In the district court of Oklahoma County
State of Oklahoma
Sitting as a Court of Law
Dan Leslie, Meador, ) Case No.: _______________
) An Original Action At Law;
Plaintiff, ) Conflict of Law Doctrine
) Will Govern:
) 78 O.S. § 12; Mandatory Judicial
v. ) Notice Required, 12 O.S. § 2202.D
)
) Remedies limited
Robert E. Anderson, ) to official capacities
Chairman, )
)
Robert V. Cullison, )
Vice-Chairman, )
)
Don Kilpatrick, )
Secretary-Member, )
)
and the )
Oklahoma Tax Commission, )
)
Defendants. )
______________________________)
Petition of Complaint
1. Now comes Dan Leslie, Meador, a native of Kansas and
longtime Citizen and Elector of Oklahoma, Plaintiff. Plaintiff
first moved to Oklahoma state in 1963, and has spent most of his
adult life in Oklahoma, having become a qualified elector, and
otherwise working and raising a family in Oklahoma. Plaintiff
moved from Alva, in the county of Woods, State of Oklahoma, to
the community of Ponca City, in the county of Kay, State of
Oklahoma, in December 1988, and moved his family in June 1989,
thereafter establishing his home and having lived and maintained
abode there since. Plaintiff therefore has standing in Oklahoma
courts of law and is entitled to substantive due process
remedies.
Dan Leslie Meador v. Robert E. Anderson, et al.:
Page 1 of 53
2. This action comes as a complaint against a certain
"agreement" a Commissioner sitting on the Oklahoma Tax Commission
entered with the Commissioner of Internal Revenue in the 1982-83
period, said agreement allegedly accommodating certain
administrative authority relating to state qualified tax to the
Internal Revenue Service ("IRS"). The instrument is styled
Agreement on Coordination of Tax Administration ("Agreement",
Exhibit 2). A certified copy of the Agreement was supplied to
Plaintiff by David K. Smith, the Oklahoma Tax Commission State-
Federal Coordinator, on or about May 16, 1997. Mr. Smith's cover
letter is attached as Exhibit 1.
3. Plaintiff alleges that this Agreement and certain
implementing agreements or contracts provide vehicles by which
the IRS, other members of the Federal Law Enforcement Community,
United States Department of Justice, United States Attorney, and
Article IV United States District Court officers and agents
presume unconstitutional jurisdiction in Oklahoma, which is one
of the several States party to the Constitution of the United
States, and generally carry out plunder and impose servitude
against the sovereign people of Oklahoma, Plaintiff included.
4. In their respective capacities, Robert E. Anderson,
Robert V. Cullison, and Don Kilpatrick, are presently officers of
the Oklahoma Tax Commission, and the State of Oklahoma, and are
currently responsible for activity of the Oklahoma Tax Commission
and its officers and agents and agencies contracted to provide
services for the Oklahoma Tax Commission.
5. The district court for Oklahoma County, State of
Oklahoma, sitting as a court of law, not a nisi prius maritime or
Dan Leslie Meador v. Robert E. Anderson, et al.:
Page 2 of 53
administrative court, has original jurisdiction where suits
pertaining to State of Oklahoma agencies and functions are
concerned when complaints issue on constitutional grounds and
otherwise address fundamental law.
6. The court will notice that Plaintiff's original action is
predicated on the Constitution of the State of Oklahoma, the
Constitution of the United States, where applicable, and other
elements of fundamental law. Therefore, Conflict of Law Doctrine
will govern (78 O.S. § 12), and the court will take mandatory
judicial notice of the Constitution of the State of Oklahoma, the
Constitution of the United States, Statutes of Oklahoma, the
United States Code, the Code of Federal Regulations and Federal
Register, Statutes at Large, and other published Oklahoma and
United States authorities.
7. Plaintiff alleges that he has suffered injury from the
bogus Agreement between the Oklahoma Tax Commission and the
Commissioner of Internal Revenue over a period dating from
approximately 1992, and that Plaintiff is presently faced with
defending against criminal charges in the Article IV United
States District Court for the Northern District of Oklahoma (96-
CR-113-C), with these charges premised on initiatives of IRS
principals. Therefore, Plaintiff has sufficient cause to
challenge the legitimacy of said Agreement and seek to have it
nullified, nunc pro tunc, as having been effected without lawful
authorization either by the Congress of the United States, or by
the Legislature of the State of Oklahoma, or in the alternative,
that the Agreement be declared unconstitutional for abridging the
Separation of Powers Doctrine (Constitution of the United States,
Dan Leslie Meador v. Robert E. Anderson, et al.:
Page 3 of 53
Tenth Amendment; Okla. Constitution, Art. I § 1, Art. II § 12)
and otherwise being unconstitutional as the Agreement seeks to
administratively impose Titles 18 and 28 of the United States
Code, and Subtitle F of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954 (Vol.
68A, Statutes at Large), throughout Oklahoma, when the
Legislature of Oklahoma has not properly enrolled a bill, passed
these laws by proper process, submitted them to the Governor of
the State of Oklahoma for approval, enrolled them with the
Secretary of State, and properly published said law, and the
Oklahoma Tax Commission has not properly published rules for
general application of said law in accordance with the Oklahoma
Administrative Procedures Act (Title 78, Okla. Statutes).
Plaintiff also alleges that Subtitle F of the Internal Revenue
Code ("IRC") will not become law even in the geographical United
States subject to Congress' Article IV § 3.2 legislative
jurisdiction until Title 26 of the United States Code is enacted
as positive law (IRC § 7851(a)(6)(A)), and said Title 26 of the
United States Code has never been enacted as positive law (IRC §
7806(b)). Therefore, the Oklahoma Tax Commission, by way of a
former Commissioner, has acted in concert with IRS principals to
impose non-existent law by mere administrative edict which in and
of itself is not authorized by law.
8. Plaintiff further alleges that the IRS, successor of the
Bureau of Internal Revenue, is an agency of the Department of the
Treasury, Puerto Rico, and under both statutory and regulatory
authority pertaining to administrative agreements relating to
state qualified tax, the Oklahoma Tax Commission would have
executed such an Agreement with the Secretary of the Treasury of
Dan Leslie Meador v. Robert E. Anderson, et al.:
Page 4 of 53
the United States, not the Commissioner of Internal Revenue, for
administration only on the "Federal" side of the agreement by the
United States Treasury Department (now General Accounting
Office).
9. Plaintiff alleges that Defendants were given proper
notice of the character, origins and jurisdiction of the IRS, and
proper application of Internal Revenue Code taxing authority by
way of public notice published in The Journal Record, Oklahoma
City, Oklahoma, the last two weeks of June and the first week of
July, 1996, The Journal Record being a legal newspaper for the
State of Oklahoma, and that having been given published legal
notice, Defendants have had more than ample opportunity to prove
legitimacy of the Agreement between the Oklahoma Tax Commission
and the Commissioner of Internal Revenue, or administratively
correct or terminate the Agreement. However, since Defendants
have failed and refused to carry out these administrative
responsibilities for a period of time now approaching a year, the
matter is ripe for judicial determination and remedy.
10. Should Defendants confess averments set out herein by
failing to rebut Plaintiff's allegations with authorities
sufficient to overcome matters of law and fact set forth in this
petition and brief, Plaintiff will consent to judicial
nullification of the Agreement by summary rule. Defendants'
confession may be construed as consent to the adverse judgment.
However, Plaintiff will not accept adverse rulings which are not
predicated on foundation law, so hereby notices the court, and
Defendants, that if matters of law or fact remain in dispute
after Defendants' response, Plaintiff reserves the right to trial
Dan Leslie Meador v. Robert E. Anderson, et al.:
Page 5 of 53
by jury, conducted under rules of the common law, as contemplated
by Article II § 19 of the Constitution of the State of Oklahoma
-- admiralty-Civil Law "jury trial" prescribed at Article VII §
15 is hereby refused and rejected.
11. Because of the nature and importance of this action,
Plaintiff asks indulgence of the lengthy account of law and fact
that follows. Additionally, Plaintiff apologizes for not
providing an index of authorities, but the situation is urgent
and compiling an index on a pleading of this length takes more
time than is immediately available.
Governing Law & Effect of State Accommodation
12. This brief is intended to lay groundwork for correcting
both State and Federal tax systems and restoring constitutional
government at the State level first, subsequently at the Federal.
Therefore, the brief provides an overview of what can presently
be documented with respect to how the fraudulent "income tax"
system works and touches on the overall effects of the
Cooperative Federalism scheme.
13. The first problem to be addressed is the most
immediately conspicuous flaw in the Agreement On Coordination of
Tax Administration: It was signed by a former commissioner for
the Oklahoma Tax Commission with the Commissioner of Internal
Revenue, allegedly for Oklahoma Tax Commission coordinated
administration of State and Federal taxes with the IRS, allegedly
an agency, department or component of the "U.S. Department of the
Treasury". (verbiage in agreement)
14. By consulting Federal regulations governing cooperative
agreements with eligible "States" at 26 CFR, Part 301.6361-
Dan Leslie Meador v. Robert E. Anderson, et al.:
Page 6 of 53
2(d)(3), the following is found: "In addition, the Secretary or
his delegate shall permit an electing State to inspect the work
papers which are compiled in the course of verification by the
Treasury Department of the correctness of the accounting ...."
15. Now reference the Internal Revenue Code (IRC) at §
7701(a)(12)(A):
(12) Delegate.
(A) In general. The term "or his delegate" --
(i) when used with reference to the Secretary of the
Treasury, means any officer, employee, or agency of the
Treasury Department duly authorized by the Secretary of
the Treasury directly, or indirectly by one or more
redelegations of authority, to perform the function
mentioned or described in the context ....
16. Next refer to IRC § 7805(a):
(a) Authorization.
Except where such authority is expressly given by this title
to any person other than an officer or employee of the
Treasury Department, the Secretary shall prescribe all
needful rules and regulations for the enforcement of this
title, including all rules and regulations as may be
necessary by reason of any alteration of law in relation to
internal revenue.
17. The "Department of the Treasury" is not authorized as
the Secretary's delegate under IRC §§ 7701(a)(12)(A) or 7805(a),
and the Treasury Department, not the Department of the Treasury,
is vested with authority via 26 CFR, Part 301.6361-2(d)(3). The
IRS is an agency or component of the Department of the Treasury,
not the Treasury Department. In fact, the full title of the
agency might be "United States Internal Revenue Service,
Department of the Treasury of Puerto Rico", but by consulting 31
U.S.C. §§ 301-310, it is found that IRS is not listed as a
department or bureau in the United States Department of the
Treasury.
Dan Leslie Meador v. Robert E. Anderson, et al.:
Page 7 of 53
18. Plaintiff published a public notice memorandum in The
Journal Record, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, the last two weeks of
June and the first week of July 1996 which thoroughly documented
the origins and character of IRS so it isn't necessary to go into
the same detail concerning IRS origins here, except it is useful
to track the three converging lines of Federal taxing authority
to demonstrate how America arrived at the current station. It is
sufficient that Defendants have already been given legal notice
by way of publication in an Oklahoma legal newspaper, and have
failed to rebut or correct averments set out in the published
notice. Therefore, there is a presumption that they are fully
cognizant of the Oklahoma Tax Commission being contracted with a
foreign agency that represents undisclosed foreign principals,
the "Central Authority" and the "Competent Authority". (28 CFR,
Parts 0.49 & 0.64-1)
19. Because of the memorandum, Defendants reasonably
familiar with the first development line: A Bureau of Internal
Revenue, Philippines, was created in conjunction with Philippines
Trust #2 (internal revenue) in about 1904, and a Bureau of
Internal Revenue, Puerto Rico, created in conjunction with Puerto
Rico Trust #62 (Internal Revenue). Both were created by
provisional governments of the newly acquired United States
territories, not Congress. Their primary mission was
administration of the China Trade Act - trade in opium, cocaine &
citric wines. In 1946, the Philippines became an independent
commonwealth, leaving BIR, Puerto Rico as the surviving known
Bureau of Internal Revenue.
Dan Leslie Meador v. Robert E. Anderson, et al.:
Page 8 of 53
20. The second Federal tax line evolved from national
prohibition, which was enacted after ratification of the
Eighteenth Amendment in 1919. The Amendment gave concurrent
jurisdiction to State and Federal enforcement relating to both
State and Federal liquor laws. However, ratification of the
Twenty-first Amendment in December 1933 repealed national
prohibition, and in the United States v. Constantine (Dec. 1935)
decision, the United States Supreme Court ruled that repeal of
the Eighteenth Amendment eliminated Federal authority to enforce
State law relating to liquor - each State again became
responsible for making and enforcing its own law.
21. The Constantine decision was premised on the 1926
Federal law. However, in summer 1935, Congress had passed the
Federal Alcohol Administration Act, and replaced the former
administrative agency with the Federal Alcohol Administration.
Because of the Constantine decision, the Federal Alcohol
Administration never really got off the ground. Then via
Reorganization Plan No. III of 1940, the Federal Alcohol
Administration was abolished and administration of the Federal
Alcohol Administration Act was placed under the Bureau of
Internal Revenue, Puerto Rico.
22. The third line is the so-called "income tax". The
Sixteenth Amendment was allegedly ratified in 1913. Almost
simultaneous, Congress imposed a corporate income tax - seemingly
drafted in 1909. However, from about 1915 through 1920, the
"income tax" was badly beaten up so via the Internal Revenue Act
of Nov. 23, 1921, virtually all income and excise taxes save the
"normal tax" were repealed. The "normal tax" issued against wages
of United States Government officers and employees, including the
Dan Leslie Meador v. Robert E. Anderson, et al.:
Page 9 of 53
President, Vice President, Congress, and Federal judges. Judges
didn't go for the idea as Article III of the Constitution assures
that their compensation will not be diminished so they fought the
tax into the 1930's when a remedy was finally found - if
candidates didn't sign contracts agreeing to the Federal employee
tax, they weren't nominated. Attrition eventually roped virtually
all Federal judicial officers into the system.
23. The question, of course, is why Congress repealed
everything down to and including tax on ice cream, tobacco, etc.,
via the Internal Revenue Act of Nov. 23, 1921. The answer is
this: The Federal tax system was moved under Congress' Article
IV § 3.2 legislative authority in the "geographical" United
States - the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, the Virgin
Islands, and today, American Samoa and Guam, possibly the
Northern Mariana Islands and Pacific Trust Territory originally
under United Nations administration. These entities belong to a
"free association" or political compact known as the "United
States of America". They are as second cousins to the Union of
several States party to the Constitution - they are not "sister"
states as Oklahoma and Kansas, Colorado and New Mexico, etc. (see
Downes Doctrine)
24. To clarify the distinction, refer to the definitions of
"State", "United States", and "citizen" at 26 CFR, Part 3121(e)-
1: Note that Alaska and Hawaii were included in the definitions
of "State" and "United States" prior to the time they joined the
Union of several States party to the Constitution, but eliminated
from the definition after. Since 1960, American Samoa and Guam
have been added to "State" and "United States" definitions:
Dan Leslie Meador v. Robert E. Anderson, et al.:
Page 10 of 53
§ 31.3121(e)-1 State, United States, and citizen.
(a) When used in the regulations in this subpart, the term
"State" includes the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth
of Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, the Territories of
Alaska and Hawaii before their admission as States, and
(when used with respect to services performed after 1960)
Guam and American Samoa.
(b) When used in the regulations in this subpart, the term
"United States", when used in a geographical sense, means
the several states (including the Territories of Alaska and
Hawaii before their admission as States), the District of
Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, and the Virgin
Islands. When used in the regulations in this subpart with
respect to services performed after 1960, the term "United
States" also includes Guam and American Samoa when the term
is used in a geographical sense. The term "citizen of the
United States" includes a citizen of the Commonwealth of
Puerto Rico or the Virgin Islands, and, effective January 1,
1961, a citizen of Guam or American Samoa.
25. The corresponding definitions in regulations pertaining
to the Social Security Administration, published at 20 CFR, Part
404.2(c )(5) & (6), are even more detailed so clarify where the
"Federal Socialist System" is applicable:
(5) State, unless otherwise indicated, includes (i) the
District of Columbia, (ii) the Virgin Islands, (iii) the
Commonwealth of Puerto Rico effective January 1, 1951, (iv)
Guam and American Samoa, effective September 13, 1960,
generally, and for purposes of section 210(a) and 211 of the
act effective after 1960 with respect to service performed
after 1960, and effective for taxable years beginning after
1960 with respect to crediting net earnings from self-
employment and self-employment income, and (v) the
Territories of Alaska and Hawaii prior to January 3, 1959,
and August 21, 1959, respectively when those territories
acquired statehood.
(6) United States, when used in a geographical sense,
includes, unless otherwise indicated, (i) the States, (ii)
the Territories of Alaska and Hawaii prior to January 3,
1959, and August 21, 1959, respectively, when they acquired
statehood, (iii) the District of Columbia, (iv) the Virgin
Islands, (v) the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico effective
January 1, 1951, and (vi) Guam and American Samoa, effective
September 13, 1960, generally, and for purposes of sections
210(a) and 211 of the act, effective after 1960 with respect
to service performed after 1960, and effective for taxable
years beginning after 1960 with respect to crediting net
earnings from self-employment and self-employment income.
Dan Leslie Meador v. Robert E. Anderson, et al.:
Page 11 of 53
26. In other words, application of the entire Internal
Revenue Code and Federal Social Welfare scheme is exclusively to
the geographical United States under Congress' Article IV § 3.2
"plenary" power - in these territories, Congress has the combined
power of State and Federal government, where under Article I
authority relating to the Union of several States, Congress has
only delegated or enumerated powers. Each of the several States
party to the Constitution is sovereign; the United States does
not have general police powers in the several States party to the
Constitution. In fact, only in the event of invasion or civil
uprising can the United States field forces in the several States
(Art. IV § 4, U.S. Constitution).
27. The same restrictive language is used for the terms
"United States" and "States" in general definitions at IRC §
7701(a). Rule 54(c ) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure
is definitive on the subject with application of terms: "State
includes District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, territory and insular
possession," and "Act of Congress includes any act of Congress
locally applicable to and in force in the District of Columbia,
in Puerto Rico, in a territory or in an insular possession."
28. Basically, this is what the United States Supreme Court
told Federal officials in the Constantine decision: Where the
several States party to the Constitution are concerned, Federal
government can exercise only those powers delegated by the
Constitution. The Separation of Powers Doctrine (Tenth Amendment)
otherwise preserves State territorial sovereignty. The principle
was again articulated in a more recent case: Not only is Federal
government prohibited from exercising powers not enumerated in
the Constitution, but State officials cannot accommodate exercise
Dan Leslie Meador v. Robert E. Anderson, et al.:
Page 12 of 53
of a Federal power not delegated without first securing a
constitutional amendment (New York v. United States, et al.
(1992)). Also, see United States v. Lopez (1995)).
29. After one aborted try, Federal Government imposed the
Social Security Act in 1935, using treaty provisions, but even
that applied only to Federal officers and employees. The "normal
tax" was revised via the Public Salary Tax Act of 1939 - the
title of the Act clarifies what the "income tax" is - and the
whole of Federal taxing authority other than customs laws was
organized in the Internal Revenue Code of 1939.
30. During World War II, the American people were introduced
to a "voluntary" salary tax via the Victory Tax, which again was
imposed only on Federal officers and employees, but capitalized
on war patriotism, then after the War, people simply had the
habit - a revenuer from the Treasury Department would pass the
hat and people who were not obligated to pay income and Social
Security taxes went for it.
31. Via Reorganization Plan No. 26 of 1950 and
Reorganization Plan No. 1 of 1952 (IRC § 7804), the Internal
Revenue Code of 1939 was revised. The big change, or appearance
of change, was bringing the Bureau of Internal Revenue on board -
via Treasury Order 150-29 (1953), the name "Bureau of Internal
Revenue" was changed to "Internal Revenue Service". Then via
T.D.O. § 221 (1972), the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms
was split from IRS. At least it seems so. In a subsequent
Treasury Order, IRS was designated as director of BATF.
Dan Leslie Meador v. Robert E. Anderson, et al.:
Page 13 of 53
32. To confirm the "Department of the Treasury, Puerto Rico"
role, consult 27 CFR, Part 1 to find that BATF still administers
the Federal Alcohol Administration Act, and see definitions at 27
CFR, Part 250.11 to verify the solid link with the Department of
the Treasury, Puerto Rico. Consult 31 U.S.C. § 1321 to find that
the "Secretary" still administers Philippines Trust #1,
Philippines Trust #2 (internal revenue), and Puerto Rico Trust
#62 (Internal Revenue).
33. Here's another tidbit for the information store:
Consult the Internal Revenue Act of 1862, which created the
office of Commissioner of Internal Revenue, to find that the
office was in the Treasury Department. However, the Revised
Statutes of 1873 effectively abolished the office. The current
Commissioner of Internal Revenue (IRC § 7802) is in the
"Department of the Treasury". Functions of the original Treasury
Department appear to be splintered, with the General Accounting
Office performing at least some, and the Secretary of the
Treasury appears to wear numerous hats, with the relationship
between the Secretary of the Treasury and the Treasurer of the
United States not yet completely clarified.
34. This saga is more fascinating than science fiction.
However, what is clear is that the macabre scheme is utterly
destroying American sovereignty and solvency.
35. Cooperative Federalism, formerly known as Corporatism,
emerges from a school of thought identified as Fabian Communism,
first cousin to Soviet Communism and European Socialism, all
mathematically impossible systems. The "ism" identity aside, the
scheme boils down to sedition and tyranny against constitutional
government and the sovereign American people. By definition, it
is evil - it is unlawful.
Dan Leslie Meador v. Robert E. Anderson, et al.:
Page 14 of 53
36. In the American constitutional system, it is appropriate
to say, "Nothing comes from nothing." American founders laid the
ground: All men are created equal, and are endowed by their
Creator with certain unalienable rights, rights to life, liberty
and the pursuit of happiness (property) among them. Governments
come only after that - governments are instituted among men, by
consent of the governed, for the sole purpose of securing and
preserving rights which God himself endowed us with, with all men
and governments being subject to, "the laws of Nature and of
Nature's God." (Declaration of Independence).
37. So far as government in our system is concerned, it may
exercise only authority delegated by way of applicable
constitutions, and in our system, United States Government and
governments of the several States are as the antipodes of power,
ordered somewhat like book ends.
38. In New York v. United States, et al., Justice O'Connor
restated past decisions: Regardless of rationalization and fancy
language, those who exceed delegated authority do so for self-
serving ends. Public service in the United States is premised on
trust - those elected and appointed to office are entrusted to
perform duties they are vested with, and not to exceed authority
conferred by applicable constitutions.
39. In the republican system, applicable constitutions vest
legislative authority in one branch of government, executive
authority in the second, and judicial authority in the third. We
have six major components: State and Federal legislative,
administrative, and judicial branches, with each limited so far
as jurisdiction and what powers may be exercised. The object was,
and is, to prevent consolidation of power.
Dan Leslie Meador v. Robert E. Anderson, et al.:
Page 15 of 53
40. However, ambition has always been a subliminal force,
and gained the upper hand at least during and following the Civil
War, possibly before. Each national emergency from that point
forward accommodated further encroachment, then in 1933,
immediately following Franklin Roosevelt's inauguration, Congress
and legislatures of the several States engaged socialistic
reorganization of government under what amounts to qualified
executive dictatorship, also known as legislative democracy.
41. Aside from merging the three branches of government -
State and Federal statutory courts are legislative rather than
judicial courts, all operating under a system of positive law
which is in the lineage of Roman Civil Law rather than English-
American common law - Federal encroachment has advanced to the
point the nation functions more as a seamless garment than a
patchwork of fifty semi-independent republics.
42. Fortunately, the law itself isn't the problem. Statutes
and regulations of the United States, once unraveled, comply with
the Separation of Powers Doctrine. No taxing statute in the
Internal Revenue Code reaches the Union of several States and the
general population - the several States cannot participate in the
Federal tax scheme as it is written exclusively for the
geographical United States subject to Congress' Article IV § 3.2
legislative jurisdiction. But the crossover, which is patently
fraudulent and illegal, is effected by way of administrative
agreements such as the Agreement On Coordination Of Tax
Administration effected by a former commissioner on the Oklahoma
Tax Commission and a former Commissioner of Internal Revenue.
Dan Leslie Meador v. Robert E. Anderson, et al.:
Page 16 of 53
43. By employing the "nothing comes from nothing" principle,
demonstrating the fraud is reasonably simple: Subsequent to the
Roosevelt takeover and reorganization of Federal Government as a
limited executive dictatorship-legislative democracy, Congress
established conditions for delegation of executive authority
conveyed under the premise of emergency endorsed March 9, 1933 in
special session (H.R. 1491)(Roosevelt actually declared the
emergency March 6, Congress merely approved the declaration and
began reorganization through the banking relief act). One of the
chief safeguards instituted since is at 3 U.S.C. § 301: The
President may delegate authority to executive departments and
heads, but he must do so by executive order, the executive order
to be published in the Federal Register. Authority relating to
"internal revenue" taxes was delegated via E.O. #10289 (1951, as
amended; published following 3 U.S.C. § 301). It is also
important that at IRC § 7621, the Internal Revenue Code of 1954
vests authority in the President to establish internal revenue
districts. One of the amendments to E.O. #10289 delegated this
authority to the Secretary of the Treasury. (The "qualified state
income tax" falls under another order, but due to IRS
involvement, it is necessary to track implications of E.O.
#10289, too.)
44. By consulting the Parallel Table of Authorities and
Rules, which begins on page 721 of the 1997 Index volume to the
Code of Federal Regulations, it is found that 26 U.S.C. § 7621
does not appear. In other words, there are no legislative or
significant regulations published in the Federal Register, in
compliance with the Federal Register Act (44 U.S.C. §§ 1501 et
Dan Leslie Meador v. Robert E. Anderson, et al.:
Page 17 of 53
seq.) which extend authority to establish United States "internal
revenue districts" in the Union of several States. However, there
is a regulation pertaining to the statute at 26 CFR, Part
301.7621-1 - the regulation merely confirms that E.O. #10289 is
the only executive order authorizing the Secretary to establish
revenue districts. Therefore, E.O. #10289 determines territorial
limitations for administration and enforcement of all Internal
Revenue Code taxing authority regardless of the type of tax or
what Subtitle the tax might be prescribed in.
45. By reviewing E.O. #10289, it is found that the only
authority it conveys relates to customs laws, particularly with
respect to narcotics, enforcement of the anti-smuggling act,
which is predicated on customs laws, and in conjunction with the
Postmaster, regulation of mailing requirements relating to
Government employees. No authority whatever relating to so-called
"income tax" is conveyed.
46. The Secretary then delegated authority to the
Commissioner of Internal Revenue via T.D.O. #150-42 (1956):
Authority relates to administration of internal revenue laws in
United States off-shore territories (Puerto Rico, the Virgin
Islands, the Canal Zone, etc.), and in the same order, the
Secretary removed these off-shore territories from administration
of district and regional customs offices located in Jacksonville,
Florida, Atlanta, Georgia, Lower Manhattan and New York City, New
York.
47. Again, by consulting 31 U.S.C. §§ 301-310, it is found
that IRS & BATF are not departments or agencies in the United
States Department of the Treasury and the office of the
Dan Leslie Meador v. Robert E. Anderson, et al.:
Page 18 of 53
Commissioner of Internal Revenue is not listed as an office in
the United States Department of the Treasury. When the office was
first established in 1862, it was in the Treasury Department;
the current office of Commissioner of Internal Revenue is in the
Department of the Treasury, but not the United States Department
of the Treasury. The Internal Revenue Code, at §§ 7701(a)(12) &
7805(a) vests authority in the Treasury Department, not the
Department of the Treasury. And under authority of E.O. #10289 &
T.D.O. #150-42, the Commissioner of Internal Revenue has
absolutely no delegated authority in the Union of several States
party to the Constitution. As previously noted, 26 CFR, Part
301.6361-2(d)(3) authorizes Federal States - these regulations
are not applicable to the Union of several States - to enter
agreements on administration of personal income taxes with the
Treasury Department, not the Department of the Treasury or the
Commissioner of Internal Revenue. T.D.O. #150-42 (1956, amended
slightly by T.D.O. 150-01, 1986), does not delegate authority
relating to Subtitle A & C taxes, nor does it authorize entering
cooperative tax administration agreements such as the one
executed with the Oklahoma Tax Commission. By consulting IRC §
7701(a)(12)(B), it is found that an agency of an off-shore United
States territory may administer Chapters 1, 2 & 21 of the
Internal Revenue Code (Subtitle A & C taxing statutes) only in
American Samoa and Guam, other than whatever territory is home
base for the agency (Department of the Treasury, Puerto Rico,
serving as agent for the Treasury Department in United States
off-shore territories).
Dan Leslie Meador v. Robert E. Anderson, et al.:
Page 19 of 53
48. The next problem is this: Agreements effected under
contractual provisions of "qualified state tax" implement non-
existent law. At 26 CFR, Part 301.6361-1(a), it is found that,
... In any such case of collection and administration of
qualified taxes, the provisions of subtitle F (relating to
procedure and administration), subtitle G (relating to the
Joint Committee on Taxation, and chapter 24 (relating to the
collection relating to the collection of income tax at
source on wages), and the provisions of regulations
thereunder, insofar as such provisions relate to the
collection and administration of the taxes imposed on the
income of individuals of chapter 1 (and the civil and
criminal sanctions provided by subtitle F, or by title 18 of
the United States Code (relating to crimes and criminal
procedure), with respect to such collection and
administration) shall apply to the collection and
administration of qualified taxes as if such taxes were
imposed by chapter 1, except to the extent that the
application of such provisions (and sanctions) are modified
by regulations issued under subchapter E (as defined in
paragraph (d) of s 301.6361-4) ....
49. At IRC § 7851(a)(6)(A), the following is found:
(a) General rule. The provisions of subtitle F shall take
effect on the day after the date of enactment of this title
and shall be applicable with respect to any tax imposed by
this title ....
50. At IRC § 7806(b), the following:
(a) Arrangement and classification.
No inference, implication, or presumption of legislative
construction shall be drawn or made by reason of the
location or group of any particular section or provision or
portion of this title, nor shall any table of contents,
table of cross references, or similar outline, analysis, or
descriptive matter relating to the contents of this title be
given any legal effect. The preceding sentence also applies
to the sidenotes and ancillary tables contained in the
various prints of this Act before its enactment into law.
51. The Internal Revenue Code of 1954 (Vol. 68A, Statutes at
Large), as amended in 1986 and since, has never been enacted as
positive law, as verified by § 7806(b). Title 26 of the United
States Code is a handy reference for reading diabolical fiction,
but does not have the force of law. And Subtitle F of the
Internal Revenue Code, which contains all administrative and
Dan Leslie Meador v. Robert E. Anderson, et al.:
Page 20 of 53
judicial statutes in the Internal Revenue Code, does not become
law until Title 26 of the United States Code is enacted as law.
52. With this background in place, we can now examine a few
of the problems with the Agreement On Coordination Of Tax
Administration effected between a former commissioner on the
Oklahoma Tax Commission and a former Commissioner of Internal
Revenue in 1982 & 1983:
53. First is that statutes pertaining to qualified state
income tax in the Internal Revenue Code (IRC §§ 6361 et seq.)
were in Subtitle F of the Code - per IRC §§ 7851(a)(6)(A) &
7806(b), they were never law to begin with. In other words, there
has never been statutory authority in the Internal Revenue Code
to effect the agreement. Next, these prima facie statutes were
repealed by Public Law 101-508 of 1990. The Agreement currently
proceeds without so much as color of law even though agreements
in place were allegedly not to be disturbed by repeal of
qualified state tax statutes previously in the IRC, even if they
had never been effected by Title 26 being enacted as positive
law. The IRC illusion is therefore something on the order of a
double negative.
54. The next problem is this: There are two distinct
authorities relating to "qualified state tax" in the Internal
Revenue Code. The first is at IRC § 164, which specifies that
certain state, local and foreign taxes may be deducted from
Federal returns. There is no general authority conveyed in 26
CFR, Part 1 which might relate to the Union of several States.
Regulations relating to joint administration of qualified state
tax, at 26 CFR, Parts 301.6361-1 et seq., are under jurisdiction
Dan Leslie Meador v. Robert E. Anderson, et al.:
Page 21 of 53
of the Commissioner of Internal Revenue. At IRC §§ 7701(a)(12)(A)
& 7805(a), authority for administration of Internal Revenue Code
taxing authority in the continental United States is vested in
the Treasury Department; at IRC § 7701(a)(12)(B), foreign
agencies such as the United States IRS of the Department of the
Treasury, Puerto Rico, are authorized to administer Chapter 1, 2
& 21 taxes only in Guam and American Samoa, exclusive of the
continental United States and the Union of several States party
to the Constitution. Therefore, even if Subtitle F statutes had
the effect of law, §§ 6361 et seq. and attending regulations in
26 CFR, Part 301 would have been applicable only to off-shore
territories of the United States. Definitions of "State" and
"United States" above reinforce the conclusion. The "election"
made by governors of the several States via tax commissions,
etc., could be of no legal effect as the Internal Revenue Code
and attending regulations have never extended to the Union of
several States party to the Constitution and the American people
at large.
55. However, qualified state tax which was formerly
codified in the Internal Revenue Code is something of a red
herring. At 68 O.S. § 2385.19, it is found that authority for the
Agreement relates to former 5 U.S.C. §§ 84b & 84c, now combined
at 5 U.S.C. § 5517. In relative part, the statute is reproduced
below:
§ 5517. Withholding State income taxes.
(a) When a State statute --
(1) provides for the collection of a tax either by imposing
on employers generally the duty of withholding sums from the
pay of employees and making returns of the sums to the
State, or by granting to employers generally the authority
to withhold sums from the pay of employees if any employee
voluntarily elects to have such sums withheld; and
Dan Leslie Meador v. Robert E. Anderson, et al.:
Page 22 of 53
(2) imposes the duty or grants the authority to withhold
generally with respect to the pay of employees who are
residents of the State; the Secretary of the Treasury,
under regulations prescribed by the President, shall enter
into an agreement with the State within 120 days of a
request for agreement from the proper State official. The
agreement shall provide that the head of each agency of the
United States shall comply with the requirements of the
State withholding statute in the case of employees of the
agency who are subject to the tax and whose regular place of
Federal employment is within the State with which the
agreement is made ...
(c ) For the purpose of this section, "State" means a State
or territory or possession of the United States.
(d) For the purpose of this section and sections 5516 and
5520, the terms "serve as a member of the armed forces" and
"service as a member of the Armed Forces" include --
(1) participation in exercises of the performance of duty
under section 502 of title 32, United States Code, by a
member of the National Guard; and
(2) participation in scheduled drills or training periods,
or service on active duty for training, under section 10147
of title 10, United States Code, by a member of the Ready
Reserve.
56. At 5 U.S.C. § 5520, relating to city or county income or
employment tax, the definition at § 5520(c )(4) clarifies who is
subject to qualified state, county, or city withholding tax:
(4) "agency" means --
(A) an Executive agency;
(B) the judicial branch; and
(C) the United States Postal Service.
57. Where the Internal Revenue Code is a collection of
Article IV § 3.2 "Acts of Congress" rather than acts promulgated
under Congress' Article I authority in the framework of delegated
powers, State of Oklahoma laws which accommodate this "foreign"
authority are clearly unconstitutional. The Legislature of
Oklahoma does not have authority to patronize the self-interested
United States by directly or indirectly imposing Congress'
Dan Leslie Meador v. Robert E. Anderson, et al.:
Page 23 of 53
plenary power in the geographical United States. It may be that
many Article IV § 3.2 "Acts of Congress" qualify under Article I
delegated authority, but if the Act is predicated on Article IV §
3.2 municipal authority, it is foreign to the Union of several
States and officers of the several States may not accommodate the
Act without first securing a constitutional amendment.
58. The constitutionality of the Oklahoma income tax code is
not at issue where the instant matter is concerned. It is
sufficient to concentrate on law governing the Agreement effected
between the Oklahoma Tax Commission and the Commissioner of
Internal Revenue.
59. The Secretary of the Treasury may enter withholding and
collection agreements relating to agencies of the United States
-- an agency being an agency of the Executive or judicial branch
of United States Government and the United States Postal Service
-- with the executive authority of a "State" -- "... a State or
territory or possession of the United States." The authority
does not extend beyond territorial jurisdiction of the United
States even if the Secretary could enter agreements with
executive authorities of the several States party to the
Constitution, and authority under these agreements is applicable
only to participating Federal agencies, not whomever else might
be liable for a State, city or county tax. The contract or
agreement for administration of these taxes, if such a contract
or agreement can be legally executed, applies only to collection
through Federal agencies, not general administration.
60. This authority originates in the Buck Act (4 U.S.C. §§
105-110): The purpose of the Buck Act [4 USCA §§ 105 et seq.]
Dan Leslie Meador v. Robert E. Anderson, et al.:
Page 24 of 53
was to equalize liability for income tax between officers and
employees of the United States who reside within federal areas
and those officers and employees, otherwise identically situated,
who reside outside federal areas who had become liable for state
tax by passage of Public Salary Tax Act of 1939 [Act of April 12,
1939, Ch. 59, 53 Stat. 574]. United States v. Lewisburg Area
School Dist. (1976, CA3 Pa.) 539 F.2d. 301. Congress intended the
Buck Act (4 USCS §§ 105-110) to recede to state sufficient
sovereignty over federal areas within its territorial limits to
enable state to levy and collect taxes named in [the] Act. Davis
v. Howard (1947) 306 Ky. 149, 206 SW.2d 467.
61. Statutes codified at 5 U.S.C. §§ 5517 et seq., merely
implement the Buck Act original grant of authority. However, the
Buck Act has no implementing regulations published in the Federal
Register in compliance with the Federal Register Act (44 U.S.C. §
1501, et seq.), so application must be solely to the geographical
United States subject to Congress' Article IV § 3.2 legislative
jurisdiction, or even if officers of the several States could
execute agreements, the agreements would affect only Federal
officers and employees. Application of qualified state tax
definitions at 26 CFR, Part 301.6365-1 clarify the matter:
26 CFR § 301.6365-1: Definitions
(a) State. For purposes of subchapter E and the regulations
thereunder, the term "State" shall include the District of
Columbia, but shall not include the Commonwealth of Puerto
Rico or any possession of the United States.
(b) Governor. For purposes of subchapter E and the
regulations thereunder, the term "Governor" shall include
the Mayor of the District of Columbia.
62. Definitions above narrow the field considerably:
Qualified income taxes addressed under the Buck Act and Title 5
Dan Leslie Meador v. Robert E. Anderson, et al.:
Page 25 of 53
authority are applicable in the District of Columbia. They were
first implemented under E.O. #11833, effected January 13, 1975,
and subsequently replaced several times until the current E.O.
#11997 of June 22, 1977 governs execution of agreements such as
the Agreement between the Oklahoma Tax Commission and the
Commissioner of Internal Revenue (see following 5 U.S.C. § 5520,
otherwise, 42 F.R. 31759), reproduced here in relative part:
Withholding of District of Columbia, State, City and County
Income or Employment Tax By virtue of the authority vested
in me by Sections 5516, 5517 and 5520 of Title 5 of the
United States Code [sections 5516, 5517 of this title and
this section], and Section 301 of Title 3 of the United
States Code [section 301 of Title 3, The President], and as
President of the United States of America, in order to
authorize the Secretary of the Treasury to provide for the
withholding of county income or employment taxes as
authorized by Section 5520 of Title 5 of the United States
Code as amended by Section 408 of Public Law 95-30 [this
section], as well as to provide for the withholding of
District of Columbia, State and city income and employment
taxes, it is hereby ordered as follows:
Section 1. Whenever the Secretary of the Treasury enters
into an agreement pursuant to Sections 5516, 5517 or 5520 of
Title 5 of the United States Code [sections 5516, 5517 of
this title and this section], with the District of Columbia,
a State, a city or a county, as the case may be, with regard
to the withholding, by an agency of the United States,
hereinafter referred to as an agency, of income or
employment taxes from the pay of Federal employees or
members of the Armed Forces, the Secretary of the Treasury
shall ensure that each agreement is consistent with those
sections and regulations, including this Order, issued
hereunder.
Sec. 2. Each agreement shall provide (a) when tax
withholding shall begin, (b) that the head of an agency may
rely on the withholding certificate of an employee or a
member of the Armed Forces in withholding taxes, (c ) that
the method for calculating the amount to be withheld for
District of Columbia, State, city or county income or
employment taxes shall produce approximately the tax
required to be withheld by the District of Columbia or State
law, or city or county ordinance, whichever is applicable,
and (d) that procedures for the withholding, filing of
returns, and payment of the withheld taxes to the District
of Columbia, a State, a city or a county shall conform to
the usual fiscal practices of agencies. Any agreement
affecting members of the Armed Forces shall also provide
Dan Leslie Meador v. Robert E. Anderson, et al.:
Page 26 of 53
that the head of an agency may rely on the certificate of
legal residence of a member of the Armed Forces in
determining his or her residence for tax withholding
purposes. No agreement shall require the collection by an
agency of delinquent tax liabilities of an employee or a
member of the Armed Forces.
Sec. 3 The head of each agency shall designate, or provide
for the designation of, the officers or employees whose duty
it shall be to withhold taxes, file required returns, and
direct payment of the taxes withheld, in accordance with
this Order, any regulations prescribed by the Secretary of
the Treasury, and the new applicable agreement.
Sec. 4. The Secretary of the Treasury is authorized to
prescribe additional regulations to implement Sections 5516,
5517 and 5520 of Title 5 of the United States Code [sections
5516, 5517 of this title and this section], and this Order.
63. Possibly not all "withholding agents" have been found
yet, but a good many have: At 2 U.S.C. § 60c-3, withholding and
remittance of State income tax is required by the Secretary of
the Senate; at 2 U.S.C. § 60e-1a, the Clerk and Sergeant at Arms
of the House are designated withholding agents; and at 40 U.S.C.
§ 166b-5, the Architect of the Capitol is required to withhold
and remit state income tax. Others are designated in Title 26 of
the Code of Federal Regulations.
64. The notion of the IRS having authority to be involved
with these agreements, even if the agreements could legitimately
be executed in the Union of several States party to the
Constitution, is dispelled at 5 U.S.C. § 5512:
§ 5512. Withholding pay; individuals in arrears
(a) The pay of an individual in arrears to the United
States shall be withheld until he has accounted for and paid
into the Treasury of the United States all sums for which he
is liable.
(b) When pay is withheld under subsection (a) of this
section, the General Accounting Office, on request of the
individual, his agent, or his attorney, shall report
immediately to the Attorney General the balance due; and
the Attorney General, within 60 days, shall order suit to be
commenced against the individual.
Dan Leslie Meador v. Robert E. Anderson, et al.:
Page 27 of 53
65. Amendment notes from the Act of 1966 shed light on this
statute:
In subsection (b), reference to the "General Accounting
Office" is substituted for "accounting officers of the
Treasury" on authority of the Act of June 10, 1921, ch. 18,
title III, 42 Stat. 23. The words "on request of" are
substituted for "if required to do so by" as more accurately
reflecting the intent. Reference to the "Attorney General"
is substituted for "Solicitor of the Treasury" and
"Solicitor" on authority of section 16 of the Act of March
3, 1933, ch. 212, 47 Stat. 1517; section 5 of E.O. 6166,
June 10, 1933; and section 1 of 1950 Reorg. Plan No. 2, 64
Stat. 1261.
66. In other words, the agreement, if legitimately effected,
should have little or nothing to do with the United States
Department of the Treasury, which is an Executive Department, the
Department of the Treasury, Puerto Rico, and certainly not the
IRS, successor to the Bureau of Internal Revenue, Puerto Rico.
Through the years, the illusive United States Treasury Department
has been splintered and has nearly vanished, with at least some
facsimile thereof preserved in the General Accounting Office, and
the office of the "Solicitor of the Treasury", still responsible
for enforcement, has evidently been merged with functions of the
Attorney General.
67. Next, implementation of law by executive agreement is
beyond authority of an Administrative Agency under provisions of
the Constitution of the State of Oklahoma. The Legislature of the
State of Oklahoma is vested with sole authority to enact law.
Article I § 1 of the Constitution of the State of Oklahoma
specifies that the Constitution of the United States is the law
of the land in Oklahoma, and Article IV § 4 of the Constitution
of the United States particularly states, "The United States
shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of
Dan Leslie Meador v. Robert E. Anderson, et al.:
Page 28 of 53
Government ...." Further, the Separation of Powers Doctrine,
articulated at Article IV § 1 of the Constitution of the State of
Oklahoma, speaks specifically to the matter:
§ 1. Departments of government - Separation and distinction
The powers of the government of the State of Oklahoma shall
be divided into three separate departments: The
Legislative, Executive, and Judicial: and except as
provided in this Constitution, the Legislative, Executive,
and Judicial departments of government shall be separate and
distinct, and neither shall exercise the powers properly
belonging to either of the others.
68. In order for law to have force and effect in Oklahoma,
it must be properly enrolled, passed by the Legislature in open
session, signed by the Governor, then properly recorded. The
Legislature cannot write a blank check to administrative
agencies. Manufacturing law that affects the people of Oklahoma
isn't one of the powers the Legislature of Oklahoma can delegate
to the Governor or an administrative agency. Nor can the
Legislature delegate authority for the Governor or an
administrative agency to enter into agreements with foreign
entities such as the Department of the Treasury, Puerto Rico,
that affect the general Oklahoma population.
69. Obviously, if Subtitle F of the Internal Revenue Code
doesn't have lawful affect in the geographical United States
subject to Congress' Article IV § 3.2 municipal authority, it
cannot be binding Federal legislation in the Union of several
States party to the Constitution, and it cannot be enacted or
enforced in Oklahoma via administrative agreement.
70. Authority for the Oklahoma Tax Commission to enter an
administrative agreement is at 68 O.S. § 2385, but the authority
does not extend to the Commissioner of Internal Revenue - the
Dan Leslie Meador v. Robert E. Anderson, et al.:
Page 29 of 53
statute specifies the "Secretary of the Treasury of the United
States." There is no statutory provision for contracting or
entering agreements with the IRS or the Commissioner of Internal
Revenue. Therefore, the agreement can have no lawful effect as it
was executed under color of law without authority of Congress or
the Oklahoma Legislature.
71. Next, 26 CFR, Part 301.6361-2, pertaining to judicial
and administrative proceedings and Federal representation of
State interests, amounts to an unconstitutional fraud when and if
the authority is extended to the general population rather than
being limited to Federal agencies, as demonstrated above. The
fraud appears to begin in the first subsection, but note that
"Federal Government" is included in the term "person":
(a) Civil proceedings -- (1) General rule. Any person shall
have the same right to bring or contest a civil action, and
to obtain a review thereof, with respect to a qualified tax
(including the current collection thereof) in the same
court or courts which would be available to him, and
pursuant to the same requirements and procedures to which
he should be subject, under chapter 76 (relating to
judicial proceedings), and under title 28 of the United
States Code (relating to the judiciary and judicial
procedure), if the tax were imposed by section 1 or chapter
24 of the Internal Revenue Code. For purposes of this
section, the term "person" includes the Federal Government.
Except as provided in subparagraph (2) of this paragraph
(a), to the extent that the preceding sentence provides
judicial procedures (including review procedures) with
respect to any matter, such procedures shall replace civil
judicial procedures under State law.
72. The exception provided at 26 CFR, Part 6361-2(a)(2) is
that the state must represent itself in the event of a challenge
under the state constitution in a state court. Other than that,
the executive agreement signs away all state administrative and
judicial authority, displacing the state's sovereign authority
with that of quasi-Federal government, the principal agency of
Dan Leslie Meador v. Robert E. Anderson, et al.:
Page 30 of 53
interest being an agency of the Department of the Treasury,
Puerto Rico. By effecting the agreement, the Executive branch of
state government not only adopts non-existent IRC Subtitle F
authority, but subjects people of the state to other law
applicable only in the geographical United States, inclusive of
Titles 18 & 28 of the United States Code.
73. This, of course, is impossible as there is no grant of
such authority. The effect of this interpretation would be
patently unconstitutional. By way of the Buck Act and Title 5
implementing statutory authority, the agreement, if executed
properly with eligible Federal States, cities and counties,
merely extends Federal judicial authority to officers and
employees of United States agencies and the United States Postal
Service, or more precisely, officers of the United States Postal
Service (see IRC § 3401(c )). As Federal employees, these people
are already subject to Congress' authority to regulate
government, whether under Article I or Article IV delegation, so
they are subject to Federal administrative law. The general
population isn't.
74. Practice is another matter: The Agreement On
Coordination of Tax Administration is employed to accommodate
general Federal trespass which adversely affects people
throughout the Union of several States as they are subjected to
IRS tyranny and Federal judicial authority which presumes
maritime jurisdiction.
75. Although not directly relevant where the instant matter
is concerned, examining IRS presumptions when Agency principals
effect administrative and/or judicial initiates against any given
Dan Leslie Meador v. Robert E. Anderson, et al.:
Page 31 of 53
person, family or privately owned business is worth disclosing.
The mode of operation was first unearthed as people around the
nation began securing Individual Master Files from IRS via
Freedom of Information Act requests. The IMF was then broken down
by researchers learning how to use the IRS 6209 Manual. In nearly
all cases, those subjected to administrative or judicial
initiatives are classified as high level drug dealers based in
the Virgin Islands, Cayman Islands, etc.
76. The Internal Revenue Code, at §§ 7302, 7321, 7323, 7325,
7326 & 7327, accommodates administrative seizures and judicial
actions (in rem) under maritime law -- customs authority. Exit
from the Internal Revenue Code is at § 7327:
§ 7327. Customs law applicable.
The provision of law applicable to the remission or
mitigation by the Secretary for forfeitures under the
customs laws shall apply to forfeitures incurred or alleged
to have been incurred under the internal revenue laws.
77. Implementing regulations for this statute, and nearly
all others in Chapter 75 of the Internal Revenue Code (Crimes,
Other Offenses and Forfeitures), are 26 CFR, Part 403, and 27
CFR, Part 72. Regulations at 26 CFR, Part 403 authorize the IRS
to administer and enforce United States customs laws relating to
narcotics and kindred commodities in United States maritime and
off-shore territorial jurisdiction; regulations at 27 CFR, Part
72 authorize BATF to administer and enforce United States customs
laws relating to alcohol, tobacco, firearms, explosives, etc., in
United States maritime and off-shore territorial jurisdiction.
Consequently, in nearly all instances where IRS principals
initiate administrative and/or judicial actions, there are two
hidden presumptions:
Dan Leslie Meador v. Robert E. Anderson, et al.:
Page 32 of 53
(1) whomever the actions are against is or is affiliated
with someone involved in drug trafficking in United
States maritime or off-shore territorial jurisdiction;
and,
(2) a criminal offense relating to drug trafficking has
been committed. Article IV United States District
Courts proceed on these presumptions, fraudulently
extending United States maritime jurisdiction inland,
to execute plunder and impose servitude on the
sovereign American people.
78. Courts of the United States located in the several
States party to the Constitution of the United States are of two
kinds. First, there is an Article III "district court of the
United States" (for Oklahoma, 28 U.S.C. § 116), then there is an
Article IV United States District Court (28 U.S.C. § 132), which
is a United States legislative-territorial court. United States
District Courts never have had and do not have an Article III
capacity. They are incompetent at law, as contemplated by
Article I §§ 9.3 & 10.1, the "arising under" clause at Article
III § 2.1, and the Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, and Seventh Amendments
to the Constitution of the United States, and as contemplated at
Article II §§ 6, 7, 10, 13, 15, 17, 18, 19, 20 and Article VII §§
4 & 7 of the Constitution of the State of Oklahoma.
79. So far as laws of the United States are concerned,
United States District Courts located in the Union of several
States legitimately operate exclusively under authority of 18
U.S.C. § 3401, which relates to misdemeanor offenses on Federal
property located in the Union of several States party to the
Constitution, as defined at 18 U.S.C. § 7(3). The only
regulations implementing the Federal Magistrate System were
promulgated by the Defense Logistics Agency, pertaining to
traffic offenses, etc., on military installations under
Dan Leslie Meador v. Robert E. Anderson, et al.:
Page 33 of 53
Department of Defense jurisdiction (32 CFR, Part 1290.1 et seq.)
and the Bureau of Land Management, relating to land under
Department of the Interior jurisdiction (43 CFR, Part 9260.0-1).
The only Article IV "United States District Courts" with general
criminal authority under Title 18 of the United States Code, or
any other provision of the United States Code, are listed at 18
U.S.C. § 23: the District Court of Guam, the District Court for
the Northern Mariana Islands, and the District Court of the
Virgin Islands; and at Rule 54(a), Federal Rules of Criminal
Procedure: the United States District Courts for the District of
Guam, the Northern Mariana Islands, the Virgin Islands, and, in
some cases, the United States District Court for the Canal Zone.
Where the United States has legitimate jurisdiction over criminal
matters within the several States, original authority is vested
in the Article III "district court of the United States" (18
U.S.C. § 3231 infra).
80. Jurisdiction of the United States in the several States
party to the Constitution is as follows, at 18 U.S.C. § 7(3):
(3) Any lands reserved or acquired for the use of the
United States, and under the exclusive or concurrent
jurisdiction thereof, or any place purchased or otherwise
acquired by the United States by consent of the legislature
of the State in which the same shall be, for the erection
of a fort, magazine, arsenal, dockyard, or other needful
building.
81. The original grant of authority for United States
territorial jurisdiction in the Union of several States party to
the Constitution of the United States is at Article I § 8.17:
[The Congress shall have Power] To exercise exclusive
Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not
exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular
States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of
Government of the United States, and to exercise like
Authority over all places purchased by the Consent of the
Dan Leslie Meador v. Robert E. Anderson, et al.:
Page 34 of 53
Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the
Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and
other needful Buildings ....
82. Following the Civil War, the rump Congress engaged in a
land-grab campaign both by conquest (overthrow of Hawaiian native
government without provocation when there were treaties in place;
Spanish-American war), and by blackmail of new states entering
the Union after 1870. Oklahoma was among the beleaguered new
states, as reflected at Article I § 3 of the Constitution of the
State of Oklahoma:
§ 3. Unappropriated public lands -- Indian lands --
Jurisdiction of United States
The people inhabiting the State do agree and declare that
they forever disclaim all rights and title in or to any
unappropriated public lands lying within the boundaries
thereof, and to all lands lying within said limits owned or
held by any Indian, tribe, or nation; and that until the
title to any such public land shall have been extinguished
by the United States, the same shall be and remain subject
to the jurisdiction, disposal, and control of the United
States. Land belonging to citizens of the United States
residing without the limits of the State shall never be
taxed at a higher rate than the land belonging to residents
thereof. No taxes shall be imposed by the State on lands or
property belonging to or which may hereafter be purchased by
the United States or reserved for its use.
83. Certain land in western territories was put in trust for
Native American Indians, effected by treaty, but the
"unappropriated public lands" the United States retained in
Oklahoma and other states admitted to the Union after about 1870
amounted to a grab of natural resources throughout the North
American Continent. In Oklahoma, for example, unappropriated
public lands retained by the United States were prime forest
lands (Title 80, Oklahoma Statutes, § 1), and beginning with
Yellowstone National Park, the United States began establishing
enormous national park areas where not only the scenic value was
reserved under Federal jurisdiction, but control of natural
Dan Leslie Meador v. Robert E. Anderson, et al.:
Page 35 of 53
resource production and income was retained by Federal
government. However, land retention still did not extend United
States judicial authority to the several States save within
territorial bounds of the United States, as defined at 18 U.S.C.
§ 7(3), supra. The fact that sovereignty of the laws and courts
of the several States is retained is verified in the second
sentence of 18 U.S.C. § 3231, which prescribes jurisdiction of
Article III district courts of the United States (Article IV
United States District Courts receive no authority at all via
this venue statute):
§ 3231. District courts.
The district courts of the United States shall have original
jurisdiction, exclusive of the courts of the States, of all
offenses against the laws of the United States.
Nothing in this title shall be held to take away or impair
the jurisdiction of the courts of the several States under
the laws thereof. [emphasis added]
84. What appears to be an equivocation, isn't: The terms
"courts of the States," used in the first sentence, refers to the
Federal States, as defined at 26 CFR, Part 31.3231(e)-1, supra,
where "courts of the several States", used in the second, refers
to the Union of several States party to the Constitution of the
United States. Title 18 of the United States Code, known as the
United States Code of Criminal Procedure, has been merged with
provisions from Title 48, Territories and Insular Possessions, so
many of the statutes in Title 18, such as § 3231, contain
elements from United States judicial authority in the Union of
several States and elements pertaining to United States
territories and insular possessions. Discovering what applies
where is on the order of finding that the General Accounting
Office was formerly the United States Treasury Department.
Dan Leslie Meador v. Robert E. Anderson, et al.:
Page 36 of 53
85. So far as the Constitution of the United States is
concerned, Congress has extremely limited authority to prescribe
punishment for crimes which might be committed in the Union of
several States: At Article I § 8.6, "[Congress shall have Power]
To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting of Securities and
current Coin of the United States," and at Article III § 3.2,
"The Congress shall have Power to declare the Punishment of
Treason ...." Certain constitutional amendments implemented since
the Fourteenth Amendment was allegedly ratified in 1868 confer
authority for the United States to secure and protect civil and
voting rights of "citizens of the United States" (Sec. 1,
Fourteenth Amendment), but that's the limit of Congress'
expressly delegated authority via the Constitution of the United
States relating to the sovereign American people and the Union of
several States.
86. The United States allegedly has authority in and over
the several States via the interstate commerce clause, but that
argument suffers the same fate as the tax argument: Since
Congress elected to move under Article IV § 3.2 legislative
authority in the geographical United States, little or no
authority extends to the Union of several States. When Congress
exercises plenary power under Article IV § 3.2, legislation is
exclusively for the self-interested, geographical United States,
it has nothing whatever to do with the several States party to
the Constitution. Therefore, everything from gun control
legislation to other "interstate commerce" laws are
geographically limited to the territorial United States and
Dan Leslie Meador v. Robert E. Anderson, et al.:
Page 37 of 53
United States maritime jurisdiction. The entire social welfare
scheme, predicated on interstate commerce authority, is
applicable only within the geographical United States and foreign
nations which have treaties and trade agreements with the self-
interested United States operating "in derogation of" (outside)
constitutional bounds.
87. Even when Congress is exercising legitimate Article I
authority which extends to the several States, there is gray area
so far as United States judicial authority in the Union of
several States as Article III § 2.3 makes the following
provisions:
The Trial of all Crimes, except in Cases of Impeachment,
shall be by Jury; and such Trial shall be held in the State
where the said Crimes shall have been committed; but when
not committed within any State, the Trial shall be at such
Place or Places as the Congress may by Law have directed.
88. Even conceding that the "arising under" clause at
Article III § 2.1 extends United States judicial authority to the
Union of several States so far as legitimate laws of the United
States promulgated under Congress' Article I delegated power are
concerned, the Article III § 2.1 "arising under" clause, Article
III § 2.3, and the Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, and Seventh Amendments
to the Constitution of the United States, as corresponding and
comparable provisions in the Constitution of the State of
Oklahoma, are all contemplative of English-American common law at
the time the Constitution of the United States was established
and as abrogated by applicable constitutions of the United States
and the several States.
89. The Article IV United States District Court, which has
no United States Article III judicial capacity, operates under
Dan Leslie Meador v. Robert E. Anderson, et al.:
Page 38 of 53
admiralty rules which effectively impose Civil Law, in the
lineage for Roman Civil Law, etc., dating to the Babylonian
Empire. This "positive law" system elevates the "State"
(government) to the position of sovereign while imposing subject
status on the people. The system is approximately the same as
imposed by vice-admiralty courts under King George III, which
were largely responsible for the American Revolution, and Star-
Chamber courts of Charles I, which contributed significantly to
the Popular Uprising of 1640. The system of law presently imposed
by state and Federal courts has invariably led to anarchy,
rebellion, revolution, and destruction of nations and empires. It
appears now and again with a new name or new face, but it's the
same law that resulted in Daniel being thrown into the lions'
den.
90. There is no need for equivocation: State and Federal
authorities have conspired to commit treason against the
sovereign American people, and through subtle means, such as the
O.T.C.-C.I.R. agreement, have undermined state and national
sovereignty and solvency, compromising not only those who are
incidentally exposed to Cooperative Federalism tyranny, but their
own posterity and kin. They have perpetrated the biblical maxim,
"The sons shall inherit the sins of the fathers." The Cooperative
Federalism scheme, aside from being unlawful and mathematically
impossible, is singularly immoral - it defies the "laws of Nature
and of Nature's God" American founders appealed to as
justification for severance from British rule. Those who
knowingly subscribe to the scheme, without first securing lawful
authority to amend or over-throw state and national
constitutions, are morally reprobate.
Dan Leslie Meador v. Robert E. Anderson, et al.:
Page 39 of 53
91. Neither state or national constitutions grant
legislative or administrative branches of state government
authority to displace state judicial authority with that of the
United States when operating in the framework of Congress'
Article I delegated authority, much less authorize Federal
civilian enforcement people to run rough-shod within state
territorial jurisdiction. The Oklahoma Tax Commission, by way of
an administrative agreement, certainly doesn't have authority to
underwrite carte blanche jurisdiction of Article IV courts of the
self-interested geographical United States.
92. Article I § 8.17, of the Constitution of the United
States prescribes three necessary elements for the United States
to secure jurisdiction within the several States: (1) the United
States must acquire title to land, (2) the State legislature must
cede jurisdiction, and (3) the United States (Congress) must
formally accept jurisdiction. Until those three requirements are
met, the United States does not have jurisdiction in the several
States. Article I § 8.17 charges Congress with this
responsibility. However, in another colorable statute, Congress
conveyed authority to the executive branch of United States
government to secure jurisdiction. This is found in the last
paragraph of 40 U.S.C. § 255. But regardless of how questionable
the statutory delegation from Congress to the executive branch,
the statute preserves the three necessary elements: (1) the
United States must acquire title, (2) the state legislature must
cede jurisdiction, and (3) the United States must formally accept
jurisdiction, otherwise, "Unless or until the United States has
Dan Leslie Meador v. Robert E. Anderson, et al.:
Page 40 of 53
accepted jurisdiction over lands ... it shall be conclusively
presumed that no such jurisdiction has been accepted."
93. Corresponding Oklahoma cession laws are located in Title
80 of the Oklahoma Statutes, with §§ 1, 2 & 3 stipulating how and
what lands may be automatically ceded, preserving the mandate
that the United States must acquire actual title before
jurisdiction may be ceded. If the United States doesn't own
property in Oklahoma where any member of the Federal Law
Enforcement Community exercises authority, the execution is under
color of law - no law accommodates exercise of carte blanche
Federal police powers in Oklahoma. The United States, as any of
the several States party to the Constitution, is required to
employ the extradition process to move anyone from State to
Federal jurisdiction (see particularly, 18 U.S.C. §§ 3182 et
seq., and in State laws, the Uniform Extradition Act, Fresh
Pursuit Act, and Fugitive From Justice Act).
94. The character of IRS & BATF as agencies of the
Department of the Treasury, Puerto Rico, has already been
treated. Another prime example of institutionalized fraud
accommodated by officers of the state ... the Federal Bureau of
Investigation is merely an administrative agency in the United
States Department of Justice (notes, 28 U.S.C. § 531), with
authority to investigate Title 18 crimes committed only by
officers and employees of United States Government (28 U.S.C. §
535). Since FBI wasn't created by the Constitution itself, or
Congress' Article I legislative authority, the agency cannot be
vested with authority so far as exercise of general police powers
within the several States. Yet State officials, contrary to the
Dan Leslie Meador v. Robert E. Anderson, et al.:
Page 41 of 53
Separation of Powers Doctrine, routinely accommodate the fraud,
thereby exposing citizens of the several States to exercise of
unconstitutional Federal police powers.
95. Jurisdiction of the Federal Law Enforcement Community,
inclusive of IRS, BATF, FBI, et al., is revealed through
definitions in various regulations. First, regulations pertaining
to Federal agencies authorized to secure and execute warrants, at
28 CFR Part 60.3(b):
(b) Local Law Enforcement Agencies:
(1) District of Columbia Metropolitan Police Department
(2) Law Enforcement Forces and Customs Agencies of Guam,
The Virgin Islands, and the Canal Zone.
96. So far as "Emergency Federal Law Enforcement Assistance"
is concerned, the following list of "States" are eligible, as
defined at 28 CFR, Part 65.70(d):
(d) State. The term state is defined by the Act as
any state of the United States, the District of Columbia,
the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands,
Guam, American Samoa, the Trust Territory of the Pacific
Islands, or the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana
Islands.
97. The accommodating effect of the Agreement On
Coordination of Tax Administration and very probably other such
"inter-governmental" agreements is to subject the sovereign
people of Oklahoma, and sister States, to increasingly vicious
attack which is unconstitutional in nature and operates
exclusively under color of law. The means of operation is
something on the order of fishing: Federal officials bait a
hook, throw it in the pond, then wait. When officials of any
given State take the bait, the State is hooked -- in order to
receive whatever incentive is offered as bait, State officials
Dan Leslie Meador v. Robert E. Anderson, et al.:
Page 42 of 53
must accommodate Federal authority, whether carried out by
Federal officers and employees directly, or by State officers and
employees indirectly. The scheme operates outside constitutional
bounds, it reverses roles of the sovereign people and government,
with government assuming sovereignty which does not and has never
existed in the American republican system, and it accommodates
the massive transfer of wealth for the benefit of an entrenched
political-wealth noblesse oblige. The system is patently
unconstitutional, unlawful, and immoral.
98. It will serve to treat IRC Subtitle A & C taxing
authority briefly, with application consistent under the Oklahoma
individual income tax (Title 68, Oklahoma Statutes):
99. An "employee" subject to Subtitle A & C taxing authority
is defined at IRC § 3401(c )
(c) Employee.
For purposes of this chapter, the term "employee" includes
an officer, employee, or elected official of the United
States, a State, or any political subdivision thereof, or
the District of Columbia, or any agency or instrumentality
of any one or more of the foregoing. The term "employee"
also includes an officer of a corporation.
100. The "employer", defined at IRC § 3401(d), is simply the
employer of the employee defined at § 3401(c ); the general
definition of "State", at IRC § 7701(a)(10), is essentially the
same as that at 26 CFR, Part 31.3121(e)-1(a), and the general
definition of "United States" at § 7701(a)(9), is essentially the
same as that at 26 CFR, Part 31.3121(e)-1(b). The officer of
corporations subject to Subtitle A & C taxes, and "withholding at
the source" liability (Chapter 24), is the officer of a primarily
Government-owned or established corporate entity deemed to be an
"instrumentality of the United States." The United States Postal
Dan Leslie Meador v. Robert E. Anderson, et al.:
Page 43 of 53
Service, for example. This has nothing to do with privately owned
State corporations, or even privately owned geographical United
States corporations, unless they are engaged in a United States
trade or business, the definition of "trade or business" being
"... the performance of the functions of a public office." (IRC §
7701(a)(26))
101. Even in the event someone might be an "employee"
subject to withholding at the source, most employees aren't
required to keep books and records, per 26 CFR, Part 31.6001-
1(d):
(d) Records of employees. While not mandatory (except in
the case of claims), it is advisable for each employee to
keep permanent, accurate records showing the name and
address of each employer for whom he performs services as an
employee, the dates of beginning and termination of such
services, the information with respect to himself which is
required by the regulations in this subpart to be kept by
employers, and the statements furnished in accordance with
the provisions of § 31.6051-1.
102. Detailed treatment of proper application of IRC
Subtitle A & C taxing authority, determination of liability,
etc., isn't necessary in this forum so summarizing particulars
is sufficient: The withholding agent, defined at 26 CFR, Part
1.1441-7, is the person liable for withholding, reporting and
paying Subtitle A & C taxes. In Oklahoma statutes, the
designated "withholding agent" is made liable at 51 O.S. § 46.
Also, see 68 O.S. § 2385 to confirm that the "employer" is the
person liable. If and when an "employee" is due a refund of
Federal tax withheld at the source, he will normally file
directly with the "employer" (withholding agent) to secure the
refund (26 CFR, Parts 1.1461-4, 31.6413(a)-1, 601.401(c) &
elsewhere). The "1040" tax return form is prescribed for use
Dan Leslie Meador v. Robert E. Anderson, et al.:
Page 44 of 53
when someone wants to file for a "special refund" (26 CFR, Parts
31.6413(c )-1, 601.401(d) & elsewhere), and in the event a
nonresident alien of the geographical United States married to a
citizen or resident of the geographical United States "elects"
to be treated as a citizen of the United States, he and the
citizen or resident spouse may file a joint return using the
"1040" form (should be specially marked). Within the
geographical United States subject to Congress' Article IV § 3.2
plenary power, non-government corporations and their employees,
and self-employed individuals not engaged in United States trade
or business, may "elect" to effect voluntary agreements under
Subtitle A & C taxing authority to secure whatever "economic
benefits" are derived from participating in the scheme (26 CFR,
Part 31.3402). However, this privilege does not extend beyond
the geographical United States to the Union of several States
party to the Constitution save as someone might be employed by a
branch or subsidiary of a geographical United States corporation
-- the "privilege" does not extend to corporations, partnerships,
or any other juristic entity, self-employed person, or
"individual" in the Union of several States party to the
Constitution. The "employer" is actually supposed to file a
return with the "Treasury Department" (General Accounting
Office) and provide the "employee" with a copy. The W-4 is a
voluntary agreement, and within the framework of 26 CFR, Part
31.3402, these voluntary withholding agreements may be
terminated by either party with written notice. Withholding
agents are generally required to file Form 1042, in some cases,
Form 1042S, and an assortment of other forms, including Form
2255, for certain reports (see 26 CFR, Parts 1.1443-1, 1.1461-2,
etc.)
Dan Leslie Meador v. Robert E. Anderson, et al.:
Page 45 of 53
103. The Oklahoma individual income tax code, at 68 O.S. §
2351, is predicated on liability for Federal tax. If someone
isn't required to file a Federal return, he isn't required to
file a State return. The "person liable" for withholding at the
source, reporting, and paying the tax, when legitimately due, is
the Government withholding agent. Consequently, regulations
above are applicable in all instances where the Oklahoma income
tax code is concerned.
104. One of the more definitive statements concerning who
qualified state, city and county income or employment taxes
apply to is at 31 CFR, Part 215, relating to Federally chartered
financial institutions as Federal Tax and Loan Depositories:
§ 215.2 Definitions
As used in this part:
(a) Agency means each of the executive agencies and
military departments (as defined in 5 U.S.C. 105 and 102,
respectively), and the United States Postal Service; and in
addition, or city or county withholding purposes only, all
elements of the judicial branch.
105. An unfortunate reality of the current situation is that
virtually all State tax is predicated on Federal taxing
authority, the scheme accommodated by the Buck Act. However, by
consulting the definition of "State" in the Buck Act, it is found
that this "Act of Congress" also presumes a State to be an
instrumentality of the United States, not the Union of several
States party to the Constitution of the United States. This is
where there is potential for crisis. All taxes listed in Section
3.1 of the Agreement On Coordination of Tax Administration
Dan Leslie Meador v. Robert E. Anderson, et al.:
Page 46 of 53
effected with the Commissioner of Internal Revenue are
compromised - they are premised on geographical United States
taxing authority and are applicable only within United States
jurisdiction.
106. Fortunately, there doesn't have to be much in the way
of constructive argument. At Article XXIII § 8, the Constitution
of the State of Oklahoma condemns the Agreement effected between
the Oklahoma Tax Commission and the Commissioner of Internal
Revenue:
§ 8. Contracts waiving benefits of Constitution invalid
Any provision of a contract, express or implied, made by any
person, by which any of the benefits of this Constitution is
sought to be waived, shall be null and void.
107. Further, the Constitution of the State of Oklahoma also
condemns the presumption that Oklahoma is an instrumentality of
the United States, subject to Congress' Article IV § 3.2
legislative jurisdiction, and absolutely condemns IRS people,
judicial officers in United States Article IV territorial courts,
etc., from operating under the presumption of State authority. At
Article II § 12, the following:
§ 12. Officers of United States or other states --
Ineligibility to office
No member of Congress from this State, or person holding any
office of trust or profit under the laws of any other State,
or of the United States, shall hold any office of trust or
profit under the laws of this States.
108. The notion that the United States Treasury Department,
the United States Department of the Treasury, or the Department
of the Treasury, Puerto Rico, can contract to displace State of
Oklahoma tax administration authority, usurp Oklahoma police
powers, usurp authority of Oklahoma courts, etc., stands contrary
Dan Leslie Meador v. Robert E. Anderson, et al.:
Page 47 of 53
to the foundation of state and national constitutions. The
people of Oklahoma are not subject to Admiralty-Civil Law courts,
whether of the State or the United States, and they are not
subject to administrative law which has not been promulgated in
accordance with constitutional requirements. The list goes on.
The point being, the Oklahoma Tax Commission Agreement On
Coordination of Tax Administration with the Commissioner of
Internal Revenue is null and void, nunc pro tunc.
Conclusion & Prayer For Relief
109. Plaintiff's prayer for relief is for people across
Oklahoma and the nation. Great numbers of dedicated people have
paid dearly to unearth and assemble information related in this
pleading - the Agreement on Coordination of Tax Administration
was the last major piece in a macabre scheme which must have been
spawned in the mind of Satan himself. Because of the scheme,
multitudes have suffered the anguish and hardship resulting from
financial destruction, public humiliation, imprisonment, and in
more than a few cases, debilitating health problems, physical
injury, and even death.
110. It is time to end the fraud with surgical precision --
it's over, done. The lie has been exposed for all to see!
111. "Well, what if ... ?" some might ask. "What kind of
emergency ... ?"
112. America will have to restore her natural resource
production and manufacturing base. People will have to work, and
employers will have to pay decent wages. State and local
governments will have to sever themselves from the Federal tit,
once again accepting and exercising responsibility American
founders built into constitutional government with diversified
power.
Dan Leslie Meador v. Robert E. Anderson, et al.:
Page 48 of 53
113. Ironically, contemporary America is probably less
prepared to implement true constitutional government than
American founders were when they set off on the great American
experiment in 1787. They were better prepared as the first civil
government constitution was adopted in Massachusetts Bay Colony
in 1636, and most colonies implemented written constitutions by
the time of the Revolution. From 1760 through 1775, there were
something in excess of 400 privately published pamphlets ranging
from 5,000 to 25,000 words circulated in the thirteen original
colonies, with discourses addressing the basis of inherent and
unalienable rights, the rights and responsibilities of
government, et al, from every perspective. These subjects were
treated from political stumps, and most particularly, from
pulpits throughout the colonial empire.
114. Since approximately 1973, while middle and upper middle
income classes have been whittled from approximately 55% to about
40% of the population, with the share of national wealth in
control of the wealthiest 1% soaring from 22% to over 38% of all
assets, there has been another awakening and tempering despite
the grist mill which has produced untenable rural poverty and
spread the inner-city ghetto like a cancer in nearly all
metropolitan centers.
115. On the surface, it would appear that Cooperative
Federalism prescribes a formula for disaster -- that rebellion or
tyranny would have to rule. But amazingly, there is a diversified
vocal core dedicated to the proposition of peacefully restoring
constitutional rule, thus demonstrating more strength in
America's moral fabric than might be imagined.
Dan Leslie Meador v. Robert E. Anderson, et al.:
Page 49 of 53
116. On the other hand, by 1990, legitimate political
surveys began reflecting discontent at an alarming level -- every
legitimate survey since has reflected distrust of politicians and
political institutions at 60% or better. By fall 1995, the "key
question" survey pegged the discontent level at 73%, then in
spring 1996, it topped 80%. In November 1996, only 49% of the
nation's registered voters bothered to vote, an alarmingly low
number when only 35-40% of those eligible to vote even register.
Consequently, few politicians elected in 1996 can claim more than
12-15% support in their respective districts. At all levels, we
have minority government, and government, because of the
mathematically impossible Cooperative Federalism scheme, is
certain to become increasingly aggressive, which will further
aggravate the general population, if something isn't done to
dramatically change course.
117. On March 9, 1933, Congress met in special session. At
the end of the day, the nation's banking and monetary systems
were completely changed. Changed for the worse, it seems --
today's soaring public and private debt premised on book-entry
obligations, "paper promises," is the unavoidable consequence.
That same year, the Legislature of Oklahoma met in special
session from May into July, enacting emergency legislation to
accommodate the promised chicken in every pot.
118. Not everyone was fooled, of course: The Oklahoma
Senate passed a resolution calling for Congress to honor the
constitutional mandate for gold. Legislatures in several States
Dan Leslie Meador v. Robert E. Anderson, et al.:
Page 50 of 53
made the same half-hearted demand. But in March 1933, America was
exhausted from four years of deep depression, costing
approximately 40% of the nation's industrial jobs, and an
engineered bank panic paved the way for emergency Socialization
of America under limited executive dictatorship -- Hoover and
Roosevelt presidential papers from the period address some of the
mystery and sordid details.
119. The question of, "What will we do if the lie is
surgically extracted?" must be balanced by the question, "What
will we do it the lie isn't surgically extracted?"
120. The truth, once told, will not be silenced. Therein
lies the answer.
121. Plaintiff requests that Defendants confess to averments
set forth herein and thereby consent to judicial nullification of
the agreement. In the alternative, Plaintiff requests trial by
jury on matters of law and fact remaining in dispute once
Defendants have answered.
122. The exclusive remedy Plaintiff seeks where the instant
matter is concerned is nullification of the Agreement On
Coordination Of Tax Administration effected in 1982 & 1983 by a
former commissioner who served on the Oklahoma Tax Commission and
a former Commissioner of Internal Revenue.
123. Plaintiff requests that Defendants answer within 30
days from receipt of this petition of complaint.
124. Under penalties of perjury, I, Dan Leslie, Meador,
certify that all matters of law and fact set forth in this
complaint are to the best of my current knowledge, understanding
and belief accurate and true, so help me God.
Dan Leslie Meador v. Robert E. Anderson, et al.:
Page 51 of 53
____________________________ _______________
Dan Leslie, Meador Date
P.O. Box 2582
Ponca City 74602/tdc
OKLAHOMA STATE
tel: (405) 765-1415
fax: (405) 765-1146
List of Exhibits:
1. May 16, 1997 letter from David K. Smith to Dan Meador
2. Agreement On Coordination of Tax Administration
(O.T.C.-C.I.R.)
3. Public notice memorandum on IRS & application of IRC
Dan Leslie Meador v. Robert E. Anderson, et al.:
Page 52 of 53
Notice of Service
I certify that true and correct copies of this petition of
complaint, along with all exhibits, are being hand delivered to
the following:
Robert E. Anderson, Chairman
Robert V. Cullision, Vice-Chairman
Don Kilpatrick, Secretary-Member
Oklahoma Tax Commission
Oklahoma State Capitol Complex
Oklahoma City, Oklahoma
W. A. "Drew" Edmondson, Attorney General
Office of the Attorney General
Oklahoma State Capitol
Oklahoma City, Oklahoma
____________________________ ____________________
Dan Leslie, Meador Date
P.O. Box 2582
Ponca City 74602/tdc
OKLAHOMA STATE
tel: (405) 765-1415
fax: (405) 765-1146
Dan Leslie Meador v. Robert E. Anderson, et al.:
Page 53 of 53
# # #
Return to Table of Contents