I had hoped that I should not again have to refer to The Stealth STJ. I am no purveyor of conspiracy theories, neither do I make mysteries where there are none. I had thought that a reader or source would furnish a simple explanation of ex-STJ Eunkyong Choi’s departure after an exceedingly short tenure, giving me the Psalm 141:5 treatment at no extra charge. And perhaps the nonreportage thereof by Public Affairs was a mere oversight.

But it didn’t happen. So I sought for enlightenment both from Second Street, NW, and from such sources as I could find. The results would have done Stonewall Jackson proud.

The trade press carried a story (that I didn’t pick up, as the trade press routinely scoops me with its boundless resources) that ex-STJ Choi had, two (count ’em, two) months prior to her alleged departure date, mistakenly issued a bunch OSCs (hi, Judge Holmes), which Judge Ronald L (“Ingenuity”) Buch had to mop up. But that hardly accounts for a speedy and unheralded departure, otherwise than by post hoc propter hoc fallacious reasoning.

The opacity of Section 7443A is no help. As far as Congress is concerned, STJs serve at the pleasure of the Chief Judge, who seems to be able to do the Matthew 8:9 number whenever, subject only to the Tax Court budget.

So what’s the point? (My readers have asked that more than once).

Tax Court’s expansive reading of Section 7461 has caused petitioners to lay bare everything once they cross the electronic threshold of The Glasshouse in the City of the Unenfranchised. Successful Rule 27 motions seem to require clear and convincing proof of irreparable injury to person or purse despite no such statutory requirement, and Rule 103 protective orders seem limited to trade secrets.

Only whistleblowers, even serial blowers, are broadly protected; see In Re Sealed Case, 931 F.3d 92 (DC Cir, 2019).

But does this door swing one way only? I’ve had more than one complaint in my blogging career from litigants with piteous tales that Tax Court laid bare “(T)heir homely joys, and destiny obscure; Nor Grandeur hear with a disdainful smile The short and simple annals of the poor,” as a much better writer than I put it. And no redress could be had.

Are the judges above all that? So it seems. I need not and will not advert to ethics and the Supremes, as that trenches on the political, into which pit I will not drag this my blog, nor fall myself. At least, not here. But how about pore l’il ol’ Article One Tax Court? No court is less political, as again and again opinions state that the Court must follow the law as Congress promulgated it.

So what about Section 7461?

The leading privacy case is Willie Nelson, Docket No. 1174-85, filed 12/12/85. STJ Cantrel said it clearly: “In these cases, members of the public have an interest in free access to the facts and in understanding disputes that are presented to this forum for resolution. They also have an interest in assuring that courts are fairly run and judges are honest. Nevertheless, the presumptive right to access may be rebutted by a showing that there are countervailing interests sufficient to outweigh the public interest in access.” Order, at p. 919. (Citations omitted)(emphasis added).

OK, I’ll buy that. If there are “countervailing interests sufficient to outweigh the public interest in access,” what are they? Or if even mention thereof would defeat the outweighed countervailings, say so.

But if the petitioner has to let it all hang out, why not Tax Court?