House with One Acre

You Be the Judge

The presentations herein to the reader are almost unbelievable. I would have a hard time believing anyone would leave such a paper trail, if the paper trail were not now established in the record!

Herein is the truth and nothing but the truth – according to the record about the house with one acre

Why the trustees attorneys sought and achieved an unfair advantage by disallowing my defense testimony on my bench book exhibits. Because all of the bench book exhibits relevant to the house with one acre and testimony confirmed the house with one acre could not be donated to the trust due to a federal forfeiture lien, and the donor usufruct. Exhibits confirming the federal government documented a federal forfeiture lien and mortgage in my fathers federal pre-sentence investigation report. The trustee, trustees attorneys, and their clients sought to prosper unfairly by a seizure that was contingent upon fraud misrepresentations. The trust attorney testified he did not draft any donation on the house with one acre to the trust. The criminal attorney testified I held a mortgage. Attorney Stan Gauthier testified the mortgage was an in rem debt and believed any attempt donation to the trust was null void because of the trust usufruct clause and the federal forfeiture.

There is no evidence that the plaintiffs can point to in the established record – other than they prospered personally and believed unfairly to explain their seizure of the house and one acre. An asset that held usufruct – prohibited from donation to the trust, under federal forfeiture, material facts of duly executed documents recorded, undisputed material fact testimony of Wilfred Bell testifying he could not donate the house. You be the Judge.

Important note: The Courts Post Trial Reasons that was not rendered until sixteen months after the trial awarded $266,000 transferred via the dation, $162,214.96 that were unrelated trust expenses and $18,009.97 income received.

The Post Trial Reasons did not clarify any award of the separate exchange of the house and one acre and were not included in the dation calculations.

The material evidence summarizing the $266,000 dation did not include any value or mention of the house and one acre that attorney Stan Gauthier testified he handled as a separate Act of Exchange in consideration of an in rem debt.

So, why then did the trustees attorneys include the house and one acre in their judgment draft submitted to the court in spite of the material evidence established in the record?

Could it be the asset value they obtained of $145,000 increased their commissions and the trustee compensation plan considerably?

Or could it be these attorneys were comfortable in their actions, replete of unprofessional misconduct, having prior privilege information of a Judge who indicated  bias having issued a prejudgment ultimatum? You be the Judge.

The material facts accepted as uncontested about the house and one acre

There is substantial evidence in the bench book exhibits the trustees attorney sought and succeeded in denying my right to testify upon (see drop down Designation of Record) as follows:

Attorneys Jeffrey Ackermann, of Lafayette, LA and Glenn Marcantel of Ville Platte, LA, while representing the bankruptcy trustee W. Simmons Sandoz, and the Bell family trust and certain beneficiaries of the trust, (as well as my 1/6th beneficiary interest) seized a house and one acre that my attorney, Stan Gauthier of Lafayette, LA had properly transferred to me in a “separate act of exchange” in order to satisfy an (in rem debt) executed mortgage and promissory note I held.

These attorneys in “post trial briefs” provided fraud misrepresentation that the house and one acre was free of liens. Both attorneys knew the federal government had executed a federal forfeiture on the house and one acre because of my father having lied during his interview with federal agents.

The revocation of the Dation $266,000 per the material evidence summary did not include any mention or value of the house and one acre. The house and one acre were handled as a separate act of exchange.

The mortgage and promissory note were executed by my father to me, notarized by his criminal attorney, and duly recorded because as I paid the forfeiture.

My fathers federal pre-sentence investigative report documented my father executed a mortgage to me – a matter of federal record. He did so because the federal government executed a federal forfeiture lien on the house and acre.

My fathers criminal attorney testified my father could not donate the house to the trust, it was mortgaged, and it was going to be seized under forfeiture and that I held a mortgage on the property.

I testified I paid the federal forfeiture. Stan Gauthier testified any attempt to donate the house and one acre to the trust was prohibited by the trust as the trust did not allow usufruct on any donations. Frank Dawkins the criminal attorney also testified at trial federal rules on forfeiture confirm any attempt to transfer an asset under seizure would be null and void.

The attorney who set up the trust testified he did not execute the donation of any house or one acre, and that it was his understanding it could not be donated to the trust. The trust attorney also testified I held a mortgage on the house and one acre.

The Bell Family trust instrument confirms the donors donations did not include the house with one acre as it was under federal forfeiture and the donor had executed a recorded mortgage and promissory note. See Page 10 of 10 exhibit A “Schedule of Trust Property”

My father testified he was warned he could not donate his house to the trust because of the federal governments forfeiture.

Although not required, I provided a cash accounting of the $150,000 my father divested, that I depleted cleaning up the criminal family saga, that confirmed the divested cash was in arrears $13,000 cost that were paid out of my own pocket.

Mr. Ackermann, while questioning me on the stand said, now didn’t you at some time run out of money?” Mr. Ackermann was referring the cash accounting that confirmed I personally paid the forfeiture.

In that statement Mr. Ackermann acknowledged he had reviewed the cash accounting (of my fathers divested cash to me) and was aware the divested funds had insufficient funds to pay the $40,000 forfeiture, which is confirmed by the cash accounting record. Having to personally pay this $40,000 was one of the reason I had to go into personal debt mortgaging my home.

All of these uncontested material facts did not matter to these attorneys.

You be the Judge if the way this seizure occurred was a violation of law….

According to case precedent when judgments are obtained by fraud the judgment is an absolute null and void without prescription. Beginning two years ago in pro se capacity I began providing to a new seated Judge Sommerhays the established material facts in the case established before the prior Judge Gerald Schiff. The record is replete with obvious frauds, lies and deceit by the trustees attorneys.

You be the judge. What was the obligation of the new court? The court although it had the power and supporting established evidence to undo the severe damages did not. Can a judge having been provided evidence established in the same proceeding, of fraud and theft by deception look the other way? Is it every acceptable to cover up if any professional or criminal violations have occurred?

According to criminal statutes it is against the law to intentionally provide fraud misrepresentation of material evidence. Especially when doing so prospers the offending parties. Accordingly an attorney intentionally providing fraud misrepresentation is also in serious violation of;

THE PROFESSIONAL RULES OF CONDUCT – but not limited to;

Rule 4.1 Truthfulness in statements to others

In the course of representing a client a lawyer shall not knowingly;

(a) make a false statement of material fact or law to a third person;

(b) fail to disclose a material fact when disclosure is necessary to avoid assisting a criminal or fraudulent act by a client, unless disclosure is prohibited by Rule 1.6

Rule 8.2 Judicial and Legal Officials

(a) A lawyer shall not make a statement that the lawyer knows to be false or with reckless disregard as to its truth or falsity…

 

A SPECIAL NOTE: Earlier (please see drop down – Designated Record), Mr. Ackermann interrupted my testimony stating, “I thought we would just admit her bench books into evidence without contest and worry about that later your Honor.”

As if anyone would ever worry about my evidence later

Well it is later, and the uncontested evidence I was denied an opportunity to testify as to, that coincidently, although properly designated, was never transferred on district appeal, and today is Hidden behind the record!

Falsifying material facts?  – You be the Judge

Do you agree these attorneys intentionally provided fraudulent misrepresentation in post trial briefs when they knowingly falsified arguments?

“The house was free of any liens”

“It is questionable that Ms. Bell put her own money up to pay the forfeiture

All the uncontested “established” material facts in the case confirm:

A forfeiture existed. There was insufficient cash my father divested to pay the forfeiture. I ran out of money in the divested cash and was in arrears $13,000 I personally suffered. Federal records documented a mortgage of $40,000. My fathers criminal attorney testified I held the mortgage. The trust attorney testified I held the mortgage. Mr. Ackermann, himself acknowledged I ran out of cash money my father divested of. Mr. Ackermann accepted into evidence without contest my bench book exhibits that confirmed I went into personal debt taking out multiple mortgages to clean up this mess.

Yet, the trustees attorneys believed it was questionable that I put up my own money to pay the forfeiture!?

What did these attorneys do?

They seized the asset anyway – placing a value on the asset of $145,000, which according to their 33.33% commission agreement equates to an additional $48,400.00 in commissions.

Important note: These attorneys all along meant to have a serious chilling effect. It is believed sufficient material facts now established in the record confirm as I alleged, were malicious actions meant to destroy my life. And why, apparently because as a professional I provided a report to the court in the OmniCraft case, a case that Mr. Ackermann was later sued for negligence and malpractice. Please see – Evidence of Attorney Malice drop down.

What a vendetta – regardless of the paper trail of established evidence these officers of the court had to know was being established!

In the mean time I am paying additional mortgages on my home, having personally borrowed the sum to pay the forfeiture. You be the Judge.

Was the Judge in compliance with the oath of his office properly dispensing blind justice?

Were the following criminal statutes violated in a wrongful seizure of the house and one acre when there was no material fact to support the seizure, other than these attorneys desire to do so in order to unfairly prosper by 33.33% of the value they determined to be $145,000?

What of conspiracy to commit a crime?

RS 14:67 Theft – Subpart C.  By Misappropriation without violence.

A.  Theft is the misappropriation or taking of anything of value which belongs to another, either without the consent of the other to the misappropriation or taking, or by means of fraudulent conduct, practices, or representations.  An intent to deprive the other permanently of whatever may be the subject of the misappropriation or taking is essential.

RS 14:133 Filing False Public Records: any document containing 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.

You be the judge, was this a wrongful theft by deception, were criminal statutes violated, were professional rules of conduct violated. Were judicial rules of conduct violated.