DOJ Dismantles Unconstitutional Barriers Protecting Corrupt Administrative Judges

DOJ Dismantles Unconstitutional Barriers Protecting Corrupt Administrative “Judges”

Acting Solicitor General of the US Department of Justice (DOJ) Sarah Harris sent a letter to President Pro Tempore of the US Senate Charles Grassley on Thursday sharing the DOJ’s determination that removal restrictions for administrative law judges (ALJs) are unconstitutional and that the DOJ no longer intends to defend them in court.

The DOJ justified its finding based on the US Supreme Court’s ruling in Free Enterprise Fund v. PCAOB. The court in that case ruled that the president being “restricted in his ability to remove a principal [executive] officer, who is in turn restricted in his ability to remove an inferior [executive] officer,” violates the president’s ability to adhere to his constitutional obligation to “take care that the laws be faithfully executed.”

DOJ Chief of Staff Chad Mizelle stated:

“Unelected and constitutionally unaccountable ALJs have exercised immense power for far too long. In accordance with Supreme Court precedent, the Department is restoring constitutional accountability so that Executive Branch officials answer to the President and to the people.”

ALJs are officials appointed by the heads of executive agencies and serve as the triers of law and fact for disputes concerning an agency’s law. Federal agencies are prohibited from removing their ALJs except “for good cause established and determined by the Merit Systems Protection Board [(MSPB)] on the record after opportunity for hearing before the Board.” Additionally, the members of the board serve seven-year terms and can only be removed by the president “for inefficiency, neglect of duty, or malfeasance in office.”

Screen Shot 2025 02 22 at 11.45.55 AM

Screen Shot 2025 02 22 at 11.46.01 AM

DOWNLOAD DOCUMENT

 

The Association of Administrative Law Judges (AALJ) found the DOJ’s determination to be an unlawful overreach into the independence of the ALJs’ adjudication proceedings. Judge Som Ramrup stated: “Administrative law judges carry out the law and should be free from political pressures. They are not at-will employees. The DOJ can say that removal protections designed to shield ALJs are unconstitutional, but that is not supported by law.”

The AALJ has encouraged the president to remove policymakers and heads of executive agencies instead of ALJs so that the president can ensure that US laws are faithfully executed while also preserving judicial impartiality.

The DOJ’s determination follows MSPB chair Cathy Harris’s lawsuit against President Donald Trump for removing her without reason. Head of the Office of the Special Counsel Hampton Dellinger also filed a lawsuit against Trump for removing him without reason, asserting that he can be removed by the president only for “inefficiency, neglect of duty, or malfeasance in office.” After a federal district court sided with Dellinger and blocked Trump’s removal, Trump requested the Supreme Court vacate the district court’s order.

Leave your vote

3873711 points
More

Don’t Stop Here

More To Explore

Screen Shot 2025 07 08 at 9.35.01 PM

EMERGENCY PETITION FOR WRIT MANDAMUS VANISHES: Ninth Circuit Fraud, Tampering, Judicial Collusion, and a Federal Cover-Up Seems Unequivocal

Federal courts are now under scrutiny after a verified Writ of Mandamus vanished from the Ninth Circuit docket without explanation—raising grave concerns of judicial tampering, fraud, and systemic misconduct. Judge Sunshine Sykes defied clear jurisdictional divestiture by issuing rulings on a matter under appellate review, violating 28 U.S.C. § 144 and § 1651. This article exposes a disturbing pattern of ultra vires acts, denial of due process, and potential RICO violations implicating both district and appellate judges.Ask ChatGPT

lawful tender discharges the debt

When the Debt Is Discharged but the LIEN Remains: Why Auto and Home Loan Lenders Who Ignore Lawful Tender Are Committing Fraud and Commercial Crimes

This article delivers a devastating legal breakdown proving that lawful tender—once made and unrebutted—discharges auto loan debt under UCC §§ 3-601, 3-603, 3-310, 2-206, and 1-103, as codified in Cal. Com. Code §§ 3601, 3603, 3310, 2206, 1103, Fla. Stat. §§ 673.6011, 673.6031, 673.3101, 672.206, 671.103, and N.C.G.S. §§ 25-3-601, 25-3-603, 25-3-310, 25-2-206, 25-1-103. It exposes refusal to release a lien after lawful discharge as actionable fraud, conversion, embezzlement, and obstruction under state and federal law. With verified case law and commercial principles, it explains how silence equals acceptance and how creditors become commercially estopped. A must-read for secured parties, fiduciaries, and equity claimants demanding lien removal, declaratory relief, and commercial remedy.

Screen Shot 2025 06 28 at 4.55.33 PM

How a Perfected Security Agreement and UCC Filings Strip Servicers of Foreclosure Rights

A properly executed Security Agreement assigning all assets, rights, and interests to a private trust—paired with a UCC-1 financing statement and UCC-3 amendment claiming the Deed of Trust and Note—lawfully establishes the trust as the secured party and real party in interest. This perfected interest, under UCC §§ 9-203, 9-509, 3-301, and supported by controlling case law (e.g., Carpenter v. Longan, Ibanez, Veal), strips any servicer or third-party of standing to foreclose unless they possess the original Note, prove an unbroken chain of title, and rebut the trust’s perfected claim. Without that, all foreclosure attempts become void ab initio, commercial dishonor, and legal trespass on private trust property.

Log In

Forgot password?

Forgot password?

Enter your account data and we will send you a link to reset your password.

Your password reset link appears to be invalid or expired.

Log in

Privacy Policy

Add to Collection

No Collections

Here you'll find all collections you've created before.

error: Content is protected !!