In Uncategorized on 02/14/2022 at 16:18

Judge Albert G (“Scholar Al”) Lauber has acquired that sobriquet through much labor. My colleague Peter Reilly, CPA, a schoolmate of Judge Lauber’s at an elite boys’ high school (one of my nephews is also an alumnus), has remarked on Judge Scholar Al’s stand-out academics at the old school. But he must be echoing Sherlock Holmes’ famous remark “I am somewhat exhausted; I wonder how a battery feels when it pours electricity into a non-conductor?” after dealing with Gregory J. Podlucky & Karla S. Podlucky, Docket No. 453-17, filed 2/14/22.

Greg moves Judge Scholar Al to recuse himself.

“On June 21, 2021, he filed a 244-page motion asserting (among other things) that respondent has ‘perpetrat[ed] fraud [on] this Court by proceeding with the prosecution of the void Notice of Deficiency by and through a want of subject-matter jurisdiction.’ Later that day he filed a 199-page motion asserting that ‘the Federal Tax Statutes are clearly in derogation of personal rights and property rights.’ We denied both motions and reiterated our warning about frivolous arguments. Undeterred, petitioner husband filed on July 12, 2021, a 545-page document asserting (among other things) that there is no ‘enforcement clause in the 16th Amendment’ and that ‘the citing . . . of any statutes in Title 26 . . . [is] both unconstitutional and fraudulent.’” Order, at p. 2.

Judge Scholar Al, patiently: “At trial we reasonably characterized these positions as ‘frivolous.’” Order, idem., as my expensive colleagues would say.

But Greg is just warming up.

“Petitioners also assert that the Court showed bias by embracing respondent’s position on the central question in the case, namely, whether assets from petitioners’ corporation were diverted to them personally. In this passage the Court was urging Mr. Podlucky to use his time at trial to present testimony and evidence that were relevant to the issues the Court had to decide. The Court summarized respondent’s position and urged Mr. Podlucky to address it forthrightly rather than digress into facts that did not matter. In so doing the Court was attempting to help Mr. Podlucky, a pro se litigant, present his case more effectively.” Order, at p. 2.

Judge, it’s an old saw that should really be pensioned-off: “To present a case, you need to have a case.”

  1. 36. Moreover, the United States Tax Court Judge Lauber did not address the Ultimate Fact that the Appellants-Petitioners had accepted the tax deficiencies as documented in the Recission filed at the United States Tax Court, Document No. 220 on July 28, 2021, and once again at Document No. 225 on September 07, 2021. Instead, he ignored that Ultimate Fact and ordered the case set for trial.
    37. What is the reasoning behind this manifest miscarriage of justice?
    38. Why proceed to a trial? The issues were resolved.
    39. There is something very draconian, egregious, and onerous taking place in this matter for which this Court should address by awarding monetary and exemplary damages. Enough is enough. This matter embarks on a violation of the Eighth Amendment for perpetrating cruel and unusual punishment.
    41. In conclusion, this Court must respectfully consider awarding the Appellant-Petitioners monetary damages for the manifest miscarriage of justice by Judge Lauber as during the unnecessary trial Appellant-Petitioner Karla S. Podlucky broke down in an emotional display during her testimony when she had re-visit the death of our dear daughter Melissa whereby the court had to adjourn. The Appellant-Petitioner Gregory J. Podlucky had anticipated this would occur and was desperately trying to avert the trial by accepting the tax deficiencies and noticing the Appellee-Respondent and Judge Lauber on the occasions stated and affirmed herein.
    Wherefore, the Appellants-Petitioners respectfully request that this Court award the Appellant-Petitioner Karla S. Podlucky monetary damages for irreparable injuries and disabilities suffered by her of $100,000,000 and exemplary damages commensurate with such manifest miscarriage of justice especially since the Appellant-Petitioner Karla S. Podlucky was not involved in any alleged fraud making for the expiration of the statute of limitations for her tax years of 2003, 2004, 2005 and 2006.

    Yeah, a real scholar.


  2. Mr Podlucky, If you’re unhappy with what Judge Lauber ordered, take an appeal. The Circuit Court of Appeals can reverse him; I can’t. If you’re unhappy with the laws, write to your Senators and Representative. They can change the laws; I can’t. If you’re unhappy with what I write, don’t read it. Or start your own blog. But further diatribes will be deleted.


Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment: Logo

You are commenting using your 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: