Browse By

ADMINISTRATIVE ABUSE

Home Forums Everything Else ADMINISTRATIVE ABUSE

This topic contains 1 reply, has 1 voice, and was last updated by  carolhehmeyer 3 years ago.

  • Author
    Posts
  • #255

    carolhehmeyer
    Participant

    Administrative abuse is one of the most threatening political problems of our age.

    National Review’s 60th Anniversary issue
    Article by Charles Murray

    “The de facto legislative power delegated to regulatory agencies is only one aspect of their illegitimacy. Citizens who have not been hit with an accusation of a violation may not realize how Orwellian the regulatory state has become. If you run afoul of an agency such as the FCC and want to defend yourself, you don’t go to a regular court. You go to an administrative court run by the agency. You don’t get a jury. The case is decided by an administrative judge who is an employee of the agency. You do not need to be found guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, but rather by the loosest of all legal standards, a preponderance of the evidence. The regulatory agency is also free of many of the rules that constrain police and prosecutors in the normal legal system. For example, regulatory agencies are not required to show probable cause for getting a search warrant. A regulatory agency can inspect a property or place of business under broad conditions that it has set for itself.

    There’s much more, but it amounts to this. Regulatory agencies, or the regulatory divisions within cabinet agencies, operate as self-contained entities that create de facto laws that Congress would never have passed on an up-or-down vote. They then act as both police and judge in enforcing the laws they have created. It amounts to an extra-legal state within the state.” p. 13 National Review

    Recently, a major victory was scored by a friend of mine on the National level, against the FTC. Mike Daugherty actually won a case against the FTC. He is the FIRST person in the history of the USA ever to contest an FTC offer of a consent order to his alleged violation.
    Why have none of the hundreds if not thousands of prior victims of this agency not contested? Because the contest costs millions of dollars. The fight has bankrupted Daugherty, and a nonprofit stepped in at the end to help him win.
    He was accused of having insufficient security on his LabMed computers and failing to protect the privacy of the patients he was service. LabMed had gold standard security. A company named Triversa using patent pending , powerful hacking power, managed to steal ONE document from LabMed. Triversa then offered to “help” LabMed to secure its computers for a huge fee.
    LabMed declined Triversa’s offer and the villainous company went to the FTC who fought for years against LabMed, and even forged documents to make it look as if more than one document was seized by Triversa
    After years, Daugherty just won in Federal Court. This is an event of national significance. Of course, our corrupt propaganda press will give it no coverage at all.

    We have to do something about administrative abuse on the state level as well.
    In California, there are Sunset Hearings for ALL administrative agencies. HOWEVER, these public hearings are held quietly and NO one knows about them. I am working to get information, but it is hard.

    We need to change the laws regarding the power of administrative agencies to prosecute.
    I believe the agencies should be limited, by state law, to prosecutions of offenses which the agency can prove, in state court, beyond a reasonable doubt, to be violations of the limited purpose clause that created the agency.
    Those clauses should be created by our State assembly and senate.

    I know of serious abuses of administrative power.

    Assume there is an agency whose purpose is to keep the public laws green. (You KNOW that such an agency would work hard to keep the laws about 1/8/ brown, so they can argue for more funds.). It would be the Green Lawn Agency.

    To work on greening the lawns, you must be a state certified Green Lawn Expert (CGLE, or GLE, or just LE).
    The administrative enactments by the agency provide, among other things, that ANY PERSON using the initials CGLE, GLE, or just LE in any context (on a shirt, on a jacket, on a card, verbally, and so forth) at all, who is not actually a California certified Green Lawn Expert, is guilty of a violation of the Green Lawn Agency act.

    A woman named Gladys Lynn Eberhardt wears a sweater on the streets of Concord. Her initials. She is not a certified Green Lawn Expert. She is successfully prosecuted.
    Of course, her prosecutions adds to the statistics for the agency, proving the magnificent work they are doing.

    CRAZY? INSANE you say?

    No, this is an actual take off on an actual, provable case. It has happened.
    It is typical of these crooked, pernicious, dangerous agencies.
    We must act to change this situation.

    Carol Hehmeyer

  • #707

    carolhehmeyer
    Participant

    December 21, 2015

    A NEW KIND OF FASCISM

    By Richard Colman

    It’s not about Hitler or Mussolini. But it’s about Fascism, a new kind of Fascism.

    The new kind of Fascism is Environmental Fascism, and it is springing up (where else?) in California.

    The old form of Fascism featured a dictator telling people how to behave. Opponents of a Fascist governments were locked up or killed. The government controlled everything.

    Under Fascism, taxpayers have no rights. Elections, if they are held at all, are rigged.

    Environmental Fascism uses the power of government to control land use and transportation. And in California, especially in the San Francisco Bay Area, Environmental Fascism is alive and well. And it’s all legal until and unless citizens rise up and rid themselves of it.

    A relatively new form of Environmental Fascism began on September 30, 2014. On that date, two regional governmental agencies told Bay Area firms with 50 or more full-time employees that an employee who uses public transportation must have his boss pay for commuting expenses if the employee uses a form of public transportation such as BART (Bay Area Rapid Transit).

    In addition to BART, commuter costs include expenses for transit passes, vanpools, and commuting by bicycle.

    The program is called the Commuter Benefits Program and was mandated by the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) and the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC). There was never a public vote on the program.

    The Commuter Benefits Program requires eligible firms to hire a Commuter Benefits Coordinator to keep track of the expenses of an employee who uses public transportation. The program applies to firms located in the nine-county Bay Area. Those counties are Alameda, Contra Costa, Napa, Solano, Sonoma, Marin, Santa Clara, San Mateo, and San Francisco.

    Gov. Jerry Brown, a Democrat, signed the program into law on September 30, 2012.

    Another form of Environmental Fascism is the Housing Element, a plan to require all 101 Bay Area cities to build more housing, even if a given community is full.

    The law for the Housing Element was enacted in 1969. The law is being administered by California’s Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD).

    HCD’s website says: “Housing element law, enacted in 1969, mandates that local governments adequately plan to meet the existing and projected housing needs of all economic segments of the community.”

    HCD’s website continues: “The law acknowledges that, in order for the private market to adequately address housing needs and demand, local governments must adopt land use plans and regulatory systems which provide opportunities for, and do not unduly constrain, housing development.”

    The plan for Housing Elements demands that counties construct housing for low-income people.

    In Orinda, California, a city of 18,000 people 15 miles east of San Francisco, the Housing Element can be met by the construction of so-called “in-law” cottages on a given residential property. Officially, these cottages are called Second Units.

    If a city refuses to comply with HCD’s housing demands, the State of California can cut off any money the city may want for road repair.

    The Housing Element allows unelected, unaccountable bureaucrats to make decisions about a local community’s housing situation.

    On July 18-19, 2013, the boards of directors of MTC (Metropolitan Transportation Commission) and ABAG (Association of Bay Area Governments) adopted Plan Bay Area, a scheme which give MTC and ABAG authority to construct high-rise, high-density housing in the Bay Area’s 101 cities. This kind of housing is often called “stack-and-pack” housing.

    According to Plan Bay Area’s website: “Plan Bay Area is a long-range integrated transportation and land-use housing strategy through 2040 for the San Francisco Bay Area.”

    The website continues: “Plan Bay Area makes the nine-county region’s first long range plan to meet the requirements of California’s landmark 2008 Senate Bill 375, which calls on each of the state’s 18 metropolitan areas to develop a Sustainable Communities Strategy to accommodate future population growth and reduce greenhouse gas emissions from cars and light trucks.”

    The directors of MTC and ABAG are not elected by voters. The directors are selected from a pool of locally elected officials.

    At the July 18-19, 2013, meeting, the head of MTC was Amy Worth, who also at the time was serving on the Orinda City Council.

    (At the time, Worth was mayor of Orinda. The mayor’s position rotates among city-council members. In November 2014, Worth was elected to a fifth term on the council.)

    On the Plan Bay Area website, Worth is quoted as saying that the plan “. . . makes sense . . .”

    Orinda has a 35-foot height limit for buildings. Presumably, Plan Bay Area can tell Orinda that it must violate that limit to construct tall buildings.

    Thus, the possibility exists that Orinda, at a future time, could look more like Manhattan or Tokyo than the Orinda of yore.

    Another plan about environmental management was reported in January 2015 in the San Jose Mercury News. The newspaper reported: ” . . . state officials have begun to seriously study a plan to replace California’s gas tax with a fee for each mile motorists drive.”

    The Mercury News article continued: “The idea [of a vehicle mileage tax] is far from reality, but it’s raising a hornet’s nest of practical and political questions, from how government would track the miles to what happens when people drive out of state or on private roads.”

    So there it is: Government has come up with a Commuter Benefits Program, a Housing Element, and Plan Bay Area. Moreover, in the future, government may mandate a Vehicle Mileage Tax.

    California residents are seeing a program of Environmental Fascism.

    Perhaps the term Environmental Fascism is too strong. But what is a better term when unelected, unaccountable bureaucrats impose their views on taxpayers without the direct consent of these taxpayers?

    __________________________________________________________________________

    Richard Colman is a 17-year resident of Orinda, California. Since 1981, he has been the founder and president of three companies: Biomed Inc.; the Institute for Natural Resources; and Vox Properties. The above article bears a 1995 copyright by Vox Properties.

    The above article can be distributed freely to anyone. Comments are welcome.

    Mr. Colman can be contacted: by telephone at (925) 609-2820 ext. 203; by fax at (925) 363-7798; by e-mail at rcolman@biocorp.com; and by mail at 2354 Stanwell Drive, Concord, California 94520.
    == ==============

    Posted by: Carol M. Hehmeyer

You must be logged in to reply to this topic.