Posted on 01/05/2005 2:12:12 PM PST by dukeman
Isn't there some kind of rule that applies to this thread?
Sounds like the RATS still can't get over it. Chances are it's a lib RAT judge. What else is new?
I was going to mention it too. Isn't it nice
when we all think on the same level?
He looks a mindless, left-wing nut.
The expression on his face says "mentally ill".
FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION??? Now we can kill people and claim
freedom of expression?
Good Gawd!
Of course he is a danger! You misinterpreted my motivations for asking. I am asking the question for a practical answer, because I am not buying that the defendant or the defendant'lawyers. I think their arguments are malarky, and this is all the usual crying for the criminal crap that liberals always dish out. Where is the concern for his victims present and future?
Of course he is a sleezeball. Why isn't this considered a hate crime?
Why isn't the charge attempted murder, multiple counts? He is clearly screwy (not insane)who is a danger to the community. But I guess as long as the judge thinks he is only aiming at republicans, the judge can live with that.
LOL:)
Nope, it was a different judge.
The burden on his parents is that they're deprived of the use of their $500,000 cash deposit as long as sonny boy is out on bail. When bail is set low, some people choose to procure a bail bond from a bondsman at the cost of 10% of the amount of the bail (i.e., $50,000 in the case of Barry boy). That premium cost is lost to the family even if the defendant shows up for all court appearances, so Seltzer's parents deposited the entire bail amount with the court to save the premium.
My suspicion is that Seltzer will not get a long sentence when convicted. He ought to be in jail just for being stupid since the first story about this crime indicated that Seltzer came down to the police station and blabbed everything to the cops.
All the judge wants to do is make a name for himself so he can get appointed to the 9th circus pimp court.
Actually, Owens is a pretty tough judge who puts up with very little.
Exactly.
Why can't we bring back the good ol public floggin followed by a week in the stocks out front of the courthouse ?
Golly would that be fun.......
Jr. I told you not to drop them fire ants in his pants. *snicker*
I sure did. You have my abject apologies, HC.
Looking at your post 18, it's all perfectly reasonable. I would only add a couple comments.
The bail amounts at issue (550K reduced to 25K) would not have to be deposited in full by Seltzer's parents, even though they were the indemnitors -- not unless the judge specified cash bond and there is no mention of that in the article. So this is almost certainly a surety bond, meaning the parents had to pay probably 10% of the bond amount as a non-refundable fee to the bondsman. As you've said, they would only be liable for the balance if Seltzer failed to show up to any of his subsequent court appearances. There are property bonds also, but that doesn't apply here either.
I conclude from all this that the parents are probably not well-off, although they may own a modest home. In the first instance, they would have had to pay 50K (non-refundable) and be accountable for 450K if Seltzer blew his appearances. As it stands now, they have only ponied up 2.5K and, in the worst case scenario, will only have to pay another 22.5K. This is a much more tolerable fee (and risk).
But this raises another question. Since the fee entailed by this reduced bail is so low, why couldn't Seltzer have posted bond himself? Why would his parents have to step in? He's a real estate developer and I've yet to hear of one who doesn't own at least his home. I have, however, heard of some whose money is all tied up or whose property is distressed or otherwise encumbered or whose assets are hidden to avoid actual or potential lawsuit payout, back alimony, child support, etc. I strongly suspect Seltzer fits into one or more of these categories. It's possible that he simply hasn't lived or rented in the area for very long, in which case he might not qualify for release on bond, but that seems very unlikely to me.
"Nope, it was a different judge."
It was Rapkin.
And got paid off.
Can they get him on voter intimidation as well?
5 posted on 01/05/2005 2:32:35 PM PST by tfecw
Nope, because laws do not apply to democrats.
Seltzer has been out on a cash bond, put up by his parents, in the amount of $500,000. They did not post a surety bond.
Thankyou, dukeman. Extremely unusual for a judge to direct that large a cash bond for a crime of this sort. No wonder it was reduced by Owens. Still, letting this guy get behind a wheel was not a good idea.
I also recall reading somewhere that Seltzer is or was a lawyer as well.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.