|
|
Courts - USA - understanding
administrative law
What you are about to read is very provocative
and likely to shock,
but educate, many of you. Some of you will likely be inspired
to do
likewise, but just as you see those disclaimers which say,
"Experts -
do not try this at home," so I say, "Do not try
mimicking this at
home. Remember, when reality and common sense run up against
politics and money, the former two will not register in the
courts."
We have all heard the term "Administrative
Law." Administrative Law
is everywhere in society, and affects everyone
of us. But despite
our familiarity, how many people really know what "Administrative
Law" is? Most people see the word "Law" and
automatically think it
is some kind of a special law passed by either Congress, our
state
legislators, or our city councils, etc. No matter where we
are in
our experience and knowledge of Administrative Law, we all
tend to
feel deep down inside, "I just do not like it."
It is that same sort
of feeling when we drive down the highway and pass a police
car with
its lights flashing, having pulled over a car. You don't naturally
think, "Boy, I'm pleased to see that police officer out
here on the
highway performing us a public service." Rather, you
are more likely
to think, "Boy, I'm glad it's him he pulled over, and
not me." Just
as hearing from the Internal Revenue Service, "public
service" is
probably the last thing that enters your mind.
Administrative Law demands things of us that
intrude into our
personal lives, our homes, our businesses. It makes us comply
with
certain codes, inspects us, demands arbitrary taxes and payment
in
advance of establishing liability, calls us into account before
boards composed of political appointees having conflicts of
interests, all without the benefit of a trial by jury of your
peers.
Administrative Law governs us, to name only a few, in our
relation
to our children through CPS, our right to contract through
the State
Contractor's License Board, our businesses through Business
Licenses
and Worker's Compensation Boards which provide a feeding frenzy
for
lawyers, and even our pleasurable moments through Fishing
and Gaming
Licenses, our travel through DMV, etc., etc, and so on without
end.
In fact, all of our lives in every area is governed by
administrative agencies and their "laws," and there
is near nothing
that is not regulated and licensed by some agency. It would
almost
seem that life's existence itself is but a special privilege
of
government that is revocable upon whim. Whatever happened
to "...
governments are instituted among men, deriving their just
powers
from the consent of the governed...?
As some of may you already know, none of the
protections set forth
in the U.S. Constitution has any application whatsoever upon
the
enforcement and carrying out of "Administrative Law."
So we shout
with outrage at the government, "You're violating my
Constitutional
rights," and you ask, "What gives? Is Administrative
Law superior
to, and above, the Constitution of the United States, which
is the
supreme Law of this Land?"
I am now going to pull the veil off the mystery
of "Administrative
Law," and let you in on a secret that no government wants
you to
know. Some of you are going to laugh at the simplicity of
the
matter, once I tell you. "Administrative Law" is
not some esoteric
law passed by some legislative body. "Administrative
Law" simply
means "Contract Agreement." But if government called
it what it
really was, everyone would know what is going on. But by the
government calling it "Administrative Law," few
understand it, and
think, "Oh my goodness, I don't want to go to jail because
I
violated Administrative Law." What you must implicitly
remember is
that Administrative Law and Police Powers are diametrically
opposed
to each other. They cannot co-exist in the same context. Like
oil
and water, they can never mix. But governments do not want
you to
know that. If there were any form of police power exerted
to
enforce "Administrative Law," it would clearly fly
in the face of
the Constitution. So all governments exercise fraud when they
take "Administrative Law" beyond "the consent
of the governed,"
Declaration of Independence.
Every time you hear the term "Administrative
Law," you must
correctly think "Contract Agreement." If everyone
thought that way,
people would automatically ask themselves the logical
question, "Where's the contract?" But government
does not want you
to think in terms of "Contracts," nor the fact that
there can ever
be police powers involved in the enforcement of a contract.
If you
fail to show up for work, can your boss call up the police
and send
them out to arrest you? No! This is true even if your boss
happens
to be the city, or the chief of police. Police powers are
limited
only to criminal acts, never contract disputes. These are
totally
separate and exclusive jurisdictions.
The U.S. Constitution specifically forbids all
fifty states of this
country from passing any law that interferes with any individual's
right of contract, or, if the persons so chooses, the right
not to
contract. "No state shall...make any...law impairing
the obligation
of contracts." Article I, Sec. 10, Clause 1. The right
to contract
necessarily establishes the right not to contract. Just like
the
First Amendment to Congress, "Congress shall make no
law respecting
an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise
thereof;" so in Article I, Sec. 10, no state shall make
any law that
impairs the free exercise of the right to contract or not
to
contract. Now how does this Constitutional prohibition to
states
apply to such state administrative agencies as the "State
Contractor's License Board?" Ah, yes, and note, we are
not here even
challenging this as an Administrative Law, but rather the
very
authority of the State itself to even "make" such
an administrative
agency that presumes to govern the right to contract. In other
words, the Legislature was acting unconstitutionally when
they even
considered "making" such a law, whether the law
passed by a majority
vote or not. In other words, it was null and void the very
moment it
was "passed." One could just imagine the untold
hundreds of billions
of dollars that would invigorate the entire economy of this
country
if states could not interfere with, or tax our constitutional
right
to contract, or not to contract, with whosoever we pleased.
Contracts are very much a necessary part of
all of our lives, and we
all understand the meaning of agreements and keeping our word.
Contracts always must contain a consideration, and are made
voluntarily for the mutual benefit of each of the parties
entering
them.
I am going to explain the legitimate uses of
contracts, and then
proceed to what they have transmuted into by the State. In
a
legitimate contract, for instance, and I speak to those married,
remember the days when you went out on dates with that special
person that made your heart throb? You fell in love and the
two of
you decided, for the mutual benefit of both of you, to get
married.
You voluntarily appeared before a minister who asked you the
question, "Do you, Sharon, take Steven to be your lawfully
wedded
husband?" In which you replied, "I do!" You
were under no obligation
to agree. Remember, wherever one may say "Yes" or
"I do" they
equally have the right to say, "No," or "I
don't," to wit, "Do you,
Steven, take Sharon to be your lawfully wedded wife?"
which could
equally be responded to by, "No, I do not!" Of course,
what a way to
shock everyone and ruin a marriage ceremony. Without both
parties
agreeing equally to the full terms and conditions, there can
be
no "Administrative Law," oops, I mean, "Contract
Agreement."
(For the benefit of those of you reading this
who are ministers, I
would like to take a sidebar. What are those commonly heard
words
that come from your lips, "...lawfully wedded wife?"
I ask you, is
there an "unlawfully wedded wife," or an "unlawfully
wedded
husband?" How did those words get in the marriage vow?
Why not just
ask, "Do you, Steven, take Sharon to be your wife?"
Ah, it is the
State trying to stick their foot in the door and become a
third
party to the marriage "Contract Agreement." I ask
you, is it a crime
to get married? Must couples have government's permission
to get
married? The government thinks so. But does the government
have
constitutional authority to do so? Absolutely not.
Consider the marriage license. A license is
a special grant of
permission from the government to do that which is otherwise
illegal. People are now being convicted of "practicing
law without a
license," so I ask you, are couples who refuse marriage
licenses
guilty of practicing marriage without a license? We are instructed
in the Bible, "Whoso findeth a wife findeth a good thing,
and
obtaineth favour of the LORD." Prov. 18:22. Yes, and
remember that
famous quote, "Render therefore unto Caesar the things
which are
Caesar's; and unto God the things that are God's, Matt. 22:21,
and "What therefore God hath joined together, let not
man put
asunder." Matt. 19:6. Would it not be just as appropriate
if God
were to say, "What therefore God has 'licensed,' let
not man
license?" Of course! Are you not therefore rendering
to Caesar that
which is God's? And are you not doing it "By the power
vested in you
by the State of [fill in state], I now pronounce you man and
wife."
And what about this so-called doctrine beaten into our heads
by the
courts of "Separation of Church and State?" End
of sidebar.)
Let's next turn to the "Contract Agreement"
of Civil Service
Employment. You open the newspaper and see an ad placed by
the City
of TenBuckTwo, saying "Now hiring." You go and apply
for the job and
you are hired. Whether it be secretary, street cleaner, or
police
officer, you enter a Civil Service Contract, and receive a
mutual
benefit, i.e, a paycheck. If you were to receive no consideration
from the city, you would be merely a slave. Neither the city
nor you
were under duress, you both receive a consideration, and established
a legitimate "Contract Agreement." The city wishes
to call
it "Administrative Law." After being hired, if there
arises a
dispute, you cannot shout, "My Constitutional Rights
were violated,"
for you are now under Civil Service protection, and are not
entitled
to a jury trial nor any of the protections of the Constitution,
for
now it is Administrative Law that controls, and the Constitution
has
no application whatsoever.
Now let's take this a step further, and talk
about a ticket. I once
was mailed a ticket through the mail offering me an "Administrative
Review." I wrote back to this administrative agency by
certified
mail with return receipt, and with a sworn declaration attached
stating that I had never entered into a "Contract Agreement"
with
them, and that such contract did not exist. I further demanded
that
they respond with a counter-declaration stating that I had
indeed
entered into a "Contract Agreement" with them, and
thus bring the
question into issue. (An uncontested declaration stands as
the
truth. No counter-declaration, no dispute.) I also demanded
that
they attach of copy of the contract we had between us as evidence
to
support their contention.
This administrative agency just did not know
what to do, so they
just declared my "request for an Administrative Review"
untimely,
despite the certified mail proving otherwise. They then stated
that
I now owed them more than twice the amount they originally
demanded
of me. However, as you note, I did not ask for an "Administrative
Review." Rather my only issue was the appropriateness
and legitimacy
of the agency "offering" me the administrative review.
If you
received a letter from Moscow, Russia accusing you of failing
to
possess a license from the Moscow Aviation Flight Board, and
offering you an administrative review, would you ask for an
administrative review?
Further, in my communication to this administrative
body, which
further baffled them, I asked, "When you say you are
offering me
an "Administrative Review," it implies I am now
on appeal. Was there
a trial in which I have already been found guilty, and that
I now
should appeal that decision? I never received a notice of
such
trial. When was the trial? Who sat in judgment? What was the
basis
of his or her findings? What is the particular clause in
the "Contract Agreement" I have been found guilty
of violating?
You see, my questions were entirely logical
and practical, but they
just did not know how to deal with me. So they just forged
ahead
with enforcement as if I said nothing. This resulted in my
lawsuit
against them which went all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court
twice,
once through the state courts, and then all the way through
the
federal, the issue in federal court being deprivation of due
process
of law. There was not one court, neither state, nor federal,
that
would address a single issue I presented in my lawsuit. This
suit
resulted in five long years of litigation, and the agency
admittedly
spent over $100,000.00 defending itself, and demanded of me
that I
should pay them for their time from what started out to be
$55.
This case resulted in my filing a criminal complaint
against the
defendants with the U.S. Attorney, and petitioning Congress
to open
impeachment proceedings against five federal judges for conspiracy
to commit extortion, accompanied with a copy of the proposed
Federal
J.A.I.L. Bill, with my instant case as an example of why Congress
should pass J.A.I.L. into law. Everything grew very quiet.
No one
would say anything.
All this over the implied assumption that I
had entered into
a "Contract Agreement" that did not exist, and never
did exist.
Here in Los Angeles, the city dispenses bureaucrats
throughout the
city to your search your home. However, the city likes to
refer to
it as "inspection." Although the U.S. Constitution
provides, "The
right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses,
papers
and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizure shall
not be
violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause,
supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing
the
place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized"
[Fourth Amendment], these bureaucrats come to you "for
your good,"
as a "public service." They charge you money for
their services, and
exercise police power, having neither oath or affirmation,
warrant,
or probable cause, mandating you "volunteer" to
accept their
searches. If you refuse to volunteer, they turn you over to
the city
prosecutor who will prosecute you for failure to comply with
the
program. If you think these bureaucrats are bribe-free, you
have a
shock coming. Many hint at and suggest that they can arrange
special
treatment for you, or that they can make things very bad for
you.
We have now come to the point in this country
where the public's
common acceptance that we are administrative subjects, that
a mere
suggestion by a government bureaucrat has now become law,
and one is
guilty by the simple allegation of whatever charge these
bureaucrats wish to lay upon them without appeal to the
Constitution.
Approximately seven years ago I was stopped
by a police officer.
He "offered" to engage me into a contract with him.
The problem with
his contract offer was that it was imposed upon me by the
threat of
my going immediately to jail, and that of having my car stolen.
Under criminal constitutional standards he was required to
take me
before a magistrate at least within 48 hours of his conducting
my
arrest. He did not wish to do that however, so for his convenience,
not mine, he asked me to enter into a contract with him. But
what
was my consideration in this contract? Was it that I didn't
have to
go to jail immediately? Nay, for that is like placing a gun
to one's
head and asking them to voluntarily write a check, which is
called "Robbery" in the criminal codes.
This nice policeman told me that by signing
his ticket, I was not
waiving any of my rights. I read it, and all it said was that
I
promised to appear before the clerk of the court authorized
to
receive bail by a certain date. I went ahead and took the
comfortable route, and signed his contract under duress, "agreeing"
to appear before the court clerk as opposed to going to jail.
I then
went to the clerk of the court by the date specified and asked
if
she was the clerk of the court authorized to accept bail.
She
said "Yes." I then told her who I was, and that
since she was the
authorized person before whom I had promised to appear, I
needed her
signature showing I had fulfilled my promise. She refused.
Gee,
what's wrong with these people? They demand my signature to
show up
before them under threat of going to jail. I show up as they
ask and
request their signature to show that I have complied, and
they
refuse. They do not respect you for keeping your promise to
them. It
seems they are not satisfied, and they want something more
from you
than they made you promise. Hmmm, it seems to me that not
all the
terms of the contract were revealed when the officer said
all I had
to do was appear in front of the clerk. I must have been defrauded.
What they really wanted, and now demanded, was
that I appear before
a commissioner, not a judge, when originally I was entitled
under
the Constitution to appear before a magistrate for a determination
of probable cause of my arrest by the kind police officer.
The
officer must have lied to me when I was clearly told that
I would
not be waiving any of my rights. But a waiver of my rights
under the
Constitution requires my voluntary and knowledgeable consent
with a
consideration in the pie for me. But I never got the pie.
This "Contract Agreement" does not seem to be like
saying "I do" at
the altar and getting a wife, or "I agree" at the
Civil Service
interview, and getting a paycheck.
This commissioner bullied me, trying to induce
me by force to enter
into his offered contract agreement, when in no way was he
qualified
to act or perform pursuant to the Fourth Amendment requirements
of a
magistrate.
When he failed to convince me that it was in
my best interest that I
should voluntarily agree to his contract, he proceeded to
unilaterally enter me into his contract whether I agreed to
it or
not. And of course, it was done with "my best interest
at heart."
He's an educated man, and has graduated from law school. So
why
didn't he know that a contract requires my voluntary consent?
Having
waived my rights for me (which is an impossibility), he now
tells me
that I am going to appear for trial on the date he chose for
me, and
that I am going to sign a promise to appear. I told him, "NO!
I am
not going to sign such a contract agreement!" He became
very wroth,
and I was immediately arrested, chained to thieves, con artists,
and
extortionists and thrown into jail for not agreeing to sign.
At least one of the sheriff's deputies handling
me expressed
disbelief at what she was hearing that I was arrested for
not
agreeing to sign on to the commissioner's offer. Here they
were
digging through my pockets and relieving me of all my possessions,
and my crime is failing to accept an offer. This could only
be a
civil charge at best, but refusing to contract is not a violation
of
a contract. I had not even agreed to the deprivation of a
magistrate
to appear before this commissioner.
No sooner had they illegally processed me into
the Los Angeles
County jail system, that they wanted to get rid of me. Under
California statute, no person can be jailed on an alleged
infraction, but here I was in jail. The fact is, neither the
courts
nor the administrative boards know how to deal with the rare
individual who sensibly raises questions about the existence
of a
contract, so they just bully forward with police power enforcement,
and address nothing.
The deputies told me they were putting me out
of jail, but that I
must come back to court on the date specified by the commissioner.
I told them "No! I did not agree to appear." They
told me that if I
did not appear, I would be arrested. I said that I was already
under
arrest, so just keep me in jail until you are finished with
me. They
said, we can't do that, we don't have the money to keep you
here. I
said, "I'm not here to save you money. If you want me,
just keep me
here. If you don't want me, put me out." So they threw
me out of
jail to get rid of me, and I never showed up later. In the
meantime,
I commenced suit against the commissioner for kidnapping,
holding me
hostage and demanding ransom for my release. (His ransom was
my
signature, for he said when I gave him my signature, I would
be free
to go. Of course, that was why I was in jail because I did
not agree
to that.)
In my civil suit against the commissioner, I
had him totally
defenseless, and the trial judge hearing the case knew it.
There was
absolutely no way the commissioner could lawfully wiggle off,
but
since when do judges do things lawfully? The trial judge knew
the
commissioner was naked, and had no jurisdiction whatsoever
for what
he did to me. He slammed his hands down on the bench and said,
"Mr.
Branson, in all my twenty years' career on the bench, I have
never
met a person like you." He then quoted the words found
in my
complaint, "Just keep me in jail until you are finished
with me."
This judge could see the potential chaotic conditions
if every
person which was stopped by the cops stated "Just keep
me in jail
until you are finished with me." I was supposed to fear
losing my
job, my reputation and companionship and capitulate. He knew
that if
everybody did what I was doing, the entire system would fall
apart.
I was suddenly costing government mocho money to the tune
of
thousands upon thousands of dollars when the whole idea was
to make
some money from me. This lawsuit continued for years all the
way up
to the U.S. Supreme Court, yet not one judge would address
the
issues of my contract case.
I now refer to a humorous situation that sounds
like make-believe.
An acquaintance of mine was called into court by one of the
ABC "public service" administrative agencies to
be cross-examined to
discover information from him to be used against him. He was
asked
to take the witness stand. They asked him to raise his right
hand
after which the clerk of the court said, "Do you solemnly
swear to
tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth,
so help
you God?" He responded, "No, I do not!" Everyone
in the court
gasped. (Remember, the right to say "Yes" also includes
the right to
say "No!") The judge instructed the clerk to re-read
the swearing-in
again, supposing that he just did not understand the question.
He
responded the second time, "I heard you the first time,
and my
answer is, No, I do not!" You can imagine the uncomfortable
and
embarrassing situation into which this placed the judge. He
asked
why he would not swear to tell the truth, and he said, "The
Bible
says, 'Let God be true, but every man a liar,' " (referring
to Rom.
3:4), and "I am a man, and a liar."
The judge came unglued and threaten him with
jail if he did not
swear to tell the truth. He responded, "Judge, you asked
me a
straight-forward question requiring either a yes, or a no
answer. I
gave you a straight-forward answer to your question, and that
was
No, I do not. You can't say I did not answer your question,
for I
did answer it, but you just don't like my answer. If you didn't
want
to hear my answer, then don't ask me the question. And judge,
on
what basis do you threaten me with jail? Is it because I answered
your question truthfully? Or is it because you wanted me to
lie, and
I didn't do it? Or is it because you believe I am lying to
you when
I tell you I am a man, and a liar?"
The judge threw him in jail for three days,
after which he brought
him forth to swear him in again. He said, "Judge, my
answer to you
is still the same as three days ago. I am still a man, and
still a
liar, and no amount of jail time can change that. The judge
again
threaten him with jail, to which he responded, "On what
basis do you
threaten me with jail? Is it because I answered your question
truthfully, and you want me to lie? Or is it because you believe
I
am lying to you when I tell you I am a man, and a liar?"
The system just does not know how to handle
people who question the
actions of government when all the government is only trying
to get
your approval to what they do to you. If you don't agree to
the
Contract Agreement, then they do you the favor of "agreeing"
for you
even if it is against your will, without consideration. As
I say,
this is not quite like you saying "I do" at the
alter, but the judge
spake and it was so.
Other examples are, when you are called to jury
duty, the judge
makes you raise your right hand and agree to follow the law
as
interpreted to you by the judge. But wait, it is not the judge
or
the jurors who are entitled to a jury trial, but the defendant
who
is constitutionally entitled to a fully informed and unencumbered
jury which must judge on both the law and the facts. Here
we have a
judge seeking to induce the defendant's jurors to conspire
with him
against the defendant. How can the judge, in conspiracy with
the
jurors, agree to waive the rights of the defendant? They can't.
It
is the defendant that is entitled to a fair and impartial
trial, "In
all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy ... an
impartial
jury." Jurors who have been induced to conspire with
the judge
cannot possible be "an impartial jury." Fifth Amendment,
U.S.
Constitution.
Then there are the various taxing agencies who
want you to enter
into a "Contract Agreement" with them. They kindly
provide you with
a pre-printed line on their forms to agree with their offer
of
a "Contract Agreement." But if you choose not to
accept their offer,
can one go to jail? Not constitutionally. However, they somehow
want
you to believe that if you do not accept their offer, then
you are
obligated to comply with their "Imposed Criminal Administrative
Law," for after all, you don't want to go to jail because
you
violated the law.
Remember, anything that requires your
signature, or a swearing
thereto in order to give it application, is not law, but a
contract.
A contract must entail being fully cognizant of all its terms,
agreeing to all those terms, having equal right to say yes
or no,
offering you a consideration to which you would rather have
than
retaining your constitutional rights and saying no, being
totally
done without duress in any way. Anything otherwise fails the
test of
a contract.
|
