The immortal words of B. Traven, spoken iconically and cinematographically by Alfonso Badoya, have created a whole department of my blogposts. Solely by way of illustration of the foregoing, as my high-priced colleagues would say, see my blogposts “We Don’t Need No Stinkin’ Factors, 5/15/12, “We Don’t Need No Stinkin’ Badges,” 4/2/14, “We Don’t Need No Value,” 11/19/20, “We Don’t Need No Authority,” 1/14/21, and “We Don’t Need No Form 433-A,” 8/7/23. There now.

Today Ch J Kathleen (“TBS = The Big Shillelagh”) Kerrigan adds another, viz., namely, and to wit, “We Don’t Need No Office for the Self-Represented.”

I’d venture a wild guess that Walter D. Kowalok & Wei Li, Docket No. 18795-23S, filed 2/15/24, are self-represented. My sources for this assertion are (a) a docket search showing no EoA, and (b) Ch J TBS’ statement that “… petitioners electronically filed the following improperly titled documents: (1) Reply to Answer (Docket Index No.7); (2) five documents with the designation of Memorandum in Support of Reply to Answer (Docket Index Nos. 8, 9, 10, 11, and 12); (3) another Reply to Answer (Docket Index No. 13); and (4) three additional documents with the designation of Memorandum in Support of Reply to Answer (Docket Index Nos. 14, 15, and 16).” Order, at p. 1.

Clearly, Walt & Wei need some help getting organized. In the past, I’ve suggested an office for the self-represented, such as have been established in any number of State and Federal Courts, as a Guide for the Perplexed. Of course, as with most of my suggestions, this perfectly rational proposal has been ignored. I repeat it today, however, in almost the same way as I did a three-and-a-half years ago; see my blogpost “Office for the Self-Represented,,” 8/10/20.

But perhaps the omission is well-founded after all, as Ch J TBS (as has her predecessors, and I do not doubt her successors) has chosen yet again to fill that rôle in propria persona, as said high-priced colleagues would say; that means her own self, as those who never went to law school would say.

“Petitioners are advised that none of the just-referenced documents have been received into evidence by the Court at this time and that, unless otherwise directed by the Court, the appropriate time to present documentary evidence for inclusion in the Court’s record is at the trial of this matter.

“Petitioners are further advised that, unless otherwise directed, in the future if they seek to have the Commissioner (respondent) review and consider documents in an effort to reach a settlement before any trial in this case, petitioners should provide those documents directly to respondent’s counsel. The contact information for respondent’s counsel was included in respondent’s Answer, which was filed January 17, 2024. For more information, petitioners’ attention is invited to ‘Guidance for Petitioners’ under “Rules & Guidance” on the Court’s website, http://www.ustaxcourt.gov.” Order, at p. 1.

I am sure this department will see ever more growth in future.