June 4, 1996
Alma Wilson, Chief Justice
Oklahoma Supreme Court
Oklahoma State Capitol
Oklahoma City 73105/tdc
OKLAHOMA STATE
Enclosure: IRS/IRC Public Notice Memorandum
Dear Justice Wilson,
I appreciate the willingness of you and Justice Opala to
answer questions, and because of your consideration, have
attempted to avoid going to the well too often. However, there
are a couple of pressing matters I feel compelled to submit for
your consideration, and if it wouldn't be too much trouble, ask
you to solicit responses from other justices.
In order to frame the questions, I am going to use the
character of the Internal Revenue Service and application of the
Internal Revenue Code as a backdrop. Enclosed you will find a
public notice memorandum which indicts the Service as being an
agency of the Department of the Treasury, Puerto Rico, and
demonstrates that the Internal Revenue Code has mandatory
application solely in the geographical United States, exclusive
of the several States. IRS principals have already acquiesced to
most of the material.
The IRS memorandum is relevant as I recently helped Paul
Graham file a petition for writ of habeas corpus against a United
States district court judge and an assistant United States
attorney in a matter relating to criminal prosecution via the
U.S. district court for the Western District of Oklahoma. In
addition to demonstrating that IRS doesn't have legal standing in
Oklahoma, I alleged, with considerable legal authority behind the
allegation, that the Department of Justice, via the U.S.
Attorney, is representing the Central Authority, established by
United States treaties on private international law (see 28 CFR §
0.49), and via various court cases, demonstrated that the
principals of interest are the so-called World Bank and
International Monetary Fund. Additionally, I demonstrated that
the U.S. district court is operating under admiralty authority
(18 U.S.C. § 3231), and that it doesn't have jurisdiction in the
several States save on federal enclaves (Eleventh Amendment to
the U.S. Constitution, the second paragraph of 18 U.S.C. § 3231,
and 18 U.S.C. § 7(3)). Yet the Oklahoma Supreme Court, evidently
with all justices concurring, elected not to execute the writ of
habeas corpus on behalf of Mr. Graham.
I haven't sent the Graham petition for the writ of habeas
corpus on to the United States Supreme Court. It was my opinion
that there is too much at stake, for too many people, to botch
the job. I wanted to complete the IRS/IRC memorandum, which was
in the works when the Graham situation came up, and begin
publishing it in county legal newspapers state-by-state before
joining the matter in courts again. People in approximately 15
states have made commitments to sponsor publication.
The Graham situation is incidental to queries in this
letter, and I am merely using IRS as an example, so responses
don't need to address any pending case or even IRS, merely
underlying principles. Consider the Graham situation as
incidental. It frames the first question, but only as an example.
Suppose I moved the Graham petition for writ of habeas
corpus to the United States Supreme Court, with attending
evidences, and justices of the United States Supreme Court
elected not to issue the habeas corpus.
At that juncture, would Mr. Graham's judicial remedies be
exhausted? And implicitly, since approximately 10 million
Americans in the several States are at any given time being
subjected to IRS tyranny, would judicial remedies for the
American people as a whole not be exhausted? That's the first
question.
Forgive my shallow understanding of law as I only began the
serious study in March 1993, slightly over three years ago. Even
though I came to Oklahoma as a university freshman in September
1963, I confess that I hadn't read the Oklahoma Constitution, and
was as lost as a goose in a snow storm when I began searching
through statutory law and court cases. Aside from being a
publishing writer since 1969, my background was in English, with
emphasis on literature, with a broad background and formal study
in philosophy, and economics. I've always worked for a living; I
enjoy work, and for the most part, have been willing to leave
government alone if government would leave me alone.
An Albert Carter video titled IRS Investigated prompted me
to begin legal research. We had what appeared to be a recoverable
deficit tax situation, but Carter allegations sent me to the Kay
County Courthouse law library -- Special Judge Pam Legate and two
of the assistant district attorneys at the time helped me muddle
through volumes of law and court decisions. We began challenging
IRS authority and trying to secure particulars of IRS legal
standing and application of law at that point. Then in March
1994, two IRS agents and a fleet of wreckers converged at our
house west of Ponca City while I was at work -- they didn't have
a court order or any other legal authority, but commenced to
seize automobiles. In the process, one of the wreckers rammed my
wife, and the whole affair traumatized two of our pre-school
grandchildren.
It was at that point that I made the uncompromising
commitment to end the tyranny once and for all -- my family and
neighbors, and people throughout America, simply cannot be
exposed to government-sanctioned terrorism, particularly if it is
perpetrated on behalf of foreign principals.
Needless to say, the attack on family and home intensified
my focus on legal research and strategies. You can understand my
consternation when I learned, by experience, that judicial
officers in State and United States statutory courts almost
unanimously refuse to comply with rules governing conduct of the
courts, particularly with respect to mandates pertaining to
judicial notice and presumed fact. In the case of the Oklahoma
Supreme Court, I was particularly disappointed when justices
elected to wink at treason. I was sickened by disdain the U.S.
district court judge articulated.
At first blush, my conclusions of law may appear a little
off base, but I helped Mr. Graham file the petition for writ of
habeas corpus in the Oklahoma Supreme Court for what I still
believe are legitimate reasons. Thomas Jefferson is among those
who have addressed the issue.
In the Kentucky Resolutions, Jefferson pointed out that the
Constitution places only four categories of crime under United
States jurisdiction. Ratification of the Eleventh Amendment in
1798 the same as set the matter in stone. Courts of the United
States have precious little authority in the several States.
Examination of the Judicial Act of 1911 confirms the limited
jurisdiction, and the second paragraph of 18 U.S.C. § 3231
specifically reserves authority of the laws and courts of the
several States.
The Constitution, the Judicial Act of 1911, and the Federal
Code of Criminal Procedure are in agreement: The laws and courts
of the several States are superior to United States courts within
the territorial bounds of the States -- United States admiralty
and maritime jurisdiction does not extend inland to the several
States except on federal enclaves ceded to the United States for
constitutional purposes, as specified at 18 U.S.C. § 7(3).
In the Kentucky Resolutions, Jefferson addressed another
situation where Congress exceeded constitutionally delegated
authority via the Alien and Sedition Acts. Jefferson argued that
when Congress exceeds constitutionally delegated authority, the
several States have both the right and responsibility for
correcting federal government.
Unfortunately, most Americans are at least as ignorant as I
was three years ago. But I don't believe you folks are.
Everything in law is premised on dominion. Original authority
resides somewhere -- nothing comes from nothing. So there must be
a beginning. In the American system, founders laid our foundation
in the Declaration of Independence. From the beginning, they
concluded that there are certain self-evident truths. One of
those truths is that man was created by God, God being the
original authority, and another of the truths they proclaimed is
that man is endowed by certain unalienable rights, rights to
life, liberty, and property, or in the poetic, pursuit of
happiness, the most conspicuous. They then went on to say that
governments are established among men for certain specific
purposes. And they made the entire scheme accountable to, "the
laws of Nature and Nature's God" -- natural and moral law. This
foundation of order and authority is antecedent to the very
existence of government.
God is the Grantor, man the grantee. Man is the beneficiary
who is directly endowed by God, and is therefore directly
accountable to God, with natural and moral law set in place by
God providing a framework for individual and collective conduct.
The American Revolution secured independence of the colonies
within the territorial bounds of original charters and acquired
lands. Independent state governments were subsequently affirmed
by the people, then the people, by representative delegation and
by way of the new States, established the United States via the
Constitution, the United States being successor to the
Confederacy in 1789.
An underlying principle tells us that the created is never
greater than the creator. Preambles to United States and State
constitutions uniformly credit the People for establishing
government in the American system, and in the constitutional
framework, governments so established can exercise only delegated
or enumerated powers. If a power isn't prescribed by any given
constitution, the government created by that constitution cannot
exercise it.
Article II § 1 of the Oklahoma Constitution acknowledges
that all political power is inherent to the people, and sections
1 & 3 provide means for correcting, altering or abolishing
existing government.
Ninth and Tenth Amendments to the United States Constitution
preserve the order of power: The Ninth reserves rights of the
people even though they are not enumerated in the Constitution or
the Bill of Rights, then the Tenth specifies that powers not
delegated to the United States by the Constitution are reserved
for the States and the People respectively.
The problem where the instant matter is concerned should be
obvious: Not exercising authority is no better than not having
it. If the parent tells a child, "Don't do that!" but never uses
parental authority to discipline the child, the child eventually
ignores the parent, and will likely treat the parent as a nag
rather than legitimate authority.
I have two grown sons who managed to get through high school
and into adult lives without being arrested or having serious
difficulties other than what is routine for young adults
establishing themselves. When the oldest was about 25, I asked
why he and his brother were never into mischief common for
contemporaries. "We weren't worried about the cops," he said,
"but we knew we'd have to call home."
The analogy frames the Jefferson theme: In the order of
things, the several States are antecedent to the United States,
and when the United States exceeds delegated authority, the
States have the right, even the responsibility, to correct
unconstitutional exercise of power. Likewise, when Government
people posing under color of law to exercise alleged United
States authority that is not legitimate in the several States,
State judicial and enforcement officers are obligated to
prosecute them.
Suppose a renegade contingent of Army personnel stationed at
Ft. Sill took arms into Lawton and robbed a bank under auspices
of United States military authority. Lawton police would lock the
perpetrators up in a heartbeat, as they should.
Several years ago we had the situation in Kay County where a
Native American Indian allegedly killed a baby by way of infant
shaking syndrome (brain damage from shaking). The family lived in
Ponca City at the time. The man was tried in the Kay County
district court but there was a mistrial due to a hung jury. A
year or two later, a second infant died in approximately the same
fashion, but the family then lived on the Ponca Tribe reservation
at White Eagle. The district attorney once again elected to
prosecute charges for the first infant death, but the second,
because the alleged incident resulting in death took place on
Indian land, was prosecuted through the Bureau of Indian Affairs
in the United States district court.
Given these examples of exercise of proper jurisdictional
authority, it's difficult to grasp why people exercising bogus
United States judicial and enforcement authority in the several
States should be any more immune from accountability to State law
and police power than those in uniformed service or any other
person who blatantly and brazenly defies fundamental law. The
grant of immunity makes a mockery of the Tenth Amendment, the
Separation of Powers Doctrine, other underlying constitutional
principles, and common sense. Jefferson's admonition that it is
the right and responsibility of the State to correct United
States government when Congress crosses the line with respect to
constitutionally delegated authority reinforces the mandate for
State governments individually to enforce the laws of the State
against those who operate within any given State under color of
law, whether of the United States, some other State, or the host
State.
Unless officers of the several States are willing to carry
out this charge, the Tenth Amendment and the Separation of Powers
Doctrine are of no effect -- they mean nothing. The nation
becomes as a seamless garment under Congress' unrestricted
Article IV jurisdiction rather than being a patchwork of fifty
republics subject only to Congress' Article I delegated powers.
The purpose of this clear division was to protect the people
from consolidated Government power and tyranny, not serve the
convenience of Government. In fact, the chief argument of those
who opposed the Constitution and formation of the United States
was the potential for concentrating power that might usurp
sovereignty of the States and the People -- an eventuality which
has obviously materialized.
The law itself is clear on the subject of specifically
delegated power. But we have a problem. We're in trouble the day
of the big race if we go to the barn and find mules substituted
for our horses.
Mules are amiable critters, and are even capable of enormous
amounts of work, but they don't run with Thoroughbreds on race
day. And they have the additional problem of being sterile. If
the barn is filled with mules, the last generation is at hand.
You see the difficulty: If the Constitutional Republic
governed by fundamental law is threatened by the avarice of
ambitious men, and those responsible for maintaining the Republic
are impotent, where do we the People turn?
To resolve the dilemma, we must turn to the source and
original relationships: If God endowed man with certain
unalienable rights, he simultaneously imposed unavoidable
responsibilities. Those responsibilities are framed by natural
and moral law -- where physical law operates in the framework of
cause and effect, moral law operates in the framework of cause
and consequence.
The People ultimately pay the price. They bear the
consequence of tyranny. When we as sovereigns neglect
responsibilities for maintaining the domain established as our
heritage, it will invariably be threatened and we ourselves
subdued. The evil of the day will consume us.
In 1992, the United States Supreme Court touched these
matters in New York v. United States, et al.: Those in public
service who exercise power not delegated invariably do so for
self-serving ends. In the American system, the question is not
what power government should have, but it is what power
applicable constitutions specifically delegate.
It is here that we return to the instant matter, and can
understand core issues addressed in the Nuremberg trials
following World War II: Tyranny never stands on one leg.
Perpetrators by intent rely on accommodation. Thus, those who
fail to fulfill obligations imposed by fundamental law are joined
to tyranny by consent. In other words, failure to perform a duty
bestowed is as destructive to liberty as exercise of power which
is not delegated. The system of checks and balances built into
American government assures that complicity of intent and consent
must be in place or tyranny cannot prevail -- it is stunted in
infancy when usurpation is not accommodated by those who profit
or fear and thereby fail to fulfill duties.
Venue for the United States district court is prescribed at
18 U.S.C. § 3231:
The district courts of the United States shall have original
jurisdiction, exclusive of the courts of the States, of all
offenses against the laws of the United States.
Nothing in this title [18 USCS §§ 1 et seq.] shall be held
to take away or impair the jurisdiction of the courts of the
several States under the laws thereof.
The second paragraph, as verified by the jurisdiction
statute at 18 U.S.C. § 7(3), preserves the authority of courts
and law in the several States:
§ 7. Special maritime and territorial jurisdiction of the
United States defined
The term "special maritime and territorial jurisdiction of
the United States", as used in this title [18 USCS §§ 1 et
seq.], includes:
(3) Any lands reserved or acquired for the use of the United
States, and under the exclusive or concurrent jurisdiction
thereof, or any place purchased or otherwise acquired by the
United States by consent of the legislature of the State in
which the same shall be, for the erection of a fort,
magazine, arsenal, dockyard, or other needful building.
Article VII § 4 of the Oklahoma Constitution vests the
Oklahoma Supreme Court with appellate jurisdiction and
jurisdiction over common law writs coextensive with borders of
the State:
§ 4. Jurisdiction of Supreme Court -- Writs
The appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme Court shall be
coextensive with the State and shall extend to all cases at
law and in equity ... and in the event there is any conflict
as to jurisdiction, the Supreme Court shall determine which
court has jurisdiction and such determination shall be final
... The Supreme Court, Court of Criminal Appeals, in
criminal matters and all other appellate courts shall have
power to issue, hear and determine writs of habeas corpus,
mandamus, quo warranto, certiorari, prohibition and such
other remedial writs as may be provided by law and may
exercise such other and further jurisdiction as may be
conferred by statute...
Article II § 10 of the Oklahoma Constitution provides as
follows:
The privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall never be
suspended by the authorities of this State.
The territorial bounds of authority couldn't be clearer, and
the instrument for execution couldn't be better defined and
compelling - the delegated responsibility couldn't be articulated
in more precise terms. Authority of State and United States
courts is divided according to the law of legislative
jurisdiction -- courts of the United States, United States
enforcement people, et al., are guests in the territorial state
of Oklahoma, and the several States collectively, except on
federal enclaves. As guests, they are subject to correction,
censure and even expulsion. Those responsible for assuming bogus
authority to impose tyranny against Citizens of the State are
subject to State criminal prosecution and civil remedies just as
certainly as my former neighbor, who was a pipe fitter, is
subject to fundamental law indigenous to the State. Wearing
badges, black robes or whatever, and claiming, "I'm from the
United States Government," doesn't mean a thing in Oklahoma
except in the framework of Congress' Article I authority as
constitutional government for the several States.
The whole purpose of segregated and clearly defined
authority in the American system, as articulated in the
Separation of Powers Doctrine and the Tenth Amendment, is to
prevent consolidation of power. The State and the United States
have clearly defined roles. But when one yields, conspiracy is
joined -- the Republic, governed by fundamental law, is dead.
Jefferson spoke to the issue: Let's hear no more of
confidence in men, but bind them one and all with constitutional
chains. The Kentucky Resolutions successfully intervened on the
Alien and Sedition Acts, and the Eleventh Amendment articulating
limitation of United States judicial authority in the several
States was put in place in 1798, but public servants in the
several States at that time had sufficient moral substance to
turn back the tide of tyranny -- they ended the siege by refusing
to consent, to accommodate, to acquiesce.
We are very near the second question -- a question I do not
want to ask, and you do not want to answer, but we are compelled
by circumstance to address the matter: Clearly, the People suffer
the effects of tyranny. Our labor and wealth, our very substance,
along with our posterity, are the objects of avarice and
ambition. So when redress is not available through the courts;
when the State has abdicated vested powers and responsibilities,
and we have exhausted judicial remedies, are the sovereign People
of the several States not entitled to employ whatever means are
necessary to restore constitutional government?
Regards,
/s/ Dan Meador
Dan Meador
# # #
Return to Table of Contents