J.A.I.L. News
Journal
_____________________________________________________
Los Angeles,
California
December 9,
2003
Understanding
Administrative Law
(By Ron Branson, Author/Founder
J.A.I.L.)
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.
The Solution:
The solution is quite
simple, J.A.I.L. I know there will be many naysayers who will seek
to convince me that it is for the above reasons that J.A.I.L.
will not work because everyone has waived their rights to the
Constitution, and thus, we are all slaves of the government. To those,
in an effort to cut these Naysayers off, I say, "Please re-read the
last two sentences in the above paragraph defining
contracts."
Here is how J.A.I.L. will
solve the problem. Under J.A.I.L. cases will be brought before
judges arguing fraud, deception, and undo influence, by
government agents. The judge will be required to apply the proper laws
governing these grievances, to which he will have no escape or evasion.
If the judge does evade the issue, the party will call the judge on it,
and give him his last chance to comply with the law as addressed to the
issue presented. (This will satisfy the willful acts requirement of
J.A.I.L.)
From there, it is purely a matter of
exhausting appeals afforded within the state, keeping the fraud
issue alive, and filing a complaint with the Special Grand Jury created
by J.A.I.L. The judge will then be served by the Special Grand Jury and
told to answer it. The complainant can then reply to the judge's
opposition.
They judge may wish to argue that the
complainant has no rights of protection by the Constitution because he
waived them all. The complainant may reply that the so-called "waivers"
to which the judge refers in his defense is but a part of the conspiracy
alleged to which the judge was a necessary actor in the
conspiracy. Of course, when these Special Grand Jurors hear the judge's
argument, it will doubtless occur to them that they too have become the
dupes of the same giant judicial fraud and conspiracy to which the
complainant, and all other complainants are arguing about.
J.A.I.L. works like quicksand.
It increases the judges liability the more he says in an attempt to
justify himself. He has now implicated himself in a potential criminal
indictment, and may face prison in addition to being civilly liable
to the complainant, it which he cannot allege he is covered by judicial
immunity. Further, the blabbing of one judge in his defense is more than
likely going to indict the entire judicial system and all the
judges in one giant sweep, for they are all tied together in the same
conspiracy.
In nearly every instance in which I can
think, under J.A.I.L. the judge's best defense is to say nothing,
for anything he says can and will be used against him in a court of law,
either civilly or criminally. Judges generally will be best suited to
accept the lesser evil of not countering the complaint unless
they know they have been totally honest and forthright, and can
support their position by the Constitution and the law, which will
be very hard to do in these days when most everything is based upon fraud
and deception.
The eventual positive impact that J.A.I.L.
will make upon this nation on behalf of restoring government back to the
people is inestimable involving such a boon to the American economy that
it is beyond comprehension. - Ron Branson (J.A.I.L. CIC)
J.A.I.L.- Judicial Accountability Initiative Law -
href="../../State_Chapters/dc/DC_initiative.doc">www.jail4judges.org
JAIL is a unique addition to our form of gov't. heretofore
unrealized.
JAIL is powerful! JAIL is dynamic! JAIL is America's ONLY hope!
JAIL is taking America like a wildfire! [email protected]
JAIL is making inroads into Congress for federal accountability!
E-Groups sign on at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/jail4judges/join
Get involved at [email protected]
Donate offerings to J.A.I.L., P.O. Box 207, N. Hollywood, CA 91603
"Give me your wealth, and I will give you America" - Ron
Branson
"..it does not
require a majority to prevail, but rather an irate, tireless minority
keen to set brush fires in people's minds.." - Samuel Adams