BREACHED JUSTICE WEB SITE – National PRESS RELEASE - in draft
ADDITIONAL – INVESTIGATION – FORMAL HEARING – REQUESTS BELOW- presently in process 2013 – AUTHORITIES INFORMATION – REDACTED FOR CONFIDENTIALITY
U.S. SUPREME COURT - in process
The U.S. SENATE COMMITTEE - in process
The LOUISIANA STATE TROOPERS CRIMINAL DIVISION - in process
U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL – JOHN ASHCROFT - in process
U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL – ERIC H HOLDER JR. – in process
U.S. BANKRUPTCY FRAUD CRIMINAL DIVISION - in process
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE – CIVIL RIGHT DIVISION – CRIMINAL SECTION - in process
FBI – CRIMINAL DIVISION - in process
4/13/13 U.S. DEPT OF JUSTICE- OFFICE TRUSTEE - complaint filed
4/9/13 LA SUPREME COURT - Request formal investigation into LA Office Disciplinary Counsel
4/10/13 LA ATTORNEY GENERAL - complaint for investigation
2/21/12 LA SUPREME COURT - Appeal submitted to Supreme Court on Decision of the Disciplinary Board – Supreme Court opened case.
CLERK OF COURT – US COURT OF APPEALS – THURGOOD MARSHALL COURTHOUSE
8/23/11 provided notice of my complaints. Determination will be posted.
LA OFFICE OF SPECIAL COUNSEL
Requested Investigation – 8/23/11 – Determination will be posted
LA OFFICE SPECIAL COUNSEL – CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
Requested Investigation – 8/23/11 – Determination will be posted
AFFIDAVITS OF JUDICIAL CORRUPTION
I am in receipt of 40 affidavits of like victims of judicial corruption from across the United States attesting their willingness to testify before a grand jury.
LOUISIANA 5TH CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS
Received request for additional information – submitted 10/17/11 with additional exhibits
Complaint submitted 8/3/11 – Request Investigation – Determination will be posted
CASE SUBMITTED TO CONGRESS IN SUPPORT OF “THE BELL TRANSPARENCY ACT OF 2011″
Request presented to Senators – Congressmen – for review and acceptance of “The Bell Transparency Act of 2011.” for presentation of this Act to Committee for review.
Request to be placed on the Committee agenda to testify before Congress about “Breached Justice” and the years of irreparable damages that can occur.
THIS CASE SUBMITTED FOR “CASE STUDY – PEER REVIEW” requesting written determination
Submitted July 20, 2011
Harvard Law University
Loyola Law University
Columbia Law University
Yale Law University
Stanford Law University
CONFERENCE – DANIEL M LANDRY III
8/1/11 Correspondence – Mr. Landry replied advising due to conflicts he will not be trustee of the Bell Family Trust.
2011- Upon the case closing I will be scheduling a meeting with Mr. Landry who was elected as the new Bell Family Trustee Subject – My Complaints filed alleging fraud, defamation, libel, slander, collusion, corruption. With regards to my complaints be brought to a grand jury investigation. Uncertain whether as assistant district attorney and Mr. Landry having offered to represent me in this case in 2005-2006, that he can both review my criminal complaints for grand jury review and act as the Bell Family trustee. Also to determine whether I should execute “Approval of Successor Trustee”. And to turn over worthless shares of Co-Op stock signed over to the Bell Family Trust that beneficiaries lied I had taken.
June 2005 – meeting Daniel M. Landry III – Reference Bell Family Trust vs Mary Sue Bell. A subsequent meeting in 2006 – After reviewing the case material – Mr. Landry was surprised as to the level of evidence I provided for his review and opined I had a cause – and offered to represent me for a retainer fee.
COMPLAINT SUBMITTED - LOUISIANA OFFICE OF DISCIPLINARY COUNSEL (0DC)
9/13/11 La ODC requested additional information – which was provided 10/5/11
The La ODC system is administered by a 14 member statewide attorney disciplinary board, four of whom are public members unaffiliated with the legal profession, assisted by 117 hearing committee members, consisting of 78 attorneys and 39 law representatives.
Complaint submitted 8/3/11 – Requested Investigation – Determination will be posted
The case if closing and has no further business and no reason the case should not be closed. Thus I am submitting my complaints about the Lafayette area attorneys, Jeffrey Ackermann and Glenn Marcantel, with the ODC – Office of Disciplinary Counsel in the state of Louisiana. I am seeking all relief available, asking that a full investigation be conducted, and that a determination be made concerning the appropriate reprimand for the attorneys involved and proper restitution allowable.
A similar ruling by the ODCNote: In a like case of disciplinary action involving Theodora Gordon , “It was concluded attorney Gordon, as an officer of the court, has a legal and fiduciary duty to the court not to commit fraud upon the Court. Gordon deliberately, knowingly, flagrantly, and intentionally made repeated misrepresentations to the courts and this commission. She engaged in conduct that was unethical, unprofessional, and which tend to bring the legal and judicial system into disrepute. She engaged in conduct that was planned and designed to mislead the Courts.”
LOUISIANA LAWYERS FUND FOR CLIENT PROTECTION
9/13/11 (3) claims for relief filed – Determination will be posted
The Client Assistance Fund was created to compensate clients who lose money due to a lawyer’s dishonest conduct. The Fund can reimburse clients up to $25,000 for thefts by a lawyer. Because the Client Assistance Fund Committee requires proof that the lawyer dishonestly took your money or property, you should register a complaint against the lawyer with the lawyer discipline system, if you have not already done so. The Disciplinary Counsel’s office will investigate your complaint. To make a complaint with the Disciplinary Counsel’s office or to obtain a complaint form, write the following Disciplinary Counsel
4000 South Sherwood Forest Blvd., Suite 607
Baton Rouge, Louisiana 70816-4388
Web Site: www.ladb.org
Claims filed for consideration of reimbursement of damages caused by attorney dishonesty in addition to all other relief allowable that is being requested.
SUBMITTED – LOUISIANA STATE TROOPERS I INVESTIGATION DIVISION
Complaint submitted 8/3/11 – Requesting Investigation – Determination will be posted
A meeting was scheduled to present the case complaints for investigation. A determination of a subsequent correspondence to Captain Perry, Alexandria, LA will be posted.
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE – CRIMINAL DIVISION – Washington, D.C.
9/13/11 provided additional information – Determination will be posted
Received return correspondence.
Complaint submitted 8/1/11. Requesting Investigation – Determination will be posted.
FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATIONS – Washington, D.C.
Complaint submitted 8/1/11. Determination will be posted
CLERK OF COURT – US COURT OF APPEALS – New York , NY
Complaint on hold
LOUISIANA SUPREME COURT – New Orleans, La
I submitted all the evidence published herein and I am awaiting a determination from the Louisiana Supreme Court Pro Se task force for hopeful consideration with regards to experiences suffered in Pro Se capacity.
LOCAL LAW ENFORCEMENT
Lafayette Parish Sheriff Office – Complaint filed 11/30/09 – safety concerns
WDLA – I filed three separate suits (1) 6:09-CV-01980- Declaratory and Other Relief $162,214.96 : (2) 6:09-CV-01984 Declaratory and Other Relief House with One Acre : (3) 6:09-CV-01985 Libel Slander Defamation Fraud Tort Crimes.
Lafayette City Police- Complaint filed 7/16/2010 – safety concerns
I have filed two complaints with local law enforcement requesting a grand jury investigation to determine whether violations of criminal statutes have occurred and seeking the prosecution of same. I advised in my complaint of my concern for my personal well-being given the action I am taking in my cases. I am awaiting a determination from the law enforcement agencies as of 6/2011.
In preparation to provide this case to a third law enforcement authority to start an investigation and bring this case to a grand jury.
LOUISIANA ATTORNEY GENERAL OFFICE – CRIMINAL DIVISION – BATON ROUGE, LA
8/1/11 Complaint copied – awaiting correspondence.
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF U.S. TRUSTEES – CRIMINAL ENFORCEMENT UNIT
9/13/11 Provided additional information – Determination will be posted
Complaint submitted 8/1/11. Requesting investigation – Determination will be posted
*It is well documented that citizens who make public any form of corruption are made to suffer punishment, but we are compelled, with a cause so worthy, to proceed even in harms way for the betterment of our fellow citizens that might not suffer the same future injustice.
If you believe in our cause please sign our petition in effort to provide for staying cases to prevent years of damage and to implore judicial accountability and transparency.
As trustee of the Bell Family Trust my first obligation, according to Louisiana Trust law (see La Trust Law & Societies Laws drop down) and the advise of several lawyers, was to save the assets from peril. This was an extraordinary trust, not your simple ‘I love you’ trust and here are all my assets! This trust was executed in 1996 on the eve of state and federal indictments that were to execute against the elderly donor.
In 2000, an adversary proceeding was filed against me personally and in my capacity as the trustee of this trust. The material facts confirm the suit was filed in haste, prior to any investigation, as the original case adversary attorney himself (Glenn Marcantel of Opelousas, La) later testified under oath he denied the audit, filing expensive litigation instead. It is concerning the alleged gravity of fraud misrepresentations by both trustees attorneys and their clients. A concerning note, Mr. Marcantel apparently is an assistant district attorney, thus held to higher standard. One of his clients Ruby Bell testified she was not aware we had tried to provide an accounting or the records. She thought that was why they filed suit because an audit was not provided. Attorney Stan Gauthier testified we had boxes there trying to have Mr. Marcantel to perform and audit. He just kept saying he did not want to see anything. I testified we tried everything but Mr. Marcantel was not interested in doing an audit or review any documents. Instead he proceeded to expensive litigation providing a fraud misrepresentation of a written statute (see 9:2085 drop down) to knowingly defame that I violated a fiduciary duty a very serious allegation. The Trustee’s attorneys went on for years knowingly defaming me in post trial briefs that I did not provide an accounting arguing I breached a fiduciary duty.
Does this mean the attorney intentionally misrepresented the facts to his clients, because he wanted to file suit? Did the attorneys see the Bell Family Trust as a lucrative cash flow asset that would provide them with a substantial case and significant commissions?
My siblings, who benefited personally as a direct result of my personal hardships I suffered, authorized the suit that ensued, as you can adjudge whether defamatory, libelous and slanderous. The record can not be disputed these are facts now available to me as a matter of established record.
IMPORTANT CONCERN – I advised, in my written complaints to law enforcement, my concern for my safety as I proceed forward beginning a journey and process of healing from these years of continued egregious actions. The material evidence established in my case as provided in this web-site forum confirms (by definition) malicious wrongful acts (meant to harm).
ADDITIONAL CAUSE FOR CONCERN – the trustees attorneys sought on multiple occasions “chilling sanctions” meant to silence any attempt I might have to reveal the record of wrongful acts now established argued:
CHILLING: “Mover respectfully asks that this court fashion a sanction for Bell’s violations that will have a serious chilling effect on her desire to continue to use the courts to advance positions that are now res judicata have no relationship to the administration of the estate and only serve to injure the reputation of others through half truths and unsubstantial allegations. No doubt Bell will consider going to another court to file the same types of action as have been filed with this court if she can find a lawyer to do so. She may do it pro se like she has when lawyers refuse to indulge her. No doubt Bell hoped that a new Bankruptcy Judge would consider her claims without the burden of having witnessed Bell’s historic abuse of process with unfounded allegations. Mover asks that the court award a monetary find of $10,000.00 against Bell and her counsel insolido, and issue an injunction against Bell filing any other proceeding in this court without first seeking leave of court to do so”(Note: Although pleading for relief to discourage their record ever being brought to light – they were unsuccessful in these requests at that time.)
The abuses I suffered have almost been unbearable. In 2004 I began seeking separate legal advise from many law firms. After reviewing the case and egregious issues, each firm advised the same as attorney Martinez that I had no choice but to wait until the case conclusion to file any complaints against the court or attorneys about alleged abuse, misconduct, defamation, libel, and slander because, as they cited:
“It is well settled in Louisiana an action for defamation can not be brought until those proceedings are terminated. See Waguespack v. Judge, LA App 5Cir. 2004 877 So. 2d 1090 (2004); Nolan v. Jefferson Parish Hospital Service District No. 2, LA App 5Cir. 2001, 790 So.2d 725 (2001); Allex v. Naccari & ABC Insurance Company, LA App 4Cir., 657 So. 2d 511 (1995).”
The Court of Appeal of Louisiana, Third Circuit; Paul A. Lemke v Keiser & Auzenne, L.L.C., et al, No. 05-893, held; Accrual of Right of Action or Defense: Most cases cited limitation of actions “During the time that judicial proceedings are pending, the one-year period that applies to the filing of a defamation action for statements made during the proceedings is suspended.”
Libel, Slander, privileged communication and malice therein; “Most cases cited under qualified privilege for statements made during judicial proceedings, a party to litigation is safe from an action for defamation arising out of such statements pending the termination of the underlying litigation; however, any such statements made by them in judicial proceedings must be material and must be made without malice and with probable cause.”