SCREEN

Profile

Menu Style

Cpanel
Headlines:

Finance - Banking Fraud

Texas Bar Grievance filed against W Brooks Barfield in Amarillo Texas - Hunter Tyler Schreck Case

Barfield Brooks law firm cropped 200h

A State Bar of Texas Grievance has been filed against W. Brooks Barfield of Amarillo, Texas. W. Brooks Barfield should be disbarred. What he has done to Hunter Tyler Schreck is unthinkable. Here's the Bar Grievance against Brooks Barfield.

1.                  On June 24, 2020, approximately 15 Amarillo Police Officers and several civilians attempted to murder Hunter Tyler Schreck (“HUNTER”) for the crime of Autism

2.                  On June 25, 2020, HUNTER was charged with two felonies of assault on a peace officer.  HUNTER has never committed a crime.

Barfield Brooks law firm cropped 436h
  If you see this man in Amarillo, grab your children, and go to a
       safe place.  This man is viewed as extremely dangerous,
                  especially to mothers and disabled children.
                  He is absolutely incompetent as an attorney.


4.                  In January 2021, Judge Dan L. Schaap lied to HUNTER and his Mom, Marcie Schreck (“MARCIE”). [EXHIBIT 134.] He said HUNTER could represent himself and could terminate Brooks Barfield at any time.   “If you don’t want Mr. Barfield to represent Hunter, that is up to you.  Hunter can represent himself if that’s what he wants to do….”  “If you decide Hunter doesn’t need representation at all that’s a decision you get to make.”  EXHIBIT 297 is the audio recording of this ZOOM call; it can’t be filed electronically, and the Clerk of Court refuses to accept anything, but it can be mailed if desired.

5.                  From January 12, 2021 to September 8, 2021, Brooks Barfield did absolutely nothing.  EXHIBIT 321 shows this. He never ever spoke with or saw HUNTER or MARCIE during this time.

6.                  On July 26, 2021, Dr. Jay Gattis tested HUNTER TYLER SCHRECK and the Brain Scan revealed a Severe Traumatic Brain Injury. [EXHIBIT 237.] [EXHIBIT 373.] [EXHIBIT 374.] [EXHIBIT 375.]

7.                  In 2021, MARCIE made multiple calls attempting to speak to Brooks Barfield.  He never responded.  He never called.  He never wrote.  He ignored HUNTER and MARCIE.

8.                  Brooks Barfield told MARCIE he didn’t know what to do and she would need to do all the legal work.  MARCIE dropped out of school in the eighth grade, so she studied law.

9.                  On August 21, 2021, Dr. Jay Faber, MD, of Amen Clinic issued a report on HUNTER that documented a brain injury.

10.              On August 24, 2021, MARCIE sent an email to Brooks Barfield citing multiple calls with no response and informing him of her Power of Attorney. [EXHIBIT 341.]

11.              On August 24, 2021, Brooks Barfield finally responded asking MARCIE to contact the office for an appointment. [EXHIBIT 342.]

12.              On September 8, 2021, MARCIE and HUNTER went to the office of Brooks Barfield.  EXHIBIT 142 is a Transcription of the Audio Recording of most of the meeting.  EXHIBIT 299 is the audio recording of this meeting.  It was the first and only time Brooks Barfield saw HUNTER.  He did not speak with him.  He never even heard his voice. 

13.              On September 8, 2021, Brooks Barfield told MARCIE that HUNTER was not incompetent. 

14.              MARCIE called the office of Brooks Barfield numerous times requesting documents, but nothing was ever provided.

15.              On September 17, 2021, Dr. Jay Faber, MD, of Amen Clinic signed a report on HUNTER that documented a brain injury, [EXHIBIT 399.] [EXHIBIT 237.] [EXHIBIT 373.] [EXHIBIT 374.] [EXHIBIT 375.]  On Page 4 of EXHIBIT 399, Dr. Jay Faber said “TBI (Traumatic Brain Injury) since violent assault.”  On Page 10 of EXHIBIT 399, Dr. Jay Faber said the scans showed “decreased tracer activity” “suggestive of a past history of brain injury.”  On Page 10 of EXHIBIT 399, Dr. Jay Faber also made Findings of “Brain Injury.  A combination of findings suggests past brain injury.  These findings include: Decreased left and right temporal lobe activity and Decreased parietal lobe activity.”  These findings continued on Page 11 with “Decreased left and right occipital lobe activity and Decreased activity along the longitudinal fissure.”  On Page 12 of EXHIBIT 399, Dr. Jay Faber expressed primary concerns of “onset of paranoia and auditory hallucinations following a traumatic brain injury; Anxiety; and Difficulties with focus, memory, and other probable cognitive issues.”  On Page 13 of EXHIBIT 399, Dr. Jay Faber made this Diagnosis: “Psychotic disorder with delusions; Psychotic disorder with Hallucinations; Other specified mental disorders; Unspecified mood (affective) disorder; and Diffuse traumatic brain injury.”  Dr. Jay Faber, MD, is a respected Physician. [EXHIBIT 398.]

16.              On September 29, 2021, Brooks Barfield secretly filed a Motion Suggesting Incompetency. [EXHIBIT 14.]  This was not disclosed to HUNTER TYLER SCHRECK or MARCIE.  The filing is a fraud; it claims HUNTER made the filing.

17.              On October 12, 2021, MARCIE was told of the Motion by a friend who saw it.  HUNTER then terminated Brooks Barfield. [EXHIBIT 2.] [EXHIBIT 16.] [EXHIBIT 136.]

18.              On October 13, 2021, MARCIE emailed Brooks Barfield requesting the casefile. [EXHIBIT 65.] [EXHIBIT 19.]  MARCIE has never received anything.

19.              On October 14, 2021, Brooks Barfield emailed MARCIE with threats. [EXHIBIT 20.]  Brooks Barfield lied and refused to cooperate.

20.              On October 15, 2021, MARCIE emailed Brooks Barfield in response to his threats. [EXHIBIT 28.]  The email says HUNTER and she want to make it absolutely clear he was terminated. 

21.              On October 15, 2021, a Motion for Sanctions and to Compel W. Brooks Barfield to deliver Evidence and Case File to the Pro Se Defendant was filed against Brooks Barfield. The Motion cited Texas Rules of CIVIL Procedure Rule 1.15. [EXHIBIT 18.]  Brooks Barfield never responded.

22.              On October 16, 2021, a Second Motion for Sanctions and to Compel W. Brooks Barfield to deliver Evidence and Case File to the Pro Se Defendant was filed against Brooks Barfield. [EXHIBIT 29.]  The Motion cited Texas Rules of CIVIL Procedure Rule 1.15.  Brooks Barfield never responded.

23.              On October 16, 2021, a Statutory Durable Power of Attorney was filed by HUNTER. [EXHIBIT 26.] 

24.              On October 20, 2021, HUNTER was taken to the Randall County Clerk of Court’s office by MARCIE.  EXHIBIT 295 is an audio recording.

25.              On October 20, 2021, HUNTER filed a Motion to Recuse and for Disqualification of Judge Dan L. Schaap. [EXHIBIT 58.]  [EXHIBIT 324.]  It was recorded by audio. [EXHIBIT 125.]  Brooks Barfield did nothing.

26.              On October 20, 2021, HUNTER was taken to the Randall County Jail by MARCIE because he was outrageously ordered to go there by Judge Dan L. Schaap for a Competency Evaluation.  HUNTER wore a wire, and this was recorded. [EXHIBIT 143.] [EXHIBIT 159.] [EXHIBIT 296.]

27.              On October 28, 2021, Brooks Barfield emailed MARCIE claiming there was a Show Cause Hearing. [EXHIBIT 141.] [EXHIBIT 211.]  The Docket showed no such hearing. [EXHIBIT 130.]

28.              On October 28, 2021 at 8:24 p.m., MARCIE and Hunter Schreck emailed Brooksy-poo Barfield with a CEASE-AND-DESIST demand. [EXHIBIT 207.]  Brooks Barfield did nothing.

29.              On October 28, 2021 at 11:38 a.m., MARCIE and Hunter Schreck emailed Brooks Barfield regarding his malpractice. [EXHIBIT 208.]  Brooks Barfield did nothing.

30.              On November 1, 2021, a second Motion to Disqualify Judge Dan L. Schaap was filed. [EXHIBIT 178.]  Brooks Barfield did nothing.

31.              On November 1, 2021, MARCIE sent an Email to Brooks Barfield requesting filing of 30 documents and instructing Brooks Barfield to go see the judge to argue the Motion to Disqualify Judge Dan L Schaap. [EXHIBIT 334.]  Brooks Barfield did nothing.

32.              On November 1, 2021, MARCIE sent an Email to Brooks Barfield requesting filing Motion to Quash Indictment and Motion to Dismiss. [EXHIBIT 335.]  Brooks Barfield did nothing.

33.              On November 1, 2021, MARCIE sent an Email to Brooks Barfield requesting Show Cause Response. [EXHIBIT 340.]  Brooks Barfield did nothing.

34.              On November 2, 2021, MARCIE sent an Email to Brooks Barfield with a CEASE-AND-DESIST Notice. [EXHIBIT 210.]  Brooks Barfield did nothing.

35.              On November 2, 2021, MARCIE sent an Email to Brooks Barfield requesting setting of depositions. [EXHIBIT 336.]  Brooks Barfield did nothing.

36.              On November 2, 2021, MARCIE sent an Email to Brooks Barfield requesting discovery. [EXHIBIT 337.]  Brooks Barfield did nothing.

37.              On November 2, 2021, MARCIE sent an Email to Brooks Barfield requesting discovery. [EXHIBIT 338.]  Brooks Barfield did nothing.

38.              On November 2, 2021, MARCIE sent an Email to Brooks Barfield requesting subpoenas and more. [EXHIBIT 339.]  Brooks Barfield did nothing.

39.              On November 6, 2021, MARCIE and William Schreck executed sworn affidavits explaining what HUNTER had said about wanting Brooks Barfield removed. [EXHIBIT 156.] [EXHIBIT 157.]

40.              On November 18, 2021, a so-called hearing was held.  

41.              William Schreck attended the November 18, 2021 hearing as a courtroom observer.  Barbara Younger was the court reporter.

42.              On November 18, 2021 in the courtroom of the 47th District Court, MARCIE was intimidated and threatened.

43.              On November 18, 2021 in the courtroom of the 47th District Court, Brooks Barfield kept saying MARCIE claims she is an attorney for Hunter, and she can’t do that.  He said Marcie just keeps lying.  MARCIE never made any such claim, and she has not lied.

44.              On November 18, 2021 in the courtroom of the 47th District Court, Judge Kent Sims asked MARCIE to speak.  MARCIE told Judge Kent Sims that Hunter was unable to come.  She said Brooks Barfield is no longer his attorney, so the hearing would have to be rescheduled.  Brooks Barfield ran to the podium from the Peanut Gallery and lied repeatedly to the Court.  He said he hadn’t even been able to speak with HunterMARCIE said that was false as MARCIE and Hunter went to his office on 9/8/2021 when Brooks Barfield requested the opportunity to “lay eyes on him.”  Brooks Barfield never spoke to unter, never asked him a question, and never even heard his voice.  MARCIE explained that Hunter made the decision right there that he wanted no part of Brooks BarfieldBrooks Barfield told the Court MARCIE was lying.

45.              MARCIE has previously sworn under penalty of perjury:

W. Brooks Barfield never spoke to Hunter, never addressed him, and never tried to engage him.  This was very upsetting to Hunter, and he told his mother that W. Brooks Barfield wasn’t working in his best interest and that he didn’t want him.  Hunter and his Mom were not even invited into the private office of W. Brooks Barfield; they “spoke” in the lobby.  On a tape recording that Marcie Schreck secretly made, W. BROOKS BARFIELD can be heard saying the last thing in the world he wanted was for the Schrecks to be in his office.

“Marcie Schreck asked W. Brooks Barfield if he considered Hunter incompetent.  W. Brooks Barfield said, “NO.”  He said with a diagnosis of Severe Traumatic Brain Injury (“TBI”), Hunter wasn’t even a candidate for Mental Health Court.”

46.              On November 20, 2021, HUNTER recorded a video for Judge Dan L. Schaap, Judge Ana Estevez, and Judge Kent Sims.  It was sent Certified Mail to each of the judges.  HUNTER TYLER SCHRECK made it absolutely clear that he wanted nothing to do with Brooks Barfield.

47.              On November 22, 2021, HUNTER filed a new Statutory Durable Power of Attorney. [EXHIBIT 378.]

48.              On November 22, 2021, MARCIE sent an email to Judge Dan L. Schaap, Judge Ana Estevez, Judge Kent Sims, and others with HUNTER TYLER SCHRECK’s new Statutory Durable Power of Attorney and other documents [EXHIBIT 377.]

49.              On November 22, 2021, William M. Windsor sent an email to Clerk of District Court, Joel Forbis, with HUNTER’s new Statutory Durable Power of Attorney and a demand that Brooks Barfield be removed as an attorney of record. [EXHIBIT 379.] 

Mr. Forbis:

I am a new agent for Hunter Tyler Schreck, Case No. 30487A.

I just received this message:

"The Randall County District Clerk’s Office has been ordered not to accept any further communications, oral or written, concerning this criminal matter from
any person other than the attorney of record."


Please provide me with a copy of this alleged Order.

Please advise me what legal authority there is for any judge or Clerk of Court to deny filings that are legally made or deny any oral or written communications.

Texas Rules of Civil Procedure Rule 5 (d) (4) provides: “Acceptance by the Clerk. The clerk must not refuse to file a paper solely because it is not in the form
prescribed by these rules or by a local rule or practice.”  We have efile proof of receipt by your office of everything that was not docketed.  In a long line of cases,
Texas courts have held that a document is “filed” when it is tendered to the clerk, or otherwise put under the custody or control of the clerk. Mr. Penguin Tuxedo
Rental & Sales, Inc. v. NCR Corp
., 787 S.W.2d 371, 372 (Tex.1990); Biffle v. Morton Rubber Indus., Inc., 785 S.W.2d 143 (Tex.1990); Standard Fire Ins. Co. v.
LaCoke
, 585 S.W.2d 678, 681 (Tex.1979). (Jamar v. Patterson, 868 S.W.2d 318 (Tex. 1993).)


Please advise what legal authority says Hunter has to have an "attorney of record."  Marcie Schreck and I are the agents for Hunter to handle all of his legal
matters.


EfileTexas and Joel Forbis: Please immediately remove Brooks Barfield as "Attorney of Record," and insert Marcie Schreck and me. 

Bill Windsor

50.              William M. Windsor’s call to Clerk of District Court, Joel Forbis, has not been returned.

51.              William M. Windsor placed a telephone call to Brooks Barfield demanding delivery of HUNTER’s file and all evidence.  The voice mail message has not been returned.

52.              On November 23, 2021 at 2:52 p.m., MARCIE filed the STATUTORY DURABLE POWER OF ATTORNEY with the Randall County District Clerk. [EXHIBIT 400.]

53.              EXHIBIT 371 is an Affidavit of MARCIE dated November 22, 2021.

54.              Judge Kent Sims did not recognize the right of MARCIE to represent Hunter.

55.              Public Pretender Brooks Barfield attended, but did not represent HUNTER or make arguments on his behalf.

56.              The criminal DEFENDANT had a legal right to representation.

57.              HUNTER was denied the effective assistance of counsel under the Sixth Amendment and the Constitution of the United States.

58.              HUNTER repeatedly complained of the services he was receiving from the Schaap-appointed attorney. (Mendoza v. State, 642 S.W.2d 183 (Tex. App. 1982).)

59.              Texas Disciplinary Rules of Professional Conduct Rule 1.15. Declining or Terminating Representation - Mandatory Withdrawal – Discharge 4:

“A client has the power to discharge a lawyer at any time, with or without cause, subject to liability for payment for the lawyer’s services, and paragraph (a) of this Rule requires that the discharged lawyer withdraw.”

60.              HUNTER discharged Brooks Barfield repeatedly in writing. 

61.              Texas Disciplinary Rules of Professional Conduct Rule 1.15. Declining or Terminating Representation - Assisting the Client Upon Withdrawal (9):

“In every instance of withdrawal and even if the lawyer has been unfairly discharged by the client, a lawyer must take all reasonable steps to mitigate the consequences to the client.”

62.              Brooks Barfield knew HUNTER could discharge at any time.  He knew he had a duty to turn over the file and evidence.  He refused to give the evidence to HUNTER.

63.              Texas Disciplinary Rules of Professional Conduct Preamble: A Lawyer’s Responsibilities 1:

“A lawyer is a representative of clients, an officer of the legal system and a public citizen having special responsibility for the quality of justice. Lawyers, as guardians of the law, play a vital role in the preservation of society. The fulfillment of this role requires an understanding by lawyers of their relationship with and function in our legal system. A consequent obligation of lawyers is to maintain the highest standards of ethical conduct.”

64.              Brooks Barfield has displayed no ethical standards whatsoever.  Only unethical.  Many of his violations are expressed herein.

65.              Texas Disciplinary Rules of Professional Conduct Preamble: A Lawyer’s Responsibilities 4.

A lawyer’s conduct should conform to the requirements of the law, both in professional service to clients and in the lawyer’s business and personal affairs. A lawyer should use the law’s procedures only for legitimate purposes and not to harass or intimidate others. A lawyer should demonstrate respect for the legal system and for those who serve it, including judges, other lawyers and public officials. While it is a lawyer’s duty, when necessary, to challenge the rectitude of official action, it is also a lawyer’s duty to uphold legal process.”

66.              Brooks Barfield’s conduct has not conformed to the requirements of the law.  He has used the law for ILlegitimate purposes.  He has violated legal process, and he has shown that justice and the legal process are terms that he chooses to ignore.

67.              Texas Disciplinary Rules of Professional Conduct Preamble: A Lawyer’s Responsibilities 8:

“The legal profession has a responsibility to assure that its regulation is undertaken in the public interest rather than in furtherance of parochial or self-interested concerns of the bar, and to insist that every lawyer both comply with its minimum disciplinary standards and aid in securing their observance by other lawyers. Neglect of these responsibilities compromises the independence of the profession and the public interest which it serves.”

68.              Brooks Barfield has only self-interest.

69.              Texas Disciplinary Rules of Professional Conduct Rule 3.02. Minimizing the Burdens and Delays of Litigation:

“In the course of litigation, a lawyer shall not take a position that unreasonably increases the costs or other burdens of the case or that unreasonably delays resolution of the matter.”

70.              Brooks Barfield has denied HUNTER’s right to a speedy trial for over 500 days.

71.              Texas Disciplinary Rules of Professional Conduct Rule 3.02. Minimizing the Burdens and Delays of Litigation - Unreasonable Delay 3:

“Dilatory practices indulged in merely for the convenience of lawyers bring the administration of justice into disrepute and normally will be “unreasonable” within the meaning of this Rule. See also Rule 1.01(b) and (c) and paragraphs 6 and 7 of the Comment thereto.”

72.              Brooks Barfield has denied HUNTER’s right to a speedy trial for over 500 days.

73.              Texas Disciplinary Rules of Professional Conduct Rule 3.08. Lawyer as Witness

“(a) A lawyer shall not accept or continue employment as an advocate before a tribunal in a contemplated or pending adjudicatory proceeding if the lawyer knows or believes that the lawyer is or may be a witness necessary to establish an essential fact on behalf of the lawyer’s client, unless:

(1) the testimony relates to an uncontested issue;

(2) the testimony will relate solely to a matter of formality and there is no reason to believe that substantial evidence will be offered in opposition to the testimony;

(3) the testimony relates to the nature and value of legal services rendered in the case;

(4) the lawyer is a party to the action and is appearing pro se; or

(5) the lawyer has promptly notified opposing counsel that the lawyer expects to testify in the matter and disqualification of the lawyer would work substantial hardship on the client.

(b) “A lawyer shall not continue as an advocate in a pending adjudicatory proceeding if the lawyer believes that the lawyer will be compelled to furnish testimony that will be substantially adverse to the lawyer’s client, unless the client consents after full disclosure.”

(c) “Without the client’s informed consent, a lawyer may not act as advocate in an adjudicatory proceeding in which another lawyer in the lawyer’s firm is prohibited by paragraphs (a) or (b) from serving as advocate. If the lawyer to be called as a witness could not also serve as an advocate under this Rule, that lawyer shall not take an active role before the tribunal in the presentation of the matter.”

74.              Brooks Barfield will be an important witness in this case.

75.              Texas Disciplinary Rules of Professional Conduct Rule 4.01. Truthfulness in Statements to Others:

“In the course of representing a client a lawyer shall not knowingly:

(a) make a false statement of material fact or law to a third person; or

(b) fail to disclose a material fact to a third person when disclosure is necessary to avoid making the lawyer a party to a criminal act or knowingly assisting a fraudulent act perpetrated by a client.”

76.              Brooks Barfield has made false statements of material facts or laws.

77.              Texas Disciplinary Rules of Professional Conduct Rule 4.01. Truthfulness in Statements to Others – Comment -- False Statements of Fact:

1. Paragraph (a) of this Rule refers to statements of material fact. Whether a particular statement should be regarded as one of material fact can depend on the circumstances. For example, certain types of statements ordinarily are not taken as statements of material fact because they are viewed as matters of opinion or conjecture. Estimates of price or value placed on the subject of a transaction are in this category. Similarly, under generally accepted conventions in negotiation, a party’s supposed intentions as to an acceptable settlement of a claim may be viewed merely as negotiating positions rather than as accurate representation of material fact. Likewise, according to commercial conventions, the fact that a particular transaction is being undertaken on behalf of an undisclosed principal need not be disclosed except where non-disclosure of the principal would constitute fraud.

2. A lawyer violates paragraph (a) of this Rule either by making a false statement of law or material fact or by incorporating or affirming such a statement made by another person. Such statements will violate this Rule, however, only if the lawyer knows they are false and intends thereby to mislead. As to a lawyer’s duty to decline or terminate representation in such situations, see Rule 1.15.

78.              Brooks Barfield has committed these violations.

79.              Texas Disciplinary Rules of Professional Conduct Rule 4.04. Respect for Rights of Third Persons

(a) In representing a client, a lawyer shall not use means that have no substantial purpose other than to embarrass, delay, or burden a third person, or use methods of obtaining evidence that violate the legal rights of such a person.

Comment: 1. Although in most cases a lawyer’s responsibility to the interest of his client is paramount to the interest of other persons, a lawyer should avoid the infliction of needless harm.

80.              Brooks Barfield has inflicted needless harm.

81.              Texas Disciplinary Rules of Professional Conduct Rule 8.03. Reporting Professional Misconduct:

(a) Except as permitted in paragraphs (c) or (d), a lawyer having knowledge that another lawyer has committed a violation of applicable rules of professional conduct that raises a substantial question as to that lawyer’s honesty, trustworthiness or fitness as a lawyer in other respects, shall inform the appropriate disciplinary authority.

(b) Except as permitted in paragraphs (c) or (d), a lawyer having knowledge that a judge has committed a violation of applicable rules of judicial conduct that raises a substantial question as to the judge’s fitness for office shall inform the appropriate authority.

82.              Brooks Barfield has knowledge that Judge Dan L. Schaap has committed a violation of applicable rules of judicial conduct that raises a substantial question as to the judge’s fitness for office shall inform the appropriate authority.

83.              Texas Disciplinary Rules of Professional Conduct Rule 8.03. Reporting Professional Misconduct Comment:

“Self-regulation of the legal profession requires that members of the profession initiate disciplinary investigations when they have knowledge not protected by Rule 1.05 that a violation of these rules has occurred. Lawyers have a similar obligation with respect to judicial misconduct. Frequently, the existence of a violation cannot be established with certainty until a disciplinary investigation has been undertaken. Similarly, an apparently isolated violation may indicate a pattern of misconduct that only a disciplinary investigation can uncover. Consequently, a lawyer should not fail to report an apparent disciplinary violation merely because he cannot determine its existence or scope with absolute certainty. Reporting a violation is especially important where the victim is unlikely to discover the offense.”

84.              Brooks Barfield has failed to initiate disciplinary investigations regarding attorneys and judges.

85.              Texas Disciplinary Rules of Professional Conduct Rule 8.04. Misconduct:

“(a) A lawyer shall not:

(1) violate these rules, knowingly assist or induce another to do so, or do so through the acts of another, whether or not the violation occurred in the course of a client-lawyer relationship;

(2) commit a serious crime or commit any other criminal act that reflects adversely on the lawyers honesty, trustworthiness or fitness as a lawyer in other respects;

(3) engage in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation;

(4) engage in conduct constituting obstruction of justice;

(6) knowingly assist a judge or judicial officer in conduct that is a violation of applicable rules of judicial conduct or other law;

(12) violate any other laws of this state relating to the professional conduct of lawyers and to the practice of law.”

86.              Brooks Barfield has violated these rules; has engaged in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation; has engaged in conduct constituting obstruction of justice; has knowingly assisted a judge or judicial officer in conduct that is a violation of applicable rules of judicial conduct or other law; and has violated other laws of this state relating to the professional conduct of lawyers and to the practice of law.

87.              Texas Disciplinary Rules of Professional Conduct Rule 8.04. Misconduct Comment:

“1. All lawyers are presumed to know the requirements of these sources. Rule 8.04(a)(1) provides a partial list of conduct that will subject a lawyer to discipline.

2. Many kinds of illegal conduct reflect adversely on fitness to practice law.  Crimes subject to compulsory discipline are governed by TRDP, Part VIII. In addition, although a lawyer is personally answerable to the entire criminal law, a lawyer should be professionally answerable only for criminal acts that indicate a lack of those characteristics relevant to the lawyer’s fitness for the practice of law. A pattern of repeated criminal acts, even ones of minor significance when considered separately, can indicate indifference to legal obligations that legitimately could call a lawyer’s overall fitness to practice into question. See TRDP, Part VIII; Rule 8.04(a)(2).

Brooks Barfield has committed criminal acts.  He is not fit for the practice of law.

Brooks Barfield is good for one thing: NOTHING!


Barfield Brooks desk

Copyright LawlessAmerica.com




Bill Windsor graduated from Monterey High School and Texas Tech University in Lubbock, Texas -- just a short drive from Amarillo, Texas.  This gives him a special interest in exposing the scum in the area of the country he has loved so much. 



windsor bill 1979 closeup of bill tan 1979 200w

Bill Windsor


I, William M. Windsor, am not an attorney.  This website expresses my OPINIONS.   The comments of visitors or guest authors to the website are their opinions and do not therefore reflect my opinions.  Anyone mentioned by name in any article is welcome to file a response.   This website does not provide legal advice.  I do not give legal advice.  I do not practice law.   This website is to expose government corruption, law enforcement corruption, political corruption, and judicial corruption.   Whatever this website says about the law is presented in the context of how I or others perceive the applicability of the law to a set of circumstances if I (or some other author) was in the circumstances under the conditions discussed.  Despite my concerns about lawyers in general, I suggest that anyone with legal questions consult an attorney for an answer, particularly after reading anything on this website.  The law is a gray area at best.  Please read our Legal Notice and Terms

http://www.LawlessAmerica.com

This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. 

https://www.youtube.com/c/lawlessamericamovie

https://www.facebook.com/billwindsor1/

Copyright, 2021, Lawless America


#LawlessAmerica
#WilliamMWindsor
#BillWindsor
#scumbags
#HunterTylerSchreck
#HunterSchreck
#MarcieSchreck
#RandallCounty
#RandallCountyTexas
#Amarillo
#AmarilloTexas
#WBrooksBarfield
#brooksbarfield
#traumaticbraininjury
#amarillopolice
#amarillopolicedepartment
#DanielRivera
#AllisonMuncell
#matthewbrush
#SheaLitchie
#danielsmith
#JubileeChurch
#johnstiffmemorialpark
#davidblount
#daveblount
#nathancarrington
#rolondacarrington
#nataleycarrington
#jubileeapostolicchurch
#angelicaesparza
#brayanzubiate
#ChristianMorgan
#VictorPinentel
#AaronGurule
#DanaGurule
#georgehastings
#dennisgreen
#jbeghtel
#vpadilla
#jtinsley
#sgthaley
#samanthabowman
#samanthafontenot
#SamanthaBowmanFontenot
#bushland
#BushlandTexas





Judges

Judicial Corruption is rampant.  Our rights to a fair trial are a myth.  Many judges are totally corrupt.

Constitution

Our fundamental rights have been taken away by a government of wrongs. Stolen by corruption.

Attorneys

Misconduct is everywhere. Dishonesty abounds. Perjury, subornation of perjury, corruption!

Police

Abuse, Dishonesty, Corruption.  It's all common with Police and Law Enforcement.

Government

Government Dishonesty is Bad.
We must find honest people
and make them accountable
to We the People.