Cincinnati Superior Court Decisions: A Collection of Cases Decided at Special and General Terms of the Superior Court of Cincinnati

Front Cover
 

What people are saying - Write a review

User Review - Flag as inappropriate

I filed a complaint with the Cincinnati Bar Association against R. Joseph Wessendarp and have not heard anything. Mr. Wessendarp clearly perjured himself under oath, along with Bradford S. Franks and John Cooper. We had a trial 1/13/2011 , case #DR10080965 where Magistrate Rice threw out the prenup because it was over reaching and Joe Wessendarp clearly lied under oath. There was an appeal and Judge Sharon Kennedy reinstated the prenup although I had compelling evidence that Joe Wessendarp lied. Judge Kennedy would not allow us to present the new evidence to her. As a result my marriage was terminated with a minimum settlement because of the lies told under oath and the inability of Judge Kennedy to allow my lawyers to present the evidence that proved these people lied under oath. Since my divorce, my husband has continued to threaten and harass me. I finally agreed to send him custom made drapes that were clearly marked as "wife" on the settlement.
As I said, I have filed a complaint with the Cincinnati Bar Association and plan to pursue this issue. I am asking you how I should go about this procedure.
My divorce trial was horrendous and because my husband was wealthy and I am not, he was able to pay people off to lie for him. This is clearly an injustice and against the principles and oath taken by lawyers when they become lawyers.
My contact information is: Sylvia T. Stegall, (803)324-5993, home; (803)487-4488, cell
1051 Ridge Road
Rock Hill, SC. 29732
Please help me to insure that this sort of thing cannot happen to other women in my position. This is completely wrong
and does not conform to the oath lawyers take. My lawyer and my husbands lawyer both stated that this divorce trial is one that could be in the history books as cases such as Gross v. Gross and Fletcher v. Fletcher.
I BEG you to look into this case and let me know what can be done about this injustice.
Respectfully,
Sylvia T. Stegall (Formally, Sylvia Franks)
Franks v. Franks Case No. DR10080965
 

Other editions - View all

Common terms and phrases

Popular passages

Page 438 - We admit, as all must admit, that the powers of the government are limited, and that its limits are not to be transcended. But we think the sound construction of the Constitution must allow to the national legislature that discretion, with respect to the means by which the powers it confers are to be carried into execution, which will enable that body to perform the high duties assigned to it, in the manner most beneficial to the people.
Page 271 - The policy contains a further provision that "no suit or action on this policy, for the recovery of any claim, shall be sustainable, in any court of law or equity, until after full compliance by the insured with the foregoing requirements, nor unless commenced within twelve months next after the fire.
Page 117 - ... when the party by his own contract creates a duty or charge upon himself, he is bound to make it good, if he may, notwithstanding any accident by inevitable necessity, because he might have provided against it by his contract.
Page 361 - Whenever the illegality appears, whether the evidence comes from one side or the other, the disclosure is fatal to the case. No consent of the defendant can neutralize its effect A stipulation in the most solemn form to waive the objection, would be tainted with the vice of the original contract, and void for the same reasons.
Page 218 - The court may before or after judgment, in furtherance of justice and on such terms as may be proper, amend any pleading or proceeding, by adding or striking out the name of any party; or by correcting a mistake in the name of a party, or a mistake in any other respect, or by inserting other allegations material to the case...
Page 412 - In consideration of the stipulations herein named and of dollars premium does insure for the term of from the day of 19 , at noon, to the day of *..... 19. . . ., at noon, against all direct loss or damage by fire, except as hereinafter provided...
Page 413 - ... in the absence of any change increasing the risk without the consent of the insurers, and also of intentional fraud on the part of the insured, in case of total loss, the whole amount mentioned in the policy or renewal upon which the insurers receive a premium shall be paid, and in case of a partial loss the full amount of the partial loss shall be paid...
Page 348 - ... when the question is one of a common or general interest, of many persons, or when the parties are numerous, and it is impracticable to bring them all before the 'court, one or more may sue or defend for the benefit of all.
Page 208 - And where the testimony leaves the matter uncertain and shows that any one of half a dozen things may have brought about the injury, for some of which the employer is responsible and for some of which he is not, it is not for the jury to guess between these half a dozen causes and find that the negligence of the employer was the real cause, when there is no satisfactory foundation in the testimony for that conclusion.
Page 388 - The definition given it by Judge Story is 'a bailment of personal property as a security for some debt or engagement.

Bibliographic information