7.21.11 Rod Demand for Judgment NC Traffic Case

8/6/2019 7.21.11 Rod Demand for Judgment NC Traffic Case

1/7

SUPERIOR COURT

OF WAKE COUNTY 316 Fayetteville St, Raleigh, NC 27602

RodneyDale; Class

Private Attorney GeneralP.O. Box 435

HIGH SHOALS, NC [28077]

Petitioner CASE #11 CV 00 1559

Vs JUDICIAL REVIEW JUDGE

HOWARD E. MANNING JR

NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATIONDivision of Motor Vehicles

3148 Mail Service Center

Raleigh, NC 27699-3148

North Carolina Motor Vehicle License Plate Agency

1471 E Franklin Blvd.

Gastonia, NC 28054

Dallas Police Department

131 North Gaston St.

Dallas, NC 28034-1625

Administrative Defendants

Governor Bev Perdue

Office of the Governor

20301 Mail Service Center

Raleigh, NC 27699-0301

Notification of administrative violations

PETITION FOR EXECUTIONON JUDGMENT, OR PRAYER FOR A

TRIAL BY JURY: NATURE AND

CAUSE: COURT HAD 90 DAYS TO

RENDER JUDGMENT AGAINST THE

DEFENDANTS AND HAS FAILED

TO DO SO


2/7

U.S.C. Title 28 Judiciary & judicial procedures & especially section 1652 Act

of Congress and Title 5 of the U.S.C. are the Ruling factors to all procedures

NOW, COMES, The Petitioner, Rodney-Dale; Class with this PETITION FOR

EXECUTION ON JUDGMENT, OR PRAYER FOR A TRIAL BY JURY: NATURE

AND CAUSE: COURT HAD 90 DAYS TO RENDER JUDGMENT AGAINST THE

DEFENDANTS AND HAS FAILED TO DO SO.

The Petitioner came before Judge Howard E. Manning, Jr, on or about April 21

2011, 12:45 PM on a Motion for Dismissal requested of the NORTH CAROLINA

ATTORNEY GENERAL. This Motion was denied on the grounds that the Defendants

are public officials under the Governor's Office / Executive branch of government.

1. The Attorney General's Office and the Dallas City Law Director Did Not / Could Not

rebut or dispute the letter of the law as it is written by the UNITED STATES Congress, or

by it's own NORTH CAROLINA State legislation, on the Right to Travel.

2. The Attorney General's Office and the Dallas City Law Director Did Not / Could Not

rebut or dispute the letter of the law as it is written, or Court decisions by the UNITED

STATES SUPREME COURT on the Right to Travel.

3. The Attorney General's Office representing the City of Dallas and the other Defendants

Did Not / Could Not dispute or answer the charges in front of Judge Manning, but

remained Silent.

4. The Petitioner was then address by Judge Manning for his remedy, and stated the he

wished for a Declaratory judgment against the Defendants.

5. Judge Manning, being a judge, was aware of definition and the risk of a Declaratory


3/7

judgment. The STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA is in breach of Titles 23 & 49 of the

UNITED STATES CODE (USC) and the CODES OF FEDERAL REGULATIONS

(CFR). The Defendants have forced hundreds of thousands of North Carolinians to

Violate Federal and State Statutes in order that they (the Defedants) receive unlawful

enrichment, and then withhold Federal funds from the Subdivisions as defined in 23

CFR, section 1250 as laid out in 23 USC, section 402.

6. It appears that after 90 days Judge Manning is not willing to place such a judgment

against the Defendants before the court as it (the court) may have a conflict of interest.

7. The Petitioner now demands a trial by jury to resolve this issue and take the decision

making out of Judge Manning's hands. The Petitioner was allowed to believe that Judge

Manning would be fair and unbiased (as his job description requires), but it now appears

that Judge Manning may have either been threatened by the Defendants for doing his

duty (job) under Judicial Review of Administrative Misconduct of a public office /

officer, or has decided to violate his duty (job) as a judge to help cover up for Defendants

unlawful acts, and abuse of the Federal HIGHWAY SAFETY ACT.

8. The Petitioner, because of inaction on the part of the STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA

or the Dallas City Law Director, has prevailed as the STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA

nor the Dallas City Law Director could rebut or dispute the Laws on the Right to Travel.

CONCLUSION

The Petitioner has made all efforts to address this issue Administratively. The

Petitioner has proven that the Administrative Agencies of NORTH CAROLINA are in


4/7


5/7

the misuse of the HIGHWAY SAFETY ACT.

__________________________

RodneyDale; Class

Private Attorney General

C/o P.O. Box 435High Shoals, North Carolina 28077

PROOF OF SERVICE

NOW, COMES, The Petitioner Rodney-Dale; Class with this PETITION FOR

EXECUTION ON JUDGMENT, OR PRAYER FOR A TRIAL BY JURY: NATURE

AND CAUSE: COURT HAD 90 DAYS TO RENDER JUDGMENT AGAINST THE

DEFENDANTS, and filing with the SUPERIOR COURT OF WAKE COUTRY PER

JUDGE MAY'S COURT ORDER on this day of ___________month of ____________in

the year of our Lord 2011 AD. The Defendant's copies of this document will be by U.S.

MAIL

_____________________________

Rodney-Dale; Class

Private Attorney GeneralC/o P.O. Box 435

High Shoals, North Carolina [28077]

CC:

WILLIAM P. HART JR

STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA

DOJ P.O. BOX 629RALEIGH, N.C. 27602

FOR


6/7

NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Division of Motor Vehicles

3148 Mail Service CenterRaleigh, NC 27699-3148

North Carolina Motor Vehicle License Plate Agency1471 E Franklin Blvd,

Gastonia, NC 28054

ATTORNEY PENNIE M THROWER

201 W SECOND AVENUE, SUITE FPOST OFFICE BOX 279

GASTONIA, NORTH CAROLINA 28053-0279

FORDallas Police Department

131 North Gaston St.

Dallas, NC 28034-1625

Governor Bev Perdue

Office of the Governor

20301 Mail Service CenterRaleigh, NC 27699-0301


7/7

7.21.11 Rod Demand for Judgment NC Traffic Case

Documents

Transcript of 7.21.11 Rod Demand for Judgment NC Traffic Case