Complying with a November 30 order from the Tennessee Court of the Judiciary, Cocke County General Sessions Judge John Bell filed an amended answer Friday in which he denies all of the allegations contained in a formal complaint against him.

In the amended answer, filed by defense attorney Gordon Ball on Friday, Judge Bell also contends that he is the victim of "selective prosecution" in the complaint, which focuses on his handling of a civil case which began in 2007. The complaint alleges violations of judicial ethics as well as the potential for criminal violations.

"Equal protection guaranteed by the state and federal constitutions requires that all formal charges should be dismissed to the extent such charges are the selective prosecution of actions and/or inactions by Judge Bell that are consistent with the conduct of other judges in Tennessee who have not been investigated or charged," the answer reads.

Case begins

According to the complaint against Judge Bell filed on October 13 by Disciplinary Counsel Joseph S. Daniel, 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 a 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.

After promising a decision within a week, Judge Bell is alleged to have taken about nine months to hand down a decision against Pleau. But, after Pleau filed a complaint with the court of the judiciary, Judge Bell reversed his initial decision and handed down a second opinion in favor of Pleau.

Daniel's complaint alleges that Judge Bell's reversal of his initial ruling in the case was in an effort to stop Pleau from pursuing his complaint against the judge. Judge Bell is also accused of recruiting Newport attorney Tom Testerman to encourage Pleau to drop his complaint.

Alleged violation

Judge Bell's handling of the case is 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."

In his first response to the formal charges, Judge Bell chose to exercise his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination, citing the potential for criminal charges to be filed against him in the matter. He asserted that right 45 times.

But Assistant Disciplinary Counsel Patrick J. McHale obtained an order from Presiding Judge Don R. Ash on November 30 which required Judge Bell to answer at least the most basic questions submitted by Daniel in his initial request.

McHale's most recent motion contends that self-incrimination cannot be claimed as it relates to questions such as the judge's name, the date of his election to the sessions court bench, and any ethics seminars he may have attended.

"None of the aforementioned requests can, reasonably or plausibly, be such as to potentially cause consequences such that a self-incrimination claim is properly made," Daniel argues.

Amended answer

In his amended answer, Judge Bell continues to exercise his right against self-incrimination, but does answer many of Daniel's questions. He also denies all of the allegations in the complaint against him.

Concerning one specific allegation, Judge Bell denies that he consulted with attorney Testerman in the hallway of the Cocke County Courthouse and asked him to speak with Pleau.

But according to the initial complaint in the case, when Testerman was interviewed by representatives of the court of the judiciary, he "indicated that he had a meeting with Judge Bell in the hallway of the courthouse sometime before...Monday, February 2, [2009] and that he thereafter called Mr. Pleau in an effort to determine if Mr. Pleau was still interested in pursuing his complaint."

Judge Bell further states that he has no personal knowledge of any of the conversations between Testerman and Pleau.

Seeks charges dismissed

The judge's amended answer also asks that the charges against him be dismissed because the court of the judiciary may not accuse the judge  of "judicial offenses for which he merely followed or adhered to Tennessee law, including case law, statutory law, rules, regulations, and judicial ethics opinions, as well as the instructions and suggestions of representatives with the court of the judiciary disciplinary office."

The amended answer also asks that "all formal charges be dismissed to the extent such charges are based upon information wrongfully obtained by disciplinary counsel or representatives with the court of the judiciary disciplinary office."

The document also stresses that Judge Bell intends to assert his right against self-incrimination based on the possibility of criminal charges being filed in the case.

"A Tennessee Bureau of Investigation spokesman previously confirmed that it is (or was) looking into these allegations," according to the amended answer. "Based upon these allegations, and possible charges of criminal offenses, Judge Bell has been advised by counsel to 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."

Now that Judge Bell's amended answer has been filed, the court of the judiciary is expected to set a trial in the case in Cocke County within 60 days.