Attorney-at-Law

UNAPPROVED SUPPLEMENTS

In Uncategorized on 07/23/2020 at 13:21

No, not the late-night dietary nostrums of the telehawkers, rife with FDA disclaimers, nor yet another tale of State-legal potteries. This is the ping-pong game between IRS and Whistleblower 5903-19W, filed 7/23/22.

Long-suffering Ch J Maurice B (“Mighty Mo”) Foley has this one, and if he isn’t wondering why he ever ran for re-election to the office of Ch J, he’s a better man than I am.

“On January 6, 2020, petitioner submitted a document titled first motion for summary judgment, which the Court filed as a Motion for Partial Summary Judgment. On January 7, 2020, petitioner submitted a document titled second motion for partial summary judgment, which was filed by the Court as a First Supplement to Motion for Partial Summary Judgment. On February 25, 2020, respondent filed a Response to Motion for Partial Summary Judgment, As Supplemented.

“On March 2, 2020, petitioner filed a Second Supplement to Motion for Partial Summary Judgment and, on March 4, 2020, filed a Reply to Response to Motion for Partial Summary Judgment, As Supplemented. On March 9, 2020, petitioner filed a First Supplement to Reply to Response to Motion for Partial Summary Judgment, As Supplemented.

“On March 16, 2020, petitioner filed redacted and unredacted versions of a Motion (Second) for Partial Summary Judgment, which the Court will recharacterize.” Order, at p. 1.

Brings back memories of the old epistolary volleying between the Ogden Sunseteers and various blowers, which I’ve extensively blogged. See, e. g., my blogpost “Oh, Those Letters! – Part Deux,” 3/27/19.

But Ch J Mighty Mo has run out of patience with this roundy-rounding.

After recharacterizing all the aforementioned, and sealing the unredacted, he orders “…that petitioner should not file any further reply with respect to respondent’s above-referenced response to petitioner’s motion for partial summary judgment, as supplemented, unless petitioner is so directed by the Court or petitioner first files a motion for leave to do so.” Order, at p. 2.

Reminds me of Ol’ Phil, the King of Pro Se orders, back in State Court thirty-five years ago. The judges finally shut him down, too.

 

 

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: