- 27 -
Shortly thereafter, Messrs. Izen and Sticht each filed a
separate motion with the Court to intervene in the Thompson and
Cravens cases. Mr. Sticht filed his motion in the Thompson cases
on September 29, 1992, and in the Cravens cases on October 2,
1992. Mr. Izen filed his motions in both cases on October 27,
1992. Messrs. Sticht and Izen maintained they should be allowed
to intervene in these cases in order to assert that Mr. McWade
had committed fraud on the Court by arranging the Thompson
settlement and failing to inform the Court or the parties.
In a subsequent “Notice to Apprise the Court of Petitioner-
intervenors” served on November 5, 1992, Mr. Sticht identified
Norman and Irene Cerasoli as petitioner-intervenors. At that
time, Norman and Irene Cerasoli were being represented by Messrs.
O’Donnell and Jones.18 The Court denied the motions to intervene
on November 6, 1992. Messrs. Izen and Sticht filed notices of
appeal of the denials of their motions to intervene, again
alleging fraud on the Court.
18In a colloquy before this Court during a hearing following
the remand by the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit in Dixon
V, Mr. Jones remarked that he had argued the existence of fraud
on the Court earlier in these proceedings. Although he did not
specify the occasion, we note that Mr. Jones represented the
Cerasolis when Mr. Sticht had included their names as petitioner-
intervenors in November 1992 and made his allegations of fraud on
the Court. On Jan. 12, 1993, Mr. Sticht entered his appearance
in the Cerasoli cases, adding his name to those of Messrs.
O’Donnell and Jones. We also note that Mr. Jones argued fraud on
the Court as a ground for vacating stipulated decisions in
Richards v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1997-149, supplemented by
T.C. Memo. 1997-299, affd. without published opinion 165 F.3d 917
(9th Cir. 1998).
Page: Previous 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011