Exercising his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination, Cocke County General Sessions Judge John Bell has refused to answer the allegations filed against him in October in the Tennessee Court of the Judiciary.

Judge Bell also cited confidential attorney/client privilege as his reason for not answering charges relating to allegations that the judge used Newport attorney Tom Testerman in an attempt to prevent a judicial complaint from being pursued against him.

Just short of 13 months after reaching a settlement in one complaint filed against him in the court of the judiciary, Judge Bell was named in a second, three-count "notice of formal charges" filed on October 13. His response to the complaint was filed Monday morning by Bell's defense attorney, Gordon Ball.

The first complaint involved the system of misdemeanor probation set up by Judge Bell in general sessions court. The latest complaint alleges ethical and legal violations in connection with Bell's handling of a civil case.

In the formal charges against Judge Bell, Disciplinary Counsel Joseph S. Daniel alleges "multiple violations of law, Tennessee statutes, and the code of judicial conduct" against Judge Bell. Daniel's complaint was filed "following a full investigation" by a three-judge investigative panel which instructed Daniel to file the formal complaint in Nashville.

The three judges who investigated the case are Christy R. Little, David M. Cook, and Kathy McMahan. The panel found that Judge Bell "has committed and continues to commit judicial offenses" which are detailed in the panel's notice of formal charges.

Judge Bell's response states that, because the formal complaint includes several allegations of criminal offenses, he has been advised by his attorney against making any statement concerning the charges. He also objects to the charges as being insufficient to support any allegation of violations of judicial ethics and standards of conduct.

"The formal charges filed against Judge Bell charge him, among other things, with 'obstructing justice and governmental administration,' 'obstructing and interfering with evidence or witnesses and witness tampering,' and engaging in a conspiracy to subvert justice and the operation of the statutory court of the judiciary," according to Judge Bell's response to the allegations.

"Specifically, the formal charges allege that Judge Bell is guilty of Class C, D, and E felonies, as set forth in...the witness tampering statute and...the official misconduct statute," the response continues. "Based upon these allegations and charges of criminal offenses, Judge Bell has been advised by counsel to assert and invoke, and hereby does respectfully assert and invoke, his privilege against self-incrimination guaranteed by the Fifth Amendment of the United States Constitution and under Article I, Section 9 of the Tennessee Constitution, and therefore, Judge Bell must respectfully refuse to answer the formal charges made against him."

In his detailed responses to the court of the judiciary's requests for information and documents relating to the case, Judge Bell invokes his Fifth Amendment rights 45 times. Those responses range from specific requests directly relating to the charges to more mundane requests such as the court's request for Judge Bell's date of election to the general sessions court bench, details of absences from the bench because of his military service, and a list of seminars and judicial education conferences he has attended.

The complaint filed by Daniel this month focuses on the way a civil court complaint involving an automobile accident was handled by Judge Bell.

According to the 11-page complaint filed by Daniel before the court of the judiciary in Nashville, the allegations against Judge Bell include "obstruction of justice and governmental administration," "obstruction or interference with evidence or witnesses and witness tampering," and "coercion and bribery of a witness" in the civil case.

"The conduct moreover evidences a clear effort to engage in a conspiracy to subvert justice and the operation of the statutory court of the judiciary as well as the just and proper administration of the judicial system," Daniel alleges in the  complaint.

According to Daniel's complaint, the case began on August 9, 2007, when David J. Pleau, of Scotch Pine Way, Bybee, filed a civil case in Cocke County General Sessions Court against Merastar Insurance Company. Merastar was the insurance carrier which issued the uninsured motorist coverage on Pleau's vehicle.

The vehicle had reportedly been involved in a collision with another vehicle driven by Jo Ann Coleman apparently on December 29, 2006, although the civil complaint also lists the date of the accident as December 29, 2007.

Judge Bell heard the case on September 18, 2007, taking it under advisement and announcing that he would make his decision within a week. The decisive issue in the case was a Tennessee law which requires that lawsuits in such cases first be filed against the uninsured motorist rather than against an insurance carrier.

The attorney who represented the insurance company asked the court to dismiss the complaint because Pleau was suing his own insurance carrier rather than first filing a complaint against the driver of the other vehicle involved in the mishap.

Although Judge Bell announced in court that he would render his decision in one week, "no such decision was made," Daniel's complaint alleges. "Subsequent to that 'one week,' Mr. Pleau on more than one occasion asked Judge Bell directly to rule upon the case and was assured by Judge Bell that the decision would be immediately forthcoming."

Instead, on June 27, 2008, about "nine months after the presentation of the proof and the clear mandate of the law requiring a dismissal of the complaint," Judge Bell entered a judgment in favor of the insurance company.

But none of the parties involved in the case received a copy of Judge Bell's decision until after all time for filing an appeal of the decision had expired, according to Daniel's complaint.

In his judgment against Pleau, Judge Bell "makes findings of facts as to the cause of the underlying automobile collision and the related damages," according to the complaint. "These findings demonstrate Judge John A. Bell's opinion as to the responsibility for or the cause of the accident as well as the amount of damages and ascribed the negligent conduct to the driver of the 'other vehicle.'"

Judge Bell's decisions in the case are alleged to be in violation of canons of judicial ethics which require judges to dispose of all cases promptly, efficiently, and fairly; to "respect and comply with the law and act at all times in a manner that promotes public confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the judiciary"; and not to be "swayed by partisan interest, public clamor, or fear of criticism."

After Judge Bell's decision in the civil lawsuit, Pleau filed a complaint with the court of the judiciary in Nashville concerning "the untimely resolution of this matter."

Although Judge Bell filed a response denying that he had failed to comply with any of the canons of judicial ethics, "when it became obvious that the judgment in question had never been forwarded to any of the parties as required by law," he summoned those on both sides of the lawsuit to his office on December 23, 2008, to discuss the matter.

Daniel alleges that "Judge Bell thereupon entered an order which vacated the previous dismissal and encouraged Mr. Pleau to file a new action against the other driver."

Pleau then filed a complaint against Coleman which Judge Bell heard in general sessions court on April 27, 2009.

As a result of that hearing, Judge Bell "rendered a decision in favor of Mr. Pleau and against Jo Ann Coleman and Merastar Insurance Company which recited identical findings of facts and conclusions of law as to the allocation [of] fault and amount of damages as had previously been determined by Judge Bell," Daniel alleges in the complaint, adding that the judge found Coleman 100 percent at fault and assessed a $4,726.78 judgment against her.

"It is alleged that John Bell was prejudiced against Jo Ann Coleman in the hearing of this matter [because] he had previously expressed an opinion on the responsibility and damages in this exact controversy," the complaint continues.

Daniel's complaint alleges that in January or early February of this year, "Judge Bell initiated and...directed a scheme designed to influence Mr. Pleau to dismiss his complaint in the court of the judiciary."

The complaint claims that Judge Bell enlisted attorney Testerman "to approach Mr. Pleau on behalf of Judge Bell in a direct and unequivocal effort to induce Mr. Pleau to cease the pursuit of his complaint in the court of the judiciary."

Testerman is alleged to have acted on behalf of Judge Bell as a result of a meeting in the hallway of the Cocke County Courthouse last February 2. Testerman is not accused in Daniel's complaint of any wrongdoing or violations of legal ethics.

"Judge Bell respectfully asserts and invokes the attorney/client privilege as to any communications with his counsel, including attorney Tom Testerman of the Cocke County bar," Judge Bell responded to the complaint.

The judge also asks in his response that the charges against him be dismissed because judges may not be prosecuted for following state law in rendering their decisions in cases. It also claims that disciplinary counsel cites no offense for which Judge Bell could be disciplined.

"The formal charges fail to state a judicial offense for which Judge Bell might be disciplined under the Tennessee Code of Judicial Conduct or the Tennessee Code," the response contends.

Judge Bell also responded that the court of the judiciary cannot accuse him of "alleged judicial offenses for which he merely followed or adhered to Tennessee law, including case law, statutory law, rules, regulations, and judicial ethics opinions.

"To the extent any of the formal charges are based on privileged or confidential statements or communications made by or documents provided by Judge Bell's counsel, such formal charges should be dismissed," the response concludes. "Judge Bell demands that the formal charges issued against him by disciplinary counsel be dismissed."