+ Reply to Thread
Results 1 to 9 of 9

  1. #1
    Join Date
    May 2011

    Texas Judicial Conduct Commission Corrupt

    Judge William Adams on October 11, 2010 presided over a hearing without disclosing that at least one of the lawyers (William Dudley) was his personal lawyer (the others Lanette Joubert and William Dudley are close affiliates of William Dudley).

    The child told his mother that William Dudley together with the other lawyers (and others) told him to lie about his mother and her lawyer. He was told for example to lie that his mother had "touched" him and that he saw his mother and her lawyer in bed.

    William Dudley, Lanette Joubert, and William Kelly are notorious at making false sexual allegations. They had been lying for months about the supposed romantic relationship between mother and lawyer. They are sociopathic liars.

    All witnesses agreed that the child was honest and intelligent including the child's father. There was no evidence whatsoever that the child lied other than vague naked denials by the lawyers who were there. One said he "may have been in Italy" but produced in passport or airline ticket or anything.

    The father and the lawyers denied being at the restaurant where this occurred. The waiters at the restaurant confirmed that the child and lawyers were there (with additional people in suits and ties). The restaurant waiters confirmed that the child was at the table he said and the people sat at the table in the same seating arrangement the child said.

    The child told a child psychologist what happened, and the child psychologist believed the child.

    These lawyers have done similar things for years. There are a series of parents set up for false sexual allegations.

    They habitually lies like the supposed romantic relationship.

    Judge William Adams flat out lied. He said there was no evidence of any of this. He ridiculed reliance on a child's testimony. He said there was no investigation.

    First, there was evidence. A child's testimony is evidence. The mother testified without objection to the child's testimony.

    No civilized country in the world categorically disbelieves children. The United Nations condemns that. Yet, that is exactly what Judge William Adams did.

    Second, there was investigation. The restaurant waiters were interviewed. A child psychologist investigated. There was a search for videotape which did not exist.

    Third, all parties identified by the child as present where sent a letter inviting them to make denial or make explanation. They did not. Incredibly, Lanette Joubert argued that no one made inquiry of her. She was told that she was sent a letter within an hour. She then says "but did you pick up the phone?"

    The bottom line is that Judge William Adams ignored the most basic law and he lied. According to Judge William Adams, most child abuse case can ever be prosecuted because most rely on the statements of children. Further, if a mother dare report what her child says, then she is sanctioned. If any lawyer dare represent her, then he is sanctioned.

    Additionally, Judge William Adams makes investigation impossible (e.g. he ruled that the mother could not subpeoana witnesses to the restaurant meeting). Total corruption.

    Before Judge William Adams signed his corrupt orders, he sent his ex wife a text message indicating that he believed the lies told by William Dudley and Lanette Joubert (the supposed affair between lawyer and client). There had been no evidence presented of any such thing (e.g. a lawyer having dinner with a client is hardly evidence of any affair).

    You see, if a child makes an outcry implicating Judge William Adams' lawyer in crime (solicitation of perjury), the child must be disbelieved regardless of corroboration, the opinion of a child psychologist, and no contrary evidence (unless captured on videotape). Yet, one of his socio pathic lying friends states that opposing counsel is having an affair with his client, there need to be no videotape or other evidence just insinuation.

    In his Text message, Judge William Adams makes the remarkable certifiably insane inference that the lawyer who supposedly was having an affair with his client was dangerous to children based on that supposed affair (apparently, men who have girlfriends become child predators). Of course, Judge William Adams has girlfriends. You see socio pathic lawyers and judges don't have to make sense. The more insane their logic and their behavior the better. They are dangerous.

    The bottom line though is that the Texas Judicial Conduct Commmission is a fraudulent corrupt entity.

    Judges don't need to follow the law. Judges can affirmatively lie about the evidence. Judges can thrawt the most fundamental policies (e.g. protection of children). Judges don't have to disclose extreme conflicts of interest.

    There is no protection in Texas against bad judges.

  2. #2
    Join Date
    May 2011

    Re: Texas Judicial Conduct Commission Corrupt


    but produced no passport or airline ticket or anything.


    There are three or four video or audio recordings where the child said these things including one made during the middle of trial months later (end of January or beginning of February 2011).

    At trial, it was actually the judge (a different judge) who wanted the child to testify. Apparently, he thought he could protect his fellow judge by having the child testify. This happened in the jury room. The judge didn't want the child to testify about where he wanted to live, but the judge wanted him to testify about the restaurant meeting.

    Lanette Joubert "asked" the child aggressively after repeatedly threatening the child (e.g. it is bad, etc. to not tell the truth):

    Q: I wasn't there [at the restaurant] was I!!!
    A: Yes, you were.

    It was one huge cover up from start to finish. It was ignoring the evidence. It was punishing and slandering the messenger.

    It is preposterous to believe the child made these things up out of thin air, but the truth is not what is most important here now (the scam didn't work -- if it had worked the mother could have been imprisoned or otherwise ruined for life; obviously, there was dishonest effort to slander her lawyer also -- with no evidence whatsoever just lying insinuation).

    The issue is not imperfection in the system which is inevitable. The issue is intentional corruption of the system. Judge William Adams intentionally lied about the law (e.g. children must be categorically disbelieved and anyone who believes a child is a fantasizer) and he intentionally lied about the facts (e.g. there was investigation actually rather extensive investigation probably all that was even possible). Further, he did not disclose an extremely large conflict of interest. He admits in his text message that he held extreme bias against one of the lawyers (according to him the lawyer is a potential child predator, insane, having an affair with client, etc.) yet he proceeded to rule on the case anyway.

    Judge William Adams together with his sociopathic lying friends commence a campaign of destruction against the lawyer who represented the mother saying he was frivolous for believing his own client (who had never lied), etc. You see if a lawyer doesn't believe Judge William Adams' sociopathic lying friends, then the lawyer needs to be sanctioned.

    Since the system is corrupt in Texas, no person can truly have a lawyer. If the lawyer believes his client (or her child) rather than bowing to corrupt lawyers and judges, he is sanctioned.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    May 2011

    Re: Texas Judicial Conduct Commission Corrupt

    According to the corrupt Texas Judicial Conduct Commission, also, it OK for Judge William Adams to intentionally cover up evidence obviously pertinent to the purpose of the proceeding.

    The Judge said it was irrelevant that the woman used by the father to care for the child was homicidal, psychotic, hullicinatory, suicidal, etc. This woman had slit her wrist. She had been hospitalized for mental issues several times, etc.

    Obviously, Judge William Adams corrupted the proceeding. He was not allowing evidence that was obviously pertinent.

    Lanette Joubert who seems to have psychiatric issues herself argues that the mother is a mental issue because she believes her child (this is a Stalinist Russia like argument) and because she suffers a mild physical health issue. Yet, the fact that the child care provider used by the father has slit her wrist and has homicidal thoughts is irrelevant? Judge William Adams agrees. You cannot make insanity like this up.

    These lawyers and this judge need to be sanctioned for professional misbehavior. They also need to be locked up for mental illness. Their actions are insane.

    The Texas Judicial Conduction commission is corrupt.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    May 2011

    Re: Texas Judicial Conduct Commission Corrupt


    The restaurant waiters confirmed that the child and father were there with additional people in suits and ties.

    The restaurant waiters did not specifically identify the lawyers.


    The child did describe accurately the boots worn by Dudley, and the child specifically remembered the other names.

    The child gave a specific restaurant, a specific date, a specific table, and even specific seats where everybody sat.

    The testimony was far more specific and falsifiable than most child testimony. Very often, the child will say something bad happened in the past with no specific date sometimes not even a specific place. These people knew within a few days of the allegation including a lot of specifics.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    May 2011

    Larry Adams / Texas State Bar Corruption

    The Texas State Bar particularly the San Antonio Regional Office has a long history of corruption and criminality.

    They not only refuse to address ethical complaints against corrupt family lawyers in Corpus Christi (William Dudley, Lanette Joubert, etc.), it actively acts as henchmen for them. Any lawyer who stands up to their frauds gets attacked.

    They have done this in a long series of cases. Historically, the best example is probably when the ad litem committed fraud by reciting a story in her report she supposedly obtained from witnesses. However, the witnesses when finally cross examined denied ever talking to the ad litem. Further, the ad litem unknown at the time was the sister in law of the attorney who she created this false story for. The victim (Stanley Rains) filed a complaint with the bar for this fabrication of evidence (which cost him access to his child for years and cost him many thousands of dollars). The bar without investigation rejected the claim with a form letter.

    The bar did this in connection with the Jennifer Flores-Lamb case where these corrupt lawyers in conspiracy with the Corrupt Judge William Adams attempted to subporn perjury (according to a highly intelligent and honest child). The Corrupt Judge William Adams held that all children fantasize and sanction the mother and her lawyer for believing the child. Of course, there is no law saying that it is frivolous to believe children. These lawyers just make up law. It is whatever they want it to be. The child's statements were not impeached in any form or fashion. These corrupt lawyers got the Corrupt Judge William Adams to hold that there was no investigation of the child's statements. Actually, the waiters at the restaurant testified that the child and his father were at the restaurant on the date the child said, the general time he said, and even the table he said with a number of additional people in suits and ties (matching roughly what the child described). Further, the child talked to a child psychologist who believed the child.

    It is just corrupt and dishonest to say this child should have been ignored when he reported this kind of abuse. It is just corrupt to say that the child's mother did not deserve representation (e.g. a lawyer who believed her and her child). The bar particularly Marie Haspil actively attempted to intimidate the mother's attorney into disbelieving her. The mother was honest, and there was no reason to disbelieve her. There was no reason to disbelieve the child.

    It was total corruption. The bar was involved. By the way, it was later learned that one of the lawyers who attempted to subporn perjury was Judge William Adams' personal lawyer. Thus, a conflict of interest existed just as in the Stanley Rains case. Corruption is the stock and trade of these lawyers. They engage in endless caustic litigation. They make false allegations (usually sexual in nature). They fabricate law. For years, Lanette Joubert repeatedly cited as authority for anything and everything a rule that didn't even exist. The bar doesn't care, and in fact the bar supports corrupt lawyers.

    As for Larry Adams, he wrote a false order. The father lived in Seattle. The child and the mother were in Port Aransas. The mother had kept the child from the father for years. The father hired an attorney and got court ordered supervision. The Judge said he had the right to visit the child once within 60 days and then regular visitation including Seattle thereafter. Larry Adams changed this to the father had to see the child twice in the next sixty days (making a total of 3 round trips from Seattle to Corpus Christi in 60 days). Further, if the father didn't do this, he would never see his child again. The father never received the order timely. The father's own attorney refused to send it to him. The father had to get the order from the District Clerk and by the time he got it the 60 days was over or virtually over. The father asked for an accommodation since he didn't know of this mandatory requirement of two visits in 60 days and he was refused.

    First, it is of course totally unrealistic to expect a man of modest income to make three round trips from Seattle to Corpus Christi within 60 days. Second, the Judge at the hearing didn't state when the 60 days started. It could have easily started for example when the order was signed as opposed to the hearing date (or any fair date). Larry Adams starts the 60 days on the date of the hearing. Thus, by the time the order was signed some time after the hearing, a good part of the 60 days was already over. Third, most importantly, Larry Adams changed what the Court ruled on open court. The father had no notice of the Order as written by Larry Adams. He set the father up for failure. It was a fraud.

    The father's own lawyer failed to represent him not objecting to the fraudulent order and refusing to send a copy of the fraudulent order to the father. The ad litem also refused to send a copy of the order to the father which was no in the child's interest. It was a fraud to steal this father's child. The lawyers cooperated in the fraud as ultimately did the bar.

    It took the father several years to save money and hire a new attorney. When the new attorney asked for correction of the order to allow the father to comply with the requirements, Larry Adams refused. He lied and said "your client just doesn't follow orders." Larry Adams is a liar. The father had no timely notice of the requirements of the order. This is very clearly established by the documentation including the court transcript. The father's visitation with his child was conditioned on requirements that he did not timely receive. There were no such conditions announced at the hearing.

    Larry Adams then sends a letter with a laundry list of complaints. He said for example that the father did not confer with the school counselor. No order required the father to do that. There were other nonsensical things in laundry list. Their tactic which was used against Stanley Rains is create a list of obstacles and evade and cause unnecessary expense. This went on with Stanley Rains for the better part of 10 years. This man form 2,000 miles away of course couldn't do that. Besides, in 10 years, his child would be an adult.

    Some items in Larry Adams' laundry are illegal and some just false and some fabricated from thin air. As for an illegal item, Larry Adams claimed a delinquency in child support. The amount was not identified. There was nothing significant. Anything was an accounting issue from change of employment. It is illegal to condition visitation on payment of child support.

    This father filed a motion to modify the corrupt fraudulent order. Larry Adams sought sanctions. You see not only does Larry Adams have the right to steal children through fraud but if the victim attempt to correct the fraud he should be sanctioned. This is like Jennifer Flores-Lamb case where the lawyers sought to subporn perjury. She didn't have the right to go to court to address the issue. The bottom line is that these lawyers according to themselves and also the bar have the right to steal children through fraud and deceit and criminality yet their victims have no right to even defend themselves. In the Jennifer Flores-Lamb case, she was attacked simply for asking them to stop their crimes.

    The bar association while ignoring the continuous frauds of these lawyers (the above is just a small sample -- they continuously fabricate law, lie, and commit frauds), actively attacks the victims of their frauds and crimes (together with corrupt judges like the Corrupt Judge William Adams).

    This kind of behavior is unacceptable and cannot be tolerated. The bar as one example ignores the fact that Larry Adams caused this father many thousands of dollars in expenses due to his fraud and corruption (and 2 years loss of the life of his child) and says the father's lawyer caused unnecessary expense by complaining about Larry Adams' behavior. That is obviously dishonest and corrupt just like other bar positions.

    The fact is the bar wants to cover up the criminality and frauds of these lawyers and judges just as it sought to do in the Jennifer Flores-Lamb case. Intentional corruption.

  6. #6
    Join Date
    May 2011

    Re: Larry Adams / Texas State Bar Corruption

    The father was given Court Ordered Visitation not supervision, and the documents show that the father did not receive timely notice of the fraudulent order. There is the letter where the father requested the order from the District Clerk. There is the letter where the father requested accommodation from the mother since he did not timely learn of the fraudulently inserted requirements. There is the letter where the mother refused.

    There is the testimony of father also. According to Marie Haspil, a lawyer should not believe his perfectly believable client and should believe known corrupt lawyers instead. That is a total corruption of the attorney client relationship. Even if the lawyers were not known to be corrupt, the lawyers are not any way entitled to trump a parent or a child -- they are not Gods. This father like Jennifer Flores-Lamb was a perfectly credible client. Obviously, Larry Adams was not credible. He said the father just ignored the Court Order when the transcript of the hearing establishes that Larry Adams drafted a corrupt, fraudulent order. He inserted a mandatory requirement of two visits in 60 days when the judge made an optional right of one visit. Further, he conditioned the father's entire future relationship with his child on compliance with the fraudulent requirements that Larry Adams fraudulently created.

    Normally, in order to end the relationship of a parent and a child, there needs to be compelling proof of misconduct by the parent harmful to the child (although this has been watered down in recent years by statute -- still, though, the watered down statutory requirements must be strictly proven). Yet, Larry Adams destroys a parent child relationship based on fraudulent rigid unrealistic requirements he created from thin air. For those unfamiliar, family law orders are usually 30 pages or more. Judges trust lawyers to be honest. The judge who signed the fraudulent order didn't know it was fraudulent.

    Yes, this father could theoretically fix the fraudulent order by filing a motion to modify. However, Larry Adams first words when this father's lawyer called were that the situation was the father's fault because he just "doesn't follow court orders." Further, Larry Adams created a laundry list of false obstacles designed to create unnecessary expense and lawlessly prolong the separation of father and child. Further, Larry Adams claimed the father did not have a right to fix the fraudulent order and immediately started fraudulently threatening sanctions. These lawyers use the Bar as their "jaw breakers" so that only particularly strong willed attorneys will actually stand up to them. These lawyers were clearly posturing to deny this man access to his child indefinitely and run him broke dealing with endless false and irrelevant issues and obstacles.

    The Corpus Christi family law establishment commonly known as the Family Law Mafia is thoroughly corrupt. Larry Adams, Lanette Joubert, William Dudley work as a group.

  7. #7
    Join Date
    May 2011

    Re: Larry Adams / Texas State Bar Corruption

    As another example of Larry Adams fraud with respect to Orders, in the GU case, the mother had admitted to assaulting her disabled husband. She admitted she pushed her husband who suffered MS in the kitchen. She said though she pushed him only part way to the ground (he fell the rest of the way himself). She also admitted to choking one of the children (she claimed it was no big deal because she choked the child from the back not the front). She had engaged in other atrocious conduct also. His finger got caught in her car window (which she rolled up on his finger), and she dragged him with her car, for example. She pushed his wheel chair into the bench in open court, as another of numerous examples.

    Well Larry Adams inserted into the order essentially "unless the children don't want to see their father" as a condition to visitation. Of course, after that point, the mother simply said the children didn't want to see him, so he never saw his children again. I wasn't at the hearing and I haven't seen the transcript, but I would be willing to bet the Judge never made that condition. It completely thrwarted the father's right to see his children and he hasn't seen them for years.

  8. #8

    Re: Larry Adams / Texas State Bar Corruption

    Check out this story it is even more extreme: www.itio-a-child.org It appears a divorcing immigrant hired a law firm to destroy her ex. The firm, for example, broke into the the ex's office and took his business files, and then called clients. The ex complained on 9 points in violation of published ethics to the bar in Austin Texas, where the bar rejected the complaints. The complaints were then Fed-Exed to the Bar president who did sign for the Fed-Ex, but the refused to take any of the complaints that directly affected the attorney, he explained he also controlled the review process. The ex complained to the bar, where an investigation followed, and said the "2 complaints" were investigated appropriately. A judge was also involved, and complaints were sent to the Texas judicial commission. They did reply with a letter, and the letter said they refused to investigate. The judge then went on to take all the man's money and property and to run him out of the state. The immigrant ex is laughing, as the system turns out to be even more corrupt than the one she came from, and she got everything, sort of trading places with the ex. Know any equalizers? I don't think one exists in Texas.

  9. #9
    Join Date
    May 2011

    Marie Haspil / James Ehler / Texas Bar Corrupt

    Marie Haspil is corrupt, immoral, and unethical.

    Marie Haspil was an integral part of the corruption committed by Judge William Adams in connection with Lannette Joubert and William Dudley.

    There is good reason to believe she was part of the fraud and corruption while it was in progress. The corrupt Judge William Adams sent a text message to his ex wife strongly indicating this. Discovery was sought of communications between her (the bar) and Judge William Adams while the corruption was in progress and she opposed the discovery with bogus privilege arguments clearly indicating something needed hiding.

    Restaurant Meeting

    At its most basic level, a child stated Lanette Joubert, William Dudley, and others told him to lie about his mother that his mother had “touched” him. Further, the child stated they told him to lie that he saw his mother and her lawyer in bed together.

    The child's statements were verified a number of ways including the restaurant waiters who confirmed that a meeting occurred at the restaurant the child said, the day the child said, the general time the child said, and even at the table the child said.

    Lanette Joubert and William Dudley had been lying for months about a supposed sexual relationship between the mother and her lawyer. They had no evidence of any such thing They will take innocent facts like lawyer and client eating dinner and than just start insinuating.

    Lanette Jobuert and William Dudley were obviously enlisting the child to support their lie. They have a history doing this also (involving children in their lies).

    Further, a child psychologist interviewed the child and the child told her the same thing. The child's statements were recorded by audio and video 3 or 4 times including once by a child psychologist and once with a district judge present.

    Judge William Adams, William Dudley, and Lanette Joubert sought to corruptly cover up what the child said. They did this by attacking the messengers stating that it was frivolous for them to believe the child. They sanctioned the mother and her lawyer thousands of dollars for believing the child. Judge William Adams signed a corrupt order stating it was frivolous to believe the child. In truth, it would be irresponsible to ignore him. This was corruption. It was fabrication of non-existent law. They were clearly acting dishonestly and corruptly. There is no such law.

    Children are believed day in and day out in Court. People go to prison based on what chidlren say. Judge William Adams was lying when he said it is frivolous to believe a child. He was lying on behalf of Lanette Joubert and William Dudley.

    Further, there was nothing about this child that made him unbelievable. Actually, both parents testified that he was honest. Of course, if the child had said what they asked him to say, then his testimony would have been near gospel. The position taken by Lanette Joubert, William Dudley, and Judge William Adams was thoroughly dishonest and corrupt.

    Lanette Joubert is a particularly despicable liar. This child was nearly 6 years old and not only competent but bright. She takes the position that the corrupt Judge William Adams echoed that it is frivolous to believe a child. Well, Joubert during her career has believed children much younger and less competent including children in diapers barely speaking. Lannette Joubert is a despicably dishonest and thoroughly corrupt lawyer thoroughly unethical. The law for her is whatever is convenient for her at the time.

    Later, it was learned that around this time Judge William Adams hired or at least discussed hiring William Dudley as his personal family lawyer to obtain custody of his daughter. In other words, Judge William Adams was acting in favor of his personal lawyer. He was acting with a huge conflict of interest. He was compensating his personal lawyer by covering up the crime committed by his personal lawyer (tampering with a witness) and he compensated his personal lawyer with thousands of dollars of totally corrupt sanctions.

    Of course, this mother could not ignore that her child was being told to lie in ways that could easily destroy her relationship with her child and even put her in prison. Further, her lawyer could not ignore these things either. He would not be representing her if he did. Her most important interests were at stake including her child, reputation even freedom, and actually the lawyer's interests were at stake also.

    Marie Haspil is suppose to be ethical. Actually, she is paid to watch over ethics. She is supposed to enforce ethics. Was she concerned with lawyers asking a child to lie (tampering with a witness, subporning perjury, etc.)? No. Was she concerned with lawyers making clearly frivolous arguments in Court (e.g. it is frivolous to believe a child)? No.

    These lawyers and this judge committed very extreme lack of ethics, and she was not concerned at all. Rather, she participated in the corrupt cover up. She was shown the transcript. She was shown the law. She could not care less about the truth or the law. She was a willing participant in the corruption. She is corrupt. She is unethical.

    No honest lawyer would believe that it is truly frivolous to believe a child. There was never any coherent reason stated why this particular child should not be believed. This was just black and white dishonesty and corruption. This was corruptly political. She is a dishonest unethical lawyer.

    She supported the blatant corruption obviously involved. It is not just rhetoric to say it wasn't just corruption but it was criminality (it was a cover up of a crime which is a crime).

    There was never any evidence against what this child said other than conclusory nonfactual denials. It wasn't even hidden the reality was that these lawyers have special privilege. They are allowed to lie. The corrupt lawyers came close to saying this as did the Corrupt Judge William Adams.

    There certainly wasn't anything close to a real hearing. There just assertion of special privilege and attack on those who did not acknowledge that corrupt special privilege.

    Marie Haspil supported the corruption. She did not support the rule of law. She is corrupt and unethical. This issue of what the child said should have been addressed in a lawyer like professional way. It was very serious. However, the lawyers involved and certainly the judge were corrupt and retaliatory.

    Child Care Provider

    Lanette Joubert presented evidence that the child care provider used by the father is perfectly OK. Actually, it wasn't really evidence. It wasn't sworn and it was just conclusory, but it is what passes for evidence when the corrupt Lanette Joubert is involved (he just runs her mouth most of the time; very often her clients never say a word).

    The mother testified (real evidence) that the child care provider had a mental breakdown. She presented a receipt for child care services supporting this. Of course, the mother was ignored. The proceeding was corrupt and the outcome predecided. This mother was at all times ignored. She was never impeached, to this day, but the proceeding was corruption. It involved corrupt lawyers, a corrupt judge, supported by a corrupt bar particularly Marie Haspil.

    The thoroughly corrupt Judge William Adams quashed the subpeona served on Aunt Eva for her mental health medical records. He was told a subpeona was also served on MHMR. He ignored this because he was only listening to one side. He was thoroughly corrupt. There was nothing even roughly approximating a real hearing -- just corruption.

    Later, during lunch, the MHMR documents were received. The documents confirmed what the mother said. The child care provider actually was far more disturbed than the mother knew. The child care provider was homicidal, suicidal, psychotic, heavily drugged, etc. She had actually slit her wrist at least once and she had been in the mental hospital several times. There was certainly an issue that any honest judge interested in the welfare of the child would address. But, of course, Judge William Adams is totally corrupt, and he could not care less about the welfare of the child. He was on a corrupt mission on behalf of William Dudley and Lanette Joubert, and the welfare of the child was irrelevant.

    Incredibly and shamelessly, the corrupt Judge William Adams held that this evidence was irrelevant. He refused to look at the documents. It was an astounding ruling. There can be no doubt that the corrupt Judge William Adams was being corrupt.

    This child care provider had been repeatedly represented as a wonderful asset for the father to care for the child. She was even represented as essentially the mother of the child since birth (not true). The implication was that the real mother had largely abandoned the child (a lie). However, when you are as thoroughly dishonest as Lanette Joubert and you have a judge as corrupt as Judge William Adams and the bar as represented by Marie Haspil is corrupt, there is nothing that prevents a flip flop of positions. Momentarily, after the MHMR records were discovered, Lannette Joubert took the position that the homicidal psychotic would not be watching the child. This position changed when no longer necessary (at trial).

    Does Marie Haspil care that Lanette Joubert presented obviously false evidence to the Court (e.g. that the child care provider was perfectly OK)? No, just like she tried to help cover up the restaurant meeting, she worked to cover up the Lannette Joubert lie (also the Judge William Adams corruption in stating that this woman's condition was irrelevant). The fact is that both Lanette Joubert and Judge William Adams were being abusive of the child by attempting to conceal evidence obviously relevant to the child's well being. They were shamelessly corrupt. Neither seemed surprised by this evidence. They were made though that it came out. They had tried to conceal it by quashing discovery on the issue.

    Marie Haspil tried to conceal the corruption and child abuse of the corrupt Judge William Adams and the shamelessly dishoenst Lanette Joubert. This took several forms. She constantly during the litigation is sending the mother's lawyer obviously corrupt letters asserting corrupt legal and factual positions. No reasonable lawyer could believe these positions legally correct. She essentially became part of Lanette Joubert's legal team. The positions taken stunk of Joubert's thought processes. She was effectively Joubert's co-counsel. Most offensively, she demands two business days before trial to know why the mother's lawyer believed her (that the child would be watched by the homicidal psychotic).

    Of course, a lawyer is supposed to believe his client. Marie Haspil corruptly on behalf of the corrupt bar was working to deny this mother effective counsel by threatening her counsel demanding to know why he believed her. It was particularly obvious the mother was telling the truth, because the father said the same thing (this woman would be watching the child). There were even court orders saying the child would be exchanged at this woman's house. This woman had historically watched the child. It was totally corrupt for Marie Haspil to threaten this mother's lawyer two days before trial for believing his own client when there was no reason not to believe her (and every reason to believe her). This was hardcore corruption. The bar was using its power and authority to corrupt the trial and corrupt the attorney client relationship. Marie Haspil is corrupt. The bar is corrupt.

    Comments as to Restaurant Meeting and Child Care Provider

    This case is just one example among half a dozen similar cases. The Texas Bar supports the corruption of these lawyers. The Texas Bar involves itself in the theft of children, false allegations of sexual abuse of children, and similar evils.

    These corrupt lawyers are so brazen in their confidence in the bar's support of their corruption that they will openly threaten opposing counsel with the bar for nonsensical reasons. As just one of many examples, Lanette Joubert was making the frivolous corrupt argument that the mother's lawyer was unethical because he didn't have personal knowledge (he didn't personally witness the events at issue). Of course, that is corruptly stupid (nearly everything Lanette Joubert says is corruptly stupid). Lawyers normally do not personally witness the events at issue (e.g. they are not at the car accident, the murder, or whatever). The argument was totally retarded (like nearly all Joubert arguments). Yet, she threatens the mother's lawyer with the bar based on this argument. Actually, the bar echoed this retarded argument. Of course, Lanette Joubert almost never has personal knowledge of what she advocates.

    You see. She is allowed to believe her clients and witnesses, but opposing counsel is not. Total absolute corruption, and Marie Haspil was right in the middle of this corruption.

    Actually, a trend should be evident. A lawyer when these corrupt lawyers are involved cannot believe either his client or her child (or even her other witnesses as illustrated by facts not included here). Incredibly, the bar supports this kind of corrupt sophistry. The bottom line is that sense these lawyers have the support of the corrupt bar they are allowed to make up law, make up facts, and even commit crimes with impunity. Marie Haspil supported all this. She is corrupt.

    Her boss James Ehler is also thoroughly corrupt. He was involved in similar cases supporting this corrupt lawyers. He literally laughed when William Dudley told a bald face lie to a tribunal and got caught. It is of course unethical to lie to a tribunal but what does ethics have to do with James Ehler or Marie Haspil? Nothing. They are corrupt and unethical.

    This only touches the surface. The corruption is so massive as to require a book to fully set forth. For example, the Corrupt Judge William Adams ruled that William Dudley (his personal lawyer) was not a relevant witness. William Dudley was present at the restaurant meeting according to the child. Obviously, he was relevant. Oh, the child was supposed to be ignored according to the corruption at work at the time.

    Everything was coverup and corruption. William Dudley appeared at trial voluntarily and testified on the same topic. These lawyers are so confident in the corruption of the Marie Haspil and the bar they don't even bother being consistent.

    Larry Adams Related Corruption

    Marie Haspil was also involved in the Larry Adams related corruption. Larry Adams wrote a fraudulent order inconsistent with what the Judge really ordered. The judge really ordered that the father had a right to one visit in Nueces County within 60 days (a right not an obligation).

    Larry Adams corruptly and fraudulent changed this to the father was required to visit the child twice in 60 days. Further, Larry Adams inserted a de facto termination of parental rights clause if the father didn't do this. The judge didn't say that.

    Nobody sent the father the Order. The father according to his testimony asked both the ad litem and his own lawyer to send him the order. Neither did. By the time the father got the order, the time for compliance was over.

    The judge never said at the hearing anything about a draconian de facto termination of parental rights if there were not 2 visits in 60 days. He never said anything about a mandatory 2 visits either. He didn't define the 60 days, and the 60 days could have been defined several ways. The father didn't timely know anything of these things, because nobody bothered to send the order to him.

    You would think the bar might be concerned about Larry Adams writing a fraudulent order or none of the lawyers bothering to send the father the order. But, no, the Bar is Corrupt, and it supports this kind of fraud and corruption. Marie Haspil was right in the middle of the corruption.

    This father lived in the Seattle area. The round trip was about 4,000 miles. The Order as drafted by the corrupt Larry Adams provided that the father had to make 3 round trips of roughly 4,000 miles in 60 days (the hearing and two more). Further, he had to pay various professionals (counselors and his lawyer). The father made roughly $35,000 a year. The corrupt Larry Adams clearly set a trap for this father. The order was probably not doable even if the father knew about it. The father did not know about it. There was overt corruption, but again the bar advocates and supports corruption. James Ehler is clearly enjoys dishonesty. Marie Haspil works for him.

    This father lost visitation with his child for roughly 2 years based on Larry Adams' fraud. The mother expressly used the fraudulent order as justification for denying the father access to his child. Larry Adams' conduct was clearly evil and corrupt. It was despicable. Marie Haspil supported this corruption.

    The father was finally able to hire a new lawyer after roughly 2 years. The corrupt dishonest Larry Adams was asked to agree to correction of the mistake (giving him the benefit of the doubt). He refused. Further, he lied. He denied the Order was written differently than what the judge orally ordered. He said “you're client just doesn't follow orders.” These lawyers invoke probably falsely the authority of others. He said the judge agreed with him that the father just doesn't follow orders.

    Larry Adams was lying. As a result of the lie, the father had to incur expense of obtaining the transcript. The transcript supported the father not Larry Adams who is a liar.

    Larry Adams also threatened the father's lawyer with sanctions should the father's lawyer seek to modify the corrupt order. Of course, this was abusive. This father had every right to seek to modify the fraudulent corrupt order. However, Larry Adams had the corrupt bar on his side.

    The law and the facts don't matter just corruption.

    The transcript of the hearing was obtained. The father was right and Larry Adams was wrong. Larry Adams had written the order differently than what the Judge orally ordered.

    At one point, Larry Adams derisively said something about the father's lawyer needing to learn not to believe “that man” (his client). This is a tie in with the Lanette Joubert, William Dudley, and corrupt Judge William Adams fraud. These corrupt lawyers insist that they must be believed and anyone who doesn't believe them must be attacked.

    It would be disloyalty to believe these lawyers who are known liars and disbelieve the client. That is exactly what the corrupt bar including Marie Haspil expects. Pure corruption. It gives these lawyers effectively a license to steal children, assert false allegations, and otherwise corruptly abuse people.

    The corrupt bar supports these lawyers with this nonsense. The fact is that these lawyers are dishonest and corrupt. Nearly every time the truth is determined these lawyers have lied. Larry Adams lied about what the Judge actually ordered as proven by the transcript. Lannette Joubert lied about the father's child care provider as proven by the MHMR records. These are just 2 of many examples. They are liars which is not really that problematic (lying is common in court proceedings). The really problematic thing is that they assert that they must be believed. Any lawyers who doesn't believe them must be destroyed. They have special privilege to lie. The corrupt bar particularly the corrupt Marie Haspil supports them on this. Thus, they effectively get to unilaterally determine the truth. The “truths” that they unilaterally determine often involve destruction of parent child relationships and sometimes involve wrongful imprisonments. There is a significant history of this.

    In any event, Larry Adams was not satisfied with denying this father access to his child for roughly 2 years through fraud. He creates a laundry list of false issues. He said the father should not see the child because he had not consulted with the school counselor as just one example. The father was not required to do that. Further, the father lived 2,000 miles away. Substantial time was spent responding to Larry Adams' corrupt false issues. None had any significance other than to cause unnecessary expense. All were false issues either legally irrelevant, trivial, or just a flat out misrepresentation.

    The father flew 2,000 miles form the Seattle area for a hearing, and the case settled at the hearing (the first opportunity). The corrupt Larry Adams had cost this father thousands of dollars in attorneys' fees and travel expenses but most importantly two years of his child's life.

    The file was dormant for several years. The parties apparently healed. This would have happened roughly 2 years earlier but for Larry Adams corruption and fraud. However, after the corrupt Judge William Adams, Lanette Joubert, and William Dudley situation, the dormant case was brought back up. Nearly two years had passed since the case settled. Two days after the trial in the corrupt Lanete Joubert, William Dudley, Judge Adams case, Larry adams seeks sanctions.

    He mainly expressed displeasure because Sibley had aggressively represented his client. He complained because Sibley said he and his clients deserved hell. First, the father's new wife had said these things, and Larry Adams had been complaining about that suggesting that there was a problem because of what she had said. Larry Adams steals the child through blatant fraud and corruption (the fraudulent order). He seriously abuses both the father and the child. Stealing a child through fraud supported by the corrupt Texas legal system is obviously extremely frustrating. One can assume that citizens of Washington State have difficulty understanding how corrupt the Texas legal system is. This new wife was entirely justified in being frustrated and using the language of her choice. These corrupt abusive lawyers believe they can act with as much evil and act as despicably as they may elect and no one can even complain. They can call people all kinds of horrible things with no supporting evidence but nobody can say anything about them. The unfortunate thing is that the corrupt bar supports them in their corrupt arrogance.

    The bar is totally unconcerned about Lanette Joubert calling the mother discussed above all kinds of things without any factual basis whatsoever. Joubert called the mother “mental” because she suffered hair loss (pregnancy induced) as just one horrid example (repeatedly). They have no problem with the Corrupt Judge Adams calling the mother's lawyer mental and other horrific things without any factual basis whatsoever (the bar corruptly dismissed a grievance filed against him). These lawyers regularly call people pedophiles with no evidence at all (anonymous hearsay). They suggest improper sexual relationships implying that an honorable woman is basically a whore with no evidence at all. They can be as mean, dishonest , and corrupt as they want. However, it cannot be suggested that Larry Adams deserves hell because he steals a child through fraud and corruption? Nonsense.

    The corrupt Marie Haspil is not offended by Larry Adams' fraud at all. The Texas State Bar has no problem with false sexual allegations, theft of children through fraud, etc. The bar is corrupt.l They have proven this repeatedly. James Ehlier is as corrupt and dishonest as Marie Haspil, and he establised this pattern long before Marie Haspil's involvement.

    Marie Haspil engaged in black and white dishonesty. She claimed Sibley caused unnecessary expense and said things not true. She was repeatedly asked to identify what unnecessary expense had been caused. This was a total lie. The truth is that Larry Adams caused this man thousands of dollars in expenses due to his fraudulent, corrupt, dishonest order. She was asked to identify anything said not true, and she refused. Once, during settlement discussions, she made a settlement offer, and Sibley refused “because the allegation is a total lie.” She implicitly admitted this but said “we have the order” (there was a vague order signed probably in conspiracy with the bar like the corrupt specific false or any unnecessary expense – it was conclusory). She essentially admitted that the allegations were a lie but she just didn't care because she had an order. The order was designed to cover up corruption just like the Judge William Adams order.

    The bottom line is that Marie Haspil was supporting corruption and fraud in connection with the Larry Adams situation just as with the William Dudley, Lanette Joubert, Judge William Adams situation. The truth must be covered up and corrupt, abusive lawyers protected. The truth is that Larry Adams stole a child through blatant fraud and corruption by drafting a fraudulent corrupt order (the order cannot necessarily be blamed on the judge because these orders are lengthy and judges generally do not proof read them trusting the lawyer who does the drafting). The judge at issue was probably a victim and didn't intend the fraud but he afterwards helped conceal it.


    The corruption does not stop with Marie Haspil. It continues up to James Ehler and above. There was no honest person involved at any level. The system totally failed.

    A person involved in a family law dispute cannot have fairness when certain lawyers like Lanette Joubert, William Dudley, and Larry Adams are allowed to be corrupt and abusive even to the point of criminality (e.g. witness tampering). There cannot be fairness when the Bar and some Judges support this kind of corruption. This is not traffic court. This is dealing with children, parents, felony crimes -- destruction of lives. No decent person can tolerate this kind of corruption and fraud.

    The situation cannot be fixed as long as it is concealed. All these corrupt individuals prefer their frauds not be revealed of course. Actually, the corruption really got going strong when the restaurant meeting was disclosed. Everybody including a corrupt judge and the corrupt bar started a corrupt cover up.

    In the future, no one can realistically expect a lawyer to represent them in such a dire situation (a conspiracy to make false criminal allegations). This is an intolerable situation. The situation must be addressed. There can be no public addressing of the corruption if the corruption is concealed.

    Everybody involved had multiple opportunities to conform their behavior within honorable limits but they were “in your face” corrupt including Marie Haspil. This shows their confidence in the strength of the systematic corruption. The corruption, again, must be addressed and that means it must be made public. An honorable person cannot ignore this.

    This battle has continued for 3 years (the immediate cases) and 12 years including prior cases. A significant series of people have been seriously harmed by this corruption. This corruption has involved the same group of corrupt actors (Marie Haspil is a relative new comer). It is well entrenched systematic corruption and it must be addressed.

    There are limits to what one person can do particularly when the corruption extends to the judiciary and the bar, but this one man must do what he can do although limited. The significance is so great it exceeds personal interests. All that is necessary for evil to prevail is for good men to do nothing.

Similar Threads

  1. Texas State Bar is Corrupt
    By Snoder in forum Government Scams
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: 04-13-2014, 02:08 AM
  2. Most Corrupt Trick from Most Corrupt Person
    By pwrone in forum Political Scams
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 10-28-2010, 12:01 PM
  3. Judicial Watch 10 most corrupt for 2009
    By Grim17 in forum Political Scams
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 12-29-2009, 09:27 AM
  4. Conservatives don't ever resort to lewd conduct, right?
    By Independent Harry in forum Political Scams
    Replies: 25
    Last Post: 03-06-2007, 03:36 AM
  5. radical and reckless conduct of the Bush Regime
    By RegulationE in forum Political Scams
    Replies: 33
    Last Post: 12-24-2005, 06:07 PM

Tags for this Thread



Posting Permissions

  • You may post new threads
  • You may post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may edit your posts