- 172 -
The circumstances on which petitioner relies in support of
his position for the creation of a presumption under rule 301 of
the Federal Rules of Evidence include his allegations that
(1) Horbury was organized in the Netherlands in 1982 at the
direction of S.C. Gaw, petitioner's father; (2) San Francisco
counsel was employed by S.C. Gaw for that purpose; (3) Horbury
was a third-tier subsidiary of Pioneer; (4) the Horbury loan to
BOT was made before S.C. Gaw's death in October 1983; (5) peti-
tioner was not responsible for the Horbury loan; (6) petitioner
did not handle Horbury's day-to-day accounting; (7) petitioner
did not know what happened to the interest at issue after BOT
paid it to Horbury; (8) petitioner furnished respondent with all
records concerning Horbury and the Horbury loan that were within
his possession, custody, and control; and (9) Horbury was liqui-
dated in 1986 or 1987.
We note first that we are not willing to accept as facts
most of the foregoing allegations relied on by petitioner.127
This is because most of them are based wholly on petitioner's
testimony that we found to be vague, conclusory, or evasive on
those points. Moreover, based on our observation of his demeanor
at trial, we generally did not find him to be credible.128
127 The only such allegations that are established by reliable
evidence in the record are that Horbury was organized in the
Netherlands in 1982 and that it was a third-tier subsidiary of
Pioneer.
128 Petitioner claimed at trial that even though (1) Horbury was
(continued...)
Page: Previous 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011