No, not a theatre review of the 1961 Michael Shurtleff groundbreaker that joined Alvin Ailey and Robert Duvall. This is the tale of “James Lindor,” Docket No. 217-23, filed 7/1/24. I use inverted commas, because, as CSTJ Lewis (“That Is His Rightful Name”) Carluzzo points out, “‘James Lindor’ is not petitioner’s name.” Order, at p. 4.

CSTJ Lew deals here with a flurry of motions, “James Lindor” goes 0 for 6, but does get couple byes (hi, Judge Holmes). IRS did fail to redact some PII, but covered up before any Nosy Parker tipped the Copycats for a sneak peek, so no sanctions. Order, at pp. 1-2.

And while “James Lindor” did get a Section 7345 certification for a passport grab, IRS’ motion to toss that part of his petition thereof for failure to state a claim didn’t mention any attempt to get a more definite statement.

“Although the petition is not as precise as we would like, and although we tend to agree with much of respondent’s motion, we consider dismissal at this point in the proceedings to be inappropriate given petitioner’s status as a self-represented litigant. Respondent has missed the opportunity to move for more specificity in the petition before answering the case. See Rules 36(a) and 51. At this point, informal and/or formal discovery can be used to focus on the exact nature of petitioner’s challenge to the certification process. Once identified, the matter can properly be prepared for trial, resolved by summary adjudication, or resolved upon agreement of the parties.” Order, at p. 3.

And as for the pseudonym, that doesn’t cut it in Tax Court.

“The Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure do not allow for the use of pseudonyms in the captions of cases commenced in this Court. See Rule 23(a). If petitioner’s use of the pseudonym is intended to allow him to proceed anonymously, then he must make an appropriate motion to do so. Within 30 days from date of service of this Order, unless petitioner submits (1) a motion to proceed anonymously, supported by sufficient grounds for such relief, or (2) a motion to voluntarily dismiss the case, the Court will amend the caption of this case to show petitioner’s proper name.” Order, at p. 4.

Though he didn’t ask me, I’d tell “James Lindor” that he’d better have some awful good reasons to seek anonymity (like tangible threats to life, health, and livelihood). Anything short gets short shrift. “Public’s right to know,” y’know. Section 7461 and all that.