Legal Junque

Daniel Bobke dbobke at HOME.COM
Tue Dec 14 15:02:29 MST 1999

We have very similar new rules here in California.  One of the amazing
caveats to our new rules is that they have EXEMPTED pre-1974 vehicles from
emissions requirements and testing!  For the most part, these are the most
offending vehicles on the road in terms of belching smoke.  We also have the
maximum dollar limit on repair costs, but it is ridiculously high (I think

I don't think it would be unreasonable for the court to allow you the
opportunity to explain why your vehicle does not meet the requirements.  I
don't know how much good it will do in the end, but it does give you the
opportunity to present any extenuating circumstances.

Dan Bobke

"Truth to a liberal is like Kryptonite to Superman."
--Larry Elder

"Giving money and power to government is like giving whiskey and car
keys to teen-age boys."
--P.J. O'Rourke

"Only a virtuous people are capable of Freedom.  As a nation
becomes corrupt and vicious, they have more need of masters."
--Benjamin Franklin

"Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary
safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
--Benjamin Franklin, November 11, 1755

----- Original Message -----
From: John A. Quayle <blueoval at SGI.NET>
Sent: Tuesday, December 14, 1999 12:56 PM
Subject: Legal Junque

> Okay Gang,
>         My raged has sufficiently cooled to the point where I can
> engage in a cogent discussion of fact and theory. What I'm babbling about
> is this. On the 30th of November, I was hauled before a district justice
> defend myself in a citation.
>         I was cited for not having a current state-required vehicle
> sticker. Now, here's why. Current Pennsylvania vehicle code *REQUIRES* the
> passing an emissions test, *FIRST* before any safety inpection can occur.
>         Under the new edict (tougher, punitive guidelines) from the all
> EPA, it's a fact of life that some vehicles won't pass. I drive an
> extremely pampered 1991 truck with 113,000 miles on it. It doesn't consume
> a lick of oil, nor does it smoke like an old chimney. Some time back, I
> switched to a platinum-core sparkplug for performance reasons - on Doug's
> recommendation. No, Doug, I'm not assessing blame, here. The advice was
> good. The truck passed prior pollutant restrictions, but not these. Ergo,
> was denied a safety sticker.
>         The law is written that if you spend X amount on improvements to
> vehicle without no net gain, the state will grant you a "waiver", meaning
> you will still be able to drive it. What this waiver does, when you think
> about it, is render the whole exercise null and void. The EPA had demanded
> confiscation of the offending vehicles with no chance at redemption, but
> state lawmakers suprisingly grew some spine.
>         Okay, that's the set up. Now, going before the district justice,
> argument that I advanced was shot down by the state trooper who cited me.
> He kept saying, "that's not why we're here." I kept waiting for the
> magistrate to intervene and tell the clown that he was out of order, but
> soup for me. I liken this charade to someone who has shot another, but
> self-defense is presented as a defense, he is told, "that's not why we're
> here." IOWs, was the act committed by you, yes or no, nevermind why.
>         My question to the rest of you is this: is it unreasonable for an
> expectation of prudent reasoning on the part of the court bench, or are
> they simply there to uniformly determine guilt versus innocence, without
> extenuating circumstances being brought to bear?
>         Folks, the bottom line here is that we've reached that horrible
point in
> time, where the monolithic federal bureaucracy, in it's zeal to wage war
> our freedoms, has the power to make us all scoff-laws and law breakers.
> sad part of this is that our county commissioners sued the EPA in a class
> action suit. They won the case in June, the judge argreeing that the EPA
> had overstepped its bounds by legislating a hardship decree, leaving no
> legal recourse. Furthermore, by threatening to withhold federal highway
> monies, the EPA had engaged in outright blackmail. The vexing part of this
> was the judge's comment after his pronouncement. He said, "I have no power
> to undo what the EPA has set in place."
>         Huh?!? Does this make sense?
> John Q.

More information about the Rushtalk mailing list