I echo the greeting of the old Montréal Forum (now Bell Centre) to the new online petition generator, with its multifarious warnings to self-represented petitioners to redact all PII (Personally Identifiable Information) from submissions utilizing the same. The new facility will surely obviate the need for orders such as Crystal Elbert, Docket No. 12346-24, filed 8/2/24.

Crystal filed her pro se petition just last week, but already found she’d foot-faulted.

Ch J Kathleen (“TBS = The Big Shillelagh”) Kerrigan tells the story.

“…petitioner electronically filed the Petition to commence the above-docketed case, not accompanied by payment of the filing fee. On the same date, petitioner filed an Attachment to Petition. Petitioner’s filings were not properly redacted to eliminate references to taxpayer identifying information.” Order, at p. 1.

C h J TBS jumped on Crystal’s miscue the next day, ordering her to pay the Three Andys and file a properly-redacted petition. Simultaneously, Crystal “…filed a document … under the title ‘Motion to Close Case due to Lack of Redaction.’ Therein petitioner wrote, ‘I am writing this to create a motion to request case 12346-24 be redacted and closed due to petition social security number not redacted. Also missing important documentation.'” Order, at p. 1.

OK, Crystal, Ch J TBS will turn from her many important tasks and employ scarce judicial resources to help you out. And throw in some useful advice at no extra charge.

“We will seal petitioner’s improperly redacted documents. However, to the extent petitioner may be seeking to seal this entire proceeding, we inform her that, as a general rule, the official records of all courts are to be open and available for public inspection. See Willie Nelson Music Co. v. Commissioner, 85 T.C. 914, 917 (1985).” Order, at p. 1.

Hopefully, the new robopetitioner will make extinct “Motions to Close Case due to Lack of Redaction.”