14

Judge Rules Administrative Court System Illegal After 81 Years

Posted by $ Olduglycarl 7 years, 8 months ago to News
24 comments | Share | Best of... | Flag

The following Federal Court ruling opens Pandora's Box per lower court authority / conflicts of interest to rule on or be involved in broad judicial court matters involving you.

In effect it helps protect "you" from being run through the mill by local "administrative" courts. Their "authority" to do so is brought into question if not nullified by the following Federal Court ruling.

The Battle for individual protection under the law from the abuses of local government "Administrative" courts begins.. Please share with those that would have an interest in these matters.

Sent FYI from,

Walter Burien - CAFR1.com


Judge Rules Administrative Court System Illegal After 81 Years

https://www.armstrongeconomics.com/hi...



Well it has been a long time coming, but all along there have been discussions behind closed doors (never in public) that the Administrative Law Courts established with the New Deal were totally unfounded and unconstitutional. With the anniversary of Magna Carta and the right to a jury trial coming up on June 15 after 800 years, the era of Roosevelt’s big government is quietly unraveling.

A federal judge’s ruling against the Securities and Exchange Commission for using its own Administrative Law judges in an insider trading case is perhaps the beginning of the end of an alternative system of justice that took root in the New Deal. Constitutionally, the socialists tore everything about the idea of a Democracy apart. It was more than taxing one party to the cheers of another in denial of equal protection. It was about creating administrative agencies (1) delegating them to create rules with the force of law as if passed by Congress sanctioned by the people; (2) the creation of administrative courts that defeated the Tripartite government structure usurping all power into the hand of the executive branch, as if this were a dictatorship run by the great hoard of unelected officials.

Not discussed in the coverage of this story is that the Administrative Law Courts are a fiefdom, to put it mildly. They have long been corrupt and traditionally rule in favor of their agencies, making it very costly for anyone to even try to defend themselves. If someone were to attempt this feat, first they have to wear the costs of an Administration proceeding and appeal to an Article III court judge, then they must appeal to the Court of Appeals, and finally plea to the Supreme Court. The cost of such adventures is well into the millions, and good luck on actually getting justice.

Furthermore, Administrative Law Courts cannot sentence you to prison, but they can fine you into bankruptcy. So the lack of a criminal prosecution meant the judges did not have to be lawyers. They could be anyone’s brother-in-law looking for a job where he just rules in favor of the agency not to be bothered with law. Unless the victim has a pile of money, there is no real chance that he or she can afford to defend themselves. This is why the agencies cut deals with the big houses and prosecute the small upstarts who lack the funds to defend themselves.

In a 45-page ruling, U.S. District Judge Leigh Martin May in Atlanta issued an injunction halting Administrative Law proceedings against Charles Hill, a businessman who the SEC accused of reaping an illegal $744,000 profit trading in Radian Systems stock. This is typical. The legal fees involved will exceed the amount of money he is alleged to have made, the typical result is to just pay the fine and they go away, it is cheaper.

The judge ruled that the SEC agency violated the Appointments Clause of the Constitution by subjecting Hill to proceedings before an Administrative Law judge, who isn’t directly accountable to the president, officials in charge of the SEC, or the courts under Article III. The ruling is 81 years overdue. The entire structure of administrative agencies blackmailing people has been outrageous. Then you take the banks who just entered a plea of CRIMINALLY guilty to manipulating markets. They are now formally FELONS who engaged in violating SEC rules and thus under the SEC rules, they are no longer eligible for a banking license. The banks are “too big to jail” and the SEC has waived their own rules, of course, to exempt the banks. So they can engage in fraud and manipulation, get caught, pay billions in fines, and the SEC exempts them from losing their licenses. This is how corrupt the administrative agencies really are.

Lilburne-Pamphlet

This new decision calling the Administrative Law Courts what they really are is reminiscent of the notorious extrajudicial proceedings of the Star Chamber operated by King James I. The court of Chancery set up outside of the King’s Bench, so there were no trials by jury. It had the same purpose, to circumvent the law. This is where our Fifth Amendment privilege came into being. That came about following the trial of John Lilburne (1615-1657) for handing out a pamphlet the government did not like.


lilburnetrial2

The Miranda v Arizona 384 U.S. 436 (1966) decision of the Supreme Court came only after decades of abuse by American police against citizens, not unlike what we are watching today. The Miranda decision is hated by police, prosecutors, right-wing judges, politicians, and citizens. The decision is based upon the history of the right not to be coerced that began with the famous trial of John Lilburn before the English court of the Star Chamber in 1637 where he stood tall and objected to the King’s torture. Lilburn’s crime was handing out pamphlets against the king. John Lilburne (1615–1657) was a leader in the Leveller Movement of the 1640s and was a prolific pamphleteer who defended religious and individual liberty of the people. He was imprisoned many times for his views and was active in the army of the New Parliament rising to the rank of Lieutenant Colonel. In October 1649, he was arrested and tried for High Treason for printing and circulating books and pamphlets critical of the government but was acquitted of all charges by a jury of his peers.


Add Comment

FORMATTING HELP

All Comments Hide marked as read Mark all as read

  • Posted by trailsRus 7 years, 8 months ago
    Hi Gulchers, I am a long time follower, rare commenter. Thanks for posting on this.

    This is very representative of local administrative rules that are constantly piling on here in our northeastern liberal supermajority state, all coming down from EPA and state environmental lobbies. No pushback or defense of property rights. The latest offense are "stormwater" regulations in effect last year, first with a few larger cities and towns, where they charge a "fee" through the water/sewer dept (not a tax) per sq. ft. of all "impervious surface" to the property owner. There are numerous inconsistencies and contradictions in the rules, and arbitrary application of what constitutes "impervious".

    The appeals process consists of first petitioning the dept head (the boss) of the administrator whose decision I dispute, then to the town manager (their boss), and then the Selectboard, our elected representatives, which in this case includes one member that works for the State Department of Environmental Conservation, another that is also one of our two state representatives (allowed to hold both offices here), and another who is running for state senator, all democrats. They all jump on board hook onto every environmental train car that comes along. If you should have enough money and time, you could ultimately end up in the state's "environmental court". Conflicts of interests all the way up and down.

    At a selectboard hearing on the matter earlier this week, officers of all the homeowners associations (whose long expired stormwater permits are saddled with thousands and in some cases millions of $$ in upgrade costs and unreasonable deadlines) voiced their frustration and a few harsh words were directed at town officials. In typical fashion, they clam up and let people vent, rarely commenting or answering questions, and then go about doing whatever they want anyway.

    Everyone I talk to about the stormwater policy either 1) just complains about its stupidity and pays the bill, or 2) has no clue about it and just pays the bill, or 3) believes in the cause of cleaning up our lakes and streams, and pays the bill. This last one also falls into the category of having no clue what the regulations actually say.

    But hey, they all keep voting for the ah*s, so what can you do.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by khalling 7 years, 8 months ago
      thanks for commenting. Please comment more! I loved/hated this: "At a selectboard hearing on the matter earlier this week, officers of all the homeowners associations (whose long expired stormwater permits are saddled with thousands and in some cases millions of $$ in upgrade costs and unreasonable deadlines) voiced their frustration and a few harsh words were directed at town officials. In typical fashion, they clam up and let people vent, rarely commenting or answering questions, and then go about doing whatever they want anyway. "
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by ycandrea 7 years, 8 months ago
    Yay! Good first step! Now let's end civil asset forfeiture and the corrupt and phony court systems for workers compensation that exist in some states such as California.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by johnpe1 7 years, 8 months ago
    this reminds me of the "administrative" action taken
    by the usaf against a Major (O-4) who was accused
    of being in an officers' rooming house (BOQ) when
    a woman complained of sexual harassment. . she
    could not identify the offender and her description
    was vague enough to fit nearly anyone. . he was
    run out of the service administratively, with no proof
    of his guilt nor real chance to defend himself. . he reported
    to me at the time, so I was obliged to consult. . I refused
    to collude with the "powers that were" in this action.
    the process royally pissed me off. . I complained and
    got nowhere. . this man was simply railroaded out. -- j
    .
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
    • Posted by $ MichaelAarethun 7 years, 8 months ago
      And yet a clearly identified Captain to Major to Lieutenant Colonel has multiple chargers of sexual harassment filed and last I heard made Colonel no sweat. Wasn't from lack of witnesses many of whom were never interviewed. Judge Advocate General's office and all the others were clearly involved in a very transparent cover up that went on for about as long as the Pope covering for Priests.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
  • Posted by $ MichaelAarethun 7 years, 8 months ago
    The easy way is to move all of these phony courts from their present agencies etc. directly under the control of the justice department of the nation and the States. Buildings, Budgets and all.

    The third later is court by computer, camera and US Mail. used for such things as running red lights. Not that I'm against those idiots having to pay a fine but it should still be under the laws of the land not some pimply faced jerk off.

    If there is that many violations to warrant such a system it invites the attention of police officers with ticket books that read "signing the ticket is not an admission of guilt it is your promise to appear and pay the fine listed or to ask for an appearance in traffic court. The signature is your bail failure to sign will result in the complete arrest procedure."

    I only recall one time in three years some stiff neck decided to take route two. He was handcuffed, searched, car impounded and inventories and brouogh before the Desk Sergeant who filled out preliminary booking information. Advised the bail was I seem to remember $20.00 didn't have it also had rights read and an attorney was standing by who for $10 advised him to ask for the phone call and call his wife or friends to bring the $20. The guy finally woke up and asked was the signature method still available. Did not dispute the ticket but paid the fine on time. He didn't want his wife to find out.

    Far from clogging the system that one portion on the ticket satisfied his or her rights and in the end justice was served.

    Refusing to take a Blood Alcohol or Breathalyzer test caused a suspension of but not a revocation of the license and guaranteed an appearance in court.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ Thoritsu 7 years, 8 months ago
    What doe this mean to Tom Brady?

    Just kidding! I don't understand the full scope of this ruling. Can someone identify other examples of "non-courts" this could affect? I still bristle at the idea traffic tickets can not be appealed.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
    • Posted by $ MichaelAarethun 7 years, 8 months ago
      IRS comes immediately to mind at the federal level and the exceptions USCG for matters maritime and DOD for the military as both those can be appealed into the regular system.

      Going down the chain and as you suggested the administrative handling of drivers licenses and traffic tickets AND confiscation of property with court conviction.

      This one is far reaching and each will try to become the exception to the ruling.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
      • Posted by $ MichaelAarethun 7 years, 8 months ago
        The ticket may say it's administrative and refer to your signature on the drivers license application as giving permission BUT the traffic stop by a uniformed officer is still an arrest and that is not administrative. Any arrest or apprehension that impedes the right of the citizen to free movement is judicial not administrative. Unless a subsequent ruling has changed things. The dividing line was when the handcuffs came into play but in reality just being pulled over by lights and sirens arrested the free progress.

        for the Record I averaged about 100 tickets a month and 300 or more warnings some verbal and some written when on traffic duty. The rest of the time a lot less. Our goal was accident prevention and if all it took to slow things down was the police car parked on the side of the road good to go. My reputation preceded itself and that 'opej presence' seemed to flash around the area. Those that did not do much or parked out of sight had much higher accident rates during their shifts.

        We also assumed that most speedos were at least 5 mph off and only gave warnings. But if it was school area and school bus time and perhaps raining it was not unusual to burp the siren and flash the lights when you heard a car approaching at a higher rate of speed than was prudent. Generally that's all it took but if they paid no attention it was pull over time. About one in 20 or less of those involved alcohol, drug use including prescription drugs, or attitude,

        The most ridiculous excuse....? You can't arrest me i'm Mrs. 2Lt Jones Second Lieutenant? The wife actually said that? We were off post at the time. Some folks get really huge swelled heads and one each Looie got embarassed in front of his Battalion Commander.

        Which brings up Department of Defense Police. A civilian agency of DOD and they had traffice courts and everything. That kept the MP's out of dealing with civilians. But it may come under that same judicial ruling.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  

FORMATTING HELP

  • Comment hidden. Undo