The first of these opportunities is a hearing under Rule 41(h)(3), where the main issue is whether the bond really should have been forfeited in the first place. The second of these opportunities is a hearing under Rule 41(h)(4), which is premised on the assumption that the forfeiture was proper, but where the person who issued the bond has a chance to show that, because of their help in recapturing the defendant, or because of "other extraordinary circumstances", the forfeited money or property should be remitted in whole or in part. (This procedure mirrors the bail law of other jurisdictions across the United States. See United Bonding Insurance Co. v. State, 242 So.2d 140, 141-42 (Fla.App. 1970); Daniels v. Material Producers, Inc., 771 P.2d 205, 207 (Okla. 1989); State v. Emery, 12 Or.App. 37, 504 P.2d 1405, 1406 (1973). See also United States v. Zhang, unpublished, 2000 WL 1532951, *2-5 (S.D.N.Y.2000), which is cited in Wright, King, and Klein's Federal Practice and Procedure as illustrative of the three stages of bail forfeiture proceedings: (1) the declaration of forfeiture after the defendant fails to appear; (2) a request to set aside the forfeiture based on the assertion that the failure to appear was not willful; and (3) a request for remission of a properly entered forfeiture.