Snipes to Flee?

[Bud Dickman]

....While jurors continued to deliberate, the bond company responsible for Snipes' $1 million bail bond asked to be released from the bond if Snipes is convicted, saying Snipes is likely to flee the country.

In a four-page motion, American Bankers Insurance Company of Florida said it could no longer guarantee Snipes' appearance in court if he is convicted.........

http://www.ocala.com/article/20080131/B ... thcomments

[Famspear]

from the same article (see above):

"[D]efendant Snipes' waiver of defenses indicates more than a lack of resolve. It can easily be inferred that the defendant has no faith in the judicial system and is an unwilling participant," Surety Agent Aaron Aaba wrote. "It is apparent that he may not vigorously pursue an appeal, if he is not interested in presenting a defense at trial. Therefore, any appeal is likely for purpose of delay in order to allow the defendant to flee. It is also likely that Snipes simply does not consider himself to be subject to the jurisdiction of the court, or any United States governmental body."

Ouch!

[Demosthenes]

The document:

http://www.thesnipestrial.com/snipes408.pdf

[Demosthenes]

The motion was denied by the judge, BTW, since it wasn't signed by a member of the bar.

[Joey Smith]

That is a remarkable motion -- I have never even heard of such a thing.

[Bill E. Branscum]

That is a remarkable motion -- I have never even heard of such a thing.

What you don't see is the extortionate BS that went on behind the scenes. Basically:

Bondsman: I want more money
Attorneys: BS - we have a contract
Bondsman: I want more money
Attorneys: No
Bondsman: I'll screw you with bad publicity
Attorneys: Go screw yourself

And that's why you have that vitriolic Motion, full of crap that no lawyer would have signed his name to, that was immediately denied - the Judge had been advised of the effort to extort money from Snipes as soon as the mutt started in with this.

Consider - while this bond was in effect, Snipes went to Korea and came back. Considering the appellate issues in this case, even if he was convicted, why would he flee?

[LPC]

What you don't see is the extortionate BS that went on behind the scenes. Basically:

Bondsman: I want more money
Attorneys: BS - we have a contract
Bondsman: I want more money
Attorneys: No
Bondsman: I'll screw you with bad publicity
Attorneys: Go screw yourself

And that's why you have that vitriolic Motion, full of crap that no lawyer would have signed his name to, that was immediately denied - the Judge had been advised of the effort to extort money from Snipes as soon as the mutt started in with this.

you have been patronizingly critical of people in this forum for their improper (in your view) use of terms like "conspiracy" and "check," so I have to ask whether your use of "extort" is serious, or more of your BS.

"Extort" means to compel by illegal means, for example threats of violence. What threats did the surety make? Bad publicity? Don't make me laugh.

You refer to the motion as "full of crap," and yet I don't see anything in there that is not supported by the public record. What "crap" do you see that is invisible to me?

It is not unusual in business for one party to a contract to seek to renegotiate the terms if they believe that conditions have changed, and that's all I'm seeing in the surety's motion. The motion also states that Snipes has another surety ready to step in to write the pre-sentence and appeal bonds. If that is true (and I have no way of knowing whether or not it is, and I would expect that you don't either), then a possible question is why Snipes didn't agree to change of bond and avoid a public debate over whether or not he might skip bail.

[Joey Smith]

Bill: Bail bondsmen are in general so sleazy that I could very well see that happening. Looks like a game of exploit-the-rich-celebrity to me.

Not to say anything other than I still believe that Snipes is guilty as hell, though.

[Bill E. Branscum]

you have been patronizingly critical of people in this forum for their improper (in your view) use of terms like "conspiracy" and "check," so I have to ask whether your use of "extort" is serious, or more of your BS.

"Extort" means to compel by illegal means, for example threats of violence. What threats did the surety make? Bad publicity? Don't make me laugh.

Dan, I have always thought you were a competent attorney but you keep blathering away with ridiculous notions.

"Extortion" does not imply violence.

From Findlaw: "Most states define extortion as the gaining of property or money by almost any kind of force, or threat of 1) violence, 2) property damage, 3) harm to reputation, or 4) unfavorable government action. While usually viewed as a form of theft/larceny, extortion differs from robbery in that the threat in question does not pose an imminent physical danger to the victim."

It is extortionate to demand money, threatening to create a media event harmful to a person . . . especially during this critical time of jury deliberation. Any lawyer who actually practices law would know that - and I am quite sure that most readers see exactly how that fits into the definition espoused above.

When we work cases, we lease a trial house - we are all right here together and have been throughout this case. I think I have a pretty good vantage point to know what has gone on.

[Bill E. Branscum]

Bill: Bail bondsmen are in general so sleazy that I could very well see that happening. Looks like a game of exploit-the-rich-celebrity to me.

Not to say anything other than I still believe that Snipes is guilty as hell, though.

Yes indeed - this was sleazy at its sleaziest. There are two sides to everything, but if you read the Motion again, and review it in light of what I said went on, I think anyone can see that it was all about creating a media event intended to maximize damage at the worst possible time.

It isn't the policy in this district to remand - even if convicted, he can reasonably expect to be free pending sentencing, and there is no rational reason to think that a defendant who was allowed to go to Korea for Christmas is a flight risk.

This was a slimeball attempt at extortion, met with a rather "strongly worded" response that probably should have been more measured. The slimeball retaliated - surprising those who were convinced that he really couldn't be that stupid.

BTW - the thing that really amazes me is the suggestion by some that I don't really know what I am talking about. I have publicly accused Aaron Aaba of demanding money and threatening to do this, and characterized him as being a sleazy slimeball. It pains me to realize that people I had considered to be friends, or at least fellow-professionals, have no more respect for my common sense than to suggest that I would say it if I couldn't prove it.

[wserra]

The bond company's motion was denied on a procedural matter - it has to appear through counsel. If they get counsel, it could be brought again.

How far do the terms of the bond extend? Through trial? Sentence? Appeal? Since it certainly appears that Snipes has kept his end, why wouldn't the contractual terms control?

[webhick]

So wait, let me get this straight, the bondsman said that he'd screw Snipes with bad publicity if he didn't get more money...and then all he did was file a motion to have the bond revoked? Am I missing a press release or a public statement from the bond company that accuses Snipes of saying or doing anything not already in the public record?

[Quixote]

Surety Agent Aaron Aaba

His real name? If so, he was born to be a bail bondsman. Or a plumber.

Am I missing a press release or a public statement from the bond company that accuses Snipes of saying or doing anything not already in the public record?

No, but the motion all but accuses Snipes of planning to skip.

[webhick]

No, but the motion all but accuses Snipes of planning to skip.

Which, from what I understand, is the same thing a prosecutor does when they have the bond/bail/release smackdown with the defense in front of the judge.

If I didn't see what Branscum wrote about the extortion, then I would most certainly believe that the bondsman is just getting nervous because the jury is still out, the public record now shows that Snipes thinks the laws don't apply to him, and he's had no personal contact with Snipes to judge what kind of mindset he's in.

Now, if the bondsman started talking trash to the media, then I'd question his motives. I'm withholding judgment on this extortion thing until an additional source for it turns up.

[Joey Smith]

If Snipes flees, I think that he still have considerable assets in the U.S. subject to forfeiture. Plus, he would lose more money not being an actor if he had to stay in countries without an extradition treaty.

Personally, I'm against criminal penalties for tax crimes (except for maybe promoters) and would rather just allow for very aggressive and continuous collection until the back taxes and interest are paid.

[Bill E. Branscum]

If Snipes flees, I think that he still have considerable assets in the U.S. subject to forfeiture. Plus, he would lose more money not being an actor if he had to stay in countries without an extradition treaty.

Personally, I'm against criminal penalties for tax crimes (except for maybe promoters) and would rather just allow for very aggressive and continuous collection until the back taxes and interest are paid.

Ditto.

Even if all criminal provisions were stricken from Title 26, you could still prosecute promoters under Title 18 Section 371.

That would suit me just fine.

[Investor]

Ditto.

Even if all criminal provisions were stricken from Title 26, you could still prosecute promoters under Title 18 Section 371.

That would suit me just fine.

I could get on board with that. Make sure the financial penalties under IRC Section 6663 (75% penalty) are enforced, go after the promoters criminally for defrauding their victims, and stop wasting money and energy on three ring circuses like the Wesley Snipes trial.

Of course, if Congress did this, the TP crowd would claim that it is Congress acknowledging that they don't have the authority to enforce tax laws (ignoring the HUGE penalty for fraudulent positions).

[Bill E. Branscum]

Here is the text of the sidebar, cut and pasted directly from the official transcript of the 24th, where the defense notified the Court that the bondsman had made some threatening calls. This was back on the 24th.


THE COURT: Has any motion been filed by a bondsman
or anybody with respect to that?
MR. MEACHUM: No, sir. This was just a threatening
phone call this morning and this afternoon; well, yesterday
and this afternoon.
THE COURT: Okay. Well, I don't know that there is
very much I can do about it, except wait until somebody files
something.
MR. MEACHUM: Right. And there are no terms in that
agreement that have been breached.
THE COURT: Okay. Well, I don't -- you are not
suggesting there is anything that I can do to keep the
bondsman on the bond?
MR. MEACHUM: No, sir. I'm just, out of respect to
the Court, trying to make the Court aware of that issue that
may come up.
THE COURT: I appreciate that.


Maybe that helps clarify things.

[Imalawman]

Here is the text of the sidebar, cut and pasted directly from the official transcript of the 24th, where the defense notified the Court that the bondsman had made some threatening calls. This was back on the 24th.


THE COURT: Has any motion been filed by a bondsman
or anybody with respect to that?
MR. MEACHUM: No, sir. This was just a threatening
phone call this morning and this afternoon; well, yesterday
and this afternoon.
THE COURT: Okay. Well, I don't know that there is
very much I can do about it, except wait until somebody files
something.
MR. MEACHUM: Right. And there are no terms in that
agreement that have been breached.
THE COURT: Okay. Well, I don't -- you are not
suggesting there is anything that I can do to keep the
bondsman on the bond?
MR. MEACHUM: No, sir. I'm just, out of respect to
the Court, trying to make the Court aware of that issue that
may come up.
THE COURT: I appreciate that.


Maybe that helps clarify things.

Yeah, bondsmen are not the most reputable people. I'd sooner believe that the bondsmen is a liar and a scam artist, than that Snipes intends to flee - he's stupid, but not that stupid.

[Imalawman]

Ditto.

Even if all criminal provisions were stricken from Title 26, you could still prosecute promoters under Title 18 Section 371.

That would suit me just fine.

I could get on board with that. Make sure the financial penalties under IRC Section 6663 (75% penalty) are enforced, go after the promoters criminally for defrauding their victims, and stop wasting money and energy on three ring circuses like the Wesley Snipes trial.

Of course, if Congress did this, the TP crowd would claim that it is Congress acknowledging that they don't have the authority to enforce tax laws (ignoring the HUGE penalty for fraudulent positions).

And this is the problem with prosecuting TPs and not the promoters. Stevie for instance, although crazy in his beliefs, truly believes that he is right. Almost all of the TPs I've met really believe there are no laws that make them liable or other such thing. So proving that they didn't believe it rather difficult. Even in the Snipes case, he's a crazy guy. Look at all the crazy stuff he's done. I'd have a hard time saying for certain (without seeing the gov't evidence) that he really intended to defraud the government.

Sure, they're motivated by greed, but it doesn't mean that they defrauded the gov't. At the same time, I'm not willing to say that there shouldn't be any criminal liability for not paying taxes - no matter what. Personally I think the whole Cheek defense is BS. I think there should be minor criminal penalties for just failure to file. Make fraud very hard to prove and reserve it only for promoter types. Of course, if Snipes wins, I think you'll see less and less of TP prosecution and more focusing only on promoters.