And of whom else might I be speaking but The Great Dissenter, a/k/a The Judge Who Writes Like a Human Being, s/a/k/a The Illustrious, Irrepressible, Indefatigable, Industrious, Impressive and Invincible Foe of the Partitive Genitive, and Old China Hand, Judge Mark V. Holmes?

Here’s an example.

Billy Joe Shurden, Docket No. 28097-13, filed 5/19/15, presents a case that raises interesting legal issues for Judge Holmes.

“The Court has received a pretrial memorandum from the IRS, but it does not discuss the issues of the scope of review (this means what the Court should look at) or the standard of review (this means how the Court should look at what the IRS did).

“In collection due process cases, these issues have been the subject of debate.

“The Court will expect the IRS’s lawyer (and certainly invites Mr. Shurden) to discuss these issues at calendar call. It specifically asks him to be prepared to present the IRS’s position (i.e., he should consider seeking National Office advice) on the questions of whether the Court should examine the IRS’s determination in an interest-abatement case for abuse of discretion or de novo, and of whether the Court’s review should be limited to the adminstrative [sic] record or should be a trial de novo. If this case actually presents these issues, the Court will consider any suggestions for motion practice at calendar call.” Order, at pp. 1-2. (Citations omitted).

So, IRS, put the administrative record together, let Billy Joe check it out, and, if y’all agree that what should be there is there, then stip it in.

Does anyone seriously think self-represented Billy Joe understood Word One of the foregoing?

Now Judge Holmes shines forth.

“The Court suspects that Mr. Shurden is not a lawyer, and that this order may not be comprehensible to a nonlawyer. It promises to explain these unforeseen parts of the case to Mr. Shurden at calendar call in plain English. It encourages him to call the Court to arrange a phone call to discuss them even before calendar call if he wishes to do so.” Order, at p. 2.

I’d love to listen in on that phonecall.

And I’m sorry Judge Holmes won’t be at the Tax Court Judicial Conference tomorrow. He sounds like a great guy to have a drink with.

Follow-up: Judge Holmes was there, and while we didn’t have that drink, we had a great conversation–all off the record.