About Us
Our team had 3823 traffic court cases dismissed by simply following the instructions we are providing you in this eBook. You, too, can have the knowledge to fight back & Win. You’ll learn what documents to ask for in such defenses as “Discovery”, "Material Omission" and “Engineering” defense and what to look for in a “Defect On The Ticket” defense and much more. We’ll explain the laws that allow such things as trial by camera and the “cash cow” profits of the red light and speed camera tickets.
Take a stand against unjust traffic tickets.
It's your money. You worked hard for it.
Take a stand against unjust traffic tickets.
It's your money. You worked hard for it.
|
|
MY RESUME SPEAKS FOR ITSELF
Class action lawsuit charging civil rights violations by the
Automated Traffic Enforcement System (ATES)
April 2003
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
Civil Division
AMENDED COMPLAINT CHARGING CIVIL RIGHTS VIOLATIONS
ass Action Against Municipal Government
This action charges the District of Columbia with violating fifth amendment due process as established in the U.S. Constitution. The action arises
from the unconstitutional use of the Automated Traffic Enforcement System (“ATES”) as a purported means of enforcing District of Columbia traffic
regulations and statutes. By means of this lawsuit under 42 U.S.C., section 1983, the named plaintiffs assert their civil rights as well as the fifth
amendment rights of others prosecuted by ATES since July 31, 1999.
Jurisdiction
1. According to the mandate established in the D.C. Coda, section 11-921(a)(S), this court has jurisdiction to hear this matter.
2. The incidents described in this complaint took place in the District of Columbia.
Automated Traffic Enforcement System (ATES)
April 2003
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
Civil Division
AMENDED COMPLAINT CHARGING CIVIL RIGHTS VIOLATIONS
ass Action Against Municipal Government
This action charges the District of Columbia with violating fifth amendment due process as established in the U.S. Constitution. The action arises
from the unconstitutional use of the Automated Traffic Enforcement System (“ATES”) as a purported means of enforcing District of Columbia traffic
regulations and statutes. By means of this lawsuit under 42 U.S.C., section 1983, the named plaintiffs assert their civil rights as well as the fifth
amendment rights of others prosecuted by ATES since July 31, 1999.
Jurisdiction
1. According to the mandate established in the D.C. Coda, section 11-921(a)(S), this court has jurisdiction to hear this matter.
2. The incidents described in this complaint took place in the District of Columbia.