Post by Saint on Jul 11, 2003 8:51:23 GMT -5
STATEMENT FROM A PROFESSIONAL BEA
REGARDING DUANE ‘DOG CHAPMAN
On June 18th 2003 Duane ‘Dog’ Chapman, accompanied by four others, located Andrew Luster in Puerto Vallarta, Mexico on information supplied by a tipster, not by any proficient investigative skills. Chapman’s group consisted of a stepson, a brother-in-law, a cameraman and a Russian movie actor.
Once Luster was located Chapman and his entourage could have kept him in sight and notified the local authorities who would have effected Luster’s apprehension. But, no, not ‘Dog’ Chapman’s style. He needs to bluster his captured fugitive and be caught on film with all the hoopla and hype his violent and criminal mannerisms entails.
Chapman claims to have made 6,000 plus fugitive arrests in the past twenty-four years. Do the math. There are 8,550 days (to include leap years) in a 24-year period. To have apprehended 6,000 plus fugitives in that timeframe equates to having caught 1.425 two bail skips per day… every day. It is absurd to believe anyone can accomplish such a tally. He is also quoted as saying he was out catching up to four fugitives a day when he began to bounty hunt. Either Chapman is exaggerating his numbers or the bail agencies have the worse underwriting skills imaginable… probably both.
Dog Chapman claims to have made most of his apprehensions in Colorado and California yet those very states have enacted laws prohibiting felons from operating as bounty hunters. The Colorado statutes are listed under Rev. Stat. § 12-7-105.5 and specifically state no one with a criminal record can perform bail recovery activities. California requirements under their licensing procedures for bounty hunters include a provision that no one with a felony conviction can operate as a recovery agent in the State of California, [PC 1299.04(a)(1)-(5)]. Dog Chapman’s website boasts of captures in both states. Additional California law requires completion of a 40-hour power of arrest course [PC 1299.04(a)(2)], completion of a minimum of 12 hours classroom education pursuant to IC 1810.7 [PC 1299.04(a)(3)] and completion of a training course in the exercise of the power to arrest pursuant to Section 7583.7 of Business and Professions Code [PC 1299.04(a)(4)]. Can Mr. Chapman prove he has completed any of the training requirements? In Chapman’s case, he operates more like a self-proclaimed vigilante. There are also restrictions in most states on the use of badges by bail enforcement agents to include Chapman’s preferred and outmoded label of ‘bounty hunter’.
Another claim Chapman makes on his website is, quote… “I am what rehabilitation stands for.” What rehabilitation stands for? Perhaps he believes that a continuing violation of the laws denotes rehabilitation. Chapman states he has 18 arrests/convictions for armed robbery and one murder conviction. He served less than two years on a five-year sentence for murder and was paroled on February 6th 1979. A five-year sentence for murder (whether accomplice or not) and serving less than two years? What happened to the infamous Texas justice system?
Andrew Luster had posted his own bail when it was lowered from ten million dollars to one million dollars. Consequently, there was no surety bail thus no ‘bounty’. I believe Mr. Luster is able to have the bail monies he posted returned to him because he was returned to the court’s jurisdiction before the 180-day deadline for forfeiture. Any rewards will likely go to the ‘tipsters’ who telephoned Mr. Chapman and then telephoned the FBI. Beth Smith, Chapman’s alleged girlfriend, was quoted on Fox News as saying Chapman only had closure in mind for Luster’s victims. In the next sentence she stated he (Chapman) was fast running out of time before the 180-day bail forfeiture date arrived. So what would have been Chapman’s attitude on the 181st day?
Most professional bail enforcement agents throughout the country have questioned how Chapman can co-own three bail bond agencies as listed on his website. How can this be? A man who is an 18-count convicted felon (several for armed robberies), one of the convictions being for his role in a murder, can own bail bond agencies? There is something drastically wrong with that picture if indeed he does co-own the agencies. Mr. Chapman seems to lie and cannot be seriously taken at face value.
His so-called “Dogisms” are nothing more than copied or rephrased adages that he loudly spits at his captures in quest of satisfying some inner thirst he seemingly has for listening to himself. He appeared on television prior to the Luster capture saying, “Fe, Fi, Fo, Fum. Look out Luster here I come.” Do you suppose Jack-and-the-Beanstalk will file a complaint for plagiarism?
On July 3rd 2003 Duane Chapman surfaced in the United States in deliberate violation of the bail conditions set by the court in Puerto Vallarta, Mexico that he not leave the area and report to the court every Monday. When interviewed by CNN he stated he does not believe he broke any laws in Mexico. Chapman is fully aware that bounty hunting in Mexico is illegal and always has been. His statement to the press is yet another in a long string of blatant mistruths in an attempt to sway the focus of his illegal actions. Chapman also stated there was evidence that Andrew Luster was using a date rape drug on unsuspecting females in Mexico. This comment is merely another Chapman attempt to muddy the waters surrounding his illegal activities. According to the Mexican police no such evidence was found and no one has come forward.
On July 7th 2003 Duane ‘Dog’ Chapman failed to appear for a hearing. An article in the Los Angeles Times on July 8th 2003 quotes Puerto Vallarta District Attorney Marco Roberto Juarez, “It’s a little ironic, no? They chase fugitives and then they become fugitives. With this, we’ve corroborated that these people have not demonstrated any respect for the laws.” Chapman, however, said he did not need to appear in court in Mexico, and that his attorneys, who could not be reached for comment, were handling the proceedings for him. It is common knowledge, even to Mr. Chapman, that only under extreme circumstances can attorneys appear for their client without the defendant being present. Chapman knows this.
The Los Angeles Times further stated: Judge Jose Jesus de Pineda, reached in his office at the Jalisco
state penitentiary just outside central Puerto Vallarta, said Monday that if Duane ‘Dog’ Chapman did not appear in court by 4pm on July 7th, he would “proceed with what the law tells us must be done. It’s going to have its consequences, that’s evident, [his] attorneys know. They know the law,” Pineda said. Chapman did not appear consequently on July 8th 2003 the Mexican court issued a warrant for Chapman’s arrest.
The judge declined to elaborate on what Jalisco state law would prescribe as action for their absence, but prosecutors said bail would be forfeited and an order for the arrest of Chapman's group would be issued if they returned to Mexico. Prosecutor Juarez said the state might also request extradition for Chapman.
At the time Chapman failed to appear in the Mexican court he was in a Ventura, California court trying to get $320,000.00 of the one million dollars in bail money posted by Andrew Luster claiming he needed the money to cover his expenses in the case. I ask: Can Dog Chapman legitimately itemize his expenses to support his claim of the money he allegedly spent in searching for Luster? It appeals to one’s common sense that $320,000.00 is an exorbitant amount of expenses in the five months he claims to have been actively searching for Andrew Luster.
Chapman’s illegal and violent apprehension of Andrew Luster has been much publicized by the media he loves to exploit. A very misinformed few claim he’s a hero but most claim, and rightly so, he is merely an out-of-control vigilante conducting criminal activities who has placed yet another negated stigma on the bail enforcement profession. The focus of Luster’s capture is somewhat distorted knowing the apprehension was accomplished with the application of additional criminal acts on an international level causing yet another unfavorable light to shine on all professional bail enforcement agents.
Duane ‘Dog’ Chapman is a prime example of what the bail industry in general is endeavoring to eliminate. The old west style of outlaw bounty hunter has long dissipated in the wake of nationwide legislation requiring licensing and training. The ‘Dog’ Chapmans and been replaced with trained and adept professional bail enforcement agents who are responsible for approximately 40,000 fugitive arrests each year without incident and devoid of any liability.
NOTE: This statement, accompanied by a petition signed by 119 professional BEA's requesting an investigation, has been sent to the Attorney General Offices in California and Colorado as well as major newspapers throughout the United States.
REGARDING DUANE ‘DOG CHAPMAN
On June 18th 2003 Duane ‘Dog’ Chapman, accompanied by four others, located Andrew Luster in Puerto Vallarta, Mexico on information supplied by a tipster, not by any proficient investigative skills. Chapman’s group consisted of a stepson, a brother-in-law, a cameraman and a Russian movie actor.
Once Luster was located Chapman and his entourage could have kept him in sight and notified the local authorities who would have effected Luster’s apprehension. But, no, not ‘Dog’ Chapman’s style. He needs to bluster his captured fugitive and be caught on film with all the hoopla and hype his violent and criminal mannerisms entails.
Chapman claims to have made 6,000 plus fugitive arrests in the past twenty-four years. Do the math. There are 8,550 days (to include leap years) in a 24-year period. To have apprehended 6,000 plus fugitives in that timeframe equates to having caught 1.425 two bail skips per day… every day. It is absurd to believe anyone can accomplish such a tally. He is also quoted as saying he was out catching up to four fugitives a day when he began to bounty hunt. Either Chapman is exaggerating his numbers or the bail agencies have the worse underwriting skills imaginable… probably both.
Dog Chapman claims to have made most of his apprehensions in Colorado and California yet those very states have enacted laws prohibiting felons from operating as bounty hunters. The Colorado statutes are listed under Rev. Stat. § 12-7-105.5 and specifically state no one with a criminal record can perform bail recovery activities. California requirements under their licensing procedures for bounty hunters include a provision that no one with a felony conviction can operate as a recovery agent in the State of California, [PC 1299.04(a)(1)-(5)]. Dog Chapman’s website boasts of captures in both states. Additional California law requires completion of a 40-hour power of arrest course [PC 1299.04(a)(2)], completion of a minimum of 12 hours classroom education pursuant to IC 1810.7 [PC 1299.04(a)(3)] and completion of a training course in the exercise of the power to arrest pursuant to Section 7583.7 of Business and Professions Code [PC 1299.04(a)(4)]. Can Mr. Chapman prove he has completed any of the training requirements? In Chapman’s case, he operates more like a self-proclaimed vigilante. There are also restrictions in most states on the use of badges by bail enforcement agents to include Chapman’s preferred and outmoded label of ‘bounty hunter’.
Another claim Chapman makes on his website is, quote… “I am what rehabilitation stands for.” What rehabilitation stands for? Perhaps he believes that a continuing violation of the laws denotes rehabilitation. Chapman states he has 18 arrests/convictions for armed robbery and one murder conviction. He served less than two years on a five-year sentence for murder and was paroled on February 6th 1979. A five-year sentence for murder (whether accomplice or not) and serving less than two years? What happened to the infamous Texas justice system?
Andrew Luster had posted his own bail when it was lowered from ten million dollars to one million dollars. Consequently, there was no surety bail thus no ‘bounty’. I believe Mr. Luster is able to have the bail monies he posted returned to him because he was returned to the court’s jurisdiction before the 180-day deadline for forfeiture. Any rewards will likely go to the ‘tipsters’ who telephoned Mr. Chapman and then telephoned the FBI. Beth Smith, Chapman’s alleged girlfriend, was quoted on Fox News as saying Chapman only had closure in mind for Luster’s victims. In the next sentence she stated he (Chapman) was fast running out of time before the 180-day bail forfeiture date arrived. So what would have been Chapman’s attitude on the 181st day?
Most professional bail enforcement agents throughout the country have questioned how Chapman can co-own three bail bond agencies as listed on his website. How can this be? A man who is an 18-count convicted felon (several for armed robberies), one of the convictions being for his role in a murder, can own bail bond agencies? There is something drastically wrong with that picture if indeed he does co-own the agencies. Mr. Chapman seems to lie and cannot be seriously taken at face value.
His so-called “Dogisms” are nothing more than copied or rephrased adages that he loudly spits at his captures in quest of satisfying some inner thirst he seemingly has for listening to himself. He appeared on television prior to the Luster capture saying, “Fe, Fi, Fo, Fum. Look out Luster here I come.” Do you suppose Jack-and-the-Beanstalk will file a complaint for plagiarism?
On July 3rd 2003 Duane Chapman surfaced in the United States in deliberate violation of the bail conditions set by the court in Puerto Vallarta, Mexico that he not leave the area and report to the court every Monday. When interviewed by CNN he stated he does not believe he broke any laws in Mexico. Chapman is fully aware that bounty hunting in Mexico is illegal and always has been. His statement to the press is yet another in a long string of blatant mistruths in an attempt to sway the focus of his illegal actions. Chapman also stated there was evidence that Andrew Luster was using a date rape drug on unsuspecting females in Mexico. This comment is merely another Chapman attempt to muddy the waters surrounding his illegal activities. According to the Mexican police no such evidence was found and no one has come forward.
On July 7th 2003 Duane ‘Dog’ Chapman failed to appear for a hearing. An article in the Los Angeles Times on July 8th 2003 quotes Puerto Vallarta District Attorney Marco Roberto Juarez, “It’s a little ironic, no? They chase fugitives and then they become fugitives. With this, we’ve corroborated that these people have not demonstrated any respect for the laws.” Chapman, however, said he did not need to appear in court in Mexico, and that his attorneys, who could not be reached for comment, were handling the proceedings for him. It is common knowledge, even to Mr. Chapman, that only under extreme circumstances can attorneys appear for their client without the defendant being present. Chapman knows this.
The Los Angeles Times further stated: Judge Jose Jesus de Pineda, reached in his office at the Jalisco
state penitentiary just outside central Puerto Vallarta, said Monday that if Duane ‘Dog’ Chapman did not appear in court by 4pm on July 7th, he would “proceed with what the law tells us must be done. It’s going to have its consequences, that’s evident, [his] attorneys know. They know the law,” Pineda said. Chapman did not appear consequently on July 8th 2003 the Mexican court issued a warrant for Chapman’s arrest.
The judge declined to elaborate on what Jalisco state law would prescribe as action for their absence, but prosecutors said bail would be forfeited and an order for the arrest of Chapman's group would be issued if they returned to Mexico. Prosecutor Juarez said the state might also request extradition for Chapman.
At the time Chapman failed to appear in the Mexican court he was in a Ventura, California court trying to get $320,000.00 of the one million dollars in bail money posted by Andrew Luster claiming he needed the money to cover his expenses in the case. I ask: Can Dog Chapman legitimately itemize his expenses to support his claim of the money he allegedly spent in searching for Luster? It appeals to one’s common sense that $320,000.00 is an exorbitant amount of expenses in the five months he claims to have been actively searching for Andrew Luster.
Chapman’s illegal and violent apprehension of Andrew Luster has been much publicized by the media he loves to exploit. A very misinformed few claim he’s a hero but most claim, and rightly so, he is merely an out-of-control vigilante conducting criminal activities who has placed yet another negated stigma on the bail enforcement profession. The focus of Luster’s capture is somewhat distorted knowing the apprehension was accomplished with the application of additional criminal acts on an international level causing yet another unfavorable light to shine on all professional bail enforcement agents.
Duane ‘Dog’ Chapman is a prime example of what the bail industry in general is endeavoring to eliminate. The old west style of outlaw bounty hunter has long dissipated in the wake of nationwide legislation requiring licensing and training. The ‘Dog’ Chapmans and been replaced with trained and adept professional bail enforcement agents who are responsible for approximately 40,000 fugitive arrests each year without incident and devoid of any liability.
NOTE: This statement, accompanied by a petition signed by 119 professional BEA's requesting an investigation, has been sent to the Attorney General Offices in California and Colorado as well as major newspapers throughout the United States.