8.19.11 Obstruction of Admin Justice NC Traffic Case

8/6/2019 8.19.11 Obstruction of Admin Justice 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 001559

Vs JUDICIAL REVIEW JUDGE

Judge Howard E. Manning Jr

STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA

ATTORNEY GENERAL'S OFFICE

WILLIAM P. HART, JRN.C. DOJ

P.O. BOX 629

RALEIGH, NORTH CAROLINA 27602

Defendant, et al.

Governor Bev Perdue

Office of the Governor

20301 Mail Service Center

Raleigh, NC 27699-0301

Notification of administrative violations

JUDICIAL NOTICE OF PROTEST:

OBSTRUCTION OF

ADMINISTRATIVE JUSTICE


2/7

NOW, COMES, the Petitioner, Rodney-Dale; Class, with this JUDICIAL

NOTICE OF PROTEST: OBSTRUCTION OF ADMINISTRATIVE JUSTICE.

1. The Petitioner, Rodney-Dale; Class, and the Attorney General's Counsel,

WILLIAM P. HART, JR, came before Judge Manning on April 21, 2011 on a Motion to

Dismiss.

2. Judge Manning ruled in open Court that the Defendants come under the

Executive Branch of government, and are Not "private contractors" or "private entities."

3. Judge Manning then asked the Petitioner if he was to be granted a

Declaratory Judgment what would it be.

4. The Petitioner replied: 1. Fix the problem, 2. Address the driver's license

issue, as there are only two types: CDL or a CMV, and, 3. Make the State give the

political subdivisions their 40% of the federal funding as defined in 23 CFR 1250 under

the Federal HIGHWAY SAFETY ACT.

5. Judge Manning then turned and informed Mr. Hart, exasperatedly, that he

(Judge Manning) now had to "read" the complaint filed before him by the Petitioner

before he could make his ruling.

6. Further, the May 9, 2011 court hearing was still set to address this issue.

However, that Court hearing was later canceled by order of Judge Manning.

7. The Petitioner was lead to believe, "in good faith," that a fair ruling upon the

facts and conclusions in law that were placed into the case would be rendered as a "fair"

and a "timely" ruling.

8. The Petitioner contacted the Clerk of Courts at a later date to see what the

time frame was for a ruling by Judge Manning. The Petitioner was told by the Clerk of


3/7

Courts it would be in 90 days (LOCAL COURT RULES 3.9) of the April 21, 2011

hearing. Judge Manning, however, has now "prejudiced the rights" of the Petitioner for a

prompt and fair resolution; for failing to observe the LOCAL COURT RULE 3.9; for failure

to uphold the written laws as laid before him, and the supreme Court ruling on the Right to

Travel; and for failing to see that the Federal Regulation of the HIGHWAY SAFETY ACT,

of 40% of the Federal funds being passed onto the local political subdivisions, was being

upheld.

9. July 21, 2011 came and went and still no decision. The Petitioner was then

requested, by letter from Judge Manning, on or about July 25, 2011, to, further, file an

Affidavit into the case after the 90 day procedure rule went unfulfilled. The Petitioner did as

requested. It was time stamped on or about the 3rd of Aug 2011.

10. The Petitioner called the Court on Aug 16, 2011 at approximately 9:30am EDT

to inquire about the Petitioner's filing and the decision of Judge Manning as it was well over

the 90 day time limit. On Aug 16, 2011 at 1:07pm EDT the following Order was filed into

the case by Judge Manning "ORDER RE: RECUSAL AND RESCHEDULING OF

HEARING ON RESPONDENTS' MOTION TO DISMISS PETITIONER'S JUDICIAL

REVIEW BEFORE ANOTHER SUPERIOR COURT JUDGE."

10. The Petitioner is inclined to believe, because of the non-timely action by Judge

Manning, that a fair hearing before this court has now been placed in jeopardy, as it appears

that No judge will rule against the State in favor of the Petitioner on this issue as it has been

presented: the issues of the Right to Travel, and the Federal Funding Fraud affecting the

political subdivisions in violation of the Federal HIGHWAY SAFETY ACT .

11. The Petitioner's conclusion, in this instant matter, results from Judge

Manning's hollow, excuse laden, and accusatory written order of August 16, 2011 which lists


4/7

his many specious reasons for the Order. However, if the Petitioner used the excuses that

Judge Manning did, the Petitioner would, most likely, have been overruled by the Court. Yes,

it is unfortunate that Judge Manning, and NOT "the court" as HE termed it, suffered a hip

injury, however if the Petitioner had failed to follow the local rules of court, or asked the

Court for more time, would the Petitioner have been given a "pass" for exceeding the time

limit ? Probably, Not ! It is unfortunate that Judge Manning was seemingly overwhelmed

with work and other circumstances, but he failed to ask for more time or inform the Petitioner

of the need for more time. Judge Manning's failures to act seem to fall under "obstruction of

administrative justice," and, possibly, the aiding and abetting of the Defendant's continuing

abuses of public offices and violation of the Federal contract re: the HIGHWAY SAFETY

ACT.

12 . The Petitioner is attempting to exhaust his administrative remedy in addressing

these administrative violations and injuries caused by the Defendants, as the Defendants are

defined in the N.C.G.S. as "public officers." The law of administrative procedure has

developed to ensure that agencies do not abuse their authority even though they use

simplified procedures instead of Civil Procedure. The Federal Administrative Procedure

Act (1946) allows courts to overrule an agency action that is found to be "arbitrary,

capricious, an Abuse of Discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with written law ."

13. Judicial review of an agency's action furnishes an important set of controls

on administrative behavior. Judicial review regularly operates to provide relief for the

individual person who is harmed by a particular agency decision.Because administrativehearings do not use juries, an Administrative Law Judge makes both factual

determinations and legal decisions based upon the evidence presented and the written


5/7

law, and not administrative "policies" of that administrative agency governing the

dispute.

14. The Defendants failed to rebut the charges in the action, CASE #11 CV

001559, in the April 21, 2011 hearing before Judge Manning on their dismissal claim as

Judge Manning overruled it on that date. Judge Manning also ruled that the Defendants

do come under the Executive Branch of government.

15. The Defendant's 12(b)(6) argument is an invalid response as these are public

offices as defined in the N.C.G.S. Further, the Defendants, as mentioned above, are in

Default for failure to comply with CIVIL RULES OF PROCEDURE and LOCAL

COURT RULES as they did Not address the Petitioner's complaint from the beginning

with a proper and procedural response.

16. The Petitioner NOW PRAYS for a Summary Judgment on the written laws

as defined in the Federal laws and the provisions of the contract agreement made with the

State of North Carolina and the STATE OF NORTH CAROLINBA under the Federal

HIGHWAY SAFETY ACT, and as placed before the Court. The foundation for the

Petitioner's desired Summary Judgment resulted from the local case in Gaston county,

where Judge May, and the Defendant's Attorney, laid claim that the defendants / clients

were "private entities" or "private contractors" not working for the state of North Carolina

in their Constitutional, public, official capacity, but working under the private,

CORPORATE fiction of the STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA as evidenced by its listing

on Dunn & Bradstreet (D&B).

Petitioner reserves the right to amend this filing without leave of the Court.


6/7

Expressly Reserving All Inherent Rights and Liberties,

_____________________________

RodneyDale; Class

Private Attorney GeneralC/o P.O. Box 435

High Shoals, North Carolina [28077]


7/7

PROOF OF SERVICE

NOW, COMES, The Petitioner, Rodney-Dale; Class, with this JUDICIAL NOTICE OF

PROTEST: OBSTRUCTION OF ADMINISTRATIVE JUSTICE, and filed with the

Clerk of Courts in the SUPERIOR COURT OF WAKE COUTY 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:

STATE OF NORTH CAROLINAATTORNEY GENERAL'S OFFICE

WILLIAM P. HART, JR

N.C. DOJP.O. BOX 629

RALEIGH, NORTH CAROLINA 27602

8.19.11 Obstruction of Admin Justice NC Traffic Case

Documents

Transcript of 8.19.11 Obstruction of Admin Justice NC Traffic Case