Attorney Wallis hit w 6673 for acts in Waltner case

[jcolvin2]

https://www.ustaxcourt.gov/InternetOrde ... sID=154241

[Famspear]

Quelle surprise!

Mr. Donald W. Wallis, the attorney, is ordered to pay $15,550 to the IRS for assisting the Waltner Wackos in maintaining frivolous litigation.

To avoid this turn of events, maybe Wallis needed the benefit of some legal expertise from someone else. Maybe Wallis should have consulted with the Waltners' tax guru, Peter E. ("Blowhard") Hendrickson.

After all, Hendrickson Himself believes Himself to be:

....possibly the most effective lawyer in history, even while never having set foot in a law school, nor ever being a card-carrying member of "the bar".

[operabuff]

Wallis is a graduate of Duke's law school. You'd think he'd be smart enough to know he was in deep water - particularly since he'd previously been warned.

But maybe I shouldn't be surprised. Richard Nixon was also a Duke law school grad and he made a few misjudgments as well.

[.]

even while never having set foot in a law school, nor ever being a card-carrying member of "the bar".

Ha. What a piker. I've never set foot in a law school (I did once walk past a law library,) but I became a member of "the bar" -- Duffy's Sports Grill.

I've got "the card" and I carry it. Sometimes, while there I even pontificate about the law. Everyone laughs and says things like "Yeah, you're the most effective lawyer in history and the greatest lawyer ever," but I make a lot of sense after about 6 drinks. Then, I pull out my personally autographed copy of CtC and everyone leaves. I don't know why.

[LPC]

From the order, and after an interesting discussion of appellate venue and the lack of a clear standard for sanctions in the DC Circuit, we get to the heart of the matter:

Mr. Wallis knew--or should have known--that some of the positions that petitioners were raising before this Court were frivolous. Nonetheless, he entered an appearance and persisted in advancing those positions. He also signed petitioners' amended petition and a reply to respondent's answer to the amended petition, in which pleadings he asserted petitioners' frivolous positions. In doing so he unreasonably and vexatiously multiplied the
proceedings before this Court. Indeed, Mr. Wallis continues to assert the same frivolous positions in his response to the order to show cause and in his reply to respondent's response. Mr. Wallis' knowing assertion of frivolous positions before this Court supports a finding that he acted in bad faith.

Here's a tip to all those who might someday face sanctions for asserting frivolous positions in court: When told to show cause why you shouldn't be sanctioned for asserting frivolous positions, don't re-assert the same frivolous positions.

You're welcome.

[operabuff]

Wallis has been litigating his own case before Judge Marvel (the same judge who just gave him the $15000 6673(a)(2) penalty) in the Tax Court.

https://www.ustaxcourt.gov/UstcDockInq/ ... ID=6148100

In his own case, he's been making losing arguments, just not so bad as to be regarded as frivolous. But his case history does reflect that he doesn't know when to say when. He litigated the issue once in Tax Court, lost, and lost on appeal from the Tax Court. In the docket above, he's arguing that he shouldn't be collaterally estopped by the result in the first case, even though the facts are the same. He moved for reconsideration of the order, which was denied, and now he's back before the 11th Circuit.

As they say, a lawyer who represents himself has a fool for a client.

[Pottapaug1938]

Wallis has been litigating his own case before Judge Marvel (the same judge who just gave him the $15000 6673(a)(2) penalty) in the Tax Court.

https://www.ustaxcourt.gov/UstcDockInq/ ... ID=6148100

In his own case, he's been making losing arguments, just not so bad as to be regarded as frivolous. But his case history does reflect that he doesn't know when to say when. He litigated the issue once in Tax Court, lost, and lost on appeal in the Tax Court. In the docket above, he's arguing that he shouldn't be collaterally estopped by the result in the first case, even though the facts are the same. He moved for reconsideration of the order, which was denied, and now he's back before the 11th Circuit.

As they say, a lawyer who represents himself has a fool for a client.

... and a scoundrel for an attorney.

[Arthur Rubin]

even while never having set foot in a law school, nor ever being a card-carrying member of "the bar".

Ha. What a piker. I've never set foot in a law school (I did once walk past a law library,) but I became a member of "the bar" -- Duffy's Sports Grill.

I've got "the card" and I carry it. Sometimes, while there I even pontificate about the law. Everyone laughs and says things like "Yeah, you're the most effective lawyer in history and the greatest lawyer ever," but I make a lot of sense after about 6 drinks.

After you have 6 drinks or after your listeners have 6 drinks?