case law for right to travel.docx

7/30/2019 Case law for right to travel.docx

1/5

MECKLENBURG COUNTY-DISTRICT 26COUNTY DISTRICT COURT832 E. 4TH STREETCHARLOTTE, NC 28202STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA

FICTITIOUS PLAINTIFFCase # 2013010015 CRVsJohn Quincy LittlePro SeDefendantMotion To Dismiss Under GS 15A-954Now comes John Quincy Little, Defendant with motion to dismiss under:15A-954 (a)The court on motion of the defendant must dismiss the chargesstated in a

criminal pleading if it determines that:(1) The statute alleged to have been violated is unconstitutional on its faceor as appliedto the defendant.(4) The defendant's constitutional rights have been flagrantly violated andthere is suchirreparable prejudice to the defendant's preparation of his case that there isno remedybut to dismiss the prosecution.(8) The court has no jurisdiction of the offense charged.

The State has failed to properly identify the defendant under 15A-924(a) A criminal pleading must contain:(1) The name or other identification of the defendant but the name of thedefendant neednot be repeated in each count unless required for clarity.1

Under Chapter 8C Article 2 Rule 201. The Court shall take Judicial Notice oftheFollowing:The Constitution of The United States of America and The Bill Of RightsThe Constitution of North Carolina

Title 23 Code of Federal Regulations 1250.2Purpose. The purpose of this part is to provideguidelines to determine whether a State is in compliance with therequirementthat at least 40 percent of all Federal funds apportioned under 23U.S.C. 402 will be expended by political subdivisions of such State.Attorney's General Manual


2/5

210. Choice of LawFederal statutory law, enacted pursuant to constitutional authority, isclearly controllingover state statutory and decisional law. U.S. Const. Art. VI, cl. 2. Frequently,the federal

law applicable in government litigation is decisional rather than statutory.See, e.g.,Clearfield Trust Co. v. United States, supra; United States v. Little LakeMisere LandCo., 412 U.S. 580, 590-94 (1973); United States v. View Crest GardenApartments, Inc.,268 F.2d 380 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 361 U.S. 884 (1959). Thus, the rights ofparties togovernment contracts and negotiable instruments are to be determined byfederal rather

than state law. See Clearfield Trust Co. v. United States, supra; UnitedStates v.Allegheny County, 322 U.S. 174 (1944); United States v. First National Bankof Atlanta,Ga., supra; cf. Free v. Bland, 369 U.S. 663 (1962). The rationale for this ruleis found inthe necessity for uniform construction and application of such contractsand instrumentsthroughout the United States. See Clearfield Trust Co. v. United States,supra; T.H.

Rogers Lumber Co. v. Apel, 468 F.2d 14 (10th Cir. 1972).The relationship between federal and state law was significantly affected bythe SupremeCourt's decision in United States v. Kimbell Foods, Inc., supra. SeeCommercialLitigation Branch Monograph "Choice of Laws Decisions in Federal CourtsafterKimbell Foods" (November 1983).2

18 USC 31 - Definitions(6) Motor vehicle.The term motor vehiclemeans every

description of carriage or other contrivance propelled or drawn bymechanical powerand used for commercial purposes on the highways in the transportation ofpassengers,passengers and property, or property or cargo.Chicago Coach Co. v. City of Chicago, 337 Ill. 200, 169 N.E. 22


3/5

"No State government entity has the power to allow or deny passage on thehighways,byways, nor waterways... transporting his vehicles and personal propertyfor eitherrecreation or business, but by being subject only to local regulation i.e.,

safety, caution,traffic lights, speed limits, etc. Travel is not a privilege requiring licensing,vehicleregistration, or forced insurances."Boyd vs. United States, 116 US 616 "It is the duty of the courts to bewatchful for theConstitutional rights of the citizen and against any stealthy encroachmentsthereon."On Tuesday March 5 John Little was stopped on South Tryon street byCharlotte

Police Officer R.PUPO and Given a NORTH CAROLINA UNIFORM CITATIONfor unlawfully and willfully operate a (motor) vehicle on a (street ofhighway) Whiledisplaying an expired registration plate on the vehicle knowing the same tobe expired.G.S. 20-111(2).unlawfully and willfully operate a (motor) vehicle on a (street of highway)Whiledisplaying an expired Inspection on the vehicle knowing the same to beexpired.

G.S. 20-1183.8The Statutes Specifically States: 20-111. Violation of registration provisions.

It shall be unlawful for any person to commit any of the following acts:(2) To display or cause or permit to be displayed or to have in possessionany registrationcard, certificate of title or registration number plate knowing the same to befictitious orto have been canceled, revoked, suspended or altered, or to willfullydisplay an expiredlicense or registration plate on a vehicle knowing the same to be expired.

Mr Pupo added to the statute in violation of the separation of powers.3

Mr Pupo failed to identify which infraction underG.S. 20-1183.8 wasviolated.

The State and Mr Pupo improperly identified the Defendant as John Quincy Litte. Iam JohnQuincy Little. Which violated 15A-924(a)(1)


4/5

IN Mr Pupo's Citation, Which he signed, he states that the defendant wasoperating amotor vehicle.I John Little informed him that I was not operating a motor vehicle. That Iwas

traveling. He forcefully stated that I was driving a motor vehicle. Mr Pupohas noauthority to define motor vehicle since it already been defined in:18 USC 31 - Definitions(6) Motor vehicle.The term motor vehiclemeans everydescription of carriage or other contrivance propelled or drawn bymechanical powerand used for commercial purposes on the highways in the transportation ofpassengers,passengers and property, or property or cargo.

Mr Pupo offers no proof that the defendant was operating in a commercialcapacity.18 USC 31 - Definitions(6) Motor vehicle trumps state statutes in thefact that TheSTATE OF NORTH CAROLINA and Mr Pupo's Employer, The City OfCharlottereceives federal funds under the highway safety act at Title 23 Code ofFederalRegulations 1250.2 and 23U.S.C. 402 . Therefore Federal statues laws anddefinitions

are controlling, See Choice of Law above from attorney's general manual.Mr Pupo being a Law Enforcement Officer, Should know State andFederal Lawsand statutes. With 18 USC 31 - Definitions(6) Motor vehicle Controlling,this court hasno Subject matter or personal jurisdiction over the defendant.Mr Pupo had no probable cause to stop the defendant and give a citationfor operatingin a commercial capacity when the defendant clearly wasn't.With the STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA and The CITY OF CHARLOTTE, MrPupo's Employer, receiving Federal funds it is a conflict of interest.Where as the above being said and true this court has no choice but todismiss this casewith prejudice .John Quincy LittlePro SeDefendant4


5/5

Proof Of ServiceI Declare that I John Quincy Little delivered this Motion to Dismiss to theprosecutor onApril 23 by Hand DeliveryJohn Q. Little

Pro SeDefandant

case law for right to travel.docx

Documents