In Uncategorized on 05/16/2016 at 15:09

Y’know, after a couple decades (hi, Judge Holmes) of practicing law, we think we know everything. As the old cowboy cliché goes, “we has seed th’ elephant and heerd th’ owl.”

Except, of course, we haven’t. Not by a long chalk.

Here’s one for the books, a reprise from a guest on this site, Joseph A. (“Fighting Joe”) Insinga, Docket No. 9011-13W, filed 5/16/16.

Y’all will remember Fighting Joe from my blogposts “Did Nothing,” 3/13/13, “Perpetual Discovery,” 3/21/13,  “A Voyage of Discovery,” 3/30/13, and “Youth Wants to Know,” 4/24/13.

That obliging jurist, Judge David Gustafson, gets this little gem. Fighting Joe “…filed an application to take his own deposition to perpetuate testimony pursuant to Rule 81.” Order, at p. 1.

Equally terse, Judge Gustafson orders IRS’ counsel to reply.

I will not waste my readers’ (those few, those happy few) time with somber reflections, such as “why not an affidavit? They’re free; a deposition means you have to pay for the reporter, and they’re not cheap” or “depositions are for unavailable witnesses; are you intending to skip your own trial?” or even “at a deposition the other side can cross-examine; why do you want to pay for them to beat you up?”

Cain’t hardly wait.

Next up, we have STJ Lewis (“My Kind of Name”) Carluzzo dealing with another frequent blogfodderer. And STJ Lew sounds resigned, like he’s talking to himself, in Curtis Edwin Leyshon, 24310-15, filed 5/16/16.

Curt, like Fighting Joe, has made a couple guest appearances (hi again, Judge Holmes) here. See my blogposts “Rounders’ Day,” 1/16/15, and “Another Rounders’ Day,” 6/30/15.

Curt is back with the same protester jive Judge Gustafson warned him against last year.

STJ Lew: “The circumstances in this case are similar to the circumstances in petitioner’s previous case. In rejecting petitioner’s positions here we could repeat the reasoning contained in the opinion filed in his previous case, but we could not make it clearer. Instead, we simply note that the petition filed in this case gives rise to no justiciable issue, and we find here, as we have done previously, that petitioner’s positions are frivolous.” Order, at p. 2.

Oh, and Curt, here’s a $2500 Section 6673 frivolity chop.


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 )

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: