- 5 -
improperly issued to her. Petitioner also alleged that these
same individuals caused or advised her not to file returns in the
expectation that she would die “before the truth came out” about
the conspiracy to defraud her. Respondent, in his answer,
generally denied petitioner’s allegations.
During the pendency of this case, petitioner changed
attorneys several times and on several occasions requested that
the location for trial be changed. The Court attempted to
accommodate petitioner’s needs, and this case was set for trial
on various dates and locations, including October 28, 1996, in
Washington, D.C.; April 7, 1997, in Los Angeles; May 21, 1998, in
Portland, Oregon; September 21, 1998, in Portland, Oregon; and
February 12, 2001, in Portland, Oregon.
Although petitioner sought to continue her case on several
occasions, she did not address the underlying merits of
respondent’s determination. Instead, respondent was forced to
resort to the Court’s Rules to promote pre-trial development by
means of admissions under Rule 90 and enforced stipulation of
facts under Rule 91(f). In each instance petitioner did not
respond to respondent’s requests for admissions or stipulation
and/or the Court’s orders to comply.
Throughout the history of this case petitioner failed to
cooperate and/or to communicate with respondent and provide any
information. Instead, petitioner generally accused respondent,
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011