Lanette Joubert started arguing that my client had refused her client June summer visitation. This was a total lie. I had written her a letter agreeing to June visitation. She was just lying like usual. This was a false allegation. This was not a false allegation of the magnitude of false sexual contact but it was still a false allegation. This is the modus operandi of these lawyers.
She never presented a witness. This is very common. In the Stanley Rains case, there were many, many hearings before there was ever a witness. I just heard these lawyers make insinuations from their own mouths.
This would be unethical according to fabricated Joubert law as discussed earlier (a lawyer is unethical if he doesn't have personal knowledge). A lawyer is not required to have personal knowledge but a lawyer is required to have a factual basis (e.g. witnesses, documents, etc.). Their supposed factual basis for most of this time was the "park witnesses." These park witnesses never actually testified for the longest time. They never would have testified but for my efforts. Normally, the rantings of these professional liars is the only thing that is ever presented. When the park witnesses finally testified, their testimony was absurd. Most importantly, though, they denied ever saying what these lawyers claimed they said (the most damaging part). These lawyers fabricated evidence. James Ehler was OK with that fabrication of evidence that denied a man his child for years. He is utterly immoral and corrupt. We will see later that he is OK also with stealing children through fraud. He is utterly immoral and corrupt.
Anyway, back to the supposed denial of June visitation, Lanette Joubert presented not one thing other than her own statements. Her client was in the courtroom but she did not put him on the stand. He actually was remarkably honest in many instances. She couldn't put him on the stand.
Of course, Lanette Joubert's testimony was hearsay. She was there when the supposed denial of visitation occurred. She had to be relying on her client. No other known supposed witness to the conversation existed. It is hard to object to this kind of "testimony" in many instances because it is unclear whether the statements are in the nature of opening statement or testimony. It is not really known until later for sure that the lawyer does not intend to actually present any evidence and wants her statements accepted essentially as evidence. This is not proper procedure, of course.
I knew Joubert was lying like usual. I had written her a letter expressly agreeing to June summer visitation. She is a sociopathic liar. James Ehler and his protege Marie Haspil are lovers of lies and liars.
I presented my client as a witness. I knew she barely talked to her ex husband. She communicated with him primarily if not exclusively by text message. I strongly suspected the supposed conversation never occurred at all. But, certainly, she was entitled to present her side. I didn't know at the time what she would say but she was entitled to respond.
Joubert objected to hearsay. It wasn't hearsay. As every first year law student knows, verbal acts are not hearsay. For example, the words "I Accept" in the context of contract formation are not hearsay because in lawyer talk they are not for the truth of the matter asserted. Rather, they are legally operative acts. As another example, the words "I am going to kill you" in the context of a verbal assault case are not hearsay. The words are a legally operative act. Every lawyer knows this, and this is something that comes up in every case. If my client had in fact said "I deny you visitation" that is a legally operative act not a statement for the truth of the matter asserted. In contrast, Joubert's statements were hearsay because she was not personally present when the supposed statements occurred. She was not just testifying as to legally operative statements that she personally perceived. She was testifying as to statements made to her by another and asserting the statements were true (e.g. classic hearsay).
This is not just a situation of an incompetent lawyer who does not understand the hearsay rule. Once again, she was denying my client the right to even be heard just like with respect to several other issues. She gets to state the truth even though she doesn't know it (she wasn't there) and no response is allowed. This is like her claiming that I could not believe my client with respect to what happened at the mediation or about whether the homicidal psychotic would be watching the child. This is also like her claiming the child was not entitled to be heard (to a lesser extent because Joubert does have personal knowledge with respect to the restaurant meeting). Essentially, Joubert is the determiner of truth and opposition cannot respond. They are not even allowed to testify. They also are not entitled to legal representation. A lawyer who represents someone and presents evidence contrary to what these lawyers say is attacked.
I presented my letter where I told Joubert that June visitation was OK, and she and her client smirked. I am sure if Ehler was there he would have also. These people think lying is funny. It is total corruption, and unfortunately, the bar as represented by James Ehler and Marie Haspil supports it.
With respect to the restaurant meeting, Joubert and Judge Adams took the position that it was frivolous to believe the child rather than Lanette Joubert and crew. Joubert made a big deal that I never called her. Her position was that if I had asked her than I would have known the truth. I was frivolous for not asking her. First, I did ask her. I sent her very detailed letters immediately and invited response. She never responded. She was lying. Second, the notion that I have to believe her rather than my client is just corrupt. A lawyer is loyal to his client. The bar as represented by James Ehler and Marie Haspil supported this extreme corruption.
Another pattern is these lawyers accusing me of what they do. These lawyers testify personally (not just an opening statement) repeatedly and consistently. They accused me of that but identified no specific instance.These lawyers don't follow rules. They accused me of that yet provided no specific instance. The bar never follows rules. It is corrupt.
Oh, they never make false allegations like the restaurant meeting? This is just one of many, many just less serious than the restuarant. I know personally it was false because I wrote a letter agreeing to June visitation.
Lanette Joubert is so confident in the corruption of the bar that she included my brief on the hearsay rule as evidence of my misconduct. My brief was accurate citing treatises and cases. It should not have been necessary because it is black letter law. Why did she include it when it obviously was not misconduct -- it was a professional and accurate statement of the law?
The unstated rule is that it is unethical to oppose these lawyers and actually represent your client against them. They are corrupt. The bar is corrupt, and any attempt at genuine representation must be punished.