Los Angeles Bail Bonds ...just another day

Public Alert! Bail “scavengers” accosting public in front of businesses.

Paul Repetti — Thu, 29 Jul 2010 15:23:16 +0000

There has been an uptick lately in bail scams in Los Angeles County. Yesterday afternoon, as a client was getting out of their car to come into my office in El Monte, a truck pulled up and asked the people if they were getting a bail bond (talk about gorilla marketing!). They told them not to go into my office, they can write the bond. They proceeded to tell them that they could do it faster (I guess because they were on the street) and would do it for a $1,000 discount (which is illegal, by the way). The public needs to be aware of these people and not deal with “bail agents” who work out of their car on the streets. The bail industry has a hard enough time keeping it’s image above water without these hoodlums running around making us all look like decrepit, money grubbing, con artists.

Can you be deported for not paying a fine?

Paul Repetti — Wed, 28 Jul 2010 21:55:07 +0000

Apparently this may come to pass.

I have a client who had a traffic ticket. He was given a fine by the Court and told to pay it by a certain date. On that date, he asked for an extension. On the extension date, he asked for another extension. On the date of the extension’s extension, he did not bring the money to pay his fine. The Judge, clearly upset, took him into custody and set bail at $25,000.

When we contacted the Los Angeles County Jail to get the bail information, they informed us there was an INS hold on him. I contacted the family and found out that he was having issues with his visa. He already had an attorney and had a hearing date set for a few weeks down the road.

He now sits in the County Jail, unable to make bail, waiting to see if he gets deported. Strange, but true.

I can help find the fugitive nuns!!!

frankrepetti — Mon, 26 Jul 2010 23:15:19 +0000

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

New Bail Case Summaries

Paul Repetti — Tue, 13 Jul 2010 19:15:26 +0000

In United States v. Powell, 2010 WL 2557388 (N.D.Cal. June 21, 2010) the Magistrate Judge rejected the Government’s argument that the sureties on an appearance bond must demonstrate assets adequate to cover the bond amount. The Magistrate Judge held that she could order an “unsecured” appearance bond pursuant to the catch-all provision of the Bail Reform Act, 18 U.S.C. §3142(c)(1)(xiv): “any other condition that is reasonably necessary” to assure the defendant’s appearance and community safety.

In Arroyo v. Bajramj , 2010 WL 2682750 (Conn.Super. May 26, 2010) a bail agent sued the defendant for an allegedly unpaid balance of the premium. The parties agreed that bonds totaling $215,000 were provided, $6,450 was paid in cash, and the defendant appeared as required. The issue was any unpaid balance of the premium. The documents submitted by the plaintiff were notable for uncompleted blanks and references to security for appearance rather than premium amounts. They did not state an unpaid premium balance. The plaintiff argued he was owed $9,150 plus attorneys fees and relied on Conn. G.S. §29-151, which the court found stated a maximum premium but did not set a minimum amount. The defendant, however, admitted that after he was released he agreed to pay another $2,500 and the court found support for a $150 “B.U.F. Fund” assessment. The court entered judgment for $2,650 and no attorneys fees.

Trying to unwind the confusion Bail vs. Bail Bond

Paul Repetti — Tue, 06 Jul 2010 21:10:39 +0000

Frequently, many people interchange the words “bail” and “bail bonds.” To the judicial system, both words are very important in the process of releasing the accused from incarceration; however they both represent very different meanings.

What is Bail?

Upon the arrest of a defendant, some may be allowed to post bail. Usually, bail will be set based on the type of crime and threat to society. The defendant, or guarantor, pays the court in order to secure his or her release. The detainee will be granted release from incarceration once all monies have cleared, or “posted,” with the understanding that they will be legally obligated to attend all future court hearings in which they were involved. Bail money acts as a transaction to ensure security; therefore, in the event that the detainee fails to appear in court at their scheduled time, the court will keep all monies, if necessary. If they do hold their end of the agreement, defendants can receive the returned bail money upon completion of all criminal proceedings, regardless of the outcome.

What is a Bail Bond?

In the event that a defendant cannot or does not want pay the total amount of bail, a bail bondsman can be utilized for a “bail bond”. In exchange for a non-refundable fee (generally 10% of the total bail), a bail bondsman will guarantee the defendant’s appearance in court. The bondsman does not give cash or collateral to the court, but instead provides the court or jail a “surety bond,” a paper document guaranteeing the defendant will go to court or the bondsman will make sure the full bail amount is paid to the court. No bondsman wants to pay out on a bond. Thus, the bondsman has a significant financial incentive to make sure the defendant goes to court.

Bail and bail bonds work as security for both the defendant and the judicial system. In doing so, this allows the defendant to be released from jail and gives him or her time to hire a lawyer, plan their defense and continue with home and work responsibilities. It allows the accused freedom from being contained during the waiting period before trial occurs. In the judicial sense, bail serves as collateral for ensuring the defendants appearance in court. A bail bondsman provides an additional line of responsibility between the court and the defendant.

Bail for the prostitute

Paul Repetti — Sat, 03 Jul 2010 06:32:58 +0000

What to do when your 21 year old is thrown in jail for the 5th time in 3 months on prostitution charges? Starky should probably stop hooking. She can’t seem to stop attracting the police in whichever city she tries to ply her trade. If anyone has a job for her, please contact us. Someone needs to help.

Another “bad apple” in the bail industry

Paul Repetti — Fri, 02 Jul 2010 17:43:52 +0000

A bail bondsman from Whittier was arrested Thursday for allegedly misappropriating $30,000 from a client, officials said.

Arturo Miramontes, 40, was charged with two counts of grand theft by embezzlement.

He is a licensed bail bondsman at Rodeo Bail Bonds in Whittier. A phone number listed for the business was disconnected.

Miramontes has a July 6 arraignment at Clara Shortridge Foltz Criminal Justice Center in Los Angeles.

In late 2007, the victim contacted Miramontes to secure a bail bond, giving the defendant $30,000 as cash collateral. The victim’s court case was completed and his bail was exonerated.

Miramontes allegedly failed to return the cash collateral to the victim and allegedly embezzled funds from the insurance company for which he wrote the bond, said Shiara Davila-Morales, spokeswoman for the District’s Attorney’s Office.

He was booked at the Sheriff’s Century Station, according to the sheriff’s booking system. But it doesn’t show if Miramontes posted bail.

Bad Apples in the Bail Bond Industry…

Paul Repetti — Fri, 02 Jul 2010 17:41:43 +0000

Bondsman charged in “referral scheme”

SANTA ANA – A bail bond agent was arrested Thursday and accused of soliciting attorney referrals and inmate business in an illegal bail bond referral scheme.

Ronald Lee Brockway, 50, of Seal Beach, is charged with two felony counts of violating bail license regulations and faces a maximum sentence of three years and eight months in state prison.

He is being held on $50,000 bail pending his arraignment.

California law prohibits bail bond employees from soliciting bail business from any inmate or incarcerated person, according to a news release from the Orange County District Attorney’s Office. The law also prohibits bail bond employees from recommending any attorney to any bail bond client, even if no money changes hands.

Brockway is accused of sending numerous e-mails to attorneys soliciting them to participate in an illegal bail bond scheme with his company, Respect Bail Bond, according to the news release.

In his messages, Brockway is accused of suggesting that the attorneys refer bail bond business to him, while offering to refer clients to the attorneys in order to “increase both of our earnings substantially,” prosecutors said.

Brockway is also accused of unlawfully soliciting business from inmates by mass mailing flyers to the Orange County jail containing the name and contact information for Respect Bail Bond. The flyers read, “Get out of jail today by calling now!”

In October 2005, Brockway testified in an Orange County Grand Jury hearing that he had received cash payments from attorney Joseph Cavallo in exchange for referring arrestees to Cavallo’s law practice.

Brockway was not prosecuted in that case because his testimony was needed in the prosecution of other defendants, prosecutors said.

Cavallo was indicted based partly on Brockway’s testimony. Cavallo pleaded guilty on Oct. 12, 2007, to conspiracy to engage in attorney capping, or paying for clients, and an illegal attorney referral scheme. He was sentenced to six months in jail on Dec. 14, 2007.

The District Attorney’s Bureau of Investigation began investigating the current case after a private attorney contacted the OCDA to report receiving the e-mail from Brockway regarding the illegal referral scheme.

Contact the writer: lwelborn@ocregister.com or 714-834-3784

2010 Bail Related Case summary

Paul Repetti — Fri, 25 Jun 2010 19:44:22 +0000

In County of Los Angeles v. American Contractors Indemnity Co. , 2010 WL 2373364 (Cal.App. June 15, 2010) the defendant repeatedly failed to appear, but his counsel represented that the defendant had health problems. Eventually the court declared a forfeiture and entered summary judgment on the bond. The surety moved to set aside the summary judgment and exonerate the bond. The court denied the motion 126 days after the motion was filed, and the surety appealed. The appeal was filed 175 days after notice of entry of the summary judgment. The Court dismissed the appeal as untimely. The surety argued that the trial court lost jurisdiction when it failed to forfeit the bond when the defendant first failed to appear without sufficient excuse. The Court held that the trial court had fundamental jurisdiction and may only have acted in excess of its jurisdiction. Therefore, the summary judgment became final when the appeal period expired, and it was not subject to collateral attack by the surety’s motion to set it aside.

New California case law – Bail

Paul Repetti — Thu, 17 Jun 2010 19:26:39 +0000

In County of Los Angeles v. American Contractors Indemnity Co., 2010 WL 2373364 (Cal.App. June 15, 2010) the defendant repeatedly failed to appear, but his counsel represented that the defendant had health problems. Eventually the court declared a forfeiture and entered summary judgment on the bond. The surety moved to set aside the summary judgment and exonerate the bond. The court denied the motion 126 days after the motion was filed, and the surety appealed. The appeal was filed 175 days after notice of entry of the summary judgment. The Court dismissed the appeal as untimely. The surety argued that the trial court lost jurisdiction when it failed to forfeit the bond when the defendant first failed to appear without sufficient excuse. The Court held that the trial court had fundamental jurisdiction and may only have acted in excess of its jurisdiction. Therefore, the summary judgment became final when the appeal period expired, and it was not subject to collateral attack by the surety’s motion to set it aside.