Attorney-at-Law

GUSTAFSON ON EVIDENCE

In Uncategorized on 02/01/2018 at 18:03

Here’s a treatise I’d like to have handy, and that Obliging Jurist, Judge David Gustafson, has written a page thereof in Gwendolyn L. Kestin, Docket No. 18254-17L, filed 2/1/18.

Gwen is a firm believer in laying it all out. “…petitioner filed her petition (ECF 1). Its first two pages are the standard form petition, which she had filled out. On that form she refers to an ‘attached petition’, which evidently consists of the 121 additional pages that follow the form, containing argument evidently composed by petitioner, pages from the Congressional Record, pages of legislative history, correspondence with the IRS, copies of transcripts of account, and other documents. One of the documents included in her petition stated a website address, but a letter was evidently left off the address.” Order, at p. 1.

So Gwen makes a motion thus entitled: “Motion for Clerk to Amend Petition as Requested in Petitioner’s Reply to Respondent’s Response” (ECF 20).”

Judge Gustafson deems that to be a Rule 41(a) motion to amend petition, which he denies as moot.

The Clerk sent Gwen the usual “this might be evidence. Evidence gets put in at trial. Filing it with the Court does not put it in evidence.”

Then Gwen asks that her 121-page masterpiece not be excluded, and put in the missing letter, please.

Judge Gustafson on evidence: “Petitioner evidently misunderstood the Clerk’s notice. It did not have the effect of deleting the 121-page attachment from her petition. Rather, the notice correctly advised petitioner that the inclusion of the documents in her petition did not have the effect of admitting them into evidence. Instead, if there is any relevant document in her petition, then petitioner’s occasion to offer it into evidence will be at the trial of her case.

“Petitioner’s correction of the website address now appears in the record, by virtue of her motion to amend. There is no need to formally amend the petition to correct this detail. When the time is ripe for petitioner to cite this webpage (e.g., in her pretrial memorandum), she may do so (with the correct address, of course).” Order, at p. 2.

Now I’m not saying Gwen is a rounder. But it seems that 120-plus pages are almost the rounders’ flavor du jour. See my blogpost “The Jolly Rounder,” 3/16/15, where the number was 129 pages.

Advertisements

Leave a Reply

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

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com 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: