TX TX - Brandon Lawson, 26, San Angelo, 8 Aug 2013 - #3

[Mandy1979]

BBM

I know we are supposed to consider LL the victim here. But statements like the ones BBM above are bothersome to me.

B had done time on prior charges. He knew the ropes. He knew that he was arrested and bonded out on a 50K bond. He knew there would be charges to face. When you are out on bond you are supposed to stay in touch with your bondsman and I don't believe you are supposed to leave the county. The bondsman keeps up to date on indictments and arraignments on people they bond out because if they are a no show that costs them money, in this case big money. If he was staying in contact with his bondsman as required how could he not know there was an indictment and several arraignment hearings where he is listed as a no show/failure to appear and "UNARRESTED". Trust me, the bondsman would let him know dates, times and all of that. That's what they do. They make sure you APPEAR so they don't have a bond forfeiture and end up paying the full bond.

What if he did not have a bondsman? Isn't that like a person that fronts the money to release you from an arrest in jail? What if someone in his family paid cash and a bondsman was never in the picture? Is there a link in which it says he had a bondsman?

 

[Karmin]

I can see where you think it's a moot point, but I also think it's not the whole call which raises more questions. IMO don't post something if it's not the whole thing. It just brought up more questions and stress on the family. But hey that's their deal. MOO


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Psychic Sleuth]

I don't even think I take this as part of a documented timeline because LL did not exactly answer as the question was posed. She went "back in time" to the field and bleeding and continued further going back in time of his job and warrant and bondsman. Perhaps she didn't even catch the 1:19 posed in the question?

And to add...the blogtalk interview is one of the only little bits of info that we can use according to the mods.

 

[Psychic Sleuth]

I don't even think I take this as part of a documented timeline because LL did not exactly answer as the question was posed. She went "back in time" to the field and bleeding and continued further going back in time of his job and warrant and bondsman. Perhaps she didn't even catch the 1:19 posed in the question?

And I can't make a timeline based on assumptions of what LL may or may not have caught in the question.

Sorry. I did the best I could without interjecting MY interpretation of it.

 

[Mandy1979]

This is the way LL answers most questions from what I've seen. And I've seen on fb where they changed even more. That's why I have a hard time taking much of what she says as fact. Plus IMO she is out and out lying about the fact that B did not know he had a warrant. And if we don't have her information what do we have? I'm assuming the info the PI posted was gathered from LL too. I don't know.

There is very little verifiable info. So we muddle through trying to get some facts. Luckily RW has come on and gotten verified so at least we have a little something.

I didn't see where she was lying that he didn't know? She said he only learned a few months before missing that he had an outstanding warrant and it is in the section you copied above and highlighted. I also believe that a lot of what was posted on Face Book was in the beginning and it is quite possibly that even she did not have facts straight as she was not there and could only go on what she was told at the time? If she was told wrong, she will repeat it wrong. What a mess!

 

[Mandy1979]

And to add...the blogtalk interview is one of the only little bits of info that we can use according to the mods.

We can post MSM though, right? I have to run and will see what I can do with MSM information. I wonder if we can ask RW to post a timeline if she would be willing?

 

[Psychic Sleuth]

Probably the parents gave it to her is my guess. However, I think this is a moot point, IMO, because if LE did not want it publicly released they would have every right to ask for it to be retracted or removed from the public ears. I can only guess since it is posted all over they probably are ok with it.

I do not agree with that assumption. Again, I'm not one that likes to make assumptions. I try to go on the facts. We have not heard LE speak out about the release of the 911 call so therefore I will assume nothing. I know I've read things about the release of the 911 call and how that came about, but here on WS it would be considered rumor.

 

[SavetheQueen]

Probably the parents gave it to her is my guess. However, I think this is a moot point, IMO, because if LE did not want it publicly released they would have every right to ask for it to be retracted or removed from the public ears. I can only guess since it is posted all over they probably are ok with it.

But, think about what you are saying here. How can something like this be retracted? Our ears can't unhear things. No matter the who's, what's, or how's, a person can't just "not hear something" in a public setting. In a court room, under judge's order, yes. On Facebook, no.

*Unless specifically indicated, all opinions are my own. *

 

[Psychic Sleuth]

I didn't see where she was lying that he didn't know? She said he only learned a few months before missing that he had an outstanding warrant and it is in the section you copied above and highlighted. I also believe that a lot of what was posted on Face Book was in the beginning and it is quite possibly that even she did not have facts straight as she was not there and could only go on what she was told at the time? If she was told wrong, she will repeat it wrong. What a mess!

How does one get arrested on something like CS and bond out on a 50k bond and not know they would have a warrant if they do nothing and fail to appear? Do they think it's all just going to go away when you leave the county?

B had warrants issued on both his priors too. What does that tell you? Likely the reason for the high bond on the latest charge.

Playing dumb doesn't usually work with the courts too well.

 

[SavetheQueen]

What if he did not have a bondsman? Isn't that like a person that fronts the money to release you from an arrest in jail? What if someone in his family paid cash and a bondsman was never in the picture? Is there a link in which it says he had a bondsman?

If he had a bond, and he was out of jail, he had a bondsman. That's how it works in the United States court systems.

*Unless specifically indicated, all opinions are my own. *

 

[Balor51]

But, think about what you are saying here. How can something like this be retracted? Our ears can't unhear things. No matter the who's, what's, or how's, a person can't just "not hear something" in a public setting. In a court room, under judge's order, yes. On Facebook, no.

*Unless specifically indicated, all opinions are my own. *

I have never seen or heard of a 911 tape being released in any case until after there has been a resolution . Then again my familiar area is only in California, Kentucky and Ohio.

Its all MOO :moo: and :twocents:

 

[TxLady2]

BBM

I know we are supposed to consider LL the victim here. But statements like the ones BBM above are bothersome to me.

B had done time on prior charges. He knew the ropes. He knew that he was arrested and bonded out on a 50K bond. He knew there would be charges to face. When you are out on bond you are supposed to stay in touch with your bondsman and I don't believe you are supposed to leave the county. The bondsman keeps up to date on indictments and arraignments on people they bond out because if they are a no show that costs them money, in this case big money. If he was staying in contact with his bondsman as required how could he not know there was an indictment and several arraignment hearings where he is listed as a no show/failure to appear and "UNARRESTED". Trust me, the bondsman would let him know dates, times and all of that. That's what they do. They make sure you APPEAR so they don't have a bond forfeiture and end up paying the full bond.

I don't agree, I don't think a person is required to stay in touch with the bondsman, they are only required to find them if they don't appear for the hearing. Sometimes these bondsman have dozens and dozens of people they've written bonds on, they could not possibly keep tabs on that many people for months, sometimes up to a year between the time of their release on bond and the date of their hearing.

In my experience with a family member who was bonded out, he was not told to stay within the county, either. There was about 6-8 months between his bonding out and his court date, and nobody ever kept tabs on him except his family who put up the 10% for the bond. He was not required to call in nor keep in touch with the bondsman. Most of them only hire a few bond enforcers who track down the ones who don't appear... they would have to hire a dozen or more to keep tabs on all the people they write bonds on in one month. Think about the amount of people they bond out over a 6 months' period of time.

 

[Psychic Sleuth]

I don't agree, I don't think a person is required to stay in touch with the bondsman, they are only required to find them if they don't appear for the hearing. Sometimes these bondsman have dozens and dozens of people they've written bonds on, they could not possibly keep tabs on that many people for months, sometimes up to a year between the time of their release on bond and the date of their hearing.

In my experience with a family member who was bonded out, he was not told to stay within the county, either. There was about 6-8 months between his bonding out and his court date, and nobody ever kept tabs on him except his family who put up the 10% for the bond. He was not required to call in nor keep in touch with the bondsman. Most of them only hire a few bond enforcers who track down the ones who don't appear... they would have to hire a dozen or more to keep tabs on all the people they write bonds on in one month. Think about the amount of people they bond out over a 6 months' period of time.

Many bonding companies have conditions with which the defendant must comply. If he fails to abide by these conditions, the bondsman may re-arrest him and be released from the bail bond.
Defendants must keep in touch with the bonding company which encourages them to maintain steady jobs and to stay out of trouble.
If a defendant does not go to court as required, the bonding company is given a period of time to apprehend and return the fugitive to jail. The bondsman has the right to arrest the defendant, wherever he may be.

http://www.exitbail.com/faq/

 

[SavetheQueen]

I don't agree, I don't think a person is required to stay in touch with the bondsman, they are only required to find them if they don't appear for the hearing. Sometimes these bondsman have dozens and dozens of people they've written bonds on, they could not possibly keep tabs on that many people for months, sometimes up to a year between the time of their release on bond and the date of their hearing.

In my experience with a family member who was bonded out, he was not told to stay within the county, either. There was about 6-8 months between his bonding out and his court date, and nobody ever kept tabs on him except his family who put up the 10% for the bond. He was not required to call in nor keep in touch with the bondsman. Most of them only hire a few bond enforcers who track down the ones who don't appear... they would have to hire a dozen or more to keep tabs on all the people they write bonds on in one month. Think about the amount of people they bond out over a 6 months' period of time.

I personally, have never heard of that. Every bonding company that I have personal knowledge of, and anyone that I personally have known that has been out on bond, had very limited restrictions.

As for hiring bond enforcers to keep track of everyone, they are trusting that the majority are going to show up in court. And most do.

*Unless specifically indicated, all opinions are my own. *

 

[Balor51]

Many bonding companies have conditions with which the defendant must comply. If he fails to abide by these conditions, the bondsman may re-arrest him and be released from the bail bond.
Defendants must keep in touch with the bonding company which encourages them to maintain steady jobs and to stay out of trouble.
If a defendant does not go to court as required, the bonding company is given a period of time to apprehend and return the fugitive to jail. The bondsman has the right to arrest the defendant, wherever he may be.

http://www.exitbail.com/faq/

Bondsmen can re-arrest? Oh wow I never knew that!

 

[2Hope4]

That exitbond is out of Arkansas. Not related to Texas laws.

 

[pendyjo]

I have no personal knowledge myself, but a few people that I know have used bondsman and the only restriction they had was to notify if they planned on leaving the state. They only had to check in with the probation officer periodically.

Do we know if BL was on probation and had a probation officer?
MOO- Brandon had that job in the oil field for a yr. and they lived in San Angelo during that time . It would have been easy for them to track him down. I feel that if they had really wanted him during that time they could have arrested him. I have family in Oil field and was told that it would not have been hard to locate him because of records, insurance,etc.
I may get tomatoes thrown at me but I have to question why he had that open arrest during that time..is it possible maybe he was snitching to give from arrest . I do know 2 people that LE worked that kind of deal with to lessen charges. I couldn't understand how these people kept getting away with things and I am friends with their family and was told that LE asked them to give up names,etc. and that is why I am throwing that theory out there. It might explain some of the silence. Just a thought, not necessarily what I believe happened.
P.S. One of these people I am speaking of had 17 arrests! They were involved with drugs and had a history of stealing.

 

[Psychic Sleuth]

That exitbond is out of Arkansas. Not related to Texas laws.

I just googled it real fast. I don't think it is something that is state specific. I think they are pretty similar across the US. If I have time later I'll google some TX ones.

 

[nannymo]

Many bonding companies have conditions with which the defendant must comply. If he fails to abide by these conditions, the bondsman may re-arrest him and be released from the bail bond.

Defendants must keep in touch with the bonding company which encourages them to maintain steady jobs and to stay out of trouble.

If a defendant does not go to court as required, the bonding company is given a period of time to apprehend and return the fugitive to jail. The bondsman has the right to arrest the defendant, wherever he may be.



http://www.exitbail.com/faq/

I have a friend who is a bondsman here in Texas. She said if they no show for court the bonding company has to pay up right then to the court. The judge issues a new warrant for the persons arrest. Also, if the defendant does not keep in touch with the bonding company, they (the bail bondsman) can withdraw their bond and a warrant is issued for the defendant's arrest. A bounty hunter can bring the defendant in on the warrant to be arrested but the bail bondsman doesn't usually arrest.

 

[Psychic Sleuth]

I found a terms and conditions agreement for a bail bond agency in Texas.

You are required to report to BAIL BOND HOTLINE every TUESDAY by phone.

You are to notify BAIL BOND HOTLINE of TEXAS of any changes to the following: address, telephone number, employer, attorney
information and court info-plea bargains, etc.

You are not to leave the county in which you reside without consent from BAIL BOND HOTLINE of TEXAS.

http://www.freemeasap.com/documents/termsNconditions.pdf