Virginia Gun Owners Forum - VGOF

I got this in an email from a friend who drives for a living , but I don't know if there is any truth to it? It would seem to be quite a conflict of interest if it were true. Does anyone know this delegate David B. Albo? (R-Springfield)


Virginia motorists convicted of minor traffic violations will face a new, multi-year tax beginning July 1. Led by state Delegate David B. Albo (R-Springfield), lawmakers slipped a driver responsibility tax into a larger transportation funding bill signed by Governor Tim Kaine (D) in April. Albo, a senior partner in the Albo & Oblon, LLP traffic law firm, can expect to see a significant increase in business as motorists seek to protect their wallet from traffic tickets that come with assessments of up to $3000 in addition to an annual point tax that tops out at $700 a year for as long as the points remain. Driving as little as 15 MPH over the limit on an interstate highway now brings six license demerit points, a fine of up to $2500, up to one year in jail, and a new mandatory $1050 tax. The law also imposes an additional annual fee of up to $100 if a prior conviction leaves the motorist with a balance of eight demerit points, plus $75 for each additional point (up to $700 a year). The conviction in this example remains on the record for five years. Other six-point convictions include "failing to give a proper signal," "passing a school bus" or "driving with an obstructed view." The same $1050 assessment applies, but the conviction remains on the record for eleven years. Although the amount of the tax can add up quickly, the law forbids judges from reducing or suspending it in any way. The tax applies only to Virginia residents.

Howdy,

Given this was signed into law by Kaine rather than McDonnell, I would say this information has been living on the internet for a while. It sounds rather like the "abusive driver fees" that slipped in under the radar a few years ago, and were later repealed due to public outcry. I remember that those applied to VA residents only due to some legal technicality.

Regards,

George

I don;t think it's true..We would have heard people getting traffic citations screaming bloody blue murder if it was............

I haven't heard about this and I doubt it is true. However...

David Albo (R) did author the abusive driver fee law and he is a traffic attorney.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/co ... 03116.html

Legislators also failed to fully explore what was happening in other states with such fees. Albo modeled Virginia's law after New Jersey's, but he and others in the General Assembly were unaware of similar laws in Michigan and Texas, where judges are pushing for them to be repealed. In Michigan and Texas, as in Virginia, licenses are suspended when drivers do not pay the fees.

"We lost the PR battle," said Del. David B. Albo (R-Fairfax), a main supporter of the fees. "You can't fight the Internet."

He wrote it. He fought tooth and nail for it. He complained when we the people got it killed. This law was to line his pockets and nothing else. Faced with that kind of fee you would hire lawyers like him to fight it.

This was a unashamed abuse of government power. Albo is a crooked as they come as his authoring this legislation shows. It isn't just a bunch of "D"s that need to go, there are lot of "R"s too.

Edit: Albo is no friend of gun rights either. Come election time he will claim to be a friend of the 2nd, but he isn't. The best thing that can be said about Albo and gun rights is, he isn't Sara Brady...

well hopefully he will be sacrificed at the alter of the eternal incumbants this year....

There is no truth to this internet rumor.

Apparently, there is some person who, either incompetently or maliciously, made up an e-mail trying to make people think that there is some kind of surcharge (known as "Civil Remedial Fees" or "Abuser Fees") being put on speeding tickets beginning July 1.

The e-mail cited a "Newspaper.com" article claiming there is a "new law." The problem is that the original e-mail author did not actually take time to look at the article he was forwarding. If he did, he would have noticed that it is from three years ago. I have received a lot of inquiries. Here is my general response:

1. The article cited is from 2007.

2. This person should be writing to reps in NJ, TX and MI which all have this law.

3. Third, the law was repealed three years ago.

4. I voted for the repeal. When I started working on this concept 6 years ago, it seemed like a good idea because many other states are doing it with no controversy. And, from 2004 to the date it was passed in 2007, I received only one call complaining about it. The concept was to make people who commit criminal violations on the roads pay more to upkeep the roads than those of us who just get a traffic ticket every year or so. As you can tell from the height of the grass in the medians, there is no money for road maintenance. And no one seems to want a tax increase. So, I thought that since other states are doing this without controversy, maybe it would be a good idea for us. But after it went into effect, a lot of people did not like it. My job is not to do what I want, but to do what my constituents want, so I voted to repeal it. All money charged was refunded. I am not perfect – just trying my best in very difficult circumstances. All I can say is that unlike most politicians, I at least "man up" to it and admit when I made a mistake.

4. Fourth, no mere traffic tickets were ever charged one penny under the short time the law was in effect. The article cited by this person incorrectly stated the law to begin with. It stated that there was a "$3,500 speeding ticket." No speeding tickets were ever charged a dime. The offense had to rise to the level of a Misdemeanor crime (e.g DUI, Reckless Speeding, Vehicular Manslaughter ...) So the fine/fee charged was the least of people's worries. People should have been more concerned about getting a criminal record more than the fee. As for a $3,500 fee/fine? $3,000 was if you killed someone. But the article just happens to leave that small detail out.

5. Typical unaccountable internet trash that misleads people.

6. Oh, and in response to the comments about benefiting me? Raising punishments on activities lowers the occurrence of the activity. That is why we raise penalties on bank robbery, so that people won't do it. When the "Abuser Fee" law was in effect for its brief 7 month life span, Reckless Driving charges went down, and my firm, along with every other law firm, actually had less people calling them for representation, and thus, made less money. And according to the State Police stats, as soon as the Abuser Fees were repealed, people went back to driving insanely. Surprisingly, the fees did not have any effect on Drunk Drivers. Apparently, drunks don't care what the punishment is, they just keep doing it, and keep killing 360+ people a year in Virginia.

Dave

4. There is no money for roads because politicians keep spending all of the gas tax money, etc. that is suppose to be for roads on every other pet project in the budget.

You fought for it until it was politically dead, then voted against it. Some voters look at more than just your voting record, but also your conduct while in office. A simple vote for the right cause does not make you an avid supporter.

6. This evidence does not support your conclusion.

You correctly state that: "When the "Abuser Fee" law was in effect for its brief 7 month life span, Reckless Driving charges went down." There are many possible reasons for this, including LEO not giving out reckless driving tickets as often, knowing that the penalties are stiff. You can not conclude that less people were driving recklessly without more evidence. Just because reckless driving tickets went down doesn't mean pigs fly or any other illogical conclusion. The statement is correct, but it means only what it says...that less reckless driving tickets were issued.

I should also note that less was not qualified. One less is technically a reduction. I assume you or the State Police applied some statistical corrections for time of year, population growth, officer hours spent enforcing traffic laws, etc?

Let me give you a hand here. What you need to show is what the probability of a driver charged with reckless driving getting legal assistance was both before, during and after the law took effect.

E.g. Let's say that before the the law, 50% of drivers who where charged with reckless driving obtained legal assistance. After the law, if only 25% of drivers charged with reckless driving obtained legal assistance, you may have a point. Namely, that the law reduced the likelihood of a driver charged with reckless driving to obtain expensive legal assistance. However, if instead of 25%, 75% of drivers charged obtained legal assistance, then you would not.

In the end, none of that matters.

Here's why. We are simply discussing the outcome. At this point it is probably not possible to prove either way what your intentions with this law were. Surely you argued for it, but whether you thought it would line your pockets or not would be impractical to prove or disprove at this point. All that can be said is this:

In any other endeavor besides government, to have a individual work both sides of a potential issue would be considered a conflict of interest or at the very least, it could provide the appearance of a conflict of interest. Those of us purely in the private sector get trained every year on how to avoid even the appearance. You not only pushed for this bill, but helped write it. In my book, that is beyond appearance.

Edit: No comment on gun rights? That is the purpose of this forum after all.