I don't believe that a person's driving record is necessarily relevant to their fitness for public office, and no, I wasn't looking for this sort of thing, a blog commenter brought it to my attention. But Darcy Burner's traffic infraction from June 2005 is interesting in its own way. Richard Pope, legal records researcher par excellence, sent the court file and explained the various inscrutable codes:
It was for an accident in Sammamish. Ticket issued for speeding too fast for conditions, so she probably caused the accident. She went to court on August 16, 2005, and the judge deferred the ticket for a year, conditioned on no further violations and paying $100.00. She paid the $100.00 the same day.What's interesting is that the ticket was issued on June 15, 2005, the same day that Burner declared her candidacy for Congress. Perhaps she was driving carelessly because she was distracted thinking about the campaign. Again, this doesn't necessarily reflect on her fitness to serve in Congress, but her campaign is likely to face some ups and downs for the next seven months. In the interest of public safety, I hope her handlers will do most of the driving. Posted by Stefan Sharkansky at April 10, 2006 09:35 PM | Email This
Sounds like Darcy played the system.
On a related note, it took local bloggers two weeks to dismantle Aaron Dixon, and a large part of the "unfit for public office" claims were his unresolved traffic infractions.
If someone can't even obey the most basic laws, how are we to trust them in making them?
Has anyone else here had an accident where speeding was the cause? What did the judge give you?
Posted by: Jeff B. on April 10, 2006 10:09 PMHorrors of horrors, I'll probably be in agreement with the trolls on this one. Driving too fast for conditions is a subjective traffic citation. As I understand it, you can be doing the speed limit, but if it's raining and you lose control and hit another vehicle, you get this type of ticket. Heck, you can not hit another vehicle and still get cited for this infraction.
If one causes an auto accident one normally gets a citation. This appears to be the case here. Of course I don't know the details, but this is not a big deal.
The court's disposition is normal too. Pay a reduced fine, ticket suspended for one year, and if no further infractions the ticket is expunged.
On a scale of 1 to 10? This is a Zero.
Let's look at her record; she does not have the experience to be a Congresswoman. Focus on that issue.
http://www.justicedenied.org/issue/issue_26/wa_judges_conceal_defense_rights_jd_issue26.html
Posted by: Jeff B. on April 10, 2006 10:17 PMLecturer, The Year of the Woman: Does it Work in Law?, Washington State Trial Lawyers Association Seminar, 1993
Chair, Persuasive Power: Advocacy Skills for Women in the '90's, Washington State Trial Lawyers Seminar, 1991
Lecturer, Semester Course: Women and the Law, Seattle University, 1975
My fine was reduced and the ticket was suspended. After one year without another traffic violation the ticket was removed from my record.
As I understand the issue, what happened to Ms. Burner is the norm.
Second - "Ticket issued for speeding too fast for conditions, so she probably caused the accident..." is quite a stretch... not even close to how things work in the real world. I work in accident reconstruction, and see many cases where speed may contribute to an accident without actually causing it, and an investigating officer usually writes up everything he sees wrong even if it has nothing to do with accident causation - you'd have to see the TCR to really know what the citing officer thought. Apparently, the presumption seems to be that if she's a Democrat it must've been her fault...
Finally - getting a deferral is fairly common for a case where there is no alcohol involved, no one is injured, and the driver has an otherwise clean driving record. It's almost pro-forma if you have the guts - and the time to spend - to contest the citation and go to court.
If Patrick knows people "...who've been charged with reckless driving, and... ended up with: two nights in the crowbar hotel and a suspended license for 90 days..." then he know's the wrong kind of people!
“I know people who\'ve been charged with reckless driving.”
Ms. Burner was not charged with Reckless Driving. She was charged with Speed to Fast For Conditions. Reckless Driving is a serious offense; hence why Mr. Sharansky wants you to think that is what she was charged with through his headline. But Speed to Fast for Conditions means she was traveling the speed limit but could not control her car. Almost any person who rear-ends another will be charged with this (if you were driving at the proper speed for conditions, you would have been able to bring you car to a stop). It wasn’t even a Speeding ticket.
All of the other comments are correct. It is normal with a clean record to pay the fine and get the ticket deferred. If you don’t get another moving violation in six months, I believe, the ticket does not go on your record. You get one deferral every seven years (this is by statute).
No special treatment. Very minor ticket. No story. Let he without a moving violation cast the first stone.
I’ll yield to Obi and others if this would occur with a major offense, like reckless driving, because I simply don’t know. However, note that Ms. Burner never was charged with reckless driving. That was pure propaganda.
And propaganda like that is what Joel Connelly meant, I believe, by the term ratf*ck.
Gee, smells like any number of prominent politicians today, doesn't it? Teddy Kennedy comes to mind. (although I'll admit Barn Burner's crimes aren't nearly as egregious...)
Subtlety and nuance is lost on the thick-skulled...
Posted by: Brian C on April 11, 2006 05:37 AMOn a lighter note, one of the only things she probably does have in common with many people in her district is a LEAD FOOT. At least she had insurance. Hey wasn't she an executive at State Farm? No, just a customer in charge of a $60.00 a month premium budget.
Posted by: Smokie on April 11, 2006 06:24 AMLet me run down the traffic ticket racket for you.
If you get a ticket, and you can't honestly say "not guilty" under oath to the judge, you get shaken down in the best tradition of the 60's Seattle City cops.
They turn you upside down and shake until $100 falls out of your pocket, thusly:
Plead guilty--Pay $101
Ask for mitigation, and reduced fine--GET THIS, the lowest they can go in the Peoples Republic of Shoreline is $89!!! BFD. So much for mitigation.
Or, you can do as Darcy and I did, give them ONE HUNDRED FRIGGIN' bucks, for an "administration fee" (probably goes to DeanRon's retirement fund) and take a deferral for a year. No more tickee in a year, and the thing disappears, along with the $100 administrative fee, and it doesn't show up on your insurance. Can be used once every six years.
So, bottom line, they have you by the short hairs, if you do "something". Heck, I even had a note from the traffic engineer saying my turn was not dangerous, but prohibited due to peak hour traffic. I did it at 4 AM.
But the County of King wants to extract that $100 from you, one way or another.
I wanna see the math on how the "administrative" action came out to cost exactly $100, and find out where that money goes.
The Geezer
Posted by: The Geezer on April 11, 2006 06:30 AMI saw Richard's contribution on the other thread and thought "Interesting, but probably not worth pursuing" but if it brings perpetual dyspeptic morons like jdb/biteme/bedwetter out from under their rocks, then it's worth it!
After all, goldy the degenerate fabricated and embellished and cultivated the flimsiest of slander against David Irons and succeeded in raising enough doubt to allow sims the win.
Keep it up!
Posted by: alphabet soup on April 11, 2006 08:27 AMTrust Dave Reichert to handle Darcy.
Posted by: DJ on April 11, 2006 08:54 AMThat's what the libs do, and We. Aren't. Them. Let Goldy and the "intellectual center" (ROTFLMAO) dig that kind of crap up. And pay the karma debt later.
Posted by: Steve_dog on April 11, 2006 08:57 AMBurner does not have the experience for a run at Congress. I'm sure Reichert will make that very clear.
Posted by: Jeff B. on April 11, 2006 09:08 AMDeferred in this context means that nothing goes on your record immediately, but is held as 'pending' for the time span indicated (one year). If no other driving infractions are incurred within that period, then the ticket magically goes away. If a traffic infraction is incurred, the original waived ticket gets applied, plus whatever the second ticket specifies.
Posted by: chunkstyle on April 11, 2006 09:54 AMPlease explain to my feeble mind how this piece of propaganda shows “the appearance of possible cronyism, political favoritism, and [the] general sweeping aside of procedures for a would be politician”?
As I any others have explained, this is a low level traffic ticket, and it was handled in the normal way that all low level tickets are handled.
But if you have some information, please bring it forward. Goodness knows, apparently Richard Pope and Mr. Sharansky have none.
Focusing on the glaring fact that Darcy isn't at all who she claims to be is where we should be focusing our time and efforts. I don't know where a traffic ticket fits into the debate on her suitability as a candidate, but her world class resume padding is definitely something we shouldn't allow to go unchallenged.
Posted by: Johnny on April 11, 2006 11:25 AMStefan only made mention of a fact: it is all you trollish ones that are going agog about it!
Posted by: alphabet soup on April 11, 2006 07:38 PMAnd Judge Ottinger was even censored [sic] for failing to tell defendants they had a right to council [sic]. Doesn't strike me as a normally lenient judge. Did Darcy Burner get kid gloves?
That's censured for failing to tell defendants they had a right to counsel, you illiterate neocon mouthbreather. And no, she didn't get treated with kid gloves. Read on and be educated.
Patrick scribbled on the bathroom mirror with his husband's lipstick:
That Darcy Burner got off so easily on this charge is what should be brought to light! I know people who've been charged with reckless driving, and you know what they ended up with: two nights in the crowbar hotel and a suspended license for 90 days.
Well, if you knew 1/10th of what you think you know, you would know that reckless driving is a crime, a gross misdemeanor punishable by jail time and a mandatory license suspension. It's defined as "driv[ing] any vehicle in willful or wanton disregard for the safety of persons or property." Sounds like your friend was drag racing or otherwise attempting to fulfill his juvenile masturbation fantasies involving "NASS-KAR!" By contrast "Speed too fast for conditions" isn't a crime, it's an infraction. It means you may not have been actually speeding, but the investigating pig, with his 11th grade education and anxious to meet his quota, thought you were going too fast. It can best be thought of as "attempted speeding." Now, let's compare: Attempted speeding versus "willful and wanton disregard . . ." By now, even you should be able to see that there's an at least Talmudic distinction between the two. As for the deferrals, they're done all the time. I did one a couple of years ago. Does that mean I got red-carpet treatment? No, it meant that I, like Ms. Burner, had to pay an "administrative fee" that was, in an amazing coincidence, equal to the amount of the fine! It allows you to keep the fine off of your driving record and out of the purview of the larcenous, cash-flush-but-poor-mouthing insurance companies.
God Almighty, you people are stupid. Both of you, along with Stefan and the rest of the troglodytes on this board, probably still think Dino Rossi was "robbed" of the election. Do the words "dismissed with prejudice," uttered by the GOP's handpicked right-wing judge in redder-than-red Chelan County, mean anything?
Class dismissed.
Posted by: Critical THINKER on April 12, 2006 01:11 AMI'm looking on the bright side. It means we're at about 14:59 of Stefan's fame. 14:57 was when Judge Bridges "dismissed with prejudice" the GOP's frivolous election challenge and ham-handed swipe at Governor Gregoire's legitimacy. 14:58 was when Stefan made an ass of himself when he appointed himself Elections Judge, Jury, and Executioner last November.
Posted by: Critical THINKER on April 12, 2006 01:34 AMOn a clear day I can see Darcy Burners house and have been able to since she moved in. She is and will continue to be a nobody. She is unqualified, uninvolved and prone to exaggeration with regard to her resume. She will fail in her bid for congress even worse than her mentor Dave Ross the socialist.
Posted by: Smokie on April 12, 2006 02:26 AMAnd I bet you can do so while looking through one of minimal thinker's ears and out the other.....
Posted by: alphabet soup on April 12, 2006 09:30 AM