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 Vs

CASE #11 CV 001559 JUDICIAL REVIEW JUDGE Judge Howard E. Manning Jr

STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA ATTORNEY GENERAL'S OFFICE WILLIAM P. HART, JR N.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

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

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

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 administrative hearings do not use juries, an Administrative Law Judge makes both factual determinations and legal decisions based upon the evidence presented and the written

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.

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 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 General C/o P.O. Box 435 High Shoals, North Carolina [28077] Cc: STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA ATTORNEY GENERAL'S OFFICE WILLIAM P. HART, JR N.C. DOJ P.O. BOX 629 RALEIGH, NORTH CAROLINA 27602