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

Couple From Wantage Held On Drug Charges
https://ftp.fugitiverecovery.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=26&t=10447		 Page 1 of 1
Author:  DanM [ Mon 28 Sep 2009 21:25 ]
Post subject:  Couple From Wantage Held On Drug Charges
Joe Moszczynski, STAR-LEDGER STAFF

Tuesday, September 29, 2009

Two suspected Sussex County cocaine dealers remained in jail yesterday after a judge refused to lower their bail, the county prosecutor's office said. Bruce Parks, 40, an ex-convict who had served five years in prison on drug and other offenses in the 1990s, and Patricia Jelissis, 39, were arrested Friday at a home they shared on Alder Terrace in the Lake Neepaulin section of Wantage.

The couple's arrest followed a search by law enforcement officials of their home, self-storage unit and vehicles. The search uncovered four ounces of crack cocaine with a street value of about $3,000 and two semiautomatic handguns, the prosecutor's office said.

During yesterday's first appearance hearing before Superior Court Judge Edward Gannon, sitting in Newton, Parks asked the judge for a lower bail, which is currently $200,000 with no 10 percent option.

"I haven't been arrested since 1991. I'll never see $200,000, even 10 percent is way out of my league," Parks said. But Gannon denied the request. "These offenses are very serious offenses. You're facing major (prison) time," which increases the risk of flight, said the judge.

Parks and Jelissis, who is being held in the county jail in lieu of $75,000 bail with no 10 percent option, were each charged with possession with intent to distribute 1½ ounces but less than 5 ounces of cocaine, a second-degree crime. Parks was additionally charged with second-degree possession of firearms by a convicted felon. Each second-degree crime is punishable by up to 10 years in prison.

On July 3, 1991, Parks was sentenced to five years in state prison on charges of employing a juvenile in a drug distribution scheme, burglary, theft, escape and possession of a controlled dangerous substance, according to the state Department of Corrections web site. He was paroled on July 2, 1996.

Parks was also arrested in New York on a federal drug charge, as well as in Florida. The suspects' arrests last week resulted from an investigation by the county Guns, Gangs and Narcotics Task Force and the State Police at the Sussex barracks. A hearing in the case was scheduled for Nov. 2.

Joe Moszczynski mau be reached at (973) 383-0516 or jmoszczynski@starledger.com.
Author:  speezack [ Thu 01 Oct 2009 07:08 ]
Post subject:  Re: Couple From Wantage Held On Drug Charges
Quote:
currently $200,000 with no 10 percent option.



When they say NO "10% option" isn't that basically removing the bondsman from the mix? and a pocket bond simply means putting up the full amount in cash..... correct? Just curious how Kansas works.
I read the regulations on FRN but still a bit shady on the terms.
Author:  DanM [ Thu 01 Oct 2009 08:03 ]
Post subject:  Re: Couple From Wantage Held On Drug Charges
Regarding pocket bonds in Kansas; yes, it is putting up the full amount. I’m glad you asked this question because I am a little fuzzy on this issue myself. My initial thought here is any individual can post bail using a pocket bond which would take the bondsman out of the loop. Pocket bonds do not appear to be regulated in Kansas other than you must be an individual and not a company. However, this is where it gets even fuzzier for me. It seems that this person posting a pocket bond could meet surety approval guidelines under KSA 22-2806. However no bonds will be approved unless the surety appears to be qualified which would indicate approval by a judge of the court where the action is pending or by the sheriff of the county. Part of my confusion is determining whether the individual will be viewed as the surety and the arresting authority in the event the defendant decides to disappear. If the person posting the pocket bond could be viewed as a surety then I understand where they would derive their authority to arrest. But in the event they are not classified as a surety then it seems the only recourse is a bench warrant and hopefully law enforcement would pick him/her up at some point. It also seems like the only recourse for the individual who posted bail is to sue for civil restitution. I’m not sure if I’m thinking about this correctly. Any thoughts?

I referred this to Riling, Burkhead & Nitcher; a law firm here in Lawrence, to get a better understanding and clarification.

The article posted here is dealing with NJ law which I haven’t researched. They may have something similar.
Author:  DanM [ Thu 01 Oct 2009 08:42 ]
Post subject:  Re: Couple From Wantage Held On Drug Charges
I received a call back from Riling, Burkhead & Nitcher and I got clarification on pocket bonds in Kansas. It does take the bondsman out of the loop and the defendant need not pay a fee to anyone in the commercial bail industry. The person posting the pocket bond is paying the full amount and is not considered a surety therefore they have no authority to arrest the individual should something go wrong. In the event the defendant is FTA then a bench warrant is issued and the only arresting authority is law enforcement.

If the person posting the pocket bond would like to get their money back they have to take civil action against the defendant. And, unless they had a written agreement showing a loan between the two parties then there will be no restitution considered and the individual, unfortunately, is out the entire amount.

I would think it would be much cheaper for mom, dad, sister, brother to go to a bondsman and use the commercial bail system. At some point I should probably try to find cases where they used pocket bonds so I can have a better understanding of why people are choosing this option. Perhaps I am missing something with that connection. Thoughts?
Author:  speezack [ Thu 01 Oct 2009 11:32 ]
Post subject:  Re: Couple From Wantage Held On Drug Charges
DanM wrote:
<<<pocket bonds in Kansas. It does take the bondsman out of the loop and the defendant need not pay a fee to anyone in the commercial bail industry. The person posting the pocket bond is paying the full amount and is not considered a surety therefore they have no authority to arrest the individual should something go wrong. In the event the defendant is FTA then a bench warrant is issued and the only arresting authority is law enforcement.

I would think it would be much cheaper for mom, dad, sister, brother to go to a bondsman and use the commercial bail system.


May not be any less expensive unless of course the defendant would skip, then the bondsman hits the indemnitors for any fees involved in pickup... which would probably be less than the bond amount... also, does a pocket bond have to be in cash? If you post property and the defendant skips the courts can attach a lien and eventually sell the property to recover the forfeiture. (in Va.)

I have written many bonds after the indemnitors were brought up to speed on the facts relating to posting property and/or cash and the liability they faced with the system... even though they are still on the hook for the bond, they are working with a 3rd party... the bondsman... and I tell people that as long as I can put the defendant back in jail within the prescribed time afforded, the only costs will be the ones we incur during the process and the total bond would only be due if and when the forfeiture went past the recovery date set by the courts. Many times they spring for me rather than taking a chance on losing their property....

I have also had cases where indemnitors owned really nice property on the lake... close to me........ and I have smiled and told them that if the defendant wanted to skip... it was fine with me cause I had always wanted a nice lake property.... course, you have to be extremely sure of who you are dealing with when you make a statement like that.............. you could talk yourself out of a nice bond.... :shock: :shock:

Even though I do have a rather quick mouth....... duuuuhhhhh....... I do know when to be serious and stop talking.... (imagine that?)
Author:  DanM [ Thu 01 Oct 2009 14:15 ]
Post subject:  Re: Couple From Wantage Held On Drug Charges
Ah yes, I see what you mean.

I have looked over the applicable statutes, KSA 22-2806 – 22-809, and I do not see where it specifies cash only. However, when I spoke to an attorney this morning she indicated that the person posting a pocket bond was not classified as a surety. It would seem that if collateral was used that it would have to be in the form of a loan contract.
Author:  speezack [ Thu 01 Oct 2009 14:58 ]
Post subject:  Re: Couple From Wantage Held On Drug Charges
DanM wrote:
do not see where it specifies cash only. However, when I spoke to an attorney this morning she indicated that the person posting a pocket bond was not classified as a surety. It would seem that if collateral was used that it would have to be in the form of a loan contract.


Well, first of all that makes sense, since the pocket bond is posting the entire bond amount and a surety is only standing for the liability on the bond with basically only a power of attorney for the amount. Also, basically anyone (except the defendant, in VA) can post the pocket bond but only a licensed bondsman can be the surety... at least in Virginia... as such licensed through insurance or as a property bondsman.

And as for the individual property bond which could be posted by.... anyone basically ...... that is done with a simple deed of trust on the property with the jurisdiction named as trustee, as long as given equity will stand for the full bond amount. All owner sign and notarize. Relatively simple but effectively ties up the property.

as example:
# The trustee is the entity, the jurisdiction, that holds the "Power of Sale" in the event of default.
# The trustee also re-conveys the property once the bond is finished.
# In the event of a default or with a bond a forfeiture, the trustee files a Notice of Default.

I might mention that in VA the person posting bond should have an "insurable interest" in the defendant... this is to stop unlicensed and unregulated persons from doing bonds for profit... which happens quite often frankly.... at least it used to before DCJS got involved.
Page 1 of 1 All times are UTC - 8 hours [ DST ]
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group
http://www.phpbb.com/