Marie Haspil / James Ehler / Texas State Bar Corruption Lanette Joubert / William Dudley / William Kelly Institutional Lying About the Law supported by the Bar Austin, Texas

We have seen how William Dudley, Lanette Joubert, and Judge William Adams lied about the law with respect to child witnesses.  If the child reveals their plot, it is frivolous to believe him. Of course, if the child participates in their plot, the child's testimony is near gospel. There is no law to support the proposition that child testimony is "fantasy" which is exactly what these lawyers and this judge said (with no evidence at all that this child fantasized) and actually a very large amount of evidence indicating that he didn't. We have seen how the Bar represented by James Ehler and Marie Haspil participated in this fraud.

The bottom line according to the these crooked lawyers, this crooked judge, and the crooked bar is that a parent who hears an outcry of "horrific abuse" (as described by a child psychologist) must ignore that outcry, even when the abuse involves setting the parent up potentially for prison. That of course is nonsense, and no honest lawyer would say such a thing. These lawyers are not honest. They are intentionally dishonest.

We have seen a few more examples such as the lie that it is against the rules to subpeona a nonparty witness. Again, no honest lawyer would say such a thing. The only way to reconcile the bizarre positions taken by these lawyers, this judge, and the bar is to realize that they are just dishonest. These lawyers steal children based on fraud and other abuses, and the bar consistently supports them. It is corruption. It goes to the top of the bar. South Texas has been rated by at least one survey as one of the 5 top zones of legal corruption in the United States.

It was rated more corrupt than even Chicago (an area legendary for its corruption). This would not be surprising when the top officials in the bar responsible for ethics are corrupt and dishonest to the core.  We will see how James Ehler thought that a lie to a tribunal designed to corrupt the proceeding was funny, how he found that fabrication of evidence was ethical, etc.  It should not be a surprise that one of the largest judicial / attorney corruption scandals in recent history is playing out right now in South Texas. 

I personally complained about the District Attorney involved in that scandal. His office abused a client. The abuse included the District Clerk's Office (who would not produce pleadings and affidavits filed of public record). My client in that case committed suicide as a result of the corruption at issue (he killed himself when he was falsely accused of molesting his child). I believe that the opposing counsel in that case is one of the lawyers charged with bribing that judge (I am not absolutely positive -- it may be a lawyer with a similar name). James Ehler and Marie Haspil approved of Larry Adams stealing a child through blatant fraud.

That is background. Now, the Jennifer Flores-Lamb case started when she was lied to at mediation by Lannette Joubert and William Kelly. They lied to her about the law. They said she would never be allowed to leave Corpus Christi for Austin. That was a lie. The law involves many factors and the ultimate decision cannot be predicted with certainty. A very good chance exists that she would have been allowed to leave. Lanette Joubert and William Kelly are close affiliates of several decades. Lanette Joubert was opposing counsel and William Kelly was mediator. Their close affiliation was not disclosed. Jennifer Flores-Lamb with my help complained about this lie.

Lanette Joubert particularly took the position that I was unethical because I asserted my client's complaint without "personal knowledge." In other words, I did not see or hear what happened at the mediation personally. She filed multiple motions to sanction based on this.

Of course, lawyers are not required to have personal knowledge. Lawyers generally don't. The prosecutor usually did not see the murder. The personally injury lawyer usually didn't see the accident. Actually, a lawyer with personal knowledge very often should not be involved in the case.  She turned the law absolutely a*s backwards which is very common for her.

Of course, Lanette Joubert almost never have personal knowledge with respect to her cases.  She claimed that Jennifer Flore-Lamb and her lawyer (me) were sexually or romantically involved (a lie), and she had no personal knowledge of that (she had no evidence at all; she was just lying).

It is not really possible for a lawyer to be this incompetent. This kind of position comes from intentional dishonesty.  The legal system requires a certain minimal degree of integrity with respect to law and facts. When the system is working properly, many legal principles and facts are agreed and the focus is on disputed facts and law. There is nothing like that when these lawyers are involved. They create absurd law and complete lies.

Yes, this does involve the bar. This was one of many frivolous complaints asserted by Lanette Joubert. It was not one the bar focused on but it was one included among many. This complaint is obviously corrupt. No lawyer acting with integrity would claim that opposing counsel is unethical because he doesn't have "personal knowledge." If that were true, nearly every lawyer in nearly every case is unethical. This is absurd. The bar ignored all of Lanette Joubert's abuses. It didn't care it supports her and her affiliates. The truth doesn't matter. This has gone on for over a decade.

By this way, Lanette Joubert's position is just another way of saying that Jennifer Flores-Lamb didn't shouldn't be believed. Of course, she shouldn't be believed, her child shouldn't be believed, the restaurant waiters shouldn't be believed. You see, Lanette Joubert is some kind of corrupt nobility and her words cannot be challenged. That is corruption, especially when Lanette Joubert is thoroughly dishonest as this shows among many other examples some will be discussed but not all because that would take nearly the rest of my life because the examples are so numerous. In this very case, she indisputably presented false evidence as discussed (the homicidal psychotic child care giver). The bar of course doesn't care.

Now, to make this situation even more absurd, the same Lanette Joubert who said I was unethical because I didn't have personal knowledge many times also many times said I was unethical because I did have personal knowledge. It doesn't matter what you do with these lawyers you will be unethical (unless you sell out your client). The bar is part of this and has been for at least a decade harming many, many children and parents.