In Uncategorized on 02/19/2016 at 18:08

Judge David Gustafson just can’t help himself…it is in his nature to be obliging. And that, even when the object of his noblesse oblige is only “in small part” deserving thereof.

So today’s designated hitter from Judge Gustafson is Marlene D. Morten, Docket No. 2451-13, filed 2/19/16. You remember Marlene, dilatory bombardier first class?

Truly not? How fleeting is fame. Well, dig my blogpost “Good Nature, Poor Spelling,” 2/1/16.

Judge Gustafson did correct the spelling from the Order in my blogpost abovecited  (“The asserted facts are relevant, discrete, objective, and verifiable or deniable,” Order, at p. 1.). But Marlene catches only a minuscule break, as she seeks reconsideration of Judge Gustafson’s order.

Now your refreshed recollection should show that IRS wanted Judge Gustafson to compel Marlene to respond to some interrogatories. But Judge Gustafson blew that off as moot, because the interrogatories in question dealt with facts which Marlene hadn’t theretofore admitted or responded to. If not directly responded to, those facts were all deemed admitted.

Nothing to reconsider here.

Marlene wants thirty days to respond to the interrogatories. Well, the facts-admitted stuff is history. But the interrogatory seeking names and contact information for witnesses Marlene will call upon the trial is another story. Notwithstanding Marlene’s delaying tactics, she gets time to provide those, although by now, three years into the program, she should have some idea who and where these witnesses might be.

In any case, Marlene’s alleged difficulties in responding to IRS are outweighed by her non-responsiveness to IRS and Judge Gustafson.

“The Court has heretofore made extraordinary accommodations to Ms. Morten in the scheduling of the trial in this case, and those accommodations are at an end. She is not entitled to render herself incommunicado and then to bear no responsibility for the prosecution of this case. Ms. Morten is obliged either to handle her duties under the rules or to hire whatever assistance is needed in order to do so.” Order, at p. 2.

So, Marlene, you’re going to trial in May, ready or not. You have thirty days to name and claim your witnesses.

And, if I may make a discreet suggestion, don’t annoy the Judge. I’ve seen it used as a tactic. It rarely works. Even when the Judge is an Obliging Jurist.

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: