Sharon J. Fix - Page 9

                                        - 8 -                                         
          sentence and never has asked security guards to restrain a                  
          taxpayer.  Ms. Huss’s testimony was clear, explicit, and entirely           
          credible.                                                                   
               With respect to petitioner’s statements that security                  
          personnel had refused to allow her to leave the courthouse and              
          had acted on Ms. Huss’s orders, Steve Borak, senior deputy for              
          the U.S. Marshals Service, testified that the Court’s security              
          officers do not take orders from respondent’s counsel and that it           
          would “defy intuition” for security personnel to involve                    
          themselves in the judicial process.  Further, Mr. Borak testified           
          that no incident reports were filed at any point during the                 
          Court’s February 2000 Phoenix trial session.  Since security                
          personnel must file an incident report any time they are involved           
          with verbal confrontations or the use of force, an incident                 
          report would have been filed if security officers had brought               
          someone back into the courtroom against his or her wishes.                  
               Petitioner has failed to show that the stipulated decision             
          entered in this case was the result of fraud on the Court.                  
          Petitioner has not shown that Attorney Erin Huss or any security            
          personnel engaged in any improper actions in the handling of                
          petitioner’s case.  The record establishes that petitioner’s                
          accusations of fraud on the Court are without merit.                        
               For reasons set forth above, petitioner’s Motion is denied.            








Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011