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