a

Blade is a smooth and charming, visually stunning and very malleable and flexible

[social_icons type="circle_social" icon="fa-facebook" use_custom_size="yes" custom_size="14" custom_shape_size="17" link="https://www.facebook.com/" target="_blank" icon_margin="0 10px 0 0" icon_color="#ffffff" icon_hover_color="#ffffff" background_color="rgba(255,255,255,0.01)" background_hover_color="#21d279" border_width="2" border_color="#7d7d7d" border_hover_color="#21d279"][social_icons type="circle_social" icon="fa-twitter" use_custom_size="yes" custom_size="14" custom_shape_size="17" link="https://twitter.com/" target="_blank" icon_margin="0 10px 0 0" icon_color="#ffffff" icon_hover_color="#ffffff" background_color="rgba(255,255,255,0.01)" background_hover_color="#21d279" border_width="2" border_color="#7d7d7d" border_hover_color="#21d279"][social_icons type="circle_social" icon="fa-linkedin" use_custom_size="yes" custom_size="14" custom_shape_size="17" link="https://www.linkedin.com/" target="_blank" icon_margin="0 10px 0 0" icon_color="#ffffff" icon_hover_color="#ffffff" background_color="rgba(255,255,255,0.01)" background_hover_color="#21d279" border_width="2" border_color="#7d7d7d" border_hover_color="#21d279"] [vc_empty_space height="31px"] Copyright Qode Interactive 2017

Martinsburg-based company asks judge to revisit decision on petition seeking bond-writing authority | Instant

Martinsburg-based company asks judge to revisit decision on petition seeking bond-writing authority | Instant

Martinsburg-based company asks judge to revisit decision on petition seeking bond-writing authority | Instant

MARTINSBURG, W.Va. — Attorneys for a Martinsburg-based company that was denied authority to continue to engage in bail bonding in the Eastern Panhandle have asked a circuit judge to revisit her decision, given newly obtained video related to testimony that was previously heard in the case.

An amended petition by Special Services Bureau Inc., doing business as A Regional Bonding Co., to engage in the bail-bonding business in Berkeley, Jefferson and Morgan counties was denied by 23rd Judicial Circuit Judge Laura Faircloth at the conclusion of a Nov. 28 hearing.

On Friday, Faircloth scheduled a Feb. 1 hearing regarding the company’s motion for relief from her final order, which was filed Dec. 4. The company is asking the judge to set aside her previous order and grant the company’s amended petition to engage in bail bonding.

In her final order, Faircloth cited state code that requires the court to make a finding that any person seeking bonding authority be a person of “good moral character.”

The judge ruled that Sher Orem, the company’s president, was complicit in allowing her husband, John Orem, to engage in the bonding business on Nov. 8 with her at the Berkeley County Judicial Center in Martinsburg in violation of an October court order.

John Orem, who had been previously running the company prior the filing of an amended petition on Nov. 7, had been ordered by the judge in October not to engage in bail bonding until after the court ruled on the merits of the company’s petition, including examination of the results of his drug screening.

“The court is not confident Sher Orem is of good moral character when she allows her husband to manipulate the rules of the court,” the judge’s final order states.

Bond-related documents filed with the court on Nov. 8 indicate John Orem signed the power of attorney as president of the company, and Sher Orem testified in a Nov. 28 hearing that she did not know whether she actually was the president of Special Services Bureau at that time, but added that her husband would not be involved in the business going further.

Sher Orem testified that her husband came with her on Nov. 8 to the magistrate’s office because she was nervous and that she wanted to make sure she did everything properly, according to the judge’s order.

In the hearing, Sher Orem also indicated she was unaware of the court’s order prohibiting her husband’s involvement in the bonding business. She also denied doing anything to conceal her husband’s identity upon entering the secured magistrate office suite and the company now contends that judicial center video footage corroborates her testimony about how the Orems accessed the magistrate office suite and directly contradicts testimony by a magistrate’s assistant.

“Thus, there is serious doubt as to whether the court would have ruled the same way if the security surveillance footage was available during the (Nov. 28) hearing,” Special Services Bureau attorneys J. Mark Sutton and Gregory E. Kennedy wrote in their motion for relief.

Herald-Mail Media obtained a copy of the video, which shows John Orem press a button at the main magistrate office suite door to contact a magistrate. The judge’s final order, however, notes that both Sher Orem and magistrate assistant Kimberly Clark testified in the November hearing that Orem’s wife actually “buzzed” to be permitted access to Magistrate Darrell Shull’s office.

Clark testified that John Orem could not be seen on a security camera via the monitors that are in her office, but Orem, not a female with him, appears to be the most clearly identifiable of the couple on the footage.

It’s unclear how many security cameras are in place at the entrance to the county magistrate suite office door, and the company’s motion does not explain how the hourlong clip of surveillance footage was acquired from the county.

Clark testified that she was “surprised” John Orem came in the office, knowing that he was ordered by the court to not engage in any bonding business, and felt that the Orems had concealed him from the camera so that he could gain access, according to court order.

Clark testified that she would not have let John Orem into Magistrate Shull’s office if she had seen him on the security camera, and that she felt “manipulated” by the Orems, according to the court order.

In her final order, Faircloth concluded that Sher Orem’s testimony in the Nov. 28 hearing lacked credibility and noted that it is her responsibility to be aware of all matters affecting the company and questioned her decision to allow her husband’s direct involvement in the completion of bonding business-related paperwork at the judicial center on Nov. 8.

The bonding business activity in question came the day after an amended petition for authority to write bonds was filed. John Orem was replaced by his wife in the amended filing, and the judge was advised that her husband also had removed himself as an officer of Special Services Bureau, which he incorporated, according to court records.

A similar company organization change was made in 2016 after John Orem was charged with possession of a controlled substance amid his election campaign for Berkeley County sheriff, according to court records. The drug charge was dismissed in October 2016, and John Orem’s authority to engage in the bail-bonding business was reinstated in August 2017, according to Berkeley County Circuit Court records.

Bail-bonding authority is granted for a three-year period in the judicial circuit.

In her final order the judge also noted “concern” that the Orems transferred the officers of the corporation to Sher Orem prior to the Nov. 28 hearing in an effort to avoid having John Orem drug tested again.

“The Court finds such actions to be a ruse and notes that the Orems can, at any time, switch the officers back to John Orem.”

A probation officer testified in October that a random test conducted Oct. 12 found that John Orem tested positive for a metabolite of fentanyl.

Fentanyl is a controlled substance prescribed to patients with severe pain or those who need pain management after surgery. It is said to be 50 to 100 times more potent than heroin.

The judge also was advised in October by the circuit’s probation office that Orem’s medical prescriptions didn’t contain fentanyl.

Faircloth has said she would request all parties seeking to write bonds to be drug tested, not just John Orem, and that he was not being singled out.

In the final order, Faircloth noted that she intended to request Sher Orem to be drug tested at the Nov. 28 hearing, but didn’t because the judge was already convinced that favorable drug-test results would not have changed her decision.



[ad_2]

Source link

No Comments

Post A Comment