You continue to have no idea what you are talking about. This was not a "suit at common law," which is a civil suit, but rather a criminal trial.
Additionally, you utterly mangle the rule of the 7th amendment, which is that one cannot appeal a factual finding, but one can in a civil suit, appeal the law. Thus, if a judge instructs a civil jury incorrectly, and that jury renders a verdict, you can appeal the legal error of the jury instruction and get a new trial, even when that means overturning the jury's verdict.
You completely disregard the fact that, if a defendant in an administrative hearing is asked anything, even to plead, that all he need do is require pen and paper to write his answer, and then notice the court on paper that he wishes his accuser to appear and present, under oath, on the stand, the harm or injury that the defendant did to him, so that he, the defendant, can pay his accuser what he owes him. This effectively throws the whole case into common law, where the rules are different than the administrative side.

EDIT: The things you say about the 7th Amendment, are administrative law understandings. Once the case goes into the common law of the people, this understanding is no longer relevant, because it is no longer administrative law that is involved.
You continue to have no idea what you are talking about.
This is not an "administrative law hearing," or "administrative law." Administrative law is a large body of law generally referring to Article I and Article II tribunals, rulemaking, etc., etc. This is a criminal trial in an Article III Court, and you have absolutely no idea what you're talking about.
It's sad that you're peddling this sovereign citizen shit to people who might be ignorant and not know enough and actually follow this crap.