Time: Thu Sep 04 09:56:26 1997
	by primenet.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id JAA25985;
	Thu, 4 Sep 1997 09:54:41 -0700 (MST)
Date: Thu, 4 Sep 1997 12:54:18 -0400
Originator: heritage-l@gate.net
From: Paul Andrew Mitchell [address in tool bar]
To: pmitch@primenet.com
Subject: SLS: Dan Meador's letter to Justice Alma Wilson

>[This text is formatted in Courier 11, non-proportional spacing.]
>June 4, 1996
>Alma Wilson, Chief Justice
>Oklahoma Supreme Court
>Oklahoma State Capitol
>Oklahoma City 73105/tdc
>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 =A7
>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.  =A7 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. =A7 3231,
>and 18  U.S.C. =A7 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
>     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
>     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.  =A7  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. =A7 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  =A7 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
>     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. =A7 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 =A7=A7 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.  =A7 7(3),  preserves the authority of courts
>and law in the several States:
>     =A7 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 =15=15 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  =A7 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:
>     =A7 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  =A7 10  of the  Oklahoma Constitution  provides as
>     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?
>/s/ Dan Meador
>Dan Meador
>                             #  #  #

Paul Andrew Mitchell                 : Counselor at Law, federal witness
B.A., Political Science, UCLA;  M.S., Public Administration, U.C. Irvine

tel:     (520) 320-1514: machine; fax: (520) 320-1256: 24-hour/day-night
email:   [address in tool bar]       : using Eudora Pro 3.0.3 on 586 CPU
website: http://www.supremelaw.com   : visit the Supreme Law Library now
ship to: c/o 2509 N. Campbell, #1776 : this is free speech,  at its best
             Tucson, Arizona state   : state zone,  not the federal zone
             Postal Zone 85719/tdc   : USPS delays first class  w/o this

As agents of the Most High, we came here to establish justice.  We shall
not leave, until our mission is accomplished and justice reigns eternal.
[This text formatted on-screen in Courier 11, non-proportional spacing.]


Return to Table of Contents for

Supreme Law School:   E-mail