- 2 -
dismiss and default petitioner and the Court’s January 8, 1999,
order to petitioner to show cause why he should not be dismissed
and/or defaulted and a decision entered against him.
Discussion
Respondent’s answer in this case contains allegations that
petitioner’s failure to report the income determined was
fraudulent, and petitioner, in his reply, generally denied
respondent’s affirmative allegations. After continuances from
two settings for trial, this case was again set for trial on the
December 7, 1998, San Francisco, California, trial session.
Prior to trial, respondent presented petitioner with a
proposed stipulation of facts, and, after petitioner failed to
respond, respondent filed a motion under Rule 91(f) to compel
petitioner to stipulate or, upon his failure, to cause the
proposed factual stipulations to be deemed established. In our
order dated October 29, 1998, we found that the proposed
stipulations were deemed established and that petitioner’s
"response [refused] broadly to stipulate, was evasive and not
fairly directed to the proposed stipulations."
Petitioner then moved for a continuance from the December 7,
1998, trial session because he was then in Italy, did not want to
travel, was financially unable to pursue this matter, and because
the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) had documents or files
that petitioner was not able to obtain from it. Petitioner,
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011