Legal Junque

John A. Quayle blueoval at SGI.NET
Tue Dec 14 18:59:11 MST 1999


At 04:40 PM 12/14/99 PST, you wrote:
>John:
>
>>
>>         The law is written that if you spend X amount on improvements to
>>the 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.
>>
>
>Not at all. How much money had you paid to get to this point?

        The ceiling is similar to California's, about $400. Still, if you dish out
that much cash (and that's a real hardship for some) and still get to
ddrive a so-called "gross polluter", in what way has the environment been
saved? You've sacrificed about three weeks woth of groceries to appease
some federal fathead!

>>         Okay, that's the set up. Now, going before the district justice,
>>any 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 no
>>soup for me. I liken this charade to someone who has shot another, but
when 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.
>>
>
>Did you ever try to say: "But that IS why we're here?"

        I *DID*, but was greeted with scorn. I *KNEW* this was a loaded contest.

> You don't have to wait for the magistrate to intervene. You can do it >
yourself.
>
>>         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?
>>
>
>Yes. It IS unreasonable in today's world. In fact, he's not there to
>determine guilt vs. innocence, but to determine just how guilty you are.
>Innocence in this kind of "kangaroo court" is not an option.

        That's a real pity!

>>         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 on our freedoms, has the power to make us all scoff-laws and law
breakers.
>>
>
>By Jove, I think he's got it! Let's look at what Ayn Rand had to say about
>it:
>
>SUBJECTIVE LAWS AND CREATING CRIMINALS: "There's no way to rule innocent
men. The only power any government has is the power to crack down on
criminals. Well, when there aren't enough criminals, one "makes" them. One
declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to
live without breaking laws. Who wants a nation of law-abiding citizens?
What's there in that for anyone? But just pass the kind of laws that can
neither be observed nor enforced nor objectively interpreted-and you create
a nation of law-breakers-and then you cash in on the guilt."
>            - Ayn Rand, "Atlas Shrugged"

        Read the book in grad school about six years back.......

>When it gets to the point where if you OBEY any law of the land, you're
>VIOLATING another, they will have gotten to the point they have envisioned.
>At that time they can "get" any of us at any time, at will.

        Been there, done that........no commemorative T-shirt, or lovely parting
gifts......             :-(


>Furthermore, by threatening to withhold federal highway monies, the EPA
had engaged in outright blackmail.
>>
>
>That's the way the feds control the states. They take the money WE have
sent them and refuse to give it back unless the state "knuckles under."
Sure it's blackmail (extortion, actually), and everybody knows it. But they
don't
>acknowledge it.

        And <sigh!> we have no recourse........

>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."
>>
>
>Of course he does. He can overturn an EPA pronouncement any time he wants
to. But this is his way of trying to make everybody think he can't, so he
>won't have to.

        *PRECISELY*!!! And that's what I said to a county commish. They need to
scream and wail about this one!


John



More information about the Rushtalk mailing list