Robert Ho - Page 9

                                        - 9 -                                         
          Petitioner’s Motions                                                        
               A.  Petitioner’s Motion To Remove Small Tax Case Designation           
               On October 7, 2005, petitioner filed a Motion To Remove                
          Small Tax Case Designation.  In the motion, petitioner alleges:             
               At the time he made the small tax case designation,                    
               Petitioner did not at all comprehend the import of the                 
               respondent’s not having to file an answer to his                       
               amended petition and the petitioner’s (and the                         
               respondent’s) inability to appeal any adverse decision                 
               of this Court to a Circuit Court of Appeals.                           
               Petitioner did not state whether respondent objected to the            
          motion.                                                                     
               B.  Petitioner’s Motion For Leave To File Second Amended               
          Petition                                                                    
               Also on October 7, 2005, petitioner filed a Motion For Leave           
          To File A Second Amended Petition.  Petitioner lodged a proposed            
          second amended petition with the motion for leave.  In support of           
          his motion for leave, petitioner alleges that the amended                   
          petition “neither adequately sets forth grounds of error in                 
          respondent’s determination, nor facts in support thereof, in                
          sufficient detail to apprise both the Court and respondent of               
          petitioner’s actual litigating position” and that the second                
          amended petition sets forth “only substantive and non-frivolous             
          arguments”.  Petitioner did not state whether respondent objected           
          to the motion.  Petitioner also requested that the Court hold               
          respondent’s motion for summary judgment in abeyance.                       







Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  20  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011