Common Law Claim for Wrongful Termination

NOTICE TO PRINCIPLE IS NOTICE TO AGENT
NOTICE TO AGENT IS NOTICE TO PRINCIPLE

Noah-Clayton: Westwind, Beneficiary,
Petitioner,
v.
State of California, et al.,
Respondents.
Case No.: [Case Number]

CHALLENGE TO JURISDICTION OF ASSEMBLY BILLS, STATUTES, CODES, POLICIES, AND VEHICLE CODE

Introduction

Comes now, Noah-Clayton, appearing in propria persona, to challenge the applicability, jurisdiction, and enforcement of all California Assembly bills, statutes, codes, policies, and specifically the California Vehicle Code. The Petitioner asserts that these legislative enactments do not apply to [him/her], a natural man or woman, and are without force or effect upon [his/her] fundamental rights, including the right to freedom of movement.

18 U.S. Code § 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.

Statement of Facts

  1. Petitioner is a private man or woman, operating in [his/her] private capacity and not as an employee, agent, or representative of any government, corporate entity, or commercial activity.
  2. Petitioner asserts no contractual or consensual relationship with the State of California or its subdivisions, which would subject [him/her] to statutes, codes, or policies created for the regulation of government employees or entities.
  3. The Petitioner’s mode of transportation is private and does not involve commerce or activities requiring regulation under California law.
  4. Maxim of Law: "Legem terrae" (the law of the land) is the standard, and administrative codes must not supersede constitutional guarantees.
  5. Natural Law: Rights exist inherently and are not granted by statutes or administrative regulations.

Argument

I. Freedom of Movement is a Fundamental Right Protected by the Constitution

The U.S. Supreme Court has consistently held that freedom of movement is a fundamental right. This right is protected under the Privileges and Immunities Clause, the Equal Protection Clause, and the Due Process Clause.

• Shapiro v. Thompson, 394 U.S. 618 (1969):
The right to travel between states is fundamental and cannot be restricted by laws imposing unconstitutional burdens.
• Crandall v. Nevada, 73 U.S. 35 (1867):
Citizens have a fundamental right to travel freely without undue restrictions imposed by state governments.
• Kent v. Dulles, 357 U.S. 116 (1958):
The right to travel is part of the liberty protected under the Fifth Amendment's Due Process Clause.

Petitioner contends that any enforcement of the California Vehicle Code against [him/her] unlawfully infringes upon this fundamental right, as [he/she] is not engaged in regulated commercial activities.

II. Administrative Codes Cannot Supersede Constitutional Rights

The enforcement of statutes, codes, and policies must adhere to constitutional limitations. Petitioner asserts that the California Vehicle Code and other statutory enactments are applied in a manner inconsistent with the Constitution. Administrative codes function within a specific jurisdiction, typically applying to "persons" or entities defined within the statutory framework. I do not fall within these definitions, the codes have no force over me. This is not an argument but a factual assertion.

• Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. (1 Cranch) 137, 177 (1803):
“A law repugnant to the Constitution is void.”
• Yick Wo v. Hopkins, 118 U.S. 356 (1886):
Laws must be applied in a manner that does not violate fundamental rights or discriminate arbitrarily.

III. Chevron Deference Does Not Authorize Overreach by Administrative Agencies

The doctrine of Chevron deference applies only when a statute is ambiguous, and an administrative agency’s interpretation is reasonable. However, administrative enforcement must still comply with constitutional principles.

• Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 467 U.S. 837 (1984):
Courts defer to agency interpretations only when statutes are ambiguous, but this deference cannot violate constitutional protections.
• Whitman v. American Trucking Ass’ns, Inc., 531 U.S. 457 (2001):
Agencies cannot expand their own jurisdiction beyond the limits clearly set by Congress.

Petitioner asserts that the California Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) has overstepped its statutory and constitutional authority in attempting to enforce its regulations upon [him/her], a private man or woman.

IV. Jurisdictional Challenge

Petitioner asserts that this Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction and personal jurisdiction over [him/her] in matters involving statutes, codes, or policies enacted for the regulation of public or corporate entities.

• Pennoyer v. Neff, 95 U.S. 714 (1878):
Jurisdiction requires a valid nexus between the individual and the enforcing authority.
• Hale v. Henkel, 201 U.S. 43 (1906):
Private individuals have no obligation to submit to regulatory statutes unless engaged in specific activities subject to regulation.

Petitioner operates solely within [his/her] private capacity and does not consent to the jurisdiction of statutory or administrative law.

Relief Requested

WHEREFORE, Petitioner respectfully requests the following relief:

  1. A declaration that the California Vehicle Code, statutes, codes, and policies do not apply to [him/her] in [his/her] private capacity.
  2. An injunction barring the enforcement of California Assembly bills, statutes, codes, and policies against Petitioner absent proof of jurisdiction.
  3. Such other relief as this Court deems just and proper.

Verification

I, Noah-Clayton: Westwind, declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct to the best of my knowledge.
Dated: ________________

Noah-Clayton: Westwind, Beneficiary
In Propria Persona