BHSPI legal interpretation request on non compliant changes to MUTCD
Paul Pisano, Acting Director
Federal Highway Administration
Office of Transportation Operations (HOTO)
400 Seventh Street, SW
Washington, D.C. 20590
MUTCDofficialrequest@dot.com
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
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 “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