This case presents urgent and significant constitutional questions about the intersection of automated enforcement systems, due process, and fundamental rights. The issues raised are emblematic of broader systemic concerns in the era of automation, artificial intelligence, and administrative discretion.

• Whether procedural safeguards under the Fifth Amendment are violated by automated systems, such as the Speed Camera Doe, which issue citations without human oversight, depriving individuals of the opportunity to confront accusers or meaningfully challenge the evidence against them.

• Whether the abridgment and mischaracterization of the Petitioner's opposition filing, coupled with procedural irregularities, constitute violations of the First Amendment right to petition the courts for redress and the Second Amendment right to be armed with accurate information necessary for a defense.

• Whether the Second Amendment's right "to be armed" extends to informational tools required for effective self-defense against procedural injustice and unaccountable adjudicatory systems, drawing parallels to recent jurisprudence affirming the constitutional importance of information as a weapon for justice.

• Whether unregulated automated enforcement technologies that operate beyond public scrutiny pose systemic risks to constitutional rights, and whether oversight mechanisms analogous to corporate governance reforms during the rise of modern corporations are necessary for such systems to safeguard constitutional rights.

• Whether this application should be treated as a petition for a writ of error, given the unique position of the D.C. Circuit as the highest court of the administrative state, or alternatively as a petition for certiorari, addressing the systemic gaps in habeas protections in the jurisdiction of the D.C. Circuit.

Whether automated enforcement systems that issue citations without human oversight violate due process protections under the Fifth Amendment by depriving individuals of the opportunity to confront accusers or meaningfully challenge evidence