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