MECKLENBURG COUNTY-DISTRICT 26 COUNTY DISTRICT COURT 832 E.

4TH STREET CHARLOTTE, NC 28202 STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA FICTITIOUS PLAINTIFF Case # 2013010015 CR Vs John Quincy Little Pro Se Defendant Motion To Dismiss Under GS 15A-954 Now comes John Quincy Little, Defendant with motion to dismiss under: 15A-954 (a)The court on motion of the defendant must dismiss the charges stated in a criminal pleading if it determines that: (1) The statute alleged to have been violated is unconstitutional on its face or as applied to the defendant. (4) The defendant's constitutional rights have been flagrantly violated and there is such irreparable prejudice to the defendant's preparation of his case that there is no remedy but 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 the defendant need not be repeated in each count unless required for clarity.
1

Under Chapter 8C Article 2 Rule 201. The Court shall take Judicial Notice of the Following: The Constitution of The United States of America and The Bill Of Rights The Constitution of North Carolina Title 23 Code of Federal Regulations 1250.2 Purpose. The purpose of this part is to provide guidelines to determine whether a State is in compliance with the requirement that at least 40 percent of all Federal funds apportioned under 23 U.S.C. 402 will be expended by political subdivisions of such State. Attorney's General Manual

210. Choice of Law Federal statutory law, enacted pursuant to constitutional authority, is clearly controlling over 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 Lake Misere Land Co., 412 U.S. 580, 590-94 (1973); United States v. View Crest Garden Apartments, Inc., 268 F.2d 380 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 361 U.S. 884 (1959). Thus, the rights of parties to government contracts and negotiable instruments are to be determined by federal rather than state law. See Clearfield Trust Co. v. United States, supra; United States v. Allegheny County, 322 U.S. 174 (1944); United States v. First National Bank of Atlanta, Ga., supra; cf. Free v. Bland, 369 U.S. 663 (1962). The rationale for this rule is found in the necessity for uniform construction and application of such contracts and instruments throughout 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 by the Supreme Court's decision in United States v. Kimbell Foods, Inc., supra. See Commercial Litigation Branch Monograph "Choice of Laws Decisions in Federal Courts after Kimbell Foods" (November 1983).
2

18 USC 31 - Definitions(6) Motor vehicle. The term motor vehicle means every description of carriage or other contrivance propelled or drawn by mechanical power and used for commercial purposes on the highways in the transportation of passengers, passengers and property, or property or cargo. Chicago Coach Co. v. City of Chicago, 337 Ill. 200, 169 N.E. 22

"No State government entity has the power to allow or deny passage on the highways, byways, nor waterways... transporting his vehicles and personal property for either recreation 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, vehicle registration, or forced insurances." Boyd vs. United States, 116 US 616 "It is the duty of the courts to be watchful for the Constitutional rights of the citizen and against any stealthy encroachments thereon." On Tuesday March 5 John Little was stopped on South Tryon street by Charlotte Police Officer R.PUPO and Given a NORTH CAROLINA UNIFORM CITATION for unlawfully and willfully operate a (motor) vehicle on a (street of highway) While displaying an expired registration plate on the vehicle knowing the same to be expired. G.S. 20-111(2). unlawfully and willfully operate a (motor) vehicle on a (street of highway) While displaying an expired Inspection on the vehicle knowing the same to be expired.
G.S. 20-1183.8 The 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 possession any registration card, certificate of title or registration number plate knowing the same to be fictitious or to have been canceled, revoked, suspended or altered, or to willfully display an expired license 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 under G.S. 20-1183.8 was

violated. The State and Mr Pupo improperly identified the Defendant as John Quincy Litte. I

am John Quincy Little. Which violated 15A-924(a)(1)

IN Mr Pupo's Citation, Which he signed, he states that the defendant was operating a motor vehicle. I John Little informed him that I was not operating a motor vehicle. That I was traveling. He forcefully stated that I was driving a motor vehicle. Mr Pupo has no authority to define motor vehicle since it already been defined in: 18 USC 31 - Definitions(6) Motor vehicle. The term motor vehicle means every description of carriage or other contrivance propelled or drawn by mechanical power and used for commercial purposes on the highways in the transportation of passengers, passengers and property, or property or cargo. Mr Pupo offers no proof that the defendant was operating in a commercial capacity. 18 USC 31 - Definitions(6) Motor vehicle trumps state statutes in the fact that The STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA and Mr Pupo's Employer, The City Of Charlotte receives federal funds under the highway safety act at Title 23 Code of Federal Regulations 1250.2 and 23U.S.C. 402 . Therefore Federal statues laws and definitions are controlling, See Choice of Law above from attorney's general manual. Mr Pupo being a Law Enforcement Officer, Should know State and Federal Laws and statutes. With 18 USC 31 - Definitions(6) Motor vehicle Controlling, this court has no Subject matter or personal jurisdiction over the defendant. Mr Pupo had no probable cause to stop the defendant and give a citation for operating in a commercial capacity when the defendant clearly wasn't. With the STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA and The CITY OF CHARLOTTE, Mr Pupo'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 to dismiss this case with prejudice . John Quincy Little Pro Se Defendant
4

Proof Of Service I Declare that I John Quincy Little delivered this Motion to Dismiss to the prosecutor on April 23 by Hand Delivery John Q. Little Pro Se Defandant