- 21 -
even suggest that a requirement of written authorization to
settle existed, either in their post-March 11 letters to Mr.
McCarthy challenging his authority to settle, in Mr. Wolfe’s
affidavit, or in their voluminous submissions to the Court
disavowing the settlement. Finally, in at least one other
instance Mr. Wolfe submitted a misleading document to the Court;
namely, the June 4 response to respondent’s Motion for Entry of
Decisions on which, as Mr. Wolfe later admitted, he signed his
then-estranged wife’s name, without her knowledge, at a time when
they were engaged in a dispute over the appropriate course of
action in this proceeding. Moreover, on this document Mr. Wolfe
omitted the “(by POA)” designation he had placed next to Mrs.
Wolfe’s purported signature on a previous submission, after
having been specifically advised by the Court that such a
designation would result in a document’s being disregarded with
respect to his wife. Given Mr. Wolfe’s demonstrated willingness
to proffer misleading documents and the other factors discussed
above, we are not persuaded that the January 20, 2003, letter
offered into evidence by Mr. Wolfe was ever sent to Mr. McCarthy.
Based on the evidence adduced at the hearing and the entire
record in these cases, we reject Mr. Wolfe’s testimony and
arguments, and conclude that Mr. Wolfe and Mrs. Wolfe (for
herself and as the representative of WFO) authorized Mr. McCarthy
to sign the stipulation of settled issues and settle these cases.
Page: Previous 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011