That’s Martin G. Plotkin, Docket 16224-14L, filed 2/3/21. Martin G. is still at it, reprising his inventive style, which I characterized back in 2019 thus: “Tax Court self-representeds are endlessly inventive. The hard-laboring blogger is often overmastered, trying to keep up with their improvisational reinventions of the game.” See my blogpost “The Banc Shot,” 5/13/19.

Martin G. still has all the balls in the air, and at seven years into the program and still a foe of electronic filing, the end is as far off as ever.

In less than a month, Martin G. “filed a ‘motion to the Court to review and revise it’s [sic] Order dated November 18, 2020, denying petitioner’s amended motion requesting recusal’.” Order, at p.1.

And,”… a motion for a continuance in which he stated that he would have difficulties participating in a trial through videoconference. Respondent does not object to a continuance.” Order, at p. 1.

And “… a motion for permission to file an interlocutory appeal.” Order, at p. 1.

And “…a motion for continuance. We will file this a [sic; I think you meant “as”, Judge] petitioner’s supplement to his… motion for continuance.” Order, at p. 1.

IRS offers a remand, so the SO can explain “…what facts she relied upon, what law or procedures she considered, and how she reached the conclusion she did as to the balancing test.” Order, at p. 1. Because Martin G. wants to know. And to participate therein.

Judge Morrison allows that, and denies the rest.

La partie continue.