Complaint Review: Marie Haspil / James Ehler / Bar Supporteed Fraud / Patterns / Conclusion

The father lived near Seattle. He had not seen his son for around 3 to 4 years. This discussion will focus on the final roughly 2 years of this time.

His former wife denied him visitation. He went to court to straighten things out. This cost him substantial money. He is not a man of great financial means. He did get things straightened out at least on the surface.

The judge allowed him visitation and said he "may" have one visit in Corpus Christi within the first 60 days and then visitation back in Seattle. Very importantly, he said "one" visit and he said "may."  Further, he did not create any harsh consequences in the the event the visitat did not occur.

Well, the morally bankrupt and corrupt Larry Adams drafted the order. The "one" visit became "two" and the "may" became "shall" and there was a de facto termination of parental rights created. In other words, if the father did not see the child twice within 60 days then he would loose all rights to see the child. The Court had never said anything that draconian.

To summarize, "you may see the child once in Corpus Christi within the first 60 days" became "you shall see the child twice in Corpus Christi in the first 60 days" or you lose all rights to see your child.

Further, the court orally had not defined 60 days. The 60 days could have started at any number of dates such as when the order was signed or when the father commenced compliance or when the father received the order. Larry Adams started the 60 days on the date of the hearing.

The Court did not sign the order for about 14 days. This meant the father had roughly 45 days to comply from the date of signature. Even worse, nobody would send the order to the father. The ad litem would not send it. His own lawyer would not send it. The father wrote the district clerk, and the district clerk mailed the word at day 58 or so. The father almost certainly did not receive the order until day 50 or after.

Essentially, the father had to make 3 round trips from the Seattle area to the Corpus Christi area in 60 days (the hearing plus two more) or suffer de facto termination of parental rights. This of course would be difficult for any father particularly one of modest means. Further, he did not know this until expiration of the 60 days. This was obviously a "set up."

This is all very well documented. It cannot be disputed. There is a court transcript, and there is the order. The two don't match. There is the letter where the father asks for a copy of the order, and there is the letter where the district clerk sends him the order. This whole story is well documented.

We already have a problem. Larry Adams wrote an order materially different than what the Court actually ordered. The man was denied due process. The father did not receive the altered order until compliance was not possible. The man didn't know timely what he was ultimately ordered to do. Any 5 year old would know this was unfair and not right. Further, the ad litem and the father's own lawyer were apparently part of the scheme. If they weren't, they still violated their duties by not sending a copy of the order to the father. The father's own lawyer certainly had a duty to send his client a copy of the order (also to proof read it carefully). The ad litem certainly was not protecting the child by refusing to send the father a copy of the order. One email or fax was all that was requested. They said no.

In the Jennifer Flores-Lamb case, there were several instances of fraudulent orders. The most blatant example was that Joubert not once but twice discharged unpaid child support by insertion of fraudulent clauses in orders stating it was paid when it was not paid. I fought in both instances and got the fraudulent orders corrected. The work in correcting the fraud was greater than the dollars involved. It was a matter of principle. The same occurred in the Stanley Rains case repeatedly. I was so happy one Christmas because Stanley was finally going to see his child for Christmas. The  Court said he would. But, he didn't.  The Court instructed the ad litem to draft the order. She didn't do it until after Christmas and she inserted fraudulent language to retroactively justify the denial of visitation during Christmas. I fought the fraudulent language. The Judge corrected the order. Of course, it was too late. Stanley once again did  not see his child. The point is that these lawyers commonly write fraudulent orders. The orders often have very little correlation to what happened at the hearing other than superficially.

Back to the Larry Adams fraud, the father when he got the order several times asked for extension of the deadline since compliance was impossible. He was told "no." This was in writing several times. Thus, the fraudulent order was not inadvertent it was purposeful. Let's say hypothetically, Larry Adams made a mistake in his office which is not the case. Once he and his client took advantage of the mistake rather than making the situation right it  became intentional fraud. There was nothing at the hearing indicating that the Court intended to create this kind of trap. It was just low key. You "may" see the child once in Corpus Christi in the first 60 days.

The father could not afford to fix the situation for about two years. He then hired me. He paid me $2,500.  I approach Larry Adams and tell him there was a mistake (I was giving him the benefit of the doubt). He told me my client "just doesn't follow court orders." He told me the judge and the ad litem agreed with him. He would sanction me if I tried to fix the situation.

I got the Court transcript at my expense, and the transcript supported my client. I sent the transcript to Larry Adams and he denied the obvious. He denied this obvious fact up until the final hearing. He presented at the final hearing the transcript with a missing page but still it was obvious that the transcript didn't support the order he wrote. He called me a liar on the witness stand, but actually he was lying. He said sarcastically, that Sibley shouldn't believe "that man." Sibley was not actually believing "that man" very much because it was not necessary. Everything was documented. These lawyers believe they can create alternate realities. They are fantasizers, and everybody must go along with their fantasies.

During the two years roughly the father did not see his child, his wife wrote some emails suggesting that the mother would or should go to hell. Larry Adams was trying to make a big deal out of that. These lawyers are hateful and malicious to an extreme and then complain when their victims get angry. It was entirely understandable that this woman was angry. I supported this woman, and I also said he and his clients should go to hell.

Larry Adams invoked another corrupt tactic similar to one used in the Stanley Rains case. He created distractions. He created a list of distractions. He said the man had not visited with the school counselor. Of course, the order didn't require him to do that. He was 2,000 miles away. These lawyers by the way commonly say a father is causing trouble when he goes to the school. Stanley Rains was literally arrested when he went to the school (these lawyers had undoubtedly stirred things up with lies behind the scenes to cause that even much like Judge William Adams lying text message to his ex wife that I was dangerous and she should call the police if she saw me -- there being no basis for that at all). One problem in dealing with these lawyers is that their behavior is so outrageous that people have difficulty believing it. Their victims are dismissed as crazy.

Anyway, Larry Adams said there was a child support delinquency. He complained that the man went to Disney World despite being behind on child support. There was no significant delinquency. Any delinquency was an accounting issue at most. There was a list of things like that to distract from the issue that this man was not seeing his child.  it took a deposition and a lot of work to sort through the list of Larry Adams false distractions.

The father made a trip from the Seattle area for a hearing. The matter settled at the hearing. It of course should have settled much earlier. It never should of happened at all. This man would never have seen his son again absent my diligent efforts and he spent at least $4,000 to $5,000 to fix the situation. He paid me $2,500 and he had travel and other expenses.

Within a few days of the Jennifer Flores-Lamb trial, Larry Adams set a hearing on motion for sanctions. The case had been resolved several years earlier. The case was cold, but the hearing was a "follow on" to the corrupt Judge Adams hearing. It was obviously part of the same scheme.

Larry Adams main argument was that I had insulted him and told him and his client that hell awaited them. First, the truth is the truth. He insulted himself by what he did. Second, he is the one that made such an issue out of "hell" when the new wife used those words and he made an issue out of it. Of course, it was entirely understandable that she would use those words. Finally, mortals cannot and should not judge relating to hell, and of course these words are a figure of speech usually not intended literally. However, if anything justifies potential hell, stealing children through fraud does, and Larry Adams had clearly stolen a child through fraud.

At the hearing, I testified not just about this father but other instances of fraud and corruption by these lawyers. In particular, I testified about Michael Green.  I had represented Michael Green several times in several divorces with respect to the same woman. He had divorced that same woman several times also with other lawyers. I had seen the woman make false allegations which were 100% verified.  I knew they were false because for example I got the video from the sheriff deputy's patrol car and it showed what happened was totally different than what the woman claimed. She claimed she was beat. The video showed her complaining about him refusing to buy more toys for the child. I told him several times what was coming. I knew he would eventually be accused of improperly touching his child. One night the phone rang around midnight. I decided to not answer. I learned a few days later that he committed suicide. I learned about the same time that he had been accused of touching his child or children. I don't know for sure but he may have killed himself shortly after I refused to take his phone call. This is something that I will have to live with, but this kind of thing happens because of the atmosphere of corruption created by the corrupt bar particularly James Ehler who promotes corruption.

In any event, the Judge essentially found that I was not nice by using words like "hell" and complaining aggressively about Larry Adams' behavior. Of course, anything less would not have been representing my client who had suffered a huge fraud much worse than monetary frauds. He had been defrauded out of several years of his child's life. Larry Adams said "$2,500 was reasonable." The Court agreed. There was no specific finding of any unnecessary expense I caused or anything I said that was false although that was implied. The Court was careful to be essentially accurate. He didn't say anything substantial untrue but he did ignore things. I refuse to attack him because I have seen him do good things in other cases.

The bar claims I caused unnecessary expense. That is false. Everything I did was necessary. The truth like usual is the opposite. Larry Adams cost this man at least $4,000 to $5,000 by his fraud. I had done nothing unnecessary (other than complain about the fraud Larry Adams). I settled the matter at the first possible opportunity. I asked the bar what I did that caused unnecessary expense. I got no answer. The bar also claimed I said untrue things but it would never identify anything specific. It referred me to a 300 page transcript and would not identify anything specific in that transcript.

The real truth is that Larry Adams according to the corrupt immoral James Ehler has a right to steal a child through fraud. This was a cover up just like the false attack against me in the Jennifer Flores-Lamb case was a cover up. There was direct testimony (by a child) in that case of corruption. It was concealed by the attack on my primarily because children "are fantasizers" (which is not at all a correct statement of the law). Here, there can be no doubt that Larry Adams committed fraud. I was attacked to cover it up.

The patterns are clear. The Stanley Rains case is part of the same pattern. Also, other cases. The bar does not care about the misconduct of these lawyers. The bar actually supports it. The bar doesn't care about the abuse of people by these lawyers. What it doesn't like is the truth. Lawyers should not disclose the frauds and abuses of these lawyers.

I might be able to go along with this kind of corruption if it only involved money but not when it involves children and false imprisonment. In this case, this father was fraudulently denied access to his child for roughly 2 years and absent my efforts it would have been forever. Larry Adams threatened me from the start and I knew the corrupt bar would support im, but I did what was right and I am proud of what I did. In the Jennifer Flores Lamb case, they were according to the child scheming to have her put in prison or maligned falsely.They had already made a number of false accusations including the lie that she was involved romantically or sexually with her lawyer (me) which was not supported by any readl evidence. I was not going to do nothing. I went to Court asking for help, and I was corruptly attacked with lies. The bar was part of the corruption and lying. I did the right thing by working to protect my client (and myself). I think despite the corruption I was successful. Everything indicates that the child was truthful. Despite the attacks on me, I did the right thing. I think if I had done nothing, the scheme described by the child probably would have proceeded.

I also do the right thing by continuing the complain. The bar particulary James Ehler and Marie Haspil are clearly corrupt, and their behavior is not acceptable. It was no great accomplishment for them to destroy me. They collect their salaries while systematically destroying me with their false attacks and endless consumption of my time, money, and energy. They accomplished nothing requiring skill.  They were just abusive. They abused me, but more importanlty they abused my clients. Future people will suffer also as these lawyers do similar things in the future unopposed, because it is known that opposition will lead to attacks from the corrupt bar.

I have only told a small part of the whole story because the whole story would require literally many hundreds of pages.