Title 11 § 548

 

You be the Judge was the courts known prejudgment and bias perhaps the reason that precipitated the following abuse?

Important note: This Bell Family Trust bankruptcy was the first trust ever allowed into Louisiana bankruptcy court. The Judge Gerald Schiff later in this case commented he thought he made a mistake allowing the trust in bankruptcy. He made a similar comment that he erred in allowing the Bell Family Trust into bankruptcy in another case that cited the Bell Family Trust Bankruptcy.

IS THERE EVIDENCE OF ABUSE OF CHAPTER 7 LIQUIDATION” (Brief in record)

“A Chapter 7 is a liquidation proceeding. Title 11 – Chapter 7 – sub chapter § 704 that provides in part;”

“Liquidation proceeding under Chapter 7 “liquidation”, those assets that are not exempt collected and liquidated (reduced to money). The proceeds are distributed to creditors.

I. Instead the Chapter 7 Trustee pursued an adversary for the beneficiaries of a spendthrift trust who were “not” creditors. Is it ever OK for a law firm to obtain a judgment while in pursuit in direct controversy of 11 USC § 548?

Important note: Prior to the trial Joan Martin, the trust CPA was deposed and testified there was no way the trust was insolvent. After that deposition attorney Jeffrey Ackermann apparently concerned about any pursuant under Title 11 § 548 (which requires insolvency) requested any opportunity for a settlement which we denied.

So, if you know you can’t prove insolvency, and both experts testified at trial the trust had reasonable capital, if you are an attorney bound by professional rules of conduct – can you just lie about expert testimony and material facts of evidence established because you want to destroy someone?

Can you provide a known fraud misrepresentation of a written statute without violating a criminal statute or rules of professional conduct?

AND if you are an attorney willing to blatantly commit fraud are you above the law?

The Trustee’s law firm’s pleadings misrepresented in post trial briefs, as exhibit 18, that insolvency was not an issue and the trust had unreasonably small capital, knowingly damaging Bell, when both “experts” testified the trust had adequate capital, as exhibits 19-19A. In Mr. Ackermann’s post trial brief (not surprisingly) he avoided the entirety of requirements, that includes “(B)(i)” of 11 USC § 548 (a)(1)(A)(B)(i)(ii)(I)(II)(III)(IV);

TITLE 11 § 548 (as written) without any fraud embellishment

(B)

(i)   received less than a reasonably equivalent value in exchange for such transfer or

obligation; and (emphasis added) (language omitted by Ackermann in post trial briefs)

(ii)

(I)    was insolvent on the date that such transfer was made or such obligation was incurred, or

became insolvent as a result of such transfer or obligation;

(II)  was engaged in business for which property remaining with the debtor was an unreasonably small capital.”

“Defendants cause of action against Bell, pursuant to 11 USC § 548, clearly lacked two requirements of insolvency and less than reasonable capital given the merit of the record.”

Did the trustees attorneys; Jeffery Ackermann and Glenn Marcantel provided a fraudulent misrepresentation of law as to “Title 11 § 548” in order to personally prosper, while maliciously destroying me. Did they provide a known fraudulent misrepresentation of their expert’s testimony and my expert about unreasonably small capital to personally prosper?

After six months of briefing, having provided affidavits, testimony and attended multiple hearings on the issue, I won a motion for summary judgment that all matters of trust insolvency were dismissed with prejudice, never to be reviewed again. The minute entry, once signed by the court, constituted a court order.

The attorney, in post trial briefs, provided the court a fraudulent misrepresentation of the statute knowingly omitting the word “and” to conform the statute to support their false arguments. The material evidence int he case confirmed the trust had no creditors at all so there was no legitimate argument the dation meant to hinder or delay.

Expert Trial Testimony

Lou Rolfes, their own trust expert, testified the trust had reasonable capital for a farm business.

My trust expert Joan Martin CPA, testified the trust had reasonable capital for a farm business.

WITH REGARD TO RECEIVING LESS THAN THE EQUIVALENT VALUE IN EXCHANGE – also a requirement of Title 11 § 548

You be the Judge – I provided a six year 9,000 hour invoice to my attorney with 8 legal boxes of supporting documents for each invoice entry. These boxes were brought into the court room during the trial.

The trustees’ attorneys’ post trial briefs could only point to 72 hours of clerical over billing but argued the invoice entirely lacked any credibility. Certainly as intentional malice appears obvious had there been any other error in the 9,000 hour invoice the attorneys would have listed every error!

There is no other testimony or evidence to support my invoice lacked any credibility. During the last meeting between myself, Simm Sandoz, and my attorney Pam Magee, Jeffrey Ackerman commented he thought I did a great job saving the assets – but that would never leave the room.

Attorney Paul Hood, the leading trust expert testified I could have easily charged more given the precarious circumstances and contingency nature.

Attorney Stan Gauthier testified he thought the circumstances and contingency nature warranted the amount of my invoice.

Wilfred Bell the trust donor testified I did a lot of work.

Wilfred Bell’s criminal attorney testified I did a lot of work.

Lou Mull who was involved testified the hell I went through managing the circumstances.

All these material facts established by witnesses who were there during the years in question was cast aside six years later by the trustees attorneys.

* It is important to note that in a final meeting between the trustee, Jeffrey Ackermann and my then attorney Ms. Magee, Mr. Ackermann disclosed, “It will never leave this room, but I think you did a great job saving the trust assets.”

During that same meeting, Mr. Ackermann also stated that when the errors were presented for discussion with the trustee, “I will never admit I did anything wrong.”

My reply and that of my attorneys thoughts: “Thank God we have the record you established – although it would have been nice to have an apology – it won’t be necessary – the record will suffice. I advised, “once this case closed and it is my turn, I promise one thing that as I proceed forward publishing this case in effort to effect change, and pursing recovery I will not lie about one thing.”

THE TRUTH AND NOTHING BUT THE TRUTH

It is almost unbelievable how the trustees’ attorneys knowingly and falsely misrepresented over and over in multiple post trial briefs how I committed fraud, abuse of an elderly, conspiracies to hide money, and breach of fiduciary duties!

You be the Judge – was any consideration given to my civil rights?

or; The right of trust beneficiaries to have a cause of action against attorneys representing them and the trust while proliferating in wrongful conduct?

or; When I file suits against the trust and the beneficiaries personally and they have to petition the court to file suit against their own attorneys having now been sued themselves?

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.

Additional Note – You be the Judge – after months of the Court having rendered favorable decisions in Bell’s behalf (12/16/2003) in Motions for Summary Judgment that precluded any recovery pre one year of the bankruptcy petition, even if Ms. Bell committed a breach of fiduciary the remedy is one of damages not revocation, and her retainers are pre one year and not recoverable.

What do you the reader believe? Do you believed they were unsatisfied with the Court prior Decisions, so the Trustees’ attorneys filed a Motion of Reconsideration in May of 2004 without arguing anything new to reverse the courts own decision of 12/16/2003. Isn’t it a requirement of FRCP 60 that a reconsideration is prohibited except under circumstances of new information?