palani
23rd April 2016, 05:14 AM
Quoted from another forum. *** has a case pending (traffic or plates or such) and is concentrating on old case law dicta and legislated statute as well as constitutional arguments when none of these mean a thing in an administrative court of law. Within administrative law THEY DON'T CARE about these arguments and you have access to no court of law that will hear these until administrative procedure is complete. Even should you find a court of law where is there a remedy for the time lost in battling the executive? The system is bankrupt.
If you want to get upset at something consider that these administrative courts which belong entirely to the executive branch incorporate elements of the judicial (they have their own officers), legislative (they make their own laws) and executive (at the end of the day they fine you or throw you in jail) in one package and they make no bones about calling these administrative laws, administrative courts or administrative officers. Such schemes are constitutionally prohibited (they call them bills of attainder or bills of pains and punishments) because they transcend the boundaries laid out under separation of powers (check Am Jur 2d under 'administrative law').
**** wrote:
Me. Const. art. III
§ 1. Powers distributed. The powers of this government shall be divided into 3 distinct departments, the legislative, executive and judicial.
§ 2. To be kept separate. No person or persons, belonging to one of these departments, shall exercise any of the powers properly belonging to either of the others, except in the cases herein expressly directed or permitted.
It's right in front of you but you are too focused to understand that your blood's form of government includes three "branches". You are not engaged with the judicial "branch" yet. You don't have the right to sidestep the executive and proceed to a judicial remedy until the executive finalizes their administrative process.
The executive is the enforcement arm in your form of government and the administrative function is theirs exclusively. You are the subject of an executive branch regulatory enforcement action. If you feel the regulation is being improperly applied you are now in the stage where you can object to the executive agencies procedure. If you can show, at this stage, that the administrative regulations were so blatantly ignored as to be prejudicial or if you can show that the executive agencies actions were arbitrary or capricious you can send the enforcement agents back to square one and go about your business AFTER the administrative referee finalizes his administrative review.
Instead of dealing with the executive regulatory process in a sane manner you are instead loudly demanding that the enforcement function incorporate the judicial function in their regulatory action review. You are insisting that the executive perform the law functions reserved for the judicial branch and you are stupidly looking to the legislative branch to provide your justification.
Think about this for just a minute ...how can the judicial branch hear your plea for relief unless the executive can be shown to have completed their administrative duties. What would your complaint consist of "hey I don't like that branch so I want you (the judicial branch) to adjudicate the enforcement of these executive agency regulations"? WTF???
If you aren't educated or smart enough to show how the executive is stepping on their own process you will have to wait for the administrative adjudication to run it's course to a final determination and THEN you can make your complaint to the judicial branch. Only they can hear your law arguments, your complaint will be heard de novo and you can then make your record and proceed to a final law and facts judgement.
You insist on due process but you don't even understand what that means. You quote your blood's constitution and insist you are one of the people but you don't even understand the basics of your own people's form of government even though you blatantly copy and paste it as above in your quote.
Honestly as a bystander to your emotional displays I sincerely question whether you have reached your majority? At this point I'm sure the administrative adjudicator is wondering whether he should proceed or pause his review until you either go away or demonstrate you can handle your own affairs. Being an executive office he is barred from instructing you on how his function relates to law although I'm pretty sure he would love to point out your colossal misunderstandings about the functions of your own government. I'll state once again that you don't even need to interject your thoughts about law or your feelings about justice for the administrative officer to reach his final determination yet you must exhaust your administrative remedy before proceeding.
I would caution you that once the executive declares a final determination on your case file it will be your duty to move your cause into law and the judicial consideration of your cause. Courts are formed by three parties and you shouldn't expect either the judicial or the executive to initiate that action. The complaint will be yours to make and prove. Of course you can make that complaint civil or you can escalate to the criminal standard by refusing to post the administrative fine/bond. With your advertised level of competence I could not advise either course.
I doubt you have followed up to this point and I'm pretty sure we, and the administrator considering the final determination, will be subjected to more of your copy and paste arguments. I do hope others seeking the benefit of this form of government will read and understand how the functions of the executive administrative agencies need to be approached. Confusing the functions of the different branches of government will only lead to smirks and ridicule from those servants carrying out their assigned duties.
bean
If you want to get upset at something consider that these administrative courts which belong entirely to the executive branch incorporate elements of the judicial (they have their own officers), legislative (they make their own laws) and executive (at the end of the day they fine you or throw you in jail) in one package and they make no bones about calling these administrative laws, administrative courts or administrative officers. Such schemes are constitutionally prohibited (they call them bills of attainder or bills of pains and punishments) because they transcend the boundaries laid out under separation of powers (check Am Jur 2d under 'administrative law').
**** wrote:
Me. Const. art. III
§ 1. Powers distributed. The powers of this government shall be divided into 3 distinct departments, the legislative, executive and judicial.
§ 2. To be kept separate. No person or persons, belonging to one of these departments, shall exercise any of the powers properly belonging to either of the others, except in the cases herein expressly directed or permitted.
It's right in front of you but you are too focused to understand that your blood's form of government includes three "branches". You are not engaged with the judicial "branch" yet. You don't have the right to sidestep the executive and proceed to a judicial remedy until the executive finalizes their administrative process.
The executive is the enforcement arm in your form of government and the administrative function is theirs exclusively. You are the subject of an executive branch regulatory enforcement action. If you feel the regulation is being improperly applied you are now in the stage where you can object to the executive agencies procedure. If you can show, at this stage, that the administrative regulations were so blatantly ignored as to be prejudicial or if you can show that the executive agencies actions were arbitrary or capricious you can send the enforcement agents back to square one and go about your business AFTER the administrative referee finalizes his administrative review.
Instead of dealing with the executive regulatory process in a sane manner you are instead loudly demanding that the enforcement function incorporate the judicial function in their regulatory action review. You are insisting that the executive perform the law functions reserved for the judicial branch and you are stupidly looking to the legislative branch to provide your justification.
Think about this for just a minute ...how can the judicial branch hear your plea for relief unless the executive can be shown to have completed their administrative duties. What would your complaint consist of "hey I don't like that branch so I want you (the judicial branch) to adjudicate the enforcement of these executive agency regulations"? WTF???
If you aren't educated or smart enough to show how the executive is stepping on their own process you will have to wait for the administrative adjudication to run it's course to a final determination and THEN you can make your complaint to the judicial branch. Only they can hear your law arguments, your complaint will be heard de novo and you can then make your record and proceed to a final law and facts judgement.
You insist on due process but you don't even understand what that means. You quote your blood's constitution and insist you are one of the people but you don't even understand the basics of your own people's form of government even though you blatantly copy and paste it as above in your quote.
Honestly as a bystander to your emotional displays I sincerely question whether you have reached your majority? At this point I'm sure the administrative adjudicator is wondering whether he should proceed or pause his review until you either go away or demonstrate you can handle your own affairs. Being an executive office he is barred from instructing you on how his function relates to law although I'm pretty sure he would love to point out your colossal misunderstandings about the functions of your own government. I'll state once again that you don't even need to interject your thoughts about law or your feelings about justice for the administrative officer to reach his final determination yet you must exhaust your administrative remedy before proceeding.
I would caution you that once the executive declares a final determination on your case file it will be your duty to move your cause into law and the judicial consideration of your cause. Courts are formed by three parties and you shouldn't expect either the judicial or the executive to initiate that action. The complaint will be yours to make and prove. Of course you can make that complaint civil or you can escalate to the criminal standard by refusing to post the administrative fine/bond. With your advertised level of competence I could not advise either course.
I doubt you have followed up to this point and I'm pretty sure we, and the administrator considering the final determination, will be subjected to more of your copy and paste arguments. I do hope others seeking the benefit of this form of government will read and understand how the functions of the executive administrative agencies need to be approached. Confusing the functions of the different branches of government will only lead to smirks and ridicule from those servants carrying out their assigned duties.
bean