Leslie R. Barth - Page 14

                                                - 14 -                                                  
            with Field about his testimony in this case.  The Court advised                             
            petitioner that he could move to set aside the defaults                                     
            previously declared and that cooperation with respect to the                                
            second stipulation of facts and his testimony might help him in                             
            that regard.  Petitioner then indicated that most of the items                              
            set forth in the second stipulation of facts were agreeable.  At                            
            no time during his testimony, however, did petitioner show any                              
            error or suggest any specific error in respondent's determination                           
            with respect to the deficiencies.                                                           
                  On April 5, 1995, the case was submitted.  Petitioner was                             
            advised that he had until May 5, 1995, to make any motions to be                            
            relieved of his prior defaults, to vacate admissions, or to                                 
            strike any exhibits to which a valid evidentiary objection could                            
            be made.  The Court stated:                                                                 

                  you must include a detailed offer of proof, including                                 
                  copies of any documents that you would offer in                                       
                  evidence such as transcripts of prior testimony and a                                 
                  summary of the anticipated testimony that you or any                                  
                  other witness could give at any further trial if the                                  
                  record were reopened.                                                                 
                        You're certainly going to have to show good cause,                              
                  and I frankly doubt it, because on the basis of the                                   
                  history so far, I've drawn the inference that you had                                 
                  never any intention to prosecute this case, but only to                               
                  delay it.  But if you--I do have to consider any such                                 
                  motions with regard to the interest of justice, and                                   
                  you're obviously going to have to offset any prejudice                                
                  to the Court, to Respondent and to Mrs. Barth from the                                
                  delays and from not resolving it at that point.                                       

Page:  Previous  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  20  21  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011