this time and i did not use the highway for profit at the time of the stop i am axing for the you know to review and i want the district court to be given a couple of  so the resulting of this misconduct by the defendant is clear and it should see a court room or discovery i thought i was going to die that night so this matter needs to be resolved and a dismissal of my complaint in the form of a summary judgment is insufficient to settle this matter i do not want what happened to me to ever happen since there has been no refute of my claims the discovery stage is the most likely next step to take to go back to the decision and so the unreasonable seizure defeating rule twelve b six instantly there the court found that the court got it right and it looked and looked at the well to lead complaint it respected my view that i would like i wanted a trial and totally ignored the dictator determination from the rochester traffic violation agency just as the rochester city court did and people versus reynolds two thousand where all the k all the traffic violations alleged traffic violations were think any kind correct this is part of part of the you know you need a minute ok this is part of your eight minutes you have two minutes and are uninterrupted and you actually were given more than reply brief the monro county court ruled that the t v a had jurisdiction to adjudicate your tickets and that the county court  that the source of the t b s jurisdiction was not new york your colon traffic law section twenty five as you as you say traffic agents violations agency may be authorized to assist the rochester city court in the disposition and ministration of infractions of traffic laws ordinances population limit so the population in rochester is less than two hundred thousand probably the population requirement is three hundred million two thousand three hundred and two solve them so therefore yes they are allowed to exist but the population is too small so they they cannot adjudicate any cases so and the traffic violation which is dealing with traffic right now before any case can be heard or determined so therefore they don't have jurisdiction because of a population requirement that x failed so i think when you when you read their their decision they did not address that issue they just said that the the source of the jurisdiction was three hundred and seventy one but they did not you'll have time for ricardo as well i understand ok so i was going to go d into the problem that we're having let me just summarize the problem the problem is cops are starting users of personal use vehicles and private vehicles and they're giving them they're stopping them for motor vehicle traffic violation and the law starts with the carts they're violating the consolidated laws of new york b t l code and stopping vehicles using a broad brush and considering everything equal to be a motor vehicle which is mix up there and then they're mixing up for higher vehicles and other than for higher because so when i registered my vehicle was legally registered insured inspected and i had a driver's license at the time so what they did was they i designated my vehicle to be other than for hire vehicle off the bat not for hire biko so i said  he was violating constitutional extrapolation law and and that's where the problem is so therefore i need this court to make a clear distinction and let them follow the plaintiff was found guilty of not wearing his seatbelt and operating a vehicle without a proper license and in violation of the restrictions on the flight and as we noted in our two hundred and twenty eight j letters his convictions were earned st by the county court the traffic stop lasted longer than necessary also fails because plaintiff is not alleged any specific conduct on the part of the trooper that was unrelated to the purpose of the stop and measurably extended duration of t appeals addressed the adjudicatory structure in a case called dolce nassau county traffic and parking violations agency from two thousand and six and there the court held that an agency like the r t a acts as an arm of the local court and i why should we accept the plaintiff's allegations as true at the pleading you should accept as true but that doesn't change the fact that he was convicted of not wearing a seatbelt and that's exactly the kind of issue that would have been adjudicated in the state court proceeding and there were two other convictions st for operating a vehicle without a proper license and also for operating at the ickle and risk and violation of the restrictions on its license and just like this law in new york for years so so you're saying that would your conditional use license europe or heard from driving a commercial vehicle but you could drive your own vehicle anyplace anytime you want to do is that right no i'm saying that i'm restricted from driving cars driving the word driving means commerce so i cannot bonzai or make money i'm not if you are wrong about that do you lose  i'm not wrong if you're well know if you're wrong on the law if we go and we look at the law and we conclude you're wrong do you loose of course yes of those are you because you're following the law and what i did was i followed the law so the law when you read the the language of the motor vehicle traffic laws that i was accused of it specifically says motor vehicle it does not mention personal use vehicle so i registered my vehicle as a personal you would be called so therefore i hate to say it but any any any law which i was there was three  cases right any if they mention motor vehicle and they do not mention personal use vehicle then i am excluded so even if i did not have my head on my seatbelt but even if i did not have it he couldn't he could not it's not justified to stop me thinking that my vehicle is a motor vehicle in new york state motor vehicles are very specific there's numbers on the the vehicle there's there's there's codes there is a very distinct so therefore it's not my problem that the officer either mixed it up or deliberately blanket and stopping all vehicles as motor vehicles all right so the in my in my brief and he was looking for a crime like you said that i was i was drunk or something but there's no evidence of that and he did not have any evidence before told her that the case i want the case to be reheard but the case cannot be heard we heard because of the restrictions and to file the contract or to file and it says specifically an officer can stop here if you have a reasonable cause to believe a traffic violation has occurred i was not in traffic i don't have a motor vehicle i have a personal use vehicle that is registered as a person  therefore it's impossible for me to have a traffic violation so therefore he was violating the way or no right away thank you sir and the last point i would like to make is that even i cases the nullity but it wouldn't matter what the lower case that it has nothing to do with the cunts constitutional violation which occurred which is the it's a different branch and you agree it's a different thing altogether and