Requirement for Consent

Q. What's his new and old name?

1

A. His old name was John Tucker and his new name is John Otto.

2

Q. Why did he change his name?

3

A. That was something that the Internal Revenue Service gave the employees the option to do so because taxpayers would file liens against employees, they would file judgments against employees, record them in the courthouses where they lived, and it would make it difficult for the revenue officer to sell their home or, you know, transfer property or whatever the case might be. In other words, it would encumber their own personal

4

5

6

7

property.

8

And so the Internal Revenue Service gave us an option to use what we call pseudonyms that would

9

protect the employees from taxpayers harassing us in that particular manner.

10

Q. So it's not a legal name change, it's just -- A. It's for Internal Revenue Service's purposes.

11

12

Q. Have you ever used another name?

13

A. Yes, I have.

14

Q. What other names have you used?

15

THE WITNESS: Do I have to answer that? MR. SHILLING: Are you talking work name?

16

17

THE WITNESS: Are you talking work name or are you talking about my legal name?

18

Q. (BY MR. DROUGHT:) I'm talking about both. Are there any other names that you have ever gone by?

19

A. Yes. I have my maiden name and I have my married name that I use.

20

Q. And your maiden name is what?

21

THE WITNESS: Do I have to answer?

22

MR. SHILLING: Well, at this point she is operating under the pseudonym. Let's go off the record for

23

a second.

24

(Off record 10:53 a.m. to 10:55 a.m.)

25

MR. SHILLING: You can give any other name. Do you have any other pseudonyms that you used?

26

THE WITNESS: No. I have only used Frances Jordan. Q. (BY MR. DROUGHT:) How long have you used that name?

27

28

A. Approximately 10 years.

29

Q. So 1994 about?

30

A. That's a good ballpark. The service made that available to employees for one very specific reason. At that particular time, there was a lot of -- you know, Oklahoma City, you know, that was in reference to those individuals that were killed in that. So that became a concern that the employees have some type of protection. A coworker that I sat next to received a letter at her home address from a taxpayer, and she had two small children, and her fear was that the taxpayer may do something to her home or to her children, and so she inquired about using a pseudonyme, and I inquired about using one at the same time because we need to protect

31

32

33

34

35

36

our families and our children from any harassing taxpayers. Q. What about judges that send people to prison?

37

38

A. Sir, I can only tell you that the service made that option available to the employees.

39

Q. What about policeman that arrest people?

40

A. Sir, I can tell you -- I'm not a police officer. I'm not a judge. I'm only a revenue officer with the Internal Revenue Service. That option was made available to us because of the type of job that we have. We have to take people's money, we have to take people's property, and sometimes people become very distraught when that happens. So consequently they -- they do things to our families and to our homes, and we need to protect

41

42

43

44

ourselves as much as we can.

45

Q. Okay. What names have you gone by besides Frances Jordan?

46

A. While I worked for the Internal Revenue Service?

47

Q. Yes.

48

A. I'm going to -- like Mr. Shilling said, I'm going to not answer that question at this time until we discuss it with the judge to see whether or not he prefers -- that he allows me to use my pseudonyme or if he makes me use

49

50

my real name.

51

MR. DROUGHT: We are asking for her to give us those names, and we will agree to keep them confidential and used only for the purpose of this lawsuit, but I think it's relevant and it likely could lead to something relevant, and I don't want to have to go in front of the judge and spend these people's money. We are asking that she give us the names now so I can ask her about them now and not have to come back and re-

52

53

54

55

depose her.

56

Do the above observations disturb you? They should! We are living in a police state and the IRS is a Gestapo organization 57 of secret police operatives who maintain “voluntary compliance” through financial terrorism. It’s terrorism because they: 58

1. Cannot demonstrate the authority of a specific statute AND implementing regulations AND delegation of authority 59 order authorizing their act of enforcement. 50 U.S.C. §841, in fact, says any public servant who refuses to 60 acknowledge and respect the Constitutional or lawful limits on their authority is a “communist”! 61 2. Won’t reveal their identities or allow themselves to be held personally liable and accountable to the public for their 62 illegal and fraudulent acts and statements. 63 3. Are allowed to institute illegal abuses of our rights completely anonymously and without having to accept personal 64 responsibility for the abuses. 65

Requirement for Consent

346 of 396

Copyright Sovereignty Education and Defense Ministry, http://sedm.org Form 05.003, Rev. 7-23-2013

EXHIBIT:________