top of page
  • Writer's pictureWendy Meigs

Getting Gritty 6R2: Document Tampering by Court 133rd in Zucker Malpractice? Common Leniency Denied

Updated: Feb 9, 2020

"An inaccurate timestamp or missing signature on a court document not only erodes the integrity of the record," said Chris Daniel. (Former Harris County Clerk)





Click Link for Importance of Questions to Meigs' Case: Deceptions

Preface to Individuals Involved.

==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. © ==

Meigs' Lawsuits against Bergman and Zucker were Dismissed. Case Information.


Questions for Analysis for this Blog:

How can lawyers malpractice and get away with failing to represent their client?

Do self-represented individuals(pro-se) have a chance in the court system? What issues create an unfair and unjust system against pro-se and how can that be changed?

Does a Judge's requirement for expert witnesses intentionally prejudice a Pro-Se who can never get Expert Witnesses? Should summary judgment be banned in a legal malpractice case to ensure justice?

Can court clerks manipulate and tamper with filings?

Can a filing show one date when it actually was not viewable in the court system until later?



Self-represented individuals, those without a lawyer, (called pro-se) will not find expert witnesses because expert witnesses will NOT work for self-represented individuals regardless of the field the expert witness practices.

Expert Witnesses will NOT Represent a Pro-Se

a. Thus, if case law in a legal malpractice case REQUIRES an expert witness such as a lawyer to be a witness for the standard of practice for a lawyer, and such will not represent a pro-se, then the system automatically protects lawyers and prevents honest, hardworking Americans who cannot pay for a lawyer to be abused, manipulated, and deceived.

Lawyers Automatically Protected Against Pro-Se Claims

When Case Law Requires an Expert Witness - Judicial System Fails-Case Dismissed


Hence, a lawyer knowing that a pro-se will not find an expert witness filing a lawsuit on their own, a lawyer will need to BILL a lot of expenses to that individual to DRAIN their Client's bank account and force them to not be able to afford another lawyer and thus the individual must represent themselves and do so without the ability to hire an expert witness...... Lawyers like to quote that case law requires expert witnesses in legal malpractice cases; although not always true. However, this claim for an expert witness allows the judge to dismiss the case for no expert witness and protect their comrade lawyers being sued.Thereby protecting the lawyer from successfully being sued by his client. Case dismissed. The system fails. System Automatically Protects Lawyers.

Malpracticing Lawyer Forces Client Into Pro-Se by Depleting Client Resources.

2. SUMMARY JUDGMENT: Efficient Tools to Protect the Lawyer:

As mentioned, someone who represents themselves cannot get an expert witness and thus automatically fails summary judgment for not producing an expert witness. Failing summary judgment dismisses the case against the lawyer. Various summary judgments for various reasons can be used by lawyers as they are well trained in these things, and will create multiple potential for failures for a pro-se seeking justice against a lawyer.

Summary Judgment filed Against Pro-Se for Lack of Expert Witnesses

a. Legal Malpractice causes brought by a pro-se can create substantial levels of abuse to the pro-se by the justice system and against an already damaged ex-client/individual. This system of justice creates a free-for-all for the lawyer against any valid claims of an innocent individual and allows the lawyer to pre-plan any manipulation against the client to the lawyer's benefit by severely limiting the ability of the ex-client to fight back. The judge's approval of the lawyer's summary judgment allows the judge to dismiss the claim and thus frees the lawyer being sued.

Lawyer's Pre-Planned Client Manipulation Protected by Judicial System


Although multiple case law states that an expert witness is not necessary when the trier of fact/jury can reasonably determine the situation on their own without requiring interpretation by a lawyer, the requirement for an expert witness can be forced and required through a summary judgment that goes before a judge, not jury, to be determined for validity.

Judges Protect Malpractice Lawyers by Forcing Expert Witnesses, Approving Summary Judgment and Denying Case Continuation.

Unbiased Accountability of Judges


when a Judge Dismisses a Legal Malpractice Case.

Example a jury could decide: Meigs case: For instance, if law firm one advertised as forensic accounting and corporate fraud experts receive QuickBooks data told by their client to them is manipulated, law firm one agrees with opposing counsel to further delay discovery for 20 days after mediation and then failed to get bank records in a corporate fraud and theft case but law firm two obtained bank records in the same case before a second mediation only to find about 120 embezzled checks, cash pulled, and over a million in diverted money and assets, then law firm two did their job. Law firm one failed miserably.

The general public can see that law firm one failed without the need for a lawyer expert witness to tell them. Throw in the fact that law firm one agreed with an opposing counsel to delay discovery so that the client could not see data before mediation, the same opposing counsel that law firm one said the client had dual representation claims against, stated so, and then denied such claims; yet law firm one added those acknowledged claims in depth in the memorandum sent to the mediator Bergman for mediation and per email of law firm one decided to stew on my claims for Bergman to handle. Bergman said at mediation that Meigs did not have claims. Why would law firm one and mediator lie to the client? What benefit did they obtain by lying to Meigs? Did they decide to protect the opposing counsel's mistakes and lie to manipulate the outcome?

Legal Expert Witnesses Seemingly Not Required in Meigs Case Against Zucker

a. Since a judge determines the validity of a summary judgement as to whether the judge wants to accept or dismiss the summary judgment, the judge becomes primary to the continuation of a legal malpractice case, a case against a peer or possibly a friend or friend of a friend of the judge. Conflict can arise as the judge, most likely a peer of the lawyer being sued in a legal malpractice case, must interpret and either dismiss or accept the claim thereby determining the outcome. Fear of "blacklisting" may be overwhelming in situations of seemingly important lawyers or their lawyers.

Judge Overrides Justice Bypassing a Jury Trial. Protects Peers.

b. If the lawyer being sued holds a high position in the legal field, a judge may feel pressured to find a way to dismiss the legal malpractice lawsuit either as a means for a returned favor or as survival against being "blacklisted" in anything else the judge may want to do after they are no longer a judge like becoming a mediator and needing a place to mediate out of.. Thus, any dismissal of a legal malpractice claim by the judge becomes suspect and should be. Hence, only a trial by jury can fairly determine the validity of a legal malpractice case.

Judge's Self-Interest Always Questionable in

Summary Judging Out Legal Malpractice Claims


Besides the conflict existing when a judge can summary judge out a case thus dismissing the case against a fellow lawyer in a malpractice suit due to the above, court clerks may also be susceptible to diversion for favors in return or for monetary benefits as mentioned below in numerous cases and of interest in Harris County as well.

Court Clerks Hold Incredible POWER in Choosing How to Handle Court Documents

a. Court Clerks review documents for pro-se prior to uploading on the court system. When someone makes a mistake on the document, the court clerk

1. HOLDS the document from becoming visible on the docket and blocks the delivery of emails notifying of the filing to the opposing counsel so that the mistake can be corrected.

Court Clerk Retains Physical Control Over Documents Reaching Docket Posting

2. The mistake is corrected by "copying the envelope", correcting the mistake and then resubmitting it back to the court clerk. The time-frame to resubmit may take days or longer depending on the requirements. The process for dating and loading the documents fall under the personal discretion of the clerk who can circumvent those requirements without simple detection. See examples below.

"Copying the Envelope" Retains Original Date of the Filing Before Mistake Correction

3. However, copying the envelope RETAINS the original date of filing that had the mistake even though the actual filing may not hit until days or weeks or especially months later.

Corrected Filing Can Be Held Beyond Requirements

Keeping Opposing Counsel Unaware of Need to Respond

4. This original date applies not only to the date on the docket but also the date on the emails that appear to hit on that date but are actually released later. Hence, regardless of the time that the filing was actually approved by the clerk and uploaded, no apparent data indicates the actual filing occurred later. Research as done by California below showed clerks document tampered for money as docket and all did not show date manipulation or record manipulation. Such research should be required with any question on visibility and especially when a case can be dismissed for failure to respond in a timely manner as happened with Meigs. See below for document tampering in Harris County.

Current System Lacks Ability to Openly and Easily Monitor

Court Clerk's Possible Self-Serving Actions in Document Handling

5. The clerk can hold the filings as long as they want without being caught for sitting on the filing and can do so for the benefit of someone as the filing and email will show the original date of the filing that had the mistake requiring correction that never hit the docket due to errors.

This means that the Court Clerk can MASK and MANIPULATE the actual time a filing becomes visible on the docket and email released

regardless of the date the filing shows that it was uploaded.


Hence summary judgment approval for failing to respond for not seeing a filing, especially in a court with document handling issues already noted, should fall to leniency that is normally given in such cases and time given for response. This happened in Meigs case against Zucker.

McFarland dismissed the Zucker case without leniency to Meigs never seeing the amended summary judgment when Meigs responded on time to all other filings. Also months prior, Meigs sent a letter to Chris Daniels, District Court Clerk, to report concerns over document tampering by clerks in Meigs' "Objection to Mediation" filing in the Zucker case. Same court, same case with document issues and McFarland Dismissed Zucker Case Related to Document Issues. In appeals. See below for history of document tampering issues in Harris County.

McFarland Dismissed Zucker Case without Leniency

on Meigs Claims of Not Seeing Filing.

Past History of Document Issues in Same Court, Same Case.

In Appeals.

Court Clerks can Manipulate Court Document Filing Dates, Placement and Visibility

b. It is possible that the court clerk can prevent the uploading of a document until much later causing enough time to pass where the filing is missed? The printout of the filings will NOT show that the filing was held back by the clerk. See below for clerks who were arrested for manipulating filings.

Dockets and Emails Do Not Always Indicate Actual Filing Dates of Court Documents

c. Such manipulation of filings, especially those with limited time frames to respond, may cause the failure in response to that filing within said timeline. If difficulty existed before with a court clerk manipulating the filings different than had been uploaded, then possibly that clerk should be investigated for document tampering? If anything, any statement of failure to see a pleading should be taken as truth in an environment where pleadings appear to have been manipulated by the court clerk..... such as in Meigs' case against Zucker to be discussed in another blog.

Holding Time-Dependent Filings Requiring Response

Blocks Timely Response Leading to Dismissal

d. And if manipulation occurred in the same court that a legal malpractice case was dismissed for not responding whilst all other time-frames had been met in that case and the pleading was said to not have ever been seen, then maybe the court and clerk should be investigated for document tampering? And leniency should be given for not having seen the pleading to respond within required timelines and allow the person to respond to that pleading in the name of justice? Remember that copying the envelope retains the date of filing even though the actual filing can hit much later. If that can be changed and based on examples below, a legal malpractice case can be lost due to failing to see a filing that was held back until the response time lapsed or for such a long time that the pleading gets lost in litigation among older pleadings. Such manipulation of court records benefits dismissal of the legal malpractice case against a lawyer and blocks the just trial by jury required by the abused client fighting for justice.

Manipulation of Court Records Protects Malpracticing Lawyers

5. Exhibits from Meigs concerning Possible Tampering:

Tampering of Zucker Files


6. Examples of Court Clerks Manipulating Filings in Texas:

Houston Chronicle:

"Judge accused of creating false court records" in Harris County before.

" 'An inaccurate timestamp or missing signature on a court document not only erodes the integrity of the record,' Daniel said, but can have an impact on appeals and other legal processes."

Judging Judges Difficult

"When Texas judges misbehave, the state agency in charge of overseeing judges often keeps their identities a secret. "" Complaints against judges are filed with the Texas Commission on Judicial Conduct. The commission has the power to discipline Texas judges, but the CBS 11 I-Team found it rarely does. " According to discipline records, in June, commissioners found one judge exhibited bias and prejudice against women at his workplace.” The judge was issued a private warning.

Texas judges’ misdeeds often kept secret by oversight commission (Click this Link)

"In 2008, a Texas judge found an out-of-town attorney in contempt of court. But, the judge added, there was a way the lawyer could avoid jail: He could donate “large sums of money” to several charitable organizations, one of which the judge happened to have a close connection to. Want to know more about the judge and his charity? You can’t. It’s confidential"

"No identifying information about the judge or his or her jurisdiction is released, and the penalty has no real impact beyond a notation in the commission’s records and the judge’s conscience. ....."

"The Sunset Advisory Commission is charged by the Legislature to review the performance of state agencies to determine if taxpayers should continue funding an agency and, if so, what changes might be made to improve its efficiency. But when sunset auditors examined the judicial conduct commission earlier this year, they essentially threw up their hands after the commission refused to turn over records of its deliberations or permit sunset employees to sit in on hearings, which the agency said were closed to all but judicial conduct commissioners and staff. 'Staff could not assess the commission’s primary duty,' the audit agency concluded. 'By preventing a full review, the Commission on Judicial Conduct seriously limits the ability of the Sunset Commission and the Legislature to assess the oversight of judges in Texas, as required by law.'"

“ 'So much for the public’s confidence in the integrity of the judicial system,' Jim Harrington of the Texas Civil Rights Project, who had filed a complaint against Keller, said at the time. 'It says that judges protect their own.' Few judges disciplined... Yet detractors say the secrecy is troubling. 'There’s a fraud on the good citizens of this state,' said Robert Fickman, a Houston defense attorney. 'They’re told that they’re being protected from abusive judges, but that’s not occurring.' "

Judging Texas Judges Difficult When Identities Of Misbehaving Ones Often Kept Secret

Judges Gone Wild: "Judges are often thought to be the most fair, just, and moral among us, the ones we turn to when we need to make important decisions about truth and justice, even life and death. But judges sometimes behave badly."



"... law enforcement officials view the arrest of Gevorkyan and Koshkaryan as exposing a major “betrayal within the system.” "According to the story, law enforcement officials are  concerned that organized crime is infiltrating areas we wouldn’t have expected,” putting officer’s safety in danger, and allowing defendants under investigation to possibly destroy evidence and threaten criminal investigations. These threats are often difficult to detect because an insider, as an employee with legitimate access, may not initially appear to be doing anything wrong. However, such insiders can cause significant damage by stealing company information or products to benefit another organization."

Former courthouse clerk arrested on felony charges:


Meigs was told that the lawyers representing Edward Trey Bergman and Todd Zucker as well as Bergman and Zucker are powerful enough to make sure that Meigs would find no one to represent her, that they were influential enough with various individuals in the courts and justice to block her cases from continuing to trial and prevent any law agency from pursing what appears to be clear claims. Meigs experienced additional tactics to force signature to a printed version of the mediation agreement that released liability of all lawyers. Meigs refused.

No one should be above the law. No one should be allowed to obstruct justice through influencing anyone. The public needs to be aware that justice system/courts may consider some individuals too high to fall while they dismiss valid claims by the public and force the public to be accountable whilst they walk away. Our ancestors suffered for fair courts and our military fights for our freedom every day. We must reclaim the courts for the people.

Help Meigs Force Accountability! Stop Mediation Abuse! Protect the Public!

208 views0 comments


Anchor 1
bottom of page