Glen L. Wittstadt, Jr. and Lynne M. Wittstadt - Page 6

                                        - 6 -                                          
                    I have had conversations with the assistant                        
               attorney general of the State of Maryland concerning                    
               what their testimony and official records would be.                     
               They indicate to me merely that there is disputed facts                 
               to the extent that their records do not coincide with                   
               allegations of fact that Mr. Wittstadt has made.                        
                    And, therefore, I think, ultimately if Mr.                         
               Wittstadt would waive his disclosure privilege with the                 
               State of Maryland, the State would be able to provide                   
               an affidavit that would show that material facts are in                 
               dispute in this case.                                                   
               The Court agreed to continue petitioners' motion for summary            
          judgment for further hearing.  In agreeing to do so, the Court               
          stated, in part, as follows:                                                 
                    What the Court would expect is that, to the extent                 
               possible, the parties would stipulate or agree to facts                 
               not reasonably in dispute, and indicate so you can                      
               highlight to the Court what facts are left in dispute,                  
               and whether or not to support -- Respondent seems to be                 
               saying that he believes that summary judgment is not                    
               appropriate here because there may be a dispute on                      
               facts.  But it would be certainly helpful to have a                     
               record in which the Court can decide that by                            
               On April 20, 1994, a further hearing was conducted in                   
          Washington, D.C., on petitioners' motion for summary judgment.5              
          However, contrary to the Court's directive expressed at the prior            
          hearing, no executed stipulations were filed by the parties.  In             
          this regard, respondent's counsel acknowledged that information              
          had been obtained from the Maryland State Retirement Agency;                 
          respondent's counsel stated that he had prepared stipulations of             

               5    We note that at no time did respondent ever file any               
          cross-motion for summary judgment.  As will be discussed infra in            
          the text above, respondent thought that there were factual issues            
          in dispute.                                                                  

Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  20  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011