John Huntz Leineweber - Page 4

                                        - 4 -                                         
               In response to petitioner’s request for an administrative              
          hearing, the Appeals officer assigned to petitioner’s case                  
          contacted petitioner by telephone on June 11, 2001.  During this            
          telephone conversation, the Appeals officer asked petitioner to             
          schedule a conference date for a face-to-face, in-person, or                
          telephone conference.  Petitioner stated that he wanted his                 
          congressional liaison present at the meeting and the Appeals                
          officer expressed doubt as to the liaison’s attending as that was           
          not the standard practice.  The Appeals officer further explained           
          that typically petitioner and the Appeals officer were expected             
          to attempt to resolve the case.  Upon resolution, the Appeals               
          officer would notify the congressional liaison of the resolution.           
          At this point, petitioner took the Appeals officer’s number and             
          stated he would call him at a later time.                                   
               On June 12, 2001, the Appeals officer received a call from             
          petitioner’s congressional liaison concerning petitioner’s case.            
          The Appeals officer then telephoned petitioner and left a                   
          recorded message asking petitioner to call him to schedule an               
          appointment.  No further communication occurred until August                
          2001.                                                                       
               On August 21, 2001, the Appeals officer again telephoned               
          petitioner and offered the date of September 3, 2001.  Petitioner           
          noted that September 3 was the Labor Day holiday.  The Appeals              
          officer then offered alternative dates of September 4 or 5.                 






Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011