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
<snip>
>
>[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
>OKLAHOMA STATE
>
>Enclosure: IRS/IRC Public Notice Memorandum
>
>Dear Justice Wilson,
>
> I appreciate the willingness of you and Justice Opala to
>answer questions, and because of your consideration, have
>attempted to avoid going to the well too often. However, there
>are a couple of pressing matters I feel compelled to submit for
>your consideration, and if it wouldn't be too much trouble, ask
>you to solicit responses from other justices.
>
> In order to frame the questions, I am going to use the
>character of the Internal Revenue Service and application of the
>Internal Revenue Code as a backdrop. Enclosed you will find a
>public notice memorandum which indicts the Service as being an
>agency of the Department of the Treasury, Puerto Rico, and
>demonstrates that the Internal Revenue Code has mandatory
>application solely in the geographical United States, exclusive
>of the several States. IRS principals have already acquiesced to
>most of the material.
>
> The IRS memorandum is relevant as I recently helped Paul
>Graham file a petition for writ of habeas corpus against a United
>States district court judge and an assistant United States
>attorney in a matter relating to criminal prosecution via the
>U.S. district court for the Western District of Oklahoma. In
>addition to demonstrating that IRS doesn't have legal standing in
>Oklahoma, I alleged, with considerable legal authority behind the
>allegation, that the Department of Justice, via the U.S.
>Attorney, is representing the Central Authority, established by
>United States treaties on private international law (see 28 CFR =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
>question.
>
> Forgive my shallow understanding of law as I only began the
>serious study in March 1993, slightly over three years ago. Even
>though I came to Oklahoma as a university freshman in September
>1963, I confess that I hadn't read the Oklahoma Constitution, and
>was as lost as a goose in a snow storm when I began searching
>through statutory law and court cases. Aside from being a
>publishing writer since 1969, my background was in English, with
>emphasis on literature, with a broad background and formal study
>in philosophy, and economics. I've always worked for a living; I
>enjoy work, and for the most part, have been willing to leave
>government alone if government would leave me alone.
>
> An Albert Carter video titled IRS Investigated prompted me
>to begin legal research. We had what appeared to be a recoverable
>deficit tax situation, but Carter allegations sent me to the Kay
>County Courthouse law library -- Special Judge Pam Legate and two
>of the assistant district attorneys at the time helped me muddle
>through volumes of law and court decisions. We began challenging
>IRS authority and trying to secure particulars of IRS legal
>standing and application of law at that point. Then in March
>1994, two IRS agents and a fleet of wreckers converged at our
>house west of Ponca City while I was at work -- they didn't have
>a court order or any other legal authority, but commenced to
>seize automobiles. In the process, one of the wreckers rammed my
>wife, and the whole affair traumatized two of our pre-school
>grandchildren.
>
> It was at that point that I made the uncompromising
>commitment to end the tyranny once and for all -- my family and
>neighbors, and people throughout America, simply cannot be
>exposed to government-sanctioned terrorism, particularly if it is
>perpetrated on behalf of foreign principals.
>
> Needless to say, the attack on family and home intensified
>my focus on legal research and strategies. You can understand my
>consternation when I learned, by experience, that judicial
>officers in State and United States statutory courts almost
>unanimously refuse to comply with rules governing conduct of the
>courts, particularly with respect to mandates pertaining to
>judicial notice and presumed fact. In the case of the Oklahoma
>Supreme Court, I was particularly disappointed when justices
>elected to wink at treason. I was sickened by disdain the U.S.
>district court judge articulated.
>
> At first blush, my conclusions of law may appear a little
>off base, but I helped Mr. Graham file the petition for writ of
>habeas corpus in the Oklahoma Supreme Court for what I still
>believe are legitimate reasons. Thomas Jefferson is among those
>who have addressed the issue.
>
> In the Kentucky Resolutions, Jefferson pointed out that the
>Constitution places only four categories of crime under United
>States jurisdiction. Ratification of the Eleventh Amendment in
>1798 the same as set the matter in stone. Courts of the United
>States have precious little authority in the several States.
>Examination of the Judicial Act of 1911 confirms the limited
>jurisdiction, and the second paragraph of 18 U.S.C. =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
>State.
>
> Unless officers of the several States are willing to carry
>out this charge, the Tenth Amendment and the Separation of Powers
>Doctrine are of no effect -- they mean nothing. The nation
>becomes as a seamless garment under Congress' unrestricted
>Article IV jurisdiction rather than being a patchwork of fifty
>republics subject only to Congress' Article I delegated powers.
>
> The purpose of this clear division was to protect the people
>from consolidated Government power and tyranny, not serve the
>convenience of Government. In fact, the chief argument of those
>who opposed the Constitution and formation of the United States
>was the potential for concentrating power that might usurp
>sovereignty of the States and the People -- an eventuality which
>has obviously materialized.
>
> The law itself is clear on the subject of specifically
>delegated power. But we have a problem. We're in trouble the day
>of the big race if we go to the barn and find mules substituted
>for our horses.
>
> Mules are amiable critters, and are even capable of enormous
>amounts of work, but they don't run with Thoroughbreds on race
>day. And they have the additional problem of being sterile. If
>the barn is filled with mules, the last generation is at hand.
>
> You see the difficulty: If the Constitutional Republic
>governed by fundamental law is threatened by the avarice of
>ambitious men, and those responsible for maintaining the Republic
>are impotent, where do we the People turn?
>
> To resolve the dilemma, we must turn to the source and
>original relationships: If God endowed man with certain
>unalienable rights, he simultaneously imposed unavoidable
>responsibilities. Those responsibilities are framed by natural
>and moral law -- where physical law operates in the framework of
>cause and effect, moral law operates in the framework of cause
>and consequence.
>
> The People ultimately pay the price. They bear the
>consequence of tyranny. When we as sovereigns neglect
>responsibilities for maintaining the domain established as our
>heritage, it will invariably be threatened and we ourselves
>subdued. The evil of the day will consume us.
>
> In 1992, the United States Supreme Court touched these
>matters in New York v. United States, et al.: Those in public
>service who exercise power not delegated invariably do so for
>self-serving ends. In the American system, the question is not
>what power government should have, but it is what power
>applicable constitutions specifically delegate.
>
> It is here that we return to the instant matter, and can
>understand core issues addressed in the Nuremberg trials
>following World War II: Tyranny never stands on one leg.
>Perpetrators by intent rely on accommodation. Thus, those who
>fail to fulfill obligations imposed by fundamental law are joined
>to tyranny by consent. In other words, failure to perform a duty
>bestowed is as destructive to liberty as exercise of power which
>is not delegated. The system of checks and balances built into
>American government assures that complicity of intent and consent
>must be in place or tyranny cannot prevail -- it is stunted in
>infancy when usurpation is not accommodated by those who profit
>or fear and thereby fail to fulfill duties.
>
> Venue for the United States district court is prescribed at
>18 U.S.C. =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
>follows:
>
> The privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall never be
> suspended by the authorities of this State.
>
> The territorial bounds of authority couldn't be clearer, and
>the instrument for execution couldn't be better defined and
>compelling - the delegated responsibility couldn't be articulated
>in more precise terms. Authority of State and United States
>courts is divided according to the law of legislative
>jurisdiction -- courts of the United States, United States
>enforcement people, et al., are guests in the territorial state
>of Oklahoma, and the several States collectively, except on
>federal enclaves. As guests, they are subject to correction,
>censure and even expulsion. Those responsible for assuming bogus
>authority to impose tyranny against Citizens of the State are
>subject to State criminal prosecution and civil remedies just as
>certainly as my former neighbor, who was a pipe fitter, is
>subject to fundamental law indigenous to the State. Wearing
>badges, black robes or whatever, and claiming, "I'm from the
>United States Government," doesn't mean a thing in Oklahoma
>except in the framework of Congress' Article I authority as
>constitutional government for the several States.
>
> The whole purpose of segregated and clearly defined
>authority in the American system, as articulated in the
>Separation of Powers Doctrine and the Tenth Amendment, is to
>prevent consolidation of power. The State and the United States
>have clearly defined roles. But when one yields, conspiracy is
>joined -- the Republic, governed by fundamental law, is dead.
>
> Jefferson spoke to the issue: Let's hear no more of
>confidence in men, but bind them one and all with constitutional
>chains. The Kentucky Resolutions successfully intervened on the
>Alien and Sedition Acts, and the Eleventh Amendment articulating
>limitation of United States judicial authority in the several
>States was put in place in 1798, but public servants in the
>several States at that time had sufficient moral substance to
>turn back the tide of tyranny -- they ended the siege by refusing
>to consent, to accommodate, to acquiesce.
>
> We are very near the second question -- a question I do not
>want to ask, and you do not want to answer, but we are compelled
>by circumstance to address the matter: Clearly, the People suffer
>the effects of tyranny. Our labor and wealth, our very substance,
>along with our posterity, are the objects of avarice and
>ambition. So when redress is not available through the courts;
>when the State has abdicated vested powers and responsibilities,
>and we have exhausted judicial remedies, are the sovereign People
>of the several States not entitled to employ whatever means are
>necessary to restore constitutional government?
>
>
>Regards,
>
>/s/ Dan Meador
>
>Dan Meador
>
>
> # # #
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
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.
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
[This text formatted on-screen in Courier 11, non-proportional spacing.]
Return to Table of Contents for
Supreme Law School: E-mail