In Uncategorized on 06/05/2015 at 16:22

Yet another contribution to the Nth volume of the late Dr. Eric Berne’s 1964 five-million-seller classic comes today from that Obliging Jurist, Judge David Gustafson.

And it answers a query, under yesterday’s date, from a devoted follower of this, mine own humble effort, viz and to wit, “I’m surprised that the judge didn’t discipline the IRS attorneys who tried this.

“Is there no mechanism for doing this, or was the action not deserving of more than a strong rebuke?”

See the comments to my blogpost “The Slide,” 6/4/15.

Here’s John J. Hynes, Jr. & Eileen J. Hynes, Docket No. 19841-13, filed 6/5/15.

John and Eileen wanted a pretrial conference (I love those; a Taishoff “good move” goes to T. Burke, Esq., of Braintree, MA, counsel for petitioners), so the Obliging Jurist gave them one on the phone.

But IRS decides to try it on yet again.

“…the Court will hear no further argument on respondent’s motion for leave to file an amendment to his answer, and (2) that the motion is denied, since it was filed May 29, 2015–i.e., 10 calendar days before the calendar call–to the apparent prejudice of petitioners. (During the conference call, the Court proposed that it might grant the motion for leave if respondent consented to the continuance of the case, but respondent stated an objection to any continuance.)”

Calling audibles at the line of scrimmage might work on the Astroturf, but it doesn’t go in the courtroom.

And the judges need to blow the whistle more often.

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

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

%d bloggers like this: