Christopher Bollyn, Fugitive from Justice

Woohoo, another warrior joins the legendary Arctic Truth Seekers!


akag10202080314.widec.jpg


"We eat skeptics!"
 
CurtC said:
With the comments he had made about fleeing to Norway, I wonder why the hell they let him out on bail?
Click to expand...


Because the charges weren't that serious (relatively), and the judge probably assumed that a reasonable person with a family and other connections to the community wouldn't flee the country (and forfeit his bail) just to avoid a possible one-year (or so) prison sentence.

Also, I believe (though LashL or anyone else can correct me if I'm wrong) that once bail is set, merely talking about fleeing wouldn't be sufficient justification for having it revoked.
 
OK, so... I just read the article (heh). It doesn't really say that they can't find him; just that he never showed up for the sentencing.

I'm assuming, and correct me if I'm wrong, that an arrest warrant would be issued for the mere act of not showing up, without any kind of search beforehand (in fact, this was issued an hour after his failure to appear).

Although I would also imagine his lawyer would be calling him up and going, "Wtf?"

I think it's pretty safe to assume that he's hiding somewhere, though.

*shrug* My buzz is wearing off. :p
 
I think that it would be up to the prosecutor to petition the court to revoke bail and incarcerate, if the defendant's talk about fleeing was taken seriously, else nothing would happen.

*****

I would think that the judge would issue a bench warrant to enable the police to track down, arrest, and deliver the subject of the warrant to the court. I would think that the defendant is burning up any slack the judge might have been inclined to grant, if any, by causing problems like this.
 
He'll probably get in bigger trouble for running than he would had he just taken the rap. I have to admit I don't know what the sentance was, but here it'd be a find and a slap on the wrist with a soggy bus ticket.
 
SpitfireIX said:
Because the charges weren't that serious (relatively), and the judge probably assumed that a reasonable person with a family and other connections to the community wouldn't flee the country (and forfeit his bail) just to avoid a possible one-year (or so) prison sentence.

Also, I believe (though LashL or anyone else can correct me if I'm wrong) that once bail is set, merely talking about fleeing wouldn't be sufficient justification for having it revoked.
Click to expand...

You are correct, SpitFireIX. First of all, the odds of the police or court personnel even knowing of Bollyn's musings about possibly fleeing are pretty small. Courts process hundreds of individuals and hundreds of charges every day. Police officers carry on about their business after the trial without likely giving it any more thought. Someone will eventually inform them of the sentence imposed, but in the meantime, they are back on the streets, doing their jobs, and are highly unlikely to go trawling the internet to see whether Bollyn is blogging about fleeing the country.

Second, even if they did happen to see comments to that effect, they could not just revoke his bail without bringing an application for bail revocation, since talking about leaving the country is not a criminal offence in and of itself. At a bail revocation hearing, the prosecution would probably have to show more than mere words, but also means and genuine flight risk.

Disclaimer: I base the foregoing on the law here and do not know if there is some express law to the contrary in Illinois, but I highly doubt that merely writing something on the internet about "seeking asylum" in another country would be sufficient on its own even in Illinois :)
 
Last edited:
Cl1mh4224rd said:
I'm assuming, and correct me if I'm wrong, that an arrest warrant would be issued for the mere act of not showing up, without any kind of search beforehand (in fact, this was issued an hour after his failure to appear).

Although I would also imagine his lawyer would be calling him up and going, "Wtf?"
Click to expand...

Yes, the court would have issued a bench warrant as a result of his failure to appear for sentencing, in the absence of any reasonable explanation from his counsel regarding his non-attendance (which there wasn't, in this case), and the failure to appear is another, separate charge.

When one gets arrested on a warrant for failing to appear, one generally gets locked up on the FTA charge and held for a bail hearing rather than gaining release from the police station, and courts sometimes treat FTA charges more severely than the original charges (depending on the original charges, of course).

fezzic said:
I think that it would be up to the prosecutor to petition the court to revoke bail and incarcerate, if the defendant's talk about fleeing was taken seriously, else nothing would happen.

*****

I would think that the judge would issue a bench warrant to enable the police to track down, arrest, and deliver the subject of the warrant to the court. I would think that the defendant is burning up any slack the judge might have been inclined to grant, if any, by causing problems like this.
Click to expand...

Yes, that is the normal procedure. When someone doesn't show up for a court appearance, the prosecution asks the court for a warrant for the failure to appear. Then, when the person is arrested on the warrant, they are held in custody pending a bail hearing. The sentencing judge from the previous charges won't be happy that the accused didn't show up for sentencing, so they may very well hold him in custody until he is sentenced on the original charges, since he has demonstrated that he will not obey the court's order (to show up for sentencing) otherwise, etc. And yes, you are quite right that the sentencing judge will certainly take into account Bollyn's failure to appear for sentencing when deciding upon the appropriate punishment.
 
Not another martyr,just think for myself and evaluate the evidence. It doesn/t convince me so far.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom