Can the district court violate the doctrine of judicial-estoppel

QUESTIONS PRESENTED A. Can the district court violate the doctrine of ‘ Judicial estoppel by improperly changing in the Final Order of the Court the claimed subject-matter jurisdiction of the district ; court taken over the civil action to admit , evidence? B. Did the district court fatally Jack a fully specified and _ disclosed subject-matter Jurisdiction that could be lawfully taken over the civil action under authority of Article I, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution, because it ; . refused to fully disclose to the defendant : whether the alleged specific jurisdiction claimed thereunder was based in the granted power to tax by Jmpost, Duty, or Excise? : C. Did the district court fatally err in ordering ; judgment for the plaintiff, when it relied upon evidence that was made inadmissible fuzt of the poisonous tree because of the change of subject-matter jurisdiction, which completely removed from the record of the action the .; alleged foundation at law that allowed the introduction of the plaintiffs assessments for 1 a direct unapportioned tax onto the record of the action as evidence of tax alleged owed by the defendant, in blatant violation of Article I, Section 2, clause 3 and Article I, Section 9, clause 4 of the U.S. Constitution? D. Can the subject-matter jurisdiction of the district court that was ultimately taken over the action in the final summary judgment Order under the indirect Article I, Section 8, clause 1 taxing authorities invoked, be lawfully used by the district court to enforce the claims of the plaintiffs Complaint for the compelled payment by the defendant of a direct tax on income, that is not in the form of an Impost, Duty or Excise tax under Article I, . Section 8 ? E. Was the district court’s Order granting summary judgment erroneous and should it be vacated or set aside because the subjectmatter jurisdiction of the district court was never fully disclosed on the record of the action in the court, and to this day remains vague, arbitrary and unspecified within that record, and therefore is still unclear and not fully specified on the record of the action, 1e.: what is the specific constitutional ‘¢axing i , power alleged as the — subject-matter , foundation to, and jurisdiction over, this case under the granted Article I, Section 8 taxing power invoked in the final Order of the Court: is it based on the enforcement of an [mpost, ; a Duty, or an Excise tax imposed? F. Were the defendants denied their constitutional Right to legal due process in the court by the district court’s refusal to allow the defendants to ever appear in the ‘ courtroom, or to argue in person in the courtroom, in defense of their property, home, and farm, as the court has repeatedly been -moved in the pleadings of the defendants to , allow, before the properties, working farm and home are sold at auction by the plaintiff ? G. Under the 7 Amendment to the US. Constitution (the Supreme Law in the United States of America), the Defendant was entitled by Supreme Law to a trial by jury of the facts and law at issue in this dispute, because summary judgment rendered for the plaintiff in this action is not a conclusion that is legally supported by the facts of the dispute, the Complaint, the Constitution, the i authorities invoked, the evidence, or the specific rulings of the court. H. There is a serious and irreconcilable subjectmatter Jurisdiction conflict in the U.S. Cireuit Courts of Appeals regarding the true subjectmatter jurisdiction of the federal courts to ’ enforce the claims for personal income tax that are made within civil actions of the nature pursued in this case, against individual American citizens, by the plaintiff United States. It is the constitutional duty of ; this Supreme Court to settle that irreconcilable fundamental subject-matter jurisdiction conflict that exists within and between the various Circuit Courts of Appeals, so that the federal tax law will be harmonized in collection and enforcement operatio