UPDATED: 11.04.22: UNCOVERING POTENTIAL DANGERS TO THE PUBLIC
WITH POSSIBLE LAWYER SELF-INTEREST (Doc Links Added Frequently)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Background Information:
Click Link for Importance of Questions to Meigs' Case: Deceptions
Preface to Individuals Involved. Some document links at page bottom. Other document links found in other blogs.
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
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Analyze the Questions and Comment. See Documents Below.
Protect Yourself.
Questions for Analysis for this Blog:
What is aiding and abetting?
Could aiding and abetting in the theft of company assets and stocks occur though counsel and lawyer contracts?
Did Frankfort aid and abet Johnston's activities?
What is dual representation, and when and how did Frankfort represent Asyntria and Johnston?
What depth of involvement occurred by others to assist masking Frankfort's possible mistakes?
More Detailed Questions of Interest for Analysis of Actions
1. AIDING AND ABETTING:
A. If Frankfort did aid and abet Johnston in taking company assets against the decision of the remaining shareholders, what is Frankfort's liability? Is Frankfort's liability the same as potentially Johnston's for moving deposits, employees and other assets into Johnston's personal company against shareholder votes? Did Frankfort write the contracts to help that occur? Does Johnston's deposition implicate Frankfort in these actions?
Is Frankfort responsible for the seemingly millions of dollars diverted over the years since 2015 by Johnston and Johnston as well for his part in the diversion?
Johnston Deposition Indicates Frankfort's Involvement
2. If other lawyers worked together to prevent the knowledge of Frankfort's errors, are those lawyers also responsible for the millions of dollars lost over the years for appearing to protect Frankfort by hiding Frankfort's responsibility and preventing Meigs from gaining access to the company? Is this conspiracy to fraud or something else? How serious are these actions by Frankfort and those lawyers who possibly protected Frankfort and those lawyers who possibly protected those lawyers/mediator who protected Frankfort?
Fellow Lawyers Appear To Protect Frankfort
3. What is Johnston's liability? Did Johnston need the income from Asyntria to mask his seemingly excessive losses from possible ill management of his pharmacy and ghost writers for books? Did Frankfort help Johnston hide his losses by helping him wrongfully pull Asyntria assets and Asyntria income into Johnston's companies, Straden Schaden, the Apothecary Group and all?
Johnston Diverts Asyntria Income
4. What tactics could be used to protect Frankfort? How could Meigs be manipulated to release all claims against Frankfort without Meigs recanting?
a. What would be expected of Frankfort by those lawyers and mediator if they were able to manipulate Meigs to release her claims against Frankfort? Would he owe those lawyers and mediator in some way?
Possible Tactics to Protect Frankfort
5. What tool is available to lawyers that would allow manipulation of Meigs of which all lawyers could work together to control the outcome? Could that tool be MEDIATION?
Mediation is Best Tool To Manipulate Individuals
6. Would the growing acceptance of blanket confidentiality be useful in mediation for these lawyers to control Meigs to force signature on a draft agreement to later be altered to add release of liability for all lawyers involved?
Blanket Confidentiality Masks Mediation Abuse
7. How much abuse to Wendy Meigs during mediation would be required to get a signature that these lawyers could use? How much have mediators and lawyers gotten away with in the past to allow the extent of abuse to clients in mediation as acceptable? Is any level of abuse acceptable to the PUBLIC? Why would the public ever find abusing people in mediation under blanket confidentiality to be okay to do? Does the public know? Should they know? Should laws be made to protect the public in mediation? Meigs as well as others believe mediation should come to a halt until set laws are in place to protect the public with unbiased accountability for breaking those laws; otherwise, the public is in danger...
Is Any Level of Mediation Abuse Acceptable?
8. If mediation proved to be the best resource in the past to manipulate a client for a predetermined outcome, would a special mediator be necessary to ensure that mediator's participation in manipulating that person for the lawyers' agenda? Is that why Edward Trey Bergman was chosen to be mediator by Frankfort per email, the same lawyer who Meigs possibly has dual-representation claims and possibly aiding and abetting of Johnston causing Meigs to lose access to her company as a jointly owned shareholder and possibly leading to a loss of over a million dollars diverted?
Mediator Chosen Must Approve Participant Manipulation Towards Pre-Planned Outcome
9. Was Bergman allowing Frankfort to leave during the middle of mediation to go to a liquor store to buy Scotch and apparently vodka per Zucker's memo on the events, a method to further control Meigs to incapacitate her enough to manipulate Meigs to sign a draft agreement? Was Zucker allowing such to happen by knowing about the abuse to Meigs, not going to Meigs to protect her from the other lawyers, and intentionally evading the situation by stowing away in another as an attempt to alleviate any responsibility of Zucker for what was happening to his client, Meigs? Was Bergman finding the glasses for Frankfort to pour the Scotch solid indication of Bergman's intention to create a biased environment? Did all those at that mediation work together to ensure the incapacitation of Meigs and guarantee the protection of Frankfort in what appears to be a pre-planned, self-serving mediation built upon fraud?
Bergman Allows Frankfort to Leave Mediation to Buy Alcohol
to Intoxicate Unrepresented Meigs.
Environment of Control and Bias Created
10. Why did Frankfort pick Scotch to buy at the liquor store for mediation? Why was Johnston insistent on Scotch? Was the strong taste of Scotch required to possibly mask another drug? Why did Frankfort pour the first glass of Scotch and give it to Johnston to slide to Meigs whilst Frankfort just gave the second glass directly to Meigs? Why did Johnston put his hand over the glass while sliding the first glass of Scotch to Meigs with the intent watching of Frankfort and Bergman as Johnston did this? Was something possibly dropped into Meigs' drink causing Meigs to not remember how she got from one room to next afterwards and caused multiple issues including depressed respiration causing Meigs' fingers to turn dark purple.
Bergman Allows Opponent on Psychotic Medications to
Slide Scotch to Meigs with Hand over Glass.
Meigs Loses Blocks of Time and Fingers Turn Purple.
11. Considering the level of abuse that Meigs experienced at this mediation, why didn't Zucker and Bohreer void the mediation or at minimum attempt to work at voiding the mediation instead of misstating events in Zucker's memo to Meigs as well as victim-blaming and quoting legal points against Meigs including threatening Meigs' pharmacy license when they were paid to be Meigs' lawyers? Was it due to Frankfort? As seasoned lawyers and mediator, all should have known that Meigs met the court category of a "vulnerable victim". Did that knowledge assist these lawyers in abusing Meigs to manipulate the predetermined outcome to protect Frankfort?
Bohreer & Zucker Blame Meigs for Being Abused at Mediation.
12. When Zucker discussed per email with Sherri Evans the missing family court remedy and became aware that Bergman left off the family court remedy code 6.602 that allowed Meigs to revoke the agreement without further litigation, why didn't Zucker or for that fact, Evans as well, tell Meigs that the handwritten agreement was voided in November of 2015 when Meigs revoked it? To protect Frankfort?
Bergman Forgetting Family Court Remedy Code 6.602
Allowed Meigs to Revoke Agreement without Litigation.
Kept Secret From Meigs Until 2018
13. Why was there a seemingly and appearing need by all to keep Meigs unaware that Meigs revoking the agreement in November of 2015 actually revoked the agreement, and that Meigs still owned 50% of the company, that Meigs could have removed Johnston from further asset diversion of the company from 2015 until present, that Meigs could take control of Asyntria, and that Meigs could have learned early on of the allegedly significant diversion of assets in early 2015 had Zucker received bank records, a possible diversion process by Johnston seemingly assisted by Frankfort through advice and contracts? To protect Frankfort? If so, all losses of the company stem from the foundation of Zucker's failure to represent Meigs and possible Evans as a means to possibly protect Frankfort's mistakes.
Failure to Inform Meigs of Company Ownership Created Significant Loss
to Company and Meigs. Did this Protect Frankfort?
14. Why did Zucker and Evans per email use the event of Brady filing summary judgment to force the handwritten signature in a court hearing as a threat to Meigs for increased monetary costs and abandonment as all refused to represent Meigs at summary judgment with the discussion of withdrawal by all as early as November 2015? Was their intent to threaten Meigs and instill fear to better control Meigs?
Abandonment and Threats to Meigs in Attempt to Force Meigs' Compliance
15. Did Evans, Bohreer, and Zucker per court records remain as Meigs' lawyers months later to possibly control Meigs wanting the agreement voided and to control the narrative? Did Evans, Bohreer, and Zucker keep their names in court records as representing Meigs as a possible attempt to divert their possible participation in the orchestration of a mediation from hell for the possible sole purpose of protecting Frankfort and appearing to actually represent Meigs up to that point? Was all of this to protect Frankfort, family court lawyer and board member of Houston Bar on ADR, and possible associate of Sherri Evans, also a family court lawyer?
Bohreer, Zucker, and Evans Agree to Withdraw Months Before Event
To Possibly Retain Control over Meigs?
16. Why didn't Bergman cancel mediation when Bergman saw Meigs' purple fingers instead of asking Johnston in an oppositional setting if Meigs would be okay, a man told to Meigs by Bergman that Johnston was on psychotic medications creating substantial fear in Meigs?
Did Bergman Notice Meigs' Purple Fingers?
Did Continuing Mediation for Signature to Protect Frankfort Disregard Meigs' Safety?
17. Was Bergman's concern over Meigs' purple fingers due to possible incapacity or concern over possibly aiding and abetting in the possible drugging of Meigs? How serious was Frankfort's possible aiding and abetting of Johnston's actions that all men at this mediation found no problem with incapacitating Meigs, the only woman, into such a dangerous situation that Meigs sat in the chair with no need to breathe praying that God would protect her as she could not leave per Zucker? Knowing that Bergman allowed alcohol in mediation, How could anyone possibly believe that Meigs looked okay as stated in Zucker's memo unless the sole basis for this mediation was to incapacitate Meigs for a signature to protect Frankfort for his actions with full liability release in the printed mediation version? At that point denying the appearance of Meigs' incapacity would protect all actions of all involved in that mediation. Meigs was told by Jamison that all would lie, if she fought.
Incapacitating Meigs to Protect Frankfort
18. How far has blanket confidentiality in mediation gone to allow such abuse to Meigs? Noted in a panel discussion, Bergman was the only mediator of four that would not reveal assault by a client. What level of assault in mediation does confidentiality not protect according to Bergman? Was Bergman's statement on this panel discussion that occurred after the abusive 2015 mediation indicative of and justification for the abuse that Bergman allowed to happen to Meigs? And all of this to possibly protect Frankfort?
Bergman on Panel Discussion States Assault at Mediation Must Remain Confidential
19. Why did Bruce Jamison and Rodney Castille, the corporate lawyers who replaced Bohreer & Zucker, continue litigation on a revoked agreement from 2015 and a voided agreement after one year per contract law; although the agreement is bound to family court and not contract law? Did continuing the litigation decrease money available for Meigs to pursue filing legal malpractice cases against Zucker and Bergman? Could the frivolous expensive pleadings of Jamison and Castille on an already revoked agreement be because Jamison is long-time friends with Bergman and to protect Bergman for manipulating a mediation to protect Frankfort? Does protecting Bergman then protect Frankfort? Are six summary judgments on the same issue of which none were judged indicative of collaborative fraud?
Protecting Bergman for Protecting Frankfort?
Jamison and Castille Continue the Abuse?
20. How long have court clerks held the power to manipulate court documents according to different dates on the court documents, the order the pleadings and exhibits load online for view-ability, as to whether the document would be viewable online or appear as not loaded in an appropriate format when loaded in an appropriate format, and as to when a pleading and respective email shows on the docket and is released to the opposing attorneys which could be much later than the date on the docket including the release of the corresponding email? Are lawyers afraid of some court clerks because they are protected by the "fraternity" and can withhold the release of a pleading requiring a time-restrained response thus preventing the opposing attorney from seeing such document until too late to respond leading to a case dismissal for failing to respond to a summary judgment? Is this done for money or favors?
The Power of Court Clerks can Make or Break a Case.
Document Tampering Undetected.
21. Does manipulating the manner pleadings are loaded by court clerks allow their judge to dismiss a case by the judge holding up a docket sheet saying that the pleading was posted on time and claiming that the plaintiff failed to respond within timelines thus allowing the judge to dismiss a case when in fact the date is irrelevant to when the pleading was actually posted thus invalidating the authenticity of the docket? How many judges use this fraudulent date of court documents to achieve their own self-serving agendas? Can research be done to detect such judges and court clerks in Harris County? Did document tampering occur in the Meigs case to dismiss Zucker's lawsuit? Could Zucker's lawyer, Sam Houston, also be involved in what appears to be document tampering regarding Zucker's case both months prior to the dismissal and at dismissal through influence? Could Houston have also used his powerful position to control events outside of court? If court documents can be proven to be manipulated, then what and who else can be manipulated? THE PUBLIC HAS A RIGHT TO KNOW IF JUSTICE PREVAILS FOR ALL AND NO ONE IS TOO HIGH TO FALL. Is Frankfort too high to fall? Bergman? Zucker? Jamison? Bohreer? Houston?
Authenticity of the Docket Invalidated in Court Clerk Tampering
22. Should the District Clerk be afraid of the possible depth and extent of document tampering of the clerks and judges under their guidance with possible incrimination of their own friends? Does the involvement of their friends prevent detailed investigations? With news releases of various document tampering in Harris County and other locations, how can the District Clerk clean up Harris County and guarantee the protection of the public? What is the job of the District Clerk?
Call for District Clerk to Clean Harris County Courts for Public Protection
23. How much do court clerks make such that even those in California are caught with self-serving actions by altering court documents for bribes? See Zucker Getting Gritty dismissal blog. Can that happen in Harris County? Are lawyers afraid of court clerks working under possibly corrupt judges? What did Chris Daniels, District Court Clerk for Harris County think when Meigs sent evidence of document tampering? Should the justice department investigate the depth of manipulation of court records that lead to obstruction of justice? At what point should the public demand control of the courts created for the public?
Call for Justice Department Investigation into Harris County Court System
ANSWER QUESTIONS and REVIEW FOR DECISION-MAKING:
A. What is aiding and abetting?
According to legaldictionary.net, “What is Aiding and Abetting, ‘In order to deter people from helping criminals get away with their crimes, the law makes giving aid a crime in and of itself. A person may be charged with the crime of aiding and abetting, even though he was not present during, or did not physically assist with, the commission of the crime. SOMEONE WHO AIDS AND ABETS a crime may provide support by GIVING ADVICE, financial support, or by taking action not directly related to the crime itself, for the purpose of FACILITATING ITS SUCCESS"
Frankfort creates Documents to Aid Opponent in Stealing Assets and Stocks?
a. “If, however, two or more people collaborate on how to commit a specific crime, coming up with plans to carry it out, they have CONSPIRED to commit that crime. Should something happen to prevent them from engaging that plan, they still have committed the crime of conspiracy.”
CONSPIRACY?
b. “According to Federal law, found in 18 U.S.C. Section 2, specifies that anyone who aids or abets another in the commission of a crime CAN BE PUNISHED AS THOUGH HE HAD COMMITTED THE CRIME HIMSELF.”
Who Helped Opponent to Create Thefts and Who Helped to Hide those Actions
c. According to the Texas Bar Journal, May 2015, pages 362 plus, under the article, “The Liability: Why you should understand the five tests of civil aiding and abetting in Texas” by Nelson S. Ebaugh and include elements required to determine civil aiding and abetting. These elements include:
i. “a breach of fiduciary duty by a third party [Occurred]
ii. the aider’s knowledge of the fiduciary relations between the fiduciary and the third party [Occurred]
iii. the aider’s awareness of his participation in the third party’s breach of its duty.” [Obvious]
d. In Woloshen v. State Farm Lloyds, No. 3:08-CV-0634-D, 2008 WL 4133386 at *2 n. 3 (N.D. Tex. Sept. 2, 2008), Texas Courts began referring to this cause of action as “aiding and abetting a breach of fiduciary duty.”
e. Other case law: Darocy v. Abildtrup, 345 S.W.3d 129, 137-38 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2011, no pet.).
i. “E.g., Helena Chemical Co. v. Texell Federal Credit Union, No. W-05-CA-52, 2006 WL 5266765, at *6, (W.D. Tex. Jun. 14, 2006); Pavlovich v. National City Bank, 435 F.3d 560, 570 (6th Cir. 2006) (“Section 876(b) of the Second Restatement of Torts provides the basis for “modern application of civil aiding and abetting ... ”).”
ii. “In Kinzbach Tool Co. v. Corbett-Wallace Corp., 160 S.W.2d 509, 514 (Tex. 1942), the Texas Supreme Court adopted a cause of action for knowing participation in the breach of duty...."
APPEARANCE OF AIDING AND ABETTING?
B. Is it possible that under the Halberstam test, a test for aiding and abetting, that if Todd Frankfort aided and abetted in the actions of Johnston by possibly giving advice and writing contracts that led to the stock shareholder sale agreement which wrongfully took shares of stock from Wendy Meigs and Jody Meigs, and assets from the company, Asyntria, that Frankfort would be liable? Would that be civil, criminal or both? (At this point Brady is not included in the question for having been retained per retainer check after the creation of the stock asset sale contract as seen in Getting Gritty One blog.)
HALBERSTAM TEST PASSED?
a. Under the Halberstam test, a civil aiding and abetting claim requires proof that
i. “(1) the party whom the defendant aids performed a wrongful act that causes an injury;”
1. The party, Johnston, whom Todd Frankfort aided as legal representation in possible consultation and through appearing to contract per the Johnston deposition may have performed a wrongful act by possibly creating a contract that allowed Johnston to take shares of stock and company assets against shareholder approval and other means. See exhibit 1 below: portion of Johnston deposition.
2. Yes, this situation appears to pass this test per non-lawyer view – you decide.
ii. “(2) the defendant was generally aware of his or her role as part of an overall illegal or tortious activity at the time of providing the assistance; and”
1. Todd Frankfort practiced law for decades and apparently wrote contracts in the past. How could a seasoned lawyer not know that writing and/or contributing to a contract that allowed his client to take shares of stock not approved or owned by his client and to take all assets and sell them to the client’s personal company not be illegal or tortious?
2. Yes, this situation appears to pass the test per non-lawyer view – you decide.
iii. (3) the defendant knowingly and substantially assisted the principal violation.
1. Per the Johnston deposition, Frankfort appears to have knowingly and substantially assisted Johnston in this violation by what appears to be advising and writing the stock sale agreement.
2. Common law tort? Common law fraud? Halberstam v. Welch, 705 F.2d 472, 477 (D.C. Cir. 1983).
3. Yes, this situation appears to pass the test per non-lawyer view – you decide.
APPEARANCE THAT HALBERSTAM TEST PASSED?
C. If Frankfort or some other lawyer who wrote the stock sale agreement could be liable for aiding and abetting in civil and/or criminal actions, what liability would a mediator and each and every lawyer who helped to suppress the knowledge of this mistake be? Would assisting to keep the mistakes hidden from Meigs be conspiracy and/or conspiracy to fraud and/or conspiracy to something else to hide a mistake that is possibly also illegal? Your thoughts?
CONSPIRACY? CONSPIRACY TO FRAUD? OTHER?
D. Would suppressing the truth as seen in exhibit 2 below in “stewing” on Meigs claims against Johnston and opposing counsel be aiding and abetting or conspiracy or fraud or conspiracy to fraud or malpractice, if the above is true? Your thoughts?
E. Would giving all Meigs’ claims to the “mediator” to “handle” the same as not zealously representing the client and instead create a fraudulent representation as legal counsel? What if that statement occurred on the same day that Meigs paid a retainer and signed a contract for legal representation which did occur? Would that become “fraudulent intent to contract” if Zucker never intended on representing Meigs as appears before, during and after mediation?
Fraudulent Representation of Legal Counsel, Zucker?
F. Could the intentional delay of 20 days after mediation as seen in exhibit 3 for discovery/ documents from Johnston indicate willful hiding of important documents by Meigs’ legal representation especially since the corporate lawyers were brought into the divorce because Johnston took the shares of stock and assets? What about the specialized corporate lawyers not asking for bank records as requested and instead obtaining QuickBooks data that the corporate lawyers were told was manipulated by both Meigs and that the lawyers themselves acknowledged as seen in exhibit 4?
Lawyer's Suppression of Important Documentation Maintains Control Over
Meigs' Knowledge and Ability to fight to Control Situation
a. Would these above failures by Meigs’ corporate lawyers help suppress Meigs’ knowledge of events, including possibly Frankfort’s mistake for possibly aiding and abetting as well as Johnston’s monetary diversion, and allow the lawyers to maintain control over all events to follow including mediation?.... And thus actions possibly allowing the mediator to more easily control mediation to these lawyers' desired outcome in possibly hiding events without Meigs resisting, knowing to resist, or capable? And if this outcome was to ensure that Meigs did not get access to the company for fear of Meigs seeing the aiding and abetting and to ensure a signature by Meigs to later be changed in the printed version of the mediation agreement that released all liability against all lawyers, would that be a better outcome to hide a mistake?
Lawyer's Suppression of Meigs'Claims Maintains Control Over Deception?
G. And if Meigs had no legal representation at the 2015 mediation, then could any presumed representation be said to be built upon fraud since “handling” of Meigs claims went to “Bergman”, the mediator as mentioned in the below email? How Meigs was “handled” by the mediator follows in the next blog…
Was Meigs' Legal Representation and Mediation Built Upon FRAUD??
H. Todd Zucker signed the mediation sign-in log as representation for Meigs (exhibit 5), but how can that signature be valid in a case of fraud as Meigs claimed happened in the dismissed lawsuit, currently in appeals against Zucker?
IF AN AFFIDAVIT IN A FRAUD CASE IS CONSIDERED SELF-SERVING, THEN A SIGNATURE ON A SIGN-IN LOG SHOULD ALSO BE CONSIDERED INVALID AS WELL.
Why would a sign-in log be more valid than an affidavit in a fraud case especially if the mediation appears to be built upon fraud?
In “McKnight v. Riddle & Brown, P.C., 877 S.W.2d 59(Tex. App. — Tyler 1994, writ denied), the court of appeals held that the affidavits were inadequate as summary judgment evidence because ‘[t]he very essence of a conspiracy is a secret intent of the co-conspirators…. The affidavits are, in essence, self-serving statements of interested parties of what they knew and intended…. in the context of a conspiracy….’ 877 S.W.2d at 61.” If such affidavits fail as being self-serving in a conspiracy, they are self-serving in all aspects. Why would a sign-in log be more valid than an affidavit in a fraud case? As such the signature on the sign-in log fails to show representation but only shows that Zucker appeared at mediation; thus, any claim to protect Bergman via mediation contracting fails.
I. THE QUESTION STILL REMAINS:
What is the liability for lawyers who help to hide the mistakes of a fellow lawyer and thus conspire in fraudulent representation and induce other lawyers to conspire in masking the truth?
What is the liability of someone with power to induce other lawyers to conspire to mask the powerful person's liability and those lawyers feel forced to do so out of fear of being “blacklisted” which can hurt not only the lawyer but the blacklisted lawyer’s clients as well?
Where is accountability to the public over judicial self-serving? What law enforcement agency needs to act upon these allegations and documents to
PROTECT the PUBLIC?
Exhibits:
________________________________________________________________________________
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!