“4. Any other misdemeanor conviction for a driving and/or motor vehicle related violation of Title 18.2 or this title that is not included in one of the preceding three subdivisions shall be assessed a fee to be paid in three annual payments of $300 each;”.
(http://www.courts.state.va.us/publications/hb_3202.pdf )

Failing to signal properly costs $900, as does not wearing a seat belt or any other minor driver goof, even defective tires or inoperable lights, per paragraph 4.

Kaine, Howell, and the members of the Legislature who voted for this monster law are mendaciously engaged in panic spin control, using the propaganda tactic of misleading the public by using a negative term, “abusive driver”, when the new civil remedial fees really apply to ANY Virginia driver who makes a mistake, however small.

And don’t forget, in many situations, especially accidents, there can be multiple violations cited and EACH ONE is subject to its own CRF! At $900 minimum each, even a few misdemeanors can rocket up to thousands of dollars in fees. One accident could put one’s economic future, credit rating, and security clearance at risk!

The fees are a disguised, discriminatory, regressive tax which will have a gigantic impact on the young, poor and elderly legal residents (out of state drivers and illegal aliens won’t have to pay) of Virginia.

Voters should remember the deception involved and, in the election coming up, throw the rascals out, Republican or Democrat, who voted for or supported the CRF measure; most of whom are now misleading the public in a rush to cover their posteriors. And that includes Delegate Scott Lingamfelter whose “good attempt to set the record straight” in another thread on this site is instead an effort to stay in office.

Rest assured Senator Davis in Fairfax will not get my vote in the general election and I will actively campaign against her relentlessly unless she and the others involved call a special session and erase the CRF section of the law. Those in Delegate Scott Lingamfelter’s or Delegate Albo’s districts and elsewhere might consiger similar actions.

Where are those who savage me for pointing out more glaring errors? Not rising to my defense?

I love the double-standards around here, though I acknowledge “NoVA Scout’s” comment (which I had to look up; I acknowledge his superior Latin skills).

And NJH, aren’t most memories from law school “bad” ones?

I used to race against an impressive sailboat named “Res Ipsa Loquitur” And it did. Often at my expense.

Thanks for bringing back bad memories, James!

NJH

I stand corrected.

First, notice how OPD dodged my questions. How about it, OP? What percentage of a taxpayers’ income is “enough,” i.e., what is the maximum percentage of total income that an individual should be required to pay in taxes, a question those of you who regularly advocate more taxes regularly “dodge”? How much extra you’ve sent in this year?

OP, you said this (I presume Greg won’t censor it, in light of your request for it, lest he likewise censor your comment) in a comment on my blog:

I don’t doubt that I may have spoken or even written against the idea or the need for any politician having to sign a “NO TAX PLEDGE.” I wonder how Del Lingamfelter, among others, feels now that he has broken his “pledge.”

http://skepticalobservor.blogspot.com/2007/06/faisal-gill-wins-gop-nomination-in-51st.html#c2151283754557608580

You therefore inveigh against people who make the pledge, condemn those whom you believe to have broken the pledge, and remain utterly silent about those who both took the pledge, and whom you apparently don’t believe to have broken it (Jeff Frederick and Bob Marshall come to mind).

The legal phrase is “res ipsa loquitor”: the thing speaks for itself. It is entirely logical to conclude that you don’t like the pledge because of your enthusiasm for/belief in tax increases, or a tax increase. Now, I suppose you can try to quibble your way out of it, but that’s what it would be: quibbling. Furthermore, you have long been an apologist for Chairman Sean and his tax increases (kind of like “NoVA Scout,” whose claim to credentials as “an anti-tax conservative of long-standing” are laughable in light of his comments elsewhere on the same subject).

Hey Jim…how did Faisal do in his wreckless driving case last Thursday??? Was that for ticket number 2, or 3? I don’t remember.

And as for “NoVA Scout,” you just love to have it both ways, don’t you? Demonize anti-tax conservatives, and then demonize them some more when they do something that you advocate.

Why do some of you continue to try to posture as “Conservatives”?

Oh, yeah. Because it’s electorally popular.

I cancelled my plans because of that. That is five hundred dollars not spent at certain retailers in the Dulles area.

The one road I could have taken would be the Dulles airport road which never gets crowded. But I didn’t want to drive from 66 back onto route 7 through tysons corner to get to the Dulles Airport road then south on 28 to get to Chantilly which is almost a straight shot on 66.

Of course the geniuses are spending billions on rail to go to the airport instead of on 66 where it is really needed.