There’s much ado just now anent Artificial Intelligence (AI). Many ask if it is a boon or a bane. Will use thereof corrupt the public mind, so that falsehoods too easily assume the guise of truths? Or will it act positively, to expand communication and reduce to manageable proportions the data deluge which now overwhelms us?

FIIK, says I, but however adroit the machine or mechanics, trust the human being to overcome whatever it is, even without the addition of AI.

Here’s Elwin A. Abarca, Docket No. 31754-21L, filed 6/30/23, but Elwin is just an innocent bystander, as are his three (count ’em, three) trusty attorneys. The protagonist is IRS’ trusty counsel, whom I’ll call Mel.

And I’ll let Judge Courtney D. (“CD”) Jones tell the tale. The dates are left in, as they’re relevant.

“On June 8, 2023, respondent filed a Motion for Continuance (Motion) (Doc. 12). In response to the Motion, the Court noted a lack of clarity in the Motion regarding whether the reference to Special Trial Judge Choi was intentional or merely a typographical error (Doc. 13). Accordingly, the Court directed respondent to file a clarifying amendment.

“On June 28, 2023, respondent filed a First Amendment to Motion for Continuance (First Amendment) (Doc. 14). Unfortunately, respondent’s First Amendment suffers from the same lack of clarity from which the Motion suffers. While the First Amendment provides that ‘respondent’s counsel erred by requesting that jurisdiction be retained by Judge Choi for this proceeding” (Par. 2), it goes on to request that ‘the case be continued…with jurisdiction retained by Judge Choi Jones…” (Par. 3).” Ordre, at p. 1.

Motion denied without prejudice to refile.

Oi choi oi, as we used to say.