US TAX COURT 
                                                                            WASHINGTON DC
 
Wane Patriot                        )							
                                    )    DOCKET #404x-xxx
    v.                              )    Motion for Continuance
                                    )
Commissioner Internal Revenue       )
____________________________________)
 

Pursuant to Tax Court Rule # 133, Petitioner above hereby moves this court for a continuance of the trial now scheduled for March 17, 2008, based upon the following grounds:

1. On February 26, 2008 the Commissioner filed its Motion for Summary Judgment and Motion for Penalties. Petitioner received this packet three days later. The hearing for this motion is probably scheduled for the tax court session on March 17, 2008.

2. Petitioner does not have enough time to prepare for trial or file his responsive pleading. Therefore he is entitled to a continuance.

The motions and packet are over an inch and a half thick and Petitioner is simply unable to read and study this material as well as file his opposition prior to the upcoming trial. The motions are based on taxpayer’s positions that he held years ago and have no relevance to instant case.

3. Petitioner is a pro se litigant, a working man with limited education and no training or education in IRS and tax court procedure. Petitioner is hopelessly lost.

District Counsel is a highly paid well educated tax lawyer and had over one year to file these two motions. Due to District Counsel’s tardiness, Petitioner is at a great disadvantage. Undoubtedly District Counsel waited until the last minute to file his very important motions in order to deny Petitioner an opportunity to respond.

4. The Respondents have been unfair, demanding and unreasonable when Petitioner requested settlement. This case is ready for settlement. District Counsel has not bothered to respond to Petitioner’s frequent requests for an out of court settlement. Petitioner needs more time to secure records, prepare for trial and locate witnesses.

5. Petitioner is a pro se litigant, unschooled in law and unfamiliar with procedures and needs more time to prepare for trial. The Supreme Court has ruled that pro se litigants are not held to the same procedural standards as highly trained attorneys. Haines vs. Kerner 404US 519(1972).

Certificate of Service: I do hereby certify that on this date I sent properly a copy of this pleading to opposing counsel.

________________________ Date: March 11, 2008
Wane Patriot
Ashville, NC 28803-10116