The Court




In 2013 upon good advice that the court lacked jurisdiction in the decade long litigation legal matters of a “spendthrift” trust and being advised there is no deadline for addressing “Lack of Jurisdiction” available Motions were filed; 1) Reopen the lower Court case, 2) a Rule 60 (b)(4) Motion for Lack of Jurisdiction and 3) a Motion for Recusal. All three motions were denied by the lower court. 

The lower courts final judgment denial of the three motions was timely appealed in Motions filed to the District Appellate Court. The District Judge then assigned the three motions to the Magistrate Judge for a Report and Recommendation.

The denied Appeal Motion(s) included Bell’s Motion to Effect Investigation into the case.

You be the Judge whether the Magistrate’s Report & Recommendation provided any legal analysis of  ”spendthrift” controlling law, case law precedent or any legal analysis of the properly designated evidence submitted into the record during the appeal process?

Timely filed on 10-3-13 was Bell Objection to the Magistrate’s Report Recommendation for the required standard of de novo review by the District Judge per 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).

Only days later on 10-11-13, the Western District Judge issued a judgment – ordering “Bell to refrain from instituting any further actions against the defendant herein or its counsel or the bankruptcy judges based on any matters set forth in her Appeal at bar lest she be ordered to appear and show cause why she should not be held in contempt of court.”

The law reply email noticing the judgment displayed WDLA WARNING Case Closed.

Immediate upon notice of the filed Motion requesting an investigation of the cases the lower court SEALED the Trust case and the lower court SEALED adversary case  although both cases were in the pacer public venue for a decade. In prior anticipation, these case dockets and records were preserved.

Also filed into the record the LA Attorney General Office for Investigation into a Citizen Complaint

Filed into the record a motion that sought Chilling Sanctions unsuccessfully… until now…which stated their desire to avoid future litigation or consequence for their acts.

Much has been stated to discredit Bell’s character since she recently began her efforts that requires the production of “the established Record.” In defense but not limited to also filed into the record was communication from a respectable law firm that confirmed You Have Been Wronged.  Also filed into the record was retired bankruptcy trustee attorney Pam Magee who argued this very problematic case in a PMAGEE RULE 60 – 09-5001 . She also requested an investigation into the cases.

The then year published “Record” now contains over 300 pages supporting the alleged abuse, misconduct and corruption.

Ex: Filed into the record adversarial attorneys’ argued the witness should not be allowed to defend herself “that everyone should worry about her one chance to defend herself “later”. DENIED Right To Defend Oneself.

Just one of the published facts filed into the record adversarial attorneys’ provided that their expert quantified $162,214.96 as unrelated trust expenses.  You be the Judge if this was a known Fraudulent Misrepresentation to obtain judgments that prospered themselves.

Filed into the record the expert trial testimony according to the transcripts of the expert Could not quantify the expenses and he Only listed items he would like more information about The expert testified he could not remember about the expenses and testified he never spoke to anyone about the Trust or trust expenses and never requested any information that he said he would need to make any determination about the expenses.

You be the Judge. Did the expert quantify expenses as unrelated instead or did he testify he could not quantify the expenses even testifying  that telephone and diesel were expenses that he believed were related.



(3) A judge should take or initiate appropriate disciplinary measures against a judge or lawyer for unprofessional conduct of which the judge may become aware of wrongful conduct.


Fraud is proven by showing that the defendant’s actions involved five separate elements:

(1)   a false statement of a material fact,(2) knowledge on the part of the defendant that the statement is untrue, (5) injury to the alleged victim as a result.

C. CODE OF JUDICIAL CONDUCT – Canon 3 (evidence abuse, bias, malice)

(4) A judge shall perform judicial duties without bias or prejudice. A judge shall not, in the         performance of judicial duties, by words or conduct manifest bias or prejudice.


“American Legal System is Corrupt Beyond Recognition.”

“The integrity of law, its religious roots, its transcendent quality is disappearing. The first contemporary threat to the rule of law comes from within the legal system itself.”

“The legal system has also been wronged by lawyers who themselves no longer respect the rule of law.”

“Others seem uninhibited about making misstatements to the court or destroying or falsifying evidence.”

“When lawyers cannot be trusted to observe the fair processes essential to maintaining the rule of law, how can we expect the public to respect the process. We see lawsuits wielded as weapons of revenge.”


1. Per Chief Justice Jones should any attorney be above the law or have the ability to assert a personal revenge meant to destroy?

2. Should anyone prosper personally from published acts that violate federal criminal laws?

3. During the trial while on the witness stand why did the lower court refuse to hear my “defense” trial testimony? Testimony that would be the only “defense” testimony on the two (2) trial bench books of uncontested historical case evidence? Was this an abuse of discretion and denial of a right to a fair trial or right to defend oneself?

4. Do the Judicial Rules of Conduct prohibit any bias or any court acknowledgement of biased threats “prior” to any defense?

5. Why were my two Trial Bench Books of uncontested evidence disregarded entirely and then “Hidden” unavailable for pacer viewing. Evidence never scanned into the pacer record as the 9,000 other documents in the case record?

6. Why were the two Bench Books of Trial Evidence which was Properly Designated as the record on Appeal but Designated Bench Book withheld from Appeal ?

7. Why would the lower court seal public case records immediately after the notice of a filed Motion to open an investigation into the records?

8. Why would the District Court issue a final judgment within a week of a de novo appeal, also WARNING the case was closed?

9. Is it unconstitutional to deny anyone the right to access the courts?

10. Does closing the case with WARNINGS deter a right to APPEAL all final judgments?

11. Why did the Court deny a Motion to Investigate the case records when there is published evidence before the Court alleging grave wrongdoing?

12. Are these efforts to silence a victim and the record?

13. Should an investigation also include: Misprision of Felony 18 USC § 4 – Whoever, having knowledge of the actual commission of a felony cognizable by a court of the United States, conceals and does not as soon as possible make known the same to some judge or other person in civil or military authority under the United States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both?

14. What constitutes a conspiracy?

Please review the “Advisory Links” located in this website on the home page for a general review of the magnitude of worldwide problems acknowledging victims and suffering.

– Bankruptcy – US Atty General John Ashcroft on Bankruptcy Corruption …..etc links

Please review on the home page title bar at the “Transparency” drop down title bar; the “Bell Transparency Act” and if you support judicial transparency, accountability and support revised laws that would promote and deter judicial abuse then please sign the petition under the “adversary links”.  Thank you for your support.

All the information provided herein is a matter of published Record and is just a snip it of what occurred in this case. There are over 300 pages in the published record in support of alleged fraudulent misrepresentations, misconduct and abuse.

The long and the short of this enduring story regardless of all the attempts to threaten and discredit Bell, the established record [preserved in prior anticipation of the court sealing any records] will always speak for itself and the facts. 


Leave a Comment