Facts
A child states that lawyers asked him to lie about his mother in ways that could put her in prison otherwise harm her. He was also asked to lie to support false allegations of sexual conduct by his mother and lawyer. He identifies specific lawyers by name and in one instance by his unique boots. The child didn't even know the name of at least one of these lawyers and had no reason to know about the unique boots of another one of the lawyers.
The lawyers identified by the child as present when the child was asked to lie were served subpeonas to require them to testify. These lawyers argued that they were not subject to subpeonas and that they were irrelevant. The mother and her lawyer were sanctioned.
These lawyers had been immediately informed about what the child said in great detail by letter. At the hearing, they lied and stated there was no attempt to deal with the situation informally. The judge knew this was a lie because he was also sent the same letters. The bar also knew this was a lie because they were sent the same letters.
The lawyers argued they were not subject to subpeona because they are "non-parties."
Analysis
The applicable rule clearly states that a subpeona may be served on "any person." The notion that a non party is not subject to subpeona is simply a fabrication. There is no such law. This is much like the position that children are not worthy of belief.
Marie Haspil loved this dishonest fabricated law so much that she copied this dishonest strategy herself later. A subpeona was served on the State Bar seeking communications between the Bar and Judge William Adams. There was good reason to believe that the bar had engaged in unethical ex parte with Judge Adams before he made his corrupt rulings. He referenced such unethical ex parte in his slander Text Message. The Text Message was the same day as he made his corrupt orders, so it is evident there was unethical ex parte between the bar and the judge before he made his corrupt orders. She made the same argument that the subpeona was invalid because the Bar was not a party to the litigation at issue. This argument is "in your face" corrupt.
Again, the rule very clearly states that a subpeona can be issued on "any person." Further, this is done all the time. Actually, Judge Adams subpoened non-parties for his family law hearing. It seems there is one rule for him and another for Jennifer Flores-Lamb? Discovery as the Courts have said repeatedly is the "engine of truth." The Court and the Bar were disrupting this engine of truth because they were corruptly seeking to conceal the solicitation of perjury that occurred (a crime).
Discovery from non-parties is much more likely to be accurate information than discovery from parties for obvious reasons (parties have a self interest and are involved in the controversy). One example occurred at this very hearing. Lanette Joubert presented blatantly false evidence about the condition of the father's child care provider. She said the health care provider was perfectly OK. The truth was only learned by subpena on a non-party (MHMR). The woman in truth is seriously mentally ill.By obstructing discovery with false legal positions, the Judge and the Bar concealed the truth and a crime.
The notion that the witness subpeonaed was irrelevant is blatantly dishonest. The witnessed subpeonaed was present during the meeting where the child was asked to lie according to the child. This witness and the others were never required to respond to what the child said in any meaningful way. One said "I may have been in Italy" an obviously meaningless statements (not subject to perjury due to qualification). There was no passport or airline ticket. There was not even an unequivocal statement.
There were half a dozen people at the meeting according to the child. All of them were busy professional people. Not a one ever presented any proof inconsistent with what the child said. Of course, it would be very unlikely that so many people would have no proof inconsistent with what the child said unless what the child said was true. The child gave a specific day, general time (later afternoon), and a specific place. This was not a general non falsifiable allegation (of the type commonly made by corrupt family lawyers like these). These lawyers were immediately informed of what the child said in great detail (there was no element of surprise). The mother and her lawyer acted in extreme good faith.instead of responding to the child's statements in a factual manner, the corrupt Judge Adams supported by the corrupt Bar obstructed all discovery and attacked the victim. They attacked the victims with lies (the lie that it is improper to subpeona a non-party is just one of a multitude of lies). There was total corruption.
Import
The fact is that normal rules don't apply to corrupt lawyers like these supported by a corrupt judge like this and supported by the consistently corrupt bar. This is not the first time. As just one example, the corrupt James Ehler ignored repeated ex parte orders, fabrication of evidence, perjuries, etc.in the Stanley Rains case.
0 comments