To understand the ethical Principles of the esteemed ethical gurus James Ehler, Marie Haspil, and the other members of the Texas Bar, it is useful to see how the principles apply to specific cases.
Facts of Case Study
Lanette Joubert represented the husband of the secretary of another esteemed ethical guru of the Texas State Bar known as Larry Adams (he will be discussed at length in later Ethical Commentaries and Case Studies). Larry Adams is a good source of material commentaries and case studies.
The husband took the children home after a visit. The children were still in diapers. Weeks later Lanette Joubert reports to the police and files pleadings in the divorce case alleging that the children (or possibly just one of the children reported) that "daddy tickled my poop."
The children were taken to a Sexual Assault Nurse Examiner (apparently to look for evidence of weeks old tickled poop). The police were involved. Fortunately, the police had some common sense and didn't pursue the "tickled poop case." However, even after the police determined there was no case worth of pursuit, Lanette Joubert continued her civil allegations. She had no basis for her allegations other than the statements of child[ren] still in diapers. The examination by the SANE Nurse did not produce anything of interest. There were no known videos of the child's statements (or of the poop tickling), no known investigation, and no known corroboration of any type.
Questions Presented
Why is it ethical for Lanette Joubert to attempt to have a man imprisoned (literally) based solely on the statements of child[ren] still in diapers not corroborated in any form or fashion while it is unethical for Jennifer Flores-Lamb and her lawyer to rely on the statements of a nearly 6 year old child corroborated by restaurant waiters, investigated by a child psychologist, and consistent with lies in progress (as noted previously the child's statements were consistent with and obviously designed to support the lie that the mother and lawyer were involved sexually).
These are not just two unrelated cases. Lanette Joubert (the attorney who tried to have a man imprisoned based on the completely uncorroborated statements of a child[ren] in diapers) is the same lawyer who claimed it was frivolous for Jennifer Flores-Lamb and her lawyer to rely on statements of a nearly 6 year old child. Again, to refresh, both parents testified the child was honest. The child was intelligent and was not impeached in any form or fashion. The father admitted he would be concerned if the child said he was the subject of the conspiracy the child described).
No Direct Answer Available
The ethical gurus James Ehler and Marie Haspil were asked to explain this apparent inconsistency, and they ignored the requests. Thus, we must determine the explanation through logic.
Corruption Not Adequate Explanation
It is of course tempting to explain the inconsistency by using the word "corruption." But, that is intellectually lazy and also not a useful analysis (although true). By analogy to Nazi Germany, it is not useful to explain the horrid conducts of that regime by the word "corruption." In order to understand the regime, although corrupt, a deeper analysis is necessary. One should try to understand how the corruption works. For example, generally, Nazi Germany did not send random people to the gas chamber. It sent specific ethnic and religious groups. We will try to understand the ethical Gurus James Ehler and Marie Haspil and the others at a deeper level than corruption.
Application of Rules
Part of the explanation is asymmetric ethics in other words the applicable rule depends on who you are not what you did. This is much like the Nazi Germany analogy. The people who went to the gas chamber were not selected generally based on what they did but who they were. Further, of course, the officers and high officials in the regime had different standards of conduct than others.
Basically, Lanette Joubert, William Dudley, and William Kelly are allowed to believe children but Jennifer Flores-Lamb and her attorney are not (particularly when the child reports misconduct by Lannette Joubert, William Dudley, and William Kelly).
Another principle previously discussed at play is the rule that child statements may be used to hurt you but not to help you. The legal system right now has a bias towards destruction of lives.
As for Judge William Adams, based on his status, he undoubtedly would have the right to believe his child, if his child said something in his favor, but if his child says something not in his favor, his ex
wife would not be allowed to believe the child. This is why it was so fortunate there was a videotape of the beating. He said he would not believe Jennifer Flores-Lamb's child unless what the child said was shown on videotape. Fortunately, his child had a videotape.
Thus, the Commentary No. 1 successfully explains this Case Study No. 1.
Practice Pointers
For lawyers, don't even bother arguing that there is a double standard or inconsistency or injustice. You just make people mad when you do this. If your client is hurt by these inconsistencies and injustices, it isn't your problem. Unless you are one of "them" like James Ehler, Marie Haspil, Lanette Joubert, William Dudley, and William Kelly, this isn't your fault. Again, like "Hunger Games, " it is not productive to argue with the status quo. Young people will be killed. You can't stop it.
If you are an ordinary citizen, it is recommended that you leave the state and reside in a state governed by more ethical principles of ethics particularly if you have children. Certainly, under no circumstances have children in this state. They will be believed if they supposed say you did something. They might be induced to say this. Even if the child refuses to say what he is told to say, you cannot rely on his honest statements. You will be attacked. Often, people like Lannette Joubert will say your child said something, and you are then isolated from your child, so you never know if your child really said it or not (or whether he was induced to say it).
0 comments