We have to learn to invoke equity

Published: Fri, 12/30/22

When you read the following, it is my sincere belief that if you handle this properly administratively, you will be more certain to win.!

It is not readily apparent that one can sue the government, our proceedings must proceed on the basis of equity and not law. It is difficult to find a 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 tried to collect taxes illegally?

We must therefore sue as a tort by suing the individual agent and not the state or government that he works for. In doing so, we must show that the agent was acting outside the bounds of his delegated authority and outside the lawful bounds of his employment. If the government proves that the agent was acting within his lawful authority, they will try to invoke what is called the Westfall Act, 28 U.S.C. §2679, and substitute themselves in place of the individual defendant under 28 U.S.C. §2679(d)(1), which makes the litigation against the government and not the agent. This makes it far less likely that you will win because then you need permission from the government in order to sue and you will be litigating against an enemy with relatively unlimited resources compared to your own.

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.”

TIMING IS PERFECT

DON'T DELAY!

CLICK ON THE SILVER BAR TODAY

Christopher Chapman
WAKE UP AMERICANS
321.264.6383
americanliberties.llc@gmail.com

Help us, to help you, to help others to help Americans

1659 Privateer Drive
Titusville FL 32796
USA

Unsubscribe | Change Subscriber Options