Judge William Adams - Texas State Bar - Judicial Conduct Commission - Marie Haspil - James Ehler Lanette Joubert - William Dudley - William Kelly Judicial Attorney Lying Austin Texas, Texas

Commentary No. 2
Judicial and Attorney Lying

Background

Child statements are proper evidence in Court so long as the child is not incompetent. The standard of competency is low. If the child knows his name, colors, etc.,, he is competent. This doesn't mean that the fact finder will believe him, but it means his statements are proper evidence for consideration.

Courts, prosecuting attorneys, police, CPS, etc. commonly believe children. Further, children are commonly believed in civil litigation particularly litigation relating to child abuse.

A mother not only has the right to believe her child but she should according to CPS.  If a mother ignores reports by the child of child abuse, CPS considers this an issue sometimes requiring intervention. Of course, the most obvious case would be if the child reports sexual molestation by the mother's boyfriend and the mother ignores this.  In some cases, this should even be grounds for termination of parental rights.

The child at issue in this case was not even arguably incompetent. The child reported what a child psychologist characterized as "horrific" child abuse. Specifically, the child reported that lawyers and others were asking the child to lie that his mother had "touched" him and he saw his mother and her lawyer in bed together. The child's statements were recorded multiple times including by the psychologist.

The child's statements were extensively investigated. The child said he was at a specific restaurant at a general time on a specific date and sat a specific table (he even described which side of the table). He said his father was with him and various other people. These things were confirmed by the restaurant waiters (not the exact identities of the people but the number and general description). The child was taken to a child psychologist, and he told her the same thing. She believed he appeared credible.

A client has the right to presentation of lawful evidence. The lawyer can make recommendations but the ultimate decision is the client's decision. A judge can disbelieve evidence and make legitimate evidentiary rulings but he cannot deny a party the right to be heard including lawful witnesses.

Judge William Adams attacked this mother and her lawyer for presenting the statements of this child. There was no lawful basis for him doing this. The attacks were serious. He impugned the lawyers honesty without grounds and sanctioned many thousands of dollars without grounds. This lawyer had a duty to present evidence on behalf of his client whether he believed the evidence personally or not (subject to various rules not even arguably at issue here). In this case, this lawyer believed the child.

There was no colorable argument made that this child was incompetent. There was no argument made at all that the child didn't make these statements. The argument made was incredibly dishonest. The argument was that it is frivolous to believe children because they are fantasizers. That has no legal basis whatsoever. The Courts do not consider all children to be fantasizers.

Judge William Adams said he would not believe the child absent video of what the child described (in other words, the child's words would be given no credence whatsoever in and of themselves). Further, he imposed a corroboration requirement. Generally, corroboration means independent evidence generally supporting the statements of the witness but not every detail of what the witness said. Here, there was clearly corroboration (e.g. the restaurant waiters) but Judge Adams demanded corroboration of every detail (again, this would mean the child's statements would be given no credence in and of themselves).  There are very few types of cases requiring corroboration of the testimony of a witness. There is no applicable such requirement here.

Later, it was learned that one of the lawyers who asked the child to lie was the judge's personal lawyer in his personal family law case. The judge had a serious undisclosed conflict of interest,

Analysis

The lawyers particularly Lanette Joubert clearly lied. She knows that child testimony is competent testimony. She knows the law does not consider all children to be fantasizers. She presented no argument that this child was incompetent. Her own client testified that the child is honest and intelligent. She regularly believes children in her own practice. She has a history of asking children to lie (which will be discussed subsequently). If this child had said his mother touched him or he saw his mother and her lawyer in bed together, she would have used the child's statements and never would have called the child a fantasizer. One trend we will see through these commentaries and case studies is that with Lanette Joubert claims the law is anything she wants at the time and the law is one thing for her and another for others.  She just lied. She maliciously lied (just like the lie that will be discussed in Commentary No. 3).

Judge William Adams lied. He lied for attacking a lawyer for presenting obviously pertinent and competent evidence. The lawyer would not be representing his client if he just ignored the fact that the client was being set up for a false sexual allegation according to a competent child. He did these things operating under an undisclosed conflict of interest. He also lied when he said the child's statements were not investigated. He heard evidence of extensive investigation and never suggested any investigation that wasn't done.

Marie Haspil and James Ehler lied.  It it is just a lie for them to say that a lawyer acted frivolously for presenting evidence of a perfectly competent child. They were presented with extensive factual and legal materials which should not have even been necessary because this is all black letter law. James Ehler has a long history of supporting fraud and corruption in our legal system (involving these same lawyers -- which will be discussed in later Case Studies). The best that can be said is that they were doing the bidding of the corrupt Judge William Adams. However, that is no defense. They are supposed to enforce ethics not judicial corruption. However, they probably were not just doing the bidding of the corrupt Judge William Adams. There is significant reason to believe they were involved in ex parte with the judge. They knew about he restaurant meeting within hours (they were faxed a letter). They conspired with these corrupt attorneys and the text messages where Judge William Adams admits he was conferring with them even before he signed his corrupt orders. Further, when discovery was sought from them of their communications with the Corrupt Judge William Adams, they made bogus privilege arguments to conceal those communications. They claimed to be his lawyer (e.g. attorney client privilege), and they claimed he was part of the commission (internal deliberation like privilege). The truth is they were committing unethical ex parte by communicating with him.