- 20 -
entered in their case is the result of a fraud upon the Court.
We will address each of petitioners' allegations of fraud in
turn.
Petitioners first assert that respondent conducted an
illegal search and seizure in Mr. Kersting's office in January
1981. We note, however, that Mr. Kersting's various challenges
to the legality of the January 1981 search and seizure have been
repeatedly rejected by the U.S. District Court for the District
of Hawaii. See Kersting v. United States, 865 F. Supp. 669, 674-
675 (D. Hawaii 1994). In addition, in Dixon I, the Court
rejected the Kersting test case taxpayers' arguments that the
search of Mr. Kersting's office was illegal, that the materials
seized during the search should be suppressed in the test case
proceedings, and that the burden of proof and burden of going
forward with the evidence should be shifted to respondent.
Specifically, the Court held that the test case taxpayers failed
to establish standing to contest the search and seizure in
question. Although petitioners state that they disagree with the
Court's holding in Dixon I, they also state that they do not
assert that their Fourth Amendment rights were violated. In sum,
we are left with nothing more than a bald assertion that the
Kersting search was illegal. Under the circumstances, we fail to
see how the Kersting search and seizure should be considered as
an element of a fraud perpetrated upon the Court in connection
Page: Previous 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011