I’m guessing the phrase “equal protection” doesn’t mean anything to you… Part 6

Return of the Jedi, from Fredericksburg.com: Kaine says abusive driver reimbursements are ’08 option [emphasis wholly mine]:

Amid ebbing legislative support for the state’s new abusive driver fees, Gov. Timothy M. Kaine said Friday that reimbursing those who have paid them is an option the General Assembly can consider in 2008.

“We have a chance to fix it,” the Democratic governor told reporters.

“Look, we might have the ability to do reimbursements,” he said. “I’m not going to commit to that, but if there’s a decision made by the legislature, that’s one option they could consider.”

Virginians statewide have responded with outrage to the “civil remedial fees” payable in three annual installments that can range from $750 for driving with a suspended license to $3,000 for a driving-related felony. Nonresidents are exempt from the fees.

The possibility of refunds is a trade-off that may help Kaine and other supporters of the fees resist calls for a special legislative session to repeal the law this year. Kaine favors mending its flaws after the regular 2008 legislature convenes in January.

Refunds are possible, Kaine said, because the revenue from the fees has not been budgeted.

“The dollars from the abuser fees were not scheduled to be used for another year-and-a-half,” he said. Besides refunds, legislators could decide to suspend payment of the second and third installments of the fees, he said.

[…]

Kaine’s remarks came one day after Sen. Charles J. Colgan called for not only repealing the prohibitive surcharges Virginia began imposing on its worst drivers July 1, but refunding the fees to all who have paid them.

“I’ve thought this was a lousy bill all along,” Colgan, D-Prince William, said in an interview Friday. He voted against it consistently, but supported the amended version the House and Senate accepted in April.

Then you didn’t vote against it consistently, you moron.

Colgan and other legislative Democrats have parted with Kaine over the abusive driver provisions in the past three weeks. Unlike many of them, Colgan does not favor a special legislative session this year.

In a news conference with House and Senate Republican leaders last week, Kaine resisted growing calls for a special session to repeal the bill, asking for more time to study the effectiveness of the fees in reducing traffic accidents and dangerous driving.

In addition to political opposition to the fees, the first effort to have courts declare them unconstitutional got on track Thursday. A Henrico County General District Court is expected to render the first ruling on the law by Aug. 2, the first step toward a state Supreme Court decision.

Virginia modeled its penalties against egregious driving on those already in effect in Michigan and New Jersey. But there is no data in either of those states that conclusively demonstrates that roads became safer as a result.

Kaine on Friday cited unspecified “anecdotal evidence” since July 1 that he said suggests the fees are working.

Uh, Kaine can you open your mouth without removing any doubt that you’re an idiot? What “anecdotal evidence”? Do I have to file a freedom of information act (FOIA) request for it?

I have a question, Governor, are you going to pay interest for the reimbursements? How much will it cost to reimburse people in administrative fees for the original collection and then reimbursement?

You sir, are a bold face liar, you have not intention of repelling the law, otherwise, you would have requested a special session. You’re hoping that people forget completely about by January. I, for one, won’t have.

Remember this crap in November people.

I’m guessing the phrase “equal protection” doesn’t mean anything to you… Part 5

The Empire Strikes Back, or something, from The Washington Post: Va. Enacted Bad-Driver Fees Despite Red Flags [emphasis wholly mine]:

Virginia lawmakers imposed steep new fees on bad drivers this year despite warning signs from states with similar programs that they cause a surge in unlicensed motorists and have crippling effects on the poor.

The licenses of tens of thousands of motorists in New Jersey and Michigan have been suspended because they cannot afford the fees, and little evidence has emerged that such fines improve highway safety, according to state officials and studies.

Numerous lawmakers, judges and social activists in both states have sought to either repeal the fees or make major changes in how they are collected. But once the programs are implemented, they are difficult to get rid of, because state lawmakers are unwilling to give up the revenue they raise, judges and lawmakers said.

Which is why Kaine and those coward Republicans refuse to have a special session to do anything about them.

[…]

Lawmakers predicted that the measures, in effect since July 1, would improve highway safety and raise $65 million a year, to be used for new road and rail projects. On Monday, however, Del. L. Scott Lingamfelter (R-Prince William) joined a growing list of legislators calling for repeal, saying the measures are “beyond repair.”

But you were supporting them a couple weeks ago, are you saying you didn’t read the legislation you voted on, Mr. Lingamfelter?

At a news conference last week defending the fees, Gov. Timothy M. Kaine (D) and House Speaker William J. Howell (R-Stafford) said they had no information to suggest that there were problems in states that use such fees.

Yeah, I bet, you weasels.

When Buhl heard that Virginia lawmakers were considering the fees last year, he e-mailed all 140 legislators, explaining why he thought the program was a failure in Michigan, which began assessing the fees in 2003. No one responded, Buhl said.

Officials in Michigan and New Jersey say Virginians should brace for problems, including clogged courts and the prospect of thousands of residents having to choose between keeping their licenses and paying their bills.

[…]

Under pressure to repeal the fees, the state [New Jersey] commissioned a study last year that found that although only 16 percent of residents live in low-income areas, those neighborhoods house nearly 40 percent of the people whose licenses have been suspended for failure to pay fees and fines.

[…]

Cathleen Lewis, a New Jersey motor vehicle agency spokeswoman, said there is no way to determine whether the fees “conclusively impact highway safety.”

In Michigan, traffic fatalities declined 12 percent from 2003 to 2005, compared with a 2.2 percent increase nationwide during that period, according to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. A spokesman for the Michigan State Police said it is too early to tell whether the decline can be attributed to the fees.

[…]

In Virginia, Henry County Commonwealth’s Attorney Bob Bushnell said state prosecutors are bracing for similar problems.

“The way this thing works out, it is going to have an absolutely ruinous effect on financially challenged Virginians,” he said. “To my knowledge, no one from the police was consulted. We weren’t consulted. The court clerks weren’t consulted. Had it come up, I think the General Assembly would have been aware of all kinds of concerns from Virginians about the unanticipated downside to this program.”

Well, it’s nice to see the Republicans are going to lose the General Assembly this year (note the sarcasm). However, it might be worth it since Kaine has just Gilmored himself.

Hat tip: Overlawyered

Let’s screw the businesses so we can get reelected in November…

From Fredericksburg.com: Stafford tries tax districts again:

Stafford County could soon tax businesses to pay for the widening of two congested roads.

The Board of Supervisors approved a measure last week to create service districts for State Route 610 and U.S. 17.

But one business owner, who successfully sued the county before, said he plans to fight the measure again.

Attorney Richard Nageotte runs a law practice along 610. He sued Stafford in 2001, and again in 2006, to block the creation of the 610 service district.

In the last Circuit Court decision, the judge ruled that Virginia’s service district law excludes roads under the jurisdiction of the Virginia Department of Transportation.

But the General Assembly has since clarified the statute, giving Stafford the green light to try again.

[…]

Although he hasn’t filed suit yet, the attorney said he plans to challenge the measure because it’s unfair to small-business owners.

“The bottom line is the business community shouldn’t be taxed for what is necessary for the entire community,” he said. “If we need improvements to 610, then everyone should pay for them.”

Improvements planned for 610 include widening it from four lanes to six lanes, beginning at Interstate 95 and ending at Onville Road.

[…]

Planned changes to U.S. 17 include lane expansions and additional sidewalks. A federal highway, U.S. 17 is used by thousands of out-of-town motorists each day, noted Falmouth Supervisor George Schwartz.

“We’ve got truck traffic coming up and down, tourists, everybody uses that road,” said Schwartz, who was the only supervisor to oppose the service districts. “It’s unfair to tax only the local business to improve that road.”

Funding from VDOT and revenue from the gas tax have helped pay for some road projects. But local officials say more funding is needed to ease congestion on Stafford’s busiest roads.

The levy against businesses is the only viable available option for now, according to Hartwood Supervisor Joe Brito.

“As far as I’m concerned, the service district is the last resort,” he said.

Why is it that only businesses are going to be taxed? How many subdivisions are on these roads that probably account for the majority of traffic on them? The businesses wouldn’t be there if the people didn’t live on the road.

From what I can see on Google Earth of the area, there has to be over a dozen different subdivisions on a couple mile section of 610 (Garrisonville Road). Expert planning there Stafford County.

I’m guessing the phrase “equal protection” doesn’t mean anything to you… Part 3

From the Richmond Times-Dispatch: Big fines for bad drivers tested:

A courtroom assault yesterday on the state’s new fees for traffic offenses fizzled in a cloud of legal briefs and a no-show.

After a Henrico County judge politely said he didn’t have the authority to address the issue, a Henrico man portrayed as a test case to overthrow the civil remedial fees failed to show up for his court appearance.

“Is Anthony Price here? Anthony Price?” defense lawyer Esther Windmueller asked unsuccessfully, scanning a General District courtroom.

General District Judge Archer L. Yeatts III, who had less than an hour earlier refused to rule on the constitutional merits of the fees, rescheduled Price’s case for Aug. 23 and moved on to a reckless driving case.

That left Windmueller suggesting to reporters that she might have to troll the hallways of the Henrico Courts building for a new plaintiff.

[…]

The fees, passed by the legislature this year, are intended to generate more than $60 million toward state road funds. So far they have mostly generated fever-pitch public opposition — in large part because out-of-state drivers aren’t subject to the ramped-up fines.

[…]

In Richmond traffic court yesterday morning, clerks were marveling at the city’s first instance of a traffic offense that invoked the costly fee structure.

A July 1, noontime stop on Lee Bridge had produced charges of reckless driving and no valid driver’s license for a man court papers identified as Rolando Reyes.

“This was our first one,” said Irving C. Wright, clerk of the Richmond General District Court’s traffic division.

Yesterday, Reyes saw the reckless driving charge reduced to speeding but saw his costs explode.

Instead of being limited to fines and court costs of $317, Reyes had to pay $617 with the addition of the new $300 penalty fee.

And he’ll owe $600 more in coming months in two $300 installments, bringing the total to $1,217.

Had Reyes not had the reckless driving charge reduced, he could have been looking at a total of more than $2,200.

[…]

Besides the fact that out-of-state offenders don’t face the extra penalties, critics say, the fees most severely affect low-income traffic offenders, and collection efforts are expected to clog the courts and increase the number of cumbersome cases that involve defense lawyers.

“People will get lawyers hoping they can reduce the charges,” said Henrico General District Court Clerk Lawrence G. Sprader.

The state attorney general’s office argued to Yeatts yesterday that only a higher court can block the fees. Yeatts agreed, saying that a legal theory of seeking to bar the clerk’s office from collecting the fees is improper.

“The judge imposes the fee,” said Yeatts, noting that the judges control the actions of the clerk.

Windmueller said she and co-counsel Craig S. Cooley will likely take the case to the higher court, the county’s Circuit Court, before the end of the week. Traffic cases from the lower court that are subject to the fees are likely to reach circuit courts across the state, also, as the cases are appealed. That would produce scores of opportunities to challenge the law, lawyers familiar with traffic cases said yesterday.

[…]

Gov. Timothy M. Kaine has said he favors waiting for the regular session in January to make the fee structure more equitable.

If there’s a problem Governor, why wait?

Again, from the Richmond Times-Dispatch [photo credit: Virginia House of Delegates]: Delegate does U-turn, now opposes high fees:

Scott Lingamfelter Del. L. Scott Lingamfelter, R-Prince William, now says he opposes increased fees on bad drivers.

Del. L. Scott Lingamfelter, R-Prince William, who 12 days ago defended unsafe-driver fees, now says they should be repealed.

[…]

Lingamfelter declined to say whether the General Assembly should be called back into special session to repeal the bill. That is up to the leadership, he said, but if he came back to Richmond, he would vote for repeal.

Lingamfelter said the bill is “at best complicated.” It also should apply to all drivers, not just Virginians, he added. In addition, he said the fees should be focussed [sic] on curbing bad driving, not on repairing roads.

Twelve days ago, Lingamfelter wrote an op-ed article in which he defended the fees, saying only reckless drivers should be disturbed by them.

The House Democratic Caucus issued a news release yesterday calling Lingamfelter “flip-flop Scott.”

“He saw his support for the abusive-driving tax that exempts out-of-state drivers as hurting him politically, so he put political expediency above principle,” caucus spokesman Mark Bergman said.

A Democrat, William Day of Prince William, is opposing Lingamfelter in November.

Lingamfelter said “real leaders listen, learn and act. They do not name-call, which is what the Democrats do.”

So you admit you’re not a “real leader”? You appear to have listened and learned but where is your act? You’re sitting on your fat ass complaining. Why do you refuse to call for a special session? If there’s a problem Delegate, why wait?

Again, from the Richmond Times-Dispatch: Driver fees about to be tested in court:

An effort to stop Virginia’s new special fees for traffic offenses great and small will get another day in a Henrico County court this morning. Anthony Price has been found.

A legal team had said Tuesday that Price would serve as an important test case to overthrow the fees as unconstitutional. But Price, who lives in Henrico, didn’t show up for court. That left his lawyers, a judge, and a gaggle of media with no case, no ruling and no story.

But Price, located yesterday by a Times-Dispatch reporter, said that he believed his court date was today and he was unaware that a high-powered legal team was ready to defend him.

“Who?” Price said yesterday when asked if he’d been contacted by prominent trial lawyers Craig S. Cooley and Esther Windmueller.

Windmueller said her efforts to contact Price about court dates and her representation likely got lost in the mail.

[…]

Price got in touch with the lawyers yesterday, and Windmueller said he would appear at a General District Court hearing this morning.

Price is facing his fifth charge of driving on a suspended license. If convicted today, he faces $750 in penalty fees in addition to fines and court costs. He referred questions about his driving history to his lawyers.

But Price’s conviction, which his lawyers said they would appeal, would set in motion an effort to end the fees statewide.

A Henrico General District Court judge on Tuesday refused to consider legal arguments that the fees were unconstitutional because the motions were brought before the court independent of a defendant being charged with one of the offenses.

But Price does face a traffic charge affected by the new fees. If the judge rules that the fees are unconstitutional, the ruling will likely be appealed by the state.

The special fees went into effect July 1 and are just beginning to reach traffic courts. They apply to dozens of traffic infractions, from manslaughter to a failed turn signal. They have outraged tens of thousands of drivers.

[…]

A key constitutional issue centers on the fact that the higher fees do not apply to out-of-state drivers, even when they commit the same driving offenses as a Virginian.

One lawyer said yesterday that she would raise the argument that a person from another country, whether in Virginia illegally or on a visa, should not have to pay the fee, either.

The fees range from $3,000 for more-serious crimes such as vehicular manslaughter and felony unauthorized use of a motor vehicle to $900 for having below-standard tires or failing to wear a seat belt while operating a school bus, according to guidelines published by the state Supreme Court.

For now I give a reprieve for lawyers.

Justice in Caroline? Nope, just nolle prosequis. Part 2 AKA Latney fiddles while Caroline burns…

See previous article.

I previously quoted this week’s edition of The Caroline Progress regarding the various nolle prosequis [Latin for “not to wish to prosecute”] by Commonwealth’s Attorney Harvey Latney, Jr., Esq., well it gets even better when you check out the background of the people that Mr. Latney, Esq., wishes not to prosecute (nolle prosequi by Latney in italics, felonies in bold [note: this is just Caroline County, Virginia unless otherwise noted {photo credit: Caroline County Sheriff’s Office and Delaware Criminal Justice Information System – Online Wanted Person Review}]):

  • Eric Childs: Eric Childs
    • July 10, 2007:
      • Pleaded guilty – Distribution of cocaine.
      • Pleaded guilty – Distribution of cocaine.
      • Nolle prosequi – Distribution of cocaine.
      • Nolle prosequi – Distribution of cocaine.
    • March 26, 2006:
      • Guilty – Possession/distribution of controlled paraphernalia.
    • February 8, 2006:
      • Guilty in absentia – Drunk in public.
    • May 27, 2005:
      • Guilty – Petit larceny.
    • May 31, 1998:
      • Guilty in absentia – Drunk in public.
  • Paul Ferguson:
    • August 24, 2007:
      • Pending – Failure to appear on felony charge.
      • Pending – Possession of cocaine.
      • Pending – Driving on suspended.
    • July 10, 2007:
      • Nolle prosequi – Credit card fraud.
    • April 6, 2007:
      • Guilty – Failure to appear on felony charge.
      • Guilty – Driving on suspended.
      • Guilty – Seat belt violation.
    • February 2, 2007:
      • Guilty in absentia – Driving under revoked/suspended license.
      • Guilty in absentia – Failure to appear on driving suspended.
      • Guilty in absentia – Safety beat violation.
    • July 19, 2006:
      • Guilty in absentia – Expired state inspection.
      • Guilty in absentia – Seat belt violation.
      • Guilty in absentia – No operation license in possession.
    • June 25, 2003:
      • Prepaid – 62/45 speeding.
    • July 3, 2002:
      • Prepaid – 74/55 speeding.
  • Saleem Stevens:
    • July 10, 2007:
      • Nolle Prosequi – Possession of a controlled substance.
    • June 24, 2005:
      • Nolle prosequi – Possession of Schedule I/II drugs.
      • Nolle prosequi – Distribution of Schedule I/II drugs.
      • Nolle prosequi – Possession of a controlled substance.
      • Nolle prosequi – Conspiracy to violate drug act.
      • Nolle prosequi – Possession of substance with firearm.
      • Nolle prosequi – Possession of cocaine.
      • Nolle prosequi – Possession of ecstacy [sic].
      • Nolle prosequi – Possession of heroin.
      • Nolle prosequi – Possession of marijuana.
  • Edward Pinkney:
    • July 13, 2007:
      • Guilty – Trespass after forbidden.
      • Nolle prosequi – Grand larceny.
    • January 5, 1994:
      • Sentence/Probation revoked – Show cause.
    • May 26, 1993:
      • Guilty – Possession of cocaine.
  • Donald Grabenstein:
    • July 13, 2007:
      • Nolle prosequi – Assault and battery.
    • January 19, 2005, District Court for Baltimore County, Maryland:
      • Guilty – Assault, second degree.
      • Guilty – Disorderly conduct.
    • June 29, 2004, District Court for Baltimore City, Maryland:
      • Guilty – Controlled dangerous substance: Possession – not marihuana [sic].
  • Ernest Deviers:Ernest Deviers
    • July 13, 2007:
      • Nolle prosequi – Assault and battery.
    • October 19, 2005 in Stafford County, Virginia:
      • Guilty – Criminal non-support.
    • December 6, 2001 in Stafford County, Virginia:
      • Guilty in absentia – Bad check $34.16.
    • July 31, 2001 in Fredericksburg, Virginia:
      • Guilty – Failure to appear for trial.
      • Guilty – Bad check $89.88.
    • February 27, 1998 in Stafford County, Virginia:
      • Guilty – Habitual offender violation.
    • September 30, 1997 in Stafford County, Virginia:
      • Guilty in absentia – Invalid boat registration.
      • Guilty in absentia – Operation boat without proper.
    • April 19, 1993 in Stafford County, Virginia:
      • Driving while suspended after driving while intoxicated.
    • Has warrants out for him in two states:
      • Delaware:
        • Capias / Failure to appear – capias return/civil contempt of court.
        • Warrant failure to appear / failure to stop at a stop sign – warrant failure to appear / driving while suspended or revoked.
        • Capias failure to pay / driving while suspended or revoked.
      • Maryland:
        • Failure to appear – Driving while intoxicated, under the influence of alcohol or drugs or drugs & alcohol or controlled dangerous substance.
        • Failure to appear – Person driving motor vehicle on suspended out of state license.

Sources:

I’m guessing the phrase “equal protection” doesn’t mean anything to you… Part 2

See previous article

From the Richmond Times-Dispatch: Kaine, GOP united on traffic fines:

Virginians will have to put up with new, stiff fines for bad drivers at least until early next year.

[…]

They’re now immune because Kaine and lawmakers this year agreed the fines would be difficult to collect from non-Virginians — a feature of which some legislators said they were unaware.

Read the legislation I’m voting on? Parish the thought!

“Being for driver safety is a good thing,” said Kaine. “We need to study it in a deliberate way before we rush into it.”

What the hell kind of line is that? Is someone going to say they’re for bad driver safety? I’m sure these fines are going to slow people down on I-95.

Kaine and Howell, accompanied by transportation and safety advocates as well as the Republican majority leaders of the House and Virginia Senate, emphasized that Virginians need not fear the controversial fines if they drive safely.

Here’s hoping all of you get tickets, you corrupt asses.

Howell and Senate Majority Leader Walter A. Stosch, R-Henrico, suggested that bloggers, the news media and a confusing overview of the law on the Virginia Supreme Court Web site have contributed to public misunderstanding.

“Those damn bloggers! Exposing our actions like that!” Where have I heard that before?

“I don’t feel we dropped the [public relations] ball,” Howell said. “This has been a storm that no one anticipated.”

Because someone found out about it. You thought you could hide in your offices, vote on bills, and no one would notice what’s in them.

The unlikely display of bipartisanship at a state Capitol news conference was aimed at quelling a spreading voter revolt, largely via the Internet, that potentially threatens some legislators in fall elections for the House and Senate.

Unfortunately for me, no one is running against McDougle or Wittman.

[…]

A growing number of legislators, most of them Republicans, have urged Kaine to order the General Assembly into special session this summer to revise the penalties, some of which could cost drivers thousands of dollars over three years. Felony offenses, such as reckless driving, carry a $3,000 fine.

I thought you wanted them fix, Kaine, you lying bastard. You just want people to totally forget about it by next year. If there’s a problem, why wait?

House Majority Leader H. Morgan Griffith, R-Salem, told reporters he believed the Virginia courts would rule that it is constitutional for the state to limit the penalties to Virginians. Griffith, a lawyer, who — like Albo — handles traffic cases, said the new law could cut into his business.

“We’re going to tell our clients, ‘Hey, I’m not going to challenge its constitutionality. You may want another lawyer,'” said Griffith. “It’s going to cost us a few clients.”

You’re so full of it. They’re going to hire you in the hope of being found not guilty or negotiating a plea deal for an amended charge you weasels.

Here’s hoping the people that voted for this get their asses kicked in November.