No, not Tik Tok. Do we really need to see more scantily clad young ladies shaking their booties? (if you said yes, you probably don’t need to read any further)

It should be “tick tock”, as in the clock is ticking on George Gascon, the embattled Los Angeles County District Attorney. We at Orange County Bail Bonds support the recall effort, mainly because of Gascon’s stance on bail and bondsmen ( he’s against it)

The recall campaign trying to oust Mister Gascón from office accumulated over 715,000 signatures in an effort to force the issue on the next ballot for voters in November.

Those numbers exceed the prior attempt to recall Gascón (which failed this past year) maybe it can be enough to force the issue to voters, opponents of Gascón’s  supposed reform-minded policies can’t declare victory just yet.

It’s still up in the air whether the referendum on Gascón can qualify for the ballot. Even so, the campaign would face a  tougher challenge: how to convince more than half of voters in a recall race that the man should be removed from office. Here’s a point: due to his no cash bail policy, there has been a corresponding rise in crimes both against persons and property. It’s not just Los Angeles, Orange County, or even California: the policies of reform minded prosecutors like Gascon have contributed to a rise in killings, aggravated assaults, and violent crimes in general. Bail and bail bondsmen have proven to keep criminals in the judicial system and actually lowering crime rates everywhere.

What’s next?

Before the decision can be made by voters to recall an elected official, the campaign must collect signatures from a number of supporters that equals 10% of all registered voters in the election the target of the recall won.

There were 5,668,570 registered voters in L.A. County in November 2020, when Gascón ousted two-term incumbent Jackie Lacey to become top prosecutor, according to the registrar’s office, meaning the campaign to oust him needed at least 566,857 valid signatures.

Although the recall campaign said it turned in about 717,000 signatures Wednesday, some of those will be disqualified during a verification process conducted by the county registrar.

Experts on recall elections have testified that as many as 20% of the signatures can be nullified. They cite  disqualification rates similar to those in efforts to recall San Francisco Dist. Atty. Chesa Boudin and Gov. Gavin Newsom from office. Chesa Boudin was successfully recalled, while Gavin Newsom avoided recall and remains in office.

Signatures can be invalidated for any number of reasons, including if a voter isn’t registered to vote in L.A. County, the address at which a person is registered to vote doesn’t match the one given on the recall petition, or if a signature doesn’t match the one the registrar has on file.

The registrar’s office has to verify the signatures submitted by the recall effort, they have 30 days to do so.

A spokesman for the registrar said the office would finalize its methodology for validating signatures after receiving the petition forms the campaign used to collect signatures. And although the recall campaign issued a statement last month demanding the registrar verify the signatures on every petition form, it was noted the state’s election rules permit the office to examine just a random sample of the forms.

If the recall fails to qualify.

A second failed attempt to get a Gascón recall on the ballot would likely mark the end of the effort to oust him prematurely, according to a spokesman for the recall campaign. He said if they come up short this time, organizers would instead turn their efforts to defeating Gascón when he is up for reelection in 2024.

If the recall qualifies.

The soonest a recall election could take place is Nov. 8, in a general election that includes runoff races for Los Angeles city mayor and county sheriff, as well as national midterms. A special election could be held on January 2023 at the latest.

For the recall to succeed, more than 50% of voters would need to vote to remove Gascón from office. And in Los Angeles County, voters must also choose who should replace elected officials who are recalled.

Observers of politics generally agree this type of recall gives the advantage to Gascón. He’d be able to point out the flaws of those seeking to replace him to voters. The presence of Larry Elder on the ballot in the 2021 attempt to recall Gov. Gavin Newsom, for example, was widely viewed as an advantage for Newsom, who ultimately parried the recall by a huge margin.

In other Gascon related news, it’s come to the attention of Orange County Bail Bonds that he’s been pushing to have the death penalty dropped for a man convicted of murder.

The daughter of a construction manager who was brutally murdered three decades ago said her family was “tricked” by the Los Angeles County District Attorney’s Office, which is pushing to commute the killer’s death sentence to life without the possibility of parole — despite their opposition.

Other families said they are also feeling “unheard” and manipulated by embattled LA County District Attorney George Gascón, who is a fierce opponent of the death penalty.

“When you take someone’s life, there has to be consequences … and there have been massive consequences for my family that is permanent,” said Heather Scott, who was only 12 years old when her father, Fred, was slain.

Scott, 43, said she was blindsided when DA officials told her they filed a motion to resentence Scott Forrest Collins, the man who killed her father “execution-style” in 1992, but assured her and her family  that “it would be the same thing” since California has a moratorium on death row cases.

California has not had an execution since 2006, and Gov. Gavin Newsom placed a moratorium on executions three years ago when he took office. But prosecutors who support maintaining capital punishment said the moratorium could end if Newsom were to leave office.

Earlier this year, Newsom went even further and moved to dismantle the country’s largest death row, San Quentin State Prison, within two years and transfer condemned prisoners to other facilities where they could be housed with other inmates where it is deemed safe.

The LA DA’s Office, meanwhile, has so far said it is reviewing just two cases where the defendants are seeking death row appeals — but sources told The Post that Gascón could file motions to resentence at least 65 post-conviction death penalty cases.

Grieving families said Gascón’s “resentencing crusade” only further victimizes them because the office that once supported their wishes has turned its back on them.

“I was in total shock but then I began to realize that maybe we have been lied to because it’s not true when they told us that nothing would change,” Ms Scott told The Post.

She asked why they would do this because that sounds like something (Collins’) defense attorney would do, not the DA. She claimed . the response she got was, ‘He would never would’ve been executed in the first place,’ but that’s not true. They can’t guarantee that he will never get out of prison, and that’s her family’s biggest fear.

Deputy DA Shelan Joseph wrote In a February court filing, that Collins is a “model prisoner” who was only 21 years old at the time of the offense. She added that Collins “experienced hardship as a child,” including the death of his father, and that he had multiple learning disabilities that were “never adequately treated in school.”

Collins was transferred out of death row and into a voluntary program at a correctional facility in Tehachapi, Calif., for inmates who have shown good behavior, Joseph wrote in the motion.

Scott said her family were only notified by the DA’s Office about the resentencing motion as a formality. However, documents signed by Joseph on February 15 — and obtained by The Post — say prosecutors wanted to proceed with Collins’ resentencing without a hearing, leaving Scott and her family with no opportunity to object in person.

Former Los Angeles Deputy District Attorney Kathy Cady has been representing families who are against DA George Gascón’s resentencing policies.

In an order filed March 10 asking for further briefing, LA Superior Court Judge William C. Ryan said, “Although the statute does permit such resentencing, in the court’s view, that appears to run contrary to the rights that victims and their family have in addressing the court and giving a victim impact statement.”

Ms. Scott, along with her husband and her mother, appeared in court on June 22 and provided their statement to the judge. Sharon Rose,Ms. Scott’s mother asked the judge to take into consideration her wishes and deny Gascón’s motion.

She wrote “Anything short of denying the motion to resentence would be to victimize my family again”. “In the end, a jury and a judge handed down the correct verdict and chose a sentence, which is still to this day a legal sentence in California. The voicemail I received promised ‘nothing will change.’ What the current DA is doing changes everything. It changes our entire judicial system and the faith we can place in verdicts and sentences today.”

LA County DA officials told The Post on Friday that they continue to reach out to victims and their families. Gascón, however, faced more criticism after he announced about two weeks ago that he was scrapping the critical “Lifer Unit” and reassigned prosecutors who alerted victims of their assailants’ parole hearings.

“District Attorney Gascón remains committed to ending the death penalty in Los Angeles because he claims it is racist in its application, morally untenable, irreversible, expensive and it has never been shown to deter crime,” another said.

One hundred percent committed to undoing the death penalty verdicts achieved over the years by many predecessors of the DA’s Office. It’s a scheme and a scam.”

Ms. Scott said Gascón’s policies provide no comfort that her father’s killer will remain in prison.

“Not only did my dad lose his life, but we grew up without him. And even to hear things like, ‘Oh, (Collins) had ADHD or he grew up without a father,’” she told The Post. “Well, I have been diagnosed with post-traumatic stress disorder because of the violent way that he was killed. I also grew up without a dad.

She added; “I don’t think that’s an excuse to have a sentence reduced when you take someone else’s life.”

Here at Orange County Bail Bonds been talking about the recall effort to remove Los Angeles District Attorney George Gascon because of his weak stance on crime and his position on bail (he’s against it). It’s interesting to look at the history of recall in the United States, and more specifically, in California.

A recall election was designed originally to let the public remove an elected official before their term in office has ended. Unlike impeachment, which is an indictment for an alleged criminal act, a recall election is the public displeasure with an elected official for various reasons: a failure to keep campaign promises, suspicion of corruption, or a general unhappiness with the way the politician is managing their office.

The practice of recall elections was established as a way of minimizing the influence of political parties on elected representatives. It was meant to insure that officials would act in the interests of their voters rather than a political party.

The first appearance of recall dates back to 1631 in Colonial America in the laws of the General Court of the Massachusetts Bay Colony. Around the time of the American Revolution, the Articles of Confederation declared that state legislatures could recall delegates from the Continental Congress. The first successful recall of a State Governor was in 1921, the honor belonging to Lynn Frazier of North Dakota, stemming from a dispute over state owned industries.

In our own state of California the process of recall was enacted in 1911, thanks to a movement by Republican Governor Hiram Johnson as part of a Progressive Era reforms that occurred throughout the US in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. From that time until now, there have been over 118 attempts at recalling State Officials. Since Ronald Reagan in 1968, every governor in California has been the subject of a recall effort. (I’m reminded of the line in Back To The Future, when Doc Brown asks Marty McFly who the current president is. When he replies “Ronald Reagan”, Doc’s shocked response is “the actor?”)

Every governor was subject to a recall effort, some more than once, but it wasn’t until 2003 that Gray Davis was removed from the Governor’s office and replaced by Arnold Schwarzenegger (the actor?) aka The Terminator. Gray Davis had survived a recall effort in 1999, but in 2003, partly due to his decision to block the enactment of Proposition 187 ( denial of non-emergency medical services, education and other government services to illegal immigrants in the state). Prop 187 had been approved overwhelmingly by voters, and almost immediately challenged and ruled unconstitutional by a federal district court. Gray Davis made the decision to not appeal the case to the US Supreme Court, which ended up killing the ballot measure.

As if that wasn’t enough to infuriate voters, Davis was involved in the California Energy Crisis, where the state suffered ongoing rolling blackouts, and a shortage of electricity due to market manipulation (anybody remember the Enron scandal?) causing Pacific Gas and Electric (one of the state’s largest electricity companies) to collapse, declaring bankruptcy and near bankruptcy of Southern California Edison. When it’s hot, near draught conditions are prevailing, and blackouts prevent people from turning on their air conditioners, it’s easy to see why they are unhappy with the governor associated with the problem. The answer for most voters was to recall Davis, making him the first California governor to be successfully recalled.

More recently, Governor Gavin Newsom avoided being recalled in a special election held in 2022. We at Orange County Bail Bonds are hoping that George Gascon will not have the same success, that he will be recalled, and the bail bond industry will stay alive in California, allowing us to help the public stay safe.

It’s the act of a desperate man. George Gascon, Los Angeles County District Attorney facing a recall effort, has sent out an email asking for donations to fight his case. Mr. Gascon obviously doesn’t know that I’m a licensed Bail Bond agent, and I’ve written blog posts (see Orange County Bail Bonds bailall.com) tweets, Facebook posts, and Instagram all supporting his recall.

Orange County Bail Bonds, and the bail industry in general are opposed to George Gascon’s policies which are soft on crime and criminals and wanting to eliminate bail.

How many times must the people have to vote and protest legislation and laws that protect criminals instead of the public?

In the email I received, Gascon points out his “fight to end wage theft” from corporations, while not addressing the issues that have led to the recall effort against him, mainly his unwillingness to punish criminals.

The current recall effort has passed 450,000 signatures, there need to be 566,857 signatures from registered Los Angeles County voters, by the cutoff date of July 6, 2022. That’s when the Orange County Registrar has to have that amount to put the recall effort on the ballot in the November 2022 general election. Thousands of petitions are being turned in daily, and millions are being mailed directly to voters. It’s important that leaders in the community as well as residents continue to get involved with this recall effort to get it qualified for the ballot.

The reasons for this recall effort are many, but basically it stems from policies and directives put in place by District Attorney Gascon after he was elected. His policies have placed the lives of residents in danger as well as demoralizing police, and seriously harming the families of crime victims.

The recall effort blames Gascon for rising crime stats. At the risk of lulling readers to sleep with numbers it needs to be pointed out that in 2020, the percentage of people jailed decreased by 66 percent with an increase in murder rates of 31 percent. There are those who blame Gascon for these numbers.

A few of his directives are as follows:

• Special Directive 20-06, which essentially eliminates cash bail within L.A. County for “any misdemeanor, non-serious felony, or non-violent felony offense.”

• Special Directive 20-07, which directs prosecutors to decline or dismiss a series of misdemeanor charges, including trespassing, drug possession, and resisting arrest

• Special Directive 20-08, which originally eliminated sentencing enhancements for most charges. It has since been amended to allow for such enhancements for serious charges such as child abuse, sex trafficking, and hate crimes.

Additionally, as much as 98 percent of prosecutors, along with sheriffs and Los Angeles police do NOT support George Gascon.

We at Orange County Bail Bonds have opposed legislators who have tried to eliminate bail and bonds. The public of California have spoken ( and voted) against nonsensical reforms with good reason. The numbers speak for themselves: without bail, criminals are released back onto the streets, with no incentive to appear in court. That makes it easy to get out to commit new crimes with no fear of punishment. Simply put: incarcerations down, crimes up.

Recall George Gascon!

Here we go again. Sigh. Another “crime fighter” who’s actually soft on crime. Thankfully there’s a movement to recall said “fighter”- George Gascon. If anyone has been paying attention (and we hope you have been) we already talked about this at length when we discussed the various bills proposing the elimination of bail and bail bonds (see our blog at bailall.com).

Along comes Mister Gascon who promptly ignores the will of the voters who overwhelmingly decided to keep cash bail as a deterrent to recidivist crime rather than trust a computer algorithm that can determine whether a murderer or a drunk in public offender is a higher risk for a non-guaranteed pretrial release.

All you need to do is look at the numbers: since December 2020, when Gascon took office, assaults, robberies, and homicides have risen. George Gascon opposes the death penalty (which most voters favor), he has opposed juveniles being tried as adults, no matter how heinous a crime was committed, has opposed gang enhancement sentences, and opposes cash bail, which has been proven time and again to guarantee appearances in court over on own recognizance pretrial release. 

We at Orange County Bail Bonds stand behind the recall effort of George Gascon and any other elected official who is soft on crime.

Gascon has implemented sentencing directives that fly in the face of common sense. He dismantled the division that prosecuted gangs; tried violent minors as juveniles; completely rejected special enhancements; and worst of all- implemented the early release of inmates no matter how violent the crimes they committed. It bears repeating, he has rejected the will of voters on the subject of bail. In addition, he has stopped having Deputy D.As attend hearings on parole. He ignores and insults crime victims’ pleas.

In addition to weak policies on crime, Gascon doesn’t tolerate any questioning of his methods. Two L.A. County prosecutors are suing him after they were demoted after opposing his weak sentencing reforms. The deputies, Maria Ramirez and Victor Rodriguez refused to follow Gascon’s directives, claiming that they were violations of the law. They also claim that they were reassigned because they opposed his bail reform directives. The two are thirty year veterans of the District Attorney’s Office, supervising over one hundred employees before being demoted.

Ramirez alleges she was demoted after complaining that one directive changed substantially the manner in which juvenile crimes were prosecuted. The new directive required that Ramirez was forced to use prosecution theories that would minimize the criminal conduct charge of a juvenile, and not truly portray the actual crime.

Rodriguez claims his demotion came after he discussed the possibility of prosecuting officers who were involved in the shooting deaths of two people.

Both Ramirez and Rodriguez are seeking damages for the demotions.

Gascon has claimed that management “followed the law too much” (wait, what?)

Crime is on the rise in Los Angeles, and those wanting the recall of George Gascon are blaming the weak (not woke) policies of his office. Criminals have no fear of reprisals when they’re not held accountable and when there is not even a need for bail. 

You never want to find yourself in a position where you need a Santa Ana bail bonds company to assist you, but it’s sometimes unavoidable. You might have a family member who ends up in jail, rightfully or wrongfully, and in these situations, getting them out as quickly as possible should be a top priority.

However, the experience can be frustrating, especially since every bail bond company in Santa Ana, California, has different requirements and protocols you’ll have to follow.

It’s a good idea to take a minute or two to research your bond provider before trusting them because a lot of money and your loved one’s freedom are at stake.

Here are five tips to keep in mind as you look through the available bail bondsmen in Santa Ana, CA, and come to a final decision.

1) Look For a Local Company

First and foremost, you’ll want to look for a local company because it can significantly reduce your wait times. Bail bond providers in Santa Ana and its surrounding area are often easier to get in touch with because you can show up at their offices. They likely already have a relationship with nearby jails, too, helping streamline the release.

Out-of-state providers simply can’t match the speed of a local bail bond company, so it’s always a good idea to go with someone from the area.

2) Ask About Certification

Of course, selecting the first local company you come across isn’t always the best choice because you’ll want to make sure it has the necessary certification.

The California Department of Insurance issues licenses to all bail bonds companies, so you’ll want to ensure your selected provider has these documents in order. It’s illegal to accept money in exchange for providing bail money in the state without this license.

Keep in mind that each license expires after two years and requires renewal at that time. Every agent working for the company should also have the licensing to handle this type of work in Santa Ana legally.

3) Inquire About Payment Options

Does your bail bond provider offer multiple ways to pay the premium for the money you’re borrowing? It’s always a good idea to ask ahead of time because using a company with an online credit card option can streamline the entire process for you.

In these cases, you can make the payment and facilitate your loved one’s release without even visiting the bail bond office.

Remember, the faster you pay the premium, the quicker your family member can begin putting this experience behind them.

4) Make Sure It’s Fast

In theory, all local bail bond companies should be fast, but not all providers are equal. Look for bail bond agents with offices within minutes of most of Orange County’s major jails because that makes it more likely they can bail your family member out in a matter of minutes or hours.

The agent you speak with should have an estimate on how long the process generally takes. As a result, it’s worth asking ahead of time how long they think it’ll be until your loved one is free.

Bail bond providers who are open 24 hours per day, seven days per week, are also more likely to provide a speedy resolution to this problem for you. They can often provide bail in the middle of the night, which is a handy service to have available.

5) Learn the Company’s Policies

Some policies that Santa Ana bail bonds companies offer will be universal. For example, California state law governs the payment of premium fees and prevents service providers from making them refundable.

However, there is some freedom for these companies to offer perks like no collateral and lower premiums. The standard rate in California is 10%, but some providers will incorporate administrative charges into that amount to bring the overall costs down, too.

Ask about your bail bond provider’s rates and company policies before you begin to ensure you’re getting the best possible deal.

Contact Orange County Bail Bonds Today

Orange County Bail Bonds is a premier Santa Ana bail bonds provider that can assist as you secure the release of a family member who is behind bars. We have offices within minutes of most Orange County jails and provide bail services 24 hours per day.

We also operate at an 8% premium rate, which is below the state’s standard and can provide collateral-free bonds in some situations.

When you need reliable, discreet bail bonds services in Santa Ana, California, you don’t want to trust just any provider. Orange County Bail Bonds has been serving this area since 1963 and will ensure your loved one is out of jail as quickly as possible.

Be sure to contact us today for a free consultation.

Lock Her Up! Cane Her Bottom In A Public Square!

Captain’s Log: Star date August 31,2020

Fox News obtained security camera footage of Democratic House Speaker Nancy Pelosi getting a wash and blow-out (hey, it’s a term for hair styling) in a previously shuttered by law hair salon. (Am I the only one questioning how or why Fox News was able to procure said video footage?). Bad girl Nancy! All hair salons in San Francisco have been closed since March of this year by executive order of California’s governor, Gavin Newsome.

The owner of the salon has contacted Fox News to complain about Madame Pelosi using her establishment after being shut down for many months, pointing out the double standard apparent in such a legal breach. Her beef was not only with The Speaker but the whole Democratic Party who she blamed for the closures and subsequent lack of business. Her tirade included that fact that not only were her type of businesses feeling the economic pinch, but her customers were fleeing the area as well due to lack of income.

“The homeless are everywhere, defecating in the streets.” (there were tales of that even before the Covid Pandemic hit.) Partially to blame for San Francisco’s homeless has been the Tech Industry. Their financial success has driven the cost of living for the Bay and surrounding areas to prohibitive levels of affordable housing for a large segment of the population. The well to do only took notice of said defecation when the dried fecal matter became a health hazard in the wealthier neighborhoods once it became airborne.

Doubtless there are many who feel the outrage of Speaker Pelosi’s flaunting her privilege, but is it an arrest able offense? ( We’re not sure caning is allowable in this country, and pretty sure not many would care to view an eighty year old woman’s naked posterior in public). She wasn’t arrested, but if she had been….

She would have had the right to a bail bond in the amount set by the judicial system. Every crime in the State Of California has a bail amount, it’s usually up to the discretion of the arresting officer or the jailer of the facility where an arrestee is brought to determine exactly which charge(s) is levelled and the corresponding bail set. What is happening in the State Of California is the attempt to eliminate bail and bail bonds as proposed by Prop 25 on the November 2020 ballot.

We’ve mentioned this topic on previous blog posts, Twitter feeds, and our Facebook page. What the proponents of Prop 25 propose is to replace bail and bondsmen with a computer driven algorithm.
In other words, a spin the dial type of justice. In Nancy Pelosi’s case, instead of her having the ability to contact family or friends to post a bail for her, her fate would rest on an impartial computer deciding whether she would be released with no bail, and her promise to show up for court, or having it be decided that she was a risk, and need to stay in jail until her appearance before a judge.

Back in 2018, politicians in Sacramento passed SB10, which did away with the right of persons arrested or accused of a crime to be able to be released through a bail system. Now, the people of California have the opportunity to reverse this denial of civil rights by voting NO on the ballot choice Prop 25.

Bail is protected in the United States Bill Of Rights, but Prop 25 wants to replace it with the aforementioned algorithm which instead of being less discriminatory, is actually more.

According to Alice Huffman, president of California State Conference of the NAACP, Prop 25 would turn out to be more discriminatory against Latinos, African Americans, and other minority groups. The proposed algorithm would be based on a computer generated formula that would use a system of profiling. This is supposed to replace the current method guaranteed by California’s justice system with allows people accused of a crime the right to choose bail. The computer would be deciding who gets to be set free from jail. The NAACP and other civil rights groups oppose Prop 25 because it will be biased against minorities and the poor.

In addition to being bad for minorities, Prop 25 is bad for public safety and tax payers. Is somebody is released from jail with just a promise to show up for court, statistics show that many defendants are back on the streets committing new crimes, sometimes within hours, ending up being arrested that same day. By eliminating cash bail and bail bonds counties that are already facing financial hardship will be forced to create a new bureaucracy that determines who gets released from jail while awaiting trial.

Having a county probation staff to replace bail bondsmen is likely to cost local governments close to $900 million while reducing state tax revenue by $21 million every year. With the state already having a $54 billion deficit due to the Corona Virus, why on earth would we want to place ourselves further in debt?

For these many reasons we are asking you the public to Vote NO on Prop 25.

From a recent article in the Orange County Register: Tony Rackauckas, District Attorney for Orange County eloquently explains why Bail Reform is a bad idea. I’ve written about the negative aspects (not so eloquently) of bail reform, the posts are available here under blog posts.
“There have been two major cases in the news recently, both of which have garnered national media attention. In Orange County, Samuel Woodward was granted $5 million bail after he was charged with murdering 19-year-old Ivy League student Blaze Bernstein.
In Riverside County, the Louise and David Turpin are being held in lieu of $12 million bond each after they were charged with multiple counts of torture and child abuse and are accused of chaining and starving a dozen children.
California Senate Bill 10 would cause this complicated and expensive process: First, the defendants would have a right to request a pretrial risk assessment in which the risk assessment officer would determine what conditions of release should be recommended to the court. A judge must find there are no conditions of release that would reasonably ensure the Turpins’ and Woodwards’ appearances and specifically state why each specific condition recommended is not sufficient, then and only then, can the court set monetary bail.
Instead of the $5 million or $12 million bail noted above, the court would only be allowed to set bail within the defendants’ ability to pay. The prosecution would in theory be able to petition the court to set no bail, but we would be required to meet the very difficult burden of proving at a hearing: 1) the facts are evidence and the presumption is great; 2) there are no conditions that would reasonably assure the physical safety of “another person”; and 3) there is a “substantial likelihood” the defendant’s release would result in “great bodily injury” to another person. Without a specific threat from the defendant to a specific person, it’s difficult to envision how this burden could be met without a crystal ball.
This newspaper’s editorial board recently (“Cash bail doesn’t make California safer, it just crowds our jails,”) painted an inaccurate picture of California’s current bail system in support of SB10. The new law would install a revolving door at the back of our jails, create a presumption that the accused should be let out of custody and pose a substantial risk to public safety by creating new victims.
Under current law, bail serves as a promise to appear and allows for the release of a defendant in exchange for money, which the court holds until the disposition of the case. Bail creates incentives for persons around the defendant and the accused to come to court and stay crime-free. If the defendant does not appear, a bail bondsman will find the defendant and bring the individual to court at his/her expense, not the taxpayer. Bail schedules correlate with the severity of the offense:
• Murder: $1 million bail
• Human trafficking: $250,000 bail
• Forcible rape: $100,000
• General felony: $20,000 bail
The court may adjust the amount up or down in most cases.
In an unprecedented move, SB10 would eliminate fixed-bail schedules for all offenders, including those charged with serious and violent offenses. Misdemeanor offenders (with few exceptions) would automatically be released without having to post bail. SB10 would shift the judge’s primary consideration for determining bail from public safety to the defendant’s “presumption of innocence and the probability of appearing in court.” Monetary bail would be virtually eliminated and in the rare instance when bail is set, the judge would be required to set bail at the “least restrictive level necessary.”
Defendants charged with murder or rape would be allowed to request a pretrial services report, present and cross-examine witnesses (including victims) at a bail hearing and be considered for release. Defendants charged with human trafficking (including victims who are minors) would be entitled to a risk assessment and release pursuant to conditions within six hours. Human traffickers would not even be required to see a judge prior to being released. The expense the defendant is spared would immediately be placed upon the victims, their families and prosecutors, to keep serious and violent offenders in jail pre-trial. This proposed legislation also attacks criminal justice reform of Proposition 115 and Marsy’s Law.
To further the narrative that innocent individuals are “stuck in jail” due to inability to post bail, your editorial cites statistics from 2015, claiming one-third of all felony arrests in California result in charges never being filed, charges being dismissed or acquittal. This figure is deceptive, because it does not account for hundreds of cases that are consolidated, arrests that result in probation violations rather than new charges, or deferred judgments (in which the defendant earns a dismissal over time by participating in a program and remaining crime free). Contrary to the paper’s claim, financial solvency is not the “final determinant” of whether or not he or she remains behind bars. Charges are filed after police investigations, after probable cause has been established and sworn under penalty of perjury by the arresting agency and the case has been reviewed by a prosecutor who bears an ethical burden to only file a case he or she believes can and should be proven beyond a reasonable doubt before a jury.
Finally, SB10 would hurt taxpayers by adding a costly layer of unaccountable bureaucracy by requiring each county to establish a pretrial services agency to conduct a report with recommendations presuming release. Although some counties are presently testing a pretrial release program, in most cases it is being conducted on a provisional basis and is typically limited to certain offenses or categories of defendants, not serious or violent felony offenders.
Risk determination must be managed through a verified risk assessment tool with evaluations conducted by a sitting judge accountable to the public and not relegated to backroom bureaucrats operating outside the presence of those entrusted to uphold justice. In addition, adequate resources must be made available to impose release conditions calculated to protect the public and ensure reappearance such as GPS monitoring, staffing to monitor home and work visits and searches, Secure Continuous Remote Alcohol Monitoring as well as regular drug and alcohol testing. There must also be a meaningful process must also be in place to revoke release upon violation of terms or release or re-offense.
Our first priority must be public safety.”
Tony Rackauckas is the district attorney of Orange County.

We know that our admiring public has been waiting anxiously for an updated blog post on SB10, the California Senate Bill trying to eliminate bail and bail bondsmen in Orange County and throughout the Golden State. Last we heard, Governor Jerry Brown has decided that it will be a priority for 2018 (but if his term ends this year, it would seem that it’ll be someone else’s problem).
Proponents of the bill, and critics of the bail system as it currently stands complain that bail is biased against the poor, that the rich can buy their way to freedom in the State’s legal system. (I don’t know, how did that work out for Phil Spector?)
We compared the proposal to eliminate bail and bonds with the results of New Jersey’s attempt at the same thing, pointing out the flaws and complaints by the public at an idea whose time never came.
Here’s an excerpt from an article by Jeff Clayton, Executive Director, of The American Bail Coalition:
“The New Jersey Courts issued a report yesterday touting the success of the implementation of bail reform in New Jersey, a cooperative project of the State Courts and Chris Christie administration in order to ignore the will of the voters, take out cost-free bail bonding companies in the process, and move to a costly money-free system that was contemplated to be the new Shangri-la of pretrial justice. It would be a monument to fairness on a hill that would shine like justice. Now, unfortunately, that very money-free system, according to the report, is simply going to run out of cash.
New Jersey Courts Report to the Governor and Legislature
The original goals of bail reform were a combination of the following: (1) maintain or improve the rate of failing to appear in court; (2) improve community safety by reducing crimes while on bail through release on supervision and preventative detention; (3) make the system more fair by having less persons wait in jail pending trial; (4) reduce discrimination; and, (5) save money.
On the issue of jail population reductions, the spin-machine is already going over at the State Courts. The Courts take credit for two-full years of jail population reductions before bail reform was implemented: 2015 and 2016.
Let’s examine the actual numbers. The adjusted pretrial jail population fell in 2017 by 20.28% according to the Court’s numbers. Yet, in 2016, the year prior to the implementation of bail reform, the jail population fell 20.69%. There is no evidence to indicate that bail reform, implemented January 1, 2017, is the cause of this trend. In fact, the Court’s numbers show that the total number of complaint-warrant cases dropped by 8.57%, which alone would account for 42% of the drop in jail populations the Courts are trying to take credit for. The Drug Policy Alliance’s analysis wasn’t much better on this point: “The data shows that in just the first year of implementation the jail population has declined by 20 percent since January 2017, and 35 percent compared to this time in 2017.”
Are defendants who are released showing up for court under the new system? The report is silent on that point. No data on warrants. No data on failures to appear as required in court. No data on whether the summons cases show up. Of course, it does not sound like this should be a problem based on the money to improve the State Court computer system: “The successful implementation of CJR is due in no small part to the transformative shift from a paper-driven process to one that is fully electronic.” In fact, the State Courts spent filing fee revenue collected to do a system redesign that would allow for “[a]utomating data collection and data sharing.” Yet, no data.
What about improving community safety—has the new system reduced the numbers and severity of crimes committed on bail like it promised? Curiously, no ink was spilled in the report on this point either. We have to ask one simple question: where’s the beef? Yet, according to the Courts, in a classic tap-dance pivot of their message using nebulous and metric-free indicators that are more akin to a warm fuzzy, “This result is a more comprehensive, reasonable, and most importantly, a fairer system of pretrial release.”
Did the new system reduce discrimination? Any assessment would be pure speculation. It was easy in 2013 to issue a report calling the old system racist. Yet, today, there is no data on how preventative detention is being used, upon whom it is being used, and whether it is any of “comprehensive, reasonable or fair.” In addition, the Arnold Foundation’s risk assessment tool has not been audited by anyone but the Arnold Foundation, and there is absolutely no report or other information that would allow anyone to conclude the system is race and gender neutral much less “comprehensive, reasonable and fair.” The Arnold Foundation has been criticized as lacking transparency, and I would challenge anyone in New Jersey to try and conduct an analysis of whether the Arnold tool works and meets whatever requirements you may have in terms of being bias free—you cannot do it if you wanted to. This is all pursuant to a contract signed with the State that considers the Arnold Foundation’s interest in the algorithm as a trade secret. Also, it is unfair to conclude that the the Arnold Foundation is neutral—they have filed a brief in favor of the no-money bail system implemented by the State Courts and Chris Christie in a federal court challenge brought to New Jersey’s no-money bail system.

Regardless of how we may feel about it, New Jersey’s no-money bail system is going to run out of money. In fact, the total cost of implementing the system to state and local governments, according to the Chris Christie Administration, was succinctly estimated in four words: “We have no idea.” As noted in the report, financial bail conditions, intended to fill the gap in the middle of the system (below preventative detention but above some level of low-risk) were nearly wiped off the map—97 bail bonds were posted throughout the year. As the report notes:

Current projections indicate that the annual expenses for the Pretrial Services Program will exceed the annual fee-increase revenues beginning in calendar year 2018. This substantial annual structural deficit will not be fully felt until 2019 or 2020 because of the revenues that accumulated prior to the January 2017 program implementation date. However, the projected annual deficits will result in the Pretrial Services Program component of the 21st Century Justice Improvement Fund being in a negative balance as of late fiscal year 2020-early fiscal year 2021, with that negative balance increasing substantially each year thereafter.

Not to mention the unknown, unfunded burden on local governments, which has been estimated to be around another $50 million annually, to fund the system and fill-in where the incentives of bail were lost and supposed to be replaced by costly government programs.

Of course, this was a classic justice re-investment initiative. From the savings, we were supposed to invest in prevention and other alternatives. So not only is there not savings to reinvest, the report also notes that “The lack of available and affordable community-based substance abuse treatment, mental health treatment, and housing assistance programs has been a significant challenge for Pretrial Services, and it will continue absent additional sustainable funding.” Perhaps the $135 million in Court fees and $50 million spent at the local level might have gone a long way to meet those needs without the costly bail reform.
Enter the Judiciary’s Office of Communications and Community Relations . They have been setting twitter afire with boasts of their rare but robust success on bail reform. In fact, the Courts have devoted significant efforts in publicly trumpeting their success. If only Justin Timberlake had this sort of promotional capacity and could unleash such tornadic tweet-storms. Of course, the State Courts’ arrangement with the Arnold Foundation, the proprietor of the criticized-as-lacking-transparency bail risk computer used in New Jersey, if anything like the arrangements we have seen in other states, requires the State Courts to have a media plan to toot their own horn—regardless of whether there is success or not.
The report indeed confirms this—the Judiciary “implemented [in 2015] a comprehensive outreach plan to inform and educate all stakeholders and the public regarding CJR.” The plan included “educating the media” in addition to a Bar Association Journal article campaign by sitting judges. In fact, the State Courts have plenty of time to sell their wares to “national newspapers and television programs such as the New York Times, the Wall Street Journal, the Washington Post, and PBS News Hour, as well as from the editorial boards of New Jersey’s leading newspapers, including the Star Ledger and The Record.” So it is no surprise we are seeing this level of horn-tooting. The self-promotional campaign of the successes of bail reform was not only pre-planned regardless of whether it worked or not, but now has actually become part of the success. In other words, one metric to measure our success is that we convinced everyone that it was working, so it must be working.

While the State Courts are making continuing videos about their successes, touting their half-baked statistics, likely contemplating a new TV studio to make higher quality self-promotional videos with greater court-swagger, and of course running a significant self-aggrandizing media and social-media campaign that supports the social meddling of admitted criminal-justice money-baller and former-Enron executive and billionaire John Arnold’s secret New Jersey bail computers, it might be time for someone to ask a simple question—DID IT WORK? We just don’t know, but if we get on twitter long enough, we can probably continue to indoctrinate ourselves into thinking it did without ever having seen the numbers.”
So if it’s still not working in the Garden State, what makes California think it would work here?