Getting Gritty 5: Meigs' Cases: Deception Continues
Updated: Sep 28, 2019
UNCOVERING POTENTIAL DANGERS TO THE PUBLIC
WITH POSSIBLE LAWYER SELF-INTEREST
BASIC INFORMATION REGARDING MEIGS' FIGHT:
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.
Both are currently in APPEALS.
Stop Mediation Abuse: Help Force Accountability
Questions for Analysis for this Blog:
DID RODNEY CASTILLE AND BRUCE JAMISON CONTINUE THE DECEPTION AND PROTECT OTHERS FROM ACCOUNTABILITY?
1. Why did Rodney Castille switch from stating that the failure in summary judgment on a draft mediation agreement from Texas Family court that lacked the "irrevocable" statement did not require further litigation after Meigs revoked it TO stating that the agreement now required litigation based on following contract law and was not revoked? Meigs later discovered over a year later from several lawyers that further litigation was not required; otherwise the irrevocable statement meant nothing if the agreement then followed contract law. Why would a seasoned lawyer change his mind after a discussion with Todd Zucker and Todd Frankfort as occurred after the summary judgment hearing where the judge denied summary judgment?
2. What was the purpose of continuous litigation over the same points? The continuous litigation prevented Meigs from regaining control over the company and preventing further asset diversion. Plus litigation costs significant money depleting Meigs' savings. Could any of those actions have protected Todd Frankfort counsel and contract writer for Johnston who possibly aided and abetted Johnston in his attempted theft of stocks and his theft of assets?
3. Why was Meigs not told that the mediation agreement was void after one year of no activity? Why did Jamison and Castille continue litigating a voided agreement?
4. Why was Meigs forced into a court-ordered mediation again in 2016 after the agreement was already void and after Meigs stated that she did not want to mediate with Bergman again? Why did Meigs refuse to eat or drink anything at the 2016 mediation with Bergman?
5. Why was Meigs led to believe that the mediation agreement still required litigation after one year of no activity? What purpose did deceiving Meigs about the validity of the agreement serve?
6. Why did Jamison suggest Adam Morris as the divorce attorney?
7. Why did Jamison, corporate attorney, keep constant email contact with divorce attorney office of Adam Morris?
8. Why did Jamison become upset when he thought that he was kept out of the loop with emails from Adam Morris' office? Was Jamison attempting to ensure control over the narrative and guarantee Meigs did not find out that the draft mediation agreement was void after one year of inactivity? Since Castille at one point suggested the divorce and corporate issues be separate, why would a corporate attorney want to be constantly involved in the writing of the divorce decree?
9. How could such seasoned lawyers as Jamison, Castille and Morris not know that something learned in first year law school such as a contract is invalid after one year of no activity not be remembered or was that knowledge intentionally kept from Meigs?
10, Other than allowing Jamison to continue charging for useless litigation, what else did that deception achieve? Did Meigs lose thousands of dollars in payments for useless litigation to deplete the savings of Meigs leaving no money left to fight against Zucker and Bergman for the extreme abuse at the 2015 mediation? Is there another reason? Is this fraud?
11. Why did Adam Morris' office maintain communication with Jamison over the divorce decree? Why did Adam Morris add the 2015 mediation agreement issues into the divorce decree when the agreement was way over a year old and invalid and a seasoned attorney such as Morris should have known this?
12. Did Jamison and Castille somehow prevent Adam Morris from telling Meigs that the 2015 agreement was no longer active? Did Adam Morris already know the agreement was invalid? Was Adam Morris forced to conspire and include the invalid agreement issues into the divorce decree to make the agreement appear to still be in controversy as to the validity of the agreement requiring further litigation?
13. What purpose was served by not telling Meigs that the 2015 mediation agreement was no longer valid after inactivity of one year? More money in litigation expenses? More deception to the real reasons to possible conspire to protect events?
14. Why did Jamison and Castille suggest a mandamus on an already invalid agreement with issues written into the divorce decree? Was this to deplete more of Meigs money and block her legal malpractice and fraud fight against Todd Zucker and Edward Trey Bergman, friend of Jamison?
15. Why did Jamison and Castille refuse to file a lawsuit against Zucker and Bergman for Meigs? Was each and every activity by Jamison and Castille after the denial of the first summary judgment nothing more than a method to protect Todd Zucker and Edward Trey Bergman, current sitting chair of the Texas State Bar on ADR? Knowing that no further litigation was required or summary judgment after Meigs revoked the 2015 Texas Family court agreement missing the required irrevocable statement, what purpose was served by the first lawyers threatening and abandoning Meigs and the subsequent lawyers intentionally not telling Meigs that she still owned her company and further litigation was not required?
Letter from Jamison to Judge Warne
Jamison Continues Litigation. Does not tell Meigs that She Owns the Company
THREE VERSIONS OF THE PURPORTED MEDIATION AGREEMENT
(1 original handwritten, 1 altered handwritten, 1 significantly different printed version)
Wendy Meigs emails asking lawyers to void Agreement due to Abuse
Possible Reason that a Mediator would allow a Mediation to be Manipulated: Income
Failure in Mediation: quality of process
Model Standards for Conduct of Mediators
Meigs was told that the lawyers representing Bergman and 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!
Donate: Stop Mediation Abuse: Help Force Accountability (GoFundMe)