Email: support@smanow.org

Phone: TBA

  • Wendy Meigs

Getting Gritty 1: Meigs' Cases: Lack of Accountability

Updated: Oct 10, 2019

UNCOVERING POTENTIAL DANGERS TO THE PUBLIC

WITH POSSIBLE LAWYER SELF-INTEREST

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

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:


WAS TODD FRANKFORT PROTECTED FROM ACCOUNTABILITY?


DID THIS PROTECTION FROM ACCOUNTABILITY LEAD TO THE CONTINUED ABUSE OF MEIGS?



Analyze and Comment. Protect Yourself.

SOME QUESTIONS BELOW FOR REVIEW IN DECISION-MAKING:


A. Could Johnston have been protecting the fact that Todd Frankfort was the lawyer responsible for all contracts including the stock sale where Asyntria assets and stocks were taken against shareholder’s votes? See portion of Johnston deposition Exhibit C (C). Canceled check for Bradford Allen Brady's Retainer Exhibit A (A). Portion of Johnston email discussing stock sale. Exhibit B (B).


B. Is this perjury by Johnston in his deposition since he wrote the check for the retainer to Brady (A), knew Brady was hired long after the writing of the contract (B), and yet claims Brady represented Asyntria for the stock sale instead of Frankfort (C)? Why would Johnston want to hide the fact that Frankfort may have been the one responsible for creating the stock sale agreement? Did Frankfort do other possibly controversial things for Johnston or for Johnston in Asyntria?


C. In Johnston’s deposition, did Johnston intentionally and as a method to divert responsibility from Frankfort’s possible actions of seemingly aiding and abetting in the possible theft of shareholder stock and assets of Asyntria, state that Brady was responsible for writing the stock sale agreement to protect Frankfort and as an attempt to divert responsibility for contracts allowing stock thefts and assets (C)? Could this have happened?


D. Why would Brady possibly allow himself to take responsibility for corporate misconduct with dual representation when hired after the contract was written? Did someone have something on Brady whereas Brady owed certain people a payback favor?

1. Brady appeared upset over the allowing of alcohol and all at mediation, expressed such, but no one seemed to care about his thoughts. How could a man with some ethics be forced to participate in such horrible abuse and manipulation and not leave or stop the situation?

2. Brady also seemingly expressed significant emotion at the judge “refusing” the summary judgment that Brady wrote in 2016 on the controversial second draft-handwritten 2015 mediation agreement, a judgment that could have forced compliance of the signature to the draft mediation agreement, revoked by Meigs within a month of mediation, and could be revoked for failure by Bergman to include the Texas family remedy code 6.602 denying revocation. Was Brady possibly forced into continuing his role as corporate attorney for Asyntria after the failure of summary judgment a payback from hell that was appearing to not end?

3. How is it that Brady was paid very little money after two years of extensive litigation that followed? Did someone else write the pleadings for Brady? Who and why? Over two months after the July depositions revealed possible dual representation to Meigs' demise and on October 2015, Frankfort wrote a document that demonstrated Frankfort appears to still represent Johnston and all companies including Asyntria; thus, dual representation of Frankfort should have been evident to possibly Zucker, Bohreer, and Evans, Meigs' lawyers, but does not appear anything was done to stop this. Was inaction intentional? This document originates after the email from Bohreer discussing Frankfort and Brady messing up with the Asyntria stock sale as noted in an email supposedly from Bohreer (Exhibit D)? Was Brady just paid for his appearances when required?


4. Was Brady possibly retained by Asyntria to hide Todd Frankfort’s mistakes, Frankfort who at one time was VP of the Houston Bar on ADR and is now a board member? Is Todd Frankfort too high in the legal community to be responsible for his mistakes? Is this fair to the rest of the public who must pay for their mistakes? See Exhibit E.


Exhibits:

A. Asyntria check written to Bradford Allen Brady law firm by Michael Johnston to cover retainer to represent Asyntria. Note that the date written is 7.28.2015. This date is later than the date the stock sale agreement or any other correspondence was written. No other payments could be found to Brady before this time.



B. Email from Johnston showing when the forced stock sale agreement took place. Meeting in June. And reference showing both Jody Meigs and Wendy Meigs voted against the sale indicating the taking of assets and attempted taking of stocks of Meigs without shareholder approval.


Below: Jody Meigs and Wendy Meigs vote "no" to Johnston force-ably taking the company and using stocks that were wrongfully obtained. In Johnston's deposition 2015, Johnston acknowledges that he did not own the shares that he used and could not take the company. Johnston did not return the company to the original state. Note the June date. Brady was not yet retained as counsel.



Below: Johnston sells Asyntria to his company Straden Schaden against Meigs' shareholders, 50% stock owners of Asyntria. Johnston wrongfully claims that he has 950,000 shares which Johnston recants in Johnston's deposition.




C. Section from Johnston deposition taken 2015. Note lines 14 - 16 of page 120.




Exhibit D: email noting mistakes by Frankfort



Exhibit E: Email is same date as Meigs signing and paying retainer to Bohreer & Zucker.



________________________________________________________________________________

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)