tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-25155784.post5495559350847355515..comments2023-08-22T11:49:30.626-05:00Comments on Missouri Bondsman: Bail Bond Language Now in HB777Bail Informerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11708352522116548692noreply@blogger.comBlogger6125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-25155784.post-16843921486047294632009-11-20T21:43:34.532-06:002009-11-20T21:43:34.532-06:00I want to know how come there are Bonding Agents o...I want to know how come there are Bonding Agents out there letting their BONDEE'S WORK OFF there fee commitment? Is this not against the LAW? Also is it against the law for Bonding Company /Agents to obtain Property over the amount of what the client/Bondee owes the bonding company ???? Example like 150k home debt free for the payment of 15-20 thousand bond liability. With no return investment to Bondee or whom ever co signed or put property up for security .Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-25155784.post-50505047834186405182009-04-21T18:29:00.000-05:002009-04-21T18:29:00.000-05:00IF YOU CHOOSE !!!Change the LEE CLAUS but put back...IF YOU CHOOSE !!!Change the LEE CLAUS but put back the wording that has been the law since 1983Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-25155784.post-60153896223910648482009-04-18T11:59:00.000-05:002009-04-18T11:59:00.000-05:00Change the LEE CLAUS but put back the wording that...Change the LEE CLAUS but put back the wording that has been the law since 1983. NO CONVICTED FELONS belong in the industry. So, just put things back the way they were..........NO FELONY CONVICIONS! GET RID OF "PLED GUILTY TO" and change to CONVICTED OF a Felony. This would be fair.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-25155784.post-40876081640090504342009-04-06T08:37:00.000-05:002009-04-06T08:37:00.000-05:00Even if the statute were changed to allow individu...Even if the statute were changed to allow individuals who pleaded guilty to a felony, but were given an SIS (thus, no conviction), to be licensed as bail bond agents, Supreme Court Rule 33.17 STILL prohibits those individuals who pleaded guilty to a felony from being accepted as a surety and the DIFP likely won’t license such individuals.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-25155784.post-41883264467686585882009-04-04T10:37:00.000-05:002009-04-04T10:37:00.000-05:00Does everyone think it's fair to leave in the "ple...Does everyone think it's fair to leave in the "pled guilty to" phrase instead of the PRE-LEE CLAUS, convicted of a felony? Lee was a CONVICTED FELON!!!!!!! And NEVER should have had a BB License. Now, I have had a BB license for over 15 years but I pled guilty to a felony and received an S.I.S. back in 1990. It was a BS perjury charge that instead of fighting it in court and spending thousands of dollars, I took the S.I.S. Knowing that after the probation period the case would be CLOSED. Now you want to put everyone who "pled guilty to" a felony with COVICTED of a felony. That is just plain WRONG and NOT FAIR!!! Change the LEE CLAUS but put back the wording that has been the law since 1983. NO CONVICTED FELONS belong in the industry. So, just put things back the way they were..........NO FELONY CONVICIONS! GET RID OF "PLED GUILTY TO" and change to CONVICTED OF a Felony. This would be fair.Pled Guilty got S.I.S NOT A CONVICTIONnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-25155784.post-19417371962710467322009-04-03T22:21:00.000-05:002009-04-03T22:21:00.000-05:00I agree completely with the intent behind this pos...I agree completely with the intent behind this post. HB628 needs a major overhaul before it goes any further in the legislative process. <BR/><BR/>First, I must make it clear that I, too, support whole-heartedly the repeal of the Lee Clause. The reasons necessitating this are abundantly clear, and don't bear repeating.<BR/><BR/>Next, the references made to the points highlighted in the post are correct in the assessment that the language of the measure is vague and ambiguous, and if passed as written, would certainly result in unwanted consequences.<BR/><BR/>I refer most specifically to the last highlighted point, which states “(T)he general bail bond agent shall execute an assignment to the state of Missouri in the amount of five thousand dollars for EACH bail bond agent licensed under the authority of the general bail bond agent ON OR AFTER AUGUST 28, 2009.” <BR/><BR/>Regardless of the intent, this will most certainly be interpreted as a requirement for all generals to execute the proposed $5,000 assignment for ALL agents licensed before 08-28-2009, as well as those licensed after the effective date of the law. This would bear a catastrophic fiscal result for smaller agencies, and most certainly force many of them out of business. <BR/><BR/>Given the already horrific rate of unemployment, not only in Missouri but across the nation as a whole, I would think the bill's authors and sponsors would be inspired to carefully rethink this part of the measure before proceeding any further. <BR/><BR/>The measure should be reworded to read “(T)he general bail bond agent shall execute an assignment to the state of Missouri in the amount of five thousand dollars for EACH bail bond agent licensed under the authority of the general bail bond agent AFTER August 28, 2009". <BR/><BR/>This may possibly curb the growth rate of the number of service providers in the industry, which seemingly continues to increase beyond the calls for services rendered, thus moving to restore the balance of "supply and demand", so to speak, to a state that's more favorable to the overall economy of the industry, without the obvious detriment to the existing businesses.<BR/><BR/>Just thinkin' out loud...Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com