"Cops" was the most polite term I could think of at the time and decorum prevents my normal descriptive syntax. I work in a closed door, high end shop where the owner will not accept an RG as a client. All our clients must be referred by other clients or shops.

I do agree with you that revenue generation is now their prime motive instead of safety issues. Ticket mills are everywhere and their revenue is counted on for the future city budget.

The only reason I disagree with you on the days being gone when a judge would listen to a not guilty plea is from my own first hand experiences. I am probably best described as a "vexatious litigant", and damned proud of it. There is almost always a remedy that can be sought even in the "Marcupial" , read that Kangaroo, courts.

My best example: I took a writer for Sports Car International on a high speed run in one of our modified Porsches. We went 217 MPH on the 210 West Freeway between Sunland and Sylmar California. We only got 211 on the Golden State freeway by Magic Mountain in Valencia. He wrote about it and used my name as the driver and the bulk of the article was about my shop, PorschaSports because we built "street rockets" (street driven cars that exceed 200 Mph).
Someone at the California DMV read about it and my driver's licence was "cancelled". Not suspended or revolked, that takes a court hearing; it was cancelled because "the DMV believes that a serious safety violation has ocurred" and the licence holder must appear in a DMV Safety Officer hearing.
So I appeared with a lawyer and the DMV wanted me to sign a statement promising never to do that again before they would renew my DL. My lawyer advised me to sign it and get my licence. That would have put me in the same catagory as people who were convicted of vehicular manslaughter, multiple DUIs, drug violations, and "endangers" of the public safety. Assigned risk insurance for the rest of your life. Not a chance.
As briefly as possible:
My Complaint was based on the fact that I was being denied my right to the privilage of driving based on hearsay and without due process. I filed a Wit of Mandamus to force the DMV to contract with me for a DL. It was denied when the court ruled that "due process" was within the DMV policy applied in my case.
For the next seven years I held no California DL and I refused to register my vehicles due to the fact that insurance cannot be given to someone without a valid DL. A conundrum.
A side benefit of this situation was that a person without a DL has no DMV file
Therefore there is no place for citations to be filed against the alleged violator.
I took it to the Federal District court claiming the DMV had no ad personum jurisdiction over me since they refused my driving rights without due process.
Hearsay evidence is always disallowed. I prevailed but I could not have afforded the lawyer fees had I not been in pro per.
The DMV sent a new licence, with no photo necessary. My DMV record now reflects no violations, ever.

Maybe we should start a thread on our encounters with the RGs, eh?

"The best place to find a helping hand is by looking at the end of your own arm."