Entries Tagged as ''

Good Bail Bondsmen vs. Bad Bail Bondsmen…Who do you trust?

Over many, many years, bail bondsmen have managed to muster up questionable reputations. Much of this often misconception can be attributed to the bad bail bondsmen who challenge the system and the laws that regulate them. As the old saying goes, “one bad apple can spoil the whole bunch.”

The number one misconception in the bail bond industry revolves around fees. Many bail bond companies will advertise discounted fees, when in reality; they are regulated by the state Department of Insurance. In California, the fee charged to the general public is 10% of the total amount of the original bail set by the court, which is based on the severity of the crime (i.e. misdemeanor or felony), and a bail schedule with Penal Codes for each offense. This is carved in stone, so you will rarely see any deviation from the set fees, unless the defendant has other warrants or charges in the past that could be added into the mix and possibly raise the bail amount. Each case is different and will be assessed at the time of the arraignment. [Read more →]

Quaid Bond Money Controversy – Time is Running Out

Up to now, I haven’t commented on the Randy and Evi Quaid “no show” in court situation, and their moving to Canada to avoid facing their crime in Santa Barbara. But, in light of the timing for the bail bond company to surrender them to the court, I feel that I must make a comment. November 11th is D-Day!

A $1 million bond is at stake here and for the bail bond company that could possibly put them out of business. The bail bond agency had already received an extension from the court to continue their search to surrender them, but they are about to reach the end of the road. However, if Santa Barbara Bail can prove that certain procedures were not followed to the letter, it could save them from paying the bond the full amount. Otherwise, Santa Barbara will make a nice dent in their financial problems. [Read more →]

Conrad Murray Verdict – GUILTY!

No bail for Muuray.

I have to agree with the verdict of “guilty”. Guilty for the negligence on Dr. Murray’s part. Guilty for ever bringing Proficol into a private residence, when it is meant to be administered ONLY in a hospital environment. Personally, I believe that Dr. Murray took the job for the $150,000 a month he was being paid. Word is that he needed the money, so when someone offers you that kind on monthly income, would you turn it down? The sad thing is that instead of controlling the patient as a doctor should and trying to help him, he was controlled by the patient, which clearly goes against the oath he took as a physician. [Read more →]