Herbst Asset Mgmt. Trust, et al. - Page 19




                                       - 19 -                                         
               On December 20, 2001, Herbst Management Trust and Herbst               
          Charitable Trust, respectively, filed responses to the December             
          3, 2001 Show Cause Orders in the cases at docket Nos. 9999-00 and           
          10000-00 (Herbst Management Trust’s response to the December 3,             
          2001 Show Cause Order and Herbst Charitable Trust’s response to             
          the December 3, 2001 Show Cause Order, respectively), each of               
          which was signed by Terrence A. Bentivegna (Mr. Bentivegna) who             
          identified himself in each such response as “Trustee”.  Each such           
          response asserted that “Petitioner does not believe that this               
          Court has jurisdiction.”  In support of that position, Herbst               
          Management Trust’s response to the December 3, 2001 Show Cause              
          Order and Herbst Charitable Trust’s response to the December 3,             
          2001 Show Cause Order set forth statements and contentions that             
          the Court found to be frivolous and/or groundless.5                         


               5Each such response to the December 3, 2001 Show Cause Order           
          stated in pertinent part:                                                   
               1.   Petitioner petitioned this Court after having                     
                    received false and misleading information from the                
                    respondent and attorneys David Wise and his                       
                    associate Carol Jackson.  The respondent has                      
                    failed to properly assess any taxes in accordance                 
                    with their required administrative procedures, and                
                    yet advised the petitioner that the only method of                
                    disagreeing with the purported tax liability was                  
                    to petition this Court.                                           
               2.   This Courts’ [sic] order states “. . . petitioner                 
                    purports to be a trust . . .”  Petitioner is a                    
                    trust, and the respondent has never been able to                  
                    prove otherwise.  Nor does the respondent have the                
                    right or ability to set aside a contract.                         
                                                             (continued...)           





Page:  Previous  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  20  21  22  23  24  25  26  27  28  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011