[net.religion] Compelled Oaths: An Open Letter

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