(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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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 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
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
"..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
striking at the
-- Henry David Thoreau