In Uncategorized on 02/01/2016 at 23:47

But Don’t Wear Out His Patience

 Judge David Gustafson is the humble petitioner’s friend. Like a much Higher Authority, a humble and a contrite heart he does not despise.

Though his spelling may be shaky, don’t presume too far on his good nature. It’s not a good policy.

In witness of the first clause of the above sentence, I proffer the following: “The asserted facts are relevant, discreet, objective, and verifiable or deniable.” Marlene D. Morten, Docket No. 2451-13, filed 2/1/16, a designated hitter, no less.

Judge, the question is not whether the facts are “discreet,” that is, “showing discernment or good judgment in conduct and especially in speech; prudent.” No, the question is whether each admission sought in Interrogatory No. 1 is a separate, independent item, as in “discrete: apart or detached from others; separate, distinct.”

Nobody proofreads these orders.

Howbeit, Marlene is pro se, but she is apparently an attorney, admitted in DC.

IRS wants information about any previously requested admissions to which Marlene didn’t admit. But this is superfluous.

Judge Gustafson: “…with respect to Interrogatory No. 1, the IRS’s motion to compel is denied in part as moot. In view of Ms. Morten’s non-response to the requested admissions, the requested admissions of fact are all deemed admitted as of… the due date of the response, by the operation of Rule 90(c). Consequently, there are no requested admissions that have not been admitted, and the motion to compel is moot as to Interrogatory No. 1….” Order, at p. 2.

Marlene was the beneficiary of three (count ‘em, three) continuances, or what we State-court types call trial adjournments, and she isn’t getting any more.

IRS also wants a witness list from Marlene, and Judge Gustafson says they should get it, so he will compel Marlene to disgorge.

“We do not need, before thus granting the motion in part, to request from Ms. Morten a response to the motion to compel. The interrogatory is manifestly proper and seeks relevant information that Ms. Morten ought to be able to provide, now a full three years after she filed her petition.” Order, at p. 2.

And if Marlene doesn’t?

“If Ms. Morten fails to comply, then the Court would entertain at trial a renewed motion that Ms. Morten be barred from calling witnesses that she had failed to identify in response to Interrogatory No. 2.” Order, at p. 2.

Sounds like Marlene, with the facts deemed admitted and no unidentified witnesses allowed to testify, has nothing left but the Michael Corleone gambit.

Takeaway- Don’t annoy the judge, even one so obliging as Judge David Gustafson.

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: