- 4 -
Petitioners' Exhibit 3 is a tax protester harangue. (More
hereinafter about petitioners' Exhibit 3, for identification.)
The Court, on four separate occasions, invited petitioner to
address the issues contained in the notice of deficiency and Mr.
Langeliers' testimony as a fact witness. In pertinent part, the
four occasions when the Court so instructed petitioner are as
follows:
THE COURT: We don't want to keep this witness on
the stand --
MR. ROUGH: Well --
THE COURT: -- for anything other than his
testimony. His testimony was that he
gave you these checks that are in
evidence now as E,that he made two other
checks to you. I believe he stated the
amounts of the checks or the number of
the check, and he's been unable to
obtain copies of those checks. That is
the direct testimony. And your cross-
examination will be restricted to the
witness' direct testimony.
MR. ROUGH: Okay.
THE COURT: So the questions you are about to ask
him I assume are going to be in regard
to the two checks which he could not
locate.
MR. ROUGH: Okay. Forgive me, for I don't know the
correct words on how to - how to say
this, so I'll just say it in my own
words. Exhibit A [marked for
identification as Exhibit 3] will allow
me to prove that any -- any citizen off
the street would end up agreeing with me
after -- after asking questions and
referring to Exhibit A, that the label
of tax protester attached to me by the
respondent is an incorrect statement.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011