A few years ago when I should described to the JURISDICTIONARY
COURSE, I remembered Dr. Graves talking about estoppel and I remembered it caught my attention. I listened to some researchers and they made it sound that it was going to be a very difficult process to understand. However, over the years I dipped into some research regarding equitable defenses and now I come to a conclusion, I believe, it is not as difficult as it seems. (Read FRCP 8) In my research, I find that equity in its evolution is much easier to understand than it was years
ago.
I would strongly suggests people who are interested in looking for remedy stop looking in all the wrong places.
In order that we can have a basis to sue the government, our proceeding must proceed on the basis of equity and not law. There is no legal basis in the Internal Revenue code that authorizes a “nontaxpayer” to sue, jail, or punish an agent for
wrongdoing. Furthermore, if our greedy Congress wants to steal our money and exceed its jurisdiction, do you think it would pass a law to punish wrongdoers who try to collect taxes illegally?
|
We must sue the individual IRS agent in equity
jurisdiction and the state or government may not invoke sovereign immunity or the Eleventh Amendment and substitute itself for such a party, because the injuring party was acting outside the law and the authority of the state. Here’s a cite from Poindexter v. Greenhow, 114 U.S. 270; 5 S.Ct. 903 (1885) confirming this:
“The second head of that classification is thus described: 'Another class of cases is where an individual is sued in tort for some act injurious to another in regard to person or property, to which his defense is that he has acted
under the orders of the government. In these cases he is not sued as, or because he is, the officer of the government, but as an individual, and the court is not ousted of jurisdiction because he asserts authority as such officer. To make out his defense he must show that his authority was sufficient in law to protect him.' And in illustration of this principle reference was made to Mitchell v. Harmony, 13 How. 115; Bates v. Clark, 95 U.S. 204 ; Meigs v. McClung's
Lessee, 9 Cranch, 11; Wilcox v. Jackson, 13 Pet. 498; Brown v. Huger, 21 How. 315; [114 U.S. 270, 288] Grisar v. McDowell, 6 Wall. 363; and U. S. v Lee, 106 U.S. 196 ; S. C. 1 SUP. CT. REP. 240.”
Most of the remedies identified in the I.R.C. are for taxpayers, which most of us aren’t. The most important exception to this rule is found in 26 U.S.C. §7426, which relates to Civil Actions by Persons Other than “Taxpayers”. A person who is a
"nontaxpayer", if he needs statutory standing to sue, should use 26 U.S.C. §7426 and may not use any section that refers to "taxpayers" as authority to sue in a civil action involving taxation.
When the law is against you, defense counsel should consider equity. Proof of equitable estoppel may prompt a dismissal by licensing a litigation strategy based on the inconsistent conduct of the party opponent. On the otherhand, when the law
supports you, and the misrepresentation of law is being applied again equitable estoppel may be your saving grace.
A doctrine of “estoppel” actually originated in the law courts, but it was the equitable gloss added by the chancery court that has persisted. In England and America, this popular defense was shared by both court systems before the merger of law and equity and continues to be applied in cases seeking legal or equitable relief in this post-merger world.
Estoppel may be the best potential defense in a difficult case for three reasons.
First, estoppel fits a diverse array of factual circumstances, maximizing its potential application.
Second, judges, rather than juries, usually decide issues of equitable estoppel, providing more opportunities for dismissal without the cost and uncertainty of trial.
Third and finally, a trial court has discretion in applying equitable defenses like estoppel.
EQUITABLE ESTOPPEL DEFINED
The defense of equitable estoppel is a variation of the golden rule erected into law.[28 AM. JUR. 2D Estoppel and Waiver § 29 (2005)] “Doing unto others” means that the bad conduct of both parties is an important consideration in the judicial settlement of disputes. Put simply, “the primary principle governing equitable estoppel . . . is ethicality, i.e. morality.”
Equitable estoppel has depth of origin, breadth of application, and enough diversity of definition to defeat claims or defenses otherwise available in litigation. These characteristics suggest that raising estoppel can make a bad case good or a good case better.
Equitable estoppel is a doctrine that operates in many contexts to bar a party from asserting a right that it otherwise would have but for its own conduct.
Both plaintiffs and defendants may use equitable estoppel to block claims and defenses. While equitable estoppel falls within the family of “equitable defenses,”
Both plaintiffs and defendants may use equitable estoppel to block claims and defenses. While equitable estoppel falls within the family of “equitable defenses,” Robinson v. Fife, 3 Ohio St. 551, 567–68 (1854)
|
|
|
