- 16 -
different debilitating illnesses which they alleged made them
unable to appear for the longstanding trial date. We must note
that petitioners alleged that the onset of their physical
conditions began more than 2 weeks prior to the trial session.
It is also quite curious and hugely coincidental, that both
petitioners contracted laryngitis, in addition to their
debilitating illness, so that they were “conveniently” unable to
orally communicate with the Court.
Although petitioner Hook has filed some responses to the
Court’s Orders and/or respondent’s inquiries of petitioners,
petitioner Smith has not responded to any orders, notices, or
inquiries.6
“There must come a time when even at some risk of error, a
court is justified in accepting as conclusive a series of
apparent subterfuges.” Freedson v. Commissioner, 565 F.2d at 955
6 Respondent’s counsel pointed out that petitioner Smith has
been sanctioned by other courts. In particular, the Court of
Appeals for the Tenth Circuit stated that
Mr. Smith has a long history with this court
marred by repetitive, frivolous filings and general
abuse of the judicial process. This well-documented
course of misconduct began during his tenure as a
practicing attorney, prompting the imposition of
numerous monetary sanctions, his suspension from Tenth
Circuit practice, and ultimately his disbarment by this
court. * * *
Howard v. Mail-Well Envelope Co., 150 F.3d 1227, 1231 (10th Cir.
1998). The Court of Appeals also noted that Mr. Smith had been
disbarred by the U.S. Supreme Court. See In re Disbarment of
Smith, 516 U.S. 984 (1995).
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011