The child identified among other William Kelly and William Dudley asking him to lie that his mother had "touched" him and that he saw his mother and her lawyer in bed together.
As summary, the corrupt Judge William Adams, Lanette Joubert, William Dudley, William Kelly, Marie Haspil, James Ehler, and the Texas Bar generally took the position that it was frivolous for this mother to believe her child (same for her lawyer). This was a corrupt lie. There is no legal principle stating that children are not worthy of belief. Further, there was nothing about this child that made him unbelievable. Further, these lawyers and this judge commonly believe children including children much younger and less competent than this child. They fraudulently created a legal principle and then said it was violated.
Further, they claimed that it was harassing and frivolous to subpeona the people involved in asking the child to lie. They claimed it was wrong to subpeona a non-party. There is no such law. That was a fraud. They also claimed they were "irrelevant" even though they were present when the crime at issue was committed. Total corrupt nonsense.
Now, two of these lawyers were asked to produce professional writings including a book. Professional writings are commonly requested of professional witnesses. Nearly all books and other writings on examination of professional witnesses state that these types of materials should be obtained. Obviously, the purpose is to limit the witness and also to understand him to permit full and proper examination. These types of materials are requested of professional witnesses all the time. Some writings even suggest that it is malpractice not to request materials of this type.
William Dudley particularly took the position that I should be sanctioned because there was no such book. I was attacked on what evidence I had of such a book. Of course, that is lunacy. There is no requirement anywhere that I know something exists before I ask for it. Actually, the purpose of asking for it normally is to see if it exists. These rules are not called discovery rules for nothing. The purpose is to "discovery" what exists. Now, for nit-pickers, technically this was a trial subpeona not a discovery subpeona but loosely speaking the term discovery is applicable (there are a few rules that make a distinction which are not applicable for purposes of this discussion).
This was a totally dishonest position for William Dudley to take. There is no basis for it anywhere in the rules. It was totally dishonest for the Judge and the Bar to take the same position. The bar is shamelessly dishonest and inconsistent. As just one example, during the course of the various cases, it sent various document requests for things it did certainly had no idea whether existed. Its document requests were proper because again it is not necessary to know whether something exists to ask for it. Again, you have the situation of a nonexistent rule being created, and then I am attacked for vioating the nonexistent rule. William Dudley is the Judge's personal lawyer it is now know (a huge conflict of interest). This conflict of interest was never disclosed.
It gets worse. You have the surreal experience of Lanette Joubert telling the judge that I needed to produce the book before they should have to produce it (these lawyers always act as a team; she wasn't asked for the book, but again they act as a team). How stupid is that? There are a few exceptions of course, but generally there would be no reason to ask for something that you already have. It doesn't get much more insane than this.
But, it gets worse, although I am not required to prove something exists to ask for it, I did. I coincidentally had two witnesses present who had held the book in their hands. They got up and testified that they had seen the book, held the book, and where (the Nueces County Law Library). Yet, Judge Adams signs an order drafted by William Dudley stating that there was no evidence that the book existed.
Think about how many witnesses were ignored: 1) the child, 2) the mother, 3) the restaurant waiters, 4) the child psychologist, and 5) the book witnesses. How many witnesses did they have? Zero other than themselves and their testimony was conclusory at best. None of these witnesses were impeached other than with sarcasm.
William Dudley particularly has written numerous articles for the Bar relating to family law and procedure. Most are "old" before the year 2000 and difficult to find. I found a few and they were not particularly interesting and not well written. But, some I didn't find could easily have been useful. Of course, his writings would not say that it is frivolous to believe children — that was a lie just for this fraud and would not be in a professional writing to be read generally by peers. His writings may have been useful to counter act his numerous misrepresentations of law is the point. Even Judge Adams got to talking about how the "book" the witnesses saw may have been a compilation of articles. He admitted there may have been a book but it was sanctionable for me to ask for it? There is no reason I should not of had it to assist with examination (an examination I was never able to really make by the way). It would have taken him about 2 seconds to grab it from whatever shelf he has it on if he still has it.
This kind of wraps up the sanctioned imposed by Judge William Adams although it doesn't wrap up the dishonesty or fraud by him. This is a good time to summarize the sanctions. I was sanctioned for believing a perfectly credible child. I was sanctioned for issuing subpeona for obviously relevant witnesses (the people who asked the child to lie according to the child), and I was sanctioned for asking for professional writings of professional witnesses. The fact is every thing I did was completely proper.
Actually, it would be malpractice arguably not to do these things. Actually, I have responded to grievances along the lines of 1) why didn't you subpeona witness X, 2) why didn't you subpeona document Y, and 3) why didn't you rely on witness Z. Of course, you can always do more, so these complaints in my view were unmeritorious. However, the point is that I was doing what I supposed to do as a lawyer. I was doing it without significant compensation to help an abused woman and child.
My conduct was exemplary. Why was I attacked? For one thing, William Dudley was Judge William Adams' personal lawyer with respect to his plan to get custody of his daughter. This was a huge conflict of interest. Judge William Adams by ordering me to pay Dudley thousands of dollars was "paying" his personal lawyer. Also, he was supporting the "credibility" and methods of his personal lawyer.
But, there is more. I have seen over the course of over a decade James Ehler support this abusive and dishonest lawyers. I have seen him look the other way at extreme unethical conduct by them including for example fabrication of evidence. I personally saw him smirk and laught as William Dudley got caught telling a black and white lie during a proceeding. I don't know all the corrupt dynamics at play. It might be best characterized as politics or it could be some personal relationship, but whatever the Bar acting through James Ehler looks the other way at extreme misconduct by these lawyers, and any time someone tries to stand up to the frauds of these lawyers he attacks their victims.
In any event, I went into that hearing to protect my client from a false sexual allegation in progress (actually more than one). First, according to the child, he was being asked to lie that his mother "touched" him. Second, they had been lying for months that there was a sexual relationship between the mother and her lawyer (me). I was just asking they be ordered to stop (a pretty darn reasonable request). I was trying to protect my client and myself from several bad things in progress including potentially including prison. I left with over $10,000 in sanctions and I was obviously being set up for trouble with the bar (this was evident in roughly the first 5 minutes of the hearing). It is now known the bar and Judge Adams were probably doing ex parte before the hearing (which is unethical). The bar has never denied that and asserted bogus privileges to avoid discovery on that.
Hopefully, it should be more than evident why I am upset about this. However, this is not just about me. This is about the public. There can be no way any member of the public can have confidence of justice when lawyers and the bar act so corruptly. I was offered the opportunity to continue practicing law if I admitted I was wrong. I refused. Someone needs to oppose evil and corruption like this and that someone is me.
I have already had some success. I cannot take complete credit but I contributed to some extent together with both Jennifer Flores-Lamb and Stanley Rains. We testified before the Sunset Commission about the Judicial Conduct Commission. It never made the news because the recommendations at issue were made low key orally rather than in writing, but the Sunset Commission made three recommendations for new laws to make the Judicial Conduct Commission more responsive and accountable to the public. The commission will need to give written explanations for its decisions. It will need to hold annual meetings for public comment. I cannot remember the third one right now.
0 comments