Attorney-at-Law

“VOT DID HE SET?”

In Uncategorized on 06/16/2020 at 15:17

Variation on a Theme

As I want to hear the rest of the Symphony Space reading of Ulysses this Bloomsday, I’ll refer the reader to my blogpost “Vot Did She Set?” 6/25/13, for the explication of the title hereof.

Judge David Gustafson has need of patience to tell IRS that he has already answered their request that he clarify his order of May 18 and the elements of the record in Richard E. Lacey II, 9761-16W, filed 6/16/20.

I didn’t blog the May 18 order when it was published, because it was allegedly uncontested, and seemed simple enough: put the court record into the administrative file.

But somehow IRS’ counsel managed to get confused.

“Respondent asks us to ‘clarify the Order dated May 18, 2020, and corresponding record’, but does not state what in our order he would like us to clarify.

“Respondent’s filing explains that in many cases the Court’s order would not be helpful (but we issued an order, not a rule for all cases) and that some sorts of filings should not be required to be sent (but the motion does not explain which ones). Respondent then reports that he did send to the WO the documents that it did not already have. We appreciate this compliance, but it leaves us not knowing what aspect of our order needs clarification. We conclude that what respondent wants is the opportunity for himself to correct errors in petitioner’s status report. Presumably he has done so in his motion. “ Order, at pp. 1-2 (Emphasis in the original).

But wait, as the midnight telehucksters say, there’s more!

“Respondent’s motion concludes: ‘Respondent contacted petitioner … to ask whether he objects to the granting of this motion. The parties engaged in a discussion to clarify any misunderstanding. Petitioner does not object to the granting of this motion.’ However, petitioner’s response…states that he ‘most strenuously does object to the granting of said motion”. Petitioner then gives his own account of the parties’ communications. Thus, both parties have now put into the record the information that they wanted to appear in the record.” Order, at p. 2.

Motion for clarification denied as moot, but the parties should continue sending status reports. Maybe Judge Gustafson needs more amusing reading. And I need more amusing blogfodder.

 

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: