NEWPORT-The back-and-forth war of words between the disciplinary counsel's office of the Tennessee Court of the Judiciary and attorneys for Cocke County General Sessions Judge John Bell continues, with both sides jockeying for position in anticipation of a June trial before the full court.

Judge Bell's attorneys had filed a motion for summary judgment, essentially asking that the formal charges filed against Judge Bell be dismissed, on February 2, and that brought a stinging response from Disciplinary Counsel Joseph Daniel's office, which was filed on Monday. Both motions were just made public on Monday.

Also released were more than 500 pages of supporting documentation, including pre-trial depositions of Judge Bell, Newport attorney Tom Testerman, Cocke County resident David Pleau, and Tennessee Bureau of Investigation Agent Scott Lott, along with records of court-approved telephone taps and previously secret records concerning the investigation of the allegations against Judge Bell.

Judge Bell's trial on ethics violations and allegations of potential violations of the law is currently scheduled for June 2, 3, and 4 in Cocke County before a panel of the court of the judiciary.

The central issue in the case revolves around Judge Bell's handling of a civil case in his court beginning in 2007.

According to the complaint against Judge Bell filed on October 13, 2009, the case began on August 9, 2007, when 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 concerning the delay, 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 attorney Testerman to encourage Pleau to drop his complaint.

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 the defense motion for summary judgment, which was filed on February 2, but not made public by the court until Monday, defense attorney Gordon Ball argues that the record in the case "demonstrates that, there is no genuine issue of material fact for trial and that [Bell] is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.

"The undisputed material facts affirmatively negate essential elements of each of the three counts contained in the formal charges and show that disciplinary counsel cannot prove essential elements of each of those counts at trial by clear and convincing evidence as required."

Concerning the nine-month delay before Judge Bell handed down his first decision in the case, attorney Ball's response notes that nothing in the record indicates that the delay was unnecessary or improper.

"The undisputed material facts demonstrate that Judge Bell ultimately and correctly entered a judgment for the defendant insurer...as disciplinary counsel admits Tennessee law requires.

"In other words, while his decision was delayed, Judge Bell followed Tennessee law by dismissing Mr. Pleau's complaint and Merastar has never complained, to this court or to Judge Bell, of any prejudice or other injury," the motion continues. "Plainly, Mr. Pleau suffered no palpable prejudice or injury from Judge Bell's non-merits dismissal of his action, which he re-filed."

The motion alleges that Judge Bell dismissed the first complaint on a legal technicality, which left Pleau free to file another lawsuit in the case without suffering any legal harm. The documents allege that Judge Bell's delay was the result of his 12,133-case workload during those nine months, including 7,621 criminal, 1,926 civil, and 2,576 juvenile cases, described in the material as "the work of two judges;" his serious injuries in an automobile accident caused by a drunk driver, which left him partially disabled for about three months; and the lengthy amount of legal research required in the Pleau case.

The heavy workload left Judge Bell little time to research the legal issues in the case and to make a decision, according to the motion. Ultimately, Judge Bell's rulings in the first lawsuit and what disciplinary counsel has labeled "Pleau II" were the correct ones.

The documents also list 41 previous legal cases in Tennessee in which decisions were delayed by a year or more, contending that such a delay is sometimes necessary if a correct decision is to be reached.

Concerning Testerman's involvement in the case, defense attorneys argue that there was no trade-off, or quid pro quo, involved in those discussions, and the contact was not improper.

"In fact, not only does Mr. Pleau admit that at no time did Mr. Testerman offer him anything of any kind to drop the complaint against Judge Bell, but Mr. Pleau twice asked Mr. Testerman if dropping the charges against Judge Bell would make a difference in how Judge Bell would rule in his lawsuit and both times, Mr. Testerman explicitly said it would not make a difference."

Finally, the 182-page motion for dismissal turns to the testimony of TBI Agent Scott Lott, who led the formal law enforcement investigation in the case.

The agent "unequivocally [stated] that he 'has no knowledge of how Judge Bell may have violated any of the criminal statutes referenced in the formal charges,'" according to the motion.

With "no material facts in dispute," defense attorneys ask Presiding Judge Don Ash to dismiss the charges against Judge Bell.

In an 11-page response to the motion for summary judgment, which Assistant Disciplinary Counsel Patrick J. McHale filed on Monday, the prosecution of the case contends that none of that matters.

McHale's response lists all of the defense's 103 "undisputed facts" and agrees with many of them. But some of the core contentions are still soundly disputed.

Concerning the delay in reaching a decision in the first case, McHale argues that "the issues regarding 'Pleau II' followed the conduct of Judge Bell in his response to the initial complaint of David Pleau and are considered a natural product and continuation of Judge Bell's violations and of the on-going investigation stemming from the handling of the initial matter."

As for whether there was a trade-off implied in Testerman's contacts with Judge Bell, McHale replies that "the question of whether or not there was a quid pro quo is not a fact."

In turn, the prosecution response quotes nearly all of its initial complaint against Judge Bell as its own list of "undisputed facts" and asks Judge Ash not to dismiss the charges.