In the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals,
Sitting as an Article III court of the United States
Dan Leslie, Meador, and ) Case No. _____________
) Application for
) Writ of Habeas Corpus
Wayne Richard, Gunwall, ) AUTHORITY: Art. I § 9.2;
) Art. III § 2.1
) "arising under" clause;
) First Amendment;
Plaintiffs, ) Fourth Amendment;
) Fifth Amendment;
) Sixth Amendment;
) Seventh Amendment
v. ) Tenth Amendment;
) Rule of Necessity.
) ACTION AGAINST: 96-CR-82-C &
Stephen C. Lewis, ) 96-CR-113-C, United States
District Court, )
) Northern District of Oklahoma.
Defendant. )
______________________________)
Application for Writ of Habeas Corpus:
Page 1 of 71
Table of Contents
Table of Contents page 1
Index of Authorities by Section & Paragraph page 2
Appearance page 5
I. Law & Condition of Necessity page 6
II. Account of Events page 7
III. Certification of Fact
Concerning Dan Leslie, Meador page 14
IV. Certification of Fact
Concerning Wayne Richard, Gunwall page 15
V. Incompetence of the Court & Judicial Officers page 17
VI. Incapacity of Principal of Interest page 19
VII. Incapacity of the Complaining Party page 20
VIII. Operation Under Non-Existent, Color of Law page 21
IX. Subtitle A & C Taxes Mandadory
Only For Government Employees page 22
X. Lack of General Application Regulations
For Subtitle A & C Taxes & Alleged Offenses
under Title 18 of the United States Code page 25
XI. Constitutional Insufficiency of Alleged Offenses page 28
XII. Jurisdictional Limits of Warrants &
Federal Enforcement Personnel page 29
XIII. Defective Grand Jury Indictment page 31
XIV. Failure to Properly Secure Extradition page 32
XV. Misidentification of Parties page 35
XVI. Presumption of Nonresident Alien Status page 35
XVII. Absence of Taxing & Liability Statute page 37
XVIII.Paperwork Reduction Act Effects Estoppel page 38
XIX. Conclusion & Prayer for Relief page 41
List of Exhibits page 45
Notice of Service page 45
Application for Writ of Habeas Corpus:
Page 2 of 71
Index of Authorities by Section & Paragraph
Constitution of the United States
Art. I § 8.6 XI.2
Art. I § 8.15 XI.4
Art. I § 8.17 XII.1
Art. I § 9.2 I.2
Art. I § 9.3 V.7
Art. I § 10.1 V.7
Art. III § 2.1 "arising under" clause
I.2, III.6, IV.6, V.1, XIII.3
Art. III § 2.3 V.3, XI.3
Art. III § 3.2 XI.2
Art. IV § 3.2 IX.8, XI.1, XII.6, XII.7, XIV.1, XVI.2
Art. IV § 4 XI.4
Fourth Amendment I.2, III.6, IV.6, XIII.3
Fifth Amendment I.2, III.6, IV.6, XIII.3
Sixth Amendment I.2, III.6, IV.6, XIII.3
Seventh Amendment 1.2, III.6, IV.6, XIII.3
Tenth Amendment XI.5, XIV.6
Thirteenth Amendment XV.4, XIX.12
Fourteenth Amendment XI.2, XVI.2
Sixteenth Amendment IX.1
Application for Writ of Habeas Corpus:
Page 3 of 71
Statutes at Large/1
Act July 1, 1862 VII.13
Internal Revenue Act of Nov. 23, 1921 IX.1
Public Salary Tax Act of 1939 IX.1
I.R.C. of 1939 IX.1
I.R.C. § 3401 III.9, III.10, IV.9, IV.10, IX.1, IX.8
I.R.C. § 6001 IX.5, XVIII.3, XVIII.4
I.R.C. § 6011 IX.3, XVIII.3, XVIII.4
I.R.C. § 6012 IX.3, XVIII.3, XVIII.4
I.R.C. § 6013 X.10
I.R.C. § 6017 X.10
I.R.C. § 6020 X.10
I.R.C. § 6021 X.10
I.R.C. § 6321 X.9, XIX.7
I.R.C. § 6331 X.9, XIX.7
I.R.C., Chapter 75 (§§ 7201-7344) X.8
I.R.C. § 7212 II.1, II.5
I.R.C. § 7216 X.8
I.R.C. § 7321 X.7
I.R.C. § 7323 X.6
I.R.C. § 7325 VI.6
I.R.C. § 7401 X.4
I.R.C. § 7402 X.5
I.R.C. § 7403 IX.12
I.R.C. § 7621 VII.6, VII.9, X.3
I.R.C. § 7701 III.11, VII.10, VII.11, IX.6, X.1, XVI.3, XIX.4
I.R.C. § 7801 X.3
I.R.C. § 7802 VII.13, X.3
I.R.C. § 7803 X.3
I.R.C. § 7804 IX.12
I.R.C. § 7805 VII.10, X.1
I.R.C. § 7806 VIII.2, VIII.5
I.R.C. § 7851 VIII.1, VIII.5, XVIII.4
____________________
1 Title 26 of the United States Code, known as the Internal
Revenue Code, has never been enacted as positive law, as
specified at section 7806; the Internal Revenue Code is
Vol. 68A of the Statutes at Large, as amended in 1986 and
since. Therefore, "IRC" will be construed as "Vol. 68A,
Statutes at Large".
Application for Writ of Habeas Corpus:
Page 4 of 71
United States Code
3 U.S.C. § 301 VII.5, X.3
4 U.S.C. § 71 VII.1
4 U.S.C. § 72 VII.2, X.3
8 U.S.C. § 1101 XVI.3
18 U.S.C. § 2 IV.11, VI.1, X.12
18 U.S.C. § 7
I.1, III.13, IV.13, V.2, VI.3, X.11, XII.1, XII.3, XII.8, XIX.9
18 U.S.C. § 23 V.4
18 U.S.C. § 371 II.5, X.12
18 U.S.C. § 1341 II.5, X.12
18 U.S.C. § 1503 II.8, X.12
18 U.S.C. § 1504 II.8, X.12
18 U.S.C. § 3182 XIV.8
18 U.S.C. § 3231 V.3, XIX.2
18 U.S.C. § 3401 I.1, XII.8, XIX.2, XIX.9
18 U.S.C. § 3431 V.5
28 U.S.C. § 116 I.2, V.1
28 U.S.C. § 132 I.1, V.1
28 U.S.C. § 531 XII.6
28 U.S.C. § 535 XII.6
28 U.S.C. § 638 XII.8, XIX.9
28 U.S.C. § 1345 VI.2
28 U.S.C. § 1346 VI.3
28 U.S.C. § 1395 VIII.3
28 U.S.C. § 1396 VIII.4
28 U.S.C. § 1733 IX.11
28 U.S.C. § 1867 XIII.4, XIX.10
28 U.S.C. § 2072 XIII.3
31 U.S.C. § 301 VII.3, VII.4, VII.13, X.1
31 U.S.C. § 1321 VII.8
40 U.S.C. § 255 I.1, XII.2, XII.3, XIV.7, XIX.9
44 U.S.C. § 1501 et seq. X.1
44 U.S.C. § 1505 X.1, X.8
44 U.S.C. § 1510 X.2
44 U.S.C. § 3501 et seq. XVIII.1
48 U.S.C. § 874 VI.4
48 U.S.C. § 1406f VI.4
Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure
Rule 1 V.2
Rule 4 XII.3
Rule 5 XII.9
Rule 6 XIII.1
Rule 9 II.5, XII.8
Rule 12 II.5
Rule 10 XII.9
Rule 27 IX.11
Rule 54 I.1, V.4, VI.5, V.6, XI.1
Rule 58 V.5
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure
Rule 2 V.2
Rule 44 IX.11
Application for Writ of Habeas Corpus:
Page 5 of 71
Federal Rules of Evidence
Rule 201(d) I.4
Rule 1101 XIII.2
Code of Federal Regulations
1 CFR, Part 8.5 X.2
5 CFR, Part 1320 XVIII.1, XVIII.6, XVIII.8, XIX.15
26 CFR, Part 1.871 XVI.4, XIX.13
26 CFR, Part 1.1441-7
III.12, IV.12, IX.3, IX.8, IX.9, X.10, XVIII.4
26 CFR, Part 1.1461 IX.3, IX.6, XVIII.4
26 CFR, Part 1.6001 IX.5, XVIII.4
26 CFR, Part 31.3121(e)-1
III.7, III.8, IV.7, IV.8, X.11, XVI.1, XVI.5, XIX.13
26 CFR, Part 3402 IX.8
26 CFR, Part 31.3403 IX.8
26 CFR, Part 31.3404 IX.8, XVIII.4
26 CFR, Part 31.6001 IX.4, IX.5, XVIII.4
26 CFR, Part 31.6065 IX.10
26 CFR, Part 31.6402 IX.4, XVIII.4
26 CFR, Part 31.6413 IX.4
26 CFR, Part 301.6020 IX.9, IX.10
26 CFR, Part 301.6201 IX.7
26 CFR, Part 301.6203 IX.10
26 CFR, Part 301.6211 IX.8
26 CFR, Part 301.6212 IX.8
26 CFR, Part 301.7514 IX.11
26 CFR, Part 301.7621-1 VII.9, X.1, X.3
26 CFR, Part 403 III.13, X.6, kX.8
26 CFR, Part 601.106 IX.12
26 CFR, Part 601.401 IX.4, IX.6, XVIII.2, XVIII.4
27 CFR, Part 70 X.4, X.5, X.8, X.9, X.10
27 CFR, Part 72 X.6, X.8
27 CFR, Part 250.11 VII.8, XII.6
28 CFR, Part 0.49 VI.6
28 CFR, Part 0.64-1 IV.6
28 CFR, Part 60 XII.4
28 CFR, Part 65 XII.5
31 CFR, Part 0.216 VII.12
31 CFR, Part 0.301 VII.12
32 CFR, Part 1290.1 V.5
43 CFR, Part 9260.0-1 V.5
Parallel Table of Authorities & Rules
(pp. 721 et seq., CFR Index) VII.9, X.2-X.12
Congressional Record
House, March 27, 1943, p. 2580 IX.2
Executive Orders
E.O. No. 10289 (1951, as amended) II.13, VII.6, VII.9, X.1
Application for Writ of Habeas Corpus:
Page 6 of 71
Treasury Delegation Orders
T.D.O. No. 150-29 (1953) VII.8, XII.6
T.D.O. No. 150-42
(1956, as amended by T.D.O. No. 150-01 of 1986) II.14, VII.7
T.D.O. No. 221 (1972) XII.6
State of Oklahoma Constitution & Statutes
Constitution Article I § 1 III.5
22 O.S. §§ 221 et seq. XIV.3
22 O.S. § 221 XIV.4
22 O.S. § 222 XIV.4
22 O.S. §§1121 et seq. XIV.3
22 O.S. §§ 1123 XIV.5
22 O.S. §§ 1141.1 et seq. XIV.3
22 O.S. § 1141.10 XIV.5
78 O.S. § 12 I.12
Case Cites
Alaska v. American Can Co., 358 U.S. 224, 79 S.Ct. 274 (1958)
I.4
Application of Dandridge, 188 F.Supp. 278 (D.C.N.J., 1960)
I.4
Balzac v. Porto Rico, (1922) 258 U.S. 298,
66 L.Ed. 627, 42 S.Ct. 343 VI.4, XIV.6
Dorr v. United States, (1904) 195 U.S. 138,
49 L.Ed. 128, 24 S.Ct. 808 VI.4, XIV.6
Downes v. Bidwell, (1901) 182 U.S. 244,
45 L.Ed. 1088, 21 S.Ct. 770 VI.4, XIV.6
Hassett v. Welch, 303 U.S. 303, 58 S.Ct. 559,
82 L.Ed. 858 XVII.2
Hooven & Allison Co. v. Evatt, (1945) 324 U.S. 652,
89 L.Ed. 1252, 65 S.Ct. 870 reh den 325 U.S. 892,
89 L.Ed. 2004, 65 S.Ct. 1198 VI.4, XIV.6
Lamar v. Micu, 114 U.S. 218, 5 S.Ct. 857 (1885) I.4
United States v. Community TV, Inc., 327 F.2d 797 (1964)
XVII.2
United States v. Lanier, U.S. Supreme Court,
Case. No. 95-1717, (March 31, 1997) II.17
United States of America v. Menk, 260 F.Supp. 784 (1966)
XVII.2
Miscellaneous Authorities
80th Congress Senate Report No. 1559
VIII.3, VIII.4
Government Style Manual XV.3
Instruction Manual for 1040 Individual
Federal Income Tax Return XVIII.3, XVIII.4
Internal Revenue Manual 1100 at 1111.2
[36 F.R. 849-890] XII.6
Ordinance of 1787: The Northwest Territorial Government,
Article II I.3
Application for Writ of Habeas Corpus:
Page 7 of 71
APPLICATION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS
Now come Dan Leslie, Meador (Plaintiff), as himself and next
friend to and for Wayne Richard, Gunwall, both of whom are
Citizens of Oklahoma, one of the several States party to the
Constitution of the United States, non-citizen nationals of the
geographical United States, as defined at 8 U.S.C. §
1101(a)(22)(B), and nonresident aliens of the geographical United
States, as the term "United States" is defined at 26 CFR, Part
3121(e)-1(b) (see Oaths Purgatory).
Plaintiff has constructed an affidavit of complaint
detailing events leading to the Application for Writ of Habeas
Corpus in order to reduce the body of the actual pleading. The
affidavit of complaint is herewith incorporated in this
Application for Writ of Habeas Corpus by reference.
Causes in support of this Application for Writ of Habeas
Corpus are as follows:
I. Law & Condition of Necessity
1. This Application for Writ of Habeas Corpus is being
filed in the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals, sitting as an
Article III court of the United States, primarily under the Rule
of Necessity: Plaintiff alleges that since approximately October
1995, judicial officers who preside in the Article IV United
States District Court for the Northern District of Oklahoma (28
U.S.C. § 132), seemingly in league with attorneys in the office
of the United States Attorney for the Northern District of
Oklahoma and attorneys in the United States Department of
Justice, have avoided and refused to cause prosecuting attorneys
to answer pleadings premised on proofs that the Internal Revenue
Application for Writ of Habeas Corpus:
Page 8 of 71
Service is an agency of the Department of the Treasury, Puerto
Rico, which merely provides contract services to United States
Government [sic], that the Internal Revenue Code vests authority
in the Treasury Department rather than the Department of the
Treasury, that authority of Article IV United States District
Courts, being territorial courts of the United States, are
limited to consideration of misdemeanor offenses prescribed by
regulations implementing the United States Magistrate System (18
U.S.C. § 3401 & attending regulations; Rule 54(b)(4),
F.R.Cr.P.), that United States jurisdiction in the Union of
several States party to the Constitution of the United States is
limited to territorial bounds prescribed at 18 U.S.C. § 7(3),
that United States jurisdiction in the Union of several States
must be documented in accordance with provisions of 40 U.S.C. §
255 and State cession laws, and other particulars addressed in
this Application for Writ of Habeas Corpus.
2. Plaintiff alleges that persistent accommodation by
judicial officers employed in and by the Article IV United States
District Court, and/or the Article III district court of the
United States for the Northern District of Oklahoma (28 U.S.C. §
116(a)), makes it impossible to secure substantive due process of
law, as contemplated by the "arising under" clause at Article III
§ 2.1 and the Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, and Seventh Articles of
Amendment to the Constitution of the United States, in courts of
the United States located in the Northern District of Oklahoma.
Therefore, this Application for Writ of Habeas Corpus is being
directed to the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals under authority of
the Article III § 2.1 "arising under" clause, Article I § 9.2,
and the Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, Seventh, and Tenth Articles of
Amendment to the Constitution of the United States, which is the
law of the land in Oklahoma (Art. I § 1, Constitution of the
State of Oklahoma), and the Rule of Necessity.
Application for Writ of Habeas Corpus:
Page 9 of 71
3. Common law indigenous to the Oklahoma republic is
herewith adopted as governing law, and under conflict of law
doctrine, which is articulated at § 12 of Title 78, Oklahoma
Statutes, and numerous Federal court decisions, and as assured in
the Ordinance of 1787: The Northwest Territorial Government,
Article II, as adopted by Congress (see Vol. 1, United States
Code, 1994 Government Printing Office edition, "The Organic Laws
of the United States of America", pp. LI et seq.), substantive
due process will be construed as due process contemplated by
English-American common law as is consistent with applicable
constitutions, and statutory provisions which are in derogation
thereof must yield or fall. Judicial officers of the Tenth
Circuit Court of Appeals will also be cognizant that 28 U.S.C. §
2072(b) stipulates that rules promulgated by the Supreme Court of
the United States, which include appellate rules, "... shall not
abridge, enlarge or modify any substantive right ...."
4. Plaintiffs particularly request and demand that the
judicial officer or officers who consider this Application for
Writ of Habeas Corpus take mandatory judicial notice, per Rule
201(d), Federal Rules of Evidence, of the Constitution of the
United States, Statutes at Large, statutory authority of the
United States Code, the Code of Federal Regulations and
ancillaries, the Federal Register, Executive Orders, and
delegations of authority issued for implementation thereof, the
Application for Writ of Habeas Corpus:
Page 10 of 71
Congressional Record, and the Constitution and laws of the State
of Oklahoma (Federal courts must take judicial notice of the
Constitution, statutes of the United States, including
legislative history, per Alaska v. American Can Co., 358 U.S.
224, 79 S.Ct. 274 (1958), treaties, contents of the Federal
Register and other administrative regulations, and laws of each
state, per Lamar v. Micou, 114 U.S. 218, 5 S.Ct. 857 (1885), &
Application of Dandridge, 188 F.Supp. 278 (D.C.N.J., 1960)).
II. Account of Events/2
1. Plaintiff Wayne Richard, Gunwall was charged in a grand
jury indictment from the United States District Court for the
Western District of Oklahoma along with Kenney F. Moore and
Colleen Moore, both of Bartlesville, Oklahoma, in October 1995.
The core charge was interference with administration of internal
revenue laws of the United States, Internal Revenue Code §
7212(a) (IRC)./3 At that time, Dan Leslie, Meador of Ponca City,
Oklahoma, was recruited to provide assistance with defense
____________________
2 The account of events in this section is a brief summary.
See affidavits of complaint for details.
3 It is significant, but not addressed in this Application for
Writ of Habeas Corpus, that the Tax Division of the
Department of Justice is expressly prohibited from
prosecution under IRC § 7212 (28 CFR, Part 0.70). By
default, prosecution of § 7212 falls to the Criminal
Division (28 U.S.C. § 0.55). The Criminal Division has
jurisdiction only over customs laws enforcement (narcotics
and related substances), alcohol, tobacco, firearms,
explosive, etc. IRS prosecution of this statute is under
authority for enforcement of drug laws in United States
maritime jurisdiction under 26 CFR, Part 403, with exit from
the Internal Revenue Code at § 7327. Thus, there are two
presumptions in all IRS-initiated criminal prosecutions and
seizures: (1) whomever has property seized under maritime
laws is somehow involved with drug trade in United States
maritime jurisdiction, and (2) a crime against the customs
laws relating to drug trade has been committed.
Application for Writ of Habeas Corpus:
Page 11 of 71
pleadings as Plaintiff Dan Leslie, Meador had certain knowledge
concerning the character of the Internal Revenue Service and
application of Internal Revenue Code taxing authority. Motions
disclosing that the Internal Revenue Service is an agency of the
Department of the Treasury, Puerto Rico, and that no taxing
statute in the Internal Revenue Code reaches the Union of several
States party to the Constitution were entered into record for the
three defendants, Wayne Richard, Gunwall, Kenney F. Moore, and
Colleen Moore.
2. At about the same time, several people from rural
Western Oklahoma and Oklahoma City were summoned to testify to a
Federal grand jury convened under authority of the United States
District Court for the Northern District of Oklahoma, Tulsa. The
people at first refused to testify, but changed their minds, and
as part of their testimony, compiled a box of materials covering
a range of subjects which address the evolution of Cooperative
Federalism since approximately the Civil War. The witnesses
summoned to testify to the Federal grand jury asked Plaintiff Dan
Leslie, Meador to provide research pertaining to the character of
the Internal Revenue Service, proper application of Internal
Revenue Code taxing authority, etc., and construct a cover
letter. Included in the letter were complaints concerning
conduct of the Moore-Gunwall case, with H. Dale Cook, Senior
Magistrate Judge of the United States District Court, Neal B.
Kirkpatrick, the Assistant United States Attorney responsible for
prosecuting the case, Tracy Foster, an inspector with the
Internal Revenue Service, and others. Darrell Frech of Jet,
Oklahoma, one of the four people who voluntarily appeared to
testify, gave the box of material to the grand jury foreman in
the presence of Mr. Kirkpatrick.
Application for Writ of Habeas Corpus:
Page 12 of 71
3. Mr. Kirkpatrick, the prosecuting Assistant United
States Attorney, failed to respond to averments set out in
defense pleadings, and Mr. Cook, presiding as Senior Magistrate
Judge in the Article IV United States District Court,
accommodated the lack of response without establishing
jurisdiction of the court or otherwise proving law governing the
case. As it appeared there was no remedy via the court,
Plaintiff Dan Leslie, Meador constructed letters of complaint
which again named Mr. Kirkpatrick, Mr. Cook, Ms. Foster and
others. Complaints were sent to the office of the Oklahoma
Attorney General, W. A. Drew Edmondson, and to the grand jury
foreman of the Federal grand jury thought to be sitting at Tulsa.
Complaints directed to attention of the grand jury foreman was
sent in care of the Court Clerk for courts of the United States,
Northern District of Oklahoma. The United States Attorney also
received a copy of the complaints and support material.
4. The Meador complaints sent in care of the Court Clerk
for the Northern District of Oklahoma was received by the Court
Clerk on a Friday. The following Monday, Mr. Kirkpatrick entered
a motion to dismiss the first Moore-Gunwall case, then on or
about Nov. 27, 1995 Mr. Cook signed an order to dismiss the 1995
Moore-Gunwall case. The Kirkpatrick motion to dismiss did not
state a reason, nor did Mr. Cook's order reflect a reason for the
dismissal.
Application for Writ of Habeas Corpus:
Page 13 of 71
5. In July 1996, another grand jury indictment was issued
against Mr. Gunwall and the Moores (#96-CR-82-C), for alleged
offenses including interference with administration of internal
revenue laws (IRC § 7212(a)), principals (19 U.S.C. § 2),
conspiracy (18 U.S.C. § 371), and mail fraud (18 U.S.C. §
1341)/4. Charges against Mr. Gunwall remained the same, mail
fraud charges against the Moores were new. Subsequent to receipt
of summonses and indictments, Mr. Gunwall and the Moores again
consulted with Mr. Meador concerning defense. Collectively, Mr.
Gunwall, Mr. Meador, and the Moores settled on a form of pleading
developed by a David Miller of Minnesota, the pleading styled as
a "refusal for fraud", issued primarily under authority of Rules
9 & 12, F.R.Cr.P. Mr. Meador assisted the Moores, and Mr.
Gunwall constructed a similar but different "refusal for cause"
or "refusal for fraud" pleading. Mr. Meador had found that both
Oklahoma law and Federal law preserve the unqualified Sixth
Amendment right to choice of counsel, and statutes and court
rules of both Oklahoma and the United States acknowledge
"counsel" as distinctive from "attorney". Mr. Meador signed onto
the Moore pleading as "counsel", attaching a notice of intent to
represent, Moore powers of attorney, and a brief in support to
the pleading as exhibits accompanying the Moore refusal
instrument.
____________________
4 Although "mail fraud" is not specifically addressed in this
pleading, as the mail fraud charges were not issued against
Mr. Gunwall, it will be found that via E.O. No. 10289 (1951,
as amended several times since), the President authorized
the Secretary of the Treasury and the Postmaster General to
prosecute mail-related offenses, but only pertaining to
United States Government employees, not the general public.
This is the only delegation to the Secretary relating to
mail offenses, so where the Internal Revenue Service is the
complaining party, the complaint cannot exceed delegation
from the President to the Secretary under provisions of 3
U.S.C. § 301. Reference 26 CFR, Part 301.7621 to see that
E.O. No. 10289 is the only Executive Order which confers
authority to the Secretary relating to internal revenue
laws, the Anti-Smuggling Act, postal regulations, and other
matters, including establishment of internal revenue
districts. The matter is treated at length infra.
Application for Writ of Habeas Corpus:
Page 14 of 71
6. Mr. Gunwall and the Moores elected not to answer
summonses from the United States District Court. Subsequently,
Mr. Gunwall was arrested by Federal Bureau of Investigation
agents, and possibly Internal Revenue Service officers, in the
parking lot outside the Wal-Mart store in Ponca City, Oklahoma.
The Moores were contacted by telephone and subsequently
surrendered. The Moores were released on bond following
arraignment, but Mr. Gunwall was held over for several days
before bond was set and he was finally released.
7. In August, Plaintiff Dan Leslie, Meador received a
summons and indictment from the office of the Court Clerk for the
United States District Court for the Northern District of
Oklahoma by mail. Plaintiff responded with various pleadings,
but elected not to answer the summons. Plaintiff subsequently
arranged to surrender to the chief deputy U.S. Marshal, was
arraigned before United States magistrate judge Sam Joyner, and
was released on bond. In all instances, Article IV United States
magistrate judges (national park commissioners) entered "not
guilty" pleas in spite of the Moores, Mr. Gunwall, and Mr. Meador
declining to enter pleas, mandated that all four report to
Federal probation officers, assigned standby counsel, and where
Mr. Gunwall and Mr. Meador were concerned, imposed the
requirement that they submit pleadings to court-assigned standby
counsel prior to entering pleadings in record/5. Senior
____________________
5 Rule 5, F.R.Cr.P. clearly prohibits United States magistrate
judges from calling on defendants to plead in any case where
the U.S. magistrate judge is not qualified to try the case.
Under Local Criminal Rule 5.1B.3., N.D. of Okla., permits
Application for Writ of Habeas Corpus:
Page 15 of 71
Magistrate Judge Cook eventually lifted the screening requirement
from Mr. Meador, but Mr. Gunwall is still required to submit
material through a court-appointed attorney.
8. The Meador indictment was on two counts of
communicating with a grand jury in writing (18 U.S.C. § 1504),
and one count of interfering with administration of justice (18
U.S.C. § 1503).
9. The Moores, Mr. Gunwall and Mr. Meador continued to
enter motions to dismiss, evidence of law and other
documentation, etc., including motions for declaratory judgment
concerning the Sixth Amendment right to choice of counsel and the
practice of law as a common law profession. In both cases,
Assistant U.S. Attorney Kirkpatrick failed to prove jurisdiction
in record, avoided matters concerning the need to establish
authority and application of law, et al., and Mr. Cook continued
to accommodate, failing and refusing to require Mr. Kirkpatrick
to produce necessary documentation, and failing and refusing to
enter written decisions pertaining to motions entered by the
Moores, Mr. Gunwall, and Mr. Meador.
____________________________________________________________
U.S. magistrate judges to accept "not guilty" pleas, but
does not authorize them to enter a plea where a defendant
declines entering a plea. There certainly isn't any
authorization either in the Federal Rules of Criminal
Procedure or Local Rules for the Northern District of
Oklahoma which authorized U.S. magistrate judges to appoint
standby counsel when defendants in felony cases when they
decline appointment of counsel, and imposing orders which
prevent people from filing petitions in their own defense
without review by someone else, or, as is the case for Mr.
Gunwall, imposing restrictions against filing material in
other courts amounts to abridgment of First Amendment
rights. Yet because of conditions imposed by the U.S.
magistrate judge on Mr. Gunwall, Mr. Gunwall fears reprisal
and incarceration if he were to sign Oath Purgatory included
in this document, or signs on his own behalf as Plaintiff.
Application for Writ of Habeas Corpus:
Page 16 of 71
10. It is relevant that complaints were filed via the
office of the Oklahoma Attorney General, and with the Federal
grand jury foreman (the grand jury never saw either complaint)
against Mr. Cook, Mr. Kirkpatrick, Mr. Joyner, Ms. Foster and
others. This same cast of characters prosecuted both the 1996
Moore-Gunwall case and the Meador case.
11. Mr. Cook and Mr. Kirkpatrick failed and refused to
recuse themselves from the Meador case even though they were
obviously interested parties, and Plaintiff filed a motion for
them to recuse themselves. As it became increasingly evident
that the consortium involved with the case had no intention of
following court rules concerning pleadings, and were determined
to ignore law which was clearly entered into pleading, the
Moores, Mr. Gunwall, and Mr. Meador filed a civil suit against
Mr. Cook, Mr. Kirkpatrick, the United States Attorney, Stephen C.
Lewis, United States magistrate judges, and Ms. Foster. However,
despite being served prior to jury selection commencing, Mr.
Kirkpatrick, et al, continued with prosecution.
12. The Moores elected to plea bargain when Mr. Kirkpatrick
offered what appeared to be a favorable offer. Mr. Gunwall,
under the impression of entering a plea to a misdemeanor offense,
also plea bargained, feeling prospects for securing substantive
due process via the Admiralty-Civil Law Article IV United States
District Court was somewhere between slim and none. Plaintiff
elected to go through the trial process. In order to avoid
difficulties in the court, Plaintiff accepted assistance of
court-appointed counsel. Counsel for Plaintiff, without
consulting with him, elected not to put on a defense when the
Government [sic] rested. Plaintiff was found guilty on all three
charges.
Application for Writ of Habeas Corpus:
Page 17 of 71
13. It is material and essential to this Application for
Writ of Habeas Corpus that Tracy Foster, Inspector for the
Internal Revenue Service, was the Government's [sic] key witness
at the Meador trial. During the course of testimony, Ms. Foster,
in her capacity as Inspector for the Internal Revenue Service,
claimed responsibility for (1) prosecution of both Moore-Gunwall
cases (1995 & 1996), (2) the November 1995 grand jury
investigation of "common law courts" in Oklahoma, (3) arrest of
Wayne Richard, Gunwall in the parking lot outside the Wal-Mart
store in the community of Ponca City, Oklahoma state (privately
owned land), and (4) prosecution of the Meador case. Therefore,
the Article IV United States District Court of necessity must be
imposing jurisdictional authority of the Internal Revenue
Service, an agency of the Department of the Treasury, Puerto
Rico, which so far as police powers are concerned operates
exclusively under authority of E.O. No. 10289 (1951), within
jurisdiction conveyed from the Secretary to the Commissioner of
Internal Revenue via T.D.O. No. 150-42, as amended in 1986 via
T.D.O. No. 150-01.
14. Following trial, Plaintiff entered four motions:
(1) to resume his own defense, entering evidence that
court-appointed counsel had not asked Meador-prepared
questions of Government [sic] witnesses, had failed to
explore certain Government [sic] evidence, had failed
to enter evidence supplied by Plaintiff, and had failed
to call witnesses who were at the court and available
to testify;
(2) to acquit due to the Government [sic] failing to prove
a crime;
(3) to arrest judgment due to lack of jurisdiction and
related matters; and,
(4) for new trial due to prejudicial jury instructions and
incompetence of court-appointed counsel.
Application for Writ of Habeas Corpus:
Page 18 of 71
15. In the meantime, Mr. Gunwall has been unable to secure
cooperation from the court-appointed attorney he must screen all
pleadings through. This has created an untenable situation which
leaves him without a remedy via the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Oklahoma unless he is willing to
risk revocation of bail for filing an Application for Writ of
Habeas Corpus or other initiative on his own behalf.
16. As was the case prior to the Meador trial, Mr. Cook has
failed to enter written rulings on motions, and in fact, when
Plaintiff secured a letter of authorization to subpoena certain
information pertaining to Dr. Moore from Internal Revenue Service
principals, which Plaintiff believes would document fraud,
someone from the office of the United States Attorney contacted
the court-appointed attorney representing Dr. Moore and
apparently issued threats of increased incarceration for Dr.
Moore if the authorization was not withdrawn. The court-
appointed attorney, Stephen Knorr, wrote a letter to Plaintiff
effecting a revocation of the Moore authorization, so Plaintiff
had to alter an application for subpoenas duces tecum due. This
blatant interference with efforts to secure evidence, tolerated
by Mr. Cook over the course of time, makes it impossible to
pursue justice vial judicial officers at the United States
District Court for the Northern District of Oklahoma.
Application for Writ of Habeas Corpus:
Page 19 of 71
17. It is passing relevant to matters at hand that Mr.
Gunwall merely provided assistance to the Moores with such things
as helping them wade through procedure when the Moores filed non-
statutory liens against certain Internal Revenue Service
principals, and that Plaintiff simply filed complaints and
assisted with filing what amounted to a motion to dismiss for the
Moores. Alleged offenses are hardly cognizable under statutes
for which crimes were charges (see criteria set out by the
Supreme Court of the United States, United States v. Lanier, Case
No. #95-1717, March 31, 1997). However, the scope of the
"victimless crime" offenses and whether or not statutes are
cognizable of alleged offenses by Plaintiff and Mr. Gunwall are
beyond the scope of the instant matter.
18. At present, Plaintiff and Mr. Gunwall have not been
sentenced. They are, however, under bond and supervision of
Federal probation officers. Since Mr. Cook is demonstrating the
same pattern of non-response as prior to pleas by the Moores and
Mr. Gunwall and trial of Plaintiff, it is obvious that he will
hold the course to impose sentences without response to
pleadings, requirements for Mr. Kirkpatrick to enter evidence of
jurisdiction, etc. Therefore, this matter comes before the Tenth
Circuit Court of Appeals, sitting as an Article III court of the
United States, under the Rule of Necessity.
III. Certification of Fact Concerning Dan Leslie Meador
Oath Purgatory
I, Dan Leslie, Meador, known as Dan Meador, certify that the
following is true and correct, to the best of my current
knowledge, understanding and belief:
1. My Christian and family names are Dan Leslie, Meador,
spelled with the first letter of each capitalized and the rest of
each spelled with lower case letters;
Application for Writ of Habeas Corpus:
Page 20 of 71
2. I am a natural-born, living, moral being endowed by my
Creator, the God of Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, and the Lord Jesus
Christ, with certain unalienable rights, among them being rights
to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness;
3. I am a native of Kansas, one of the Union states party
to the Constitution for the united States of America;
4. I live and have abode on privately owned land in the
county of Kay, Oklahoma state, which is also a Union state party
to the Constitution for the united States of America;
5. The Constitution of the United States [sic] is the law
of the land in Oklahoma (Art. I § 1, Constitution for the State
of Oklahoma);
6. The Constitution for the united States of America
secures certain rights which I am by heritage assured of as being
in the lineage and Posterity of American Founders, among those
being the right to substantive due process of law, as
contemplated by the "arising under" clause at Article III, Sec.
2, Cl. 1 and the Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, and Seventh Articles of
Amendment to the Constitution for the united States of America,
said substantive due process being according to rules of English-
American common law as it existed in the Union of several states
party to the Constitution in 1789;
7. I am not a citizen of the geographical United States,
as the term "United States" is defined at 26 CFR, Part
31.3121(e)-1(b);
8. I do not now reside and have not resided in the
geographical United States, as the term "United States" is
defined at 26 CFR, Part 31.3121(e)-1(b);
Application for Writ of Habeas Corpus:
Page 21 of 71
9. I am not an "employee", as the term is defined at
Internal Revenue Code ("IRC") § 3401(c);
10. I am not an "employer", as the term is defined at IRC §
3401(d);
11. I am not engaged in United States trade or business, as
the term "trade or business" is defined at IRC § 7701(a)(26);
12. I am not a "withholding agent", as the term is defined
at 26 CFR, Part 1.1441-7(a);
13. I am not now nor have I ever been involved in trade or
other activity in United States special territorial and maritime
jurisdiction (18 U.S.C. § 7) subject to Internal Revenue Service
customs law administration and enforcement authority (26 CFR,
Part 403);
14. I am not now and have never been engaged in enterprise
in the geographical United States subject to IRC Subtitle D & E
taxing authority.
Having been subscribed and sworn, I attest under penalty of
perjury that the above is, to the best of my current
understanding, knowledge and belief, TRUE, CORRECT and COMPLETE,
so help me God.
/s/ Dan Leslie Meador
_______________________________________
Dan Leslie, Meador
Application for Writ of Habeas Corpus:
Page 22 of 71
On this _____ day of _________________________, 1997, before
me, a notary public in and for said State, personally appeared
Dan Leslie, Meador, known to me to be a person whose name is
subscribed to the within instrument, and acknowledged to me that
he executed the same.
S _________________________________________
E Notary Public
A
L Commission expires: ________________________
Application for Writ of Habeas Corpus:
Page 23 of 71
IV. Certification of Fact Concerning Wayne Richard, Gunwall
Oath Purgatory/6
I, Wayne Richard., Gunwall known as Wayne Gunwall, certify
that the following is true and correct, to the best of my current
knowledge, understanding and belief:
1. My Christian and family names Wayne Richard., Gunwall,
that is capital "W", lower case "ayne", Richard, capital "R",
lower case "ichard", and that the family name is Gunwall, Capital
"G", lower case "unwall".
2. I am a natural-born, living, moral being endowed by my
Creator, the God of Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, and the Lord Jesus
Christ, with certain unalienable rights, among them being rights
to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness;
3. I am a native of North Dakota, one of the Union states
party to the Constitution for the united States of America;
4. I live and have abode on privately owned land in the
county of Kay, Oklahoma state, which is also a Union state party
to the Constitution for the united States of America;
5. The Constitution of the United States [sic] is the law
of the land in Oklahoma (Art. I § 1, Constitution for the State
of Oklahoma);
6. The Constitution for the united States of America
secures certain rights which I am by heritage assured of as being
in the lineage and Posterity of American Founders, among those
being the right to substantive due process of law, as
contemplated by the "arising under" clause at Article III, Sec.
2, Cl. 1 and the Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, and Seventh Articles of
Amendment to the Constitution for the united States of America,
said substantive due process being according to rules of English-
American common law as it existed in the Union of several states
party to the Constitution in 1789;
____________________
6 Signature withheld under threat, duress & coercion.
Application for Writ of Habeas Corpus:
Page 24 of 71
7. I am not a citizen of the geographical United States,
as the term "United States" is defined at 26 CFR, Part
31.3121(3)-1(b);
8. I do not now resident and have not resided in the
geographical United States, as the term "United States" is
defined at 26 CFR, Part 31.3121-(e)-1(b);
9. I am not an "employee", as the term is defined at
Internal Revenue Code ("IRC") § 3401(c);
10. I am not an "employer", as the term is defined at IRC §
3401(d);
11. I am not engaged in United States trade or business, as
the term "trade or business" is defined at IRC § 7701(a)(26);
12. I am not a "withholding agent", as the term is defined
at 26 CFR, Part 1.1441-7(a);
13. I am not now nor have I ever been involved in trade or
other activity in United States special territorial and maritime
jurisdiction (18 U.S.C. § 7) subject to Internal Revenue Service
customs law administration and enforcement authority (26 CFR,
Part 403);
14. I am not now and have never been engaged in enterprise
in the geographical United States subject to IRC Subtitle D & E
taxing authority.
Application for Writ of Habeas Corpus:
Page 25 of 71
Having been subscribed and sworn, I attest under penalty of
perjury that the above is, to the best of my current
understanding, knowledge and belief, TRUE, CORRECT and COMPLETE,
so help me God.
(signature withheld)
_______________________________________
Wayne Richard., Gunwall
On this _____ day of _________________________, 1997, before
me, a notary public in and for said State, personally appeared
Wayne Richard., Gunwall, known to me to be a person whose name is
subscribed to the within instrument, and acknowledged to me that
he executed the same.
S _________________________________________
E Notary Public
A
L Commission expires: ________________________
Application for Writ of Habeas Corpus:
Page 26 of 71
V. Incompetence of the Court & Judicial Officers
Plaintiffs allege and aver that the following is to the best
of their current knowledge, understanding and belief accurate and
true:
1. The UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT for the NORTHERN
DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA (28 U.S.C. § 132) is an Article IV
territorial court of the United States, it is not the "district
court of the United States" (28 U.S.C. § 116(a)) vested with
Article III "arising under" clause capacity and authority at
Section 2, Cl. 1 of the Constitution (Article III § 2.1) , the
"district court of the United States" alone being competent at
law and equity under authority of the Constitution, laws of the
United States, and treaties made thereunder, exclusive of the
Article IV United States District Court;
2. The United States District Court operates solely under
admiralty-Civil Law rules (Rule 2, F.R.Cv.P.; Rule 1,
F.R.Cr.P.), said rules, even for the Article III district court
of the United States, applicable only in United States special
territorial and maritime jurisdiction (18 U.S.C. § 7);
3. Original jurisdiction for prosecution of felony crimes
committed in United States jurisdiction (18 U.S.C. § 7) is vested
in "district courts of the United States" (18 U.S.C. § 3231),
exclusive of courts of the [Federal] States (first sentence of §
3231), but said jurisdiction does not infringe on or impair
original jurisdiction of courts of the several States party to
the Constitution under the laws thereof (second sentence of §
3231; Art. III § 2.3, Constitution of the United States);
Application for Writ of Habeas Corpus:
Page 27 of 71
4. Article IV United States District Courts, being
legislative-statutory courts, must receive authority by statute,
and the United States District Courts authorized by statute to
prosecute felony offenses against the United States, as defined
in Title 18 of the United States Code, are the District Court of
Guam, the District Court for the Northern Mariana Islands, and
the District Court of the Virgin Islands (18 U.S.C. § 23), with
Article IV courts of the United States acknowledged and affirmed
at Rule 54(a), F.R.Cr.P., as being the United States District
Court for the District of Guam, the District Court for the
Northern Mariana Islands, the District Court for the Virgin
Islands, and conditionally, the District of the Canal Zone.
There is no corresponding statutory authority for Article IV
United States District Courts located in the several States party
to the Constitution;
5. Article IV United States District Courts located in the
several States party to the Constitution, which have concurrent
jurisdiction with Article III district courts of the United
States (28 U.S.C. §§ 81-131), are authorized under 18 U.S.C. §
3401 to hear and prosecute only misdemeanor offenses under
regulations promulgated by the Defense Logistics Agency for the
Department of Defense, relating to military installations (32
CFR, Part 1290.1 et seq.), and the Bureau of Land Management,
relating to national parks, forests, etc., under United States
jurisdiction (43 CFR, Part 9260.0-1). Per Rule 54(b)(4),
F.R.Cr.P., proceedings of the Federal Magistrate System within
the Union of several States, where United States magistrate
judges are permitted to preside (formerly national park
commissioners), are governed by Rule 58, F.R.Cr.P;
Application for Writ of Habeas Corpus:
Page 28 of 71
6. When hearing cases initiated through the Article IV
United States Magistrate System (United States District Court),
all judicial officers of the United States, from the United
States magistrate judge (formerly designated as national park
commissioners) through justices of the United States Supreme
Court, operate as magistrates in Article IV legislative-
ministerial rather than Article III judicial capacity (Rule 54(c)
Applications, F.R.Cr.P.);
7. The Article IV United States District Court may not
deprive the sovereign American people, Citizens of the Union of
several States party to the Constitution, of life, liberty or
property (Fifth Article of Amendment, Constitution of the United
States), without effecting bills of attainder, prohibited at
Article I §§ 9.3 & 10.1 of the Constitution of the United States.
VI. Incapacity of Principal of Interest
Plaintiffs allege and aver that the following is to the best
of their current knowledge, understanding and belief accurate and
true:
1. At 18 U.S.C. § 2, a "principal" who may be prosecuted
in courts of the United States is designated as being, "Whoever
commits an offense against the United States ...."
2. At 28 U.S.C. § 1345, Article III "district courts of
the United States" are authorized to hear suits or proceedings,
"... commenced by the United States ...."
3. At 28 U.S.C. § 1346, Article III district court of the
United States are authorized to hear any "... civil action
against the United States ...."
Application for Writ of Habeas Corpus:
Page 29 of 71
4. The Constitution for the united States of America vests
authority in a governmental agency identified and stipulated as
the "United States", not the "United States of America". The
entity, "UNITED STATES OF AMERICA", being a political coalition
or compact of United States territories and insular possessions,
quasi-interdependent commonwealths, and United Nations trust
territories, is known as the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, with said
territories, insular possessions, commonwealths, trust
territories, etc., which are not incorporated as integral parts
of the United States (Downes v. Bidwell (1901) 182 U.S. 244, 45
L.Ed. 1088, 21 S.Ct. 770; Dorr v. United States (1904) 195 U.S.
138, 49 L.Ed. 128, 24 S.Ct. 808, Balzac v. Porto Rico (1922) 258
U.S. 298, 66 L.Ed. 627, 42 S.Ct. 343; Hooven & Allison Co. v.
Evatt (1945) 324 U.S. 652, 89 L.Ed. 1252, 65 S.Ct. 870, reh den
325 U.S. 892, 89 L.Ed. 2004, 65 S.Ct. 1198), subject to authority
of the President in his capacity as Commander-In-Chief of the
military in the name of the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA (see 48
U.S.C. §§ 874 & 1406f);
5. In the alternative, the "UNITED STATES OF AMERICA"
serves as nominee for an unidentified foreign principal, the
"Central Authority" or the "Competent Authority" (28 CFR, Part
0.49 or 0.64-1);
6. The "UNITED STATES OF AMERICA" is not authorized as
plaintiff or defendant under provisions of titles 18 or 28 of the
United States Code, or § 7325 of the Internal Revenue Code of
1954 (Vol. 68A, Statutes at Large; hereafter, IRC), as amended
in 1986 and since.
VII. Incapacity of the Complaining Party
Plaintiffs allege and aver that the following is to the best
of their current knowledge, understanding and belief accurate and
true:
Application for Writ of Habeas Corpus:
Page 30 of 71
1. The seat of United States Government is established
within the current territorial borders of the District of
Columbia (4 U.S.C. § 71);
2. All Departments of United States Government are
required to have special law before operating outside the
District of Columbia (4 U.S.C. § 72);
3. The Department of the Treasury is an executive
department of the United States Government (31 U.S.C. § 301);
4. The Internal Revenue Service is not an agency of the
Department of the Treasury (31 U.S.C. §§ 301-310);
5. The President is required to delegate authority to
departments and department heads in the executive branch of
government (3 U.S.C. § 301);
6. The President delegated authority to the Secretary of
the Treasury by way of Executive Order No. 10289 (1951, as
amended), with the delegation conveying authority to administer
and enforce United States customs laws, including customs laws
relating to narcotics and related commodities, enforce the anti-
smuggling act, and through various amendments to the order, to
establish revenue districts (current IRC § 7621);
7. The Secretary delegated authority to the Commissioner
of Internal Revenue via T.D.O. #150-42 (1956, as amended in 1986
via T.D.O. #150-01), and simultaneously moved district and
regional customs offices from Jacksonville, Florida, Atlanta,
Georgia, Lower Manhattan, and New York City, New York, to
off-shore administration under authority of the Department of the
Treasury, Puerto Rico;
Application for Writ of Habeas Corpus:
Page 31 of 71
8. The Internal Revenue Service, by virtue of a name
change (T.D.O. #150-29 (1953)), is successor of the Bureau of
Internal Revenue, Puerto Rico, operating out of, or in
conjunction with, Puerto Rico Trust #62 (Internal Revenue) (31
U.S.C. § 1321; see definitions at 27 CFR, Part 250.11);
9. The only delegation from the President to the Secretary
of the Treasury for administration of United States revenue laws,
and for establishing internal revenue districts, is E.O. #10289
(see confirmation at 26 CFR, Part 301.7621-1), which does not
reach the Union of several States party to the Constitution (no
implementing regulations for IRC § 7621; see Parallel Table of
Authorities and Rules, located in the Index volume to the Code of
Federal Regulations);
10. The Internal Revenue Code vests authority within the
continental United States in the Treasury Department, not the
Department of the Treasury (IRC §§ 7701(a)(12)(A) & 7805(a));
11. The Internal Revenue Service, being an agency of the
Department of the Treasury, Puerto Rico, may administer and
enforce taxes prescribed in Internal Revenue Code, Chapters 1, 2
& 21, only in United States off-shore territories and possessions
(IRC § 7701(a)(12)(B)), there is no authority vested by the
Internal Revenue Code of 1954 for the Internal Revenue Service,
as an agency of the Department of the Treasury, Puerto Rico, to
administer and enforce Subtitles A & C of the Internal Revenue
Code of 1954, as amended in 1986 and since;
Application for Writ of Habeas Corpus:
Page 32 of 71
12. The Internal Revenue Service works on contract in the
continental United States to design, develop, operate and
maintain systems of records and maintain records relating to
United States Government internal revenue collections (31 CFR,
Part 0.216), and IRS employees may serve for up to 130 days out
of any given 365 as a Special Government Employees (31 CFR, Part
0.301), but the agency has no direct collections and enforcement
authority within the continental United States;
13. The original office of the Commissioner of Internal
Revenue (Act of July 1, 1862) was created in the Treasury
Department, but this office was effectively repealed with
enactment of the Revised Statutes of 1873. The present office of
the Commissioner of Internal Revenue (IRC § 7802) is in the
"Department of the Treasury", but not in the United States
Department of the Treasury (31 U.S.C. §§ 301-310).
VIII. Operation Under Non-Existent, Color of Law
Plaintiffs allege and aver that the following is to the best
of their current knowledge, understanding and belief accurate and
true:
1. IRC § 7851(a)(6)(A) specifies, "The provisions of
subtitle F shall take effect on the day after the date of
enactment of this title and shall be applicable with respect to
any tax imposed by this title ...."
2. IRC § 7806(b) specifies, "No inference, implication, or
presumption of legislative construction shall be drawn or made by
reason of the location or grouping of any particular section or
provision or portion of this title, nor shall any table of
contents, table of cross references, or similar outline,
analysis, or descriptive matter relating to the contents of this
title be given any legal effect ...."
Application for Writ of Habeas Corpus:
Page 33 of 71
3. The Senate Revision Amendment for 28 U.S.C. § 1395,
relating to fines, penalties or forfeitures, restricted
application of this statute to section 3745(c) of the Internal
Revenue Code of 1939, authority was never extended to the
Internal Revenue Code of 1954 (see 80th Congress Senate Report
No. 1559);
4. The Senate Revision Amendment for 28 U.S.C. § 1396,
authorizing civil action for the collection of internal revenue
taxes, remains applicable to the Internal Revenue Code of 1939,
§ 3744, authority was never extended to the Internal Revenue Code
of 1954 (see 80th Congress Senate Report No. 1559);
5. Subtitle F of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954,
prescribes all administrative assessment and collection statutes,
all crimes, penalties and forfeitures, and all judicial authority
relating to administration and enforcement of IRC 1954 taxing
authority, but no statute in Subtitle F becomes effective until
Title 26 of the United States Code is enacted as positive law
(IRC § 7851(a)(6)(A)), and the title has never been enacted as
positive law (IRC § 7806(b)), nor has authority under 28 U.S.C.
§§ 1395 & 1396 been extended to enforcement of IRC 1954 statutory
authority.
IX. Subtitle A & C Taxes Mandatory
Only For Government Employees
Plaintiffs allege and aver that the following is to the best
of their current knowledge, understanding and belief accurate and
true:
1. The so-called general application "income tax"
(corporate tax), promulgated approximately with implementation of
the Sixteenth Amendment in 1913, was repealed by the Internal
Revenue Act of 1921, as were most other general-application
Application for Writ of Habeas Corpus:
Page 34 of 71
excise taxes (Title XIV -- General Provisions, pp. 320, etc.,
Statutes at Large, Sixty-seventh Congress, 1921), with most of
these taxes reenacted under Congress' Article IV § 3.2 authority
in the geographical United States when they were put back in
place. What survived in lieu of the general application
corporate income tax was the "normal tax" (Title II, Part II, §
210 (p. 233)), with the normal tax levied against, "gains,
profits, and income derived from salaries, wages, or compensation
for personal service (including in the case of the President of
the United States, the judges of the Supreme and inferior courts
of the United States, and all other officers and employees,
whether elected or appointed, of the United States, Alaska,
Hawaii, or any political subdivision thereof, or the District of
Columbia...)" ("Gross Income Defined", § 213, pp. 237, et seq.),
then these "normal taxes" became known as "income taxes" via the
Public Salary Tax Act of 1939, codified in Chapter 1, IRC, 1939,
then in Subtitle A, IRC 1954. In the IRC 1954, the "employee"
against whom taxes in Subtitles A & C are levied is an officer or
employee of the United States or a United States geographical
subdivision, or an officer of a corporation construed to be an
instrumentality of the United States (IRC § 3401(c)), with the
"employer" (IRC § 3401(d)), being the employer of the employee,
as previously defined;
2. "The income tax is, therefore, not a tax on income as
such. It is an excise tax with respect to certain activities and
privileges which is measured by reference to the income which
they produce. The income is not the subject of the tax: it is
the basis for determining the amount of tax." (Congressional
Record, House, March 27, 1943, p. 2580)
Application for Writ of Habeas Corpus:
Page 35 of 71
3. The person required to file return forms or lists (IRC
§ 6011), and make payments of income withheld from wages at the
source (IRC § 6012), is the "withholding agent" (26 CFR, Part
1.1441-7), who in general is required to file Form 1042 (26 CFR,
Part 1.1461-2(b)), or Form 1042S (26 CFR, Part 1.1461-2(c));
4. An "employee", other than a properly designated
withholding agent, is not normally required to keep books and
records (26 CFR, Part 31.6001-1(d)), save in the event of filing
for special refunds (26 CFR, Parts 6001-1(d), 31.6413(c)-1 §
601.401(d)). In that event, the 1040 family of forms is
prescribed as the forms which may voluntarily be filed for
special refunds (26 CFR, Parts 601.401(d) & 31.6402(a)-2);
5. In the event someone is liable for Subtitle A & C taxes
and is required to keep books and records under provisions of IRC
§ 6001, the district director must provide him direct notice (26
CFR, Parts 1.6001-1(d) & 31.6001-6);
6. Under normal circumstance, except where an employee
might have two or more employers effectively connected with
United States trade or business (performance of the functions of
public office, IRC § 7701(a)(26)), resulting in over-payment of
employee tax (Social Security, Medicare insurance, etc.), the
employee will secure refunds for over-payment from the employer
(26 CFR, Parts 1.1461-4 & 601.401(c));
7. The district director or director of the regional
service center may effect assessments of taxes disclosed by a
"taxpayer" on a list or return (26 CFR, Part 301.6201-1(a)(1)),
or unpaid taxes payable by stamp (26 CFR, Part 301.6201-1(a)(2)),
Application for Writ of Habeas Corpus:
Page 36 of 71
but "If the amount of income tax withheld or the amount of
estimated income tax paid is overstated by a taxpayer on a return
or on a claim for refund, the amount so overstated which is
allowed against the tax shown on the return or which is allowed
as a credit or refund shall be assessed by the district director
or the director of the regional service center in the same manner
as in the case of a mathematical error on the return ...."
8. In the event of under-payment or late payment of tax
prescribed in subtitle A of the Internal Revenue Code, the
"employer" is liable (26 CFR, Part 31.3403-1), but may be
exempted from liability for the tax itself if the tax is paid by
someone else (the "employee"). However, the employer remains
liable for interest and penalties (26 CFR, Part 31.3402(d)-1), or
when the appropriate tax is not paid by a third party, is subject
to assessment and notice of deficiency (26 CFR, Parts 301.6211-1,
301.6212-1, etc.). The "employer" (26 CFR, Part 31.3404-1) may
be the United States, a [Federal] State subject to Congress'
Article IV § 3.2 municipal authority, inclusive of Puerto Rico,
the District of Columbia, etc., and political subdivisions
thereof. The "employee", as defined at IRC § 3401(c), is not the
"person liable" for deficiencies, interest, or statutory
penalties, save in the event he is the designated withholding
agent (26 CFR, Part 1.1441-7);
9. Providing a person liable to make a return under
requirements of the Internal Revenue Code and regulations
thereunder ("withholding agent", 26 CFR, Part 1.1441-7) consents
to disclose information necessary to make a return, the
director's designated officer may make it for him, and the return
will then be received by the director as the return of the person
provided the person signs the return (26 CFR, Part 301.6020-1);
Application for Writ of Habeas Corpus:
Page 37 of 71
10. In the event a person required to make a return fails
or refuses to do so, or files a fraudulent return, the director,
by way of his designated officer, may make a return from his own
knowledge and information obtained through testimony and
otherwise (26 CFR, Part 301.6020-1(b)(1)). The return so
executed by the designated assessment officer must be made by way
of a "summary record of assessment" (Form 23C), which reflects
the following: (1) identification of the taxpayer, (2) the
character of the liability assessed (taxing statute), (3) the
taxable period, where applicable, and (4) the amount of
assessment. The date of assessment is the date the summary
record is signed by the assessment officer (26 CFR, Part
301.6203-1). The assessment must be premised on support
documents, and the assessment officer must certify its accuracy
under penalty of perjury (26 CFR, Part 31.6065(a)-1);
11. Execution documents such as notices of Federal tax
lien, notices of levy, etc., must be issued under seal of the
district director (26 CFR, Part 301.7514-1(a)(2)(ii)), or they
are of no legal effect and may not be judicially noticed (26 CFR,
Part 301.7514-1(c) & (d); 28 U.S.C. § 1733(b); Rule 44,
F.R.Cv.P.; Rule 27, F.R.Cr.P.);
12. The Internal Revenue Code preserves all substantive
rights and remedies (IRC § 7804(b)), so in order to comply with
Fifth Amendment due process rights (26 CFR, Part 601.106(f)(1)),
the Treasury Department bears liability for securing judicial
determination of contested liability (IRC § 7403) prior to
effecting encumbrances, other than those effected by licensing
agreements, or initiating seizure actions.
Application for Writ of Habeas Corpus:
Page 38 of 71
X. Lack of General Application Regulations
For Subtitle A & C Taxes &
Alleged Offenses under Title 18
of the United States Code
Plaintiffs allege and aver that the following is to the best
of their current knowledge, understanding and belief accurate and
true:
1. The Federal Register Act, (44 U.S.C. §§ 1501 et seq.,
particularly at 44 U.S.C. § 1505), requires that appropriately
designated Government officials provide notice of all general
application regulations by publication in the Federal Register,
with regulations subsequently classified and published in the
Code of Federal Regulations;
2. Congress by way of 44 U.S.C. § 1510 authorized certain
finding aids as ancillaries to the Code of Federal Regulations.
Among the ancillaries is the Parallel Table of Rules and
Authorities (1 CFR, Part 8.5(a)), published in the Index volume
of the Code of Federal Regulations. This table provides a
listing of titles of the United States Code, with statute numbers
in ascending order, in the left column, then lists general
application regulations for said statutes, where applicable, in
the right. Agencies responsible for promulgation of regulations
are responsible for maintaining the Parallel Table of Rules and
Authorities current and accurate. In this scheme, statutes which
do not appear in the Parallel Table of Rules and Authorities do
not have general application regulations (or delegations of
authority) which extend to the Union of several States party to
the Constitution and the American people at large;
Application for Writ of Habeas Corpus:
Page 39 of 71
3. By consulting the Parallel Table of Authorities and
Rules, it is found that 26 U.S.C. §§ 7621, 7801, 7802 & 7803 are
not listed. Therefore, there is no authority applicable to the
Union of several States party to the Constitution for
establishing revenue districts (confirmed by listing of E.O.
#10289 at 26 CFR, Part 301.7621-1 as the only authority conferred
per 3 U.S.C. § 301), no authority is delegated to the Secretary
of the Treasury for operation of the United States Department of
the Treasury in the several States party to the Constitution, per
4 U.S.C. § 72 & 31 U.S.C. § 301, the Commissioner of Internal
Revenue and assistants do not have general enforcement authority
in the Union of several States, and the Treasury Department (IRC
§§ 7701(a)(12)(A) & 7805(a)) does not have general enforcement
authority in the Union of several States;
4. By consulting the Parallel Table of Authorities and
Rules for IRC § 7401, it is found that the only regulation which
appears is 27 CFR, Part 70, relating to Subtitle E alcohol,
tobacco and firearms taxes administered by the Bureau of Alcohol,
Tobacco and Firearms; there are no regulations for 26 CFR, Parts
1, 31 or 301 relating to Subtitle A & C taxes withheld at the
source (IRC § 3402). Therefore, there is no authority for the
Attorney General to authorize civil actions via district courts
of the United States save as relates to Subtitle E taxes under
administration and enforcement authority of BATF;
Application for Writ of Habeas Corpus:
Page 40 of 71
5. By consulting the Parallel Table of Authorities and
Rules for IRC § 7402, which specifies jurisdiction of "district
courts of the United States" (there is no statutory authorization
for Article IV United States District Courts), it is found that
26 U.S.C. § 7402 does not appear. Therefore, Article III
district courts of the United States do not have jurisdiction for
civil suits even as relates to BATF administration of Subtitle E
taxes (27 CFR, Part 70) in the Union of several States party to
the Constitution;
6. By consulting the Parallel Table of Authorities and
Rules for IRC 7323, it is found that the only implementing
regulations for "in rem" maritime seizure action are 26 CFR, Part
403 (IRS maritime authorization for administration and
enforcement of customs laws relating to narcotics and related
commodities), and 27 CFR, Part 72 (BATF maritime authorization
for administration and enforcement of customs laws relating to
imported distilled spirits, tobacco products, firearms, etc.).
There are no regulations otherwise applicable to the Union of
several States party to the Constitution;
7. By consulting the Parallel Table of Authorities and
Rules for IRC 7321, it is found that the statute does not appear.
Therefore, no authority is conveyed by the Internal Revenue Code
to seize property in the Union of several States party to the
Constitution;
8. By consulting the Parallel Table of Authorities and
Rules for IRC, Chapter 75 (§§ 7201-7344), it is found that all
criminal statutes which have legislative regulations published in
the Federal Register in compliance with 44 U.S.C. § 1505, may be
prosecuted under 27 CFR, Part 70 and related statutes, or have no
regulations at all. The only criminal statute with 26 CFR, Part
1 & 301 regulations is § 7216, relating to "disclosure or use of
information by preparers of returns." Forfeitures under
Subchapter C, Part I, are under 27 CFR, Parts 24, 70 & 252; all
forfeiture provisions under Part II of Subchapter C (§§ 7322-
7327), are under regulations pertaining to customs laws,
primarily 26 CFR, Part 403 & 27 CFR, Part 72;
Application for Writ of Habeas Corpus:
Page 41 of 71
9. By referencing the Parallel Table of Authorities and
Rules for key IRC statutes which authorize encumbrance by lien
and seizure by levy and distraint, it is found that the only
regulations for IRC §§ 6321 & 6331 are 27 CFR, Part 70, the
authority under BATF administration relating to Subtitle E taxes;
10. By referencing the Parallel Table of Authorities and
Rules, it is found that there are no regulations published in the
Federal Register authorizing the Secretary to prepare tax returns
not computed by the taxpayer (IRC § 6013), and no regulations
published in the Federal Register requiring self-employment tax
returns (IRC § 6017); regulations listed in the Parallel Table
of Authorities and Rules for returns prepared for or executed by
the Secretary (IRC § 6020) or listing by the Secretary of taxable
objects owned by nonresidents of internal revenue districts (IRC
§ 6021), are 27 CFR, Parts 53 & 70, these regulations under BATF
administration. No regulations for any of these statutes are
listed for 26 CFR, Parts 1, 31 or 301, as might relate to
Subtitle A & C taxes;
11. The above demonstrates that no taxing statute in the
Internal Revenue Code of 1954, as amended in 1986 and since, or
administration or enforcement statute in Subtitle F of the IRC,
extends to the Union of several States party to the Constitution
save as (1) someone might serve in the capacity of a "withholding
Application for Writ of Habeas Corpus:
Page 42 of 71
agent" (26 CFR, Part 1.1441-7(a)) for an agency of United States
Government or a United States political subdivision (District of
Columbia, Puerto Rico, Guam, the Virgin Islands, etc.), (2) own
real and/or personal property located in the geographical United
States, as the term "United States" is defined at 26 CFR, Part
31.3121(e)-1(b) (Subtitle B), (3) be engaged in enterprise in the
geographical United States subject to Subtitle D & E licensing
and excise taxes, or (4) be involved in some off-shore activity
subject to customs laws in United States special maritime and
territorial jurisdiction (18 U.S.C. § 7).
12. By consulting the Parallel Table of Authorities and
Rules, it is found that none of the Title 18 statutes listed as
alleged offenses in either the Moore-Gunwall case or the Meador
case are listed, thus verifying that there are no implementing
regulations published in the Federal Register in compliance with
provisions of the Federal Register Act for 18 U.S.C. 2, 371,
1341, 1503 or 1504.
XI. Constitutional Insufficiency of Alleged Offense
Plaintiffs allege and aver that the following is to the best
of their current knowledge, understanding and belief accurate and
true:
1. In general, crimes prescribed by "Act of Congress" are
prosecutable only in the geographical United States subject to
Congress' Article IV § 3.2 municipal authority (see Rule 54(c)
Applications, F.R.Cr.P., for "Act of Congress" and "State");
Application for Writ of Habeas Corpus:
Page 43 of 71
2. The Constitution of the United States, at Article I,
§ 8.6, delegates authority for Congress to prescribe punishment
for counterfeiting securities and current coin of the United
States, and at Article III § 3.2, delegates authority for
Congress to prescribe punishment for treason. In various
amendments promulgated since 1868, Congress is empowered to
secure and protect civil rights and voting rights of "citizens of
the United States" (Sec. 1, Fourteenth Amendment "citizen of the
United States");
3. Article III § 2.3 of the Constitution stipulates that
(1) prosecution of crimes will be in the State (by the state
court) where the crime was allegedly committed, and (2) trial
will be by jury, the latter contemplative of trial by jury in the
manner prescribed by English-American lineage common law where
the jury is empowered to determine matters of law and fact;
4. At Article I § 8.15, Congress is authorized to call
forth the militia in the event of invasion or insurrection, and
to enforce the laws of the Union, and at Article IV § 4, the
Constitution authorizes the calling forth the militia in the
event of invasion, or on invitation of the legislature or chief
executive of any given Union state, to intervene in domestic
violence. The Constitution does not otherwise grant Congress
municipal and police powers extending to the Union of several
States party to the Constitution;
5. The Separation of Powers Doctrine (Tenth Amendment)
expressly prohibits United States Government from exercising
authority in the Union of several States party to the
Constitution which are not specifically delegated by the
Constitution;
6. Offenses alleged where the instant matter is concerned
are not enumerated in or by the Constitution as being offenses
Congress may prescribe punishment for;
Application for Writ of Habeas Corpus:
Page 44 of 71
7. Article III of the Constitution does not grant United
States extra-territorial judicial authority within the Union of
several States where the instant matter is concerned;
8. Therefore, the instant matter is not cognizable as
being within the scope of United States constitutionally
delegated authority under provisions of Article I or Article III
of the Constitution of the United States.
Application for Writ of Habeas Corpus:
Page 45 of 71
XII. Jurisdiction Limits of Warrant &
Federal Enforcement Personnel
Plaintiffs allege and aver that the following is to the best
of their current knowledge, understanding and belief accurate and
true:
1. United States jurisdiction in the Union of several
States party to the Constitution is prescribed at 18 U.S.C. §
7(3), being lands acquired or reserved for use of the United
States, and Federal enclaves as specified at Article I § 8.17 --
forts, magazines, arsenals, dockyards, and other needful
buildings;
2. Per 40 U.S.C. § 255 and state cession laws, in order to
secure jurisdiction within the Union of several States party to
the Constitution, (1) the United States must secure title to
land, (2) the state legislature must cede jurisdiction, and (3)
the United States must formally accept jurisdiction. Until the
United States formally accepts jurisdiction, lack of United
States jurisdiction is presumed (last sentence, 40 U.S.C. § 255);
3. Territorial limits for service of summonses or
execution of warrants issued by a United States District Court
are prescribed at Rule 4(d)(2), F.R.Cr.P.: "The warrant may be
executed or the summons may be served at any place within the
jurisdiction of the United States." Said jurisdiction, within
borders of Union states party to the Constitution, is limited to
land where the United States has actual title and has perfected
jurisdiction in accordance with provisions of 40 U.S.C. § 255,
jurisdiction defined at 18 U.S.C. § 7(3);
Application for Writ of Habeas Corpus:
Page 46 of 71
4. Territorial limitation for service of Federal summonses
and warrants is confirmed at 28 CFR, Part 60.3(d), via
designation of "Local Law Enforcement Agencies: (1) District of
Columbia Metropolitan Police Department, (2) Law Enforcement
Forces and Customs Agencies of Guam, The Virgin Islands, and the
Canal Zone."
5. Regulations defining and accommodating "Emergency Law
Enforcement Assistance" (28 CFR, Part 65), particularize
territorial limits of United States police powers via the
definition of "State" at 28 CFR, Part 65.70(d): "State. The term
state is defined by the Act as any state of the United States,
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."
6. Limitation of United States police powers to the
geographical United States subject to Congress' Article IV § 3.2
legislative jurisdiction is further characterized by elements of
the "Federal law enforcement community": The Federal Bureau of
Investigation, which is an administrative agency in the
Department of Justice (historical notes, 28 U.S.C. § 531), is
authorized by statute only to investigate officers and employees
of the United States (28 U.S.C. § 535), not the general
population; Internal Revenue Service is successor to the Bureau
of Internal Revenue, Puerto Rico (T.D.O. #150-29 (1953)), with
the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms having emerged from
IRS (T.D.O. #221 (1972)). Congress never created a Bureau of
Internal Revenue (36 F.R. 849-890 [C.B. 1971 - 1,698], 36 F.R.
11946 [C.B. 1971 - 2,5771], and 37 F.R. 489-490; Internal
Revenue Manual 1100, at 1111.2; see definitions at 27 CFR, Part
250.11 which cement the link between IRS & BATF as agencies of
the Department of the Treasury, Puerto Rico);
Application for Writ of Habeas Corpus:
Page 47 of 71
7. These agencies -- FBI, IRS & BATF in particular --
cannot exercise general police powers within the territorial
borders of the several States party to the Constitution as they
were not created under Congress' constitutionally delegated
legislative authority. While the President may serve as
Congress' trustee or agent in United States Article IV § 3.2
jurisdiction, Congress cannot transfer constitutionally vested
legislative powers to the executive or judicial branches of
Government so far as legislation pertaining to the Union of
several States party to the Constitution;
8. Further, any warrant issued from an Article IV United
States District Court under signature of a United States
magistrate judge must (1) bear his personal jurat issued by the
Director for the Administrative Office of the United States
Courts, and (2) be entered in personal docket books issued by the
Director for the Administrative Office of the United States
Courts (28 U.S.C. § 638(c) & (a)), and (3) such warrant may issue
only to the limits of United States jurisdiction (18 U.S.C. §
7(3)), (4) for misdemeanor offenses authorized by regulation
under 18 U.S.C. § 3401. If a felony offense cognizable under
jurisdiction of the Article III district court of the United
States, the warrant must issue under signature of an Article III
district court judge (Rule 9, F.R.Cr.P.);
9. A United States magistrate judge may not preside at a
felony arraignment in an Article III district court of the United
States (Rule 10, F.R.Cr.P.), and even where an Article IV United
States District Court would have felony jurisdiction, is
precluded from entering felony pleas for alleged offenders (Rule
5(c), F.R.Cr.P.).
Application for Writ of Habeas Corpus:
Page 48 of 71
XIII. Defective Grand Jury Indictment
Plaintiffs allege and aver that the following is to the best
of their current knowledge, understanding and belief accurate and
true:
1. A prospective Plaintiff who is to be investigated by a
Federal grand jury is entitled to be informed of the
investigation, either before or after arrest on a verified
complaint and prior to seating of the grand jury, and is entitled
(1) to be represented in the proceedings by counsel (Sixth
Amendment), up to and including (2) seating of the grand jury
(Rule 6(b)(1)). At the proceeding, the person being investigated
is entitled to access to certified complaints an investigation is
premised on, to confront adverse witnesses, and to call witnesses
and present evidence on his own behalf;
2. The grand jury form and preliminary hearings, per Rule
1101(d), F.R.Ev., are exempt from Federal Rules of Evidence, thus
preserving Fourth and Sixth Amendment rights to counsel, to
confront and examine witnesses, to have access to complaints, and
to produce witnesses on the Plaintiffs' behalf, thus preserving
essential elements of substantive due process;
3. The Supreme Court of the United States, per 28 U.S.C.
§ 2072(b), is prevented from imposing rules of procedure and
evidence which might, "abridge, enlarge or modify any substantive
right." Therefore, when defendant entitled to substantive due
process as contemplated by the "arising under" clause at Article
Application for Writ of Habeas Corpus:
Page 49 of 71
III § 2.1 and the Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, and Seventh Amendments to
the Constitution is investigated and/or charged with felony
crimes, he is entitled to all constitutionally-secure substantive
due process assurances, including the opportunity to challenge
jury selection and individual jurors at the grand jury level;
4. When and if these rights have been abridged, the
judicial officer who receives the Plaintiffs' motion to discharge
an indictment is compelled to discharge the indictment by
operation of law (28 U.S.C. § 1867(a) & (d)).
XIV. Failure to Properly Secure Extradition
Plaintiffs allege and aver that the following is to the best
of their current knowledge, understanding and belief accurate and
true:
1. The political coalition, compact or free association of
territories, commonwealths, insular possessions and United
Nations trust territories subject to Congress' Article IV § 3.2
municipal authority are foreign to the Union of several States
party to the Constitution of the United States to the same or a
greater degree than one of the several States is to each of the
others. With this perspective, there are 51 sovereign or semi-
sovereign powers in the "American Empire." The United States,
within the scope of Congress' plenary power as State and national
legislator, is sovereign over territory construed to be under
Congress' Article IV § 3.2 legislative jurisdiction, where each
of the Union states is sovereign within its own borders, subject
only to United States authority delegated to the United States
primarily by way of legislative authority conveyed to Congress
in Article I of the Constitution. Each of the 51 powers has its
own geographical bounds, its own legislative, executive and
judicial authorities, its own laws, its own economic, political
and social interests, and its own citizens;
Application for Writ of Habeas Corpus:
Page 50 of 71
2. In order for any one of these 51 semi-independent
powers to prosecute a citizen, resident, or even fugitive from
justice who is found within the territorial borders of another,
the alleged offender or fugitive must be extradited in accordance
with laws governing extradition in the home asylum state;
3. Many of the Union states and some of the Federal States
(District of Columbia, Puerto Rico ....) have adopted the Uniform
Act On Fresh Pursuit (§§ 221 etc., Title 22 of the Oklahoma
Statutes [22 O.S. §§ 221 et seq.]), the Uniform Fugitives From
Justice Act (22 O.S. §§ 1121 et seq.), and the Uniform Criminal
Extradition Act (22 O.S. §§ 1141.1 et seq.). These colorable
Acts, which accommodate Cooperative Federalism under the de facto
presumption that each of the Union states is an instrumentality
of the United States on a par with the District of Columbia,
Puerto Rico, etc., accommodate the positive law system
(admiralty-Civil Law), but they still mandate certain minimums
which must be adhered to by principals of foreign jurisdictions,
the geographical United States known as the UNITED STATES OF
AMERICA included;
4. Under provisions of the "fresh pursuit" act (22 O.S.
§ 221), "a state, county, or municipal peace unit of another
state of the United States who enters this state in fresh pursuit
... of a person in order to arrest him on the ground that he is
believed to have committed a felony in such other state, shall
have the same authority to arrest and hold such person in
Application for Writ of Habeas Corpus:
Page 51 of 71
custody, as has any member of any duly organized state, county or
municipal peace unit of this state ...." However, once the
arrest is made, the officer of the foreign state must take the
alleged offender to a magistrate judge of the home asylum state
(12 O.S. § 222). "If the magistrate determines that the arrest
was lawful he shall commit the person arrested to await for a
reasonable time the issuance of an extradition warrant by the
Governor of this state or admit him to bail for such purpose."
5. Under the Fugitives From Justice Act (22 O.S. § 1123),
"the Governor of this State" is required to deliver an alleged
fugitive from another state "on demand of the executive authority
of the state or territory from which he fled ...." However, once
arrested, whether under authority of the Fresh Pursuit Act or the
Fugitives From Justice Act, the alleged offender is afforded the
opportunity to retain counsel, and if he chooses, file an
application for writ of habeas corpus against the extradition (22
O.S. § 1141.10);
6. It is significant to note that Puerto Rico is one of
the reciprocal signatory "states" party to the Fugitives From
Justice and Criminal Extradition Acts, but not the Fresh Pursuit
Act. Therefore, Internal Revenue Service, Bureau of Alcohol,
Tobacco and Firearms, and other agencies of the Department of the
Treasury, Puerto Rico, or Federal civil authorities acting as
nominee for the Department of the Treasury, Puerto Rico, may
apply for extradition under the Fugitives From Justice and
Criminal Extradition Acts, but they have no authority to execute
arrests. As determined in Downes v. Bidwell, Dorr v. United
States, Balzac v. Porto Rico, and Hooven & Allison Co. v. Evatt,
Application for Writ of Habeas Corpus:
Page 52 of 71
off-shore territories of the United States, such as Puerto Rico,
now a quasi-independent commonwealth, are not incorporated in the
United States scheme of things -- unlike Alaska, Hawaii, western
areas of the continental United States, etc., prior to admittance
as Union states, there is no national agenda to integrate Puerto
Rico, the Virgin Islands, American Samoa, Guam, the Northern
Mariana Islands, the Pacific Trust Territories, et al., into the
Union of several States party to the Constitution. Therefore,
unlike sister states such as Oklahoma and Kansas, Colorado and
New Mexico, Washington and Oregon, etc., this "free association"
of Federal territories known as States lacks integral commonality
with the several States of the Union. Analogously, the
relationship of off-shore United States possessions and trusts to
the several States party to the Constitution is more on the order
of first or second cousins -- they are outside the immediate
family united by and under the Constitution for the united States
of America. They cannot legitimately be granted police powers in
the several States, and under the Separation of Powers Doctrine
(Tenth Amendment), officers of the several States party to the
Constitution cannot accommodate Federal authority which is not
delegated by the Constitution;
7. Therefore, if Federal civil enforcement people execute
arrests beyond federal jurisdiction secured in the several States
in compliance with 40 U.S.C. § 255, whether acting on behalf of
the Department of the Treasury, Puerto Rico or the United States
proper, they have exceeded constitutionally and statutorily
delegated authority;
Application for Writ of Habeas Corpus:
Page 53 of 71
8. Where the United States has only authority delegated by
Articles I & III of the Constitution so far as the Union of
several States is concerned, the seat of complaint must issue
from a United States territory or insular possession subject to
laws of the United States, such as Title 18 of the United States
Code, or the complaint must issue from United States maritime
jurisdiction. This is verified at 18 U.S.C. § 3182: "Whenever
the executive authority of any State or Territory demands any
person as a fugitive from justice, of the executive authority of
any State, District, or Territory to which such person has fled,
and produces a copy of an indictment found or an affidavit made
before a magistrate of any State or Territory, made before a
magistrate of any State or Territory, charging the person
demanded with having committed treason, felony, or other crime,
certified as authentic by the governor or chief magistrate of the
State or Territory from whence the person so charged has fled,
the executive authority of the State, District, or Territory to
which such person has fled shall cause him to be arrested and
secured ...."
9. If the executive authority of the District of Columbia,
Puerto Rico, or some other territory or insular possession
subject to Congress' Article IV § 3.2 legislative jurisdiction
has not issued proper documentation to the governor of the home
asylum state and the alleged offender has not been afforded the
opportunity to secure counsel, file an application for writ of
habeas corpus, and/or defend himself in an extradition hearing,
he has been deprived of due process of law and the de facto
authority responsible for the arrest forfeits the right to
prosecute.
Application for Writ of Habeas Corpus:
Page 54 of 71
XV. Misidentification of Parties
Plaintiffs allege and aver that the following is to the best
of their current knowledge, understanding and belief accurate and
true:
1. Where the instant matter is concerned, the "UNITED
STATES OF AMERICA" has proceeded against a DAN LESLIE MEADOR,
a/k/a DAN MEADOR, a/k/a D. L. MEADOR, etc., and WAYNE GUNWALL,
etc.;
2. The Plaintiffs are not and know not who or what the
above-identified entities are. The Plaintiffs are not juristic
or corporate "things" and cannot by law be prosecuted other than
by and under respective true identities;
3. The Government Style Manual, Chapter 3, sets forth
standards for capitalization, and in Chapter 14, prescribes the
format for courts of the United States. All examples reflect
proper spelling of names, with the names of people being spelled
with capital first letters and the balance of each name spelled
with lower case letters. Only the names of corporate and other
fictional entities are capitalized. Therefore, the intentional
misidentification is of no effect, being condemned by the United
States Government's own authoritative style manual which
determines standards for all written Government publications and
courts of the United States;
4. The knowing, willful act of misidentification, which
amounts to assigning unauthorized nomme de guerre identities,
constitutes acts of imposing involuntary servitude, contrary to
the Thirteenth Amendment prohibition against such actions.
Therefore, matters at issue must be discharged as being contrary
to constitutionally secured rights of the Plaintiffs.
Application for Writ of Habeas Corpus:
Page 55 of 71
XVI. Presumption of Nonresident Alien Status
Plaintiffs allege and aver that the following is to the best
of their current knowledge, understanding and belief accurate and
true:
1. The Internal Revenue Code, as demonstrated by
definitions of "State", "United States", and "Citizen" at 26 CFR,
Part 31.3121(e)-1, is written for geographical application: The
term "State" is defined as including the District of Columbia,
the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, and after
1960, Guam and American Samoa. While still territories of the
United States, Alaska and Hawaii were included in the definition
of "State", but were removed as they were admitted to the Union
of several States party to the Constitution (26 U.S.C. §
31.3121(e)-1(a)). The term "United States" is defined as
including the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto
Rico, and the Virgin Islands, and after 1960, Guam and American
Samoa; again, Alaska and Hawaii were included in the definition
of "United States" until they were admitted to the Union of
several States party to the Constitution, then were omitted. (26
CFR, Part 31.3121(e)-1(b)). Likewise, "The term 'citizen of the
United States' includes a citizen of the Commonwealth of Puerto
Rico or the Virgin Islands, and effective January 1, 1961, a
citizen of Guam or American Samoa." (26 CFR, Part 31.3121(e)-
1(b));
Application for Writ of Habeas Corpus:
Page 56 of 71
2. In this context, the "citizen of the United States"
created by Section 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment (1868) is
incidental. It merely determines the limits and privileges of
"citizens of the United States" Congress may elect to confer on
people indigenous to or naturalized in States of the geographical
United States under Congress' Article IV § 3.2 legislative
jurisdiction -- in the geographical United States, the United
States is sovereign, not the people; in the Union of several
States party to the Constitution, the people are sovereign, and
governments, whether state or Federal, may exercise only those
powers delegated by applicable constitutions;
3. So far as the United States Code is concerned,
sovereign Citizens of the several States party to the
Constitution are classified as "nationals of the United States"
(8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(22)), and are "aliens" to, or of, the
geographical United States (IRC § 7701(b)). This is clarified to
a certain extent by definition of "United States person" at IRC §
7701(a)(30): A United States person is a "a citizen or resident
of the United States," a domestic partnership, corporation, or
other juristic entity other than a foreign corporation or trust.
A foreign corporation or trust (IRC § 7701(a)(31)) is any
corporation or trust which receives income from "without the
United States" which is not connected with a United States "trade
or business" (performance of the functions of a political
office). A "nonresident alien" of the United States (IRC §
7701(b)(1)(B)), is someone who was not born and has not
naturalized in the geographical United States (District of
Columbia, Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, Guam, or American
Samoa), and who (1) has not been lawfully admitted as a citizen
of the geographical United States, (2) has not spent enough time
in the geographical United States to meet the substantial
presence test, and (3) has not elected to be treated as a
resident of the geographical United States (IRC § 7701(b)(1)(A));
Application for Writ of Habeas Corpus:
Page 57 of 71
4. In the event someone is an alien of the geographical
United States, "An alien by reason of his alienage, is presumed
to be a nonresident alien," of the geographical United States (26
CFR, Part 1.871-4(b)). In order to rebut the presumption of
nonresident alien status, specific evidence must be placed in
record: (1) Evidence that the alien has filed a declaration of
intention to become a citizen of the United States under the
naturalization laws; (2) evidence that the alien has filed Form
1078 or its equivalent; or (3) evidence of acts and statements
showing the alien has definite intention to acquire residence in
the geographical United States, or showing his stay (physical
presence) in the geographical United States has been of such an
extended nature as to constitute him a resident. (26 CFR, Part
1.871-4(c)(2));
5. In sum, when challenged, geographical United States
citizen or resident status must be objectively proven in record.
So-called adhesion contracts (Social Security registration, voter
registration, driver's licenses, etc.) are of no consequence --
the Internal Revenue Code, as demonstrated, has geographical
application and does not accommodate extra-territorial
jurisdiction beyond the geographical United States, as defined at
26 CFR, Part 31.3121(e)-1(b).
XVII. Absence of Taxing & Liability Statutes
Plaintiffs allege and aver that the following is to the best
of their current knowledge, understanding and belief accurate and
true:
Application for Writ of Habeas Corpus:
Page 58 of 71
1. While the Government [sic] has advanced certain
allegations of offense premised on Internal Revenue Code criminal
statutes relating to the Kenney F. Moore, Colleen Moore, and
Wayne Richard, Gunwall (Subtitle E, Chapter 75), there is no
taxing statute in evidence and there is no statute or regulation
which determines liability. Therefore, the antecedent allegation
of offense with respect to UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v. KENNEY F.
MOORE, et al. (#96-CR-82-C), and UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v. DAN
LESLIE MEADOR (#96-CR-113-C), is predicated on fraud. Government
[sic] allegations rest on documents which allege "1040" "kind of
tax" obligations -- documents which cannot be judicially noticed
and must be removed from record because they do not bear the
Treasury Department seal -- but there is no evidence of law
underlying the alleged obligation;
2. At a minimum, a taxing statute which describes the
service, transaction, or object of a tax must be in evidence
(United States v. Community TV, Inc. 327 F.2d 797, at p. 800
(1964); Hassett v. Welch, 303 U.S. 303, 58 S.Ct. 559, 82 L.Ed.
858), and to establish criminal liability, there must be three
components in place: (1) the taxing statute which describes the
service, transaction, or object of tax, (2) the statute which
determines liability, and (3) the statute which determines the
crime (United States of America v. Menk, 260 F.Supp. 784 (1966),
at p. 787);
3. Where the instant matter is concerned, the Government
[sic] has alleged criminal violation premised on the number of a
tax return form number which is at best voluntary, as previously
demonstrated. There is no taxing statute or regulation
determining liability in evidence. Therefore, the fraud
perpetrated in the first instance infects and condemns everything
it touches.
Application for Writ of Habeas Corpus:
Page 59 of 71
XVIII. Paperwork Reduction Act Effects Estoppel
Plaintiffs allege and aver that the following is to the best
of their current knowledge, understanding and belief accurate and
true:
1. The "1040" individual Federal income tax return
information reporting form lacks the essential elements mandated
in the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. §§ 3501 et seq.), as
particularized in Office of Management and Budget regulations at
5 CFR, Part 1320.8(b)(3): The Paperwork Reduction Act requires
the agency soliciting information from those to whom information
requests are directed to disclose (1) the reasons the information
is being or has been collected, (2) the way the information will
be or has been used, (3) an estimate of average time required to
provide the information, (4) whether responses to collection of
information are voluntary, required to obtain or retain a benefit
(authority must be cited), or mandatory (authority must be
cited), (5) the nature and extent of confidentiality to be
provided (authority must be cited), and (6) the fact that an
agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required
to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a
currently valid OMB control number. The currently valid OMB
number and expiration date (OMB numbers approved for a maximum of
three years) must appear conspicuously on the form where the
other information may be in instructions. Additionally, OMB
numbers must be secured for regulations which prescribe
information-gathering authority;
Application for Writ of Habeas Corpus:
Page 60 of 71
2. It is significant where the instant matter is concerned
that while the 1040 return displays an OMB number, it does not
display the expiration date, and Privacy Act and Paperwork
Reduction Act Notice information fail to specifically articulate
liability or disclose whether or not the OMB number appearing on
the 1040 form is currently valid, who might be required to file
the 1040 form or who might voluntarily file the 1040 form to
secure a benefit (for example, voluntary filing for refund of
overpayment of employment tax (26 CFR, Part 601.401(d));
3. It is significant that the Privacy Act and Paperwork
Reduction Act Notice (p. 7, 1996 Form 1040 Instruction Manual),
cites the following authorities: "Our legal right to ask for
information is Internal Revenue Code sections 6001, 6011, and
6012(a) and their regulations. They say that you must file a
return or statement with us for any tax you are liable for."
4. As previously demonstrated, the three statutes cited in
the Form 1040 Instruction Manual (§§ 6001, 6011 & 6012(a)) do not
have the force of law until such time as Title 26 of the United
States Code is enacted as positive law (IRC § 7851(a)(6)(A)).
However, supposing these statutes did have legal effect, by
consulting the Parallel Table of Authorities and Rules, it is
found that regulations applicable to Subtitle A & C taxing
authority for § 6001 are in 26 CFR, Parts 1 & 31. By consulting
these regulations, which was previously done, it is found at 26
CFR, Part 6001-1(d) that an "employee" is not required to keep
books and records save in the event he might file for a refund
(special refund, per 26 CFR, Parts 31.6402(a)-2 & 601.401(d)),
Application for Writ of Habeas Corpus:
Page 61 of 71
and 26 CFR, Parts 1.6001-1(d) & 31.6001-6 stipulate that the
district director will provide direct notice to whomever is
required to file returns. The withholding agent is the person
liable for withholding, reporting & paying taxes prescribed by
Subtitles A & C of the Internal Revenue Code (26 CFR, Parts
1.1441-7 & 31.3404-1), and he is under most circumstances
required to file return information Form 1042 or 1042S (26 CFR,
Part 1.1461-2). There is no obligation for him to file 1040
forms, and an "employee" who might wish to secure refunds of
overpaid employee taxes may elect to file at 1040 Form under
circumstances prescribed by applicable regulations;
5. Evidence surrounding the instant matter supports
alternative conclusions: (1) The OMB number which appears on the
1040 Form is not currently valid; (2) if the OMB number on the
1040 Form is currently valid, it has special rather than general
application. If the latter, the 1040 Form might be mandatory for
a "taxpayer" subject to Subtitle B or D taxes, but the form is
not mandatory for an "employee" subject only to Subtitle A & C
taxes. The conclusion, then, is that the OMB number is not valid
so far as matters at hand are concerned;
6. Since this must be the case, the Paperwork Reduction
Act provides public protection, as specified at 5 CFR, Part
1320.6: "(a) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no
person shall be subject to any penalty for failing to comply with
a collection of information that is subject to the requirements
of this part if ... (1) The collection of information does not
display, in accordance with § 1320.3(f) and § 1320.5(b)(1), a
currently valid OMB control number assigned by the Director in
Application for Writ of Habeas Corpus:
Page 62 of 71
accordance with the Act ...." At § 1320.6(b), the regulation
stipulates, "The protection provided by paragraph (a) of this
section may be raised in the form of a complete defense, bar, or
otherwise to the imposition of such penalty at any time during
the agency administrative process in which such penalty may be
imposed or in any judicial action applicable thereto." At §
1320.6(d), the regulation further stipulates, "Whenever a member
of the public is protected from imposition of a penalty under
this section for failure to comply with a collection of
information, such penalty may not be imposed by an agency
directly, by an agency through judicial process, or by any other
person through administrative or judicial process."
7. Where matters at hand are concerned, Plaintiffs have
demonstrated that the OMB number on the 1040 Form is invalid, or
if the form is mandatory, the OMB number does not prescribe
general application. Therefore, it is invalid where matters at
hand are concerned, and because of the invalidity, it effects
both administrative and judicial estoppel;
8. Where matters at hand are concerned, Government [sic]
has the burden of proof. In order to demonstrate validity of the
OMB number and application to the these matters, the Government
may place Internal Revenue Service materials submitted to request
assignment of the OMB number into evidence (5 CFR, Part
1320.14(b)), and may seek an OMB determination of liability (5
CFR, Part 1320.14(c)). Unless or until these necessary elements
are in place, the Government [sic] is estopped from further
prosecution under mandate of 5 CFR, Part 1320.6(b) & (d).
Application for Writ of Habeas Corpus:
Page 63 of 71
XIX. Conclusion & Prayer for Relief
Plaintiffs allege and aver that the following is to the best
of their current knowledge, understanding and belief accurate and
true:
1. Plaintiffs, Dan Leslie, Meador and Wayne Richard,
Gunwall, are natural-born, living beings, they are not and know
not who or what the juristic DAN LESLIE MEADOR, DAN MEADOR, or D.
L. MEADOR and WAYNE GUNWALL, are or might be, and may not be sued
or prosecuted under such nomme de guerre or other fictitious
identities, so matters at issue must be abated and discharged;
2. The Article IV United States District Court for the
Northern District of Oklahoma is authorized under authority of 18
U.S.C. § 3401 and attending regulations to prosecute only petty
and misdemeanor offenses committed on United States military
installations and public lands under Bureau of Land Management
jurisdiction, it is not authorized under 18 U.S.C. §§ 23 & 3231
to prosecute felony offenses in Oklahoma state, even when
committed on United States military installations and public
lands subject to Bureau of Land Management jurisdiction; the
Article IV United States District Court, a legislative court of
the United States operating under admiralty-Civil Law rules, is
incompetent at law, and if it deprives Plaintiffs of life,
liberty or property, will effect a bill of attainder, which is
strictly forbidden by the Constitution, so the instant matter
must be dismissed under mandate of fundamental law;
3. The "UNITED STATES OF AMERICA" is not authorized by the
Constitution of the United States, Titles 18 or 28 of the United
States Code, or the Internal Revenue Code, as a principal of
interest, either as plaintiff or Plaintiffs, so may not sustain
an action in the Article IV United States District Court or the
Article III district court of the United States against
Plaintiffs, so the instant matter must be dismissed;
Application for Writ of Habeas Corpus:
Page 64 of 71
4. The Internal Revenue Code vests authority for
administration and enforcement of United States internal revenue
laws in the continental United States in the Treasury Department,
not the Department of the Treasury, so the Internal Revenue
Service, being an agency of the Department of the Treasury,
Puerto Rico, which operates solely on contract to provide records
systems development and maintenance and record-keeping services
for United States Government [sic] in the continental United
States, is not authorized by statute or otherwise to charge or
sustain an action against Plaintiffs under internal revenue laws
or any other laws of the United States (IRC authorization for
administration of IRC, Chapters 1, 2 & 21, in off-shore United
States territories & insular possessions, per IRC §
7701(a)(12)(B)), whether such action is civil or criminal, so the
matter at hand must be dismissed;
5. Subtitle F of the Internal Revenue Code is not
effective as law until Title 26 of the United States Code is
enacted as positive law, so all civil and/or criminal prosecution
predicated on Subtitle F administrative and enforcement authority
is under color of law and cannot be sustained and must be
dismissed;
6. Subtitle A & C taxes are mandatory only for officers
and employees of United States Government, governments of United
States political subdivisions, and officers of corporations
engaged in United States trade or business, and the "withholding
agent" is the person liable for withholding, reporting, and
paying these taxes, thereby also being "the person liable" in the
event of administrative collection initiatives and/or civil and
criminal penalties, so the matter at hand is predicated on fraud
and must be dismissed;
Application for Writ of Habeas Corpus:
Page 65 of 71
7. There are no general application regulations published
in the Federal Register which authorize the Secretary, on behalf
of the President, to establish revenue districts in the Union of
several States party to the Constitution, there are no published
regulations or delegations of authority which convey authority
for the Department of the Treasury, the Commissioner of Internal
Revenue, or the Treasury Department to administer Internal
Revenue Code taxes in the several States party to the
Constitution; there are no regulations authorizing the "district
court of the United States", or the United States District Court,
to prosecute civil or criminal causes in the Union of several
States relating to Subtitle A & C taxes; and there are no
implementing regulations published in the Federal Register which
extend general application for securing liens (IRC § 6321) or
effecting levy and distraint (IRC § 6331) in the Union of several
States relative to Subtitle A & C taxing authority. Therefore,
the instant matter must be dismissed as there are no general
application regulations or delegations of authority published in
the Federal Register which validate authority of the court, the
Internal Revenue Service, or authority of the Government [sic] to
prosecute;
Application for Writ of Habeas Corpus:
Page 66 of 71
8. Crimes alleged where the instant matter is concerned
are not within Congress' delegated authority to prescribe
punishment for or prosecute by way of the Constitution of the
United States, or amendments thereto. Therefore, the instant
matter must be discharged under bar of the Separation of Powers
Doctrine (Tenth Amendment). United States enforcement of these
offenses does not reach the Union of several States party to the
Constitution, as evidenced by the lack of regulations published
in the Federal Register for any Title 18 statute listed in the
Moore-Gunwall case or the Meador case;
9. The warrant issued under signature of a United States
magistrate judge, which did not display his personal jurat,
required by 28 U.S.C. § 638(c), is of no legal effect as it
issues without authority of law from an Article IV judicial
officer who has jurisdiction solely under authority of 18 U.S.C.
§ 3401 relating to misdemeanor offenses on United States military
installations and Federal land under Bureau of Land Management
jurisdiction, exceeded authority of the United States magistrate
judge/national park commissioner; the warrant, if otherwise
legitimate, is executable only in jurisdiction of the United
States, as specified at 18 U.S.C. § 7(3); and Federal civil
authorities responsible for executing arrest may exercise police
powers only in jurisdiction of the United States, as secured in
compliance with provisions of 40 U.S.C. § 255 and state cession
laws. Said warrant is an illegal instrument and all other action
engaged by Federal civil enforcement authorities was under color
of law. Therefore, the instant matter must be dismissed due to
the illegal acts of the United States magistrate judge (national
park commissioner) and Federal civil enforcement personnel;
Application for Writ of Habeas Corpus:
Page 67 of 71
10. Plaintiffs was not notified of a grand jury
investigation, and thereby was deprived of the right to have
counsel, to challenge grand jury seating, to challenge
qualification of individual grand jury members, to have access to
complaints, to interview adverse witnesses, and to present
testimony, evidence, and witnesses. Therefore, Plaintiffs was
deprived of substantive due process of law, and by operation of
law (28 U.S.C. § 1867(a) & (d)), the judicial officer of this
court must discharge the indictment;
11. The Government [sic] failed to provide necessary
affidavits to the Governor of Oklahoma to secure arrest of
Plaintiffs, and failed to comply with the requirements of local
incarceration or other detention, affording Plaintiffs the
opportunity to seek counsel, provide defense, and file an
application for writ of habeas corpus against extradition. Said
action on the part of the Government [sic] is contrary to
fundamental law (substantive due process rights and sovereignty
of Oklahoma, one of the several States party to the Constitution
of the United States), so the instant matter must be discharged
as an act of inland piracy, sedition against the Constitution of
the United States, and against Oklahoma state;
12. Plaintiffs, Dan Leslie, Meador, is not DAN LESLIE
MEADOR, DAN MEADOR, or any other juristic entity and Wayne
Richard, Gunwall, is not WAYNE GUNWALL, or WAYNE RICHARD GUNWALL,
nor are Plaintiffs otherwise juristic or corporate entities. The
Government [sic] has mis-identified the parties, and cannot
sustain prosecution of the natural-born, moral being, Dan Leslie,
Meador, or Wayne Richard, Gunwall, under such misidentification.
Contrary to the Thirteenth Amendment prohibition against
involuntary servitude, assigning the bogus nomme de guerre
identities to Plaintiffs is an effort to impose involuntary
servitude. The instant matter must therefore be abated and
dismissed for want of a proper party for prosecution;
Application for Writ of Habeas Corpus:
Page 68 of 71
13. Plaintiffs, Dan Leslie, Meador, has established his
alienage with respect to the geographical United States (26 CFR,
Part 31.3121(e)-1(b)), so under the rule of presumption (26 CFR,
Part 1.871-4(b)), Plaintiffs is presumed to be a nonresident
alien of the geographical United States. In order for the
Government [sic] to sustain prosecution, the presumption must be
overcome with evidence prescribed at 26 CFR, Part 1.871-4(2). No
such evidence is in record, so the instant matter must be
dismissed by operation of law;
14. The Government's [sic] case rests solely on an alleged
criminal statute prescribed in subtitle F of the Internal Revenue
Code (all other charges are predicated on the legitimacy of the
alleged corpus offense), but the record does not reflect a taxing
statute which identifies the service, transaction or object of
tax, and there is no statute or regulation which determines
liability for the tax in record. Therefore, the instant matter
must be dismissed as statutorily inadequate;
15. Plaintiffs has demonstrated that (1) the OMB number on
the 1040 Form is invalid, or (2) does not apply to matters at
hand. Therefore, under provisions of 5 CFR, Part 1320.6(b) &
(d), the Paperwork Reduction Act effects estoppel. The matter at
hand must be dismissed.
Application for Writ of Habeas Corpus:
Page 69 of 71
Plaintiffs hereby Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals, sitting as
an Article III court of the United States, for reasons above, to
issue a writ of habeas corpus ordering one Stephen C. Lewis,
United States Attorney for the Northern District of Oklahoma, to
produce and enter into record the documentation necessary to
prove jurisdiction and other authority necessary for prosecution
of Dan Leslie, Meador, and Wayne Richard, Gunwall.
Plaintiffs hereby certify by our respective signatures that
all matters of law and fact set forth herein are to the best of
our current knowledge, understanding and belief accurate and
true, so help us God.
/s/ Dan Leslie Meador
____________________________________ __________________________
Dan Leslie, Meador Date
P.O. Box 2582
Ponca City 74602/tdc
OKLAHOMA STATE
tel: (405) 765-1415
fax: (405) 765-1146
[Mr. Gunwall's signature withheld, see note above.]
____________________________________ __________________________
Wayne Richard, Gunwall Date
409 East Detroit
Ponca City 74602/tdc
OKLAHOMA STATE
Application for Writ of Habeas Corpus:
Page 70 of 71
List of Exhibits
1. Indictment, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v. KENNEY F.
MOORE, et al., Case No. #96-C-82-C, United States District Court,
Northern District of Oklahoma.
2. Indictment, UNITED STATE OF AMERICA v. DAN LESLIE
MEADOR, et al., Case No. #96-C-113-C, United States District
Court, Northern District of Oklahoma.
3. Dan Meador Affidavit of Complaint.
Certification of Service
I certify that a true and correct copy of this pleading is
being sent via certified mail, return receipt requested, with
sufficient postage paid to assure delivery, to the office of the
United States Attorney at the following address:
Stephen C. Lewis, United States Attorney
Northern District of Oklahoma
333 West Fourth Street
Tulsa, Oklahoma 74103
/s/ Dan Leslie Meador
____________________________________ __________________________
Dan Leslie, Meador Date
P.O. Box 2582
Ponca City 74602/tdc
tel: (405) 765-1415
fax: (405) 765-1146
Application for Writ of Habeas Corpus:
Page 71 of 71
# # #
Return to Table of Contents