Bail industry leader, Deborah Jallad, has proposed a solution to concerns about the implementation of the guest worker program for immigrant workers. Her solution--a guest worker accountability bond. In a letter to the Orlando Sentinel, Jallad proposes to allow bail bond agents to write accountability bonds for immigrant workers. Jallad also recommended that guest workers who violate the conditions of their Z Visa or guest-worker permit, commit a felony, or circumvent the immigration process would be subject to apprehension and surrender by the bail bond agent who wrote the immigrant's visa or bond. The agent would then turn the alien over to law enforcement for deportation.
Jallad also praised the bail industry’s track record, citing that the historical loss ratio two years after a failure to appear is approximately 2 percent for defendants released on private surety bail. She also said that a recently released study by the Department of Justice's Bureau of Justice Statistics recognized private surety bail to be the most effective form of pre-trial release.
Thursday, June 28, 2007
GPS System Offered to Bondsmen
In a recent press release, Omnilink announced its new partnership with the Professional Bail Agents of the United States (PBUS). Omnilink will provide PBUS members preferred rates on its GPS system to monitor clients. Omnilink says its system is tamper-proof, completely waterproof and capable of tracking people inside buildings, buses, trains and places where other GPS solutions do not work. The company's website details the GPS system.
Tuesday, June 26, 2007
Web Presence
Here are some examples of how Missouri bail bond companies market their businesses to prospective clients in the digital age.
Rhonda Barnett Bail Bonds
Freedom/Bart Cooper Bail Bonds
Bad Boyz Bail Bonds®/William Yowell
AAA KayCee/Kent Hunter
American Western/Tony Clay
Did I overlook your company? Send me an email.
Rhonda Barnett Bail Bonds
Freedom/Bart Cooper Bail Bonds
Bad Boyz Bail Bonds®/William Yowell
AAA KayCee/Kent Hunter
American Western/Tony Clay
Did I overlook your company? Send me an email.
Saturday, June 23, 2007
Director Revokes Bail License
On June 21st, the Director of DIFP ordered the license of Ozell Scott be revoked. A disciplinary hearing was held earlier in the week. Scott did not appear. Department staff recommended that Scott’s license be revoked, and that recommendation was adopted by the Director in his order. In March, the Administrative Hearing Commission ruled that Scott was subject to discipline. His license was issued on August 28, 2001. On March 22, 2006, in the Circuit Court of St. Louis County, Scott entered an Alford plea to resisting arrest, a Class D felony, and pled guilty to unlawful use of a weapon, a Class D felony. The court suspended the imposition of sentence on the resisting arrest. On the weapons charge, the court found Scott guilty and sentenced him to three years in prison, but suspended the execution of sentence. On each count, the court placed him on probation for three years.
Thursday, June 21, 2007
Jurors Under the Influence
Newsflash-Judges don’t like it when you slug a few cocktails during the court’s lunch recess.
According to this report from the Kansas City Star, several jury pools were sent home after lunch on Monday, when it was reported that several jurors were observed drinking alcohol during the lunch break.
According to this report from the Kansas City Star, several jury pools were sent home after lunch on Monday, when it was reported that several jurors were observed drinking alcohol during the lunch break.
Bail Bond License Revoked by DIFP
The DIFP has ordered the inactive license of Gerald Cummings be revoked. The department made this ruling after a lengthy administrative and legal process. According to DIFP documents filed in the case, Cummings was found guilty of possession of a controlled substance and unlawful use of a weapon by carrying concealed in 2005. The court suspended imposition of sentence and placed Cummings on probation for five years. The DIFP filed a complaint seeking permission to discipline Cummings. The Administrative Hearing Commission ruled that the DIFP did not have cause to discipline Cummings. The DIFP appealed the AHC decision. Then the Cole County Circuit Court reversed the AHC and found in favor of the department. The DIFP held a disciplinary hearing on June 18th. Cummings did not attend. In the order revoking Cummings' license, Director Doug Ommen said, “A bail bond agent has quasi-police powers including the authority to take custody of defendants released on bail by the courts. The violation of law involving illegally carrying a concealed weapon reveals a disregard of the weapons laws and a significant risk to the courts, defendants released on bail, and the public-at-large in licensing Cummings. In applying this discretion, the Director has considered the history of the Cummings and the circumstances of the violations as described in the grand jury indictment and sentence and judgment."
Tuesday, June 19, 2007
Bondsmen Win Free Speech Appeal
Two bondsmen from Texas have won a case regarding free speech issues in their bail bond businesses. The case was heard by the 5th Circuit, US Court of Appeals.
In the metro areas of Texas, the bail bond business is regulated by county bail bond boards. Carl Pruett and Scott Martin, of Harris County, Texas, filed suit against the Harris County Bail Bond Board. The bondsmen challenged a Texas statute restricting solicitation of potential customers as a denial of their First Amendment rights.
The statute at issue prohibits contacting clients regarding an outstanding warrant, unless the subject of the warrant is a previous customer. Another section restricts the time of solicitation after arrest, prohibiting solicitation in person or by phone from 9:00 p.m. to 9:00 a.m., or within 24 hours after a person has been arrested, either with or without a warrant.
The US appellant court ruled that state statutes were unconstitutional. Full opinion here.
In the metro areas of Texas, the bail bond business is regulated by county bail bond boards. Carl Pruett and Scott Martin, of Harris County, Texas, filed suit against the Harris County Bail Bond Board. The bondsmen challenged a Texas statute restricting solicitation of potential customers as a denial of their First Amendment rights.
The statute at issue prohibits contacting clients regarding an outstanding warrant, unless the subject of the warrant is a previous customer. Another section restricts the time of solicitation after arrest, prohibiting solicitation in person or by phone from 9:00 p.m. to 9:00 a.m., or within 24 hours after a person has been arrested, either with or without a warrant.
The US appellant court ruled that state statutes were unconstitutional. Full opinion here.
Sunday, June 17, 2007
DIFP Files Petition in Christian Case
As expected, the DIFP has filed a petition for review of the Administrative Hearing Commission’s ruling on the Donald Christian case. The AHC said, “The Director of Insurance has no cause to discipline Donald Christian under 374.755 RSMO Supp. 2006, as set forth in the Director’s complaint because that version did not exist at the time Christian was convicted of a felony.”
Christian pled guilty to the felony of possession of a controlled substance in 1998. The Director licensed Christian as a bail bond agent in March 2005. The Director filed a complaint with the AHC in November 2006 because of his felony conviction. The commission said they had no authority to discipline a licensee on the basis of a version of the disciplinary statute that did not exist at the time that the conviction for a proposed disciplinary action. The AHC said that the previous version of the statute in effect at the time of Christian’s 1998 plea allowed discipline for the licensee, but the commission could not use that version because the Director did not rely on it in his complaint.
The last time the DIFP filed a petition for review was the Cummings case. In that ruling, the court reversed the AHC and said that the department can retrospectively apply current bail bond licensing statutes to determine the licensing eligibility of bondsmen.
The case was filed in Cole County Circuit Court, case number: 07AC-CC00528.
Christian pled guilty to the felony of possession of a controlled substance in 1998. The Director licensed Christian as a bail bond agent in March 2005. The Director filed a complaint with the AHC in November 2006 because of his felony conviction. The commission said they had no authority to discipline a licensee on the basis of a version of the disciplinary statute that did not exist at the time that the conviction for a proposed disciplinary action. The AHC said that the previous version of the statute in effect at the time of Christian’s 1998 plea allowed discipline for the licensee, but the commission could not use that version because the Director did not rely on it in his complaint.
The last time the DIFP filed a petition for review was the Cummings case. In that ruling, the court reversed the AHC and said that the department can retrospectively apply current bail bond licensing statutes to determine the licensing eligibility of bondsmen.
The case was filed in Cole County Circuit Court, case number: 07AC-CC00528.
Lawsuit Against DIFP Dismissed
L&C Investment et al, has dropped its lawsuit against the DIFP. L&C filed a motion to dismiss the lawsuit without prejudice and it was granted last week.
Original post here.
Original post here.
Friday, June 15, 2007
AHC Decision Summary
Since administrative hearings have become a hot topic, I have decided to compile a brief summary of all of the recent Administrative Hearing Commission (AHC) decisions concerning the licensing of bondsmen.
Wright-Decision 6/2006-“Miltonio Wright is subject to discipline for having pled guilty to a felony.” Wright was licensed by the Director as a bail bond agent. His license expired on January 2, 2006. In December 2005, the director filed a complaint to discipline Wright on the basis of a felony conviction. On April 12, 2002, in the Circuit Court of St. Louis County, Wright pled guilty to assault in the second degree, a Class C felony. The court suspended the execution of sentence and placed Wright on probation for five years. The commission said, “The facts in this case are somewhat confusing because the Director’s affidavit shows that Wright was licensed on September 21, 2005, and the license expired on January 2, 2006. The record does not explain why the Director would license someone for such a short term or whether there is some sort of error in these dates. We generally apply the substantive law in effect when the licensee committed the conduct that is the basis for discipline.[1] However, if Wright was not licensed until September 21, 2005, the prior version of the statute was no longer in effect at that time. A licensee could not be disciplined on the basis of a statute that no longer existed when he became licensed.” The AHC further stated, “It is clear that there is cause to discipline his license, regardless of which version of the statute applies. Therefore, we find cause to discipline Wright’s license.”
Cox-Decision date 9/2006- The AHC ruled that the Director of Insurance had cause to discipline James G. Cox for pleading guilty to the federal felony of conspiring to violate civil rights. Cox was licensed in May 2004. In July 2004, Cox pled guilty. The Director filed a complaint against Cox in November 2005. The AHC ruled that Cox was subject to discipline under the statutes in effect at the time the alleged offending conduct occurred.[1] The AHC rejected the DIFP’s argument for discipline under the current disciplinary statutes which went into effect in 2005.
Cummings-Decision date 11/2006-The AHC ruled that the Director of Insurance has not offered any evidence showing that Gerald L. Cummings is subject to discipline. Cummings had been licensed from 1994 and his license expired in November 2005. On February 23, 2005, the Circuit Court of Cass County, Missouri, found Cummings guilty of a Class C felony of possession of a controlled substance and a Class D felony of unlawful use of a weapon, which were alleged to occur in February 2002. On April 18, 2005, the court suspended the imposition of sentence and placed Cummings on probation for five years. The court records submitted do not indicate whether the court’s findings of guilt was after trial or after a plea of guilty or nolo contendere.
The AHC used the 2005 version of the bail bond statutes [374.755.1.(2) Final adjudication or a plea of guilty or nolo contendere within the past fifteen years in a criminal prosecution under any state or federal law for a felony or a crime involving moral turpitude whether or not a sentence is imposed, prior to issuance of license date.] and determined that the records submitted by the DIFP did not indicate there had been “final adjudication, a plea of guilty or nolo contendere” in the case, just that Cummings had been “found guilty.” Thus, the commission ruled that there was no cause to discipline under this statute. The Commission also spent considerable time discussing how to apply the 15 year cut-off date and the “[comma] prior to issuance of license date.” The commission decided to save that decision for another day.
This is where it gets confusing: The Department alleged that Cummings violated the 2005 version of 374.755.2(6) by violating “obligations imposed by the laws of this state.” Although the commission had just ruled on a 2005 statute in a previous section, in this section of the ruling the AHC said that it could not consider a current version of the statute because through the enactment of 1.170, RSMo 2000,[1] the General Assembly required the AHC to apply the version of the disciplinary statutes that were effective on the date of Cummings’ conduct in 2002. The commission ruled against the DIFP saying the version effective in 2002 restricted the violations to the provisions of the bail bond statutes.
Gillihan-Decision date 12/2006-The AHC ruled to deny Gillihan’s bail bond application on the basis that he is a convicted felon and had deceived the Department during the application process. The decision was based on the statutes in effect prior to the revisions of 2005.[1] Gillihan pled guilty in 1999 in US District Court to aiding and abetting the use of a firearm during a crime of violence. He filed a bail bond license application in 2004. He gave conflicting testimony between information given to the DIFP and sworn testimony given during his court case. Gillihan had admitted in court documents to knowingly buying stolen jewelry from his bail bond client. Gillihan also argued that the DIFP had licensed other felons. The AHC replied, “….disparate treatment does not necessarily entitle the more harshly treated applicant to relief.” Also noteworthy, the AHC said, “Supporting his clients’ criminal enterprises by purchasing their spoils weighs heavily against fitness for a bail bond license.”
Wright-Decision 6/2006-“Miltonio Wright is subject to discipline for having pled guilty to a felony.” Wright was licensed by the Director as a bail bond agent. His license expired on January 2, 2006. In December 2005, the director filed a complaint to discipline Wright on the basis of a felony conviction. On April 12, 2002, in the Circuit Court of St. Louis County, Wright pled guilty to assault in the second degree, a Class C felony. The court suspended the execution of sentence and placed Wright on probation for five years. The commission said, “The facts in this case are somewhat confusing because the Director’s affidavit shows that Wright was licensed on September 21, 2005, and the license expired on January 2, 2006. The record does not explain why the Director would license someone for such a short term or whether there is some sort of error in these dates. We generally apply the substantive law in effect when the licensee committed the conduct that is the basis for discipline.[1] However, if Wright was not licensed until September 21, 2005, the prior version of the statute was no longer in effect at that time. A licensee could not be disciplined on the basis of a statute that no longer existed when he became licensed.” The AHC further stated, “It is clear that there is cause to discipline his license, regardless of which version of the statute applies. Therefore, we find cause to discipline Wright’s license.”
Cox-Decision date 9/2006- The AHC ruled that the Director of Insurance had cause to discipline James G. Cox for pleading guilty to the federal felony of conspiring to violate civil rights. Cox was licensed in May 2004. In July 2004, Cox pled guilty. The Director filed a complaint against Cox in November 2005. The AHC ruled that Cox was subject to discipline under the statutes in effect at the time the alleged offending conduct occurred.[1] The AHC rejected the DIFP’s argument for discipline under the current disciplinary statutes which went into effect in 2005.
Cummings-Decision date 11/2006-The AHC ruled that the Director of Insurance has not offered any evidence showing that Gerald L. Cummings is subject to discipline. Cummings had been licensed from 1994 and his license expired in November 2005. On February 23, 2005, the Circuit Court of Cass County, Missouri, found Cummings guilty of a Class C felony of possession of a controlled substance and a Class D felony of unlawful use of a weapon, which were alleged to occur in February 2002. On April 18, 2005, the court suspended the imposition of sentence and placed Cummings on probation for five years. The court records submitted do not indicate whether the court’s findings of guilt was after trial or after a plea of guilty or nolo contendere.
The AHC used the 2005 version of the bail bond statutes [374.755.1.(2) Final adjudication or a plea of guilty or nolo contendere within the past fifteen years in a criminal prosecution under any state or federal law for a felony or a crime involving moral turpitude whether or not a sentence is imposed, prior to issuance of license date.] and determined that the records submitted by the DIFP did not indicate there had been “final adjudication, a plea of guilty or nolo contendere” in the case, just that Cummings had been “found guilty.” Thus, the commission ruled that there was no cause to discipline under this statute. The Commission also spent considerable time discussing how to apply the 15 year cut-off date and the “[comma] prior to issuance of license date.” The commission decided to save that decision for another day.
This is where it gets confusing: The Department alleged that Cummings violated the 2005 version of 374.755.2(6) by violating “obligations imposed by the laws of this state.” Although the commission had just ruled on a 2005 statute in a previous section, in this section of the ruling the AHC said that it could not consider a current version of the statute because through the enactment of 1.170, RSMo 2000,[1] the General Assembly required the AHC to apply the version of the disciplinary statutes that were effective on the date of Cummings’ conduct in 2002. The commission ruled against the DIFP saying the version effective in 2002 restricted the violations to the provisions of the bail bond statutes.
Gillihan-Decision date 12/2006-The AHC ruled to deny Gillihan’s bail bond application on the basis that he is a convicted felon and had deceived the Department during the application process. The decision was based on the statutes in effect prior to the revisions of 2005.[1] Gillihan pled guilty in 1999 in US District Court to aiding and abetting the use of a firearm during a crime of violence. He filed a bail bond license application in 2004. He gave conflicting testimony between information given to the DIFP and sworn testimony given during his court case. Gillihan had admitted in court documents to knowingly buying stolen jewelry from his bail bond client. Gillihan also argued that the DIFP had licensed other felons. The AHC replied, “….disparate treatment does not necessarily entitle the more harshly treated applicant to relief.” Also noteworthy, the AHC said, “Supporting his clients’ criminal enterprises by purchasing their spoils weighs heavily against fitness for a bail bond license.”
Franks-Order 12/2006- Franks pled guilty to possession of a controlled substance in February 2006 and was given a suspended imposition of sentence and five years probation. The DIFP filed a complaint with the AHC in May 2006. A joint motion was filed before the AHC by Gerald Franks, his attorney, and the DIFP which waived a formal hearing, stipulating facts, and consent for cause to discipline. The AHC signed the order in December 2006 finding cause to discipline Franks. A disciplinary hearing was held in January 2007. The DIFP ordered Franks license suspended for three days.
Scott-Decision 3/2007- “Ozell Scott is subject to discipline because he pled guilty to two felonies.” His license was issued on August 28, 2001 and he was licensed at the time of the hearing. On March 22, 2006, in the Circuit Court of St. Louis County, Scott entered an Alford plea to resisting arrest, a Class D felony, and pled guilty to unlawful use of a weapon, a Class D felony. The court suspended the imposition of sentence on the resisting arrest. On the weapons charge, the court found Scott guilty and sentenced him to three years in prison, but suspended the execution of sentence. On each count, the court placed him on probation for three years. The AHC record did not reference the date the alleged violation occurred as they had in other recent rulings. In its final statement the commission said, “One year ago, Scott pled guilty to two felonies. He is subject to discipline under § 374.755.1(2)." RSMO 2005
Cummings Case Appealed-Decision 4/2007-The DIFP appealed this decision to the Cole County Circuit Court. It its ruling, the court said, the retrospective application of the current disciplinary statutes does not run afoul with 1.170 RSMO. The court addressed the Commission’s reference to Comerio v Beatrice Foods saying the case referred to 1.170 RSMO was in reference to “acts done” pursuant to rights vested in a recently repealed statute. The court said that licensing laws confer no substantive rights and is a “privilege granted by the state.” The court further stated that the retrospective application of current licensing laws did not violate the Missouri Constitution because the application of the laws were procedural, did not affect the substantive rights of a party, and the legislature manifested a clear intent to do so. The court also held that “protecting the public health and welfare is a primary purpose of professional licensing statutes.” The court reversed the decision of the AHC on Cummings.
Christian-Decision 5/2007- “The Director of Insurance has no cause to discipline Donald Christian under 374.755 RSMO Supp. 2006, as set forth in the Director’s complaint because that version did not exist at the time Christian was convicted of a felony.” Christian pled guilty to the felony of possession of a controlled substance in 1998. The Director licensed Christian as a bail bond agent in March 2005. The Director filed a complaint with the AHC in November 2006 because of his felony conviction. The commission said they had no authority to discipline a licensee on the basis of a version of the disciplinary statute that did not exist at the time that the conviction for a proposed disciplinary action.[1] The AHC said that the previous version of the statute in effect at the time of Christian’s 1998 plea allowed discipline for the licensee but the commission could not use that version because the Director did not rely on it in his complaint. The ruling does not become final until June 22nd. The DIFP said they intend to appeal this ruling.
The DIFP has stayed the action of another complaint until the question is finally answered as to whether the retrospective application of current licensing statutes can be applied in disciplinary issues. The DIFP has said, in the Ament order, that it believes the Cummings decision by Cole County Court supports retrospective application of current statutes, while the more recent Christian decision by the AHC contradicts this court ruling.
Footnote:
[1] Section 1.170; Comerio v. Beatrice Foods Co., 595 F. Supp. 918, 920-21 (E.D. Mo. 1984).
Thursday, June 14, 2007
Unsatisfied Judgments-6/8/2007
The bail bond unsatisfied judgment list is compiled by the DIFP and the Missouri Office of State Courts Administrator. The following companies/general agents appear on the current list distributed 6/8/2007. The list is distributed to local courts via electronic means.
1) L&C Investment Group, president-Douglas Cheatham of Blue Springs, MO-1 judgment, $100,000
2) C&M Bonding, Inc.- president, Cody Ice of Houston, MO-8 judgments, $116,000
3) Afford Able Bail Bonds, Inc-no longer licensed company-1 judgment, $650.
The following agents/companies appear in the section listing pending disciplinary action: A Way Out Investments, Gerald Franks, Ozell Scott, A Aarons Bonding, and David McKinney.
1) L&C Investment Group, president-Douglas Cheatham of Blue Springs, MO-1 judgment, $100,000
2) C&M Bonding, Inc.- president, Cody Ice of Houston, MO-8 judgments, $116,000
3) Afford Able Bail Bonds, Inc-no longer licensed company-1 judgment, $650.
The following agents/companies appear in the section listing pending disciplinary action: A Way Out Investments, Gerald Franks, Ozell Scott, A Aarons Bonding, and David McKinney.
DIFP Files Complaint Regarding Company Assets
The DIFP has filed a disciplinary complaint with the Administrative Hearing Commission against Cynthia Saulmon and her company, Afford Able Bail Bonds, Inc. The DIFP alleges in its complaint that Saulmon committed fraud, deception, or misrepresentation by filing affidavits with the local court claiming real property they allege she did not own. According to the complaint, Saulmon had an investor who executed two quit claim deeds to Saulmon’s company for property he legally owned. Those deeds were recorded. On the same day, Saulmon executed two quit claim deeds back to the investor, but those deeds were not recorded. The Department alleges that when Saulmon executed the un-recorded quit claim deeds back to the investor, she no longer owned the properties. The DIFP alleges that the counties of Clay and Jackson relied on the properties which were listed in her general affidavit of qualification with the courts.
Additionally, the DIFP alleges that Saulmon is subject to discipline for writing a bad check for license renewal to the State of Kansas. The DIFP asserts that Saulmon is also subject to discipline in Missouri because she was disciplined in Kansas under a similar statute and her license was revoked.
The AHC hearing is scheduled for November 7, 2007.
Additionally, the DIFP alleges that Saulmon is subject to discipline for writing a bad check for license renewal to the State of Kansas. The DIFP asserts that Saulmon is also subject to discipline in Missouri because she was disciplined in Kansas under a similar statute and her license was revoked.
The AHC hearing is scheduled for November 7, 2007.
Wednesday, June 13, 2007
DIFP Issues Stay on Disciplinary Proceeding
The DIFP has issued a temporary stay on the disciplinary proceedings regarding the license of bondsman Nathan Ament. According to the Director’s order, Ament applied for license renewal several months ago. On the renewal application, Ament answered yes to a question asking if he had ever pled guilty to a felony. In 1993, Ament received a suspended imposition of sentence for a felony charge when he was 17 years old. The Consumer Affairs Division of the DIFP alleged cause for refusing Ament’s license for the felony SIS.
In its order, the Director stated that due to the continued conflict by the Administrative Hearing Commission regarding the retrospective application of qualification standards, the proceedings against Ament should be delayed until the question of law is answered.
The cases cited by the Director are recent rulings by the AHC and the courts, which are in conflict concerning whether the licensing laws can be applied retrospectively to licensees.
See:
DIFP vs. Christian
DIFP vs. Huddlestonsmith
DIFP vs. Cummings
In its order, the Director stated that due to the continued conflict by the Administrative Hearing Commission regarding the retrospective application of qualification standards, the proceedings against Ament should be delayed until the question of law is answered.
The cases cited by the Director are recent rulings by the AHC and the courts, which are in conflict concerning whether the licensing laws can be applied retrospectively to licensees.
See:
DIFP vs. Christian
DIFP vs. Huddlestonsmith
DIFP vs. Cummings
Tuesday, June 12, 2007
Bail Bond Fairness Act
US House Judiciary Committee Hears Testimony on Bill
Bail bond practices should be reformed in order to end unfair advantages for affluent federal defendants and restore the traditional role of bail agents, U.S. Rep. Robert Wexler, D-Delray Beach, testified at a US House Judiciary Committee hearing last Thursday. Wexler added that under current law, if a federal judge sets extra conditions for a bonded defendant's release, such as a curfew or drug screening, the agent must ensure not only that the defendant shows up for trial, but also that the defendant satisfy the extra conditions or risk forfeiting the bond.
The proposed Bail Bond Fairness Act of 2007, introduced by Wexler and U.S. Rep. Ric Keller, R-Orlando, would make bail agents responsible only for the appearance of defendants, not their behavior prior to the trial.
Also testifying in favor of the bill were PBUS president, Linda Braswell and Armondo Roche of Roche Surety, Inc. US District Judge Tommy Miller testified against the bill.
The Professional Bail Agents of the United States (PBUS) has supported this legislation for several years hoping to repeal the practice of making bail bond companies responsible for performance as well as appearance of defendants in the federal courts. An executive summary of the bill is posted here on the PBUS website.
Bail bond practices should be reformed in order to end unfair advantages for affluent federal defendants and restore the traditional role of bail agents, U.S. Rep. Robert Wexler, D-Delray Beach, testified at a US House Judiciary Committee hearing last Thursday. Wexler added that under current law, if a federal judge sets extra conditions for a bonded defendant's release, such as a curfew or drug screening, the agent must ensure not only that the defendant shows up for trial, but also that the defendant satisfy the extra conditions or risk forfeiting the bond.
The proposed Bail Bond Fairness Act of 2007, introduced by Wexler and U.S. Rep. Ric Keller, R-Orlando, would make bail agents responsible only for the appearance of defendants, not their behavior prior to the trial.
Also testifying in favor of the bill were PBUS president, Linda Braswell and Armondo Roche of Roche Surety, Inc. US District Judge Tommy Miller testified against the bill.
The Professional Bail Agents of the United States (PBUS) has supported this legislation for several years hoping to repeal the practice of making bail bond companies responsible for performance as well as appearance of defendants in the federal courts. An executive summary of the bill is posted here on the PBUS website.
AHC Rules No Cause to Discipline in Felony Case
Commissioner John Kopp of the Administrative Hearing Commission recently issued a ruling on DIFP complaint against bondsman Donald Christian. In his ruling, Kopp said that the DIFP has no cause to discipline Christian’s license.
The DIFP complaint asked for permission to discipline Christian because he is a convicted felon. According to the complaint, Christian pled guilty in 1998 to possession of a controlled substance. The decision finds that Christian was sentenced to three years in prison and was remanded to custody of the sheriff. Casenet seems to indicate that Christian was given a suspended execution of sentence and given five years probation and jail time on a related misdemeanor charges.
Christian was licensed in 2005, after the law was amended to include a 15 year clause for felony convictions. Initially, Christian was licensed by the DIFP despite his conviction. In November of last year, Christian was arrested in Lincoln County on new charges. Those charges were later dropped. After Christian’s arrest, the DIFP filed a complaint against Christian seeking discipline against him for his felony conviction in 1998.
In its ruling, the AHC said that that found no authority to discipline Christian on the basis of a version of the disciplinary statute that existed at the time Christian was licensed in 2005. The Commission ruled that they could only use the disciplinary statute that was in effect in 1998 when Christian pled guilty. The commission further stated that it could not use the pre-2005 version of statute because the DIFP did not rely on it in its complaint. The DIFP filed a motion for rehearing and leave to amend complaint on June 1st.
The DIFP complaint asked for permission to discipline Christian because he is a convicted felon. According to the complaint, Christian pled guilty in 1998 to possession of a controlled substance. The decision finds that Christian was sentenced to three years in prison and was remanded to custody of the sheriff. Casenet seems to indicate that Christian was given a suspended execution of sentence and given five years probation and jail time on a related misdemeanor charges.
Christian was licensed in 2005, after the law was amended to include a 15 year clause for felony convictions. Initially, Christian was licensed by the DIFP despite his conviction. In November of last year, Christian was arrested in Lincoln County on new charges. Those charges were later dropped. After Christian’s arrest, the DIFP filed a complaint against Christian seeking discipline against him for his felony conviction in 1998.
In its ruling, the AHC said that that found no authority to discipline Christian on the basis of a version of the disciplinary statute that existed at the time Christian was licensed in 2005. The Commission ruled that they could only use the disciplinary statute that was in effect in 1998 when Christian pled guilty. The commission further stated that it could not use the pre-2005 version of statute because the DIFP did not rely on it in its complaint. The DIFP filed a motion for rehearing and leave to amend complaint on June 1st.
DIFP Licensing Action on SIS Case
The DIFP has filed a complaint with the Administrative Hearing Commission against licensed agent Sha Ron Clark. Clark pled guilty to a felony in 1997 and was given a suspended imposition of sentence. The Department’s complaint alleges that Clark is disqualified as a Missouri agent because of the SIS. In part, the DIFP relied on the Cummings decision to support its position. (The Cole County Circuit Court ruled in the Cummings decision that the Department could retrospectively apply the current licensing laws when making licensing decisions.) The DIFP further alleges that Clark deceived the Department by answering “NO” to the question of whether he had ever pled guilty to a felony. In an interview with Clark, he explained that his attorney said that he could truthfully answer no to the question because he had never been convicted under the SIS and further stated he did not intend to deceive the Department. A copy of the complaint is posted on the DIFP website. Clark’s hearing is scheduled for October 5, 2007.
Thank You
Thank you for the many phone calls, notes, visits, and emails during the illness and passing of my father, Robert Greene.
He was a great man and will be missed by many.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
