- 10 -
(c) whether petitioners intend to retain a
new attorney.
The order further states as follows:
The Court calls petitioners' attention to
the Standing Pre-Trial Order dated December 18,
1997, especially to the following policy of the
Court:
Continuances will be granted only in
exceptional circumstances. See Rule
134, Tax Court Rules of Practice and
Procedure. Even joint motions for
continuance will not be routinely
granted.
In this connection petitioners should be warned
that the Court will not normally grant a con-
tinuance in order to allow a party to retain a
new attorney.
Contrary to the above order, Mr. Hartman filed a
status report in which he failed to provide any of the
information requested by the Court, and he requested a
continuance "to allow time to retain new counsel".
Mrs. Hartman did not file a status report.
The Court denied Mr. Hartman's request for a contin-
uance. In the order denying the continuance request,
dated April 1, 1998, the Court notes that Mr. Hartman's
status report:
Fails to set forth "each and every issue pre-
sented in the case". Mr. Hartman's response
also fails to detail "as to each such issue,
what efforts petitioners have made to meet with
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011