FLINT logo
Families Link International
Tel:0781 886 1724
home | issues | policies | family groups | courts | court reporters | research | law | contacts | donations | Useful Quotes |

Courts - USA -
understanding administrative law
Understanding Administrative Law
(By Ron Branson, Author/Founder J.A.I.L.)

Forwarded By Claude Memma May 20, 2004

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

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

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

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.

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 contents on these pages are provided as information only. No responsibility or liability is accepted by or on behalf of FLINT for any errors, omissions, or misleading statements on these pages, or any site to which these pages connect, whether provided by FLINT or by any organisation, company or individual. No mention of any organisation, company or individual, whether on these pages or on other sites to which these pages are linked, shall imply any approval or warranty as to the standing and capability of any such organisations, companies or individuals on the part of FLINT. All rights reserved.