In the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals,

      Sitting as an Article III court of the United States


Dan Leslie, Meador, and       )    Case No. _____________
                              )    Application for
                              )    Writ of Habeas Corpus
Wayne Richard, Gunwall,       )    AUTHORITY:  Art. I  9.2;
                              )    Art. III  2.1
                              )    "arising under" clause;
                              )    First Amendment;
               Plaintiffs,    )    Fourth Amendment;
                              )    Fifth Amendment;
                              )    Sixth Amendment;
                              )    Seventh Amendment
     v.                       )    Tenth Amendment;
                              )    Rule of Necessity.
                              )    ACTION AGAINST:  96-CR-82-C &
Stephen C. Lewis,             )    96-CR-113-C, United States
District Court,               )
                              )    Northern District of Oklahoma.
               Defendant.     )
______________________________)


             Application for Writ of Habeas Corpus:
                          Page 1 of 71


                        Table of Contents

Table of Contents                                          page 1
Index of Authorities by Section & Paragraph                page 2
Appearance                                                 page 5

I.    Law & Condition of Necessity                         page 6
II.   Account of Events                                    page 7
III.  Certification of Fact
      Concerning Dan Leslie, Meador                       page 14
IV.   Certification of Fact
      Concerning Wayne Richard, Gunwall                   page 15
V.    Incompetence of the Court & Judicial Officers       page 17
VI.   Incapacity of Principal of Interest                 page 19
VII.  Incapacity of the Complaining Party                 page 20
VIII. Operation Under Non-Existent, Color of Law          page 21
IX.   Subtitle A & C Taxes Mandadory
      Only For Government Employees                       page 22
X.    Lack of General Application Regulations
      For Subtitle A & C Taxes & Alleged Offenses
      under Title 18 of the United States Code            page 25
XI.   Constitutional Insufficiency of Alleged Offenses    page 28
XII.  Jurisdictional Limits of Warrants &
      Federal Enforcement Personnel                       page 29
XIII. Defective Grand Jury Indictment                     page 31
XIV.  Failure to Properly Secure Extradition              page 32
XV.   Misidentification of Parties                        page 35
XVI.  Presumption of Nonresident Alien Status             page 35
XVII. Absence of Taxing & Liability Statute               page 37
XVIII.Paperwork Reduction Act Effects Estoppel            page 38
XIX.  Conclusion & Prayer for Relief                      page 41
      List of Exhibits                                    page 45
      Notice of Service                                   page 45


             Application for Writ of Habeas Corpus:
                          Page 2 of 71


           Index of Authorities by Section & Paragraph
                Constitution of the United States

Art. I  8.6                                                 XI.2
Art. I  8.15                                                XI.4
Art. I  8.17                                               XII.1
Art. I  9.2                                                  I.2
Art. I  9.3                                                  V.7
Art. I  10.1                                                 V.7
Art. III  2.1 "arising under" clause
                                    I.2, III.6, IV.6, V.1, XIII.3
Art. III  2.3                                          V.3, XI.3
Art. III  3.2                                               XI.2
Art. IV  3.2              IX.8, XI.1, XII.6, XII.7, XIV.1, XVI.2
Art. IV  4                                                  XI.4
Fourth Amendment                         I.2, III.6, IV.6, XIII.3
Fifth Amendment                          I.2, III.6, IV.6, XIII.3
Sixth Amendment                          I.2, III.6, IV.6, XIII.3
Seventh Amendment                        1.2, III.6, IV.6, XIII.3
Tenth Amendment                                       XI.5, XIV.6
Thirteenth Amendment                                 XV.4, XIX.12
Fourteenth Amendment                                  XI.2, XVI.2
Sixteenth Amendment                                          IX.1


             Application for Writ of Habeas Corpus:
                          Page 3 of 71


                       Statutes at Large/1

Act July 1, 1862                                           VII.13
Internal Revenue Act of Nov. 23, 1921                        IX.1
Public Salary Tax Act of 1939                                IX.1
I.R.C. of 1939                                               IX.1
I.R.C.  3401             III.9,  III.10, IV.9, IV.10, IX.1, IX.8
I.R.C.  6001                              IX.5, XVIII.3, XVIII.4
I.R.C.  6011                              IX.3, XVIII.3, XVIII.4
I.R.C.  6012                              IX.3, XVIII.3, XVIII.4
I.R.C.  6013                                                X.10
I.R.C.  6017                                                X.10
I.R.C.  6020                                                X.10
I.R.C.  6021                                                X.10
I.R.C.  6321                                          X.9, XIX.7
I.R.C.  6331                                          X.9, XIX.7
I.R.C., Chapter 75 ( 7201-7344)                             X.8
I.R.C.  7212                                          II.1, II.5
I.R.C.  7216                                                 X.8
I.R.C.  7321                                                 X.7
I.R.C.  7323                                                 X.6
I.R.C.  7325                                                VI.6
I.R.C.  7401                                                 X.4
I.R.C.  7402                                                 X.5
I.R.C.  7403                                               IX.12
I.R.C.  7621                                   VII.6, VII.9, X.3
I.R.C.  7701     III.11, VII.10, VII.11, IX.6, X.1, XVI.3, XIX.4
I.R.C.  7801                                                 X.3
I.R.C.  7802                                         VII.13, X.3
I.R.C.  7803                                                 X.3
I.R.C.  7804                                               IX.12
I.R.C.  7805                                         VII.10, X.1
I.R.C.  7806                                      VIII.2, VIII.5
I.R.C.  7851                             VIII.1, VIII.5, XVIII.4


____________________

1    Title 26  of the  United States  Code, known as the Internal
     Revenue Code,  has never  been enacted  as positive  law, as
     specified at  section 7806;   the  Internal Revenue  Code is
     Vol. 68A  of the  Statutes at  Large, as amended in 1986 and
     since.   Therefore, "IRC"  will be  construed as  "Vol. 68A,
     Statutes at Large".


             Application for Writ of Habeas Corpus:
                          Page 4 of 71


                       United States Code

3 U.S.C.  301                                         VII.5, X.3
4 U.S.C.  71                                               VII.1
4 U.S.C.  72                                          VII.2, X.3
8 U.S.C.  1101                                             XVI.3
18 U.S.C.  2                                   IV.11, VI.1, X.12
18 U.S.C.  7
  I.1, III.13, IV.13, V.2, VI.3, X.11, XII.1, XII.3, XII.8, XIX.9
18 U.S.C.  23                                                V.4
18 U.S.C.  371                                        II.5, X.12
18 U.S.C.  1341                                       II.5, X.12
18 U.S.C.  1503                                       II.8, X.12
18 U.S.C.  1504                                       II.8, X.12
18 U.S.C.  3182                                            XIV.8
18 U.S.C.  3231                                       V.3, XIX.2
18 U.S.C.  3401                         I.1, XII.8, XIX.2, XIX.9
18 U.S.C.  3431                                              V.5
28 U.S.C.  116                                          I.2, V.1
28 U.S.C.  132                                          I.1, V.1
28 U.S.C.  531                                             XII.6
28 U.S.C.  535                                             XII.6
28 U.S.C.  638                                      XII.8, XIX.9
28 U.S.C.  1345                                             VI.2
28 U.S.C.  1346                                             VI.3
28 U.S.C.  1395                                           VIII.3
28 U.S.C.  1396                                           VIII.4
28 U.S.C.  1733                                            IX.11
28 U.S.C.  1867                                   XIII.4, XIX.10
28 U.S.C.  2072                                           XIII.3
31 U.S.C.  301                         VII.3, VII.4, VII.13, X.1
31 U.S.C.  1321                                            VII.8
40 U.S.C.  255                   I.1, XII.2, XII.3, XIV.7, XIX.9
44 U.S.C.  1501 et seq.                                      X.1
44 U.S.C.  1505                                         X.1, X.8
44 U.S.C.  1510                                              X.2
44 U.S.C.  3501 et seq.                                  XVIII.1
48 U.S.C.  874                                              VI.4
48 U.S.C.  1406f                                            VI.4


               Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure

Rule 1                                                        V.2
Rule 4                                                      XII.3
Rule 5                                                      XII.9
Rule 6                                                     XIII.1
Rule 9                                                II.5, XII.8
Rule 12                                                      II.5
Rule 10                                                     XII.9
Rule 27                                                     IX.11
Rule 54                                 I.1, V.4, VI.5, V.6, XI.1
Rule 58                                                       V.5


                Federal Rules of Civil Procedure

Rule 2                                                        V.2
Rule 44                                                     IX.11


             Application for Writ of Habeas Corpus:
                          Page 5 of 71


                    Federal Rules of Evidence

Rule 201(d)                                                   I.4
Rule 1101                                                  XIII.2


                   Code of Federal Regulations

1 CFR, Part 8.5                                               X.2
5 CFR, Part 1320                XVIII.1, XVIII.6, XVIII.8, XIX.15
26 CFR, Part 1.871                                  XVI.4, XIX.13
26 CFR, Part 1.1441-7
                   III.12, IV.12, IX.3, IX.8, IX.9, X.10, XVIII.4
26 CFR, Part 1.1461                           IX.3, IX.6, XVIII.4
26 CFR, Part 1.6001                                 IX.5, XVIII.4
26 CFR, Part 31.3121(e)-1
             III.7, III.8, IV.7, IV.8, X.11, XVI.1, XVI.5, XIX.13
26 CFR, Part 3402                                            IX.8
26 CFR, Part 31.3403                                         IX.8
26 CFR, Part 31.3404                                IX.8, XVIII.4
26 CFR, Part 31.6001                          IX.4, IX.5, XVIII.4
26 CFR, Part 31.6065                                        IX.10
26 CFR, Part 31.6402                                IX.4, XVIII.4
26 CFR, Part 31.6413                                         IX.4
26 CFR, Part 301.6020                                 IX.9, IX.10
26 CFR, Part 301.6201                                        IX.7
26 CFR, Part 301.6203                                       IX.10
26 CFR, Part 301.6211                                        IX.8
26 CFR, Part 301.6212                                        IX.8
26 CFR, Part 301.7514                                       IX.11
26 CFR, Part 301.7621-1                           VII.9, X.1, X.3
26 CFR, Part 403                                III.13, X.6, kX.8
26 CFR, Part 601.106                                        IX.12
26 CFR, Part 601.401                 IX.4, IX.6, XVIII.2, XVIII.4
27 CFR, Part 70                          X.4, X.5, X.8, X.9, X.10
27 CFR, Part 72                                          X.6, X.8
27 CFR, Part 250.11                                  VII.8, XII.6
28 CFR, Part 0.49                                            VI.6
28 CFR, Part 0.64-1                                          IV.6
28 CFR, Part 60                                             XII.4
28 CFR, Part 65                                             XII.5
31 CFR, Part 0.216                                         VII.12
31 CFR, Part 0.301                                         VII.12
32 CFR, Part 1290.1                                           V.5
43 CFR, Part 9260.0-1                                         V.5
Parallel Table of Authorities & Rules
                 (pp. 721 et seq., CFR Index)     VII.9, X.2-X.12


                      Congressional Record

House, March 27, 1943, p. 2580                               IX.2


                        Executive Orders

E.O. No. 10289 (1951, as amended)        II.13, VII.6, VII.9, X.1


             Application for Writ of Habeas Corpus:
                          Page 6 of 71


                   Treasury Delegation Orders

T.D.O. No. 150-29 (1953)                             VII.8, XII.6
T.D.O. No. 150-42
 (1956, as amended by T.D.O. No. 150-01 of 1986)     II.14, VII.7
T.D.O. No. 221 (1972)                                       XII.6


            State of Oklahoma Constitution & Statutes

Constitution Article I  1                                  III.5
22 O.S.  221 et seq.                                      XIV.3
22 O.S.  221                                               XIV.4
22 O.S.  222                                               XIV.4
22 O.S. 1121 et seq.                                      XIV.3
22 O.S.  1123                                             XIV.5
22 O.S.  1141.1 et seq.                                   XIV.3
22 O.S.  1141.10                                           XIV.5
78 O.S.  12                                                 I.12


                           Case Cites

Alaska v. American Can Co., 358 U.S. 224, 79 S.Ct. 274 (1958)
                                                              I.4
Application of Dandridge, 188 F.Supp. 278 (D.C.N.J., 1960)
                                                              I.4
Balzac v. Porto Rico, (1922) 258 U.S. 298,
  66 L.Ed. 627, 42 S.Ct. 343                          VI.4, XIV.6
Dorr v. United States, (1904) 195 U.S. 138,
  49 L.Ed. 128, 24 S.Ct. 808                          VI.4, XIV.6
Downes v. Bidwell, (1901) 182 U.S. 244,
  45 L.Ed. 1088, 21 S.Ct. 770                         VI.4, XIV.6
Hassett v. Welch, 303 U.S. 303, 58 S.Ct. 559,
  82 L.Ed. 858                                             XVII.2
Hooven & Allison Co. v. Evatt, (1945) 324 U.S. 652,
  89 L.Ed. 1252, 65 S.Ct. 870 reh den 325 U.S. 892,
  89 L.Ed. 2004, 65 S.Ct. 1198                        VI.4, XIV.6
Lamar v. Micu, 114 U.S. 218, 5 S.Ct. 857 (1885)               I.4
United States v. Community TV, Inc., 327 F.2d 797 (1964)
                                                           XVII.2
United States v. Lanier, U.S. Supreme Court,
  Case. No. 95-1717, (March 31, 1997)                       II.17
United States of America v. Menk, 260 F.Supp. 784 (1966)
                                                           XVII.2


                    Miscellaneous Authorities

80th Congress Senate Report No. 1559
                                                   VIII.3, VIII.4
Government Style Manual                                      XV.3
Instruction Manual for 1040 Individual
  Federal Income Tax Return                      XVIII.3, XVIII.4
Internal Revenue Manual 1100 at 1111.2
  [36 F.R. 849-890]                                         XII.6
Ordinance of 1787:  The Northwest Territorial Government,
  Article II                                                  I.3


             Application for Writ of Habeas Corpus:
                          Page 7 of 71


              APPLICATION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS

     Now come Dan Leslie, Meador (Plaintiff), as himself and next

friend to  and for  Wayne Richard,  Gunwall,  both  of  whom  are

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

Constitution of  the United  States, non-citizen nationals of the

geographical  United   States,  as   defined  at   8   U.S.C.   

1101(a)(22)(B), and nonresident aliens of the geographical United

States, as  the term  "United States"  is defined at 26 CFR, Part

3121(e)-1(b) (see Oaths Purgatory).

     Plaintiff  has   constructed  an   affidavit  of   complaint

detailing events  leading to  the Application  for Writ of Habeas

Corpus in  order to  reduce the body of the actual pleading.  The

affidavit  of   complaint  is   herewith  incorporated   in  this

Application for Writ of Habeas Corpus by reference.

     Causes in  support of  this Application  for Writ  of Habeas

Corpus are as follows:


                I.  Law & Condition of Necessity

     1.   This Application  for Writ  of Habeas  Corpus is  being

filed in  the Tenth  Circuit Court  of  Appeals,  sitting  as  an

Article III  court of the United States, primarily under the Rule

of Necessity:  Plaintiff alleges that since approximately October

1995, judicial  officers who  preside in  the Article  IV  United

States District  Court for  the Northern District of Oklahoma (28

U.S.C.   132), seemingly  in league with attorneys in the office

of the  United States  Attorney  for  the  Northern  District  of

Oklahoma  and  attorneys  in  the  United  States  Department  of

Justice, have  avoided and refused to cause prosecuting attorneys

to answer  pleadings premised on proofs that the Internal Revenue


             Application for Writ of Habeas Corpus:
                          Page 8 of 71


Service is  an agency  of the  Department of the Treasury, Puerto

Rico, which  merely provides  contract services  to United States

Government [sic],  that the Internal Revenue Code vests authority

in the  Treasury Department  rather than  the Department  of  the

Treasury, that  authority of  Article IV  United States  District

Courts, being  territorial  courts  of  the  United  States,  are

limited to  consideration of  misdemeanor offenses  prescribed by

regulations implementing  the United States Magistrate System (18

U.S.C.     3401  &   attending  regulations;     Rule  54(b)(4),

F.R.Cr.P.), that  United States  jurisdiction  in  the  Union  of

several States  party to the Constitution of the United States is

limited to  territorial bounds  prescribed at  18 U.S.C.   7(3),

that United  States jurisdiction  in the  Union of several States

must be  documented in  accordance with provisions of 40 U.S.C. 

255 and  State cession  laws, and  other particulars addressed in

this  Application for Writ of Habeas Corpus.

     2.   Plaintiff  alleges  that  persistent  accommodation  by

judicial officers employed in and by the Article IV United States

District Court,  and/or the  Article III  district court  of  the

United States  for the Northern District of Oklahoma (28 U.S.C. 

116(a)), makes it impossible to secure substantive due process of

law, as contemplated by the "arising under" clause at Article III

 2.1  and the  Fourth, Fifth,  Sixth, and  Seventh  Articles  of

Amendment to  the Constitution of the United States, in courts of

the United  States located  in the Northern District of Oklahoma.

Therefore, this  Application for  Writ of  Habeas Corpus is being

directed to the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals under authority of

the Article  III   2.1 "arising  under" clause, Article I  9.2,

and the  Fourth, Fifth,  Sixth, Seventh,  and Tenth  Articles  of

Amendment to  the Constitution of the United States, which is the

law of  the land  in Oklahoma  (Art. I   1,  Constitution of the

State of Oklahoma), and the Rule of Necessity.


             Application for Writ of Habeas Corpus:
                          Page 9 of 71


     3.   Common law  indigenous  to  the  Oklahoma  republic  is

herewith adopted  as governing  law, and  under conflict  of  law

doctrine, which  is articulated  at   12 of  Title 78,  Oklahoma

Statutes, and numerous Federal court decisions, and as assured in

the Ordinance  of 1787:   The  Northwest Territorial  Government,

Article II,  as adopted  by Congress  (see Vol.  1, United States

Code, 1994  Government Printing Office edition, "The Organic Laws

of the  United States  of America",  pp. LI et seq.), substantive

due process  will be  construed as  due process  contemplated  by

English-American common  law as  is  consistent  with  applicable

constitutions, and  statutory provisions  which are in derogation

thereof must  yield or  fall.   Judicial officers  of  the  Tenth

Circuit Court  of Appeals will also be cognizant that 28 U.S.C. 

2072(b) stipulates that rules promulgated by the Supreme Court of

the United  States, which include appellate rules, "... shall not

abridge, enlarge or modify any substantive right ...."

     4.   Plaintiffs particularly  request and  demand  that  the

judicial officer  or officers  who consider  this Application for

Writ of  Habeas Corpus  take mandatory  judicial notice, per Rule

201(d), Federal  Rules of  Evidence, of  the Constitution  of the

United States,  Statutes at  Large, statutory  authority  of  the

United  States   Code,  the   Code  of  Federal  Regulations  and

ancillaries,  the   Federal  Register,   Executive  Orders,   and

delegations of  authority issued  for implementation thereof, the


             Application for Writ of Habeas Corpus:
                          Page 10 of 71


Congressional Record,  and the Constitution and laws of the State

of Oklahoma  (Federal courts  must take  judicial notice  of  the

Constitution,  statutes   of   the   United   States,   including

legislative history,  per Alaska  v. American  Can Co.,  358 U.S.

224, 79  S.Ct. 274  (1958), treaties,  contents  of  the  Federal

Register and  other administrative  regulations, and laws of each

state, per  Lamar v.  Micou, 114  U.S. 218, 5 S.Ct. 857 (1885), &

Application of Dandridge, 188 F.Supp. 278 (D.C.N.J., 1960)).


                     II. Account of Events/2

     1.   Plaintiff Wayne Richard, Gunwall was charged in a grand

jury indictment  from the  United States  District Court  for the

Western District  of Oklahoma  along with  Kenney  F.  Moore  and

Colleen Moore,  both of  Bartlesville, Oklahoma, in October 1995.

The core  charge was interference with administration of internal

revenue laws  of the  United  States,  Internal  Revenue  Code  

7212(a) (IRC)./3  At that time, Dan Leslie, Meador of Ponca City,

Oklahoma,  was  recruited  to  provide  assistance  with  defense

____________________

2    The account  of events  in this  section is a brief summary.
     See affidavits of complaint for details.

3    It is significant, but not addressed in this Application for
     Writ  of  Habeas  Corpus,  that  the  Tax  Division  of  the
     Department  of   Justice  is   expressly   prohibited   from
     prosecution under  IRC   7212 (28  CFR,  Part  0.70).    By
     default,  prosecution  of    7212  falls  to  the  Criminal
     Division (28  U.S.C.   0.55).   The Criminal  Division  has
     jurisdiction only  over customs  laws enforcement (narcotics
     and  related   substances),  alcohol,   tobacco,   firearms,
     explosive, etc.   IRS  prosecution of  this statute is under
     authority for  enforcement of  drug laws  in  United  States
     maritime jurisdiction under 26 CFR, Part 403, with exit from
     the Internal  Revenue Code  at   7327.  Thus, there are two
     presumptions in  all IRS-initiated criminal prosecutions and
     seizures:   (1) whomever  has property seized under maritime
     laws is  somehow involved  with drug  trade in United States
     maritime jurisdiction,  and (2)  a crime against the customs
     laws relating to drug trade has been committed.


             Application for Writ of Habeas Corpus:
                          Page 11 of 71


pleadings as  Plaintiff Dan  Leslie, Meador had certain knowledge

concerning the  character of  the Internal  Revenue  Service  and

application of  Internal Revenue  Code taxing authority.  Motions

disclosing that  the Internal Revenue Service is an agency of the

Department of  the Treasury,  Puerto Rico,  and  that  no  taxing

statute in the Internal Revenue Code reaches the Union of several

States party to the Constitution were entered into record for the

three defendants,  Wayne Richard,  Gunwall, Kenney  F. Moore, and

Colleen Moore.

     2.   At about  the same  time,  several  people  from  rural

Western Oklahoma  and Oklahoma City were summoned to testify to a

Federal grand  jury convened under authority of the United States

District Court for the Northern District of Oklahoma, Tulsa.  The

people at  first refused to testify, but changed their minds, and

as part  of their testimony, compiled a box of materials covering

a range  of subjects  which address  the evolution of Cooperative

Federalism since  approximately the  Civil War.    The  witnesses

summoned to testify to the Federal grand jury asked Plaintiff Dan

Leslie, Meador to provide research pertaining to the character of

the Internal  Revenue Service,  proper  application  of  Internal

Revenue Code  taxing  authority,  etc.,  and  construct  a  cover

letter.   Included  in  the  letter  were  complaints  concerning

conduct of  the Moore-Gunwall  case, with  H. Dale  Cook,  Senior

Magistrate Judge  of the  United States  District Court,  Neal B.

Kirkpatrick, the Assistant United States Attorney responsible for

prosecuting  the  case,  Tracy  Foster,  an  inspector  with  the

Internal Revenue  Service, and  others.   Darrell Frech  of  Jet,

Oklahoma, one  of the  four people  who voluntarily  appeared  to

testify, gave  the box  of material  to the grand jury foreman in

the presence of Mr. Kirkpatrick.


             Application for Writ of Habeas Corpus:
                          Page 12 of 71


     3.   Mr.  Kirkpatrick,   the  prosecuting  Assistant  United

States Attorney,  failed to  respond  to  averments  set  out  in

defense pleadings,  and Mr.  Cook, presiding as Senior Magistrate

Judge  in   the  Article   IV  United   States  District   Court,

accommodated  the   lack   of   response   without   establishing

jurisdiction of  the court or otherwise proving law governing the

case.   As it  appeared  there  was  no  remedy  via  the  court,

Plaintiff Dan  Leslie, Meador  constructed letters  of  complaint

which again  named Mr.  Kirkpatrick, Mr.  Cook,  Ms.  Foster  and

others.   Complaints were  sent to  the office  of  the  Oklahoma

Attorney General,  W. A.  Drew Edmondson,  and to  the grand jury

foreman of the Federal grand jury thought to be sitting at Tulsa.

Complaints directed  to attention  of the  grand jury foreman was

sent in  care of the Court Clerk for courts of the United States,

Northern District  of Oklahoma.   The United States Attorney also

received a copy of the complaints and support material.

     4.   The Meador  complaints sent  in care of the Court Clerk

for the  Northern District  of Oklahoma was received by the Court

Clerk on a Friday.  The following Monday, Mr. Kirkpatrick entered

a motion  to dismiss  the first  Moore-Gunwall case,  then on  or

about Nov.  27, 1995 Mr. Cook signed an order to dismiss the 1995

Moore-Gunwall case.   The  Kirkpatrick motion  to dismiss did not

state a reason, nor did Mr. Cook's order reflect a reason for the

dismissal.


             Application for Writ of Habeas Corpus:
                          Page 13 of 71


     5.   In July  1996, another grand jury indictment was issued

against Mr.  Gunwall and  the Moores  (#96-CR-82-C), for  alleged

offenses including  interference with  administration of internal

revenue laws  (IRC    7212(a)),  principals  (19  U.S.C.    2),

conspiracy (18  U.S.C.   371),  and  mail  fraud  (18  U.S.C.  

1341)/4.   Charges against  Mr. Gunwall  remained the  same, mail

fraud charges against the Moores were new.  Subsequent to receipt

of summonses  and indictments,  Mr. Gunwall  and the Moores again

consulted with  Mr. Meador concerning defense.  Collectively, Mr.

Gunwall, Mr. Meador, and the Moores settled on a form of pleading

developed by  a David Miller of Minnesota, the pleading styled as

a "refusal  for fraud", issued primarily under authority of Rules

9 &  12, F.R.Cr.P.   Mr.  Meador assisted  the  Moores,  and  Mr.

Gunwall constructed  a similar  but different "refusal for cause"

or "refusal  for fraud" pleading.  Mr. Meador had found that both

Oklahoma law  and Federal  law  preserve  the  unqualified  Sixth

Amendment right  to choice  of counsel,  and statutes  and  court

rules  of   both  Oklahoma  and  the  United  States  acknowledge

"counsel" as distinctive from "attorney".  Mr. Meador signed onto

the Moore  pleading as "counsel", attaching a notice of intent to

represent, Moore  powers of  attorney, and  a brief in support to

the  pleading   as  exhibits   accompanying  the   Moore  refusal

instrument.

____________________

4    Although "mail  fraud" is not specifically addressed in this
     pleading, as  the mail fraud charges were not issued against
     Mr. Gunwall, it will be found that via E.O. No. 10289 (1951,
     as amended  several times  since), the  President authorized
     the Secretary  of the Treasury and the Postmaster General to
     prosecute mail-related  offenses,  but  only  pertaining  to
     United States  Government employees, not the general public.
     This is  the only  delegation to  the Secretary  relating to
     mail offenses,  so where the Internal Revenue Service is the
     complaining party,  the complaint  cannot exceed  delegation
     from the  President to  the Secretary  under provisions of 3
     U.S.C.   301.   Reference 26 CFR, Part 301.7621 to see that
     E.O. No.  10289 is  the only  Executive Order  which confers
     authority to  the Secretary  relating  to  internal  revenue
     laws, the  Anti-Smuggling Act, postal regulations, and other
     matters,  including   establishment  of   internal   revenue
     districts.  The matter is treated at length infra.


             Application for Writ of Habeas Corpus:
                          Page 14 of 71


     6.   Mr. Gunwall  and  the  Moores  elected  not  to  answer

summonses from  the United  States District Court.  Subsequently,

Mr. Gunwall  was arrested  by  Federal  Bureau  of  Investigation

agents, and  possibly Internal  Revenue Service  officers, in the

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

The  Moores   were  contacted   by  telephone   and  subsequently

surrendered.     The  Moores  were  released  on  bond  following

arraignment, but  Mr. Gunwall  was held  over  for  several  days

before bond was set and he was finally released.

     7.   In August,  Plaintiff Dan  Leslie,  Meador  received  a

summons and indictment from the office of the Court Clerk for the

United  States  District  Court  for  the  Northern  District  of

Oklahoma by  mail.   Plaintiff responded  with various pleadings,

but elected  not to  answer the  summons.  Plaintiff subsequently

arranged to  surrender to  the chief  deputy  U.S.  Marshal,  was

arraigned before  United States  magistrate judge Sam Joyner, and

was released on bond.  In all instances, Article IV United States

magistrate judges  (national  park  commissioners)  entered  "not

guilty" pleas in spite of the Moores, Mr. Gunwall, and Mr. Meador

declining to  enter pleas,  mandated  that  all  four  report  to

Federal probation  officers, assigned  standby counsel, and where

Mr.  Gunwall   and  Mr.   Meador  were   concerned,  imposed  the

requirement that  they submit pleadings to court-assigned standby

counsel  prior   to  entering  pleadings  in  record/5.    Senior

____________________

5    Rule 5, F.R.Cr.P. clearly prohibits United States magistrate
     judges from calling on defendants to plead in any case where
     the U.S.  magistrate judge is not qualified to try the case.
     Under Local  Criminal Rule  5.1B.3., N.D.  of Okla., permits


             Application for Writ of Habeas Corpus:
                          Page 15 of 71


Magistrate Judge Cook eventually lifted the screening requirement

from Mr.  Meador, but  Mr. Gunwall  is still  required to  submit

material through a court-appointed attorney.

     8.   The  Meador   indictment   was   on   two   counts   of

communicating with  a grand  jury in  writing (18 U.S.C.  1504),

and one  count of  interfering with administration of justice (18

U.S.C.  1503).

     9.   The Moores,  Mr. Gunwall  and Mr.  Meador continued  to

enter  motions   to  dismiss,   evidence   of   law   and   other

documentation, etc.,  including motions  for declaratory judgment

concerning the Sixth Amendment right to choice of counsel and the

practice of  law as  a common  law profession.   In  both  cases,

Assistant U.S.  Attorney Kirkpatrick failed to prove jurisdiction

in record,  avoided matters  concerning  the  need  to  establish

authority and  application of law, et al., and Mr. Cook continued

to accommodate,  failing and  refusing to require Mr. Kirkpatrick

to produce  necessary documentation,  and failing and refusing to

enter written  decisions pertaining  to motions  entered  by  the

Moores, Mr. Gunwall, and Mr. Meador.

____________________________________________________________

     U.S. magistrate  judges to  accept "not  guilty" pleas,  but
     does not  authorize them  to enter  a plea where a defendant
     declines  entering  a  plea.    There  certainly  isn't  any
     authorization  either  in  the  Federal  Rules  of  Criminal
     Procedure or  Local  Rules  for  the  Northern  District  of
     Oklahoma which  authorized U.S. magistrate judges to appoint
     standby counsel  when defendants  in felony  cases when they
     decline appointment  of counsel,  and imposing  orders which
     prevent people  from filing  petitions in  their own defense
     without review  by someone  else, or, as is the case for Mr.
     Gunwall, imposing  restrictions against  filing material  in
     other  courts  amounts  to  abridgment  of  First  Amendment
     rights.   Yet because  of conditions  imposed  by  the  U.S.
     magistrate judge  on Mr. Gunwall, Mr. Gunwall fears reprisal
     and incarceration if he were to sign Oath Purgatory included
     in this document, or signs on his own behalf as Plaintiff.


             Application for Writ of Habeas Corpus:
                          Page 16 of 71


     10.  It is  relevant that  complaints  were  filed  via  the

office of  the Oklahoma  Attorney General,  and with  the Federal

grand jury  foreman (the  grand jury  never saw either complaint)

against Mr.  Cook, Mr.  Kirkpatrick, Mr.  Joyner, Ms.  Foster and

others.   This same  cast of  characters prosecuted both the 1996

Moore-Gunwall case and the Meador case.

     11.  Mr. Cook  and Mr.  Kirkpatrick failed  and  refused  to

recuse themselves  from the  Meador case  even though  they  were

obviously interested  parties, and  Plaintiff filed  a motion for

them to  recuse themselves.   As  it became  increasingly evident

that the  consortium involved  with the  case had no intention of

following court  rules concerning  pleadings, and were determined

to ignore  law which  was  clearly  entered  into  pleading,  the

Moores, Mr.  Gunwall, and  Mr. Meador  filed a civil suit against

Mr. Cook, Mr. Kirkpatrick, the United States Attorney, Stephen C.

Lewis, United States magistrate judges, and Ms. Foster.  However,

despite being  served prior  to jury  selection  commencing,  Mr.

Kirkpatrick, et al, continued with prosecution.

     12.  The Moores elected to plea bargain when Mr. Kirkpatrick

offered what  appeared to  be a  favorable offer.   Mr.  Gunwall,

under the impression of entering a plea to a misdemeanor offense,

also plea  bargained, feeling  prospects for securing substantive

due process  via the Admiralty-Civil Law Article IV United States

District Court  was somewhere  between slim  and none.  Plaintiff

elected to  go through  the trial  process.   In order  to  avoid

difficulties in  the  court,  Plaintiff  accepted  assistance  of

court-appointed  counsel.     Counsel   for  Plaintiff,   without

consulting with  him, elected  not to  put on  a defense when the

Government [sic] rested.  Plaintiff was found guilty on all three

charges.


             Application for Writ of Habeas Corpus:
                          Page 17 of 71


     13.  It is  material and  essential to  this Application for

Writ of  Habeas Corpus  that  Tracy  Foster,  Inspector  for  the

Internal Revenue  Service, was the Government's [sic] key witness

at the Meador trial.  During the course of testimony, Ms. Foster,

in her  capacity as  Inspector for  the Internal Revenue Service,

claimed responsibility  for (1) prosecution of both Moore-Gunwall

cases  (1995   &  1996),   (2)  the   November  1995  grand  jury

investigation of  "common law  courts" in Oklahoma, (3) arrest of

Wayne Richard,  Gunwall in  the parking  lot outside the Wal-Mart

store in  the community  of Ponca City, Oklahoma state (privately

owned land),  and (4) prosecution of the Meador case.  Therefore,

the Article  IV United States District Court of necessity must be

imposing  jurisdictional   authority  of   the  Internal  Revenue

Service, an  agency of  the Department  of the  Treasury,  Puerto

Rico, which  so far  as  police  powers  are  concerned  operates

exclusively under  authority of  E.O. No.  10289  (1951),  within

jurisdiction conveyed  from the  Secretary to the Commissioner of

Internal Revenue  via T.D.O.  No. 150-42,  as amended in 1986 via

T.D.O. No. 150-01.

     14.  Following trial, Plaintiff entered four motions:

     (1)  to resume  his  own  defense,  entering  evidence  that
          court-appointed counsel  had not  asked Meador-prepared
          questions of  Government [sic] witnesses, had failed to
          explore certain  Government [sic]  evidence, had failed
          to enter evidence supplied by Plaintiff, and had failed
          to call  witnesses who  were at the court and available
          to testify;

     (2)  to acquit  due to the Government [sic] failing to prove
          a crime;

     (3)  to arrest  judgment due  to lack  of  jurisdiction  and
          related matters;  and,

     (4)  for new  trial due to prejudicial jury instructions and
          incompetence of court-appointed counsel.


             Application for Writ of Habeas Corpus:
                          Page 18 of 71


     15.  In the  meantime, Mr. Gunwall has been unable to secure

cooperation from  the court-appointed attorney he must screen all

pleadings through.  This has created an untenable situation which

leaves him  without a remedy via the United States District Court

for the  Northern District  of Oklahoma  unless he  is willing to

risk revocation  of bail  for filing  an Application  for Writ of

Habeas Corpus or other initiative on his own behalf.

     16.  As was the case prior to the Meador trial, Mr. Cook has

failed to  enter written  rulings on  motions, and  in fact, when

Plaintiff secured  a letter  of authorization to subpoena certain

information pertaining to Dr. Moore from Internal Revenue Service

principals,  which   Plaintiff  believes  would  document  fraud,

someone from  the office  of the United States Attorney contacted

the  court-appointed   attorney  representing   Dr.   Moore   and

apparently issued  threats of  increased  incarceration  for  Dr.

Moore if  the  authorization  was  not  withdrawn.    The  court-

appointed attorney,  Stephen Knorr,  wrote a  letter to Plaintiff

effecting a  revocation of  the Moore authorization, so Plaintiff

had to  alter an application for subpoenas duces tecum due.  This

blatant interference  with efforts  to secure evidence, tolerated

by Mr.  Cook over  the course  of time,  makes it  impossible  to

pursue justice  vial  judicial  officers  at  the  United  States

District Court for the Northern District of Oklahoma.


             Application for Writ of Habeas Corpus:
                          Page 19 of 71


     17.  It is  passing relevant  to matters  at hand  that  Mr.

Gunwall merely provided assistance to the Moores with such things

as helping them wade through procedure when the Moores filed non-

statutory  liens   against  certain   Internal  Revenue   Service

principals,  and  that  Plaintiff  simply  filed  complaints  and

assisted with filing what amounted to a motion to dismiss for the

Moores.   Alleged offenses  are hardly  cognizable under statutes

for which  crimes were  charges (see  criteria  set  out  by  the

Supreme Court of the United States, United States v. Lanier, Case

No. #95-1717,  March 31,  1997).    However,  the  scope  of  the

"victimless crime"  offenses and  whether  or  not  statutes  are

cognizable of  alleged offenses  by Plaintiff and Mr. Gunwall are

beyond the scope of the instant matter.

     18.  At present,  Plaintiff and  Mr. Gunwall  have not  been

sentenced.   They are,  however, under  bond and  supervision  of

Federal probation  officers.  Since Mr. Cook is demonstrating the

same pattern  of non-response as prior to pleas by the Moores and

Mr. Gunwall  and trial  of Plaintiff,  it is obvious that he will

hold  the   course  to   impose  sentences  without  response  to

pleadings, requirements  for Mr. Kirkpatrick to enter evidence of

jurisdiction, etc.  Therefore, this matter comes before the Tenth

Circuit Court  of Appeals, sitting as an Article III court of the

United States, under the Rule of Necessity.


    III.  Certification of Fact Concerning Dan Leslie Meador

                         Oath Purgatory

     I, Dan Leslie, Meador, known as Dan Meador, certify that the

following is  true  and  correct,  to  the  best  of  my  current

knowledge, understanding and belief:

     1.   My Christian  and family  names are Dan Leslie, Meador,

spelled with the first letter of each capitalized and the rest of

each spelled with lower case letters;


             Application for Writ of Habeas Corpus:
                          Page 20 of 71


     2.   I am  a natural-born, living, moral being endowed by my

Creator, the  God of  Abraham, Isaac,  Jacob, and  the Lord Jesus

Christ, with  certain unalienable rights, among them being rights

to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness;

     3.   I am  a native of Kansas, one of the Union states party

to the Constitution for the united States of America;

     4.   I live  and have  abode on  privately owned land in the

county of  Kay, Oklahoma state, which is also a Union state party

to the Constitution for the united States of America;

     5.   The Constitution  of the United States [sic] is the law

of the  land in  Oklahoma (Art. I  1, Constitution for the State

of Oklahoma);

     6.   The Constitution  for  the  united  States  of  America

secures certain rights which I am by heritage assured of as being

in the  lineage and  Posterity of  American Founders, among those

being  the   right  to   substantive  due   process  of  law,  as

contemplated by  the "arising  under" clause at Article III, Sec.

2, Cl.  1 and  the Fourth,  Fifth, Sixth, and Seventh Articles of

Amendment to  the Constitution  for the united States of America,

said substantive due process being according to rules of English-

American common  law as it existed in the Union of several states

party to the Constitution in 1789;

     7.   I am  not a  citizen of the geographical United States,

as  the   term  "United  States"  is  defined  at  26  CFR,  Part

31.3121(e)-1(b);

     8.   I do  not now  reside  and  have  not  resided  in  the

geographical United  States,  as  the  term  "United  States"  is

defined at 26 CFR, Part 31.3121(e)-1(b);


             Application for Writ of Habeas Corpus:
                          Page 21 of 71


     9.   I am  not an  "employee", as  the term  is  defined  at

Internal Revenue Code ("IRC")  3401(c);

     10.  I am not an "employer", as the term is defined at IRC 

3401(d);

     11.  I am not engaged in United States trade or business, as

the term "trade or business" is defined at IRC  7701(a)(26);

     12.  I am  not a "withholding agent", as the term is defined

at 26 CFR, Part 1.1441-7(a);

     13.  I am  not now nor have I ever been involved in trade or

other activity  in United States special territorial and maritime

jurisdiction (18  U.S.C.  7) subject to Internal Revenue Service

customs law  administration and  enforcement authority  (26  CFR,

Part 403);

     14.  I am  not now and have never been engaged in enterprise

in the  geographical United  States subject to IRC Subtitle D & E

taxing authority.

     Having been  subscribed and sworn, I attest under penalty of

perjury  that   the  above   is,  to   the  best  of  my  current

understanding, knowledge  and belief, TRUE, CORRECT and COMPLETE,

so help me God.


/s/ Dan Leslie Meador
_______________________________________
Dan Leslie, Meador


             Application for Writ of Habeas Corpus:
                          Page 22 of 71


     On this _____ day of _________________________, 1997, before

me, a  notary public  in and  for said State, personally appeared

Dan Leslie,  Meador, known  to me  to be  a person  whose name is

subscribed to  the within instrument, and acknowledged to me that

he executed the same.

S    _________________________________________
E    Notary Public
A
L    Commission expires:  ________________________


             Application for Writ of Habeas Corpus:
                          Page 23 of 71


   IV. Certification of Fact Concerning Wayne Richard, Gunwall

                        Oath Purgatory/6

     I, Wayne  Richard., Gunwall  known as Wayne Gunwall, certify

that the following is true and correct, to the best of my current

knowledge, understanding and belief:

     1.   My Christian  and family names Wayne Richard., Gunwall,

that is  capital "W",  lower case  "ayne", Richard,  capital "R",

lower case "ichard", and that the family name is Gunwall, Capital

"G", lower case "unwall".

     2.   I am  a natural-born, living, moral being endowed by my

Creator, the  God of  Abraham, Isaac,  Jacob, and  the Lord Jesus

Christ, with  certain unalienable rights, among them being rights

to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness;

     3.   I am  a native of North Dakota, one of the Union states

party to the Constitution for the united States of America;

     4.   I live  and have  abode on  privately owned land in the

county of  Kay, Oklahoma state, which is also a Union state party

to the Constitution for the united States of America;

     5.   The Constitution  of the United States [sic] is the law

of the  land in  Oklahoma (Art. I  1, Constitution for the State

of Oklahoma);

     6.   The Constitution  for  the  united  States  of  America

secures certain rights which I am by heritage assured of as being

in the  lineage and  Posterity of  American Founders, among those

being  the   right  to   substantive  due   process  of  law,  as

contemplated by  the "arising  under" clause at Article III, Sec.

2, Cl.  1 and  the Fourth,  Fifth, Sixth, and Seventh Articles of

Amendment to  the Constitution  for the united States of America,

said substantive due process being according to rules of English-

American common  law as it existed in the Union of several states

party to the Constitution in 1789;

____________________

6    Signature withheld under threat, duress & coercion.


             Application for Writ of Habeas Corpus:
                          Page 24 of 71


     7.   I am  not a  citizen of the geographical United States,

as  the   term  "United  States"  is  defined  at  26  CFR,  Part

31.3121(3)-1(b);

     8.   I do  not now  resident and  have not  resided  in  the

geographical United  States,  as  the  term  "United  States"  is

defined at 26 CFR, Part 31.3121-(e)-1(b);

     9.   I am  not an  "employee", as  the term  is  defined  at

Internal Revenue Code ("IRC")  3401(c);

     10.  I am not an "employer", as the term is defined at IRC 

3401(d);

     11.  I am not engaged in United States trade or business, as

the term "trade or business" is defined at IRC  7701(a)(26);

     12.  I am  not a "withholding agent", as the term is defined

at 26 CFR, Part 1.1441-7(a);

     13.  I am  not now nor have I ever been involved in trade or

other activity  in United States special territorial and maritime

jurisdiction (18  U.S.C.  7) subject to Internal Revenue Service

customs law  administration and  enforcement authority  (26  CFR,

Part 403);

     14.  I am  not now and have never been engaged in enterprise

in the  geographical United  States subject to IRC Subtitle D & E

taxing authority.


             Application for Writ of Habeas Corpus:
                          Page 25 of 71


     Having been  subscribed and sworn, I attest under penalty of

perjury  that   the  above   is,  to   the  best  of  my  current

understanding, knowledge  and belief, TRUE, CORRECT and COMPLETE,

so help me God.


(signature withheld)
_______________________________________
Wayne Richard., Gunwall



     On this _____ day of _________________________, 1997, before

me, a  notary public  in and  for said State, personally appeared

Wayne Richard., Gunwall, known to me to be a person whose name is

subscribed to  the within instrument, and acknowledged to me that

he executed the same.


S    _________________________________________
E    Notary Public
A
L    Commission expires:  ________________________


             Application for Writ of Habeas Corpus:
                          Page 26 of 71


        V. Incompetence of the Court & Judicial Officers

     Plaintiffs allege and aver that the following is to the best

of their current knowledge, understanding and belief accurate and

true:

     1.   The UNITED  STATES  DISTRICT  COURT  for  the  NORTHERN

DISTRICT  OF  OKLAHOMA  (28  U.S.C.    132)  is  an  Article  IV

territorial court  of the  United States, it is not the "district

court of  the United  States" (28  U.S.C.   116(a)) vested  with

Article III  "arising under"  clause capacity  and  authority  at

Section 2,  Cl. 1  of the  Constitution (Article III  2.1) , the

"district court  of the  United States"  alone being competent at

law and  equity under  authority of the Constitution, laws of the

United States,  and treaties  made thereunder,  exclusive of  the

Article IV United States District Court;

     2.   The United  States District Court operates solely under

admiralty-Civil  Law   rules  (Rule   2,  F.R.Cv.P.;     Rule  1,

F.R.Cr.P.), said  rules, even  for the Article III district court

of the  United States,  applicable only  in United States special

territorial and maritime jurisdiction (18 U.S.C.  7);

     3.   Original jurisdiction  for prosecution of felony crimes

committed in United States jurisdiction (18 U.S.C.  7) is vested

in "district  courts of  the United  States" (18  U.S.C.  3231),

exclusive of  courts of the [Federal] States (first sentence of 

3231), but  said jurisdiction  does not  infringe  on  or  impair

original jurisdiction  of courts  of the  several States party to

the Constitution  under the  laws thereof  (second sentence  of 

3231;  Art. III  2.3, Constitution of the United States);


             Application for Writ of Habeas Corpus:
                          Page 27 of 71


     4.   Article  IV   United  States   District  Courts,  being

legislative-statutory courts,  must receive authority by statute,

and the  United States  District Courts  authorized by statute to

prosecute felony  offenses against  the United States, as defined

in Title  18 of the United States Code, are the District Court of

Guam, the  District Court  for the  Northern Mariana Islands, and

the District  Court of  the Virgin Islands (18 U.S.C.  23), with

Article IV  courts of the United States acknowledged and affirmed

at Rule  54(a), F.R.Cr.P.,  as being  the United  States District

Court for  the District  of Guam,  the  District  Court  for  the

Northern Mariana  Islands, the  District  Court  for  the  Virgin

Islands, and  conditionally, the  District  of  the  Canal  Zone.

There is  no corresponding  statutory authority  for  Article  IV

United States District Courts located in the several States party

to the Constitution;

     5.   Article IV United States District Courts located in the

several States  party to  the Constitution, which have concurrent

jurisdiction with  Article III  district  courts  of  the  United

States (28  U.S.C.   81-131), are  authorized under 18 U.S.C. 

3401 to  hear  and  prosecute  only  misdemeanor  offenses  under

regulations promulgated  by the  Defense Logistics Agency for the

Department of  Defense, relating  to military  installations  (32

CFR, Part  1290.1 et  seq.), and  the Bureau  of Land Management,

relating to  national parks,  forests, etc.,  under United States

jurisdiction  (43  CFR,  Part  9260.0-1).    Per  Rule  54(b)(4),

F.R.Cr.P.,   proceedings of  the Federal Magistrate System within

the Union  of several  States,  where  United  States  magistrate

judges  are   permitted  to   preside  (formerly   national  park

commissioners), are governed by Rule 58, F.R.Cr.P;


             Application for Writ of Habeas Corpus:
                          Page 28 of 71


     6.   When hearing  cases initiated  through the  Article  IV

United States  Magistrate System  (United States District Court),

all judicial  officers of  the United  States,  from  the  United

States magistrate  judge (formerly  designated as  national  park

commissioners) through  justices of  the  United  States  Supreme

Court,  operate   as  magistrates   in  Article  IV  legislative-

ministerial rather than Article III judicial capacity (Rule 54(c)

Applications, F.R.Cr.P.);

     7.   The Article  IV United  States District  Court may  not

deprive the  sovereign American  people, Citizens of the Union of

several States  party to  the Constitution,  of life,  liberty or

property (Fifth  Article of Amendment, Constitution of the United

States), without  effecting bills  of  attainder,  prohibited  at

Article I  9.3 & 10.1 of the Constitution of the United States.


            VI.  Incapacity of Principal of Interest

     Plaintiffs allege and aver that the following is to the best

of their current knowledge, understanding and belief accurate and

true:

     1.   At 18  U.S.C.   2, a "principal" who may be prosecuted

in courts  of the  United States is designated as being, "Whoever

commits an offense against the United States ...."

     2.   At 28  U.S.C.   1345, Article  III "district courts of

the United  States" are  authorized to hear suits or proceedings,

"... commenced by the United States ...."

     3.   At 28  U.S.C.  1346, Article III district court of the

United States  are authorized  to  hear  any  "...  civil  action

against the United States ...."


             Application for Writ of Habeas Corpus:
                          Page 29 of 71


     4.   The Constitution for the united States of America vests

authority in  a governmental  agency identified and stipulated as

the "United  States", not  the "United  States of  America".  The

entity, "UNITED  STATES OF  AMERICA", being a political coalition

or compact  of United States territories and insular possessions,

quasi-interdependent  commonwealths,  and  United  Nations  trust

territories, is  known as the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, with said

territories,   insular    possessions,    commonwealths,    trust

territories, etc.,  which are  not incorporated as integral parts

of the  United States  (Downes v. Bidwell (1901) 182 U.S. 244, 45

L.Ed. 1088,  21 S.Ct. 770;  Dorr v. United States (1904) 195 U.S.

138, 49  L.Ed. 128, 24 S.Ct. 808, Balzac v. Porto Rico (1922) 258

U.S. 298,  66 L.Ed.  627, 42  S.Ct. 343;  Hooven & Allison Co. v.

Evatt (1945)  324 U.S.  652, 89 L.Ed. 1252, 65 S.Ct. 870, reh den

325 U.S. 892, 89 L.Ed. 2004, 65 S.Ct. 1198), subject to authority

of the  President in  his capacity  as Commander-In-Chief  of the

military in  the name  of the  UNITED STATES  OF AMERICA  (see 48

U.S.C.  874 & 1406f);

     5.   In the  alternative, the  "UNITED  STATES  OF  AMERICA"

serves as  nominee for  an unidentified  foreign  principal,  the

"Central Authority"  or the  "Competent Authority"  (28 CFR, Part

0.49 or 0.64-1);

     6.   The "UNITED  STATES OF  AMERICA" is  not authorized  as

plaintiff or defendant under provisions of titles 18 or 28 of the

United States  Code, or   7325  of the  Internal Revenue Code of

1954 (Vol.  68A, Statutes  at Large;  hereafter, IRC), as amended

in 1986 and since.


            VII.  Incapacity of the Complaining Party

     Plaintiffs allege and aver that the following is to the best

of their current knowledge, understanding and belief accurate and

true:


             Application for Writ of Habeas Corpus:
                          Page 30 of 71


     1.   The seat  of United  States Government  is  established

within  the  current  territorial  borders  of  the  District  of

Columbia (4 U.S.C.  71);

     2.   All  Departments   of  United   States  Government  are

required  to  have  special  law  before  operating  outside  the

District of Columbia (4 U.S.C.  72);

     3.   The  Department   of  the   Treasury  is  an  executive

department of the United States Government (31 U.S.C.  301);

     4.   The Internal  Revenue Service  is not  an agency of the

Department of the Treasury (31 U.S.C.  301-310);

     5.   The President  is required  to  delegate  authority  to

departments and  department heads  in  the  executive  branch  of

government (3 U.S.C.  301);

     6.   The President  delegated authority  to the Secretary of

the Treasury  by way  of Executive  Order  No.  10289  (1951,  as

amended), with  the delegation  conveying authority to administer

and enforce  United States  customs laws,  including customs laws

relating to  narcotics and related commodities, enforce the anti-

smuggling act,  and through  various amendments  to the order, to

establish revenue districts (current IRC  7621);

     7.   The Secretary  delegated authority  to the Commissioner

of Internal  Revenue via T.D.O. #150-42 (1956, as amended in 1986

via  T.D.O.  #150-01),  and  simultaneously  moved  district  and

regional customs  offices from  Jacksonville,  Florida,  Atlanta,

Georgia, Lower  Manhattan,  and  New  York  City,  New  York,  to

off-shore administration under authority of the Department of the

Treasury, Puerto Rico;


             Application for Writ of Habeas Corpus:
                          Page 31 of 71


     8.   The Internal  Revenue Service,  by  virtue  of  a  name

change (T.D.O.  #150-29 (1953)),  is successor  of the  Bureau of

Internal  Revenue,   Puerto  Rico,   operating  out   of,  or  in

conjunction with,  Puerto Rico  Trust #62  (Internal Revenue) (31

U.S.C.  1321;  see definitions at 27 CFR, Part 250.11);

     9.   The only delegation from the President to the Secretary

of the Treasury for administration of United States revenue laws,

and for  establishing internal  revenue districts, is E.O. #10289

(see confirmation  at 26  CFR, Part  301.7621-1), which  does not

reach the  Union of  several States party to the Constitution (no

implementing regulations  for IRC   7621;  see Parallel Table of

Authorities and Rules, located in the Index volume to the Code of

Federal Regulations);

     10.  The Internal  Revenue Code  vests authority  within the

continental United  States in  the Treasury  Department, not  the

Department of the Treasury (IRC  7701(a)(12)(A) & 7805(a));

     11.  The Internal  Revenue Service,  being an  agency of the

Department of  the Treasury,  Puerto  Rico,  may  administer  and

enforce taxes  prescribed in Internal Revenue Code, Chapters 1, 2

& 21, only in United States off-shore territories and possessions

(IRC   7701(a)(12)(B)), there  is no  authority  vested  by  the

Internal Revenue  Code of  1954 for the Internal Revenue Service,

as an  agency of  the Department of the Treasury, Puerto Rico, to

administer and  enforce Subtitles  A &  C of the Internal Revenue

Code of 1954, as amended in 1986 and since;


             Application for Writ of Habeas Corpus:
                          Page 32 of 71


     12.  The Internal  Revenue Service  works on contract in the

continental  United   States  to  design,  develop,  operate  and

maintain systems  of records  and maintain  records  relating  to

United States  Government internal  revenue collections  (31 CFR,

Part 0.216),  and IRS  employees may serve for up to 130 days out

of  any given 365 as a Special Government Employees (31 CFR, Part

0.301), but  the agency has no direct collections and enforcement

authority within the continental United States;

     13.  The original  office of  the Commissioner  of  Internal

Revenue (Act  of July  1,  1862)  was  created  in  the  Treasury

Department,  but   this  office  was  effectively  repealed  with

enactment of the Revised Statutes of 1873.  The present office of

the Commissioner  of Internal  Revenue (IRC   7802)  is  in  the

"Department of  the Treasury",  but  not  in  the  United  States

Department of the Treasury (31 U.S.C.  301-310).


        VIII.  Operation Under Non-Existent, Color of Law

     Plaintiffs allege and aver that the following is to the best

of their current knowledge, understanding and belief accurate and

true:

     1.   IRC    7851(a)(6)(A)  specifies,  "The  provisions  of

subtitle F  shall take  effect on  the  day  after  the  date  of

enactment of  this title  and shall be applicable with respect to

any tax imposed by this title ...."

     2.   IRC  7806(b) specifies, "No inference, implication, or

presumption of legislative construction shall be drawn or made by

reason of  the location  or grouping of any particular section or

provision or  portion of  this title,  nor  shall  any  table  of

contents,  table   of  cross   references,  or  similar  outline,

analysis, or  descriptive matter relating to the contents of this

title be given any legal effect ...."


             Application for Writ of Habeas Corpus:
                          Page 33 of 71


     3.   The Senate  Revision Amendment  for 28  U.S.C.   1395,

relating  to   fines,  penalties   or   forfeitures,   restricted

application of  this statute  to section  3745(c) of the Internal

Revenue Code  of  1939,  authority  was  never  extended  to  the

Internal Revenue  Code of  1954 (see  80th Congress Senate Report

No. 1559);

     4.   The Senate  Revision Amendment  for 28  U.S.C.   1396,

authorizing civil  action for  the collection of internal revenue

taxes, remains  applicable to  the Internal Revenue Code of 1939,

 3744, authority was never extended to the Internal Revenue Code

of 1954 (see 80th Congress Senate Report No. 1559);

     5.   Subtitle F  of  the  Internal  Revenue  Code  of  1954,

prescribes all administrative assessment and collection statutes,

all crimes, penalties and forfeitures, and all judicial authority

relating to  administration and  enforcement of  IRC 1954  taxing

authority, but  no statute  in Subtitle F becomes effective until

Title 26  of the  United States  Code is  enacted as positive law

(IRC   7851(a)(6)(A)), and  the title  has never been enacted as

positive law  (IRC   7806(b)), nor has authority under 28 U.S.C.

 1395 & 1396 been extended to enforcement of IRC 1954 statutory

authority.

               IX.  Subtitle A & C Taxes Mandatory
                  Only For Government Employees

     Plaintiffs allege and aver that the following is to the best

of their current knowledge, understanding and belief accurate and

true:

     1.   The  so-called   general   application   "income   tax"

(corporate tax), promulgated approximately with implementation of

the Sixteenth  Amendment in  1913, was  repealed by  the Internal

Revenue Act  of 1921,  as  were  most  other  general-application


             Application for Writ of Habeas Corpus:
                          Page 34 of 71


excise taxes  (Title XIV  -- General  Provisions, pp.  320, etc.,

Statutes at  Large, Sixty-seventh  Congress, 1921),  with most of

these taxes  reenacted under Congress' Article IV  3.2 authority

in the  geographical United  States when  they were  put back  in

place.    What  survived  in  lieu  of  the  general  application

corporate income  tax was  the "normal tax" (Title II, Part II, 

210 (p.  233)), with  the  normal  tax  levied  against,  "gains,

profits, and income derived from salaries, wages, or compensation

for personal  service (including  in the case of the President of

the United  States, the judges of the Supreme and inferior courts

of the  United States,  and all  other  officers  and  employees,

whether elected  or appointed,  of  the  United  States,  Alaska,

Hawaii, or  any political subdivision thereof, or the District of

Columbia...)" ("Gross  Income Defined",  213, pp. 237, et seq.),

then these  "normal taxes" became known as "income taxes" via the

Public Salary  Tax Act of 1939, codified in Chapter 1, IRC, 1939,

then in  Subtitle A,  IRC 1954.   In the IRC 1954, the "employee"

against whom taxes in Subtitles A & C are levied is an officer or

employee of  the United  States or  a United  States geographical

subdivision, or  an officer  of a  corporation construed to be an

instrumentality of  the United  States (IRC   3401(c)), with the

"employer" (IRC   3401(d)),  being the employer of the employee,

as previously defined;

     2.   "The income  tax is,  therefore, not a tax on income as

such.  It is an excise tax with respect to certain activities and

privileges which  is measured  by reference  to the  income which

they produce.   The  income is not the subject of the tax:  it is

the basis  for determining  the amount  of tax."   (Congressional

Record, House, March 27, 1943, p. 2580)


             Application for Writ of Habeas Corpus:
                          Page 35 of 71


     3.   The person  required to file return forms or lists (IRC

 6011),  and make  payments of income withheld from wages at the

source (IRC   6012),  is the  "withholding agent"  (26 CFR, Part

1.1441-7), who  in general is required to file Form 1042 (26 CFR,

Part 1.1461-2(b)), or Form 1042S (26 CFR, Part 1.1461-2(c));

     4.   An  "employee",   other  than   a  properly  designated

withholding agent,  is not  normally required  to keep  books and

records (26  CFR, Part 31.6001-1(d)), save in the event of filing

for special  refunds (26  CFR, Parts  6001-1(d),  31.6413(c)-1  

601.401(d)).   In  that  event,  the  1040  family  of  forms  is

prescribed as  the forms  which  may  voluntarily  be  filed  for

special refunds (26 CFR, Parts 601.401(d) & 31.6402(a)-2);

     5.   In the event someone is liable for Subtitle A & C taxes

and is required to keep books and records under provisions of IRC

 6001,  the district director must provide him direct notice (26

CFR, Parts 1.6001-1(d) & 31.6001-6);

     6.   Under normal  circumstance, except  where  an  employee

might have  two or  more  employers  effectively  connected  with

United States  trade or business (performance of the functions of

public office,  IRC   7701(a)(26)), resulting in over-payment of

employee tax  (Social Security,  Medicare insurance,  etc.),  the

employee will  secure refunds  for over-payment from the employer

(26 CFR, Parts 1.1461-4 & 601.401(c));

     7.   The district  director  or  director  of  the  regional

service center  may effect  assessments of  taxes disclosed  by a

"taxpayer" on  a list  or return (26 CFR, Part 301.6201-1(a)(1)),

or unpaid taxes payable by stamp (26 CFR, Part 301.6201-1(a)(2)),


             Application for Writ of Habeas Corpus:
                          Page 36 of 71


but "If  the amount  of income  tax withheld  or  the  amount  of

estimated income tax paid is overstated by a taxpayer on a return

or on  a claim  for refund,  the amount  so overstated  which  is

allowed against  the tax  shown on the return or which is allowed

as a  credit or refund shall be assessed by the district director

or the director of the regional service center in the same manner

as in the case of a mathematical error on the return ...."

     8.   In the  event of  under-payment or  late payment of tax

prescribed in  subtitle A  of  the  Internal  Revenue  Code,  the

"employer" is  liable  (26  CFR,  Part  31.3403-1),  but  may  be

exempted from  liability for the tax itself if the tax is paid by

someone else  (the "employee").   However,  the employer  remains

liable for interest and penalties (26 CFR, Part 31.3402(d)-1), or

when the appropriate tax is not paid by a third party, is subject

to assessment and notice of deficiency (26 CFR, Parts 301.6211-1,

301.6212-1, etc.).   The  "employer" (26 CFR, Part 31.3404-1) may

be the  United States,  a [Federal]  State subject  to  Congress'

Article IV   3.2  municipal authority, inclusive of Puerto Rico,

the  District  of  Columbia,  etc.,  and  political  subdivisions

thereof.  The "employee", as defined at IRC  3401(c), is not the

"person  liable"   for  deficiencies,   interest,  or   statutory

penalties, save  in the event he  is the  designated  withholding

agent (26 CFR, Part 1.1441-7);

     9.   Providing a  person  liable  to  make  a  return  under

requirements  of   the  Internal  Revenue  Code  and  regulations

thereunder ("withholding  agent", 26 CFR, Part 1.1441-7) consents

to  disclose   information  necessary   to  make  a  return,  the

director's designated officer may make it for him, and the return

will then be received by the director as the return of the person

provided the person signs the return (26 CFR, Part 301.6020-1);


             Application for Writ of Habeas Corpus:
                          Page 37 of 71


     10.  In the  event a  person required to make a return fails

or refuses  to do so, or files a fraudulent return, the director,

by way  of his designated officer, may make a return from his own

knowledge  and   information  obtained   through  testimony   and

otherwise  (26  CFR,  Part  301.6020-1(b)(1)).    The  return  so

executed by the designated assessment officer must be made by way

of a  "summary record  of assessment"  (Form 23C), which reflects

the following:   (1)  identification of  the  taxpayer,  (2)  the

character of  the liability  assessed (taxing  statute), (3)  the

taxable  period,   where  applicable,   and  (4)  the  amount  of

assessment.   The date  of assessment  is the  date  the  summary

record  is  signed  by  the  assessment  officer  (26  CFR,  Part

301.6203-1).     The  assessment  must  be  premised  on  support

documents, and  the assessment  officer must certify its accuracy

under penalty of perjury (26 CFR, Part 31.6065(a)-1);

     11.  Execution documents  such as  notices  of  Federal  tax

lien, notices  of levy,  etc., must  be issued  under seal of the

district director  (26 CFR,  Part 301.7514-1(a)(2)(ii)),  or they

are of no legal effect and may not be judicially noticed (26 CFR,

Part 301.7514-1(c)  & (d);   28  U.S.C.    1733(b);    Rule  44,

F.R.Cv.P.;  Rule 27, F.R.Cr.P.);

     12.  The Internal  Revenue Code  preserves  all  substantive

rights and  remedies (IRC   7804(b)), so in order to comply with

Fifth Amendment  due process rights (26 CFR, Part 601.106(f)(1)),

the Treasury  Department bears  liability for  securing  judicial

determination of  contested  liability  (IRC    7403)  prior  to

effecting encumbrances,  other than  those effected  by licensing

agreements, or initiating seizure actions.


             Application for Writ of Habeas Corpus:
                          Page 38 of 71


           X.  Lack of General Application Regulations
                   For Subtitle A & C Taxes &
                 Alleged Offenses under Title 18
                    of the United States Code

     Plaintiffs allege and aver that the following is to the best

of their current knowledge, understanding and belief accurate and

true:

     1.   The Federal  Register Act,  (44 U.S.C.  1501 et seq.,

particularly at  44 U.S.C.   1505),  requires that appropriately

designated Government  officials provide  notice of  all  general

application regulations  by publication  in the Federal Register,

with regulations  subsequently classified  and published  in  the

Code of Federal Regulations;

     2.   Congress by  way of 44 U.S.C.  1510 authorized certain

finding aids  as ancillaries  to the Code of Federal Regulations.

Among  the  ancillaries  is  the  Parallel  Table  of  Rules  and

Authorities (1  CFR, Part  8.5(a)), published in the Index volume

of the  Code of  Federal Regulations.    This  table  provides  a

listing of titles of the United States Code, with statute numbers

in ascending  order, in  the  left  column,  then  lists  general

application regulations  for said  statutes, where applicable, in

the right.   Agencies responsible for promulgation of regulations

are responsible  for maintaining  the Parallel Table of Rules and

Authorities current and accurate.  In this scheme, statutes which

do not  appear in  the Parallel Table of Rules and Authorities do

not have  general  application  regulations  (or  delegations  of

authority) which  extend to  the Union of several States party to

the Constitution and the American people at large;


             Application for Writ of Habeas Corpus:
                          Page 39 of 71


     3.   By consulting  the Parallel  Table of  Authorities  and

Rules, it  is found that 26 U.S.C.  7621, 7801, 7802 & 7803 are

not listed.   Therefore,  there is no authority applicable to the

Union  of   several  States   party  to   the  Constitution   for

establishing revenue  districts (confirmed  by  listing  of  E.O.

#10289 at 26 CFR, Part 301.7621-1 as the only authority conferred

per 3  U.S.C.   301), no authority is delegated to the Secretary

of the  Treasury for operation of the United States Department of

the Treasury in the several States party to the Constitution, per

4 U.S.C.   72  & 31  U.S.C.   301, the Commissioner of Internal

Revenue and  assistants do not have general enforcement authority

in the  Union of several States, and the Treasury Department (IRC

 7701(a)(12)(A)  & 7805(a))  does not  have general enforcement

authority in the Union of several States;

     4.   By consulting  the Parallel  Table of  Authorities  and

Rules for  IRC  7401, it is found that the only regulation which

appears is  27 CFR,  Part 70,  relating to  Subtitle  E  alcohol,

tobacco and firearms taxes administered by the Bureau of Alcohol,

Tobacco and Firearms;  there are no regulations for 26 CFR, Parts

1, 31  or 301  relating to  Subtitle A  & C taxes withheld at the

source (IRC   3402).   Therefore,  there is no authority for the

Attorney General  to authorize  civil actions via district courts

of the  United States  save as  relates to Subtitle E taxes under

administration and enforcement authority of BATF;


             Application for Writ of Habeas Corpus:
                          Page 40 of 71


     5.   By consulting  the Parallel  Table of  Authorities  and

Rules for  IRC   7402, which specifies jurisdiction of "district

courts of the United States" (there is no statutory authorization

for Article  IV United  States District Courts), it is found that

26 U.S.C.   7402  does  not  appear.    Therefore,  Article  III

district courts of the United States do not have jurisdiction for

civil suits  even as relates to BATF administration of Subtitle E

taxes (27  CFR, Part  70) in the Union of several States party to

the Constitution;

     6.   By consulting  the Parallel  Table of  Authorities  and

Rules for  IRC 7323,  it is  found  that  the  only  implementing

regulations for "in rem" maritime seizure action are 26 CFR, Part

403  (IRS   maritime   authorization   for   administration   and

enforcement of  customs laws  relating to  narcotics and  related

commodities), and  27 CFR,  Part 72  (BATF maritime authorization

for administration  and enforcement  of customs  laws relating to

imported distilled  spirits, tobacco  products, firearms,  etc.).

There are  no regulations  otherwise applicable  to the  Union of

several States party to the Constitution;

     7.   By consulting  the Parallel  Table of  Authorities  and

Rules for IRC 7321, it is found that the statute does not appear.

Therefore, no  authority is conveyed by the Internal Revenue Code

to seize  property in  the Union  of several  States party to the

Constitution;

     8.   By consulting  the Parallel  Table of  Authorities  and

Rules for  IRC, Chapter  75 (  7201-7344), it is found that all

criminal statutes which have legislative regulations published in

the Federal  Register in compliance with 44 U.S.C.  1505, may be

prosecuted under 27 CFR, Part 70 and related statutes, or have no

regulations at  all.  The only criminal statute with 26 CFR, Part

1 &  301 regulations is  7216, relating to "disclosure or use of

information  by   preparers  of   returns."    Forfeitures  under

Subchapter C,  Part I, are under 27 CFR, Parts 24, 70 & 252;  all

forfeiture provisions  under Part  II of  Subchapter C  ( 7322-

7327),  are   under  regulations   pertaining  to  customs  laws,

primarily 26 CFR, Part 403 & 27 CFR, Part 72;


             Application for Writ of Habeas Corpus:
                          Page 41 of 71


     9.   By referencing  the Parallel  Table of  Authorities and

Rules for  key IRC  statutes which  authorize encumbrance by lien

and seizure  by levy  and distraint,  it is  found that  the only

regulations for  IRC   6321 &  6331 are  27 CFR,  Part 70,  the

authority under BATF administration relating to Subtitle E taxes;

     10.  By referencing  the Parallel  Table of  Authorities and

Rules, it is found that there are no regulations published in the

Federal Register authorizing the Secretary to prepare tax returns

not computed  by the  taxpayer (IRC   6013),  and no regulations

published in  the Federal  Register requiring self-employment tax

returns (IRC   6017);   regulations listed in the Parallel Table

of Authorities  and Rules for returns prepared for or executed by

the Secretary (IRC  6020) or listing by the Secretary of taxable

objects owned  by nonresidents of internal revenue districts (IRC

 6021),  are 27 CFR, Parts 53 & 70, these regulations under BATF

administration.   No regulations  for any  of these  statutes are

listed for  26 CFR,  Parts 1,  31 or  301,  as  might  relate  to

Subtitle A & C taxes;

     11.  The above  demonstrates that  no taxing  statute in the

Internal Revenue  Code of  1954, as amended in 1986 and since, or

administration or  enforcement statute  in Subtitle F of the IRC,

extends to  the Union of several States party to the Constitution

save as (1) someone might serve in the capacity of a "withholding


             Application for Writ of Habeas Corpus:
                          Page 42 of 71


agent" (26  CFR, Part 1.1441-7(a)) for an agency of United States

Government or  a United States political subdivision (District of

Columbia, Puerto  Rico, Guam,  the Virgin Islands, etc.), (2) own

real and/or  personal property located in the geographical United

States, as  the term  "United States"  is defined at 26 CFR, Part

31.3121(e)-1(b) (Subtitle B), (3) be engaged in enterprise in the

geographical United  States subject  to Subtitle  D & E licensing

and excise  taxes, or  (4) be involved in some off-shore activity

subject to  customs laws  in United  States special  maritime and

territorial jurisdiction (18 U.S.C.  7).

     12.  By consulting  the Parallel  Table of  Authorities  and

Rules, it  is found  that none of the Title 18 statutes listed as

alleged offenses  in either  the Moore-Gunwall case or the Meador

case are  listed, thus  verifying that  there are no implementing

regulations published  in the Federal Register in compliance with

provisions of  the Federal  Register Act  for 18  U.S.C. 2,  371,

1341, 1503 or 1504.


      XI.  Constitutional Insufficiency of Alleged Offense

     Plaintiffs allege and aver that the following is to the best

of their current knowledge, understanding and belief accurate and

true:

     1.   In general,  crimes prescribed by "Act of Congress" are

prosecutable only  in the  geographical United  States subject to

Congress' Article  IV   3.2 municipal  authority (see Rule 54(c)

Applications, F.R.Cr.P., for "Act of Congress" and "State");


             Application for Writ of Habeas Corpus:
                          Page 43 of 71


     2.   The Constitution  of the  United States,  at Article I,

 8.6,  delegates authority  for Congress to prescribe punishment

for counterfeiting  securities and  current coin  of  the  United

States, and  at  Article  III    3.2,  delegates  authority  for

Congress  to  prescribe  punishment  for  treason.    In  various

amendments promulgated  since  1868,  Congress  is  empowered  to

secure and protect civil rights and voting rights of "citizens of

the United  States" (Sec. 1, Fourteenth Amendment "citizen of the

United States");

     3.   Article III   2.3  of the Constitution stipulates that

(1) prosecution  of crimes  will be  in the  State (by  the state

court) where  the crime  was allegedly  committed, and  (2) trial

will be by jury, the latter contemplative of trial by jury in the

manner prescribed  by English-American  lineage common  law where

the jury is empowered to determine matters of law and fact;

     4.   At Article  I   8.15, Congress  is authorized  to call

forth the  militia in  the event of invasion or insurrection, and

to enforce  the laws  of the  Union, and  at Article  IV  4, the

Constitution authorizes  the calling  forth the  militia  in  the

event of  invasion, or  on invitation of the legislature or chief

executive of  any given  Union state,  to intervene  in  domestic

violence.   The Constitution  does not  otherwise grant  Congress

municipal and  police powers  extending to  the Union  of several

States party to the Constitution;

     5.   The Separation  of Powers  Doctrine  (Tenth  Amendment)

expressly prohibits  United  States  Government  from  exercising

authority  in   the  Union   of  several   States  party  to  the

Constitution  which   are  not   specifically  delegated  by  the

Constitution;

     6.   Offenses alleged  where the instant matter is concerned

are not  enumerated in  or by  the Constitution as being offenses

Congress may prescribe punishment for;


             Application for Writ of Habeas Corpus:
                          Page 44 of 71


     7.   Article III  of the  Constitution does not grant United

States extra-territorial  judicial authority  within the Union of

several States where the instant matter is concerned;

     8.   Therefore, the  instant matter  is  not  cognizable  as

being  within   the  scope   of  United  States  constitutionally

delegated authority  under provisions of Article I or Article III

of the Constitution of the United States.


             Application for Writ of Habeas Corpus:
                          Page 45 of 71


             XII.  Jurisdiction Limits of Warrant &
                  Federal Enforcement Personnel

     Plaintiffs allege and aver that the following is to the best

of their current knowledge, understanding and belief accurate and

true:

     1.   United States  jurisdiction in  the  Union  of  several

States party  to the  Constitution is  prescribed at  18 U.S.C. 

7(3), being  lands acquired  or reserved  for use  of the  United

States, and  Federal enclaves as specified at Article I  8.17 --

forts,  magazines,   arsenals,  dockyards,   and  other   needful

buildings;

     2.   Per 40 U.S.C.  255 and state cession laws, in order to

secure jurisdiction  within the  Union of several States party to

the Constitution,  (1) the  United States  must secure  title  to

land, (2)  the state  legislature must cede jurisdiction, and (3)

the United  States must  formally accept jurisdiction.  Until the

United States  formally  accepts  jurisdiction,  lack  of  United

States jurisdiction is presumed (last sentence, 40 U.S.C.  255);

     3.   Territorial  limits   for  service   of  summonses   or

execution of  warrants issued  by a  United States District Court

are prescribed  at Rule  4(d)(2), F.R.Cr.P.:  "The warrant may be

executed or  the summons  may be  served at  any place within the

jurisdiction of  the United  States."   Said jurisdiction, within

borders of  Union states party to the Constitution, is limited to

land where  the United  States has actual title and has perfected

jurisdiction in  accordance with  provisions of  40 U.S.C.  255,

jurisdiction defined at 18 U.S.C.  7(3);


             Application for Writ of Habeas Corpus:
                          Page 46 of 71


     4.   Territorial limitation for service of Federal summonses

and  warrants   is  confirmed   at  28  CFR,  Part  60.3(d),  via

designation of  "Local Law Enforcement Agencies:  (1) District of

Columbia Metropolitan  Police  Department,  (2)  Law  Enforcement

Forces and  Customs Agencies of Guam, The Virgin Islands, and the

Canal Zone."

     5.   Regulations defining  and accommodating  "Emergency Law

Enforcement  Assistance"   (28  CFR,   Part  65),   particularize

territorial  limits  of  United  States  police  powers  via  the

definition of "State" at 28 CFR, Part 65.70(d):  "State. The term

state is  defined by  the Act  as any state of the United States,

the District  of Columbia,  the Commonwealth  of Puerto Rico, the

Virgin Islands,  Guam, American Samoa, the Trust Territory of the

Pacific Islands,  or the  Commonwealth of  the  Northern  Mariana

Islands."

     6.   Limitation  of  United  States  police  powers  to  the

geographical United  States subject to Congress' Article IV  3.2

legislative jurisdiction  is further characterized by elements of

the "Federal  law enforcement  community":  The Federal Bureau of

Investigation,  which   is  an   administrative  agency   in  the

Department of  Justice (historical  notes, 28  U.S.C.   531), is

authorized by  statute only to investigate officers and employees

of  the  United  States  (28  U.S.C.    535),  not  the  general

population;   Internal Revenue Service is successor to the Bureau

of Internal  Revenue, Puerto  Rico (T.D.O.  #150-29 (1953)), with

the Bureau  of Alcohol,  Tobacco and Firearms having emerged from

IRS (T.D.O.  #221 (1972)).   Congress  never created  a Bureau of

Internal Revenue  (36 F.R.  849-890 [C.B.  1971 - 1,698], 36 F.R.

11946 [C.B.  1971 -  2,5771], and  37  F.R.  489-490;    Internal

Revenue Manual  1100, at 1111.2;  see definitions at 27 CFR, Part

250.11 which  cement the  link between  IRS & BATF as agencies of

the Department of the Treasury, Puerto Rico);


             Application for Writ of Habeas Corpus:
                          Page 47 of 71


     7.   These agencies  -- FBI,  IRS &  BATF in  particular  --

cannot exercise  general police  powers  within  the  territorial

borders of  the several  States party to the Constitution as they

were  not  created  under  Congress'  constitutionally  delegated

legislative  authority.     While  the  President  may  serve  as

Congress' trustee  or agent  in United  States Article  IV   3.2

jurisdiction, Congress  cannot transfer  constitutionally  vested

legislative powers  to the  executive  or  judicial  branches  of

Government so  far as  legislation pertaining  to  the  Union  of

several States party to the Constitution;

     8.   Further, any  warrant issued  from an Article IV United

States  District   Court  under  signature  of  a  United  States

magistrate judge  must (1)  bear his personal jurat issued by the

Director for  the Administrative  Office  of  the  United  States

Courts, and (2) be entered in personal docket books issued by the

Director for  the Administrative  Office  of  the  United  States

Courts (28 U.S.C.  638(c) & (a)), and (3) such warrant may issue

only to  the limits  of United  States jurisdiction  (18 U.S.C. 

7(3)), (4)  for misdemeanor  offenses  authorized  by  regulation

under 18  U.S.C.   3401.   If a  felony offense cognizable under

jurisdiction of  the Article  III district  court of  the  United

States, the  warrant must issue under signature of an Article III

district court judge (Rule 9, F.R.Cr.P.);

     9.   A United  States magistrate  judge may not preside at a

felony arraignment in an Article III district court of the United

States (Rule  10, F.R.Cr.P.), and even where an Article IV United

States  District   Court  would   have  felony  jurisdiction,  is

precluded from  entering felony pleas for alleged offenders (Rule

5(c), F.R.Cr.P.).


             Application for Writ of Habeas Corpus:
                          Page 48 of 71


             XIII.  Defective Grand Jury Indictment

     Plaintiffs allege and aver that the following is to the best

of their current knowledge, understanding and belief accurate and

true:

     1.   A prospective  Plaintiff who is to be investigated by a

Federal  grand   jury  is   entitled  to   be  informed   of  the

investigation, either  before  or  after  arrest  on  a  verified

complaint and prior to seating of the grand jury, and is entitled

(1) to  be represented  in  the  proceedings  by  counsel  (Sixth

Amendment), up  to and  including (2)  seating of  the grand jury

(Rule 6(b)(1)).  At the proceeding, the person being investigated

is entitled to access to certified complaints an investigation is

premised on, to confront adverse witnesses, and to call witnesses

and present evidence on his own behalf;

     2.   The grand  jury form and preliminary hearings, per Rule

1101(d), F.R.Ev., are exempt from Federal Rules of Evidence, thus

preserving Fourth  and Sixth  Amendment  rights  to  counsel,  to

confront and examine witnesses, to have access to complaints, and

to produce  witnesses on  the Plaintiffs' behalf, thus preserving

essential elements of substantive due process;

     3.   The Supreme  Court of the United States,  per 28 U.S.C.

 2072(b),  is prevented  from imposing  rules of  procedure  and

evidence which might, "abridge, enlarge or modify any substantive

right."   Therefore, when  defendant entitled  to substantive due

process as  contemplated by the "arising under" clause at Article


             Application for Writ of Habeas Corpus:
                          Page 49 of 71


III  2.1 and the Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, and Seventh Amendments to

the Constitution  is  investigated  and/or  charged  with  felony

crimes, he is entitled to all constitutionally-secure substantive

due process  assurances, including  the opportunity  to challenge

jury selection and individual jurors at the grand jury level;

     4.   When and  if  these  rights  have  been  abridged,  the

judicial officer who receives the Plaintiffs' motion to discharge

an  indictment  is  compelled  to  discharge  the  indictment  by

operation of law (28 U.S.C.  1867(a) & (d)).


          XIV.  Failure to Properly Secure Extradition

     Plaintiffs allege and aver that the following is to the best

of their current knowledge, understanding and belief accurate and

true:

     1.   The political coalition, compact or free association of

territories,  commonwealths,   insular  possessions   and  United

Nations trust  territories subject  to Congress' Article IV  3.2

municipal authority  are foreign  to the  Union of several States

party to  the Constitution  of the United States to the same or a

greater degree  than one  of the several States is to each of the

others.   With this  perspective, there are 51 sovereign or semi-

sovereign powers  in the  "American Empire."   The United States,

within the scope of Congress' plenary power as State and national

legislator, is  sovereign over  territory construed  to be  under

Congress' Article  IV   3.2 legislative jurisdiction, where each

of the  Union states is sovereign within its own borders, subject

only to  United States  authority delegated  to the United States

primarily by  way of   legislative authority conveyed to Congress

in Article  I of the Constitution.  Each of the 51 powers has its

own geographical  bounds,  its  own  legislative,  executive  and

judicial authorities,  its own  laws, its own economic, political

and social interests, and its own citizens;


             Application for Writ of Habeas Corpus:
                          Page 50 of 71


     2.   In order  for any  one  of  these  51  semi-independent

powers to  prosecute a  citizen, resident,  or even fugitive from

justice who  is found  within the territorial borders of another,

the alleged offender or fugitive must be extradited in accordance

with laws governing extradition in the home asylum state;

     3.   Many of the Union states and some of the Federal States

(District of Columbia, Puerto Rico ....) have adopted the Uniform

Act On  Fresh Pursuit  ( 221  etc., Title  22 of  the  Oklahoma

Statutes [22  O.S.   221 et  seq.]), the Uniform Fugitives From

Justice Act  (22 O.S.   1121 et seq.), and the Uniform Criminal

Extradition Act  (22 O.S.   1141.1  et seq.).   These colorable

Acts, which accommodate Cooperative Federalism under the de facto

presumption that  each of  the Union states is an instrumentality

of the  United States  on a  par with  the District  of Columbia,

Puerto  Rico,   etc.,  accommodate   the  positive   law   system

(admiralty-Civil Law),  but they  still mandate  certain minimums

which must  be adhered to by principals of foreign jurisdictions,

the geographical  United States  known as  the UNITED  STATES  OF

AMERICA included;

     4.   Under provisions  of the  "fresh pursuit" act  (22 O.S.

 221),  "a state,  county, or  municipal peace  unit of  another

state of the United States who enters this state in fresh pursuit

... of  a person  in order to arrest him on the ground that he is

believed to  have committed  a felony  in such other state, shall

have the  same authority  to  arrest  and  hold  such  person  in


             Application for Writ of Habeas Corpus:
                          Page 51 of 71


custody, as has any member of any duly organized state, county or

municipal peace  unit of  this state  ...."   However,  once  the

arrest is  made, the  officer of  the foreign state must take the

alleged offender  to a  magistrate judge of the home asylum state

(12 O.S.   222).   "If the magistrate determines that the arrest

was lawful  he shall  commit the  person arrested  to await for a

reasonable time  the issuance  of an  extradition warrant  by the

Governor of this state or admit him to bail for such purpose."

     5.   Under the  Fugitives From Justice Act (22 O.S.  1123),

"the Governor  of this  State" is  required to deliver an alleged

fugitive from another state "on demand of the executive authority

of the state or territory from which he fled ...."  However, once

arrested, whether under authority of the Fresh Pursuit Act or the

Fugitives From  Justice Act, the alleged offender is afforded the

opportunity to  retain  counsel,  and  if  he  chooses,  file  an

application for writ of habeas corpus against the extradition (22

O.S.  1141.10);

     6.   It is  significant to  note that  Puerto Rico is one of

the reciprocal  signatory "states"  party to  the Fugitives  From

Justice and  Criminal Extradition Acts, but not the Fresh Pursuit

Act.   Therefore, Internal  Revenue Service,  Bureau of  Alcohol,

Tobacco and Firearms, and other agencies of the Department of the

Treasury, Puerto  Rico, or  Federal civil  authorities acting  as

nominee for  the Department  of the  Treasury, Puerto  Rico,  may

apply for  extradition  under  the  Fugitives  From  Justice  and

Criminal Extradition  Acts, but they have no authority to execute

arrests.   As determined  in Downes  v. Bidwell,  Dorr v.  United

States, Balzac  v. Porto Rico, and Hooven & Allison Co. v. Evatt,


             Application for Writ of Habeas Corpus:
                          Page 52 of 71


off-shore territories  of the United States, such as Puerto Rico,

now a quasi-independent commonwealth, are not incorporated in the

United States  scheme of things -- unlike Alaska, Hawaii, western

areas of the continental United States, etc., prior to admittance

as Union  states, there is no national agenda to integrate Puerto

Rico, the  Virgin Islands,  American Samoa,  Guam,  the  Northern

Mariana Islands,  the Pacific Trust Territories, et al., into the

Union of  several States  party to  the Constitution.  Therefore,

unlike sister  states such  as Oklahoma  and Kansas, Colorado and

New Mexico,  Washington and Oregon, etc., this "free association"

of Federal territories known as States lacks integral commonality

with  the   several  States  of  the  Union.    Analogously,  the

relationship of off-shore United States possessions and trusts to

the several States party to the Constitution is more on the order

of first  or second  cousins --  they are  outside the  immediate

family united by and under the Constitution for the united States

of America.  They cannot legitimately be granted police powers in

the several  States, and  under the Separation of Powers Doctrine

(Tenth Amendment),  officers of  the several  States party to the

Constitution cannot  accommodate Federal  authority which  is not

delegated by the Constitution;

     7.   Therefore, if  Federal civil enforcement people execute

arrests beyond federal jurisdiction secured in the several States

in compliance  with 40  U.S.C.  255, whether acting on behalf of

the Department  of the Treasury, Puerto Rico or the United States

proper,  they  have  exceeded  constitutionally  and  statutorily

delegated authority;


             Application for Writ of Habeas Corpus:
                          Page 53 of 71


     8.   Where the United States has only authority delegated by

Articles I  & III  of the  Constitution so  far as  the Union  of

several States  is concerned,  the seat  of complaint  must issue

from a  United States  territory or insular possession subject to

laws of  the United States, such as Title 18 of the United States

Code, or  the complaint  must issue  from United  States maritime

jurisdiction.   This is  verified at 18 U.S.C.  3182:  "Whenever

the executive  authority of  any State  or Territory  demands any

person as  a fugitive from justice, of the executive authority of

any State,  District, or Territory to which such person has fled,

and produces  a copy  of an indictment found or an affidavit made

before a  magistrate of  any State  or Territory,  made before  a

magistrate  of  any  State  or  Territory,  charging  the  person

demanded with  having committed  treason, felony, or other crime,

certified as authentic by the governor or chief magistrate of the

State or  Territory from  whence the  person so charged has fled,

the executive  authority of  the State, District, or Territory to

which such  person has  fled shall  cause him  to be arrested and

secured ...."

     9.   If the executive authority of the District of Columbia,

Puerto Rico,  or  some  other  territory  or  insular  possession

subject to  Congress' Article  IV   3.2 legislative jurisdiction

has not  issued proper  documentation to the governor of the home

asylum state  and the  alleged offender has not been afforded the

opportunity to  secure counsel,  file an  application for writ of

habeas corpus,  and/or defend  himself in an extradition hearing,

he has  been deprived  of due  process of  law and  the de  facto

authority responsible  for  the  arrest  forfeits  the  right  to

prosecute.


             Application for Writ of Habeas Corpus:
                          Page 54 of 71


                XV.  Misidentification of Parties

     Plaintiffs allege and aver that the following is to the best

of their current knowledge, understanding and belief accurate and

true:

     1.   Where the  instant matter  is  concerned,  the  "UNITED

STATES OF  AMERICA" has  proceeded against  a DAN  LESLIE MEADOR,

a/k/a DAN  MEADOR, a/k/a  D. L.  MEADOR, etc., and WAYNE GUNWALL,

etc.;

     2.   The Plaintiffs  are not  and know  not who  or what the

above-identified entities  are.   The Plaintiffs are not juristic

or corporate  "things" and cannot by law be prosecuted other than

by and under respective true identities;

     3.   The Government  Style Manual,  Chapter  3,  sets  forth

standards for  capitalization, and  in Chapter 14, prescribes the

format for  courts of  the United  States.   All examples reflect

proper spelling  of names, with the names of people being spelled

with capital  first letters  and the balance of each name spelled

with lower  case letters.   Only the names of corporate and other

fictional entities  are capitalized.   Therefore, the intentional

misidentification is  of no effect, being condemned by the United

States  Government's   own  authoritative   style  manual   which

determines standards  for all written Government publications and

courts of the United States;

     4.   The knowing,  willful act  of misidentification,  which

amounts to  assigning unauthorized  nomme de  guerre  identities,

constitutes acts  of imposing  involuntary servitude, contrary to

the  Thirteenth   Amendment  prohibition  against  such  actions.

Therefore, matters  at issue must be discharged as being contrary

to constitutionally secured rights of the Plaintiffs.


             Application for Writ of Habeas Corpus:
                          Page 55 of 71


          XVI.  Presumption of Nonresident Alien Status

     Plaintiffs allege and aver that the following is to the best

of their current knowledge, understanding and belief accurate and

true:

     1.   The  Internal   Revenue  Code,   as   demonstrated   by

definitions of "State", "United States", and "Citizen" at 26 CFR,

Part 31.3121(e)-1,  is written for geographical application:  The

term "State"  is defined  as including  the District of Columbia,

the Commonwealth  of Puerto  Rico, the  Virgin Islands, and after

1960, Guam  and American  Samoa.   While still territories of the

United States,  Alaska and Hawaii were included in the definition

of "State",  but were  removed as they were admitted to the Union

of  several  States  party  to  the  Constitution  (26  U.S.C.  

31.3121(e)-1(a)).    The  term  "United  States"  is  defined  as

including the  District of  Columbia, the  Commonwealth of Puerto

Rico, and  the Virgin  Islands, and after 1960, Guam and American

Samoa;   again, Alaska and Hawaii were included in the definition

of "United  States" until  they were  admitted to  the  Union  of

several States party to the Constitution, then were omitted.  (26

CFR, Part  31.3121(e)-1(b)).  Likewise, "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."   (26 CFR, Part 31.3121(e)-

1(b));


             Application for Writ of Habeas Corpus:
                          Page 56 of 71


     2.   In this  context, the  "citizen of  the United  States"

created by  Section 1  of  the  Fourteenth  Amendment  (1868)  is

incidental.   It merely  determines the  limits and privileges of

"citizens of  the United  States" Congress may elect to confer on

people indigenous to or naturalized in States of the geographical

United States  under  Congress'  Article  IV    3.2  legislative

jurisdiction --  in the  geographical United  States, the  United

States is  sovereign, not  the people;   in  the Union of several

States party  to the  Constitution, the people are sovereign, and

governments, whether  state or  Federal, may  exercise only those

powers delegated by applicable constitutions;

     3.   So  far   as  the  United  States  Code  is  concerned,

sovereign  Citizens   of  the   several  States   party  to   the

Constitution are  classified as  "nationals of the United States"

(8 U.S.C.   1101(a)(22)),  and  are  "aliens"  to,  or  of,  the

geographical United States (IRC  7701(b)).  This is clarified to

a certain extent by definition of "United States person" at IRC 

7701(a)(30):   A United States person is a "a citizen or resident

of the  United States,"  a domestic  partnership, corporation, or

other juristic  entity other than a foreign corporation or trust.

A foreign  corporation  or  trust  (IRC    7701(a)(31))  is  any

corporation or  trust which  receives income  from  "without  the

United States" which is not connected with a United States "trade

or  business"  (performance  of  the  functions  of  a  political

office).   A "nonresident  alien" of  the United  States  (IRC  

7701(b)(1)(B)),  is   someone  who  was  not  born  and  has  not

naturalized  in  the  geographical  United  States  (District  of

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

Samoa), and  who (1)  has not been lawfully admitted as a citizen

of the  geographical United States, (2) has not spent enough time

in  the  geographical  United  States  to  meet  the  substantial

presence test,  and (3)  has not  elected  to  be  treated  as  a

resident of the geographical United States (IRC  7701(b)(1)(A));


             Application for Writ of Habeas Corpus:
                          Page 57 of 71


     4.   In the  event someone  is an  alien of the geographical

United States,  "An alien  by reason of his alienage, is presumed

to be a nonresident alien," of the geographical United States (26

CFR, Part  1.871-4(b)).   In order  to rebut  the presumption  of

nonresident alien  status, specific  evidence must  be placed  in

record:   (1) Evidence  that the alien has filed a declaration of

intention to  become a  citizen of  the United  States under  the

naturalization laws;   (2) evidence that the alien has filed Form

1078 or  its equivalent;   or (3) evidence of acts and statements

showing the  alien has definite intention to acquire residence in

the geographical  United States,  or showing  his stay  (physical

presence) in  the geographical  United States has been of such an

extended nature  as to  constitute him a resident.  (26 CFR, Part

1.871-4(c)(2));

     5.   In sum,  when challenged,  geographical  United  States

citizen or  resident status must be objectively proven in record.

So-called adhesion contracts (Social Security registration, voter

registration, driver's  licenses, etc.)  are of no consequence --

the Internal  Revenue Code,  as  demonstrated,  has  geographical

application   and    does   not   accommodate   extra-territorial

jurisdiction beyond the geographical United States, as defined at

26 CFR, Part 31.3121(e)-1(b).


          XVII.  Absence of Taxing & Liability Statutes

     Plaintiffs allege and aver that the following is to the best

of their current knowledge, understanding and belief accurate and

true:


             Application for Writ of Habeas Corpus:
                          Page 58 of 71


     1.   While  the   Government  [sic]   has  advanced  certain

allegations of offense premised on Internal Revenue Code criminal

statutes relating  to the  Kenney F.  Moore, Colleen  Moore,  and

Wayne Richard,  Gunwall (Subtitle  E, Chapter  75), there  is  no

taxing statute  in evidence and there is no statute or regulation

which determines liability.  Therefore, the antecedent allegation

of offense  with respect to UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v. KENNEY F.

MOORE, et  al. (#96-CR-82-C), and UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v. DAN

LESLIE MEADOR (#96-CR-113-C), is predicated on fraud.  Government

[sic] allegations  rest on documents which allege "1040" "kind of

tax" obligations  -- documents which cannot be judicially noticed

and must  be removed  from record  because they  do not  bear the

Treasury Department  seal --  but there  is no  evidence  of  law

underlying the alleged obligation;

     2.   At a  minimum, a  taxing statute  which  describes  the

service, transaction,  or object  of a  tax must  be in  evidence

(United States  v. Community  TV, Inc.  327 F.2d  797, at  p. 800

(1964);   Hassett v.  Welch, 303 U.S. 303, 58 S.Ct. 559, 82 L.Ed.

858), and  to establish  criminal liability,  there must be three

components in  place:  (1) the taxing statute which describes the

service, transaction,  or object  of tax,  (2) the  statute which

determines liability,  and (3)  the statute  which determines the

crime (United  States of America v. Menk, 260 F.Supp. 784 (1966),

at p. 787);

     3.   Where the  instant matter  is concerned, the Government

[sic] has  alleged criminal violation premised on the number of a

tax return  form number which is at best voluntary, as previously

demonstrated.     There  is   no  taxing  statute  or  regulation

determining  liability   in  evidence.     Therefore,  the  fraud

perpetrated in the first instance infects and condemns everything

it touches.


             Application for Writ of Habeas Corpus:
                          Page 59 of 71


        XVIII.  Paperwork Reduction Act Effects Estoppel

     Plaintiffs allege and aver that the following is to the best

of their current knowledge, understanding and belief accurate and

true:

     1.   The  "1040"   individual  Federal   income  tax  return

information reporting  form lacks the essential elements mandated

in the  Paperwork Reduction  Act (44  U.S.C.  3501 et seq.), as

particularized in  Office of Management and Budget regulations at

5 CFR,  Part 1320.8(b)(3):   The Paperwork Reduction Act requires

the agency  soliciting information from those to whom information

requests are directed to disclose (1) the reasons the information

is being  or has been collected, (2) the way the information will

be or  has been used, (3) an estimate of average time required to

provide the  information, (4)  whether responses to collection of

information are voluntary, required to obtain or retain a benefit

(authority must  be  cited),  or  mandatory  (authority  must  be

cited), (5)  the nature  and  extent  of  confidentiality  to  be

provided (authority  must be  cited), and  (6) the  fact that  an

agency may  not conduct  or sponsor, and a person is not required

to respond  to, a  collection of information unless it displays a

currently valid  OMB control  number.   The currently  valid  OMB

number and expiration date (OMB numbers approved for a maximum of

three years)  must appear  conspicuously on  the form  where  the

other information  may be  in instructions.    Additionally,  OMB

numbers  must   be  secured   for  regulations   which  prescribe

information-gathering authority;


             Application for Writ of Habeas Corpus:
                          Page 60 of 71


     2.   It is significant where the instant matter is concerned

that while  the 1040  return displays  an OMB number, it does not

display the  expiration  date,  and  Privacy  Act  and  Paperwork

Reduction Act  Notice information fail to specifically articulate

liability or  disclose whether or not the OMB number appearing on

the 1040  form is  currently valid, who might be required to file

the 1040  form or  who might  voluntarily file  the 1040  form to

secure a  benefit (for  example, voluntary  filing for  refund of

overpayment of employment tax (26 CFR, Part 601.401(d));

     3.   It is  significant that  the Privacy  Act and Paperwork

Reduction Act  Notice (p.  7, 1996 Form 1040 Instruction Manual),

cites the  following authorities:   "Our  legal right  to ask for

information is  Internal Revenue  Code sections  6001, 6011,  and

6012(a) and  their regulations.   They  say that  you must file a

return or statement with us for any tax you are liable for."

     4.   As previously demonstrated, the three statutes cited in

the Form 1040 Instruction Manual ( 6001, 6011 & 6012(a)) do not

have the  force of  law until such time as Title 26 of the United

States Code  is enacted  as positive  law (IRC   7851(a)(6)(A)).

However, supposing  these statutes  did  have  legal  effect,  by

consulting the  Parallel Table  of Authorities  and Rules,  it is

found that  regulations applicable  to  Subtitle  A  &  C  taxing

authority for   6001 are in 26 CFR, Parts 1 & 31.  By consulting

these regulations,  which was  previously done, it is found at 26

CFR, Part  6001-1(d) that  an "employee"  is not required to keep

books and  records save  in the  event he might file for a refund

(special refund,  per 26  CFR, Parts  31.6402(a)-2 & 601.401(d)),


             Application for Writ of Habeas Corpus:
                          Page 61 of 71


and 26  CFR, Parts  1.6001-1(d) &  31.6001-6 stipulate  that  the

district director  will provide  direct  notice  to  whomever  is

required to  file returns.   The  withholding agent is the person

liable for  withholding, reporting  & paying  taxes prescribed by

Subtitles A  & C  of the  Internal Revenue  Code (26  CFR,  Parts

1.1441-7  &  31.3404-1),  and  he  is  under  most  circumstances

required to  file return  information Form 1042 or 1042S (26 CFR,

Part 1.1461-2).   There  is no  obligation for  him to  file 1040

forms, and  an "employee"  who might  wish to  secure refunds  of

overpaid employee  taxes may  elect to  file at  1040 Form  under

circumstances prescribed by applicable regulations;

     5.   Evidence  surrounding   the  instant   matter  supports

alternative conclusions:  (1) The OMB number which appears on the

1040 Form  is not  currently valid;  (2) if the OMB number on the

1040 Form  is currently valid, it has special rather than general

application.  If the latter, the 1040 Form might be mandatory for

a "taxpayer"  subject to  Subtitle B  or D taxes, but the form is

not mandatory  for an  "employee" subject  only to Subtitle A & C

taxes.  The conclusion, then, is that the OMB number is not valid

so far as matters at hand are concerned;

     6.   Since this  must be  the case,  the Paperwork Reduction

Act provides  public protection,  as specified  at  5  CFR,  Part

1320.6:   "(a) Notwithstanding  any other  provision of  law,  no

person shall be subject to any penalty for failing to comply with

a collection  of information  that is subject to the requirements

of this  part if  ... (1)  The collection of information does not

display, in  accordance with   1320.3(f)  and   1320.5(b)(1), a

currently valid  OMB control  number assigned  by the Director in


             Application for Writ of Habeas Corpus:
                          Page 62 of 71


accordance with  the Act  ...."   At   1320.6(b), the regulation

stipulates, "The  protection provided  by paragraph  (a) of  this

section may  be raised in the form of a complete defense, bar, or

otherwise to  the imposition  of such  penalty at any time during

the agency  administrative process  in which  such penalty may be

imposed or  in any  judicial action  applicable thereto."   At  

1320.6(d), the  regulation further stipulates, "Whenever a member

of the  public is  protected from  imposition of  a penalty under

this  section   for  failure  to  comply  with  a  collection  of

information, such  penalty  may  not  be  imposed  by  an  agency

directly, by  an agency through judicial process, or by any other

person through administrative or judicial process."

     7.   Where matters  at hand  are concerned,  Plaintiffs have

demonstrated that  the OMB number on the 1040 Form is invalid, or

if the  form is  mandatory, the  OMB number  does  not  prescribe

general application.   Therefore,  it is invalid where matters at

hand are  concerned, and  because of  the invalidity,  it effects

both administrative and judicial estoppel;

     8.   Where matters  at hand  are concerned, Government [sic]

has the burden of proof.  In order to demonstrate validity of the

OMB number  and application  to the these matters, the Government

may place Internal Revenue Service materials submitted to request

assignment  of   the  OMB  number  into  evidence  (5  CFR,  Part

1320.14(b)), and  may seek  an OMB  determination of liability (5

CFR, Part  1320.14(c)).  Unless or until these necessary elements

are in  place, the  Government [sic]  is  estopped  from  further

prosecution under mandate of 5 CFR, Part 1320.6(b) & (d).


             Application for Writ of Habeas Corpus:
                          Page 63 of 71


              XIX.  Conclusion & Prayer for Relief

     Plaintiffs allege and aver that the following is to the best

of their current knowledge, understanding and belief accurate and

true:

     1.   Plaintiffs,  Dan  Leslie,  Meador  and  Wayne  Richard,

Gunwall, are  natural-born, living  beings, they are not and know

not who or what the juristic DAN LESLIE MEADOR, DAN MEADOR, or D.

L. MEADOR and WAYNE GUNWALL, are or might be, and may not be sued

or prosecuted  under such  nomme de  guerre or  other  fictitious

identities, so matters at issue must be abated and discharged;

     2.   The Article  IV United  States District  Court for  the

Northern District of Oklahoma is authorized under authority of 18

U.S.C.   3401 and  attending regulations to prosecute only petty

and misdemeanor  offenses committed  on  United  States  military

installations and  public lands  under Bureau  of Land Management

jurisdiction, it  is not  authorized under 18 U.S.C.  23 & 3231

to  prosecute  felony  offenses  in  Oklahoma  state,  even  when

committed on  United States  military  installations  and  public

lands subject  to Bureau  of Land  Management jurisdiction;   the

Article IV  United States  District Court, a legislative court of

the United  States operating  under admiralty-Civil Law rules, is

incompetent at  law, and  if  it  deprives  Plaintiffs  of  life,

liberty or  property, will  effect a  bill of attainder, which is

strictly forbidden  by the  Constitution, so  the instant  matter

must be dismissed under mandate of fundamental law;

     3.   The "UNITED STATES OF AMERICA" is not authorized by the

Constitution of  the United States, Titles 18 or 28 of the United

States Code,  or the  Internal Revenue  Code, as  a principal  of

interest, either  as plaintiff  or Plaintiffs, so may not sustain

an action  in the  Article IV United States District Court or the

Article  III   district  court   of  the  United  States  against

Plaintiffs, so the instant matter must be dismissed;


             Application for Writ of Habeas Corpus:
                          Page 64 of 71


     4.   The  Internal   Revenue  Code   vests   authority   for

administration and  enforcement of United States internal revenue

laws in the continental United States in the Treasury Department,

not the  Department of  the Treasury,  so  the  Internal  Revenue

Service, being  an agency  of the  Department  of  the  Treasury,

Puerto Rico, which operates solely on contract to provide records

systems development  and maintenance  and record-keeping services

for United  States Government  [sic] in  the  continental  United

States, is  not authorized  by statute  or otherwise to charge or

sustain an  action against Plaintiffs under internal revenue laws

or any  other laws  of the  United States  (IRC authorization for

administration of  IRC, Chapters  1, 2  & 21, in off-shore United

States   territories   &   insular   possessions,   per   IRC   

7701(a)(12)(B)), whether such action is civil or criminal, so the

matter at hand must be dismissed;

     5.   Subtitle  F   of  the  Internal  Revenue  Code  is  not

effective as  law until  Title 26  of the  United States  Code is

enacted as positive law, so all civil and/or criminal prosecution

predicated on Subtitle F administrative and enforcement authority

is under  color of  law and  cannot  be  sustained  and  must  be

dismissed;

     6.   Subtitle A  & C  taxes are  mandatory only for officers

and employees  of United States Government, governments of United

States  political  subdivisions,  and  officers  of  corporations

engaged in  United States trade or business, and the "withholding

agent" is  the person  liable  for  withholding,  reporting,  and

paying these taxes, thereby also being "the person liable" in the

event of   administrative collection initiatives and/or civil and

criminal penalties,  so the matter at hand is predicated on fraud

and must be dismissed;


             Application for Writ of Habeas Corpus:
                          Page 65 of 71


     7.   There are  no general application regulations published

in the  Federal Register which authorize the Secretary, on behalf

of the  President, to establish revenue districts in the Union of

several States  party to the Constitution, there are no published

regulations or  delegations of  authority which  convey authority

for the  Department of the Treasury, the Commissioner of Internal

Revenue,  or  the  Treasury  Department  to  administer  Internal

Revenue  Code   taxes  in   the  several   States  party  to  the

Constitution;  there are no regulations authorizing the "district

court of the United States", or the United States District Court,

to prosecute  civil or  criminal causes  in the  Union of several

States relating  to Subtitle  A &  C taxes;   and  there  are  no

implementing regulations  published in the Federal Register which

extend general  application for  securing liens  (IRC   6321) or

effecting levy and distraint (IRC  6331) in the Union of several

States relative  to Subtitle  A & C taxing authority.  Therefore,

the instant  matter must  be dismissed  as there  are no  general

application regulations  or delegations of authority published in

the Federal  Register which  validate authority of the court, the

Internal Revenue Service, or authority of the Government [sic] to

prosecute;


             Application for Writ of Habeas Corpus:
                          Page 66 of 71


     8.   Crimes alleged  where the  instant matter  is concerned

are  not   within  Congress'  delegated  authority  to  prescribe

punishment for  or prosecute  by way  of the  Constitution of the

United States,  or amendments  thereto.   Therefore, the  instant

matter must  be discharged  under bar of the Separation of Powers

Doctrine (Tenth  Amendment).   United States enforcement of these

offenses does  not reach the Union of several States party to the

Constitution, as  evidenced by  the lack of regulations published

in the  Federal Register  for any  Title 18 statute listed in the

Moore-Gunwall case or the Meador case;

     9.   The warrant  issued under  signature of a United States

magistrate judge,  which did  not  display  his  personal  jurat,

required by  28 U.S.C.   638(c),  is of  no legal  effect as  it

issues without  authority of  law from  an  Article  IV  judicial

officer who  has jurisdiction solely under authority of 18 U.S.C.

 3401 relating to misdemeanor offenses on United States military

installations and  Federal land  under Bureau  of Land Management

jurisdiction, exceeded  authority of the United States magistrate

judge/national park  commissioner;   the  warrant,  if  otherwise

legitimate, is  executable only  in jurisdiction  of  the  United

States, as  specified at  18 U.S.C.   7(3);   and  Federal civil

authorities responsible  for executing arrest may exercise police

powers only  in jurisdiction  of the United States, as secured in

compliance with  provisions of  40 U.S.C.  255 and state cession

laws.  Said warrant is an illegal instrument and all other action

engaged by  Federal civil enforcement authorities was under color

of law.   Therefore,  the instant matter must be dismissed due to

the illegal  acts of the United States magistrate judge (national

park commissioner) and Federal civil enforcement personnel;


             Application for Writ of Habeas Corpus:
                          Page 67 of 71


     10.  Plaintiffs  was   not  notified   of   a   grand   jury

investigation, and  thereby was  deprived of  the right  to  have

counsel,  to   challenge  grand   jury  seating,   to   challenge

qualification of individual grand jury members, to have access to

complaints,  to  interview  adverse  witnesses,  and  to  present

testimony, evidence,  and witnesses.   Therefore,  Plaintiffs was

deprived of  substantive due  process of law, and by operation of

law (28  U.S.C.   1867(a) &  (d)), the  judicial officer of this

court must discharge the indictment;

     11.  The  Government   [sic]  failed  to  provide  necessary

affidavits to  the Governor  of  Oklahoma  to  secure  arrest  of

Plaintiffs, and  failed to  comply with the requirements of local

incarceration  or   other  detention,  affording  Plaintiffs  the

opportunity  to  seek  counsel,  provide  defense,  and  file  an

application for  writ of habeas corpus against extradition.  Said

action on  the part  of  the  Government  [sic]  is  contrary  to

fundamental law  (substantive due  process rights and sovereignty

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

of the  United States),  so the instant matter must be discharged

as an  act of inland piracy, sedition against the Constitution of

the United States, and against Oklahoma state;

     12.  Plaintiffs, Dan  Leslie,  Meador,  is  not  DAN  LESLIE

MEADOR, DAN  MEADOR, or  any  other  juristic  entity  and  Wayne

Richard, Gunwall, is not WAYNE GUNWALL, or WAYNE RICHARD GUNWALL,

nor are Plaintiffs otherwise juristic or corporate entities.  The

Government [sic]  has  mis-identified  the  parties,  and  cannot

sustain prosecution of the natural-born, moral being, Dan Leslie,

Meador, or  Wayne Richard, Gunwall, under such misidentification.

Contrary  to   the  Thirteenth   Amendment  prohibition   against

involuntary  servitude,  assigning  the  bogus  nomme  de  guerre

identities to  Plaintiffs is  an  effort  to  impose  involuntary

servitude.   The instant  matter must  therefore  be  abated  and

dismissed for want of a proper party for prosecution;


             Application for Writ of Habeas Corpus:
                          Page 68 of 71


     13.  Plaintiffs, Dan  Leslie, Meador,  has  established  his

alienage with  respect to the geographical United States (26 CFR,

Part 31.3121(e)-1(b)),  so under the rule of presumption (26 CFR,

Part 1.871-4(b)),  Plaintiffs is  presumed to  be  a  nonresident

alien of  the  geographical  United  States.  In  order  for  the

Government [sic]  to sustain prosecution, the presumption must be

overcome with evidence prescribed at 26 CFR, Part 1.871-4(2).  No

such evidence  is in  record,  so  the  instant  matter  must  be

dismissed by operation of law;

     14.  The Government's  [sic] case rests solely on an alleged

criminal statute prescribed in subtitle F of the Internal Revenue

Code (all  other charges  are predicated on the legitimacy of the

alleged corpus offense), but the record does not reflect a taxing

statute which  identifies the  service, transaction  or object of

tax, and  there is  no statute  or  regulation  which  determines

liability for  the tax  in record.  Therefore, the instant matter

must be dismissed as statutorily inadequate;

     15.  Plaintiffs has  demonstrated that (1) the OMB number on

the 1040  Form is  invalid, or  (2) does  not apply to matters at

hand.   Therefore, under  provisions of  5 CFR,  Part 1320.6(b) &

(d), the Paperwork Reduction Act effects estoppel.  The matter at

hand must be dismissed.


             Application for Writ of Habeas Corpus:
                          Page 69 of 71


     Plaintiffs hereby Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals, sitting as

an Article  III court of the United States, for reasons above, to

issue a  writ of  habeas corpus  ordering one  Stephen C.  Lewis,

United States  Attorney for the Northern District of Oklahoma, to

produce and  enter into  record the  documentation  necessary  to

prove jurisdiction  and other authority necessary for prosecution

of Dan Leslie, Meador, and Wayne Richard, Gunwall.

     Plaintiffs hereby  certify by our respective signatures that

all matters  of law  and fact set forth herein are to the best of

our current  knowledge, understanding  and  belief  accurate  and

true, so help us God.


/s/ Dan Leslie Meador
____________________________________   __________________________
Dan Leslie, Meador                     Date
P.O. Box 2582
Ponca City 74602/tdc
OKLAHOMA STATE

tel:  (405) 765-1415
fax:  (405) 765-1146



[Mr. Gunwall's signature withheld, see note above.]
____________________________________   __________________________
Wayne Richard, Gunwall                 Date
409 East Detroit
Ponca City 74602/tdc
OKLAHOMA STATE


             Application for Writ of Habeas Corpus:
                          Page 70 of 71


                        List of Exhibits

     1.   Indictment, UNITED  STATES  OF  AMERICA  v.  KENNEY  F.

MOORE, et al., Case No. #96-C-82-C, United States District Court,

Northern District of Oklahoma.

     2.   Indictment, UNITED  STATE  OF  AMERICA  v.  DAN  LESLIE

MEADOR, et  al., Case  No. #96-C-113-C,  United  States  District

Court, Northern District of Oklahoma.

     3.   Dan Meador Affidavit of Complaint.


                    Certification of Service

     I certify  that a  true and correct copy of this pleading is

being sent  via certified  mail, return  receipt requested,  with

sufficient postage  paid to assure delivery, to the office of the

United States Attorney at the following address:


Stephen C. Lewis, United States Attorney
Northern District of Oklahoma
333 West Fourth Street
Tulsa, Oklahoma 74103


/s/ Dan Leslie Meador
____________________________________   __________________________
Dan Leslie, Meador                     Date
P.O. Box 2582
Ponca City 74602/tdc

tel:  (405) 765-1415
fax:  (405) 765-1146


             Application for Writ of Habeas Corpus:
                          Page 71 of 71


                             #  #  #
      


Return to Table of Contents