It is well settled in administrative law that: It is the accepted rule, not only in state

courts, but, of the federal courts as well, that when a judge is enforcing administrative
law they are described as mere extensions of the administrative agency for superior
reviewing purposes as a ministerial clerk for an agency 30 Cal.596; 167 Cal 762.
And;

Apparent agency.

Kotera v. Daioh Intl U.S.A. Corp,9509-06556; A100452 (Or. 01/30/2002) (In the
absence of agency based on actual authority, plaintiff (FRANCHISE TAX BOARD) was
required to produce evidence of apparent agency to support personal jurisdiction over
(Defendant). Miller v. McDonalds Corp., 150 Or App 274, 282, 945 P2d 1107 (1997). To
establish apparent agency, plaintiff must have offered evidence that (1)Defendants held
out Plaintiff as an agent, and (2) plaintiff justifiably relied on that holding out. See id. at
282-83. Plaintiff alleged neither such holding out by Defendants nor reliance on
plaintiffs part. The only evidence of holding out came from the affidavit submitted by
Defendants, which acknowledged that Plaintiff was a director of the corporation.
However, no evidence before the trial court established that plaintiff relied on that
information in agreeing to the transaction. Accordingly, there was insufficient evidence
before the trial court to support an exercise of personal jurisdiction over Defendant, and
the trial court erred in denying Defendants motion to dismiss on that ground;

14. Although courts sometimes have used apparent authority and apparent agency
interchangeably, the distinction is important. Apparent agency creates an agency
relationship that does not otherwise exist, while apparent authority expands the authority
of an actual agent. Miller, 150 Or App at 282 n 4. Thus, apparent authority is relevant
only if actual agency already has been established. Here, because plaintiff has offered no
evidence to establish the existence of an actual agency, apparent authority is not
implicated.);

Additionally, courts are prohibited from their substituting their judgments for that of the
agency. American Iron and Steel v. United States, 568 F.2d 284. And; . . . 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. Wests 1965 Ed.) their supposed courts becoming thus a court of
limited jurisdictionas a mere extension of the involved agency for mere superior
reviewing purposes. K.C. Davis, ADMIN. LAW., P. 95, (CTP, 6 Ed. Wests 1977)> FRC
v. G.E., 281 U.S. 464; Keller v. P.E.P., 261 U.S. 428. And; A so-called Municipal or
District court that is not a constitutional court is a legislative tribunal.

In speaking on this subject in relation to the Constitution for the united States of America,
the supreme Court said: The term District Courts of the United States, . . . without an
addition expressing a wider connotation, has its historic significance. It describes the
constitutional courts created under Article III of the Constitution. Courts of the Territories
are legislative courts, properly speaking, and are not District Courts of the United States.
Mookini v. United States, 303 US 201, 205, 58 Sct. 543, 82 Led. 748 ((1938).
The power of the Municipal or District Court is that of the old justice of the peace
courts which were courts of limited and special jurisdiction. State v. Officer, 4 Or. 180
(1871).

REGARDING THE ABSOLUTE LIBERTY OF MAN

TO THE EXCLUSION OF THE STATE

Murdock v. Pennsylvania 319 US 105 No state shall convert a liberty into a privilege,
license it, and attach a fee to it. A state may not impose a charge for the enjoyment of a
right granted by Federal constitution. at 113, (1943).

Shuttlesworth v. City of Birmingham, 373 US 262 If a state converts a liberty into a

privilege the citizen can engage in the right with impunity.

Miranda v. Arizona, 384 US 436 Where rights secured by the Constitution are involved,
there can be NO rule making or legislation which would abrogate them.

Norton v. Shelby County, 118 US 425 Any unconstitutional act is not law, it confers no
rights, it imposes no duties, it affords no protection, it creates no office, it is an illegal
contemplation, as inoperative as though it had never been passed.

Byars v. U.S. , 273 US 28 Unlawful search and seizure. Rights must be interpreted in
favor of the citizen.

Boyd v. U S, 116 US 616 5th Amendment rights. constitutional provisions for the
security of person and property should be liberally construed It is the duty of the courts
to be watchful for the constitutional rights of Citizens, and against any stealthy
encroachment thereon.

United States v. Bishop, 412 US 346 Relying on prior decisions of the Supreme Court is a
perfect defense against willfulness.

Owens v. City of Independence,445 US 622, 100 S. Ct. 1398 Maine v. Thiboutot,448 US

1, 100 S. Ct. 2502 Hafer v. Melo, 502 US 21 Officers of the Court have no immunity,
when violating a constitutional right, from liability, for they are deemed to know the law.

Shapiro v. Thomson,394 US 618, 89 S. Ct. 1322 A Citizen must be free to travel

throughout the [several] United States uninhibited by statutes, rules or regulation.

Bailey v. State of Alabama,219 US 219 You have a right to own and contract your labor
as you see fit.

Clearfield Trust v. United States,318 US 363 Bank of United States v. Planters Bank of
Georgia , 9 Wheaton (22 US) 904, 6 L. Ed. 24 (See citation below page 4)Governments
descend to the level of a mere private corporation and takes on the character of a mere
private citizen [where private corporate commercial paper, Federal Reserve Notes and
other negotiable debt instruments are concerned]. For purposes of suit, such
corporations and individuals are regarded as an entity entirely separate from
government.(Emphasis added)

Memphis Bank & Trust v. Garner, 459 US 392, 103 S. Ct. 692 Addresses the untaxability
of obligations of the United States by or under State authority, (31 USC 3124, formerly
742) and provides that if any taxing requiring that either the obligation or the interest
thereon, or both, be considered, directly or indirectly, in the computation of the tax it
cannot be taxed by or under State authority.