I only wish it were true, that headline first above written at the head hereof (as my expensive colleagues would say). So much Crain-Wnuck-Waltner stuff is “weary, stale, flat, and unprofitable” dredgings from the internet. Gwen Kestin was original, but she was a one-off. See my blogpost “What More Can I Say?” 6/7/18 for Gwen’s story.

Zachary Mark Arnold, Docket No. 10106-25, filed 8/1/25, although less inventive as far as I can tell, is trying. I won’t waste three bucks paying the Glasshouse Copycats for a download of Zach’s “Consent Decree.” STJ Lewis (“A Name to Acclaim”) Carluzzo got it for free (and was even paid to read it), but tosses it. Well, at least it was something other than the usual.

“… the document: (1) was not submitted in response to an order of the Court; (2) is not otherwise contemplated by the Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure; (3) plays no role in the processing or disposition of\ this case; and (4) more likely than not was submitted by petitioner in furtherance of an ill-advised tax protestor scheme….” Order, at p. 1. I guess STJ Lew forgot that he tossed Zach’s petition for failure to state a claim on 7/15/25.

But amusement value aside, I mean what I said about tax protesters years ago: “they got all the benefits of living and working here; they could’ve left at any time on complying with Section 877 and gone wherever would take them (and the US defense umbrella would cover a lot of those wherevers); wherefore, their dodging and legalistic blather is unworthy of serious consideration.” See my blogpost “Crito in Tax Court,” 12/30/21.