by Patrick-James
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 - 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!
JAIL is making inroads into Congress for federal accountability!
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



"There are a thousand hacking at the branches of evil to one who is
striking at the root."                         -- Henry David Thoreau    <><