- 11 -
Petitioner credibly testified that he did not know that he
had two cases pending in this Court until he appeared at the
Order to Show Cause hearing. He copied the docket number from
the letter he received without knowing that two petitions had
been filed in his name. Petitioner used one docket number on a
letter that he wrote about his $50,000 payment. He used the
other docket number on another letter when writing about the same
$50,000 payment. When he appeared at the hearing on the Order to
Show Cause in docket No. 22961-88, he contended that we lack
jurisdiction over that case. We conclude that he has not
ratified the 1980 petition.
Respondent points out that Matthias believed that petitioner
knew he was a petitioner in docket No. 22961-88. Matthias based
this belief on several letters his firm had received from
petitioner that had one or the other docket number, including one
thanking Berg for representing petitioner in a letter that
referred to docket No. 22961-88. We give Matthias’ opinion
little weight because he had no personal knowledge about the 1980
petition or the case in docket No. 22961-88. In contrast,
petitioner credibly testified that he did not know what the
docket numbers meant and he did not pay attention to them.
Respondent contends that petitioner authorized Covalt or
Robb to ratify the petition in docket No. 22961-88. We disagree.
Petitioner did not authorize them to ratify the filing of the
petition, and they did not do so. Covalt mailed a copy of the
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011