Legal Junque

Ray Thomas raythomas101 at HOTMAIL.COM
Wed Dec 15 10:09:04 MST 1999


You wrote:
> >
> >>
> >>         The law is written that if you spend X amount on improvements
> >>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
> >>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 whole point is that even though this does nothing for the environment,
it DOES do something for the pockets of all those who depend on such
programs for money, the state included. So THEIR goal was attained.

>         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!

Exactly. which is why they set it up in the first place. So they could make
all of us "jump through their hoops" and give them money, too. They don't
give a damn about the environment. It's the power and the money.

> >>         Okay, that's the set up. Now, going before the district
> >>any argument that I advanced was shot down by the state trooper who
>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
>when self-defense is presented as a defense, he is told, "that's not why
> >>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

Take it to a higher court if you're interested in principle.

> > You don't have to wait for the magistrate to intervene. You can do it >
> >
> >>         My question to the rest of you is this: is it unreasonable for
> >>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
> >>
> >
> >By Jove, I think he's got it! Let's look at what Ayn Rand had to say
> >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.......

Read it again. It explains, in detail, why they do what they're doing, and
why it works for them. If you can't find a copy let me know and give me a
snail mail address. I've got lots of copies and the price is right: it's

Get Your Private, Free Email at

More information about the Rushtalk mailing list