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