Attorney-at-Law

PORE POWERLESS L’IL OLE TAX COURT – PART DEUX

In Uncategorized on 07/20/2020 at 16:25

Once the Ogden Sunseteers have done the Lacey SME mambo and come up dry, STJ Daniel A (“Yuda”) Guy is powerless to help Dannez Westbrook Hunter, Docket No. 11453-19W, filed 7/20/20.

And this is so, even when Dannez claims “… one of the taxpayers had ‘money laundered stolen proceeds of Aunt Jemima royalties that belong to my family’ and that the others had failed to pay a certain individual’s ‘$3,500,000,000.00 UCC lien for [sic] involving theft of Terminator and Matrix franchise copyrights’. Petitioner claimed that he was the administrator of the individual’s purported UCC lien. Attached to the Forms 211 were various documents, including copies of court filings, taxpayer biographies, news articles, and a letter from petitioner.” Order, at p. 2.

And Dannez also claims two or more of the targets bribed the FBI and a judge and his clerk to sink his whistleblower claim.

“The administrative record in this case establishes that the WBO received petitioner’s applications for award, evaluated petitioner’s information, which included receiving input from an IRS classifier, and based on that classifier’s recommendation, determined that petitioner’s information did not warrant further investigation by the IRS. In doing so, the WBO performed its evaluative function. See Alber v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2020-20, at *8-*9.” Order, at p. 4.

All y’all will recall Christian Bernd Alber. If not, check out my blogpost “We Don’t Need Lacey,” 1/30/20.

“Petitioner is clearly frustrated that information he believes is actionable was not pursued by the IRS. However, as petitioner has failed to show that the WBO’s determination in this case was arbitrary, capricious, or without sound basis in fact or law, we find that the WBO did not abuse its discretion in rejecting petitioner’s whistleblower claims. Consequently, in the absence of any justiciable dispute as to the actions that the WBO took in response to petitioner’s whistleblower claim, it follows that respondent is entitled to decision as a matter of law.” Order, at p. 5.

BTW, if you’re as curious as I am about the judge and clerk, check out Dannez’s other order today, wherein Ch Judge Maurice B (“Mighty Mo”) Foley must deal with “…petitioner’s memorandum memorandum in support of objection to U.S. Tax Court Chief Judge Maurice B. Foley, fraudulent court order to strike dated July 9, 2020, petitioner’s supplemental pleadings as a pro se litigant under U.S. Tax Court Rule, Title IV, Rule 41(b)(2)(c), filed July 16, 2020….” Order, at. p. 1.

And nobody had better mess with Aunt Jemima; the Girl of My Dreams will not countenance anyone else’s waffle and pancake mix.

 

 

 

 

 

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: