I read the news story of two 80 year old nuns who have become fugitives. They have been living and teaching in a small town between Nice and Sanremo on the French Riviera for the last 50 years. They were notified that they were to be transferred to a remote mountaintop site 250 miles away. It was at this point that they went on the lam. “A third 89-year-old nun, Sister Maurice-Marie, has revealed she also wanted to flee but broke her leg four days before the two elderly sisters disappeared.”
I am hereby volunteering to search for these nuns. Here is why I am qualified.
1) I am Catholic.
2) I have 26+ years experience locating and returning fugitives.
3) I love the French Riviera. I can identify with them. If forced to leave the French Riviera after 50 years there, I’d be hesitant.
I can vow the following… I will stay there and search for these nuns no matter how long it takes. I promise to return them safely to the convent. Should they wish to remain as fugitives, I cannot arrest them and return them in France. (Only in the USA.) Forced by circumstances, I will stay with them until they return voluntarily. No matter how long it takes. Anybody interested?
Now if I could only find somebody to pay for me to go. Any takers?
http://www.metro.co.uk/news/836042-fugitive-nuns-go-on-the-run-in-france
Archive for the “Uncategorized” Category
Today, the Colorado Ballot Initiative Title Setting Board, represented by the Secretary of State’s Office and the Office of the Attorney General, approved extremely favorable ballot language for the Colorado ballot initiative limiting pretrial services. The approved language is better than any of us imagined!
In accordance with the board’s action today, Colorado voters will be asked (on their ballots) to approve a law change that would restrict pretrial services release, in lieu of a secured bond, to first time non-violent misdemeanor defendants.
The use of the word ‘violent’ in the ballot language and title is exciting, because it will give voters a MUCH CLEARER understanding of what they are voting for – which is whether to allow dangerous violent criminals on their streets, without any guarantee that they will come back to court.
We now move onto signature gathering. We must collect a minimum of 76,000 signatures, so this will be the next important step in getting this initiative finalized.
REMEMBER – The title setting board hearing is the last time anyone, other than Colorado voters, will have an opportunity to consider this initiative. Let’s look forward to seeing how pretrial activists justify their program to voters – who simply do not want violent criminals getting tax funded criminal welfare.
As bail agents move forward to support this important citizen initiative, we need resources ! Time and any financial contributions you can spare (to Americans for the Preservation of Bail and or Safe Streets Colorado) are important as we work to make history – by providing for the first time in America the opportunity for VOTERS to decide the fate of criminal welfare. JOIN THIS EFFORT – and lets expose these criminal welfare programs in a campaign that is sure to have implications far beyond the borders of the State of Colorado!
In addition to CONTRIBUTING to the Colorado fight, you can also JOIN AMERICANS FOR THE PRESERVATION OF BAIL! Joining Americans is an essential first step to standing up for commercial bail and against radical criminal welfare programs in America.
Thanks for your continued support!
Richard Moore
Americans for the Preservation of Bail – Colorado
Tags: bail, bail agent, bail bonds, crime, criminal, fugitive, jail
The Idaho Court of Appeals withdrew its opinion reported at State v. Two Jinn, Inc., 2010 WL 703231 (Idaho App. February 26, 2010) and reissued it, reaching the same result, at State v. Two Jinn, Inc., 2010 WL 744996 (Idaho App. March 4, 2010). Brake v. Ohio Department of Insurance, 2010 WL 746758 (Ohio App. March 5, 2010) affirmed denial of an application for a license as a bail bond surety agent because the applicant had convictions for several misdemeanors (domestic violence and burglary). The applicant objected that these convictions had nothing to do with insurance laws. The Court thought that the insurance statute required the applicant to be of “high character and integrity” and the convictions showed this applicant failed that test. Tags: bail, bail agent, bail bonds, crime, fugitive, jailIn State v. Liupaono, 2010 WL 374576 (Hawaii January 6, 2010) the surety appealed from denial of its motion for reconsideration of denial of its motion to set aside forfeiture of its bond. The record, however, did not include a judgment of forfeiture, a motion to set aside forfeiture, or an order denying such a motion. The Court recognized that an order denying a motion to set aside forfeiture of a bail bond would be an appealable final order, but found that on the record before it there was no appealable order and therefore that it lacked jurisdiction. The Court dismissed the appeal. In Safety National Casualty Corp. v. State, 2010 WL 715246 (Tex.Crim.App. March 3, 2010) the Court reversed the Court of Appeals decision published at 273 S.W.3d 730 (Tex.App. – Houston 2008) and held that an appeal in a bail bond forfeiture case was not subject to the civil appeal filing fees. The Court looked at the predecessors of Tex. Code of Crim. Proc. Art. 44.44 and held that although the statute applied the civil action rules to bail bond forfeiture proceedings, the Legislature did not intend to apply the civil fee schedule in such cases. Seven Justices joined in this result and two dissented. In Dominguez v. Safety National Casualty Corp., 2010 WL 697274 (S.D.Tex. February 23, 2010) the defendant agency and surety filed counterclaims against the plaintiffs alleging that the plaintiffs (and some members of the putative class they purported to represent) breached their immigration bond contracts and were obligated to indemnity the defendants for costs and attorneys fees should the defendants prevail. The plaintiffs moved to dismiss the counterclaims for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and failure to state a claim. The court denied the motion. It had supplemental jurisdiction and the indemnity provision, as interpreted by the defendants, could apply to the case. In Huntington National Bank v. Lomaz, 2010 WL 702439 (Ohio App. February 26, 2010) a judgment creditor recorded its judgment and sought to foreclose on real property owned by the defendants. The defendants appealed and posted a $92,500 supersedeas bond. The bond was obtained from an agent who used a $50,000 power of attorney for bail bonds and secured the balance with property allegedly owned by the agent. The appeal was eventually dismissed, and after several hearings the trial court entered judgment against the agent and surety, jointly and severally, for $50,000 and against the agent for the balance of the bond amount. On appeal, the agent and surety raised several procedural issues. They also argued that the judgment was not affirmed and, since the property was sold there were no damages to collect from the bond. The surety argued that the power of attorney showed on its face that it was only for bail bonds and the agent had no actual or apparent authority to bind the surety to a supersedeas bond. The Court rejected each argument and affirmed the judgment. In the trial court the surety and agent were represented by the same attorney (apparently the agent’s attorney) and the surety did not raise the power of attorney issue. The Court held that the plain error doctrine did not allow the surety to raise the issue for the first time on appeal. The Court also thought that the agent prepared the bond and the principal got the benefit of the bond by delaying the foreclosure, so any technical defects in the bond were chargeable to the agent not the innocent judgment creditor. The judgment creditor presented evidence of its damages from the delay caused by the appeal, and the agent did not attack this evidence before the trial court. As such, he waived any objection to it on appeal. The surety and agent had an opportunity to present their evidence and arguments in the trial court and did not raise their various procedural objections there. They could not be raised for the first time on appeal. Tags: bail, bail agent, criminal, fugitive, jail, los angeles bail bonds, nationwide bail bondsIn County of Los Angeles v. Indiana Lumbermens Mutual Insurance Co., 2010 WL 731369 (Cal.App. March 4, 2010) the defendant on an auto theft charge fled to the country of Georgia. The surety’s agent located him in custody there and notified the District Attorney. The District Attorney consulted with the State Department and was told there was no bilateral extradition treaty with Georgia and that the State Department would negotiate for alternatives such as deportation or expulsion only in cases alleging the most serious crimes. The surety argued that the District Attorney elected not to seek extradition and so the bond was exonerated pursuant to Cal. Penal Code §1305(f). The Court disagreed and found that there was no feasible way to extradite the defendant; therefore the District Attorney could not “elect” not to seek extradition. The Court affirmed summary judgment forfeiting the bond. Tags: bail, bail agent, bail bonds, crime, fugitive, jail
Feb
24
2010
 
Tough times hitting all over…. bail bonds and jails.Posted by Paul Repetti in UncategorizedOfficials are cutting the overnight hours that people can post bail and be freed from busy Clark County jail in Las Vegas. It a billed as a cost-saving move. After next Monday, the court’s Pretrial Services Division at the Clark County jail will shut down from midnight to 8 a.m. Bail bond companies won’t be able to post bail until the morning. I guess one shift is being cut? How much longer until Los Angeles gets to this point? Statistics supposedly show that most bail is posted after 8 a.m. Information about inmates is still available 24 hours a day on the Clark County government’s jail link. Tags: bail, bail agent, jailThe amount of money placed on deposit to ensure you will return for your trial is called bail. The court defines the amount of bail you have to pay to obtain release from jail until trial depending on the case. The bail amount is often related to both the particular crime in question and to the perceived risk that the accused will flee before trial. Bail can be set anywhere from a few hundred dollars up to a million or more dollars. Most defendants don’t have the means to write a check for that amount of money to obtain bail and are forced to hire a bonding company. When a person’s own assets can’t meet bail, the accused may borrow the money from a company that specializes in paying the jail for people’s release. The payment made by the company is called a bond. The court accepts the bond in assurance that the defendant will return to court on the trial date. The usual fee for supplying the bond is 10% of the bail amount. The loan of bail is made using collateral on the part of the defendant. Collateral may be in the form of any vehicle of value, such as, cars, boats, houses, land or financial instruments (stocks, bonds, etc.). The bail amount is refunded when the defendant’s case has been adjudicated. Part of the bail money is then paid to the bail bond company to pay for their services. The bail bond company has a trusted relationship with the court system, thus their credit reliable for posting bail is reliable. Tags: bail agent, bail bonds, crime, fugitive, jail
Feb
18
2010
Bail Business is down. People leaving the industry.Posted by frankrepetti in UncategorizedAsk most bail agents about their business these days and you’ll find out some sobering news. They are facing laying off hard working people, many of them family members, as they scramble to cut costs during the great recession. They are unable to pay their bills. They face eviction, foreclosure and possibly bankruptcy. Many long time agents (this one included) have never seen anything like this before. The drop-off in business is staggering. Two publications in California have just run stories about this. The Times Herald and the Imperial Valley Press both tell similar stories.
Feb
17
2010
Now here’s a nice idea from the Sheriff – keep citizens alivePosted by Paul Repetti in UncategorizedL.A. County sheriff orders deputies to reduce confrontation after series of shootings In response to an increase in fatal shootings by L.A. County deputies, Sheriff Lee Baca today will announce a revised policy aimed at reducing violent confrontations between deputies and suspects. Under the new policy, deputies will be encouraged to contain suspects and wait for backup rather than immediately confronting and attempting to arrest them. Deputies fatally shot 16 people in 2009 compared to nine in 2008. Tags: crime, criminal, fugitive, police, sheriff |
Entries (RSS)