And they are an essential element of every judicial opinion, even a five-page off-the-bencher. I’m truly surprised at CSTJ Lew (“Especially With That Name”) Carluzzo making an offhanded observation that “(T)he relevant facts and controlling law are well known to the parties and need not be discussed in this bench opinion.” Transcript, at p. 4.

Judge, I’ve not the slightest doubt that petitioner and respondent gave the facts and controlling law the Job 19:24 treatment.

But what about the rest of us? I know that off-the-benchers are not precedent; at best are law of the case. But we practitioners read them, learn, mark and inwardly digest them. Especially in a Section 7502 mailed-is-filed case, where extrinsic evidence is received and carries the day for petitioners.

Great that the employee of petitioners’ trusty (former?) attorney was a good witness, and that the firm’s records were top-fuel. But what about postmark? Was there one? If so, was it legible? What is the source of data for ETA at the Glasshouse for a petition posted from wherever? Where is this case Golsenized, and does that CCA allow extrinsic evidence in a Section 7502? And does ABA Model Rule 3.7 play any part here?

I’m thinking maybe, when Section 7502 is in play, it might could be a good idea to try for an off–the-bench resolution, so that these vexatious questions can be avoided if someone can tell a good story.

I blog off-the-benchers, though the trade press and blogosphere don’t. And my readers read them, maybe because the trade press and the blogosphere don’t bother reporting them.

I say Judge Buch got it right: opinions are a critical component of what we understand to be the law. See my blogpost “Cracking Up,” 2/27/14.

Oh, the case is Gina M. Ledesma & Jullian Ledesma, Docket No. 13685-20, filed 7/29/22.