Tom Cunningham / Judicial Conduct Commission / Liar Judge William Adams / Lanette Joubert / William Dudley / James Ehler / Marie Haspil Lying / Corruption / Dishonesty / Sleaze Austin, Texas

Tom Cunningham was personally present at the Sunset Commission hearing relative to the Judicial Conduct Commission.

He personally heard how Judge William Adams held it was frivolous for a mother to believe her own child. This is obviously a corrupt fraudulent supposed proposition of law.

The fact is that Courts regularly believe children and so do police, visitation centers, CPS, prosecutors, etc. This was a totally fabricated and fraudulent corrupt principle of supposed law.

He also personally heard that this ruling was made by Judge William Adams in favor of his personal lawyer who was one of the child abusers according to the child (William Dudley). Extensive written materials were submitted including a transcript showing that this child was described as honest and intelligent by both of his parents and that numerous facts and circumstances supported what the child said, and the child was never impeached other than by vague unsupported denials.  The Commission ignored the fact that Judge William Adams didn't follow the law (the code of Judicial Conduct requires that judges follow the law) and Judge William Adams had a huge undisclosed conflict of interest (also a violation of the judicial code of conduct). The commission was clearly ignoring extreme misconduct. No honest lawyer or judge would say that it is frivolous to believe a child. This was corruption. The bar also involved in this extreme corruption. 

He also personally heard that Judge William Adams held that it is irrelevant that a child care provider is homicidal, suicidal, psychotic, etc. Again, supporting materials were presented. This woman had attempted suicide at least once and hullucinatory at times. Judge William Adams refused to even look into the situation endangering the child's welfare. The Judge had refused discovery on the issue based solely on a dishonest representation by Lanette Joubert and the child care provider that the child care provider was perfectly OK. You see Lanette Joubert a close affiliate of the corrupt William Dudley can lie with impunity and the truthfulness of her representations cannot be tested with discovery. This is called corruption. Again, the bar was involved in this corruption. It was not concerned with the fact that Joubert lied but that the mother's attorney revealed the lie. 

The consisted theme behind these and other similar situations known personally to Tom Cunningham is that Judge William Adams and the bar were corrupt. They obstructed  the truth with fraudulent legal propositions and lies. They concealed the fact that the a child reported "horrific child abuse" according to the child psychologist who interviewed the child and found him credible.  They concealed a reported crime with dishonesty and corruption. Judge Adams was right in the middle of this systemic corruption. No reasonable lawyer or judge would say again that a mother should not believe her child. Mothers are supposed to believe their child (and protect them). This mother did just what she was supposed to. The child's story checked out in numerous ways. Similarly, only an insane lawyer or judge would say it is irrelevant that a child care provider is homicidal, psychotic, etc.  Tom Cunningham is aware of these matters having heard the testimony personally of the mother and her lawyer at the Sunset Commission hearing and having received written materials.

Yet, he writes an opinion stating that there is consensus among lawyers that Judge William Adams makes reasoned decisions. He knows that is a lie. The Commission flat ignored to even investigate the very serious complaints of this mother of judicial corruption by Judge William Adams particularly outrageously corrupt decisions not founded anywhere in the law. It then through Tom Cunningham represents that there is a consensus that Judge William Adams makes reasoned decisions. It knows that is not true, and particularly Tom Cunningham knows that is not true. Could they cherry pick a group of lawyers who said that? Possibly. But, they completely ignored the lawyer and his client who not only said otherwise but has presented unrebutted evidence otherswise.

This lawyer has repeatedly pointed out that there is nowhere in Texas law that says a child should not be believed, On the contrary, there are all kinds of statutes providing special procedures for child testimony which clearly means children are not to be ignored. There are many institutions that regularly believe children whether police, prosecutors, CPS, child advocacy centers, etc. People regularly go to prison based on what children say (sometimes with little more) and children much younger and less competent than the child at issue have sent people to prison (in one instance a child just 2 years old at the time of the alleged incident also with mental handicap).  Nobody has ever rebutted the truths. They can't because they are truths. The fact is that Judge William Adams was corruptly protecting his personal lawyer William Dudley who was one of the child abusers according to the child with a corrupt fabricated principle of law. He was concealing a crime (solicitation of perjury, obstruction of justice, etc.). He was flat out corrupt. 

Tom Cunningham knows these things personally yet he writes an opinion stating that there is consensus among all lawyers (yes, the lawyers cherry picked but the clear dishonest implication was that all lawyers agreed which he knew for a fact was not true). What this child reported was the most heineous crimes imaginable (attempting to falsely set up a mother for imprisonment by asking her child to lie about her). These lawyers had lied about other things in the same case (they lied repeatedly that this mother and her lawyer were having some kind romantic or sexual relationship and they had zero evidence of that). By the way, the child was told to lie in a way to support the lie these lawyers had been telling (he was told to say he saw his mother and her lawyer in bed). This strongly among other things corroborates what the child said (he didn't know about that lie being told by William Dudley and Lanette Joubert). 

It is preposterous to believe the child made these things up including numerous specifics some verified by independent third party sources. Of course, if the child had lied as requested, he would have been believed and this mother probably criminally prosecuted. The child is believed if he says one thing (the mother touched him) but it is frivolous to believe him if he says something else (Lanette Joubert, William Dudley, etc. lied telling me to say that).

Nobody of course can take a legal system seriously that acts this crooked. Judge Adams was right in the middle of this crookedness. He admitted  that he believes children when he signs arrest warrants. Of course, he would have signed an arrest warrant on this child without thinking twice if this child had lied as requested. Lanette Joubert and William Dudley regularly believe children who supposedly accuse their parents of various things (usually with far less corroboration than present in this situation and usually they make very vague nonfalsifiable accusations unlike the situation here where the child's statements were very specific including date, general time and could have been falsifiable). There were more than half a dozen people and not one has shown they were somewhere else (the police officer present misrepresented GPS records and it was later learned at deposition that he had his GPS Turned off at the relevant time).

There was clear lunacy and corruption in Judge William Adams attacking this mother for believing her own child (her lawyer also). She had no choice. She had to defend herself and she had to defend her child  from the horrific child abuse as described by a child psychologist.  There was clear insanity in Judge William Adams holding that it is irrelevant that a child care provider is severely mentally ill.

The point here though is that Tom Cunningham intentionally wrote a deceptive and dishonest opinion. He knows that there is not a consensus that Judge William Adams makes reasoned rulings. He corruptly ignored the serious violations by Judge Williams Adams not only of reason but of law, judicial ethics. That is flat out wrong. There is no one honest in the "watch dog" legal institutions of the State of Texas (the Texas State Bar and the Texas Judicial Conduct Commission)