Reply Brief — Wyneken v. Scott

FILED

AUG 26 1998

y8-459

Falat ad a) a ot a See VO od TT 2

VITivie Vr Trico UULERR

SUPREME COURT, U.S.

IN THE

-SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

OCTOBER TERM 1997

WARREN W. WYNEKEN, PRO SE,

Petitioner,

V.

HARRY W. SCOTT, JOSEPH M. JOHNSON

and CHARLES E. WELLS,

Respondents.

On Petition For Writ Or CERTIORARI

To Tue SuprREME Court OF INDIANA

REPLY BRIEF OF WARREN W. WYNEKEN

TO BRIEF OF CHARLES E. WELLS

WARREN W. WYNEKEN

Pro Se

110 W. Berry STREET

Suite 1717

Fort WAYNE, INDIANA 46802-2311

(219) 423-3343

BECKER GALLAGHER LEGAL PUBLISHING, INC., CINCINNATI, OHIO 800-890-5001

PARTIES TO THE PROCEEDINGS

IN THE COURT WHOSE JUDGMENT

IS SOUGHT TO BE REVIEWED

Warren W. Wyneken, Atty.

110 West Berry Street, Suite 1717

Fort Wayne, Indiana 46802

Pro Se Attorney for Petitioner

Joseph M. Johnson, Atty.

DeVoss, Johnson, Baker & Ainsworth

147 South Second Street

P. O. Box 30

Decatur, Indiana 46733

Pro Se Attorney for Respondent

Richard R. Bleeke, Atty.

Courtside Building

803 South Calhoun Street, Suite 300

Fort Wayne, Indiana 46802

Attorney for Respondent, Charles E. Wells

M. Bruce Scott, Atty.

146 South Second Street

P. O. Box 247

Decatur, Indiana 46733

Attorney for Scott and Johnson, Respondents

Harry W. Scott, Atty.

111 North Third Street

P. O. Box 466

Decatur, Indiana 46733

Pro Se Attorney for Respondent

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Parties 00 the Proceelags ©... 6k gs Ee Swe i

Tee OE CE sk a a ee ee eat preci ii

Table Of AMOI B66 Re eee oS ES ili

Reply Arguments to Issues Raised by Opponent ...... l

Appendix

Appendix 7

Letter from Richard R. Bleeke to

Warren W. Wyneken, dated August 6, 1998 ... la

ii

%

¢

:

;

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES

Manhattan Life Ins. Co. v. Cohen,

58 L. Ed. 1253 at p.1253

late bite tet: Cosy: Lvl

89 L. Ed.2d 823 at p.831

St. Louis. LM.& S.R.C Starbird,

61 L. Ed.917 at pp.922 and 923

Cissna v. Tennessee

62 L.Ed. 720 at p.725

It is the belief of Appellant that the above cited cases

confirm the right of the Appellant to seek relief of the United

States Supreme Court by way of a Petition for Writ of

Certiorari to the Supreme Court of Indiana.

ili

REPLY ARGUMENTS

On the Issue of Parties to These Proceedings

Appellee counsel has continued to show as Appellees three

parties represented by two counsel. Charles Wells was

represented by Richard R. Bleeke, Atty. Harry W. Scott,

Atty. and Joseph M. Johnson, Atty. fully participated in the

trial of this cause. M. Bruce Scott, also an attorney, is the

son of Harry W. Scott and joined them in the trial. None

have withdrawn their appearance. This case was tried in the

rural town of Decatur, Indiana, in Adams County where all

counsel other than Mr. Bleeke reside. Wyneken is from the

City of Fort Wayne in Allen County.

On the Contention That No Offer of Proof Was Made

When the trial judge made his ruling, “I am not going to

let you try that prior case.” Wyneken, who had commenced

the litigation, was deprived of his rights to present his case.

Bleeke has consistently argued that the issue here was a matter

of evidence, which to an adverse ruling required an offer of

proof. He has declined to use the word “issues” which was

consistent with Wyneken’s position and immediate response

to the trial judge’s ruling (Record, Vol. 1, pp. 135-137.) It

was Wyneken’s belief that an estimated 135 questions would

be necessary to present his facts to the jury - an absurd

requirement to satisfying the need of offers of proof. Bleeke

contended (in the first paragraph on page 9 of his brief) that

no offer of proof was made because “it would have been

burdensome to do so.” This is a false statement. Appellant

made no such contention.

Jn

i ht es ee

On Bleeke Denial of Wyneken Charge

At page 9, footnote 3, Bleeke contended that an assertion

made by Wyneken was a “clear misstatement of fact.” This

matter had first appeared in the Bleeke brief filed with the

Court of Appeals ( at page 7, about one-third down) which

Wyneken challenged in his Reply Brief to the Indiana Court

of Appeals (page 3, about three-fourths down.) Upon receipt

of the Bleeke brief to the United States Supreme Court,

Wyneken wrote to Bleeke proposing lie detector tests for

himself and Bleeke. Bleeke declined. (See Appendix)

Wherefore, Petitioner asks that his Petition for Writ of

Certiorari be granted.

Respectfully submitted,

/s/

Warren W. Wyneken, Pro Se

110 West Berry Street, Suite 1717

Fort Wayne, Indiana 46802-2311

(219) 423-3343

Attorney No. 1395-02

APPENDIX

APPENDIX 7

BLEEKE & ASSOCIATES

Attorneys At Law

Richard R. Bleeke, Esq. Courtside Bldg., Suite 300

803 South Calhoun Street

Fort Wayne, IN 46802

Telephone (219) 423-9602

(800) 215-6240

Facsimile (219) 424-0133

August 6, 1998

Mr. Warren W. Wyneken

O’DOWD WYNEKEN & CONNOLLY

110 W. Berry St., Suite 1717

Fort Wayne, IN 46802

RE: Wells, et al. adv. Wyneken

Our File: 103.01

Dear Warren:

I have your August 5, 1998, letter. There is no need for any

lie detector test. My statement that we raised the issue with

the Court by way of Motion in Limine is confirmed by the

record. Motion in Limine was indeed filed and you have

referenced it several times during the Appellate process.

la

Very truly yours,

/s/

Richard R. Bleeke

cc: Mr. Charles Wells

Mr. M. Bruce Scott

—,

Eee Re ae

|