After a search to see that Nancy was lying about having ties to Cladis Bail Bonds. The following was discovered. For all those saying Kathy didnt own it.

Q: Does Nancy Cladis own or have ties to Cladis Bail Bonds?

A: By checking with the Idaho Department of Insurance, you will find that Nancy Cladis does not come up as a licensed person. However, when search for “Cladis bail Bonds”, the following information:

Agency Information
Name: KATHY CLADIS BAIL BONDS LLC License Number: 380486
Address: 500 W IDAHO ST STE 200
Issued: 6/17/2011
BOISE, ID 83702-5755 Expires: 7/1/2013

Phone: (208) 344-3234 License Status:
License Type: Active
Bail Agency

Line Description Line Code
Bail Surety BSUR

To sort by category, click on the column header
Producers City State License Number Appointment Date
BLAKE, JOHN BOISE ID 35566 6/17/2011

Insurance Company City State License Number Appointment Date
SENECA INSURANCE COMPANY, INC. NEW YORK NY 1229 6/17/2011

Michael

Fastrak Bail Bonds Inc.
815 North Harbor Boulevard
Fullerton, California 92832
(714) 870-7730

Source(s):

http://www.doi.idaho.gov/default.aspx

Instead of continuing to talk about it, we need to take action.
These commishes dont expect us to do anything but talk about it.
Lets do something real.

I propose a full display of disapproval. Picketing at ACMPS and at city hall, and at the court house. The week of 10-23 – 10-29

Comment if you agree and lets get organized. Everyone here is right and in agreement. What they are doing is ilegal. Lets hold them accountable.

A whole lot of the time, being a criminal defense attorney is a lot like being a PO.

What your PO tells you when she is giving you grief about probation: Have you started your class? Why not? Do you want to go to jail?

What your attorney tells you when you call her about the grief your PO is giving you: Well, have you started your class? Uh, why not? Get your butt in a class before the prosecutor thinks you are violating your probation and you get arrested and sit in jail for six weeks, because then you’ll be calling me all the damn time.

Sounds pretty similar.

Color me frustrated. ACMPS has been a thorn in our side for a LONG time and Gordon’s action has been a long time coming. I know the argument that ACMPS is using to justify its actions. Gordon’s argument is good and I agree with it, but what the courts will do with it . . .

If we’re on the same side, why not rebuke/correct me in a more friendly manner? I’m always open to receive correction.

It would benefit everyone on this board if we kept it cordial.

I know the law, chief. ACMPS bases its argument on 19-2608, which says a probationer must pay for testing of breath or bodily fluids.

The plain language of that statute applies only when a court orders the testing. The problem is that the judgments don’t order such testing – ACMPS just tells everyone to do it.

Additionally, the statute says the probationer has to pay the government agency providing the test. Nancy isn’t a government agency.

That code section is older than the statutes I laid our previously. The doctrine of implied repeal would kick in to the extent it could gymnastically be read to apply to non-court ordered testing done by a private company.

We’re on the same side. I don’t require correction…

ACMPS cannot, as part of their terms, require you to do anything that violates the law. Being charged for UAs caused them to require you to pay more than the law allowed.

Perhaps they could, as part of their terms, have required UAs. But, it would have had to be at ACMPS, Inc.’s expense.

The law is explicit in that it states the cost of supervision cannot exceed a certain amount INCLUDING testing for drugs and alcohol.