Attorney-at-Law

PHONE EARLY, PHONE OFTEN

In Uncategorized on 12/19/2025 at 14:22

That’s Judge Elizabeth A. (“Tex”) Copeland’s advice to Kawekiulani Swain, Docket No. 12081-23L, filed 12/19/25. After Appeals sorted through Kawekiulani’s 433A and backups, they found he could pay via an IA, so denied CNC. He claimed Appeals didn’t substantiate his numbers, but they went from the pay stubs he supplied, and didn’t include did not include any income from leasing his extra car, or any of his other non-payroll bank deposits.

Still, Kawekiulani wasn’t done.

“… Mr. Swain also states that, ‘[t]he petitioner believes that he called [SO H] back from his business line and we are in the process of looking through call logs to see if a phone call was attempted by the petitioner. If the petitioner had called back, but [SO H] missed that call, this would be abuse of discretion.’” Order, at p. 6. (Name omitted).

True, Appeals misplaced Kawekiulani’s originally-submitted Form 433-A and backups and closed his appeal, but that got sorted out. Appeals’ paperwork handling lately has been less than stellar.

As for telephoning, Judge Tex Copeland is unimpressed.

Even construing the facts in the light most favorable to Mr. Swain, this is not an abuse of discretion. SO H left two voicemails for Mr. Swain and then waited for more than a month to hear back from him before closing the case. During that time, Mr. Swain could have left a voicemail for SO H, attempted to call again, or submitted something in writing.” Order, at p. 6.

NITL sustained.

Leave a comment

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.