US TAX COURT

WASHINGTON DC

Robert Freeman                        ) 
                  Petitioner          ) 
       v.                             )     Docket No. 21xx-10
Commissioner Of Internal Revenue      )    RESPONSE TO MOTION FOR 
                  Respondent          )    CONTINUANCE OF TRIAL
                                      )

Petitioner hereby responds to this Court’s order dated January 20, 2011 to answer Respondent’s Motion for Continuance and herby states his objections to such motion.

  1. Petitioner is empathetic to the illness of the revenue employee who was to be called as a “key witness”; however Petitioner does not wish to have his case continued.

  2. Respondent has known for many months that this case was calendared for March 5, 2012 and should have been more diligent in either subpoenaing his witness sooner or known sooner that this witness was ill, or obtaining an affidavit as part of the Discovery process.

  3. The IRS is made up of many workers, intricate computer systems and records, surely another employee can take the place of this “key witness” whose name was not even divulged either in Discovery (which Respondent has yet to complete and cooperate with) or in the Motion for Continuance.

  4. Petitioner has most recently learned that his bank records were subpoenaed on November 3, 2011, but he was not informed of this during the Discovery window, or any other time by the Respondent. Now at the last possible minute, the Respondent wants to have a continuance because an unknown “key witness” is ill.

  5. Petitioner alleges this is nothing more than a stall tactic by Respondent since he did not complete his Discovery process in a timely fashion. Respondent is now grasping at straws and subpoenaing unknown witnesses at the last minute.

  6. According to (FRCP rule 26(a)(1)(A) “In General…or as otherwise stipulated or ordered by the court, a party must, without awaiting a discovery request, provide to the other parties…”

(i) the name and, if known, the address and telephone number of each individual likely to have discoverable information—along with the subjects of that information—that the disclosing party may use to support its claims or defenses, unless the use would be solely for impeachment;

 

(ii) a copy—or a description by category and location—of all documents, electronically stored information, and tangible things that the disclosing party has in its possession, custody, or control and may use to support its claims or defenses, unless the use would be solely for impeachment;

Respondent has failed to disclose “the name and, if known, the address and telephone number of each individual likely to have discoverable information—along with the subjects of that information—that [he] intends to use to support [his] claims or defenses.

Respondent has failed to disclose “a copy—or a description by category and location—of all documents, electronically stored information, and tangible things that [the witness] has in its possession, custody, or control that may be used to support its claims or defenses.” In the instant case, Petitioner has even sought Discovery information ahead of time, beginning in July of 2010. Petitioner wishes this Court to especially note how Respondent failed to answer the Request for Admissions on time and had to file a Motion to Vacate, which Petitioner did not object to.

  1. Petitioner has done everything within his pro se limitations to meet deadlines and cooperate with Respondent; however reciprocation has not been forthcoming.

  2. Respondent filed Stipulations close to the last minute and without giving Petitioner a chance to respond, motioned this Court for an Order compelling Petitioner’s response. There was nothing about witnesses or their testimony included in the documentation included with the Respondent’s Stipulation.

  3. This case was docketed in January of 2010, two years ago. Surely Respondent who is a highly trained, educated and paid government employee can meet the completion deadline of Discovery in a timely fashion.

  4. Additionally, Respondent states in his motion that “Petitioner’s views as to the granting of this motion are unknown.” Petitioner never received any inquiry on the matter from Respondent so of course Petitioner’s views are “unknown.” This is just another instance of Respondent not communicating with Petitioner.

  5. Should this court grant a continuance and the unknown examination employee not return to work, what of the matter then? Would the case be indefinitely postponed?

  6. Petitioner not only objects to a continuance, but objects to an unknown “key witness” being called and/or any affidavit supplied by him/her.

WHEREFORE Petitioner asks this court to deny Respondent’s Motion for Continuance of Trial.

January 30, 2012
___________________________________
Robert Freeman, pro se
123 Main St.
Freedom, SC 12345

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE: I certify that on this date, I delivered via regular mail in a postage paid envelope, a copy of the foregoing Response to Respondent’s Motion for Continuation of Trial to the following persons at the addresses below:

Department of the Treasury
Internal Revenue Service
Office of Division Counsel
ATTN: James Bamburg
400 West Bay Street, Suite 240
Jacksonville, FL 32202

January 30, 2012
___________________________________
Robert Freeman, pro se
123 Main St.
Freedom, SC 12345