It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.



page: 1

log in


posted on Aug, 7 2012 @ 06:11 PM
Millions of people have found themselves subjected to administrative court settings and they often exit those “hearings” wondering what just happened to them and how it happened. The linked paper gives some answers for those who are still wondering what administrative courts are and how they get jurisdiction.

First a little background. The Administrative Procedure Act (APA) was passed in the US in 1946 to ensure fairness in administrative court proceedings before Federal Government agencies, and was also adopted by the General Assembly of the United Nations by resolution 351 A (IV) on 24 November 1949.

A lot can happen over the course of 66 years. (Brief excerpts)

While in previous eras the citizen worried only about the sheriff and the tax collector, he must now often face the power and authority of a multitude of other authorities.

Most citizens' disputes with government agencies are resolved within the agencies themselves, not by local, state, or federal courts. Kenneth Davis, author of the highly respected five-volume Administrative Law Treatise, estimates that up to 93 percent of all disputes are resolved in federal agency settings rather than in federal court settings.

Holy cow, 93 percent! So how do all those simpering politicians who campaigned over the years on promises of small government justify the outlandish time and expense of dozens of government agencies harassing the people they allegedly represent by allowing such arbitrary judicial rulings? Why aren’t there a dozen legislative bills in the hopper to eliminate all these unelected authoritarians from adjudicating citizen actions that are not prohibited by constitutional law? Have they forgotten the oaths they took? (dumb question)

Most federal agencies effectively prohibit a citizen from taking a dispute between himself and the agency to an independent federal judge until he has exhausted his "administrative remedies." This "exhaustion of administrative remedies" requirement allows a federal agency to hold citizens or companies hostage for years, causing them to incur hundreds of thousands of dollars in legal fees regardless of how dubious the government's position may be.

Standing. They have it, the people don’t. Apparently these agencies don’t even need to have a legitimate complaint if one can be invented or created on paper.

On a state level alone the Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH) in California is described as a quasi-judicial tribunal that provides independent Administrative Law Judges (ALJs) to conduct hearings for over 1,400 State and local government agencies. (quasi- a combining form meaning “resembling,” “having some, but not all of the features of,”) However an ALJ's ruling has the outcome of a legitimate court.

The General Accounting Office reported in 1992 that administrative law judges in six federal agencies believed that the agency had attempted to "compromise their independence." One administrative law judge at the Interior Department told the ABA Journal: "We do operate in a wholly vindictive and retaliatory environment."

Sen. John Taylor wrote in 1822: "There are no rights where there are no remedies, or where the remedies depend upon the will of the aggressor."

Thoughts please?

posted on Aug, 7 2012 @ 06:43 PM
Excellent thread topic S&F.
And here we thought all courts were fair and unbiased.

posted on Aug, 7 2012 @ 07:00 PM

Originally posted by lonegurkha
Excellent thread topic S&F.
And here we thought all courts were fair and unbiased.

Thanks. I can't decide if ATSers are a bunch of goody twoshoes who have never run into a problem with these courts or if everyone just thinks such a tribunal is fair, but some of the issues heard by administrative courts are:

dispensation of monetary benefits
environmental licenses
building inspection
child custody
involuntary commitment
immigration decisions
summary public payments (other than fines imposed by general courts)

The seventh amendment is as dead as a hammer. You'll get no jury to decide if you're innocent or guilty of any of the above "infractions".

In Suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise re-examined in any Court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.

posted on Aug, 7 2012 @ 07:00 PM
edit on 7-8-2012 by frazzle because: (no reason given)

posted on Aug, 8 2012 @ 01:47 PM
Administrative Code Enforcement System (aces) and administrative law judges (alj)

A transfer of wealth.

Civil penalties occupy a strange place in some legal systems - because they are not criminal penalties, the state need not meet a burden of proof that is "beyond a reasonable doubt"; but because the action is brought by the government, and some civil penalties can run into the millions of dollars, it would be uncomfortable to subject citizens to them by a burden of proof that is merely a "preponderance of the evidence." Therefore, the assessment of most civil penalties requires a finding of "clear and convincing evidence" before a civil defendant will be held liable. A defendant may well raise excuses, justifications, affirmative defenses, and procedural defenses. An administrative law judge or hearing officer may oversee the proceedings and render a judgment. Judgment is made on the balance of probabilities. Meaning, if it is more than 50% likely that the accused is responsible then the accused shall be found guilty.

curfew violation Decatur, Ill.- ordered to pay a $250 fine, plus $140 in hearing costs.

When the City of Chicago determines that an ordinance violation has occurred, it will serve (in-person or by mail) the party responsible for the alleged violation with a Notice of Violation ("Notice") outlining the city's allegations.

If you ignore the Notice, a hearing officer may enter a Default Judgment against you based on the evidence presented. A "Default Judgment" is similar to a Judge's order in that it can be used to place a lien on your property, garnish your wages and/or affect your credit. The city usually requests that the maximum fine be imposed in default matters.

These are the same courts that adjudicate whether your grass is too long and make you pay a fine or if someone's complaint that your longjohns hanging on your clothesline are offensive and should result in a fine.

“. . . judges who become involved in enforcement of mere statutes (civil or criminal in nature and otherwise), act as mere “clerks” of the involved agency…” K.C. Davis., ADMIN. LAW, Ch. 1 (CTP. West’s 1965 Ed.) (includes a ton of legal rulings)

edit on 8-8-2012 by frazzle because: (no reason given)

new topics

top topics

log in