Welcome to Scribd, the world's digital library. Read, publish, and share books and documents. See more
Standard view
Full view
of .
Look up keyword
Like this
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
8.19.11 Obstruction of Admin Justice NC Traffic Case

8.19.11 Obstruction of Admin Justice NC Traffic Case

Ratings: (0)|Views: 267|Likes:
Published by rodclassteam

More info:

Published by: rodclassteam on Aug 19, 2011
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial


Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less





316 Fayetteville St, Raleigh, NC 27602Rodney–Dale; ClassPrivate Attorney GeneralP.O. Box 435HIGH SHOALS, NC [28077]Petitioner CASE #11 CV 001559Vs JUDICIAL REVIEW JUDGEJudge Howard E. Manning Jr STATE OF NORTH CAROLINAATTORNEY GENERAL'S OFFICEWILLIAM P. HART, JR N.C. DOJP.O. BOX 629RALEIGH, NORTH CAROLINA 27602Defendant, et al.Governor Bev PerdueOffice of the Governor20301 Mail Service CenterRaleigh, NC 27699-0301 Notification of administrative violations JUDICIAL NOTICE OF PROTEST:OBSTRUCTION OFADMINISTRATIVE JUSTICE
 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 toDismiss.2. Judge Manning ruled in open Court that the Defendants come under theExecutive Branch of government, and are Not "private contractors" or "private entities."3. Judge Manning then asked the Petitioner if he was to be granted aDeclaratory Judgment what would it be.4. The Petitioner replied: 1. Fix the problem, 2. Address the driver's licenseissue, 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 thefacts 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 thetime frame was for a ruling by Judge Manning. The Petitioner was told by the Clerk of 
Courts it would be in 90 days (LOCAL COURT RULES 3.9) of the April 21, 2011hearing. 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 failureto uphold the written laws as laid before him, and the supreme Court ruling on the Right toTravel; 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 beingupheld.9. July 21, 2011 came and went and still no decision. The Petitioner was thenrequested, by letter from Judge Manning, on or about July 25, 2011, to, further, file anAffidavit into the case after the 90 day procedure rule went unfulfilled. The Petitioner did asrequested. 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 EDTto 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 intothe case by Judge Manning "ORDER RE: RECUSAL AND RESCHEDULING OFHEARING ON RESPONDENTS' MOTION TO DISMISS PETITIONER'S JUDICIALREVIEW BEFORE ANOTHER SUPERIOR COURT JUDGE."10. The Petitioner is inclined to believe, because of the non-timely action by JudgeManning, that a fair hearing before this court has now been placed in jeopardy, as it appearsthat 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 JudgeManning's hollow, excuse laden, and accusatory written order of August 16, 2011 which lists

Activity (8)

You've already reviewed this. Edit your review.
1 thousand reads
1 hundred reads
jacklamp liked this
SLAVEFATHER liked this
SLAVEFATHER liked this
SLAVEFATHER liked this
SLAVEFATHER liked this
rodclassteam liked this

You're Reading a Free Preview

/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->