"Declaration Of Non-Collusion"

[suesmithwhippet]

What is the name of your state? CA

Individual is arrested at same time as girlfriend for possession/intent to sell of marijuana. Individual is currently on 3 year probation for previous drug possession/sales/resisting officer charges.


Charges are not filed for this, due to not getting indivual in front of judge within 48 hours, but violation of probation terms is filed. Individual is finally bailed out some 6 days later on an $80K bond, and fails to appear for first two scheduled appearances, with bench warrants being issued in amounts of $25K and $50K.

In the meantime, the original bail bond ($80K as well) is listed as forefited.

Individual finally does make court appearance; bench warrants are recalled and case is requested to be continued for another two weeks by public defender. Individual is released, but probation is listed in a "revoked" status.

After the entry for the continuance,there are the following entries:

REASSUMPTION OF LIABILITY ON BAIL BOND R10012490663 FILED
NOTICE OF BAIL BOND REINSTATEMENT FILED
FILED: DECLARATION OF NON-COLLUSION

What would the "Declaration Of Non-Collusion" be? The exisiting bail bonds are issued by different companies (I called the court and asked).

If said individual has been requested (rather demanded) to never enter the premises of his grandfather, and does, can further charges be filed for violation of parole terms?

Thanks!

 

[seniorjudge]

What is the name of your state? CA

Individual is arrested at same time as girlfriend for possession/intent to sell of marijuana. Individual is currently on 3 year probation for previous drug possession/sales/resisting officer charges.


Charges are not filed for this, due to not getting indivual in front of judge within 48 hours, but violation of probation terms is filed. Individual is finally bailed out some 6 days later on an $80K bond, and fails to appear for first two scheduled appearances, with bench warrants being issued in amounts of $25K and $50K.

In the meantime, the original bail bond ($80K as well) is listed as forefited.

Individual finally does make court appearance; bench warrants are recalled and case is requested to be continued for another two weeks by public defender. Individual is released, but probation is listed in a "revoked" status.

After the entry for the continuance,there are the following entries:

REASSUMPTION OF LIABILITY ON BAIL BOND R10012490663 FILED
NOTICE OF BAIL BOND REINSTATEMENT FILED
FILED: DECLARATION OF NON-COLLUSION

What would the "Declaration Of Non-Collusion" be? The exisiting bail bonds are issued by different companies (I called the court and asked).

If said individual has been requested (rather demanded) to never enter the premises of his grandfather, and does, can further charges be filed for violation of parole terms?

Thanks!

Q: If said individual has been requested (rather demanded) to never enter the premises of his grandfather, and does, can further charges be filed for violation of parole terms?

A: Yes.

 

[cjbrown929]

Q: If said individual has been requested (rather demanded) to never enter the premises of his grandfather, and does, can further charges be filed for violation of parole terms?

A: Yes.

In school, students are taught to show their work. Would you care to show your work, or does "yes" pretty much cover your understanding of the situation?

I would bet that the brevity of your opinions ("yes", or "no") means that you are often consulted on issues such as "Does the sun rise in the east?"

 

[seniorjudge]

In school, students are taught to show their work. Would you care to show your work, or does "yes" pretty much cover your understanding of the situation?

Tell me what part of YES you don't understand and I will try to explain it a little more simply.

 

[CdwJava]

Let's see ... if the Parole Officer tells a parolee they are not to enter a particular property, they had better not enter that property. It's not that difficult.

If the parolee wants clarification, he can always ask the Parole Officer if he can get revoked for going there. Otherwise, he's taking his chances and hoping that the P.O. was just bluffing.

And since the question was "CAN he ..." as opposed to "WILL he ...", the answer is certainly: "yes, he CAN be charged with a parole violation." Whether he will or not depends on a whole lot of other things.

- Carl

 

[seniorjudge]

Let's see ... if the Parole Officer tells a parolee they are not to enter a particular property, they had better not enter that property. It's not that difficult.

If the parolee wants clarification, he can always ask the Parole Officer if he can get revoked for going there. Otherwise, he's taking his chances and hoping that the P.O. was just bluffing.

And since the question was "CAN he ..." as opposed to "WILL he ...", the answer is certainly: "yes, he CAN be charged with a parole violation." Whether he will or not depends on a whole lot of other things.

- Carl

Some things are too simple to be understood by those who do not want to know.

 

[cjbrown929]

Let's see ... if the Parole Officer tells a parolee they are not to enter a particular property, they had better not enter that property. It's not that difficult.

If the parolee wants clarification, he can always ask the Parole Officer if he can get revoked for going there. Otherwise, he's taking his chances and hoping that the P.O. was just bluffing.

And since the question was "CAN he ..." as opposed to "WILL he ...", the answer is certainly: "yes, he CAN be charged with a parole violation." Whether he will or not depends on a whole lot of other things.

- Carl

cdw: while senor might be technically correct ("yes") assuming those strict circumstances, how often are they that cut and dried? Your advice adds a little depth, which could be more helpful than a simple "yes".

Sorry if I seem bitchy, but "good" advice in my mind should neither be too long, nor too short.

 

[CdwJava]

cdw: while senor might be technically correct ("yes") assuming those strict circumstances, how often are they that cut and dried?

It depends on the parole officer. In the case of the primary one that works my town, if he "suggests" not going somewhere, you can count on a violation if you do.

Sorry if I seem bitchy, but "good" advice in my mind should neither be too long, nor too short.

Maybe. But it was not incorrect. And heeding the suggestion is just a smart move on the parolee's part.

- Carl

 

[cjbrown929]

It depends on the parole officer. In the case of the primary one that works my town, if he "suggests" not going somewhere, you can count on a violation if you do.


Maybe. But it was not incorrect. And heeding the suggestion is just a smart move on the parolee's part.

- Carl

My point was not the " correctness" of senor's "yes", but how it could be much more effective with the simplest of explanations.

In algebra, for instance, solving an equation like 2x -4= 0 is simple for most people: x=2. Simply providing the answer does not necessarily demonstrate how and why this answer is correct.

BTW, to solve above, add "4" to both sides, and the equation becomes (2x-4)+4=0+4 then 2x + (-4+4)=4 then 2x=4 (-4+4=0)then multiply both side by 1/2 and you get 2x/2=4/2 or x=2

 

[CdwJava]

No one was asked to show their work or explain their answer. The question was: "If said individual has been requested (rather demanded) to never enter the premises of his grandfather, and does, can further charges be filed for violation of parole terms?"

The answer was, simply, Yes.

Certainly a more detailed answer COULD have been provided. But citing case law, statutory references, and anecdotal evidence to support said claim would have done nothing to change the substance of the answer.

It's like asking, "Could I get a ticket for running a red light?" The short answer is, "Yes." A thorough response would include a discussion on appropriate code sections, discussions on the angle of the officer and whether he could adequately view the limit line, whether or not an officer was present to SEE the violation, the law on red light camera tickets, etc. But none of it would change the short answer ... Yes, I COULD get a ticket for running a red light.

- Carl

 

[cjbrown929]

cdw: your point is noted.

A simile for mine would be like, say, an adolescent asking a parent if smoking is bad for him/her. "Yes" would be correct advice; explaining why, even briefly, would probably be more effective.

 

[CdwJava]

cdw: your point is noted.

A simile for mine would be like, say, an adolescent asking a parent if smoking is bad for him/her. "Yes" would be correct advice; explaining why, even briefly, would probably be more effective.

The difference there being one of answering the question and education.

"Yes" is an answer to the question. Explaining WHY is for education.

My 11-year-old son vandalized a school bench yesterday ... in my long response (i.e. preaching diatribe) I explained the law and the possible consequences of his actions (fines, juvenile hall, expulsion, etc.). In my short response I explained that if he ever did it again I would kick his ass and when he called CPS they could retrieve my boot from inside his rectum.

I think my short response had a greater impact than my 5 minute legal dissertation.

It also explains why I'm cranky.

- Carl