- 21 -
otherwise move as appropriate. The Court denied respondent’s
request for an evidentiary hearing. In a separate order filed
the same date, the Court denied respondent’s motion to vacate the
decision filed in the case of Ralph J. Rina, the test case
petitioner in docket No. 17640-83, stating:
The Court has reviewed the testimony of Cravens, the
testimony of Thompson, the stipulated facts and
stipulated exhibits relating to the Cravenses and the
Thompsons, and the exhibits offered through Thompson as
a witness. The Court finds that these reviewed items
had no material effect on the opinion which the Court
filed on December 11, 1991, as that opinion relates to
petitioner Rina. If the reviewed items were stricken
from the record, the Court would file an opinion in all
material respects like the opinion it filed on December
11, 1991 (with the exception of certain portions
relating specifically and expressly to the Cravenses or
the Thompsons), and the Court’s findings, analyses, and
conclusions relating to petitioner Rina would remain
the same. * * *
Two days after the Court’s order and decision denying the
motion to vacate the decision in Mr. Rina’s case, Messrs.
O’Donnell and Jones wrote Mr. Dombrowski a joint letter, dated
June 24, 1992, concerning further proceedings in the Kersting
project cases. In that letter, Messrs. O’Donnell and Jones
informed Mr. Dombrowski that they represented “about one-hundred
Petitioners” and that they understood Mr. Dombrowski had replaced
Mr. McWade as respondent’s counsel “because of an ethical concern
regarding the impropriety of two settlement offers * * * secretly
extended to Mr. Cravans [sic] and Mr. Thompson who testified for
the I.R.S. at the Dixon Trial.”
Page: Previous 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011