Dan Leslie, Meador )
)
Complaining Party ) AFFIDAVIT OF COMPLAINT
)
v. )
)
H. Dale Cook, Sam A. Joyner, )
Frank H. McCarthy, Stephen C. Lewis, )
Neal Kirkpatrick, Tracy Foster, )
Robin Faglia, John & Jane Doe 1-10, )
)
Defendants )
_____________________________________)
Basis of Complaint
I, Dan Leslie, Meador, commonly known as and called Dan
Meador, am a native of Kansas. I have spent most of my adult
life in Oklahoma, thus qualifying as a Citizen and Elector of
Oklahoma. I am 52 years of age, of sound mind, and competent to
handle my own affairs.
I live and have abode on privately owned property in the
county of Kay, the community of Ponca City, Oklahoma state. I do
not now nor have I ever resided on land ceded to the United
States in accordance with Oklahoma cession laws, nor am I now nor
have I ever been a citizen or resident of the geographical United
States, as the term "United States" is defined in the Internal
Revenue Code ("IRC"), Titles 4, 18 & 28 of the United States
Code, and at 26 CFR, Part 31.3121(e)-1(b) (District of Columbia,
Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, American Samoa, Guam, etc.).
The named Defendants above are also believed to be qualified
Citizens and Electors of Oklahoma state. All but one are
officers or employees of United States Government who conduct
trade or business from Federal courthouses located in Tulsa,
Oklahoma, with conduct of trade or business under auspices of
Affidavit of Complaint - Dan Leslie, Meador:
Page 1 of 20
tending United States Government affairs in the Northern District
of Oklahoma. H. Dale Cook is a Senior Judge, Sam A. Joyner and
Frank H. McCarthy are United States magistrate judges, Stephen C.
Lewis is the United States Attorney for the Northern District of
Oklahoma, Neal B. Kirkpatrick is an Assistant United States
Attorney in the office of Mr. Lewis, and Robin Faglia is a Deputy
United States Marshal. Tracy Foster is an inspector employed by
the Internal Revenue Service ("IRS"), a component of the
Department of the Treasury, Puerto Rico, contracted to provide
systems development and maintenance and information-gathering
services for United States Government.
The corpus of events and actions which constitute the basis
of this complaint transpired in the county of Tulsa, Oklahoma
state. I allege and believe the above-named Defendants, and
unnamed John and Jane Doe Defendants, at all times have acted
under color of law, beyond authority vested by their respective
offices and employment, in dealings relating to me and other
people who are also Citizens and qualified Electors of Oklahoma.
Therefore, I, Dan Leslie, Meador, herewith file this affidavit of
criminal complaint, supported by certain briefs and evidences
which demonstrate limits of Federal law and jurisdiction, to
secure criminal enforcement and prosecution and other remedies,
as appropriate.
Facts Giving Rise to Complaint
In approximately October 1995, Kenney F. Moore and Colleen
Moore, of Washington county, Bartlesville, Oklahoma state, and
Wayne Richard, Gunwall, of Kay county, Ponca City, Oklahoma
state, were indicted by Federal grand jury indictment issuing
Affidavit of Complaint - Dan Leslie, Meador:
Page 2 of 20
from the Article IV United States District Court for the Northern
District of Oklahoma. Sam A. Joyner was the United States
magistrate judge (national park commissioner) who presided at the
Moore-Gunwall arraignment. Tracy Foster was the IRS case manager
responsible for initiating, or at least managing and supporting
complaints, Neal B. Kirkpatrick was the Assistant United States
Attorney responsible for prosecution, and H. Dale Cook was the
Senior Magistrate Judge who presided over the case.
Shortly after receiving their respective indictments and
summonses mailed from the clerk for the United States District
Court for the Northern District of Oklahoma, the Moores and Mr.
Gunwall recruited my assistance.
In September 1995, the results of two independent research
projects had uniquely equipped me to provide information for the
Moore-Gunwall defense: Wayne Bentson and William Cooper, both of
Arizona, published a report demonstrating that the IRS, successor
to the Bureau of Internal Revenue, is an agency of the Department
of the Treasury, Puerto Rico, working out of or in conjunction
with Puerto Rico Trust #62 (Internal Revenue) (31 U.S.C. § 1321).
Of particular significance, the Cooper-Bentson report tied IRS
and the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms to the Federal
Alcohol Administration Act (1935), and the Federal Alcohol
Administration. As a result of the United States v. Constantine
decision in December 1935, responsibility for administering and
enforcing the Federal Alcohol Administration Act was transferred
to the Bureau of Internal Revenue, Puerto Rico, via
Reorganization Plan No. III of 1940, and the Federal Alcohol
Administration was abolished. The name of BIR, Puerto Rico, was
changed to IRS via T.D.O. 150-29 (1953), then BATF was segregated
from IRS as a quasi-independent agency of the Department of the
Treasury, Puerto Rico in 1972 (T.D.O. 221).
Affidavit of Complaint - Dan Leslie, Meador:
Page 3 of 20
The Cooper-Bentson report also alleged that IRS and other
principals diverted American tax dollars through the Agency For
International Development for clandestine projects such as
funding construction of the Soviet tank and military truck
factory on the Kama River, Russia.
At approximately the same time the Cooper-Bentson report was
published, my wife and I (Norma Gail Meador), completed indexing
the complete IRC with the numbers and nomenclature of each
statute matched with legislative regulations, then cross-indexed
by listing statutes under appropriate regulation headings. While
not having access to Cooper-Bentson documentation concerning use
of funds, we immediately verified that BATF still administers the
Federal Alcohol Administration Act (27 CFR, Part 1), verified the
transfer via Reorganization Plan No. III of 1940, and verified
that IRS and BATF are not agencies of the United States
Department of the Treasury (31 U.S.C. §§ 301 et seq.). By
referencing our index, it was quickly verified that there are no
implementing regulations, delegations of authority, or executive
orders authorizing the Secretary of the Treasury to establish
internal revenue districts in the several States party to the
Constitution of the United States, and authority of the
Department of the Treasury, via the Secretary of the Treasury,
the Commissioner of Internal Revenue, and the Treasury Department
does not extend to the Union of several States.
Affidavit of Complaint - Dan Leslie, Meador:
Page 4 of 20
The combined Cooper-Bentson and Meador research produced an
astounding conclusion: No taxing statute in the IRC reaches the
Union of several States. The entire Federal tax scheme is
predicated on Congress' Article IV § 3.2 municipal authority in
the geographical United States -- even what would otherwise be
legitimate excise taxes are applicable only in the District of
Columbia, Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, Guam, American Samoa,
the Northern Mariana Islands, the Northern Pacific Trust
Territories (United Nations), United States extra-territorial
jurisdiction in the Canal Zone, and on Federal enclaves where the
United States has secured jurisdiction in the Union of several
States. IRC taxing authority is expressly exclusive of the
several States party to the Constitution.
We had also done enough research to know courts of the
United States do not have general jurisdiction for prosecution of
criminal offenses prescribed in Title 18 of the United States
Code and the IRC. United States jurisdiction in the Union of
several States is specifically defined at 18 U.S.C. § 7(3), and
jurisdiction of courts of the several States is preserved in the
second sentence of 18 U.S.C. § 3231.
I assisted the Moores and Mr. Gunwall with construction of
motions to dismiss indictments, which were predicated on
interference with administration of United States internal
revenue laws (IRC § 7212(a)). However, Mr. Kirkpatrick, as
prosecuting Assistant United States Attorney, elected to ignore
hard evidence and law governing jurisdiction, etc., by condemning
the evidence as "frivolous" and otherwise simply writing it off
as being of no effect. The presiding magistrate judge
(legislative rather than judicial function), Mr. Cook,
accommodated Mr. Kirkpatrick.
Affidavit of Complaint - Dan Leslie, Meador:
Page 5 of 20
At about this same time (late October or early November), a
grand jury was convened via the United States District Court for
the Northern District of Oklahoma. Four people from Western
Oklahoma and Oklahoma City were summoned to testify. As part of
their testimony, they secured information concerning
institutionalized United States Government corruption. They
solicited information and a cover letter from me. I
accommodated. The cover letter, aside from explaining
implications of research outlined above, conveyed complaints
pertaining to the Moore-Gunwall case, specifying that if the
grand jury would initiate an investigation, I would provide
additional testimony and help arrange other witnesses who have
contributed to research exposing IRS fraud and tyranny. All
information the four accumulated as part of their testimony was
sealed in a box. Darrell Frech of Jet, Oklahoma gave the sealed
box to the grand jury foreman in the presence of Mr. Kirkpatrick.
As Mr. Kirkpatrick and Mr. Cook continued to roll ahead in
the Moore-Gunwall case, jointly ignoring evidence of limitations
on Federal judicial authority and IRS fraud (the IRC vests
authority in the Treasury Department, not the Department of the
Treasury, so far as the continental United States is concerned),
it became evident that they and other people involved with the
matter were determined to ignore governing law and regulations.
In order to try to secure a proper remedy, I constructed a letter
of complaint, naming Mr. Cook, Mr. Joyner, Mr. Kirkpatrick, Ms.
Foster and others, then sent the letter, along with support
materials, to the grand jury foreman by way of the court clerk
Affidavit of Complaint - Dan Leslie, Meador:
Page 6 of 20
for the United States District Court, Northern District of
Oklahoma. Copies of the material were forwarded to the office of
the United States Attorney, and a corresponding complaint was
sent to the Oklahoma Attorney General, W. A. Drew Edmondson. Per
a postal return receipt, the court clerk received the complaint
on a Friday. Mr. Kirkpatrick entered a motion to dismiss,
without articulating a reason, the following Monday. Mr. Cook
signed an order dismissing the case the following week, on or
about November 27, 1995.
In approximately July, 1996, the Moores and Mr. Gunwall were
once again indicted on basically the same charges for the same
alleged offenses (#96-CR-082-C). Each was sent a summons with a
copy of the grand jury indictment, with the summonses scheduling
a date and time for arraignment before a United States magistrate
judge in the United States District Court for the Northern
District of Oklahoma, Tulsa.
The Moores and Mr. Gunwall again consulted with me. After
considering alternatives, the Moores, Mr. Gunwall, and I settled
on employing a form of pleading developed and used with some
success by David Miller, Minnesota. The instrument, styled as a
refusal for fraud or refusal for cause, is entered in the nature
of a motion to dismiss, primarily in the framework of Rules 9 &
12 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure. Mr. Gunwall
established direct contact with Mr. Miller and elected to follow
the Miller format, thereby segregating himself from the Moores so
far as defense strategy was concerned. In the meantime, I had
unearthed authority underlying the right to choice of counsel and
the practice of law being a common law profession which cannot
Affidavit of Complaint - Dan Leslie, Meador:
Page 7 of 20
be, and is not, regulated by State or Federal government save in
relation to "public attorneys" who serve as officers of courts
where they practice (In January 1997, I filed an ex parte action
in the district court for Kay county, seeking declaratory
judgment on (1) the right to choice of counsel being an
unqualified constitutionally-secured right, and (2) the right to
practice law as a common law profession. Alma Wilson, former
chief justice of the Oklahoma Supreme Court, has acquiesced to
these rights, so the declaratory ruling should be forthcoming.)
With Moore consent and encouragement (powers of attorney), I
signed on as counsel, attaching Moore powers of attorney and a
brief in support as exhibits accompanying the Moore pleading.
Mr. Gunwall elected not to respond to the summons issued
from the Article IV United States District Court for the Northern
District of Oklahoma. The Moores several times asked me for
advice concerning whether or not they should answer their
respective summonses. I refused to give advise on the matter.
The Moores eventually elected not to answer the summonses, but
not because I gave them advice one way or the other.
Subsequent to the hearing or arraignment the Moores and Mr.
Gunwall elected not to attend, warrants for their arrest were
issued under signature of a United States magistrate judge
(national park commissioner). It is significant that the United
States magistrate judge's personal jurat was not affixed to the
warrants, as required by law (28 U.S.C. § 638(c)). Subsequent to
issuance of the warrants, Mr. Gunwall was arrested in the parking
lot outside the Wal-Mart store located in Ponca City, Oklahoma
(privately owned land where United States jurisdiction is not
Affidavit of Complaint - Dan Leslie, Meador:
Page 8 of 20
ceded in accordance with requirements of 40 U.S.C. § 255 and
Oklahoma cession laws, 80 O.S. §§ 1, 2 & 3). Mr. Gunwall alleges
that Federal Bureau of Investigation agents participated in the
arrest, but in trial testimony, accounted for infra, Ms. Foster
claimed responsibility for Mr. Gunwall's arrest. He was then
transported to Tulsa where he was incarcerated via the office of
the U. S. Marshal at the Federal courthouse.
It is significant that the United States Government [sic],
on behalf of the IRS, did not issue proper complaints and a
request for extradition to United States jurisdiction through the
Oklahoma Governor, Mr. Gunwall was not taken before an Oklahoma
magistrate, afforded the opportunity to secure counsel, contest
extradition, or apply for a writ of habeas corpus against
extradition via the district court of the State of Oklahoma
located in the county of Kay. It is also significant that the
FBI is an administrative agency in the Department of Justice
(notes, 28 U.S.C. § 531) authorized by statute only to
investigate officers and employees of United States Government
(28 U.S.C. § 535). The agency does not have legislative
authority of Congress to exercise police powers or even
investigate private Citizens of the several States party to the
Constitution of the United States, whether in the geographical
United States under Congress' legislative jurisdiction or in
jurisdiction of the several States party to the Constitution.
An attorney in the office of the Federal Public Defender
contacted the Moores by telephone and subsequently they
voluntarily surrendered. The Moores and Mr. Gunwall were
arraigned before a United States magistrate judge, who entered
pleas for them. The Moores were released on bond, but Mr.
Gunwall was held for two or three days before bond was finally
set and he secured release.
Affidavit of Complaint - Dan Leslie, Meador:
Page 9 of 20
In August, I received a summons and indictment from the
United States District Court, Northern District of Oklahoma,
alleging two misdemeanor offenses of attempting to influence a
grand jury member by writing (18 U.S.C. § 1504) and one count of
impeding administration of justice (18 U.S.C. § 1503), case #96-
CR-113-C.
I filed an application for writ of habeas corpus with the
Supreme Court of Oklahoma, and counter-filed complaints against
Mr. Kirkpatrick and others via the district judge for the Eighth
Judicial District, State of Oklahoma. Notice of these
initiatives was filed with the court clerk for the United States
District Court for the Northern District of Oklahoma and sent to
Mr. Kirkpatrick.
As it happened, I was scheduled to be in Tulsa the day the
summons specified for arraignment, but I elected not to answer
the summons. In the late afternoon prior to leaving Tulsa, I
contacted Mr. Kirkpatrick by telephone to inquire concerning
status of the case. Mr. Kirkpatrick informed me that a warrant
had been issued for my arrest. Mr. Kirkpatrick supplied me with
the telephone number of the Chief Deputy U.S. Marshal located in
Tulsa, Mr. Faglia. I evidently wrote the number down wrong as I
failed to contact Mr. Faglia by telephone before leaving Tulsa.
I called from a pay telephone on the outskirts of Tulsa where
there was no telephone book, so I drove back to Ponca City
without contacting him. The following morning, Mr. Faglia
contacted me by telephone. In light of the Gunwall incident, I
agreed to surrender at the Federal Courthouse in Tulsa the
following Monday morning.
Affidavit of Complaint - Dan Leslie, Meador:
Page 10 of 20
On Sunday prior to surrendering, I sent a lengthy "Bill of
Particulars" to the office of the United States Attorney and to
Mr. Faglia via fax. The "Bill of Particulars" demonstrated
limits of IRS authority, jurisdictional limits for the Federal
Law Enforcement Community, and jurisdictional limits of courts of
the United States. I filed the original hard copy of the Bill of
Particulars with the court clerk for the United States District
Court and served copies at the office of the United States
Attorney, the Federal probation office, and with Mr. Faglia prior
to surrendering for arrest. Therefore, all parties were properly
notified concerning limits of IRS authority and jurisdictional
bounds of Federal civilian law enforcement personnel and courts
of the United States.
Mr. Faglia acknowledged receipt of the fax transmission and
accepted service of the hard copy of the Bill of Particulars. He
stated that he was aware of possible legal implications, but
elected to effect arrest.
After being booked, I was locked in a large holding cell by
myself. A deputy then gave me what was supposed to the warrant
and indictment, but turned out to be a "Magistrate" complaint for
violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1504 signed July 25, 1996 by Tracy
Foster, identified as an Inspector with the Inspection Division
of the IRS. The complaint was endorsed by United States
magistrate judge (national park commissioner) Frank H. McCarthy
(Magistrate Case No. 96-74M). After examining the magistrate
complaint issued in July, I asked a deputy to find the correct
indictment and warrant. The warrant effected for Case #96-CR-
113-C was also signed by Mr. McCarthy. It is significant that
none of the documents signed by Mr. McCarthy are under the
personal jurat required by 28 U.S.C. § 638(c).
Affidavit of Complaint - Dan Leslie, Meador:
Page 11 of 20
At approximately 3 p.m., I was taken to a courtroom where
United States Magistrate Judge (national park commissioner) Sam
A. Joyner presided at the arraignment.
Since I was not notified of a grand jury investigation, as
required by law (see Rule 6(b)(1), F.R.Cr.P.), there had been no
opportunity to see or review the affidavit of complaint on which
the indictment was based, there had been no opportunity to secure
counsel, there had been no opportunity to examine adverse
witnesses, and there had been no opportunity to present evidence
and witnesses in my defense. Therefore, I asked Mr. Joyner for a
copy of the certified complaint, but Mr. Joyner refused to order
the Government to provide it. I then asked for the opportunity
to examine adverse witnesses, but Mr. Joyner denied the request.
When asked for a plea to the indictment, I declined entering a
plea due to uncertainty concerning the charges. However,
contrary to limitations on United States magistrate judges
concerning felony offenses (see Rule 5(c), F.R.Cr.P.), Mr. Joyner
entered a "not guilty" plea for me. Additionally, despite my
having declined court-appointed counsel, Mr. Joyner assigned
standby counsel via the office of the Federal Public Defender's
office for the Northern District of Oklahoma, and imposed the
requirement that I had to submit all pleadings for inspection by
court-appointed standby counsel prior to filing motions or other
material in my own defense. Mr. Joyner further imposed the
requirement that I make regular reports to the United States
Probation Office for the Northern District of Oklahoma, thereby
imposing continuing constraints prior to the trial of causes even
though I was properly bonded.
Affidavit of Complaint - Dan Leslie, Meador:
Page 12 of 20
Mr. Joyner failed to affix his personal jurat to orders he
issued, as required by 28 U.S.C. § 638(c).
It is significant that Mr. Joyner, Mr. Kirkpatrick, Mr.
Cook, Mr. Stephen C. Lewis and Ms. Foster were named in
complaints I filed with the court clerk for the Northern District
of Oklahoma for the grand jury foreman, and with the office of
the Oklahoma Attorney General, in November 1995, as these people
comprise the core cast of characters responsible for my
prosecution. Among other motions, I filed a motion for Mr. Cook
and Mr. Kirkpatrick in particular to recuse themselves as being
parties of interest, but both refused to withdraw from the case.
Knowing Mr. Cook operates under two oaths of office -- the
constitutional oath prescribed in Title 5 of the United States
Code and the statutory oath which accommodates his actions on
behalf of the geographical United States as a self-interested
entity under Congress' Article IV § 3.2 municipal power (28
U.S.C. § 453) -- I entered a judicial contract into record
requiring Mr. Cook to endorse his constitutional oath, which is a
prerequisite to holding offices of trust or profit for the United
States, and to ensure my substantive due process rights. Mr.
Cook failed and refused to recuse himself, in compliance with
requirements of 28 U.S.C. § 455(a), and also refused to endorse
his constitutional oath, thereby defaulting his right to hold an
office of trust or profit for the United States.
Affidavit of Complaint - Dan Leslie, Meador:
Page 13 of 20
At a hearing in October 1996, Mr. Cook instructed me to
revise motions, and if desired, adopt motions submitted by stand-
by counsel, Mr. Paul Brunton. I complied, and among other
things, pointed out that allegations advanced by Mr. Kirkpatrick
that I was responsible for the Moores and Mr. Gunwall not
answering summonses issued from the United States District Court
were beyond the scope of the indictment. When Mr. Kirkpatrick
responded my motions, he went even further beyond the face of the
indictment, misrepresented the Constitution in his responses, and
for the most part, failed and refused to address all jurisdiction
matters, character and jurisdiction of the IRS as an agency of
the Department of the Treasury, Puerto Rico, territorial limits
so far as Federal Law Enforcement Community police powers extend,
etc.
Simultaneous with my prosecution, prosecution of the Moores
and Mr. Gunwall moved ahead unabated even though documents which
the Government relied on were conspicuously forged or otherwise
manufactured, there was no taxing statute or regulation
identifying the Moores as persons liable for any given tax
prescribed in the IRC in evidence (merely the criminal statute,
IRC § 7212(a)), no evidence of United States jurisdiction on
privately owned land in the counties of Kay, Washington, and
Tulsa (requirements specified in the last paragraph of 40 U.S.C.
§ 255 and Oklahoma cession laws), and no documentation proving
the Moores, Mr. Gunwall, or I were or are "United States persons"
(required evidence at 26 CFR, Part 1.871-4(c)(2)). Mr. Cook
absolutely refused to take mandatory judicial notice of the
Affidavit of Complaint - Dan Leslie, Meador:
Page 14 of 20
Constitution and laws of the United States, the Federal Register,
Code of Federal Regulations, the Oklahoma constitution and laws,
etc., as required by Rule 201(d), Federal Rules of Evidence.
So far as my prosecution is concerned, Mr. Cook never once
entered a written order into record which was responsive to
pleadings. When it became obvious that Mr. Cook had no intention
of complying with rules governing conduct of the court, the
Moores and Mr. Gunwall and I filed a civil action via the
district court for the county of Tulsa, State of Oklahoma,
against the parties named above, Mr. Cook, Mr. Joyner, Mr.
McCarthy, Mr. Lewis, Mr. Kirkpatrick, and Ms. Foster included.
Jury selection for both the Moore-Gunwall case and the case
against me was scheduled for January 6, 1997. The parties named
above were served by a deputy county sheriff for Tulsa County
prior to jury selection beginning. Yet despite the various
complaints concerning Government [sic] evidence against the
Moores (documents produced by IRS did not bear the District
Director's seal, as required by 26 CFR, Part 301.7514-1(c) & (d),
28 U.S.C. § 1733(b), Rule 44, F.R.Cv.P., and Rule 27, F.R.Cr.P.),
absence of necessary prosecution elements (taxing statute,
statute proving liability), Mr. Kirkpatrick having departed the
face of the indictment against me, ignoring motions for recusal
as parties of interest, being served with a civil action
complaint, etc., Mr. Cook, in league with Mr. Kirkpatrick, et
al., moved ahead with prosecution of the cases.
The Moores and Mr. Gunwall plea bargained on what appeared
to be an advantageous offer from Mr. Kirkpatrick. Irregularities
in the Government agreement appear to have developed since the
plea bargain, but those matters go beyond the scope of this
complaint as I have not been directly involved with the affairs
of the Moores and Mr. Gunwall since they plea bargained.
Affidavit of Complaint - Dan Leslie, Meador:
Page 15 of 20
Jury selection was conducted for my trial the afternoon of
Monday, January 6, 1997. Due to not being familiar with trial
procedure, I accepted assistance of counsel from court-appointed
attorneys, Mr. Brunton and Mr. Paul DeMuro. However, once I
accepted the assistance of Mr. Brunton and Mr. DeMuro, Mr. Cook
prevented me from further addressing the court or jury, examining
witnesses, or directly placing evidence into record.
The court operated under admiralty rules, Mr. Cook presided
as an Article IV magistrate judge (legislative rather than
judicial capacity), and the trial was a disaster. Mr. Brunton
and Mr. DeMuro, who knew little or nothing about the character of
the IRS, proper application of IRC taxing authority, jurisdiction
of the United States, et al., were incompetent so far as
representation is concerned. At the close of Government [sic]
evidence, Mr. Brunton elected to rest without staging a defense,
doing so without consulting with me. Needless to say, the jury
returned guilty verdicts.
In post-trial motions, I moved to dismiss counsel as
incompetent - I entered evidence that Mr. Brunton and Mr. DeMuro
had not asked questions I prepared for Government [sic]
witnesses, had not explored Government [sic] evidence via
Government [sic] witnesses as we had agreed, did not enter
evidence I provided them, and did not call witnesses who were at
the court and were prepared to testify. My Brunton, and
subsequently, Mr. DeMuro, entered motions to withdraw as counsel
without contesting allegations in my motion, and Mr. Cook granted
both of their motions to withdraw. Additionally, I entered
motions (1) to arrest judgment, (2) to acquit, and (3) for new
trial.
Affidavit of Complaint - Dan Leslie, Meador:
Page 16 of 20
Dr. Moore was the only Government [sic] witness who
addressed whether or not I advised the Moores not to answer the
summonses issued from the United States District Court. He
several times repeated that I refused to advise them concerning
whether or not they should answer the summonses. Yet Mr.
Kirkpatrick argued that the refusal document was sufficient to
cause not only the Moores, but Mr. Gunwall not to answer the
summonses. No evidence was presented concerning Mr. Gunwall --
his "refusal for cause" or "refusal for fraud" was conspicuously
different than that of the Moores, and Mr. Gunwall had taken
other initiatives the Moores didn't. Mr. Gunwall was at the
courthouse to testify, yet Mr. Kirkpatrick didn't call him, so
advanced allegations which were never addressed in the course of
trial.
Although my motions were entered in mid-January, Mr. Cook
has failed and refused to enter written rulings on the motions
which would afford the opportunity to move the motions along for
other remedies. In other words, he has continued the same
pattern of behavior since trial as before.
Affidavit of Complaint - Dan Leslie, Meador:
Page 17 of 20
Application of Complaint
I allege that the following is true: The Defendants are
liable under laws of Oklahoma and the United States.
Individually and collectively, the Defendants have acted on
behalf of an unidentified foreign principal, the "UNITED STATES
OF AMERICA", this entity of necessity being either (1) a
coalition or compact of Federal States under Congress' Article IV
§ 3.2 legislative jurisdiction (see Title 48, United States
Code), or (2) the unidentified foreign principals, the "Central
Authority" or "Competent Authority" (28 CFR, Parts 0.49 & 0.64-
1).
Individually and collectively, the Defendants have acted
beyond United States jurisdiction in Oklahoma (18 U.S.C. § 7(3);
see last paragraph of 40 U.S.C. § 255 & Oklahoma cession laws, 80
O.S. §§ 1, 2, & 3).
The Defendants conspired to the common end of effecting a
bill of attainder against me, bills of attainder prohibited by
the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution for
the State of Oklahoma.
The Defendants have deprived me of due process of law, as
contemplated by Article III § 2.1 and the Fourth, Fifth, Sixth,
and Seventh Amendments to the Constitution of the United States,
and Articles II § VII of the Constitution for the State of
Oklahoma.
The Defendants have conspired to the common end of
simulating judicial process.
The Defendants have conspired to the common end of effecting
inland piracy in Oklahoma.
The Defendants are responsible for employing, or threatening
to employ, force of arms against the sovereign people of
Oklahoma, utilizing civilian forces that may employ police powers
only in the geographical United States under Congress' Article IV
§ 3.2 legislative jurisdiction.
Affidavit of Complaint - Dan Leslie, Meador:
Page 18 of 20
The Defendants have acted on behalf of an agency of the
Department of the Treasury, Puerto Rico, which is foreign to the
Union of several States party to the Constitution of the United
States.
The Defendants conspired to the common end of ignoring and
invading the sovereign territorial jurisdiction of Oklahoma,
under arms or threat of arms, without going through necessary
extradition proceedings prescribed by Oklahoma law and laws of
the United States.
The Defendants have conspired to the common end of
perpetrating Cooperative Federalism, an ideology which arises
from the same root source as European Communism and Socialism
(Fabian Communism), with the design and intent of over-throwing
the Constitution of the United States, the Constitution for the
State of Oklahoma, and the republican form of government
established by American founders.
The Defendants individually and collectively conspired to
act beyond the scope statutes and regulations of the United
States, and contrary to Oklahoma law, have acted under color of
Federal authority.
The Defendants individually and collectively conspired to
impose criminal enforcement authority in the territorial borders
of Oklahoma, one of the several States party to the Constitution
of the United States, which is not delegated under Articles I and
III of the Constitution of the United States.
Details concerning application of law, regulations,
constitutionally delegated authority, etc., are presented in a
separate brief.
Affidavit of Complaint - Dan Leslie, Meador:
Page 19 of 20
I, Dan Leslie, Meador, hereby attest and certify that to the
best of my current knowledge, understanding and belief, all
matters of law and fact presented herein are accurate and true,
so help me God.
__________________________________ ______________________
Dan Leslie, Meador Date
P.O. Box 2582
Ponca City 74602/tdc
OKLAHOMA STATE
Notary Public
I certify that Dan Leslie, Meador, certified and sworn
above, signed this document before me.
__________________________________ ______________________
Dan Leslie, Meador Date
__________________________________ ______________________
Notary Public Date
My commission expires: _____________________________
Affidavit of Complaint - Dan Leslie, Meador:
Page 20 of 20
# # #
Return to Table of Contents