- 11 -
proverbial shoebox. His extensive miscellany of documents
includes photocopied bank statements, checks (some canceled, some
not), credit card invoices, flight log pages, and so forth.
Many of these documents contain cryptic and oftentimes
indecipherable notations, generally handwritten. Petitioner
suggests various explanations for the inadequacy of his records,
none of which we find convincing.7
7 On brief, petitioner makes passing allegations that
respondent seized “all of * * * [his] financial and other records
together with most of Cirrus’ records” and that when respondent
returned those records “they were not in the same order or
condition in which they had been when seized.” Petitioner does
not explain why he would not have retained copies of the
documents that he turned over to respondent, or indeed what has
become of the originals. Even if we were to assume, for sake of
argument, that petitioner’s allegations were true, these
allegations do not address the larger point that petitioner might
be required to maintain more systematic records than he alleges
to have turned over to respondent. In any event, petitioner
offered no evidence as to how respondent’s treatment of the
records hindered his ability to present his case at trial.
Additionally, petitioner suggests on brief that he once
possessed certain records (e.g., fuel purchase receipts,
appointment books, billing records, and aircraft maintenance
records) that would have bolstered his case, but that prior to
trial, he had either discarded these records or no longer had
them in his custody or control, thereby preventing their use at
trial. We find petitioner’s allegations unconvincing,
particularly in light of the ongoing criminal investigation of
petitioner before his plea agreement in 1996. Moreover,
petitioner bears the burden of proof, and we cannot assume that
the discarded or lost records would have helped him.
Petitioner further complains that, but for respondent’s
evidentiary objections and vigorous application of the Federal
Rules of Evidence, he would have been able to offer sufficient
evidence to substantiate his alleged expenses. The short answer
is that petitioner cannot carry his evidentiary burden with
incompetent evidence. This Court is obligated to follow the
(continued...)
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011