- Report: #894602
Complaint Review: James Ehler / Marie Haspil Texas Bar Corruption - Austin Texas
Reported By:
David Sibley -
Gregory, Texas, United States of America
Submitted:
Updated:
-
Author Not Confirmed
Why?
James Ehler / Marie Haspil Texas Bar Corruption
Congress Avenue, Austin, Texas Austin, Texas, United States of America
Phone:
Web:
Categories:
Business Rating:
(0)
Tell us has your experience with this business or person been good?
James Ehler / Marie Haspil Texas Bar Corruption Lanette Joubert / William Dudley / William Kelly Case Study No. 1 relating to Child Testimony Austin, Texas
Case Study No. 1 Relating to Child Testimony
As discussed in Commentary No. 1, James Elher, Marie Haspil, Lanette Joubert, William Dudley, and William Kelly in conjunction with Judge William Adams take the position that child testimony should not be believed. Actually, it is frivolous to believe children.
Facts of Case Study
Lanette Joubert asserted a claim of sexual child abuse on behalf of Larry Adams' secretary. Larry Adams is a family lawyer who will be discussed in these commentaries and case reports.
Lanette Joubert based her claim of sexual abuse of a child solely on the alleged statements of a child still in diapers. The father returned the child supposdly with "poop" in her diaper. Weeks later, Lanette Joubert field a police report and a civil pleading asserting that the child said "daddy tickled my poop." There was no known corroboration of this supposed statement. The occurence of the statement was based solely on the word of the mother (who works for Larry Adams an affillilate of Lanette Joubert).
The child was examined by a Sexual Assault Nurse Examiner apparently looking for weeks old "tickled poop." The SANE found nothingof interest. SANE Nursees are used in abusive cases like this for at least two purposes. First, the accusing parent gives a "history" to the nurse. This "history" is treated sometimes as evidence even though it is really just a hearsay accusation. It is claimed that the history was given for purposes of medical treatment (an exception to the hearsay rule). Second, these people are often child molestors themselves. The SANE intrudes in many instances within the child's body and definitely examines the child's private areas. Thus. a child who was never sexually abused is abused. Children have been known to be subjected to multiple SANE examinations repeartedly molested (e.g. instruments are inserted within the child's body). Third, SANE examiners are sometimes used fraudulently. The child is taken to one SANE examiner and a short time later a different one. The second examiner finds evidence of penetration which was actually done by the first one.
The police exercised some sense and did not pursue the criminal case. However, Lanette Joubert nevertheless continued to pursue her civil allegations. This destroyed the father's relationship with his children. He was terrified about being the subject of such a frivolous allegation that could land him in prison, so he voluntarily relinquished his parental rights.
Question Presented
Lanette Joubert asserted as discussed in Commentary No. 1 that it was frivolous for a mother and her lawyer to believe a nearly 6 year old child who was highly intelligent and honest according to allwitnesses familiar with the child. The child's statements were corroborated to the extent possible by independent third party sources. However, Lanette Joubert herself literally tried to put a man in prison based on the statements of a child still in diapers with no known corroboration at all. Is it possible to reconcile these two positions?
James Ehler and Marie Haspil were asked to reconcile these two positiosn. They didn't try. Thus, we are left to our own reasoning to reconcile these two apparently inconsistent positions.
Analsysis
As noted in Commentary No. 1, ethics according to these esteemed ethical attorneys is situational and asymmetric. It matters who you are and whether you are politically correct. There reallyl are no rules of ethics that are reliable. The published rules of ethics should be disregarded.
James Ehler and the Texas Bar have a long history of promoting and supporting theft of children and false sexual allegations (involving many devices particularly perjury and fabrication of evidence) Thus, it was OK to believe the child in diapers because child statements can be used to support allegations of sexual abuse of chidlren (no matter how absurd or uncorroborated or who incompetent the child). However, it was no OK to believe the nearly six year old intelligent and honest child because defense against false sexual allegations is politically incorrect. In other words, child testimony can be used to assert sexual allegations of abuse but not to defend against them. Further, it is OK for preferred lawyers like Lanette Joubert and Larry Adams to make false allegations of sexual abuse of children. However, defense of innocent victims of false allegations is highly frowned upon. Generally, speaking Larry Adams is allowed to commit fraud on innocent parent as will be discussed subsequently.
Practice Pointers
If you are a lawyer, do not defend against false allegations of sexual abuse of children. You will be attacked. You are not allowed to believe your cilent's child or your client. This is the position of the corrupt James Ehler, Marie Haspil, and the Texas Bar as these commentaries and case studies show.
If you are a parent, leave the State of Texas and seek a State with an honest legal system. If you don't have children yet, don't have any at least not in the corrupt State of Texas. Lawyers like Lanette Joubert, William Dudley, and William Kelly have the right to make false allegations against you. You have no right to defend yourself. If your child tells the truth, you cannot believe your own child. Your own lawyer cannot believe either you or your child. He will be attacked if he does. In other words, in the Corrupt State of Texas you have no right to genuine legal representation.
As discussed in Commentary No. 1, James Elher, Marie Haspil, Lanette Joubert, William Dudley, and William Kelly in conjunction with Judge William Adams take the position that child testimony should not be believed. Actually, it is frivolous to believe children.
Facts of Case Study
Lanette Joubert asserted a claim of sexual child abuse on behalf of Larry Adams' secretary. Larry Adams is a family lawyer who will be discussed in these commentaries and case reports.
Lanette Joubert based her claim of sexual abuse of a child solely on the alleged statements of a child still in diapers. The father returned the child supposdly with "poop" in her diaper. Weeks later, Lanette Joubert field a police report and a civil pleading asserting that the child said "daddy tickled my poop." There was no known corroboration of this supposed statement. The occurence of the statement was based solely on the word of the mother (who works for Larry Adams an affillilate of Lanette Joubert).
The child was examined by a Sexual Assault Nurse Examiner apparently looking for weeks old "tickled poop." The SANE found nothingof interest. SANE Nursees are used in abusive cases like this for at least two purposes. First, the accusing parent gives a "history" to the nurse. This "history" is treated sometimes as evidence even though it is really just a hearsay accusation. It is claimed that the history was given for purposes of medical treatment (an exception to the hearsay rule). Second, these people are often child molestors themselves. The SANE intrudes in many instances within the child's body and definitely examines the child's private areas. Thus. a child who was never sexually abused is abused. Children have been known to be subjected to multiple SANE examinations repeartedly molested (e.g. instruments are inserted within the child's body). Third, SANE examiners are sometimes used fraudulently. The child is taken to one SANE examiner and a short time later a different one. The second examiner finds evidence of penetration which was actually done by the first one.
The police exercised some sense and did not pursue the criminal case. However, Lanette Joubert nevertheless continued to pursue her civil allegations. This destroyed the father's relationship with his children. He was terrified about being the subject of such a frivolous allegation that could land him in prison, so he voluntarily relinquished his parental rights.
Question Presented
Lanette Joubert asserted as discussed in Commentary No. 1 that it was frivolous for a mother and her lawyer to believe a nearly 6 year old child who was highly intelligent and honest according to allwitnesses familiar with the child. The child's statements were corroborated to the extent possible by independent third party sources. However, Lanette Joubert herself literally tried to put a man in prison based on the statements of a child still in diapers with no known corroboration at all. Is it possible to reconcile these two positions?
James Ehler and Marie Haspil were asked to reconcile these two positiosn. They didn't try. Thus, we are left to our own reasoning to reconcile these two apparently inconsistent positions.
Analsysis
As noted in Commentary No. 1, ethics according to these esteemed ethical attorneys is situational and asymmetric. It matters who you are and whether you are politically correct. There reallyl are no rules of ethics that are reliable. The published rules of ethics should be disregarded.
James Ehler and the Texas Bar have a long history of promoting and supporting theft of children and false sexual allegations (involving many devices particularly perjury and fabrication of evidence) Thus, it was OK to believe the child in diapers because child statements can be used to support allegations of sexual abuse of chidlren (no matter how absurd or uncorroborated or who incompetent the child). However, it was no OK to believe the nearly six year old intelligent and honest child because defense against false sexual allegations is politically incorrect. In other words, child testimony can be used to assert sexual allegations of abuse but not to defend against them. Further, it is OK for preferred lawyers like Lanette Joubert and Larry Adams to make false allegations of sexual abuse of children. However, defense of innocent victims of false allegations is highly frowned upon. Generally, speaking Larry Adams is allowed to commit fraud on innocent parent as will be discussed subsequently.
Practice Pointers
If you are a lawyer, do not defend against false allegations of sexual abuse of children. You will be attacked. You are not allowed to believe your cilent's child or your client. This is the position of the corrupt James Ehler, Marie Haspil, and the Texas Bar as these commentaries and case studies show.
If you are a parent, leave the State of Texas and seek a State with an honest legal system. If you don't have children yet, don't have any at least not in the corrupt State of Texas. Lawyers like Lanette Joubert, William Dudley, and William Kelly have the right to make false allegations against you. You have no right to defend yourself. If your child tells the truth, you cannot believe your own child. Your own lawyer cannot believe either you or your child. He will be attacked if he does. In other words, in the Corrupt State of Texas you have no right to genuine legal representation.
