under the specific facts of this case but on the other hand of the issues are quite high or substantially similar and many of it  of trousers being provided for the queen and it was quite various thing and it was resolved by saying that the queen has no legs which was a diplomatic way you know declining statutory modifications would apply it went well for that matter judicial constructions that may have played with would there be a requirement that one witness all of the  to be incorporated within the statute if the notice is this is the statute that you're violating it presumes that you're receptive to this ticket either by himself yeah right that has the force of law correct ok the statute that's being violated in three o six is the one that has the force of law which carries with it the interpretation and modification provided under one awake it's not just the you use of words by word from the antics of it's true which is why do you is providing the notice here it's the steps you in it's full legal significance and consequently you cannot violate it norrie right now wait because if you're charged with a consequently someone duckett's trying with three o six running a red light you know can claim no violation and consequently no license suspension upon as a statute independent of the interpretation provided by other statutes including to a way j six so i miss king here if this were not a n it's claiming that there is confusion and that there may not be any violation involved in a three zero six the motor vehicles being an intersection against a steady or flashing red signal is in violation of it how can you say that someone doesn't know that if they go through a red light and a camera takes a picture of them it says right there that's what happens if you go through a red light violation and a camera records you or the field doing that you have committed a violation it could be clear that it is it says exactly all i have to do is bring my wife or somebody with me who will show that i wasn't driving the car that this and this applies to drivers so then it becomes a question of what the standard if it's that you would need and to what extent the statute is otherwise clear now with standing the fact that three o six purports to apply to drive but i'm also going to throw a question out to you that's not so that is not that much of a softball which my previous why can't you read three  by the final later that prove that there is a rational basis for loosening that requirement based on the fact that it can still have a purpose and and the there is no suspect class involved here so that the constitutional test would be rational basis so we're not simply picking the vehicle owner because he has the money or because he is  suspect class here there is no no no gender or racial discrimination involved here it's only subject to wear rational basis test and the fact of the matter is that there's a difference in treatment  coupled with the fact that there is not know anywhere that you've liked it and that i might experience i haven't found it that says you can't have two different statutes are two because the issues are surely legal whether it's administrative review or to territory judgment and this requires three issues which they raised here which they totally ignore are the facts due process which clearly were intruding into the hard drive of a computer which hat which isn't some crime and that will be entitle to a jury trial notwithstanding the fact that the computers only existed in the textile charged with writing a suspended license is a misdemeanor offense however the secretary of state enjoys the power to suspend driver's licenses or conduct i counsel is attempting to do is to take three or six of the vehicle called and forget about the red light cameras catch that's what they did in the pleadings that's what they did an entire argument if you read pleadings in this case you would know that was the state's statute in uk the reason i don't know with maybe they preferred to fight with me rather than than the attorney general but i  police in this case where they never even raised the statute upon which this whole process is based we didn't invent yes we took the state statute three or six described and or with can rely upon the records of secretary of state we have to rely on that because it's the place where we can determine the ownership there's no question about south it's  built into ordinance it's built into the ministration lease programs now counsel i mean it's not a severe burden it's an easier burden for the defunding to meet for the state he's on three o six because they say three o six talks about a driver but that's the only argument i look in the brief i try to figure out what they're talking about when they say jurisdiction jurisdiction  opinions and makes a lot of sense because he's kicked your actions as recorded by the red light camera program are simply  means of traffic control the plaintiff does not have the right to choose whether she gets to see a motorcycle cop whoever she can avoid the sign that says this is a red light basically going round and round that we've been we've been through these are you already i think the issue standing is whether the state can are the east a state of the act as being both criminal and civil and whether it can loosen the requirements with respect to its characterization of it being civil and whether being simple as a some basis for arguing vagueness i'm with your other arguments involving the confusion between three and six and seven and the ordinance seventy eight but having been a dry for she's not raise their early part of the new deal to prevent all of these commissions that were set up by president roosevelt is administratively utils that were either crimes which in their best to include the right to trial by jury and a right to burden of proof those administratively tribunals may very well turn out to beat the legislative courts which the that also pays the prosecution and there is a bit of peace frett for the french civil system where the judges also i are encouraged to ask questions although we're not prohibited from asking clarification questions ourselves so that conflict between what you say in a technical approach from a technical perspective and what is clearly into it what's clearly intuitive here is that nobody's going to make any mistakes