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