About CUFF
Send This Letter to Legislators       


(1) Outstanding warrants shall be red flagged on the individual's driver's license.  Since the majority of fugitives are picked up in traffic stops, this information would benefit law enforcement nationwide.  Currently, in many states individuals with outstanding traffic tickets cannot renew their licenses but felons with warrants can.


(2)  Outstanding warrants should be put on a fugitive's credit report.  Whether the fugitive applies for a job or a car, the information will be available to the business or person reading the report and the police can be called.


(3) Warrants should be public information, with rare exceptions.  The police should willingly run a check on a name called in by a concerned citizen in order to determine if there is an outstanding warrant on the individual.  The check should include the NCIC, the state wants and warrant list and local county and city municipal warrants.  Currently, the majority of police departments will not provide this information to a citizen without the permission of the fugitive.

    According to the attorney general of California, Bill Lockyer, the public is being unrealistic to expect police to track down fugitives.  He said the funding and the personnel are not available for this monumental task.  


   On August 2, 2002, he told Greta Van Susteren on her Fox TV interview program, "On the Record," that currently there are over 200,000 outstanding felony warrants in his state, 2,700 of which are for murder, and  this does not include misdemeanor warrants.  Attorney General Lockyer said that law enforcement is ill-equipped in personnel and funding to search for these fugitives who outnumber the police two to one. 


  The police want the public to help then find fugitives because they know they cannot do it alone.  Yet, if a citizen cannot call most police departments to find out if a person is wanted for a crime, then the police are also expecting something from the public that they cannot give.  This law or protocol, as it is described in many precincts, must be changed for the safety of both police and the public.

  (4) Implement a national extradition fund.  Federal highways are funded by the federal government because the citizens of all states benefit from their use.  Conversely, fugitives who flee from one state to another to avoid prosecution create a danger to the citizens of the states they choose to hide in.  Almost inevitably, the tax dollars of another municipality in another state will be spent on new charges against the fugitive.

A national extradition fund will eliminate this mammoth loophole through which tens of thousands of fugitives routinely escape.  The fund should be set aside to be used only for extradition.  Eventually, it will be apparent which states are regularly dumping their fugitives into someone else's back yard and this awareness can be used politically to convince these states to change their policies.

   (5) Parolees and probationers shall be required to obtain a new driver's license with biometric identification capabilities, such as facial recognition, retina or fingerprint scanning.  Although this technology is in the development stage, it should be implemented as quickly as it becomes available in each state.   If a parolee or probationer obtains a false identification in any form, the penalties shall be severe.

(6) Introduce Fraud Courts into county court systems.  Because prosecutors rarely prosecute fraud, embezzlement and theft where business partners or close associates are involved, these victims are forced to use the civil courts in order to obtain justice.  Since most fraud is perpetrated by people with few assets, the chances of the victims ever recovering these losses are small.  Consequently, the thieves suffer minimal discomfort for their crimes and frequently use what they learn to improve their fraud skills. 

   Like family courts, fraud courts should be a part of county court systems.   This court would be a merger of the civil and criminal courts because it would allow a plaintiff to present the details of his case for the purpose of collecting on his losses as well as presenting evidence that would normally be presented to the police in order to demonstrate criminal fraud by the defendant.  A fraud court judge would have the power to place a defendant under arrest if the case presented by the plaintiff clearly indicates criminal fraud. 

   Many fraud cases that are discounted by the police and prosecutors have evidence supporting the charges which is never examined.   This refusal to review evidence can even go as far up as the FBI.  One victim who lost over $100,000 to a con artist was asked by an investigating FBI agent if the victim wasn't "just mad at the man because you lost all your money."  

   Fraud courts would enable a judge to hear all the evidence supporting the plaintiff's charges.  It would enable to plaintiff to subpoena witnesses who otherwise may never be heard.  And it would require the defendant to appear or face a bench warrant .

   A fraud court would benefit the community as well as the plaintiff as it would provide a means for prosecuting con artists which currently does not exist.

  (7) Penalties for fraud shall be increased.  In 1998, the average jail time spent for fraud was 1.6 years.  The Mafia was dismantled by the justice department because of the strengthening of penalties under the RICO laws.  Increasing the sentences for racketeering crimes convinced many foot soldiers that turning in their bosses was preferable to spending several decades in prison for crimes that once had brought just a few years jail time.  Many potential con artists would think twice before using their persuasion skills to steal from someone if the penalty was severe enough.
. (8) It shall be an act of theft for a business partner or domestic partner to abscond with company or community property unless the property is escrowed or stored and the location of the property and location of the absconder is provided to the other partners.  This law would be consistent with the precepts that make it illegal for a spouse with joint custody of a child to hide the child from the other spouse. 

In the case of property, the civil rights of the aggrieved partner(s) have been violated as they have no recourse to litigate the dispute that prompted the dissolution.  Under current laws, the partner in possession of the property is not committing a crime by disappearing with all assets and withdrawing all funds from bank accounts belonging to the business or marriage.  

While most business and marriage dissolutions are settled in the courts, con artists know they can take advantage of the large loophole in the civil law that allows them to marry or go into partnership with innocent victims for the sole purpose of disappearing with the assets without concern for criminal consequences. 


                                              Top of Page