Time: Thu Sep 04 09:56:26 1997 by primenet.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id JAA25985; Thu, 4 Sep 1997 09:54:41 -0700 (MST) Date: Thu, 4 Sep 1997 12:54:18 -0400 Originator: heritage-l@gate.net From: Paul Andrew Mitchell [address in tool bar] To: pmitch@primenet.com Subject: SLS: Dan Meador's letter to Justice Alma Wilson <snip> > >[This text is formatted in Courier 11, non-proportional spacing.] > > >June 4, 1996 > >Alma Wilson, Chief Justice >Oklahoma Supreme Court >Oklahoma State Capitol >Oklahoma City 73105/tdc >OKLAHOMA STATE > >Enclosure: IRS/IRC Public Notice Memorandum > >Dear Justice Wilson, > > I appreciate the willingness of you and Justice Opala to >answer questions, and because of your consideration, have >attempted to avoid going to the well too often. However, there >are a couple of pressing matters I feel compelled to submit for >your consideration, and if it wouldn't be too much trouble, ask >you to solicit responses from other justices. > > In order to frame the questions, I am going to use the >character of the Internal Revenue Service and application of the >Internal Revenue Code as a backdrop. Enclosed you will find a >public notice memorandum which indicts the Service as being an >agency of the Department of the Treasury, Puerto Rico, and >demonstrates that the Internal Revenue Code has mandatory >application solely in the geographical United States, exclusive >of the several States. IRS principals have already acquiesced to >most of the material. > > The IRS memorandum is relevant as I recently helped Paul >Graham file a petition for writ of habeas corpus against a United >States district court judge and an assistant United States >attorney in a matter relating to criminal prosecution via the >U.S. district court for the Western District of Oklahoma. In >addition to demonstrating that IRS doesn't have legal standing in >Oklahoma, I alleged, with considerable legal authority behind the >allegation, that the Department of Justice, via the U.S. >Attorney, is representing the Central Authority, established by >United States treaties on private international law (see 28 CFR =A7 >0.49), and via various court cases, demonstrated that the >principals of interest are the so-called World Bank and >International Monetary Fund. Additionally, I demonstrated that >the U.S. district court is operating under admiralty authority >(18 U.S.C. =A7 3231), and that it doesn't have jurisdiction in the >several States save on federal enclaves (Eleventh Amendment to >the U.S. Constitution, the second paragraph of 18 U.S.C. =A7 3231, >and 18 U.S.C. =A7 7(3)). Yet the Oklahoma Supreme Court, evidently >with all justices concurring, elected not to execute the writ of >habeas corpus on behalf of Mr. Graham. > > I haven't sent the Graham petition for the writ of habeas >corpus on to the United States Supreme Court. It was my opinion >that there is too much at stake, for too many people, to botch >the job. I wanted to complete the IRS/IRC memorandum, which was >in the works when the Graham situation came up, and begin >publishing it in county legal newspapers state-by-state before >joining the matter in courts again. People in approximately 15 >states have made commitments to sponsor publication. > > The Graham situation is incidental to queries in this >letter, and I am merely using IRS as an example, so responses >don't need to address any pending case or even IRS, merely >underlying principles. Consider the Graham situation as >incidental. It frames the first question, but only as an example. > > Suppose I moved the Graham petition for writ of habeas >corpus to the United States Supreme Court, with attending >evidences, and justices of the United States Supreme Court >elected not to issue the habeas corpus. > > At that juncture, would Mr. Graham's judicial remedies be >exhausted? And implicitly, since approximately 10 million >Americans in the several States are at any given time being >subjected to IRS tyranny, would judicial remedies for the >American people as a whole not be exhausted? That's the first >question. > > Forgive my shallow understanding of law as I only began the >serious study in March 1993, slightly over three years ago. Even >though I came to Oklahoma as a university freshman in September >1963, I confess that I hadn't read the Oklahoma Constitution, and >was as lost as a goose in a snow storm when I began searching >through statutory law and court cases. Aside from being a >publishing writer since 1969, my background was in English, with >emphasis on literature, with a broad background and formal study >in philosophy, and economics. I've always worked for a living; I >enjoy work, and for the most part, have been willing to leave >government alone if government would leave me alone. > > An Albert Carter video titled IRS Investigated prompted me >to begin legal research. We had what appeared to be a recoverable >deficit tax situation, but Carter allegations sent me to the Kay >County Courthouse law library -- Special Judge Pam Legate and two >of the assistant district attorneys at the time helped me muddle >through volumes of law and court decisions. We began challenging >IRS authority and trying to secure particulars of IRS legal >standing and application of law at that point. Then in March >1994, two IRS agents and a fleet of wreckers converged at our >house west of Ponca City while I was at work -- they didn't have >a court order or any other legal authority, but commenced to >seize automobiles. In the process, one of the wreckers rammed my >wife, and the whole affair traumatized two of our pre-school >grandchildren. > > It was at that point that I made the uncompromising >commitment to end the tyranny once and for all -- my family and >neighbors, and people throughout America, simply cannot be >exposed to government-sanctioned terrorism, particularly if it is >perpetrated on behalf of foreign principals. > > Needless to say, the attack on family and home intensified >my focus on legal research and strategies. You can understand my >consternation when I learned, by experience, that judicial >officers in State and United States statutory courts almost >unanimously refuse to comply with rules governing conduct of the >courts, particularly with respect to mandates pertaining to >judicial notice and presumed fact. In the case of the Oklahoma >Supreme Court, I was particularly disappointed when justices >elected to wink at treason. I was sickened by disdain the U.S. >district court judge articulated. > > At first blush, my conclusions of law may appear a little >off base, but I helped Mr. Graham file the petition for writ of >habeas corpus in the Oklahoma Supreme Court for what I still >believe are legitimate reasons. Thomas Jefferson is among those >who have addressed the issue. > > In the Kentucky Resolutions, Jefferson pointed out that the >Constitution places only four categories of crime under United >States jurisdiction. Ratification of the Eleventh Amendment in >1798 the same as set the matter in stone. Courts of the United >States have precious little authority in the several States. >Examination of the Judicial Act of 1911 confirms the limited >jurisdiction, and the second paragraph of 18 U.S.C. =A7 3231 >specifically reserves authority of the laws and courts of the >several States. > > The Constitution, the Judicial Act of 1911, and the Federal >Code of Criminal Procedure are in agreement: The laws and courts >of the several States are superior to United States courts within >the territorial bounds of the States -- United States admiralty >and maritime jurisdiction does not extend inland to the several >States except on federal enclaves ceded to the United States for >constitutional purposes, as specified at 18 U.S.C. =A7 7(3). > > In the Kentucky Resolutions, Jefferson addressed another >situation where Congress exceeded constitutionally delegated >authority via the Alien and Sedition Acts. Jefferson argued that >when Congress exceeds constitutionally delegated authority, the >several States have both the right and responsibility for >correcting federal government. > > Unfortunately, most Americans are at least as ignorant as I >was three years ago. But I don't believe you folks are. >Everything in law is premised on dominion. Original authority >resides somewhere -- nothing comes from nothing. So there must be >a beginning. In the American system, founders laid our foundation >in the Declaration of Independence. From the beginning, they >concluded that there are certain self-evident truths. One of >those truths is that man was created by God, God being the >original Authority, and another of the truths they proclaimed is >that man is endowed by certain unalienable rights, rights to >life, liberty, and property, or in the poetic, pursuit of >happiness, the most conspicuous. They then went on to say that >governments are established among men for certain specific >purposes. And they made the entire scheme accountable to, "the >laws of Nature and Nature's God" -- natural and moral law. This >foundation of order and authority is antecedent to the very >existence of government. > > God is the Grantor, man the grantee. Man is the beneficiary >who is directly endowed by God, and is therefore directly >accountable to God, with natural and moral law set in place by >God providing a framework for individual and collective conduct. > > The American Revolution secured independence of the colonies >within the territorial bounds of original charters and acquired >lands. Independent state governments were subsequently affirmed >by the people, then the people, by representative delegation and >by way of the new States, established the United States via the >Constitution, the United States being successor to the >Confederacy in 1789. > > An underlying principle tells us that the created is never >greater than the creator. Preambles to United States and State >constitutions uniformly credit the People for establishing >government in the American system, and in the constitutional >framework, governments so established can exercise only delegated >or enumerated powers. If a power isn't prescribed by any given >constitution, the government created by that constitution cannot >exercise it. > > Article II =A7 1 of the Oklahoma Constitution acknowledges >that all political power is inherent to the people, and sections >1 & 3 provide means for correcting, altering or abolishing >existing government. > > Ninth and Tenth Amendments to the United States Constitution >preserve the order of power: The Ninth reserves rights of the >people even though they are not enumerated in the Constitution or >the Bill of Rights, then the Tenth specifies that powers not >delegated to the United States by the Constitution are reserved >for the States and the People respectively. > > The problem where the instant matter is concerned should be >obvious: Not exercising authority is no better than not having >it. If the parent tells a child, "Don't do that!" but never uses >parental authority to discipline the child, the child eventually >ignores the parent, and will likely treat the parent as a nag >rather than legitimate authority. > > I have two grown sons who managed to get through high school >and into adult lives without being arrested or having serious >difficulties other than what is routine for young adults >establishing themselves. When the oldest was about 25, I asked >why he and his brother were never into mischief common for >contemporaries. "We weren't worried about the cops," he said, >"but we knew we'd have to call home." > > The analogy frames the Jefferson theme: In the order of >things, the several States are antecedent to the United States, >and when the United States exceeds delegated authority, the >States have the right, even the responsibility, to correct >unconstitutional exercise of power. Likewise, when Government >people posing under color of law to exercise alleged United >States authority that is not legitimate in the several States, >State judicial and enforcement officers are obligated to >prosecute them. > > Suppose a renegade contingent of Army personnel stationed at >Ft. Sill took arms into Lawton and robbed a bank under auspices >of United States military authority. Lawton police would lock the >perpetrators up in a heartbeat, as they should. > > Several years ago we had the situation in Kay County where a >Native American Indian allegedly killed a baby by way of infant >shaking syndrome (brain damage from shaking). The family lived in >Ponca City at the time. The man was tried in the Kay County >district court but there was a mistrial due to a hung jury. A >year or two later, a second infant died in approximately the same >fashion, but the family then lived on the Ponca Tribe reservation >at White Eagle. The district attorney once again elected to >prosecute charges for the first infant death, but the second, >because the alleged incident resulting in death took place on >Indian land, was prosecuted through the Bureau of Indian Affairs >in the United States district court. > > Given these examples of exercise of proper jurisdictional >authority, it's difficult to grasp why people exercising bogus >United States judicial and enforcement authority in the several >States should be any more immune from accountability to State law >and police power than those in uniformed service or any other >person who blatantly and brazenly defies fundamental law. The >grant of immunity makes a mockery of the Tenth Amendment, the >Separation of Powers Doctrine, other underlying constitutional >principles, and common sense. Jefferson's admonition that it is >the right and responsibility of the State to correct United >States government when Congress crosses the line with respect to >constitutionally delegated authority reinforces the mandate for >State governments individually to enforce the laws of the State >against those who operate within any given State under color of >law, whether of the United States, some other State, or the host >State. > > Unless officers of the several States are willing to carry >out this charge, the Tenth Amendment and the Separation of Powers >Doctrine are of no effect -- they mean nothing. The nation >becomes as a seamless garment under Congress' unrestricted >Article IV jurisdiction rather than being a patchwork of fifty >republics subject only to Congress' Article I delegated powers. > > The purpose of this clear division was to protect the people >from consolidated Government power and tyranny, not serve the >convenience of Government. In fact, the chief argument of those >who opposed the Constitution and formation of the United States >was the potential for concentrating power that might usurp >sovereignty of the States and the People -- an eventuality which >has obviously materialized. > > The law itself is clear on the subject of specifically >delegated power. But we have a problem. We're in trouble the day >of the big race if we go to the barn and find mules substituted >for our horses. > > Mules are amiable critters, and are even capable of enormous >amounts of work, but they don't run with Thoroughbreds on race >day. And they have the additional problem of being sterile. If >the barn is filled with mules, the last generation is at hand. > > You see the difficulty: If the Constitutional Republic >governed by fundamental law is threatened by the avarice of >ambitious men, and those responsible for maintaining the Republic >are impotent, where do we the People turn? > > To resolve the dilemma, we must turn to the source and >original relationships: If God endowed man with certain >unalienable rights, he simultaneously imposed unavoidable >responsibilities. Those responsibilities are framed by natural >and moral law -- where physical law operates in the framework of >cause and effect, moral law operates in the framework of cause >and consequence. > > The People ultimately pay the price. They bear the >consequence of tyranny. When we as sovereigns neglect >responsibilities for maintaining the domain established as our >heritage, it will invariably be threatened and we ourselves >subdued. The evil of the day will consume us. > > In 1992, the United States Supreme Court touched these >matters in New York v. United States, et al.: Those in public >service who exercise power not delegated invariably do so for >self-serving ends. In the American system, the question is not >what power government should have, but it is what power >applicable constitutions specifically delegate. > > It is here that we return to the instant matter, and can >understand core issues addressed in the Nuremberg trials >following World War II: Tyranny never stands on one leg. >Perpetrators by intent rely on accommodation. Thus, those who >fail to fulfill obligations imposed by fundamental law are joined >to tyranny by consent. In other words, failure to perform a duty >bestowed is as destructive to liberty as exercise of power which >is not delegated. The system of checks and balances built into >American government assures that complicity of intent and consent >must be in place or tyranny cannot prevail -- it is stunted in >infancy when usurpation is not accommodated by those who profit >or fear and thereby fail to fulfill duties. > > Venue for the United States district court is prescribed at >18 U.S.C. =A7 3231: > > The district courts of the United States shall have original > jurisdiction, exclusive of the courts of the States, of all > offenses against the laws of the United States. > > Nothing in this title [18 USCS =A7=A7 1 et seq.] shall be held > to take away or impair the jurisdiction of the courts of the > several States under the laws thereof. > > The second paragraph, as verified by the jurisdiction >statute at 18 U.S.C. =A7 7(3), preserves the authority of courts >and law in the several States: > > =A7 7. Special maritime and territorial jurisdiction of the > United States defined > > The term "special maritime and territorial jurisdiction of > the United States", as used in this title [18 USCS =15=15 1 et > seq.], includes: > > (3) Any lands reserved or acquired for the use of the United > States, and under the exclusive or concurrent jurisdiction > thereof, or any place purchased or otherwise acquired by the > United States by consent of the legislature of the State in > which the same shall be, for the erection of a fort, > magazine, arsenal, dockyard, or other needful building. > > Article VII =A7 4 of the Oklahoma Constitution vests the >Oklahoma Supreme Court with appellate jurisdiction and >jurisdiction over common law writs coextensive with borders of >the State: > > =A7 4. Jurisdiction of Supreme Court -- Writs > > The appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme Court shall be > coextensive with the State and shall extend to all cases at > law and in equity ... and in the event there is any conflict > as to jurisdiction, the Supreme Court shall determine which > court has jurisdiction and such determination shall be final > ... The Supreme Court, Court of Criminal Appeals, in > criminal matters and all other appellate courts shall have > power to issue, hear and determine writs of habeas corpus, > mandamus, quo warranto, certiorari, prohibition and such > other remedial writs as may be provided by law and may > exercise such other and further jurisdiction as may be > conferred by statute... > > Article II =A7 10 of the Oklahoma Constitution provides as >follows: > > The privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall never be > suspended by the authorities of this State. > > The territorial bounds of authority couldn't be clearer, and >the instrument for execution couldn't be better defined and >compelling - the delegated responsibility couldn't be articulated >in more precise terms. Authority of State and United States >courts is divided according to the law of legislative >jurisdiction -- courts of the United States, United States >enforcement people, et al., are guests in the territorial state >of Oklahoma, and the several States collectively, except on >federal enclaves. As guests, they are subject to correction, >censure and even expulsion. Those responsible for assuming bogus >authority to impose tyranny against Citizens of the State are >subject to State criminal prosecution and civil remedies just as >certainly as my former neighbor, who was a pipe fitter, is >subject to fundamental law indigenous to the State. Wearing >badges, black robes or whatever, and claiming, "I'm from the >United States Government," doesn't mean a thing in Oklahoma >except in the framework of Congress' Article I authority as >constitutional government for the several States. > > The whole purpose of segregated and clearly defined >authority in the American system, as articulated in the >Separation of Powers Doctrine and the Tenth Amendment, is to >prevent consolidation of power. The State and the United States >have clearly defined roles. But when one yields, conspiracy is >joined -- the Republic, governed by fundamental law, is dead. > > Jefferson spoke to the issue: Let's hear no more of >confidence in men, but bind them one and all with constitutional >chains. The Kentucky Resolutions successfully intervened on the >Alien and Sedition Acts, and the Eleventh Amendment articulating >limitation of United States judicial authority in the several >States was put in place in 1798, but public servants in the >several States at that time had sufficient moral substance to >turn back the tide of tyranny -- they ended the siege by refusing >to consent, to accommodate, to acquiesce. > > We are very near the second question -- a question I do not >want to ask, and you do not want to answer, but we are compelled >by circumstance to address the matter: Clearly, the People suffer >the effects of tyranny. Our labor and wealth, our very substance, >along with our posterity, are the objects of avarice and >ambition. So when redress is not available through the courts; >when the State has abdicated vested powers and responsibilities, >and we have exhausted judicial remedies, are the sovereign People >of the several States not entitled to employ whatever means are >necessary to restore constitutional government? > > >Regards, > >/s/ Dan Meador > >Dan Meador > > > # # # =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D Paul Andrew Mitchell : Counselor at Law, federal witness B.A., Political Science, UCLA; M.S., Public Administration, U.C. Irvine tel: (520) 320-1514: machine; fax: (520) 320-1256: 24-hour/day-night email: [address in tool bar] : using Eudora Pro 3.0.3 on 586 CPU website: http://www.supremelaw.com : visit the Supreme Law Library now ship to: c/o 2509 N. Campbell, #1776 : this is free speech, at its best Tucson, Arizona state : state zone, not the federal zone Postal Zone 85719/tdc : USPS delays first class w/o this As agents of the Most High, we came here to establish justice. We shall not leave, until our mission is accomplished and justice reigns eternal. =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D [This text formatted on-screen in Courier 11, non-proportional spacing.]
Return to Table of Contents for
Supreme Law School: E-mail