- 11 -
matter or petitioners in this case. Nor do petitioners’ motion
and petitioners’ reply appear to suggest or argue that there was
any corruption of the Court. Assuming arguendo that petitioners
are contending in petitioners’ motion and petitioners’ reply that
some sort of fraud was perpetrated on the Court, on the instant
record, we reject any such contention. That record establishes
that: Petitioners retained legal counsel shortly before the
scheduled trial in this case was to begin; after retaining legal
counsel, the parties reached a basis of settlement and memorial-
ized that settlement in the stipulations of settled issues which
were signed by petitioners’ counsel, Mr. Appert, on behalf of
petitioners as well as by each petitioner and by Mr. Jojola on
behalf of respondent; the Court entered a decision in this case
pursuant to the agreement of the parties as shown in the stipu-
lated decision document4 that was signed by Mr. Appert on behalf
of petitioners and by a representative of respondent and that
reflected the stipulations of settled issues;5 and petitioners
did not appeal the decision in this case or timely move to vacate
4It is noteworthy that the stipulated decision document
reflects a substantial concession by respondent regarding the
determinations in the notice.
5Contrary to the allegations in petitioners’ motion and
petitioners’ reply, petitioners’ counsel, Mr. Appert, did not
file a motion to withdraw as attorney of record for petitioners
in this case until Mar. 26, 1999, after the decision in this case
was entered on Mar. 15, 1999. The Court granted that motion on
Apr. 22, 1999.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011