- 42 -
On March 25, 1993, the Court set this case for an oral
status report at the Motions Session of the Court in Washington,
D.C., on June 23, 1993. At that hearing on June 23, 1993,
Tupitza informed the Court:
The bonds that we are talking about are bonds
that, in our position, were stolen twice. They were
stolen first by the housekeeper and taken out to
California, and then, when they were recovered, the
attorney and his accountant investigator stole them a
second time. We litigated with that attorney all the
way to the Pennsylvania Supreme Court. He has been
disbarred for not returning this money.10 He has
disappeared.11 I have no idea where the man is. He
filed for bankruptcy at one point and sought to
discharge this in bankruptcy, and then that bankruptcy
was dismissed.
Our position, at some point, is going to be that
this is a theft loss to the estate, and that is
probably going to be the narrow issue that we are going
to be left with out of hundreds of other issues that we
started with.
There is no credible evidence in this record to justify
petitioner's assertion of theft by Lynch and/or Reardon. We
regard the claim as made out of whole cloth. Whether from bias
toward Lynch or from determined obfuscation to reduce the
estate's tax liability, petitioner had tried, albeit
unsuccessfully, to make its evidence fit a Procrustean bed in its
effort to establish a theft loss. To support its allegation that
10 Lynch has never been disbarred from the practice of law
by any jurisdiction.
11 Lynch never "disappeared" or made himself unavailable
to petitioner. In fact, he was subpoenaed by petitioner and
testified at trial.
Page: Previous 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011