# Reply Brief — Wyneken v. Scott > Briefs, arguments, decisions, and more. URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/brief%3Amicro_IA40386008_1598%3A3 ## Record - **Collection:** Supreme Court brief - **Document type:** Reply Brief - **Published:** January 1, 1998 - **Citation:** 525 U.S. 966 ## Text 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 | --- Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/brief%3Amicro_IA40386008_1598%3A3. Public record. Not legal advice.