COURT OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

Michael David; Addison

Petitioner
NEW CASE # ______________
Vs
Administrative Law Judge
_____________________
Administrative Defendants:
Governor's Office, et al.
Notification of Administrative Violation(s)
ATTENTION: CLERK OF COURTS
JUST CAUSE FOR
ADMINISTRATIVE HEARING
AND REASONS WHY THIS REQUEST
CAN NOT BE TURNED DOWN
OR DENIED

NOW, COMES, The Petitioner, John-Doe; Smith, with JUST CAUSE FOR
AN ADMINISTRATIVE HEARING AND REASONS WHY IT CAN NOT BE
TURNED DOWN OR DENIED. Below are the Rules, Procedures and Foundations as to
why the Petitioner has the Right of Administrative Hearing to address Administrative
Violation(s) of this Court.

The Defendant(s) has failed to exhaust any Administrative remedy Before they
brought the Petitioner before a judicial court in ______________ County for adjudication
and conviction.
The Administrative procedure Act of 1946 (hereinafter, APA) has two major
subdivisions: Sections 551 through 559 which deal, in general, with Agency Procedures,
and Sections 701 through 706 which deal, in general, with judicial review. The latter
sections restate the principles of judicial review contained in many standing statutes and
judicial decisions, but leave the details regarding judicial review to be governed by other
statutes or court decisions. In addition, several sections dealing with Administrative Law
judges - special hearing officers with special independence - are scattered through Title 5
of the United States Code.
The APA has been widely accepted ever since. The courts have enforced its
provisions by making quite clear that the Agencies must follow the APA's procedures
when it is applicable. Significantly, the Supreme Court has also made the APA a "safe
harbor" by ruling that lower courts may not require agencies to use procedures beyond
those required by procedural provisions of the APA or other statutes.
Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corp. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, 435

U.S. 519 (1978), is a case in which the United States Supreme

Court held that a court cannot impose rulemaking procedures on a Federal
Government

Agency. The federal Administrative Procedure

2

Act of 1946 and an Agency's statutory mandate from Congress establish the
minimum requirements for an Agency's rulemaking (and adjudicative) process.
An agency may grant additional procedural rights in the regulatory process (within
Constitutional and statutory limits), but a reviewing court cannot "impose
upon the agency its own notion of which procedures are 'best' or most likely to further
some vague, undefined public good." (435 U.S. at 549.) To do so would exceed the limits
of judicial

review of agency action.

The Defendant(s) has failed to follow procedure(s). The Defendant(s) was

required to bring the Petitioner before an Administrative Hearing to address their
complaint against the Petitioner first. They have failed to due so. Second, they are
required to file a Civil Suit under Civil Rule Procedure, Rule 2 which states only One
Form of Action; There is one form of action the Civil Action. Again, the
Defendant(s) has failed to follow procedure.
The Petitioner has, now, set forth below that equal protection of the law under
Title 42 USC 1981, and Equal rights under the Law, and the 14th Amendment have been
violated.

TITLE 42 > CHAPTER 21 > SUBCHAPTER I > 1981

(a) Statement of equal rights

All persons within the jurisdiction of the United States shall have the same right in every
State and Territory to make and enforce contracts, to sue, be parties, give evidence, and
to the full and equal benefit of all laws and proceedings for the security of persons and
property as is enjoyed by white citizens, and shall be subject to like punishment, pains,
penalties, taxes, licenses, and exactions of every kind, and to no other.
(b) Make and enforce contracts defined
For purposes of this section, the term make and enforce contracts includes the making,
performance, modification, and termination of contracts, and the enjoyment of all
benefits, privileges, terms, and conditions of the contractual relationship.
(c) Protection against impairment
The rights protected by this section are protected against impairment by nongovernmental
discrimination and impairment under color of State law.
14TH AMENDMENT
Section. 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the
jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.
No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities
of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or
property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the
equal protection of the laws.
US Attorneys > USAM > Title 4 > Civil Resource Manual
34. Exhaustion of Administrative Remedies
Generally, the plaintiff suing a government officer may not obtain judicial relief if he has
not first exhausted his/her administrative remedies. See Allen v. Grand Central Aircraft
Co., 347 U.S. 535, 553 (1954); Aircraft & Diesel Corp. v. Hirsch, 331 U.S. 752 (1947).
Exhaustion is also required in Federal Tort Claims Acts suits, 28 U.S.C. 2675(a),
Privacy Act suits, 5 U.S.C. 552a, in suits challenging adverse personnel actions, and in
many other contexts.
Darby v. Cisneros, 509 U.S. 137 (1993), holds that, under the Administrative Procedure
Act, 5 U.S.C. 704, a person aggrieved by an agency action can seek judicial review of the
4

action without exhausting an available administrative appeal, unless the agency's

regulations provide both (1) that the administrative appeal must be taken, and (2) that
during the pendency of the administrative appeal the agency action shall be inoperative.
US Attorneys > USAM > Title 4 > Civil Resource Manual
35. Standing to Sue
The "case or controversy" clause of Article III of the Constitution imposes a minimal
constitutional standing requirement on all litigants attempting to bring suit in federal
court. In order to invoke the court's jurisdiction, the plaintiff must demonstrate, at an
"irreducible minimum," that: (1) he/she has suffered a distinct and palpable injury as a
result of the putatively illegal conduct of the defendant; (2) the injury is fairly traceable
to the challenged conduct; and (3) it is likely to be redressed if the requested relief is
granted. See Valley Forge Christian College v. Americans United for Separation of
Church and State, Inc., 454 U.S. 464, 472 (1982); Gladstone, Realtors v. Village of
Bellwood, 441 U.S. 91, 99 (1979); Simon v. Eastern Kentucky Welfare Rights
Organization, 426 U.S. 26, 37 (1976). In addition to the constitutional requirements of
Article III, courts have developed a set of prudential considerations to limit standing in
federal court to prevent a plaintiff "from adjudicating 'abstract questions of wide public
significance' which amount to 'generalized grievances' pervasively shared and most
appropriately addressed in the representative branches." See Valley Forge, 454 U.S. at
474-75, quoting Warth v. Seldin, 422 U.S. 490, 499-500 (1975). Speculative claims that a
proposed governmental action may result in injury to a plaintiff are insufficient to confer
standing. See O'Shea v. Littleton, 414 U.S. 488, 497 (1974). The required injury must be
both real and immediate, not conjectural or hypothetical. See Golden v. Zwickler, 394
U.S. 103, 109-10 (1969).
TITLE 28 > PART V > CHAPTER 111 > 1652
1652. State laws as rules of decision

The laws of the several states, except where the Constitution or treaties of the United
States or Acts of Congress otherwise require or provide, shall be regarded as rules of
decision in civil actions in the courts of the United States, in cases where they apply
5 U.S.C.
3105. Appointment of administrative law judges
Each agency shall appoint as many administrative law judges as are necessary for
proceedings required to be conducted in accordance with sections 556 and 557 of this
title. Administrative law judges shall be assigned to cases in rotation so far as practicable,
and may not perform duties inconsistent with their duties and responsibilities as
administrative law judges.
TITLE 5 > PART I > CHAPTER 7 > 702
702. Right of review
A person suffering legal wrong because of agency action, or adversely affected or
aggrieved by agency action within the meaning of a relevant statute, is entitled to judicial
review thereof. An action in a court of the United States seeking relief other than money
damages and stating a claim that an agency or an officer or employee thereof acted or
failed to act in an official capacity or under color of legal authority shall not be dismissed
nor relief therein be denied on the ground that it is against the United States or that the
United States is an indispensable party. The United States may be named as a defendant
in any such action, and a judgment or decree may be entered against the United States:
Provided, That any mandatory or injunctive decree shall specify the Federal officer or
officers (by name or by title), and their successors in office, personally responsible for
compliance. Nothing herein
(1) affects other limitations on judicial review or the power or duty of the court to dismiss
any action or deny relief on any other appropriate legal or equitable ground; or
(2) confers authority to grant relief if any other statute that grants consent to suit
expressly or impliedly forbids the relief which is sought.
TITLE 5 > PART I > CHAPTER 7 > 704
6

 704. Actions reviewable

Agency action made reviewable by statute and final agency action for which there is no
other adequate remedy in a court are subject to judicial review. A preliminary,
procedural, or intermediate agency action or ruling not directly reviewable is subject to
review on the review of the final agency action. Except as otherwise expressly required
by statute, agency action otherwise final is final for the purposes of this section whether
or not there has been presented or determined an application for a declaratory order, for
any form of reconsideration, or, unless the agency otherwise requires by rule and
provides that the action meanwhile is inoperative, for an appeal to superior agency
authority.

CONCLUSION
The Defendant(s) is not entitled to relief when procedure allows accountability of
a government office for abuse or misconduct or error on their public policy. The
Administrative Procedure Act of 1946, 60 stat 237 S.7 provides the People with a
remedy.
The United States Attorney Manual, and Title 5 of the USC of Administrative
Procedures clearly gives remedy to the People in the Act (APA). The Clerk of Courts is
clearly required to set up and accept Administrative Complaint(s) against any Agency,
Administrative Person OR Administration for violation(s) of Acts of Congress

Thank you
_____________________________
Michael David: Addison