- 64 -
naming Gordon and Hack as attorneys for Davenport in his capacity
as TMP, submitted a protest in the Davenport Recycling case
identifying himself as the TMP, and in informal discussions with
respondent's agents held himself out as the TMP of Davenport.
Furthermore, the Modification did reinstate Winer as TMP, albeit
with restrictions on the scope of his authority.
On the basis of our review of the evidence, we find that
participants' allegations of fraud on the Court are groundless.
Participants have failed to show that Hamilton and Hayes had
actual or imputed knowledge of the content of the Permanent
Injunction and Modification either before or during the Davenport
Recycling litigation. Hamilton and Hayes both filed detailed
affidavits with this Court stating that they had no knowledge of
the "Winer TMP" issue prior to May 24, 1994, the date the
decision in this case became final. We have no reason to
disbelieve their assertions that they did not know about the
existence of the Permanent Injunction and Modification until the
spring of 1995 when a petition was filed in a Plastics Recycling
TEFRA penalties case captioned David E. and Jean H. Kohn v.
Commissioner, docket No. 5390-95.
On the basis of this record, we hold that respondent did not
commit fraud on the Court. There is no evidence that Hamilton
and Hayes had any involvement in the Winer section 7408
injunction proceeding. The letter authorizing the DOJ to seek
injunctive action against Winer under section 7408 originated in
Page: Previous 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011