Quid Pro Quo: Judges and Lawyers?
UNCOVERING POTENTIAL DANGERS TO THE PUBLIC
Why did the Judge dismiss claims against a Mediator of power and influence?
The public relies upon the court system for protection and justice. What happens when the public needs to be protected from those in the courts sworn to uphold the law like judges, lawyers, mediators and the like? The public must trust in these same people to resolve differences and rectify complaints; yet, both in the news and among the public voice, those sworn to uphold the law manipulate their positions for their own personal benefit.
How can the public prevent the deterioration of the courts whilst those who control and oversee the courts are they themselves the perpetrators of deceit, self-interest, and manipulation? Only when the public stands together to insist on accountability of those in the court system and with the help of law enforcement to investigate and arrest such individuals will court self-interest deteriorate and justice grow for the public.
Knowledge is power.
Read the stories. Read the events.
Protect Yourself. Protect the Public.
Look at the data below. Read the many issues, events and story. Send us your story...
One Story of Many: Quid Pro Quo?
1. Elections 2018 Texas, Houston, Harris County: Judge Gamble lost re-election as judge. What attitude does a judge hold once he loses his position? Would a judge use his current judicial position to ensure a better placement as a mediator for himself in the future, near future? Would a judge be prejudiced against a plaintiff in a malpractice case if the judge would be guaranteed placement in the same mediation facility as the defendant?
2. Hearing One 2018: Judge Gamble gives Wendy Meigs three weeks to find a lawyer. Meigs was prepared with a tabbed binder in hand with over ten case law examples of when an expert witness would not be required and multiple files and exhibits. These examples of case law not requiring an expert witness were to fight against a summary judgment to dismiss apparent legitimate claims against Edward Trey Bergman, then Sitting Chair of the Texas State Bar on ADR. Meigs explained in detail the difficulty in finding a lawyer to fight against the Current Sitting Chair of the Texas State Bar as the multitude that she contacted all feared representing Meigs knowing that they would be "blacklisted" by Bergman and the "Fraternity", a seemingly Harris County Lawyer syndicate, for fighting for justice. Hence after one year of continuous search for legal representation due to not wanting to represent herself, all hopefully potential lawyers refused representation the minute they found that the mediator was Edward Trey Bergman.
a. Summary judgments for any reason in a malpractice case especially a legal malpractice case appears questionable as both judge and defendant lawyer practice in the same environment and both possibly benefit in the agreement to work together to free a defendant lawyer, especially a defendant lawyer who holds a very high position in the mediation world such as Edward Trey Bergman.
Summary Judgment used to Protect Bergman against Accountability
b. Expert witnesses refuse to represent self-represented individuals (pro-se) in all aspects. Any case law requiring expert witnesses immediately causes the individual to lose a summary judgment allowing the case to be dismissed regardless of the validity to a claim. Expert witnesses discriminate against self-represented individuals by refusing representation and hence immediately create an environment for dismissal through summary judgment.
Self-Represented Individuals Discriminated Against by Expert Witnesses
c. Even with multiple case law examples demonstrating no need for an expert witness and Meigs could demonstrate the failures of Bergman during mediation, the freedom of a judge to make the decision without a jury and to accept the summary judgment against the plaintiff for lack of an expert witness when case law exists both for and against the need of a expert witness appears to be a self-serving action, ignores justice, benefits both judge and defendant, raises the question of corruption, collusion and back-dealing, and serves to extend the failure of the courts against the public.
Questions of Bias and Corruption Arise
when Judge Requires Expert Witness when Not All Case Law Requires Such
d. Summary judgments against an individual plaintiff for lack of an expert witness due to no fault of their own destroys the judicial process creating an environment built upon the protection of lawyers and against the public.
Judicial System enhances Corruption with Allowing Summary Judgments
e. Summary judgments need to be eliminated as possible corruption of judges and affiliations with other lawyers allows the judge to bypass the judicial process and right to trial by jury creating an environment of severe bias.
Summary Judgment Denies Justice and Right to a Trial by Jury creating Bias
3. Hearing Two. November 2018: Wendy Meigs finds lawyer, Cheryl Jahani to represent her. Jahani, cut short in presenting her position for Meigs by Judge Gamble, responded to how a mediator can be sued.
a. Judge Gamble said that he had no other choice but to accept summary judgment and dismiss the case. Why did Judge Gamble feel that he had no other choice? Did Judge Gamble make a bargain with defendant, Edward Trey Bergman, for assistance when he was no longer judge and decided to become a mediator?
Did Judge Gamble Back-Deal with Bergman?
b. Judge Gamble accepted summary judgment against Meigs and dismissed claims asking how can a mediator be sued of which Jahani responded. However, for some reason, Judge Gamble did not seem to have known what was in Meigs' response to this summary judgment which clearly outlined those statements by Jahani. Did Gamble read Meigs' response against the summary judgement? Did Gamble care if injustice had occurred at this mediation? Did Gamble make a deal with Mr. Clawater, lawyer to Bergman and/or Bergman prior to the hearing? Did Judge Gamble represent the judicial process in accepting summary judgment against Meigs or did Judge Gamble act outside of his capacity in a self-serving action by dismissing Meigs' case against Bergman? Is there something in call records that may reveal this in which law enforcement can access?
4. January, 2019: Former Judge Gamble becomes a mediator. See picture below.
5. Former Judge Gamble then mediates from Heights Mediation Center, same facility as Edward Trey Bergman, the man whom Meigs had claims and whose claims Gamble dismissed... Same facility of extreme abuse Meigs' incurred in 2015 leading to the lawsuit.
6. How many locations exist in Houston to mediate out of? See below.
7. Should the legal profession demand a cleansing of the corrupt Legals as in judges, lawyers, appellate judges, clerks? Is such a cleansing possible which requires law enforcement assistance? Could there exist any lawyers in political positions over law enforcement to prevent investigations and arrests of these corrupt individuals?
8. Meigs took the dismissal to the appellate court. Is the appellate court corrupted by the fear of "blacklisting" as well? Why did Bergman add new lawyers in his fight against Meigs in the appellate court? Do these new lawyers have friends in this appellate court? Why didn't Bergman find appellate lawyers in Houston instead of Dallas? Should the public be concerned over the "good ole boy" connections between appellate courts and lawyers? The public will soon see whether they should be concerned over Texas Appellate Courts as well....
Judge Gamble dismissed Meigs claims against Bergman.
In less than two months, Gamble mediates out of the same facility as Bergman in Houston.... Coincidence or something else?
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.
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 Force Accountability! Stop Mediation Abuse! Protect the Public!