- 5 -
The petition in docket No. 26301-06 was filed December 20,
2006, and respondent’s answer was filed February 6, 2007.
Initially, petitioner had designated Milwaukee, Wisconsin, as the
place of trial, but in March he sought to strike Milwaukee as the
place of trial because he considered respondent’s determination
to be “fraudulent” and he believed the case would “never properly
proceed to trial.” Around the same time, petitioner moved to
have the case dismissed with prejudice on the ground that
respondent’s determination was “frivolous” and without merit.
Petitioner’s motions were denied, and over the next few months
petitioner sought reconsideration of the denial of his motions.
Subsequently, petitioner served requests for admission which
respondent answered. Petitioner filed a motion for summary
judgment that was denied. Petitioner also sent a final offer to
resolve docket No. 26301-06 and subsequently filed a “NOTICE OF
REFUSAL TO ACCEPT SERVICE OF COURT’S DOCUMENTS” as he had in
docket No. 446-06.
Other than an ultimatum of settlement on his terms,
petitioner has not provided respondent with any reason or
argument that would show that respondent’s determinations for
2003 and 2004 were in error. Instead, petitioner has attempted
to collaterally attack respondent’s determinations by means of
broadly stated assertions that respondent’s determinations are
“fraudulent” or “frivolous” and that respondent’s employees are
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: March 27, 2008