- 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 inMessage 1 of 2 , Apr 30, 2011View Source
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 defence 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 defence 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, 9 Cranch, 11; Wilcox v. Jackson, 13 Pet. 498; Brown v. Huger, 21 How. 305; 288#####288 Grisar v. McDowell, 6 Wall. 363; and United States v. Lee, 106 U.S. 196.
The ratio decidendi in this class of cases is very plain. A defendant sued as a wrong-doer, who seeks to substitute the State in his place, or to justify by the authority of the State, or to defend on the ground that the State has adopted his act and exonerated him, cannot rest on the bare assertion of his defence. He is bound to establish it. The State is a political corporate body, can act only through agents, and can command only by laws. It is necessary, therefore, for such a defendant, in order to complete his defence, to produce a law of the State which constitutes his commission as its agent, and a warrant for his act. This the defendant, in the present case, undertook to do. He relied on the act of January 26, 1882, requiring him to collect taxes in gold, silver, United States treasury notes, national bank currency, and nothing else, and thus forbidding his receipt of coupons in lieu of money. That, it is true, is a legislative act of the government of Virginia, but it is not a law of the State of Virginia. The State has passed no such law, for it cannot; and what it cannot do, it certainly, in contemplation of law, has not done. The Constitution of the United States, and its own contract, both irrepealable by any act on its part, are the law of Virginia; and that law made it the duty of the defendant to receive the coupons tendered in payment of taxes, and declared every step to enforce the tax, thereafter taken, to be without warrant of law, and therefore a wrong. He stands, then, stripped of his official character; and, confessing a personal violation of the plaintiff's rights for which he must personally answer, he is without defence. Poindexter v. Greenhow, 114 U.S. 270, 287 (1885).
Call me at: 720-675-7230
On Skype: legalbear
Best times to call: 8:30 am to 9:00 pm MST
Join my Yahoo Group Tips & Tricks for Court by sending an email to:
My blog: legalbearsblog.com
Tax sites: IRSTerminator.com IRSLienThumper.com IRSLevyThumper.com
(formatted like this so this email doesn't end up in your spam folder)
- Sunday 1 May 2011 The first time I decided to take on the IRS, over 10 years ago, I was very apprehensive. With each letter of challenge sent, and with eachMessage 2 of 2 , Apr 30, 2011View SourceSunday 1 May 2011
The first time I decided to take on the IRS,
over 10 years ago, I was very apprehensive.
With each letter of challenge sent, and with
each non-response to the challenges, I began
to realize they were all bark, however
Currently, I decided to challenge the county
for what it is being demanded of me to pay
property taxes, and how was the value so
In the challenge, I employed the FF IMOC,.
informing the county treasurer that she
lacked the constitutional oath of office,
and unless it could be shown otherwise,
the office was vacant. In fact, it looks
like her signature was forged, for it is
quite different from the "signature"
provided on the tax assessment bills.
My Notice and Demand letters were addressed
to her personally, c/o the county treasurer's
office address. She has yet to respond to
any of the three letters sent. I did receive
a response, but from the COOK COUNTY TREASURER'S
OFFICE, with no signature. Heh, heh...
The long point here is the value of this
particular case cite, [not site or sight],
and how it can be used to enhance one's
letter-writing campaign against the actors
in question to give more bite to the content.
Thank you, Bear, and I hope others see the
importance and relevance in putting the
information to capital use.