- 11 -
hearing.5
On March 22, 2002, petitioner and his sister, Jeannie
McLelland, attended the hearing. Among other things, petitioner
and Ms. McLelland placed on the record of the hearing a statement
that they had intended to call approximately 12 witnesses but
that they were told by Mr. Penny before the hearing that their
witnesses could not appear and testify. Mr. Penny acknowledged
their statement and did not deny its accuracy, but he also
reminded petitioner of his request for testimony in the form of
affidavits under oath. During the hearing, Mr. Penny also
explained that he had reviewed the information in petitioner’s
case file and had verified that all applicable laws and
administrative procedures governing the filing of a nominee NFTL
had been met.
During the hearing, petitioner argued that his deceased
5Petitioner did not raise any issue regarding Mr. Penny’s
apparent prohibition of live testimony from witnesses at the
hearing or at the trial before this Court. Petitioner did not
argue in his trial memorandum or posttrial brief that the
prohibition regarding live testimony deprived him of a fair
hearing. Moreover, we note that, although Mr. Penny specifically
requested, before the hearing, that petitioner bring to the
hearing affidavits under oath from each of his siblings to
document his claim that they own interests in the Claremore
property, petitioner failed to do so. We conclude on these facts
that the prohibition with regard to live testimony at the hearing
did not deprive petitioner of the opportunity to present relevant
testimony through affidavits under oath. Petitioner could have
made a factual record in support of his position by submitting
affidavits from his witnesses at the hearing, but petitioner
failed to do so.
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