THEFT BY FRAUD
You be the Judge- Was this Theft by Fraud?
Of all the established material facts in my proceeding as linked to in this site – this is the most egregious of all. These acts continuing since 2002 have destroyed my ability to care for myself, my medical needs, and the needs of my elderly mother.
Note: My then attorney lodged a complaint that the $162,214.96 trust expenses were not a cause of action argued in the suit filed against me and that the Lou Rolfes Spreadsheet was not provided by plaintiffs to the defense in their discovery bench books.
Should any judge or attorney be above the laws that govern our society? The laws that citizens must comply with? Do you believe the Rules of Professional conduct matter?
Is it ever to late to do the right thing for the sake of justice? Is theft by fraud an important issue?
“Moreover, federal jurisprudence supports this holding. We take instruction from federal cases discussing fraud upon the court. The seminal case on this topic is Hazel-Atlas Glass Co. v. Hartford-Empire Co., 322 U.S. 238 (1944). In Hazel-Atlas, the Supreme Court set aside a judgment after more than one year because it found a party and its attorneys engaged in “a deliberately planned and carefully executed scheme to defraud” the patent office and the circuit court of appeals. Id. at 245. As a result, the Court held it would be manifestly unconscionable to allow the judgment to stand. Id.”
“In considering relief from a final judgment, “the balance is drawn between finality of judgments, on the one hand, and preserving the court’s fundamental purpose of providing a fair and just resolution of disputes, on the other.” Hagy, 331 S.C. at 221, 500 S.E.2d at 172. Based on Davis and federal jurisprudence, we find Chewning’s complaint states a claim for fraud upon the court. If Chewning’s allegations are true, it would be manifestly unjust for the original judgment to stand. Accordingly, we reverse the circuit judge’s dismissal order and remand the fraud upon the court claim for proceedings consistent with this opinion.”
Facts: The Bell Family Trust was executed on the eve of the donors federal and state indictments. As trustee I was provided with the broadest authority by the donor per the trust which coincidently was under legal duress. According to Louisiana trust law my first obligation was to save the assets and I was provided with authority to make decisions as required by trust law. The Trust CPA provided her vita while testifying during the trial. She testified she pre approved trust expenses in conversation that began in 1996. She testified as the trust CPA she did not reject any expenses nor did the IRS. Six years later during this trial the plaintiff examined their expert while under oath. Their expert did not provide any vita. Please see below the material facts of the testimony as documented in trial transcripts that confirm the trustees’ attorneys according the established record provided fraud misrepresentation of material facts on this issue below. How do you attempt to unlock the secrets, that by virtue of the adversary links to the right, appear to be well guarded within a jurisdiction?
Imagine a WRIT executed against you in the amount of $162,114.96 with interest and penalties increasing to $262,000 and likely approximated to exceed $945,000 if it takes a life time to repay.
Imagine a writ against you executed on portions of a judgment when the very established expert testimony confirmed was obtained by alleged fraud and theft by deception and if so according to criminal statutes was a violation (See below links to material facts). You be the Judge – theft by fraud?
Imagine attorneys prospering with commissions of 33.33% on the alleged wrongful recovery of $262,000 if secured by violations of law of society.
EXAMPLE: Can you rob a bank and take by theft $162,214.96 and not suffer consequences if you argue fraudulently; A- the depositor meant to deposit in my name; B – it does not matter what the records of the bank confirm, I don’t agree with the Bank; C – and the bank manager gave me the green light to steal????
*Note – a review of Designation of Record explains that, prior to any presentation of my case, the Court made obvious its bias when it issued an ultimatum, confirming pre-judgment posture. Did this posture posture encourage these attorneys, already in pursuit of destruction, to go beyond all that is reasonable to win a case – without any concern for the evidence trail they left in their wake, or society’s laws.
You be the judge were they driven by malice and destruction – did the trustees’ attorneys apparently accept the court’s apparent indication of bias as a green light to slam me – regardless of the uncontested material facts that became a trail of facts in my case?Adversarial attorneys provided Fraudulent Misrepresentation about their experts testimony.
NOTE: A Spendthrift Trust, as the Bell Family Trust, according to trust law does not allow for creditor seizure of a beneficiary spendthrift interest. Article 15 violations were provided to the trustee and his attorney during the final meeting held in effort to redress the injustice. The Trustees attorney instead stated, “I will never admit I did anything wrong.”
WRIT: To date 6/2/11 a total of $21,687.00 has been seized from my earnings to satisfy the deceit and fraud misrepresentation. Although the Bell Family Trust was a “spendthrift” trust providing the maximum allowed protection from creditors, the trustee withheld a $5,000 distribution recently.
FACTUAL MATERIAL EVIDENCE REVEALING FRAUD UPON COURT – Theft By Fraud
Joan Martin provided a vita of her experience – Lou Rolfes did not. You be the judge as to the Rolfes testimony.
The Trustee’s attorneys alleged:
It is of the utmost importance that the Trustee’s attorneys claimed that their expert, Lou Rolfes’s, testimony would be relevant for any determination of unrelated trust expenses because, as they When in fact their expert did not furnish any report and he was not deposed.
Additionally, the Trustee’s attorneys questioned two other witnesses during the trial with regard to the original spreadsheet referenced under Tab 50, as exhibit A7, which was originally drafted by their expert Lou Rolfes. That spreadsheet was the subject of all question and answer testimony.
The trial transcript testimony in its entirety, as documented in the case of expert Lou Rolfes, at No. 02-05045 Docket 118 does not support the defendants’ fraudulent misrepresentations, that Rolfes quantified $162,214.96 as being unrelated trust expenses. More importantly, the testimony confirms that Lou Rolfes did “not” quantify that amount.
The only evidence in this case with regard to the $162,214.96 portion of judgment, or question and answers by both experts:
Q: “Would it be more accurate to title this document “Expenses which may or may not be related to Trust activities?”
Rolfes replied: “That would be fair.” Page 94, exhibit A19B.
Defendant’s expert recanted the title of his summary, and recanted findings claiming he did not have enough documentation to determine, needed to see more documentation, could not remember or didn’t know. The Record will confirm he never requested additional documentation, nor did Rolfes discuss it with Bell who was the trustee of seven years, nor did he have any conversation with Joan Martin, the CPA of the trust for seven years. Both who were familiar and knew the business of the trust. You be the Judge – theft by fraud?
Q:“Now, did you summarize your findings with respect to those expenses?”
Rolfes replied: “Well, I summarized my findings, in so far as expenses that I would want to see documentation on to relate to how they related to the Trust.” page 70, as exhibit A9.
Mr. Rolfes testified his summary originally entitled “Expenses not related to trust activities” was not a final analysis. Mr. Rolfes never requested any documents. Was this theft by fraud?
Q: “If you came across an invoice like diesel fuel, you would assume that was related to farming and you would exclude that from the list?
Rolfes replied: “Correct”. Page 71, as exhibit A10.
Rolfes also testified: “Dulion (phonetic) Brothers, may be farm fuel, which would be Trust related.” Page 76, as exhibit A11.
Mr. Rolfes testified, that the Duhon Brothers diesel expenses of $14,645.61 was a related trust expense. Rolfes did not quantify diesel fuel as unrelated (exhibit A12). Diesel fuel that, according to other witnesses was necessary to operate the deep water well that irrigated the trust property, was categorized as unrelated. You be the Judge – theft by fraud?
SPECIAL NOTE: The tenant farm testified we bought diesel fuel. I testified we bought diesel fuel for rice farming. The plaintiff had all the diesel invoices. Still I am paying back all the diesel fuel purchases listed on the Rolfes Spreedsheet (x) times penalties and fines and without reducing it by my 1/6 interest.
Q:“When asked about the pumping expense, as exhibit A12A, which you listed as not related, did I understand you said, “I honestly don’t know what that is….. I don’t know if that had to do with pumping as far as water well for the farm.” Page 78, exhibits A13.
Defendant’s expert testified he didn’t know what the pumping expense of $1,700.00 related to. Evidence confirmed these were expenses that were incurred to operate the deep water well to provide irrigation to the farm.You be the Judge – theft by fraud?
Q: “In so far, you can’t tell which one is for vehicles?”
Rolfes replied: “That’s correct. I think in those cases I didn’t have all of the invoices, so I just had a check payable to State Farm, I couldn’t tell what it was necessarily for…..” Page 79, as exhibit A14. Mr. Rolfes never requested any documents.
Mr. Rolfes testified he could not determine what the State Farm expenses of $14,673.40 were for. Statements were provided by Bell to show that these expenses were to insure farm vehicles and to provide farm property liability and umbrella coverage, which were trust related. See exhibits A15, A15A, A15B, A15C, A16, A16A, A17, A17A. Mr. Rolfes lacked adequate documentation to quantify any State Farm unrelated expenses. He couldn’t tell. The Trust CPA, Joan Martin, quantified and filed all these expenses, without any rejections, with the IRS. Defendants had direct knowledge that these were property, umbrella liability, and farm vehicle insurance expenses were legitimate trust expenses. You be the Judge – theft by fraud?
When Rolfes is questioned by Bell’s counsel:
Q: “Then you’ve got one reference to Sue Bell reimbursement. Could you determine from the records what she documented that reimbursement for?”
Rolfes replied: “That $635, I honestly can’t remember. That was about six months ago”, as exhibit A17B.
Q: “All right. You did not discuss with Ms. Sue Bell what she considered business relation of any of these items to be?
Q: “She is entitled to incur telephone expenses, long distance expenses related to Trust business, is she not?”
Rolfes replied: “That would be the normal relationship, I would think.” Pg 93, as exhibit A18A.
Defendants expert, testified the telephone expenses of $5,842.37 qualified as trust expenses and the trust CPA Joan Martin’s testimony concurred these expenses were related trust expenses. You be the Judge – theft by fraud?
Q: “When asked about pumping expense you listed as not related, did I understand your answer.”
Rolfes replied: “I honestly don’t know what that is….if you will, put my auditor had and say which of these would be deductible related expense to the Trust, and which of these I would like to see more documentation on before I could make the determination. So, that would be certainly one of those I’d like to see some documentation on” as exhibit A18C page 94. Mr. Rolfes never requested any documents.
Q: “But you assumed it was not related?”
Rolfes replied: “I listed anything that I would have a question as to whether it was related or not. In other words. I’m not saying by listing it on there, that that’s unrelated to the Trust. I’m saying those are the expense areas that are in question.” Page 94, exhibit A19. Mr. Rolfes never requested any documents.
When questioned by attorney Durand – Most Importantly:
With further intent to irreparably damage Bell defendants filed a writ of execution in the amount of the $162,214.96 with pre-post trial interest and penalties they knew was obtained by fraud.
Defendants executed a garnishment upon Bell’s employer serving the entire judgment when only the 1 page garnishment was required. A garnishment that would take 48 years to satisfy with a repayment of $945,000. An amount that would unfairly prosper defendants claiming contingency compensation of 33.33%, increasing their compensation by an additional $315,000.00 if obtained by deception.
You be the judge did defendants knowingly commit a fraud upon the Court, per their own expert’s testimony? Bell provides all of the aforementioned as sufficient evidence of fraud as no other evidence exists to controvert the fact that Lou Rolfes, did not really know whether or not the $162,214.96 was unrelated trust expenses, and simply categorized it as expenses he wanted to know more about. You be the Judge – theft by fraud?
A review of Lou Rolfes’ entire testimony reveals Rolfes never quantified the amount of $162,214.96. Rolfes recanted his spreadsheet findings, as exhibited at Pacer 02-05045, docket 118, pages 66 – 102. The entire Rolfes transcript is provided, as a final exhibit A55.
The Bell Family Trust certified public accountant of six years
The expert testimony of Joan Martin, the trust CPA for seven years, who knew the business of the trust, testified as Bell’s expert; confirming conversations she had in pre-authorizing trust expenses. Vita provided.
Ms. Martin testified that she had conversations about pre-approving all the expenses listed in Mr. Rolfes’ report, filed all these expenses on year-end tax returns, and no expense was denied or rejected by her firm or IRS.
Martin testified she recalled having conversations at the inception of the relationship between her and Bell about expenses that would be allowable (exhibit A20 page 78).
Martin testified, as exhibit A21 page 79, she had conversation from an accounting and tax standpoint with Bell regarding the incurring and deducting expenses, as Trustee of Trust, and that the trust lease of vehicles was discussed.
Martin testified she advised Bell, as exhibit A22 page 80,
“I told her that business frequently did. In fact, lease autos for business owners and/or managers, if it was a necessary and ordinary business expense. In my firm, we do this same thing. I told her they would be legitimate deductions, as long as they were business related.”
Q: “Did she ever ask you specifically about taking her father our for meals and deducting the cost of those meals?
Martin replied: “If she’s taking her father out – my understanding, at that time, is they were running the rice farm operations. They were also renegotiating those leases. Many times business owners will take an associate out to lunch” (exhibit A22 page 80).
Q: “If there was litigation going on, which potentially endangered the assets of the Trust and his cooperation was necessary in regard to that kind of litigation, would it also be an appropriate expense for her to, at those type of meals, to discuss that litigation with him, from the standpoint of the Trust?”
Martin replied: “Well, if its business related to the protection of the Trust or the assets, or the operation of those assets, I would consider it to be a legitimate expense, yes sir” (exhibit A23 page 81).
Q: “With your knowledge of what the Trust did, when Sue would present you with the list of expenses every year, do you ever recall, as you sit here today, seeing an expense on there either because of the amount of the category that you had question that it might not be deductible” (exhibit A24, page 82).
Martin replied: “No sir, not that I recall”, as exhibit A25, page 83.
Q: “Do you recall whether at any point you refused or your firm refused to deduct any of the cell phone bills, that were submitted on the income tax return”, as exhibit A26, page 85.
Martin replied: “No we did not refuse to deduct phone expenses”, as exhibit A27, page 86.
Q: When Martin was questioned on deductions of vehicle leases, fuel for the farm and did she recall ever disallowing any of those expenses….
Martin replied: “No sir, I don’t recall excluding any”, as exhibit A27, page 86.
Q: “Did IRS ever disallow any of the deductions that were taken?”
Martin replied: “No, nothing was disallowed”, as exhibit A28, page 87.
Bell also testified to each trust expenditure
The $162,214.96 is all pre on year petition filing – the courts own ruling pre one year is not recoverable
The $162,214.96 included the$60,000 the court also ruled was not recoverable. You be the Judge – theft by fraud?
CRIMINAL STATUTES – You be the Judge – theft by fraud?
RS 14:12 Criminal negligence – exits when there is such disregard of the interest of others that the offender’s conduct amounts to a gross deviation below the standard of care expected to be maintained by a reasonably careful man; and
RS 14:26 Criminal Conspiracy – Criminal conspiracy is the agreement or combination of two or more persons for the specific purpose of committing any crime;
RS 14:47 Defamation – A malicious publication or expression in any manner to the party defamed, exposing a person to hatred, contempt, or depriving her of the benefit of public confidence;
RS 14:67 Theft – the taking of anything by means of fraudulent conduct, practices or misrepresentations;
RS 14:133 Filing or maintaining false public records – A filing of any document containing a false statement or false representation of material fact;
Title LXII Chapter 637 – Theft by deception – A person commits theft by deception if he obtains or exercises control over a property of another by deception. Deception occurs when a person purposely an impression which is false, false impressions of law, influencing another to whom he stands in a fiduciary.
*Is there any reason why these criminal statutes should not apply in a courtroom setting?
CONFLICTS OF INTEREST – Theft By Fraud
Earlier would you agree about the conflicts of interest established after these attorneys initiated a wrongful TRO, that according to Court transcripts damages to be determined in a later hearing?
Now consider: were there conflict of interest when these attorneys were representing my 1/6th spendthrift beneficiary interest after having filed suit against me personally?
As the reader and/or victim – do you believe it might have been appropriate to reduce (even their wrongfully obtained portion of) the judgments by my 1/6 interest so I would not be taxed with greater penalties and interest to recover for that 1/6 interest? Did they prosper unfairly with greater commissions?
What is your opinion?
Already established in a Summary Judgment I won:
Per the courts own ruling: With regard to the $60,000 paid Ms. Bell in retainers, the Trustee is not allowed to recover pre one year filing of the petition of bankruptcy.
The Rule also states that to look back beyond the prior one year of the bankruptcy filing – the trustee must prove insolvency. That did not occur – as shown elsewhere the Court signed an order that all matters of insolvency were dismissed with prejudice – never to be revisited again.
So, please take a look at the $162,000 judgment entered against me, spreadsheet provided by these attorneys own expert, there is a clear indication of the inclusion of $60,000 in retainers. Given the courts ruling, wasn’t it misconduct to include the retainer?
It is a matter of record that the trustee’s attorneys sought to recover the $60,000 as a double recovery to further prosper themselves – an issue which the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals cured.
Now please examine their expert’s spreadsheet – the top of each column depicts the year of the trust distributions – each column year of distribution being before “the prior one year” to the bankruptcy filing.
That being the courts own ruling – why would the trustees’ attorneys pursue those trust distributions that were all prior one year petition filing would the motive be only to increase their commissions and perhaps while destroying me?
Aside from all the trust expenses being distributions before the prior one year and beyond the trustee’s recovery, it’s the even more significant that according to material evidence there were fraudulent misrepresentations of both experts’ testimony to the matter of trust expenses, especially misrepresented was their own expert:
All of the material evidence with regards to the $162,214.96 issue substantiates defendants knowingly misled the judicial machinery in order to obtain the wrongful portion of the judgment against Bell. Alleged lies by omission of these material facts of the existing testimony of both experts, is wrongful misconduct, non compliance of FRCP Rule 11, 8.4 and shows just cause as to the level of intent meant to destroy Bell. It is not viable for defendants to propose any reasonable assertion their level of grave misrepresentations were of opinion or oversight. Bell alleges defendants unfairly increased their contingency, especially if by deception.
You be the Judge – theft by fraud?
Judicial Accountability – Please, if you agree with this cause sign the petition – Joined in numbers we can make a difference.