This and more, cross-posted at "Its Gotta Be... Annie B!"
In 2002 Annie B Crockett-Stark's campaign manager and legislative aide, Anthony Reedy, received a ticket and was tried in the Smyth County General District Court - Criminal Division. The charge was reckless driving under Virginia Code Section 46.2-852. Had Anthony Reedy been convicted of the same offense today, civil remedial fees would apply to the crime and force him to pay $1,050. The text of HB3202 states clearly that...
Reckless driving in violation of Article 7 (-º 46.2-852 et seq.) of Chapter 8 or aggressive driving in violation of -º 46.2-868.1 shall be assessed a fee to be paid in three annual payments of $350 each;
You might still be wondering why this is relevant to the title. Well, only a short time ago, Delegate Crockett-Stark was quoted in the Wytheville Enterprise...
Crockett-Stark also said it is important to remember that people won't be slapped with the fees for simple traffic violations, saying that in general someone has to be "drunk, drugged or on a revoked license" to be affected by the fees.
If she's lying or simply doesn't understand the legislation, that seems almost worse by comparison. If she doesn't even understand the bill, how can she hope to explain it to her constituents? I don't know about you, but I find her campaign of misinformation to voters and constituents simply appalling.
It's probably closer to the truth that Delegate Crockett-Stark has no clue what she voted on. Not surprising, given what she said in the Roanoke Times not so long ago...
"Truthfully, the hardest thing for me is learning to read the bills," she said in an interview last week.She once marched into the office of House Majority Leader Morgan Griffith, R-Salem, with a bill and said: "Tell me what I just read."
Is Annie B trying to pull the wool over our eyes, or is unaware of the consequences of bad legislation she voted on? What's the real story behind her campaign manager's accident? You be the judge.
Are you guys sure you want to go down the road of looking into the past of every campaign staffer out there? I'm sure we've got a few on our side too who've had a couple tickets or smoked a little dope.
Bob
The police officer would have to have thought he was endangering the life or limb of another person to qualify for that charge. His boss, by her own admission, would say that such a person is drunk, drugged, or on a revoked license. Even if the charge was reduced, the suspicion was there.
Your point raised a more serious question, if judges are going to reduce charges like this in court, how in the heck are we going to raise money for roads that way?
If it means we paint a target on our own backs, it serves us right for violating the law. That's the hazard of investing yourself in public service, and the public will ultimately be the judge of how much they're willing to tolerate.