamp for opposing counsel rather than independent. The proof is in the contempt motion where the guardian ad litem states that I tried to change the individual counselor of the minor child, followed by an email from opposing council stating that she knows I did not try to switch the individual counselor. This correlates because the guardian ad litem demands no evidence to proceed with claims by opposing counsel and does not investigate before stating something that can strengthen opposing counsel. HARM TO CHILD AND PROCEEDINGS This conduct has: - Undermined best interest analysis; - Contributed to unreliable court decisions; - Compromised the integrity of proceedings. OUTSIDE SCOPE OF IMMUNITY The actions described exceed the scope of quasi-judicial immunity and constitute actionable misconduct. PATTERN OF PROCEDURAL IRREGULARITIES AND ESCALATING PREJUDICE Petitioner further places on the record that the concerns raised in this Notice do not arise from a single isolated event but from what appears to be a developing pattern of procedural irregularities and escalating prejudice within the course of these proceedings. Courts have long recognized that the cumulative effect of repeated irregularities may raise serious concerns regarding the fairness and integrity of a judicial process, particularly when those irregularities affect one party disproportionately. When procedural decisions, delays in ruling on motions, inconsistent treatment of evidence, or dismissive treatment of legitimate legal objections occur repeatedly within a single matter, the issue ceases to be a routine disagreement between a litigant and the court. Instead, it raises legitimate questions regarding whether the proceedings are maintaining the neutrality and fairness required by due process. Petitioner respectfully places these concerns on the record because patterns of procedural irregularities, when viewed collectively, may demonstrate prejudice or the appearance of prejudice in a way that isolated events might not. Appellate courts frequently evaluate such issues by examining the totality of the circumstances and the cumulative impact of judicial conduct throughout the course of a proceeding. For that reason, Petitioner believes it is necessary and appropriate to document these issues as they arise so that the full procedural history of the case is accurately reflected within the record. This filing is therefore intended to ensure that the record clearly reflects the concerns raised regarding judicial neutrality, procedural fairness, and the preservation of constitutional rights throughout these proceedings. Petitioner respectfully submits that when viewed collectively, the procedural irregularities and concerns outlined in the record may reasonably give rise to questions regarding the fairness and neutrality of the proceedings, making careful record preservation both necessary and appropriate. HOSTILE BENCH AND JUDICIAL INTIMIDATION CONCERNS Petitioner further places on the record concerns regarding conduct that has created the appearance of a hostile bench environment. A courtroom must remain a neutral forum where parties are heard fairly and without intimidation. Judicial authority is accompanied by a duty to maintain impartiality and to treat litigants with fairness and respect. When the atmosphere of the courtroom appears hostile or intimidating toward a party, the fairness of the proceeding may reasonably be called into question. Judges are sworn to uphold the law, not to depart from it. Their authority is not unlimited power but authority exercised within the constraints of constitutional protections, judicial ethics, and the rule of law. Because of this responsibility, courts have long recognized that judges must avoid not only actual bias but also the appearance of bias, hostility, or favoritism. Petitioner respectfully places these concerns on the record in order to preserve the fairness and legitimacy of the proceedings. TIMING OF RECUSAL REQUESTS Recusal concerns are