02272011 objection and clarification

8/7/2019 02272011 Objection and Clarification

1/29

1


2/29

SUPERIOR COURT OF WAKE COUNTY 316 Fayetteville St, Raleigh, NC 27602

RodneyDale; Class Private Attorney General P.O. Box 435 HIGH SHOALS, NC [28077]

Petitioner CASE #11 CV 00 1559

Vs JUDICIAL REVIEW JUDGE

N. LORRIN FREEMAN

SECRETARY, LYNDA TIPPETT ATTN: LEGAL AFFAIRS 1505 MAIL SERVICE

CENTER RALEIGH, NC 27699-1501

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

OBJECTION TO DISMISSAL AND CLARIFICATION OF LANGUAGE; VIOLATION

OF ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURES; 60 STAT 237, TITLE 5 USC, SECTION 702;

AND N.C.G.S. 150B-36 &150B-51


3/29


4/29


5/29

2

USC Title 28, Judiciary and Judicial Procedures, Section 1652 requires the Courts and the

Agents to follow Acts of Congress and all Statutes; regulations and Statues at Large are

Acts of Congress.

NOW, COMES, The Petitioner, Rodney-Dale; Class (herinafter Petitioner) withthis OBJECTION TO DISMISSAL AND CLARIFICATION OF LANGUAGE;

VIOLATION OF ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURES; 60 STAT 237; TITLE 5 USC

SECTION 702 AND N.C.G.S.150B-36 &150B-51. The party aggrieved by the agency's

decision shall be entitled to immediate judicial review of the decision under Article 4 of

this Chapter.

The Petitioner will remind the attorneys and the Defendants and also the court

that the plaintiff in this case sets the jurisdiction under administrative hearing. 28 USC

Section 1652 and the United States Attorneys Manual under Choice of Law, 210, allows

this petitioner to set the jurisdiction to which the court is to operate,

The attorneys for the Defendants are mixing apples and oranges as they are NOT

addressing the violations committed by the Defendants on this Petitioner. The attorneys

want to argue that a department is not a department an agency is not agency this like

claiming apples are not apples and oranges are not oranges . Before this Court can make

any ruling on this, or any other, argument for this Petitioner or the defendants and their

attorneys, a clarification of language must also be addressed to insure that the words used

are clearly defined and agreed to by BOTH parties. This Court cannot equitably make any

rulings on behalf of this Petitioner, or the attorneys, without the agreement of specific

word definitions.

Therefore the Petitioner is putting a prayer before the Court to have the attorneys

and the defendants clarify their language as these are public officers and they come under


6/29


7/29


8/29

the acts of Congress as the Petitioner is the Plaintiff in this case. The Petitioner will be

using Title 28 USC, Judiciary and Judicial Procedures manual, and Title 5 USC as well as

North Carolinas General Statutes under 150 B, and the United States Attorney's Manual,

that specifically defines department and agency. This then will set the procedures and

jurisdiction, and set the terminology for all parties to understand and use, as these are the

terms that are used in both the court rooms and out on the street as common language.

The defendants and their attorneys will be required to hear to these guidelines as these are

their statutory codes that they use on the citizens of this State when the citizens are

brought into a courtroom. To change the language would show discrimination, unfairness,

injustice, chauvinism and a violation of Civil Rights and would result in bias and

prejudice.

N.C.G.S. 150B-2. Definitions. As used in this Chapter,

(1a) "Agency" means an agency or an officer in the executive branch of

the government of this State and includes the Council of State, the

Governor's Office, a board, a commission, a department, a division, a

council, and any other unit of government in the executive branch.

USAM Chapter 8-2.000

8-2.241 Civil Laws Governing Law Enforcement Misconduct

The Department, acting principally through the Civil Rights Division, is authorized underseveral civil statutes to examine allegations of misconduct by law enforcement officers. These

statutes include:

Section 210401 of the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994 (Police

Misconduct Provision), 42 U.S.C. 14141, which authorizes the Department to file suit

challenging a pattern or practice of misconduct by law enforcement officers (or employees of

any governmental agency

3


9/29


10/29


11/29

4

with responsibility for the administration of juvenile justice or the incarceration of juveniles) that

deprives persons of constitutional or federal statutory rights;

Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. 2000d et seq., which prohibits

recipients of federal financial assistance (including law enforcement agencies) fromdiscriminating on the basis of race, color, or national origin, and is enforced through

administrative proceedings and litigation; and

Section 809(c) of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968, 42 U.S.C.

3789d(c), which prohibits recipients of funds granted by the Department (including law

enforcement agencies) from discriminating on the basis of race, color, national origin, sex, or

religion, and is enforced through administrative proceedings and litigation.

TITLE 28 > PART I > CHAPTER 21 > 451

451. Definitions

The term department means one of the executive departments enumerated in section

1 of Title 5, unless the context shows that such term was intended to describe the executive,

legislative, or judicial branches of the government.

The term agency includes any department, independent establishment, commission,

administration, authority, board or bureau of the United States or any corporation in which the

United States has a proprietary interest, unless the context shows that such term was intended to

be used in a more limited sense.

TITLE 5 > PART I > CHAPTER 1 > 101 101. Executive departments

The Executive departments are: The Department of State. The Department of the Treasury.The Department of Defense. The Department of Justice. The Department of the Interior. The

Department of Agriculture. The Department of Commerce. The Department of Labor.


12/29


13/29


14/29

5

The Department of Housing and Urban Development. The Department of Transportation. The

Department of Energy. The Department of Education. The Department of Veterans Affairs. The

Department of Homeland Security.

TITLE 5 > PART I > CHAPTER 1 > 105

105. Executive agency

For the purpose of this title, Executive agency means an Executive department,

a Government corporation, and an independent establishment.

1. N.C.G.S. 150B, definitions under Agencies, lists departments and divisions, and both

attorneys have misled the administrative court and this court because all three Defendants

have the word "department" or "agency" in the title of their public office. That issue is,

and was, before the administrative court, and is now before this Court of judicial review,

and is NOT whether the Defendants can be charged, but the fact that these Defendants

operated within an agency or a department and have violated this Petitioner's Right to

travel by misusing the Federal statutes, Federal regulations, Supreme Court rulings and

the North Carolina General Statutes. That is the issue that was avoided by the attorneys

when they represented the Defendants in the administrative hearing, and now in this

hearing. The Right to travel has never been addressed by the administrative court which

is a requirement for that court to interpret the law and any rulings on that law. Judge

Randall J. May erred when he failed to address the original complaint before him - on the

Right to travel.

2. The purpose of this judicial review is to address the errors in the rulings of the

administrative law judge, Judge Randall J. May, when he failed to address the statutes or


15/29


16/29


17/29

regulations and the Supreme Court rulings placed before him on the Right to travel. The

Defendants and their attorneys deliberately misled the court on the issue that the

Defendants could not be sued, and NOT the issue that they violated Federal and state

Statutes and Supreme Court rulings on the Right to travel. TITLE 5 and the N.C.G.S.

show that the courts are to address the injuries of this Petitioner and this was not done.

The Defendants' attorneys knowingly and willfully diverted the attention of the violations

created by the Defendants to the issue of whether they can be sued or not, NOT the fact

that they broke the law. This lawbreaking by the Defendants the dereliction of there duty

breach of their fiduciary duties is the issue that was placed before the administrative

court, and now being placed before this court to address the error of Judge Randall J.

May was that he failed to address the issue of the right to travel but merely claimed the

Defendants are private entities.

3. The purpose and the creation of the administrative courts, when created in 1946, was

because of the abundance of new administrative offices and departments and agencies

coming into existence. The administrative court was created by the Bar Association in

order to allow the private citizen a means of addressing misuse of statutory law and code

against the people.

4. The Defendants and their attorneys are trying to use this court as a means to divert and

misconstrue and cover up for their wrongful acts of misusing their statutory law. Thedefendants and their attorneys are now trying to come in and say that the law doesnt

mean what they say and that words dont have the meaning as when they use it against

6


18/29


19/29


20/29

the people when the people are the defendants in the courtroom.

5. The defendants and their attorneys are proving what the people have suspected all

these years, that there is no law and they are trying to divert this court and divert the issue

that this petitioner has placed into this court on his Right to travel. The fact that the

Defendants and their attorneys are not willing to address this issue validates the claim of

this petitioner and justifies the reason for this court to hear this case on the Right to travel

issue.

7. This petitioner prays for this court to do the right thing and to address the issues of the

Right to travel and not allow the Defendants and their attorneys to turn this into a three

Ring circus by diverting and violating the Administrative Procedures Act 1946 for which

the purpose of it IS to address these types of issues.

CONCLUSION

This Petitioner is going to make the issue that the Defendants are and have

received wages, and that all their paperwork, their computers and all their infrastructure

and machines, etc., have been paid for by taxpayers money, and that, while addressing

this, the Petitioner does not have the same luxury of misusing taxpayers money and

receiving a wage for doing it.

The petitioner filed and paid for this case out of his own pocket and not the funds

of the state as the Defendants have done. The Petitioner is entitled to have this case heard7


21/29


22/29


23/29

as it has already been bought and paid for. The state is not the injured party; the state is

the party that is doing the injuring. It is not up to it the Atty. Gen.s office or the city law

director of Dallas to decide whether they should be tried or not. The petitioner is the

injured party that has been wronged by the defendants. The Atty. Gen.s office and the

courts will never just allow the people to walk in the courts and say I dont feel like being

tried today I want my case dismissed because you cant try me as the defendants have in

the last two courts.

The Petitioner does have 66 pages of evidence on the Congressional hearing on

the Administrative Procedures Act, and that is why the Petitioner is familiar and

understands the Administrative Procedures Act and how the court is required to operate.

The Defendants are proving the 11

th

Amendment - that there is no judicial power

in "law" or "equity" or "controversy" and this is why theyre asking the court for 12 B.

But under USC Title 42, Section 2000 D-7, and under USC Title 15, Section 1122 ,Title

28 USC section 12202 the states waves and lose their 11th Amendment immunity when

they violate Civil Rights and Federal funding. See Howllet vs Rose 496 U.S. 356 (1990),

Clearfield Trust Co. v. United States No. 490, and the United States Atty.s Manual,

Section 210, Choice of law which gives the Petitioner the choice of law and courts on the

subject to use and to be brought in.

U.S.A.M.4-10.010 Judgment Against the GovernmentGenerally

To prevent difficulties in payment and unnecessary appeals due to the

irregularity of form or the inclusion of items of recovery which are

improper, the United States Attorney should arrange to prepare the form

of judgment to be entered whenever possible, or, if this is not possible, be

sure to review the form of the proposed judgment before its entry. See

Civil Resource Manual at 212 as to the allowance of interest. The limited

8


24/29


25/29


26/29

9

circumstances in which court costs may be included in judgments is

discussed in the Civil Resource Manual at 221. See Civil Resource

Manual at 220 as to attorneys' fees for plaintiff's counsel.

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

Expressly Reserving All Inherent Rights and Liberties,

_____________________________

RodneyDale; Class Private Attorney General C/o P.O. Box 435 High Shoals, North Carolina

[28077]

PROOF OF SERVICE

NOW, COMES, The Petitioner Rodney-Dale; Class with OBJECTION TO DISMISSAL

AND CLARIFICATION OF LANGUAGE; VIOLATION OF ADMINISTRATIVEPROCEDURES; 60 STAT 237; TITLE 5 USC, SECTION 702 AND N.C.G.S.150B-36

&150B-51, and files this amended document 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

_____________________________


27/29


28/29


29/29

10

Rodney-Dale; Class Private Attorney General C/o P.O. Box 435 High Shoals, North Carolina

[28077]

CC: SECRETARY LYNDA TIPPETT ATTN; LEGAL AFFAIRS 1505 MAIL SERVICE

CENTER RALEIGH, NC 27699-1501North Carolina Motor Vehicle License Plate Agency 1471 E Franklin Blvd. Gastonia, NC 28054

PENNIE M. THROWER TOWN ATTORNEY TOWN OF DALLAS, N.C. 201 W.SECOND

AVENUE, SUITE F PO BOX 279, GASTONIA, N.C. 28053-0279

Administrative Defendants

Governor Bev Perdue Office of the Governor 20301 Mail Service Center Raleigh, NC 27699-

0301

Notification of administrative violations

02272011 objection and clarification

Documents