I once drafted an affidavit for a client suffering from prosecutorial excesses, and my ultimate paragraph read “Enough already.”

The judge agreed, and the excesses halted. Of course, the client didn’t pay my final bill, but that’s another story.

But I have to love that slangy, would-be folksy, jurist, The Judge Who Writes Like a Human Being, a/k/a The Great Dissenter, Mark V. Holmes. He has moments that make me forgive even his war on the partitive genitive.

Here’s a top-notch example, a designated hitter, John Ryskamp, Docket No. 13681-11L.

John is an old rounder. “There have been a great many motions from petitioner to what he calls ‘this idiot Court,’ Ptrs. Second Supp. Brf. at 2, or (less concisely), ‘a Court as flippant, stupid, ignorant and corrupt as this one,’ Ptrs. Brf. in Resp. to the Supp. Notice of Det’n at 3.” Order, at p. 1.

Clearly, John believes the old adage that flattery will get him nowhere.

However, Judge Holmes proves John wrong.

“The Court has already denied most of them in other orders, but in one sided with petitioner — this case began with respondent’s refusal to grant petitioner a collection due process hearing after he requested one.” Order, at p. 1.

Judge Holmes doesn’t care for Appeals’ cavalier treatment of John. He may be unpleasant, but he, even he, is entitled to the protection of the laws.

“It is (or was) apparently respondent’s practice when he concludes that a taxpayer hasn’t raised any nonfrivolous grounds in his request to try to make his conclusion unappealable by refusing to issue the allegedly offending taxpayer a notice of determination. Respondent thought this deprived the Court of jurisdiction to review his decision.

“The Court had held in another case that respondent is wrong.” Order, at p. 1. (Citation omitted).

Form letters denying CDP that don’t cite specific frivolous positions or obvious intentions to impede tax administration don’t cut it.

Of course, once he got his long-awaited CDP, John never provided financial information to support his requested withdrawal of the NFTL IRS had filed, nor showed that he was in current compliance.

IRS moved for summary judgment that this time they followed all the rules, and John replied in his wonted fashion.

“The Court notes that Mr. Ryskamp does not contest these underlying facts, but argues that the routine request for financial information was a Fifth Amendment violation, and argues that the Court ‘takes some bizarre pleasure in indulging its police state penchant for sophistry’ in denying this. See Fifth Supp. Br. at 2-3.” Order, at p. 3.

Judge Holmes has the last word: “Enough.” Order, at p. 3.