Walter Van Eck and Friedgard Van Eck - Page 8

                                        - 8 -                                         
          (e.g., "Tr. __, lines__.").  For the most part, the subsection              
          contains a mish-mash of facts and arguments that we cannot                  
          separate.  In making our findings of fact, we have considered               
          those portions of the subsection that address respondent's                  
          proposed findings of fact and that set forth specific objections.           
          We have not considered those portions of the subsection that set            
          forth alternative proposed findings of fact.  We have not done so           
          for the following reasons:  Those portions do not comply with the           
          requirements of Rule 151(e)(3) for proposed findings.                       
          Respondent has had no opportunity to respond to those proposals.            
          Petitioners cannot escape their initial failure to make                     
          acceptable proposed findings simply by proposing alternatives to            
          respondent's findings.  We extended petitioners' time to file               
          their answering brief at least three times.  It would be unfair             
          to visit on respondent the additional delay involved in requiring           
          a response.                                                                 
               In arriving at our findings of fact, we have taken into                
          account those facts that have been stipulated, and have accepted            
          certain facts proposed by respondent.  We have examined both the            
          exhibits in evidence and the transcript of the trial, and we have           
          found certain facts based on those examinations.                            
          Burden of Proof                                                             
               Also, before proceeding, we wish to comment on what appears            
          to be petitioners' misunderstanding of the burden of proof.  In             
          their briefs, petitioners repeatedly state or imply that it is              

Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  20  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011