Background
Lanette Joubert, William Dudley, William Kelly, and Lanette Joubert told a judge that they needed to depose the lawyer for the mother of the child David Sibley for 10 hours. It turns out their primary purpose for the deposition was asking whether the lawyer had sex with his client.
David Sibley testified that he had not. He also testified that he had not kissed her. He testified he had held her hand. He testified that this happened at the child's demand. Essentially, the child ran down the sidewalk in front of his mother and her lawyer. He turned around and shouted "hold hands" so they did. Later, it was added that they had held hands in church during prayer. He also testified that he and the mother had eaten dinner together and gone to sea world (with a group of about 7 people all together) and had gone to Oyster Fest (again with a group of people).
There is of course nothing wrong with a lawyer and client socializing. These facts somehow became evidence of lawyer and client involved sexually. Two motions were filed to disqualify. After one judge denied a motion to disqualify, the motion was refiled with a second judge. The second motion was particularly dishonest because it claimed the lawyer admitted to a romantic and sexual relationship. The wording was "tricky." The first sentence is an accusation of such a relationship. The second sentence said the lawyer admitted to the "personal relationship." In context, it was obvious that the "personal relationship" referenced was a romantic / sexual relationship not just innocent socializing which was actually what was admitted. The allegation of a romantic / social relationship was a lie not supported by evidence. Eating dinner together is not evidence of sexual relationship, and neither is innocent socializing or going to church and what not. The allegation was a lie.
The dishonesty was deeper though than merely the lie of a romantic / sexual relationship. Two motions were filed seeking disqualification based on this lie. The fact is that even if the lie were true, it would not be grounds for disqualification. There no reason a lawyer cannot represent a girlfriend, wife, or other person significant to him (without more). There was never additional facts alleged which would create grounds for disqualification (e.G. The lawyer was a witness of facts favorable to the opposition who would be deprived of that evidence by the lawyer's status as attorney in the case; there was no allegation of any such evidence the lawyer had).
This lie was told for at least two reasons. First, the hope was to have the mother's lawyer disqualified leaving her helpless. Fortunately, Judge Adams was not the judge with either motion to disqualify. These lawyers repeatedly make frivolous motions, but the judges who the motions were straight. Second, this was done to harass the mother and the lawyer. The mother was portrayed as a whore, and the lawyer as a sleazy family lawyer. These lawyers work as a slander team (Lanette Joubert, William Dudley, William Kelly, and Larry Adams), and they spread their slander throughout the legal community. This lie was particularly offensive to this woman who is very religious and they were accusing her of what she believes is a very serious sin. It was very offensive to the lawyer for a different reason. He was representing this woman who was obviously being abused by these lawyers largely pro bono (without compensation). Lawyers are supposed to do this. He was acting positively and ethically and these lawyers through their lies characterized him as sleazy.
The corrupt Judge Adams escalates the lying. He sends his ex wife a text message stating that the lawyer was involved with his client. He makes the incredible inference that the lawyer is physically dangerous because he is involved with his client. Well, if a man has a girlfriend, he is physically dangerous? That is stupid or insane. It just doesn't follow. You have several levels of dishonesty and insanity. If two adults go to dinner, it means they are sexually involved? Further, it means one of them is physically dangerous? That is just nuts. These people are unethical or crazy or both. Judge Adams literally told his ex wife to not let his daughter walk home from school alone the lawyer could be a danger to her. You know saying that is slanderous beyond belief. It is also ironic. Judge Adams later it is learned is a child beater. The lawyer had never hurt any child. Along these same lines, Judge Adams refused to believe the child because children are "fantasizers" absent a video of what the child described. Well, the judge's daughter had a video. Good for her. The notion that there must be a video is known nowhere in the law. Of course, a video is good, but it is not required. Most criminal prosecutions for example do not involve videos. The prosecutions are mostly based on witnesses and sometimes physical evidence. Imagine if a witness identifies the criminal defendant as having done some crime let's say burglary and the defendant then says the witness is not entitled to belief because there is no video. That just doesn't fly, but that is exactly what Judge Adams did. Again, it is ironic justice that his daughter did have a videotape.
These lawyers repeatedly lie about sex. The biggest example would be the Stanley Rains case where they lied for years (they didn't have any evidence). These lawyers were caught fabricating evidence in the Stanley Rains case (which will be discussed later). The corrupt Texas State Bar represented by James Ehler said that fabrication of evidence does not state an ethical complaint.
Analysis
The child said these lawyers were asking him to lie that he saw his mother and her lawyer in bed together. The judge and these lawyers took the position that this was ridiculous, and the child was a fantasizer. However, it is not ridiculous, these lawyers had been claiming groundlessly that the mother and lawyer were sexually involved for months. The child did not know about the lies being told and probably did not fully understand sexual concepts (at age 5 nearly 6). However, he says he was told to lie in ways designed to support the sexual lies being told. This of course strong cooborates what the child said. As noted previously, children are competent witnesses absent showing of incompetency. This particular child was extremely competent.
The same Judge Adams who would not believe the child absent videotape of what the child described had no trouble believing the lie about a sexual or romantic relationship not only with no videotape of that but with no witness or anything just very strained inferences (obviously, it is absurd to infer that people are having sex because they eat dinner together; it is not unusual at all for lawyer and client to eat meals together and they aren't all having sex). The judge in addition to believing this absurd inference adds additional absurdity (e.G. The lawyer must be violent because he is supposedly having a relationship with his client). It is not really possible for the judge to this stupid. You don't get through law school and the pass the bar being this stupid. He is just being maliciously dishonest.By the way, he told his ex wife to call the police if she even saw the lawyer (who lives essentially in the same small town as her). That is trouble stirring and malicious beyond belief. There is a history of strange police behavior when these lawyers are involved. This is probably a good example of how this happens. Malicious lies are told behind the scene which stirs up trouble with the police. This is particularly dangerous when a judge is doing it.
As for the bar, they died nothing.in fact, the protected this harassment. These lawyers were obviously harassing and causing unnecessary expense. If they weren't lying to the tribunal, they were making retarded inferences to the tribunal (the tribunal was being retarded also). They ignored this abuse which is just a small part of the total abuse. They attacked the victims which is a pattern lasting a decade which will be very evidence when the Stanley Rains case is directly addressed. Essentially, as will be seen over and over again as these discussions continue, these lawyers are allowed to be as abusive as they wish and their victims are attacked.
This woman should not have been attacked repeatedly for supposedly having sex with her lawyer the implication being she did it essentially as a whore to pay attorneys' fees with no evidence of that whatsoever just strained abusive inferences. The lawyer should not have been attacked either. They should not have had to deal with multiple frivolous motions to disqualify. The bar actually joined the unethical attacks of this woman and her lawyer attacking both during the course of litigation including 2 days before trial and probably during the trial itself.
0 comments