We have seen by now the really major instances of dishonesty and corruption by James Ehler and Marie Haspil with respect to the Jennifer Flores-Lamb case. Before moving on to the Larry Adams fraud case and the Stanley Rains corruption case also involving the corrupt bar, some smaller lies will be discussed. The smaller lies have great importance. First, there is the death by a thousand cuts that occurs when nearly everything said is a lie. Second, the smaller lies show the thorough dishonesty and corruption of the bar. Many of these lies are indisputable, and when there are so many the bar's bad faith becomes indisputable. The major lies are summarized.
First, James Ehler and Marie Haspil participated in the lie that it is frivolous to believe a child. There is no such law. Children are believed in court, and there was nothing about this child that made him unbelievable. The fact is that the child reported a crime (witness tampering, solicitation of perjury, etc.). The child was very specific. There was a lot of corroboration both third party witnesses and a wide variety of circumstances and facts. The bar was covering up a crime. The bar has repeatedly over the years covered up misconduct by these lawyers. The fact is that an ethical lawyer had a duty to act on his client behalf when the child said these things, and the bar is totally corrupt and even criminal for covering up what the child said and attacking a lawyer who was representing his client. They should be in prison. This is not a small thing. They were setting this woman up for a false sexual allegation which could result in prison and certainly loss of her child. The notion that a lawyer should do nothing under these circumstances is corrupt beyond reason. This child's statements were recorded on video and audio several times, this child was interviewed by a child psychologist who believed the child, third party restaurant waiters confirmed the meeting occurred as described by the child (the day, general time, place, and even the table). The child knew things he could not have otherwise known (names he didn't otherwise know and details like unique boots he didn't otherwise know). The child was asked to lie in ways to support lies already being told (e.G. Romantic or sexual relationship between lawyer and client). The bar particularly James Ehler and Marie Haspil were intensely corrupt in attacking a lawyer representing his client under these circumstances. It would have been totally unethical for the lawyer to ignore this woman and her child when there was obviously a very serious threat in progress. The corrupt bar particularly the corrupt James Ehler has a long history of protecting these same lawyers from their lies, lack of ethics, and crimes.
Second, the bar participated in the lie that it is unethical for a lawyer to subpeona obviously relevant witnesses and documents on behalf of his client. Obviously, the people the child identified as requesting that he lie are relevant in a proceeding on that very issue. The lying of these corrupt lawyers is totally shameless. There can be faith in the legitimacy of the legal system so long as such obviously corrupt lawyers are allowed to hold positions of responsibility. This lie of course is related to the first lie. Both lies were designed to cover up the solicitation of perjury reported by the child. This is not the first time this has happened. The same thing happened in the Stanley Rains case. The child reported she was being induced to lie about her father. Discovery was not allowed, and the bar corruptly supported the same corrupt lawyers in a similar manner.in that case, there was videotape of the "interviews" of the child at issue. The videotapes were never produced. The truth was concealed as here.
Third, the bar participated in the lie that the child care provider used by the father was perfectly OK. The truth was that the child care provider was homicidal, suicidal, psychotic, heavily drugged, etc. The mother testified that the child care provider had mental issues and explained why she believed that. The mother was ignored, because the proceeding was obviously corrupt. The requested discovery was denied. However, a subpeona had been issued on MHMR and the truth came out despite the lies and corruption (Lanette Joubert lied stating the child care provider was perfectly OK). The bar rather than showing concern at Joubert's dishonest (remember, James Ehler loves lies and liars) rather attacked the lawyer who discovered the truth on behalf of his client (another corrupt cover up). The bar said he violated an order (he did not violate an order; the order only addressed medical records from the child care provider not from MHMR; further, he suggested that MHMR be addressed in the same order and was ignored). The bar said the records were privileged. They were not. Every arguably relevant privilege has an exception for child custody cases involving the welfare of the child. Most offensively, it attacked me for believing my client when my client had actually been right on this and every other issue including the matter at issue. Specifically, Lanette Joubert lied stating the homicidal psychotic would not be watching the child. This was a new position never taken before. She had previously said the homicidal psychotic had watched the child since birth and would watch the child in the future. You see according to the corrupt dishonest James Ehler and Marie Haspil, not only does Lanette Joubert have the right to lie, but she must be believed even when she changes her position. The bar literally sent me a letter two business days before trial demanding to know why I believed my client. That is corrupt beyond words. The bar doesn't care one flip about the public and the genuineness of representation but rather corrupt bar lawyers like James Ehler and Marie Haspil work to protect liars like Lanette Joubert and the fact that the result is endangerment of a child doen't matter to them. No Texas litigant can really expect genuine representation when you have corrupt bar lawyers behind the scenes attacking their lawyers for believing them. This is nothing short of corruption of the legal process.
Fourth, the bar at least tacitly participated in the lie that this mother was involved in a sexual / romantic relationship with her lawyer. These abusive lawyers came very close to calling her a whore paying for attorneys' fees with sex (they certainly implied this). There was no factual basis for this. No, eating dinner together doesn't mean there is a sexual or romantic relationship. These lawyers have a long history of telling sexual lies, and the corrupt dishonest James Ehler has a long history of supporting there lies. This happened for at least years in the Stanley Rains case. The utterly corrupt James Ehler received a complaint from Stanley Rains because evidence was fabricated with respect to his penis (a lie was told that his penis was erect when that would be inappropriate). Specifically, an attorney lied stating that witnesses told her this. When the witnesses were finally cross examined, they denied not only saying this but they denied ever talking to the ad litem (until much later). Further, the lie was absurd on its face. The witnesses would need to have X-Ray Superman Vision to see the status of the penis through the car door, clothing, the child, etc According to the extremely dishonest and corrupt James Ehler, this didn't even state a claim. Fabrication of evidence (in other words lying) doesn't state a claim? James Ehler is corrupt to the core and his corruption hurts real people.
In any event, since James Ehler thinks it is perfectly OK to go around lying about sex or making conclusions about sex on the most hair thin evidence or bizarre inferences, my thought right now is to join him not fight him. At that hearing where he laughed when Dudley lied, attempting to corrupt the proceeding, it seems to me that there were romantic glances exchanged between Ehler and Dudley. Those who lie and engage in corruption together I infer are sleeping together. There seemed to be an electric romantic and sexual energy in the air between the two of them. They are sexually involved. Go ahead and complain, James Ehler. You think it is OK for these lawyers to abusively and repeatedly effectively call a woman a whore and a lawyer her John based on no real evidence. What goes around comes around, and you deserve this and a whole lot more. You deserve no respect no matter how arrogantly you consider yourself respectable. You aren't. This is a good time to announce the romantic and sexual relationship existing between Ehler and Dudley. I don't really have any evidence, other than gut instinct, but like I said Ehler approves of this kind of lying, and I figure now that if I can't beat them I might as well join them.
Now, although I may have left out a big lie, I proceed to the first little lie. My client owned the house as her separate property. Her parents gave the down payment to her (not her and her husband). This is documented by a contemporaneous gift affidavit and check. Her separate property rights in the house were ignored because she was the designated "screwee."
This was already done by the time I got involved. This was not really an issue because there were other more important issues. Lanette Joubert sent over a deed and asked that my client signed it. She did not send over a deed of trust to secure assumption. I drafted a deed of trust to secure assumption and made a minor revision to the deed.
Specifically, I stated that the deed was subject to the deed of trust to secure assumption. The way the deed was drafted the deed of trust to secure assumption arguably would be ineffective if not filed before the deed. This request was entirely reasonable and appropriate.
Lanette Joubert files a motion asking that my client and I be sanctioned for refusing to sign the deed. This was a total lie. There was a reasonable request for revision not a refusal to sign the deed. Lanette Joubert is a liar, and the bar supports her lying. She is constantly filing dishonest motions and she files a motion to sanction as part of nearly every filed document.
The judge of course didn't grant the motion to sanction. This judge was acting honorably. I asked the judge to resolve the dispute over the wording of the deed. Joubert objected stating there was no motion on file. So, she not only lied about my refusal to sign the deed she obstructed efforts at judicial resolution. I was obviously acting reasonably.
The issue was resolved when the two documents were signed simultaneously. I knew my runner was faster than hers and so my document would be filed first which would resolve the potential problem. As part of that meeting, Lanette Joubert threw a document at my client's face. Further, after my client signed a document, Joubert refused to allow my client to have a copy of what she just signed. Her behavior was atrocious.
Well, months later, Joubert as part of her grievance to the bar lied again stating that I refused to sign a deed. The judge had not granted that motion. I showed the bar the letter where I agreed to sign the deed with a minor revision. The bar didn't care. James Ehler is a lover of liars.
This is just one example of many. The bar loves lying and liars. However, the most shocking thing to me is that even though the bar knows that Joubert is a liar, it demands that I believe her rather than my client who has never lied. What kind of ethics is that? It isn't. It is corruption.
0 comments