Fugitive Recovery Network (FRN) :: View topic - Forfeiture ordered for "CONDUCT" rather than "

A bond is a matter of contract law, the instrument of release is a guarantee of appearance only. You don't have to agree with the stipulations of the contract, it is the letter of the contract that applies.

Being responsible for behavior of an individual has far reaching implications on the judicial system in general. If this is upheld, the state now becomes liable for all actions of defendants released on recognizance, 10% to the court bonds and any and all other means of pre-trial release.

How can a bond be forfeited when the defendant is remanded to custody?

This defendant has civil rights, as do the reported victims. None of this has been adjudicated as of yet, so his civil rights may have been violated. What ever happened to not personalizing cases?

This Attorney needs to go back to school.

Scott

Author:	speezack [ Sat 09 Feb 2008 10:32 ]
Post subject:	Forfeiture ordered for "CONDUCT" rather than "
Saturday, February 09, 2008 Posted to FRN- same date On Tuesday, February 12, 2008 at 9:00am, there is a case coming before the Halifax General District court in Halifax, Virginia on a civil matter that will have major implications in not only the Virginia Bail bonds community but also National implications to this industry. I am the defendant in this case; W.T. Marx, Sr., owner and agent for Free State Bail Bonds out of Kenbridge, Va. also a participant on this website. The facts in the case are as follows: As a licensed bondsman in Virginia for nearly 9 years I bonded a defendant in Halifax General district on a charge of A&B; dated 10/1/07. The defendant in the case lived in the immediate area and had been on medication for a mental condition which obviously contributed to the situation. He was, however and in my opinion, no physical threat to any person although he had been charged with A&B. Frankly it was a pissing contest between two neighbors… I am sure you all know what I am talking about, although the charges were brought and needed to be adjudicated in the court. Several weeks later, he failed to take his medication (a monthly injection) and was charged with destroying property and trespassing… no physical contact with a person. He was arrested, locked up and stayed in jail until 1/4/08. He was given 3 more bonds on the different charges. Now here is the deal… I did not revoke his bond of 10/1/07 because in my opinion… he was not a flight risk and frankly not a threat to any person. He had done all that had been required of him related to attending court dates and he was also under the direction of “court services” and had done all that they had required up until his re-arrest on the new charges. So, given this deduction on my part I stayed on the original bond. On 1/4/08 I bonded this defendant on the 3 additional charges and he was released with a court date of 4/4/08. On 1/23//08 the defendant was called into court to have an evaluation done for mental competency. The Commonwealth Attorney on the case had received a call from his neighbors asking why he had been release and voicing their concern. At that time he had not done anything to harm or bother the neighbors… only showed up at his home. The CA called for the evaluation and then the bomb was dropped. The CA called me and told me he wanted me to revoke the bond on the defendant and if I did not he would ask for a Forfeiture against me on the 10/1/07 bond amounting to $5000. Now keep in mind, the defendant was in jail at the time until I had bonded him in a perfectly legal manner. I stayed on the first bond simply because he had made all court appearances, had complied with all “court services” directives and was not a flight risk and in my opinion was not a physical threat to anyone. Well, the CA did not agree and on the day of the evaluation, 1/23/08, he asked the judge to revoke the bond. I was never asked a single question in the courtroom. It was apparently not up to me to revoke or decide anything in this matter… anyway, given the fact that the evaluation could not be done at that time, the judge revoked the original bond and ordered the defendant into custody until the evaluation could be done. The defendant is still in jail and the evaluation was supposed to have been done on several dates but has not taken place as yet. After the judge revoked the original bond, I approached the defendant’s “public defender” and ask what he would recommend I do with the other 3 bonds since I did not want to get into the middle of this case, and was not interested in a pissing contest with the CA and was interested in what would be best for the defendant. I was told in a very nonchalant and unconcerned manner, “do whatever you think is best”… no advise or recommendation at all… now I was looking for nothing more than the best course for “his client” and wasn’t interested in what was best for me but what was best overall in the case, frankly, I knew what I should do but wanted to run it by the attorney first. Well, needless to say, I came off the other 3 bonds and figure that was the end of the case. NOT SO. A week later I got a show cause on forfeiture for $5000 on the original revoked bond. Keep in mind that the CA is saying that the forfeiture is due since the defendant “failed to keep the piece and I as the bondsman was responsible for those actions”. My take on the matter was simply that I was responsible for his appearance. If he failed to keep the piece or had a conduct problem, the court could revoke the bond but not against the bondsman, against the defendant. I am a Surety bondsman and the Power of Attorney that I present when bonding states that the bond is posted and “… limited to appearance bonds and cannot be construed to guarantee defendant’s future lawful conduct, adherence to travel limitation, fines, restitution, payments or penalties, or any other condition imposed by a court not specifically related to court appearance.” I don’t think I have to tell you the repercussions of what will happen if the court upholds the forfeiture in this case based on “conduct and/or performance” rather than appearance only. I will tell you this. If this case is ruled in favor of the forfeiture, I for one will be out of the bonding business and I can assure you that most of the bondsman in Virginia that become aware of this ruling will be out of the business as well. There is no way in hell that I or anyone else, for that matter, can be responsible for the conduct of a defendant while he/she is out on bond. If shutting down the bonding industry in Virginia is the underlying reason for this being brought… it just may work. This CA will effectively shut down the bonding business in Virginia. I don’t think it has a chance of being upheld but if it does…. LOOK OUT PEOPLE. I have not posted or contacted anyone else in this matter, only post it here for general interest. when the case is done, I will post the results here. Comments welcome… The case is scheduled as reflected above.

Author:	Steel [ Sat 09 Feb 2008 10:48 ]
Post subject:
The only phrase that comes to mind is.... "Thats a bunch of bullshit!". They better watch what they decide with this.

Author:	KARMA [ Sat 09 Feb 2008 10:58 ]
Post subject:
This is very interesting . . . however I do not see how a Judge would allow this to happen. For in doing so would cause the Courts to also be responsible when they are setting the fact of Bond. It sounds like someones neighbor just does not like them . . . Thanks for posting this, please keep all advised.

Author:	AWOBB [ Sat 09 Feb 2008 13:12 ]
Post subject:
As Surety Bail Bond Company, I don't see how the judge can do that at all. If he is in the custody of the courts/jail, then they can't ask for a forfeiture on bond. I just can't see how. In my since, I would be contact my attorney and getting the insurance compnay involed. We all ( Bail Bondsmen) know that they pay top dollar for their attorney's. I can't wait to see how this turns out.

Author:	ChuckJ [ Sat 09 Feb 2008 14:11 ]
Post subject:
If it were me I would be filing a formal complaint against the CA with the state and the bar association, he was attempting to violate the defendants right to due process by coercing you into revoking the bond when he should have been filing a motion to have the court revoke the bond, he was looking for the easy option to save himself the time and effort of preparing, filing and arguing the motion, this CA is way out of line and needs to be put back in his place, he's a moron for following through on a forfeiture under these circumstances.

Fugitive Recovery Network (FRN) http://fugitiverecovery.com/forum/

Forfeiture ordered for "CONDUCT" rather than " http://fugitiverecovery.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=13&t=6196	Page 1 of 4

Author:	KARMA [ Sat 09 Feb 2008 14:33 ]
Post subject:
Chuck are we trying to say . . . "prosecutorial misconduct" . . . we had one threatened with that.

Author:	Mdbtyhtr [ Sat 09 Feb 2008 16:55 ]
Post subject:
A bond is a matter of contract law, the instrument of release is a guarantee of appearance only. You don't have to agree with the stipulations of the contract, it is the letter of the contract that applies. Being responsible for behavior of an individual has far reaching implications on the judicial system in general. If this is upheld, the state now becomes liable for all actions of defendants released on recognizance, 10% to the court bonds and any and all other means of pre-trial release. How can a bond be forfeited when the defendant is remanded to custody? This defendant has civil rights, as do the reported victims. None of this has been adjudicated as of yet, so his civil rights may have been violated. What ever happened to not personalizing cases? This Attorney needs to go back to school. Scott

Author:	AWOBB [ Sat 09 Feb 2008 16:59 ]
Post subject:
Mdbtyhtr wrote: A bond is a matter of contract law, the instrument of release is a guarantee of appearance only. You don't have to agree with the stipulations of the contract, it is the letter of the contract that applies. Being responsible for behavior of an individual has far reaching implications on the judicial system in general. If this is upheld, the state now becomes liable for all actions of defendants released on recognizance, 10% to the court bonds and any and all other means of pre-trial release. How can a bond be forfeited when the defendant is remanded to custody? This defendant has civil rights, as do the reported victims. None of this has been adjudicated as of yet, so his civil rights may have been violated. What ever happened to not personalizing cases? This Attorney needs to go back to school. Scott You got that right....

Author:	speezack [ Sat 09 Feb 2008 18:24 ]
Post subject:
Just a short follow up that you may find interesting. The person who filled out the show cause that was served on me… apparently did not like all the wording in this legal document… so what they did was to change the wording by marking through with an ink pen and replacing the portion that read, “who failed to appear on” and wrote in long hand beside this statement… “be of good behavior…” That had to have come directly from the CA’s office as I am sure the clerks in the General District office would not have the authority to change a legal document that had been printed by the Commonwealth of Virginia, Va. code 19.2-143 to 19.2-148 and issued by the clerk of court. Since this defendant did not in fact “fail to appear” which is the reason forfeiture would have been issued against the surety… the wording on the show cause document had to be changed and the different wording inserted to suite the purpose of the CA’s case. I find that also, rather interesting.

Author:	SpanielPI [ Sat 09 Feb 2008 19:41 ]
Post subject:
also illegal in my opinion.

Page 1 of 4	All times are UTC - 8 hours [ DST ]
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group http://www.phpbb.com/