Complaint Review: Marie Haspil / James Ehler/ Corrupt Texas Bar

I am going to digress from the list of "little" lies for a moment and focus on the Bar Supporting the Abuse of People by unethical attorneys.

My client suffered a physical condition that embarrasses her (hair loss). The grotesquely abusive mean spirited hateful Lanette Joubert would bring this up repeatedly. She would bring it up more than once in the same hearing. She would ask questions like "So, you still don't have any hair." She would repeatedly claim that this hair loss was some kind of evidence of mental illness. According to the abusive sick Lanette Joubert, everybody is mentally ill who opposes her. She for example said this about Stanley Rains even though there was absolutely no evidence of that.

There are several points arising from this hateful behavior.  The bar supported this hatefulness. The bar supports this kind of hatefulness. I think James Ehler gets some kind of sick jollies at these lawyers hatefully hurting people. James Ehler found the abuse of Stanley Rains humorous.

First, there was absolutely no evidence that hair loss is some how tied to mental illness. My client did suggest once that the stress of Joubert's endless litigation abuses wasn't helping, but suffering stress is a far cry from mental illness. It is hypocritical to say the least for Joubert, the Corrupt Judge Adams, and the Corrupt Texas bar to claim that I had no evidence of the restaurant meeting when I had a perfectly credible child, a child psychologist, restaurant waiters, and lots of facts and circumstances while Joubert is allowed to call a woman mentally ill based on hair loss. Joubert did this both at nonjury hearings and jury trial.

Now, my client nearly died during child birth from a rare liver disorder. I did the research that this rare pregnancy related liver disorder does lead to hair loss. Her hair loss started after pregnancy. I presented an article from a respectable medical web site on the issue. Of course, Joubert objected saying it was not admissible which may have been true but the way they play the game is they make accusations based on no evidence whatsoever and then they expect their opponent to spend thousands of tens of thousands of dollars to disprove their dishonest accusation unsupported by any evidence whatsoever. In this instance, the accusation was mean spirited, hateful and totally abusive. The bar was unconcerned, and it ignored my client's complaint. These lawyers are allowed to abuse people with impunity. This is a pattern of abuse by the bar lasting a decade.

Now, consistent with my decision to "join them." If they are allowed to misbehave this way, I will also. This is the kiind of behavior the bar approves. it disapproves of actual honest representation of clients. So, William Dudley has a long time pattern of needing to "pee" every five minutes during depositions. He says there is some kind of medical reason for this. Of course, it wouldn't be a tactic to disrupt depositions. In any event, I think this is evidence of mental illness. I will start saying this every 5 minutes as if it were a fact. The analogy is on point. Joubert took an embarrassing physical condition and made a ludicrous inference and used it to continuously abuse a woman. The corrupt bar couldn't care less.

Second, the bar accused me of being abusive for calling Larry Adams and his client a fraud. There is a huge a difference. For one thing, of course, he was a fraud. He stole a child through fraud (his client also). The order written by Adams was materially different than the Order made orally in open court. He created new obligations that my client did not know about. Nobody forwarded the order to my client. The paper trail was perfectly clear that my client did not receive it until expiration of a deadline. My client could not comply with what he did not know about.  Larry Adams and his client refused to extend the deadline. They defrauded my client out of his child. There was a condition in the order created by Larry Adams (not stated orally in open court) that if my client did not comply with the conditions he did not know about he would suffer de facto termination of parental rights. 

Larry Adams kept claiming that my client "just doesn't follow court orders" and also trying to distract the issue that my client was irresponsible in various ways.  The truth is that my client was defrauded. Larry Adams lied and he made it necessary to show the truth by his lying. Marie Haspil did the same thing. She told a judge that my client "failed to follow" the court order. That was a lie and she knew it so it was necessary to show the fraud involved.  It is one thing to gratuitously insult someone abusively and it is another thing to represent a client. The bar is either to stupid to see the distinction or it just supports abusive lawyers like Joubert and Adams. Of course, I think it is the second. The bar is corrupt and abusive and has been for years. James Ehler things calling people pedophiles with fabricated evidence is OK, he thinks lying about a supposed sexual relationship between lawyer and client is OK, abusing a woman about her hair loss is OK, etc.

There is a pretty good rule of thumb that can be followed with respect to James Ehler. If he thinks something is ethical, it probably isn't. If he thinks something is unethical, it probably is not. The notion that he has testified in Court as an expert on ethics is obscene. He has no ethics.

Actually, I think he knows the difference between right and wrong. He just doesn't care. The kindest explanation is that he is responsive to politics.  I am not sure whether in the Jennifer Flores-Lamb case he initiated the abuse or Judge Adams did because they seem to have been working together.