When you go home, tell them of us and say,
For your tomorrow, we gave our today.

I’ve been following the track of that Dixieland Boondockery quartette Habitat Green Investments, LLC, MM Bulldawg Manager, LLC, Tax Matters Partner, et al., Docket No. 14433-17, filed 5/22/26, these last six (count ’em, six) years. 

Finally, the trial is over. Now IRS wants to seal chunks of the docket. Taishoff is at a loss to understand why anyone not a trial or appellate lawyer or judge, who is presumably getting paid to do so, would want to plow through 222 (count ’em, 222) pages of discovery jousting to uncover the identity of the whistleblower who tipped IRS off, when the identity of said blower was revealed in open court, seemingly to the only parties who would have cared.

Nevertheless, Judge Christian N. (“Speedy”) Weiler has to waste his valuable time I(and my much less valuable time) in coming up with somber reasoning and copious citation of precedent to conclude that when the party’s counsel seeking to protect said blower, who neither asked to be protected nor is represented by said counsel, can only come up with conclusory allegations of potential harm to said blower, the public’s right to know outweighs whatever right the blower may have to anonymity. 

As at 8:58 a.m., EDT, 5/22/26, the highest Tax Court docket no. assigned is 4015-26. I am almost nostalgic for the tsunami year 2021. So few cases, so much time.

Or as the old-time litigators, contemplating the courthouse summer doldrums, said in my young day, “File in May and go away.”

But if summer doldrums are truly upon us at The Glasshouse in the City of the Blue Lagoon, the frivolites are still hard at work.

Craig Walcott, Docket No. 21820-22, filed 5/22/26, is back, trying to stall his trial with his seven-question salvo, but Judge Elizabeth A. (“Tex”) Copeland gives him the Wnuck send-off.

Judge Tex Copeland does go through the four (count ’em, four) factors relevant to a stay of  trial when that rarity, an interlocutory appeal, is actually ongoing, but Craig fails that one too.

“As to Mr. Walcott’s third reason/assertion regarding that a ‘four-factor stay standard is satisfied,’ he applies the four-factor test set forth in Nken v. Holder, 556 U.S. 418, 434 (2009) which determines whether an appeals court will stay the enforcement of a judgment by a lower court pending the outcome of an appeal. The four factors are: ‘(1) whether the stay applicant has made a strong showing that he is likely to succeed on the merits; (2) whether the applicant will be irreparably injured absent a stay; (3) whether issuance of the stay will substantially injure the other parties interested in the proceeding; and (4) where the public interest lies.’ Id. (citing Hilton v. Braunskill, 481 U.S. 770, 776, (1987)). Here, Mr. Walcott has not made a strong showing of likelihood that the Supreme Court will grant certiorari in his case; he has not shown he will suffer irreparable injury; and public interest will not be furthered by such a stay. While the Commissioner will probably not be  substantially’ injured, the delay does cause some injury to him and it burdens the Court with the last-minute rescheduling of a case that has long been calendared for trial. Overall, even if the four-factor standard were to apply in this matter, it has not been met.” Order, at p. 7.

For Craig’s previous sortie, see my blogpost “Irrepressible,” 5/11/26.