Ron Cummings Arrested 2009.08.06 RE: Battery involving brother-in-law #3

Tom'sGirl

Former Member
Joined
Apr 28, 2005
Messages
11,330
Reaction score
10
Keep your posts on the Topic of RC's arrest and what has been reported thus far in the Media regarding this event.

Posts that drift Off Topic into discussion of other events or Snarky & Rude posts will be deleted.
 
Wow. That last thread......drift off the facts of the police report much, folks? Ron started the physical altercation. Misty and Lisa were in the process of trying to separate the two men, Hank1 was trying to pull off Ronald (or holding him so Hank could hit him as Ronald put it....yet no charges filed for that. hmm). THEN GGMS, who heretofore had said she was in bed, got up, saw what was going on outside and THEN exited the home in order to assist in breaking up the fight and shooing the Croslin's off her property like chickens into the hen yard. Her word was shoving, but I love when people use the kinder, gentler word of "coaxing".....she was shoving them into the vehicle, per her own words, and had sent Ronald into the house.

One could make a reasonable assumption that the physical assault had halted and the Croslin's were dealing with leaving as asked when Ronald came out and a NEW altercation began, based solely upon his actions. Hank2 was already in the vehicle, already in the process of leaving, when Ronald laid the beatdown on him WHILE IN THE CAR.

Thank you, Forty-two, for the lesson on how a verbal assault can be deemed an assault in a court of law, but in this second altercation, when Hank2 is in the vehicle and ready to leave, he could have said a lot of things but Ronald's choice to come out of the house and beat the snot out of him was his own and since EVERY PERSON PRESENT THAT NIGHT tells the same story of Ronald charging out of the house and punching Hank2 while in the vehicle, if these charges are dropped, the stench in the process of law in Putnam County stinks more than the corral at a rodeo in mid-summer.
 
I guess we've got the answer as to whether or not Ron's former attorney will be representing him on these new charges.

"I don't think we have any plans to get back into the fray," Kimball said.

http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news...ummings-six-months-080909aug09,0,502551.story
I have a strong feeling that Kimball is probably glad he got out when he did. Then again, that's just my opinion. I also find his use of the term "fray" very very interesting.
 
I have a strong feeling that Kimball is probably glad he got out when he did. Then again, that's just my opinion. I also find his use of the term "fray" very very interesting.

Strategic wordplay that.
 
Since I have no knowledge of bond or bail issues can someone please explain why the whole amount was paid? I thought you only had to pay a portion maybe 10%? TIA
 
I don't like the part I bolded

<3 Indiana....but I have to say that I DO like that part. I have long believed that ****** was possibly the crime in question and the sooner we have a qualified investigator of those crimes involved the sooner we may see results in getting the CREEPOID who did it. That in my book is progress. We may find that is the crime they have been looking at all along.
 
Since I have no knowledge of bond or bail issues can someone please explain why the whole amount was paid? I thought you only had to pay a portion maybe 10%? TIA

There are times when a Judge will demand cash bond. I do not know if this is one of them. He may have had a spot of trouble finding anyone who was willing to take a chance on him....
 
Strategery is good :p

Also in that article, it states Ronald posted bail of $12,504. And, more ominously, makes note to indicate that one of the detectives now on the case is a homicide detective :(

I don't like the part I bolded

<3 Indiana....but I have to say that I DO like that part. I have long believed that ****** was possibly the crime in question and the sooner we have a qualified investigator of those crimes involved the sooner we may see results in getting the CREEPOID who did it. That in my book is progress. We may find that is the crime they have been looking at all along.
Do we know or have any reason to believe that this is a recent development?

I don't have any idea how large the staff of the PCSO is, but considering the seriousness of the crime of child abduction, and the sad statistics concerning the results I wouldn't be surprised if they have had homicide personnel involved nearly from the onset. In fact I would hope that they have been.

Just asking. Any record of the OCSO personnel assignments to the Haleigh abduction case?
 
Do we know or have any reason to believe that this is a recent development?

I don't have any idea how large the staff of the PCSO is, but considering the seriousness of the crime of child abduction, and the sad statistics concerning the results I wouldn't be surprised if they have had homicide personnel involved nearly from the onset. In fact I would hope that they have been.

Just asking. Any record of the OCSO personnel assignments to the Haleigh abduction case?

I don't know if it is a recent development; I only speak for myself when I say this is the first time I have read that a homicide detective is working on this case. Maybe it's just a small department and the LE there wear several 'hats' at work and THIS reporter just picked up on a correlation.
 
The whole amount does have to be paid.

If you have the money you pay it all yourself, after you appear on the charges and the trial is over you get it all back.

If you don't have the money you can pay a bail bondsman a fee - generally 10% - and the bondsman puts up the money to get you out. When you appear on the charges and the trial is over the bail bondsman gets his funds back, but you don't get back the 10%.

In either situation if you don't show up for trial the bail is forfeited and you won't get it back. If you paid the bail bondsman a fee and he has to lose the bail money because you skipped he will come after you for it, along with expenses of tracking you down.
Thanks, . Very concise.

Just would like to add that the statement in the article ...
He later posted bail of $12,504 and left the jail.
... can't be taken as literal, technical truth. It may be. It may also be just the way the article happened to be phrased.

Somebody provided sufficient surety for the court to okay Ron's release. That's really all we know for a fact unless there's been something from the court posted that I've missed.

ETA: That 'somebody" could have been Ron, his family, a bail bondsman, or a total stranger.
 
It settles the question if RC has money though. He had enough to get his own place but has not.....hmmmmm.
 
They know the perp, it is a matter of getting the evidence/and or the timeline
 
Concerning the bond, I has suspected that RC paid the bond because I don't see him liking to part with money at all. To have posted the 10% means he would have lost $1250.00...not very Ron like, IMO.

May have had donations and a big check from his trip to NY, child support, big tax refund and unemployment/assistance from State and perhaps SSI for Haleigh......not bad
 
I wonder if this was another whoops by the media. Like the whoops about Ron breaking glass on the car door to get to Hank Jr. (That was false...there is no mention of glass in the one police report.)

So, I wonder if they are referring to Dick Schauland, he is the only one that left that I know of.
Action News learned the chief investigator has changed, and is now being headed up by a deputy who was one of the first on the scene of the disappearance back on February 10th. http://www.actionnewsjax.com/conten...time-since-arrest/9Ij0J9vMwku_XZLxnDEc1g.cspx


"Snip" March 21, 2009
Dick Schauland, a veteran lawman who came out of retirement to assist Putnam authorities in media matters shortly after Haleigh's disappearance drew national attention, he returned to his life as a retiree. Lt. Johnny Greenwood will assume Schauland's duties as the department's public information officer..

"They brought in Schauland to help with the case when it got a bit crazy, but when it's slowed back down they let him go back to enjoying being retired."
"If something big happens he will come back to help."
Article: http://www.palatkadailynews.com/arti...ews/news02.txt

Questions: Does anyone know when the statements that were made by all parties will be released and when should we expect a trial date for the Burglary/Assault charges?
Please and Thank you in advace..:blowkiss:
 
It settles the question if RC has money though. He had enough to get his own place but has not.....hmmmmm.

What settles what question? How?

I thought Ron was staying with his Grandma,

They know the perp, it is a matter of getting the evidence/and or the timeline

Ooh, goody. Who are "they"? How did you find out that "they" "know". Please share links with the rest of us.

Concerning the bond, I has suspected that RC paid the bond because I don't see him liking to part with money at all. To have posted the 10% means he would have lost $1250.00...not very Ron like, IMO.

We know that the bond was met. That means we know that the court accepted surety from someone in the matter of the bond. I don't think that we know for certain whom that surety was met by, or in what form it was accepted by the court.

Please share any new info you might have with the rest of us.

I'm not certain, but I think that the 10% option is only an expression of a bondsman providing surety in return for a fee equal to 10% of the amount. Anyone who wanted to could provide what the court required, and not charge Ron a penny. I'm pretty sure that the court doesn't care who it is.

May have had donations and a big check from his trip to NY, child support, big tax refund and unemployment/assistance from State and perhaps SSI for Haleigh......not bad

I'm uncertain what point you're trying to make here.

Could you elaborate, please?
 
What settles what question? How?

I thought Ron was staying with his Grandma,



Ooh, goody. Who are "they"? How did you find out that "they" "know". Please share links with the rest of us.



We know that the bond was met. That means we know that the court accepted surety from someone in the matter of the bond. I don't think that we know for certain whom that surety was met by, or in what form it was accepted by the court.

Please share any new info you might have with the rest of us.

I'm not certain, but I think that the 10% option is only an expression of a bondsman providing surety in return for a fee equal to 10% of the amount. Anyone who wanted to could provide what the court required, and not charge Ron a penny. I'm pretty sure that the court doesn't care who it is.



I'm uncertain what point you're trying to make here.

Could you elaborate, please?

BBM Yes any person could pay the TOTAL amount of the bail bond for Ron and the State will not care who it is. However, ONLY a bail bondsman who has a legal license and bonded property to use as collateral is allowed to post a bond on 10%. Otherwise a relative or friend would have to put up a property or cash equal to the WHOLE bail amount of $12,500.00 GGS might have signed against her property to get him out. Happens A LOT! Elderly people posting bail with thier homes, sometimes losing those same homes when the relative skips court or skips state.
 
It settles the question if RC has money though. He had enough to get his own place but has not.....hmmmmm.


Imo, a good thing. Ggm is there to keep an eye on Jr, and Misty is likely never left alone with him.
So, it's a good thing for Jr. moo
 

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
176
Guests online
2,376
Total visitors
2,552

Forum statistics

Threads
589,962
Messages
17,928,373
Members
228,020
Latest member
DazzelleShafer
Back
Top