Documents Relating to 2023 Billboard on I-10 near 610 west, Houston
1. Johnston deposition shows appearing dual-representation of Frankfort. This dual-representation damaged Wendy Meigs both in loss of company, excessive expenses, continued battle to retain the company and all since 2015.
3. Did Michelle Bohreer and Todd Zucker intentionally decide to not represent Meigs against the dual-representation claims after learning of those claims from Johnston's deposition? Did Bohreer, Zucker and Evans know that Frankfort and Brady messed up on the stock sale agreement and then proceed to give those claims against Frankfort and Brady to Bergman so that Meigs could be manipulated into signing any agreement so as to create a printed version that released all liability of all lawyers for all claims, past, present, and future? Note that Zucker submitted a memorandum on events to Bergman, intentionally hidden from Meigs, that described Meigs claims for what reason could only be for Bergman to appearingly create a mediation that could be directed to protect Frankfort as seen in the attachment above where those claims against Frankfort/Brady were given to Bergman to handle.
5. All three versions of the family-court ordered mediation here. The second method used to manipulate Meigs, other than mentioned in the "Objection to Mediation", includes the altering of the original handwritten agreement after Meigs signed twice due to incapacitation and telling Zucker that she could not see the agreement and did not want to sign. All three versions here. Note that the first agreement does not include a signature line for "Eagles Klaw" or a counsel for Eagles Klaw as every participant and also note that various changes are in the second agreement where those changes occurred after Meigs' signature.
6. Eagles Klaw is not even on the signature login or letter for mediation, a letter indicating Bergman needs more referrals and business. What would Bergman do for more referrals, manipulate a mediation?
7. The final printed version seen was created by Sherri Evans, divorce lawyer, who did not attend mediation and released all liability for all lawyers in that final version. Several other versions appeared derived from Evans version and claimed by Zucker.
8. Zucker physically pushed on Meigs arm telling Meigs that she had to sign or the judge would rule against her. All lawyers including Todd Zucker, Todd Frankfort, Bradford Allen Brady, and Edward Trey Bergman had to agree to alter the first signed handwritten mediation agreement to have Eagles Klaw forged under one of two signatures to mask the incapacitation. And all lawyers did participate in the fraud and possible forgery as the altered agreement post Meigs signature was presented as a legal and valid contract to the courts by these lawyers. Hence, all fraudulently and intentionally used the altered agreement to submit to all courts as a true document and was not. What is their liability to the judicial process in manipulating the judicial process for their personal self-serving issues?
9. Frankfort, someone who should be a pillar of the legal system having been an officer of the Houston Bar on ADR and running for District Court Judge in 2022, dodged service of a subpoena from Meigs for interrogatories as seen in the attached subpoena, something that you would think an officer of the court would not do or that someone who had no guilt would not do. What is Frankfort's guilt? Should a person who abuses another and manipulates the court ever be voted into office?
10. See questions from the subpoena. Here is an example of a question to Frankfort from Meigs (Note that this action refers to a mediation where Meigs' attorney told her that she could not leave or refuse anything without the judge ruling against her regardless of decisions made at the "family court-ordered mediation". Frankfort left in the middle of mediation to buy alcohol to intoxicate Meigs for what appears is any signature.):
Question 11: "Is procuring alcohol and serving it to the opposition client without their counsel present, a common practice and does that violate any rules of conduct; and does pouring and serving a second glass to a client without counsel further violate those rules; and do you find it more convenient to take advantage of an opposing client without counsel present?"
11. The billboard refers to Meigs as a vulnerable victim which allows predators such as those lawyers mentioned to be able to manipulate Meigs due to the various experiences affecting Meigs. Meigs vulnerability is similar to the vulnerable woman in United States of America, Plaintiff appellee, v. Jeffrey L. Goldberg, Defendant-appellant, 406 F.3d 891 (7th Cir. 2005). ” A letter from another woman, not elderly, stated: "I was truly at a vulnerable point in my life when I met Jeff Goldberg .... At the time of the divorce I felt I needed someone that I could trust to help me negotiate and understand the financial aspect of the divorce settlement as I had no knowledge at all of financial matters.",,,,
12. As read in Meigs Petition to the US Supreme Court, [these lawyers hired to represent Meigs]... acted as a predator by blaming the victim, the Petitioner, in the memorandum and mediation as a form of emotional manipulation. (Murphy, 2021) “Establishing trust and familiarity is one of the most important aspects of a
successful effort to exploit someone’s emotional vulnerability, then manipulate them either for personal gain or simply out of pure malice…” as in mediation. (Coleman, 2019).
Press Release Document Reference. October 2019
Please Consider Donating to Help the Legal Costs to Fight Mediation Abuse.
(Use Zelle and email address: Support@SMANow.Org to Donate)
Or Try Below