Billboard Praises Houston Voters
Meigs thanked Houston Voters for minimizing court corruption through their votes. After experiencing extensive abuse at the hands of court officials including multiple lawyers, lawyers sworn to uphold the Constitution and licensed by the Texas State Bar, Meigs fights to protect the public through support for SMANow.org and through Women Against Legal Abuse. From these sites, Meigs learned that the public continues to be victim to the self-interest of court officials at a growing and alarming rate, and increasingly at the devastating losses of children and assets.
After Meigs received all of her case files from various lawyers and after placing those files in chronological order, Meigs learned of the appearance of collusion and conspiring for what appears is to protect Frankfort from dual-representation of his client, Johnston and Asyntria, a company that Meigs owns 50% and continues to fight to regain. Had Frankfort not appearing to dual-represent and had that action not been noticed and appearing protected by the other lawyers, Meigs would not have spent so much money to regain the company, would not have seen the assets relocated to a company not owned by Meigs, and would not have spent and continue to spend enormous amounts of money. Below are blogs with reference to evidence received in those case files. Also listed are lawyers and evidence indicating their participation in preventing Meigs knowledge of all events to protect Frankfort.
See Blogs on Issues experienced by Meigs.
See Blog on references to issues surrounding Todd Frankfort.
See Documents Relating to this Billboard and Events.
What is Vulnerable Victim and how did lawyers use this to manipulate Meigs?
See Press Releases here and here.
See Blog on Document Tampering in Courts with Screenshots
Note that information continues to be added to back all statements mentioned below. These statements are Meigs' own conclusions from the documents and are not meant as a legal conclusion as Meigs is a pharmacist and not a lawyer. Meigs will continue to add documents and a timeline with documents for better assessment so that the media, law enforcement, and all can protect the People from the continued failure in enforceable accountability of court official abuse and mediation abuse experienced by many. See the documents section for reference to various discussions and the below individuals. Check back regularly for attached discussion with linked documents to each name below as this page grows.
1. What court officials/lawyers did Meigs encounter, why, how, and evidence to support Meigs' conclusions:
a. Todd Maas Frankfort - lawyer representing Johnston who appears to have dual-represented Johnston and Asyntria- the corporation, at the demise and significant loss to Wendy Meigs. Appears friend of Sherri Evans. Filled multiple appearing frivolous pleadings including the manipulated and altered after-signature, second version, agreement derived from the incredibly abusive mediation. Dodged service on subpoena with good questions.
b. Sherri Evans - Meigs' first divorce lawyer. Appears to be first to recognize Frankfort's dual-representation. Suggested to Zucker that opposing counsel could use the family court remedy/code to enforce Meigs' signature on the purported agreement rather than work towards what Meigs' requested. Even after knowing from Zucker that Bergman forgot the family-court remedy, the solution for OC to force the agreement against Meigs' requests to Evans, Evans does not tell Meigs that the agreement if null and does not require litigation, but instead, allows a hearing to take place to force the agreement without notifying the judge or Meigs. Evans willfully did not represent Meigs at the first hearing knowing fully well that the forgotten remedy and Meigs voiding the agreement did not require litigation. In addition, Evans continued to remain quiet on this issue for years after contributing to significan expenses, fees and other costs. These actions as well as the flow of emails gives the appearance of Evans as a catalyst for perpetration of fraud against Meigs while still demanding payment for those activities. Evans is/was good friends of Bohreer.
b1. Brandon Hammer - worked with Evans at Koonsfuller. Worked on divorce issues. First said the corporate issues could not be separated from divorce. Then said issues could be separated when judge could not rule on enforcing family mediation agreement because remedy was left off allowing Meigs to revoke the agreement.
c. Michelle Bohreer - first corporate lawyer with BZ. Noticed dual-representation of OC at Johnston deposition. Failed Meigs by knowing the corporate accounting with 200k of uncategorized expenses and did not demand all records before abusive 2015 mediation. Appeared angered that Meigs would fight against abuse that occurred at mediation by Bohreer stating that she was "pissed off" that Meigs, a woman, would fight against the abuse and manipulation as the only woman at the hands of five men at mediation in what can be read as the most horrendous example of manipulation of the courts and documents. In addition, Bohreer participated in adding to this post-mediation memorandum printed to protect the disgusting activities of the abuse of Meigs by adding in blue various threats and statements as if Bohreer had been at the mediation. What kind of woman or lawyer who is supposed to be representing a client falsifies a document against their client unless that lawyer has an alternative agenda, an agenda billed to the client but for the protection of the actions of abuse against another woman for what can only be considered a self-serving goal. Then Bohreer victim-blames Meigs for the abuse at mediation. Meigs believes that this woman should never attempt any type of political office or position within an organization as any activity by Bohreer within that position should be questioned. And why would Todd Zucker email Bohreer asking Bohreer if she saw the email that Bohreer herself appeared to send to Zucker? And why did Bohreer, Zucker and Evans not immediately withdraw until 4.2016 when they planned to do so in November of 2015. They claimed to wait to see if Meigs would sign the purported agreement whilst Meigs clearly stated that she would not.
d. Todd Zucker - first corporate lawyer with BZ. Impressively ran Johnston's deposition that revealed dual-representation. Failed Meigs. Knew Meigs claims against Johnston given to Bergman but hidden from Meigs. Told Meigs that she could not leave mediation like ex-husband at a family court divorce mediation and had to do whatever was asked or the judge would rule against her and she could lose her company regardless of negotiations. Zucker created semi-false documents to protect himself from responsibility for Meigs, his client, to have been abused, manipulated intoxicated, drugged and all at mediation while Zucker remained in another room, knowing that OC was serving alcohol to his client. Made outrageous claims in a memorandum on that mediation with numerous hearsay statements, unlike a professional lawyer to obviously protect himself and the mediator, Bergman, friend of Zucker. Zucker attended a hearing to force signature on family court agreement that Meigs refused to sign whilst knowing the failure of mediator Bergman to add remedy allowed Meigs to revoke the agreement. In other words, Zucker still was listed as Meigs' lawyer and intentionally did not tell the judge at the hearing that Meigs could and did revoke the agreement due to the missing family court remedy forgotten by Bergman. Zucker also failed to tell Meigs that no other litigation was necessary after revoking the family court-ordered mediation as the remedy was missing... even as still noted on court records as attorney for Meigs.
e. Bradford Allen Brady - lawyer who suddenly appeared after Sherri Evans requested from Frankfort who Frankfort represented as it appeared Frankfort represented both Johnston, CEO on a personal level and as corporate counsel to Asyntria. Brady's retainer check date occurred after the creation of the stock sale agreement that stole shares of stock and allowed Johnston to take assets and no other corporate lawyer indicated leading Frankfort appearing as the dual-representing lawyer and as shown in Johnston's deposition. Zucker, Bohreer, and Evans seem concerned in emails about discussing with Brady that Meigs refused to sign the printed version of the agreement due to the abuse at mediation.... almost giving the appearance as if Brady would be upset that the situation was not quick and easy as promised for a temporary stand-in for corporate counsel to give the appearance that Frankfort did not dual-represent. Wrote an affidavit that contradicted statements made with documents attached to the same file. See subpoena dodged for service. Why did Brady stop practicing law in Texas 08/2018?
f. Edward Trey Bergman. Mediator to Abusive Mediation. At the time Bergman orchestrated the most abusive and horrendous mediation of threats, isolation, drugging and fear while the then sitting chair of the Texas State Bar on ADR. Appeared to have attempted to change the family-court-ordered mediation to a business mediation once realized that Bergman forgot to add the family court remedy/code that prevents revocation, an action Meigs did within a week of the abusive mediation. Allowed the intoxication of the only woman among five men and gave glasses to Frankfort to serve the scotch... all prior to signature with the serving of alcohol mentioned in Zucker's threatening memorandum on the 2015 mediation that victim-blamed Meigs and threatened Meigs license and divorce process. Continued with attempting to validate the invalidated agreement at continual expense to Meigs and Johnston.
g. Rodney Castille- wrote the first pleading in opposition to the summary judgment to force signature of the family court mediation where Meigs refused to sign. Due to the lack of remedy on the document, the agreement could not be enforced with Meigs revoking the agreement. Castille won the hearing. The judge could not rule on this summary judgment or on any subsequent one as a judge cannot rule on a non-existent agreement. No one told Meigs that all expenses regarding the mediation were frivolous. Instead, Castille needed a job with two teenage kids and told Meigs this. Castille told Meigs that all lawyers, including those who were supposed to be representing her, were present at the hearing to force signature but only Castille fought for Meigs. The rest remained silent knowing the missing remedy allowed Meigs to revoke per Zucker email. Castille began working for Jamison after Castille's success against forcing signature. Castille told Meigs that no other litigation was required and then changed his mind after working for Jamison. Gave Meigs partial of her case files until requested twice more for the remaining files.
h. Bruce J. Jamison- new additional corporate lawyer due to Castille working for Jamison after Castille won summary judgment. Continued with thousands and thousands of dollars of appearing frivolous pleadings for an agreement that was non-existent and at great expense to Meigs. Later told Meigs that Jamison was good friends with Bergman, the man who ran the most abusive mediation where Meigs feared for her life, and such said without drama. Initially agreed to pursue legal malpractice cases against Bohreer/Zucker and Bergman and denied this just a few weeks left for statute of limitations. After stating my intentions, Jamison walked back and forth stating repeatedly that, "this is nothing but a white elephant". Wanted to file a mandamus on a non-existent agreement and then sent a letter for refusal to continue as Meigs' lawyer. Appears that Jamison was brought to deplete Meigs assets to the point that Meigs would not have enough money to employ a lawyer to fight for the malpractice suits including a suit against his friend, Bergman. No one expected Meigs to file her own pleadings. Meigs never expected the judicial machinery to be compromised and the dockets so easily manipulated that a court clerk could determine the winner and loser based on manipulation of documents.
i. Adam Morris- last divorce lawyer who actually divorced Meigs. Was suggested by Jamison as the divorce lawyer and whom Jamison insisted all communication went through Jamison as well. Later learned from another lawyer that Morris always knew that the family-court-mediation agreement was nonexistent after revocation but could not tell Meigs as Jamison did not want Meigs to know. Such action makes Meigs wonder who is more important to a lawyer and their sworn oath, client or referral source? Appears that all lawyers were afraid for some reason to tell Meigs that the agreement was non-existent and did not require litigation.
j. Cheryl Jahani -corporate lawyer hired after Meigs self-represented and after Jamison kept requesting outrageous amounts of money to continue. Appears to have filed pleadings lacking essential elements which caused dismissal of appellate case. Told Meigs that Meigs could not appeal due to lack of time. Meigs could appeal and did appeal all the way to the US Supreme Court. Unsure as to why Jahani would mislead on timing for filing. Appears to have fought for Meigs against judges appearing to side with opposition. Hearing notes show effective stances taken by Jahani but judges appear to not care and already decided the outcome without reviewing the records.
k. Martin Shellist - long time lawyer of Meigs. Referred Meigs to those lawyers mentioned above. Told Meigs that abuse at mediation sometimes happens as if normal.
l. Judy Warner... Judge for most of the activity that took place in her court. Never ruled on the revoked mediation agreement.
m. Brent Gamble... Judge who appeared to quid-pro-quo by accepting position in same mediation office with Edward Trey Bergman after dismissing case against Edward Trey Bergman without appearing to see evidence.
n. Jaclanel MacFarland. Judge for Zucker case. Dismissed case holding up a docket stating that the pleading is on the date shown and did not believe Meigs did not see the pleading as it did not exist. Due to Jahani as lawyer, Meigs could call shenanigans against MacFarland. Meigs has screenshots of docket manipulation proving that the docket sheet, unless printed on dates indicated, cannot be used as a legitimate source of document date and time placement.
o. Annette Henry. Divorce lawyer recommended by Rodney Castille and could not finish divorce.
1. Would Meigs recommend any of these lawyers or any affiliations with these lawyers? No.
2. Should any of these lawyers or their affiliations be supported for any office or any position of control over the public? Meigs does not believe these lawyers should be allowed in any position of responsibility... either they actively participated in what appears is an effort to protect Frankfort for damaging actions in dual-repreentation or kept quiet from exposing those issues.
3. Does Meigs believe that any of these lawyers should be allowed into any position of influence including political office, places of importance to the people such as the Rodeo, or in any organization that considers anyone? No... for the same reason in #2..
4. Does Meigs believe that each lawyer requires extensive investigation by law enforcement? Yes.
5. Does Meigs believe that the Texas State Bar sufficiently protects the public according to her experience? No.
6. Should the Federal Government step in and protect the public from uncontrollable and unaccountable court official corruption? Yes as the public will continue to suffer without public enforceable accountability of lawyers, judges and other corrupt court officials.
7. Does potential exist for overlooking court official corruption by the Texas State Bar when those court officials run the risk of political and case backlash for enforcing punishment against a fellow court official, especially a prominent court official? Yes, and Meigs was told by a court clerk that Meigs did not know who she was suing, that many lawyers fear the Fraternity of lawyers that are found in the State Bar, in all judicial positions, and in higher courts, and that these Fraternity court officials protect each other causing fear among decent lawyers and loses among the regular public. Such an organization called "the Fraternity" damage the very fabric upon which this great country was created.
8. Should the Texas State Bar be allowed to exist with consistent failure to protect the public from court official corruption? The Texas State Bar should only exist as a social organization as the State Bar offers wonderful social activities but fails in oversight and punishment of their own due to the nature of the legal profession to confront their own in defending and judging under the same auspices. Licensing and oversight must fall to federal supervision as the Constitution of this great country ensures due process and constitutional rights for each individual, rights denied by a corruptible system lacking public enforceable accountability. Only the public can fairly judge court official activities without prejudice. Judges judge the public. The public should judge the judges.
9. Should law enforcement investigate all signs of possible court official corruption regardless of dollar value? Yes. Court officials know the monetary limit that law enforcement will actively investigate giving way to multiple accounts of fraud in increments. Is there a dollar limit to investigating fraud? Yes. Does that dollar limit give a free ticket of fraud to the court officials who know this and fraudsters? Yes. The reliance on dollar amounts in regards to fraud and all must change for the Constitution to continue to be viable to the public. Federal oversight should limit state court official comradery and minimize court official abuses.
10. Should any form of court document manipulation of the docket be considered a federal crime with immediate imprisonment as such manipulation can protect criminals, damage public trust, and determine the outcome of a case regardless of the validity of that case? Very much so as the manipulation of the docket is a direct violation of due process, the constitution, and an example of uncontrolled court corruption as most public citizens would not even know their case was lost due to this process.
11. Should another form of court exist for individuals representing themselves? Yes, as the right to self-representation is guaranteed by this Country yet technicalities deny the public this process.
a. For example, a case may require an expert witness to assess validity to the claim. An individual representing themselves can NEVER find an expert witness as an expert witness will NOT represent such an individual. An expert witness relies upon "wins" for their reputation and income. Most self-representing individuals lose their cases whether legitimate or not. Needing only "wins", an expert witness cannot represent a self-representing individual or the value of that expert witness drops. HENCE, A SELF-REPRESENTED INDIVIDUAL WILL ALWAYS "LOSE" DUE TO NO FAULT OF THEIR OWN.... EVEN WITH A VALID CASE AS NO EXPERT WITNESS WILL REPRESENT THE VALIDITY OF THE CASE.
b. Judges, allowed too much flexibility, will dismiss a "legal malpractice case" for failure to find an expert witness, can protect one of their own through accepting technicalities a self-represented individual can never meet, and by denying evidence at whim. Public enforceable guidelines and prosecution of court officials can prevent such obscenities' of the court and allow the courts to return to operating for the public instead of for itself. After extensive searches, NO legal malpractice case can be found to have been won by a self-represented individual..... Technicalities eliminated valid legal malpractice cases and protected corrupt court officials.
12. Should the Federal government, at all levels, protect the people against court official corruption in all judicial environments? By removing the licenses of corrupt court officials, fining any attempt to consult or teach after losing their license, imprisoning those corrupt court officials sworn to uphold the Constitution and eliminating corrupt court officials before they can run for any office or position, only the most upright and honorable court officials will represent the people, the states, and this country. Bottom line: Law enforcement can stop the progression of corruption into State positions, the Congress, the House of Representatives, the Supreme Court, and the Presidency. If the judicial system continues to protect itself over the public, the Federal government must step in to protect the people and give law enforcement full resources to ensure the protection of the people at any point during the judicial process.
13. Expose corruption. Protect your family, friends, and neighbors. Be aware of those with appearance of corruption. Do not hire those lawyers with evidence of corruption or their firms and affiliates.
14. Vote. Thank you Houston Voters for your awareness of corruption. Together, We Make the Difference.
[All Statements, Opinions, Conclusions and Assumptions are personal opinions and conclusions of Wendy Meigs and do not intend to be assumed as judgment or declarations. Wendy Meigs holds copyright to all statements, conclusions, assumptions and story. ©]