SUBJECT:

NEW FREE SPEEDING TICKET DEFENSE FOR WASHINGTON STATE BY

LUIS EWING!

We have discovered that there is ONLY ONE (1) STATUTE, RCW 46.61.470
that gives ANY AUTHORITY OF LAW to law enforcement officers to use any
kind of ELECTRONIC SPEED MEASURING DEVICES and/or LASER SPEED
MEASURING DEVICES to measure or record how fast you are going!!!!

TO DATE, NO WASHINGTON COURT has ever held up any of the NEW

ELECTRONIC SPEED MEASURING DEVICES and/or LASER SPEED
MEASURING DEVICES to see if they are REQUIRED or NOT REQUIRED
to comply with RCW 46.61.470 (2) and (3) USING THE SEVEN (7)
QUESTIONS that I have given you to ask the judges in court below!

A careful reading of all the annotated case law interpreting this statute
RCW 46.61.470 and former RCW 46.48.120 shows that all the WSBA
ATTORNEYS have very very carefully AVOIDED bring this question to any
court in this State!!!!

CONSPIRACY FACT: Every JUDGE in this State is a member of "THE

WASHINGTON STATE BAR ASSOCIATION."

CONSPIRACY FACT: Every PROSECUTOR in this State is a member of "THE

WASHINGTON STATE BAR ASSOCIATION."

CONSPIRACY FACT: Every ATTORNEY in this State is a member of "THE

WASHINGTON STATE BAR ASSOCIATION."

CONSPIRACY FACT: Every PUBLIC DEFENDER in this State is a member of

"THE WASHINGTON STATE BAR ASSOCIATION."

To date, "THE WASHINGTON STATE LEGISLATURE" has "NEVER" amended

this statute RCW 46.61.470 to allow law enforcement officers to use any
NEW ELECTRONIC SPEED MEASURING DEVICES or to use any NEW LASER
SPEED MEASURING DEVICES and made them EXEMPT from the ONE-
QUARTER MILE MEASUREMENT REQUIREMENT!!!! (All emphasis added).

To date, "THE WASHINGTON STATE LEGISLATURE" has . . . "NEVER" . . .

enacted any NEW RCW statute that would purport to allow any law
enforcement officer to use any NEW ELECTRONIC SPEED MEASURING
DEVICES or to use any NEW LASER SPEED MEASURING DEVICES that are
EXEMPT from the ONE-QUARTER MILE MEASUREMENT REQUIREMENT as is
required under Washington law at subsections (2) and (3) of RCW
46.61.470.
It is therefore UNDISPUTED that since ALL NEW ELECTRIC SPEED
MEASURING DEVICES and/or ALL NEW LASER SPEED MEASURING DEVICES
are in fact "CAPABLE" of measuring or recording the speed of any vehicles
instantaneously and continuously at both the "ENTRANCE" and "EXIT" of a
1/4 MILE MEASURED COURSE, it is also UNDISPUTED that ALL NEW
ELECTRONIC & LASER SPEED MEASURING DEVICES are in fact subject to
the "1/4 MILE RULE," which is mandatory pursuant to "subsection (3) of
RCW 46.61.470."

Until the WASHINGTON LEGISLATURE amends RCW 46.61.470 and/or until it

enacts a NEW STATUTE that would purport to allow ALL NEW ELECTRONIC &
LASER SPEED MEASURING DEVICES and their RESULTS to be ADMISSIBLE
IN COURT, the use of any NEW LASER SPEED MEASURING DEVICE is
INADMISSIBLE in court and is without "authority of law," as REQUIRED by
article 1, section 7 of the Washington State Constitution.

***

INSTRUCTIONS FOR FILING IN COURT:

Obtain supporting Documents referenced herein: “02 LUIS

SPEEDING FLYER” & “03 LUIS SPEEDING SUBPOENA” on
www.Scribd.com and search: rcwcodebuster

Note: DO NOT DELAY, FILL OUT THE SPEEDING TICKET MY 2 SPEEDING

DOCUMENTS AND SEND IT IN RIGHT AWAY THE SAME DAY YOU GOT THE
TICKET OR IF YOU HAVE TIME, FILL IT OUT AND TAKE IT DOWN TO THE
COURT IN PERSON AND THEY WILL HAVE A REAL HARD TIME TRYING TO
SCHEDULE YOU INTO THEIR BACK LOGGED COURT SCHEDULE AND MAY
DISMISS JUST BECAUSE THEY CAN’T GET TO YOU IN TIME.

1.) Make three (3) copies of SPEEDING DOCUMENTS so that you have a total
of four (4) copies.

1st Copy: Original Court Record Copy

2nd Copy: Courtesy Copy for the Judge

3rd Copy: Prosecutor Copy

4th Copy: YOUR COPY

2.) Hand all four copies to the court clerk and tell him or her that the first
two copies on top are for him or her and the judge.

3.) Ask him or her to stamp the prosecutor copy and your copy FILED with
the Court File Stamp.
4.) Go to Prosecutors Office and hand Prosecutor Copy to his Receptionist
and ask him or her to stamp your copy Received.

5.) OR SIMPLY FILL OUT 1 SET AND SEND IT IN TO THE COURT WITH YOUR
TICKET AS SOON AS YOU CAN!!!!

***

ORAL ARGUMENTS FOR THE JUDGE:

ARGUE, ARGUE ARGUE:

YOUR HONOR, I DON’T CARE ABOUT ALL THAT FRYE STANDARD SCIENTIFIC
MUMBO JUMBO, I DON’T CARE IF ANY OF THESE NEWER ELECTRICAL OR
LASER SPEED MEASURING DEVICES HAVE BEEN SCIENTIFICALLY PROVED
TO BE RELIABLE TO INSTANTANEOUSLY AND CONTINUOUSLY AND
ACCURATELY MEASURE THE SPEED OF ANY VEHICLE, I JUST WANT TO ASK
YOU A FEW QUESTIONS:

1.) Your Honor, is this SPEED MEASURING DEVICE . . . ELECTRICAL . . . or .

. . MECHANICAL????

2.) Your Honor, is this SPEED MEASURING DEVICE in fact . . . CAPABLE OF

MEASURING MY SPEED AT BOTH THE ENTRANCE AND EXIT OF A ONE-
QUARTER MILE MEASURED COURSE, YES OR NO????

3.) Your Honor, I move to dismiss this speeding ticket on the grounds that
the citing officer did NOT clock, time, measure or record my speed at both
the entrance and exit of the REQUIRED MINIMUM "ONE-QUARTER MILE
MEASURED COURSE" that was in his or her plain view as required by both
subsection (2) and (3) of RCW 46.61.470.

4.) Your Honor, I move to dismiss this speeding ticket because there is NO
RCW - statute in existence that purports to allow any law enforcement
officer to conduct a search of my speed WITHOUT A WARRANT and ABSENT
PROBABLE CAUSE in violation of article 1, section 7 of the Washington State
Constitution and in violation of the 4th amendment of the U.S. Constitution
which is mandatory and binding upon this court pursuant to article 1,
sections 2, 29 and 30 of the Washington State Constitution.

5.) Your Honor, can you please provide me a copy of any RCW - statute that
says you can in fact use these NEW ELECTRONIC SPEED MEASURING
DEVICES without having to comply with the 1/4 MILE MEASURED COURSE
as is clearly stated in subsection (3) of RCW 46.61.470?

6.) Your Honor, can you please provide me the RCW - statute that
supercedes subsections (2) and (3) of RCW 46.61.470?
7.) Your Honor, can you please provide me a copy of any RCW - statute that
provides that ALL THESE NEW ELECTRONIC SPEED MEASURING DEVICES
and/or ALL THESE NEW LASER SPEED MEASURING DEVICES are in fact . . .
EXEMPT . . . from having to MEASURE THE ELAPSED TIME that my vehicle
passed through the ENTRANCE and EXIT of a . . . ONE-QUARTER MILE
MEASURED COURSE????

NOTE: THERE IS NO SUCH STATUTE IN EXISTENCE!!!!

WATCH ALL THE JUDGES COME UP WITH ZERO, ZIP AND NADA . . .
AN A WHOLE BUNCH OF BULLSHIT EXCUSES!!!!

1.) Your Honor, can the officer see how fast I am going with his normal
human vision WITHOUT the AID of the RADAR or LASER DEVICE, YES or
NO????
2.) Your Honor, In State v. Young, the Washington State Supreme Court
found that the officer’s use of an infrared thermal detection device
constituted a search. State v. Young, 123 Wn.2d 173, 867 P.2d 593
(1994). The Court reasoned that:

"As a general proposition, it is fair to say that when a law enforcement officer
is able to detect something by utilization of one or more of his senses while
lawfully present at a vantage point where the senses are used, that detection
does not constitute a "search."

Id. at 182 (citing State v. Seagull, 95 Wn.2d 898, 901, 632 P.2d 44 (1981).
The Court, however, noted that the device is question enabled officers to
effectively "SEE THROUGH WALLS" of defendant’s home, and was
therefore beyond the mere enhancement of the officer’s senses. Id.
at 183. Likewise, ALL NEW ELECTRICAL, RADAR & LASER SPEED
MEASURING DEVICES are "beyond the mere enhancement of the
officer’s senses." and allow the officers to see things that he or she could
NOT see with his or her NORMAL HUMAN VISION. State v. Young, supra.
(Emphasis added.)

3.) YOUR HONOR, THE OFFICER DOES NOT HAVE RADAR VISION AND THE
OFFICER DOES NOT HAVE LASER VISION, THEREFORE SINCE THE RADAR
and/or THE LASER SPEED MEASURING DEVICE ALLOWED THE OFFICER TO
SEE THINGS THAT HE COULD NOT SEE WITH HIS NORMAL HUMAN VISION
IN VIOLATION OF THE PLAIN VIEW DOCTRINE "and" conjunctively I ALSO
MOVE TO DISMISS THIS SPEEDING TICKET AS VIOLATION OF article 1,
section 7 of the WASHINGTON STATE CONSTITUTION because it was a
search conducted "WITHOUT AUTHORITY OF LAW,"as was stated in State v.
Young, 123 Wn.2d 173, 867 P2d 593 (1994).

4.) YOUR HONOR, I MOVE TO DISMISS THIS SPEEDING TICKET ON THE

GROUNDS THAT THERE IS NO RCW ___________ STATUTORY AUTHORITY
THAT PURPORTS TO GIVE ANY LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICER ANY
AUTHORITY TO USE ANY NEW ELECTRICAL, MECHANICAL, RADAR OR LASER
SPEED MEASURING DEVICES TO MEASURE OR RECORD MY SPEED WITHOUT
A WARRANT WHICH VIOLATES MY RIGHTS UNDER BOTH THE 4th
AMENDMENT TO THE U.S. CONSTITUTION and article 1, section 7 of THE
WASHINGTON CONSTITUTION.

5.) Your Honor, I move to dismiss on the grounds that the plaintiff failed to
provide my IRLJ 3.1 (b) WRITTEN DEMAND FOR DISCOVERY of a CERTIFIED
COPY of the WRITTEN DETERMINATION that was established by either the
SECRETARY OF TRANSPORTATION or disjunctively the local authorities
(herein, the City of ____________ or ____________ County) UPON THE
BASIS OF A ENGINEERING AND TRAFFIC INVESTIGATION that authorized
the either __________ County or the City of __________, to post any speed
limit at the specific location AS REQUIRED by . . . RCW 46.61.425

6.) Your Honor, I move to dismiss on the authority of People v. Singh, 112
Cal.Rptr.2d 74, 92 Cal.App.4th Supp. 13. Crim Law 394.1 (2) which states
that:

"If, however, the officer relies on a prima facie or posted speed limit, that
officer is incompetent as a witness and any evidence concerning the vehicle’s
speed is inadmissible unless an adequate survey is introduced." West’s Ann.
Cal. Vehicle Code Section 40802 (a)(2)."

7.) Your Honor, I also move to NOT allow the citing officer to testify and/or I
move this court to strike his IRLJ 6.6 CERTIFICATION OF THE SPEED
MEASURING DEVICE, because the citing officer relied upon the posted speed
limit and therefore the citing officer is INCOMPETENT AS A WITNESS AND
ANY EVIDENCE CONCERNING MY SPEED IS INADMISSIBLE UNLESS AN
ADEQUATE ROAD SURVEY IS INTRODUCED INTO EVIDENCE.

8.) Your Honor, I move to dismiss because the plaintiff and/or this court
failed to produce a certified and qualified ER 702 expert witness, i.e, THE
SPEED MEASURING DEVICE EXPERT in violation of my article 1, section 22
WASHINGTON STATE CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO FACE MY ACCUSERS
when I timely filed a SUBPOENA in this court 30 days prior to my trial date
pursuant to IRLJ 3.1 (a), IRLJ 3.3 (d), IRLJ 2.6 (a)(2) & RCW 46.63.090.

***

NOTE: I help many people beat their own criminal cases (PRO-SE) without
an ATTORNEY and if you need help for any kind of serious criminal case,
please send me an E-MAIL requesting that I send you my CONSULTING FEES
SCHEDULE to: <rcwcodebuster@comcast.net> or
<rcwcodebuster@yahoo.com> or <rcwcodebuster@gmail.com> or
<rcwcodebuster@hotmail.com>