Showing posts with label Bail Bond Issues. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Bail Bond Issues. Show all posts
Friday, January 13, 2012
Racy Advertising – Industry Disgrace or Good Business Practice?
As reported in the Towson Patch (http://towson.patch.com/articles/racy-bail-bonds-sign-draws-ire), a Maryland bail bonds company has drawn criticism over its advertising. So what do you think? Is this free expression, or should the industry regulate certain types of ads in the name of professionalism?
Wednesday, March 31, 2010
Bondsman Seeks Help in Issue of Critical Importance
Editors note: Below is a letter I received from a bondsman in southwest Missouri seeking help in determining why bonds are disappearing in his/her circuit.
This is a sincere request that I believe is of the most critical importance. Our judge is the head of an organization of circuit judges in Mo. I am effectively out of business down here. It has spread to Barry County and will expand quickly to other circuits. It is kind of like an experiment. Other judges are experimenting in other ways for example one judge in Jasper County. Carthage is utilizing a cash bond in conjunction with a surety bond. I do not know why they are doing it, possibly for revenue? Perhaps for political reasons I’m not aware of? This is the beginning of the end for all of us and this issue needs to be addressed quickly and we have little time left. I assure you that if we don’t deal with it now, we will all be out of a reasonable living very soon. I mean all of us! Many who read this know of me. I’ve been a bondsman since 1998.
This is a sincere request that I believe is of the most critical importance. Our judge is the head of an organization of circuit judges in Mo. I am effectively out of business down here. It has spread to Barry County and will expand quickly to other circuits. It is kind of like an experiment. Other judges are experimenting in other ways for example one judge in Jasper County. Carthage is utilizing a cash bond in conjunction with a surety bond. I do not know why they are doing it, possibly for revenue? Perhaps for political reasons I’m not aware of? This is the beginning of the end for all of us and this issue needs to be addressed quickly and we have little time left. I assure you that if we don’t deal with it now, we will all be out of a reasonable living very soon. I mean all of us! Many who read this know of me. I’ve been a bondsman since 1998.
Friday, January 22, 2010
STL Company Suspended During Investigation
The St. Louis Post-Dispatch reported today that Block Bail Bonds has been prohibited from posting bonds in St. Louis by order of Judge Garvey. The action occurred after the Post-Dispatch reported that eight bonds had been changed to surety without a judge’s authorization. In all the cases, the Block company posted the bonds.
After the newspaper began investigating, the court also began looking into the matter and a complaint was filed with the FBI. Judges looking for answers have focused attention on Pretrial Release Commissioner Mary Catherine Moran, who is to advise them on what bond to set for criminal defendants. She does not have authority to set or change felony case bonds on her own. In the eight cases identified by the Post-Dispatch, judges initially ordered the accused to put up $1,000 to $50,000 in cash for release. A short time later, each was changed to shift terms from cash to secured, or a court official accepted a different bond amount from what was ordered, with no explanation. In every instance, there was no record in the public court files indicating who asked for the change.
In at least one of the cases investigated by the P-D, defendant Jimmy Gibson’s bond was changed from $50,000 cash to $50,000 surety. Judge Garvey said he never authorized the bond change although his name is on a bond reduction order. Mary Catherine Moran, who had signed Garvey's name to the document, told reporters that if he didn't authorize her to do it, then it must have been some other judge but she doesn't remember who.
Read the whole story here:
STL-PD:Blocks Suspended from Writing Bail
STL-PD:Cases Under Investigation
After the newspaper began investigating, the court also began looking into the matter and a complaint was filed with the FBI. Judges looking for answers have focused attention on Pretrial Release Commissioner Mary Catherine Moran, who is to advise them on what bond to set for criminal defendants. She does not have authority to set or change felony case bonds on her own. In the eight cases identified by the Post-Dispatch, judges initially ordered the accused to put up $1,000 to $50,000 in cash for release. A short time later, each was changed to shift terms from cash to secured, or a court official accepted a different bond amount from what was ordered, with no explanation. In every instance, there was no record in the public court files indicating who asked for the change.
In at least one of the cases investigated by the P-D, defendant Jimmy Gibson’s bond was changed from $50,000 cash to $50,000 surety. Judge Garvey said he never authorized the bond change although his name is on a bond reduction order. Mary Catherine Moran, who had signed Garvey's name to the document, told reporters that if he didn't authorize her to do it, then it must have been some other judge but she doesn't remember who.
Read the whole story here:
STL-PD:Blocks Suspended from Writing Bail
STL-PD:Cases Under Investigation
Wednesday, December 2, 2009
Open Letter-Joining Together as an Industry
The following is guest commentary submitted by General Agent Ben Hilton of Lebanon, MO.
This letter is my thoughts and beliefs alone; I do not speak for any bond association.
I am writing this to further the warning to the Bail Industry that the opponents to the bail system are increasing their agenda. I truly hope to get the General Agents attention and encourage each and every one of them to get involved in an effort to protect their lively hoods. Personally, I tend to get a little aggravated with the weaknesses of the bail bondsman industry in Missouri.
The Professional Surety Industry as a whole cannot support itself with the bonds that are available currently. The Courts are basically taking advantage of us. They need us and yet do not want us! They are abusing the Bail System; the Surety Bonds presently written today are the cases that have caused problems to the Courts in the past.
We are writing only an estimated one third of the bonds that we were posting a few years ago and our agent numbers have doubled. You don’t have to be Albert Einstein to do the math.
Part of the reasoning for the intentional abuse is due to the 2004 law, it upset the Judges, but they have some guilt in this. It was due to their own inconsistency in court procedures concerning bondsman, and they failed to listen to the Bondsman’s pleas. A very small group, based out of St. Louis, supported and helped pass the 2004 legislation, in the long run, it hurt us all.
Because of that law, the Courts will not give us the support that we need to survive….. maybe it is time to contact them and call a truce of some kind. Let’s show them more respect than we gave them in 2004.
Fewer Professional Surety Bonds are posted today, they were replaced with “Release of their own Recognizance”, “cash only”, “10% to the court Bonds”. These methods of pretrial release experience an extremely high rate of failing to appear in Court.
The Courts are aware of their own statistics, and they are knowingly allowing a large percentage of defendants free without proper assurances to guarantee their reappearance in Court. When a Judge sets a 10% to the court bond, they are deceiving the public. The public falsely believes the defendant is posting a bond ten times larger than the actual amount reported to the community.
It is generally understood that professional bondsman maintain a success rate for their clients appearing in court of at least 98%, and a past study by the F.B.I. reported that Bail Agents apprehended over 70% of all fugitives in the U.S.A.
The Courts in effect, are allowing thousands of open cases to remain in “failure to appear” status, some for years. Needless to say, the Prosecution is postponed while the cases are allowed to deteriorate. Worse, the victims are forced to wait for their own personal closure, and the public is again misled, this time, as to the amount of open cases the court truly has.
Why does it appear that the Courts are seemingly protecting the defendants of a criminal case, over society’s wishes? Using their own numbers, when the Court accepts bail bonds other than a Professional Surety bond, they are already aware that a strong percentage will not come back to court on their own accord.
The Courts should be required to return to utilizing the Professional Surety Pre-Trial release system; it enables the industry to be self supporting, saving the taxpayers millions of dollars. The small misdemeanor bonds had provided a major part of the funding needed to sustain this system, now the public is getting hit with unnecessary expenses. Missouri Law Enforcement Agencies cannot afford Warrant and Fugitive Bureaus to combat this problem.
When the Court accepts a 10% of a bond, they accept the bond from any person who wants to pay the fee and assume the role as surety. They can be a convicted felon, a government employee, a law enforcement officer, an elected official or a bankrupt individual. They can be the defendant’s attorney, who in turn files an assignment on the cash posted for their benefit. (Note this interesting statue: Nothing in sections 374.695 to 374.775 shall be construed to prohibit any person from posting or otherwise providing a bail bond in connection with any legal proceeding, provided that such person receives no fee, remuneration or consideration therefor.) Does this law prevent attorneys from filing an assignment on monies deposited with the court?
Are these bonds ever set to judgment? If so, who is responsible to pay the School System the forfeited funds?
The question is “who and what is the Surety”?
· The defendant?
· Is it the person paying the money and signing the paperwork to indemnify the full amount to the Court?
· Should the Court itself assume the responsibility, for ignoring State Law and accepting bonds from unqualified and unlicensed bondsman?
By what standards do the Courts use to qualify individuals to be able to post 10% to the Court Bonds, by State Statue, there are restrictions being ignored by the Courts. For example;
· 374.702. No person shall engage in the bail bond business as a bail bond agent or a general bail bond agent without being licensed as provided in sections 374.695 to 374.775.
· No judge, attorney, court official, law enforcement officer, state, county, or municipal employee who is either elected or appointed shall be licensed as a bail bond agent or a general bail bond agent.
· Any person who is convicted of a violation of this section is guilty of a class A misdemeanor. For any subsequent convictions, a person who is convicted of a violation of this section is guilty of a class D felony.
· 374.710. 1. Except as otherwise provided in sections 374.695 to 374.775, no person or other entity shall practice as a bail bond agent or general bail bond agent, as defined in section 374.700, in Missouri unless and until the department has issued to him or her a license, to be renewed every two years as hereinafter provided, to practice as a bail bond agent or general bail bond agent.
Just how long will these types of bonds continue? Maybe, the Industry should attempt to get an official Opinion from the Missouri Attorney General!
My personal request to the Department of Insurance’s appointed Committee is the same as I recently wrote, please don’t try to make cleaning up the Bail Industry the priority, please help put surety bonds back on our plate, then together we can fix the problems. The precedence should be;
1. Pass a law allowing Surety Bonds posted will act the same a Cash Bond.
2. Slow down or stop 10% to the Court Bonds.
3. All General Agents should qualify their assets to the Courts, stop the Ten Thousand dollar General, then a lot of the Bail Agents who are causing problems will follow them.
Everyone should agree that General Agents are totally responsible for the professional bail industry in Missouri therefore they should be answerable for the defense of the bail bond profession in Missouri.
Bail agents are an intricate and necessary element of the bail industry, but because of the wasted efforts and great expense in the past to organize them into a unified voice, via a professional bondsman organization, I personally have concluded that the following;
A single Bondsman Association in Missouri is the only answer to save the Industry. We must unify the agents together and become a recognized voice for the industry. The General Agents need to form an Association of General Bail Agents with the bail agents as a sub-group.
If we do not join together now, the professional bail industry in Missouri is over as we know it.
Ben Hilton, GBA
P.O. Box 1857
291 N. Adams Street
Lebanon, MO 65536
417-532-9722
This letter is my thoughts and beliefs alone; I do not speak for any bond association.
I am writing this to further the warning to the Bail Industry that the opponents to the bail system are increasing their agenda. I truly hope to get the General Agents attention and encourage each and every one of them to get involved in an effort to protect their lively hoods. Personally, I tend to get a little aggravated with the weaknesses of the bail bondsman industry in Missouri.
The Professional Surety Industry as a whole cannot support itself with the bonds that are available currently. The Courts are basically taking advantage of us. They need us and yet do not want us! They are abusing the Bail System; the Surety Bonds presently written today are the cases that have caused problems to the Courts in the past.
We are writing only an estimated one third of the bonds that we were posting a few years ago and our agent numbers have doubled. You don’t have to be Albert Einstein to do the math.
Part of the reasoning for the intentional abuse is due to the 2004 law, it upset the Judges, but they have some guilt in this. It was due to their own inconsistency in court procedures concerning bondsman, and they failed to listen to the Bondsman’s pleas. A very small group, based out of St. Louis, supported and helped pass the 2004 legislation, in the long run, it hurt us all.
Because of that law, the Courts will not give us the support that we need to survive….. maybe it is time to contact them and call a truce of some kind. Let’s show them more respect than we gave them in 2004.
Fewer Professional Surety Bonds are posted today, they were replaced with “Release of their own Recognizance”, “cash only”, “10% to the court Bonds”. These methods of pretrial release experience an extremely high rate of failing to appear in Court.
The Courts are aware of their own statistics, and they are knowingly allowing a large percentage of defendants free without proper assurances to guarantee their reappearance in Court. When a Judge sets a 10% to the court bond, they are deceiving the public. The public falsely believes the defendant is posting a bond ten times larger than the actual amount reported to the community.
It is generally understood that professional bondsman maintain a success rate for their clients appearing in court of at least 98%, and a past study by the F.B.I. reported that Bail Agents apprehended over 70% of all fugitives in the U.S.A.
The Courts in effect, are allowing thousands of open cases to remain in “failure to appear” status, some for years. Needless to say, the Prosecution is postponed while the cases are allowed to deteriorate. Worse, the victims are forced to wait for their own personal closure, and the public is again misled, this time, as to the amount of open cases the court truly has.
Why does it appear that the Courts are seemingly protecting the defendants of a criminal case, over society’s wishes? Using their own numbers, when the Court accepts bail bonds other than a Professional Surety bond, they are already aware that a strong percentage will not come back to court on their own accord.
The Courts should be required to return to utilizing the Professional Surety Pre-Trial release system; it enables the industry to be self supporting, saving the taxpayers millions of dollars. The small misdemeanor bonds had provided a major part of the funding needed to sustain this system, now the public is getting hit with unnecessary expenses. Missouri Law Enforcement Agencies cannot afford Warrant and Fugitive Bureaus to combat this problem.
When the Court accepts a 10% of a bond, they accept the bond from any person who wants to pay the fee and assume the role as surety. They can be a convicted felon, a government employee, a law enforcement officer, an elected official or a bankrupt individual. They can be the defendant’s attorney, who in turn files an assignment on the cash posted for their benefit. (Note this interesting statue: Nothing in sections 374.695 to 374.775 shall be construed to prohibit any person from posting or otherwise providing a bail bond in connection with any legal proceeding, provided that such person receives no fee, remuneration or consideration therefor.) Does this law prevent attorneys from filing an assignment on monies deposited with the court?
Are these bonds ever set to judgment? If so, who is responsible to pay the School System the forfeited funds?
The question is “who and what is the Surety”?
· The defendant?
· Is it the person paying the money and signing the paperwork to indemnify the full amount to the Court?
· Should the Court itself assume the responsibility, for ignoring State Law and accepting bonds from unqualified and unlicensed bondsman?
By what standards do the Courts use to qualify individuals to be able to post 10% to the Court Bonds, by State Statue, there are restrictions being ignored by the Courts. For example;
· 374.702. No person shall engage in the bail bond business as a bail bond agent or a general bail bond agent without being licensed as provided in sections 374.695 to 374.775.
· No judge, attorney, court official, law enforcement officer, state, county, or municipal employee who is either elected or appointed shall be licensed as a bail bond agent or a general bail bond agent.
· Any person who is convicted of a violation of this section is guilty of a class A misdemeanor. For any subsequent convictions, a person who is convicted of a violation of this section is guilty of a class D felony.
· 374.710. 1. Except as otherwise provided in sections 374.695 to 374.775, no person or other entity shall practice as a bail bond agent or general bail bond agent, as defined in section 374.700, in Missouri unless and until the department has issued to him or her a license, to be renewed every two years as hereinafter provided, to practice as a bail bond agent or general bail bond agent.
Just how long will these types of bonds continue? Maybe, the Industry should attempt to get an official Opinion from the Missouri Attorney General!
My personal request to the Department of Insurance’s appointed Committee is the same as I recently wrote, please don’t try to make cleaning up the Bail Industry the priority, please help put surety bonds back on our plate, then together we can fix the problems. The precedence should be;
1. Pass a law allowing Surety Bonds posted will act the same a Cash Bond.
2. Slow down or stop 10% to the Court Bonds.
3. All General Agents should qualify their assets to the Courts, stop the Ten Thousand dollar General, then a lot of the Bail Agents who are causing problems will follow them.
Everyone should agree that General Agents are totally responsible for the professional bail industry in Missouri therefore they should be answerable for the defense of the bail bond profession in Missouri.
Bail agents are an intricate and necessary element of the bail industry, but because of the wasted efforts and great expense in the past to organize them into a unified voice, via a professional bondsman organization, I personally have concluded that the following;
A single Bondsman Association in Missouri is the only answer to save the Industry. We must unify the agents together and become a recognized voice for the industry. The General Agents need to form an Association of General Bail Agents with the bail agents as a sub-group.
If we do not join together now, the professional bail industry in Missouri is over as we know it.
Ben Hilton, GBA
P.O. Box 1857
291 N. Adams Street
Lebanon, MO 65536
417-532-9722
Saturday, November 7, 2009
Public Hearing on Bail to be Held in Jeff City
The following is a press release issued by the DIFP regarding the fourth and final public hearing on the bail bond industry in Missouri.
The state Insurance Department has scheduled four public hearings to review Missouri’s laws and regulations governing the state’s bail bond industry.
John M. Huff, director of the Missouri Department of Insurance, Financial Institutions and Professional Registration (DIFP), has appointed a 15-member committee to assist the department in the review process. The committee consists of members of the Missouri legislature, law enforcement, the bail bond industry and the Missouri court system.
The fourth public hearing will be held in Jefferson City on Nov. 10 from 9 a.m. to noon at the Capitol, House Hearing room #7.
Members of the public and the bail bond industry are invited to speak at the hearing. Please call the DIFP in advance to arrange a speaking time, 573-751-2562.
The state Insurance Department has scheduled four public hearings to review Missouri’s laws and regulations governing the state’s bail bond industry.
John M. Huff, director of the Missouri Department of Insurance, Financial Institutions and Professional Registration (DIFP), has appointed a 15-member committee to assist the department in the review process. The committee consists of members of the Missouri legislature, law enforcement, the bail bond industry and the Missouri court system.
The fourth public hearing will be held in Jefferson City on Nov. 10 from 9 a.m. to noon at the Capitol, House Hearing room #7.
Members of the public and the bail bond industry are invited to speak at the hearing. Please call the DIFP in advance to arrange a speaking time, 573-751-2562.
Tuesday, October 27, 2009
Next Public Hearing to be Held in Springfield
The following is a press release by the DIFP announcing the public hearing scheduled for next Tuesday in Springfield:
The state Insurance Department has scheduled four public hearings to review Missouri's laws and regulations governing the state's bail bond industry.
John M. Huff, director of the Missouri Department of Insurance, Financial Institutions and Professional Registration (DIFP), has appointed a 15-member committee to assist the department in the review process. The committee consists of members of the Missouri legislature, law enforcement, the bail bond industry and the Missouri court system.
The third public hearing will be held in Springfield on Nov. 3 from 9 a.m. to noon at the Missouri Department of Conservation building located at 2630 N Mayfair, Springfield.
Members of the public and the bail bond industry are invited to speak at the hearing. Please call the DIFP in advance to arrange a speaking time, 573-751-2562. After hearing public testimony, the committee will meet from noon to 2 p.m.
The last of the four public hearings is scheduled for:
Capitol Hearing room #7 - Jefferson City, Tuesday Nov. 10
House Bill 577, passed by Missouri lawmakers and signed by Gov. Nixon, requires the DIFP to submit survey results to the legislature by Jan. 6, 2010.
The state Insurance Department has scheduled four public hearings to review Missouri's laws and regulations governing the state's bail bond industry.
John M. Huff, director of the Missouri Department of Insurance, Financial Institutions and Professional Registration (DIFP), has appointed a 15-member committee to assist the department in the review process. The committee consists of members of the Missouri legislature, law enforcement, the bail bond industry and the Missouri court system.
The third public hearing will be held in Springfield on Nov. 3 from 9 a.m. to noon at the Missouri Department of Conservation building located at 2630 N Mayfair, Springfield.
Members of the public and the bail bond industry are invited to speak at the hearing. Please call the DIFP in advance to arrange a speaking time, 573-751-2562. After hearing public testimony, the committee will meet from noon to 2 p.m.
The last of the four public hearings is scheduled for:
Capitol Hearing room #7 - Jefferson City, Tuesday Nov. 10
House Bill 577, passed by Missouri lawmakers and signed by Gov. Nixon, requires the DIFP to submit survey results to the legislature by Jan. 6, 2010.
Sunday, October 25, 2009
Study Committee to Meet in St. Louis
The next public hearing of the bail bond industry study committee will be held this Tuesday, October 27, 2009, at the MODOT building located at 1590 Woodlake Drive, Chesterfield, MO. The hearings will be conducted from 9:00 am to 12:00 pm.
The DIFP requests that individuals wishing to testify call 573-751-2562 at least one day prior to hearing. Written testimony and comments will also be accepted.
The DIFP requests that individuals wishing to testify call 573-751-2562 at least one day prior to hearing. Written testimony and comments will also be accepted.
Tuesday, October 13, 2009
Bail Industry Study Committee to Hold Public Hearings
The bail bond industry study committee (required by law passed last year) will hold public hearings at the following locations.
October 20, 2009 - 600 NE Colburn Rd, Lee Summit, MO (MODOT Building)
October 27, 2009 - 1590 Woodlake Drive, Chesterfield, MO (MODOT Building)
November 3, 2009 - 2630 N. Mayfair, Springfield, MO (Conservation Southwest Regional Office)
November 10, 2009 - Jefferson City, MO (Capitol)
Hearings will be conducted from 9:00-12:00.
The DIFP requests that individuals wishing to testify call 573-751-2562 to schedule a time and location at least one day prior to hearing. Written testimony and comments will also be accepted.
To receive all information regarding the work of the committee, you can join the list-serve sponsored by the DIFP at this address: http://www.difp.mo.gov/active.php Scroll down to "Bail Bond Study" and enter your email address.
October 20, 2009 - 600 NE Colburn Rd, Lee Summit, MO (MODOT Building)
October 27, 2009 - 1590 Woodlake Drive, Chesterfield, MO (MODOT Building)
November 3, 2009 - 2630 N. Mayfair, Springfield, MO (Conservation Southwest Regional Office)
November 10, 2009 - Jefferson City, MO (Capitol)
Hearings will be conducted from 9:00-12:00.
The DIFP requests that individuals wishing to testify call 573-751-2562 to schedule a time and location at least one day prior to hearing. Written testimony and comments will also be accepted.
To receive all information regarding the work of the committee, you can join the list-serve sponsored by the DIFP at this address: http://www.difp.mo.gov/active.php Scroll down to "Bail Bond Study" and enter your email address.
Thursday, July 30, 2009
Pretrial Wants to Abolish Private Bail
Below is a video clip taken from the NAPSA (National Association of Pretrial Services Agencies) website advertising its annual conference this year called “Game Plan for Change.” The video reviews key speakers at last year’s conference. Rep. Fred Kessler of Wisconsin was applauded when he said, “We can abolish professional bail bonding in the United States.”
PBUS (Professional Bail Agents of the United States) recently alerted its members saying: “…The National Association of Counties (NACo) and the Pre-Trial Justice Institute (PJI) have formed an alliance, funded by the Bureau of Justice Assistance, the U.S. Department of Justice to complete a no-cost technical analysis of current jail population. You know that they will find or create issues of jail overcrowding and that will lead them to recommend the creation of or expansion of a PTR program. (PBUS interpretation: GET RID OF THE BAIL AGENT!)”
PBUS (Professional Bail Agents of the United States) recently alerted its members saying: “…The National Association of Counties (NACo) and the Pre-Trial Justice Institute (PJI) have formed an alliance, funded by the Bureau of Justice Assistance, the U.S. Department of Justice to complete a no-cost technical analysis of current jail population. You know that they will find or create issues of jail overcrowding and that will lead them to recommend the creation of or expansion of a PTR program. (PBUS interpretation: GET RID OF THE BAIL AGENT!)”
Tuesday, June 23, 2009
AR-Judges Ban Credit Bonds, Use 10% Bonds
The issue of credit bonding has been ongoing discussion in Arkansas for several years. Yesterday, the Arkansas Democrat Gazette reported that the issue has now prompted a federal lawsuit and crippled the Saline County bail bond businesses.
Every judge in Saline County signed a court order earlier this year banning credit bonding. Then earlier this month, the sheriff's office began collecting 10% cash-bonds, (called sheriff’s bonds). The 10% bonds provide a new revenue source for the county because Arkansas law allows the county to keep 10% of the amount collected as a processing fee.
Bondsman John Chism has filed the federal lawsuit against every judge in the county, the prosecutor, the sheriff and the jail chief, saying the ban and the use of sheriff's bonds on felony cases have effectively stripped his company of its license without due process, resulting in a civil-rights violation.
Financing the bail bond premium has long divided bail-bond companies and the legal community. Judges, lawmen and prosecutors often argue that suspects charged with serious crimes are sprung from jail after paying too little. There is also debate about whether state law forbids credit bonding. Arkansas law says the "premium or compensation for giving bond or depositing money or real property as bail on any bond shall be ten percent (10%), except that the amount may be rounded up to the nearest five dollar amount." The law is silent on when the premium is required to be collected.
Upset by financed premium, Pulaski County deputy prosecutor Barbara Mariani subpoenaed records to find out how three particular defendants got out of jail despite hefty bails. In 2006, a convicted killer awaiting trial on a new murder charge was freed on a $250,000 bond. She wondered how Armon Houston, who was assigned a public defender after claiming he was indigent, came up with $25,000 - the 10 percent premium. Mariani learned Houston was freed after someone posted just $3,000 bond. Records didn't indicate that the remaining $22,000 was ever paid, Mariani said. "There's no contract, no monthly payments," she said about the bail-bond records she's reviewed. So even though some companies say they are arranging financing, they appear to be just discounting the bond. That's illegal, Mariani said. This issue has prompted Mariani to ask judges on more serious cases to require the full 10 percent premium upfront.
Every judge in Saline County signed a court order earlier this year banning credit bonding. Then earlier this month, the sheriff's office began collecting 10% cash-bonds, (called sheriff’s bonds). The 10% bonds provide a new revenue source for the county because Arkansas law allows the county to keep 10% of the amount collected as a processing fee.
Bondsman John Chism has filed the federal lawsuit against every judge in the county, the prosecutor, the sheriff and the jail chief, saying the ban and the use of sheriff's bonds on felony cases have effectively stripped his company of its license without due process, resulting in a civil-rights violation.
Financing the bail bond premium has long divided bail-bond companies and the legal community. Judges, lawmen and prosecutors often argue that suspects charged with serious crimes are sprung from jail after paying too little. There is also debate about whether state law forbids credit bonding. Arkansas law says the "premium or compensation for giving bond or depositing money or real property as bail on any bond shall be ten percent (10%), except that the amount may be rounded up to the nearest five dollar amount." The law is silent on when the premium is required to be collected.
Upset by financed premium, Pulaski County deputy prosecutor Barbara Mariani subpoenaed records to find out how three particular defendants got out of jail despite hefty bails. In 2006, a convicted killer awaiting trial on a new murder charge was freed on a $250,000 bond. She wondered how Armon Houston, who was assigned a public defender after claiming he was indigent, came up with $25,000 - the 10 percent premium. Mariani learned Houston was freed after someone posted just $3,000 bond. Records didn't indicate that the remaining $22,000 was ever paid, Mariani said. "There's no contract, no monthly payments," she said about the bail-bond records she's reviewed. So even though some companies say they are arranging financing, they appear to be just discounting the bond. That's illegal, Mariani said. This issue has prompted Mariani to ask judges on more serious cases to require the full 10 percent premium upfront.
Tuesday, June 16, 2009
Fox 2 Airs Story on Felons in the Industry
Fox 2 , St. Louis, recently aired another story concerning the bail bond industry in Missouri. The reporter interviewed Jerry Cox and former MO Representative Bob Behnen about their roles in passing the Lee Clause, which allows felons who have been convicted more than 15 years ago to be licensed as bail bond agents.
Cox and Lee Jackson were both members of MPBBA, the organization who lobbied for the felon provision. Ten months after the bill became law, Jackson tried to murder Cox. The reporter asked Cox, "The fact that somebody who sat on the board with you ended up trying to kill you - doesn't that prove these guys have no business in the industry?" Gerald Cox answered, "That's kind of the exception of the of the - the exception if you will. I did oppose that, the particular section of the bill. I was out voted."
Regarding the licensing of convicted felons, Behnen said, "We have a lot of people in prisons and when these people get out do we want to create another obstacle for them to get a job to get a good paying job, where they can provide for their families and hopefully stay away from a life of crime."
Cox and Lee Jackson were both members of MPBBA, the organization who lobbied for the felon provision. Ten months after the bill became law, Jackson tried to murder Cox. The reporter asked Cox, "The fact that somebody who sat on the board with you ended up trying to kill you - doesn't that prove these guys have no business in the industry?" Gerald Cox answered, "That's kind of the exception of the of the - the exception if you will. I did oppose that, the particular section of the bill. I was out voted."
Regarding the licensing of convicted felons, Behnen said, "We have a lot of people in prisons and when these people get out do we want to create another obstacle for them to get a job to get a good paying job, where they can provide for their families and hopefully stay away from a life of crime."
Thursday, April 9, 2009
Bounty Hunters are Not State Actors
The US Court of Appeals, Tenth District, recently handed down a decision regarding bounty hunters. The court was asked to rule on whether bounty hunters constitute state actors for purposes of the Fourth Amendment when they conduct a search in the course of seeking out a bail jumper. The bounty hunters apprehended a fugitive at the home of his girlfriend. During the apprehension, the bounty hunters noticed a loaded firearm, meth, and drug paraphernalia. The bounty hunters then called the police and the fugitive was additionally charged with the drugs and firearm. On appeal, the defendant claimed that the search of his girlfriend’s home was not a legal search, because the bounty hunters were state actors. The appeals court ruled that the search and discovery of the weapon and drugs was not a state action. The court applied a two-prong test to determine if the bounty hunters were state actors:
1) Whether the government knew of the bounty hunter’s conduct
2) Whether the party performing the search intended to assist law enforcement efforts or to further his own ends
The court ruled that “the police in no way instigated, orchestrated or encouraged the search” and only knew about the search after the fact and the bounty hunters were there on a legitimate, independent action and not to assist a law enforcement effort.
1) Whether the government knew of the bounty hunter’s conduct
2) Whether the party performing the search intended to assist law enforcement efforts or to further his own ends
The court ruled that “the police in no way instigated, orchestrated or encouraged the search” and only knew about the search after the fact and the bounty hunters were there on a legitimate, independent action and not to assist a law enforcement effort.
Friday, April 3, 2009
Consultant Says Bondsmen are Parasites
The Springfield News-Leader recently published a follow-up report on the county’s backlog of outstanding warrants and the proposed termination of the book-and-release program. As previously discussed, Greene County has a backlog of 19,000 outstanding warrants. Several proposals have been suggested to address this problem. The book-and-release policy, enacted in 2005, allows some suspects to be booked and then released pending application of warrants. Critics of the program say that outstanding warrants have skyrocketed and criminals are released before the ink can dry on their arrest reports.
Greene County retained a consultant from California, Alan Kalmanoff, to review the county’s judicial system. While Judge Conklin suggested the suspension of the book-and-release policy which allows low-level offenders to leave the jail after they are booked without posting bonds, Kalmanoff does not think restoring these bonds in Greene County is the answer to the problem. He described bondsmen as "a parasite on the county's criminal justice system. They get nobody to come to court that wouldn't come anyway, and they catch virtually nobody that doesn't come to court."
Bondsman Rick Arnall was interviewed by the reporter and said that he disagreed with Kalmanoff’s assessment and said, "It's all about accountability. If you've got this person out on bond, our people are gonna be there.” He also added that when the defendant does not show up, bondsmen do go find them and return them to the court’s jurisdiction.
In a previous article, Judge Conklin said that bondsmen provide a needed accountability -- ensuring the majority of their customers meet court dates and don't abscond --that outweighs other concerns. "The bond system is not perfect," he said...."But they provide a service to the community at no cost for taxpayers."
Previous Post
Greene Co. Bond Policy Reconsidered
Greene County retained a consultant from California, Alan Kalmanoff, to review the county’s judicial system. While Judge Conklin suggested the suspension of the book-and-release policy which allows low-level offenders to leave the jail after they are booked without posting bonds, Kalmanoff does not think restoring these bonds in Greene County is the answer to the problem. He described bondsmen as "a parasite on the county's criminal justice system. They get nobody to come to court that wouldn't come anyway, and they catch virtually nobody that doesn't come to court."
Bondsman Rick Arnall was interviewed by the reporter and said that he disagreed with Kalmanoff’s assessment and said, "It's all about accountability. If you've got this person out on bond, our people are gonna be there.” He also added that when the defendant does not show up, bondsmen do go find them and return them to the court’s jurisdiction.
In a previous article, Judge Conklin said that bondsmen provide a needed accountability -- ensuring the majority of their customers meet court dates and don't abscond --that outweighs other concerns. "The bond system is not perfect," he said...."But they provide a service to the community at no cost for taxpayers."
Previous Post
Greene Co. Bond Policy Reconsidered
Friday, March 13, 2009
Fox 2 Airs Story on Bail Industry in MO
Channel 2-Fox News aired a story last night concerning the bail bond industry in Missouri. The report featured a fugitive recovery agent kicking in a door to look for a fugitive. Later, the report looked into the Lee Clause and its effects on the industry. The report detailed the MPBBA’s role in drafting the 15-year felon provision in legislation to allow Lee Jackson to be eligible to become a general bail bond agent The report stated “But the State of Missouri trusted violent felon Virgil Lee Jackson after he pushed for a new law five years ago. It allowed felons to be bail bondsmen. The felony just has to be older than 15 years and Jackson's offenses including two burglaries, unlawful use of a weapon and a first degree robbery were all more than 20 years ago.…So why did Missouri Legislators listen to a felon like Jackson? At the time, he was part of the Missouri Professional Bail Bond Association. According to MO records, the Association, and its members, contributed at least $1,300 to the bill's sponsor - former Missouri Representative Robert Behnen. The new law is even known today as the Lee clause -- named after Lee Jackson.”
Thursday, March 12, 2009
News from Other States
AZ-Channel 5-KPHO of Phoenix, reported that bondsman Dana Schnell set up a successful sting operation to "con" a con man into custody after he failed to appear on the $70,000 bond posted by Schnell. The fugitive is accused of cheating more than 20 people out of hundreds of thousands of dollars in a mortgage scam.
Schnell convinced fugitive, Jeffrey Herald, that he was an old family friend and was willing to loan Herald some much needed cash to go to Las Vegas. Schnell agreed to meet Herald at his daughter's apartment then drive to the bank to hand over the cash. When they stepped out of the car authorities moved in and arrested Herald. Scnell told reporters, "When we got out and detectives pulled up his face expression was unreal. I'm sure it is the same expression as other people he conned when they found out they were not getting money."
NC- WRAL, in Raleigh, North Carolina, hosted a segment in which viewers could ask questions of Mark Cartret, president of the North Carolina Bail Agents Association. Some of the submitted questions included: How do bonds work? Is your job really like on TV? Can you carry a gun? Read the full interview here.
FL-The Orlando Business Journal reports that Florida bondsmen are upset that about $3 billion of the $787 billion federal stimulus bill will be spent on expanding the pretrial release system. “You have a private industry in Florida that doesn’t cost taxpayers a dime, and you’re going to replace that with a government-run program using tax dollars?” said Mike Snapp, owner of Mike Snapp Bail Bonds in Orlando. Debbie Jallad, president of Orlando-based Accredited Surety & Casualty Co. Inc., said dedicating more funds to government pretrial release programs is a poor use of taxpayer dollars when the budgets of other programs are being cut.
MN-Two Minnesota bondsmen have been charged with felony burglary and four related misdemeanor offenses for entering a home and handcuffing the wrong person. According to a report from the Rochester Post-Bulletin, the two bondsmen knocked on the door and handcuffed the man after he opened the door. According to police, the bondsmen were looking for a 26-year-old black man; however, the man they handcuffed was a 57-year-old white man. The bondsmen released the man after neighbors confirmed that they had the wrong man and the man they were looking for had never lived in the apartment.
CO-News Channel 7, in Denver, reports that a bondsman was arrested for criminal trespass for kicking in the door of a reported bond co-signer. According to the report, police say the apartment is leased by a co-signer of a bond, but that co-signer doesn't live with the wanted parties and that co-signer was not home at the time of the incident.
Schnell convinced fugitive, Jeffrey Herald, that he was an old family friend and was willing to loan Herald some much needed cash to go to Las Vegas. Schnell agreed to meet Herald at his daughter's apartment then drive to the bank to hand over the cash. When they stepped out of the car authorities moved in and arrested Herald. Scnell told reporters, "When we got out and detectives pulled up his face expression was unreal. I'm sure it is the same expression as other people he conned when they found out they were not getting money."
NC- WRAL, in Raleigh, North Carolina, hosted a segment in which viewers could ask questions of Mark Cartret, president of the North Carolina Bail Agents Association. Some of the submitted questions included: How do bonds work? Is your job really like on TV? Can you carry a gun? Read the full interview here.
FL-The Orlando Business Journal reports that Florida bondsmen are upset that about $3 billion of the $787 billion federal stimulus bill will be spent on expanding the pretrial release system. “You have a private industry in Florida that doesn’t cost taxpayers a dime, and you’re going to replace that with a government-run program using tax dollars?” said Mike Snapp, owner of Mike Snapp Bail Bonds in Orlando. Debbie Jallad, president of Orlando-based Accredited Surety & Casualty Co. Inc., said dedicating more funds to government pretrial release programs is a poor use of taxpayer dollars when the budgets of other programs are being cut.
MN-Two Minnesota bondsmen have been charged with felony burglary and four related misdemeanor offenses for entering a home and handcuffing the wrong person. According to a report from the Rochester Post-Bulletin, the two bondsmen knocked on the door and handcuffed the man after he opened the door. According to police, the bondsmen were looking for a 26-year-old black man; however, the man they handcuffed was a 57-year-old white man. The bondsmen released the man after neighbors confirmed that they had the wrong man and the man they were looking for had never lived in the apartment.
CO-News Channel 7, in Denver, reports that a bondsman was arrested for criminal trespass for kicking in the door of a reported bond co-signer. According to the report, police say the apartment is leased by a co-signer of a bond, but that co-signer doesn't live with the wanted parties and that co-signer was not home at the time of the incident.
Friday, February 20, 2009
Greene Co. Bond Policy Reconsidered
The Springfield News-Leader reports that Greene County justice officials are considering repealing a four-year-old policy that has become known as book-and-release. The policy, enacted in 2005, allows some suspects to be booked and then released pending application of warrants. Critics of the program say that outstanding warrants have skyrocketed and criminals are released before the ink can dry on their arrest reports. Book-and-release has also been blamed for all but eliminating criminals' fear of jail time.
Under the new proposal, the jail would discontinue its book-and-release policy, and begin using a probable cause bond schedule. Under the schedule, suspects arrested for certain crimes are automatically eligible for a set bond amount, even though no charges are filed. If the prisoner chooses, he or she can contact family or a bondsman and post bail.
Discussing the proposal, Judge Dan Conklin said that bondsmen provide needed accountability -- ensuring the majority of their customers meet court dates and don't abscond --that outweighs other concerns. "The bond system is not perfect," he said. "It's not without its warts; there are opportunities for mischief. But they provide a service to the community at no cost for taxpayers."
The proposed changes will undergo further discussion.
Under the new proposal, the jail would discontinue its book-and-release policy, and begin using a probable cause bond schedule. Under the schedule, suspects arrested for certain crimes are automatically eligible for a set bond amount, even though no charges are filed. If the prisoner chooses, he or she can contact family or a bondsman and post bail.
Discussing the proposal, Judge Dan Conklin said that bondsmen provide needed accountability -- ensuring the majority of their customers meet court dates and don't abscond --that outweighs other concerns. "The bond system is not perfect," he said. "It's not without its warts; there are opportunities for mischief. But they provide a service to the community at no cost for taxpayers."
The proposed changes will undergo further discussion.
Friday, February 13, 2009
More Guest Commentary: How to Improve the Bail Industry
The following is guest commentary submitted by Tim Bruce, a licensed General Agent from the Springfield area.
Reality Check
As I have been reading every ones comments and suggestions, it amazes me at just how many agents and General agents contradict themselves. The old (Pot calling the kettle black). From financing and no money down bonds to offering rebates, many of the ones complaining are some of the very ones doing just that.
We would all agree that something needs to be done if we are interested in the long term stability of our industry, but we cannot and will not truly stand together to effectively do something to help ourselves. The only Association I was once a member of was only in place for a few members to try and back door and sneak legislation through that would only benefit them and Insurance Companies. Had it not been for Angela Parks and a few others who were keeping track of what was going on, legislation could have passed and none of us would have known anything about it until it was too late.
To try and organize all the Agents statewide is a very commendable and hopeful thought. I assure you though that it will never happen. (Example> Each and every County and each and every Judge in this state does things differently and by their own rule) Procedures are done differently according to the interpretation of rules by each individual Judge, Prosecutor, Sheriff and even the Bail Bond Agents.
Several years ago, myself and many of the local agents in my area got together and jointly and adamantly decided to raise our minimum fees, addressed discounting and financing fees, and raised all failure to appear bonds to 20%. That very afternoon, two agents walked across the street to the jail and one wrote a bond by discount and the other by financing with low down and low weekly payments.
If you cannot even get the local agents in your prospective area to agree and cooperate, then how do you even remotetly think you can organize agents and companies statewide?
As much as I hate the Government even slightly getting involved in my business, unless the rules of policy and proceedure are point blank and enforced, you will never get the agents and companies to comply.
I remember what it was like being a brand new agent. I starved to death for the first 16 months. Now with many Counties implementing the catch and release policy and the mass R.O.R. policies by allot of Courts it is even hard for exsiting agents to make a living. To make matters even worse for those agents many Generals chose to impliment what I call the Ice theory flooding the state with multiple agents. This works out great for the General as he/she makes 50% of every agent. Unfortunately for the agent many Generals put multiple agents in the same area and not only does the agent have to compete with other companies, they also have to compete with thier own company. I do not believe in stacking agents. I would rather have an agent make a good living and write quality bonds, than to have high volume profits on questionable and high risk bonds. (make sense?)
In my opinion, If the General Agent puts an agent in situations where he/she is struggling to make a living. The responsibility of the agents business ethics, proceedures and questionalbe bond writing should fall on the General that allows it. If as a General, you cannot control the proceedures followed by your agent, you simply get ride of them. If you as a General allow the agent to premium write, finance, undercut and conduct themselves in the manner in which you allow. Then by all means, do not complain about the down fall of this industry and do not put all the blame on your agents. As a General, if you are into high volume bonds rather than quality. If you put pressure on your agents to write more bonds,then accept the concequenses that comes with the added stress to your agents.
If you truly want to change this industry for the better and you truly want to have each and every agent and General Agent on the same page, then unfortunately you are going to have to have someone put in place rules and regulations that forces all to follow. Les Hogue seems to be an honorable man, and from speaking with him, it seems he truly wants to clean this industry up.
Why would it be such an impossible task to maybe sit down with Les Hogue, the Dept. of Insurance,and whomever the new director turns out to be and impliment policy and proceedures to enforce many of the laws already on the books to work towards cleaning this industry up? I am not an advocate putting anyone out of work or preventing anyone from going to work, but in order to change anything for the better it is the General Agents who have to get on board and clean up thier own house before they can tell anyone else how to conduct business. If everyone had to follow the same RULES then there would be no questions.
Mr. Cooper and Mr. Thomas and many others have very good points of interest but putting them all in a blog, or sitting around talking about it does absolutely nothing to change things. If you manage to get all the Generals to come together in some sort of Independant Association and actually agree on how to change things for the better, please call me, as I would be one of your biggest advocates and allie.
If I have a tire that keeps going flat and all I do is keep putting air in it. eventually it will blow out doing unknown damage. Our Industry is just that. Unil we actually fix it, eventually it will blow out and all of us will suffer.
Thanks for reading
Tim Bruce
General Agent.
Reality Check
As I have been reading every ones comments and suggestions, it amazes me at just how many agents and General agents contradict themselves. The old (Pot calling the kettle black). From financing and no money down bonds to offering rebates, many of the ones complaining are some of the very ones doing just that.
We would all agree that something needs to be done if we are interested in the long term stability of our industry, but we cannot and will not truly stand together to effectively do something to help ourselves. The only Association I was once a member of was only in place for a few members to try and back door and sneak legislation through that would only benefit them and Insurance Companies. Had it not been for Angela Parks and a few others who were keeping track of what was going on, legislation could have passed and none of us would have known anything about it until it was too late.
To try and organize all the Agents statewide is a very commendable and hopeful thought. I assure you though that it will never happen. (Example> Each and every County and each and every Judge in this state does things differently and by their own rule) Procedures are done differently according to the interpretation of rules by each individual Judge, Prosecutor, Sheriff and even the Bail Bond Agents.
Several years ago, myself and many of the local agents in my area got together and jointly and adamantly decided to raise our minimum fees, addressed discounting and financing fees, and raised all failure to appear bonds to 20%. That very afternoon, two agents walked across the street to the jail and one wrote a bond by discount and the other by financing with low down and low weekly payments.
If you cannot even get the local agents in your prospective area to agree and cooperate, then how do you even remotetly think you can organize agents and companies statewide?
As much as I hate the Government even slightly getting involved in my business, unless the rules of policy and proceedure are point blank and enforced, you will never get the agents and companies to comply.
I remember what it was like being a brand new agent. I starved to death for the first 16 months. Now with many Counties implementing the catch and release policy and the mass R.O.R. policies by allot of Courts it is even hard for exsiting agents to make a living. To make matters even worse for those agents many Generals chose to impliment what I call the Ice theory flooding the state with multiple agents. This works out great for the General as he/she makes 50% of every agent. Unfortunately for the agent many Generals put multiple agents in the same area and not only does the agent have to compete with other companies, they also have to compete with thier own company. I do not believe in stacking agents. I would rather have an agent make a good living and write quality bonds, than to have high volume profits on questionable and high risk bonds. (make sense?)
In my opinion, If the General Agent puts an agent in situations where he/she is struggling to make a living. The responsibility of the agents business ethics, proceedures and questionalbe bond writing should fall on the General that allows it. If as a General, you cannot control the proceedures followed by your agent, you simply get ride of them. If you as a General allow the agent to premium write, finance, undercut and conduct themselves in the manner in which you allow. Then by all means, do not complain about the down fall of this industry and do not put all the blame on your agents. As a General, if you are into high volume bonds rather than quality. If you put pressure on your agents to write more bonds,then accept the concequenses that comes with the added stress to your agents.
If you truly want to change this industry for the better and you truly want to have each and every agent and General Agent on the same page, then unfortunately you are going to have to have someone put in place rules and regulations that forces all to follow. Les Hogue seems to be an honorable man, and from speaking with him, it seems he truly wants to clean this industry up.
Why would it be such an impossible task to maybe sit down with Les Hogue, the Dept. of Insurance,and whomever the new director turns out to be and impliment policy and proceedures to enforce many of the laws already on the books to work towards cleaning this industry up? I am not an advocate putting anyone out of work or preventing anyone from going to work, but in order to change anything for the better it is the General Agents who have to get on board and clean up thier own house before they can tell anyone else how to conduct business. If everyone had to follow the same RULES then there would be no questions.
Mr. Cooper and Mr. Thomas and many others have very good points of interest but putting them all in a blog, or sitting around talking about it does absolutely nothing to change things. If you manage to get all the Generals to come together in some sort of Independant Association and actually agree on how to change things for the better, please call me, as I would be one of your biggest advocates and allie.
If I have a tire that keeps going flat and all I do is keep putting air in it. eventually it will blow out doing unknown damage. Our Industry is just that. Unil we actually fix it, eventually it will blow out and all of us will suffer.
Thanks for reading
Tim Bruce
General Agent.
Thursday, February 12, 2009
Guest Letter: Opposition to Increasing the CD Assignment
Note: The following is a guest commentary submitted by Michael Thomas, a state certified trainer for initial education and CE. Thomas is also a general agent in Missouri.
First of all let me explain to those who are not familiar with the current system, what happens when a general agent puts up his or her $10,000.00 with the state. The general agent goes to the bank and buys a CD in his or her name in the amount of $10,000.00. The general then completes a General Bail Bond Agent Assignment form MO 375-0525. This form assigns the money in that CD to the State of Missouri. The bank then completes an Acknowledgement of Assignment form MO 375-0527. These forms are then sent to the State of Missouri and at that point the General agent can no longer touch the money until he has surrendered his license and his liabilities have cleared. This money can not be touched by the General Agent to pay day to day forfeitures. The DIFP is the only entity that can draw money from the CD, other than the interest it earns, as long as the Assignment is in effect.
Similarly, if a general agent were required to put up a $5,000.00 CD for each agent working under his or her authority there would be an Assignment executed for each of those agents. Again the general agent would not be able to touch that money until the Assignment is released by the state. So regardless of what your contract with the general says the money isn’t going to be released until the state allows it.
A common misconception is that this money is routinely used to pay forfeitures. That just isn’t the case. By the time this money is used by the state to pay forfeiture, the General Agent has been shut down for at least 30 days and may in fact be out of business. The courts and the DIFP expect the General Agent to pay forfeitures with other monies long before it gets to a point where the state has to take it from the CD.
Most people try to keep their money working for them by investing in stocks and bonds, CD’s, real estate, and various business ventures. CD’s have a very poor rate of return, presently 1 to 2 percent at best and is typically an investment that older individuals would use to safeguard retirement money that has already been made. Most of us in the business are younger and are not to the point in our investment portfolios where we want our money to be stagnate. If the amount of assignment is raised from $10,000.00 to $50,000.00 this money would essentially stop working for us. And since this money is used by the State as the final solution and generals can’t touch it in the event of a forfeiture, each general agent would still have to have a significant amount of cash on hand or readily accessible to pay the day to day forfeitures.
All of us are disgruntled by the influx of people into this industry and yes it is affecting our income. Not so much because of the numbers of new bondsmen but because of irresponsible bail writing. This business has always been able to separate the wheat from the chaff but it takes a little time for this to occur. Irresponsible bondsmen go broke pretty quickly and eliminate themselves. But nevertheless they adversely affect us while they are in business. If you look at the liability they incurred in the 18 to 24 months that it took to get themselves into trouble the amount is staggering. Sometimes this liability can be in the millions of dollars. Raising the Assignment from $10,000 to $50,000 would not stop these people from getting into the business and would not do anything to curtail irresponsible bond writing.
An example I use in my classes to illustrate my point follows, If a small county has 5 bondsmen in the county and typically the court averages about 5 criminals with bonds of $20,000 each month, it follows that if all things are equal, each of those five bondsmen has a fair chance of procuring one of these bonds each month and making $2,000.00. Now, if one of these bondsmen advertises that he will write bonds for little or no money down and is very lax on cosigner qualification he will end up writing all five bonds each month and collecting only a small fraction of the fee. The other bondsmen who are doing things the way they should be done don’t make a dime. It doesn’t take long for the careless bondsman to get into trouble because his liability is going through the roof. But until that liability gets to the point that he can no longer pay the forfeitures, none of the other bondsmen in the county are making any money.
The answer to the problem lies in requiring a minimum percentage be charged on each bond and then prohibiting the extension of credit by a bondsman. Until January of 2005 a Judge in Livingston county required bondsmen to swear under oath that they were not extending credit and that they had received the full premium before the bond could be written. This begins to level the playing field because a bondsman who understands the risk involved in writing the bond no longer has to compete with one who doesn’t. And the criminal is no longer able to “shop” for the best price.
Several years ago, fed up with the number of forfeitures that I received in the mail each month, I began looking for a common thread that would help me better identify a bad bond before it was written. As I looked back over several years of records I realized that about 95% of my forfeitures were from clients to whom we had extended credit. I told my agents that we would no longer extend credit on bonds. Within six months my forfeitures had dropped by 95% and the income that my agents and I were making remained virtually unchanged. Sure we wrote fewer bonds but we got all of our money up front and didn’t have collection and bounty hunting fees chipping away at our income. When a person is charged with a crime, the cheapest thing on the menu is the bond fee. Attorney’s fees and court costs are usually about equal to the full amount of the bond. When a client can’t pay the full fee, you are likely to incur a forfeiture because if he can’t pay you, he can’t pay the lawyer or the fines either and sooner or later the Judge is going to give him the ultimatum that if he shows back up in court without an attorney or his fine money, he will be put in jail and an attorney appointed for him or his fines taken out in time served.
I have never been in favor of restricting people from getting into this business. If this proposed law were in effect 14 years ago, I could have never become a bondsman much less a general agent. I feel that I turned out OK and a lot of the people this bill would prohibit from becoming bondsmen will too. It is just an un-American ideology and in this troubled economy the wrong thing to do.
I am in full agreement with Mr. Cooper on the repeal of the Lee Clause. I make no apologies for this position as I feel that persons CONVICTED of felonies should not be allowed in the bail bond or surety recovery business no matter how long it has been. I do feel however, that if the court sees fit to issue an SIS, and the felony “goes away” after completion of a probationary period, then this should not be held against the prospective applicant.
More government regulation is NEVER the answer.
Respectfully Submitted
Michael R Thomas
Thomas Training Institute
www.thomastraininginstitute.com
First of all let me explain to those who are not familiar with the current system, what happens when a general agent puts up his or her $10,000.00 with the state. The general agent goes to the bank and buys a CD in his or her name in the amount of $10,000.00. The general then completes a General Bail Bond Agent Assignment form MO 375-0525. This form assigns the money in that CD to the State of Missouri. The bank then completes an Acknowledgement of Assignment form MO 375-0527. These forms are then sent to the State of Missouri and at that point the General agent can no longer touch the money until he has surrendered his license and his liabilities have cleared. This money can not be touched by the General Agent to pay day to day forfeitures. The DIFP is the only entity that can draw money from the CD, other than the interest it earns, as long as the Assignment is in effect.
Similarly, if a general agent were required to put up a $5,000.00 CD for each agent working under his or her authority there would be an Assignment executed for each of those agents. Again the general agent would not be able to touch that money until the Assignment is released by the state. So regardless of what your contract with the general says the money isn’t going to be released until the state allows it.
A common misconception is that this money is routinely used to pay forfeitures. That just isn’t the case. By the time this money is used by the state to pay forfeiture, the General Agent has been shut down for at least 30 days and may in fact be out of business. The courts and the DIFP expect the General Agent to pay forfeitures with other monies long before it gets to a point where the state has to take it from the CD.
Most people try to keep their money working for them by investing in stocks and bonds, CD’s, real estate, and various business ventures. CD’s have a very poor rate of return, presently 1 to 2 percent at best and is typically an investment that older individuals would use to safeguard retirement money that has already been made. Most of us in the business are younger and are not to the point in our investment portfolios where we want our money to be stagnate. If the amount of assignment is raised from $10,000.00 to $50,000.00 this money would essentially stop working for us. And since this money is used by the State as the final solution and generals can’t touch it in the event of a forfeiture, each general agent would still have to have a significant amount of cash on hand or readily accessible to pay the day to day forfeitures.
All of us are disgruntled by the influx of people into this industry and yes it is affecting our income. Not so much because of the numbers of new bondsmen but because of irresponsible bail writing. This business has always been able to separate the wheat from the chaff but it takes a little time for this to occur. Irresponsible bondsmen go broke pretty quickly and eliminate themselves. But nevertheless they adversely affect us while they are in business. If you look at the liability they incurred in the 18 to 24 months that it took to get themselves into trouble the amount is staggering. Sometimes this liability can be in the millions of dollars. Raising the Assignment from $10,000 to $50,000 would not stop these people from getting into the business and would not do anything to curtail irresponsible bond writing.
An example I use in my classes to illustrate my point follows, If a small county has 5 bondsmen in the county and typically the court averages about 5 criminals with bonds of $20,000 each month, it follows that if all things are equal, each of those five bondsmen has a fair chance of procuring one of these bonds each month and making $2,000.00. Now, if one of these bondsmen advertises that he will write bonds for little or no money down and is very lax on cosigner qualification he will end up writing all five bonds each month and collecting only a small fraction of the fee. The other bondsmen who are doing things the way they should be done don’t make a dime. It doesn’t take long for the careless bondsman to get into trouble because his liability is going through the roof. But until that liability gets to the point that he can no longer pay the forfeitures, none of the other bondsmen in the county are making any money.
The answer to the problem lies in requiring a minimum percentage be charged on each bond and then prohibiting the extension of credit by a bondsman. Until January of 2005 a Judge in Livingston county required bondsmen to swear under oath that they were not extending credit and that they had received the full premium before the bond could be written. This begins to level the playing field because a bondsman who understands the risk involved in writing the bond no longer has to compete with one who doesn’t. And the criminal is no longer able to “shop” for the best price.
Several years ago, fed up with the number of forfeitures that I received in the mail each month, I began looking for a common thread that would help me better identify a bad bond before it was written. As I looked back over several years of records I realized that about 95% of my forfeitures were from clients to whom we had extended credit. I told my agents that we would no longer extend credit on bonds. Within six months my forfeitures had dropped by 95% and the income that my agents and I were making remained virtually unchanged. Sure we wrote fewer bonds but we got all of our money up front and didn’t have collection and bounty hunting fees chipping away at our income. When a person is charged with a crime, the cheapest thing on the menu is the bond fee. Attorney’s fees and court costs are usually about equal to the full amount of the bond. When a client can’t pay the full fee, you are likely to incur a forfeiture because if he can’t pay you, he can’t pay the lawyer or the fines either and sooner or later the Judge is going to give him the ultimatum that if he shows back up in court without an attorney or his fine money, he will be put in jail and an attorney appointed for him or his fines taken out in time served.
I have never been in favor of restricting people from getting into this business. If this proposed law were in effect 14 years ago, I could have never become a bondsman much less a general agent. I feel that I turned out OK and a lot of the people this bill would prohibit from becoming bondsmen will too. It is just an un-American ideology and in this troubled economy the wrong thing to do.
I am in full agreement with Mr. Cooper on the repeal of the Lee Clause. I make no apologies for this position as I feel that persons CONVICTED of felonies should not be allowed in the bail bond or surety recovery business no matter how long it has been. I do feel however, that if the court sees fit to issue an SIS, and the felony “goes away” after completion of a probationary period, then this should not be held against the prospective applicant.
More government regulation is NEVER the answer.
Respectfully Submitted
Michael R Thomas
Thomas Training Institute
www.thomastraininginstitute.com
Wednesday, February 11, 2009
Guest Commentary-Elevating Our Standards
Editor's Note: The following is guest commentary submitted by Randall Smith, a certified trainer for both CE and initial education. Smith is also a licensed bail bond agent.
I want to thank Agent Cooper for his commentary and editorial regarding HB 628. Opening discussion and dialogue on current issues within the industry should be on going. If we are going to elevate our standards of professionalism then we must open discussion for relevant positive change. Rest assured if we don’t someone else will. We MUST become proactive in our own industry.
Agent Cooper has made many valid comments and points regarding bail in Missouri. One of the most significant points he makes is the number and quality of agents in this industry. As a State Certified Trainer in Missouri I see people come to the 24 Hour Initial Basic Training with nearly delusional preconceptions about this industry. Mainly brought about by the media and reality TV shows.
Training in this state for the Professional Bail Agent is far less than adequate in preparing them for this complex industry. Currently we allow nearly everyone to attend a 24 hour course. Some can barely read and write, they attend, we then push them on through. They take a very easy 60 Question State Examination and receive their license. They are in NO WAY prepared for this industry.
We must elevate the standards and requirements for entering this profession by first making the training and testing requirements more standardized. We should demand a higher level of professional that enters into this business. Once licensed, the professional agent should then be required to have substantially higher CE requirements to maintain the licensure privilege. As an example, the State of New Mexico requires 120 Hours of basic training on a pass-fail basis. There are strict standards to even be accepted into their academies. Once they pass, the must sit for a 250 Question State Certifying Examination. They are issued a probationary license and must complete 100 hours of field training before they are issued a permanently renewable license with additional CE requirements. Agents in that state are highly regarded for the most part and have very similar training to law enforcement.
The tendency in this industry, (in our state), is to seek out those who offer CE Credits by merely processing the paperwork. We as true professionals should be demanding better CE training. If we represent ourselves as professionals then we should be seeking real and valuable training relevant to our industry. We MUST invest in ourselves by seeking out this training and not take short cuts just to get a license renewed. This is NOT professional practice. We as professional trainers should not allow this practice in the first place.
Mr. Cooper points out the practice of the courts issuing 10%, Cash and OR bonds. All one has to do is look at the FTA cases in those counties practicing these policies and see the number of unresolved cases. In my opinion when courts order cash or 10% bonds, they have crossed the line and now are involved in private enterprise, which is a direct conflict of local government. There is a huge amount of research that proves the viability of the bail system in reducing those FTA numbers. This stands to reason since we have a lot to loose when an FTA occurs.
Until we increase the standards of qualification in this industry and provide real relevant training I see this industry staying the same. Certainly there are many other issues and much more legislation needed. However, without seriously reconsidering the industry qualifications and training policies I do not see any viable way to address these issues. We have to make the training tough and rigorous. Only then will we be able to see a change in the level of the professional agent. New candidates should have to PASS the rigorous training program and testing before they qualify for licensure.
Finally, if we as professionals continue to tolerate impropriety, and other misconduct within the industry, then this industry will always have a "black cloud" haning over us. Another area where we need to become proactive!
Thank you again Agent Cooper for your comments. I hope the rest of us in this industry jump on board and become pro-active.
Randall E Smith, L.B.A., C.P. I., State Certified Trainer
MARC Academy of Professional Bail Agents
Randall E. Smith
Check Us Out On the Web
http://www.midamericarecoveryco.com/
I want to thank Agent Cooper for his commentary and editorial regarding HB 628. Opening discussion and dialogue on current issues within the industry should be on going. If we are going to elevate our standards of professionalism then we must open discussion for relevant positive change. Rest assured if we don’t someone else will. We MUST become proactive in our own industry.
Agent Cooper has made many valid comments and points regarding bail in Missouri. One of the most significant points he makes is the number and quality of agents in this industry. As a State Certified Trainer in Missouri I see people come to the 24 Hour Initial Basic Training with nearly delusional preconceptions about this industry. Mainly brought about by the media and reality TV shows.
Training in this state for the Professional Bail Agent is far less than adequate in preparing them for this complex industry. Currently we allow nearly everyone to attend a 24 hour course. Some can barely read and write, they attend, we then push them on through. They take a very easy 60 Question State Examination and receive their license. They are in NO WAY prepared for this industry.
We must elevate the standards and requirements for entering this profession by first making the training and testing requirements more standardized. We should demand a higher level of professional that enters into this business. Once licensed, the professional agent should then be required to have substantially higher CE requirements to maintain the licensure privilege. As an example, the State of New Mexico requires 120 Hours of basic training on a pass-fail basis. There are strict standards to even be accepted into their academies. Once they pass, the must sit for a 250 Question State Certifying Examination. They are issued a probationary license and must complete 100 hours of field training before they are issued a permanently renewable license with additional CE requirements. Agents in that state are highly regarded for the most part and have very similar training to law enforcement.
The tendency in this industry, (in our state), is to seek out those who offer CE Credits by merely processing the paperwork. We as true professionals should be demanding better CE training. If we represent ourselves as professionals then we should be seeking real and valuable training relevant to our industry. We MUST invest in ourselves by seeking out this training and not take short cuts just to get a license renewed. This is NOT professional practice. We as professional trainers should not allow this practice in the first place.
Mr. Cooper points out the practice of the courts issuing 10%, Cash and OR bonds. All one has to do is look at the FTA cases in those counties practicing these policies and see the number of unresolved cases. In my opinion when courts order cash or 10% bonds, they have crossed the line and now are involved in private enterprise, which is a direct conflict of local government. There is a huge amount of research that proves the viability of the bail system in reducing those FTA numbers. This stands to reason since we have a lot to loose when an FTA occurs.
Until we increase the standards of qualification in this industry and provide real relevant training I see this industry staying the same. Certainly there are many other issues and much more legislation needed. However, without seriously reconsidering the industry qualifications and training policies I do not see any viable way to address these issues. We have to make the training tough and rigorous. Only then will we be able to see a change in the level of the professional agent. New candidates should have to PASS the rigorous training program and testing before they qualify for licensure.
Finally, if we as professionals continue to tolerate impropriety, and other misconduct within the industry, then this industry will always have a "black cloud" haning over us. Another area where we need to become proactive!
Thank you again Agent Cooper for your comments. I hope the rest of us in this industry jump on board and become pro-active.
Randall E Smith, L.B.A., C.P. I., State Certified Trainer
MARC Academy of Professional Bail Agents
Randall E. Smith
Check Us Out On the Web
http://www.midamericarecoveryco.com/
Sunday, February 1, 2009
Poll Results
Missouri Bondsman sponsored a poll, asking website visitors to answer the following poll question:
Would you favor legislation to increase the assigned CD requirement to $25,000 for general agents plus $5,000 per bail bond agent?
The poll results are as follows:
101 website visitors registered a response.
26 (25%) answered: Yes, I am licensed by the DIFP, and I support an increase to $25,000, plus $5,000 per agent.
59 (58%) answered: No, I am licensed by the DIFP, and I do not support the CD increase to $25,000 and $5,000 per agent
7 (6%) responded: I am not licensed, but I would support this proposal.
9 (8%) responded: I am not licensed, but I would not support this proposal.
Overall, the visitor’s responded against the proposal at a rate of 2:1.
For feedback on the poll, visit my original post New Website Poll .
Have a new idea for a website poll, email me, or to comment on the poll results, click "comment here."
Would you favor legislation to increase the assigned CD requirement to $25,000 for general agents plus $5,000 per bail bond agent?
The poll results are as follows:
101 website visitors registered a response.
26 (25%) answered: Yes, I am licensed by the DIFP, and I support an increase to $25,000, plus $5,000 per agent.
59 (58%) answered: No, I am licensed by the DIFP, and I do not support the CD increase to $25,000 and $5,000 per agent
7 (6%) responded: I am not licensed, but I would support this proposal.
9 (8%) responded: I am not licensed, but I would not support this proposal.
Overall, the visitor’s responded against the proposal at a rate of 2:1.
For feedback on the poll, visit my original post New Website Poll .
Have a new idea for a website poll, email me, or to comment on the poll results, click "comment here."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
