After hours and hours of conferencing this last week with several individuals and groups across the country, regarding the threat that the entire system of probate tribunals poses to the public at large, we have reached the consensus that this unlawful, unconstitutional system, cannot be repaired or made to be fair and equitable and therefore must be disposed of.
We all agreed it was pointless to contact any legislative representative. These elected officials are all fully aware of the system of human trafficking for profit that occurs daily in the probate system, although they will claim that they do not know. As our elderly are kidnapped and held in isolation while their estate is plundered by professional predators called “guardians”, our children are subject to being kidnapped at gunpoint by swat teams at the behest of Child Protective Services (CPS). CPS is now regarded as the largest child trafficking organization on earth.
Do you really believe your legislators don’t really know?
What are administrative tribunals?
“The distinguishing mark of an administrative tribunal is that it possesses a complete, absolute and unfettered discretion and, having no fixed standard to follow, it is guided by its own ideas of policy and expediency. Hence, acting within its proper province and observing any procedural formalities prescribed, it cannot err in substantive matters because there is no standard for it to follow and hence no standard to judge or correct it by.”
Make no mistake about it, Administrative “courts” are not courts at all in the scope of the Constitution. These are specially created tribunals which make their own rules, and do not recognize natural rights and liberties as defined in the Constitution.
Administrative tribunals exist for one primary reason: To void the Constitution and to enable a system of unconstitutional and arbitrary titles, codes, regulations and statutes, all of which are specifically erected to dis-empower the individual to secure all rights and power in a government entity and to deprive ordinary people of their lives, property and freedom.
Beyond this, these tribunals have facilitated the greatest transfer of wealth ever witnessed in this country. With Americans over the age of 60 owning 60% of all real wealth (down from 75% just a few years ago) they have become a lucrative target for the predators whose profits from looting an estate are facilitated and condoned by these fictitious “courts”.
“Administrative law,” recently said Judge Cuthbert W. Pound of the Court of Appeals of New York, “implies that branch of modern law under which the executive department of government, acting in a quasi-legislative or quasi-judicial capacity, interferes with the conduct of the individual for the purpose of promoting the well-being of the community. (*What community is he referring to? And administrative statute is not the same as law)
The community whose well-being is being promoted, is comprised of probate judges, family court judges, attorneys, professional predators euphemistically referred to as “guardians”, and a host of agencies and related personnel who all anticipate profiting at least marginally, in the system of human trafficking that is the system of probate. This system includes wills and trusts, family courts of all descriptions, including child support recovery.
Pursuant to the Appointments Clause in Article II, all members of Article III tribunals are appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate. This alone renders the argument that probate tribunals are constitutional as, void.
There are two significant differences between administrative tribunals and courts:
- Administrative tribunals are set up to be less formal, less expensive, and a faster way to resolve disputes than by using the traditional court system.
The truth is, these administrative tribunals are massively expensive to operate. The cost to communities and the state as a whole is a burden on taxpayers not to mention the continuing assault on private individuals and families to accommodate the redistribution of wealth and the government sanctioned system of human trafficking that accompany these activities.
- Tribunal members who make decisions (adjudicators) usually have special knowledge about the topic they are asked to consider. Judges, however, are expected to have general knowledge about many areas of law, not particular expertise about the law in the case they are hearing.
No, actually. Tribunal members are seldom required to have special knowledge about anything. While some states “elect” these executive administrators (you call them “judge”) most do not realize that the candidates on the ballot are only those selected for that position by interested party’s. Say for instance, the local BAR Association and the College of Probate Judges. Possibly with additional input from the National Guardianship Association. Tribunal administrators are not required to know the law as they only deal with the statutes and codes.
Know the difference!!
49 The distinction between constitutional courts and legislative courts was first made in American Ins. Co. v. Canter,50 which involved the question of the admiralty jurisdiction of the territorial court of Florida, the judges of which were limited to a four-year term in office. Said Chief Justice Marshall for the Court:
“These courts, then, are not constitutional courts, in which the judicial power conferred by the Constitution on the general government, can be deposited. They are incapable of receiving it. They are legislative courts, created in virtue of the general right of sovereignty which exists in the government, or in virtue of that clause which enables Congress to make all needful rules and regulations, respecting the territory belonging to the United States. The jurisdiction with which they are invested, is not a part of that judicial power which is defined in the 3rd article of the Constitution, but is conferred by Congress, in the execution of those general powers which that body possesses over the territories of the United States.”
Problem is: The states are not territories of the Federal government.
Nevertheless, this same premise was used to construct administrative tribunals within each respective state. The administrative process is a collage of many unrelated legal concepts used to to regulate and adjudicate for the benefit of a protected class predators .
Notable notes: Natural Justice
The principles of natural justice include the right to be heard, and the right to an impartial decision maker. A party who has a right to be heard is entitled to sufficient prior notice of the proceeding so that the party has the opportunity to prepare his or her case, attend before a decision maker and make representations. The right to proper notice also includes the right to know the case that must be met; in other words, proper notice will include providing details of the case to the responding party.
An impartial decision-maker is one who is free of a reasonable apprehension of bias, whether personally or institutionally. Reasonable apprehension of personal bias might result when, for instance, a decision maker has a pecuniary interest in the outcome of the proceeding, or a prior relationship with one of the parties.
The Supreme Court has ruled that only Article III courts may render final judgments in cases involving life, liberty, and private property rights, with limited exceptions, as discussed below.
Article I tribunals consist of certain federal courts and other forms of adjudicative bodies. These tribunals, as created by Congress, are of various forms, and have differing levels of independence from the executive and legislative branches. They can be Article I Courts (also called legislative courts) set up by Congress to review agency decisions, military courts-martial appeal courts, ancillary courts with judges appointed by Article III appeals court judges, or administrative agencies
Article I judges are not subject to the Article III protections. For example, these judges do not enjoy life tenure, and Congress may reduce their salaries.The existence of Article I tribunals has been controversial, and their power has been challenged before the United States Supreme Court, which has determined that Article I tribunals may exist, but that their power must be circumscribed and, when a potential deprivation of life, liberty, property, or property interest is involved, their decisions are often subject to ultimate review in an Article III court. (emphasis mine)
See Sokoloff v. Saxbe, 501 F.2d 571, 574 (2d Cir. 1974).180.
Hart v. McLucas, 535 F.2d 516, 519 http://openjurist.org/535/f2d/516/hart-v-l-mclucas
(9th Cir. 1976).
[T]he elements of [making an] intentional false statement [under a statute that an agency administers] are the first three elements of fraud: falsity,materiality and knowledge. Thus, intentional false statement is a lesser included offense within fraud..
.[F]raud requires at least one additional element, i.e., an intent to deceive
This is simply because jury trials were not integrated into the statutorily created adjudicatory process of the APA.’w a system dominated by administrative law judges and hearing officials, the process simply does not seem, on its face, to require an application of the Seventh Amendment because administrative cases do not arise under the common law. (Emphasis, mine)
“[T]he Seventh Amendment is generally inapplicable in administrative proceedings, where jury trials would be incompatible with the whole concept of administrative adjudication and would substantially interfere with the [agency’s] role in the statutory scheme.”‘
A public right is one in which “the Government is involved in its sovereign capacity under an otherwise valid statute creating enforceable public rights.”
Private rights, on the other hand, are generally “private tort, contract, and property cases.”
For the Court, the interpretation of the Seventh Amendment with respect to the APA was strictly a legal analysis regarding the forum through which a dispute is resolved.
This did not, however, impair Congress from creating and vesting new rights in administrative agencies similar to those preserved under the Seventh Amendment.
The Seventh Amendment was declaratory of the existing law, for it required only that jury trial in suits at common law was to a tribunal other than a court of law-such as an administrative agency-in which facts are not found by juries.
The distinguishing mark of an administrative tribunal is that it possesses a complete, absolute and unfettered discretion and, having no fixed standard to follow, it is guided by its own ideas of policy and expediency. Hence, acting within its proper province and observing any procedural formalities prescribed, it cannot err in substantive matters because there is no standard for it to follow and hence no standard to judge or correct it by.”