- 11 -
On May 5, 1994, petitioners filed a frivolous Motion To
Dismiss. This motion is 23 pages in length and, as are most of
petitioners' filings, replete with tax protester arguments.
Also on May 5, 1994, petitioners retained an attorney to
represent them in this case. Petitioners' counsel subsequently
informed respondent's counsel that he would be requesting a
continuance because he did not have enough time to fully prepare
the case before the May 23, 1994, trial date.
Petitioners filed their Motion For Continuance on May 11,
1994. Petitioners represented that "Counsel for Petitioners
believes that a realistic prospect of settlement exists if the
continuance is granted, thereby potentially obviating the need
for any trial". Based on the representations of petitioners'
counsel, respondent's counsel did not object to the continuance.
Respondent's counsel, however, did inform petitioners' counsel
that if there were no progress on the case by mid-July,
respondent's counsel would file a motion for summary judgment
relying on the requested admissions that had been deemed
admitted.
On May 18, 1994, petitioners sent respondent their responses
to respondent's Request for Admissions. Petitioners also
attempted to file those responses with the Court. The document
was not filed by the Court and was returned to petitioners as
untimely. Petitioners did not at this time seek to be relieved
of the deemed admissions. The Court's transmittal letter
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011