Complaint Review: James Ehler / Marie Haspil / Texas Bar - Austin Texas

Case Study No. 2 concerns another example of Ethical Principles applied to Child Statements.

Facts
Years later, the same man as discussed in Case Study No. 1 is falsely accused yet again.  This accusation relates to a totally different teenage child (the child of his new girlfriend).  The accusation is made by the child's paternal grandparents.

The parental grandparents want the child. Their son is on death row. They make very specific and graphic allegations. For example, they claim the teengae child was anally raped. They specifically state that blood was dripping from the child's anus. The allegations are not supported by any known evidence.

The child denies that this ever happened. At the hearing, the grandparents and their lawyer are asked the basis for their allegation. The only basis the could identify was that the man had been accused previously by Lanette Joubert of "tickling poop." That allegation had been dismissed by the police and was never litigated because the man essentially decided to abandon his chidlren out of terror.

The Judge did the right thing and made an affirmative finding that the man did not abuse the child.

Analysis
This Case Study once again illustrates how under the ethical scheme of lawyers like Lanette Joubert, William Dudley, William Kelly, James Ehler, and Marie Haspil children should simply be ignored if they don't agree with the false sexual allegation being made. This child said it never happened. She was ignored. Of course, if she said it happened, she should not be ignored.

Cross Reference
This case study is filed under the Commentary on Child Statements. It could also be filed under the subsequent commentary on ethical logic.  Briefly, these lawyers pervert logic. They make the most bizarre and unreasonable inferences.  In this case, for example, they inferred that blood was dripping from a teenage girl's anus from the fact that this man had been accused of "tickling poop" many years earlier (by the notorious liar Lanette Joubert). It just doesn't follow. At most, it could be concluded that some greater than normal attention should be paid but not that blood was dripping from anus.

Also, this could be cross reference do under the Commentary on shifting burden of proof. Again, briefly, it should be the burden of the party making an allegation to prove it. However, these lawyers throw out an allegation based on no evidence or if any evidence hearsay often anonymous. They then take the position that they have proven their case. Their victim must try to prove a negative.  Of course, if he relies on the child's statements, he is attacked. Actually, almost any defense results in attack. The corrupt bar as represented by Marie Haspil for example has taken the position that the lawyer defending against a false allegation in progress had to believe the lawyer making the false allegation (Lanette Joubert particularly). Marie Haspil writes a letter just two days before trial demanding to know why the lawyer does not believe Lanette Jobuert. Essentially, according to the highly unethical James Ehler and Marie Haspil if these lawyers make a false allegation or have one in progress there is no right to defense. The target is not entitled to believe witneses or even have genuine representation. Accordiing to the highly corrupt Judge William Adams, the targeted parent is not entitled to subpeona wigtnesses (even witnesses who according to the child were asking him to lie).

Practice Pointer
Everything depends on whether the particular judge is honorable. This judge was. Of course, Judge Adams would have sanctioned this man and his lawyer for believing the child.