Arrest Warrant Affidavit Example

* Arrest Warrants Search Engine *

Try one of the most accurate and safe
Arrest warrants Search Engine...

New York, NY (PRWEB) January 19, 2011

“Bail contracts are binding insurance policies containing ubiquitous language, terms and conditions that must be agreed to and signed prior to the posting of a bail bond in every state by every bail bond consumer, said George Zouvelos, President of the New York Professional Bondsmen & Agents, the NYPBA (Http:// and a licensed New York State Professional Bail Bondsman. The indicting article published in the New York Times last week utilized NY Insurance Department misleading data taken out of context stating, New York State Insurance Department, which licenses bondsmen, has received about 60 complaints against George Zouvelos, a bail-bond agent…

The NYPBA believes the New York Times article unfair wording suggests impropriety pointing to a small number of complaints out of tens of thousands of bonds posted. The existence of detailed terms and conditions contained in bail contracts the bond consumer agrees to, but often violate, compel a bail bondsman to post bail and take on costly personal financial liability were vastly overlooked by the NY Times article.

Ironically the article did not mention that the indemnitors role when bailing a defendant from jail is not just to put up some bail money with a bondsman and then just sit back waiting for a refund two or three years later. If fact the indemnitors makes promises to provide the necessary moral suasion to convince the defendant bonded to comply with all the terms of release from jail. Sometimes indemnitors fail to meet their promised contractual burdens and it is then some indemnitors try to shake any responsibility, plead ignorance and run seeking relief to the purview less New York Department of Insurance. The facts are the bondsmen provide the service impeccably, but some indemnitors failed miserably to do what they previously promised, and agreeing to just put up some money was not in the original deal,” said Zouvelos.

The NYPBA further points out that the New York Times article further indicts, Over a four-year period that ended in mid-July, the department received 227 complaints against 43 bail-bond agents. How much did it cost the New York Taxpayer to finance the insurance examiners oversight of these 227 complaints (56 a year statewide) of the 43 bondsman in the four year period described by the Times. How many of these complaints were unfounded, frivolous or bogus? In George Zouvelos case all were unfounded or frivolous, as George Zouvelos has never been sanctioned, fined, brought up on charges, or has never been found guilty of misconduct of any type by the Department of Insurance in the 7 years he has been a professional bail bondsman in New York State.

The NYPBA did the numbers and the NY Times article did not mention extremely crucial facts that these alleged complaints were over a seven year period, and averaged 8 complaints per year for Zouvelos, the busiest bail bondsman in Manhattan and Brooklyn. If you utilize the actual number actual bail agents that exist in New York State (80), and divide the complaints across these, you get .7 complaints per bondsman in the entire State per year across a four year period.

NYPBA finds that these alleged 60 complaints (over a 7 year period) were out of tens of thousands of bail calls to George Zouvelos, tens of thousands free bail consultations and thousands of bonds actually posted by Zouvelos and his team. Facts not mentioned by Eligon in his NY Times article were that anyone can make a complaint or inquiry to the regulators, whether they are party to a bail contract or not. The alleged complaints against Zouvelos were unfounded inquiries surrounding private civil contractual matter disagreements. George Zouvelos has never been fined, sanctioned and never had his bail license suspended or revoked at any time by the New York Insurance Department. These were also important details overlooked and not disclosed by the NY Times.

Of course no one wants to get a complaint, but even a jealous competitor can make a bogus call against you considered by the NY DOI as a legitimate complaint however unfounded. New York Bail Bondsmen never know the final conclusions of any inquiry made against us as the NY DOI does not communicate findings to anyone and weve been told by the DOI previously, said Zouvelos.

The NYPBA research and reports cites publically disclosed binding New York Insurance Department Office of General Counsel (OGC) legal opinions. These OGC legal opinions state that the NY DOI oversees New York State Bail Bondsmen for their licensing, record-keeping and compensation alone. The NYPBA research shows that only 80 or so Professional Bail Bondsmen exist in New York State.

NYPBA will not allow the professional commercial bail industry to be silenced over any one persons opinion or over a NY Times article. We will not permit the Taxpayer Funds wasting ideologies of the publically funded Pretrial Release Services to go unchallenged. We will not permit our professionalism and politeness to be construed as silent affirmation to bias, purview less opinions or over despicably written article with indicting accusations in the total absence of crucial facts that has profoundly distorted the truth. Since only the partial truths and data were published it left the reader and general public to decide on the facts and draw conclusions based on a mere reporters biased opinions and half-truths. These comments in the article do not only seek to expand bail bondsmen oversight and regulation; although not specifically stated in the article, are de facto in full support of Pretrial Taxpayer funded services and bail bondsmen abolitionist movements under the auspices of protecting the incarcerated poor.

In previously published NYPBA research has found that an increase of consumer attempts to circumvent private contracts and indemnitor failed moral suasion is on the rise. These failed attempts to back-out of terms and conditions previously agreed to include outreach to the Insurance Department to intervene when no laws or regulations have been broken by the bail agent. In only in extreme rare cases judges grant indemnitors any relief, as relief is not granted for promises previously made but broken by contract. Some seek unwarranted relief for their material breaches and broken promises wrongfully depend on the New York Department of Insurance examiners instead of the appropriate forums contractually agreed to. These private contracts are enforceable under New York Civil Contract Law and not New York State Insurance Law or any of its regulations. NYPBA research proves that people gather sometimes that do not know the defendant and are not good indemnitors for bail contracts, but lie about it to bail bondsmen in order to get someones friend or family member out of jail. Later when the defendant is noncompliant and now the indemnitor needs to pay for services rendered, or to pay for forfeited bonds, they do not understand why this is the case.

NY Bail Bondmen painstakingly navigate through the archaic; an often capricious New York City bail system in order to bond a criminal defendant entitled to freedom from jail. By the NY Times omitting key facts previously presented, the article is construed by bail bondsmen and other industry experts as an attack against not only George Zouvelos, but the commercial bail industry in New York itself. Experts are construing these types of articles as further attempts to disenfranchise the general public against the valuable social functions and contributions the commercial bail industry provide Taxpayers, poor, working class and the public at large. It is a fact that hundreds of thousand outstanding criminal warrants not served exist in the aggregate from states that restrict or do not allow bail bondsmen to operate. http://danieljmitch

Discuss how current laws regarding search and seizure have the potential to violate the Fourth Amendment. In your response, provide specific examples of how this violation may occur.

I am doing a paper in my CIS class and I have to go around and ask people opinion then gather up all the information on your views and speak on in my paper. I would appreciate everyone’s honest opinion.

Answer by HALF black like Obama
They already do although the courts, in their wise judgment, have ruled that they don’t. I disagree, with extreme prejudice.
Now hold on, this is going to take awhile and it will piss off many bootlicking c0cksuckers along with Statist loving slaves;

Amendment IV

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

1. No Knock Warrants. Take the time to learn what they actually are and how they came into being. Hudson vs. Michigan will get you started.
-IF you had told the Founding Fathers that busting down a door in the middle of the night was a “reasonable search” they’d tar and feather you.

2. Canine Searches. It has been proven over and over that dogs are coerced to alert and that officers are rarely if ever punished for coercing them. While a dog can be a good tool to use, they rarely are used within the parameters of a Constitutionally legal standpoint. “Probable Cause” to me means that the officer sees drug paraphernalia, the actual drugs or firmly (supported by Oath or affirmation) believes the Victim to be under the influence.

3. DUI checkpoints. Oh….where do I start?
The better to secure and perpetuate mutual friendship and intercourse among the people of the different States in this Union, the free inhabitants of each of these States, paupers, vagabonds, and fugitives from justice excepted, shall be entitled to all privileges and immunities of free citizens in the several States; and the people of each State shall free ingress and regress to and from any other State, and shall enjoy therein all the privileges of trade and commerce

This in turn goes along with the 4th amendment in that freedom of movement is restricted by them. Essentially, you are being arrested(detained) at a DUI Checkpoint without probable cause. This is a hard concept for some to wrap their little idiot minds around.

4. “Oath and Affirmation”. This is meant to be a deterrent against unlawful searches but has since become nothing more than a joke. A judge has to sign off on a warrant for it to be executed but often the “articulated suspicion” is either false, wrong or exaggerated. There is also NO recourse for mistakes made. Nobody is held accountable for unlawful searches. (or rather RARELY) << this is another subject that would take 3-4 paragraphs to explain. 5. Oath and Affirmation continued- (example) When California narcotics agents armed with a search warrant recently arrived at the Carlsbad home of the Dagy family (Mom, Dad, three kids), they expected to find one of those indoor marijuana production facilities. As the below search warrant affidavit notes, a check of the Dagys utility records showed "excessive" electrical usage, consumption "very consistent with an indoor marijuana operation." In his affidavit, Detective Mark Reyes also noted the Dagy family's suspicious "trash dispensing pattern" and mentioned that a drug-sniffing dog, one Storm, "showed a positive alert" The Dagys--Mom's a homemaker and Dad's a general manager of 21 Shell stations--would like an apology from the Carlsbad Police Department. Let me know if you want more Truth.