Affidavit of Complaint


Complaining Part:

          Dan Leslie, Meador

Complaint against:

          H. Dale Cook, Senior Magistrate Judge
          Frank McCarthy, United States Magistrate Judge
          Sam Cook, United States Magistrate Judge

Case identification:

          UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v. DAN LESLIE MEADOR
          Case No. 96-CR-113-C, United States District Court
          for the Northern District of Oklahoma

Basis of complaints:

     All judicial  officers are  representative of an undisclosed
foreign principal.

     All judicial officers extended authority beyond the scope of
office & jurisdiction of the geographical United States.

     All judicial  officers accommodated my mis-identification by
way  of  a  nomme  de  guerre  in  order  to  effect  involuntary
servitude, contrary to the Thirteenth Amendment.

     I filed  complaints against Mr. Cook and Mr. Joyner with the
office of  the Oklahoma Attorney General, and via the Court Clerk
for  the   Northern  District  of  Oklahoma,  attempted  to  file
complaints concerning  their conduct  with regard to another case
with the  Federal grand  jury in November 1995.  Mr. Cook and Mr.
Joyner subsequently  participated in my prosecution with the cast
of characters complaints were filed against.

     Mr. Joyner & Mr. McCarthy, aside from limiting consideration
to that  authorized by regulations under 18 U.S.C.  3401, failed
to affix  personal jurats  on warrants and other documents issued
under their  respective  signatures,  required  by  28  U.S.C.  
638(c), thereby masking limits of their respective offices.

     Contrary to constraints imposed by Rule 5(c), F.R.Cr.P., and
Local Rule 5.1B.3., Mr. Joyner entered a "not guilty" plea for me
when I  declined to  enter a  plea due  to not  having  seen  the
affidavit of  complaint and not being permitted to participate in
the grand jury process to interview witnesses against me and call
witnesses for  my defense  (see  implications  of  Rule  6(a)(1),
F.R.Cr.P.;     common  law   forum  preserved   for  grand   jury
investigation by  exemption from  Federal Rules of Evidence, Rule
1101).

     Mr. Joyner  assigned standby  court-appointed counsel when I
declined service of court-appointed counsel, but more than simply
assigning standby  counsel, Mr. Joyner imposed the condition that
I had to submit all motions entered in my defense for examination
of standby  counsel before  filing in  the  court.    This  order
clearly exceeded Mr. Joyner's authority and caused encumbrance in
self-defense.


           28 U.S.C.  372(c) Judicial Complaint:
                          Page 1 of 4


     All three  judicial officers  extended reach  beyond  United
States jurisdiction  in Oklahoma without prerequisite extradition
from Oklahoma to United States jurisdiction.

     Mr. Cook  failed and refused to recuse himself when a motion
for his recusal as an interested party was entered into record.

     I filed  suit against  the three  judicial officers named in
this complaint  and others involved with the prosecution prior to
trial, yet Mr. Cook continued to preside over the trial.

     Prior to  trial, I  filed numerous motions predicated on the
character and  jurisdiction  of  the  Article  IV  United  States
District Court,  the character  and  scope  of  Internal  Revenue
Service authority,  etc. (the  enclosed brief  covers a  range of
defects),  but   Mr.  Cook   failed  and  refused  to  cause  the
prosecuting assistant  U.S. Attorney  to respond  to  substantive
motions, and  on the  rare occasion  he did  (the assistant  U.S.
attorney expanded  allegations of offense well beyond the face of
the indictment,  misrepresented the  Constitution, and  otherwise
failed significant  response), Mr. Cook did not construct written
orders reflective of legal authorities, etc., but caused needless
peril by  merely making oral orders well beyond the point where I
could seek  remedies by  appeal or  other means.   Mr.  Cook  has
continued this  practice in  relation to post-trial motions filed
in January 1997.

     Contrary to  my Sixth Amendment right to self-representation
with assistance  of counsel,  I was  not  permitted  to  directly
participate in my own defense during the course of trail.

     Mr. Cook  failed and  refused to endorse a judicial contract
which  was   premised  on  his  Constitutional  Oath  of  Office,
prescribed in Title 5 of the United States Code, thereby securing
my substantive due process rights (28 U.S.C.  2072(b);  Rule 86,
F.R.Cv.P.).   This complaint  therefore  alleges  that  Mr.  Cook
perjured  his  Constitutional  Oath,  which  is  prerequisite  to
holding offices of trust or profit.

     The three  judicial officers  conspired to the common end of
effecting a  bill of attainder against me via the Admiralty-Civil
Law action  in a  court which  is incompetent  at law  under  the
Article III   2.1  "arising under" clause and the Fourth, Fifth,
Sixth, and Seventh Amendments to the Constitution.

     As pertains  to Mr.  Joyner and  Mr. Cook,  both failed  and
refused to  take mandatory  judicial  notice,  per  Rule  201(d),
Federal Rules of Evidence.

     By their  respective orders  and actions, all three judicial
officers  caused   and  accommodated  extension  of  Federal  Law
Enforcement Community  authority beyond territorial bounds of the
geographical United States.


           28 U.S.C.  372(c) Judicial Complaint:
                          Page 2 of 4


                     Other Pending Actions:

     The Complaining  Party and others filed a civil suit against
the above-named  judicial officers  and others  via the  district
court for  Tulsa county,  Oklahoma state,  in January  1997.  The
case has  been removed  to the  Article IV United States District
Court, with  jurisdiction now  the object of contention (see case
number #97-CV-33-H).

     More  or   less  simultaneous   with  this   complaint,  the
Complaining Party  is filing  an application  for writ  of habeas
corpus with  the Tenth  Circuit Court  of Appeals,  sitting as an
Article III court of the United States.


                      Anticipated Actions:

     I anticipate filing a Writ of Quo Warranto against Mr. Cook,
and criminal complaints against the three judicial officers named
in this complaint, along with others, via the Attorney General of
the United States and appropriate Oklahoma officials.


              Framework of Law & Support Documents

     Enclosed is  a lengthy  brief which  provides a framework of
law for  considering the  above complaints,  an  application  for
subpoena duces  tecum to  secure  documentation  to  support  and
verify complaints  set out  above, and  an affidavit of complaint
accounting for  events from  approximately September  1995 to the
present.

     These  complaints   are  not   based  on  conjecture.    The
character, jurisdiction,  and extent of authority of the Internal
Revenue Service  in the  continental  United  States  are  known;
proper application  of Internal  Revenue Code taxing authority is
known;   and the  character and jurisdiction of Article IV United
States District  Courts located  in the  Union of  several States
party to the Constitution are know.

     Where those  asked to  consider complaints  against judicial
officers are  peers in  that all  are judicial  officers  of  the
United States,  whether commissions  issue from  Article  III  or
Article IV  authority, consideration  must be  based on facts and
law where  complaints are predicated on "good behavior" criteria.
These complaints  address a  core of  common interest  within the
Federal judicial community.

     Both state  and Federal  judicial systems have accommodated,
and shielded,  Cooperative Federalism  throughout the  careers of
most,  if   not  all,   currently   active   judicial   officers.
Consequently, it  is impossible  to know  the extent to which any
given man or woman serving in a judicial capacity understands the
Cooperative Federalism  scheme and  how the  extension of Federal
authority to  the several  States party  to the  Constitution  is
effected under  color of  law.   It is almost certain that only a


           28 U.S.C.  372(c) Judicial Complaint:
                          Page 3 of 4


limited number  knows  for  certain  that  the  Internal  Revenue
Service is  in fact  an agency of the Department of the Treasury,
Puerto Rico,  and really  understands Subtitles  A  &  C  of  the
Internal Revenue  Code and  attending regulations.   The enclosed
brief,  which   comprehensively  addresses   these  matters,   is
distilled from  a longer  100-page brief that fills in historical
matter  --   the  longer   brief   is   available   on   request.
Documentation requested  in the  Application for  Subpoena  Duces
Tecum is  prescribed by  law --  either it  exists or  it doesn't
exist,  thereby  verifying  whether  or  not  actions  of  public
officers have  been within  the scope  of delegated authority and
limits of  the law.  Where the instant matter is concerned, there
is no  reason to  base decisions  on  constructive  arguments  as
factual matter  will prove or disprove lawful limits of authority
and legitimacy of any given action.

     These complaints  filed under  28 U.S.C.   372(c) authority
will test the mettle of those responsible for addressing judicial
complaints: Either  the "system" is capable of correcting itself,
and peacefully restoring constitutional rule, or it isn't.

     Justice William  O.  Douglas  might  have  contemplated  the
moment at hand: "As nightfall does not come at once, neither does
oppression.     In  both  instances  there  is  a  twilight  when
everything remains  seemingly unchanged.    And  it  is  in  such
twilight that  we all  must be most aware of change in the air --
however slight  --  lest  we  become  unwitting  victims  of  the
darkness."

     Under penalties of perjury, I certify and attest that to the
best of  my current  knowledge, understanding,  and  belief,  all
matters of  law and  fact addressed herein are accurate and true,
so help me God.



_____________________________________   _________________________
Dan Leslie, Meador                      Date


                          Notary Public

     I certify that Dan Leslie, Meador, known to me, being sword
and certified, signed this instrument above.



_____________________________________   _________________________
Notary Public                           Date



My commission expires: ______________________________________


           28 U.S.C.  372(c) Judicial Complaint:
                          Page 4 of 4


                             #  #  #
      


Return to Table of Contents