Martin G. Plotkin v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue

QUESTIONS

1. Do the intentional, deliberate, and purposeful actions and statements of Tax Court Judge Morrison, whether derived from 'judicial' or 'extrajudicial' sources, which began shortly after his assignment to the case and continued throughout the entire 8 years of the proceedings, evidence an extreme level of pervasive bias and favoritism such that he was unwilling and unable to render a fair judgment.

2. Given the intentional, deliberate, and purposeful actions of Judge Morrison, did the court err in failing to grant Plotkin's motions for Judge Morrison's recusal or reassignment.

3. Did Judge Morrison, deliberately and intentionally disregarding the requirements of Tax Court Rule 121, err in granting the IRS summary judgment based upon his knowingly false 'interpretation' of Plotkin's allegation of incorrect §6330(c)( 1) verification, an 'interpretation' that at best, and in the light most favorable to Judge Morrison, might be considered as an 'inference' favoring the IRS,

4. Do the intentional, deliberate, and purposeful actions and statements of the Court of Appeals, including misstatement and fabrication, whether derived from 'judicial' or 'extrajudicial' sources, evidence an extreme level of pervasive bias and favoritism such that the Court of Appeals was unwilling to render a fair judgment.

5. Did the deliberate, intentional and purposeful actions of both Tax Court Judge Morrison and the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals deprive Plotkin of his right to due process as provided for in Amendment 5 to the Constitution of the United States through their