After you arrested the Judge is supposed to set a reasonable bond. The bond is to ensure your appearance at future court dates and to protect the public. Based on the second arrest, the Court feels the only way to protect the public was to put a $0 bond. The Judge should not have done that. The proper procedure would be to "revoke" the first bond, because that is the case where you did not comply with the Court's expectations, i.e. "no new law offenses". Sometimes they just jump the gun and put no bond on the new arrest.
Good luck,
Mark Conan
I'm impressed that you can have internet access while being incarcerated. There are a couple of possibilities here.
The "$0" bond MIGHT be temporary. On domestic violence charges, a person must be held for at least 24 hours before being released. Sometimes jails will interpret that as $0 until the hold is released. On the other hand, it is possible that the new offense has been denied bond, which likely would not be lawful. People generally have a right to a bond, with exceptions in limited situations. The other attorney is correct that it would have been more appropriate to simply revoke bond on the first case instead of putting no bond on the new case. We'd really need more information about the facts of both cases to know what the situation is here.