Posted by JOE on December 22, 1997 at 21:52:17:
In Reply to: Re: Affidavit of truth. Re: IRS. posted by Elliott on October 10, 1997 at 18:17:01:
: : July 4, 1997.
: : Affidavit of truth.
: : I, Steven (first name) Wayne (middle name) Pattison (surname), (sovereign, grantor, principal, elector) being of or am of lawful age who has attained to or past the age of twenty-one years. I, Steven Pattison, am in full and in complete control of my sound mind and my sound body, do hereby make the following declaration:
: : 1. I, Steven Pattison, first meet Glenn Hughes on May 31, 1997. Glenn Hughes told me that the court ordered him to produce records to the INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE on May 30, 1997.
: : 2. I, Steven Pattison, witnessed a meeting that Glenn Hughes had with Earl Hickam, an INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE agent, on June 13, 1997. The location of the meeting was 3730 Elizabeth Street, Independence, Missouri. The time of the meeting was on or about 12:30 PM.
: : 3. Earl Hickam, was asked "You’re part of the Federal Government, are you not?" He did not say "yes", and he did not say "no". Earl Hickam said, "I am a INTERNAL REVENUE agent." He was asked again, "You’re not part of the Federal Government?" Earl Hickam replied "I didn't say that." Earl Hickam was told "Well say it, say yes or no." He refused to answer the question.
: : 4. Earl Hickam, the INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE agent, was served with lawful paper work on June 13, 1997. Glenn Hughes did not produce his records to Earl Hickam, the INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE agent, during this meeting and as far as I know Glenn Hughes did not produce any additional records after May 30, 1997.
: : 5. On June 16, 1997, I, Steven Pattison and a witness served lawful paper work on the Judge, Fernando J. Gaitan, Jr.
: : 6. On June 26, 1997, Glenn Hughes, faxed me “Motion to Dismiss” papers that he had received in the mail from United States Attorney.
: : 7. United States Attorney states, in the “Motion to Dismiss” papers that "Respondent has sufficiently complied so that the need for judicial enforcement of the IRS summons is moot." “Furthermore, Petitioner no longer seeks contempt sanctions for Respondent’s failure to comply with this Court’s enforcement order in No. 96-MC-9012-2, compliance having been obtained”
: : 8. The Judge, Fernando J. Gaitan, Jr., signed the “Motion to Dismiss” papers.
: : I, Steven Pattison, hereby do solemnly swear and affirm with a firm Reliance on the protection of Divine Providence of Our Creator that my "Affidavit of truth" is true and correct to the best of my knowledge as of this date:
: : ____________________
: : Steven Pattison.
: : Commentary:
: : The reason Earl Hickam, the INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE agent, could not say "yes" was we were video taping him at the time and if he had said "yes", he would have had to provide his oath of office as provided by Article VI of the Constitution of the United States. The last time we asked the INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE agent and they said yes, we called 911, when they would not produce their oath of office.
: : He could not say "no", because the fraud would have been video taped and then everyone would have known the fact that employees of the INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE do not work for Federal Government (United States Government).
: : OK, you say this does not prove anything! If he was, as everyone believes, an employee of the United States Government, why didn't he just answer the question by saying "yes"? If you ask the same question of an INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE agent and he does say "yes," ask him/her to provide you with their oath of office as provided by Article VI of the Constitution of the United States, which states in part: "... all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States." INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE agents do not have an Oath of Office.
: : So, why didn't Earl Hickam just answer the question. There is no other rational answer then the ones' stated above.
: : Earl Hickam’s final words were: “The Judge is the one that told Mr. Hughes to be here today to produce the documents that were summoned.” “Well you can take it up with the Judge because that’s where we’re heading.”
: : I guess he was wrong!
: : This was not the first round, for Glenn Hughes, with the INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE. He has been using the INTERNAL REVENUE CODE (IRC) and the use of these codes almost got him put in jail for contempt of court.
: : The IRC are not for people inhabiting the several states (50 united States of America) and if you inhabit them you should not be using the IRC to defend yourself. Just read the IRC and if you can understand all the double talk, you to will see for yourself, that it is not for you, unless you work in “State” or “United States” as defined in Section 3121(e) of the IRC.
: : IF you would want my explanation of the IRC, please ask and I will e-mail it to you. It is easy to understand and it is only three pages long.
: : Our proper paper work is in Common Law and we used the proper English language to convey to the court that Glenn Hughes was an inhabitant of one of the Several States, period. The reason that the Judged signed the court order to dismiss was that he will not disobey the Law of the Land if it is conveyed properly.
: : Steven Pattison
Post a Followup