When Signing Under Penalty Of Perjury

[ezrhythm]

USC TITLE 28 > PART V > CHAPTER 115 > § 1746

§ 1746. Unsworn declarations under penalty of perjury

Wherever, under any law of the United States or under any rule, regulation, order, or requirement made pursuant to law, any matter is required or permitted to be supported, evidenced, established, or proved by the sworn declaration, verification, certificate, statement, oath, or affidavit, in writing of the person making the same (other than a deposition, or an oath of office, or an oath required to be taken before a specified official other than a notary public), such matter may, with like force and effect, be supported, evidenced, established, or proved by the unsworn declaration, certificate, verification, or statement, in writing of such person which is subscribed by him, as true under penalty of perjury, and dated, in substantially the following form:

(1) If executed without the United States: “I declare (or certify, verify, or state) under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States of America that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on (date). (Signature)”.

(2) If executed within the United States, its territories, possessions, or commonwealths: “I declare (or certify, verify, or state) under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on (date). (Signature)”.

#2 is an example when you see a document for the corporation called the United States such as on IRS forms.

Never, ever, ever, ever, ever sign ANYTHING under penalty of perjury.

[weishaupt1776]

I would love to file into the record with documented evidence that sworn oaths are Masonic.

Somehow tie it in that the Black robes were originally used by the first Satanists.

Then show them how they are trying to force the Masonic religion on me by making swear under penalties of perjury

[palani]

Elements required to prove a case of perjury from Bouviers 1856 -

2. If we analyze this definition we will find, 1st. That the oath must be wilful. 2d. That it must be false. 3d. That the party was lawfully sworn. 4th. That the proceeding was judicial. 6th. That the assertion was absolute. 6th. That the falsehood was material to the point in question.

I believe the charge could not be upheld in most cases because (1) you would not be lawfully sworn unless in a court setting and (2) the proceeding must be judicial.

In addition the charge of perjury is a common law criminal offense and common law apparently hasn't existed at the federal level since 1938.

[Shoonra]

The jurat (the signature block) on the IRS forms about signing under penalty of perjury was designed to be a convenience to the taxpayer. Even if he's alone and in a remote place, by signing the form he has complied with the law that requires tax returns to be signed under oath. The alternative -- that is, without that provision for "under penalty of perjury" -- is that every taxpayer would have to get in line somewhere, maybe burning up work time to do it, and have his signature witnessed by some govt employee, as is done with passport applications. Considering that most adults are taxpayers, and this would happen every year, this would be an unspeakable waste of time and energy.

A corollary is that the IRS won't accept a tax form where the jurat has been altered. And it will prosecute for false statements on tax forms.

[greatwolf75]

Well here's a far out there idea, lets not have an income tax. That way we would not have to worry about convienences or anthing like that.

[BOBT12]

Originally Posted by greatwolf75

Well here's a far out there idea, lets not have an income tax. That way we would not have to worry about convienences or anthing like that.

Perhaps it is because that would be too much like being honest, the government doesn't seem to like that sort of thing?

[quote]

Originally Posted by Shoonra

The jurat (the signature block) on the IRS forms about signing under penalty of perjury was designed to be a convenience to the taxpayer.

Oh puh-leeeze. What a piece of spin-meistering that is. The effect of the jurat is to turn the tax return into the testimony of a witness under oath, so that if it is ever turned over to the dept of justice as evidence, it will already have become sworn testimony to be used against the taxpayer... thereby forcing the taxpayer to waive their constitutional right not to be witness against themselves in a criminal case.

Even if he's alone and in a remote place, by signing the form he has complied with the law that requires tax returns to be signed under oath.

Since tax returns can be turned over to the dept of justice, and can be considered the "testimony of a witness" (Garner v US), the law requiring that taxpayers do so forces taxpayers to waive the constitutional right not to be witnesses against themselves.

The alternative -- that is, without that provision for "under penalty of perjury" -- is that every taxpayer would have to get in line somewhere, maybe burning up work time to do it, and have his signature witnessed by some govt employee, as is done with passport applications. Considering that most adults are taxpayers, and this would happen every year, this would be an unspeakable waste of time and energy.

Another reason to eliminate 1040 forms and switch to a tax collection method that would not require such violations of a constitutional right.

A corollary is that the IRS won't accept a tax form where the jurat has been altered. And it will prosecute for false statements on tax forms.

Right. If you alter the jurat and you do not swear under penalty of perjury, your tax form becomes unacceptable. If you do sign under penalty of perjury, you've waived your right not to be a witness against yourself and your tax form can be turned over to the Dept of Justice and constitutes the testimony of a witness.


..........

[idknow]

[quote=Heidi Guedel]

Oh puh-leeeze. What a piece of spin-meistering that is. The effect of the jurat is to turn the tax return into the testimony of a witness under oath, so that if it is ever turned over to the dept of justice as evidence, it will already have become sworn testimony to be used against the taxpayer... thereby forcing the taxpayer to waive their constitutional right not to be witness against themselves in a criminal case.




Since tax returns can be turned over to the dept of justice, and can be considered the "testimony of a witness" (Garner v US), the law requiring that taxpayers do so forces taxpayers to waive the constitutional right not to be witnesses against themselves.



Another reason to eliminate 1040 forms and switch to a tax collection method that would not require such violations of a constitutional right.



Right. If you alter the jurat and you do not swear under penalty of perjury, your tax form becomes unacceptable. If you do sign under penalty of perjury, you've waived your right not to be a witness against yourself and your tax form can be turned over to the Dept of Justice and constitutes the testimony of a witness.


..........

so why cant people volunteer to file and just send a donation?

[mrg]

deleted post