Posted by Danielle Lindsay Feoranzo.

It was on June 4^th 2015 that the U.S Supreme Court found the State of Maryland’s system of personal income taxation violated the nondiscrimination prong of the Dormant Commerce Clause. This clause states Congress has been given power over interstate commerce, and that states cannot discriminate against interstate commerce, nor can they unduly burden interstate commerce, even in the absence of federal legislation regulating the activity. The Court found that Maryland did not grant a resident credit for county income tax paid on income earned and taxed in another state. What to keep in mind is this particular state’s personal income tax scheme is of composed of three elements:

(1) A state tax imposed on all income of Maryland residents and the income of nonresidents from sources within Maryland, (2) a county tax (collected by the state) imposed on all income of state residents, and (3) a special nonresident state tax imposed on the income of nonresidents from sources within Maryland, which tax is said to be in lieu of the county tax and is imposed at a rate equal to the highest county tax within the state (pg. 1; Bright, Schulder, Upham).

In this instance, the Wynnes were state residents and subject to tax in 39 other states because they owned a corporation that resides in multiple states. The Wynnes were able to take a tax credit in Maryland against taxes paid to other states on their corporation income but were not allowed to take a credit against Maryland county tax for taxes paid to other states on the corporation income. The Court held that:

Maryland’s personal income tax system was not internally consistent under the Commerce Clause and therefore unconstitutionally discriminatory. According to the Court, if every state imposed their personal income tax in the same way as Maryland, an individual who lived in one state and worked in another would always be subject to a higher tax burden than an individual who lived and worked in the same state. The taxing scheme gave preferential treatment to purely intrastate activities versus interstate activities.

Therefore, the Court concluded that Maryland’s personal income tax system was not consistent under the Dormant Commerce Clause, and thus, unconstitutional.

In conclusion, the Wynnes were within their constitutional right to get a tax credit not only on their state tax but also on their county tax. This because it was protected under the Dormant Commerce Clause not to discriminate wherever that income is earned.

Danielle is a business administration major with a concentration in management information and technology at Montclair State University, Class of 2016.

Posted by Yuanda Xu.

On Oct. 30, 2014, Sembcorp Marine’s finance director Wee Sing Guan was sentenced to 39 months in prison for falsifying the accounts of the group’s Jurong Shipyard, Sembcorp’s wholly owned unit. The company lost “hundreds of millions of dollars’ worth of marked-to-market losses that Wee had incurred on foreign exchange and options trades positions he held with a host of banks, including OCBC Bank, DBS Bank, BNP Paribas (BNP), Societe Generale (SocGen) and Standard Chartered Bank.”

According to criminal law, falsifying account records is an unlawful action. Falsifying records can influence the stock market by making investors believe the company’s stock is worth it to buy. But after a company goes bankrupt, people who hold the stock will lose all their money. The offenses “carry a maximum penalty of an unspecified fine and a seven-year jail term, for each charge.”

Yuanda is a business management major at Montclair State University, Class of 2017.

Both sides of the political isle are pressuring the Fed to be more transparent regarding its monetary policy and cease “cozying up” to the banks it oversees. There are several legislative proposals that some prior Presidents of the Fed consider to be a threat to its independence. If any one of them are passed, it would be the first major overhaul of the institution since the Full Employment and Balanced Growth Act of 1978.

Senate Banking Committee Chairman Richard Shelby is concerned with the Fed’s portfolio, because since 2008 the Fed more than quadrupled its balance sheet to $4.5 trillion. It purchased bonds to suppress longer-term interest rates, but Shelby is at a loss to discover as to what the Fed is going to do with them.

Sen. Rand Paul, along with 29 other Republican Senators, the Majority Leader, and one Democrat, is sponsoring a bill requiring the Fed to be subject to “regular audits” of its monetary policy by the General Accounting Office (GAO). Paul reasoned it is “‘unseemly that an organization that we’ve given the power, the monopoly, of making money uses that power then to try to thwart transparency.’”

Representative Bill Huizenga of Michigan, head of the House Financial Services panel’s subcommittee on monetary policy, wants to require the Fed to use a mathematical rule when it changes interest rates. New Jersey Republican Representative Scott Garrett has introduced a bill entitled, the “Federal Reserve Transparency and Accountability Act” that “would require the central bank to perform a cost-benefit analysis of any new banking rule, submit internal audits and performance reviews to Congress and send a top official to testify before lawmakers on financial rule-making.”

There is at least some change to the selection of governors. Current law now requires at least one member of the seven-member Board of Governors to have community banking experience. It brings experience other than the traditional “academic” or “megabank” experience, as the proponent of the original bill, Sen. David Vitter of Louisiana, described. Individual governors on Fed’s Board of Governors are required to be confirmed by the Senate. The Board of Governors makes important decisions on interest rates and how banks are regulated. But specific expertise in banking is not a requirement for any of the positions. “Of the board’s current five members, three are economists and two are lawyers.” The addition of a governor with community banking experience, however, lends more diversity in the decision-making process.

The New York branch has been the target of Democrats, in particular Sen. Elizabeth Warren from Massachusetts. She has been critical of the current president, William C. Dudley, of being too chummy with big banks. Warren wants more congressional oversight of the central bank. Democratic Senator Jack Reed of Rhode Island suggests that selection of the New York Fed president should be confirmed by the Senate and has proposed a bill requiring it. Currently, the bank’s directors select the twelve district bank presidents who are then sent on for approval by the Fed board located in Washington.

A lot of criticism surrounds the amount of power the president of the New York branch has over policy set by the Federal Open Market Committee (FOMC). The president of the New York bank is the only president that does not have to rotate on the committee. Dallas Fed President Richard Fisher called for the “stripping” of the New York president’s permanent role on the FOMC, because the New York branch wields too much power and influence. The Independent Community Bankers of America, a Washington lobby consisting of 6,500 members, agree.

Both Democrats and Republicans want a more accountable Fed, but there are detractors who believe that legislation would only have the effect of politicizing the central bank. In one poll, 24% of Americans polled believe that politics should stay out of the Fed.

Posted by Shaaliyah T. Lyons. 

Background:

On ­­­­one Saturday night around 11:00pm stopped at a light, I looked up and realized I was being pulled over on Central Ave., in East Orange New Jersey.  Already in the far-right lane, I moved over slightly to get out the way of traffic.  I turned the car off and my two friends and I immediately started trying to figure out why we were being pulled over.  Is it my tinted windows? Was I speeding? What is the speed limit? Did someone throw something out at the window?  All in all, no one was really sure what actually happened but we all assumed it was my tinted windows, which have caused controversy in past.

Finally, the officer comes to the car with her flashlight beaming in the passenger and back seat as her partner comes on the driver side.  First, she asked for my license and registration.  Out of curiosity I asked why was I being pulled over.  She was hesitant and asked for my license again, for me this was a red flag.  I asked again for her reasoning for pulling me over. She proceeded to give me two reasons, one being my tints and the other because I was speeding.  In response to my tinted windows, I quickly explained that according to NJ Tint laws it depends on the part of the car:

Windshield: No tint is allowed on the windshield.

Front Side windows: No tint can be applied legally to this window.

Back Side windows: Any darkness can be used.

Rear Window: Any darkness can be used.

Following this explanation, I showed her that my front windows were not tinted. In regards to the second the reason, I simply questioned what was the speed limit and how fast was I going.  It was at this moment in which friction arose between us.  She could not tell me how fast I was going but mentioned that she had to do 50mph to catch up to me. I gave her my information and waited for her to come back to the car.

As she walked back, her partner’s family member proceeded to pull up to the gas station next to where I was pulled over.  As I continue into the next part of the background of the incident, please keep in mind that the entire time her partner was not in the scene and conversing with his family member in the gas station.

When she came back, she explained that she had given me a careless driving ticket.  A careless driving ticket usually occurs after an accident or when someone is found to be carelessly driving and putting someone’s life in danger.  Her explanation went as follows, “Because I do not have a radar, I cannot give you a speeding ticket; therefore, I am going to issue you a careless driving ticket.” Here is when it gets confusing because at this point no one really knows if I was even speeding and if so how fast I was going.  My follow up question to her (before taking the ticket) was, “Just for clarification, because you cannot prove I was speeding, you have to give me another ticket (which is arguably worse than a speeding ticket)?” She did not answer the question. After a minute or so of going back and forth, she proceeded to aggressively place my tickets and paper work on my dash board.

My Court Appearances

A week after I received my ticket, I called the East Orange Municipal Court to go over my court date. From there, I was informed that the date on the ticket is not an accurate day; the court told me they would enter me as a not guilty plea and I was issued a new court date.  On my new court date, the first person I talked to was the prosecutor, who gave me the opportunity to plead guilty to the obstruction of traffic.  This was a fine under $100, no points on my license, and I wouldn’t have to be in court all day.  I declined this offer, as you can tell from my story, I was doing the opposite of obstructing traffic, I was in fact going with the flow of traffic.  When it was my time to speak to the judge, they realized that even though I previously pled not guilty, the officers involved were not notified.

The following week, I submitted a request for discovery regarding my case.  Almost a month later, I came to court prepared with the copy of my discovery request, my witness, as well as the facts of the case.  The facts of this case went as followed:

1. A cop is not supposed to catch up to a car and proceed to pull them over; they are to pace behind them to have a gage of how fast they are going.A cop is not to place their hand on your property it can be considered trespassing on private property.

2. As stated before, there are no laws against the tints on my car.

3. In a 15 mile radius there is only one speed limit sign that is almost impossible to see at the time I was pulled over (brought in a picture).

4. The officer could not prove that I was driving in a careless manner that could endanger others.

When I entered the court room, I was asked if I wanted to continue to plead not guilty.  I confirmed.  When it was my turn to speak to the judge, he issued me a new court date.  That is when I explained that this is my 2^nd time and court and the officer has already been notified.

I motioned to dismiss this case due to lack of evidence against me, and he approved my motion and dismissed the case!  In the end, I did not have to pay any fine or have any points added to my license.

Shaaliyah is a sports management major with a certificate in entrepreneurial studies, at the Stillman School of Business, Seton Hall University, Class of 2017.

The High Court rendered an opinion in EEOC v. Abercrombie & Fitch Stores, Inc. The bottom line is unless the employer can show it is unduly burdensome to accommodate a religious practice, it must accommodate the person even if it has a mandatory dress code or other neutrally-applied policy. The employer is required to do so if the person asks for the accommodation or even if the employer suspects the person may need one.

Abercrombie did not hire a Muslim woman because her headscarf violated their “Look Policy.” The policy, which is described as “East Coast collegiate or preppy style,” prohibits the wearing of “caps” (an undefined term in the policy) as too informal for their image. The woman applied for a job at one of the stores. The assistant manager of the store interviewed and conditionally approved her for the job. Yet, the headscarf she wore to the interview indicated to the manager that hiring her would be a violation of their “Look Policy.” Although the woman never asked for a religious accommodation, the assistant manager assumed that she would need one if hired and deferred to the district manager. The district manager thought the scarf “would violate the Look Policy, as would all other headwear, religious or otherwise,” and directed the assistant manager not to hire the woman.

The EEOC sued on the woman’s behalf claiming Abercrombie’s action violated Title VII and won a $20,000 judgment. The Tenth Circuit reversed and awarded Abercrombie summary judgment, ruling an “employer cannot be liable under Title VII for failing to accommodate a religious practice until the applicant (or employee) provides the employer with actual knowledge of his need for an accommodation.”

Title VII makes it illegal for an employer “‘to fail or refuse to hire . . . any individual . . . because of such individual’s . . . religion.’ §2000e–2(a)(1).” Religion “includes all aspects of religious observance and practice, as well as belief, unless an employer demonstrates that he is unable to reasonably accommodate [] an employee’s or prospective employee’s religious observance or practice without undue hardship on the conduct of the employer’s business.”

There are two ways to bring an action under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964: one is for a disparate- treatment (or intentional-discrimination), and the other, disparate-impact of otherwise facially neutral policies. The “intentional discrimination provision prohibits certain motives, regardless of the state of the actor’s knowledge.” Disparate-treatment claims based on a failure to accommodate a religious practice is plain: “An employer may not make an applicant’s religious practice, confirmed or otherwise, a factor in employment decisions.”

The Court ruled: “An employer is surely entitled to have, for example, a no-headwear policy as an ordinary matter. But when an applicant requires an accommodation as an ‘aspec[t] of religious . . . practice,’ it is no response that the subsequent ‘fail[ure] . . . to hire’ was due to an otherwise-neutral policy. Title VII requires otherwise-neutral policies to give way to the need for an accommodation.”

Under the ruling, a prospective applicant is not always required, as the Tenth Circuit held, to request an accommodation from an employer. Employers that are aware or believe an accommodation is needed and are motivated to fire or not to hire someone based on that accommodation also violate the statute. As Justice Alito stated in his concurrence, however, if it is unduly burdensome to require the accommodation, then there is no violation.

But Justice Thomas in his dissent was concerned about a broad reading of the words “because of such religious practice” in that it could sweep up an employer’s policy that applies indiscriminately to everyone, yet happens to be at odds with an employee’s religious practice. He gives the following example:

Suppose an employer with a neutral grooming policy forbidding facial hair refuses to hire a Muslim who wears a beard for religious reasons. Assuming the employer applied the neutral grooming policy to all applicants, the motivation behind the refusal to hire the Muslim appli- cant would not be the religious nature of his beard, but its existence. Under the first reading, then, the Muslim applicant would lack an intentional-discrimination claim, as he was not refused employment ‘because of’ the religious nature of his practice. But under the second reading, he would have such a claim, as he was refused employment ‘because of’ a practice that happens to be religious in nature.

Justice Thomas reasoned that under a broad reading employers with no discriminatory motive would be punished because they had no knowledge of every aspect of an employee’s religious practice. It would undermine the intent element of disparate treatment and make the employer strictly liable for its conduct. Citing precedent, Justice Thomas explained “discriminatory purpose” as “‘the purpose necessary for a claim of intentional discrimination” that “demands ‘more than . . . awareness of consequences. It implies that the decisionmaker . . . selected or reaffirmed a particular course of action at least in part ‘because of,’ not merely ‘in spite of,’ its adverse effects upon an identifiable group.’”

He recognized refusal to accommodate can be discriminatory where an employer does not make a policy exception for someone for religious purposes involving a store policy that is applied to everyone, when at the same time makes the same allowance for someone of another religion or some secular practice. Yet, he explained,”merely refusing to create an exception to a neutral policy for a religious practice cannot be described as treating a particular applicant ‘less favorably than others.’” Under the majority’s view “mere refusal to accommodate a religious practice under a neutral policy could constitute intentional discrimination,” unless the employer produces evidence that the accommodation is unduly burdensome and persuades the court that it is so.

Posted by Orintia Daniels.

Bankrupt: “(of a person or organization) declared in law unable to pay outstanding debts.” According to dictionary.com, this adjective simply means that a particular person or organization is in debt and owes money to another organization or person. I have came across an article called “How do I declare Bankruptcy?” which explains the various forms of bankrutpcy as well as how someone can actually declare bankruptcy.

Let’s talk chapters! No, not just any chapters; specifically, let’s review Chapters 7, 11, and 13 of the Bankruptcy Code. Let’s explain, starting with Chapter 7.

Have you ever heard the term “Everything must go?” Well, Chapter 7 of the Bankruptcy Code, states that whoever files under that chapter might lose everything. For example, a person may lose his or her home, due to not being able to pay the bank their debts. Chapter 7 “liquidates your assets to pay off as much of your debt as possible. When it is all done, you are left with the least debt possible, but you usually have to sacrifice a number of possessions along the way to make that happen.” (HG.org).

On the other hand Chapter 11 is mainly for businesses, such as corporations and partnerships, but can be available to individuals. It has no limits on the amount of debt, as Chapter 13 does. It is the usual choice for large businesses seeking to restructure their debt. Under Chapter 13, the Code:

allows the filer to reorganize their debt, making it more manageable. Under a Chapter13 bankruptcy, the debtor is able pay off their debts over a period of three to five years. For filers with consistent, predictable incomes, a Chapter 13 bankruptcy may be a great way out of debt by creating a sort of legal grace period. If the debtor makes all payments required under the bankruptcy order, and there are still debts remaining at the end of the grace period, those debts are discharged” (HG.org).

Overall, Chapter 13, is primarily for personal struggles, by anyone who may not be able to pay off their debts.

For one to declare bankruptcy, there are two main methods: as an individual, which is to voluntarily file for bankruptcy, or wait for creditors to ask the court to declare you bankrupt. To further understand the different ways to file for bankruptcy and the different forms of bankruptcy, I personally suggest that you continue your interest on the following website.

Orintia is a marketing major with a minor in economics at Montclair State University, Class of 2017.

It is now legal for Tesla and other manufacturers of zero-emission cars to sell directly to customers in New Jersey. Tesla’s business model includes selling its battery-driven cars from its boutique stores. One of them is located in Short Hills Mall, Short Hills, NJ.

Customers are free to learn about the vehicles through interactive displays and test drives. Tesla does not want to sell its cars through franchises because they sell mostly gas-powered vehicles. Since most of their revenue comes from gas-powered sales, franchises would not be encouraged to sell zero-emission cars.

Posted by Yuanda Xu.

On Oct. 30, 2014, Sembcorp Marine’s finance director Wee Sing Guan was sentenced to 39 months in prison for falsifying the accounts of the group’s Jurong Shipyard, Sembcorp’s wholly owned unit. The company lost “hundreds of millions of dollars’ worth of marked-to-market losses that Wee had incurred on foreign exchange and options trades positions he held with a host of banks, including OCBC Bank, DBS Bank, BNP Paribas (BNP), Societe Generale (SocGen) and Standard Chartered Bank.”

According to criminal law, falsifying account records is an unlawful action. Falsifying records can influence the stock market by making investors believe the company’s stock is worth it to buy. But after a company goes bankrupt, people who hold the stock will lose all their money. The offenses “carry a maximum penalty of an unspecified fine and a seven-year jail term, for each charge.”

Yuanda is a business management major at Montclair State University, Class of 2017.

Posted by Shaaliyah T. Lyons. 

Background:

On ­­­­one Saturday night around 11:00pm stopped at a light, I looked up and realized I was being pulled over on Central Ave., in East Orange New Jersey.  Already in the far-right lane, I moved over slightly to get out the way of traffic.  I turned the car off and my two friends and I immediately started trying to figure out why we were being pulled over.  Is it my tinted windows? Was I speeding? What is the speed limit? Did someone throw something out at the window?  All in all, no one was really sure what actually happened but we all assumed it was my tinted windows, which have caused controversy in past.

Finally, the officer comes to the car with her flashlight beaming in the passenger and back seat as her partner comes on the driver side.  First, she asked for my license and registration.  Out of curiosity I asked why was I being pulled over.  She was hesitant and asked for my license again, for me this was a red flag.  I asked again for her reasoning for pulling me over. She proceeded to give me two reasons, one being my tints and the other because I was speeding.  In response to my tinted windows, I quickly explained that according to NJ Tint laws it depends on the part of the car:

Windshield: No tint is allowed on the windshield.

Front Side windows: No tint can be applied legally to this window.

Back Side windows: Any darkness can be used.

Rear Window: Any darkness can be used.

Following this explanation, I showed her that my front windows were not tinted. In regards to the second the reason, I simply questioned what was the speed limit and how fast was I going.  It was at this moment in which friction arose between us.  She could not tell me how fast I was going but mentioned that she had to do 50mph to catch up to me. I gave her my information and waited for her to come back to the car.

As she walked back, her partner’s family member proceeded to pull up to the gas station next to where I was pulled over.  As I continue into the next part of the background of the incident, please keep in mind that the entire time her partner was not in the scene and conversing with his family member in the gas station.

When she came back, she explained that she had given me a careless driving ticket.  A careless driving ticket usually occurs after an accident or when someone is found to be carelessly driving and putting someone’s life in danger.  Her explanation went as follows, “Because I do not have a radar, I cannot give you a speeding ticket; therefore, I am going to issue you a careless driving ticket.” Here is when it gets confusing because at this point no one really knows if I was even speeding and if so how fast I was going.  My follow up question to her (before taking the ticket) was, “Just for clarification, because you cannot prove I was speeding, you have to give me another ticket (which is arguably worse than a speeding ticket)?” She did not answer the question. After a minute or so of going back and forth, she proceeded to aggressively place my tickets and paper work on my dash board.

My Court Appearances

A week after I received my ticket, I called the East Orange Municipal Court to go over my court date. From there, I was informed that the date on the ticket is not an accurate day; the court told me they would enter me as a not guilty plea and I was issued a new court date.  On my new court date, the first person I talked to was the prosecutor, who gave me the opportunity to plead guilty to the obstruction of traffic.  This was a fine under $100, no points on my license, and I wouldn’t have to be in court all day.  I declined this offer, as you can tell from my story, I was doing the opposite of obstructing traffic, I was in fact going with the flow of traffic.  When it was my time to speak to the judge, they realized that even though I previously pled not guilty, the officers involved were not notified.

The following week, I submitted a request for discovery regarding my case.  Almost a month later, I came to court prepared with the copy of my discovery request, my witness, as well as the facts of the case.  The facts of this case went as followed:

1. A cop is not supposed to catch up to a car and proceed to pull them over; they are to pace behind them to have a gage of how fast they are going.A cop is not to place their hand on your property it can be considered trespassing on private property.

2. As stated before, there are no laws against the tints on my car.

3. In a 15 mile radius there is only one speed limit sign that is almost impossible to see at the time I was pulled over (brought in a picture).

4. The officer could not prove that I was driving in a careless manner that could endanger others.

When I entered the court room, I was asked if I wanted to continue to plead not guilty.  I confirmed.  When it was my turn to speak to the judge, he issued me a new court date.  That is when I explained that this is my 2^nd time and court and the officer has already been notified.

I motioned to dismiss this case due to lack of evidence against me, and he approved my motion and dismissed the case!  In the end, I did not have to pay any fine or have any points added to my license.

Shaaliyah is a sports management major with a certificate in entrepreneurial studies, at the Stillman School of Business, Seton Hall University, Class of 2017.

Posted by Shaaliyah T. Lyons. 

Background:

On ­­­­one Saturday night around 11:00pm stopped at a light, I looked up and realized I was being pulled over on Central Ave., in East Orange New Jersey.  Already in the far-right lane, I moved over slightly to get out the way of traffic.  I turned the car off and my two friends and I immediately started trying to figure out why we were being pulled over.  Is it my tinted windows? Was I speeding? What is the speed limit? Did someone throw something out at the window?  All in all, no one was really sure what actually happened but we all assumed it was my tinted windows, which have caused controversy in past.

Finally, the officer comes to the car with her flashlight beaming in the passenger and back seat as her partner comes on the driver side.  First, she asked for my license and registration.  Out of curiosity I asked why was I being pulled over.  She was hesitant and asked for my license again, for me this was a red flag.  I asked again for her reasoning for pulling me over. She proceeded to give me two reasons, one being my tints and the other because I was speeding.  In response to my tinted windows, I quickly explained that according to NJ Tint laws it depends on the part of the car:

Windshield: No tint is allowed on the windshield.

Front Side windows: No tint can be applied legally to this window.

Back Side windows: Any darkness can be used.

Rear Window: Any darkness can be used.

Following this explanation, I showed her that my front windows were not tinted. In regards to the second the reason, I simply questioned what was the speed limit and how fast was I going.  It was at this moment in which friction arose between us.  She could not tell me how fast I was going but mentioned that she had to do 50mph to catch up to me. I gave her my information and waited for her to come back to the car.

As she walked back, her partner’s family member proceeded to pull up to the gas station next to where I was pulled over.  As I continue into the next part of the background of the incident, please keep in mind that the entire time her partner was not in the scene and conversing with his family member in the gas station.

When she came back, she explained that she had given me a careless driving ticket.  A careless driving ticket usually occurs after an accident or when someone is found to be carelessly driving and putting someone’s life in danger.  Her explanation went as follows, “Because I do not have a radar, I cannot give you a speeding ticket; therefore, I am going to issue you a careless driving ticket.” Here is when it gets confusing because at this point no one really knows if I was even speeding and if so how fast I was going.  My follow up question to her (before taking the ticket) was, “Just for clarification, because you cannot prove I was speeding, you have to give me another ticket (which is arguably worse than a speeding ticket)?” She did not answer the question. After a minute or so of going back and forth, she proceeded to aggressively place my tickets and paper work on my dash board.

My Court Appearances

A week after I received my ticket, I called the East Orange Municipal Court to go over my court date. From there, I was informed that the date on the ticket is not an accurate day; the court told me they would enter me as a not guilty plea and I was issued a new court date.  On my new court date, the first person I talked to was the prosecutor, who gave me the opportunity to plead guilty to the obstruction of traffic.  This was a fine under $100, no points on my license, and I wouldn’t have to be in court all day.  I declined this offer, as you can tell from my story, I was doing the opposite of obstructing traffic, I was in fact going with the flow of traffic.  When it was my time to speak to the judge, they realized that even though I previously pled not guilty, the officers involved were not notified.

The following week, I submitted a request for discovery regarding my case.  Almost a month later, I came to court prepared with the copy of my discovery request, my witness, as well as the facts of the case.  The facts of this case went as followed:

1. A cop is not supposed to catch up to a car and proceed to pull them over; they are to pace behind them to have a gage of how fast they are going.A cop is not to place their hand on your property it can be considered trespassing on private property.

2. As stated before, there are no laws against the tints on my car.

3. In a 15 mile radius there is only one speed limit sign that is almost impossible to see at the time I was pulled over (brought in a picture).

4. The officer could not prove that I was driving in a careless manner that could endanger others.

When I entered the court room, I was asked if I wanted to continue to plead not guilty.  I confirmed.  When it was my turn to speak to the judge, he issued me a new court date.  That is when I explained that this is my 2^nd time and court and the officer has already been notified.

I motioned to dismiss this case due to lack of evidence against me, and he approved my motion and dismissed the case!  In the end, I did not have to pay any fine or have any points added to my license.

Shaaliyah is a sports management major with a certificate in entrepreneurial studies, at the Stillman School of Business, Seton Hall University, Class of 2017.