Memorandum in Support of Administrative Appeals,
            Civil Litigation &/or Criminal Complaints


     This memorandum is not intended to be exhaustive, but merely
to provide  all interested parties with sufficient information to
constitute notice, and thereby compel due diligence necessary for
determining law which governs the conduct of the various parties.
Each matter  at issue  is being  treated with  as much brevity as
possible.    Should  it  be  necessary  to  independently  pursue
administrative and/or  judicial remedies,  matters set out below,
anchored in  published law,  court cases,  and  other  government
publications, and  privately  published  material  to  which  the
Internal  Revenue  Service,  Department  of  Justice,  and  other
government agencies  have acquiesced, will be deemed accurate and
sufficient cause  for action,  should  Internal  Revenue  Service
officers or  agents and/or interested third parties fail to rebut
supporting contentions  with legal  authorities and other needful
documentation adequate to overcome assertions herein.

     This memorandum  will be construed to comply with provisions
necessary to  establish presumed fact (Rule 301, Federal Rules of
Civil Procedure,  and attending  State rules)  should  interested
parties fail  to rebut  any given  allegation or  matter  of  law
addressed herein.   The  memorandum is  construed as  adequate to
meet requirements of judicial notice, thus preserving fundamental
law.  Application of matters established herein will be construed
to have general application.


            1.  IRS Identity & Principal of Interest

     In 1953,  the Internal  Revenue Service  was created  by the
stroke of  a pen  when the  Secretary of the Treasury changed the
name of  the Bureau  of Internal  Revenue (T.O.  No. 150-29, G.M.
Humphrey, Secretary  of the Treasury, July 9, 1953).  However, no
congressional  or  presidential  authorization  for  making  this
change has  been located,  so the  source  of  authority  had  to
originate elsewhere.    Research  to  which  IRS  officials  have
acquiesced suggests that the Secretary exercised his authority as
trustee of  Puerto Rico  Trust #62  (Internal  Revenue)  (see  31
U.S.C. Sec.  1321), and  as will  be demonstrated,  the Secretary
does, in fact, operate as Secretary of the Treasury, Puerto Rico.

     The solid  link between the Internal Revenue Service and the
Department of  the Treasury,  Puerto Rico, was first published in
the September  1995 issue  of Veritas Magazine, based on research
by William  Cooper and  Wayne  Bentson,  both  of  Arizona.    In
October, a  criminal complaint  was filed  in the  office of W.A.
Drew Edmondson,  Attorney General  for Oklahoma, against an Enid-
based revenue officer, and in the time since, IRS principals have
failed to  refute the  allegation that  IRS is  an agency  of the
Department of  Treasury, Puerto  Rico.    In  November,  criminal
sanctions were  filed simultaneously  with the grand jury for the
United  States  district  court  for  the  District  of  Northern
Oklahoma, Tulsa,  and the  office of  Attorney General Edmondson,
and both  the office  of  the  United  States  Attorney  and  IRS
principals have  yet to  rebut the  allegations in  that instance
(United States of America v. Kenney F. Moore et al., 95 CR-129C).


             Dan Meador Memorandum of May 13, 1996:
                          Page 1 of 19


     By consulting  the index  for Chapter  3, Title  31  of  the
United States Code, one finds that IRS and the Bureau of Alcohol,
Tobacco and  Firearms are  not listed  as agencies  of the United
States Department  of the Treasury.  The fact that Congress never
created  a   "Bureau  of   Internal  Revenue"   is  confirmed  by
publication in the Federal Register at 36 F.R. 849-890 [C.B. 1971
- 1,698], 36 F.R. 11946 [C.B. 1971 - 2,577], and 37 F.R. 489-490;
and in Internal Revenue Manual 1100 at 1111.2.

     Implications are  condemning both  to IRS  and third parties
who knowingly  participate in IRS-initiated scams:  no legitimate
authority resides  in, or  emanates from, an office which was not
legitimately created  and/or ordained either by state or national
constitutions or by legislative enactment.  See variously, United
States v.  Germane, 99  U.S. 508 (1879), Norton v. Shelby County,
118 U.S.  425, 441,  6 S.Ct. 1121 (1866), etc., dating to Pope v.
Commissioner, 138  F.2d 1006,  1009 (6th  Cir., 1943);  where the
state is  concerned, the  most recent  corresponding decision was
State v. Pinckney, 276 N.W.2d 433, 436 (Iowa 1979).

     Another direct evidence of the fraud is found at 27 CFR Sec.
1, which prescribes basic requirements for securing permits under
the Federal Alcohol Administration Act.  The problem here is that
Congress promulgated  the Act  in 1935,  and the  same year,  the
United States  Supreme Court  declared the  Act unconstitutional.
Administration of  the Act  was subsequently  moved off-shore  to
Puerto Rico,  along with  the Federal Alcohol Administration, and
operation eventually  merged with the Bureau of Internal Revenue,
Puerto Rico,  which until 1938, along with the Bureau of Internal
Revenue, Philippines,  created  by  the  Philippines  provisional
government via  Philippines Trust  #2 (internal  revenue) (see 31
U.S.C. Sec.  1321 for  listing of  Philippines Trust #2 (internal
revenue)), administered  the China Trade Act (licensing & revenue
collection relating to opium, cocaine & citric wines).  This line
will be  resumed after  examining additional evidences concerning
IRS and Commissioner of Internal Revenue authority.

     Further verification that IRS does not have lawful authority
in  the  several  States  is  found  in  the  Parallel  Table  of
Authorities and  Rules, beginning  at page  751 of the 1985 Index
volume to the Code of Federal Regulations.  It will be found that
there are  no regulations  supportive of  26 U.S.C.  Secs.  7621,
7801, 7802  & 7803  (these statute  listings are  absent from the
table).   In other  words, no  regulations have been published in
the Federal  Register, extending  authority to the several States
and the  population at large:  (1) to establish revenue districts
within the  several States,    (2)  extending  authority  of  the
Department of  the Treasury  [Puerto Rico] to the several States,
(3) giving  authority to the Commissioner of Internal Revenue and
assistants within the several States, or  (4) extending authority
of any  other Department  of Treasury  personnel to  the  several
States.


             Dan Meador Memorandum of May 13, 1996:
                          Page 2 of 19


     Authority  of   the  Internal   Revenue  Service,   via  the
Commissioner of  Internal Revenue,  is convoluted in regulations,
but makes  an amount  of  sense  by  citing  various  regulations
pertaining to  the Service  and application of the Commissioner's
authority.   General procedural  rules at  26 CFR Sec. 601.101(a)
provide a beginning point:

     (a)   General.   The Internal Revenue Service is a bureau of
     the Department of the Treasury under the immediate direction
     of the  Commissioner of  Internal Revenue.  The Commissioner
     has general superintendence of the assessment and collection
     of all  taxes imposed by any law providing internal revenue.
     The Internal  Revenue Service  is the  agency by which these
     functions are performed ....


     The  fact   that  there   are   no   regulations   extending
Commissioner of  Internal Revenue,  or Department of the Treasury
authority to  the several  States (26  U.S.C. Sec.  7802(a)), has
greater clarity  in the light of the general merging of functions
between  IRS   and  other  agencies  presently  attached  to  the
Department of  the Treasury.  The link between IRS and the Bureau
of Alcohol,  Tobacco and  Firearms is significant because the tie
with the  Bureau of Internal Revenue, Department of the Treasury,
Puerto Rico,  is through this door.  Reorganization Plan No. 3 of
1940, Section 2, made the following change:

     Sec. 2.  Federal Alcohol Administration

     The Federal  Alcohol  Administration,  the  offices  of  the
     members thereof,  and the  office of  the Administrator  are
     abolished, and  their function  shall be  administered under
     the direction  and  supervision  of  the  Secretary  of  the
     Treasury through  the Bureau  of  Internal  Revenue  in  the
     Department of the Treasury.


     Again, the  Federal Alcohol  Administration Act  of 1935 was
declared unconstitutional  in 1935,  and the operation thereafter
transferred off-shore  to Puerto  Rico. The name of the Bureau of
Internal Revenue  was changed  to the Internal Revenue Service in
1953 (cite  above), then  the  Bureau  of  Alcohol,  Tobacco  and
Firearms,  a  division  of  the  Internal  Revenue  Service,  was
seemingly separated  from IRS  (T.O. 120-01,  June 6,  1972).  In
relevant part, the order reads as follows:

     1.   The purpose  of this order is to transfer, as specified
          herein,  the   functions,  powers  and  duties  of  the
          Internal Revenue  Service arising under law relating to
          Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives including the
          Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms division of the Internal
          Revenue Service,  to the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and
          Firearms herein  after referred  to as the Bureau which
          is hereby  established.   The Bureau shall be headed by
          the Director  of  the  Alcohol,  Tobacco  and  Firearms
          herein referred to as the Director ....

     2.   The Director  shall perform the functions, exercise the
          powers and  carry out  the duties  of the Secretary and
          the administration and the enforcement of the following
          provisions of law:


             Dan Meador Memorandum of May 13, 1996:
                          Page 3 of 19


          A.   Chapters 51 and 52 of the Internal Revenue Code of
          1954 and  Section 7652 and 7653 of such code insofar as
          they relate  to the  commodity subject to the tax under
          such chapters.

          B.   Chapter 61 to 80 inclusive to the Internal Revenue
          Code of  1954 insofar  as  they  relate  to  activities
          administered and  enforced with  respect to chapter 51,
          52, 53.  [emphasis added]


     Transfer of  functions and duties of IRS to BATF relative to
Internal Revenue Code Subtitle F (chapters 61 to 80) is important
where the  instant matter  is concerned  as the  only regulations
published in  the Federal  Register  applicable  to  the  several
States are  under 27  C.F.R., Part  70, and  other parts  of this
title relating  exclusively  to  alcohol,  tobacco  and  firearms
matters.     However,  the   charade  doesn't   end  there.    In
Reorganization Plan  No. 1  of 1965  (5  U.S.C.  Sec.  903),  the
original Bureau  of Customs,  created by Act of Congress in 1895,
was abolished and merged under the Secretary of the Treasury.

     In a  Treasury Order  published in  the Federal  Register of
December 15,  1976, the  Secretary of the Treasury used something
of a  slight of hand to confuse matters more by determining, "The
term Director,  Alcohol, Tobacco,  and Firearms has been replaced
with the term Internal Revenue Service."

     Obviously, it is impossible to replace a person with a thing
when it  comes to  administrative responsibility.   However,  the
order demonstrates that IRS and BATF are one and the same, merely
operating with  interchangeable hats.  Therefore, definitions and
designations applicable to one are applicable to the other.

     In  definitions   at  27  CFR  Sec.  250.11,  the  following
provisions are fond:

     Revenue Agent.   Any  duly authorized  Commonwealth Internal
     Revenue Agent  of the  Department of  the Treasury of Puerto
     Rico.

     Secretary.  The Secretary of the Treasury of Puerto Rico.

     Secretary or  his delegate.  The Secretary or any officer or
     employee of  the Department  of the  Treasury of Puerto Rico
     duly authorized  by the  Secretary to  perform the  function
     mentioned or described in this part.


     In the  absence of  any other  definition describing revenue
officers and  agents, the  Secretary, or  the Department  of  the
Treasury, definitions  above are  uniformly applicable to all IRS
an BATF  departments, functions  and personnel.  In fact, it will
be found  that even petroleum tax prescribed in Subtitle D of the
Internal  Revenue   Code  applies   only  to  the  United  States
territorial jurisdiction  exclusive of the several States, and to
imported petroleum.   BATF  has authority  only with  respect  to
firearms, munitions,  etc., produced  outside the  several States
and the first sale of imports.


             Dan Meador Memorandum of May 13, 1996:
                          Page 4 of 19


     To date, only three statutes in the Internal Revenue Code of
1986, as  currently amended,  have been located that specifically
reference the  several States,  exclusive of  the federal  States
(District of  Columbia, Puerto  Rico, Guam,  the Virgin  Islands,
etc.):   26 U.S.C.  Secs. 5272(b), 5362(c) & 7462.  The first two
provide certain  exemptions to  bond and  import tax requirements
relating to  imported distilled  spirits for  governments of  the
several States  and their  respective political subdivisions, and
the last provides that reports published by the United States Tax
Court will  constitute evidence  of the  reports in courts of the
United States and the several States.  None of the three statutes
extends assessment  or collections  authority  for  IRS  or  BATF
within the several States.

     IRS is  contracted to  provide collection  services for  the
Agency for  International Development,  and case law demonstrates
that the  true  principals  of  interest  are  the  International
Monetary Fund  and the  World Bank  (Bank of the United States v.
Planters Bank  of Georgia, 6 L.Ed (Wheat) 244;  U.S. v. Burr, 309
U.S. 242;   see  22 USCA Sec. 286, et seq.).  In other words, IRS
seemingly provides  collection services  for undisclosed  foreign
principals  rather  than  collecting  internal  revenue  for  the
benefit of  constitutional United  States government  operations.
To date,  IRS principals  have failed  to dispute  the  published
Cooper/Bentson allegation  that the  agency,  via  these  foreign
principals, funded  the enormous  tank and military truck factory
on the Kama River, Russia.

     The Internal  Revenue Service, a foreign entity with respect
to the  several States,  is not  registered to do business in the
several States.


             2.  Preservation of Due Process Rights

     The Internal Revenue Service has for years been protected by
statutory courts  both of  the  United  States  and  the  several
States, with  the latter  operating in  the framework  of adopted
uniform laws  which ascribe  a federal  character to  the several
States.   Both operate under the presumption of Congress' Article
IV  jurisdiction  within  the  geographical  United  States  (the
District  of  Columbia,  Puerto  Rico,  etc.),  both  accommodate
private  international   law  under   exclusively  United  States
treaties on  private international  law, and  both operate in the
framework of  admiralty rules  to  impose  Civil  Law  (see  both
majority &  dissenting opinions  variously, Bennis  v.  Michigan,
U.S.  Supreme  Court  No.  94-8729,  March  4,  1996),  which  is
repugnant to both state and national constitutions (see authority
of Department  of  Justice  as  representative  of  the  "Central
Authority" established  by U.S. treaties on private international
law at  28 CFR  Sec.  0.49;    also,  "conflict  of  laws"  as  a
subcategory to  "statutes" in  American Jurisprudence).  However,
this house  of cards will shortly fall as Cooperative Federalism,
known as  Corporatism well  into the  1930s, has  been thoroughly
documented and  is rapidly  being exposed  via state  and  United
States appellate courts and in public forum.


             Dan Meador Memorandum of May 13, 1996:
                          Page 5 of 19


     In reality,  the Internal Revenue Code preserves due process
rights, but the statute has been dormant until recently:

                         [Sec. 7804(b)]

     (b)  PRESERVATION  OF   EXISTING  RIGHTS  AND  REMEDIES.  --
     Nothing in  Reorganization  Plan  Numbered  26  of  1950  or
     Reorganization Plan  Numbered 1  of 1952 shall be considered
     to impair  any right  or remedy, including trial by jury, to
     recover any  internal  revenue  tax  alleged  to  have  been
     erroneously or  illegally  assessed  or  collected,  or  any
     penalty claimed to have been collected without authority, or
     any sum  alleged to  have been  excessive or  in any  manner
     wrongfully collected  under the  internal revenue laws.  For
     the purpose  of any action to recover any such tax, penalty,
     or sum,  all statutes,  rules, and  regulations referring to
     the collector of internal revenue, the principal officer for
     the internal  revenue district,  or the  Secretary, shall be
     deemed to refer to the officer whose act or acts referred to
     in the  preceding sentence  gave rise  to such  action.  The
     venue of any such action shall be the same as under existing
     law.


     The reorganization plans of 1950 & 1952 were implemented via
the Internal  Revenue Code of 1954, Volume 68A of the Statutes at
Large, and  codified as  title 26  of  the  United  States  Code.
Savings statutes  have been  in place  since the  beginning,  but
generally not  understood by  the general population or the legal
profession.   The statute  set out  above is easier to comprehend
when references  are consolidated.  Further, the dependent clause
"including trial  by jury"  relates to a constitutionally assured
right, not a remedy, so it should be moved to the proper location
in the  sentence   Finally, the  matter of  venue is important as
"existing law" is constitutional and common law indigenous to the
several States.   In  the absence of legitimate federal law which
extends to  the several  States, those who operate under color of
law, engage  in oppression,  extortion, etc.,  are subject to the
foundation law  of the States.  Venue is determined by the law of
legislative jurisdiction.

     Citing "including trial by jury" preserves the full slate of
due process  rights included in Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, Seventh and
Fourteenth Amendments  to the  Constitution for the United States
of America  and corresponding  provisions in constitutions of the
several States.  The example represents the class.

     Additionally, note  that:   (1) actions  may  issue  against
bogus assessments  as well as collections, and  (2) Sec. 7804(b),
unlike Sec.  7433, does not presume that the complaining party is
a "taxpayer".   Finally,  there is  26 C.F.R.,  Part 1 regulatory
support for Sec. 7804 where there are no regulations published in
the Federal  Register in support of Sec. 7433 (see Parallel Table
of Authorities  and Rules,  beginning on  page 751  of the  Index
volume to  the Code  of Federal  Regulations).   Therefore,  Sec.
7804(b) preserves  rights and  determines  the  nature  of  civil
actions for  remedies in  the several  States.  When straightened
out, applicable portions of Sec. 7804(b) read as follows:


             Dan Meador Memorandum of May 13, 1996:
                          Page 6 of 19


     Nothing in  [the Internal  Revenue Code] shall be considered
     to impair  any right,  [including trial by jury], or remedy,
     [**], to  recover any  internal revenue  tax alleged to have
     been erroneously  or illegally  assessed or  collected  ....
     The venue  of any  such action  shall be  the same  as under
     existing law.


The necessity of due process is implicitly preserved by 28 U.S.C.
2463, which  stipulates that  any  seizure  under  United  States
revenue laws will be deemed in the custody of the law and subject
solely to  disposition of courts of the United States with proper
jurisdiction.   In  other  words,  even  if  IRS  had  legitimate
authority in  the several  States, the  agency would of necessity
have to  file a civil or criminal complaint prior to garnishment,
seizure or any other action adversely affecting the life, liberty
or property  of any  given person, whether a Fourteenth Amendment
citizen-subject of  the United  States, or a Citizen principal of
one of  the several  States.  Due process assurances in the Fifth
and Fourteenth  Amendments do  not equivocate  --  administrative
seizures without  due process  can be equated only to tyranny and
barbarian rule.   Further, even regulations governing IRS conduct
acknowledge and  therefore preserve Fifth Amendment assurances at
26 CFR Sec. 601.106(f)(1).

     (1)  Rule 1.   An  exaction by the U.S. Government, which is
     not based  upon law,  statutory or otherwise, is a taking of
     property without  due process  of law,  in violation  of the
     Fifth Amendment  to the  U.S. Constitution.  Accordingly, an
     Appeals representative  in his or her conclusions of fact or
     application of  the law,  shall  hew  to  the  law  and  the
     recognized standards of legal construction.  It shall be his
     or her duty to determine the correct amount of the tax, with
     strict  impartiality   as  between   the  taxpayer  and  the
     Government, and  without  favoritism  or  discrimination  as
     between taxpayers.


     Even  officers,   agents  and  employees  of  United  States
agencies are  assured due  process where garnishment is concerned
(5 U.S.C.  Sec. 5520(a)), so the notion that IRS has authority to
execute garnishment  and other  seizures via  the private  sector
without due  process is  clearly absurd.  In the English-American
lineage, due process has always been deemed to mean trial by jury
under rules  of the  common law indigenous to the several States;
the de  jure people  of America  are not  subject to admiralty or
administrative tribunals.

     In sum,  the mandate  for due  process,  meaning  initiative
through judicial  courts with  proper  jurisdiction,  is  clearly
antecedent to imposition of administratively issued liens, except
where licensing  agreements obligate assets, or seizures, whether
by  garnishment,  attachment  of  bank  accounts,  administrative
seizure and  sale of  real or  private  property,  or  any  other
initiative that compromises life, liberty or property.


             Dan Meador Memorandum of May 13, 1996:
                          Page 7 of 19


                3. Current Internal Revenue Code
            & Internal Revenue Code of 1939 Are Same

     Consult 26  U.S.C. 7851  & 7852  to verify that the Internal
Revenue Code  of 1954,  as amended  in  1986  and  since,  simply
reorganized the Internal Revenue Code of 1939.  Read Sec. 7852(b)
& (c),  then read  the balance  of Secs.  7851 &  7852  for  best
comprehension.

     The importance  of making  this connection rests on the fact
that the  Internal Revenue Code of 1939 was merely a codification
of the  Public Salary  Tax Act  of 1939.   There  was no  general
income tax  levied against  the population  at large  in 1939  or
since.   The Public Salary Tax Act of 1939, which in the Internal
Revenue  Code  of  1939  incorporated  the  Social  Security  tax
activated after 1936, was premised on the notion that working for
the federal  government is a privilege.  Income and related taxes
prescribed in  Subtitles A  & C  of the  current Internal Revenue
Code have  never been  mandatory for  anyone other than officers,
agents and  employees of  the United  States, as identified at 26
U.S.C.  Sec.   3401(c),  and   agencies  of  the  United  States,
identified at  Sec. 3401(d), particularized at 5 U.S.C. Secs. 102
& 105.

     The privilege tax is an excise rather than direct tax -- the
Sixteenth Amendment,  fraudulently promulgated  in 1913,  did not
alter or  repeal  constitutional  provisions  which  require  all
direct  taxes   to  be   apportioned  among  the  several  States
(Constitution, Article  I Secs.  2, 3  &  9.4).    In  Eisner  v.
Macomber, 252 U.S. 189 (1918), Coppage v. Kansas, 236 U.S. 1, and
numerous decisions  since, the  United States  Supreme Court  has
repeatedly affirmed  that, for  purposes of income tax, wages and
other returns  from enterprises of common right are property, not
income.   In fact,  returns from  enterprises of common right are
fundamental to  all property,  and the sanctity is preserved as a
fundamental common  law principle  dating to  the signing  of the
Magna Charta in 1215.

     The nature  of Subtitles  A &  C taxes is revealed at 26 CFR
Sec. 31.3101-1:   "The  employee tax is measured by the amount of
wages received  after 1954  with respect to employment after 1936
...."

     In other  words, the  wage is not the object, but merely the
measure of  the tax.   This verbiage constitutes so much legalese
in an effort to circumvent the duck test, but the fact that taxes
collected by  the Internal  Revenue Service  fall into the excise
category  was  confirmed  by  the  Comptroller  General's  report
following the  initial effort to audit IRS (GAO/T-AIMD-93-3).  It
is further  suggested at  26 CFR  Sec. 106.401(a)(2),  where  the
regulation concedes  that, "The  descriptive terms  used in  this
section to  designate the  various classes  of taxes are intended
only to indicate their general character ...."


             Dan Meador Memorandum of May 13, 1996:
                          Page 8 of 19


     By referencing  the Parallel Table of Authorities and Rules,
cited above, it is found that the definition of "gross income" is
still preserved  in Section  22 of  the Internal  Revenue Code of
1939, thus  cementing the  link between  the  Code  of  1939  and
Subtitles A  & C  of the  Code of  1954, as  amended in  1986 and
since.   The Internal  Revenue Code  of 1939  merely codified the
Public Salary Tax Act of 1939.  This link is further confirmed in
Senate Committee on Finance and House Committee on Ways and Means
reports on H.R. 8300 (1954, Internal Revenue Code), in which Sec.
22 of  the Internal  Revenue Code  of 1939  and Sec.  61  of  the
Internal Revenue Code of 1954 (current code) were solidly linked.
Both reports  stipulate that  the current  definition  of  "gross
income" is intended to be constitutional.

     This intent is articulated at 26 CFR Sec. 1.61-1(a):  "Gross
income means  all income  from whatever  source  derived,  unless
excluded by law."

     An "Act  of Congress" is policy, not law, and per definition
located in  Rule 54,  Federal Rules  of Civil Procedure, has only
local application  in the  District of  Columbia and other United
States  territories   and  insular   possessions  unless  general
application is  manifestly expressed:   "Rule  54(c)  --  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."

     Where the  Internal Revenue  Code of 1954 is concerned (Vol.
68A, Statutes  at Large,  page 3),  the legislation  is  in  fact
styled, "An  Act" "To  revise the  internal revenue  laws of  the
United States."

     As  demonstrated   above,  wages   and  other  returns  from
enterprises of  common  right  are  exempt  from  direct  tax  by
fundamental law,  and the  regulation for  the  current  Internal
Revenue Code definition of "gross income" clearly articulates the
fundamental law exemption.

     The exemption  as it  pertains  to  the  several  States  is
demonstrated by referencing the Parallel Table of Authorities and
Rules (Index volume to the C.F.R., page 751 of the 1995 edition):
There are  26 C.F.R.,  Part 1  regulations listed  for 26  U.S.C.
Secs. 61 & 62, the latter being the definition for adjusted gross
income, but there is no 26 C.F.R., Part 1 or 31 regulation for 26
U.S.C. Sec. 63, the definition for taxable income.

     While definitions  for gross  and adjusted  gross income are
clearly antecedent to the definition of taxable income, they have
no legal effect if there is no taxing authority -- adjusted gross
income which  is not  taxable within  the several States is of no
consequence where the federal tax system is concerned.

     Further, on examination of 26 CFR Sec. 1.62-1, pertaining to
"adjusted gross  income", it  is found that subsections (a) & (b)
are reserved  so the  published regulations  is incomplete,  with
"temporary"  regulation  Sec.  1.62-1T  serving  as  the  current
authority  defining   "adjusted   gross   income."      Temporary
regulations have no legal effect.


             Dan Meador Memorandum of May 13, 1996:
                          Page 9 of 19


     Definition at  Sec. 3401,  Vol. 68A of the Statutes at Large
(the Internal  Revenue Code  of 1954),  make it clear that, (Sec.
3401(a)(A)), "a  resident of  a contiguous country who enters and
leaves  the  United  States  at  frequent  intervals  ..."  is  a
nonresident alien of the United States (citizens and residents of
the several  States included),  and the  exclusion  from  "wages"
extends even  to  citizens  of  the  United  States  who  provide
services for employers "other than the United States or an agency
thereof" (Sec. 3401(a)(8)(A)).


               4.  The Employer or Agent is Liable

     Volume 68A  of the  Statutes at  Large, the Internal Revenue
Code of  1954, makes  it perfectly  clear  who  is  "liable"  for
payment of Subtitles A & C taxes:

     Sec. 3504.  ACTS TO BE PERFORMED BY AGENTS.

     In case a fiduciary, agent, or other person has the control,
     receipt, custody,  or disposal  of, or  pays the wages of an
     employee or  group of  employees, employed  by one  or  more
     employers, the  Secretary or his delegate, under regulations
     prescribed  by   him,  is   authorized  to   designate  such
     fiduciary, agent,  or other  person to  perform such acts as
     are required  by employers  under this  subtitle and  as the
     Secretary or  his delegate  may specify.   Except  as may be
     otherwise prescribed  by the  Secretary or his delegate, all
     provisions  of   law  (including  penalties)  applicable  in
     respect to  any employer shall be applicable to a fiduciary,
     agent, or  other person  so designated,  but, except  as  so
     provided, the  employer for  whom such  fiduciary, agent, or
     other person  acts shall remain subject to the provisions of
     law  (including   penalties)  applicable   in   respect   to
     employers.


The liability is further clarified at Vol. 68A, Sec. 3402(d):

     (d)  TAX PAID BY RECIPIENT. -- If the employer, in violation
     of the  provisions of  this chapter,  fails  to  deduct  and
     withhold the  tax under this chapter, and thereafter the tax
     against which  such tax  may be credited is paid, the tax so
     required to  be deducted and withheld shall not be collected
     from the  employer;   but this  subsection shall  in no case
     relieve the  employer from  liability for  any penalties  or
     additions to the tax otherwise applicable in respect to such
     failure to deduct and withhold.


     These provisions  from Vol.  68A of  the Statutes  at  Large
comply with  and verify liability set out at 26 C.F.R., Part 601,
Subpart D  in general. Further, territorial limits of application
are made  clearer by  the absence  of regulations  supporting  26
U.S.C. Secs. 7621, 7802, etc., which are the statutes authorizing
establishment of  internal revenue  districts and  delegations of
authority to the Commissioner of Internal Revenue and assistants.
The fact  that the  liability falls  to the "employer" (26 U.S.C.
Sec. 3401(d))  and/or his agent, with no compensation for serving
as "tax  collector," narrows  the  field  to  federal  government
entities  as   "employers"  if  for  no  other  reason  than  the
population at  large is  not subject  to the  edict of government
officials.   As a  matter of course, the government cannot compel
performance where  the general  population  is  concerned.    The
subject class  that has  "liability" for Subtitles A & C taxes is
the "employer" or his agent, fiduciary, etc., as specified above.


             Dan Meador Memorandum of May 13, 1996:
                          Page 10 of 19


     The matter  is further  clarified in Sections 3403 & 3404 of
Vol. 68A, Statutes at Large:

     SEC. 3403.  LIABILITY FOR TAX.

     The employer  shall be  liable for  the payment  of the  tax
     required to be deducted and withheld under this chapter, and
     shall not be liable to any person for the amount of any such
     payment.


     SEC. 3404.  RETURN AND PAYMENT BY GOVERNMENTAL EMPLOYER.

     If the employer is the United States, or a State, Territory,
     or  political   subdivision  thereof,  or  the  District  of
     Columbia, or  any agency  or instrumentality  of any  one or
     more of the foregoing, the return of the amount deducted and
     withheld upon  any wages  may be  made  by  any  officer  or
     employee of  the United States, or of such State, Territory,
     or political subdivision, or of the District of Columbia, or
     of such  agency or  instrumentality, as  the  case  may  be,
     having  control   of  the   payment  of   such   wages,   or
     appropriately designated for that purpose.


     The territorial  application, and  limitation, is made clear
by definitions in Title 26 of the Code of Federal Regulations, as
follows:

      31.3121(3)-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.


             Dan Meador Memorandum of May 13, 1996:
                          Page 11 of 19


     Definition of  the terms  "includes" and "including" located
at 26  U.S.C. 7701(c)  provides the  limiting authority which the
above definitions,  beyond constructive  application, are subject
to:

     (c)  INCLUDES AND  INCLUDING. --  The terms  "includes"  and
     "including" when  used in  a definition  contained  in  this
     title shall  not be deemed to exclude other things otherwise
     within the meaning of the term defined.


     Two principles  of law  clarify definition  intent:  (1) The
example represents the class, and  (2) that which is not named is
intended to be omitted.  In the definition of "United States" and
"State" set  out above,  all examples  are of federal States, and
are exclusive  of the  several States,  with  the  transition  of
Alaska and Hawaii from the included to the excluded class proving
the point.   This  conclusion is  reinforced by  the  absence  of
regulations which extend authority to establish revenue districts
in the  several States  (26 U.S.C.  Sec. 7621), authority for the
Department of  the Treasury  [Puerto Rico]  in the several States
(26 U.S.C.  Sec. 7801),  and no  grant of delegated authority for
the Commissioner of Internal Revenue, assistant commissioners, or
other Department  of the Treasury personnel (26 U.S.C. Secs. 7802
& 7803).


  5.  Lack of Regulations Supporting General Application of Tax

     Here again,  the Parallel  Table of Authorities and Rules is
useful as  it demonstrates  that Subtitles  A &  C  do  not  have
general  application   within  the  several  States  and  to  the
population at  large.  The regulation for 26 U.S.C. Sec. 1 refers
to 26 CFR Sec. 301, but that amounts to a dead end -- there is no
regulation under 26 C.F.R., Part 1 or 31 which would apply to the
several States  and the  population at large.  Further, there are
no supportive  regulations at  all for 26 U.S.C. Secs. 2 & 3, and
of considerable significance, no regulations supporting corporate
income tax,  26 U.S.C.  Sec. 11,  as applicable  to  the  several
States.

     Where  the   instant  matter   is   concerned,   regulations
supporting 26  U.S.C. Sec.  6321, liens for taxes, and Sec. 6331,
levy and distraint, are under 27 C.F.R., Part 70.  The importance
here is  that Title  27 of  the Code  of Federal  Regulations  is
exclusively  under   Bureau  of  Alcohol,  Tobacco  and  Firearms
administration for  Subtitle E  and related  taxes.  There are no
corresponding regulations for the Internal Revenue Service, in 26
C.F.R., Part  1 or  31, which  extend comparable authority to the
several States and the population at large.

     The necessity  of regulations being published in the Federal
Register is variously prescribed in the Administrative Procedures
Act at  5 U.S.C.  Sec. 552 et seq., and the Federal Register Act,
at 44  U.S.C. Sec.  1501 et  seq.   Of  particular  note,  it  is
specifically set  out  at  44  U.S.C.  Sec.  1505(a),  that  when
regulations  are   not  published   in  the   Federal   Register,
application of  any given  statute is  exclusively to agencies of
the United  States and  officers, agents  and  employees  of  the
United  States,   thus  once   again  confirming  application  of
Subtitles A  & C  tax demonstrated  above.  Further, the need for
regulations is  detailed in  1 C.F.R.,  Chapter 1,  and where the
Internal Revenue Service is concerned, 26 CFR Sec. 601.702.


             Dan Meador Memorandum of May 13, 1996:
                          Page 12 of 19


     The need for regulations has repeatedly been affirmed by the
Supreme Court  of the  United States,  as  stated  in  California
Bankers Ass'n  v. Schultz,  416 U.S. 21, 26, 94 S.Ct. 1494, 1500,
39 L.Ed.2d  812 (1974):    "Because  it  has  a  bearing  on  our
treatment of  some of  the issues raised by the parties, we think
it important  to note that the Act's civil and criminal penalties
attach only  upon violation  of regulations  promulgated  by  the
Secretary;   if the  Secretary were to do nothing, the Act itself
would impose no penalties on anyone."

     Because  there  is  a  citation  supporting  these  statutes
applicable under  Title 27 of the Code of Federal Regulations, it
is important  to point  out that,  "Each agency shall publish its
own regulations  in full  text,"  (1  CFR  Sec.  21.21(c)),  with
further verification  that  one  agency  cannot  use  regulations
promulgated by  another at  1  CFR  Sec.  21.40.    To  date,  no
corresponding regulation  has been found for 26 C.F.R., Part 1 or
31, so  until proven  otherwise, IRS  does not  have authority to
perfect liens  or prosecute  seizures in  the several  States  as
pertaining to the population at large.


                 6.  Misapplication of Authority

     Regulations pertaining  to seized  property are  found at 26
CFR Sec. 601.326:

     Part 72 of Title 26 CFR contains the regulations relative to
     the personal  property seized  by officers  of the  Internal
     Revenue Service  or  the  Bureau  of  Alcohol,  Tobacco  and
     Firearms as subject to forfeiture as being used, or intended
     to be  used, to violate certain Federal Laws;  the remission
     or mitigation  of such  forfeiture;   and the administrative
     sale or  other disposition,  pursuant to forfeiture, of such
     seized  property   other  than  firearms  seized  under  the
     National Firearms  Act and  firearms and  ammunition  seized
     under title  1 of the Gun Control Act of 1968.  For disposal
     of firearms  and ammunition under Title 1 of the Gun Control
     Act of  1968,  see  18  U.S.C.  924(d).    For  disposal  of
     explosives under Title XI of the Organized Crime Control Act
     of 1970, see 18 U.S.C. 844(c).


     The only  other comparable authority thus far found pertains
to windfall  profits tax  on petroleum (26 CFR Sec. 601.405), but
once  again,   application  is   not  supported   by  regulations
applicable to the several States and the population at large.


             Dan Meador Memorandum of May 13, 1996:
                          Page 13 of 19


     Where the  mandate for filing 1040 returns is concerned, the
only regulatory  reference presently  known is  at  26  CFR  Sec.
601.401(d)(4),  and   this   application   appears   related   to
"employees" who  work for  two  or  more  "employers",  receiving
foreign-earned income effectively connected to the United States.
The mandate  is mentioned  in instructions  applicable to  United
States citizens  and residents of the Virgin Islands, but to date
has not  been located  elsewhere.  Reference OMB numbers for Sec.
601.401, listed  on page  170, 26  C.F.R.,  Part  600-End,  cross
referenced to Department of Treasury OMB numbers published in the
Federal Register, November 1995, for foreign applications.

     The "notice  of levy"  instrument forwarded to various third
parties is  not a  "levy" which  warrants surrender  of property.
The Internal  Revenue Code  at Sec. 6335(a), defines the "notice"
instrument by  use --  notice is to be served to whomever seizure
has been  executed against  after the  seizure is  effected.   In
short, the notice merely conveys information, it is not cause for
action.   The term "choice" is clarified by definition in Black's
Law Dictionary,  6th Edition, and other law dictionaries.  Use of
the "notice  of levy"  instrument to  effect seizure  is fraud by
design.

     Proper  use   of  the   "notice"   process,   administrative
garnishment, et  al., is  specifically set  out in  5 U.S.C. Sec.
5514, as  being applicable  exclusively to  officers, agents  and
employees of  agencies of  the  United  States  (26  U.S.C.  Sec.
3401(c)).   Even then,  however, the  process  must  comply  with
provisions of  31 U.S.C. Sec. 3530(d), and standards set forth in
Secs. 3711  & 3716-17.   In  accordance  with  provisions  of  26
C.F.R., Part  601, Subpart  D, the  employer, meaning  the United
States agency  the employee  is employed  by, is  responsible for
promulgating regulations and carrying out garnishment.


             7.  Liability Depends on Taxing Statute

     General  demands  for  filing  tax  returns,  production  of
records, examination  of books,  imposition and  payment of  tax,
etc., are  of no  consequence to  the point  a taxing statute (1)
defines  what  tax  is  being  imposed,  and  (2)  the  basis  of
liability.   In other words, even if the Internal Revenue Service
was a  legitimate agency  of the  United States Department of the
Treasury and  had authority  in the  several States,  the Service
would have  to be  specific with respect to what tax was at issue
and would  have to demonstrate the tax by citing a taxing statute
with the  necessary elements  to establish  that any given person
was obligated to pay any given tax.

     This mandate  has been  clarified  by  the  courts  numerous
times, with  the matter  definitively stated by the Tenth Circuit
Court of Appeals in United States v. Community TV, Inc., 327 F.2d
797, at p. 800 (1964):

     Without question,  a taxing  statute must describe with some
     certainty the  transaction, service,  or object to be taxed,
     and in  the typical  situation it  is construed  against the
     Government.   Hassett v.  Welch, 303 U.S. 303, 58 S.Ct. 559,
     82 L.Ed 858.


             Dan Meador Memorandum of May 13, 1996:
                          Page 14 of 19


     In other  words, to  the point Service personnel produce the
statute which  mandates a  certain tax  and which specifies, "...
the transaction,  service, or object to be taxed ...", the burden
of proof  lies with  the Government,  with the consequences being
that no  obligation or  civil or  criminal liability can ensue to
the point  a taxing  statute that meets the above requirements is
in evidence.

     This conclusion  is supported  by the statute which provides
the  underlying   requirements  for   keeping   records,   making
statements, etc., located at 26 U.S.C. Sec. 6001:

     Every person  liable for  any tax  imposed by this title, or
     for the  collection thereof, shall keep such records, render
     such statements,  make such  returns, and  comply with  such
     rules and regulations as the Secretary may from time to time
     prescribe.   Whenever in the judgment of the Secretary it is
     necessary, he  may require  any person,  by notice served on
     such person, or by regulations, to make such returns, render
     such statements,  or keep  such records,  as  the  Secretary
     deems sufficient  to show  whether or  not  such  person  is
     liable for  tax under this title.  The only records which an
     employee shall  be required  to keep  under this  section in
     connection with  charged  tips  shall  be  charge  receipts,
     records necessary to comply with section 6053(c), and copies
     of statements furnished by employees under section 6053(a).


     The control  statute for  Subtitle F, Chapter 61, Subchapter
A, Part  I, concerning  records, statements, and special returns,
clearly returns  the matter  to the  "employee" defined  at  Sec.
3401(c), and the "employer" defined at Sec. 3401(d).  In general,
however, (1) the Secretary must provide direct notice to whomever
is required  to keep  books, records,  etc. as  being the "person
liable," or  (2) specify the person liable by regulation.  In the
absence of  notice by  the Secretary,  based on  a taxing statute
which  makes   such  a  person  liable  according  to  provisions
stipulated in  United States  v. Community  TV, Inc.,  Hassett v.
Welch, and  other such  cases, or  regulations which specifically
establish general liability, there is no liability.

     Sec. 6001  also exempts  "employees"  from  keeping  records
except where tips and the like are concerned.  This is consistent
with constructive  demonstration  that  "employers"  rather  than
"employees" are  required to  file returns,  as opposed to paying
deducted  amounts   as   income   tax   returns,   constructively
demonstrated  in  a  previous  section  of  this  memorandum  and
specifically articulated  in 26  CFR Sec. 601.104.  Clarification
via 26 U.S.C. Sec. 6053(a) is as follows;

     (a)  REPORTS BY  EMPLOYEES. --  Every employee  who, in  the
     course of  his employment  by an  employer, receives  in any
     calendar month  tips which  are wages (as defined in section
     3121(a) or  section 3401(a))  or which  are compensation (as
     defined in  section 3231(e))  shall report  all such tips in
     one or  more written statements furnished to his employer on
     or  before   the  10th  day  following  such  month.    Such
     statements shall  be furnished  by the  employee under  such
     regulations, at  such other  times before such 10th day, and
     in such  form and  manner,  as  may  be  prescribed  by  the
     Secretary.


             Dan Meador Memorandum of May 13, 1996:
                          Page 15 of 19


     Unraveling Sec.  6001 straightens  out the  meaning of  Sec.
6011, which  requires filing  returns, statements,  etc., by  the
person made  liable (Sec.  3401(d)), as  distinguished  from  the
person required  to make  returns (payments)  at Sec.  6012 (Sec.
3401(c)).  Even though a person might be a citizen or resident of
the United States employed by an agency of the Unites States, and
thereby be  required to  return a  prescribed  amount  of  United
States-source income, he is not the person liable under Sec. 6011
and attending regulations.

     The "method of assessment" prescribed at 26 U.S.C. Sec. 6303
is therefore  dependent on  the taxing  statute and  must rest on
authority  specifically   conveyed  by  a  taxing  statute  which
prescribes  liability   where  the  Secretary  (1)  has  provided
specific notice,  including the  statute and  type of  tax  being
imposed, or  (2) supports  assessment by  regulatory application.
In the  absence of  one  or  the  other,  an  assessment  by  the
Secretary is of no consequence as it is not legally obligating.


           8.  The Necessity of Administrative Process

     The requirement  for a  specific  taxing  statute,  with  26
U.S.C. Sec.  6001 clearly  providing the  first leg  in necessary
administrative procedure to determine liability, was addressed at
length in  Rodriguez v.  United States, 629 F.Supp. 333 (N.D.Ill.
1986).   Presuming (1)  the Secretary  has provided the necessary
notice, or  (2) a regulation prescribes general application which
makes any  given person  liable for a tax and requires tax return
statements to  be filed,  each  step  in  administrative  process
prescribed by 26 U.S.C. Sec. 6201, 6212, 6213, 6303 and 6331 must
be in place for seizure or any other encumbrance to be legal.

     Here again,  regulations published  in the  Federal Register
are significant, with provisions of 5 U.S.C. Sec. 552 et seq., 44
U.S.C. Sec.  1501 et  seq., 1  C.F.R., Chapter  1, and 26 C.F.R.,
Part 601,  all supporting  the  mandate  for  regulations  to  be
published in  the  Federal  Register  before  they  have  general
application.   It will be noted by referencing the Parallel Table
of Authorities and Rules, beginning on page 751 of the 1995 Index
volume to  the Code  of Federal  Regulations, that application by
regulation to  the several  States is  only under Title 27 of the
Code of  Federal Regulations,  or that  there are  no regulations
published in  the Federal  Register.   The following  entries, or
non-entries, are found:

  26 USC 6201  Assessment authority        27 C.F.R., Part 70
  26 USC 6212  Notice of deficiency        No Regulation
  26 USC 6213  Restrictions applicable to
               deficiencies;  petition to
               Tax Court                   No Regulation
  26 USC 6303  Notice and Demand for Tax   27 C.F.R., Part 53, 70
  26 USC 6331  Levy and distraint          27 C.F.R., Part 70


             Dan Meador Memorandum of May 13, 1996:
                          Page 16 of 19


     The assessment  authority under  26  U.S.C.  Sec.  6201,  in
relevant part  as applicable  to Subtitle  A &  C taxes,  are  as
follows:

     (a)  AUTHORITY OF  SECRETARY. -- The Secretary is authorized
     and required  to  make  the  inquiries,  determination,  and
     assessment of  all  taxes  (including  interest,  additional
     amounts, additions  to the  tax, and  assessable  penalties)
     imposed by this title, or accruing under any former internal
     revenue law,  which have been duly paid by stamp at the time
     and in  the manner  provided by  law.   Such authority shall
     extend to and include the following:

          (1)  TAXES SHOWN  ON RETURN.  --  The  Secretary  shall
          assess all  taxes determined  by the taxpayer or by the
          Secretary as  to which  returns or  lists ar made under
          this title. ...

          (3)  ERRONEOUS INCOME  TAX PREPAYMENT CREDITS. -- If on
          any return  or claim  for refund  of income taxes under
          subtitle A  there is an overstatement of the credit for
          income tax withheld at the source or of the amount paid
          as estimated income tax, the amount so overstated which
          is allowed against the tax shown on the return or which
          is allowed as a credit or refund may be assessed by the
          Secretary in  the same  manner as  in  the  case  of  a
          mathematical  or  clerical  error  appearing  upon  the
          return,  except   that  the   provisions   of   section
          6213(b)(2) (relating  to abatement  of mathematical  or
          clerical error assessments) shall not apply with regard
          to any assessment under this paragraph.

     (b)  AMOUNT NOT TO BE ASSESSED. --

          (1)  ESTIMATED INCOME  TAX.  --  No  unpaid  amount  of
          estimated income  tax required to be paid under section
          6654 or 6655 shall be assessed.

          (2)  FEDERAL EMPLOYMENT  TAX. --  No unpaid  amount  of
          Federal unemployment  tax for  any calendar  quarter or
          other period  of a  calendar year, computed as provided
          in section 6157, shall be assessed.

          (d)  DEFICIENCY  PROCEEDINGS.   --  For  special  rules
          applicable to deficiencies of income, estate, gift, and
          certain excise  taxes, see  subchapter  B.    [emphasis
          added]


     The grant  of assessment  authority with  respect  to  taxes
prescribed in  Subtitles A  & C  is limited to provisions set out
above even  where the  Service might  have authority  relating to
those made  liable for  the tax, meaning the "employer" specified
at 26  U.S.C. Sec.  3401(d).  Clearly, returns made either by the
agent of  the United  States agency required to file a return, or
the Secretary, are to be evaluated mathematically, and errors are
to be  treated as  clerical errors,  nothing more.  The Secretary
has no  authority to  assess  estimated  income  tax  (individual
estimated tax  at Sec. 6554;  corporation estimated income tax at
Sec. 6655),  or unemployment  tax (Sec. 6157).  For all practical
purposes, the trail effectively ends here.


             Dan Meador Memorandum of May 13, 1996:
                          Page 17 of 19


      9.  The Impossibility of Effective Contract/Election

     In order  for there  to be  an opportunity for a nonresident
alien of  the United  States (a  Citizen of  one of  the  several
States) to  elect to be taxed or treated as a citizen or resident
of the  United States,  one or  the other of a married couple, or
the single "individual" making the election, must be a citizen or
resident of  the United States (26 U.S.C. Sec. 6013(g)(3)).  Some
party must  in some  way be connected with a "United States trade
or business" (performance of the functions of a public office (26
U.S.C. Sec.  7701(a)(26)).   A nonresident  alien never has self-
employment income  (26 CFR  Sec. 1.1402(b)-1(d)).   In  the event
that a  nonresident  alien  is  an  "employee"  (26  U.S.C.  Sec.
3401(c)), the  "employer" (26  U.S.C. Sec. 3401(d)) is liable for
collection and  payment of  income tax (26 CFR 1.1441-1).  And in
order for  real property  to be  treated as effectively connected
with a  United States  trade or  business by  way of election, it
must be  located within the geographical United States (26 U.S.C.
Sec. 871(d)).

     Provisions cited  above preclude any and all legal authority
for  Citizens   of  the   several  States,   or  privately  owned
enterprises located  in the  several States,  to  participate  in
federal tax  and benefits  programs prescribed in Subtitles A & C
of the  Internal Revenue  Code and  companion legislation such as
the Social  Security Act  which provide  benefits from the United
States Government,  which is a foreign corporation to the several
States.


                      Summary & Conclusion

     Again, this memorandum is not intended to be exhaustive, but
merely sufficient to support causes set out separately.  The most
conspicuous conclusions  of law are that Congress never created a
Bureau of  Internal Revenue,  the  predecessor  of  the  Internal
Revenue Service;   Subtitles  A &  C of the Internal Revenue Code
prescribe excise  taxes, mandatory  only  for  employees  of  the
United States Government agencies;  the Internal Revenue Service,
within the geographical United States where the agency appears to
have colorable  authority, is  required to  use judicial  process
prior to seizing or encumbering assets;  and the law demonstrates
that the  people of  the several  States, defined  as nonresident
aliens in the Internal Revenue Code, cannot legitimately elect to
be taxed  or treated  as citizens  or  residents  of  the  United
States.   If a  Citizen of one of the several States works for an
agency of  the United  States or  receives income  from a  United
States "trade  or business"  or otherwise  effectively  connected
with the  United  States,  the  employer  or  other  third  party
responsible for  payment is  made liable for withholding taxes at
the rate of 30% or 14%, depending on classification.


             Dan Meador Memorandum of May 13, 1996:
                          Page 18 of 19


     To the  best of  my knowledge  and understanding, matters of
fact and law set out above are accurate and true.


                    Dan Meador (May 13, 1996)
                (Non-Domestic U.S.) P.O. Box 2582
                      Ponca City 74602/tdc
                         OKLAHOMA STATE


             Dan Meador Memorandum of May 13, 1996:
                          Page 19 of 19


                             #  #  #
      


Return to Table of Contents