Home
Staff
Research
Products & Services
Documents
Seminars
Minutes
Forum
Statutes
Contact
Links
Mail Room
Legal Fund Prospectus for Year 2000
Subscribe to ongoing research and e-mail updates.
LAW Research
& Registry
            
Associations
Barter
Books
Communications
Educational
Electronics
Equipment
Financial
Meetings & Shows
Office Supplies
Paralegal
Professional
Travel
Miscellaneous

Model Bank Administrative Notice Letter

by Dan Meador

The following bank administrative notice letter is a sanitized and somewhat improved version of one Gail and I used in early January 1999 after December 1998 notification that a successor bank intended to pursue property seizure on a deficiency judgment from a 1995 foreclosure.

As many other subjects, I had studied particulars relating to banking in 1994 and 1995 when we were faced with an Internal Revenue Service administrative garnishment that lasted for 15 months, putting us in the hole financially, with the result being a bank foreclosure against our home, and a consumer credit foreclosure through which we lost a touring motorcycle. In January 1994, the bank had also surrendered money to the Internal Revenue Service on a "notice of levy" instrument.

We were focused on other things when a bank officer telephoned to notify us of the intent to execute the deficiency seizure in December 1998, so our entire focus had to be shifted to defend against further incursion from the bank. The last week of December, we filed Notices of Nonappearance against the two cases effected through the State district court, then the first week of January, we mailed an administrative notice letter to the bank president. Whatever initiative the bank intended has never materialized, and the bank has conceded matters of fact and law set out in the letter, so we are now postured to resolve matters through administrative due process or initiate countersuits to vacate judgment and secure damages.

We've since focused on things we were originally researching in early December, so haven't pursued the bank matter further, but will do so in the reasonably near future. In the meantime, research reflected in the bank notice letter has considerable importance to other people across the country, so the sanitized version is being posted as an informational piece. The letter addresses the administrative seizure predicated on an IRS "notice of levy", the home foreclosure, and the consumer credit foreclosure.

It is significant that the bank we originally did business with was a state chartered bank that was joined to the Federal Reserve System and was insured by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation. The State bank was subsequently bought out by a national banking association, and has subsequently been purchased by two other national banking associations. Those who have dealings with national banking associations rather than State banks won't have to incorporate all material contained in this model letter, but the fact that we did business with a hybrid "State" bank will be of more general benefit to greater numbers.

Probably the key to understanding bank fraud is to grasp that when financial institutions do anything under auspices of tax depositories or collection agents, or extend credit, regardless of kind, they function as "fiscal agents" of the United States. They no longer operate in a private capacity. Whatever "credit" they extend is based on a grant of authority to defer payment of debt, or create debt then defer payment. Those grants come by way of United States Government -- Uncle Sugar is providing benefits to his dependents. National banking associations and other financial institutions, as Federal Tax & Loan Depositaries, function as "fiscal agents" of the United States to provide these services and benefits.

Years ago I served as material control agent for the Stainless Division of Wall Colmonoy Corporation. Wall Colmonoy Corporation was an international corporation that developed several super-strong metal alloys. The Stainless Division was created to remanufacture jet engine parts on contract for various branches of the military. Per contract conditions, the U.S. Government purchased many of the original parts we used in the remanufacturing process, then had them shipped to us. We had to have a special storage area for government-purchased parts. All of our "domestic" purchases, including company-supplied alloys, drill bits, cutting wheels, equipment maintenance parts, and the like, had to be kept in separate storage.

In a manner of speaking, U.S. Government "owns" credit that financial institutions extend to those who, by law, are entitled to credit of the United States, so when they deal in government-owned credit, they operate in a governmental "agency" capacity that is separate from whatever services they provide as associations. As agents or agencies of United States Government, they must comply with all applicable statutes, rules, and regulations. When and if they step beyond bounds prescribed by law, they operate under color of authority of the United States. A private enterprise obviously does not have power to grant authority to "defer payment of debt," or "create debt then defer payment."

The following letter cracks open the door to the banking mystery. It is being posted so others doing research on this subject have benefit of my research, and those who are confronted with foreclosures and the like have a research foundation that can be expanded to address particular needs.

________________________________________

April 20, 1999

Dandy Warbucks, President

First National Bank of Fraud, Local Branch

44 Skinner Road

Buck Tussle, Oklahoma

SUBJECT: Notice of intent to file and prosecute complaints relating to the following: (1) In January 1994, officials at the then Fourth National Bank of Fraud, Local Branch, seized money from a private checking account predicated on a "notice of levy" forwarded from the State office of the Internal Revenue Service; (2) a foreclosure effected in the district court (CS-94-001); and (3) foreclosure against and seizure of a motorcycle (CS-94-002).

Dear Mr. Warbucks:

It seems that possibly I met you when you were an officer either at State Bank of Fraud or the Fourth National Bank of Fraud. However, lots of water has gone under the bridge since I began doing business with State Bank of Fraud in early 1989, and since difficulties with its successor, the Fourth Bank of Fraud, commenced in January 1994 when Brenda Bozo honored an unsupported and fraudulent "notice of levy" issued under signature of Sue Shyster, a revenue officer employed by the Internal Revenue Service.

Due to complexity of subject matter, this letter is quite lengthy. I have tried to cover matters in such a way that you can fully understand the situation. This is merely notice of intent, it is not the formal complaint that will be forthcoming. It is important for everyone to come to grips with basics as we each must make informed, intentional choices. I will address several matters prior to getting to specifics relating to grievances. To enlarge your understanding, you might read two memoranda posted on the Kay County Patriots web site: United States Code Isn't Law In the Several States (28 pages), and Institutionalized Tyranny: The Character & Color of Authority (112 pages).

Since completing the posted memoranda, I've documented the core mechanism that serves as the vehicle for a sinister scheme known as Cooperative Federalism. There is actually a third tier of government effected by way of intergovernmental compact. This is where "nonconstitutional" State and Federal courts come from -- United States District Courts situated in the several States are private courts, they are not courts of the United States, and the first-level State court is for all practical purposes a private court. It operates under auspices of the Uniform Commercial Code, which is an "adopted" act predicated on the notion that each compact State is an instrumentality of the United States on the order of Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, etc., rather than a quasi-independent State republic subject only to constitutionally enumerated powers of the United States.

Ink was barely dry on the Constitution when Congress first initiated efforts to enlarge Federal authority -- Thomas Jefferson led the fight against alien and sedition acts with the Kentucky Resolutions in the 1790's. The Civil War was over Federal encroachment, not slavery. The reconstruction period following the Civil War was agonizing, but there were still a few judicial remedies that aborted at least some of the effort. However, the Spanish-American War provided a new vehicle -- island provinces ceded by Spain were not "incorporated" in the constitutional scheme, so they were determined to be "foreign" to the several States, and to a certain extent, the United States. As Spanish provinces, the new insular possessions remained under civil law, which is repugnant to English-American common law lineage (see the Insular Tax Cases, particularly Downes vs. Bidwell, in the 1900-1904 period). To that point, the common law system, including "due process in the course of the common law," had been extended to each United States territorial acquisition via the Ordinance of 1787 for government of the Northwest Territory -- Oklahoma came under this system when it was extended to the Louisiana Purchase in 1803, and subsequently by the Oklahoma organic act when the Territory of Oklahoma was opened up.

In the course of time, State officials moved to the "territory of the United States" position (Article IV § 3.2, U.S. Constitution) by successive compromises, particularly after 1913. That was one of several banner years -- alleged ratification of the Sixteenth Amendment, the Federal Reserve Act, etc.

The fact that the United States doesn't have constitutionally delegated authority to establish a central bank, or any bank, was the position Andrew Jackson took when he vetoed the bill that would have renewed the charter of the second national bank in 1836. The rationale was never challenged. But by the early part of this century, a new mechanism was in place -- the "territory of the United States" clause was being employed to exit constitutional limits. Where the several States party to the Constitution are concerned, the United States may exercise only enumerated powers (Tenth Amendment). In territory belonging to the United States, Congress enjoys what is described as plenary or municipal authority -- the combined power of State and National governments. This scheme was accommodated by the Supreme Court by the court determining that within territory belonging to the United States, Congress may exercise any power not explicitly or implicitly prohibited by the Constitution. Thus, the Federal Reserve System and numerous other Federal initiatives, including Social Security, the general social welfare system, etc. By the early 1920's, prior to enactment of the United States Code in 1926, Congress had moved virtually all Federal government under the territorial clause, abandoning general delegated powers.

We were at the end of the normal 60-year business cycle, anyway, but the Fed contributed significantly to the 1929 equities collapse by diluting the nation's credit and monetary systems, then prolonged and intensified the depression by maintaining tight money policy. The Fed created the first inflation the United States experienced in a hundred years by diluting the Federal Reserve Note to 40% gold and 60% obligations of the United States. This artificial infusion of "credit of the United States" undermined the value of existing wealth, and fueled the two-leg speculation surge that ended with the 1929 crash.

Let's consider a framework: Andrew Jackson has never been contested -- the Constitution does not delegate authority for Congress to establish a national bank. Beyond that, however, the Constitution certainly doesn't grant authority for the United States to control interest rates, and set capital reserve requirements for the nation's banking system. Yet the Federal Reserve, which is a privately owned enterprise, manipulates and controls the national economy by establishing reserve requirements for virtually all American financial institutions, and controls interest rates through the two core interest mechanisms.

Can any of these powers be justified as a constitutionally enumerated power? Hardly. Does the Constitution give Congress total control of the nation's economy? And does the Constitution authorize Congress to delegate such power to private enterprise? I think not.

The next key year was 1933: Franklin D. Roosevelt was inaugurated on March 4, then declared the national emergency and bank holiday shortly after midnight the morning of Monday, March 6. He convened Congress in special session on March 9, and Congress passed the banking relief act. The act authorized confiscation of bank-held gold, substituted the Federal Reserve (bank) Note, backed by nothing, for the Federal Reserve Note that in 1933 was backed by 40% gold, and for all practical purposes made the Fed bankruptcy trustee for the United States Government. Also on March 6, governors and representatives of governors for all practical purposes signed their respective States and the people of the States over to the Federal bankruptcy (The Public Papers And Addresses of Franklin D. Roosevelt, Vol. II, pages 18-24). Governors employed executive authority to declare emergencies in each of the several States (authority none of the State constitutions grant), then in summer 1933, most governors called special sessions of their respective legislatures to enact legislation to accommodate the first hundred days of the Roosevelt New Deal. The Oklahoma special session lasted nearly as long as the 1933 regular session.

The third tier of government got off to a shaky start in 1935 when representatives of State, local, county, and Federal governments convened in Denver to sign a declaration of intergovernmental dependence. That one was replaced by the "Declaration of Interdependence of the Governments within the United States of America in Common Council", signed at the third conference of the Council of State Governments held in Washington, D.C., signed January 22, 1937. The first two and the last paragraphs of the compact speak for themselves (The Book of the States, Vol. 2, Book 2, 1937, pp. 143 & 144):
 

The Declaration of Interdependence, where government, not the people, assumes responsibility for expanding powers, stands in stark contradiction to the second paragraph of the "Declaration of Independence":
  The Declaration of Independence is part of the organic law of the United States and of the several States, Oklahoma included -- see the first volume of the Oklahoma Statutes and forward material in the first volume of the United States Code. Yet State, local and Federal representatives signed the 1937 Declaration of Intergovernmental Dependence, and an updated version in 1976. The clear intent was and is overthrow of State and national constitutions and destruction of the constitutional republic, replacing the rule of law with lust for power and wealth that travels under color of law.

The scheme was not hatched in 1935 or '37. In the forward of the 1935 edition of The Book of the States, in a "Letter to Legislators", (1935 edition, p. viii), the president of The American Legislators' Association accounts for a nine-year history of that association, which blazed a trail for establishment of the Council of State Governments, which today has headquarters in Lexington, Kentucky. In the letter, the Kentucky legislator disclosed private funding that was still in place in 1935:

The Association was first established by the self-sacrificing efforts of individual legislators, and it still receives some support from that quarter. More recently it has been supported by contributions of a half dozen states and the Spelman Fund...

The Spelman Fund is among the Rockefeller foundations, one of the more formidable influences behind the Federal Reserve System, and a number of other questionable enterprises. It's almost as though all roads lead to Rome, only in this case, Rome is the international banking community -- those being traced here lead to the Federal Reserve System, and ultimately, to two United Nations-chartered entities, the International Monetary Fund and the so-called World Bank (International Bank for Reconstruction and Development).

How is the scheme effected? It is actually pretty simple, but as John Maynard Keynes knew, a nation's money can be debauched and not one in a million will understand what happened. The definition of "credit" in the Consumer Credit Protection Act says about all that needs to be said (15 U.S.C. § 1602(e)):
 

Obviously, no private enterprise has authority to "defer payment of debt" or to authorize people to "incur debt and defer its payment." However, whoever the principal is, the entire credit and monetary scheme is predicated on "credit" (obligations) of the United States via the Federal Reserve [bank] Note, "public money", and hypothecation of debt via transfer of credit (surety) of the United States. There is no longer any money of substance (species coin) in circulation -- unless or until there is government or private borrowing, what passes for "money" doesn't exist. The problem is that all borrowed money requires payment of interest, so those things of intrinsic value, particularly real or earned income generated through natural resource production, is cannibalized to pay interest until principal escalates to the point where compounding interest drives the system to inevitable meltdown.

In an article titled "Billions for the Bankers, Debt for the People", Sheldon Emry, evidently writing in the early 1980's, employed an example of a family borrowing $60,000 to purchase a home on a 30-year note at 14% interest. The 30-year payoff is $255,931.20. The flaw Emry pointed out is that the bank-hypothecated loan created the original $60,000, but not the interest necessary to pay the loan off. Consequently, the $195,931.20 must come from earned income generated through the trade turn of natural resource production, the only source of new wealth, or continuous escalation of public and private debt. The compounding interest effect is like a gigantic funnel, or maybe more accurately, a black hole that sucks all matter into its ever-denser core.

In his article, Emry employs a poker game analogy: The banker serves as game manager and dealer. Everyone who plays must buy chips from him, and every so often, he rakes off a percentage of what is on the table. Over the long term, his wealth increases simply by taking a percentage while money in the game continuously decreases unless players offer collateral to borrow more from him. A few players who are lucky or abnormally skilled may accumulate more than they started with, but most are depleted by the game and the house share to the point of bankruptcy. The problem with the real life situation, however, is that everyone in the system is in the game, and the only way out is death. Ultimately, one percent of the nation's families own or control a preponderant majority of the nation's real, production, and financial assets. Inside that group, a quarter of one percent of the nation's families wield the power.

A psychologist I got to know while at FMC-Lexington at Lexington, Kentucky described our current situation as an "end game" scenario, analogously employing the game of Musical Chairs as an example: Competition is increasing for fewer and fewer resources. More game players are constantly being introduced while the number of available chairs is constantly being reduced. The few with politically-sanctioned power to control and hoard assets lock away that which is needed for the overall economy to function properly, leaving the general population with dregs to try to live on. The rate of borrowing must increase in order to provide circulating currency and credit, and as conditions worsen, the debt burden is increasingly shifted from the private to the public sector.

The notion that government spending generates anything of value is absurd. Principles stated by the American Economic Foundation in a pamphlet titled "Ten Pillars of Economic Wisdom" demonstrate how government must operate, and the effect:

Nothing in our material world can come from nowhere or go nowhere, nor can it be free: everything in our economic life has a source, a destination and a cost that must be paid.

Government is never a source of goods. Everything produced is produced by the people, and everything that government gives to the people, it must first take from the people.

The only valuable money that government has to spend is that money taxed or borrowed out of the people's earnings. When government decides to spend more than it has thus received, that extra unearned money is created out of thin air, through the banks, and, when spent, takes on value only by reducing the value of all money, savings and insurance.

Cooperative Federalism, as communism and socialism, is an "ism" political ideology predicated on a mathematically impossible economic scheme. It is repugnant to everything man has learned through the ages -- it defies and is contrary to both physical and moral law, with the inevitable end certain to be adverse effect and consequence for the entire nation.

This is what the Grace Commission anticipated with the almost precise forecast of exploding Federal debt in the latter 1980's, and private and business bankruptcies that topped a million in 1990. The combined effect of compounding interest and carnivorous taxes are the two prongs of what amounts to enormous ice tongs that have undermined, and destroyed the sovereignty and solvency of the United States and the American people. The sinister scheme has been accomplished through an elaborate system of frauds -- it does not proceed under law, but under color of law. The fraudulent system has only the illusion of legitimacy. Fortunately, as you will see, the law provides adequate remedies.

National banking associations, such as the First and Fourth National Banks of Fraud, are chartered as banking associations to provide financial services for officers and employees of United States Government, and political subdivisions of the United States. Their powers are extremely limited (12 U.S.C. § 24). They have no authority to solicit or provide services for the general population as only officers and employees of U.S. Government and its political subdivisions are authorized to receive and use "public money" -- the medium which all deposits represent. The Federal Reserve [bank] Note, which is something on the order of private scrip ("money or money's worth"), is a minor scam compared to the "public money" scheme.

Each of the national banking associations then insure through the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, which insures only "public money" deposits, and they apply to become Federal Tax & Loan Depositaries -- see 31 CFR § 202 et seq. for particulars. State banks that join this scheme apply for FDIC insurance and Fed membership predicated on the notion that the State they are in is a State of the United States -- a State subject to Article IV § 3.2 sovereignty of the United States. Additionally, most Fed-member and FDIC-insured banking institutions apply to become Federal Home Loan Banks. As Federal Tax & Loan Depositaries and Federal Home Loan Banks, the banks respectively operate in the capacity of "agent of the United States" as fiscal agents, etc. They are quite literally instrumentalities of United States Government, carrying out the function of granting rights to defer payment of debt, or to create debt then defer payment.

A couple of definitions of the term "State" demonstrate territorial limitations so far as Fed-member and FDIC-insured Federal Tax & Loan Depositaries and Federal Home Loan Banks are concerned. The first pertains to Federal Home Loan Banks, in definitions at 12 U.S.C. § 1422:

(3) The term "State" includes the District of Columbia, Guam, Puerto Rico, and the Virgin Islands of the United States.

The terms "include" and "includes" are restrictive. The inclusion may expand to other members of a class, but cannot go beyond the class defined by example. All examples in the above definition are of territory and insular possessions of the United States; this "class" of "State" is distinct from, and foreign to, the several States party to the Constitution of the United States.

Definitions of the terms "State", "United States", and "citizen" at 26 CFR § 31.3121(e)-1, relating to imposition of Social Security tax, are helpful in understanding this as Alaska and Hawaii were subject to social welfare taxes in general prior to being admitted to the Union, but were removed after admittance, then Guam and American Samoa were added after 1960. The definitions follow:

In reading this regulation through several times you will be comfortable with removal of Alaska and Hawaii out of the "geographical United States", and movement of Guam and American Samoa into the "geographical United States". The only lawful application of Social Security taxing authority is in the "geographical United States" subject to sovereignty of the United States under the territorial clause. There is nothing whatever in the Constitution of the United States that authorizes Congress to tax one citizen of the several States for benefit of another. The whole New Deal charade, and the present Federalism scheme in general, was and is predicated on Congress' plenary power in the geographical United States.

After you digest definitions in 26 CFR § 31.3121(e)-1, you're going to love the one at 12 CFR § 203.2(d), which is in Regulation C, "Home Mortgage Disclosure":
 

This Federal Reserve Board-generated regulation brings a new entity into the picture. Rather than the "United States", we have the "United States of America".

Where the United States has two distinct capacities, there are two distinct entities named the "United States of America". The first and original, mentioned in the Constitution, was formally established by Article I of the Articles of Confederation. The thirteen original States joined to fight the American Revolution were members of this confederation. But the "United States of America" named in the above regulation isn't the same. It is a political coalition or compact of Federal territories and insular possessions which was evidently formalized some time after 1908, and before 1918. I won't bother going through the whole tracking in this letter as the "United States of America" subject is treated at length in the two memorandums you can download from the web site previously listed. The "United States" and the "United States of America" were named in the same section at 18 U.S.C. § 80 in 1934 & 1940 editions, but the "United States of America" was removed from the current section at 18 U.S.C. § 1001. However, there is an interesting note following 18 U.S.C. § 1001 that demonstrates that this "United States of America" is a political subdivision of the geographical United States:
 

Are the several States party to the Constitution agencies of the United States? Hardly, they are subject only to constitutionally enumerated powers of the United States -- the original States are predecessors of the United States, each retaining sovereignty not specifically delegated to the United States in the Constitution. The Tenth Amendment tells the story. The created never exceeds the creator.

Examine a Federal Reserve Note. You will see that it is "currency" of the "United States of America". This is a government foreign to the United States even though it is defined as an agency of the United States. In formal logic, this substitution of entity even though words, the proper noun, might remain the same, would probably be described as an equivocation, and in this context, a fraudulent equivocation. It appears that our national currency has always designated the "United States of America", but the current principal of interest isn't the same United States of America as the one established in Article I of the Articles of Confederation.

The State Bank of Fraud was originally a State-chartered bank, but it joined the Federal Reserve System, was insured by FDIC, and was a Federal Tax & Loan Depositary that participated in the Federal Home Loan Bank scheme. Definitions relative to "State" banks eligible to secure FDIC insurance demonstrate the fraud where State banks that participate in this scheme are concerned (12 U.S.C. § 1813):
 

Nowhere in the above definitions is "the several States", "Union of several States", or "continental United States" used, and no State that is in the Union of several States party to the Constitution is used as a definition example. All examples are territories and insular possessions of the United States subject to sovereignty of the United States under the territorial clause at Article IV § 3.2 of the Constitution. Therefore, whether by intent or otherwise, officers of the State Bank of Fraud were drawn into the Cooperative Federalism fraud when they applied for Federal Reserve membership and FDIC insurance, and became a Federal Tax & Loan Depositary, then under auspices of this authority extended consumer, commercial and home financing to the general population in Oklahoma. Merger with or acquisition by the Fourth Bank of Fraud, and subsequently by the First Bank of Fraud, in no way affected or expanded territorial limitations of the law. The scheme is ultimately predicated on the "United States of America" fraud, and is therefore representative of a government foreign to the United States and the several States party to the Constitution, Oklahoma included.

Now we will step back in history to pick up the Internal Revenue Service so we can tie things together before setting out particulars of pending complaints: The Internal Revenue Service, along with the Bureau of Tobacco, Alcohol, and Firearms, is successor of the Bureau of Internal Revenue, Puerto Rico. Congress never created a Bureau of Internal Revenue, created in May 1900 by the governor and administrative committee of the original government of "Porto" Rico (Senate document No. 79, 57th Congress, First Annual Report of the Governor of Porto Rico), ( The name change from BIR to IRS was via Treasury Order in 1953 (T.D.O. #150-29). Congress never created a "Bureau of Internal Revenue" (36 F.R. 850, Sec. 1111.2(3)), so per Article I § 8.18 of the Constitution & 4 U.S.C. § 72, IRS has no standing or lawful authority in the several States.

Probably the next matter of import in this forum is that all Fed-member financial institutions seek legal remedies in the framework of the Uniform Commercial Code, which was "adopted" by legislatures in each of the several States by the early 1960's. This is documented in "Powers and duties of banks", relating to Federal Home Loan Banks, in the subsection prescribing authority for the Federal Reserve System board of directors to promulgate rules and regulations (12 U.S.C. § 1431(e)(2)(C):
 

Aside from the UCC being predicated on the notion that each adopting State is an instrumentality of the United States, it proceeds "in the course of the civil law," which is repugnant to the Fifth Article of Amendment to the Constitution of the United States (no person can be deprived of life, liberty, or property except by due process of law "in the course of the common law"), and the corresponding provision at Article II § 7 of the Constitution of the State of Oklahoma (Fifth, Sixth & Seventh Amendments to the U.S. Constitution secure due process in the course of the common law (Wayman vs. Southard (1825) 23 U.S. 1, 6 L.Ed. 253; see the Ordinance of 1787 & the Oklahoma organic act relating to the Constitution of the State of Oklahoma). In other words, if we had no other recourse, the constitutionally-secured right to due process in the course of the common law, secured by both State and national constitutions, would default all three of the actions we will file complaints about. But more to the point at the moment, not only is there no statutory or constitutional authority for Federal Reserve-member banks to serve as Federal Tax & Loan Depositaries and Federal Home Loan Banks in the several States, they are agents of a government foreign to the United States and the several States, this new creation known as the "United States of America". Clearly, we're talking about sedition and treason when seizures are effected in the several States under arms and threat of force of arms.

This is the reason we must employ good faith policy: There is no doubt in my mind that you and others employed at the bank have been unaware of your respective capacities as agents of a government foreign to the United States. Probably few if any of you, including bank-employed attorneys at the local level, are aware of the distinction between due process in the course of the common law vs. due process in the course of the civil law. Therefore, criminal liability shouldn't issue except in situations such as the bank account seizure where there was obviously no court order authorizing garnishment seizure of anything (see 28 U.S.C., Chapter 176, particularly § 3201 relating to judgment liens, and 3205 relating to garnishment, and corresponding provisions of State law). Good faith policy is predicated on the notion that those subject to the law in their respective personal capacities should be informed of the law, then given the opportunity to comply with the law. In other words, ignorance is excusable, cowardice and avarice aren't.

Another fact that needs to be thrown in is that Gail and I are not, and never have been officers or employees of United States Government, or any political subdivision of the United States, so the State Bank of Fraud, as a Federal Tax & Loan Depositary, had no lawful authority to solicit or engage in business with us. The entire relationship was fraud from the beginning. Consult 31 CFR §§ 202 et seq., for particulars and limitations. These parts, up to about § 220, provide possibly the most complete list of people subject to State and Federal normal tax, a/k/a income tax, and Social Security tax. Additionally, neither of us served as a "withholding agent" where we had a trust account for deposit of Federal or State taxes, we don't conduct business in an internal revenue district of the United States, and we're not engaged in import or export activity that might subject us to admiralty or maritime seizures.

Long before we opened accounts with the State Bank of Fraud, Gail and I were, and we remain, citizens and residents of Oklahoma, one of the several States party to the Constitution, where the Constitution is the law of the land, per Article I § 1 of the Constitution of the State of Oklahoma:

Further, we in Oklahoma are fortunate in that our constitution protects us from this kind of foolishness, per Article XXIII § 8: It's obvious that if the Constitution of the United States is the law of the land in Oklahoma, the Oklahoma Legislature is powerless to do that which is prohibited by the Constitution. Several sections apply, particularly Article I § 10.1:
  The Oklahoma Legislature cannot do what the Constitution prohibits by going outside both State and Federal constitutions through presumption of intergovernmental compact that accommodates bills of credit as scrip currency in lieu of the mandatory gold and silver coin. Even the Julliard decision (1884) was predicated on the "geographical United States" notion, it did not apply to the several States party to the Constitution, and this "United States of America" scrip and credit both exceed power delegated to the United States or the State of Oklahoma via applicable constitutions (see Naval Academy founder George Bancroft's excellent analysis of the Julliard decision in A Plea For the Constitution of the United States, in the section, "Wounded in the House of It's Guardians" (access on the Kay County Patriot web site)). The notion that Congress or the Oklahoma Legislature has constitutionally delegated authority to implement a financial scheme that is contrary to the "Laws of Nature and of Nature's God" is the most outrageous notion imaginable. The U.S. Supreme Court has frequently spoken to this matter, and what applies to Federal government in relation to the U.S. Constitution applies to State governments in relation to their respective constitutions. The 1826 Foster vs. Neilson decision speaks to the matter as clearly as can be said: "A treaty cannot change the Constitution or be held valid if it be in violation of that document."

More contemporary decisions reinforce the prohibition:
 

Further, State government officials, even in concert with representatives of other governments, have no authority whatever to establish new states within territorial borders of existing States party to the Constitution. Only Congress can do this, and both the process and object are limited, per Article IV § 3.1 of the Constitution of the United States:
  Oklahoma is not a "State of the United States" on a par with the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, Guam, American Samoa, and the Northern Mariana Islands. Oklahoma is not a "State" of this new creation, the "United States of America", where Congress enjoys plenary power under the territorial clause. Oklahoma is one of the several States, the Union of several States, party to the Constitution of the United States, and the people of Oklahoma, including Gail and me, are entitled to all rights, protections, benefits, privileges and immunities secured by the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of the State of Oklahoma. Any and all people who knowingly join themselves to the notion that renegade public servants have lawful authority to abandon, suppress, and destroy constitutional rule and the constitutional republic by intergovernmental compact or any other means join themselves by adhesion, and are therefore subject to the same lawful remedies, as principals who knowingly and intentionally perpetrate the fraud. This maxim is old enough that the Romans employed it as precedent law (Black's Law Dictionary, 6th edition):

Agentes et consentientes pari pna plectentur ... Acting and consenting parties are liable to the same punishment.

The Uniform Commercial Code has no lawful effect in Oklahoma. Per Conflict of Law doctrine, original acts, inclusive of the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of the State of Oklahoma, have precedence over adopted acts (see 75 O.S.Ann. §§ 11 & 12). Fortunately, there is enough integrity in our system, albeit well hidden, to secure lawful remedies against incursion, fraud, and plunder perpetrated by agents and agencies of government foreign to the United States and the several States party to the Constitution of the United States.

Because each of our three complaints requires documentation of various sorts, we will proceed in administrative forum to secure evidence. We will proceed either by FOIA or Privacy Act request to secure documents separate from this letter. We're at a disadvantage in some areas as many of our original papers were left at the house when it was seized under arms. Much of our private property was either stolen or simply disappeared. Consequently, we will have to secure duplicates of some documents from your records. Additionally, we will secure verification of certain other relative matters from the Internal Revenue Service district office, the Comptroller of the Currency, etc., etc. However, your initial response to background particulars and preliminary averments supporting complaints should be returned within ten business days from receipt of this notice.

1. Contrary to our constitutionally-secured right to due process of law, in January 1994, the Fourth Bank of Fraud, predecessor to the First Bank of Fraud, by and through one Brenda Bozo, seized and surrendered an amount of money in excess of $50.00 held in a private checking account for us to the Internal Revenue Service based on a "notice of levy" instrument sent to the Fourth Bank of Fraud by an Internal Revenue Service revenue agent at the time based at the IRS field office in Enid, Oklahoma.

The first salient fact of some consequence is that Oklahoma is not in and of itself, and is not part of an internal revenue district of the United States. I'm not going to cover this matter in detail as it is addressed in both of the memoranda you can download from the Kay County Patriot web site. Because Oklahoma is not in an internal revenue district of the United States, per 26 U.S.C. § 7621, 26 CFR § 301.7621-1, E.O. #10289, & 19 CFR § 101, no Internal Revenue Service agent had lawful authority to garnish, seize, canvass or otherwise encumber property, secure information, or engage any other enterprise relative to our private affairs via the Fourth Bank of Fraud as such authority is specifically limited to internal revenue districts of the United States by 26 U.S.C. § 7601 & 4 U.S.C. § 72. The local branch of the Fourth Bank of Fraud was therefore a "foreign branch" so far as Internal Revenue Code authority is concerned.

Second, the "notice of levy" was a conspicuously fraudulent document as it did not issue under the requisite seal of a director of an internal revenue district of the United States, and in the column designated "kind of tax", the documented listed "1040", which is a tax return number rather than an Internal Revenue Code-prescribed tax. The document did not on its face (1) document an assessment effected with lawful requirements specified at 26 U.S.C. §§ 6201 et seq., (2) verify a taxing or liability statute, (3) verify a judgment lien, or (4) verify a licensing lien.

As a matter of curiosity, you might consult 26 CFR § 601.401(d)(4) to see that the "1040" form is used to secure "special refunds" when an "employee", as defined at 26 U.S.C. § 3401(c), is employed by two or more "employers", as defined at 26 U.S.C. § 3401(d), during the course of any given tax year. Consult corresponding regulations in 26 CFR § 1.1441 et seq., 1.6001 et seq., & 31.6001-1 et seq. for filing details.

Third, a "notice of levy" is not a lawful document for levy and distraint, but issues merely as notice at the time court-ordered distraint and seizure issue. It is notice to the owner of property, including money, that something has been seized. It issues simultaneous with or after the fact.

Fourth, there is and was no evidence of a requisite court order authorizing garnishment, seizure of bank accounts, or any other property, as required by the Fifth Article of Amendment to the Constitution of the United States, and Article II § 7 of the Constitution of the State of Oklahoma and attending law for each respective jurisdiction.

Fifth, we provided Fourth Bank of Fraud officers written notice not to execute seizure of our money predicated on the "notice of levy" instrument.

DISCUSSION: The notion that the Internal Revenue Service or any legitimate agency of United States Government is exempt from securing judgment by a court of competent jurisdiction before seizing things, including money, is so much hog wash. The Internal Revenue Code is perfectly clear on the matter at 26 U.S.C. § 7804(b):

You can check with these characters, but Internal Revenue Service officers are perfectly aware that seizures without court orders are patently illegal. For verification, consult the first rule for conferences with IRS at 26 CFR § 601.106(f)(1):
  Can anything be clearer? These reprobates know what they are doing, and they know that they and third parties have liability when the fraud is perpetrated. So far as third party liability ... they conveniently hid that from most everybody at 27 CFR § 70.163(c ), reproduced in relative part:

... Any person who mistakenly surrenders to the United States property or rights to property not properly subject to levy is not relieved from liability to a third party who owns the property...

"Well, Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms regulations don't apply..," you might want to say. To make the link, look at provisions of 26 U.S.C. § 6331(a), levy and distraint, to see limits so far as "wage" garnishment is concerned, reproduced in relative part:

By consulting the Parallel Table of Authorities and Rules, located in the Index volume to the Code of Federal Regulations, you find that the only implementing regulation for 26 U.S.C. § 6331 is 27 CFR § 70. Certainly we shouldn't accuse the Secretary of the Treasury of lying, so we want to accept legal authorities promulgated under his supervision for what they say. By going to 27 CFR § 70.161, you will find regulations pertaining to levy and distraint, and at § 70.161(a)(4), you will find, "Certain types of compensation -- (i) Federal employees".

Actually, these regulations, whether enforced by IRS or BATF, are applicable only in Puerto Rico, Guam, American Samoa, and possibly the Virgin Islands. The General Accounting Office serves as general agent of the Treasury of the United States and is responsible for settling all claims of or against the United States. Authority to sue is at 5 U.S.C. § 5512, and if you will read historical and statutory notes following, you can track this authority to June 1921 legislation published in the Statutes at Large. GAO authority relating to any claim of or against the United States is at 31 U.S.C. § 3702. Consult 27 CFR § 250.11 for definitions that ultimately link IRS and BATF to the Department of the Treasury, Puerto Rico.

Per the last sentence of 26 U.S.C. § 7804(b), which specifies that "venue" will be determined by "existing law", there is actually a choice here. What law exists where Oklahoma isn't in an internal revenue district of the United States established under authority of 26 U.S.C. § 7621 in compliance with 3 U.S.C. § 301 & 4 U.S.C. § 72?

For your information, and further confirmation that the Internal Revenue Code requires due process of law, I'll explain presumptions behind IRS initiatives: All IRS administrative seizures, whether of bank accounts, wages, automobiles, or whatever, are predicated on the notion that the "property" being seized (forfeited) has been used in commission of a crime relating to internal revenue laws of the United States -- see 26 U.S.C. § 7302. This section is IRS' "approach ramp" for exit from the Internal Revenue Code to customs laws.

Technically, the forfeiture should proceed in a warrant issued against or in conjunction with the criminal activity, and there should be judgment "in rem" in a United States District Court (26 U.S.C. § 7323). This tells us two things: The "forfeiture" action, which proceeds "in rem", is an admiralty/maritime action in a territorial court of the United States, the three remaining defined as courts of the United States at 18 U.S.C. § 23. This is not an action which may be executed in the several States; all proceedings in the several States must be "in the course of the common law" in Article III district courts of the United States (26 U.S.C. §§ 7402 & 7403; see also, 5 U.S.C. § 5512).

The IRS seizure presumes drug-related offenses, so the exit from the Internal Revenue Code under customs laws at 26 U.S.C. § 7327 gets us from the Internal Revenue Code to regulations at 26 CFR § 403. Here, at 26 CFR § 403.35, you will find the regulation pertaining to remission or mitigation of forfeitures. The presumed "commercial crimes" are listed at § 403.38(d)(1), including burglary, counterfeiting, forgery, kidnapping, larceny, robbery, illegal sale or possession of deadly weapons, prostitution, extortion, swindling and confidence games, and attempting or conspiring to commit any of these crimes; addiction to narcotic drugs and use of marijuana are treated as commercial crimes.

However, even with the presumption of one of the specified crimes, administrative seizure and disposal of property used in these activities may issue against property valued at $2,500 or less, and the owner of the property may force the issue to trial with a nominal bond of $250. Any "forfeiture" in excess of $2,500 must be adjudicated even in territory of the United States -- see 26 CFR § 403.26 for particulars.

2. As pertains to FOURTH NATIONAL BANK OF FRAUD vs. DAN L. MEADOR & N. GAIL MEADOR, case No. CJ-94-001, decided in the DISTRICT COURT IN AND FOR KAY COUNTY, financing of the dwelling located at the postal mailing address of 728 S. Flormable, adjacent to the city limits of the community of Ponca City, in the county of Kay County, in the State of Oklahoma, which is one of the several States party to the Constitution where the Constitution of the United States is the law of the land:

GENERALIZATION OF FACTS: The financing arrangement in this particular matter was arranged with the State Bank of Fraud in February 1991. The bank, as lender, subsequently secured a lien against our dwelling in the office of the county clerk for the county of Kay County, State of Oklahoma. The State Bank of Fraud was subsequently taken over by or merged with the Fourth National Bank of Fraud and in 1994, after officers of Fourth National Bank of Fraud surrendered money from our private account to the Internal Revenue Service on a "notice of levy" instrument. We were unable to meet terms of the financing agreement -- an illegitimate foreclosure action which continued into calendar 1995. The action was predicated on Uniform Commercial Code proceedings. After execution of judgment, we filed a rescission against the financial instrument with the chief executive officer at the local branch of the Fourth National Bank of Fraud under authority of Regulation Z (12 CFR § 226). Fourth National Bank of Fraud officers were responsible for seizing the said property under arms and threat of force of arms, thereby effecting false imprisonment and plunder, with the further consequence of the Fourth National Bank of Fraud officers failing to protect and preserve private possessions, including but not limited to first-edition and rare books, antiques of various sorts, approximately 20 years of research and writing, a commercial wood stripping system, and many other things too numerous to list in this context, aside from effecting public slander and humiliation causing expense, loss of abode and other property, and otherwise inflicting emotional and psychological injury.

Particulars of law will be addressed in general discussion relating to complaint categories numbered 1 & 2.

3. As pertains to FOURTH NATIONAL BANK OF FRAUD vs. DAN MEADOR, case No. CS-95-002, decided in the DISTRICT COURT IN AND FOR KAY COUNTY, relating to financing and seizure of a 1989 Kawasaki Voyager XII, VIN No. JKAZG9B17KB501918.

GENERALIZATION OF FACTS: The motorcycle described above was originally financed through either the State Bank of Fraud or the Fourth National Bank of Fraud in November 1991, then was refinanced via Fourth National Bank of Fraud after an illegal IRS garnishment had stripped earnings to the point payments had fallen behind. On each occasion, the State Bank of Fraud, then the Fourth National Bank of Fraud, or on both occasions, the Fourth National Bank of Fraud, effected liens which were filed with the county clerk for the county of Kay County, State of Oklahoma. After foreclosure on our abode, I effected a rescission sent to the chief executive officer of the Fourth National Bank of Fraud terminating the financing agreement under authority of Regulation Z (12 CFR § 226), but the said bank officer elected to ignore the lawful rescission and subsequently commenced the above proceeding, with the result of fraudulently seizing the motorcycle under arms and threat of force of arms, effecting false arrest, and subsequently fraudulently disposing of the motorcycle by sale. Officers of Fourth National Bank of Fraud thereby further inflicted emotional and psychological injury, deprived me of primary transportation, caused further slanderous injury, and otherwise proceeded on a course of plunder as agent of the United States of America, a government foreign to the United States and the several States party to the Constitution of the United States. Judicial proceeding was effected under auspices of the Uniform Commercial Code, thereby depriving me of due process in the course of the common law required by the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of the State of Oklahoma.

DISCUSSION OF LAW RELATING TO COMPLAINS No. 2 & 3:

The first matter here pertains to styling of the two cases cited above: Respectively, they issued against DAN L. MEADOR, N. GAIL MEADOR, DAN MEADOR, or something to that effect. No such entities exist that we know of. My full "Christian", middle and surnames are Dan Leslie Meador; I am commonly know and conduct most private affairs as Dan Meador, on occasion I use my middle initial, Dan L. Meador. Gail's full Christian, middle and surnames are Norma Gail Meador, and because she doesn't particularly care for Norma, she commonly conducts private affairs as Gail Meador, using N. Gail Meador on some documents.

If you will consult sample pleading forms in 12 O.S.Ann. 2027, you will find designation of "A.B., Plaintiff", and "C.D., Defendant". These are merely letter designations to demonstrate the position of each, it does not mandate fraud by misnomer. In order to determine proper parties, the name of both plaintiff and defendant must be as is proper for the party, i.e., Dan Meador rather than DAN MEADOR, etc. This is clarified in 12 O.S.Ann. § 51, Presumption of identity:

In all instruments or court proceedings and decrees affecting the title of real estate, which have been recorded or entered for a period of ten (10) years prior to a date six (6) months after the effective date of this act, and thereafter when they shall have been recorded or entered for a period of ten (10) years, in which any of the following variations in names appear, to wit: (a) where in one instance a Christian name or names of a person is or are used in another instance the initial letter or letters only of any such Christian name or names is or are used but the surnames are the same or idem sonans, (b) where in one instance a Christian name or initial letter is used, and in another instance is omitted, but in both instances the other Christian name or initial letters correspond and the surnames are the same or idem sonans, and no action shall have been instituted within said period in a court having jurisdiction seeking to assert an interest in or lien upon such real estate by reason of the invalidity of one of such instruments, it shall be presumed that the person referred to by one of such variant names is the same as the person referred to by the other...

Use of the "corporate" all-capitals name is presumption of a corporate fiction. Rules of usage in English spelling specify that first letters of names and proper nouns are capitalized, the balance are in lower case letters. The section above clearly specifies proper identity of a natural person, a human being -- proper Christian and surnames must be used in order to identify a proper party.

It's true that a number of the uniform acts, probably including the Uniform Commercial Code, provide case styling examples with all capital letters for plaintiffs and defendants, but this is simply one more element of the Cooperative Federalism fraud. The "adopted acts", predicated on the assumption that Oklahoma is an instrumentality of the United States, has and can have no lawful effect as they are contrary to the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of the State of Oklahoma.

We haven't located papers relating to the motorcycle, but by some quirk of fate, we have papers from closing of the house mortgage. They include the following:

The survey, by James T. Cheek & Associates, Inc.

A fumigation certificate, Ridgway Pest Control

The Commitment to Issue Guaranty, Albright Title and Trust Company

The Adjustable Rate Note, issued February 14, 1991

The Adjustable Rate Rider

The Mortgage instrument

Estimate of Monthly Payments

Closing Acknowledgment and Release

A letter pertaining to the Warranty Deed from Stewart Escrow & Title Co. (2/19/91)

The Survivorship Warranty Deed, filed 2/15/91

A notice of abstract storage at Albright's

The Department of Housing and Urban Development Settlement Statement

The Buyer's Agreement to Purchase (No. B 219238)

A Truth-In Lending Disclosure form (Regulation Z requirement)

These documents alone default any lawful remedy the Fourth National Bank of Fraud might have had as none of them comply with Paperwork Reduction Act and other Federal statutory requirements (31 U.S.C. § 1111 & 44 U.S.C. Chs. 21, 25, 27, 29, 31 & 31). References following are from 5 CFR § 1320. The copy I have from my July 1998 edition of the Code of Federal Regulations was promulgated Aug. 29, 1995, but is substantially the same as previous regulations pertaining to the same matter. If you find that the regulation in effect in February 1991 was substantially different, please notify me by letter, and include a copy of the applicable regulation, designating the issue of the Code of Federal Regulations the copy is from. The Paperwork Reduction Act was originally promulgated by Pub.L. 96-511, Dec. 11, 1980, 94 Stat. 2812.

The various banks, respectively, are subject to requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act when operating as "agent of the United States", which they are as Federal Tax & Loan Depositaries, Federal Home Loan Banks, etc. This is established in definitions at § 1320.3:

Per the above definitions, the Federal Reserve, FDIC, "Fannie Mae", "Freddie Mac", and all other participating entities, including the State Bank of Fraud, the Fourth National Bank of Fraud, and the First National Bank of Fraud, operate as "independent regulatory agencies" or agents of independent regulatory agencies in their respective capacities relating to commercial, consumer, and residential credit transactions (§ 1320.3(g)), and therefore, all documents specified under 5 CFR § 1320.3(c)(1), including application forms, contracts, agreements, etc., must comply with disclosure requirements established by the Office of Management and Budget in implementing regulations for the Paperwork Reduction Act. Note that the definition of "penalty" includes all manner of judgments (§ 1320.3(j)). OMB disclosure requirements are set out at 5 CFR § 1320.5(b):
  Public protection is prescribed at 5 CFR § 1320.6: The above regulations impose a complete estoppel against administrative or judicial penalties where forms specified above do not meet requirements specified by OMB in regulations implementing the Paperwork Reduction Act. Gail and I are "members of the public", and the succession of banks to the First National Bank of Frauds, in their respective capacities as Federal Tax & Loan Depositaries, Federal Home Loan Banks, etc., are subject to estoppels effected by 5 CFR § 1320.6.

Again, we haven't located documents relating to the motorcycle, but the same estoppel applies there as to the home mortgage transaction, so I will go through papers in hand relating to our home.

The first matter is this: The only place I find an allegedly approved OMB number which might relate to any of the documents listed above relates to the Home Mortgage Disclosure Act (Regulation C), at 12 CFR § 203.1:

This regulation was promulgated in 54 FR 61362, Dec. 15, 1989, so it predates the home mortgage transaction. The regulation is published in the July 1998 edition of the Code of Federal Regulations, so is presumed to be current at least to that date. There may be other OMB numbers assigned to other documents, contracts, etc., but that matter is moot as only a few of the documents in our possession have OMB numbers on them, and they differ from the one above. OMB numbers must be re-issued at three-year intervals, but that matter is really moot in this context, too. Where information solicitation and disclosure forms under this regulation are concerned, the Federal Reserve System Board of Governors stated that expiration dates will not be published on these documents, so that will not be an issue.

The first document of interest is the TRUTH-IN LENDING DISCLOSURE AS REQUIRED BY FEDERAL LAW AND FEDERAL RESERVE REGULATION Z: This document, which we were required to sign, does not have an OMB number or the prescribed notice that we were not required to complete the document under stated conditions. Further, in disclosure information pertaining to insurance toward the bottom of the document, mortgage insurance with GMAC (Settlement Statement lines 902 & 1002) is not disclosed. This is significant as we never received a copy of the GMAC policy or other disclosure concerning how we could use this insurance we paid for to our advantage.

Next, the ADJUSTABLE RATE NOTE for the single family dwelling is a Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac Uniform Instrument, Form 3504 7/88. It does not display an OMB number, an expiration date, or the requisite notice.

Next, the ADJUSTABLE RATE RIDER, Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac Uniform Instrument, Form 3114 7/88 does not display an OMB number, an expiration date, or the requisite notice.

Next, the MORTGAGE is a FNMA/FHLMC UNIFORM INSTRUMENT, Form 3037 12/86. It does not display an OMB number, and expiration date, or the requisite notice.

The SETTLEMENT STATEMENT and SETTLEMENT CHARGES form does have an OMB number on it, but lacks either an expiration date or the requisite notice prescribed by regulations above. The OMB No. is 2502-0265. However, by consulting regulations for the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act (Regulation X), 24 CFR § 3500, we find that the regulation itself makes no claim in forward matter concerning OMB approval and setting forth an OMB number. Yet the "Settlement Statement" form we have has an OMB number displayed in the top right hand corner: OMB No. 2502-0265. There is no expiration date displayed, and the requisite notice is not displayed.

Further, it would appear that this form accommodates fraud in a number of other ways. In the certification statement above signatures on the second page, the form states, "I further certify that I have received a copy of HUD-1 Settlement Statement." The first page of the form displays, "A U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT SETTLEMENT STATEMENT", but it does not have the HUD-1 Settlement Statement displayed anywhere on it. Because of the, "I further certify that I have received a copy of the HUD-1 Settlement Statement" phrasing, it would appear that the HUD-1 Settlement Statement is or may be different from the signed Settlement Statement. In that event, it appears that the form accommodates deceptive practice as we do not have a disclosure document distinctly identified as a HUD-1 Settlement Statement other than the form we signed. At the closing itself, enough people were shuffling and signing papers, with most of the forms listed above among them, that this fine-print certification would be unnoticed, and not understood, in the situation with several people involved in the closing conference. At any rate, we don't have a separate, clearly identified HUD-1 Settlement Statement form, as required by Regulation X.

It is significant that deletion of the HUD-1 identification number is not among the alterations permitted under authority of 24 CFR §§ 3500.9(a) & (c). Elimination of the number would suggest an unauthorized document alteration, and therefore, forgery and counterfeiting of the document.

Be that as it may, geographical application of the Settlement Statement form in our possession is disclosed in information at the bottom of the first page:

The information contained in Blocks E, H, I, and line 401 is important tax information and is being furnished to the Internal Revenue Service...

Since Oklahoma is not, and is not in an internal revenue district of the United States, and the Internal Revenue Service, an agency of the Department of the Treasury, Puerto Rico, has jurisdiction only in the District of Columbia and insular possessions of the United States, the OMB number printed in the top right corner of the page may be applicable only in internal revenue districts of the United States, per 26 U.S.C. § 7621, 26 CFR § 301.7621-1 & E.O. #10289, where the Internal Revenue Service has Internal Revenue Code administrative jurisdiction. The form, whether it is the prescribed HUD-1 settlement statement form or not, cannot be applicable in the several States party to the Constitution, Oklahoma included. Therefore, the OMB number is defective and fraudulent as it might apply to us.

Failure of documents listed above to comply with requirements of regulations prescribed by OMB to implement the Paperwork Reduction Act did and does constitute a complete bar against the Fourth National Bank of Fraud, and as successor, the First National Bank of Fraud, from administratively or judicially imposing any penalty, per 5 CFR §§ 1320.6(b), (c) & (d). Therefore, for the Fourth National Bank of Fraud or the First National Bank of Fraud to have proceeded with foreclosure against our dwelling was fraud without force and effect of law, contrary to regulations which limit remedies available to such agencies of the United States that fail to comply with requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act.

Additionally, 12 U.S.C. § 2604 & 24 CFR § 3500.6 require the lender to supply a Public Information Booklet within three business days from the time a loan application is made. We do not have a copy of a Public Information Booklet with other papers relating to the home mortgage transaction, and neither of us recall receiving it.

I would remind you of rescissions effected under authority of Regulation Z (12 CFR § 226), but will not go into particulars here as failure of Fourth National Bank of Fraud officers to correct the foreclosure and motorcycle seizure is now water under the bridge. The rescissions constitute another cause for both cases, but they are of nominal consequence relative to the last cause to be addressed in this forum. For the last matter, we will examine Regulation X, at 24 CFR § 3500, which issues under authority of 12 U.S.C. § 2601 et seq., and 42 U.S.C. § 3535(d) -- regulations for the "Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act".

In order to break Regulation X down, I will arrange definitions applicable to the regulation in such a fashion as to make sense of them as one applies to another and as they collectively apply to matters at hand.

The following are definitions in 24 CFR § 3500.2(b) which are significant where matters relating to our home mortgage transaction was concerned:

Federally related mortgage loan or mortgage loan means the following:
 

We've already demonstrated that the "United States of America", as used in the United States Code and the Code of Federal Regulations, is an agency of the United States (notes following 18 U.S.C. § 1001 & 18 U.S.C. § 6), it is not the original "United States of America" compact formally established in Article I of the Articles of Confederation. With this clearly in mind, we can now construct a sensible picture from definitions in 24 CFR § 3500.2(b), reproduced above.

The definition of "State" at 24 CFR § 3500.2(b) is essentially the same as the territorial application of the term "dwelling" at 12 CFR § 203:

At 24 CFR § 3500.2(b)(3), we find that if residential real property securing a mortgage loan is not located in a State, the loan is not a federally related mortgage loan: The State Bank of Fraud, and subsequently, the Fourth National Bank of Fraud, were respectively insured by FDIC, were Federal Tax & Loan Depositaries, and served in the capacity of Federal Home Loan Banks as fiscal agents of United States Government. Many of the documents we have in our possession do in fact reflect headings and other information which suggests compliance with HUD and other Federal regulatory agency requirements, so the evidence prima facie proves that officers of Security National Bank & Trust were in fact holding themselves out as a "lender", as defined above, and that the mortgage transaction was a "Federally related mortgage loan or mortgage loan", as defined above. A mortgage and lien were in fact executed against the property with the postal delivery address of 728 S. Flormable, located adjacent to the southwestern city limits of the community of Ponca City, county of Kay County, State of Oklahoma, the State of Oklahoma being one of the several States party to the Constitution of the United States, which is separate and distinctive from, and of a different character than, the geographical United States and the federation of Federal territories and insular possessions known as the "United States of America". Because our "dwelling" was and is not located in a State of the United States, in the United States of America defined as an agency of the United States, or any other territory subject to Congress' plenary power under Article I § 8.17 or Article IV § 3.2 of the Constitution, the mortgage transaction did not constitute a Federally related mortgage loan, as defined at 24 CFR § 3500.2(b).

Failure of forms used in the "Settlement" and otherwise to comply with regulatory requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act, and other irregularities set out above, demonstrate that the home mortgage transaction at issue here was a unilateral action on the part of State Bank of Fraud officers, and subsequently, Fourth National Bank of Fraud officers, to privately engage in a fraud to hypothecate "credit", as previously defined, without authority of law. Further, the misleading documents effected in the mortgage transaction settlement, most effected by State Bank of Fraud officers, amounted to forging and counterfeiting securities of the United States.

Further evidence of the fraud is the lack of a general application regulation for 12 U.S.C. 2615, which relates to liens and contracts:

At 12 U.S.C. § 2617, the Secretary of HUD is charged with responsibility for promulgating regulations for Federal home loan banks. By consulting the Parallel Table of Authorities and Rules, located in the Index volume to the Code of Federal Regulations, it is found that the only regulations for 12 U.S.C. §§ 2601 et seq., are in 24 CFR § 3500, from which the definitions above were taken. There is no separate listing for 12 U.S.C. § 2615, relating to liens and mortgages. There is simply a note, which has not been published as a regulation in the Federal Register in compliance with requirements of the Federal Register Act, at 24 CFR § 3500.18, as follows: The Federal Register Act (44 U.S.C. §§ 1501 et seq.), at § 1505(a), specifies that executive officer-issued regulations, Presidential executive orders, and other such matter having general application and effect must be published in the Federal Register before they have the force of law. Since the above is merely a note, not a regulation promulgated in accordance with the Federal Register Act, 12 U.S.C. § 2615, relating to contracts and liens, may have only three applications: (1) as relates to officers and employees of the United States (3 U.S.C. § 301), (2) as relates to maritime jurisdiction of the United States, and (3) as relates to territories and insular possessions of the United States. Without general application regulations published in the Federal Register (a/k/a "legislative regulations"), and subsequently classified in the Code of Federal Regulations, the section relating to mortgages and liens does not vest a franchise of authority in any officer or agency of the United States, including Federal Reserve-member and FDIC-insured financial institutions when they are functioning as fiscal agents and other agency capacities for United States Government, nor does the Code section create a liability or impose an encumbrance or penalty on anyone in the several States party to the Constitution of the United States. Case authorities are sufficient that I won't bother citing them to support the conclusion.

It is obvious that the same limitations apply to the motorcycle loan and foreclosure. In order not to take more space and time than is absolutely necessary, I will forego documenting authorities relating to consumer credit transactions.

It is my opinion that there is concurrent State and Federal jurisdiction pertaining to matters at issue. Officers of State Bank of Fraud and the Fourth National Bank of Frauds obviously proceeded under color of law within Oklahoma, and Kay County, so effecting, filing and prosecuting false, fraudulent, and counterfeit documents is contrary to law of the State of Oklahoma, but it is simultaneously subject to Federal administrative and judicial remedies. When officers of Federally chartered financial institutions serve as fiscal agents and in other capacities as agents of United States Government, they may operate only in bounds prescribed by Congress under Congress' authority at Article I § 8.18:

[The Congress shall have Power] To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.

Further, counterfeiting securities of the United States is subject to Congress' power at Article I § 8.6:

As a caveat, consider penalties prescribed at 18 U.S.C. § 513, as this section applies to counterfeiting securities of States of the United States (§ 513(c)(5)). The term of imprisonment may be up to ten years, and the fine may be up to $250,000 for each offense. Consult 18 U.S.C. §§ 2311, 2314 & 2320 for particulars of additional fines and sanctions.

You may have a period of ten business days from receipt of this notice to rebut or correct facts and law set forth herein. In the event you fail to rebut or correct within the prescribed time, I will begin the process of securing relevant documentation and administrative determinations.

Under penalties of perjury, I attest that to the best of my current knowledge, understanding and belief, all matters of law and fact set forth herein are accurate and true, so help me God.

Regards,

Dan Meador
Home
Staff
Research
Products & Services
Documents
Seminars
Minutes
Forum
Statutes
Contact
Links
Mail Room
Legal Fund Prospectus for Year 2000
Subscribe to ongoing research and e-mail updates.
LAW Research
& Registry
            
Associations
Barter
Books
Communications
Educational
Electronics
Equipment
Financial
Meetings & Shows
Office Supplies
Paralegal
Professional
Travel
Miscellaneous