Forfeiture ordered for "CONDUCT" rather than "

"prosecutorial misconduct" Go get him.

_________________


Do not consider anything for your interest which makes you break your word, quit your modesty, or inclines you to any practice which will not bear the light, or look the world in the face .... Marcus Antonius

I AM Some Folks "KARMA" and A MODERATOR @ FRN

Bottom line is the bail was revoked by the court. Once this transpires the bondsman is no longer liable in any capacity as there is no way it can now be forfeited. It simply does not exist any longer.

11:00AM, court day, me, my attorney, and an indemnitor on another bond and another surety bondsman on yet another bond… all in court to face forfeitures for “performance” not “appearance”. 3 separate cases.

None of the other plaintiffs had attorneys and mine was a bail bond attorney… one that was steeped in bail bonds law and had been for many years… thank God.

One of the other cases was called first and very shortly into the discussion I could tell it was not going well for this particular plaintiff. I may mention that this particular case involved no bondsman, simply a girlfriend of the defendant who bonded her boyfriend out using her car title. The CA was going after the amount of the bond… $5000 in this case and she had no clue where it was going and it was going very badly at that point.

My attorney stood and asks permission to address the court and introduced himself and suggested that he might be of service in presenting certain information that was relevant to all the forfeiture cases involved that day. No other cases were before the bench at 11:00AM so we had the full attention of the judge at that point.

The judge agreed and my attorney began his presentation. For about 15 minutes the CA and my attorney sparred back and forth and in my opinion my attorney was chewing the CA a new ass. The judge however was quietly listening to both sides and you could tell he was in a quandary and was not totally familiar with the cases and related subjects that both the CA and my attorney were presenting the court.

Short end of this tail… the CA brought up a court case in 1978 reflecting a similar situation… my attorney parried with a like case in 1979 that affected the 1978 case and as I understood it… actually changed the code to a degree. Then the CA brought up another case and my attorney who also had done his homework brought up another point. Back and forth it went and frankly myself and my attorney couldn’t believe that this was becoming this involved. One of the local magistrates and several of the clerks in the court as well as my attorney had thought that it would be dismissed almost immediately.

Well, it came down to a question of the interpretation of one of the cases that had been presented as evidence and the judge said that he was not familiar with that case and had to continue all the forfeiture cases until he could read and render a decision with all the information available.

My attorney did make a statement that “there is no practical way that a surety or indemnitor on a bond can be responsible for performance or conduct of the defendant”… after his release and the entire premise of bail bonds was for the defendant to be free from incarceration until his sentencing. Appearance was the guarantee, not performance. The power of attorney presented by the surety specifically states this fact. The recognizance however, states performance and appearance and herein lays the double edged sword.
The Virginia Bonding industry has attempted for years to have the wording on the recognizance changed to more correctly reflect the specific and individual responsibilities of the parties involved. I have had chief magistrates tell me that it needs to be updated very badly but to date nothing has been done.

Bottom line on the case is a continuance with both the CA and my attorney presenting a memorandum of the facts and cases for the judges study within 10 days and he will render a decision within 10 days after that.

I will certainly post the results here when it comes up. If the court rules in favor of the CA, I will be retired from the bond business on that date. You may quote me on that.

If shutting down the Virginia bonding industry is what is going on here, this certainly will do the job nicely.

Anyone reading this would do well to get on the phone and start calling your bonding buddies and anyone else involved in this business. This needs to be followed by anyone interested in this industry.

The case is in Halifax, Va., General District court. The presiding judge’s name is Hon. Joel C. Cunningham. The chief judge is Hon. Robert G. Woodson Jr.

_________________
Bill Marx, Sr.
"FREE STATE BAIL BONDS"
"FREE STATE INVESTIGATIONS"
DCJS: 99-176979
Cell: 434-294-0222

"Endeavor to Persevere" "Lone Watie"

"Good judgment comes from experience, and a lot of that , comes from bad judgment" "Will Rogers"

I don't know how any court can force or uphold a "performance" bond rather than an "appearance" bond unless it is titled that, and all of the performance requirements are specifically stated. In CO, our bond is titled "appearance bond" and only requires that the defendant appear in court on each and every date, time, and place required until disposition is reached. I have had bonds revoked by the court for so called non-performance, but it only affected me IF the person didn't appear for their scheduled hearing, not a new revocation hearing. In these cases, where the defendant contacted me, I simply had them turn themselves in, or go to court as scheduled, and if arrested, I rebonded them.

Depending on your state laws, any change in the charges or any other condition(s) that increases the risk on the bond may be grounds for exoneration. So if the court enhances the charges to put you at a higher risk after the bond was written, or changes the conditions of the bond from "appearing in court" to performing other requirements, it changes the totallity of the "bond contract' and places the liability on the court, rather than on the bondsman.

It seems there was a similar case recently, but I don't remember where. Do a search on the forum and see if you can find it. Often case law, particularly those ruled on by Appeal and Supreme Courts will hold precidence even if not in the same state.

A Colorado Supreme Court Ruling that I include in every motion that I file for exoneration says:
"The primary purpose of a forfeiture proceeding is to obtain custody of the defendant, not to penalize the surety. As the Colorado Supreme Court has ruled, a forfeiture proceeding is not intended to enrich public treasury; “The enriching of the public treasury is no part of the object at which the proceeding is aimed.” People v. Campbell 633 P.d 1109 (1978) citing Owens v. People. 194 Colo. 389, 572 P.2d 837 (1977)."

See if you can find a similar ruling in your state, or U.S. District Court. I hope this helps.

_________________
Kathy Blackshear
Blackshear Investigations
Blackshear Bail Bonds
Sales Associate, Prepaid Legal Services, Inc.
Walsenburg, CO

Proud Member of the AB Reject Club

Your right on… however…

The major problem in Virginia… and it may hold true in other states, I do not know how their forms are written, is the wording in our recognizance, that a bondsman, the magistrate and the defendant must sign to obtain release.

Here is the exact wording from the back of the Virginia recognizance, wherein lies the problem.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>QUOTED TEXT<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<

“BOND AS CONDITION OF RECOGNIZANCE: By signing this bond, the defendant and each person signing as surety agree that they and their heirs and assigns owe the sum of $_________ to ( )the Commonwealth of Virginia ( )Locality whose laws are alleged to have been violated. This debt is: ( ) UNSECURED ( ) SECURED BY ( ) Cash ( ) Surety Bail Bondsman ( ) Property Bail Bondsman ( ) Other Solvent Surety(ies) whose ability to pay this debt is measured by the value of real or personal property which they own and who further swear or affirm that the value of such property (after subtracting debts that are liens against the property such as mortgages, unpaid judgments’, and unpaid tax liens) equals or exceeds the amount of this bond. Each person who signs this bond agrees to the bond terms and any attached applicable terms are incorporated by reference.
The defendant and each person who signs the bond as a surety give up any homestead exemption as to the debt of this bond and understand that the court may force the sale of ANY property owned by the defendant or any surety to pay the debt if the defendant fails to obey all of the terms and conditions of the recognizance. Each person who signs this bond promises to keep the title and possession of all property used to measure the ability to pay the debt of this bond in his or her name and not use such property as collateral for any loan or debt to allow liens against such property which should prevent the payment of the debt of the bond. The terms and conditions of the recognizance are incorporated by reference, and each person who signs the form agrees to obey all the terms and conditions on both sides of this form. If the defendant obeys all of the conditions listed in the recognizance, the debt of this bond is void. If the defendant fails to obey the condition of appearance of the recognizance, the people who signed the bond may be required to pay the amount of the bond.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>end quote<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<

Some bondsman feel that the last sentence in this remove liability except for appearance but all the forgoing lines still apply and therein is the problem.

If I am not mistaken… and please provide me with info to the contrary… there are states that do not have a bonding community as Virginia and if fact the magistrates or a like appointee collects the bonding fee from an indemnitor as do the bondsman in bonding states… and the monies are placed in the coffers of either the local or state treasury. This would of course totally remove the bondsman from the equation and although a FTA would appear to cause the jurisdiction to have to apprehend the defendant themselves… frankly why would they bother??? They have already placed the fee collected in their coffers and in many cases it is more than the imposed fines would be (assuming for example a 10% bonding fee) and all they would have to do is place the necessary personal info in the NCI or state CI and if and when (as most are re-arrested) they are picked up again… it has cost the jurisdiction nothing (except possible extradition) including the probable housing costs for the inmate had they been placed back in jail.

So, having said all that, doesn’t it seem that the course apparent in this case is a good one for the state/local jurisdictions. Put the pressure on the bondsman by placing responsibility for performance and they will scatter like leaves in the wind and of course… no bondsman no need for recovery. We are all out of business… end of discussion.

This is certainly heading in that direction… control of the vast sums of money (fact or imagined makes no difference) involved in the bonding and recovery community and take over all aspects including the cash… the end result. The costs involved for the implementation of this would be covered nicely by the revenues produced.

Don’t be surprised if we sit around and let this happen it is heading in that direction people.

“DISCLAIMER” “
If I have misstated some aspect of the recognizance or law relating to same it is through ignorance or lack of direct knowledge thereof and I take full responsibility for the mistake.

_________________
Bill Marx, Sr.
"FREE STATE BAIL BONDS"
"FREE STATE INVESTIGATIONS"
DCJS: 99-176979
Cell: 434-294-0222

"Endeavor to Persevere" "Lone Watie"

"Good judgment comes from experience, and a lot of that , comes from bad judgment" "Will Rogers"

I believe New Jersey has something like what VA appears to want. I'm quite certain Bondsman have to pay fees, or if have paid a forfeiture, will not get as much money back if the skip committed more crimes while on bond. Any NJ guys have knowledge of this? Yak?

As far as I can tell, this case has been resolved in favor of the defendant. I will have more info in a couple of days but I spoke to the CA a few minutes ago and he say the judge found in favor of the defendant... ME... and the case had been resolved. I will post details later but if in fact this true... and I have no reason to disbelieve the CA... (they don't lie do they?? ) I will post the details in a day or so... you might bookmark this in case you ever get hit with a forfeiture on conduct rather than appearance. This might be a case you can site and may be more important that you might reallize...

_________________
Bill Marx, Sr.
"FREE STATE BAIL BONDS"
"FREE STATE INVESTIGATIONS"
DCJS: 99-176979
Cell: 434-294-0222

"Endeavor to Persevere" "Lone Watie"

"Good judgment comes from experience, and a lot of that , comes from bad judgment" "Will Rogers"

Congratulations Bill....

_________________
River City Associates
Decatur, Al. 35601

thanks Ruffin, I probably made more out of this than needed but it just pisses me off when some of the hot shot DA’s (my definition) try to drop something on us for no apparent reason other than the betterment of their own agenda or careers.... and not for the good of the people they serve. This had nothing whatsoever to do with justice… just trying to boost his image and he got his clock cleaned on this one… thanks to my great attorney who knew his stuff and was very professional in court.

I do believe however that the judge really had nowhere to go on this cause of the repercussions if the case had gone the other way.

It should provide a positive spin to an ongoing dilemma within our Virginia judicial system, the contradictory language in our Virginia recognizance. Something I have been raising hell with on this site for a couple of months… and will continue to try and get changed… but that is another battle to wage… this one is over for now.

_________________
Bill Marx, Sr.
"FREE STATE BAIL BONDS"
"FREE STATE INVESTIGATIONS"
DCJS: 99-176979
Cell: 434-294-0222

"Endeavor to Persevere" "Lone Watie"

"Good judgment comes from experience, and a lot of that , comes from bad judgment" "Will Rogers"

Well now you have a case precedent on which to petition the legislature for the verbage change. Before you had nothing..now you have solid footing.

1 other observation, you may have won this battle, but since you cleaned the "DA's clock" you may have created extreme, personal animosity between all bondsman and his office.

It has happened here in Madison Co. 1 bonding company antagonized the entire judicial system...from the jail, to the circuit clerk of court's office, to the judges, etc. That the Da's here are being unfairly and unmercifully in "cleaning bail bondsman's clocks" to teach them all a lesson.

I understand you had no choice here in this case, but beware of the possible consequences now.

_________________
River City Associates
Decatur, Al. 35601