Re: Driver Responsibility Assessment

More | Report Post

On 11/02/08, Carolyn wrote:
> I am not a lawyer but a family member has to pay 3K over 3
> years for a misdemeanor conviction in additon to state fines.
> In Texas, with all legal fess it is a 10K event. It is also
> a record for a lifetime and does not drop off ever. If
> anyone has other state laws and their "forgiveness" time frame
> that would be helpful. I am working on changing the money &
> the lifetime conviction (this applies to under 21 as well!)
> surroundig DWI in Texas. It is out of control.
> Thanks! Any comment is appreciated:-)
>
>
>> I am interested in the same. I am starting a petition to
>> repeal this insane article of the NYS V & T law [sections
>> 1199 and 503(4)]. I will post again with a link to the web
>> site when it is up and running.

I'm not so sure about other states not having researched them, but
the New York law is illegal on several strongly arguable levels.
The difficulty is not with identifying and proving its illegality-
it generally violates both due process and state sovereignty, as
well as the inappropriate crossover between justice and taxation-
but more with the actual mechanism of trial.

The first trouble is that it would more or less have to go to the
Supreme Court, pursuant to the United States Constitution, article
III, section 2, "In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public
Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party,
the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the
other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have
appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such
Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall
make." SCOTUS is rather busy, and I have a feeling would be
inclined, under its current composition, to dismiss without
hearing a "trivial" case such as this one, especially as it only
affects "reckless people" like us occasional speeders.

The second MAJOR issue is that of representation. Google this
problem and you'll quickly see that traffic attorneys simply love
it. It is very good for business, because now more than ever it
is essential to legally defend against a ticket, and the threshold
of value for retaining an attorney just went up by over $300. Why
would any attorney who works in traffic be willing to repeal this
evil, profitable law? And why would any other attorney risk the
ire of his brethren?

Add on to that the PR balance. As much as I'd like to think I'm
normal, "most" people, or at least most typical New York voters,
first off really don't care enough about this issue for it to
become a voting issue, and VERY few would care about it enough to
oust a candidate who otherwise sits with their partisan leanings-
not to mention that, admittedly, any bill that constitutes
screwing over the commonplace taxpayer and especially the average
driver is a pretty bipartisan measure.
Additionally, the PR spin for the state is simple on this one, you
can read it on the DMV web site. "The purpose of the Driver
Responsibility Program is to prevent the repeated behavior of
problem drivers and to improve traffic safety." I'm still a bit
unsure how the idea of paying a $450 fee plus a 10% hit on my
exorbitant state-mandated insurance is going to be more effective
than paying a $150 fee plus a 10% hit on my exorbitant
state-mandated insurance, but one thing is for sure, it will make
me more likely to move to a non-DRA state and take my tax dollars
with me.

If he hadn't already been ousted for his general asshattery, I'd
insist that we work to oust the responsible governor. As it is,
it would be wise to make a list of the state Assemblymen and
Senators who voted for the bill, post their names to a web site,
and solicit their direct pledges to repeal the bill. In return
for their pledge and a successful vote, we will endorse their
reelection... and if not, we'll help raise campaign funds for
their opponents. That would be an appropriate reversal of the
extortion.

I, for one, will pledge to match, dollar for dollar, the extortion
payments I'll have made to the state for this illegal fee, as a
campaign pledge to a state senator who vows to vote against
renewing the program. Anyone with me?