BHSPI legal interpretation request on non compliant changes to MUTCD

29/04/10 19:08 Filed in: Distracted drivingMUTCD, due process, illegal practices
April 28, 2010

Paul Pisano, Acting Director
Federal Highway Administration
Office of Transportation Operations (HOTO)
400 Seventh Street, SW
Washington, D.C. 20590

MUTCDofficialrequest@dot.gov

RE: Legal Interpretation, Section 2B.13 Speed Limit Sign (R2-1) et al per 5 USC 706 the inclusions of Statutory and Posted Speed as foundation for traffic control or police powers authorities as promulgated in MUTCD, UVC or referenced by Section 1A.11 et al, Under the Color of Federal Law, in each instance, absent fully conforming factual foundations, are Unconstitutional, Arbitrary and Capricious, Unsafe, Violates the Equal Protection Clause, Substantive and Procedural Due Process et al.

Amicus Curiae Attached – Hayduk v. South Carolina, arguments/cites

We would like an interpretation regarding the current use of Statutory, invented Posted Limits as the foundation for traffic control and police powers etc., Under the Color of Federal Law and other related purported authorities or oversight standards removal identified here, in context of this federally regulated field. PDF version

The Best Highway Safety Practices Institute is a 501(C)3 non-profit public advocacy organization, that among other things, works for fact based uniform federal safety standards and fair laws. The Institute focuses on a holistic approach to education, research, best practices and their application, and assuring public policy is founded in best practices to achieve roadway safety and that the exercise of police powers thereof is Constitutional as in this instance.
We have raised the issue of the unconstitutionality of the inclusion of the term Statutory as promulgated with HOTO as far back as 2000; reference in the attached brief.
Our concern has centered on the removal of uniform factual foundations for traffic control and the exercise of police powers under the color of federal law in a Constitutional field. In our opinion USDOT nonfeasance and misfeasance has resulted in substantial non-compliance with the Law of the Land and Rule of Law on our 4 million plus miles of roadways and that traverse 80,000 plus regulatory authorities.
When these FHWA acts are interpreted at face value, the obfuscation of their mandated by Congress oversight, being combined with their devolving standards up to the 2009 MUTCD, best engineering practices and due process have been displaced by an ever increasing state of anarchy in expectation, due process and manifest unsafe practices.
Conservative estimates show there are at least 50 million citations written a year now under the color of federal law that are being issued absent due process or a factual legal or engineering foundation, manifested by disparate and non complying applications, expectations and the exercise of police powers from sign to sign.
No matter how many times or forums this issue has been raised, even when we on prior occasions we have asked for legal interpretations and likewise raised these issue in federal register rule making comments. The FHWA has declined to intercede in every instance, including telling their field personnel not to act (correspondence available upon request).

Under the Color of Federal Law: All federal regulations, laws and the exercise of police powers in this field are subordinate and shall be uniform and conform. Each act in its promulgation and the exercise of police powers thereof shall:

        Within the U.S., its Territories and Protectorates all traffic control and the exercise of police power thereof within a right of way open to public travel are within a federally regulated field and the regulation thereof shall be subordinate, fact based, uniform and in substantial conformance within the bounds of federal law and the Constitution; because Congress or federal regulatory agencies cannot recede superior authority back to the States if said purported authority impinges on an unalienable or federal due process right or Constitutional authority et al; Substantive and Procedural due process, Equal Protection, Supremacy, Commerce, Confrontation Clause(s), habeas corpus, 4th, 5th, 6th, 9th, 14th Amendments.
        Absent fact based standards or uniformity safety is compromised and due process is denied.
        Immediate remedy desired, revisions removing all invented foundations for traffic control in the MUTCD or by reference;

              The US Constitution, Congress’ intent, the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) and the scope of the Law of the Land are not merely guidelines or suggestions, they represent the Rule of Law of the United States in this field where every act, practice etc shall be promulgated in substantial conformance to its minimum standards.
              The “Law of the Land” and “Rule of Law” regarding traffic control, interstate travel and commerce on our nation’s roadways must be taken in its entirety, and a Federal Agency or State et al under 5 USC 706 (under the color of federal law) cannot unilaterally select which governing laws it wishes to comply with, or reject, or under which enforcement conditions or roadways due process applies, or not, or permit within their domain a device, regulation or statute to become an instrument that facilitates the denial of due process or results in manifest unsafe practices.

              Respectfully,

              Chad Dornsife, Executive Director
              Best Highway Safety Practices Institute
              cdornsife@bhspi.org
              775.721.2423 mobile