shad@teldata.UUCP (Warren N. Shadwick) (03/07/84)
* To the net in open forum. Mailed overland to the original addressees this 7th day of March, 1984. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- North Bend, Washington March 7, 1984 Donald Regan, Secretary of the Treasury Department of the Treasury Office of the Secretary 15 Pennsylvania Avenue NW Washington D.C. 20220 And pertinent members of the Executive branch: cc: Ronald Reagan, President of the United States cc: Commissioner of the I.R.S. Dear Sir: I am writing to you of matters of great concern to me and I hope you will give it the attention that being an officer of the public trust demands. This matter specifically relates to you in your capacity as the administrative head of the I.R.S., your agent. Most importantly, I have been troubled for some time by the Public Law 94-550 (codified as 28 USC 1746) which makes unsworn declarations under penalty of perjury the equivalent of sworn oaths as they pertain to Federal Proceedures. Sir, I stand aghast, appalled and ashamed that my government assumes the power which the people never gave it to compel me against my will and beliefs to take oaths. My true allegiance is to a higher plane, that for which this nation stands: under God. To Him alone in my own way do I owe oaths. If this matter cannot be reconciled I must stand firm in my denial of jurisdiction to you and your agents to my death, if necessary, and to not voluntarily comply or participate in the Federal Income Tax program. A natural person created of God (as opposed to those persons created by the state) only owes his government in return for its one true purpose: to secure his rights. The compulsion of oaths must ultimately lead to the destruction of my rights and to put me at odds with the Maker of All Things. I await your reply, Sir. Let us together preserve our great nation of laws (God's and man's) by love. Most Sincerely, Warren N. Shadwick
julian@deepthot.UUCP (Julian Davies) (03/14/84)
I guess we are better off in Canada in respect of oaths. Canadian law permits an affirmation in place of swearing on a holy book (it also allows for swearing on holy books other than the bible for those to whom that would be meaningful. Quite liberal really, and not tied to specific relious beliefs. This provision is much used, I assume, by Mennonites and Quakers. I've used it myself, with some niggling question as to whether even making an affirmation in the terms prescribed was suggestive of adopting a double standard for 'truth telling'. Julian Davies