Dan Leslie, Meador                   )
                                     )
          Complaining Party          )  AFFIDAVIT OF COMPLAINT
                                     )
     v.                              )
                                     )
H. Dale Cook, Sam A. Joyner,         )
Frank H. McCarthy, Stephen C. Lewis, )
Neal Kirkpatrick, Tracy Foster,      )
Robin Faglia, John & Jane Doe 1-10,  )
                                     )
          Defendants                 )
_____________________________________)


                       Basis of Complaint

     I, Dan  Leslie, Meador,  commonly known  as and  called  Dan

Meador,   am a  native of  Kansas.  I have spent most of my adult

life in  Oklahoma, thus  qualifying as  a Citizen  and Elector of

Oklahoma.   I am 52 years of age, of sound mind, and competent to

handle my own affairs.

     I live  and have  abode on  privately owned  property in the

county of Kay, the community of Ponca City, Oklahoma state.  I do

not now  nor have  I ever  resided on  land ceded  to the  United

States in accordance with Oklahoma cession laws, nor am I now nor

have I ever been a citizen or resident of the geographical United

States, as  the term  "United States"  is defined in the Internal

Revenue Code  ("IRC"), Titles  4, 18  & 28  of the  United States

Code, and  at 26 CFR, Part 31.3121(e)-1(b) (District of Columbia,

Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, American Samoa, Guam, etc.).

     The named Defendants above are also believed to be qualified

Citizens and  Electors of  Oklahoma  state.    All  but  one  are

officers or  employees of  United States  Government who  conduct

trade or  business from  Federal courthouses  located  in  Tulsa,

Oklahoma, with  conduct of  trade or  business under  auspices of


          Affidavit of Complaint - Dan Leslie, Meador:
                          Page 1 of 20


tending United States Government affairs in the Northern District

of Oklahoma.   H.  Dale Cook is a Senior Judge, Sam A. Joyner and

Frank H. McCarthy are United States magistrate judges, Stephen C.

Lewis is  the United States Attorney for the Northern District of

Oklahoma, Neal  B. Kirkpatrick  is  an  Assistant  United  States

Attorney in the office of Mr. Lewis, and Robin Faglia is a Deputy

United States  Marshal.  Tracy Foster is an inspector employed by

the  Internal   Revenue  Service  ("IRS"),  a  component  of  the

Department of  the Treasury,  Puerto Rico,  contracted to provide

systems development  and  maintenance  and  information-gathering

services for United States Government.

     The corpus  of events and actions which constitute the basis

of this  complaint transpired  in the  county of  Tulsa, Oklahoma

state.   I allege  and believe  the above-named  Defendants,  and

unnamed John  and Jane  Doe Defendants,  at all  times have acted

under color  of law,  beyond authority vested by their respective

offices and  employment, in  dealings relating  to me  and  other

people who  are also Citizens and qualified Electors of Oklahoma.

Therefore, I, Dan Leslie, Meador, herewith file this affidavit of

criminal complaint,  supported by  certain briefs  and  evidences

which demonstrate  limits of  Federal law  and  jurisdiction,  to

secure criminal  enforcement and  prosecution and other remedies,

as appropriate.


                 Facts Giving Rise to Complaint

     In approximately  October 1995,  Kenney F. Moore and Colleen

Moore, of  Washington county,  Bartlesville, Oklahoma  state, and

Wayne Richard,  Gunwall, of  Kay  county,  Ponca  City,  Oklahoma

state, were  indicted by  Federal grand  jury indictment  issuing


          Affidavit of Complaint - Dan Leslie, Meador:
                          Page 2 of 20


from the Article IV United States District Court for the Northern

District of  Oklahoma.   Sam A.  Joyner  was  the  United  States

magistrate judge (national park commissioner) who presided at the

Moore-Gunwall arraignment.  Tracy Foster was the IRS case manager

responsible for  initiating, or  at least managing and supporting

complaints, Neal  B. Kirkpatrick  was the Assistant United States

Attorney responsible  for prosecution,  and H.  Dale Cook was the

Senior Magistrate Judge who presided over the case.

     Shortly after  receiving their  respective  indictments  and

summonses mailed  from the  clerk for  the United States District

Court for  the Northern  District of Oklahoma, the Moores and Mr.

Gunwall recruited my assistance.

     In September  1995, the  results of two independent research

projects had  uniquely equipped me to provide information for the

Moore-Gunwall defense:  Wayne Bentson and William Cooper, both of

Arizona, published a report demonstrating that the IRS, successor

to the Bureau of Internal Revenue, is an agency of the Department

of the  Treasury, Puerto  Rico, working  out of or in conjunction

with Puerto Rico Trust #62 (Internal Revenue) (31 U.S.C.  1321).

Of particular  significance, the  Cooper-Bentson report  tied IRS

and the  Bureau of  Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms to the Federal

Alcohol  Administration  Act  (1935),  and  the  Federal  Alcohol

Administration.   As a result of the United States v. Constantine

decision in  December 1935,  responsibility for administering and

enforcing the  Federal Alcohol Administration Act was transferred

to  the   Bureau  of   Internal   Revenue,   Puerto   Rico,   via

Reorganization Plan  No. III  of 1940,  and the  Federal  Alcohol

Administration was  abolished.  The name of BIR, Puerto Rico, was

changed to IRS via T.D.O. 150-29 (1953), then BATF was segregated

from IRS  as a  quasi-independent agency of the Department of the

Treasury, Puerto Rico in 1972 (T.D.O. 221).


          Affidavit of Complaint - Dan Leslie, Meador:
                          Page 3 of 20


     The Cooper-Bentson  report also  alleged that  IRS and other

principals diverted  American tax  dollars through the Agency For

International  Development   for  clandestine  projects  such  as

funding construction  of  the  Soviet  tank  and  military  truck

factory on the Kama River, Russia.

     At approximately the same time the Cooper-Bentson report was

published, my  wife and I (Norma Gail Meador), completed indexing

the complete  IRC with  the  numbers  and  nomenclature  of  each

statute matched  with legislative regulations, then cross-indexed

by listing statutes under appropriate regulation headings.  While

not having  access to Cooper-Bentson documentation concerning use

of funds, we immediately verified that BATF still administers the

Federal Alcohol Administration Act (27 CFR, Part 1), verified the

transfer via  Reorganization Plan  No. III  of 1940, and verified

that  IRS  and  BATF  are  not  agencies  of  the  United  States

Department of  the Treasury  (31 U.S.C.   301  et  seq.).    By

referencing our  index, it was quickly verified that there are no

implementing regulations,  delegations of authority, or executive

orders authorizing  the Secretary  of the  Treasury to  establish

internal revenue  districts in  the several  States party  to the

Constitution  of   the  United   States,  and  authority  of  the

Department of  the Treasury,  via the  Secretary of the Treasury,

the Commissioner of Internal Revenue, and the Treasury Department

does not extend to the Union of several States.


          Affidavit of Complaint - Dan Leslie, Meador:
                          Page 4 of 20


     The combined  Cooper-Bentson and Meador research produced an

astounding conclusion:   No taxing statute in the IRC reaches the

Union of  several States.   The  entire  Federal  tax  scheme  is

predicated on  Congress' Article  IV  3.2 municipal authority in

the geographical  United States  -- even  what would otherwise be

legitimate excise  taxes are  applicable only  in the District of

Columbia, Puerto  Rico, the Virgin Islands, Guam, American Samoa,

the  Northern   Mariana  Islands,   the  Northern  Pacific  Trust

Territories (United  Nations),  United  States  extra-territorial

jurisdiction in the Canal Zone, and on Federal enclaves where the

United States  has secured  jurisdiction in  the Union of several

States.   IRC taxing  authority is  expressly  exclusive  of  the

several States party to the Constitution.

     We had  also done  enough research  to know  courts  of  the

United States do not have general jurisdiction for prosecution of

criminal offenses  prescribed in  Title 18  of the  United States

Code and  the IRC.   United  States jurisdiction  in the Union of

several States  is specifically  defined at 18 U.S.C.  7(3), and

jurisdiction of  courts of the several States is preserved in the

second sentence of 18 U.S.C.  3231.

     I assisted  the Moores  and Mr. Gunwall with construction of

motions  to   dismiss  indictments,   which  were  predicated  on

interference  with   administration  of  United  States  internal

revenue laws  (IRC   7212(a)).   However,  Mr.  Kirkpatrick,  as

prosecuting Assistant  United States  Attorney, elected to ignore

hard evidence and law governing jurisdiction, etc., by condemning

the evidence  as "frivolous"  and otherwise simply writing it off

as  being   of  no   effect.    The  presiding  magistrate  judge

(legislative  rather   than   judicial   function),   Mr.   Cook,

accommodated Mr. Kirkpatrick.


          Affidavit of Complaint - Dan Leslie, Meador:
                          Page 5 of 20


     At about  this same time (late October or early November), a

grand jury  was convened via the United States District Court for

the Northern  District of  Oklahoma.   Four people  from  Western

Oklahoma and  Oklahoma City were summoned to testify.  As part of

their   testimony,    they   secured    information    concerning

institutionalized United  States  Government  corruption.    They

solicited  information   and  a   cover  letter   from  me.     I

accommodated.     The  cover   letter,  aside   from   explaining

implications of  research  outlined  above,  conveyed  complaints

pertaining to  the Moore-Gunwall  case, specifying  that  if  the

grand jury  would initiate  an  investigation,  I  would  provide

additional testimony  and help  arrange other  witnesses who have

contributed to  research exposing  IRS fraud  and tyranny.    All

information the  four accumulated  as part of their testimony was

sealed in  a box.  Darrell Frech of Jet, Oklahoma gave the sealed

box to the grand jury foreman in the presence of Mr. Kirkpatrick.

     As Mr.  Kirkpatrick and  Mr. Cook continued to roll ahead in

the Moore-Gunwall  case, jointly ignoring evidence of limitations

on Federal  judicial authority  and  IRS  fraud  (the  IRC  vests

authority in  the Treasury  Department, not the Department of the

Treasury, so  far as the continental United States is concerned),

it became  evident that  they and  other people involved with the

matter were  determined to  ignore governing law and regulations.

In order to try to secure a proper remedy, I constructed a letter

of complaint,  naming Mr.  Cook, Mr. Joyner, Mr. Kirkpatrick, Ms.

Foster and  others, then  sent the  letter,  along  with  support

materials, to  the grand  jury foreman  by way of the court clerk


          Affidavit of Complaint - Dan Leslie, Meador:
                          Page 6 of 20


for the  United  States  District  Court,  Northern  District  of

Oklahoma.  Copies of the material were forwarded to the office of

the United  States Attorney,  and a  corresponding complaint  was

sent to the Oklahoma Attorney General, W. A. Drew Edmondson.  Per

a postal  return receipt,  the court clerk received the complaint

on a  Friday.   Mr. Kirkpatrick  entered  a  motion  to  dismiss,

without articulating  a reason,  the following  Monday.  Mr. Cook

signed an  order dismissing  the case  the following  week, on or

about November 27, 1995.

     In approximately July, 1996, the Moores and Mr. Gunwall were

once again  indicted on  basically the  same charges for the same

alleged offenses  (#96-CR-082-C).  Each was sent a summons with a

copy of  the grand jury indictment, with the summonses scheduling

a date and time for arraignment before a United States magistrate

judge in  the United  States  District  Court  for  the  Northern

District of Oklahoma, Tulsa.

     The Moores  and Mr.  Gunwall again consulted with me.  After

considering alternatives,  the Moores, Mr. Gunwall, and I settled

on employing  a form  of pleading  developed and  used with  some

success by  David Miller, Minnesota.  The instrument, styled as a

refusal for  fraud or refusal for cause, is entered in the nature

of a  motion to  dismiss, primarily in the framework of Rules 9 &

12 of  the Federal  Rules of  Criminal Procedure.    Mr.  Gunwall

established direct  contact with Mr. Miller and elected to follow

the Miller format, thereby segregating himself from the Moores so

far as  defense strategy  was concerned.   In the meantime, I had

unearthed authority underlying the right to choice of counsel and

the practice  of law  being a  common law profession which cannot


          Affidavit of Complaint - Dan Leslie, Meador:
                          Page 7 of 20


be, and  is not, regulated by State or Federal government save in

relation to  "public attorneys"  who serve  as officers of courts

where they  practice (In January 1997, I filed an ex parte action

in  the  district  court  for  Kay  county,  seeking  declaratory

judgment  on  (1)  the  right  to  choice  of  counsel  being  an

unqualified constitutionally-secured  right, and (2) the right to

practice law  as a  common law  profession.   Alma Wilson, former

chief justice  of the  Oklahoma Supreme  Court, has acquiesced to

these rights,  so the  declaratory ruling should be forthcoming.)

With Moore  consent and  encouragement (powers  of  attorney),  I

signed on  as counsel,  attaching Moore  powers of attorney and a

brief in support as exhibits accompanying the Moore pleading.

     Mr. Gunwall  elected not  to respond  to the  summons issued

from the Article IV United States District Court for the Northern

District of  Oklahoma.   The Moores  several times  asked me  for

advice  concerning  whether  or  not  they  should  answer  their

respective summonses.   I  refused to  give advise on the matter.

The Moores  eventually elected  not to  answer the summonses, but

not because I gave them advice one way or the other.

     Subsequent to  the hearing or arraignment the Moores and Mr.

Gunwall elected  not to  attend, warrants  for their  arrest were

issued under  signature  of  a  United  States  magistrate  judge

(national park  commissioner).  It is significant that the United

States magistrate  judge's personal  jurat was not affixed to the

warrants, as required by law (28 U.S.C.  638(c)).  Subsequent to

issuance of the warrants, Mr. Gunwall was arrested in the parking

lot outside  the Wal-Mart  store located  in Ponca City, Oklahoma

(privately owned  land where  United States  jurisdiction is  not


          Affidavit of Complaint - Dan Leslie, Meador:
                          Page 8 of 20


ceded in  accordance with  requirements of  40 U.S.C.   255  and

Oklahoma cession laws, 80 O.S.  1, 2 & 3).  Mr. Gunwall alleges

that Federal  Bureau of  Investigation agents participated in the

arrest, but  in trial  testimony, accounted for infra, Ms. Foster

claimed responsibility  for Mr.  Gunwall's arrest.   He  was then

transported to  Tulsa where he was incarcerated via the office of

the U. S. Marshal at the Federal courthouse.

     It is  significant that  the United States Government [sic],

on behalf  of the  IRS, did  not issue  proper complaints  and  a

request for extradition to United States jurisdiction through the

Oklahoma Governor,  Mr. Gunwall  was not taken before an Oklahoma

magistrate, afforded  the opportunity  to secure counsel, contest

extradition, or  apply  for  a  writ  of  habeas  corpus  against

extradition via  the district  court of  the  State  of  Oklahoma

located in  the county  of Kay.   It is also significant that the

FBI is  an administrative  agency in  the Department  of  Justice

(notes,  28   U.S.C.     531)  authorized  by  statute  only  to

investigate officers  and employees  of United  States Government

(28 U.S.C.    535).    The  agency  does  not  have  legislative

authority  of   Congress  to   exercise  police  powers  or  even

investigate private  Citizens of  the several States party to the

Constitution of  the United  States, whether  in the geographical

United States  under Congress'  legislative  jurisdiction  or  in

jurisdiction of the several States party to the Constitution.

     An attorney  in the  office of  the Federal  Public Defender

contacted  the   Moores  by   telephone  and   subsequently  they

voluntarily  surrendered.    The  Moores  and  Mr.  Gunwall  were

arraigned before  a United  States magistrate  judge, who entered

pleas for  them.   The Moores  were released  on  bond,  but  Mr.

Gunwall was  held for  two or  three days before bond was finally

set and he secured release.


          Affidavit of Complaint - Dan Leslie, Meador:
                          Page 9 of 20


     In August,  I received  a summons  and indictment  from  the

United States  District Court,  Northern  District  of  Oklahoma,

alleging two  misdemeanor offenses  of attempting  to influence a

grand jury  member by writing (18 U.S.C.  1504) and one count of

impeding administration  of justice (18 U.S.C.  1503), case #96-

CR-113-C.

     I filed  an application  for writ  of habeas corpus with the

Supreme Court  of Oklahoma,  and counter-filed complaints against

Mr. Kirkpatrick  and others via the district judge for the Eighth

Judicial  District,   State  of   Oklahoma.     Notice  of  these

initiatives was  filed with the court clerk for the United States

District Court  for the Northern District of Oklahoma and sent to

Mr. Kirkpatrick.

     As it  happened, I  was scheduled to be in Tulsa the day the

summons specified  for arraignment,  but I  elected not to answer

the summons.   In  the late  afternoon prior  to leaving Tulsa, I

contacted Mr.  Kirkpatrick by  telephone  to  inquire  concerning

status of  the case.   Mr. Kirkpatrick informed me that a warrant

had been  issued for my arrest.  Mr. Kirkpatrick supplied me with

the telephone  number of the Chief Deputy U.S. Marshal located in

Tulsa, Mr.  Faglia.  I evidently wrote the number down wrong as I

failed to  contact Mr.  Faglia by telephone before leaving Tulsa.

I called  from a  pay telephone  on the  outskirts of Tulsa where

there was  no telephone  book, so  I drove  back  to  Ponca  City

without contacting  him.    The  following  morning,  Mr.  Faglia

contacted me  by telephone.   In light of the Gunwall incident, I

agreed to  surrender at  the  Federal  Courthouse  in  Tulsa  the

following Monday morning.


          Affidavit of Complaint - Dan Leslie, Meador:
                          Page 10 of 20


     On Sunday  prior to  surrendering, I sent a lengthy "Bill of

Particulars" to  the office  of the United States Attorney and to

Mr. Faglia  via fax.   The  "Bill  of  Particulars"  demonstrated

limits of  IRS authority,  jurisdictional limits  for the Federal

Law Enforcement Community, and jurisdictional limits of courts of

the United States.  I filed the original hard copy of the Bill of

Particulars with  the court  clerk for the United States District

Court and  served copies  at the  office  of  the  United  States

Attorney, the Federal probation office, and with Mr. Faglia prior

to surrendering for arrest.  Therefore, all parties were properly

notified concerning  limits of  IRS authority  and jurisdictional

bounds of  Federal civilian  law enforcement personnel and courts

of the United States.

     Mr. Faglia  acknowledged receipt of the fax transmission and

accepted service of the hard copy of the Bill of Particulars.  He

stated that  he was  aware of  possible legal  implications,  but

elected to effect arrest.

     After being  booked, I was locked in a large holding cell by

myself.   A deputy  then gave me what was supposed to the warrant

and indictment, but turned out to be a "Magistrate" complaint for

violation of  18 U.S.C.   1504  signed July  25, 1996  by  Tracy

Foster, identified  as an  Inspector with the Inspection Division

of the  IRS.    The  complaint  was  endorsed  by  United  States

magistrate judge  (national park  commissioner) Frank H. McCarthy

(Magistrate Case  No. 96-74M).   After  examining the  magistrate

complaint issued  in July,  I asked  a deputy to find the correct

indictment and  warrant.   The warrant  effected for Case #96-CR-

113-C was  also signed  by Mr.  McCarthy.  It is significant that

none of  the documents  signed by  Mr.  McCarthy  are  under  the

personal jurat required by 28 U.S.C.  638(c).


          Affidavit of Complaint - Dan Leslie, Meador:
                          Page 11 of 20


     At approximately  3 p.m.,  I was  taken to a courtroom where

United States  Magistrate Judge  (national park commissioner) Sam

A. Joyner presided at the arraignment.

      Since  I was not notified of a grand jury investigation, as

required by  law (see Rule 6(b)(1), F.R.Cr.P.), there had been no

opportunity to  see or review the affidavit of complaint on which

the indictment was based, there had been no opportunity to secure

counsel,  there  had  been  no  opportunity  to  examine  adverse

witnesses, and  there had been no opportunity to present evidence

and witnesses in my defense.  Therefore, I asked Mr. Joyner for a

copy of  the certified complaint, but Mr. Joyner refused to order

the Government  to provide  it.  I then asked for the opportunity

to examine  adverse witnesses, but Mr. Joyner denied the request.

When asked  for a  plea to  the indictment, I declined entering a

plea  due  to  uncertainty  concerning  the  charges.    However,

contrary  to  limitations  on  United  States  magistrate  judges

concerning felony offenses (see Rule 5(c), F.R.Cr.P.), Mr. Joyner

entered a  "not guilty"  plea for  me.   Additionally, despite my

having declined  court-appointed  counsel,  Mr.  Joyner  assigned

standby counsel  via the  office of the Federal Public Defender's

office for  the Northern  District of  Oklahoma, and  imposed the

requirement that  I had to submit all pleadings for inspection by

court-appointed standby  counsel prior to filing motions or other

material in  my own  defense.   Mr. Joyner  further  imposed  the

requirement that  I make  regular reports  to the  United  States

Probation Office  for the  Northern District of Oklahoma, thereby

imposing continuing constraints prior to the trial of causes even

though I was properly bonded.


          Affidavit of Complaint - Dan Leslie, Meador:
                          Page 12 of 20


     Mr. Joyner  failed to  affix his personal jurat to orders he

issued, as required by 28 U.S.C.  638(c).

     It is  significant that  Mr. Joyner,  Mr.  Kirkpatrick,  Mr.

Cook,  Mr.  Stephen  C.  Lewis  and  Ms.  Foster  were  named  in

complaints I filed with the court clerk for the Northern District

of Oklahoma  for the  grand jury  foreman, and with the office of

the Oklahoma  Attorney General, in November 1995, as these people

comprise  the   core  cast   of  characters  responsible  for  my

prosecution.   Among other motions, I filed a motion for Mr. Cook

and Mr.  Kirkpatrick in  particular to recuse themselves as being

parties of  interest, but both refused to withdraw from the case.

Knowing Mr.  Cook operates  under two  oaths  of  office  --  the

constitutional oath  prescribed in  Title 5  of the United States

Code and  the statutory  oath which  accommodates his  actions on

behalf of  the geographical  United States  as a  self-interested

entity under  Congress' Article  IV   3.2  municipal  power  (28

U.S.C.   453) --  I entered  a  judicial  contract  into  record

requiring Mr. Cook to endorse his constitutional oath, which is a

prerequisite to holding offices of trust or profit for the United

States, and  to ensure  my substantive  due process  rights.  Mr.

Cook failed  and refused  to recuse  himself, in  compliance with

requirements of  28 U.S.C.   455(a), and also refused to endorse

his constitutional  oath, thereby defaulting his right to hold an

office of trust or profit for the United States.


          Affidavit of Complaint - Dan Leslie, Meador:
                          Page 13 of 20


     At a  hearing in  October 1996,  Mr. Cook  instructed me  to

revise motions, and if desired, adopt motions submitted by stand-

by counsel,  Mr. Paul  Brunton.   I  complied,  and  among  other

things, pointed  out that allegations advanced by Mr. Kirkpatrick

that I  was responsible  for  the  Moores  and  Mr.  Gunwall  not

answering summonses  issued from the United States District Court

were beyond  the scope  of the  indictment.  When Mr. Kirkpatrick

responded my motions, he went even further beyond the face of the

indictment, misrepresented the Constitution in his responses, and

for the most part, failed and refused to address all jurisdiction

matters, character  and jurisdiction  of the  IRS as an agency of

the Department  of the  Treasury, Puerto Rico, territorial limits

so far as Federal Law Enforcement Community police powers extend,

etc.

     Simultaneous with  my prosecution, prosecution of the Moores

and Mr.  Gunwall moved ahead unabated even though documents which

the Government  relied on  were conspicuously forged or otherwise

manufactured,  there   was  no   taxing  statute   or  regulation

identifying the  Moores as  persons  liable  for  any  given  tax

prescribed in  the IRC  in evidence (merely the criminal statute,

IRC   7212(a)), no  evidence of  United States  jurisdiction  on

privately owned  land in  the counties  of Kay,  Washington,  and

Tulsa (requirements  specified in the last paragraph of 40 U.S.C.

 255  and Oklahoma  cession laws),  and no documentation proving

the Moores, Mr. Gunwall, or I were or are "United States persons"

(required evidence  at 26  CFR, Part  1.871-4(c)(2)).   Mr.  Cook

absolutely refused  to take  mandatory  judicial  notice  of  the



          Affidavit of Complaint - Dan Leslie, Meador:
                          Page 14 of 20


Constitution and laws of the United States, the Federal Register,

Code of  Federal Regulations, the Oklahoma constitution and laws,

etc., as required by Rule 201(d), Federal Rules of Evidence.

     So far  as my  prosecution is concerned, Mr. Cook never once

entered a  written order  into record  which  was  responsive  to

pleadings.  When it became obvious that Mr. Cook had no intention

of complying  with rules  governing conduct  of  the  court,  the

Moores and  Mr. Gunwall  and I  filed  a  civil  action  via  the

district court  for the  county  of  Tulsa,  State  of  Oklahoma,

against the  parties named  above,  Mr.  Cook,  Mr.  Joyner,  Mr.

McCarthy, Mr. Lewis, Mr. Kirkpatrick, and Ms. Foster included.

     Jury selection  for both the Moore-Gunwall case and the case

against me  was scheduled for January 6, 1997.  The parties named

above were  served by  a deputy  county sheriff  for Tulsa County

prior to  jury selection  beginning.   Yet  despite  the  various

complaints  concerning  Government  [sic]  evidence  against  the

Moores (documents  produced by  IRS did  not  bear  the  District

Director's seal, as required by 26 CFR, Part 301.7514-1(c) & (d),

28 U.S.C.  1733(b), Rule 44, F.R.Cv.P., and Rule 27, F.R.Cr.P.),

absence  of   necessary  prosecution  elements  (taxing  statute,

statute proving  liability), Mr.  Kirkpatrick having departed the

face of  the indictment  against me, ignoring motions for recusal

as  parties  of  interest,  being  served  with  a  civil  action

complaint, etc.,  Mr. Cook,  in league  with Mr.  Kirkpatrick, et

al., moved ahead with prosecution of the cases.

     The Moores  and Mr.  Gunwall plea bargained on what appeared

to be an advantageous offer from Mr. Kirkpatrick.  Irregularities

in the  Government agreement  appear to  have developed since the

plea bargain,  but those  matters go  beyond the  scope  of  this

complaint as  I have  not been directly involved with the affairs

of the Moores and Mr. Gunwall since they plea bargained.


          Affidavit of Complaint - Dan Leslie, Meador:
                          Page 15 of 20


     Jury selection  was conducted  for my trial the afternoon of

Monday, January  6, 1997.   Due  to not being familiar with trial

procedure, I  accepted assistance of counsel from court-appointed

attorneys, Mr.  Brunton and  Mr. Paul  DeMuro.   However, once  I

accepted the  assistance of  Mr. Brunton and Mr. DeMuro, Mr. Cook

prevented me from further addressing the court or jury, examining

witnesses, or directly placing evidence into record.

     The court  operated under admiralty rules, Mr. Cook presided

as an  Article  IV  magistrate  judge  (legislative  rather  than

judicial capacity),  and the  trial was  a disaster.  Mr. Brunton

and Mr. DeMuro, who knew little or nothing about the character of

the IRS, proper application of IRC taxing authority, jurisdiction

of  the  United  States,  et al.,  were  incompetent  so  far  as

representation is  concerned.   At the  close of Government [sic]

evidence, Mr.  Brunton elected to rest without staging a defense,

doing so  without consulting  with me.  Needless to say, the jury

returned guilty verdicts.

     In  post-trial  motions,  I  moved  to  dismiss  counsel  as

incompetent -  I entered evidence that Mr. Brunton and Mr. DeMuro

had  not   asked  questions   I  prepared  for  Government  [sic]

witnesses,  had   not  explored  Government  [sic]  evidence  via

Government [sic]  witnesses as  we  had  agreed,  did  not  enter

evidence I  provided them, and did not call witnesses who were at

the court  and  were  prepared  to  testify.    My  Brunton,  and

subsequently, Mr.  DeMuro, entered motions to withdraw as counsel

without contesting allegations in my motion, and Mr. Cook granted

both of  their motions  to withdraw.    Additionally,  I  entered

motions (1)  to arrest  judgment, (2)  to acquit, and (3) for new

trial.


          Affidavit of Complaint - Dan Leslie, Meador:
                          Page 16 of 20


     Dr.  Moore   was  the  only  Government  [sic]  witness  who

addressed whether  or not  I advised the Moores not to answer the

summonses issued  from the  United States  District  Court.    He

several times  repeated that  I refused to advise them concerning

whether or  not they  should  answer  the  summonses.    Yet  Mr.

Kirkpatrick argued  that the  refusal document  was sufficient to

cause not  only the  Moores, but  Mr. Gunwall  not to  answer the

summonses.   No evidence  was presented concerning Mr. Gunwall --

his "refusal  for cause" or "refusal for fraud" was conspicuously

different than  that of  the Moores,  and Mr.  Gunwall had  taken

other initiatives  the Moores  didn't.   Mr. Gunwall  was at  the

courthouse to  testify, yet  Mr. Kirkpatrick  didn't call him, so

advanced allegations  which were never addressed in the course of

trial.

     Although my  motions were  entered in  mid-January, Mr. Cook

has failed  and refused  to enter  written rulings on the motions

which would  afford the opportunity to move the motions along for

other remedies.   In  other words,  he  has  continued  the  same

pattern of behavior since trial as before.


          Affidavit of Complaint - Dan Leslie, Meador:
                          Page 17 of 20


                    Application of Complaint

     I allege  that the  following is  true:   The Defendants are

liable under laws of Oklahoma and the United States.

     Individually and  collectively, the Defendants have acted on

behalf of  an unidentified  foreign principal, the "UNITED STATES

OF  AMERICA",  this  entity  of  necessity  being  either  (1)  a

coalition or compact of Federal States under Congress' Article IV

 3.2  legislative jurisdiction  (see  Title  48,  United  States

Code), or  (2) the  unidentified foreign principals, the "Central

Authority" or  "Competent Authority"  (28 CFR, Parts 0.49 & 0.64-

1).

     Individually and  collectively, the  Defendants  have  acted

beyond United  States jurisdiction in Oklahoma (18 U.S.C.  7(3);

see last paragraph of 40 U.S.C.  255 & Oklahoma cession laws, 80

O.S.  1, 2, & 3).

     The Defendants  conspired to  the common  end of effecting a

bill of  attainder against  me, bills  of attainder prohibited by

the Constitution  of the  United States  and the Constitution for

the State of Oklahoma.

     The Defendants  have deprived  me of  due process of law, as

contemplated by  Article III   2.1 and the Fourth, Fifth, Sixth,

and Seventh  Amendments to the Constitution of the United States,

and Articles  II   VII of  the Constitution  for  the  State  of

Oklahoma.

     The  Defendants   have  conspired   to  the  common  end  of

simulating judicial process.

     The Defendants have conspired to the common end of effecting

inland piracy in Oklahoma.

     The Defendants are responsible for employing, or threatening

to  employ,  force  of  arms  against  the  sovereign  people  of

Oklahoma, utilizing civilian forces that may employ police powers

only in the geographical United States under Congress' Article IV

 3.2 legislative jurisdiction.


          Affidavit of Complaint - Dan Leslie, Meador:
                          Page 18 of 20


     The Defendants  have acted  on behalf  of an  agency of  the

Department of  the Treasury, Puerto Rico, which is foreign to the

Union of  several States  party to the Constitution of the United

States.

     The Defendants  conspired to  the common end of ignoring and

invading the  sovereign  territorial  jurisdiction  of  Oklahoma,

under arms  or threat  of arms,  without going  through necessary

extradition proceedings  prescribed by  Oklahoma law  and laws of

the United States.

     The  Defendants   have  conspired   to  the  common  end  of

perpetrating Cooperative  Federalism, an  ideology  which  arises

from the  same root  source as  European Communism  and Socialism

(Fabian Communism),  with the  design and intent of over-throwing

the Constitution  of the  United States, the Constitution for the

State  of   Oklahoma,  and  the  republican  form  of  government

established by American founders.

     The Defendants  individually and  collectively conspired  to

act beyond  the scope  statutes and  regulations  of  the  United

States, and  contrary to  Oklahoma law, have acted under color of

Federal authority.

     The Defendants  individually and  collectively conspired  to

impose criminal  enforcement authority in the territorial borders

of Oklahoma,  one of the several States party to the Constitution

of the United States, which is not delegated under Articles I and

III of the Constitution of the United States.

     Details  concerning   application   of   law,   regulations,

constitutionally delegated  authority, etc.,  are presented  in a

separate brief.


          Affidavit of Complaint - Dan Leslie, Meador:
                          Page 19 of 20


     I, Dan Leslie, Meador, hereby attest and certify that to the

best of  my current  knowledge,  understanding  and  belief,  all

matters of  law and  fact presented herein are accurate and true,

so help me God.


__________________________________         ______________________
Dan Leslie, Meador                         Date
P.O.  Box 2582
Ponca City 74602/tdc
OKLAHOMA STATE


                          Notary Public

     I certify  that Dan  Leslie,  Meador,  certified  and  sworn
above, signed this document before me.


__________________________________         ______________________
Dan Leslie, Meador                         Date


__________________________________         ______________________
Notary Public                              Date


My commission expires:  _____________________________


          Affidavit of Complaint - Dan Leslie, Meador:
                          Page 20 of 20


                             #  #  #
      


Return to Table of Contents