Or Perhaps, “Enough – Part Deux”

My long-suffering readers are doubtless past the stage of surfeit with tales of the obliging character of That Obliging Jurist Judge David Gustafson. I will not cite the numerous blogposts wherein I have extolled his assistance to voyagers adrift among, or aground upon, the shoals of Tax Court.

But has Judge Gustafson finally reached the limit even of his endurance? It would seem so.

Case in point: Vishwa P. & Savitry Srivastava, Docket No. 3400-08 L, filed 1/16/14.

I’ll let Judge Gustafson speak for himself.

“After hours on January 15, 2014, petitioners transmitted to chambers a 40-page telefacsimile. It appears to be a series of letters between the parties. The first page states that it is sent to chambers ‘to enable the Court to understand the PETITIONERS’ VIEWPOINT AND/OR REQUEST.’ The Court is not reading the document further nor attempting to understand it.” Order, at p. 1.

I wouldn’t either, Judge. Ex parte communications to the Court are off the table to begin with. But Vish and Savi don’t know that.

So Judge Gustafson, with what slight oblige he can muster, gives Vish and Savi a hint.

“Petitioners shall not transmit to the Court copies of their correspondence with respondent and, in particular, shall not disclose to the Court any proposed terms communicated in settlement negotiations. If petitioners wish the Court to know their viewpoint, then they shall properly file with the Court and serve on respondent a memorandum or status report. If petitioners wish the Court to entertain a request, then they shall file with the Court and serve on the IRS a proper motion. See Rule 50(a).” Order, at p. 1.

Oh yes, and Judge Gustafson on no fewer than three (count ‘em, three) prior occasions warned Vish and Savi not to tell him about settlement discussions.