- 190 -
In a response to respondent's motion, Mr. Sticht alleged
(and the record now shows) that Mr. Sticht's clients received
unsolicited phone calls and written communications from
Mr. Kersting and from Joseph A. Peterman (Mr. Peterman), a
Kersting program participant and nontest case petitioner,84
throughout these proceedings encouraging them to ask Mr. Sticht
to cooperate and otherwise present a unified case with the test
case and nontest case petitioners represented by Messrs. Izen and
Jones, promising financial assistance in the form of
disbursements from a "legal defense fund" in exchange for such
cooperation, and ridiculing Mr. Sticht's representation of his
clients.85
On January 30, 1997, the Court issued an order denying
respondent's motion. Although the Court expressed concern over
Mr. Sticht's allegations, the Court was not persuaded that the
activities in question satisfied the legal definition of witness
intimidation. See, e.g., Griffith v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo.
84 Mr. Peterman currently has eight cases docketed with
the Court all of which appear to involve Kersting adjustments:
docket Nos. 1676-84, 36324-85, 19467-86, 23493-90, 12628-91,
7155-92, 15005-93, and 3029-94. Mr. Peterman executed piggyback
agreements in the first five dockets listed above.
85 Mr. Kersting's various letters to Mr. Sticht's clients
are included within the exhibits associated with the parties'
fourth supplemental stipulations of facts, filed Nov. 27, 1996.
On Aug. 11 and Aug. 18, 1997, Mr. Sticht filed a Status
Report and a First Supplemental Status Report, respectively,
attaching thereto copies of letters, some of which contain
obscene and inflammatory statements, that Mr. Peterman had sent
to Mr. Sticht and his clients.
Page: Previous 180 181 182 183 184 185 186 187 188 189 190 191 192 193 194 195 196 197 198 199 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011