Judge Mark V. (“Vittorio Emanuele”) Holmes brushes off Anika D. Larkin, a.k.a. Anika D. Duprey-Larkin, Docket No. 19061-21S, filed 4/23/24, rather summarily.

“This is tax protester gibberish. Very, very briefly, there is no legal basis to send a letter to the IRS imposing a deadline of your own choosing to get the IRS to do something and then claim the IRS can’t do anything to you, much less exempt yourself from taxes for 202 years because the IRS doesn’t adhere to the deadline you tried to impose on it.

“I also have no jurisdiction whatsoever to enjoin IRS from collection of taxes.” Transcript, at p. 8.

I’d like to impose something on the Tax Court Genius Baristas for printing Judge Holmes’ off-the-bencher in a PDF that doesn’t allow me to drag-and-drop enough of Anika’s prose to show y’all what caused Judge Holmes to toss her petition. I have neither time nor inclination to type same, after having had to type Judge Holmes’ rebuke. So you’ll have to read the same for yourself, if you wish, on Tax Court website.

But before I pile on in this scrimmage, I won’t wait for some of my readers with long memories to remind me of what I said ten (count ’em ten) years ago: “When it comes to legalistic gibberish I’d be careful about throwing stones.” See my blogpost “Legalistic Gibberish,” 3/13/14.