Legal Junque

John A. Quayle blueoval at SGI.NET
Wed Dec 15 13:10:50 MST 1999

At 09:09 AM 12/15/99 PST, Ray Thomas wrote:
>You wrote:
>> >
>> >>
>> >>         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 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.

        ROTFULOL!!!! You confirmed my darkest fears, Ray!

>>         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 drive a so-called "gross polluter", in what way has the environment
>>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.

        We ought to be able to get rid of all of them! To whom are they
accountable? Only temselves, apparently.

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

        I'd need an attorney at that point. I know a few really fine people who
attornies (surprise!), but I can't afford $300/hr.

John Q.

More information about the Rushtalk mailing list