"cop who wrote the ticket" is a good theory. ylen13 is just one more jacka s s who wants to have everyone be the way he thinks they should be. Most people like that aren't getting laid and are continuously pissed off at a lot of stuff around them. Rest assured all...ylen13 is an irritated POS most of the days of his little pathetic life and that keeps him continuously chaffed at all those around him. People like that just end up grumpy old men after being grumpy young men. They live in their own personal hell and grump around and fume themselves into strokes. So cheers to you Mr. ylen13...you are, and will continue to be, your own frustrated worst enemy.

 

Guys, just ignore this ylen character. He's trying to get under your skin, and sounds like he's doing a good job.

EvoJeff, the wing is functional. Since it is functional, and DOT says it's fine, there's no point in arguing it. It might not be too functional at 50mph. But there are many people here who track their car, and it is very functional on the track. So being DOT approved and functional, why should it not be allowed on the street? Should legal racers at the track be required to spend more money to have a different trunk lid without a wing that they change after a track day, just so a DOT approved wing won't hurt people's eyes on the street? Maybe you like the way it looks, but it is aggressive looking (why you like it) and functional (why others like it).

And all you people complaining about the cop: I don't think it's his fault. He didn't know (probably) that it was a factory unit. The judge is the one who is supposed to uphold the law. The judge is the one who failed here, not the cop. For all we know, the cop just got done writing a ticket to a 911 GT3, or a Vette with a huge aftermarket wing.

 

Nobody told this guy.

 

is that REAL!? Cause if it is, That is BAD A$$!

 

ylen13,

This whole case is a perfect example of judges legislating from the bench, which is basically illegal. This should get thrown out on an appeal. Additionally, filing a civil suit against the judge as a private citizen to recover court fees is a nice little twist. Getting the local "problem solving journalist" on this would be icing on the cake.

 

Haha, the lack of transitional words is making me chuckle. Also aer yeu mayad baceuse in couple of month yeu waell steil be wraeng?!.";,

 

I like how you think, except it seem you forgot that unless judge broke a law he has immunity while he is on the bench, so sorry but you can't sue the judge just because you didn't like his ruling or we would have new specialty for lawyers, sue judges when you don't like there decision

 

So....if your judge is drunk and rules that 4x the legal limit is safe to drive after the defendant mows down a little kid....does that make it so. No. It is called mistrial and can be turned around in an appeal in a higher court. Hence, appelate courts..........people disagree with judges decisions on a daily basis.

 

I don't think he was talking about the appeal...he was talking about my suggestion to file a civil suit against the judge.

 

I like your cold and calculating demeanor. You haven't once stooped down to name calling but are arguing a point, I admire that .... most people have just taken you to be a guy but you may even be a gal. But then again in one of your earlier posts you mentioned that these wings serve no purpose and should be taken off all cars. I beg to differ I believe these wings produce varying amounts of downforce depending on the speed of the vehicle. More at higher speeds and less at lower speeds ..... but even at lower speeds the car with one will have more grip than the car without one .... however minute that may be, its still more and gives you that much better control. Don't we want our drivers to have control of the vehicle they operate? isn't that why we have DUI laws in place? I have to ask you have you ever sat in an EVO? how about a delivery truck? The amount of "view" this wing obstructs is negligible .... its just a fine line across your rear view. Now just because you don't want one doesn't mean others shouldn't have the choice .... its freedom baby, live and let live .... don't push your ideals on others. If you don't want/like one then don't put one on you vehicle but let others choose what they want on their car after DOT has deemed it legal. Don't you think the DOT would know more about motor vehicle safety than the cop or the judge? All this you are wrong and right .... come on, if the law were to change because people took action, wouldn't you be wrong then? I'll guess that you are a lawyer by profession or are someone who deals with it in a day in a day out basis .... Also wishing someone to lose money/time and get stressed because you don't approve a life style they live .... what does that say about you?

 

ylen 13 - time for you to get ready to go back to your rent a cop job at the mall and study hard for your act 120 certification... you don't like wings??? I don't like your handle, your elementary grammer skills, nor your attitude, but i didn't complain at first... now, it's just that i'm going to have some fun with you like you are having with all of us... there is no way, no way possible a small backwards judge is going to be able to over rule the federal government... they have the right to intensify the base law, like Cali does with emissions, but, they can't just disregard federal sections and make things that are legal-illegal... the car got a sticker from the dealership that it passed inspection correct??? Is there a paper we legally sign accepting that the car is for off-road use only??? NO...

You should be banned now for your unethical trolling... you're stuck in a "Hazard County" haze that's impairing your clear thought process and should be issued a citation for being a true Ricard-Cranium... and the judge is doing something illegal, deceiving and using democracy as a tool for his stupid fix and trying to display he has no regards for what he's fraudulently using his power against what he's supposed to be protecting, freedom... and he should be reported for seemingly profiling, have his other rulings observed, and dismissed from his position while being noted on record that he won't be able to get another job with more power than selling hotdogs on a boardwalk, at the south pole...

Now get back to your seemingly empty, fruitless, and pointless life...

ONTO THE MAIN TOPIC...

Man, just fight this... make sure to recoup all expenditures, be it for the lawyer, missed time from work, or lost class time if in school... you're not going to lose... if you would though, i'm moving to Greenland... Get Mitsu involved, i'm sure they're not going to like that maybe some potential buyers were swayed away because of this non-sense that they sell illegal cars... they're having a hard time as is with the warranty issues and covered up recalls waning ppl's trust of buying their product...

 

I will say this last time

1) State can make sticker laws then what us government makes
2) State can't make something legal if us government said it’s illegal
3) State can make something illegal even if us government said its legal, ex some guns in CA illegal but declared legal to be sold by us government
4) He will not be able to recoup his lawyer fees
5) Its the responsibility of the car maker and consumer to make sure the product is legal to use on public street (this 95% of this is dealership responsibility)
6) If he bought the car outside the state/city/county that made this law and brought it in then he have to make sure that using car with current configuration is legal in the place that will be using it.

Also it would be nice if original poster would post civil code for which he was citied/ found guilty so everyone can read and make judgments for them self.

 

actually, impretty sure he bought the car in his home state. so according to ur logic, then hed win the court case, because then the state would be at fault for allowing the sale of a illegal car correct? i mean it is correct according to ur logic

 

"actually, impretty sure he bought the car in his home state. so according to ur logic, then hed win the court case, because then the state would be at fault for allowing the sale of a illegal car correct? i mean it is correct according to ur logic"

Lets look at it in two ways



1) Reasonable person would assume that use of this car would be on Public Street and therefore when consumer buys a car he expects that he is buying a product that he can use legally



2) The way I think judge looked at it. Judge looked from a point that this car will be used on track were visibility law don't apply, and the car will be transported to the truck by a trailer.



Because this car was used on Public Street and judge says it violates civil code he found him guilty. A reasonable person would look at it from #1 scenario.

edit: even do reasonable person would look from screnario #1, what reasonable person would do is not relevent, all what is relevent what is judge(s) interpetation of the law

edit2: yes i am kind of backing away from my previous statements

 

I'm sorry for the ruling. It is imparitive now that an appeal be taken. That is one thing that will get the judge's attention, is asking for appeals paperwork. Make it a trial-by-jury and NOTHING less. They're going to have to convene a jury, and I'm sorry ... probably most of the people in the court will side with you when you say things like OEM, AWD, stock, and the others cars that have 'wings' (not even as functional as the EVO.) It may cost you a bit to get the appeals paperwork done. It also may cost you a bit to represent yourself again, in educating yourself on court proceedings. Also, you may want to dig up the law that hopefully says you can 'drive' as long as your two outside mirrors are not obstructed. That's for all us snow-staters that have to drive with like three feet of snow on our back window.

Also ... you should be proud for representing yourself in court. Good job.

Good Luck,

jcnel.