- 3 -
also contained other frivolous and groundless statements,
contentions, and arguments.
On January 9, 2004, the Court denied petitioner’s motion for
judgment on the pleadings.
By notice dated February 10, 2004, the Court set this case
for trial at the Court’s Dallas, Texas, session beginning April
26, 2004. This notice specifically stated: “YOUR FAILURE TO
APPEAR MAY RESULT IN DISMISSAL OF THE CASE AND ENTRY OF DECISION
AGAINST YOU.”
On March 8, 2004, petitioner filed a motion for continuance.
On March 17, 2004, the Court denied petitioner’s motion for
continuance. The Court also ordered that petitioner’s request
for admissions be returned to petitioner unfiled, and that
petitioner and respondent meet as soon as practical for purposes
of informal discovery and to complete a stipulation of facts as
required by Rule 91 (March 17 order). In the March 17 order, we
stated: “Respondent further objects that petitioner’s request
document ‘requests respondent to admit to matters that are
irrelevant, conclusions of law, frivolous arguments and not
properly discoverable.’ We do not disagree.”
On March 18, 2004, petitioner filed a motion to remove the
small tax case designation and another document the Court filed
as petitioner’s pretrial memorandum. The pretrial memorandum
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011