- 44 -
respondent’s right to obtain discovery is established by our
Rules. See Rule 70(a). The motions were groundless, and
Ms. Sluyter had reason to know that; the motions served no
purpose other than to delay these proceedings and annoy the Court
and respondent.
Ms. Sluyter also signed Petitioners’ Objections to
Respondent’s Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings and Supporting
Memorandum. That document makes the unsupported statement that
petitioners have no bona fide political relationship to the
United States and the frivolous argument that there is no
evidence that petitioners “are subject to the written will of
individuals called CONGRESSMEN”. It accompanied Ms. Sluyter’s
affidavit stating: “There is a factual dispute as to the
Petitioners relationship to the United States and the State of
California.” No legitimate factual dispute is raised in the
pleadings or was otherwise before the Court. The response was
unreasonable and contributed to the delay in concluding these
proceedings.
We have detailed the subpoenas signed by Ms. Sluyter.
Respondent moved to quash the subpoenas, and petitioners filed
the response to the motions to quash. Among those subpoenaed was
Charles Rossotti, Commissioner of Internal Revenue. At the trial
session, we denied the motions to quash on the grounds that no
trial was held and the subpoenas were no longer in force. We
Page: Previous 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011