Tax Laws Wrongfully Administered
"Art Northrup, Jr." <art_njr@...> wrote:
> Legal theory based on court cases over 100 years old.
> How far do you think you will get with the same arguments in a courtroom today?
I thought some more about your comment. It doesn't seem valid to take issue with the age of the argument. It seems you should take issue with the argument itself. My take:
"A valid law may be wrongfully administered by officers of the State, and so as to make such administration an illegal burden and exaction upon the individual.
The above principle is still true and has been expressed in opinions less than 30 years old. Part of our current problem is that nobody recently sued an IRS agent on these principles that we know about. If they did and succeeded, they don't want us to know about it.
"A tax law, as it leaves the legislative hands, may not be obnoxious to any challenge, and yet the officers charged with the administration of that valid tax law may so act under it in the matter of assessment or 391*391 collection as to work an illegal trespass upon the property rights of the individual.
The above is the Supreme Court saying this; experts in the law. They are no less experts today than they were then. In fact, it has been said that we must be allowed to rely on precedent. Better I say they said this than to say it myself.
"They may go beyond the powers thereby conferred, and when they do so the fact that they are assuming to act under a valid law will not oust the courts of jurisdiction to restrain their excessive and illegal acts.
The procedures for the current Federal Tort Claims Act embody the above principle. It requires a finding by the US Attorney that actions were taken outside the scope of a federal officials authority before a claim can be pursued in the Court of Claims.
In Cunningham v. Macon & Brunswick Railroad, 109 U.S. 446, 452, it was said:
"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 defence is that he has acted under the orders of the government.
The above is what every IRS agent says!
"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 defence he must show that his authority was sufficient in law to protect him. See Mitchell v. Harmony, 13 How. 115; Bates v. Clark, 95 U.S. 204; Meigs v. McClung, 9 Cranch, 11; Wilcox v. Jackson, 13 Pet. 498; Brown v. Huger, 21 How. 305; Grisar v. McDowell, 6 Wall, 363." Reagan v. Farmers' Loan & Trust Co., 154 US 362, 391 (1894).
The above is just telling us how it is supposed to go. Our job is to remind the judges and stir them up so justice is done!
Phone Contact: 720-675-7230
Best times to call: 8:30 am-9:00 pm MST
Bear's Pages: www.irsterminator.com www.legalbears.com www.legalbearsblog.com
www.irslienthumper.com www.irslevythumper.com www.irs-armory.com www.freedivorceforms.net
www.cantheydothat.com (a free lien evaluation) www.trafficrocketblog.com Send an email to:
firstname.lastname@example.org to join Tips & Tricks for Court Group