Attorney-at-Law

ROUNDER OF THE YEAR

In Uncategorized on 11/09/2020 at 18:11

I’m not going to try to summarize Norman Douglas Diamond, Petitioner and Zaida Golena Del Rosario, Intervenor, Docket No. 14095-18, filed 11/9/20.  Judge Elizabeth A (“Tex”) Copeland has designated this farrago, and it surely qualifies Norm (and maybe Zaida Golena, for whom Norm claims he prepared phony tax returns so she could claim Fifth Amendment privilege because she didn’t have a SSAN. Order, at p. 7) for the title hereof.

Norm has sued three (count ’em, three) times in Tax Court, twice in USCFC, and three (count ’em, three) times in USDCCDCA. And lost every time. Order, at pp. 4-6.

 Judge Tex Copeland is far more patient than I.

“For over a decade, petitioner filed more than a dozen ill-conceived lawsuits in attempt to obtain a refund for the years at issue in this case. He has consistently advanced losing arguments upon a belief that the IRS “confiscated” refunds he was owed, and many courts repeated attempts to explain that his positions have no basis in law.12Before us in this case, petitioner acknowledged he “sued the IRS many times” to no avail. Yet, he still filed this case under the preposterous theory that he is entitled to innocent spouse relief because he is ‘innocent’–he altered his tax returns because of his ‘wife’s situation’–and he is also a spouse–he is married to intervenor. Herein, we have attempted to explain once again that he is not entitled to the refund sought but warn petitioner to tread carefully before bringing another suit in this Court.” Order, at pp. 12-13.

But Norm is industrious.

“Like his positions in other cases, petitioner’s numerous filings, some of which exceeding one-hundred (100) pages, in opposition to respondent’s summary judgment motion make baseless allegations of misconduct and fraud against respondent. He attempted to characterize those allegations as raising ‘genuine material issues of facts ‘requiring our denial of respondent’s motion. Petitioner also accused this Court of willfully ‘evading its statutory responsibilities’ in our previous decisions and repeatedly sought to relitigate closed cases, and all his requests were denied. See Doc. No. 62; see also supra p.4 (discussing Cases 1 and 3). Petitioner’s legal arguments in support of the alleged misconduct cite unrelated case law and are frivolous and wholly lacking in merit.” Order, at p. 13.

Judge Tex Copeland gives Norm one last chance. No Section 6673 chop.

Taishoff regrets he cannot award a prize for Rounder of the Year. Norm is definitely in the running.

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: