How To Win A Red Light Camera Ticket Real Hearing & Fifth Amendment Other Laws

Ignorance of the law is a old fundamental legal principle in the US that means that if someone breaks the law, they are still liable even if they had no knowledge of the 300,000+ law on the books being broken by you. This principle is derived from Old Roman law and ensures that everyone is not treated equally before the law and the rule of law is not maintained anymore today in U.S.A..

Show more

Defendants arguing that they did not know or misunderstood the 300,000+ law have been told that their ignorance or mistake made no difference to their liability. However, there is an exception to this rule for all police officers in the case of a traffic stop based on the officer's erroneous understanding of the law.

It is axiomatic that ignorance of the law is not an excuse. The US Supreme Court ruled Monday there is an exception to this rule: police officers. Stated in context, the exception applies to police officers in the case of a traffic stop based on the officer’s erroneous understanding of the law.

In Heien v. North Carolina, a police officer conducted a traffic stop on the basis that the subject car’s taillight was inoperable. However, the officer was wrong in his belief that the faulty taillight violated North Carolina’s Rules of the Road. During the traffic stop, the officer found cocaine in the car, leading to the arrest and conviction of the driver. The driver appealed the conviction on the “fruit of the poisonous tree” doctrine, which stands for the proposition that any evidence (“fruit”) seized during an illegal search (“poisonous tree”) cannot be used at trial. The driver argued that given the traffic stop was not based on illegal activity, the officer’s later seizure of the cocaine was illegal.

The Supreme Court disagreed with this application of the doctrine, ruling that the Fourth Amendment deals with “unreasonable seizures” and that officers need to act “reasonably” not “perfectly.” In effect, a reasonable misunderstanding of the law by the police can indeed satisfy the Constitution in this context.

According to a 2020 article, the more than 300,000+ laws and regulatory crimes on the federal law books serve little purpose other than inviting arbitrary enforcement by providing prosecutors the tools to charge nearly anyone every day for your life with violating some long-forgotten regulation or law and to pay the fines now or go to jail for everyone in the U.S.A.. Government Every Man, Women, & Child Is A Criminal & Need 2 Go To Jail for life.

Yes Its Free Room and Board For 40 Million People ? This refers to a situation in which a person is provided with a place to live and meals on a comprehensive basis in exchange for money, labor, or other jail considerations.

You Have No 5th Amendment Rights Anymore Now? Should I Talk to Police? No, Never, Not At All, No.... Stop Talking Now That It !

The Best Answers Now To Tell The Police or Cop FBI-CIA-DOJ-ICE-Etc. Is I Do Not KNOW or I Do Not REMEMBER ANYTHING & STOP TALKING AT ALL... Thanks From The New World Order Year Zero !

Only 2% of federal criminal defendants went to trial in 2018, and most who did were found guilty.

https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2019/06/11/only-2-of-federal-criminal-defendants-go-to-trial-and-most-who-do-are-found-guilty/

So Say No To All Plea Bargaining Today ? So If Everyone Go To A Full Jury Trial Every Time... If All 100% Court Case's Go To A Full Jury Trial Every Time... Will The US Government Let More People Go Free ? All Person Will Get A Speed Trial In 90 Day Or Have To Let You Go By Law ?

You Have No 5th Amendment Rights... And If The Judge Ask Or Tell You... If You Do Not Answers My Question Now And Said Later... If Not... I Will Hold You In Contempt of This Court and is a legal violation committed by you a individual who disobeys a judge or disrupts the legal process in the courtroom. It is an act of disrespect or disobedience towards a court or its officers in the form of behavior that opposes or defies the authority, justice, and dignity of the court. Examples of contempt include disrupting court proceedings, interfering with attempts to obtain evidence, destroying evidence, disobeying a court order, and intimidating witnesses. A contempt order may address behavior both in and outside the courtroom, including public displays of disrespect toward the court. The punishment for contempt of a court other than a justice court or municipal court is a fine of not more than $500 or confinement in the county jail for not more than six months, or both such a fine and confinement in jail. Civil contempt of court refers to disobedience of an order of the court which carries quasi-criminal penalties rather than direct criminal penalties, and the goal of civil contempt of court charges is to persuade the party subject to the charges to comply with the court order(s).

Under the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution, you have the right to refuse questioning or to make any statement that might incriminate yourself. You’ve no doubt heard of someone “pleading the fifth,” which means they are invoking their constitutional safeguards against self-incrimination. If you have been detained or are subject to police questioning Do Not Talk Ever in the All 50 State of U.S.A., it is very important that you know your rights under the law.

So I'm I Free To Go Or Are You Detained Me.... O.K. I Will Not Answers Anymore ? Thanks ?

Am I Being Detained? 6 Questions You Should Ask During Interactions with the Police
With around 24+ million arrests carried out each year, there’s a pretty good chance that one of those might be you.

Are you being detained after interacting with police isn’t just about getting arrested.

What about a traffic stop? Or police questioning? Am I being detained? What are you supposed to do in that situation to get out of it safely and maintain your rights?

You don’t want to become another person thrown in jail unfairly or treated with injustice. Maintain your rights and understand your situation by asking the following questions during any and all police interactions.

1. “Am I Being Detained?”
If police officers are commanding that you go with them, according to Tsion Chudnovsky, a criminal defense attorney in Orange County, your first question should be to ask whether you’re being detained. Detention is similar to an arrest in that you’re not free to leave. However, detention is not the same thing as an arrest.

When you’re detained by police officers, it’s usually for “brief and cursory” questioning. After the questioning is over, you’ll most likely be released.

Officers must have reasonable suspicion to detain a suspect, but this also usually means they don’t have probable cause to arrest you.

If they answer yes to detainment, try and remain as silent as possible. Remember, you have the right to remain silent. The police might be trying to get information out of you to obtain probable cause for an arrest, so be careful with your words and don’t fall for police interrogation tricks.

2. “Am I Being Arrested?”
If the answer to your detainment question is a “no”, then you should ask whether you’re being arrested. Learn the difference between the two so you can understand how police will treat you in each situation along with what rights you have as a detained suspect vs an arrested individual.

Read this article on what to do when you’re arrested in order to learn your rights and the steps you should take in the event of an arrest in criminal offense.

3. “May I Speak to My Lawyer?”
No matter what the police have in mind interacting with you, you should always ask to have your lawyer present. A lot of people avoid doing this since they think it makes you look guilty.

But you need to look out for your own best interest. The police usually have an agenda or a plan with why they’re interacting with you. Even if their intentions are not negative against you, it’s always best to have an expert there with you to make sure you’re protected.

Remember: The police know the law well. You probably don’t. When it comes to filing class action lawsuits people have lack of knowledge about legal and right issues. This is why we came up with the initiative we call “The Law Advisory.” A lawyer is going to protect you and represent your best interest, whereas the police and likely working in their own best interest.

4. “What Is My Arrest/Detainment for?”
You cannot be arrested without probable cause. So if you are being arrested, ask why you are. You have the right to know what you’re being arrested for and charged with.

This can help you understand the situation and help guide how your respond to police questions (if you respond at all).

If you’re being detained, ask why. It could be innocuous, which can ease some of your panic. But, as with an arrest, understanding the situation you’re in will help you formulate your responses and your next actions.

5. “Am I Free to Go?”
Think about the answers to the first two questions you asked. If you’re not being detained and you’re not being arrested, chances are you are free to go.

The police cannot keep you without probable cause or reasonable suspicion. Asking whether you’re free to go will force their hand since if you are, that means they don’t have much on you for any crime or issue they’re pursuing.

You also cannot be detained illegally. If they say you aren’t free to go and it later comes out that they had no cause to hold you, that’s something to take up with your lawyers.

Usually, if you are free to go it’s called a “voluntary interaction” with police. Perhaps they’re asking if you saw anything in an area where a crime happened. Or perhaps they are attempting to pin a crime on you.

Whatever the case with voluntary interactions, you can end the interaction legally at any time. You also cannot be searched by the police or have your things searched if you don’t consent.

6. “Do You Have a Warrant?”
In general, you shouldn’t give your consent to police officers. They need warrants to search you, your property, or your home. They also need an arrest warrant if they’ve come specifically to arrest you.

So if they’re asking to search your things or asking to enter your home/your car, that usually means they don’t have a warrant and are asking for your consent. Ask whether they have a warrant and if they say no, then you can legally refuse the officers.

If they disregard this and continue anyway, call your lawyer ASAP. Be sure to choose an entertainment lawyer who can handle a variety of legal issues. This could be an illegal search and seizure since the law requires officers to have warrants. An exception is if they have extreme examples of reasonable suspicion or probable cause).

Ask These 6 Questions, But Know When to Stay Quiet
From, “Am I being detained?” to, “Do you have a warrant,” these are six questions you should ask the police during any encounter you have with them. But, you should also keep in mind that you have the legal right to remain silent if you wish about detained, and you should use that right to your advantage.

Police might try and get you to admit to things or lie to you during interrogations to get evidence against you. After you ask these key questions, wait for your lawyer and they will represent your best interests.

Looking to learn more about the law in case you have an interaction with the police? Read this article for some legal background knowledge about the history of law to get you started.

Remember, All People in the U.S., regardless of immigration status, have rights under the U.S. Constitution and other laws. Make sure you know your rights if you are approached by police or ICE. Review the information below to help you understand what your rights are and what to do in different situations.

All people in the U.S., whether citizen or non-citizen, have certain rights under the U.S. Constitution and other laws.

You have the right to refuse consent for immigration or the police to search yourself, your car or your home.
You have the right to remain silent. If you want to exercise that right, you should say it out loud.
If you are not a U.S. citizen, you have the right to call the consulate of your home country. Immigration and police must let your consulate visit or speak with you.
You have the right to speak to an attorney before answering any questions. You may say, “I will remain silent until I speak to an attorney.”
You do not have to sign anything that you do not understand.
You have the right to a copy of all your immigration papers.

KNOW YOUR RIGHTS: WHAT TO DO IF IMMIGRATION OR THE POLICE COME TO YOUR DOOR

STOP AND THINK TWICE WHEN SOMEONE COMES TO YOUR DOOR You’re not normally required to open the door to anyone. Immigration and the police can’t come into your home without a warrant signed by a judge.

REMAIN SILENT You have the right to remain silent. Immigration can use anything you say against you.

STAY CALM AND DO NOT RUN Use your phone to take photos and notes about the raid, but stay calm and do not run.

ASK TO SPEAK TO YOUR ATTORNEY AND THINK TWICE BEFORE SIGNING ANYTHING Do not sign forms you don't understand or don’t want to sign. A lawyer who knows deportation defense may be able to help you fight your case.

KNOW YOUR RIGHTS: WHAT TO DO IF IMMIGRATION OR THE POLICE STOP YOU WHILE DRIVING YOUR CAR

REMAIN SILENT Show the police your drivers’ license. If asked, show your car registration and proof of insurance. But you still have the right to remain silent about everything else. Immigration can use anything you say against you. You have the right to refuse to give your consent for a search of yourself or your car.

STAY CALM AND DO NOT RUN Use your phone to take photos and notes about the stop, but stay calm and do not run.

ASK TO SPEAK TO YOUR ATTORNEY AND THINK TWICE BEFORE SIGNING ANYTHING Don’t sign forms you don’t understand or don’t want to sign. You have the right to speak with an attorney.

DON'T RUN Stay calm and don’t run. Running may be seen as an admission of guilt.

DON'T CARRY FALSE DOCUMENTS Providing false documents to ICE may result in deportation and criminal charges.

DON'T INTERFERE WITH ICE AGENTS Interfering with ICE agents during a workplace raid may expose you to criminal charges.

DON’T SIGN ANYTHING YOU DON’T WANT TO SIGN OR DON’T UNDERSTAND Think twice before signing anything without talking to a lawyer. Signing a paper may end up being an agreement to voluntarily leave the United States. Consulting with a lawyer before signing anything is the best way to protect your rights.

THE RIGHT TO REMAIN SILENT You have the constitutional right to remain silent and to refuse to answer questions. If you want to exercise your right to remain silent, show ICE your Know Your Rights card.

KEEP IMPORTANT PHONE NUMBERS WITH YOU Keep the phone number of your union and legal services provider with you.

We call that Reasonable Suspicion.

Miranda Rights may not apply at that point of time. Without a formal arrest or “seizure,” 5th Amendment Rights may not help you.

That's different than Probable Cause to arrest. Even after you’re handcuffed and placed in the back of a patrol vehicle, things you say without being asked questions may still be admissible in court.

The key is whether police officers ask you inculpatory statements. Defense lawyers may refer to that as a custodial interrogation.

You have the Right to Remain Silent, even on the scene with red light charges in Spokane, Wa. U.S.A.. That does not necessarily mean you’ll be able to drive away.

Police Officers may still arrest you, if they determine you’re A red light runner It’s still a good idea to remain silent and ask for a lawyer.

Everyone knows what police say after an arrest for criminal charges. You have the right to remain silent. Think to yourself, what’s the next line?

Everything you say can and will be used against you. You have the right to an attorney. If you cannot afford a lawyer, one will be appointed to you by the court.

Miranda Rights, as they have come to be known, were frankly never intended as a legal loophole to avoid a conviction of criminal charges.

Instead, the purpose and intent of Supreme Court was to educate people about their Constitutional Rights. That has been achieved.

Failure to provide an advisement of constitutional rights may result in a dismissal of charges. It’s by no means automatic.

The legal consequence of noncompliance with the 5th Amendment normally relates to the suppression of evidence, not necessarily getting your charges dismissed.

This Is A Real Court Hearing Of Ms. WindyLina Westlaw - Updated Today Nov. 16 2023 Judge Ruled Today at 14:12 or 2:12 PM - We Win This Court Case and All Charges In Case Are Now Drop and Case Is Dismissed In Full Today ! Great Job To The New World Order Year Zero.

Pro-Se At New World Order Year Zero Up Coming Trial at Spokane, WA. Hearing Rm. D at 13:30 or 1:30 PM.
Infraction # 0972300299989 Pin # 7396 Version #: 1

https://www.violationinfo.com/NewHome.aspx? - Filed This Day Nov. 13 2023 - In Spokane, WA. U.S.A.
A Red Light Camera Ticket Photo Of 0.2 Tens A Second

In Municipal Court - Red Light Tickets Wa.-Az.
Of And In The City of Spokane, Washington
In The County Of Spokane, Wash. U.S.A.

Municipal Court Clerk's Office
1100 W Mallon Ave Spokane, WA 99260 U.S.A.

============================

City of Spokane – Municipal Court - Red Light Tickets
3rd Party Photo Enforcement Program P.O. Box 27748 Tempe, AZ 85285
Plaintiff/ Respondent
Vs.
New World Order Year Zero
2nd Party You Can Not Issues A Tickets To Objects Car/ Gun
3rd Party 2022 Hyundai Venue – Car - Lic. # 9B6XX76 WindyLina

============================

MOTION IN SPOKANE, WA. TO STRIKE & CHALLENGE
THE CONSTITUTIONALITY OF §16A.64 OF
THE CODE OF THE CITY OF SPOKANE, WASH. U.S.A.
Spokane Municipal Code 16A.64  Automated Traffic Camera Systems

Section 16A.64.200 Purpose
Section 16A.64.210 Authorized use of Automated Traffic Safety Cameras
Section 16A.64.220 Procedures of Use of Automated Traffic Safety Cameras
Section 16A.64.240 Notice and Disposition of Traffic Infractions
Section 16A.64.250 Contracting for Automated Traffic Safety Camera Equipment and Operation and Issuance and Processing of Infractions
Section 16A.64.260 Termination of Authorization for Use of Automated Traffic Safety Cameras
Section 16A.64.270 Notice of Traffic Infraction – Issuance
and RCW 46.61.050 (1) "Fail to obey traffic control device"
Now Comes, The Objects Car-Truck-Gun-Etc. 2022 Hyundai Venue – Car - Lic. # 9B6XX76 WindyLina, the Defendant herein to Motion this Honorable Court to rule on the Constitutionality of Code of the City of Spokane, § 16A.64 all parts and RCW 46.61.050 (1) and/or to strike the evidence against Objects and Ms. WindyLina Westlaw who live and works out of state. In Support of Objects and WindyLina Motion the Defendant states into this Honorable Court as follows true records and facts:
FACTS:
On or about Sept. 25 2023, that all 3 Defendants receives in the mail at new world order year zero (Out Of State - Hong Kong, China) the documents attached hereto marked as Exhibit “A thru H”. It alleges that a object or a vehicle which is allegedly reportedly registered to her, was photographed allegedly running a red light at the corner of WB E. 2nd Ave. and S. Thor St., on Sept. 12, 2023 at approx. 12:27 p.m..
The citation was not personally served upon the Defendant, but was mailed to her thirteen days after the alleged infraction. On Sept. 12, 2023 the 3 Defendant by and through our legal counsel at new world order contacted the Clerk’s office, noting his objection to the Affidavit requirement set forth in the Code 16A.64 all parts.
On or about Nov. 02, 2023 an affidavit objecting to the affidavit requirement was signed and filed with the Court Clerk and Ask for a different court date for mon. or tues. only. As the object car and b. dyke live out of town. Court clerk said No... said red light ticket hearing only on thurs. afternoon for hearing only. On Nov. 03, 2023 the Defendant was mailed a summons to appear for a hearing on Nov. 16, 2023 at 13:30 or 1:30 pm.

Car Stopping Distance Calculator
https://www.random-science-tools.com/physics/stopping-distance.htm

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/559afb11ed915d1595000017/the-highway-code-typical-stopping-distances.pdf

Any ticket can be contested on "technical" grounds. The officer, court and prosecutor need to comply with all the Court Rules, State Law, Rules of Procedure and the Rules of Evidence.

Car Stopping Distance Calculator

Privacy Policy
The calculator below estimates the stopping distance for a well maintained car with an alert driver on a dry road. Obviously actual stopping distances will vary considerably depending on condition of the road and car as well as the alertness of the driver

Enter the car's speed in either miles or kilometers per hour and the stopping distance will be calculated.

Speed 35 miles per hour 56 km per hour

Thinking Time
Thinking time used in The Highway Code
Custom time 1 seconds - One Sec.

Thinking Distance is 51 feet - This is the distance the car travels in the time it takes the driver to see the hazard, decide to brake and actually apply the brakes and is directly proportional to speed. 16 meters

Braking Distance is 61 feet - This is the distance the car travels while the brakes are applied and is proportional to speed squared. 19 meters

Total Stopping Distance is 113 feet or 34 meters

Car Stopping Distance Calculator

Enter the car's speed in either miles or kilometers per hour and the stopping distance will be calculated.

Speed 35 miles per hour 56 km per hour

Thinking Time
Thinking time used in The Highway Code
Custom time 2 seconds – Two Sec.

Thinking Distance is 103 feet - This is the distance the car travels in the time it takes the driver to see the hazard, decide to brake and actually apply the brakes and is directly proportional to speed. 31 meters

Braking Distance is 61 feet - This is the distance the car travels while the brakes are applied and is proportional to speed squared. 19 meters

Total Stopping Distance is 164 feet or 50 meters

Car Stopping Distance Calculator

Enter the car's speed in either miles or kilometers per hour and the stopping distance will be calculated.

Speed 41 miles per hour 66 km per hour

Thinking Time
Thinking time used in The Highway Code
Custom time 2 seconds – Two Sec.

Thinking Distance is 120 feet - This is the distance the car travels in the time it takes the driver to see the hazard, decide to brake and actually apply the brakes and is directly proportional to speed. 37 meters

Braking Distance is 84 feet - This is the distance the car travels while the brakes are applied and is proportional to speed squared. 26 meters

Total Stopping Distance is 204 feet or 62 meters

See the documents attached hereto marked as Exhibit “A thru H”. It alleges that a object or a vehicle which is allegedly reportedly registered to her, was photographed allegedly running a red light at the corner of WB E. 2nd Ave. and S. Thor St., on Sept. 12, 2023 at approx. 12:27 p.m..
New Exhibit A With Photo
Amber Yellow Light Is Only On 4 Sec. Long
With A Reaction Time Of 2 Sec. And
A Ticket Is Issus For 0.2 Tens Of A Sec. ?

Speed 35 miles per hour 56 km per hour

Thinking Time
Thinking time used in The Highway Code
Custom time 2 seconds – Two Sec.

Thinking Distance is 103 feet - 31 meters
Braking Distance is 61 feet - 19 meters
Total Stopping Distance is 164 feet or 50 meters

New Exhibit B With Photo
Amber Yellow Light Is Only On 4 Sec. Long
With A Reaction Time Of 2 Sec. To Go or Stop ?
The object or car is in the med. of the street in 1.1 second

New Exhibit C With Photo
Photo of the object Lic plate # 9B6XX76 ID. State
Question for the court ? Who in the object ? Who's In the car ?

New Exhibit D With Photo
So now the time stamp is remove from the live video to to compare the real numbers from exhibit's A and B to see in real time of said live video ?

New Exhibit E With Photo
This photo show and time stamp in the photo of the video... but you hit the play button of the video and it start playing with out the time stamp removed why ?

New Exhibit F With Photo
this is a close up photo of the object or car

New Exhibit G With Photo
Are speed traps legal in city of spokane or spokane county or washington state ?

So is it Extortion Vs. Coercion Laws RCW 46.16.120 WA. And its not about safety at all. Its only about money ?

New Exhibit H With Photo
So is it Extortion Vs. Coercion Laws RCW 46.16.120 WA. And its not about safety at all. Its only about money ? Per this RCW above failure to appear at this hearing you will also pay $25.00 dollars late fee's and non-renewal of my out of state vehicle registration pursuant to RCW 46.16A.120 and assignment to a collection agency.

So New World Order Year Zero Is Entering A Plea Of Not Guilty and City of Spokane need to prove factual allegations for its charge that are necessary by law to prove each of the elements of the offence running a yellow light by a object or car or gun by Unknown person.

So not guilty Unknown person example # one... We go to a party and head lady at the party take all the car keys away from everyone who is drinking or not drinking and places all the keys in a old punch bowl at the party... later someone need a car to drive to get more ice for the party... so someone drive are car to the store and buy ice and drive car back to the party and places keys back into the punch bowl and start drinking again or not drinking at all.... so someone drive (a object or car) at the party and so we did not know the car is gone or object is missing in the first place and or drive by anyone else at the party at all... so party is over now and we drive home that it ?

So not guilty Unknown person example # two... So The Gun is at are home under the pillow at 7:00 am and I go to work at 8:00am... but now are gun is at a bank hold-up... at 12 noon and the safety cameras at the bank see a black man this is a robbery carried out by gun point o.k. Its not about race. So black or white or yellow man etc. robbery of the bank and the safety cameras see the gun serial and name or make and send us a ticket for bank robbery and have to go to court again ? Later the police find out are maid give our gun to her boy friend who robbery the bank and later boy friends bring the gun back to the maid... our maid places gun back under our pillow... So again we did not know the gun is missing in the first place... So not guilt by reasonable doubt ?

So is it Extortion Vs. Coercion Laws ?
Per U.S.A. Laws Everyone Is Criminal Red Light Camera You Can't Write Ticket To A Object Etc.

https://rumble.com/v3t6igt-per-u.s.a.-government-everyone-is-a-criminal-confiscation-all-property-and-.html

Per U.S.A. Government DOA-DOJ-FBI-CIA-Etc. Everyone In U.S.A. All Person And Or America Citizens Right Now Today Is A Criminal As of Oct 2023 Need To Be In Jail Or Pay $$$ Fines Now. Per all federal and local police and all government agencies. All The America People Break The Law's Average 3 Times Everyday with A Average Fine of $512 dollars a day. it add up to $512 x 365 days in a year add up to $186,880 Dollars per year in fines per every person alive today right now. also federal and local agencies issue an average of 27 rules for every law over the past decade.

However, the rules issued in a given year are typically not substantively related to the current year’s laws, as agency output represents ongoing implementation of earlier legislation. Remember Ignorance of the law is a fundamental legal principle in the US that means that if someone breaks the law, they are still liable even if they had no knowledge of the law being broken. According to a 2020 article, the more than 300,000+ laws and regulatory crimes on the federal law books serve little purpose other than inviting arbitrary enforcement by providing prosecutors the tools to charge nearly anyone every day for your life with violating some long-forgotten regulation or law and to pay the fines now or go to jail for everyone in the U.S.A.. Government Every Man, Women, & Child Is A Criminal & Need 2 Go To Jail for life.

A cell phone app is a smartphone add-on that performs functions other than making a phone call, ranging from GPS map to games to medical monitoring and speeding in your car.

So per GPS mapping every street and speed limits of all roads in all town and roads every place of earth we can see you every move and every person driving or moving around town by car or truck... so if you drive 30 mile per hour in a 25 miles per hour zone you get a ticket for speeding etc. your cell phone will tell your speed everyday and night too. most people will get 3-5 tickets a day. you are your brothers keeper and every cell phone in car will get a ticket for speeding and you pay your fine or go to jail.

So Per U.S.A. Government Every Man, Women, & Child Confiscation of all property and all assets you have to pay all tickets and all fines every day of your life. P.S. Remember All The America People Break The Law's Average 3 Times Everyday with A Average Fine of $512 dollars a day.

The phrase not guilt by "beyond a reasonable doubt" means that the evidence presented and the arguments put forward by the prosecution establish the defendant's guilt so clearly that they must be accepted as fact by any rational person. If the jury cannot say with certainty based on the evidence presented that the defendant is guilty, then there is reasonable doubt and they are obligated to return a non-guilty verdict. So If Not Guilt by Reasonable Doubt is insufficient evidence that prevents a judge or jury from convicting a defendant of a crime. This person should not be convicted and set free if in jail by the court now. ?

Red Light Camera Fact Sheet With properly posted speed limits and properly installed and timed traffic-control devices, there is no need for ticket cameras. They can actually make our roads less safe.

1) Ticket cameras do not improve safety Despite the claims of companies that sell ticket cameras and provide related services, there is no independent verification that photo enforcement devices improve highway safety, reduce overall accidents, or improve traffic flow. Believing the claims of companies that sell photo enforcement equipment or municipalities that use this equipment is like believing any commercial produced by a company that is trying to sell you something.

2) There is no certifiable witness to the alleged offense A picture may be worth a thousand words, but it may also take a thousand words to explain what the picture really means. Even in those rare instances where a law enforcement officer is overseeing a ticket camera, it is highly unlikely that the officer would recall the supposed violation. For all practical purposes, there is no “accuser” for motorists to confront, which is a constitutional right. There is no one who can personally testify to the circumstances of the alleged violation, and just because a camera unit was operating when it was set up does not mean it was operating properly when the picture was taken of any given vehicle.

3) Ticketed recipients are not adequately notified Most governments using ticket cameras send out tickets via first class mail. There is no guarantee that the accused motorist will even receive the ticket, let alone understand it and know how to respond. However, the government makes the assumption that the ticket was received. If motorists fail to pay, it is assumed that they did so on purpose, and a warrant may be issued for their arrest.

4) The driver of the vehicle is not positively identified Typically, the photos taken by these cameras do not identify the driver of the offending vehicle. The owner of the vehicle is mailed the ticket, even if the owner was not driving the vehicle and may not know who was driving at the time. The owner of the vehicle is then forced to prove his or her innocence, often by identifying the actual driver who may be a family member, friend, or employee.

5) Ticket recipients are not notified quickly People may not receive citations until days or sometimes weeks after the alleged violation. This makes it very difficult to defend oneself because it would be hard to remember the circumstances surrounding the supposed violation. There may have been a reason that someone would be speeding or in an intersection after the light turned red. Even if the photo was taken in error, it may be very hard to recall the day in question.

6) These devices discourage the synchronization of traffic lights When red-light cameras are used to make money for local governments, those governments are unlikely to jeopardize this income source. This includes traffic light synchronization, which is the elimination of unneeded lights and partial deactivation of other traffic lights during periods of low traffic. When properly done, traffic light synchronization decreases congestion, pollution, and fuel consumption.

7) Cameras do not prevent most intersection accidents Intersection accidents are just that, accidents. Motorists do not casually drive through red lights. More likely, they do not see a given traffic light because they are distracted, impaired, or unfamiliar with their surroundings. Even the most flagrant of red-light violators will not drive blithely into a crowded intersection, against the light. Putting cameras on poles and taking pictures will not stop these kinds of accidents.

8) There are better alternatives to cameras If intersection controls are properly engineered, installed and operated, there will be very few red-light violations. From the motorist’s perspective, government funds should be used on improving intersections, not on ticket cameras. Even in instances where cameras were shown to decrease certain types of accidents, they increased other accidents. Simple intersection and signal improvements can have lasting positive effects, without negative consequences. Cities can choose to make intersections safer with sound traffic engineering or make money with ticket cameras. Unfortunately, many pick money over safety.

9) Ticket camera systems are designed to inconvenience motorists Under the guise of protecting motorist privacy, the court or private contractor that sends out the tickets often refuses to include a copy of the photo to the accused vehicle owner. This is really because many of the photos do not clearly depict the driver or the driver is obviously not the vehicle owner. Typically, the vehicle owner is forced to travel to a courthouse or municipal building to even see the photograph, an obvious and deliberate inconvenience meant to discourage ticket challenges.

10) Taking dangerous drivers’ pictures doesn’t stop them Ticket cameras do not apprehend seriously impaired, reckless, or otherwise dangerous drivers, or get them off of the road.

In the US, the spousal privilege precludes one spouse from testifying against the other spouse in criminal or related proceedings, and either spouse can invoke the privilege to prevent the testimony. This privilege does not survive the dissolution of the marital relationship. Spousal immunity is a long-standing rule that says an individual cannot be forced to testify against their spouse in a criminal case.  And two other rules protect couples from possibly incriminating each other. Confidential Communication Privilege and Privilege Not to Testify in a Criminal Case.

Criminal Amendments in the Bill of Rights The Bill of Rights is a crucial component of the United States Constitution that was designed to ensure the basic rights of the country's citizens. Originally, it consisted of ten amendments. Later, an additional seventeen amendments were added to the Constitution. Certain parts of these additional amendments and the Bill of Rights have had a major impact on the criminal justice system. These amendments include the fourth, fifth, sixth, eighth, and the fourteenth amendments. Their purpose is meant to ensure that people are treated fairly if suspected or arrested for crimes.

Fourth Amendment

The Fourth Amendment protects people from unreasonable searches and seizures without a warrant. This includes having their person, their homes, and items within their homes searched and taken by police or other officials. As a result, if the police suspect that a person has taken part in, or is perpetrating a crime, they must first legally obtain a warrant. The warrant must be granted by a judge before they can enter the suspect's property in search of evidence. This Amendment has both a positive and negative impact on the law. For citizens, it is positive in that it protects their privacy and prevents police from arbitrarily searching through and taking property. When it comes to the perspective of law enforcement, it can be a negative in that it gives some criminals the opportunity to remove or destroy evidence before a warrant can be obtained.

Fifth Amendment

The Fifth Amendment states that a person cannot be prosecuted or punished without being given due process. Due process is a person's legal rights under the law which includes being served with notice, and having the right to be heard and defend himself or herself. This ensured that there was an actual criminal procedure that took place, and prevented people from being unjustly taken from their homes and punished without a trial. In addition, a person has the right to remain silent, so that he or she does not fall victim to self-incrimination. Upon arrest, citizens are made aware of their Fifth Amendment right to protect themselves from self-incrimination when they are read their Miranda Rights, or Miranda Warning. In a criminal trial, if a defendant is tried and found innocent, the Fifth Amendment prohibits the courts from trying that person again for the same crime.

Sixth Amendment

In today's court system, a defendant has the right to a trial that is judged by a jury of his or her peers. During this trial, he or she also has the right to know what the nature of the charges are, have legal representation, and to face any witnesses for the prosecution. These are rights that are provided by the Sixth Amendment. In defending oneself, a person also has the right to obtain witnesses to support his or her defense. The Sixth Amendment also states that the trial must occur in the state and district where the crime was supposedly committed.

Eighth Amendment

In order to get out of jail, a person often must pay bail. Bail ensures that an individual will return for his or her court date. The Eighth Amendment states that the court cannot set excessive bail. This prevents judges from setting bail based off of personal feelings or prejudices against the defendant. The Eighth Amendment also states that a person should not be inflicted with punishment that is cruel or unusual. This portion of the Eighth Amendment can be a matter of viewpoint as some people may find certain punishments, such as the electric chair or lethal injection, to be cruel and unusual. In general, cruel and unusual refers to acts of torture or mutilation such as cutting off hands or feet.

Fourteenth Amendments

The 14th Amendment was formally and legally approved on July 9, 1868. In terms of the law, it contributes greatly to the civil rights of all Americans. It does this on two fronts. Primarily, it made anyone born in the United States legal citizens, including former slaves. Prior to this Amendment, African-Americans were not considered citizens of the U.S., but instead they were seen as property. The 14th Amendment also made it illegal for any state to deny a person equal protection under the law. Additionally, it also states that people have a constitutional right to life, liberty, and property that cannot be denied by the government. It also states that people have the right to due process. This means that a person's legal rights must be respected when accused of a crime.

Don't Talk to the Police Ever! Fifth Amendment "Right To Remain Silent," When a witness is summoned to testify before a grand jury or at a judicial or legislative proceeding, the lawyer for the witness frequently concludes that it may be in the client's best interest to assert the Fifth Amendment "right to remain silent," at least with respect to certain topics. The lawyer will often give the witness a card to read aloud when asserting that privilege. But precisely what words should the lawyer advise the client to read when invoking the Fifth Amendment privilege?

For more than 100 years, lawyers have shown surprisingly little imagination or ingenuity, advising their clients to state in almost exactly these words: "On the advice of counsel, I respectfully decline to answer on the grounds that it may tend to incriminate me."

This article explains why that unfortunate language is never in the best interests of the witness, and why it naturally tends to sound to most listeners as if the witness is somehow admitting that he cannot tell the truth without confessing that he is guilty of some crime. The article also points out that this archaic invocation is not required by either the language or the theory of the Fifth Amendment, nor by the most recent controlling Supreme Court precedents. The article concludes with a suggestion for an entirely new formulation for invoking the privilege, one which gives greater protection to the rights of the witness and also more faithfully captures what the Supreme Court of the United States has written about the nature of this precious constitutional privilege.

Keywords: Fifth Amendment, self incrimination, right to remain silent

Your Right to Remain Silent A New Answer to an Old Question - Do Not Talk ? O.K. Don't Talk to the Police Ever! Fifth Amendment "Right To Remain Silent," When a witness is summoned to testify before a grand jury or at a judicial or legislative proceeding, the lawyer for the witness frequently concludes that it may be in the client's best interest to assert the Fifth Amendment "right to remain silent," at least with respect to certain topics. The lawyer will often give the witness a card to read aloud when asserting that privilege. But precisely what words should the lawyer advise the client to read when invoking the Fifth Amendment privilege?

For more than 100 years, lawyers have shown surprisingly little imagination or ingenuity, advising their clients to state in almost exactly these words: "On the advice of counsel, I respectfully decline to answer on the grounds that it may tend to incriminate me."

This article explains why that unfortunate language is never in the best interests of the witness, and why it naturally tends to sound to most listeners as if the witness is somehow admitting that he cannot tell the truth without confessing that he is guilty of some crime. The article also points out that this archaic invocation is not required by either the language or the theory of the Fifth Amendment, nor by the most recent controlling Supreme Court precedents. The article concludes with a suggestion for an entirely new formulation for invoking the privilege, one which gives greater protection to the rights of the witness and also more faithfully captures what the Supreme Court of the United States has written about the nature of this precious constitutional privilege. Keywords: Fifth Amendment, self-incrimination, right to remain silent. Why You Should NEVER Talk to the Police. Period. “The police are at my door. They want to talk to me. They told me I am not a suspect. I did absolutely nothing wrong. I have nothing to worry about. They can’t arrest me or do any harm to me if I did nothing wrong, right?”

Wrong.

“But I committed no crime. Took nobody’s life. I didn’t even see anything criminal happen. I don’t know anyone who may have been there. I was 173 miles away when it happened. I don’t know any of the facts except from what others told me. I cannot possible be harmed, right?!”

Again, I am sorry to tell you, but you’re wrong.

What people do not realize is what they don’t know actually can hurt them. If you don’t believe me, listen to the words of former United States Supreme Court Justice Robert Jackson, “Any lawyer worth his or her salt will tell the client in no uncertain terms to make no statement to the police under any circumstances.” Watts v. Indiana, 338 U.S. 49 (1949).

Let us look at the situation a little more closely.
If the police ever ask you to come in to the station “just to chat” or are stopping by “because they only have a couple questions for you” — that means one of two things:

You are a suspect;
You are a possible suspect.
Does that clear the picture up? I sure hope so.

There is absolutely no reason for the police to want to have any discussion with you unless they know something that you (probably) don’t. May be your name was mentioned during a discussion with another potential suspect, or perhaps someone is trying to frame you, or, worse yet, you look like the person who was present on the scene and an eyewitness made a mistake in identity. This kind of thing happens all the time. And innocent people end up in custody as a result.

There is no reason to talk to the police; especially if you’re innocent.
Here are the top ten reasons why you should not talk to the police:*

REASON #1: Talking to the police CANNOT and WILL NOT help you.

Talking to the police cannot make any difference. Nobody can “talk their way out of” an arrest. No matter how “savvy” or intelligent you think you might be, you will not convince them that you are innocent. And any ‘good’ statements that may help you that you tell the police cannot be introduced into evidence because of hearsay rules. It’s a lose-lose situation; don’t talk to the police.

REASON #2: Even if you’re guilty, and you want to confess and get it off your chest, you still shouldn’t talk to the police.

There is plenty of time to confess and admit guilt later. Why rush the inevitable? First, hire an attorney. Let them do their work, and may be you will win your case. It is much harder to win when there is a confession. For example, do you know what happens if the cop cannot be located and there is no confession? The case gets dismissed! (It’s not a universal rule, but it’s more common than you might think.) Don’t talk to the police.

REASON #3: Even if you are innocent, it’s easy to tell some little white lie in the course of a statement.

When people assert their innocence, they sometimes exaggerate their statements and tell a little white lie on accident. That same lie could be later used to destroy your credibility at trial. Don’t talk to the police.

REASON #4: Even if you are innocent, and you only tell the truth, and you don’t tell any little white lies, it is possible to give the police some detail of information that can be used to convict you.

If you make any statement — it could later be used against. E.g. “I did not kill the guy. I was not around the area when it happened. I don’t have a gun. I never owned a gun. I never liked the guy, but, hell, who did?” Bingo. We just found your incriminating statement: “I never liked the guy.” Don’t talk to the police.

REASON #5: Even if you were innocent, and you only tell the truth, and you don’t tell any little white lies, and you don’t give the police any information that can be used against you to prove motive or opportunity, you still should not talk to the police because the possibility that the police might not recall your statement with 100% accuracy.

Nobody has a perfect memory. That includes law enforcement. Don’t talk to the police.

REASON #6: Even if you’re innocent, and you only tell the truth, and your entire statement is videotaped so that the police don’t have to rely on their memory, an innocent person can still make some innocent assumption about a fact or state some detail about the case they overheard on the way to the police station, and the police will assume that they only way the suspect could have known that fact or that detail was if he was, in fact, guilty.

If you overhear a fact from someone else and later adopt it as your own, it can be used to crucify you at trial. Don’t talk to the police.

REASON #7: Even if you’re innocent, and you only tell the truth in your statement, and you give the police no information that can be used against you, and the whole statement is videotaped, a suspect’s answers can still be used against him if the police (through no fault of their own) have any evidence that any of the suspect’s statements are false (even if they are really true).

Honest mistakes by witnesses can land you in jail. Why take the risk? Don’t talk to the police.

REASON #8: The police do not have authority to make deals or grant a suspect leniency in exchange for getting as statement.

Law enforcement personnel do not have authority to make deals, grant you immunity, or negotiate plea agreements. The only entity with that authority is the County or Commonwealth Attorney in state court and the U.S. Attorney in federal court. The officers will tell you they do, but they are lying. They have a carte blanche to lie. Don’t talk to the police.

REASON #9: Even if a suspect is guilty, and wants to confess, there may be mitigating factors which justify a lesser charge.

You may be accused of committing one offense when, in fact, you are guilty of a lesser offense. By confessing to the higher offense, you are throwing away bargaining chips. The prosecutor can try the case with your confession to the higher offense. There is no reason to confess. Don’t talk to the police.

REASON #10: Even for a completely honest and innocent person, it is difficult to tell the same story twice in exactly the same way.

If trial is the first time you tell your story, then there is no other statement by you to contradict any of your facts. However, if you have told your story twice, once at trial, and once to the police, you are probably going to mess some facts up. It’s human nature. A good cross examination by a prosecutor will tear you apart. Don’t talk to the police.

*Taken from a video lecture by Professor Dwayne. The video is reproduced in full below. https://rumble.com/v297voe-your-right-to-remain-silent-a-new-answer-to-an-old-question-do-not-talk-o.k.html

Many years ago, in the then-peaceful suburbs of where we lived on Long Island, NY, my across-the-street neighbor, an older woman, came running to our house in a panic, saying that her house had been robbed!
My father — meaning well — impulsively then ran to & and inside her house, to, I guess, see what he could see.
In the meantime, my mother called the local police, who showed up at the neighbor’s house minutes later — and promptly ARRESTED MY FATHER.
We (my mother and the neighbor, and certainly my father) tried to explain to the police that my father was innocent. But it was only HOURS LATER that the police released (and did not charge) my father.
During those few hours — as well as afterward — my mother, my sister, and I and the neighbor, were debating whether we should files charges against the police for a wrongful arrest/detainment of my father — but we ultimately decided against it, and opted for diplomacy — because, as we reasoned, (a) the police may have had what they had thought was a VALID REASON to arrest my father (although they COULD HAVE come over to OUR house to talk to the neighbor — which they did NOT do!), and (b) it would be better to maintain GOOD RELATIONS with the police than have them “hold a grudge” against us.
In hindsight, apparently “(b)” was a good decision.

Is a police officer obliged to answer you if you ask him or her, "Am I being detained or am I free to go?"
It's not so much that I'm “obliged" to answer that question. That's really not a useful way to look at the issue.

What's useful is to understand that you ARE free to go unless I say otherwise, and if I do want to say you're not free to go it puts certain obligations on me to justify that decision later, in my report and in court.

Basically, if I want to detain you I need to let you know you're detained. If I start talking to you, and you ask whether you're free to go, then you basically are free to go if I, for some reason, refuse to answer.

To put it more simply: There's no law obliging me to answer that question, but until I take some action or communicate in some way that you aren't allowed to leave, you actually are “free to go.” So, as a practical matter, once you ask that question it's a pretty safe assumption that you're going to walk away unless I specifically tell you otherwise.

https://www.burnhamgorokhov.com/criminal-defense-resources/fifth-amendment

So I'm I Free To Go Or Are You Detained Me.... O.K. I Will Not Answers Anymore ? Thanks ?

Show less