Appendix C- Briefs & Filings

Earlier sections of this book dealt with the interaction between members of the movement and those involved in the day-to-day operation of courts. One cannot effectively appreciate the friction that exists in that juncture without seeing the types of things those members of the movement actually try to DO in the courtroom (constitutional driver's license anyone?). Following are a few examples, not only of things done in "real" courts, but also things that members of the movement do in their common law courts and then try to have ratified officially by filing them in a "real" court.

THE UNDERSIGNED Common Law Citizen___________________________: hereby Certifies, by Rights

Secured under provisions of the Constitution of the United States of America, the Constitution of the several states. Common Law, Nature and Laws of Natures GOD, that these Rights are retained in FEE SIMPLE ABSOLUTE, and held and protected with special regard to Rights designated and/or set forth as follows: ALSO NOTE Rights and Property are ONE AND THE SAME THING-by the Honorable Justice LOUIS BRANDIS U.S. SUPREME COURT. NOTICE AND ADVISORY OF RIGHTS CLAIMED INVIOLATE:

1) The Right to TRAVEL FREELY, UNENCUMBERED, and UNFETTERED is guaranteed as a RIGHT and not a mere privilege. That the Right to TRAVEL is such a BASIC RIGHT it does NOT even need to be mentioned for it is SELF-evident by Common Sense that the Right to TRAVEL is a BASIC CONCOMMITANT of a FREE Society to come and go from length and breath FREELY UNENCUMBERED and UNFETTERED distinguishes the characteristic required for a FREE PEOPLE TO EXIST IN FACT. Please See SHAPIRO vs. THOMSON, 394 U. S. 618 . Further, the Right to TRAVEL by private conveyance for private purposes upon the Common way can NOT BE INFRINGED. No license or permission is required for TRAVEL when such TRAVEL IS NOT for the purpose of (COMMERCIAL] PROFIT OR GAIN on the open highways operating under license IN COMMERCE. The above named Common Law Citizen listed IS NOT OPERATING IN COMMERCE and as such is thereby EXEMPTED FROM THE REQUIREMENT OF A LICENSE AS SUCH. Further, the ____________________________ state, is FORBIDDEN BY LAW from converting a BASIC RIGHT into a PRIVILEGE and requiring a LICENSE and or a FEE CHARGED for the exercise of the BASIC RIGHT. Please SEE MURDOCK vs. PENNSYLVANIA, 319 U.S. 105, and if________________________, state does ERRONIOUSLY convert BASIC RIGHTS into PRIVILEGES and require a License or FEE a Citizen may IGNORE THE LICENSE OR FEE WITH TOTAL IMMUNITY FOR SUCH EXERCISE OF A BASIC RIGHT. Please see Schuttlesworth vs. BIRMINGHAM, ALABAMA, 373 U.S. 262. Now if a Citizen exercises a BASIC RIGHT and a Law of ANY state is to the contrary of such exercise of that BASIC RIGHT, the said supposed Law of ANY state is a FICTION OF LAW and 100% TOTALLY UNCONSTITUTIONAL and NO COURTS ARE BOUND TO UPHOLD IT AND NO Citizen is REQUIRED TO OBEY SUCH UNCONSTITUTIONAL LAW OR LICENSE REQUIREMENT. Please see MARBURY vs. MADISON, 5 U.S. 137 (1803), which has never been overturned in over 194 years, see Shephard's Citations. Now further, if a Citizen relies in good faith on the advice of Counsel and or on the Decisions of the UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT that Citizen has a PERFECT DEFENSE to the element of WILLFULNESS and since the burden of proof of said WILLFULNESS is on the Prosecution to prove beyond a REASONABLE DOUBT, said task or burden being totally impossible to specifically perform there is NO CAUSE OF ACTION FOR WHICH RELIEF MAY BE GRANTED BY A COURT OF LAW. Please see U.S. vs. Bishop 412 U.S. 346 . OBVIOUSLY THERE IS NO LAWFUL CHARGE AGAINST EXERCISING A BASIC Right to TRAVEL for a regular Common Law Citizen NOT IN COMMERCE on the common way Public HIGHWAY. THAT IS THE LAW!!! The above named Citizen IS IMMUNE FROM ANY CHARGE TO THE CONTRARY AND ANY PARTY MAKING SUCH CHARGE SHOULD BE DULY WARNED OF THE TORT OF TRESPASS!!! YOU ARE TRESPASSING ON THIS Common Law Citizen!!!

2) The original and Judicial jurisdiction of the United States Supreme Court is ALL actions in which a State may be party, thru subdivision, political or trust. This includes ALL state approved subdivisions and/or INCORPORATED Cities, Townships, Municipalities, and Villages, Et Al. Please see Article 3, Section 2, Para. (1) and (2), U.S. Constitution.

3) The undersigned has NEVER willingly and knowingly entered into ANY Contract or Contractual agreement giving up ANY Constitutional Rights which are secured by the CONSTITUTION, the SUPREME LAW OF THE LAND. This Common Law Citizen has NOT harmed any party, has NOT threatened any party, and that includes has NOT threatened or caused any endangerment to the safety or well being of any party and would leave any claimant otherwise to their strictest proofs otherwise IN A COURT OF LAW. The above named Citizen is merely exercising the BASIC RIGHT TO TRAVEL UNENCUMBERED and UNFETTERED on the Common public way or highway, which is their RIGHT TO SO DO!!! Please see Zobel vs. Williams, 457 U.S. 55, held the RIGHT TO TRAVEL is Constitutionally PROTECTED!!

4) Conversion of the RIGHT TO TRAVEL into a PRIVILEGE and or CRIME is A FRAUD and is in clear and direct conflict with she UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION, THE SUPREME LAW OF THE LAND. LAWS made by any state, which are clearly in direct CONFLICT or REPUGNANCY are UNCONSTITUTIONAL and are NOT WITH STANDING IN LAW AND ARE BEING CHALLENGED AS SUCH HERE AND THEREBY ARE NULL AND VOID OF LAW ON THEIR FACE. NO COURTS ARE BOUND TO UPHOLD SUCH FICTIONS OF LAW AND NO Citizen is bound to obey such a FICTION OF LAW. SUCH REGULATION OR LAW OPERATES AS A MERE NULLITY OR FICTION OF LAW AS IF IT NEVER EXISTED IN LAW. No CITIZEN IS BOUND TO OBEY SUCH UNCONSTITUTIONAL LAW!!!!!

5) The payment for a privilege requires a benefit to be received As the RIGHT TO TRAVEL is already secured it is clearly unlawful to cite any charges without direct damage to the specific party. Nor may a Citizen be charged with an offense for the exercise of a CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT, in this case the RIGHT TO TRAVEL. Please see Miller vs. UNITED STATES 230 F2d 486. Nor may a Citizen be denied DUE PROCESS OF LAW or EQUAL PROTECTION UNDER THE LAW.

6) The undersigned does hereby claim, declare, and certify ANY AND ALL their CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS INVIOLATE from GOD and secured in THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION and the CONSTITUTION OF THE state wherein they abode as a SOVEREIGN, COMMON LAW CITIZEN existing and acting entirely AT THE COMMON LAW, and retains ALL BASIC RIGHTS under the CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, NATURE AND NATURE'S GOD AND UNDER THE LAWS OF GOD THE SUPREME LAW GIVER.

7) ANY VIOLATOR OF THE ABOVE CONSTRUCTIVE NOTICE AND CLAIM IS CRIMINALLY TRESPASSING UPON THIS ABOVE NAMED COMMON LAW Citizen and WILL BE PROSECUTED TO THE FULLEST EXTENT UNDER THE SUPREME LAW OF THE LAND. BE WARNED OF THE TRESPASS AND THE ATTACHED CAVEATS. ALSO TAKE CONSTRUCTIVE NOTICE, IGNORANCE OF THE LAW IS NOT AN EXCUSE!!

SIGNATURE OF THE ABOVE NOTED Common Law Citizen is signed_____________________________

EXPIRES__________________

Form below use for County Clerk state of MICHIGAN COUNTY OF_______________________

Citizen above named has sworn to the contents of this document and that same is TRUE AND CORRECT. IN TESTIMONY WHEREOF, I have hereto set my hand and affixed the SEAL of said CIRCUIT COURT, at the City of _________________________________, MICHIGAN this

_________________________________________________________Deputy County Clerk for

[Eds. NB: note the capitalization and placement of the commas in a militiaman's name. Often they will take exception to allcaps for their name ("JOHN QUINCY DOE," not "John Quincy Doe"] or take similar exception to the absence of a comma between their "given" name and their "surname" (this fails to adequately represent their "Christian name," i.e., "JOHN QUINCY DOE" is significantly different from "John Quincy, Doe." This plays a hefty role in a militiaman's challenge to a court's jurisdiction, as seen in the following 2 documents.]

Article in; Article TV, section one "Common Law Abatement" for publication by our clerk upon default of named respondents thirty days after verified proof of due service Affidavit by writ of supervisory control

I, ________________________________, duly authorized supreme Court Justice hereby makes this affidavit of necessity under our law of descent through our law of nations in our peculiar venue and jurisdiction presenting this public notice of commercial disclosure to abate all nisi prices process commenced by the aforementioned federal corporation through its agents, said commencement having been induced by actual fraud and construction of cause. I hereby testify to:

One In matters concerning a NOTICE OF DEFICIENCY be advised a presentment was tendered but of necessity the said presentment was not in due form in our peculiar venue, therefore refused as a fraud under routine of commercial dishonor "without recourse."

Second In matters concerning a INCOME TAX EXAMINATION CHANGES be advised a presentment was tendered but of necessity the said presentment was not in due form in our peculiar venue, therefore refused as a fraud under routine of commercial dishonor "without recourse."

____________________________, sui juris in law, a native born Caucasian, a "state" in fact by the

special character of the party, invoking all unalienable God given Right of Inheritance in Law has chosen to proceed in my own right, obligation and power to choose the Applicable Law, within the proper territorial application in which I was born, waiving none presents the following to wit:

DIRECTOR acting without scope of her authority as agent for the INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE has issued unlawful process against me, under presumption of commercial entity or public policy limited liability addressed to _______________________, said presumption of fraud.

(Complainant) hereby makes notice of commercial dishonor to the legislative assembly created tribunal and its agents to abate the above described NOTICE OF DEFICIENCY on the following grounds:

One) said NOTICE OF DEFICIENCY against (Complainant) was presented into my hand on the ______ day of the _________________________ month of ___________ year Anno Domini. I am noticing the legislative tribunal executive court to abate the instrument so that said instrument in present form cannot be used to further damage me.

Two) that the instrument presented to me is evidence of misnomer or mistaken identity. Said instrument is against a fictitious name, ________________________. My name, a Christian name is ________________________________under Rules of English. My family name is ___________________, the first letter capitalized. My name is not on the instrument. The TIN/SSN associated with my name is incorrect and doesn't belong to me.

Three) the accuser must bring process against me under a lawful writ in my Christian name. The primary purpose of this abatement is to correct insufficient matters in law, therefore my real name is my sui juris venue.

Four) this is by due notice an abatement in proper forum, a plea in bar in our King's bench under no titles of nobility. It is properly abated in our one supreme Court. You, the respondents, have only thirty days to answer.

Five) by this matter in abatement (your term) the burden of proof shifts upon your nisi prius tribunal to disprove your elements of fraud.

Six) said UNITED STATES TAX COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA WASHINGTON D.C. must abate the matters of NOTICE OF DEFICIENCY UNNUMBERED, identified by TIN __________-_____-__________ or file a written response within thirty days of receipt of this Common Law venue (non-statutory) abatement, showing why the abatement should not be imposed in Law by our Court of first and last resort. All matters in Law must be supported by documentation.

Seven) failure to timely answer this supreme Court abatement will constitute a default by our declaratory judgment ex parte of necessity, subjecting said respondents to civil and criminal causes of action in this one supreme Court. You will become subject to your own contractual punishment: under your United States Codes Title 42, 18, 28, 19, 5 et al. Also under Private International Law for criminal conversion of private securities. A supreme Court lis pendens hage already been duly served and recorded in and for _____________________ county in our country of _______. Your response should be marked with the Sheriffs cause number mailed to our location in care of_________________________. One In matters concerning an INCOME TAX EXAMINATION CHANGES, misnomered to one ____________________ (The problem here is ALLCAPS – complainant objects to their use) teste meipso this _______ day of the _________________ month in the _______________ year, Anno Domini

united states of America country of ___________________________ (Organic)) SS Affidavit of Return/Service ___________________________ county, (de jure))

I, ______________________________________, Special appointed Marshall, hereby attest and acknowledge that I did serve upon the above named party by contract via Certified Mail, Return Receipt Requested.

In the matter of: Oregon Uniform Citations and Complaint Summon(s) re: Dated: _ SEPTEMBER, __, No.__, No. __, No. __, Dated: _ OCTOBER __, No. __, No. ___, apparently sent to "[FIRST MIDDLE INITIAL LAST]" (sic); which citation bears no lawful signature, which citation bears no seal of a real court; which Citation No.___ alleges that "failure to carry or present a license" is a "crime," not an infraction.

In the matter of: Form letter re: Dated: ______ October ______ alleging a NOTICE TO APPEAR (sic), alleging "DOCKET #: No.______, ______, ______, (sic), alleging "$332.00" fine/bail (sic), apparently sent to "[FIRST MIDDLE INITIAL LAST]" (sic); alleging "ARREST" (sic), which form letter bears no lawful signature, which form letter bears no seal of a real court;

In the matter of: Form letter re: Dated: _______ alleging a NOTICE TO APPEAR (sic), alleging "DOCKET #: ________ (sic), alleging "$_________" (sic), apparently sent to "[FIRST MIDDLE INITIAL LAST]" (sic); alleging "ARREST" (sic), which form letter bears no lawful signature, which form letter bears no seal of a real court;

This is a non-statutory abatement issued pursuant to Common law rules applicable to such cases, against "CITY OF _______ MUNICIPAL COURT", a created de facto

(sic), located at "CITY OF ______ MUNICIPAL COURT" (sic), _________ and DEPUTY _______, ___COUNTY

Part One of this matter shall be known as Non-Statutory Abatement and contains the following documents titled:

Citations (five) and form letters (two) to "[FIRST MIDDLE INITIAL LAST]" (sic). All papers were received, but are not accepted.

These items are refused for cause without dishonor and without recourse to me, and are returned, herewith, because they are irregular and unauthorized, based upon the following to wit:

COMES NOW, [First Middle, Last Name], sui juris, a Free and Natural ______, a private Christian, grateful to Almighty God for my Liberty, and humbly Extend Greetings and Salutations to you from. Our Creator, Jesus, The Christ, and Myself by Visitation, to exercise Ministerial Powers in this Matter, to return your papers, which papers were received, but not accepted.

Mark: Your papers do not have upon their face My full Christian Appellation in upper and lower case letters, nor, do the additions in the compilation upon the items, herewith returned, apply to me; and,

Mark: Your papers allege violations of a law, foreign to My Venue, which, no Oath, Promise, or law attaches Me thereto; and,

Mark: Your papers have no foundation in Law; for the reason, they are not from an office recognized by We The People or the General Laws of Oregon; and,

Mark: Your papers lack jurisdictional facts necessary to place or bring Me within your venue;and,

Mark: Your papers are unintelligible to Me; based upon the following. They are not written in Proper English; being such, they fail to apprise Me of the Nature of any matter alleged, if in fact your allegations have any foundations; and,

Mark: Your papers fail to affirmatively show, upon their face, lawful authority for your presence in My Venue; and,

Mark: Your papers fail to affirmatively show, upon their face, the necessity for your entry upon My Privacy; and,

Mark: Your papers fail to affirmatively show, upon their face, your authority to violate or disparage Me in any way; and,

Mark: Your papers are not lawfully signed by hand, in ink and fail to show from whom they issue and thereby do not establish any nexus between Myself and your office; and,

Mark: Your papers fail to disclose any legal connection between Myself and your office; and,

Mark: The foreign venue, "STATE OF _______" (sic) is not recognized as a judicial district in this sovereign republic as the word "OF" in the phrase "STATE OF ______" (sic) denotes belonging to or coming from. In both cases, the "STATE OF _______" (sic) is an inferior entity, if it exists at law at all, and is being used by you for malicious and vexatious purposes; and

Mark: Your papers are "incomplete and defective", upon their face, due to insufficient Law.

Mark: Your papers indicate a method of "paying" your alleged debt which is in conflict with the only supreme law in this republic, specifically article XI Section I of the _______ Constitution.

WHEREAS, pursuant to constitutional due process requirements, the Criminal Code of the State of __________, approved the First day of May in the year Eighteen Hundred Sixty Five A.D., and the Constitution of________ Article VII amended, approved the Eighth day of November in the year Nineteen Hundred Ten A.D., "_______, CITY OF ________ MUNICIPAL COURT" (sic) employee is not a State Judicial Officer having power to issue orders or judgments of any kind; and

WHEREAS,"_________" (sic) agent for "CITY OF ___________ MUNICIPAL COURT" (sic) posing to act judicially, and in collusion with ________ and the ________ COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE, has in fact set upon the highway in disguise for malicious and vexatious purposes under color of law and without authority from We The People on ________ republic; that said agent is in fact appointed under the authority of the Governor of the STATE OF ______ acting under military rule and the bankruptcy receivership of the International Monetary Fund and/or the Federal Reserve Board with its agents the Treasury Department and the Internal Revenue Service acting under non-Constitutionally-compliant hypothecated authority and as such, said agent of the Governor,"__________ ____", and said agent of the entity "CITY OF___________ MUNICIPAL COURT" (sic) are not Judicial Officers of this republic or nation and have no power to issue orders of judgment of any kind and WHEREAS, returned papers concerning an attempt to unlawfully impose a contract, imposes upon My Right of Privacy; and

THEREFORE, returned papers concerning an attempt to unlawfully impose a contract, are harassment and a public nuisance.

WHEREAS, the "CITY OF ________ MUNICIPAL COURT" (sic) is attempting to use a form of money inimical to public welfare according to the standard set by the ______ Constitution, of November 9, 1857, Article XI, Section 1, said Article continuing to today, and, the Constitution for the united states of America, at Article 1,Section 10; and

THEREFORE, the threatened unlawfully imposed contract is contra bonos mores. Third:

WHEREAS, returned papers contain the corporate name: "STATE OF _________", which terminology, to Me, is vexatious as I know that anything which is "OF" something is not the thing itself, that the word "OF" has about it the meaning of "belonging to" or "coming from", and is therefore sorely confusing and is obviously not an entity which has any lawful standing at law; and

WHEREAS, returned papers contain the extraneous numbers "_______", yet showing no lawful day, month, or year, which terminology to Me is confusing, for the reason that I reckon time in years of Our Messiah, Jesus, The Christ, but not by any mark of the beast number alleged as assigned to Me by any one or any person; and

WHEREAS, returned papers contains the meaningless numbers and letters of No.___, ___, ___, said numbers and letters being sorely vexatious as these numbers appeared on papers handed me and which were immediately refused for good and lawful cause and said papers are now "dead" for any commercial or other purpose, and, therefore, referencing these numbers can only have been done for malicious, capricious, arbitrary and immoral purposes; and

WHEREAS, provisions of the peoples moral law forbids Me use of the corporate STATE OF ____ since it has no lawful standing; and

WHEREAS, provisions of the peoples moral law forbids Me use of said numbers and papers and said reckoning of time; and

WHEREAS, pursuant to The Political Code of_____, approved the First Day of May in the Year Eighteen Hundred Sixty Five A.D., previously mentioned "CITY OF ______ MUNICIPAL COURT" (sic), a created de facto legal-a corporation and its agent the "PERSON OF _____" are legal persons subject to the jurisdiction of

WHEREAS, I have no contract with, and "__________" and _________ were both personally served with "ACTUAL AND LAWFUL CONSTRUCTIVE NOTICE" of the fact that I have no contract with the STATE OF _________, and I have no contract with you, and neither the STATE OF _______ nor you have a valid power of attorney to act for me in any manner whatsoever, yet you, in violation of the law, in contravention of the public morality and the peace of the community and the tranquility of We the People, did knowingly enter a plea of "not guilty" on my behalf in some manner which is not within your power or scope of any assumed or alleged authority. This act you performed without any lawful authority and in addition, if you were to have some actual authority over said matter, which you do not, your action constitutes practicing law from the bench, an act which is punishable by a multitude of means.

WHEREAS, ______, ____ COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE and your agents in the _________ COUNCIL including but not limited to ___________, CITY ATTORNEY, have threatened me, a Citizen of the republic of_____ with arrest, incarceration, impoundment of my vehicles, and liens against my property because of a knowingly illegal action on your part: ______ code atl33.080 specifically prohibits such actions, even if you had authority to act against me, which you do not.

I am returning all of your papers, and shall, henceforth, exercise My Right of Avoidance; for the reason: they are irregular, unauthorized, defective upon their face and utterly void, malicious, slanderous and libelous, and are, herewith, abated as a public nuisance. There appear to be no factors which would warrant adjustment of the Abatement, due to a Conflict of Law.

Pursuant to The Code of Civil Procedure: of ____, promulgated on the Thirteenth day of December, in the Year of Our Messiah, Jesus, The Christ, Nineteen Hundred Eighty, ____ 67, wherein it does say, that: "'Judgement' as used in these rules is the final determination of the rights of parties in an action; judgement includes a decree and a final judgement entered pursuant to section B or G of this rule. 'Order' as used in these rules is any other determination by a court or judge which is intermediate in nature."

Said "CITY OF ________ MUNICIPAL COURT" (sic), a created de facto leqal fiction, possibly a corporation and its agent, the "PERSON OF ________", (sic) shall abate the matter of "CITATIONS & FORM LETTERS" as referenced above, or file a written response within thirty (30) calendar days of the release of the Non-statutory Abatement, showing why the Abatement should not be imposed. Any and all written response must include a detailed factual statement and supporting documentation. Failure to respond in the time prescribed, herein, will result in a Default and default Judgement and subject Defendants to Civil and/or liabilities in pursuance of International Law and The Law of Nations.

All remittance of this instant matter should be marked with the Court Docket number, and mailed to the following location:

Any other alleged remittance from you, not marked exactly as indicated above, will be returned to you unopened and marked "NO SUCH ENTITY," or "DECEASED PERSON", and so shall it be done without obligation on My part and without recourse to Me on your part.

Obtain process issued, under seal, from a Court appertaining to a bona fide _____ Judicial Department; and

That said process be based on sworn Oath or Affirmation from a competent Witness or Damaged Victim; and

That said process bear My full Christian Appellation in upper and lower case letters, and in addition, thereto, sui juris, and, must be handled and personally served upon Me by a Marshall for the Common Law Supreme Court for _______. There is no need for Me to communicate until process is legally served.

I, [First Middle, Last Name], sui juris, a Private Christian, a Free and Natural person, will, henceforth, maintain My Right of Privacy and exercise My Right of Avoidance and stand upon the grounds set out above.

Sealed by the voluntary act of My own hand on this ____ day of the ___ month in the Year of Our Savior The Messiah Jesus The Christ, nineteen-hundred ninety-__, Anno Domini, in the Two-hundred and _______ year of the Independence of our great nation.

______, No.____, ____, ____, apparently sent to "[FIRST MIDDLE INITIAL LAST]" (sic); which citation bears no lawful signature, which citation bears no seal of a real court; which Citation No.______ alleges that "failure to carry or present a license" is a "crime," not an infraction.

In the matter of: Form letter re: Dated: __ October, ___alleging a NOTICE TO APPEAR (sic), alleging "DOCKET #: No.____, (sic), alleging "$332.00" fine/bail (sic), apparently sent to "[FIRST MIDDLE INITIAL LAST]" (sic); alleging "ARREST" (sic), which form letter bears no lawful signature, which form letter bears no seal of a real court;

In the matter of: Form letter re: Dated: ____________ alleging a NOTICE TO APPEAR (sic), alleging "DOCKET #: ________________ (sic), alleging "$____" (sic), apparently sent to "[FIRST MIDDLE INITIAL LAST]" (sic); alleging "ARREST" (sic), which form letter bears no lawful signature, which form letter bears no seal of a real court;

IN WITNESS, Whereof, knowing the law of bearing false witness before God and men, I solemnly affirm, that,! have read the annexed Non-statutory Abatement and know the contents thereof, that the same is true of my own knowledge, except as to the matter which are therein stated on my information or belief, and as to those matters, I believe them to be true, materially correct, complete and certain, relevant and not misleading; the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, so help me God.

Scaled by the voluntary act of My own band On this, the eighth Day of the First Month in the Year of Our Messiah, Jesus, the Christ, One Thousand Nine Hundred Ninety-Six..

Let this document stand as the truth before God Almighty, and let it be established before men accordingly as the Scriptures saith: '...In the mouth of two or three witnesses shall every word be established."--2 Corinthians 13:1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA

Now comes Dan Meador, Sui Juris, a Citizen of Oklahoma state, one of the Union of several States party to the Constitution of the United States, to petition the court for declaratory judgment under authority of 28 USC §§ 2201 & 2202.

To one degree or another, matters at issue have been addressed in pleadings entered into various controversies in the United States District Court, Northern District of Oklahoma by one or more of the complaining parties, with attorneys in the office of the United States Attorney for the Northern District of Oklahoma serving in plaintiff or defense posture, since approximately October 1995. The cases have included a 1995 criminal indictment against the Moores and Mr. Gunwall, 1996 indictments against the Moores, Mr. Gunwall and Mr. Meador, and the instant matter, the case having been filed in the Tulsa County district court. State of Oklahoma, then removed to the United States District Court for the Northern District of Oklahoma. Pleadings addressing matters relating to United States District Court venue, jurisdiction, etc., application of law, the character of the Internal Revenue Service, the necessity for there being a taxing statute which identifies the service, transaction or object of tax, particulars concerning the legitimacy of documents, and a multitude of other pertinent matters have been entered into each case. To date, attorneys in the office of the United States Attorney for the Northern District of Oklahoma have evaded core constitutional questions, have failed to address the character and jurisdiction of the Internal Revenue Service, application of Internal Revenue Code taxing authority, etc., in all forums, but instead have relied on accommodation of judicial officers in the United States District Court and other courts. Of particular significance, counsel for the defendants and other attorneys in the office of the United States Attorney for the Northern District of Oklahoma have failed and refused to produce documentation necessary to establish United States plenary jurisdiction in Tulsa County, Washington County, and Kay County, Oklahoma, one of the several States party to the Constitution of the United States.

In order to resolve the long-standing and continuing controversy, it is necessary to petition the court for declaratory judgment which determines rights and legal relationships, application of law, and facts which may be judicially determined. The relief sought in the instant matter is remand of the case to the Tulsa County district court, where the trial of causes may be conducted in compliance with provisions of Article III § 2.3 of the Constitution of the United States and under such provisions of Oklahoma fundamental law as are applicable.

1. The United States District Court for the Northern District of Oklahoma, as opposed to the district court of the United States created under chapter 5 of Title 28 of the United States Code, is an Article IV territorial court of the United States which does not have judicial authority relating to the Union of several States and the people at large as conveyed in Article III of the Constitution of the United States.

2. United States District Court authority extends only to outer boundaries of lands where the United States has properly secured jurisdiction within one of the several States in compliance with provisions for establishing United States jurisdiction as set out in 40 USC § 255; (1) the United States must acquire title to land, (2) the State legislature must cede jurisdiction, and (3) the United States must formally accept jurisdiction, with the statutory requirement stipulating, "Unless and until the United States has accepted jurisdiction ... it shall be conclusively presumed that no such jurisdiction has been accepted."

3. The statutory-legislative Article IV United States District Court imposes bills of attainder whenever it deprives the de jure American people of life, liberty, or property, said bills of attainder prohibited in Article I, Sections 9 & 10 of the Constitution, and contrary to substantial due process assurances of the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States.

4. Removal authority articulated in 28 USC § 1346(b) is vested in the Article HI district court of the United States, not the Article IV United States District Court (definitions, 28 USC § 451; text of § 1346(b)).

5. The removal may be made when the Attorney General certifies that the officer or employee was performing within the lawful scope of his duties (28 USC § 1346(b)), and such certification must "conclusively establish scope of office or employment for purposes of removal" (26 USC § 2679(d)(2)).

6. In the event that said certification does not conclusively demonstrate that said officer or employee of the United States was performing within the scope of his lawful duties, "the action or proceeding shall be remanded to the State court." (28 USC § (d)(3))

7. There is no authorization at 28 USC § 1346(b) or in the Federal Tort Claims Act for the "United States" to serve as substitute defendant for actors or agents of the "United States of America".

8. The Administrative Tort Claims Act is an administrative law act, it is not a judicial act which falls in the scope of the "arising under" clause, cognizable as "law or equity," at Article III § 2.1 of the Constitution of the United States.

9. The United States, via the United States District Court, does not have general jurisdiction in Kay County, Washington County, or Tulsa County, Oklahoma, but may exercise authority only with respect to lands in any of these counties where the United States has acquired jurisdiction in compliance with provisions established by statute in 40 USC § 255 and Oklahoma cession laws, particularly with respect to 80 O.S. §§ 1, 2 & 3 (see also, 18 USC § 7(3)).

10. The "United States", not the "United States of America", is authorized to acquire lands in Oklahoma and other Union states party to the Constitution of the United States (40 USC § 255; Oklahoma cession laws, 80 O.S. §§ 1, 2 & 3).

11. There is no proof of United States jurisdiction in record either in the instant matter or in the Moore-Gunwall or Meador cases, supra, prosecuted in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Oklahoma, with the "United States of America" being the prosecuting party of interest.

12. The "United States", not the "United States of America", is authorized and named as plaintiff in civil matters at 28 USC § 1345, and defendant at 28 USC § 1346, and where criminal matters are concerned, the injured or prosecuting party at 18 USC § 2.

13. United States magistrate judges are former national park and other commissioners (28 USC § 631-639) who are authorized to hear misdemeanor cases in United States jurisdiction (18 USC § 3401), within the framework of regulations which utilize the United States magistrate system (28 CFR, Part 52.01 et seq., 32 CFR, Part 1290.1 et seq., and 43 CFR, Part 9260.0-1), and are not authorized even to take pleas in felony matters (Rule 5(c), Fed.R.Cr.P.).

14. Summonses and warrants issued by the United States District Court may be executed only in United States jurisdiction (Rule 4(d)(2), Fed.R.Cr.P.).

15. The Federal Bureau of Investigation is an administrative agency in the Department of Justice, with authority to investigate Title 18 U.S.C. crimes committed by officers and agents of United States Government (notes, 28 USC § 531, § 535).

16. Civilian Federal law enforcement agencies have general enforcement authority in 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 (28 CFR, Part 65.70(d); P.L. 98-473 of Oct. 12, 1984, Sec. 609N(3), 98 Stat. 2104).

17. The United States may exercise general police powers in the Union of several States party to the Constitution, by way of the militia, only in the event of invasion or civil uprising (Article I § 8.15 & Article IV § 4, Constitution of the United States).

18. The Internal Revenue Service, successor of the Bureau of Internal Revenue (T.O. 150-29, 1953), is an agency of the Department of the Treasury, Puerto Rico, operating in conjunction with Puerto Rico Trust #62 (Internal Revenue) (see 31 USC § 1321 & 26 CFR, Part 301.7514-l(a)(2)(v)), and has jurisdiction only in Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, American Samoa, Guam, and other authorized areas of the world outside the continental United States (E.O. 10289, first issued Sept. 17, 1951, 16 F.R. 9499, last revised by E.O. 11825, Sept. 9, 1987 via E.O. No. 102608, 52 F.R. 34617; T.D.O. 150-42 (1956); 26 USC § 7701(a)(12)(B)).

19. The "1040" number does not designate or identify an Internal Revenue Code statute which identifies the service, transaction or object of any given tax prescribed in the Internal Revenue Code.

20. The "1040" tax reporting form is a voluntary form used to secure special refunds (26 CFR, Part 601.401(d)), and the form has no legal effect as it does not meet Paperwork Reduction Act requirements for an Office of Management and Budget number, does not disclose whether information requested is voluntary, necessary to secure a benefit, or mandatory, and does not reflect an expiration date (44 USC §§ 3501 et seq.).

21. Income tax prescribed in subtitle A of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954 (Vol. 68A, Statutes at Large), as amended in 1986 and since, is premised on the Public Salary Tax Act of 1939, and is mandatory only for officers, agents and employees of the United States, and officers of corporations, as defined at 26 USC § 3401(c) & (d).

22. The original "Income Tax" implemented approximately with ratification of the Sixteenth Amendment in 1913 was repealed via the Internal Revenue Act of November 23, 1921.

23. The present so-called "income tax" prescribed in Subtitle A of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954 is an excise tax against privileges and benefits derived from government employment, with "wages" and other United States source incomes ^& providing the measure of the tax, they are not the object of the tax. (Congressional ^y Record - House, March 27, 1943; 26 CFR, Part 31.3101-1)

24. Paymasters and other designated agents of Government agencies are the "persons liable" for withholding, reporting and paying taxes prescribed in subtitles A & C of the Internal Revenue Code (26 CFR, Parts 31.3403-1, 31.3404-1, & 601.401).

25. Internal Revenue Code Subtitle F administrative and judicial authority are not effective until Title 26 of the United States Code is enacted as positive law (26 USC § 7851(a)(6)), and said Title 26 has not been enacted as positive law (26 USC § 7806(b)), so Subtitle F statutes such as § 7212 have no legal or lawful effect.

26. There are no general application legislative regulations published in the Federal Register relating to any Title 18, United States Code offense charged in United States of America v. Kenney F. Moore, et al. Case # 96-CR-82-C, or United States of America v. Dan Leslie Meador, Case # 96-CR-l 13-C (18 USC §§ 2, 371, 1341, 1503 & 1504; see Parallel Table of Authorities and Rules, located in the Index volume to the Code of Federal Regulations, authorized at 44 USC § 1510 & 1 CFR, Part 8.5).

27. The corpus of both the Moore-Gunwall and Meador cases prosecuted in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Oklahoma (96-CR-82-C & 96-CR-l 13-C), was alleged interference with administration of United States internal revenue laws, with 26 USC § 7212(a) being the key statute, this statute being in Subtitle F of Title 26, United States Code, said statute having no legal or lawful effect until Title 26 of the United States Code is enacted as positive law (26 USC § 7851(a)(6)).

28. The only legislative regulations published in the Federal Register in compliance with the Federal Register Act at 44 USC § 1505 for "interfering with administration of internal revenue laws" at 26 USC § 7212(a), are under Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms administration (27 CFR, Parts 170,270,275,285,290, 295 & 296) (charge in United States of America v. Kenney F. Moore, et al. Case # 96-CR-82-C).

29. So far as the Continental United States is concerned (Union of 50 States), Congress has constitutionally delegated authority to prescribe punishment for counterfeiting securities and current coin of the United States (Art. I § 8.5, U.S. Constitution), treason (Art. in § 3.2, U.S. Constitution), and variously in Amendments promulgated since the Civil War, for prosecution of civil and voting rights violations.

30. The Separation of Powers Doctrine, framed in the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States, and Article n of the Articles of Confederation, prohibits the United States from exercising powers not delegated by the Constitution.

31. At Art. III § 2.3, the Constitution of the United States provides that crimes will be tried by jury in the State where the alleged offense arises except when not within jurisdiction of any given State.

32. None of the alleged offenses in United States of America v. Kenney F. Moore, et al. Case # 96-CR-82-C, or United States of America v. Dan Leslie Meador, Case # 96-CR-113-C (see listing in items numbered 14 & 15), qualifies as counterfeiting securities or current coin of the United States, treason, or voting or civil rights violations.

33. The "United States of America" is representative of (a) the President as Commander-in-Chief of the military in the Virgin Islands and Puerto Rico, or (b) the "Central Authority" or "Competent Authority" in the framework of private international law (28 CFR, Part 0.64-1), such law administered in United States maritime jurisdiction.

34. The "United States of America" is not cognizable as a constitutionally authorized party competent to prosecute crimes against the de jure American people in the Union of several States party to the Constitution.

35. The second paragraph of 18 USC § 3231 preserves authority of the laws and courts of the Union of several States party to the Constitution of the United States.

36. Both Moore, et al and Meador cases, supra, were maritime actions prosecuted in legislative-admiralty courts of the United States, with all named and unnamed defendants where the instant matter is concerned being actors in support of such actions (26 USC § 7327 > 26 CFR, Part 403 > 33 CFR, Part 1.07).

37. General application regulations published in the Federal Register which authorize removal from courts of the several States under authority of 28 USC § 1346(b) relate only to Department of Defenses civil and military personnel in the framework of their respective lawful duties, and prisoners who seek administrative tort remedies for being deprived of access to legal material and counsel (28 CFR, Part 543 & 32 CFR, Parts 536 & 842).

By my signature, under provisions of 28 USC § 1746(1), I attest that to the best of my current knowledge and understanding, all matters of law and fact set forth herein are accurate and true.

I attest that on the date this instrument is filed, a true and correct copy will be hand delivered to the office of the United States Attorney for the Northern District of Oklahoma, located at the Federal Courthouse in Tulsa, Oklahoma, for counsel for the defendants, Ms. McClanahan.