Fred Allnutt - Page 22

                                       - 22 -                                         
          and tendered fees and mileage as required by Rule 147(c) and Rule           
          148.  Petitioner left some of the subpoenas at respondent’s                 
          disclosure office in Baltimore.  To comply with Rule 147(c), a              
          subpoena must be personally served on the witness by a person               
          other than a party.  Petitioner testified that it would be                  
          difficult to locate respondent’s employees to accomplish personal           
          service.  At trial on October 22, 2001, and January 5, 2004,                
          petitioner said he did not believe fees needed to be paid to                
          Government employees.  Petitioner admitted that he did not tender           
          any fees for the January 2004 subpoenas.  We conclude that                  
          petitioner did not comply with the personal service and fees and            
          mileage requirements for issuing subpoenas.7  See Rules 147(c),             
          148(b).                                                                     
          D.   Whether the Court’s Denial of Petitioner’s Motions To Recuse           
               the Trial Judge and for a Hearing Was Proper                           
               Petitioner has made several motions to recuse the trial                
          Judge.  We reaffirm our denial of those motions.                            
               After the record closed, petitioner filed two motions for a            
          hearing on petitioner’s motion to sanction respondent under Rule            
          104(c) in which petitioner alleged that respondent’s counsel                
          fraudulently failed to provide to petitioner a copy of Forms 895            
          before December 28, 2001.  We denied petitioner’s motions.  We              


               7  In light of this conclusion, we need not decide whether             
          the testimony of the subpoenaed witnesses would have been                   
          relevant.                                                                   




Page:  Previous  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  20  21  22  23  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011