You be the Judge

Attorneys requested harsh sanctions

My attorney Pamela Magee of Baton Rouge, LA a prior trustee herself expressed serious professional concerns regarding the case’s material facts she examined, and began making efforts on my behalf to redress any injustice, by filing an initial adversary suit into the late case. The trustee’s attorneys made clear their intent of CHILLING EFFECT meant to dissuade Ms. Magee and/or the new sitting court in all effort to continue to hide the established record  of their misconduct and alleged violations of criminal statutes and Rules of Professional conduct.

You, the reader, determine whether the record established by these adversary parties confirms:

In addition to fraudulent misrepresentation about statutes LA RS 9:2085, TITLE 11 § 548 herein, are other known fraudulent misrepresentations of actual material facts. Would you agree the list of deceit and lies are ad infinitum!? You be the judge – is the level of fraud upon the court beyond sufficient to confirm the intent was malicious? THIS IS THE RECORD!

Imagine, for years, with evidence confirming otherwise – being falsely accused of committing criminal acts.

*AFM: (Attorneys fraudulent misrepresentation)

*ME: (Material facts established in the case)


AFM: Trustees attorneys’ affidavits to become employed intentionally falsified they held no interest, a violation of the Rules of Professional conduct.

ME: A prior restraining order filed in state court by attorney Glenn Marcantel, an order known by attorney Jeffrey Ackermann when he registered as counsel during the hearing time frame whereby the restraining order was dismissed as wrongfully filed with only the amount of damages to be determined at a future hearing.

AFM: The material evidence supports reasonable assumptions that the Trustees attorneys held multiple conflicts, and most specifically that they represented my 1/6th spendthrift trust interest, while pursuing me relentlessly, falsifying statutes LA RS 9:2085, Title 11 § 548 with malicious conduct, alleged violations of criminal statutes and rules of professional conduct (please see drop downs criminal statutes, attorney conduct) all ad infinitum, known deceits which are confirmed, as linked to actual material evidence established in the case pointed to in this website.

AFM: Attorneys post trial briefed there was less than reasonable capital.

ME: When Lou Rolfes testified there would be reasonable capital.

ME: Expert Joan Martin testified there was reasonable capital.

AFM: No evidence existed of Bells professional hourly rate of $55.00

ME: When the uncontested bench book exhibit provided evidence of $55.00 hourly rates.

AFM: Joan Martin, CPA for the trust, agreed $1,000 month would be reasonable

ME: When Martin testified, that would be below minimum wage.

AFM: Paul Hood made no analysis of Bell’s $55.00 hour fee

ME: When Hood testified, She could have easily justified more compensation.”


AFM: “All these financial rewards come on top of the up to $150,000 – $200,000 in cash, which today remain unaccounted for and not part of the judgment”

ME: The material facts confirmed they knew I ran out of cash and paid another $13,000 personally. They intentionally misrepresented this cash was unaccounted for when I provided a cash accounting and Mr. Ackermann referred to the cash accounting during the trial and acknowledged I ran out of cash.

AFM: “According to Bill Friedman, Bell committed breach by not reporting $120,000 mineral offer

ME: When Friedman testified the opposite I was not required to report any such offer.


AFM: The Trust was never at risk * Note State Law has no prescription when revoking donations when donor divests of entire patrimony

ME: The Trust attorney provided a letter warning of the unlikeliness of saving the assets due to revocatory law three year period.

ME: The attorney for three victims Kent Mercier testified they knew they would have to go after the trust to recover damages.

ME: The trustees expert witness testified she would not have taken this trust due to litigation risk.

ME: Paul Hood the leading Louisiana trust lawyer testified ……

ME: Farm Bureau Insurance denied any duty to defend my father due to criminal matters.ME The victims who filed three separate suits was cause for alarm.

ME: Three civil law suits filed was a cause of alarm.

AFM: Falsified in multiple post trial briefs the serious allegation I breached a fiduciary duty by not providing an accounting.

ME: Attorney Glenn Marcantel admitted under oath it was he who denied an accounting

ME: Stan Gauthier testified we pulled one box out after another – Marcantel did  not want to see anything

ME: I testified – we tried giving him boxes of records – he was uninterested

ME: His client Ruby Bell, testified “What the records were there” I thought that’s why we filed suit to obtain an accounting.

ME: Testimony that Joan Martin provided the accounting that was initially requested.


AFM: She had her father sign documents he did not understand

ME: The Trustee’s attorneys knowingly misrepresented the material facts established. Wilfred Bell requested a change to the trust on the eve of his departure for prison as he was concerned his estranged children would banish him from the farm upon his prison release. On the eve of his departure for prison he executed, as notarized by his criminal attorney a trust amendment and power of attorney. The trustee’s attorneys acknowledged during the trial that admitted into evidence were multiple taped prison telephone conversations between Wilfred Bell and Sue Bell. The conversations confirm Wilfred Bell understood exactly what he was signing on the eve of his departure. Additionally, Wilfred Bell was not an illiterate french speaking person. He understood and spoke English quite well in fact is heard directing his daughter what to do about his legal issues as confirmed by these telephone conversations. These were known fraudulent misrepresentations by the trustee’s attorneys.


Trustee’s attorneys known false accusations of criminal violations

In post trial briefs – when the material facts are established in the proceeding – attorney’s knowingly falsified crimes of elderly abuse and conspiracy were committed



AFM: Bell committed criminal acts, (wrongfully alluding), “this is the way she likely hid the money from the federal government”

ME: Wilfred Bell testified he divested his patrimony, Frank Dawkins testified the U.S. Attorney was aware of the divestiture and had no problems, and I testified I was in the meeting when the U.S. Attorney acknowledged the divestiture. (To falsely and intentionally accuse someone of a crime knowing they did not commit it – according to statutes is a crime)

AFM: Wrongfully stated I committed crimes against the elderly stating Bell interdicted her father to control the assets.”

ME: The material facts in the proceeding established my father divested all his assets in 1996, giving up all control to me as the trustee, as evidenced by the Bell Family Trust instrument. The interdiction was rightfully necessary as affidavits provided and did not occur until six years later, June 19, 2001, after the donor revoked all his control in 1996. These attorneys knew my fathers interdiction was fully upheld during a second hearing on the matter, prior to their post trial brief arguments falsely alleging the interdiction was to gain control of assets.

ME: These attorneys and their clients, who were entirely estranged from my father, falsified reports of elder abuse those reports were proven entirely false. In fact, the Court, upholding my father’s interdiction made clear that these parties were forbidden to seek any recoveries that would with certainty damage the interdict. The Court established these estranged siblings were the parties seeking to harm an interdict. Stealing his clothes, threatening staff, firing his doctors, coercing an interdict to sign a three-page list of assets that could send him back to prison, when they had no intention, if they recovered any funds to give those funds to the interdict. Ruby Bell testified “not a penny to my father or mother.” (To falsely and intentionally accuse someone of a crime knowing they did not commit it – according to written statutes is a crime)

AFM: She committed bankruptcy fraud

ME: There is no evidence or finding in the case of bankruptcy fraud.

AFM: She defrauded her siblings

ME: I followed the advise of the FBI, the U.S. Prosecutor, my fathers criminal attorney, the Bell Family Trust attorney, and my personal counsel and complied with La. Trust Law (see drop down Societies Laws). Contrary to these adversary parties misconduct –  I did not lie about one thing.

AFM: She acted in bad faith

ME: It is established that a person following the advise of counsel has acted in good faith. Attorney Stan Gauthier relying on Trust Law testified his advise. He further testified he did not need consent of beneficiaries to execute a dation.

AFM: I was not going to provide water for trust farming as exhibit 13;

ME: When all the material fact of testimony as to our tenant farmer who worked the land seven times for next planting season testified there would be water, Stan and I testified there would be water

When Stan Gauthier, my attorney, testified there would be water. There was no other material fact or evidence that supported water would not be provided.

AFM: The Trustee’s attorney filed a motion on 9/16/2005 to seize Bell’s assets prior to final appeal, stating they sought to preserve, maintain and actually put the property to production during the pendency of appeal.

ME:  Misrepresentation as the property suffered years of damages until sometime in October 2009.

AFM: Bell’s invoice lacked any credibility

ME: When in fact the trustees attorneys’ post trial briefs could only point to 72 hours of clerical errors of overbilling out of the entire twenty page, six-year invoice. Certainly, given the established malicious vendetta and level of misconduct in this case, if they could have found any other invoice discrepancies they would have cited each and every one.

Please see entire 9,000 Sue Bell Invoice and note we brought 8 legal boxes into court with six years of documents supporting the invoice aside from the testimony of Frank Dawkins and myself.

The above represents a small insight as to defendant’s misconduct, would you agree purposely meant to secure results of a harsh outcome regardless of established material facts, and the moral or ethical implications?

And more concerning would you agree there was a blatant disregard for factual evidence, or the record left in their wake of destruction?

If you have a similar case that material evidence confirms wrongful or criminal acts we want to hear from you.

If you agree with our cause for Judicial Transparency – Please sign our Petition.

Would you agree that unless one can set aside the Constitution of the United States – the material facts provide that I was denied civil rights to a fair trial – to be heard?

When the trustees’ attorneys interrupted my bench book testimony (see designation of record) did you think it was intentional and meant to prevent my many documents of evidence from being heard? When the court agreed, how could I have experienced any right to a fair trial or the right to be heard? Still today the bench book exhibits according to pacer are “hidden”.

Many of my bench book exhibits were thereafter completely ignored, such as the following relevant exhibits, all which were accepted into the record without contest;

My evidence was properly designated, but strangely never was properly forwarded on appeal.

The Bell family trust and the broad authority I was vested;

The calculation summary of $266,000 (the dation amount) did not include the house & one acre;

The separate act of exchange that transferred the house and one acre in order to satisfy the mortgage I held;

Affidavits in support of the interdiction of my father confirming there was never any abuse of an elderly crime;

A court ruling of the second interdiction judgment fully upholding interdiction and prohibiting my siblings from unlawfully pursing any recovery;

Curatrix letter of theft. The police reports of theft committed by my siblings;

The nursing home records of threatsto the staff;

The doctor’s report these siblings began firing his specialists without any authority to do so;

The subpoenaed telephone bill summary that confirmed the family was entirely estranged from my father and mother for years and actually from each other until their suit against me;

The taped telephone conversation I had with my father when he was in prison, that confirmed he understood all the papers that he had signed;

Two psychologist reports confirming the mental state of my father and what I was being forced to deal with;

Dr. Galloway testified; “He is mentally delusional and paranoid. His demeanor indicates that he is psychotic in that he says and behaves in such a manner to elicit from others what he wants.”

Dr. Tramontano testified: “Wilfred Bell described the federal government as crooked. He vacillates between stating he is innocent, and it was all a conspiracy and expressing little remorse. He used popular responses for most part suggesting he is psychotic with not much human content. He gave paranoid indicators.”

SPECIAL NOTE: Does it appear these were normal circumstances that evolved into a simple trust? These were terrible circumstances, and I stepped forward to successfully handle the situation. I testified; “Again you know, I knew from the warnings from the U.S. attorney, the FBI agent, our criminal attorney, the revocatory letter Bill Friedman had sent me, from what attorneys Amato and Creely were telling me, that I had some serious problems. I was gravely concerned for the trust assets and my father procuring additional victims that may file suit.

Also, it is well established when a donor divests of his entire patrimony – there is no prescription deadline to overturn the donations, so I had that additional concern and it is viable still today.

The letter from the trust attorney – I would not save the assets;

My father’s PSI report that confirmed the $40,000 mortgagehe executed to me;

The cash accounting confirming I did not prosper, also confirming insufficient funds to pay forfeiture;

Rolfes spreadsheet, “unrelated trust expenses Rolfes testified should be titled “may or may not be”

The evidence of my billing history of $55 per hour;

The federal forfeiture, executed $40,000 mortgage, promissory note;


Multiple statutes (LA RS 9:2085; Title 11 § 548) were intentionally misquoted to cause harm and prosper – adversary parties;

Expert and witness testimony was intentionally and maliciously misquoted to cause harm and to allow them to prosper;

I was deterred from testifying on relevant evidence to cause harm and allow them to prosper;

The bench book exhibits were ignored and hidden behind the record to cause harm and allow them to prosper;

Was the court negligent in not complying with the requirements of – Designation of record;

Do you agree the court made known its bias and prejudgment?;

It took sixteen months for the trial court to render Post Trial Reasons;

Was a bankruptcy case used to wrongfully pursue me beginning in 2000, for beneficiaries who were not creditors of the trust?;

The Bell Family Trust instrument provided me with the broadest authority in order to save my father’s donated assets. The trust was entirely ignored;

My estranged siblings, who provided no assistance then or now with the care of my elderly mother, who filed a suit in haste, refusing investigation or audit, and knowingly agreed to providing fraudulent misrepresentations against me since 2000, in order to wrongfully prosper themselves;

Siblings who preferred to pay attorneys (confirmed to have personal vendettas against me) substantially greater commissions than the dation executed that paid my professional successful services for six years of actual contingency work, while saving the assets and preventing revocatory actions and additional victims. All the while, I was suffering personal losses and incurring personal indebtedness, of three additional mortgages, in dealing with the trust crisis.


I have personally visited with, at minimum – twenty law firms since 2004; all who patiently allowed me to present my case while reviewing the overwhelming factual evidence. All who agreed with a retired federal prosecutor I also spoke with, whose opinion was it appeared I suffered a prosecution.

Another law firm, with over sixty years of law enforcement experience, offering their services to me, advised that their belief was I was wronged.

Other briefs on record in the public domain argued about misconduct.

I have committed myself, during these many years being under duress, to focusing on research efforts that would promote a difference, once these attorneys decided my torture and destruction was accomplished to their satisfaction.

During my time devoted to the research of separate unrelated cases of Mr. Ackermann’s on pacer – I found, amongst other cases, the case of Rodney Poche – please see his submittal – victim case at this website.

I hope that you have already reviewed the following occurrences at the drop down categories on this site:

LA. R.S.  9:2085 where a period (.) was intentionally dropped in the middle of a statute to provide the very serious fraudulent misrepresentation that I committed a breach of fiduciary duty, while defaming and slandering, all maliciously done in order to damage me and prosper unfairly.

Title 11 § 548 and the intentional fraudulent and very serious misrepresentation that insolvency was not required, and the known falsification of expert testimony about there being unreasonable small capital, all to prosper unfairly while defaming and slandering. All to pursue destruction and unfairly prosper.

$162,000 – portion of the judgment obtained by fraud upon the court by intentionally falsifying material fact and falsifying both experts’ testimony about unreasonable trust expenses, all to prosper unfairly while defaming and slandering.

The house and one-acre seizure, while knowingly falsifying there were no liens when the material facts confirm a federal forfeiture lien, duly executed and recorded mortgage, and promissory note. Wilfred Bell testifying he could not donate the house with one acre because he knew the prosecutor was taking it. The trust attorney and criminal attorney both testified I held a mortgage. Attorney Stan Gauthier handled the house and one acre as a separate Act of Exchange as an in rem debt. The separate exchange was never a part of the dation transaction the court awarded. The other material facts in evidence accepted without contest. All to prosper unfairly. The dation only addressed the professional services I provided.

This established record (let us not forget – as established by these attorneys and the court) began in 2000 and is just, in 2011, finally coming to a close. The record consists of thousands of pages of public domain records now available, enabling me to move forward in a healing process and to seek justice, but most importantly to help bring about change.

Others have opined, and I believe, these attorneys were never going to close this case until they were able to obtain a protective order, or try to extend any cause beyond prescription dates, barring future litigation against them unless a prior consent of the court ordering the protection could be obtained.

I hope that this site will serve as an educational tool, which will guide you through and provide a venue for publishing your record and providing information on any corruption that occurred in your personal case.

I hope this site will provide relief for other victims of wrongful acts committed by certain unethical lawyers who have unlimited resources to damage and destroy.




Leave a Comment