- 22 -
be a fraud upon the court." Toscano v. Commissioner, 441
F.2d at 933, quoting 7 J. Moore, Federal Practice, par.
60.33 (2d ed. 1970). To prove such fraud, petitioners must
show that an intentional plan of deception designed to
improperly influence the Court in its decision has had such
an effect on the Court. * * *
The Court must examine all of the evidence in light of the
foregoing definition to determine whether the record establishes
fraud on the Court.
The first consideration is Mr. Young's purported
representation of all petitioners in the original joint petition.
The practice of a few attorneys, or even one attorney,
representing a large group of investors who were engaged in a
single transaction is commonplace and is not by its nature a
cause for suspicion. Also, it is not unusual in such
circumstances for such attorney or attorneys to have direct
contact with only a few, or even one, of the investors appointed
to represent the others. The practice of such attorney or
attorneys maintaining continuous and direct contact with each
individual investor could prove to be impractical,
overburdensome, and could cause severe delays in the litigation
of a case.
Next, it is necessary to consider Mr. Dornbrock's
authorization of Mr. Young to represent Mr. and Mrs. Dornbrock in
this case. Mr. Young testified that he would not have included
an individual's name on the original joint petition unless he had
received from the individual a consent form and a copy of their
Page: Previous 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011