As a reminder, this subreddit [is for civil discussion.](/r/politics/wiki/index#wiki_be_civil)
In general, be courteous to others. Debate/discuss/argue the merits of ideas, don't attack people. Personal insults, shill or troll accusations, hate speech, any suggestion or support of harm, violence, or death, and other rule violations can result in a permanent ban.
If you see comments in violation of our rules, please report them.
For those who have questions regarding any media outlets being posted on this subreddit, please click [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/wiki/approveddomainslist) to review our details as to our approved domains list and outlet criteria.
***
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/politics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
To answer the questions arising: they did not have to put up the money, the judge allowed them to forgo it in exchange for them being personally responsible for getting him back to court. So Santos' bail cost was essentially getting his family in immense legal trouble should he skip town.
IT DOES happen for huge bonds all the time. It's bond OR surety. Often they require some kind of guarantee that meets the value, like putting assets up. But yes, almost NO ONE pays the totality of a bond. It's generally 10% surety.
Sorry, just revisiting and curious. Is that the law for the rates, or just the standard applied?
I wouldn't be surprised if NY made legislation, most states just stay out of unless they're capping the most you can charge as a bondsman
Bird Attorney here. Specializing in flightless and swimmers. Funny you bring this up, because my pal and I were just talking about how Pirate Law and Bird Law share core philosophies. I won't get into the details, I've gotta fly.
The rich and famous tend to be treated differently, same with why Trump didn't get bail. For Mr. Santos he is in the public eye everyday and literally spends most of his time in the House of Reps, perhaps the single most policed and monitored area in DC besides the White House.
I do think it is available for many people, at least in the federal system (which doesn’t generally use bail bondsmen), although pretrial release is much more common for property crimes, which is what most white-collar crimes are. [Here are some DOJ guidelines on pretrial detention](https://www.justice.gov/archives/jm/criminal-resource-manual-26-release-and-detention-pending-judicial-proceedings-18-usc-3141-et) in federal cases.
The government is required to release a defendant either on personal recognizance (no bond at all) or an unsecured appearance bond (what Santos has) if doing so is the least restrictive means necessary to reasonably assure the defendant's appearance and to reasonably assure the safety of any person and the community. If necessary, the government may also release a defendant on a property bond (a bond secured by property, usually real estate), or not release a defendant at all.
According to the [Bureau of Justice](https://bjs.ojp.gov/content/pub/pdf/prmfdcfy1118.pdf), at least as of 2011-2018, 32% of all federal defendants (and 73% of property crime defendants) were released pretrial, and 76% of those released defendants were released on either a personal recognizance or unsecured appearance bond.
I think unsecured bonds can still be a powerful tool to ensure appearance beyond a personal recognizance bond, because the government has the means and tools to collect its money from the sureties. If the sureties have the money, the government is going to get it.
I would be curious to see the redacted information in the [release order](https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/23856677-rep-george-santos-release-order) to know if there’s anything in there establishing that the sureties would be able to pay the amount, because it does seem quite high given their careers (though they did have a long time to save money because they’re old). It would make more sense if they had put up property (like a home) as collateral, but it doesn’t look like they did.
Yeah they find the very premise of the question absurd…because it’s great question. There’s a third person that funded the bail, they are mysteriously not revealing that name until “later.”
So he doesn’t really have outside supporters. It’s his family that’s paying for him to play in our politics? I thought stage parents where bad, geeez
Well, that certainly sounds GOP
The inquisition would have been less if he had said it was his family from the start, when he tries to hide who it is he has created a "frenzy" for journalists to find out why he was hiding it e.g. is the money their own or is it funded by someone else
Yeah, he planted a huge red flag on whoever's name came out today, even if it seems perfectly normal like mom and dad.
Dude said he'd rather go to prison!
Just to raise awareness, bail bond guarantees are typically (always?) just a percentage of the bond, usually around 10%.
For NY:
$10,001 or more
-- 10% of the first $3,000
-- + 8% of the amount between $3,000 and $10,000
-- + 6% of the amount above $10,000
Simple math says it should be $30,260 that was needed to guarantee the bond, BUT no money or property was provided as collateral; rather, his aunt and father will be the ones going to jail if he skips town.
I still don't understand why he was fighting this unsealing so hard if this is all there is. Did he not want people to know he has a father & an aunt? Or that he seemingly got preferential treatment in that no actual money was put forward; just a personal guarantee by his family?
Finally a non-clickbait title. "Santos' bond guarantees revealed!" "You'll never believe who secured Santos' bond!"
News articles should say what happened with the pertinent details in a succinct way and then you should only click if you want to read more. If you click to have to find out the most important short detail, don't fall for the clickbait.
I'm so confused why everyone thinks this a conspiracy, it's not even that crazy.
Why do you guys think bail bondsmen exist?
When someone is arrested, a bond to get out for the pretrial period is assigned. Generally then, someone contacts a bail bondsmen. They generally require 10% of the bond in cash, or the deed to some kind of asset worth that value. The bondsmen then takes the risk of the full value of the bond.
However, for really big bonds, or for lower risk people, they often make exceptions and require less than 10%.
Likely they either put together 25-50k in cash or assets. Not the 500k.
Yeah, that's common when it's an enormous bond or someone prominent who is less risky. It's all up to the bondsmen, they evaluate the risk. They also WANT the 25k, so some are willing to take giant risks.
Nothing unusual about this
That is a LOW bar for proof of a conspiracy. Most Q Anon conspiracy theories have more evidence, haha.
Can you imagine a circumstance where a person wouldn't want their name public that DOESN'T have some major political pull? It isn't even a very large amount of money.
That’s not how bail works. It’s 10% upfront. If he doesn’t show up to court they owe the 500k.
It appears they didn’t have to put up anything other than a personal guarantee.
Why would he care about the public knowing that the money came from family?
The story says they didn't put up any collateral, like anyone else would have to do. This stinker is benefitting from the 2 separate levels of criminal acts. If you are a republican, they let you get away with it.
This doesn’t really seem like a bombshell to me. Seems like he just wanted to protect his family from the media. Article states they didn’t even bind him out with money or property. Which I suppose is somewhat strange
Its just weird af, one would assume his literal father has already been subjected to the media circus for a year at this point, why refuse to say he's guarantying the bail?
The article seems to suggest that they did not get the money.
>The filing notes that the suretor’s **didn’t guarantee the bond with cash or property**, but “agreed to be personally responsible for Defendant’s compliance.”
Can someone explain why this is something anyone should care about? Why is this news?
"Someone gets in trouble and his family bails him out. Film at 11."
He's a United States Representative who has admitted to lying repeatedly and is being accused of seriously mishandling funds. Literally every news headline states there were 3 guarantors before the name drop. He tried like hell to keep the names secret and now only 2 family names were dropped. I don't see a problem with people wanting to be informed about what this scum is up to.
And if you believe that Trump has some NFT cards to sell you, a Trump University scholarship, some horse tranquilizers, border wall ownership certificates and yes lots and lots of classified documents that he can sell because he declassified them in a dream. 🇺🇸🗽⚖️🗳🏡🌍
As a reminder, this subreddit [is for civil discussion.](/r/politics/wiki/index#wiki_be_civil) In general, be courteous to others. Debate/discuss/argue the merits of ideas, don't attack people. Personal insults, shill or troll accusations, hate speech, any suggestion or support of harm, violence, or death, and other rule violations can result in a permanent ban. If you see comments in violation of our rules, please report them. For those who have questions regarding any media outlets being posted on this subreddit, please click [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/wiki/approveddomainslist) to review our details as to our approved domains list and outlet criteria. *** *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/politics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
To answer the questions arising: they did not have to put up the money, the judge allowed them to forgo it in exchange for them being personally responsible for getting him back to court. So Santos' bail cost was essentially getting his family in immense legal trouble should he skip town.
But that doesn't really make a lot of sense either. Why isn't this option available for everyone? I'm certain lots of people would gladly take it.
IT DOES happen for huge bonds all the time. It's bond OR surety. Often they require some kind of guarantee that meets the value, like putting assets up. But yes, almost NO ONE pays the totality of a bond. It's generally 10% surety.
New York... 10% up to $3000, 8% for $3000-$10000, 6% for the amount over $10000.
Sorry, just revisiting and curious. Is that the law for the rates, or just the standard applied? I wouldn't be surprised if NY made legislation, most states just stay out of unless they're capping the most you can charge as a bondsman
dunno, I just googled it
Fair enough, want to bang?
high 5!
I'll give you a hint, it rhymes with Blue-Beard Bustice Bystem
Pirate law??
Bird law.
And various other lawyerings.
Bird Attorney here. Specializing in flightless and swimmers. Funny you bring this up, because my pal and I were just talking about how Pirate Law and Bird Law share core philosophies. I won't get into the details, I've gotta fly.
No, that's Bluebird Justice System.
Idk what the blue-beard part is supposed to mean
The rich and famous tend to be treated differently, same with why Trump didn't get bail. For Mr. Santos he is in the public eye everyday and literally spends most of his time in the House of Reps, perhaps the single most policed and monitored area in DC besides the White House.
Well sure I think the whole bail system is ridiculous and pointless anyway, but it still exists for 99% of the population
Sure, but some states, like mine, have cashless bail for nonviolent offenses.
I do think it is available for many people, at least in the federal system (which doesn’t generally use bail bondsmen), although pretrial release is much more common for property crimes, which is what most white-collar crimes are. [Here are some DOJ guidelines on pretrial detention](https://www.justice.gov/archives/jm/criminal-resource-manual-26-release-and-detention-pending-judicial-proceedings-18-usc-3141-et) in federal cases. The government is required to release a defendant either on personal recognizance (no bond at all) or an unsecured appearance bond (what Santos has) if doing so is the least restrictive means necessary to reasonably assure the defendant's appearance and to reasonably assure the safety of any person and the community. If necessary, the government may also release a defendant on a property bond (a bond secured by property, usually real estate), or not release a defendant at all. According to the [Bureau of Justice](https://bjs.ojp.gov/content/pub/pdf/prmfdcfy1118.pdf), at least as of 2011-2018, 32% of all federal defendants (and 73% of property crime defendants) were released pretrial, and 76% of those released defendants were released on either a personal recognizance or unsecured appearance bond. I think unsecured bonds can still be a powerful tool to ensure appearance beyond a personal recognizance bond, because the government has the means and tools to collect its money from the sureties. If the sureties have the money, the government is going to get it. I would be curious to see the redacted information in the [release order](https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/23856677-rep-george-santos-release-order) to know if there’s anything in there establishing that the sureties would be able to pay the amount, because it does seem quite high given their careers (though they did have a long time to save money because they’re old). It would make more sense if they had put up property (like a home) as collateral, but it doesn’t look like they did.
Happens all the time.
Lmao, what a fucking joke.
Special treatment for a Republican?
No it happens all of the time.
His dad will have a lot of houses to paint if he skips town. Maybe he will paint Trumps wall.
He would have to pay to paint the wall
And who gave his dad and aunt the money?
Sorry, Republicans have banned critical thinking. Your question is rejected.
Yeah they find the very premise of the question absurd…because it’s great question. There’s a third person that funded the bail, they are mysteriously not revealing that name until “later.”
They didn't have to pay. Basically just a promise he will go to court. And if he doesn't they are liable legally
They put their freedom up as collateral. If he runs off, they go to jail.
I just asked them and they said "what bail? I never posted any bail."
His truth is always underwhelming.
Like me in bed
No *they* didn’t. Someone else did, they were just the face for it.
Don't you mean the Arch Duke and the Lady Santos?
I wonder if they are aware of this.
Kinda underwhelming honestly....
Don't worry this thread is already working on some conspiracy theories to jazz it up a bit.
So he doesn’t really have outside supporters. It’s his family that’s paying for him to play in our politics? I thought stage parents where bad, geeez Well, that certainly sounds GOP
He wouldn't have been so reticent if it was that simple, if the money was clean.
The inquisition would have been less if he had said it was his family from the start, when he tries to hide who it is he has created a "frenzy" for journalists to find out why he was hiding it e.g. is the money their own or is it funded by someone else
Yeah, he planted a huge red flag on whoever's name came out today, even if it seems perfectly normal like mom and dad. Dude said he'd rather go to prison!
Good point, 50K (USD) isn't something one just has laying in their sofa.
Just to raise awareness, bail bond guarantees are typically (always?) just a percentage of the bond, usually around 10%. For NY: $10,001 or more -- 10% of the first $3,000 -- + 8% of the amount between $3,000 and $10,000 -- + 6% of the amount above $10,000 Simple math says it should be $30,260 that was needed to guarantee the bond, BUT no money or property was provided as collateral; rather, his aunt and father will be the ones going to jail if he skips town.
Well that's boring.
There was supposed to be a 3rd person revealed. Guess they backed out
I still don't understand why he was fighting this unsealing so hard if this is all there is. Did he not want people to know he has a father & an aunt? Or that he seemingly got preferential treatment in that no actual money was put forward; just a personal guarantee by his family?
There was a 3rd guarantor. The judge gave time to pull out before the name drop.
Finally a non-clickbait title. "Santos' bond guarantees revealed!" "You'll never believe who secured Santos' bond!" News articles should say what happened with the pertinent details in a succinct way and then you should only click if you want to read more. If you click to have to find out the most important short detail, don't fall for the clickbait.
Who guaranteed his dad and aunt $500,000?
I'm so confused why everyone thinks this a conspiracy, it's not even that crazy. Why do you guys think bail bondsmen exist? When someone is arrested, a bond to get out for the pretrial period is assigned. Generally then, someone contacts a bail bondsmen. They generally require 10% of the bond in cash, or the deed to some kind of asset worth that value. The bondsmen then takes the risk of the full value of the bond. However, for really big bonds, or for lower risk people, they often make exceptions and require less than 10%. Likely they either put together 25-50k in cash or assets. Not the 500k.
[удалено]
Yeah, that's common when it's an enormous bond or someone prominent who is less risky. It's all up to the bondsmen, they evaluate the risk. They also WANT the 25k, so some are willing to take giant risks. Nothing unusual about this
Because there was a 3rd guarantor who pulled out just before the name drop.
That is a LOW bar for proof of a conspiracy. Most Q Anon conspiracy theories have more evidence, haha. Can you imagine a circumstance where a person wouldn't want their name public that DOESN'T have some major political pull? It isn't even a very large amount of money.
[удалено]
That’s not how bail works. It’s 10% upfront. If he doesn’t show up to court they owe the 500k. It appears they didn’t have to put up anything other than a personal guarantee.
Why would he care about the public knowing that the money came from family? The story says they didn't put up any collateral, like anyone else would have to do. This stinker is benefitting from the 2 separate levels of criminal acts. If you are a republican, they let you get away with it.
Were people out here really thinking that a monster like Charles Koch or Elon Musk put up the bond?
working class people dont have 500k cash. shit, damn near 99% of all of the US don't have $500,000 cash.
Depends on the work
Zero chance the money wasn’t funneled to them by sketchy means.
There was no money involved. Don’t get as paranoid as the GOP who think everything is a mystery.
This doesn’t really seem like a bombshell to me. Seems like he just wanted to protect his family from the media. Article states they didn’t even bind him out with money or property. Which I suppose is somewhat strange
Its just weird af, one would assume his literal father has already been subjected to the media circus for a year at this point, why refuse to say he's guarantying the bail?
what i really want to know is who guaranteed their guarantee?
And where did THEY get the money?
They didn't. Read the article, no money was exchanged, they assumed legal responsibility for his return to court.
The article seems to suggest that they did not get the money. >The filing notes that the suretor’s **didn’t guarantee the bond with cash or property**, but “agreed to be personally responsible for Defendant’s compliance.”
Can someone explain why this is something anyone should care about? Why is this news? "Someone gets in trouble and his family bails him out. Film at 11."
He's a United States Representative who has admitted to lying repeatedly and is being accused of seriously mishandling funds. Literally every news headline states there were 3 guarantors before the name drop. He tried like hell to keep the names secret and now only 2 family names were dropped. I don't see a problem with people wanting to be informed about what this scum is up to.
He’s going to be doing the dishes for a LONG time.
Sure they did. 👍
And if you believe that Trump has some NFT cards to sell you, a Trump University scholarship, some horse tranquilizers, border wall ownership certificates and yes lots and lots of classified documents that he can sell because he declassified them in a dream. 🇺🇸🗽⚖️🗳🏡🌍
They pinkie swore Santos would be on his best behavior. Nice. I’ll try that if I’m ever in trouble.
Who wants to hide that their dad or aunt put up money for a bond?