See my blogpost “The Proofreader’s Reward,” 2/16/16, for a prelude to this aubade.
That irrepressible couple, Gregory J. Podlucky & Karla S. Podlucky, Docket No. 453-17, filed 12/2/21* (a plethora of palindromes this week), are back again. Notwithstanding Karla’s Van Cleef & Arpels custom-made baubles and Greg’s $4 million-plus in unpaid tax and chops (see my blogpost “The Woman in the Case,” 10/21/21), Greg & Karla plead poverty.
And big-hearted Judge Albert G (“Scholar Al”) Lauber bought their tale of destitution.
“On October 20, 2021, petitioners filed a motion requesting that the Court pay the cost of securing for them a transcript of the trial, alleging that they lacked the funds necessary to pay the cost. We granted that motion on October 29, 2021. The trial transcript, consisting of 457 pages, was posted to the docket record of this case on November 3, 2021.” Order, at p. 1.
While I’m usually genial at this season of anticipation, I note that, although “the Court” wrote the check, the US taxpayers, of whom I am one, paid the cost of the transcript. I’d like to see for myself just how broke Greg & Karla are.
OK, so what’s done is done. But that doesn’t stop Greg & Karla from going for it on fourth down.
“…petitioners filed a Motion for Audio of Trial Proceedings, requesting that the Court ‘pay the cost of the duplicating of the video and audio’ of the trial. As grounds therefor they note that the transcript (which they admit having received) includes instances where two speakers spoke concurrently, as indicated by brackets containing the words ‘indiscernible, simultaneous speech.’ Petitioners assert that the transcript for this reason ‘is not indicative of the trial proceedings,’ risking violation of their ‘Fifth Amendment right to due process.’ Order, at pp. 1-2.
Judge Scholar Al, courteous as always but finally out of patience, denies. In 457 (count ’em, 457, and Judge Scholar Al clearly has) pages, Judge Scholar Al finds “relatively few” instances where the reporter had to note talkovers, and those only for a line or two. None “detracts even slightly” from comprehensibility, Order, at p. 2.
So Judge Scholar Al gives counsel and petitioners a conversation easement: they can talk over each other, provided the meaning stays clear.
Anyway, if the transcript is unclear or erroneous, parties can move to correct, although Judge Scholar Al does not cite Rule 85(e). The Rules’ proclivity for motions seems to me excessive in this case. Our New York Civil Practice Law and Rule 3116(a) requires the deposed to note their objections and corrections in writing at the end of the transcript, and sign and return the same.
Much simpler.
Taishoff Law 
And Now based on this newly discovered evidence from the United States Tax Court trial on October 05, 2021 and October 07, 2021, the worldwide authority on revenues, the CIR, the Podluckys’ affirmations and claims have been proven by the CIR which is a complete contradiction of the CIR’s previous investigation that was formalized as a Prosecution Report that resulted in (1) the wrongful prosecution of the Podluckys, and (2) the wrongful confiscation of their personal assets, and children’s asset management trust.
Consequently, LNI is now determined to be a highly profitable enterprise by the CIR, and the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA’S misguided allegation that LNI’s audited financial statements by Price Waterhouse Cooper, Ernst & Young, BDO Seidman, Boston & Associates, bank auditors, and many other financial institutions’ auditors were fraudulent is now completely contradicted by the CIR. And proves that there was no cause for criminal prosecution of the Podluckys.
Moreover, this newly discovered evidence is cause for exonerating the Podluckys by vacating Gregory Joseph Podlucky’s judgment in a criminal case, quashing his indictments and related matters such as the confiscation of Gregory Joseph Podlucky’s and his wife’s assets and children’s asset management trust as the alleged violations of inter alia, 18 U.S.C. §§ 1341 (mail fraud), 1343 (wire fraud), 1344 (bank fraud), 1956(a)(1) (laundering of monetary instruments) and 1957(a) (engaging in unlawful monetary transactions) are now void-ab-initio.
LikeLike
Once again, the foregoing appears for the fact that it was said, not for the truth (or otherwise) of what is said.
LikeLike