Another wannabe immunologist, Edward Francis Bachner, IV, comes before Judge Morrison with at least sixteen (count ‘em, sixteen) reasons why he won’t sign off on the Rule 91(f) stip that IRS wants.

And leading the pack is the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution. Ed claims IRS wants him to incriminate himself, as to two of the three years he committed tax fraud.

Like the dude in Sam T. Coleridge’s classic, the IRS did “stoppeth one of three.” The Federales managed to nail Ed for one year, and he pled to a count of 18USC§287 for falsely claiming withholding and getting a six figure refund.

He also claims the government defrauded him, but Judge Morrison doesn’t go there.

The case is Edward Francis Bachner, IV & Rebecca Gay Bachner, Docket No. 23219-15, filed 2/17/17, but Becca is out of the fraud penalties on Section 6015 innocent spousery.

Leaving aside Ed’s attempt to frustrate the fisc with jivetalk, Judge Morrison cuts to the cliché.

“However, we find that addressing the proposed stipulation of facts would not expose the Bachners to a real danger of prosecution. Mr. Bachner has already been indicted for, and has pled guilty to, filing a false claim for the 2005 tax year. U.S. Const. amend. V; United States ex. rel. Stevens v. Circuit Ct. of Milwaukee County, Wis., Branch VIII, 675 F.2d 946, 948 (7th Cir. 1982). The question becomes whether he faces a real danger of being prosecuted for the other two years, 2006 and 2007. In his agreement to plead guilty for the 2005 year, Mr. Bachner admitted that he filed false claims against the government for the 2006 and 2007 years. Despite this admission, the government did not prosecute Mr. Bachner for the 2006 and 2007 years. We find the possibility remote that the government will later prosecute Mr. Bachner for the 2006 and 2007 years based upon his statements regarding the proposed stipulation of facts. We therefore hold that the Bachners may not claim privilege in this Rule 91(f) matter.” Order, at pp. 5-6. (Footnote omitted, but read it.)

Remember, immunologist, “(I)t is for the Court to determine whether the privilege justifies a refusal to answer questions. Hoffman v. United States, 341 U.S. at 487. In making the determination the trial judge ‘must be governed as much by his personal perception of the peculiarities of the case as by the facts actually in evidence.’ Id.” Order, at p. 5.

And jivetalking may give an unpleasant personal perception.