A cesspool of Judicial Corruption

TWENTY-EIGHT bellon takes wateroz to court

Excerpts from the transcript of the TRO hearing (on December 11th and 12th) shed light on Swisher's view of that meeting. Mr. Richardson asked Swisher about his involvement at the Conference:

[Swisher said,] In about October the 1st, 2003, I was invited to attend the board meeting of WaterOz or all the d/b/a subsidiaries or whatever we're talking about there. But in any event, at that board meeting I was present. A friend of mine, Doug Sellers, who is an analytical technician at Northwest Analytical was present. Mr. Bellon was present. Mr. Townsend [Greg Towerton] was present. Mr. Varell Jackson was present. Mr. Lonnie Birmingham stood near the back of the room. There was also a young lady present [Tracy Adams], and I believe Jeri Gray was present also. And also on speaker phone was Roland Hinkson [I was not connected, as explained above] and David Hinkson from the Ada County Jail.

"And what happened at that meeting?" [asked Richardson].

Well, David indicated at that meeting that he wanted me to become involved again at WaterOz. There had been a short period of time when I really was not going out there at all and had discontinued analytical services for them. He wanted me to go out and look the business over in its entirety and try to bring it up to proper standard. . . . he said he would talk with Mr. Bellon and that they both wished me to do this. And he wanted me to know that my old bill would be paid up [There was no unpaid bill–just more of his scam]. And I don't know, maybe I'm volunteering too much.

[Todd Richardson then asked Swisher if he recalled the date].

Yes. That was October 1st of 2003.

[And was there any discussion at that time about who owned WaterOz?]

Yes.
Wes Hoyt objected to the questioning, but Judge Bradbury overruled him and went on to say:
I'm going to accept it, but not for the truth of the matter but for the conversation that occurred. I may later decide your objection is well taken, and if it is being offered for the truth of the matter asserted. I'm taking it that the conversation occurred, and I will accept it in that light.
Richardson then asked Swisher if David had made Bellon an equal partner in WaterOz. Swisher answered, "Yes."

Next question–"When?"

On October 3rd [about two days later] I went to WaterOz to begin my inspective tour and to make suggestions [and] recommendations, on how the product could be improved and also the working conditions; some of which were quite deplorable. I announced myself when I arrived. I did not know the secretary (Cindy Acheson). I announced who I was and that I was there to see the manager, Mr. Townsend [Towerton]. And I was met rather abruptly. I was told, "I know who you are–wait here!" And so I did. And presently after some period of time Mr. Townsend accompanied by Mr. Jackson came down, took me into a separate room.

And at some point in that meeting, Richardson asked, "did you have a discussion with David Hinkson?"

[Swisher said,] At the close of that meeting in the room with the shut doors and all that, and after the–what I would call interrogation–David Hinkson called on the phone, and Mr. Townsend answered the phone or was called to the phone and was talking to him. And, of course, I was right there; and I immediately asked if that was David on the phone, and he replied, "Yes."

I said, well, I want to talk to him. And so he talked to David a few more minutes. The phone was handed to me then, and I asked David at that point–because something was wrong here–I asked him again if I was to follow through on as he and Mr. Bellon had suggested. He said, "Yes."

And I said, Now there seems to be a problem here because Mr. Townsend and Mr. Jackson don't seem to think that you're partners. Are you really partners, David, with Richard Bellon?

And he said, "Yes, I am, Joe."

And I said, would you repeat that, please, to Mr. Townsend.

And he said, "Yes, I will."

And he said, "You're not to have any interference out there" [All parties agree, except for Swisher, that no such conversation took place].

So I handed the phone back to Mr. Townsend. They talked for a few minutes, and then Mr. Townsend got on one side of me and Mr. Jackson on the other, and they proceeded to walk through the plant with me. I did not have free reign by any means, and we got into an area that was–had horrible–very bad employee conditions, and I'm surprised some employee hadn't been sent to the hospital before now. And I suggested changes and modifications....

Richardson then asked Swisher, "Did you discuss this partnership issue in the later conversation?"

Three times I've heard him say that; yes, that is correct.

"And so Mr. Hinkson said he was partners with Mr. Bellon?"

Yes, he did. On three occasions.

"Did you discuss which entity they were partners in?"

Yes.

"Did you discuss WaterOz Club?"

We discussed WaterOz and WaterOz Club.

"And you understand there's a difference between the two? Richardson asked.

Yes.
Although Swisher denied that he had any financial interest in working with Bellon in the Takeover, he joined the parties at WaterOz who were there to seize command. He had testified in earlier grand jury hearings and could now jeopardize his VA claims. Besides, he was determined to see that David goes to prison for not giving in to his extortion demands.

Mr. Hoyt then asked Swisher: "Are you aware of anything about the company known as Compania Norteno DeToreno?"

"I'm sorry," Swisher responded.

Judge Bradbury interjected a clarifying question: "Do you know anything about the Belize Company? [Legal ownership of WaterOz was vested in an International Business Corporation (IBC) called WaterOz]"

"Very little. I just heard David remark on it, on occasion."

Judge Bradbury asked Swisher to explain the difference between WaterOz and WaterOz Club?

"Well," Swisher said, "my understanding from David–Your Honor–was that he wanted Mr. Bellon to be a full partner in not just WaterOz but in a new WaterOz Club that they were going to form. He was talking about international involvements–at least that's what he told me when I talked to him directly on the phone following the October 3rd meeting."

At the subsequent December 11th Hearing of the TRO Judge Bradbury said:
I understood Mr. Groom was writing a draft for my review. And there was no evidence that he [David] reviewed that draft and expressed an intention that satisfies me that he meant for it to be a final contract. There were a couple of ways that that could have been done. If he had it, he could have signed it and sent it on–sent it back. He didn't do that.

And I read that contract, and–you know, I had a terrible cold when I made my findings, but I want to make sure you understand where I was coming from. I read that contract; as it is final, and assume for the moment that it is final, I read that contract as saying that he is going to put Mr. Bellon on the board of directors. That's much different than a partnership–part of management. But that the agreement–the partnership has to do with the WaterOz Club, which is going to do marketing.

There were two things in which Mr. Bellon was involved–three things actually which Mr. Bellon– two things in which he was involved, and a third which he was to become involved. The first was his legal research for Mr. Hinkson for which he got paid $157,000. The second was Harp [HARPP]. Harp, as I understood it, was holding seminars about how people should deal with the Internal Revenue Service. And what I understand this agreement was for was to set up the WaterOz Club. And I understand that, and it–the–meaning is at least apparent to me that what that meant was that any water that Mr. Bellon sold through the WaterOz Club he would get half of it. That is a far different thing than being a partner in WaterOz itself when there was no capital contribution, no assumption of liability and no discernible basis for Mr. Hinkson to give away half of his assets. But it also shows that there was a specific allegation that Mr. Bellon was going to be a fifty percent owner in the physical assets of WaterOz, and he didn't agree.

Even if it does–I am assuming that it's a legal contract. Even if it's a legal contract I think that the only way you can read it and have it make sense is to read it that he was going to get 0 percent in the WaterOz Club, which meant that he would get fifty percent of the income from the water that was sold through that Club.

Judge Bradbury said:
I know, and it contradicts the earlier part. And I–frankly, that's why I think it was a draft. I don't think it could be a final document and have those inconsistencies in it, and that's the reason that I think it was a draft instead of a final agreement. It can't be that inherently contradictory and have been intended to be a final document. Not when you have one person in a lawyer's office, another guy in jail with the three-minute increments and a fifteen minute maximum. That is not an operative bargaining power [The fact is that David was allowed to call in fifteen minute increments].
Judge Bradbury explained to Bellon's attorney, Mr. Todd Richardson:
It is for the Court to consider if there's a question of whether or not there was a contract in the first instance. For there to be a contract, Mr. Richardson, there–I'm going back to first year contracts. There has to be a meeting of the minds for "consideration," and I found there was not a meeting of the minds that Mr. Bellon and Mr. Hinkson would be partners in the WaterOz Company itself. I think it's problematic. I mean, I'm talking in terms of just in the context of a preliminary injunction hearing.

And I–when I look at all the facts–let me just tell you, because I was not feeling well that Friday, and let me–so you will know where I'm coming from, and it's important that you know, and it's important that you have a record to take up if you want to. Mr. Bellon had been paid $157,000 for legal research. If I believe Mr. Hinkson–which I tend to do–Mr. Bellon was threatening to testify against him in the criminal proceeding, and had gotten his pay up from $1,500 to $1,800 and then from $1,800 up to $2,500 [while] Mr. Hinkson was in jail.

Mr. Bellon was in the lawyer's office, and you had a company that was making between $15,000 and $30,000 a week. You have–Mr. Bellon has some business experience. He ran a body–paint and body shop. But the evidence was, and he didn't contradict it, that he appropriated two books that were written by somebody else and printed them under his own name. Mr. Hinkson testified that he did not know that Mr. Bellon was not a lawyer or that he had a record as a felon. And I look at the relative positions of these two parties at that time, and I look at the Company that was generating the amount of income that this Company is generating, and I see absolutely no consideration for the deal. And I see a contract that only provides for a partnership in WaterOz Club. I do not think that by the preponderance of the evidence you indicated that it was more likely than not to prevail at trial. And you're entitled to put on all that evidence at trial. You're entitled to do that.

Mr. Richardson, Judge Bradbury said, The testimony from the people at WaterOz was that they only saw him [Bellon] once or twice there, and it was a walk through–and I believe it. . . there was no reason for me not to believe that.

Mr. Richardson, . . . You're a passionate advocate, and I admire that. But frankly, I do not believe from all the evidence, that Mr. Bellon was made a partner in the WaterOz Company.

I think he contemplated if the contract were complete and final that he would be a partner in WaterOz Club. . . . Mr. Hinkson to be talking about his dictation of a partnership agreement, he was identifying the document. I don't think he was describing it to be a final document. I mean, if I dictate a partnership agreement and I tell my secretary to go get the partnership agreement, that doesn't mean that it's a partnership agreement. It means, that's the document I want. And that's the context in which I interpreted Mr. Hinkson.

I have–I have to decide when there's conflicting evidence who to believe, and it just–given the disparity and bargaining power–lacks of any consideration, and the amount of money that was generated. I cannot believe that there was a mutual assent based on the evidence before me that Mr. Bellon with no consideration would obtain fifty percent of a company that generates $15,000 to $35,000 a week. I just don't believe it.
Bellon stretched again for the golden ring. This time he sued Judge Bradbury, me (Roland Hinkson) and Wes Hoyt. The following article, written by Jodi Walker of the Lewiston Morning Tribune appeared on November 05, 2004; it said:

A federal judge [Judge E. Lynn Winmill] has dismissed a civil suit against Judge John Bradbury, ruling the federal court doesn't have jurisdiction in cases challenging state court decisions and that Bradbury has judicial immunity.

The suit, filed by Richard Bellon of Kooskia, accused Bradbury, the district judge based at Grangeville, of acting blatantly in favor of Bellon's former business partner, David Hinkson, in a civil suit in Idaho County.

Bellon claims to have been Hinkson's business partner in WaterOz, a mineral water bottling company in Idaho County. Bellon claims Bradbury may have received campaign contributions or other monetary compensation for ruling in Hinkson's favor.

He claims Bradbury permitted irrelevant testimony, erroneously overruled objections, allowed witnesses without proper notice, asked Bellon questions outside the scope of the case and, in general, acted prejudicially. Bellon also disagrees with Bradbury's refusal to recuse himself in the case. Bellon was seeking $500,000 in damages.

The case against Bradbury was filed earlier this year along with another civil case against Hinkson's father, Roland Hinkson, as well as Hinkson's attorney, Wesley Hoyt, and several employees of WaterOz.

Bellon claims those named in the suit collaborated to keep him from his [claimed] interest in the company. He is asking for $17 million in that suit. . . . [David] Hinkson remains in jail awaiting a January trial date on 11 charges related to his alleged attempt to hire hit men to kill people involved in investigating and prosecuting him.
Now, how do you think Richard Bellon would testify at David's Trial? Also, how would the FED favorite testify? But is will a jury buy her testimony?