June 20, 2003 [Homeowner] David Pancoast Office of Conservation Agent 25 Green Street Ipswich, MA 01938 Dear Mr.

Pancoast: The following letter is my effort to explain to you the reason that I have chosen what you probably consider, at the very least, to be unconventional path in dealing with your request to visit my property. Please understand that I have nothing against you or the conservation commission personally. First, my hope would be that you come away with additional knowledge that may help you and others as you deal in your administrative capacity in the future. Second, I believe that it is incumbent upon me to inform you of my position so that you have legal notice. To address the first I submit the following legal positions by law professors and the following case law by justices. These submittals explain why the administrative law in the Town of Ipswich in particular and all locals in general do not pertain to private citizens, on private property, involved in private activities. Understand, that at first this was as hard for me to believe as it probably is for you. Through research and education I came to realize that administrative law applies only to those employed, contracted to, or otherwise connected in some commercial way to said specific administrative authority. One needs only look to the town bylaws in the section entitled construction and under that heading will be a section entitled definitions. The town is defined as the town manager, board of selectmen, town employees, and all contractors to the town. The town bylaws expressly do not cover private property or those private citizens not contracted to the town. As shown below, it is plain to see why it could be no other way. The rights of private citizens must take precedent over the good of the community or we cease to have a constitutional republic where individual rights are above all else. If it were as one might be erroneously lead to conclude from a cursory reading of administrative law that individual rights were to be sacrificed by a vote from the community then we would be living in a democracy not a constitutional republic. Many, even those in high places in the federal government, erroneously use the two terms democracy and constitutional republic interchangeably. They are not the same and we do not live in a democracy. The reality of surrogate political process becoming the dominant process in America smacks of something else than constitutional democracy. It speaks of rulership by an Institutional Autocracy having no legitimate constitutional authority. It speaks of an end the Rule of Law substituted wholly by the Rule of Willful Men. It speaks of America now upon us. What is unambiguously pertinent is the writing from law professor R. B. Steward, With the possible exception of military and foreign affairs functions, the Constitution recognizes no inherent administrative powers over persons or property, Harvard Law Review p 1669 (1975). It should be, and is, so self evident as to require no rulings of courts to remind everyone that the people have no power to take away their own unalienable rights even as holders of the political power. The sovereign people are the body politic and have created the government to serve them.

Therefore, consider the compound absurdity of arguing that the people may delegate such an outrageous power to the legislators or administrators. Justice Jackson stated, Administrative Law has become a veritable fourth branch of government, which has deranged our three-branch legal theories, FTC v Ruberoid Co. 343 US 470, 487, 72 S.Ct 800, 810, 96 L. Ed. 1081. The Presidents Committee on Administrative Management (known as the Brownless Report) concluded that the agencies comprised a headless fourth branch of government, a haphazard collection of irresponsible agencies with no constitutional authority over private citizens and their private activities. Administrative Agency schemes were unknown to the Political/Constitutional Law scheme of American governance prior to the twentieth century. Rights and privileges are distinctly opposite. Rights only apply to private activity. Privileges are granted to commercial activity. Rights require no permit, no permission, and no license. Privileges may require permits, licenses, and permission. The liberty to posses, use, and enjoy private property, which guarantee is enumerated in the constitution must be interpreted in light of the common law, not administrative law. Statutes may not be given a meaning that would be restrictive of personal liberty, infringe on private property rights, or impinge any constitutional rights. The American sovereign peoples three branch constitutional republic form of government makes no allowance for official police power to convert common law rights into state-granted privileges of administrative law schemes. Americas reputation as the land of the free is rooted in legal and political tradition. As the twenty-first century begins, there is evidence that much of this tradition has been lost. Americans are losing the law that protects them from tyranny and they are losing the accountability of law, which ensures that the government is servant rather than master of the people. These erosions of liberty are not the work of an organized interest group. We Americans are losing the protection and accountability of law because we have forgotten why these safeguards are important. The Tyranny of Good Intentions, P.C. Roberts & L.M. Stratton, Prima Publishing, 2000 All of this leads to the conclusion that administrative law is outside of constitutional law it is commercial law and therefore has no force and effect over private citizens, private property, or private activity. In addressing the second issue, that of legal notice, let me preface by saying that I mean no disrespect to you, your office, or your position of authority. Simply, I want it understood that I have certain rights, which are outside of the scope of administrative (fourth branch commercial) law due to their private nature.

[pg 2]

We have documented that the building inspector, Mr. Sperber, trespassed on posted private property on at least three occasions. He has been legally noticed of his trespasses. There may be a conspiracy among some of the town administrators. This is said by reason of the fact that Mr.

Sperber had no reason to enter said private property unless some other town administrator put him up to it. There is reason to believe that the electrical inspector, Mr. Turner, is involved. As a follow on to this, your letter of June 5, 2003 comes only a couple of weeks after Mr. Sperber had been put on legal notice. Your involvement may be the result of retribution vis--vis the incident with Mr. Sperber. Without quoting more law, suffice it to say that conspiracy to violate ones rights is a serious matter. For your convenience an enclosure has been included (copy of letter to James Sperber, 05/10/03). Hopefully you will accept this letter in the spirit in which it was intended and not as an affront to your position in the administrative agency of the Corporate Town of Ipswich.

Sincerely,

[signature]

[pg 3]