- 46 -                                         
          TMP.  Hayes also requested that any Jacksonville attorney who had           
          worked on the Winer cases contact Hamilton.                                 
               In response to Hayes' memorandum, on August 3, 1995, Levine            
          faxed Hamilton copies of:  (1) The Final Judgment of Permanent              
          Injunction; (2) Winer's affidavit and Fieldstone's accompanying             
          cover letter; (3) the Joint Motion for an Order Granting Specific           
          Relief from Final Judgment of Permanent Injunction; (4) the                 
          Memorandum in Support of Joint Motion; (5) the Order Granting               
          Specific Relief; and (6) a February 6, 1995, letter from James A.           
          Strickland, C.P.A.  The facsimile transmission memorandum and               
          Strickland letter indicated that the documents from the Winer               
          section 7408 injunction proceeding had been submitted to the IRS            
          Problem Resolution Office in Jacksonville, Florida, in February             
          1995.  Before Hamilton's receipt of these documents in August               
          1995, the Boston Office of District Counsel was unaware that in             
          response to the joint motion, the District Court initially had              
          removed Winer as TMP of Davenport in February 1986 and then                 
          purportedly reinstated him as TMP "for the purpose of providing             
          administrative services" in September 1986.                                 
                                     Discussion                                       
               We must decide whether grounds exist in this case to grant             
          participants' motion under Rules 161 and 162 for special leave to           
          file a motion to reconsider or vacate what is otherwise a final             
          decision of this Court.  Participants argue that their motion               
Page:  Previous   36   37   38   39   40   41   42   43   44   45   46   47   48   49   50   51   52   53   54   55   NextLast modified: May 25, 2011