- 20 -
3. Documents were unlawfully seized pursuant to a defective
search warrant.
Petitioner further agreed that the harms of which he complains
are (1) prejudice to petitioner in presenting his case and
(2) the additional interest on any deficiency that would result
to petitioner on account of respondent’s causing a delay in
resolving the case.
II. Petitioner’s Memoranda
Petitioner filed a post-hearing memorandum in support of the
motion (petitioner’s memorandum) and incorporated into the motion
the memorandum filed March 24, 1995, by the petitioning partners
in support of the 1995 misconduct motion (petitioning partners’
memorandum). In the introduction to petitioner’s memorandum,
petitioner states: “The pervasive nature of Respondent’s
misconduct has caused infringements of the TMP’s, AMCOR’s and the
AMCOR’s partnerships’ [including Crop Associates-1986]
constitutional rights”. Both petitioner’s memorandum and the
petitioning partners’ memorandum complain of “a complex weave of
especially prejudicial illegal and improper acts”. In each
memorandum, the complaint is followed by a list of actions taken
by respondent and complained of by the author of the memorandum.
The lists are different, and we assume that petitioner no longer
Page: Previous 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011