- 19 -
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, Richards Management Trust’s response to the December 3,
2001 Show Cause Order and Richards 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 ground-
less.6
6Each 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 asso-
ciate Carol Jackson. The respondent has failed to
properly assess any taxes in accordance with their
required administrative procedures, and yet ad-
vised the petitioner that the only method of dis-
agreeing 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.
* * * * * * *
4. Petitioner does not want this false tax claim to
be litigated in court, and has petitioned this
Court to have this case removed from the docket as
having been petitioned in error due to the errone-
ous instructions given by the respondent.
WHEREFORE it is prayed that:
1. This Court dismiss this case at petitioner’s re-
(continued...)
Page: Previous 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011