- 33 -
We find that petitioners have only themselves to blame for
the consequences resulting from their actions and inactions in
these cases and that they should bear responsibility for their
conduct. It was petitioners who decided not to have these cases
heard on the merits. They decided not to cooperate with, and to
ignore the warnings of, respondent, their own counsel Mr. Wise
whom they fired, and the Court.
The Court provided petitioners in these cases ample opportu-
nity to present relevant information to the Court even (1) after
respondent orally moved to dismiss these cases at the calendar
call on October 15, 2001, (2) after the trial took place on the
same date, and (3) after respondent filed on November 13, 2001, a
written motion to hold petitioners in default in each of the
cases at docket Nos. 9999-00 and 10000-00 and a written motion to
dismiss for lack of prosecution in each of the cases at docket
Nos. 10001-00 and 10002-00. Petitioners declined to provide any
such relevant information. Instead, they failed to prosecute
their respective cases, ignored all Orders of the Court, and
submitted to the Court documents containing statements, conten-
tions, and arguments that were frivolous and/or groundless. In
addition, the named petitioner in each of the cases at docket
Nos. 9999-00 and 10000-00 failed to establish who has the author-
13(...continued)
Ann. Model Rules of Profl. Conduct R. 7.3 (1999).
Page: Previous 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011