La R S 9 2085

You be the Judge

Note all links to material evidence are to factual evidence established in the proceeding.

Is it safe to say that lies – deceit – deception – violations of Louisiana Rules of Professional Conduct and violations of Criminal Statutes occur when an attorney acts with intentional malice misquoting, by dropping a (.) period in the middle of a statute,  in order to begin wrongfully defaming someone alleging they have committed a serious breach of fiduciary for self dealing?

BREACH OF FIDUCIARY DUTY

Would reasonable people assume, breach of fiduciary duty, a wrongful act, should not be alleged by means of providing a fraudulent misrepresentation of a statute to the Court? Especially any known intentional fraud misrepresentation by an attorney who should be held to a higher standard.

Opposing counsel, Glenn Marcantel of Ville Platte, LA, intentionally withheld the material facts of the Bell trust instrument, which he had in his possession. Together with a known misrepresentation of a statute LA. R.S. 9:2085.

Attorney Jeffrey Ackermann of Lafayette LA, enrolled in the litigation case during that time frame as the state court proceeding and has continued to argue since, attorney Glenn Marcantel’s arguments of breach of fiduciary duty for self dealing.

In my case, depicted on this web site, attorneys representing me during that period of time, executed a dation en paiment to pay my six years of “contingency” professional services.

CRIMINAL STATUTES

Note: RS 14:133 Filing False Public Records: any document containing false statement or false representation of material fact.

Opposing counsel, Glenn Marcantel, who at one time if not currently is an assistant DA in another parish, filed suit against me in state court in haste, prior to any investigation. In fact, he testified under oath to his denial of an audit or accounting. Yet attorney post trial briefs went on for six years defaming me and alleging that I did not provide an accounting.

You be the judge Ruby Bell testified she thought that was why they filed suit to obtain an audit, she didn’t know we tried everything to present an audit. Were they misinformed? Was expensive litigation in haste filed? Did attorneys perhaps believe they would prosper personally from a lucrative trust? Was information withheld from their clients?

In Marcantel’s brief he alleged, amongst other things, that I breached a fiduciary duty arguing the statute La. R.S. 9:2085 as follows:

LA. R.S. 9:2085 – SALE BY TRUSTEE TO HIMSELF

“La. R.S. 9:2085 prohibits the trustee from buying or selling trust property directly or indirectly from or to himself, his relatives, employer, employee, partner or other business associate(.)”

WHEN THE STATUTE AS WRITTEN – ACTUALLY READS

“La. R.S. 9:2085 prohibits the trustee from buying or selling trust property directly or indirectly from or to himself, his relatives, employer, employee, partner or other business associate(,) unless the trust instrument provides otherwise.”

THE BELL FAMILY TRUST provided otherwise – as all parties had possession of the trust instrument and attorneys are certainly capable of interpretation of an instrument and written law:

6.5 Purchases and sales:

……Individual Trustees may buy or sell property for this trust from or to himself or his relative, employer, employee, partner, or other business entity.

ATTORNEY PAUL HOOD – A Leading Louisiana Trust Expert

Hood himself having written trust law, testified on my behalf;

“Well, I think you would interpret that provision with the rest of the provisions of the Trust, most notably the permission on the part of the Trustee to set her own compensation as well as to self-deal.”

Hood went on to testify:

“And, most notably in the area of self-dealing, the Trustee is permitted in this Trust to self-deal, and that is one of the provisions 2084, 2085 and 2086, where those powers must be expressed in the Trust instrument for the Trustee to posses those powers.”

Questioned: So, in summary, would it be accurate to say that in this particular Trust, the Trustee was granted broad discretion?

Hood answered: “Absolutely.”

You be the Judge as you review the rest of the material evidence, as linked in this site, of what is most alarming about a record replete with documented evidence that the defendants flagrantly disregarded material evidence that were established in the case. Do you believe these actions confirm defendant’s willful, and shameless display of unfair practices? And more importantly, what appears to be defendant’s self assurance they can successfully circumvent the law and the judicial machinery, regardless of written law and the overwhelming record they themselves established.

Are the errors obvious? Meant to seriously affect the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of judicial proceedings, properly invoked where there are extraordinary circumstances of alleged portions of a judgment obtained by deceit and fraud or where the judgment may work an extreme hardship.

You be the Judge – Did defendants knowingly act with intent to deceive or defraud the Court and in doing so defamed and damaged?

Bell’s arguments briefed:

“In Matarese, 801 F.2d at 106, the trial courts instructions – “Intent is an essential element. Intent is the operation of the mind whereby a person aims to obtain the desired consequences of effects of his act. It is a mental operation that cannot be photographed. It is silent, secret, and invisible to the human eye. The intent of a person may be ascertained from his conduct, his speech or combination of both. Generally a man’s actions reveal an expression of his mind.”(internal quotations and citations omitted).

“I present for the readers review and determination whether “Constructive fraud elements have been met; (1) a deliberate failure to disclose material facts (2) by one who had a duty to disclose such facts (4) the listener act or refrain from acting (5) the listener relies on the nondisclosure resulting in injury in RE: Schlumberger Tech. Corp v Swanson, 959 S.W.2d 171,181 (Tex. 1997) See also 7979 Airport Garage,L.L.C. v. Dollar Rent A Car Sys., Inc. 245 S.W. 3d 488, 507 n.27 (Tex. App.-Houston (14th Dist.) 2007.”

*Note: The material facts linked throughout this site allege serious misrepresentations beginning with the very first brief filed in state court and continuing for years.

*Note: My siblings began a journey of defamation, libel, and slander in the very first brief as they signed a verification that all facts were true and correct. Each were in possession of the trust instrument.

While receiving distributions of $60,000 each, my siblings live’s did not skip a beat,  while my father and I dealt with these egregious matters and saving assets at risk.

All of the successful efforts to manage a serious situation, family business, legal quagmire, at substantial personal loss, never even received “one” thank you from any of my siblings.

NO GOOD DEED GOES UNPUNISHED!