OH HENRI! AGAIN!

 

THERE’S SOMETHING ABOUT HENRI, UPDATE (with special thanks to inquiring blog readers)

According to Florida legal eagles (of the prosecuting kind), Henri Zogaib attempted to swindle the Florida’s Seventh Judicial Circuit (court), too.

Zogaib (left and right), you might remember, isn’t well liked by many in the racing industry, mainly because it’s believed he raced with others’ money ($5 million, give or take) that most involved thought would be placed in high-return investments. As most know, “racing” (with notable exceptions like NASCAR) is “a hole in asphalt into which one pours money” and those who do so gladly seek means by which to feed a habit some deem every bit as addictive as ice cream. Not “ice milk” or “frozen yogurt,” mind you, but real, seriously high-fat, melt-in-your mouth, cat-attracting ice cream.

Detailed elsewhere in this blog under similar title to that above is an initial explanation of what Zogaib is alleged to have previously, um, fostered upon unsuspecting, lovable but evidently malleable innocents

(“Alleged” - as yet Zogaib’s case has not been adjudicated. Now, yours truly didn’t fabricate this “convict by a jury of peers” idea; such concept likely would’ve been well beyond this person’s mental faculties, anyway, especially at the time written. Instead, peruse the United States’ Constitution’s framers and, particularly, George Mason and Patrick Henry, the fathers of The Bill Of Rights. And, no, the BOR’s “father” really wasn’t James Madison, per se, though he did put pen to paper, even though such came close to plagiarism. For those interested, learn more on the Bill of Rights’ origins here and here. I promise: it’s scholarly stuff, so you might want to stay away from it, Wolfgang).

Vassup dis time mit Henri?

In a May hearing which set Zogaib’s bail at $100,000, Judge R. Michael Hutcheson, of Florida’s Seventh Judicial Circuit, stipulated that Zogaib could not use nefarious proceeds as the means by which to post that bail, whether posted entirely by Zogaib or through a bail bondsman.

(Yes, boys and girls, it’s time again for Ol’ DC’s How the Constitution Works: “Bail” is ((usually)) a monetary amount pledged to be surrendered to a court of law by an arrestee should the latter fail to subsequently appear before or abide other ancillary legal requirements as established by the former. Put in another manner: the Guy Who Gets Popped is conditionally released by the Dudes In Charge in exchange for a money moved from the pockets of the GWGP to those of the DIC. Still another way: You don’t go directly to jail but you could lose $200. More? Okay: you rot in jail awaiting trial unless you put up some serious bucks. K?

(“Bond” is directly influenced by an individual’s community standing and/or credit worthiness. Thus, a “bail bondsman” is ((usually)) an unrelated third party, person or corporation which the court deems as 1) being creditworthy and, 2) at the time of further judicial proceedings is likely to produce the body ((which is not to be confused with “habeas corpus” … or the “hair of the hound,” for that matter)). Usually the “body” surrenders ((pays)) to the bail bondsman a portion of the established bail which forever stays in the bail bondsman’s pocket ((until the IRS steps, uh, reaches in but which is an entirely different matter)). Laws vary by states ((a “States Rights” issue, BTW)) influencing what a bail bondsman may charge an accused seeking a ((legal)) jail escape but someone, somewhere decided 10-percent of the bail is a good figure with which to work. However, be assured, one can expect to pay more if charged with murder rather than “swindling old people and/or race-car drivers” – or is it the other way around? I forget.)

(For further reading on the fun one can have playing “Bail Roulette,” see Lindsay Lohan – this one having little to do with “scholarly,” though)

Ahora, vamos a ver? Ah, sí.

Enter wiretaps. Yes, those ubiquitous (for the criminally inclined and, perhaps, those who aren’t) little buzzes, clicks and occasional “Hey, Yeakel, get this!” heard while talking over telephones. To be precise, the “wiretapped” conversation occurs between an inmate (Zogaib, in this case) and one or more outside parties.

Huh?

Inmates, even of the temporary kind, can’t retain cell phones beyond a certain point – usually the booking room. An inmate, however deeply enmeshed in the legal process, wishing to speak with someone remote to the jail in which that inmate is found must then utilize a hard-wired telephone (landline) provided by the facility in which that inmate is found. As a matter of “security,” minions of the facility are empowered to record and/or listen to that landline conversation. Remember, while one can receive or “reach out and touch someone” using a cellular phone, one who is imprisoned must use a landline provided by the facility in which he’s imprisoned.

That’s where Zogaib went wrong for the 1,343,497^th time (allegedly).

Zogaib, having promised The Honorable Judge Hutcheson (and an honorable sort, he truly is) his funds would be scrounged from sources other than personal, the state’s attorney now questions the source actually used and has demanded Zogaib be returned to jail and result in a probable forfeiture of bail – money that could’ve been but now won’t be apportioned to those deemed to have been duped, by the way.

For more on the story, go to The Daytona Beach News-Journal.

For those not clicking away, it’s time for another installment of Ol DC’s How The Constitution Works: Exactly how does one determine funds are of a nefarious origin if one hasn’t yet been convicted of having done just that?

Ask Peter Baron or Ryan Dalziel and they’d insist Zogaib did the “ill-gotten” thing. Ask an unassociated party – one who hasn’t a clue as to this dust-up – and the answer likely will be “Gee, I don’t know.”

While Zogaib has faced a number of civil lawsuits (“civil” being distinct from “criminal” law) and, as of now, might have committed a crime, who is able to exactly say from whence each dollar of Zogaib’s funds might’ve originated? Remember, Zogaib’s criminal culpability has yet to be demonstrated “beyond reasonable doubt” in a court of law and, this writer submits, whoever may face prison time desires/deserves time in a court (the pesky U.S. Constitution; Amendments 5,6 and 7, guaranteeing such) to counter any arguments the state or claimants may proffer against him.

However, until another higher court overrules a lower court, it’s best to remember that, like Mother Nature, it’s not nice to fool a judge.

Later,

DC