Comment: Bonding

(See in situ)

In reply to comment: Joe (see in situ)


That is my first look into bonding.

I now have the following bookmarked.

I think that any case where someone is witness to victimization, or a victim, has options that are not options the criminal wants the current or the future victims to know about, and this appears to be setting that standard very high.

If effective remedies (like Trial by Jury) are seldom used then that fact can be compared to a future fact whereby remedies are used much more often by more people.

Take the case of the TSA, for example, along with all the other things a person may be inspired to do when victim to crime by government employee, or witness to a victim suffering from crime by government employee, is a call to the bonding company where that person with that badge has that bond held; is that worth doing more often, just like asking if it is worth getting into a Jury and setting a National Tax (IRS extortion fee) "evader" free from such crimes perpetrated against us?

Just like it may be a good idea to take a criminal with a badge to court, in some manner, and just like asking if it is a good idea to begin redeeming your earnings in lawful money instead of redeeming your earning in "elastic" Federal Reserve Notes.

Bonding makes perfect sense to me while the criminals are making their crimes legal they still need to keep the victims producing enough things worth stealing, so they have in place a method they use to remove their worst from their group, they allow the victims to sue the "officers of the law" and then they buy insurance to keep enough money around to pay for damages from that insurance fund.

The insurance providers are in competition with each other, because the insurance providers actually have to have the cash on hand to pay off the victims who sue the "officers of the law", and that is called Bonding.

If an "officer of the law" is found guilty of being a criminal while being paid to "protect and serve", then the bonding company has to pay that compensation to the victim.

If an "officer of the law" is found guilty then that individual is un-insurable, that officer loses his bond, and that officer can no longer work for the Union of "officers of the law", no insurance, no license, and that guy (or gal) has to look for an honest job, or be a criminal without a badge.

The law suit may or may not ever happen, but the claim made to the Bonding company could happen, and if so what happens if a claim is made on the Bonding company even if the law suit does not happen?

Where does the money come from when a law suit is paid to a victim where the victim is a victim of a crime perpetrated by a person hired to protect victims from crime?

How bad is it, here in America?

If all the money is worthless paper printed up by frauds, then there can't be anything to eat, no clothes to wear, no fuel for heat, or transportation, so the actual power has to come from somewhere, and finding out where is just another part of "follow the money".

It sounds to me like the Bonding companies are still semi-Free Market, or competitive, and therefore they have to actually balance the books, and so they fire, remove, or no longer pay for bad apples. time someone is inspired to resist crimes (TSA for example) perpetrated by criminals with badges, ask for their badge number, find out who is holding their bond, and make a complaint.

How bad it it here in America if no one knows how to remedy any case where things are bad?

How about those "officers of the law" doing the Waco on the house in Big Bear California?

Names, badge numbers, phone numbers to bonding agents, phone calls, claims, more than now.

Does that sound reasonable?