Brian Hilvety - Page 4

                                        - 4 -                                         
          and arguments set forth in petitioner’s proposed stipulation of             
          facts and petitioner’s February 28, 2003 transmittal letter are             
          frivolous and/or groundless.  In the March 10, 2003 Order, the              
          Court reminded petitioner about section 6673(a) and admonished              
          him that, in the event he continued to advance frivolous and/or             
          groundless contentions and arguments, the Court would be inclined           
          to impose a penalty not in excess of $25,000 on him under section           
          6673(a)(1).                                                                 
               On March 10, 2003, petitioner submitted petitioner’s trial             
          memorandum to the Court.  In an Order dated March 11, 2003 (March           
          11, 2003 Order), the Court ordered petitioner’s trial memorandum            
          to be filed as of the date of receipt by the Court.  In that                
          Order, the Court found that petitioner’s trial memorandum set               
          forth issues, statements, contentions, and arguments that are               
          frivolous and groundless.  In the Court’s March 11, 2003 Order,             
          the Court reminded petitioner about its March 10, 2003 Order and            
          issued a second reminder to petitioner about section 6673(a) and            
          a second admonition to him that, in the event he continued to               
          advance frivolous and/or groundless statements, contentions, and            
          arguments, the Court would be inclined to impose a penalty not in           
          excess of $25,000 on him under section 6673(a)(1).                          
               On March 24, 2003, at the call of this case from the calen-            
          dar (calendar call) at the Court’s trial session in Chicago,                
          Illinois, the Court again reminded petitioner that, in the event            






Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011