According to this report from The Billings Gazette, an unnamed, Montana bondsman was assaulted with a pickax while questioning an individual about a bond fugitive. No one was hurt in the incident.
According to the report, Peter Dolan, 54, was arrested Tuesday when deputies responded to a disturbance at a residence. When they arrived, a man who identified himself as a bail bondsman said he was at the residence looking to arrest a man who had violated a bond agreement. The bondsman said he approached Dolan and asked if he knew where to find his client. The bondsman said Dolan grabbed a pickax and swung it at him. The bondsman said he took out pepper spray he carries with him and threatened Dolan with the chemical if he did not put down the ax. Dolan put down the ax and the bondsman called law enforcement.
Dolan was charged with assault with a weapon and held on $10,000 bond.
Thursday, September 13, 2007
Friday, September 7, 2007
Springfield Bondsman Praised for Good Instincts
Eric Prothero was profiled in this report from KY3-TV and characterized as “a witness with a good eye and some good instincts.” Prothero, a bondsman from Springfield, was the victim of a robbery at a convenience store last Tuesday. According to the report, the accused robber, Travis Patterson, entered the Kum and Go Convenience Store demanding that Prothero and the store clerk get on the floor. After robbing the store, the accused fled the scene in a car. Prothero watched the man leave taking note of his vehicle. Prothero then jumped in his own car, caught up with the Patterson and reported the license plate number of the get-away car to police. Patterson was arrested for the robbery and the hold-up of two other Springfield convenience stores.
Patterson has been charged with three counts of 1st degree robbery and is being held in the Greene County Jail on $150,000 bond.
Also see: Springfield News-Leader article on Prothero
Patterson has been charged with three counts of 1st degree robbery and is being held in the Greene County Jail on $150,000 bond.
Also see: Springfield News-Leader article on Prothero
Mike Thomas: Life as a Bondsman
General agent and training provider Mike Thomas was profiled in his home-town newspaper, the Marshall Democrat-News. Thomas spoke about his job as a bondsman and how changes in the law affected him and his business. He also addressed some misconceptions about bail bonding in Missouri.
Thursday, September 6, 2007
License Renewal Tips
Many of you have already renewed your licenses this year. For those who haven’t, here is some information to help you glide through the renewal process.
First of all, don’t wait until the last minute to complete your continuing education requirement. You are required to take eight hours of continuing education before your renewal. Many providers are scheduling these classes once a month, or as demand requires. You may not find a class in time if you wait until after you receive your renewal notice. Look at the right pane of this page for links to DIFP approved training providers. The class instructor will give you a certificate after you complete the class. The information on the certificate is used to complete the continuing ed. summary form sent with your renewal notice.
Secondly, you will have to be finger-printed by L1ID. In rural locations, they fingerprint once a week or once every-other week. To schedule an appointment for finger-printing, go to their site at http://www.l1id.com/ and click schedule an appointment. The cost is $56.95. They do not take cash or credit cards the day of the appointment. You can pay by credit card online, in advance. You do not have to wait until you receive your renewal notice to schedule your appointment. The fingerprints are sent electronically and not returned with your renewal packet.
Download the renewal application from the DIFP web site. The renewal fee is $150.00 by business check, money order, or cashier’s check. Personal checks are not accepted by the DIFP.
If you are renewing your agent’s license, in addition to the completed application, you will need the original signature of your general agent, the completed continuing education summary, the renewal notice sent to you by mail, and a self-addressed, stamped envelope.
If you are renewing your general agent license, in addition to the application, continuing education summary, renewal notice, self-addressed envelope, you will also need a notarized affidavit stating that you are devoting at least 50% of your working time to the bail bond business, and an original letter from your bank, dated within 60 days of your renewal, stating that your CD is still on deposit and assigned to the State of Missouri.
The best advice I can give is do as much of the renewal paperwork as possible in advance of receiving your renewal notice. Do not delay in getting application packet in the mail as soon as you receive your renewal from the DIFP. Some agents have reported that it takes 30+ days to get their licenses renewed. Several have reported the their criminal background and fingerprinting checks have been delayed for various reasons. The DIFP will remove your name from the list of licensed agents if your renewal is not approved before your license expiration date.
First of all, don’t wait until the last minute to complete your continuing education requirement. You are required to take eight hours of continuing education before your renewal. Many providers are scheduling these classes once a month, or as demand requires. You may not find a class in time if you wait until after you receive your renewal notice. Look at the right pane of this page for links to DIFP approved training providers. The class instructor will give you a certificate after you complete the class. The information on the certificate is used to complete the continuing ed. summary form sent with your renewal notice.
Secondly, you will have to be finger-printed by L1ID. In rural locations, they fingerprint once a week or once every-other week. To schedule an appointment for finger-printing, go to their site at http://www.l1id.com/ and click schedule an appointment. The cost is $56.95. They do not take cash or credit cards the day of the appointment. You can pay by credit card online, in advance. You do not have to wait until you receive your renewal notice to schedule your appointment. The fingerprints are sent electronically and not returned with your renewal packet.
Download the renewal application from the DIFP web site. The renewal fee is $150.00 by business check, money order, or cashier’s check. Personal checks are not accepted by the DIFP.
If you are renewing your agent’s license, in addition to the completed application, you will need the original signature of your general agent, the completed continuing education summary, the renewal notice sent to you by mail, and a self-addressed, stamped envelope.
If you are renewing your general agent license, in addition to the application, continuing education summary, renewal notice, self-addressed envelope, you will also need a notarized affidavit stating that you are devoting at least 50% of your working time to the bail bond business, and an original letter from your bank, dated within 60 days of your renewal, stating that your CD is still on deposit and assigned to the State of Missouri.
The best advice I can give is do as much of the renewal paperwork as possible in advance of receiving your renewal notice. Do not delay in getting application packet in the mail as soon as you receive your renewal from the DIFP. Some agents have reported that it takes 30+ days to get their licenses renewed. Several have reported the their criminal background and fingerprinting checks have been delayed for various reasons. The DIFP will remove your name from the list of licensed agents if your renewal is not approved before your license expiration date.
DIFP Licensing Actions
The DIFP has filed several new licensing actions on its web site. The department has refused to issue two new bail bond licenses to individuals who have felony convictions in their backgrounds.
The DIFP has also refused to renew Gerald Franks’ general agent license. According to the department’s order, Franks’ license was not renewed because of his conviction in Daviess County in 2006. Franks was disciplined last February for this conviction. After a lengthy process, last February the Director ruled that because of mitigating factors, Franks’ license should be suspended for three days.
Franks submitted a renewal application in August. The Director’s refusal order states that in the February administrative action, the Director had full discretion to impose a three day suspension for the conviction of possession of a controlled substance. The new order states that on January 1, 2007, the qualification standard of the Missouri Supreme Court for bail bond agents was substantially raised for recent prior criminal history. The Director said, “As Applicant has failed to submit proof that he ‘meets the qualifications for surety on bail bonds as provided by supreme court rule’ under 374.715.1 RSMo, the Director has no discretion to issue the bail bond license.”
The director also stated: “Despite decisions by the Administrative Hearing Commission that could be subject to an interpretation that the law in effect at the time of the plea
should be applied, the Director believes that Rule 33.17 is currently effective and is intended by the Missouri Supreme Court to guide all Missouri courts charged with administering the qualifications for bail bond agents operating in those courts. For the Director to apply a conflicting or different qualification standard would produce the very undesirable result of the executive branch granting licenses to individuals, but who are unqualified by review in the judicial branch. For all of these reasons, and even if the 374.715 could be interpreted in such a manner to not mandate disqualification of the Applicant, the Director now exercises his discretion in refusing to renew the Applicant."
Franks and the other two applicants have thirty days to file for a hearing before the Administrative Hearing Commission.
The DIFP has also refused to renew Gerald Franks’ general agent license. According to the department’s order, Franks’ license was not renewed because of his conviction in Daviess County in 2006. Franks was disciplined last February for this conviction. After a lengthy process, last February the Director ruled that because of mitigating factors, Franks’ license should be suspended for three days.
Franks submitted a renewal application in August. The Director’s refusal order states that in the February administrative action, the Director had full discretion to impose a three day suspension for the conviction of possession of a controlled substance. The new order states that on January 1, 2007, the qualification standard of the Missouri Supreme Court for bail bond agents was substantially raised for recent prior criminal history. The Director said, “As Applicant has failed to submit proof that he ‘meets the qualifications for surety on bail bonds as provided by supreme court rule’ under 374.715.1 RSMo, the Director has no discretion to issue the bail bond license.”
The director also stated: “Despite decisions by the Administrative Hearing Commission that could be subject to an interpretation that the law in effect at the time of the plea
should be applied, the Director believes that Rule 33.17 is currently effective and is intended by the Missouri Supreme Court to guide all Missouri courts charged with administering the qualifications for bail bond agents operating in those courts. For the Director to apply a conflicting or different qualification standard would produce the very undesirable result of the executive branch granting licenses to individuals, but who are unqualified by review in the judicial branch. For all of these reasons, and even if the 374.715 could be interpreted in such a manner to not mandate disqualification of the Applicant, the Director now exercises his discretion in refusing to renew the Applicant."
Franks and the other two applicants have thirty days to file for a hearing before the Administrative Hearing Commission.
Friday, August 31, 2007
Avett Faces More Charges
More charges have been filed against Missouri licensed bondsman Randall Avett. He has been charged in St. Louis County with forcible rape, forcible sodomy, unlawful use of a weapon, and felonious restraint. Avett was arrested on August 10th and is being held in the St. Louis County jail with a $150,000 cash only bond. According to KSDK, Avett held a woman against her will at his business, RDA Towing & Recovery, where the alleged assaults took place.
In a separate case, Avett was charged in Jefferson County with burglary, armed criminal action, felonious restraint, and property damage. The victims allege that Avett and other bondsmen forced entry into their house while conducting fugitive recovery work. The victims reported that the bondsmen had made entry on the wrong house.
Avett works under the authority of Rick Adams and has been licensed since December 2005.
Wednesday, August 29, 2007
Blunt Orders Troopers to Check Immigration Status
Governor Blunt has directed the Missouri Department of Public Safety (Highway Patrol, Water Patrol, and Capitol Police) to check the immigration status of every person they detain. Blunt cited a murder in New Jersey where an illegal immigrant, who was previously arrested for child rape and released on bond, was among those charged in the murder of three college students. The illegal immigrant was never reported to the Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) unit when arrested on the previous charges. Blunt stated that identifying the accused as an illegal immigrant when he was originally arrested could possibly have prevented the murders.
Blunt directed all law enforcement units in the Department of Public Safety to:
· Prepare for special training and deputization that allows state law enforcement officials to enforce federal immigration law as authorized through section of the Immigration and Nationality Act.
·Encourage and assist local law enforcement to apply for immigration enforcement status and to otherwise offer state assistance, resources and support including making available Live Scan for local law enforcement agencies that will use it. To date, the state has invested more than $2 million of homeland security money in Live Scan, which allows fingerprints to be scanned in the field.
·Verify the immigration status of every individual presented for incarceration with ICE computer background status check and to complete full background checks on any accompanying adults. Anyone identified as illegal will be detained to prevent them from committing any crimes.”
Blunt directed all law enforcement units in the Department of Public Safety to:
· Prepare for special training and deputization that allows state law enforcement officials to enforce federal immigration law as authorized through section of the Immigration and Nationality Act.
·Encourage and assist local law enforcement to apply for immigration enforcement status and to otherwise offer state assistance, resources and support including making available Live Scan for local law enforcement agencies that will use it. To date, the state has invested more than $2 million of homeland security money in Live Scan, which allows fingerprints to be scanned in the field.
·Verify the immigration status of every individual presented for incarceration with ICE computer background status check and to complete full background checks on any accompanying adults. Anyone identified as illegal will be detained to prevent them from committing any crimes.”
Tuesday, August 28, 2007
Charges Filed Against Three Bondsmen
Charges have been filed by the Jefferson County Prosecutor’s office against three Missouri licensed bail bond agents and two other men. According to casenet, charges have been filed against bondsmen Steven Morgan, Randall Avett, and Thaddeus Bibb, who all work under the authority of Rick Adams. The two other unlicensed men, Brandon Morgan and Rudulph Whiston, were also charged on related offenses. The prosecutor’s office has charged the men with burglary, armed criminal action, felonious restraint, and property damage. All face bonds of $47,000, except for Avett whose bond is listed at $10,000. Casenet records indicate that Steven Morgan, Brandon Morgan, and Bibb have posted bond through Adams.
The charges stem from fugitive recovery work. Allegedly, the men forced entry at a residence where they believed the fugitive to be staying. The fugitive was not at the residence and the residents denied knowing the suspect. The police were summoned by the residents and charges resulted three months after the incident.
The charges stem from fugitive recovery work. Allegedly, the men forced entry at a residence where they believed the fugitive to be staying. The fugitive was not at the residence and the residents denied knowing the suspect. The police were summoned by the residents and charges resulted three months after the incident.
IRB Offers Free Trial to Bondsmen
I received a solicitation from IRB Search today. IRB is an online skip-tracing tool and is offering bail bond agents 500 free searches in the month of September. It is also offering bondsmen a free web seminar on how to use their product. Details on the free trial are posted on IRB’s website. In order to qualify, you must submit a copy of your bail bond license when applying for access.
Monday, August 27, 2007
Dotson Faces New Charges
According to a superseding indictment filed in US District Court in St. Louis, new charges have been filed against Glen Dotson. Last Thursday, a grand jury filed a superseding indictment charging Dotson with conspiracy to use/cause others to use a facility in interstate commerce with the intent to murder an individual and conspiracy to deliver a firearm to a known felon. The indictment names bail bond competitor Jerry Cox as the intended victim of the murder conspiracy. Dotson is scheduled to be arraigned on the new charges on Thursday.
Dotson was previously charged with delivering a firearm to Virgil Lee Jackson, a known felon. Jackson pleaded guilty earlier this month in the conspiracy to murder Cox. Jackson is scheduled to be sentenced on November 1st.
Dotson was previously charged with delivering a firearm to Virgil Lee Jackson, a known felon. Jackson pleaded guilty earlier this month in the conspiracy to murder Cox. Jackson is scheduled to be sentenced on November 1st.
Sunday, August 19, 2007
On the Web
A few months ago I featured several Missouri bail bond companies who market their businesses on the web. It was pointed out to me that I missed a couple of companies. Here are two other examples:
MU Bail Bonds/Josh Kayser
Peak Bail Bonds/Tom Peak
MU Bail Bonds/Josh Kayser
Peak Bail Bonds/Tom Peak
Friday, August 17, 2007
THE LIST
Yesterday, I published the outstanding judgment list, better known as-- THE LIST. If you have been around the bail industry very long, you have heard of THE LIST. Most general agents say “THE LIST” with fear and reverence, hoping their names never appear on THE LIST. Everyone wants to know who IS on THE LIST. Like the Momo the monster legend, most agents have never seen THE LIST, they have just heard about its existence.
To better understand THE LIST, you should understand where it comes from. First of all, the list is required by state law to be disseminated to local courts. The law states that the DIFP shall furnish each presiding circuit judge “…a list of all duly licensed and qualified bail bond agents and general bail bond agents whose licenses are not subject to pending suspension or revocation proceedings, and who are not subject to unsatisfied bond forfeiture judgments.” Unsatisfied judgments are reported to OSCA and/or the Department by local courts. If you have an unpaid judgment, you're on the list. To get off the list, the court must report the judgment satisfied. I assume that section of the list dealing with disciplinary action, the DIFP lists companies/agents who have pending for complaints for license revocation or suspension filed with the AHC.
I find THE LIST difficult to understand and have spoken to the DIFP about it several times. The clerks receive a copy of the list from OSCA in email format. Here’s what the body of the email says:
“THE FOLLOWING COMPANIES AND/OR AGENTS ARE NO LONGER LICENSED TO WRITE BONDS IN THE STATE OF MISSOURI.
All Area Bonding
American Bail Bond Associates Ltd.
Amwest Surety
Billingsley Bail Bonds
Bonnett, Charles (d.b.a. Chuck's Bail Bonds)
Continental Fidelity Surety Co., Inc.
Doane, Kevin (GBBA*) (Deceased)
Gillihan, James (d.b.a. KC Bonding)
Gillihan, Shana (d.b.a. KC Bonding)
National Bonding Company
Rogers, Terry J. (GBBA*) (d.b.a. Rogers Bonding)
Swinson, Marcus (d.b.a. A & M Swinson Bail Bonding)"
Some clerks have told me they think the body of the email IS the list. The body of the email contains companies and agents who had licensing issues around the year 2000. These names appear in the email unchanged from month to month. You must click on the attachment to know who is on the real, current list. The attachment is an excel spreadsheet. The spreadsheet has no title or date, so if the clerk prints it out to disseminate to other staff, no one knows what it is or which list is current.
Finally, the content of the list: The content of the outstanding judgment section of the list is only as accurate as the information received from local courts. But I think for the most part, if you land on the list you have an unsatisfied judgment. As far as the disciplinary section of the list, now that is a puzzle. Jerry Franks appears on the pending disciplinary section again this month. His disciplinary action was settled last February. Ozell Scott’s license was revoked by the Director in June, but his name still shows under pending action. Lee Jackson has had a pending action since 2005, but his name is not on the list at all. Afford Able Bail Bonds, Inc. has had a pending disciplinary action since May, yet the current list is marked “NO” under pending action for this company. There are other companies and agents on the list who currently have no pending actions for revocation or suspension and there are companies and agents who have disciplinary complaints who do not appear on the list. It seems unfair to me that pending actions are published at all. The agent/company has only an allegation of wrong-doing at the point they are published on the list used for court approval.
No one wants to see his/her name on THE LIST. If your name ever appears on THE LIST and you don’t know why, start making phone calls.
To better understand THE LIST, you should understand where it comes from. First of all, the list is required by state law to be disseminated to local courts. The law states that the DIFP shall furnish each presiding circuit judge “…a list of all duly licensed and qualified bail bond agents and general bail bond agents whose licenses are not subject to pending suspension or revocation proceedings, and who are not subject to unsatisfied bond forfeiture judgments.” Unsatisfied judgments are reported to OSCA and/or the Department by local courts. If you have an unpaid judgment, you're on the list. To get off the list, the court must report the judgment satisfied. I assume that section of the list dealing with disciplinary action, the DIFP lists companies/agents who have pending for complaints for license revocation or suspension filed with the AHC.
I find THE LIST difficult to understand and have spoken to the DIFP about it several times. The clerks receive a copy of the list from OSCA in email format. Here’s what the body of the email says:
“THE FOLLOWING COMPANIES AND/OR AGENTS ARE NO LONGER LICENSED TO WRITE BONDS IN THE STATE OF MISSOURI.
All Area Bonding
American Bail Bond Associates Ltd.
Amwest Surety
Billingsley Bail Bonds
Bonnett, Charles (d.b.a. Chuck's Bail Bonds)
Continental Fidelity Surety Co., Inc.
Doane, Kevin (GBBA*) (Deceased)
Gillihan, James (d.b.a. KC Bonding)
Gillihan, Shana (d.b.a. KC Bonding)
National Bonding Company
Rogers, Terry J. (GBBA*) (d.b.a. Rogers Bonding)
Swinson, Marcus (d.b.a. A & M Swinson Bail Bonding)"
Some clerks have told me they think the body of the email IS the list. The body of the email contains companies and agents who had licensing issues around the year 2000. These names appear in the email unchanged from month to month. You must click on the attachment to know who is on the real, current list. The attachment is an excel spreadsheet. The spreadsheet has no title or date, so if the clerk prints it out to disseminate to other staff, no one knows what it is or which list is current.
Finally, the content of the list: The content of the outstanding judgment section of the list is only as accurate as the information received from local courts. But I think for the most part, if you land on the list you have an unsatisfied judgment. As far as the disciplinary section of the list, now that is a puzzle. Jerry Franks appears on the pending disciplinary section again this month. His disciplinary action was settled last February. Ozell Scott’s license was revoked by the Director in June, but his name still shows under pending action. Lee Jackson has had a pending action since 2005, but his name is not on the list at all. Afford Able Bail Bonds, Inc. has had a pending disciplinary action since May, yet the current list is marked “NO” under pending action for this company. There are other companies and agents on the list who currently have no pending actions for revocation or suspension and there are companies and agents who have disciplinary complaints who do not appear on the list. It seems unfair to me that pending actions are published at all. The agent/company has only an allegation of wrong-doing at the point they are published on the list used for court approval.
No one wants to see his/her name on THE LIST. If your name ever appears on THE LIST and you don’t know why, start making phone calls.
Thursday, August 16, 2007
Unsatisfied Judgment List
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. The list is distributed to local courts via electronic means.
1) L&C Investment Group, president-Douglas Cheatham of Blue Springs, MO-2 judgments, $101,500
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-2 judgments, $101,500
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.
Monday, August 13, 2007
Jackson Pleads Guilty
Virgil Lee Jackson pleaded guilty to conspiracy to commit murder this morning in US District Court in St. Louis. Jackson’s trial was scheduled to begin today. His sentencing is scheduled for November 1st and Jackson remains in federal custody. According to the US attorney's press release, Jackson faces up to 10 years in prison. Jackson has been in federal custody since October 2005, after he was arrested for conspiring to murder his local competitor, Jerry Cox.
Jackson had been licensed as a bail bond agent since 1996. According to several news articles, when Jackson licensed he was also a convicted felon. The St. Louis Post-Dispatch Jackson reported he had been convicted of burglary in 1959, burglary in 1967, forcibly breaking into a post office in 1971, and first-degree robbery in 1984.
Jackson, who was a member and director of MPBBA, was instrumental in changing the bail bond law so that felons who had been convicted more than 15 years ago could be licensed. Jackson had previously been denied a general agent's license because of his convictions.
Read the US attorney's press release here.
Link to STL Post Dispatch article.
Jackson had been licensed as a bail bond agent since 1996. According to several news articles, when Jackson licensed he was also a convicted felon. The St. Louis Post-Dispatch Jackson reported he had been convicted of burglary in 1959, burglary in 1967, forcibly breaking into a post office in 1971, and first-degree robbery in 1984.
Jackson, who was a member and director of MPBBA, was instrumental in changing the bail bond law so that felons who had been convicted more than 15 years ago could be licensed. Jackson had previously been denied a general agent's license because of his convictions.
Read the US attorney's press release here.
Link to STL Post Dispatch article.
Wednesday, August 1, 2007
Dotson/Jackson Trials Scheduled Again
Virgil Lee Jackson is scheduled to go to trial in less than two weeks, on August 13th. Accused accomplice Glen Dotson is scheduled for trial on September 10th. Jackson and Dotson are both charged in federal court on criminal charges related to the alleged conspiracy to murder bail bond competitor Jerry Cox. Jackson remains in federal custody charged with being a felon in possession of a firearm and using interstate commerce with the intent to murder for pecuniary gain. Dotson is out on bond and charged with furnishing a weapon to Jackson, who is a convicted felon.
Previous Coverage below.
Lee Jackson held on federal charges 4/1/2006
Dotson Arrested/New Charges for Jackson 6/2/2006
Dotson/Jackson trial postponed 6/8/2006
Arraignment 6/13/2006
Trial postponed again 10/28/2006
Dotson Freed on Bond 11/15/2006
Jackson Accused of Another Murder Plot 11/22/2006
January Trial Date Postponed 1/22/2007
March Date Postponed 3/19/2007
Previous Coverage below.
Lee Jackson held on federal charges 4/1/2006
Dotson Arrested/New Charges for Jackson 6/2/2006
Dotson/Jackson trial postponed 6/8/2006
Arraignment 6/13/2006
Trial postponed again 10/28/2006
Dotson Freed on Bond 11/15/2006
Jackson Accused of Another Murder Plot 11/22/2006
January Trial Date Postponed 1/22/2007
March Date Postponed 3/19/2007
Bondsmen Serving As Elected Officials
Can you be a bondsman and also serve on the local school board, city council, or other elected position? Can you be an employee of the county, city, or other political subdivision and keep your bail bond license? The question has arisen several times over the years, and the answer is…..sometimes.
Missouri Supreme Court Rule 33.17(e) says: A person shall not be accepted as a surety on any bail bond unless the person is not an elected or appointed official or employee of the State of Missouri or any county or other political subdivision thereof, except that this disqualification shall not apply if the principal is the spouse, child or family member of the surety.
Additionally 374.702(2) RSMO 2005 says: 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.
Back in 1980, (33.17e has not changed since that time) rule 33.17 was addressed by former Missouri Attorney General John Ashcroft. The AG was asked if a bondsman could also serve on the local school board. Ashcroft opined, “The terms of Rule 33.17 are clear and unequivocal. If a person is an official or employee of a political subdivision, he cannot be accepted as surety on a bail bond.” The AG defined political subdivision as defined in the Missouri Constitution Art. X, § 15: “The term “other political subdivisions,” as used in this article, shall be construed to include townships, cities, towns, villages, school, road, drainage, sewer and levee districts and any other public subdivision, public corporation or public quasi-corporation having the power to tax..” Ashcroft concluded that an elected school board member could not be accepted as surety on a bond. See AG opinion 95-80.
A decade or so later Senator Jet Banks was able to get his bail bond license while serving in the Missouri Senate. The administration at the Department of Insurance explained that Banks was able to have a bail bond license because he was not the surety under rule 33.17. The administration at that time held that the general agent or company backing the bond was the “surety” and a bail bond agent was simply an agent of the surety. Several bail bond agents around the state were then allowed to hold public office and also hold an agent license.
The question was publicized again in 1998 when Mike Randolph was elected county coroner. The question arose as to whether Randolph was the “surety” as defined by rule 33.17 and whether he could also serve as coroner. In an interview with Randolph, the Mornin’ Mail said, “He says he is an agent for a surety, but he does not qualify as a surety himself. He comes to this conclusion after obtaining legal advice as to the definition of a surety. According to Randolph, a surety is an individual that has assets at risk for a bond that is executed. As an agent, Randolph says he simply receives a commission for bonds that he arranges for the surety.” The county attorney saw it differently and said there was no distinction between any principal and an agent of that principal and that Randolph could not be Coroner and work as a bail bondsman. In January, Randolph resigned before taking office. The Mornin’ Mail reported that the court did have some reservations about approving Randolph as a bondsman if he was the Coroner in light of the Rules of Criminal Procedure. Randolph's resignation resolved the question.
In May 2004, legislation was passed prohibiting a bondsman from serving as an elected or appointed official and simultaneously holding a bail bond agent license or a general agent license. The enactment of this law caused another coroner to resign his position. David Haley held a bail bond license and also worked as coroner in Randolph County. He filed for re-election in 2004. Later in 2004, the law was passed prohibiting him from having a bail license and serving as coroner. Haley won his bid for re-election and the new law took effect in January 2005. The Moberly Monitor-Index reported that Haley contacted department officials who said he would be unable to renew his bail bond license because of his job as coroner. Haley also contacted legislators in an effort to have the statute repealed. In the end, Haley was forced to choose between his license and his job as coroner. He resigned as coroner before renewing his license.
I asked the DIFP how they currently interpreted this statute and Supreme Court Rule 33.17. So far, I have not received a reply. If you are a public official or thinking of running for public office, just be aware that other bondsmen successfully ran campaigns and then were forced from office.
Missouri Supreme Court Rule 33.17(e) says: A person shall not be accepted as a surety on any bail bond unless the person is not an elected or appointed official or employee of the State of Missouri or any county or other political subdivision thereof, except that this disqualification shall not apply if the principal is the spouse, child or family member of the surety.
Additionally 374.702(2) RSMO 2005 says: 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.
Back in 1980, (33.17e has not changed since that time) rule 33.17 was addressed by former Missouri Attorney General John Ashcroft. The AG was asked if a bondsman could also serve on the local school board. Ashcroft opined, “The terms of Rule 33.17 are clear and unequivocal. If a person is an official or employee of a political subdivision, he cannot be accepted as surety on a bail bond.” The AG defined political subdivision as defined in the Missouri Constitution Art. X, § 15: “The term “other political subdivisions,” as used in this article, shall be construed to include townships, cities, towns, villages, school, road, drainage, sewer and levee districts and any other public subdivision, public corporation or public quasi-corporation having the power to tax..” Ashcroft concluded that an elected school board member could not be accepted as surety on a bond. See AG opinion 95-80.
A decade or so later Senator Jet Banks was able to get his bail bond license while serving in the Missouri Senate. The administration at the Department of Insurance explained that Banks was able to have a bail bond license because he was not the surety under rule 33.17. The administration at that time held that the general agent or company backing the bond was the “surety” and a bail bond agent was simply an agent of the surety. Several bail bond agents around the state were then allowed to hold public office and also hold an agent license.
The question was publicized again in 1998 when Mike Randolph was elected county coroner. The question arose as to whether Randolph was the “surety” as defined by rule 33.17 and whether he could also serve as coroner. In an interview with Randolph, the Mornin’ Mail said, “He says he is an agent for a surety, but he does not qualify as a surety himself. He comes to this conclusion after obtaining legal advice as to the definition of a surety. According to Randolph, a surety is an individual that has assets at risk for a bond that is executed. As an agent, Randolph says he simply receives a commission for bonds that he arranges for the surety.” The county attorney saw it differently and said there was no distinction between any principal and an agent of that principal and that Randolph could not be Coroner and work as a bail bondsman. In January, Randolph resigned before taking office. The Mornin’ Mail reported that the court did have some reservations about approving Randolph as a bondsman if he was the Coroner in light of the Rules of Criminal Procedure. Randolph's resignation resolved the question.
In May 2004, legislation was passed prohibiting a bondsman from serving as an elected or appointed official and simultaneously holding a bail bond agent license or a general agent license. The enactment of this law caused another coroner to resign his position. David Haley held a bail bond license and also worked as coroner in Randolph County. He filed for re-election in 2004. Later in 2004, the law was passed prohibiting him from having a bail license and serving as coroner. Haley won his bid for re-election and the new law took effect in January 2005. The Moberly Monitor-Index reported that Haley contacted department officials who said he would be unable to renew his bail bond license because of his job as coroner. Haley also contacted legislators in an effort to have the statute repealed. In the end, Haley was forced to choose between his license and his job as coroner. He resigned as coroner before renewing his license.
I asked the DIFP how they currently interpreted this statute and Supreme Court Rule 33.17. So far, I have not received a reply. If you are a public official or thinking of running for public office, just be aware that other bondsmen successfully ran campaigns and then were forced from office.
Friday, July 20, 2007
Inmate Poses as Bondsman in Scam
Bond scams seem to be becoming more prevalent. The Eastern Wake News, located in North Carolina, reported an alleged scam of posing as a bondsman to steal bail bond money from a mother. The alleged scam artists claimed to be collecting the money to bond her mentally challenged son who was in the county jail. Here’s how this one worked:
Inmate Danny Cole and accomplice Joshua Smith allegedly called Bonnie Childers (the mother of mentally challenged inmate Christopher Childers) and posed as bail bondmen. Cole instructed Childers to take $1,500 to a parking lot and meet Smith. Ms. Childers became suspicious when her caller id disclosed that Cole’s calls were coming from the county jail. She reported the calls to police. Police then went to the parking lot where they found accomplice Smith waiting for Childers. Smith told officers Cole had asked him to meet Childers and then deliver the money to another woman, who was then supposed to take it to Cole at the jail. The intention was to use Childers’ money to get Cole out of jail.
As of the time of publication, no one had been charged in the scam.
Inmate Danny Cole and accomplice Joshua Smith allegedly called Bonnie Childers (the mother of mentally challenged inmate Christopher Childers) and posed as bail bondmen. Cole instructed Childers to take $1,500 to a parking lot and meet Smith. Ms. Childers became suspicious when her caller id disclosed that Cole’s calls were coming from the county jail. She reported the calls to police. Police then went to the parking lot where they found accomplice Smith waiting for Childers. Smith told officers Cole had asked him to meet Childers and then deliver the money to another woman, who was then supposed to take it to Cole at the jail. The intention was to use Childers’ money to get Cole out of jail.
As of the time of publication, no one had been charged in the scam.
Thursday, July 19, 2007
Hugh Found Guilty of Wire-Tapping
Bondsman Richard Hugh, of Sparta, was found guilty of wire-tapping by intercepting the telephone communications of a Springfield resident without permission according to a press release issued by the US Attorney’s office. Hugh's trial began last Monday. The jury deliberated about an hour before delivering the verdict.
Hugh placed the phone tap on the victim’s telephone line in December 2005 in an attempt to get information that would help him locate Basil Minor, who was a fugitive in a Lawrence County, Mo., circuit court case.
Under federal statutes, Hugh could be subject to a sentence of up to five years in federal prison without parole, plus a fine up to $250,000. A sentencing hearing will be scheduled after the completion of a presentence investigation by the United States Probation Office.
Hugh placed the phone tap on the victim’s telephone line in December 2005 in an attempt to get information that would help him locate Basil Minor, who was a fugitive in a Lawrence County, Mo., circuit court case.
Under federal statutes, Hugh could be subject to a sentence of up to five years in federal prison without parole, plus a fine up to $250,000. A sentencing hearing will be scheduled after the completion of a presentence investigation by the United States Probation Office.
Wednesday, July 18, 2007
Prosecution Underway for Impersonating a Bondsman
A prosecution is underway in Barry County against James E. Carrington for impersonating a bail bondsman. This may be the first time in Missouri that a prosecution under this statute (374-789 RSMO) has been attempted.
Allegedly, Carrington claimed to be a bondsman while performing repossession work. A complaint was filed alleging Carrington claimed to be a bondsman and he threatened arrest when confronted while trying to repossess a vehicle.
The case number is 07BR-CR00723 filed in Barry County. Impersonating a bondsman is a Class D felony.
Carrington used the services a real bondsman and posted a $10,000 bond in the case.
Allegedly, Carrington claimed to be a bondsman while performing repossession work. A complaint was filed alleging Carrington claimed to be a bondsman and he threatened arrest when confronted while trying to repossess a vehicle.
The case number is 07BR-CR00723 filed in Barry County. Impersonating a bondsman is a Class D felony.
Carrington used the services a real bondsman and posted a $10,000 bond in the case.
Bail PAC Files Report
The Missouri Legislature is not in session but political fund-raising is still in season. The Missouri Professional Bail Bond(ing) Association-Political Action Committee has reported a single, large contribution from the last quarter. On the same day, the committee disbursed this contribution.
The committee reported a $1,000 donation from American Guarantee Surety, Inc. I found it interesting that American was still in business and making political contributions. American Guarantee was organized by Lee Jackson in 2002. One of the stated purposes of the corporation was to “carry on the business of writing surety bonds.” American (and Jackson’s other company Missouri National Surety) came into the limelight in 2005 when Jackson allegedly conspired to murder his competitor Jerry Cox. The press reported that affidavits filed in the Jackson case allege Jackson wanted Cox murdered because he believed Cox had reported to authorities that Jackson’s companies were fraudulent. (American and National were never licensed as insurance companies and never held bail bond licenses, although agents were writing bonds under American’s paper.)
Until his arrest in 2005, Jackson served as president, vice-president, and other offices of American. American continues to file annual reports with the Missouri Secretary of State, although it no longer backs bonds in Missouri. Since Jackson’s incarceration, he is no longer on the board or an officer. The president’s position has since been held by Jack Allison.
The following Missouri House members received the contribution by American Guarantee:
Steve Tilley R –Perryville, MO - $200
Jamilah Nasheed D – St. Louis, MO $250
Jason Smith R – Salem, MO $200
Jason Holsman D – Kansas City, MO $200
*Jackson is scheduled to go to trial on the murder conspiracy charge and a related charge of felon in possession of a firearm on August 13th in the US District Court in St. Louis.
The committee reported a $1,000 donation from American Guarantee Surety, Inc. I found it interesting that American was still in business and making political contributions. American Guarantee was organized by Lee Jackson in 2002. One of the stated purposes of the corporation was to “carry on the business of writing surety bonds.” American (and Jackson’s other company Missouri National Surety) came into the limelight in 2005 when Jackson allegedly conspired to murder his competitor Jerry Cox. The press reported that affidavits filed in the Jackson case allege Jackson wanted Cox murdered because he believed Cox had reported to authorities that Jackson’s companies were fraudulent. (American and National were never licensed as insurance companies and never held bail bond licenses, although agents were writing bonds under American’s paper.)
Until his arrest in 2005, Jackson served as president, vice-president, and other offices of American. American continues to file annual reports with the Missouri Secretary of State, although it no longer backs bonds in Missouri. Since Jackson’s incarceration, he is no longer on the board or an officer. The president’s position has since been held by Jack Allison.
The following Missouri House members received the contribution by American Guarantee:
Steve Tilley R –Perryville, MO - $200
Jamilah Nasheed D – St. Louis, MO $250
Jason Smith R – Salem, MO $200
Jason Holsman D – Kansas City, MO $200
*Jackson is scheduled to go to trial on the murder conspiracy charge and a related charge of felon in possession of a firearm on August 13th in the US District Court in St. Louis.
Tuesday, July 17, 2007
Bondsman On Trial, Faces Federal Charges
Today is the second day in a four day trial against Richard Hugh of Sparta. Hugh has been a licensed bondsman since 2002 and presently works under the authority of Ray Callanan of Farmington.
Hugh is charged in US District Court with wiretapping and witness intimidation. The US prosecutor alleges that Hugh illegally tapped a telephone in order to gain information about a bail fugitive and later intimidated a witness to drop the complaint against Hugh.
*According to the MPBBA website, both Hugh and Callanan are members of the state bail association. Callanan serves as a director.
Hugh is charged in US District Court with wiretapping and witness intimidation. The US prosecutor alleges that Hugh illegally tapped a telephone in order to gain information about a bail fugitive and later intimidated a witness to drop the complaint against Hugh.
*According to the MPBBA website, both Hugh and Callanan are members of the state bail association. Callanan serves as a director.
Friday, July 13, 2007
Editorial on Cash to the Court Bonds
Here’s a pretty informative and funny editorial on ten percent cash bonds. The editorialist lists the enormity of FTAs and a proven solution.
Here's a quote from the article: "So state bondsmen are hoping to do away with the 10-percent rule -- or at least have it employed more sparingly. Studies have shown that if judges require surety bonds -- meaning someone puts up, say, Mom's house as collateral -- they're 28 percent more likely to show up for court."
Here's a quote from the article: "So state bondsmen are hoping to do away with the 10-percent rule -- or at least have it employed more sparingly. Studies have shown that if judges require surety bonds -- meaning someone puts up, say, Mom's house as collateral -- they're 28 percent more likely to show up for court."
DIFP Refuses to Renew License
The DIFP has refused to renew Phillip Joyce’s bail bond license. This is not the first time in the ring for Joyce. He has been denied a license twice before by the Department and has a 1-1 record with the Administrative Hearing Commission on the DIFP’s decisions.
In the most recent Department action, the DIFP refused to renew Joyce’s license because he was convicted in 1995 of stealing by deceit in Scott County, Missouri, and pled nolo contendere to the same type of charge in Craighead County, Arkansas. The DIFP alleges that Joyce is not qualified for a bail bond license because the Department must apply the current licensing statutes retrospectively, that because of Joyce’s convictions, he does not meet supreme court rule, and that he committed fraud or deception by not disclosing his nolo contendere case in Arkansas on his application. Joyce has 30 days to appeal the Department’s licensing decision.
I wrote about the two previous Joyce decisions last year. Joyce applied for a bail bond license after his convictions in 1995. The Administrative Hearing Commission granted Joyce a license saying the licensing statute was permissive. They reversed the Department and granted Joyce’s license stating that Joyce exhibited a good reputation in his new community, was resolved not to repeat his mistakes, and was candid about his convictions. The AHC concluded that these factors outweighed the felony convictions and granted him a license. Two years later Joyce applied for a general bail bond license and his application was denied by the Department of Insurance for the same felony convictions. Again, Joyce appealed to the AHC. This time the AHC ruled in favor of the Department of Insurance. The AHC ruled that the wording of the applicable statutes and Missouri Supreme Court Rules prohibited the issuance of a general bail bond license. The commission said that a general bail bond agent shall meet the qualifications for surety on bail bonds as provided by Missouri Supreme Court rule..... And the Supreme Court rule at the time stated “that the surety has not been convicted of any felony under the laws of any state or the United States.”
In the most recent Department action, the DIFP refused to renew Joyce’s license because he was convicted in 1995 of stealing by deceit in Scott County, Missouri, and pled nolo contendere to the same type of charge in Craighead County, Arkansas. The DIFP alleges that Joyce is not qualified for a bail bond license because the Department must apply the current licensing statutes retrospectively, that because of Joyce’s convictions, he does not meet supreme court rule, and that he committed fraud or deception by not disclosing his nolo contendere case in Arkansas on his application. Joyce has 30 days to appeal the Department’s licensing decision.
I wrote about the two previous Joyce decisions last year. Joyce applied for a bail bond license after his convictions in 1995. The Administrative Hearing Commission granted Joyce a license saying the licensing statute was permissive. They reversed the Department and granted Joyce’s license stating that Joyce exhibited a good reputation in his new community, was resolved not to repeat his mistakes, and was candid about his convictions. The AHC concluded that these factors outweighed the felony convictions and granted him a license. Two years later Joyce applied for a general bail bond license and his application was denied by the Department of Insurance for the same felony convictions. Again, Joyce appealed to the AHC. This time the AHC ruled in favor of the Department of Insurance. The AHC ruled that the wording of the applicable statutes and Missouri Supreme Court Rules prohibited the issuance of a general bail bond license. The commission said that a general bail bond agent shall meet the qualifications for surety on bail bonds as provided by Missouri Supreme Court rule..... And the Supreme Court rule at the time stated “that the surety has not been convicted of any felony under the laws of any state or the United States.”
Bondsmen Remember Colleague
Many bondsmen are mourning the death of Florida bondsman Jerry Dongo, 32, who was married and the father of three. As reported several days ago, Dongo was killed trying to apprehend fugitive Christopher Walls in a car. Walls had a woman and child with him. Walls shot Dongo as he approached the car and then Walls used the young girl as a human shield to prevent the other agents from shooting him. Dongo was with three other licensed bondsmen at the scene. The bondsmen were able to apprehend Walls after the shooting.
Bail bond leaders from around the country are calling for more personal security after this tragic loss. George Zouvelos, President of the NYPBA, New York State Professional Bondsmen & Agents said in a press release, “Our work is extremely dangerous and we should own and wear the best possible body armor we can find. I welcome discussions with the various manufacturers of body armor to discuss the commercial bail industries options for acquiring body armor for our bondsmen.” Joe Mastrapa, general agent of BAIL YES Bonding Agency of Miami Florida said, "Bondsmen in Florida and across the United States mourn the loss of our fallen comrade Jerry Dongo. We ask that each bondsman who initiates apprehensions no matter what State he/she is in to please wear a bullet-proof vest and continue to exercise extreme caution while dealing with and apprehending felons no matter how minor the offense."
Our sincere condolences to the family and friends of Jerry Dongo.
Bail bond leaders from around the country are calling for more personal security after this tragic loss. George Zouvelos, President of the NYPBA, New York State Professional Bondsmen & Agents said in a press release, “Our work is extremely dangerous and we should own and wear the best possible body armor we can find. I welcome discussions with the various manufacturers of body armor to discuss the commercial bail industries options for acquiring body armor for our bondsmen.” Joe Mastrapa, general agent of BAIL YES Bonding Agency of Miami Florida said, "Bondsmen in Florida and across the United States mourn the loss of our fallen comrade Jerry Dongo. We ask that each bondsman who initiates apprehensions no matter what State he/she is in to please wear a bullet-proof vest and continue to exercise extreme caution while dealing with and apprehending felons no matter how minor the offense."
Our sincere condolences to the family and friends of Jerry Dongo.
Fugitive Escapes During Transport
The press was critical of bondsmen in a headline reading “Bounty Hunt Costs Taxpayers.” The story focuses on the escape of a fugitive who was traveling from Utah to Ohio when he escaped in Iowa. According to the article, he was escorted by two bondsmen and escaped at a convenience store. Several law enforcement agencies were called to assist in recapturing the fugitive. He was found walking in a ravine a few hours later.
My guess is the local taxpayers would rather have law enforcement assist in finding this out-of-state fugitive, rather than having a desperate run-away fugitive lurking around their city.
My guess is the local taxpayers would rather have law enforcement assist in finding this out-of-state fugitive, rather than having a desperate run-away fugitive lurking around their city.
Tuesday, July 10, 2007
FL Bondsman Killed
A bail bondsmen was shot and killed Monday night at an apartment in Northwest Miami-Dade when he tried to take into custody a man who had failed to pay his bond. The bondsman, who was not wearing a bulletproof vest, was taken to Jackson Memorial Hospital's Ryder Trauma Center, where he died.
The man was accompanied by two other bail bondsmen, who were able to detain the shooter without any more shots being fired. Miami-Dade police took the shooter into custody.
Police did not release the names of the shooter or victim. Story at Miama Herald.
The man was accompanied by two other bail bondsmen, who were able to detain the shooter without any more shots being fired. Miami-Dade police took the shooter into custody.
Police did not release the names of the shooter or victim. Story at Miama Herald.
Thursday, June 28, 2007
Bondsman Proposes New Bond Program
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.
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.
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.
Wednesday, May 23, 2007
End of Session Report
The 2007 Missouri General Assembly adjourned last Friday. The final report of bills with bail bond language follows:
SB153-Senate informal calendar, didn’t receive a vote of full Senate
SB459-Never received a hearing
HB586-Never received a hearing
HB1165-Never received a hearing
SB325-Didn’t receive a vote of the full House
Late in the session, the MPBBA voted to withdraw its support of the language in these bills.
Another bill, SB66, passed and contains some bail bond regulation language. I'll discuss this bill in upcoming posts.
SB153-Senate informal calendar, didn’t receive a vote of full Senate
SB459-Never received a hearing
HB586-Never received a hearing
HB1165-Never received a hearing
SB325-Didn’t receive a vote of the full House
Late in the session, the MPBBA voted to withdraw its support of the language in these bills.
Another bill, SB66, passed and contains some bail bond regulation language. I'll discuss this bill in upcoming posts.
Services Announced for Tommy Bays
General bail bond agent Tommy Lee Bays, 61, of Camdenton, Mo., passed away Monday morning, May 21, 2007, at his home. Tommy was the general agent for Tommy Bays Bail Bonding, formerly known as Missouri Bail Bonding. Tommy contracted with 39 agents throughout Missouri.
Funeral services will be held at 11 a.m., Thursday, May 24, at the Camdenton United Methodist Church. The family will receive friends from 6-8 p.m., Wednesday evening, at the Hedges Funeral Home in Camdenton.
Tommy’s wife and two daughters survive him. Memorials may be given to the Tommy Bays Education Fund for his children, Rachel and Becca.
Funeral services will be held at 11 a.m., Thursday, May 24, at the Camdenton United Methodist Church. The family will receive friends from 6-8 p.m., Wednesday evening, at the Hedges Funeral Home in Camdenton.
Tommy’s wife and two daughters survive him. Memorials may be given to the Tommy Bays Education Fund for his children, Rachel and Becca.
Monday, May 7, 2007
Bail Bond Language in Another Bill
SB325 was reported out of committee a few weeks ago. The following bail language was added to the bill in committee. This makes the fifth time this language was introduced or substituted this year.
● Bill Section 374.707 The DIFP must notify the general agent of a notice of forfeiture within 48 hours of receiving notice from the courts. The language is ambiguous and does not specify if this notice is a bond forfeiture hearing or a court ordered unsatisfied judgment. There are many bond forfeitures hearings, most are set aside and do not result in judgment. This would be an onerous task for local courts if this language were interpreted to include every ‘notice of forfeiture.’ The courts already report unsatisfied judgments to the Office of State Courts Administrator.
● Bill Section 374.710.1 The Department shall include a photograph on the bail bond license. The bill does not say how this picture will be obtained or what the additional licensing cost might be. The DIFP testified last year that it issues no other licenses which included a photograph and this would be new technology for the Department.
● Bill section 374.710.5 An agent cannot write bonds without noticing the department of the name, address and telephone number for each employer he/she works or operates as an independent contractor. This is more ambiguous language which does not distinguish between all employers or bail bond related employment. The law already requires a signed affidavit stating the agent does not work for a political subdivision of the State of Missouri and the signature of an agent’s general agent.
● Bill Section 374.710.6 This section has inconsistencies with the use of ‘shall’ and ‘may’ causing contradictions and confusion. If a bail bond agent goes to work for a new company he/she SHALL file an affidavit with the DIFP and the new general agent, swearing “that to the best of their knowledge, there are no outstanding premiums owed at the time of the appointment.” I think there is very little possibility an agent could swear under oath that no one owes money to the agent and/or the company. Secondly, the section does not tell to whom the money might be owed. Premium owed the agent? The former company? The new company? All of the above? Additionally, the section does not differentiate between uncollected or uncollectible premium in the form of credit extended to clients and collected premium not turned into the company. The next sentence of this section states that IF premiums are owed (this should never happen because the previous part of this section states that you shall file an affidavit saying no one owes money) and the agent does not satisfy this obligation, the former general agent MAY file notice, under oath, with supporting documentation, stating that the bail bond agent has failed to satisfy his/her obligation. Then upon receipt of this notification, the new general agent MAY cancel the authority of his/her new agent. IF the new general agent cancels the authority of the new agent, the cancellation SHALL remain in effect until all of the alleged premiums due the former general agent are paid in full. That is a lot of confusing language. Misappropriation of premium is already against the law. There are already remedies for a company who alleges an agent misappropriated funds. A company can file a complaint with the DIFP, file a complaint with the local prosecutor, or sue the agent for the amount due.
● Section 374.715.1 Requires fingerprinting and background screening. This is redundant language since fingerprinting and background investigation is already being required by the DIFP through regulation.
● Bill Section 374.755.1(2-3) Bill continues to license felons in the bail business. This has been an ongoing problem with felons in the bail bond business being profiled in the Columbia Missourian, St. Louis Post-Dispatch, Joplin Globe, and the Columbia Tribune. Keeps the controversial 15-year felony clause passed in 2004, but adds that a license MAY be refused, revoked, etc. if an applicant has been convicted of: any dangerous felony defined by section 556.061, RSMo, any felony crime of assault, any felony crime that results in the serious physical injury or death of another person, any felony crime against the administration of justice, or any felony of which deceit or fraud is an element of the offense. Examples of felonies not included in this language would be manufacturing of meth, child pornography, drug sales, felons with firearms, and statutory sodomy of a 13 year-old.
● Bill section 374.715.2 This bill is unfair to small, family-owned companies who will be required to make the same cash deposit as a corporation employing 50 agents. The bill doubles the required certificate of deposit to become a general agent from $10,000 to $20,000 and then the DIFP can require the CD be increased to $40,000 based upon regulation. Small, family companies have fewer bonds and less risk, why should they be required to post the same CD as large, corporate companies who have many, many more bonds in force with the courts?
●Section 374.773 Any licensed general bail bond agent or bail bond agent who is arrested for a felony shall notify the director within ten days of his or her arrest. This is empty language that does not instruct the DIFP on what to do with this information. It makes people feel good but does nothing to address the problem with felons in the bail bond business.
● Bill section 374.780.1 There is a housekeeping issue with this section. The bill codifies violations by levels and refers to a level two violation for violating section 374.761(b). The problem is there is no section 374.761b in the bill or currently in statute.
●374.787.1(2) This section says that no bounty hunter can be a felon. A representative from the Missouri Supreme Court pointed out (in committee hearing on SB153) that this language was inconsistent with the bail bond agent requirements in 374.755.1(2-3) and said the felon requirement should be consistent in both sections. I agree.
Status of other bail bond bills:
SB153 on Senate Calendar for perfection
SB459-No hearing scheduled
HB586-No hearing scheduled
HB1165-Not assigned to committee
Thankfully, the legislative session will be over on May 18th.
● Bill Section 374.707 The DIFP must notify the general agent of a notice of forfeiture within 48 hours of receiving notice from the courts. The language is ambiguous and does not specify if this notice is a bond forfeiture hearing or a court ordered unsatisfied judgment. There are many bond forfeitures hearings, most are set aside and do not result in judgment. This would be an onerous task for local courts if this language were interpreted to include every ‘notice of forfeiture.’ The courts already report unsatisfied judgments to the Office of State Courts Administrator.
● Bill Section 374.710.1 The Department shall include a photograph on the bail bond license. The bill does not say how this picture will be obtained or what the additional licensing cost might be. The DIFP testified last year that it issues no other licenses which included a photograph and this would be new technology for the Department.
● Bill section 374.710.5 An agent cannot write bonds without noticing the department of the name, address and telephone number for each employer he/she works or operates as an independent contractor. This is more ambiguous language which does not distinguish between all employers or bail bond related employment. The law already requires a signed affidavit stating the agent does not work for a political subdivision of the State of Missouri and the signature of an agent’s general agent.
● Bill Section 374.710.6 This section has inconsistencies with the use of ‘shall’ and ‘may’ causing contradictions and confusion. If a bail bond agent goes to work for a new company he/she SHALL file an affidavit with the DIFP and the new general agent, swearing “that to the best of their knowledge, there are no outstanding premiums owed at the time of the appointment.” I think there is very little possibility an agent could swear under oath that no one owes money to the agent and/or the company. Secondly, the section does not tell to whom the money might be owed. Premium owed the agent? The former company? The new company? All of the above? Additionally, the section does not differentiate between uncollected or uncollectible premium in the form of credit extended to clients and collected premium not turned into the company. The next sentence of this section states that IF premiums are owed (this should never happen because the previous part of this section states that you shall file an affidavit saying no one owes money) and the agent does not satisfy this obligation, the former general agent MAY file notice, under oath, with supporting documentation, stating that the bail bond agent has failed to satisfy his/her obligation. Then upon receipt of this notification, the new general agent MAY cancel the authority of his/her new agent. IF the new general agent cancels the authority of the new agent, the cancellation SHALL remain in effect until all of the alleged premiums due the former general agent are paid in full. That is a lot of confusing language. Misappropriation of premium is already against the law. There are already remedies for a company who alleges an agent misappropriated funds. A company can file a complaint with the DIFP, file a complaint with the local prosecutor, or sue the agent for the amount due.
● Section 374.715.1 Requires fingerprinting and background screening. This is redundant language since fingerprinting and background investigation is already being required by the DIFP through regulation.
● Bill Section 374.755.1(2-3) Bill continues to license felons in the bail business. This has been an ongoing problem with felons in the bail bond business being profiled in the Columbia Missourian, St. Louis Post-Dispatch, Joplin Globe, and the Columbia Tribune. Keeps the controversial 15-year felony clause passed in 2004, but adds that a license MAY be refused, revoked, etc. if an applicant has been convicted of: any dangerous felony defined by section 556.061, RSMo, any felony crime of assault, any felony crime that results in the serious physical injury or death of another person, any felony crime against the administration of justice, or any felony of which deceit or fraud is an element of the offense. Examples of felonies not included in this language would be manufacturing of meth, child pornography, drug sales, felons with firearms, and statutory sodomy of a 13 year-old.
● Bill section 374.715.2 This bill is unfair to small, family-owned companies who will be required to make the same cash deposit as a corporation employing 50 agents. The bill doubles the required certificate of deposit to become a general agent from $10,000 to $20,000 and then the DIFP can require the CD be increased to $40,000 based upon regulation. Small, family companies have fewer bonds and less risk, why should they be required to post the same CD as large, corporate companies who have many, many more bonds in force with the courts?
●Section 374.773 Any licensed general bail bond agent or bail bond agent who is arrested for a felony shall notify the director within ten days of his or her arrest. This is empty language that does not instruct the DIFP on what to do with this information. It makes people feel good but does nothing to address the problem with felons in the bail bond business.
● Bill section 374.780.1 There is a housekeeping issue with this section. The bill codifies violations by levels and refers to a level two violation for violating section 374.761(b). The problem is there is no section 374.761b in the bill or currently in statute.
●374.787.1(2) This section says that no bounty hunter can be a felon. A representative from the Missouri Supreme Court pointed out (in committee hearing on SB153) that this language was inconsistent with the bail bond agent requirements in 374.755.1(2-3) and said the felon requirement should be consistent in both sections. I agree.
Status of other bail bond bills:
SB153 on Senate Calendar for perfection
SB459-No hearing scheduled
HB586-No hearing scheduled
HB1165-Not assigned to committee
Thankfully, the legislative session will be over on May 18th.
Wednesday, April 18, 2007
Recent Licensing Actions
A previously seldom-quoted bail bond statute has recently been used in decisions by both the Department of Insurance and the Cole County Circuit Court.
The statute I am referring to is:
RSMO 374.755.1. The department may cause a complaint to be filed with the administrative hearing commission as provided by chapter 621, RSMo, against any holder of any license required by sections 374.695 to 374.775 or any person who has failed to renew or has surrendered his or her license for any one or any combination of the following causes:…(6) Violation of any provision of or any obligation imposed by the laws of this state, department of insurance rules and regulations, or aiding or abetting other persons to violate such laws, orders, rules or regulations, or subpoenas. (Emphasis added)
This statute may also be used to refuse to renew or issue a bail bond license under 374.750 RSMO.
The significance of this statute is the very broad language can be applied to a variety of circumstances. The department used this statute to revoke a license for failure to pay income taxes. The court used this statute in the case of DIFP V. Cummings. The court also ruled that the statute can be applied retrospectively (applied to convictions before the law went into effect in 2005) in order to revoke the license of those who are convicted of crimes. Note that the language does not state the violation must be a felony just that the licensee is in violation of the “laws of this state.” Previously, the Administrative Hearing Commission had ruled that Cummings was not subject to discipline under 375.755.1(6) because his convictions were not committed under the bail bond statutes and the crimes were committed before the revised language was adopted. The court reversed this decision and said that the law could be applied retrospectively.
The language was changed in 2004 in SB1122. The previous language said, “Violation of, or assisting or enabling any other person to violate, any provision of sections 374.700 to 374.775 or of any lawful rule or regulation promulgated pursuant to sections 374.700 to 374.775." The language was expanded from violation of the bail bond statutes to violation of the “laws of this state.”
Most decisions and debate regarding the discipline of bail bond agents has surrounded the 15-year felony clause and how to apply the clause. However, with these recent decisions, the justification appears to be evolving into license holders’ compliance with any laws, obligations, rules, regulations, and orders of the state.
Also of note, whether a license is refused or disciplinary action is taken, the discretion to take action resides with the DIFP. The department is not required to take action against any license holder for violating the provisions of the licensing laws. The disciplinary section and the license refusal section of the bail bond statutes both use the word "may" when referring to DIFP and its authority over licensees.
The statute I am referring to is:
RSMO 374.755.1. The department may cause a complaint to be filed with the administrative hearing commission as provided by chapter 621, RSMo, against any holder of any license required by sections 374.695 to 374.775 or any person who has failed to renew or has surrendered his or her license for any one or any combination of the following causes:…(6) Violation of any provision of or any obligation imposed by the laws of this state, department of insurance rules and regulations, or aiding or abetting other persons to violate such laws, orders, rules or regulations, or subpoenas. (Emphasis added)
This statute may also be used to refuse to renew or issue a bail bond license under 374.750 RSMO.
The significance of this statute is the very broad language can be applied to a variety of circumstances. The department used this statute to revoke a license for failure to pay income taxes. The court used this statute in the case of DIFP V. Cummings. The court also ruled that the statute can be applied retrospectively (applied to convictions before the law went into effect in 2005) in order to revoke the license of those who are convicted of crimes. Note that the language does not state the violation must be a felony just that the licensee is in violation of the “laws of this state.” Previously, the Administrative Hearing Commission had ruled that Cummings was not subject to discipline under 375.755.1(6) because his convictions were not committed under the bail bond statutes and the crimes were committed before the revised language was adopted. The court reversed this decision and said that the law could be applied retrospectively.
The language was changed in 2004 in SB1122. The previous language said, “Violation of, or assisting or enabling any other person to violate, any provision of sections 374.700 to 374.775 or of any lawful rule or regulation promulgated pursuant to sections 374.700 to 374.775." The language was expanded from violation of the bail bond statutes to violation of the “laws of this state.”
Most decisions and debate regarding the discipline of bail bond agents has surrounded the 15-year felony clause and how to apply the clause. However, with these recent decisions, the justification appears to be evolving into license holders’ compliance with any laws, obligations, rules, regulations, and orders of the state.
Also of note, whether a license is refused or disciplinary action is taken, the discretion to take action resides with the DIFP. The department is not required to take action against any license holder for violating the provisions of the licensing laws. The disciplinary section and the license refusal section of the bail bond statutes both use the word "may" when referring to DIFP and its authority over licensees.
Monday, April 16, 2007
License Refused for Failing to Pay Taxes
The Department of Insurance has refused to renew the bail bond license of Christian Lentz of Lee’s Summit for failing to pay Missouri income taxes. I spoke with the department spokesperson, who told me that the DIFP had authority for such action under the following statutes:
RSMO 374.750. The department may refuse to issue or renew any license required pursuant to sections 374.700 to 374.775 for any one or any combination of causes stated in section 374.755. The department shall notify the applicant in writing of the reasons for the refusal and shall advise the applicant of his right to file a complaint with the administrative hearing commission as provided by chapter 621, RSMo.
The cause cited by the DIFP is:
RSMO 374.755.1(6) Violation of any provision of or any obligation imposed by the laws of this state, department of insurance rules and regulations, or aiding or abetting other persons to violate such laws, orders, rules or regulations, or subpoenas;
The DIFP’s position is that by not paying his state taxes, Lentz is in “violation of any provision of or any obligation imposed by the laws of this state.”
RSMO 374.750. The department may refuse to issue or renew any license required pursuant to sections 374.700 to 374.775 for any one or any combination of causes stated in section 374.755. The department shall notify the applicant in writing of the reasons for the refusal and shall advise the applicant of his right to file a complaint with the administrative hearing commission as provided by chapter 621, RSMo.
The cause cited by the DIFP is:
RSMO 374.755.1(6) Violation of any provision of or any obligation imposed by the laws of this state, department of insurance rules and regulations, or aiding or abetting other persons to violate such laws, orders, rules or regulations, or subpoenas;
The DIFP’s position is that by not paying his state taxes, Lentz is in “violation of any provision of or any obligation imposed by the laws of this state.”
Friday, April 13, 2007
Outstanding Judgments & Disciplinary List-4/6/2007
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 4/6/2007. The list is distributed to local courts via electronic means.
1) Billy Corn Sr., general agent, Cassville, MO-1 judgment, $500
2) L&C Investment Group, president-Douglas Cheatham of Blue Springs, MO-1 judgment, $100,000
3) C&M Bonding, president-Cody Ice of Houston, MO-5 judgments, $114,500
The following agents/companies appear in the section listing pending disciplinary action: A Way Out Investments, Gerald Franks, Ozell Scott, 1A Bail Agency LLC, A Aarons Bonding, A&J Bail Bonding LLC, MCB Investment Corp, and David McKinney
Note: The judgment list does not provide the address of the company or corporate officers. I added the address, corporate presidents, and corporate status using the Missouri Secretary of State business database as well as the DIFP licensing information.
1) Billy Corn Sr., general agent, Cassville, MO-1 judgment, $500
2) L&C Investment Group, president-Douglas Cheatham of Blue Springs, MO-1 judgment, $100,000
3) C&M Bonding, president-Cody Ice of Houston, MO-5 judgments, $114,500
The following agents/companies appear in the section listing pending disciplinary action: A Way Out Investments, Gerald Franks, Ozell Scott, 1A Bail Agency LLC, A Aarons Bonding, A&J Bail Bonding LLC, MCB Investment Corp, and David McKinney
Note: The judgment list does not provide the address of the company or corporate officers. I added the address, corporate presidents, and corporate status using the Missouri Secretary of State business database as well as the DIFP licensing information.
Thursday, April 12, 2007
Tennessee Bill to Allow Felons Defeated
Our neighbor to the east, Tennessee, seems to have a very different view on felons in the bail bond business than our state bail association and some legislators. WKRN reports that a bill was before the Tennessee House Judiciary Committee which would have allowed convicted felons to become licensed as bail bond agents. Unlike the Missouri Professional Bail Bond Association who writes legislation allowing felons, the Tennessee Association of Bail Agents spoke AGAINST the bill. The Tennessee bail association lobbyist told the committee that allowing felons would hurt the credibility of the industry with both the public and law enforcement. Also speaking against the bill was a former sheriff, who said that it would make him uncomfortable to have convicted felons in secure areas of the jail writing bonds. The bill was defeated in committee.
Lincoln County Bondsman Arrested
General agent James Darby was arrested yesterday in Lincoln County, MO, on charges of possession of a controlled substance. Darby was arrested by Troy Police Department and released on $10,000 cash only bond. Darby has been a general agent since 2002 and has eight agents working under his authority. Darby is a member of the bail bond association.
Monday, April 9, 2007
Ruling: Cause to Discipline for Felony Convictions
The Administrative Hearing Commission (AHC) has entered a decision on a case involving the discipline of a bail bond license holder who was convicted of felony offenses. In its order, the commission said that Ozell Scott is subject to discipline for entering an alford plea to resisting arrest and pleading guilty to unlawful use a weapon in March 2006. Scott was sentenced to three years in prison, but execution of the sentence was suspended and he was placed on probation for three years. The commission noted that for the purposes of licensing, an alford plea is considered a guilty plea. Scott has until April 22nd, to appeal the AHC decision. Unless the decision is appealed, the Department of Insurance (DIFP) will convene a disciplinary hearing and determine what form of discipline to give Scott. According to DIFP licensing records, Scott works under the authority of Darrell Tullock.
In other news regarding the AHC:
The hearing DIFP vs. C&M Bonding and Cody Ice has been continued to 6/21/2007.
The hearing DIFP vs Virgil Lee Jackson has been continued to 9/10/2007.
In other news regarding the AHC:
The hearing DIFP vs. C&M Bonding and Cody Ice has been continued to 6/21/2007.
The hearing DIFP vs Virgil Lee Jackson has been continued to 9/10/2007.
Friday, April 6, 2007
Court Reverses Licensing Decision
The Cole County Circuit Court has reversed a bail bond licensing decision of the Administrative Hearing Commission (AHC). The AHC had ruled that the Department of Insurance (DIFP) had failed to make its case in complaint regarding the discipline of former bondsman Gerald Cummings. Cummings was charged in 2002 (and then convicted in 2005) of possession of a controlled substance and unlawful use of a weapon. He was given a suspended imposition of sentence and given five years probation.
The AHC ruled that final adjudication did not include a suspended imposition of sentence and certified court documents submitted by the DIFP did not state whether Cummings entered “a plea of guilty or nolo contendere” but just said he was “found guilty.” The AHC also ruled that Cummings criminal offenses were committed prior to the 2005 bail bond law and applied the 2002 version of the statute. The AHC said in its decision, “While the January 1, 2005, version of the statute expanded the scope of violations to those against obligations imposed ‘by the laws of this state,' the version effective in 2002 restricted the violations to the provisions of ‘sections 374.700 to 374.775.’ According to the court records, Cummings violated the criminal laws 195.202 and 571.030.1(1), RSMo 2000. Those sections are not within 374.700 to 374.775.”
The DIFP then asked for a judicial review of the AHC decision. The court reversed the AHC decision. In the court’s ruling it stated that applying the law retrospectively is permissible if it is applied procedurally and does not impair any substantive rights vested by the prior statute. The court further said that Missouri courts have held that professional licensing does not confer substantive rights and that licensing is a privilege granted by the state. Finally, the ruling stated that protecting the public health and welfare is the primary purpose of professional licensing statutes and a person who has statutorily been deemed a menace or threat to the public is no less a threat or menace because some, if not all, of his convictions occurred before the effective date of a given statute.
The order gives the DIFP permission to discipline Cummings whose license expired in 2005.
The AHC ruled that final adjudication did not include a suspended imposition of sentence and certified court documents submitted by the DIFP did not state whether Cummings entered “a plea of guilty or nolo contendere” but just said he was “found guilty.” The AHC also ruled that Cummings criminal offenses were committed prior to the 2005 bail bond law and applied the 2002 version of the statute. The AHC said in its decision, “While the January 1, 2005, version of the statute expanded the scope of violations to those against obligations imposed ‘by the laws of this state,' the version effective in 2002 restricted the violations to the provisions of ‘sections 374.700 to 374.775.’ According to the court records, Cummings violated the criminal laws 195.202 and 571.030.1(1), RSMo 2000. Those sections are not within 374.700 to 374.775.”
The DIFP then asked for a judicial review of the AHC decision. The court reversed the AHC decision. In the court’s ruling it stated that applying the law retrospectively is permissible if it is applied procedurally and does not impair any substantive rights vested by the prior statute. The court further said that Missouri courts have held that professional licensing does not confer substantive rights and that licensing is a privilege granted by the state. Finally, the ruling stated that protecting the public health and welfare is the primary purpose of professional licensing statutes and a person who has statutorily been deemed a menace or threat to the public is no less a threat or menace because some, if not all, of his convictions occurred before the effective date of a given statute.
The order gives the DIFP permission to discipline Cummings whose license expired in 2005.
Tuesday, April 3, 2007
Another Bail Bill Introduced in MO House
Will the fourth time be the charm?
The bail association language has been introduced in yet another bill. HB1165 was introduced by Representative Brian Yates last week. The bill has been second read is waiting to assigned to committee. The bill is identical to the bail language in HB586, (also sponsored by Yates) SB153, and similar to SB459.
Here is quick run-down of the provisions of HB1165:
●Restricts the ability of a bail bond agent from switching companies.
●Inconsistencies with the use of ‘shall’ and ‘may’ causing contradictions and confusion.
●Doubles the amount of CD, to $20,000.00, that a general agent deposits, in order for a general agent to receive a license.
●Allows a wide variety of felons to hold a bail bond license.
●Requires a photographic identification without disclosing the cost or the method that will be required to obtain the photo.
For a more detailed discussion on the provisions of this bill, see the prior posts on other bills. All of the bail bond language is the same.
Here’s the current status on other bail bond bills:
HB586-In committee, no hearing scheduled
SB153-On the Senate calendar for a vote before the full Senate
SB459-In committee, no hearing scheduled
The bail association language has been introduced in yet another bill. HB1165 was introduced by Representative Brian Yates last week. The bill has been second read is waiting to assigned to committee. The bill is identical to the bail language in HB586, (also sponsored by Yates) SB153, and similar to SB459.
Here is quick run-down of the provisions of HB1165:
●Restricts the ability of a bail bond agent from switching companies.
●Inconsistencies with the use of ‘shall’ and ‘may’ causing contradictions and confusion.
●Doubles the amount of CD, to $20,000.00, that a general agent deposits, in order for a general agent to receive a license.
●Allows a wide variety of felons to hold a bail bond license.
●Requires a photographic identification without disclosing the cost or the method that will be required to obtain the photo.
For a more detailed discussion on the provisions of this bill, see the prior posts on other bills. All of the bail bond language is the same.
Here’s the current status on other bail bond bills:
HB586-In committee, no hearing scheduled
SB153-On the Senate calendar for a vote before the full Senate
SB459-In committee, no hearing scheduled
Monday, April 2, 2007
SB153 on Senate Calendar
Senate Bill 153 has been reported out of committee and is now on the Senate calendar for perfection. The bill could be taken up for a vote at any time. If you are concerned that these provisions could adversely affect your bail bond business, please contact your senator by letter, fax, or phone call. Here is a link to find your senator. Need help composing a letter to your senator? Download this sample letter in Word format.
Here are some of the provisions of the senate committee substitute which could affect your business and the section number in the bill:
●The Department of Insurance (DIFP) retains discretion over denial of a license even if the Administrative Hearing Commission over-rules the department’s decision. Bill Section 374.051
●A person is forced to give self-incriminating testimony in any action or proceeding of the Director of Insurance. If the person refuses to incriminate himself/herself, the department can compel this testimony by filing an action in the circuit court. The person can then prosecuted for perjury or contempt for failing to give testimony which is self-incriminating. Bill section 374.210.4
●Gives power to the director to conduct his own hearings for the suspension or revocation of a license. In lieu of filing a complaint with the Administrative Hearing Commission, the director can hold his own hearing, and may order discipline or enter into a consent order. This removes the independent third-party to hear issues related to a person’s right to earn a living. The DIFP will conduct the investigation, file the complaint, and be the hearing body for the complaint. Bill section 374-755.2
●Bill continues to license felons in the bail business. This has been an ongoing problem with felons in the bail bond business being profiled in the Columbia Missourian, St. Louis Post-Dispatch, Joplin Globe, and the Columbia Tribune. Keeps the controversial 15-year felony clause passed in 2004, but adds that a license MAY be refused, revoked, etc. if an applicant has been convicted of: any dangerous felony defined by section 556.061, RSMo, any felony crime of assault, any felony crime that results in the serious physical injury or death of another person, any felony crime against the administration of justice, or any felony of which deceit or fraud is an element of the offense. Examples of felonies not included in this language would be manufacturing of meth, child pornography, drug sales, felons with firearms, and statutory sodomy of a 13 year-old. Bill Section 374.755.1(2-3)
●The bill doubles the required certificate of deposit to become a general agent from $10,000 to $20,000 and then the DIFP can require the CD be increased to $40,000 based upon regulation. This bill is unfair to small, family-owned companies who will be required to make the same cash deposit as a corporation employing 50 agents. Bill section 374.715.2
●The DIFP must notify the general agent of a notice of forfeiture within 48 hours of receiving notice from the courts. The language is ambiguous and does not specify if this notice is a bond forfeiture hearing or an unsatisfied judgment. Most hearings are set aside and do not result in judgment. This would be an onerous task for local courts, if this language were interpreted to include every ‘notice of forfeiture.’ Bill Section 374.707
●The Department shall include a photograph on the bail bond license. The bill does not say how this picture will be obtained or what the additional licensing cost might be. Bill Section 374.710.1
●An agent cannot write bonds without noticing the department of the name, address and telephone number for each employer he/she works or operates as an independent contractor. The law already requires a signed affidavit stating the agent does not work for a political subdivision of the State of Missouri and the signature of an agent’s general agent. This is more ambiguous language which does not distinguish between all employers or bail bond related employment. Bill section 374.710.5
●If a bail bond agent goes to work for a new company he/she SHALL file an affidavit with the DIFP and the new general agent, swearing “that to the best of their knowledge, there are no outstanding premiums owed at the time of the appointment.” In order to go to work for a new company, you SHALL file an affidavit saying there are no outstanding premiums owed. I think there is very little possibility an agent could swear under oath that no one owes money to the agent and/or the company. Secondly, the section does not tell to whom the money might be owed. Premium owed the agent? The former company? The new company? All of the above? Additionally, the section does not differentiate between uncollected or uncollectible premium in the form of credit extended to clients and collected premium not turned into the company. The next sentence of this section states that IF premiums are owed (this should never happen because the previous part of this section states that you shall file an affidavit saying no one owes money) and the agent does not satisfy this obligation, the former general agent MAY file notice, under oath, with supporting documentation, stating that the bail bond agent has failed to satisfy his/her obligation. Then upon receipt of this notification, the new general agent MAY cancel the authority of his/her new agent. IF the new general agent cancels the authority of the new agent, the cancellation SHALL remain in effect until all of the alleged premiums due the former general agent are paid in full. That is a lot of confusing language. This section is riddled with confusing language which shifts between the permissive word--may and mandatory word--shall. Misappropriation of premium is already against the law. There are already remedies for a company who alleges an agent misappropriated funds. A company can file a complaint with the DIFP, file a complaint with the local prosecutor, or sue the agent for the amount due. Bill Section 374.710.6
●The bill codifies violations by levels and refers to a level two violation for violating section 374.761(b). The proplem is there is no section 374.761b. Bill section 374.780.1
Here are some of the provisions of the senate committee substitute which could affect your business and the section number in the bill:
●The Department of Insurance (DIFP) retains discretion over denial of a license even if the Administrative Hearing Commission over-rules the department’s decision. Bill Section 374.051
●A person is forced to give self-incriminating testimony in any action or proceeding of the Director of Insurance. If the person refuses to incriminate himself/herself, the department can compel this testimony by filing an action in the circuit court. The person can then prosecuted for perjury or contempt for failing to give testimony which is self-incriminating. Bill section 374.210.4
●Gives power to the director to conduct his own hearings for the suspension or revocation of a license. In lieu of filing a complaint with the Administrative Hearing Commission, the director can hold his own hearing, and may order discipline or enter into a consent order. This removes the independent third-party to hear issues related to a person’s right to earn a living. The DIFP will conduct the investigation, file the complaint, and be the hearing body for the complaint. Bill section 374-755.2
●Bill continues to license felons in the bail business. This has been an ongoing problem with felons in the bail bond business being profiled in the Columbia Missourian, St. Louis Post-Dispatch, Joplin Globe, and the Columbia Tribune. Keeps the controversial 15-year felony clause passed in 2004, but adds that a license MAY be refused, revoked, etc. if an applicant has been convicted of: any dangerous felony defined by section 556.061, RSMo, any felony crime of assault, any felony crime that results in the serious physical injury or death of another person, any felony crime against the administration of justice, or any felony of which deceit or fraud is an element of the offense. Examples of felonies not included in this language would be manufacturing of meth, child pornography, drug sales, felons with firearms, and statutory sodomy of a 13 year-old. Bill Section 374.755.1(2-3)
●The bill doubles the required certificate of deposit to become a general agent from $10,000 to $20,000 and then the DIFP can require the CD be increased to $40,000 based upon regulation. This bill is unfair to small, family-owned companies who will be required to make the same cash deposit as a corporation employing 50 agents. Bill section 374.715.2
●The DIFP must notify the general agent of a notice of forfeiture within 48 hours of receiving notice from the courts. The language is ambiguous and does not specify if this notice is a bond forfeiture hearing or an unsatisfied judgment. Most hearings are set aside and do not result in judgment. This would be an onerous task for local courts, if this language were interpreted to include every ‘notice of forfeiture.’ Bill Section 374.707
●The Department shall include a photograph on the bail bond license. The bill does not say how this picture will be obtained or what the additional licensing cost might be. Bill Section 374.710.1
●An agent cannot write bonds without noticing the department of the name, address and telephone number for each employer he/she works or operates as an independent contractor. The law already requires a signed affidavit stating the agent does not work for a political subdivision of the State of Missouri and the signature of an agent’s general agent. This is more ambiguous language which does not distinguish between all employers or bail bond related employment. Bill section 374.710.5
●If a bail bond agent goes to work for a new company he/she SHALL file an affidavit with the DIFP and the new general agent, swearing “that to the best of their knowledge, there are no outstanding premiums owed at the time of the appointment.” In order to go to work for a new company, you SHALL file an affidavit saying there are no outstanding premiums owed. I think there is very little possibility an agent could swear under oath that no one owes money to the agent and/or the company. Secondly, the section does not tell to whom the money might be owed. Premium owed the agent? The former company? The new company? All of the above? Additionally, the section does not differentiate between uncollected or uncollectible premium in the form of credit extended to clients and collected premium not turned into the company. The next sentence of this section states that IF premiums are owed (this should never happen because the previous part of this section states that you shall file an affidavit saying no one owes money) and the agent does not satisfy this obligation, the former general agent MAY file notice, under oath, with supporting documentation, stating that the bail bond agent has failed to satisfy his/her obligation. Then upon receipt of this notification, the new general agent MAY cancel the authority of his/her new agent. IF the new general agent cancels the authority of the new agent, the cancellation SHALL remain in effect until all of the alleged premiums due the former general agent are paid in full. That is a lot of confusing language. This section is riddled with confusing language which shifts between the permissive word--may and mandatory word--shall. Misappropriation of premium is already against the law. There are already remedies for a company who alleges an agent misappropriated funds. A company can file a complaint with the DIFP, file a complaint with the local prosecutor, or sue the agent for the amount due. Bill Section 374.710.6
●The bill codifies violations by levels and refers to a level two violation for violating section 374.761(b). The proplem is there is no section 374.761b. Bill section 374.780.1
Sunday, April 1, 2007
AHC to Hear Bail Bond Licensing Issues
The DIFP has filed an amended complaint against C&M Bonding, Inc., and its president, Cody Ice. The complaint is scheduled to be heard by the Administrative Hearing Commission (AHC) on April 18th. The amended complaint alleges that C&M failed to satisfy $114,000 in bail bond judgments dated July 26, 2006. The judgments were entered in Texas County, Missouri, the home of C&M Bonding, Inc.
In other news, the AHC will hear two complaints tomorrow regarding the bail bond industry.
DIFP vs. Donald Christian-a complaint regarding Christian's felony conviction in 1998.
Greg Billingsley vs. DIFP- Billingsley appealed the DIFP decision to deny his bail bond license. Original post here. DIFP license refusal here.
In other news, the AHC will hear two complaints tomorrow regarding the bail bond industry.
DIFP vs. Donald Christian-a complaint regarding Christian's felony conviction in 1998.
Greg Billingsley vs. DIFP- Billingsley appealed the DIFP decision to deny his bail bond license. Original post here. DIFP license refusal here.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
