Friday, March 8, 2013
Wednesday, January 16, 2013
Saturday, May 5, 2012
Bail Legislation Hearing - May 8, 2012. PLEASE ATTEND
The bill (HB 1323) is now in the Senate, and a hearing is scheduled for May 8, 2012 at 9:00 am in Senate Committee Room One (SCR1). Please attend, if you are able, to show your support for this bill which is vitally important to the future of our industry.
Bail Legislation Update!
Tuesday, April 10, 2012
Bail Legislation Proposed
Take a look at HB 1867. If passed, bondsmen would be allowed to post cash bonds as surety bonds.
Wednesday, February 22, 2012
Bondsmen Search for Fugitive Turns Deadly
According to media reports, President's Day didn't go so well for this bond jumper:
http://www.stltoday.com/news/local/crime-and-courts/pick-me-up-farmington-fugitive-whispers-minutes-before-deadly-shootout/article_c26e83ec-5cb5-11e1-9113-0019bb30f31a.html
http://www.stltoday.com/news/local/crime-and-courts/pick-me-up-farmington-fugitive-whispers-minutes-before-deadly-shootout/article_c26e83ec-5cb5-11e1-9113-0019bb30f31a.html
Friday, January 13, 2012
Racy Advertising – Industry Disgrace or Good Business Practice?
As reported in the Towson Patch (http://towson.patch.com/articles/racy-bail-bonds-sign-draws-ire), a Maryland bail bonds company has drawn criticism over its advertising. So what do you think? Is this free expression, or should the industry regulate certain types of ads in the name of professionalism?
Sunday, November 6, 2011
Missouri Bondsman Needs a New Home
Missouri Bondsman needs a new home. This site is near and dear to my heart. I spent many years developing it and have a list of interested subscribers. I can no longer keep up with industry news and commentary, but if you think you can carry the torch, email me and let me know.
Wednesday, June 16, 2010
Services for Gerald "Jerry" Cox
General agent Jerry Cox passed away on Sunday, June 13, 2010. Jerry is survived by his wife, children, grandchildren, and other extended family. Jerry was a Navy veteran, a former police officer, the owner of Cox Bail Bonds and a member of MO and the US Professional Bail Bond Association and was awarded the C.B.A. He served two terms in the MO House of Representatives. A Memorial Mass will be on June 17, 2010 at 7:00 p.m. with a gathering from 5:30-7 p.m. at St. Cletus Catholic Church, 2705 Zumbehl, in St. Charles, MO. Interment at a later date. Donations may be made to the Veteran Association, Siteman Cancer or any Cancer Organization c/o PAUL FUNERAL HOME, 240 N. Kingshighway, St. Charles, MO 63301.
Thursday, April 8, 2010
Bondsman Shot During Altercation
Bondsman Carl Jackson was shot in the leg with his own gun during an altercation at a gas station. According to reports filed by KMBC, Jackson accused another man of stealing something from him. A fight ensued and Jackson’s gun fell to the ground during the struggle. An unidentified female picked up the gun and fired it, hitting Jackson in the leg.
No determination has been made on whether charges will be filed.
No determination has been made on whether charges will be filed.
Wednesday, March 31, 2010
Bondsman Seeks Help in Issue of Critical Importance
Editors note: Below is a letter I received from a bondsman in southwest Missouri seeking help in determining why bonds are disappearing in his/her circuit.
This is a sincere request that I believe is of the most critical importance. Our judge is the head of an organization of circuit judges in Mo. I am effectively out of business down here. It has spread to Barry County and will expand quickly to other circuits. It is kind of like an experiment. Other judges are experimenting in other ways for example one judge in Jasper County. Carthage is utilizing a cash bond in conjunction with a surety bond. I do not know why they are doing it, possibly for revenue? Perhaps for political reasons I’m not aware of? This is the beginning of the end for all of us and this issue needs to be addressed quickly and we have little time left. I assure you that if we don’t deal with it now, we will all be out of a reasonable living very soon. I mean all of us! Many who read this know of me. I’ve been a bondsman since 1998.
This is a sincere request that I believe is of the most critical importance. Our judge is the head of an organization of circuit judges in Mo. I am effectively out of business down here. It has spread to Barry County and will expand quickly to other circuits. It is kind of like an experiment. Other judges are experimenting in other ways for example one judge in Jasper County. Carthage is utilizing a cash bond in conjunction with a surety bond. I do not know why they are doing it, possibly for revenue? Perhaps for political reasons I’m not aware of? This is the beginning of the end for all of us and this issue needs to be addressed quickly and we have little time left. I assure you that if we don’t deal with it now, we will all be out of a reasonable living very soon. I mean all of us! Many who read this know of me. I’ve been a bondsman since 1998.
Sunday, March 7, 2010
Guest Commentary by Andy Laughlin
My Take on Our Industry
I have been in the Bail Bond business for a little over ten years now. There is no doubt that things have changed dramatically since I started. The number of bonds are down and the number of bondsmen are up. There are many in this industry that have no business writing bonds, at least not in the amount they are writing them. All of this needs to be addressed, and is currently being addressed by legislation that is in the works in Jefferson City.
When I first started, a General Agent had to qualify with each circuit he wanted his agents to write bonds in. This was good, in a way, but needed to be refined. The problem was with the variation of criteria used by each judge. No two counties were the same. Just as wildly varied as the qualification criteria, there were just as varied ways each judge handles forfeitures. If it is a county you deal with on a regular basis, you might not like it, but at least you would know what to expect. If you wrote a bond out of your normal area, you could get some very big surprises should something go wrong.
In 2004-2005, a bill was introduced to try to fix some of these problems. I don’t want to get into what exactly happened, as I have heard claims from several that were involved, and I wasn’t there. I don’t know who, for sure, is responsible for this legislation, but due to poor wording, it really caused more problems in the industry, in my opinion. In an effort to standardize the way qualifications and forfeitures are handled, among other things. Due to poor wording, as I stated before, the law was interpreted different by many different judges. Some continued to qualify bondsman the same as they always have and some interpreted to mean that anyone with a license could write all the bail they want in every circuit. This has caused chaos. Many bondsman got their General Agents license with nothing more than a ten thousand dollar CD and started hiring all of the agents they could to write for them. I know some of these guys personally and have heard it out of their mouths. Their goal is to make all the money they can, while they can, and if they get caught with a judgment they can’t pay, no problem, they will just go out of business and start again with a family member or a friend. There is no accountability. The new law was also supposed to give us 6 months to find our skips. Again, I have heard this interpreted a number of different ways and none of them gave me 6 months. All of this due to poor wording.
Last session, a bill was introduced to raise the bar from a ten thousand dollar CD to a fifty thousand dollar CD assigned to DIFP to get your General Agents license. While this was an attempt to get rid of some of the Generals that were writing on their CD only, it was going to have other consequences and was not going to solve the problem, in my opinion. Last session was the first time I had ever gone to the Capitol, either supporting or working against, any legislation. Boy did I get a lesson in politics! I have never been on such a roller coaster ride in my life. I did make some friends, both in the industry and with legislators. Thanks to several other bondsmen from around the state that didn’t like this attempt, we defeated this bill. And, there was a mandate issued by the legislation that was passed that DIFP do a study of the industry and report back what problems need to be addressed by the beginning of this session. It all worked out great, in my opinion. Now we had a legitimate chance at making some changes in our industry to make it better, eliminate some people that do not need to be here and standardize practices statewide. In my mind it was, and still is, our best, and maybe only shot, at making ourselves legitimate to the state, legislators, judges and public in this state. To show that we are professionals and to police ourselves and clean up our own mess. And, it very well could be our last chance to save our industry. (My current General Agent told me ten years ago that we would be out of business by now. I want to prove him wrong.)
I immediately wrote letters to DIFP requesting a chance to be on the committee to help with this study. I was fortunate enough to be selected to help with this process. I went in with an open mind and was very excited about the chance to make a difference in our industry. We held our first meeting in Jefferson City. At that meeting, the results of the survey that DIFP had sent out to every agent in the state to get information about what the industry was thinking as a whole, were given to us. It was also decided that we should send out surveys to every judge in the state to see what their thoughts were. Then, we had four public hearings, in Kansas City, St. Louis, Springfield and Jefferson City, to give agents from all over the state a chance to testify and give us more information on what everyone wants in our industry. After all of the surveys were in and the hearings were done, it was obvious there were several topics that needed to be addressed. We held several meetings trying to draft the best legislation we possibly could, keeping in mind that compromises had to be made to have any chance of getting it passed. We kept in mind everything we had heard from around the state, also realizing that not every issue could be addressed with one piece of legislation. It was a rocky road at times and another great learning experience. But, in my opinion, we came out with one of the best pieces of legislation that has ever been introduced, and a piece that could very well help extend our industry into the future. Do I love everything about it? No. Would I like some changes? Yes. Would I like some things added? Yes. But I do support this bill as written. There are some things that can be addressed in other sessions. There are some things that do not need to be done as statute, but can be done as regulation. I am not going to go into all the specifics. Anyone can read the language for themselves.
Another great thing about this legislation, it is a composite of what we heard over and over again, all over the state. Not everything we heard, but the major points that we heard many times. We used ideas from the surveys agents and judges filled out. We had input from bail bond agents, general agents, judges, legislators, OSCA, DIFP, Police Chiefs Association, Sheriffs Association, County Clerks and several other sources. The judges on the committee lobbied many other judges, and as a whole, most judges like the language. This is not the work of one person or group, as it has been in the past. This is a work of many facets related to our industry. After is was finished, Rita Heard-Days, a Senator that sat on the committee, introduced the bill we all worked so hard on.
I was, and am not, ignorant enough to think that the legislation will just roll through without some opposition or some things being taken off or added. But I did not think that people that were on the committee and worked as hard as I did, would be selfish and foolish enough to attack it themselves. But that is what is happening and I am very disappointed. We got an early hearing in the Senate Judiciary Committee. We had several members of the committee testify in favor of the bill. There was one person that testified against. And that person was on the committee. This person did object to a few things during the meetings and voted against a few of the items. But, instead of doing like the rest of us, as I said, I didn’t like every part of it either, and supporting what the committee decided could be passed, he decided to take it upon himself and speak out against it in a public hearing. That is his right and I do not deny him that. I am, however, very disappointed. Right off the bat, we don’t show professionalism and solidarity in trying to clean up our own mess and police ourselves. One of the committee members that went through this whole process, takes it upon himself to try and kill what we have worked so hard for, just because it doesn’t serve him perfectly. But it doesn’t stop there.
Like I said earlier, last session was my first introduction into politics on Capitol Hill. And what a lesson it was. The gentleman that introduced the language last year, had hired a lobbyist. After I got into the fight against it, I was introduced to a lobbyist that worked for another person that had the same goal as I did. I ended up working with this lobbyist the rest of the session, along with many others, to get this language out. Politics are wild enough as it is, throw lobbyist’s in the mix and it gets worse. We were about half way through our meetings of the committee, and I was very excited about the prospects. I was approached by the gentleman that had the lobbyist I worked with last session to see if I would help to hire him this session, to help massage the bill and help it to pass. I agreed that would be a good idea. However, I was not ready to do so just yet. I am glad I didn’t. I have been told that a group was formed to hire this lobbyist, but to massage the bill and help it pass, is not exactly true.
Let me back up. During the meetings, we all had our objections, as I said before, and things we wanted in that did not make it in this time. One General Agent wanted to put in a piece that would make agents turn in all of their paperwork and money and the General Agent would have to sign off before the agent could go to work for another General Agent. There were arguments heard both for and against. A vote was taken and it was voted down. It didn’t stop there. This particular General Agent, called some of the committee members, asking if it could be brought up for a vote again, and if so, would they change their vote. Now, I have a problem with this. I have always been a fan of the democratic process. If you lose a vote, you don’t lobby to have it brought back up for another vote. I was disappointed with this individual. But, he didn’t stop there. I have been told by another agent that heard this directly from the lobbyist that this General Agent helped to pay his fee and they were going to introduce an amendment to our bill with this added language. Now I am severely disappointed. I had a lot of respect for this General Agent. But now, instead of working as a member of the committee, he is self serving, and I have a gut feeling he isn’t the only one, jeopardizing our bill and furthering the view that we are not professional and cleaning up our own mess as we were trying to show.
There is another lobbyist involved. The General Agent that introduced the language last session, as I said before, had hired a lobbyist. We have talked many times recently and I am convinced that his goal is to massage this bill and help get it passed as much in tact as possible. What we should all be striving for as members of the committee that wrote this language. That is exactly what he is trying to do, although, I am not particularly fond of all of the tactics he has used so far. It appears that he has made some comments to one of the judges on the committee that did not set well. It also appears that he made some comments to one of the legislators that got back to one of the committee members that also did not set well. But, other than that, he has done a good job, so far, to help the bill along. But we have a long way to go. (I keep saying bill, but should say language, as it appears the original Senate Bill will not go anywhere and we now have to hope the House Bill with the same language does.) They say politics make strange bedfellows. I find it funny that that the General Agent and lobbyist I considered my mortal enemy last session, I am now working with for a common goal.
That is my take, in a nutshell, about where this industry is, and how it got here. I am very proud and honored to have had the chance to help with what I truly believe to be the best piece of legislation that has ever been offered for the industry as a whole. Like I said, it is not the product of one man or group, but of many facets of people related to our industry. Yes, there are things I don’t particularly like, and there are things that I would like added in the future. Yes, I knew we would have some opposition. I am very disappointed it is coming from within our own committee, and have lost respect for some that are doing this. Hopefully, somehow, we can get this behind us and get this legislation through in tact, or at least as in tact as possible. I have had conversations with some others, including one of the judges on the committee, and if we don’t get this through, god help us. There is a good chance that our industry is in dire straits in this state. We will most likely never get a cross section of people like we had on this committee, to the table again. Especially if it is killed by the greed and self serving actions of people that were on the committee.
I think there is still a chance we can get this through and save our industry. But, we have a long way to go.
Andy Laughlin
I have been in the Bail Bond business for a little over ten years now. There is no doubt that things have changed dramatically since I started. The number of bonds are down and the number of bondsmen are up. There are many in this industry that have no business writing bonds, at least not in the amount they are writing them. All of this needs to be addressed, and is currently being addressed by legislation that is in the works in Jefferson City.
When I first started, a General Agent had to qualify with each circuit he wanted his agents to write bonds in. This was good, in a way, but needed to be refined. The problem was with the variation of criteria used by each judge. No two counties were the same. Just as wildly varied as the qualification criteria, there were just as varied ways each judge handles forfeitures. If it is a county you deal with on a regular basis, you might not like it, but at least you would know what to expect. If you wrote a bond out of your normal area, you could get some very big surprises should something go wrong.
In 2004-2005, a bill was introduced to try to fix some of these problems. I don’t want to get into what exactly happened, as I have heard claims from several that were involved, and I wasn’t there. I don’t know who, for sure, is responsible for this legislation, but due to poor wording, it really caused more problems in the industry, in my opinion. In an effort to standardize the way qualifications and forfeitures are handled, among other things. Due to poor wording, as I stated before, the law was interpreted different by many different judges. Some continued to qualify bondsman the same as they always have and some interpreted to mean that anyone with a license could write all the bail they want in every circuit. This has caused chaos. Many bondsman got their General Agents license with nothing more than a ten thousand dollar CD and started hiring all of the agents they could to write for them. I know some of these guys personally and have heard it out of their mouths. Their goal is to make all the money they can, while they can, and if they get caught with a judgment they can’t pay, no problem, they will just go out of business and start again with a family member or a friend. There is no accountability. The new law was also supposed to give us 6 months to find our skips. Again, I have heard this interpreted a number of different ways and none of them gave me 6 months. All of this due to poor wording.
Last session, a bill was introduced to raise the bar from a ten thousand dollar CD to a fifty thousand dollar CD assigned to DIFP to get your General Agents license. While this was an attempt to get rid of some of the Generals that were writing on their CD only, it was going to have other consequences and was not going to solve the problem, in my opinion. Last session was the first time I had ever gone to the Capitol, either supporting or working against, any legislation. Boy did I get a lesson in politics! I have never been on such a roller coaster ride in my life. I did make some friends, both in the industry and with legislators. Thanks to several other bondsmen from around the state that didn’t like this attempt, we defeated this bill. And, there was a mandate issued by the legislation that was passed that DIFP do a study of the industry and report back what problems need to be addressed by the beginning of this session. It all worked out great, in my opinion. Now we had a legitimate chance at making some changes in our industry to make it better, eliminate some people that do not need to be here and standardize practices statewide. In my mind it was, and still is, our best, and maybe only shot, at making ourselves legitimate to the state, legislators, judges and public in this state. To show that we are professionals and to police ourselves and clean up our own mess. And, it very well could be our last chance to save our industry. (My current General Agent told me ten years ago that we would be out of business by now. I want to prove him wrong.)
I immediately wrote letters to DIFP requesting a chance to be on the committee to help with this study. I was fortunate enough to be selected to help with this process. I went in with an open mind and was very excited about the chance to make a difference in our industry. We held our first meeting in Jefferson City. At that meeting, the results of the survey that DIFP had sent out to every agent in the state to get information about what the industry was thinking as a whole, were given to us. It was also decided that we should send out surveys to every judge in the state to see what their thoughts were. Then, we had four public hearings, in Kansas City, St. Louis, Springfield and Jefferson City, to give agents from all over the state a chance to testify and give us more information on what everyone wants in our industry. After all of the surveys were in and the hearings were done, it was obvious there were several topics that needed to be addressed. We held several meetings trying to draft the best legislation we possibly could, keeping in mind that compromises had to be made to have any chance of getting it passed. We kept in mind everything we had heard from around the state, also realizing that not every issue could be addressed with one piece of legislation. It was a rocky road at times and another great learning experience. But, in my opinion, we came out with one of the best pieces of legislation that has ever been introduced, and a piece that could very well help extend our industry into the future. Do I love everything about it? No. Would I like some changes? Yes. Would I like some things added? Yes. But I do support this bill as written. There are some things that can be addressed in other sessions. There are some things that do not need to be done as statute, but can be done as regulation. I am not going to go into all the specifics. Anyone can read the language for themselves.
Another great thing about this legislation, it is a composite of what we heard over and over again, all over the state. Not everything we heard, but the major points that we heard many times. We used ideas from the surveys agents and judges filled out. We had input from bail bond agents, general agents, judges, legislators, OSCA, DIFP, Police Chiefs Association, Sheriffs Association, County Clerks and several other sources. The judges on the committee lobbied many other judges, and as a whole, most judges like the language. This is not the work of one person or group, as it has been in the past. This is a work of many facets related to our industry. After is was finished, Rita Heard-Days, a Senator that sat on the committee, introduced the bill we all worked so hard on.
I was, and am not, ignorant enough to think that the legislation will just roll through without some opposition or some things being taken off or added. But I did not think that people that were on the committee and worked as hard as I did, would be selfish and foolish enough to attack it themselves. But that is what is happening and I am very disappointed. We got an early hearing in the Senate Judiciary Committee. We had several members of the committee testify in favor of the bill. There was one person that testified against. And that person was on the committee. This person did object to a few things during the meetings and voted against a few of the items. But, instead of doing like the rest of us, as I said, I didn’t like every part of it either, and supporting what the committee decided could be passed, he decided to take it upon himself and speak out against it in a public hearing. That is his right and I do not deny him that. I am, however, very disappointed. Right off the bat, we don’t show professionalism and solidarity in trying to clean up our own mess and police ourselves. One of the committee members that went through this whole process, takes it upon himself to try and kill what we have worked so hard for, just because it doesn’t serve him perfectly. But it doesn’t stop there.
Like I said earlier, last session was my first introduction into politics on Capitol Hill. And what a lesson it was. The gentleman that introduced the language last year, had hired a lobbyist. After I got into the fight against it, I was introduced to a lobbyist that worked for another person that had the same goal as I did. I ended up working with this lobbyist the rest of the session, along with many others, to get this language out. Politics are wild enough as it is, throw lobbyist’s in the mix and it gets worse. We were about half way through our meetings of the committee, and I was very excited about the prospects. I was approached by the gentleman that had the lobbyist I worked with last session to see if I would help to hire him this session, to help massage the bill and help it to pass. I agreed that would be a good idea. However, I was not ready to do so just yet. I am glad I didn’t. I have been told that a group was formed to hire this lobbyist, but to massage the bill and help it pass, is not exactly true.
Let me back up. During the meetings, we all had our objections, as I said before, and things we wanted in that did not make it in this time. One General Agent wanted to put in a piece that would make agents turn in all of their paperwork and money and the General Agent would have to sign off before the agent could go to work for another General Agent. There were arguments heard both for and against. A vote was taken and it was voted down. It didn’t stop there. This particular General Agent, called some of the committee members, asking if it could be brought up for a vote again, and if so, would they change their vote. Now, I have a problem with this. I have always been a fan of the democratic process. If you lose a vote, you don’t lobby to have it brought back up for another vote. I was disappointed with this individual. But, he didn’t stop there. I have been told by another agent that heard this directly from the lobbyist that this General Agent helped to pay his fee and they were going to introduce an amendment to our bill with this added language. Now I am severely disappointed. I had a lot of respect for this General Agent. But now, instead of working as a member of the committee, he is self serving, and I have a gut feeling he isn’t the only one, jeopardizing our bill and furthering the view that we are not professional and cleaning up our own mess as we were trying to show.
There is another lobbyist involved. The General Agent that introduced the language last session, as I said before, had hired a lobbyist. We have talked many times recently and I am convinced that his goal is to massage this bill and help get it passed as much in tact as possible. What we should all be striving for as members of the committee that wrote this language. That is exactly what he is trying to do, although, I am not particularly fond of all of the tactics he has used so far. It appears that he has made some comments to one of the judges on the committee that did not set well. It also appears that he made some comments to one of the legislators that got back to one of the committee members that also did not set well. But, other than that, he has done a good job, so far, to help the bill along. But we have a long way to go. (I keep saying bill, but should say language, as it appears the original Senate Bill will not go anywhere and we now have to hope the House Bill with the same language does.) They say politics make strange bedfellows. I find it funny that that the General Agent and lobbyist I considered my mortal enemy last session, I am now working with for a common goal.
That is my take, in a nutshell, about where this industry is, and how it got here. I am very proud and honored to have had the chance to help with what I truly believe to be the best piece of legislation that has ever been offered for the industry as a whole. Like I said, it is not the product of one man or group, but of many facets of people related to our industry. Yes, there are things I don’t particularly like, and there are things that I would like added in the future. Yes, I knew we would have some opposition. I am very disappointed it is coming from within our own committee, and have lost respect for some that are doing this. Hopefully, somehow, we can get this behind us and get this legislation through in tact, or at least as in tact as possible. I have had conversations with some others, including one of the judges on the committee, and if we don’t get this through, god help us. There is a good chance that our industry is in dire straits in this state. We will most likely never get a cross section of people like we had on this committee, to the table again. Especially if it is killed by the greed and self serving actions of people that were on the committee.
I think there is still a chance we can get this through and save our industry. But, we have a long way to go.
Andy Laughlin
Saturday, January 23, 2010
Hearing Held: Block Bail Bonds and Moran
The St. Louis Post-Dispatch printed another article today concerning a hearing held yesterday regarding the of the actions of Block Bail Bonds and pretrial commissioner Mary Catherine Moran. Block’s company was banned Friday from doing business in St. Louis Circuit Court, pending an investigation into unexplained changes in judges' orders. Judge Garvey said his order banning Block is subject to approval from Dowd, the presiding judge. Judge David Dowd has created a committee to examine actions by Moran and bondsmen. The committee will meet on February 3rd.
Moran and her staff make bail recommendations to judges but are not empowered to set bail in felony cases or make changes. The P-D article says that in at least 8 cases, Moran’s office made the changes to bonds without a judge’s approval. In all eight cases, Block’s company wrote the bonds.Moran attended the hearing, as Garvey had requested, but did not testify and there is no report that Moran has been suspended during the investigation.
Friday's hearing was for the sentencing of Jimmy Gibson, convicted Oct. 23 in Garvey's court of possession of a controlled substance. Garvey had set a bond of $50,000 in cash or property after Gibson was convicted and before his sentencing. The judge insisted Friday that he was "very clear" about the conditions. A week later, a Block agent, Daryl Spector, posted a secured bond and Gibson was released from jail after his fiancée paid a $5,000 fee. No record of the bond modification was put into Gibson's court file until the Post-Dispatch began asking questions earlier this year. On Jan. 8, Moran produced a copy of an order authorizing the change, and said Garvey had authorized it by phone. He has since insisted that he did not. Gibson's fiancée, Latrice Ladell testified Friday that a Block agent named Hazel Hammers Varnon told her she could pay 10 percent to get him out. Ladell said she was "surprised," because she knew the bond was set for $50,000 in cash. She said Spector met her at the courthouse, accepted the $5,000 and wrote the bond. Varnon was not called to testify.Spector told the court he first heard about the case when his general agent, Barry Block, asked him to write the bond and told him the amount to charge. Garvey asked, "You had no idea about the background of this bond?" Spector replied, "No, sir." He said the papers were prepared in Moran's office. Court documents show that she signed it."There is something going on here," Garvey said. "It is clear from this woman's testimony that the company knew the bond was going to be changed (before it was). This court wants to find out what happened in this case."
Block's lawyer, Nick Zotos, protested that the move and said that if the bond did not meet requirements, it was the fault of pre-trial release commissioner Mary Catherine Moran's office for accepting it. Zotos vowed to appeal.
STL-PD Article here.
Moran and her staff make bail recommendations to judges but are not empowered to set bail in felony cases or make changes. The P-D article says that in at least 8 cases, Moran’s office made the changes to bonds without a judge’s approval. In all eight cases, Block’s company wrote the bonds.Moran attended the hearing, as Garvey had requested, but did not testify and there is no report that Moran has been suspended during the investigation.
Friday's hearing was for the sentencing of Jimmy Gibson, convicted Oct. 23 in Garvey's court of possession of a controlled substance. Garvey had set a bond of $50,000 in cash or property after Gibson was convicted and before his sentencing. The judge insisted Friday that he was "very clear" about the conditions. A week later, a Block agent, Daryl Spector, posted a secured bond and Gibson was released from jail after his fiancée paid a $5,000 fee. No record of the bond modification was put into Gibson's court file until the Post-Dispatch began asking questions earlier this year. On Jan. 8, Moran produced a copy of an order authorizing the change, and said Garvey had authorized it by phone. He has since insisted that he did not. Gibson's fiancée, Latrice Ladell testified Friday that a Block agent named Hazel Hammers Varnon told her she could pay 10 percent to get him out. Ladell said she was "surprised," because she knew the bond was set for $50,000 in cash. She said Spector met her at the courthouse, accepted the $5,000 and wrote the bond. Varnon was not called to testify.Spector told the court he first heard about the case when his general agent, Barry Block, asked him to write the bond and told him the amount to charge. Garvey asked, "You had no idea about the background of this bond?" Spector replied, "No, sir." He said the papers were prepared in Moran's office. Court documents show that she signed it."There is something going on here," Garvey said. "It is clear from this woman's testimony that the company knew the bond was going to be changed (before it was). This court wants to find out what happened in this case."
Block's lawyer, Nick Zotos, protested that the move and said that if the bond did not meet requirements, it was the fault of pre-trial release commissioner Mary Catherine Moran's office for accepting it. Zotos vowed to appeal.
STL-PD Article here.
Friday, January 22, 2010
STL Company Suspended During Investigation
The St. Louis Post-Dispatch reported today that Block Bail Bonds has been prohibited from posting bonds in St. Louis by order of Judge Garvey. The action occurred after the Post-Dispatch reported that eight bonds had been changed to surety without a judge’s authorization. In all the cases, the Block company posted the bonds.
After the newspaper began investigating, the court also began looking into the matter and a complaint was filed with the FBI. Judges looking for answers have focused attention on Pretrial Release Commissioner Mary Catherine Moran, who is to advise them on what bond to set for criminal defendants. She does not have authority to set or change felony case bonds on her own. In the eight cases identified by the Post-Dispatch, judges initially ordered the accused to put up $1,000 to $50,000 in cash for release. A short time later, each was changed to shift terms from cash to secured, or a court official accepted a different bond amount from what was ordered, with no explanation. In every instance, there was no record in the public court files indicating who asked for the change.
In at least one of the cases investigated by the P-D, defendant Jimmy Gibson’s bond was changed from $50,000 cash to $50,000 surety. Judge Garvey said he never authorized the bond change although his name is on a bond reduction order. Mary Catherine Moran, who had signed Garvey's name to the document, told reporters that if he didn't authorize her to do it, then it must have been some other judge but she doesn't remember who.
Read the whole story here:
STL-PD:Blocks Suspended from Writing Bail
STL-PD:Cases Under Investigation
After the newspaper began investigating, the court also began looking into the matter and a complaint was filed with the FBI. Judges looking for answers have focused attention on Pretrial Release Commissioner Mary Catherine Moran, who is to advise them on what bond to set for criminal defendants. She does not have authority to set or change felony case bonds on her own. In the eight cases identified by the Post-Dispatch, judges initially ordered the accused to put up $1,000 to $50,000 in cash for release. A short time later, each was changed to shift terms from cash to secured, or a court official accepted a different bond amount from what was ordered, with no explanation. In every instance, there was no record in the public court files indicating who asked for the change.
In at least one of the cases investigated by the P-D, defendant Jimmy Gibson’s bond was changed from $50,000 cash to $50,000 surety. Judge Garvey said he never authorized the bond change although his name is on a bond reduction order. Mary Catherine Moran, who had signed Garvey's name to the document, told reporters that if he didn't authorize her to do it, then it must have been some other judge but she doesn't remember who.
Read the whole story here:
STL-PD:Blocks Suspended from Writing Bail
STL-PD:Cases Under Investigation
Wednesday, December 2, 2009
Open Letter-Joining Together as an Industry
The following is guest commentary submitted by General Agent Ben Hilton of Lebanon, MO.
This letter is my thoughts and beliefs alone; I do not speak for any bond association.
I am writing this to further the warning to the Bail Industry that the opponents to the bail system are increasing their agenda. I truly hope to get the General Agents attention and encourage each and every one of them to get involved in an effort to protect their lively hoods. Personally, I tend to get a little aggravated with the weaknesses of the bail bondsman industry in Missouri.
The Professional Surety Industry as a whole cannot support itself with the bonds that are available currently. The Courts are basically taking advantage of us. They need us and yet do not want us! They are abusing the Bail System; the Surety Bonds presently written today are the cases that have caused problems to the Courts in the past.
We are writing only an estimated one third of the bonds that we were posting a few years ago and our agent numbers have doubled. You don’t have to be Albert Einstein to do the math.
Part of the reasoning for the intentional abuse is due to the 2004 law, it upset the Judges, but they have some guilt in this. It was due to their own inconsistency in court procedures concerning bondsman, and they failed to listen to the Bondsman’s pleas. A very small group, based out of St. Louis, supported and helped pass the 2004 legislation, in the long run, it hurt us all.
Because of that law, the Courts will not give us the support that we need to survive….. maybe it is time to contact them and call a truce of some kind. Let’s show them more respect than we gave them in 2004.
Fewer Professional Surety Bonds are posted today, they were replaced with “Release of their own Recognizance”, “cash only”, “10% to the court Bonds”. These methods of pretrial release experience an extremely high rate of failing to appear in Court.
The Courts are aware of their own statistics, and they are knowingly allowing a large percentage of defendants free without proper assurances to guarantee their reappearance in Court. When a Judge sets a 10% to the court bond, they are deceiving the public. The public falsely believes the defendant is posting a bond ten times larger than the actual amount reported to the community.
It is generally understood that professional bondsman maintain a success rate for their clients appearing in court of at least 98%, and a past study by the F.B.I. reported that Bail Agents apprehended over 70% of all fugitives in the U.S.A.
The Courts in effect, are allowing thousands of open cases to remain in “failure to appear” status, some for years. Needless to say, the Prosecution is postponed while the cases are allowed to deteriorate. Worse, the victims are forced to wait for their own personal closure, and the public is again misled, this time, as to the amount of open cases the court truly has.
Why does it appear that the Courts are seemingly protecting the defendants of a criminal case, over society’s wishes? Using their own numbers, when the Court accepts bail bonds other than a Professional Surety bond, they are already aware that a strong percentage will not come back to court on their own accord.
The Courts should be required to return to utilizing the Professional Surety Pre-Trial release system; it enables the industry to be self supporting, saving the taxpayers millions of dollars. The small misdemeanor bonds had provided a major part of the funding needed to sustain this system, now the public is getting hit with unnecessary expenses. Missouri Law Enforcement Agencies cannot afford Warrant and Fugitive Bureaus to combat this problem.
When the Court accepts a 10% of a bond, they accept the bond from any person who wants to pay the fee and assume the role as surety. They can be a convicted felon, a government employee, a law enforcement officer, an elected official or a bankrupt individual. They can be the defendant’s attorney, who in turn files an assignment on the cash posted for their benefit. (Note this interesting statue: Nothing in sections 374.695 to 374.775 shall be construed to prohibit any person from posting or otherwise providing a bail bond in connection with any legal proceeding, provided that such person receives no fee, remuneration or consideration therefor.) Does this law prevent attorneys from filing an assignment on monies deposited with the court?
Are these bonds ever set to judgment? If so, who is responsible to pay the School System the forfeited funds?
The question is “who and what is the Surety”?
· The defendant?
· Is it the person paying the money and signing the paperwork to indemnify the full amount to the Court?
· Should the Court itself assume the responsibility, for ignoring State Law and accepting bonds from unqualified and unlicensed bondsman?
By what standards do the Courts use to qualify individuals to be able to post 10% to the Court Bonds, by State Statue, there are restrictions being ignored by the Courts. For example;
· 374.702. No person shall engage in the bail bond business as a bail bond agent or a general bail bond agent without being licensed as provided in sections 374.695 to 374.775.
· No judge, attorney, court official, law enforcement officer, state, county, or municipal employee who is either elected or appointed shall be licensed as a bail bond agent or a general bail bond agent.
· Any person who is convicted of a violation of this section is guilty of a class A misdemeanor. For any subsequent convictions, a person who is convicted of a violation of this section is guilty of a class D felony.
· 374.710. 1. Except as otherwise provided in sections 374.695 to 374.775, no person or other entity shall practice as a bail bond agent or general bail bond agent, as defined in section 374.700, in Missouri unless and until the department has issued to him or her a license, to be renewed every two years as hereinafter provided, to practice as a bail bond agent or general bail bond agent.
Just how long will these types of bonds continue? Maybe, the Industry should attempt to get an official Opinion from the Missouri Attorney General!
My personal request to the Department of Insurance’s appointed Committee is the same as I recently wrote, please don’t try to make cleaning up the Bail Industry the priority, please help put surety bonds back on our plate, then together we can fix the problems. The precedence should be;
1. Pass a law allowing Surety Bonds posted will act the same a Cash Bond.
2. Slow down or stop 10% to the Court Bonds.
3. All General Agents should qualify their assets to the Courts, stop the Ten Thousand dollar General, then a lot of the Bail Agents who are causing problems will follow them.
Everyone should agree that General Agents are totally responsible for the professional bail industry in Missouri therefore they should be answerable for the defense of the bail bond profession in Missouri.
Bail agents are an intricate and necessary element of the bail industry, but because of the wasted efforts and great expense in the past to organize them into a unified voice, via a professional bondsman organization, I personally have concluded that the following;
A single Bondsman Association in Missouri is the only answer to save the Industry. We must unify the agents together and become a recognized voice for the industry. The General Agents need to form an Association of General Bail Agents with the bail agents as a sub-group.
If we do not join together now, the professional bail industry in Missouri is over as we know it.
Ben Hilton, GBA
P.O. Box 1857
291 N. Adams Street
Lebanon, MO 65536
417-532-9722
This letter is my thoughts and beliefs alone; I do not speak for any bond association.
I am writing this to further the warning to the Bail Industry that the opponents to the bail system are increasing their agenda. I truly hope to get the General Agents attention and encourage each and every one of them to get involved in an effort to protect their lively hoods. Personally, I tend to get a little aggravated with the weaknesses of the bail bondsman industry in Missouri.
The Professional Surety Industry as a whole cannot support itself with the bonds that are available currently. The Courts are basically taking advantage of us. They need us and yet do not want us! They are abusing the Bail System; the Surety Bonds presently written today are the cases that have caused problems to the Courts in the past.
We are writing only an estimated one third of the bonds that we were posting a few years ago and our agent numbers have doubled. You don’t have to be Albert Einstein to do the math.
Part of the reasoning for the intentional abuse is due to the 2004 law, it upset the Judges, but they have some guilt in this. It was due to their own inconsistency in court procedures concerning bondsman, and they failed to listen to the Bondsman’s pleas. A very small group, based out of St. Louis, supported and helped pass the 2004 legislation, in the long run, it hurt us all.
Because of that law, the Courts will not give us the support that we need to survive….. maybe it is time to contact them and call a truce of some kind. Let’s show them more respect than we gave them in 2004.
Fewer Professional Surety Bonds are posted today, they were replaced with “Release of their own Recognizance”, “cash only”, “10% to the court Bonds”. These methods of pretrial release experience an extremely high rate of failing to appear in Court.
The Courts are aware of their own statistics, and they are knowingly allowing a large percentage of defendants free without proper assurances to guarantee their reappearance in Court. When a Judge sets a 10% to the court bond, they are deceiving the public. The public falsely believes the defendant is posting a bond ten times larger than the actual amount reported to the community.
It is generally understood that professional bondsman maintain a success rate for their clients appearing in court of at least 98%, and a past study by the F.B.I. reported that Bail Agents apprehended over 70% of all fugitives in the U.S.A.
The Courts in effect, are allowing thousands of open cases to remain in “failure to appear” status, some for years. Needless to say, the Prosecution is postponed while the cases are allowed to deteriorate. Worse, the victims are forced to wait for their own personal closure, and the public is again misled, this time, as to the amount of open cases the court truly has.
Why does it appear that the Courts are seemingly protecting the defendants of a criminal case, over society’s wishes? Using their own numbers, when the Court accepts bail bonds other than a Professional Surety bond, they are already aware that a strong percentage will not come back to court on their own accord.
The Courts should be required to return to utilizing the Professional Surety Pre-Trial release system; it enables the industry to be self supporting, saving the taxpayers millions of dollars. The small misdemeanor bonds had provided a major part of the funding needed to sustain this system, now the public is getting hit with unnecessary expenses. Missouri Law Enforcement Agencies cannot afford Warrant and Fugitive Bureaus to combat this problem.
When the Court accepts a 10% of a bond, they accept the bond from any person who wants to pay the fee and assume the role as surety. They can be a convicted felon, a government employee, a law enforcement officer, an elected official or a bankrupt individual. They can be the defendant’s attorney, who in turn files an assignment on the cash posted for their benefit. (Note this interesting statue: Nothing in sections 374.695 to 374.775 shall be construed to prohibit any person from posting or otherwise providing a bail bond in connection with any legal proceeding, provided that such person receives no fee, remuneration or consideration therefor.) Does this law prevent attorneys from filing an assignment on monies deposited with the court?
Are these bonds ever set to judgment? If so, who is responsible to pay the School System the forfeited funds?
The question is “who and what is the Surety”?
· The defendant?
· Is it the person paying the money and signing the paperwork to indemnify the full amount to the Court?
· Should the Court itself assume the responsibility, for ignoring State Law and accepting bonds from unqualified and unlicensed bondsman?
By what standards do the Courts use to qualify individuals to be able to post 10% to the Court Bonds, by State Statue, there are restrictions being ignored by the Courts. For example;
· 374.702. No person shall engage in the bail bond business as a bail bond agent or a general bail bond agent without being licensed as provided in sections 374.695 to 374.775.
· No judge, attorney, court official, law enforcement officer, state, county, or municipal employee who is either elected or appointed shall be licensed as a bail bond agent or a general bail bond agent.
· Any person who is convicted of a violation of this section is guilty of a class A misdemeanor. For any subsequent convictions, a person who is convicted of a violation of this section is guilty of a class D felony.
· 374.710. 1. Except as otherwise provided in sections 374.695 to 374.775, no person or other entity shall practice as a bail bond agent or general bail bond agent, as defined in section 374.700, in Missouri unless and until the department has issued to him or her a license, to be renewed every two years as hereinafter provided, to practice as a bail bond agent or general bail bond agent.
Just how long will these types of bonds continue? Maybe, the Industry should attempt to get an official Opinion from the Missouri Attorney General!
My personal request to the Department of Insurance’s appointed Committee is the same as I recently wrote, please don’t try to make cleaning up the Bail Industry the priority, please help put surety bonds back on our plate, then together we can fix the problems. The precedence should be;
1. Pass a law allowing Surety Bonds posted will act the same a Cash Bond.
2. Slow down or stop 10% to the Court Bonds.
3. All General Agents should qualify their assets to the Courts, stop the Ten Thousand dollar General, then a lot of the Bail Agents who are causing problems will follow them.
Everyone should agree that General Agents are totally responsible for the professional bail industry in Missouri therefore they should be answerable for the defense of the bail bond profession in Missouri.
Bail agents are an intricate and necessary element of the bail industry, but because of the wasted efforts and great expense in the past to organize them into a unified voice, via a professional bondsman organization, I personally have concluded that the following;
A single Bondsman Association in Missouri is the only answer to save the Industry. We must unify the agents together and become a recognized voice for the industry. The General Agents need to form an Association of General Bail Agents with the bail agents as a sub-group.
If we do not join together now, the professional bail industry in Missouri is over as we know it.
Ben Hilton, GBA
P.O. Box 1857
291 N. Adams Street
Lebanon, MO 65536
417-532-9722
Saturday, November 7, 2009
Public Hearing on Bail to be Held in Jeff City
The following is a press release issued by the DIFP regarding the fourth and final public hearing on the bail bond industry in Missouri.
The state Insurance Department has scheduled four public hearings to review Missouri’s laws and regulations governing the state’s bail bond industry.
John M. Huff, director of the Missouri Department of Insurance, Financial Institutions and Professional Registration (DIFP), has appointed a 15-member committee to assist the department in the review process. The committee consists of members of the Missouri legislature, law enforcement, the bail bond industry and the Missouri court system.
The fourth public hearing will be held in Jefferson City on Nov. 10 from 9 a.m. to noon at the Capitol, House Hearing room #7.
Members of the public and the bail bond industry are invited to speak at the hearing. Please call the DIFP in advance to arrange a speaking time, 573-751-2562.
The state Insurance Department has scheduled four public hearings to review Missouri’s laws and regulations governing the state’s bail bond industry.
John M. Huff, director of the Missouri Department of Insurance, Financial Institutions and Professional Registration (DIFP), has appointed a 15-member committee to assist the department in the review process. The committee consists of members of the Missouri legislature, law enforcement, the bail bond industry and the Missouri court system.
The fourth public hearing will be held in Jefferson City on Nov. 10 from 9 a.m. to noon at the Capitol, House Hearing room #7.
Members of the public and the bail bond industry are invited to speak at the hearing. Please call the DIFP in advance to arrange a speaking time, 573-751-2562.
Thursday, November 5, 2009
Bondsmen Under Investigation in Springfield
Springfield, MO- Police are investigating several bail bondsmen after a family reported that the bondsmen kicked in their door. According to reports filed by KRCG-TV, KOLR-TV, and the Springfield News-Leader, the bondsmen forcefully entered a home with weapons drawn. A woman and three children were reportedly home at the time. They said the bondsmen were looking for a man named Andrew whom the family did not know. News reports indicate that the bondsmen then went to a home next door and a woman left with them. The incident remains under investigation and the names of the bondsmen have not been released.
Tuesday, October 27, 2009
Next Public Hearing to be Held in Springfield
The following is a press release by the DIFP announcing the public hearing scheduled for next Tuesday in Springfield:
The state Insurance Department has scheduled four public hearings to review Missouri's laws and regulations governing the state's bail bond industry.
John M. Huff, director of the Missouri Department of Insurance, Financial Institutions and Professional Registration (DIFP), has appointed a 15-member committee to assist the department in the review process. The committee consists of members of the Missouri legislature, law enforcement, the bail bond industry and the Missouri court system.
The third public hearing will be held in Springfield on Nov. 3 from 9 a.m. to noon at the Missouri Department of Conservation building located at 2630 N Mayfair, Springfield.
Members of the public and the bail bond industry are invited to speak at the hearing. Please call the DIFP in advance to arrange a speaking time, 573-751-2562. After hearing public testimony, the committee will meet from noon to 2 p.m.
The last of the four public hearings is scheduled for:
Capitol Hearing room #7 - Jefferson City, Tuesday Nov. 10
House Bill 577, passed by Missouri lawmakers and signed by Gov. Nixon, requires the DIFP to submit survey results to the legislature by Jan. 6, 2010.
The state Insurance Department has scheduled four public hearings to review Missouri's laws and regulations governing the state's bail bond industry.
John M. Huff, director of the Missouri Department of Insurance, Financial Institutions and Professional Registration (DIFP), has appointed a 15-member committee to assist the department in the review process. The committee consists of members of the Missouri legislature, law enforcement, the bail bond industry and the Missouri court system.
The third public hearing will be held in Springfield on Nov. 3 from 9 a.m. to noon at the Missouri Department of Conservation building located at 2630 N Mayfair, Springfield.
Members of the public and the bail bond industry are invited to speak at the hearing. Please call the DIFP in advance to arrange a speaking time, 573-751-2562. After hearing public testimony, the committee will meet from noon to 2 p.m.
The last of the four public hearings is scheduled for:
Capitol Hearing room #7 - Jefferson City, Tuesday Nov. 10
House Bill 577, passed by Missouri lawmakers and signed by Gov. Nixon, requires the DIFP to submit survey results to the legislature by Jan. 6, 2010.
Sunday, October 25, 2009
Study Committee to Meet in St. Louis
The next public hearing of the bail bond industry study committee will be held this Tuesday, October 27, 2009, at the MODOT building located at 1590 Woodlake Drive, Chesterfield, MO. The hearings will be conducted from 9:00 am to 12:00 pm.
The DIFP requests that individuals wishing to testify call 573-751-2562 at least one day prior to hearing. Written testimony and comments will also be accepted.
The DIFP requests that individuals wishing to testify call 573-751-2562 at least one day prior to hearing. Written testimony and comments will also be accepted.
Tuesday, October 13, 2009
Bail Industry Study Committee to Hold Public Hearings
The bail bond industry study committee (required by law passed last year) will hold public hearings at the following locations.
October 20, 2009 - 600 NE Colburn Rd, Lee Summit, MO (MODOT Building)
October 27, 2009 - 1590 Woodlake Drive, Chesterfield, MO (MODOT Building)
November 3, 2009 - 2630 N. Mayfair, Springfield, MO (Conservation Southwest Regional Office)
November 10, 2009 - Jefferson City, MO (Capitol)
Hearings will be conducted from 9:00-12:00.
The DIFP requests that individuals wishing to testify call 573-751-2562 to schedule a time and location at least one day prior to hearing. Written testimony and comments will also be accepted.
To receive all information regarding the work of the committee, you can join the list-serve sponsored by the DIFP at this address: http://www.difp.mo.gov/active.php Scroll down to "Bail Bond Study" and enter your email address.
October 20, 2009 - 600 NE Colburn Rd, Lee Summit, MO (MODOT Building)
October 27, 2009 - 1590 Woodlake Drive, Chesterfield, MO (MODOT Building)
November 3, 2009 - 2630 N. Mayfair, Springfield, MO (Conservation Southwest Regional Office)
November 10, 2009 - Jefferson City, MO (Capitol)
Hearings will be conducted from 9:00-12:00.
The DIFP requests that individuals wishing to testify call 573-751-2562 to schedule a time and location at least one day prior to hearing. Written testimony and comments will also be accepted.
To receive all information regarding the work of the committee, you can join the list-serve sponsored by the DIFP at this address: http://www.difp.mo.gov/active.php Scroll down to "Bail Bond Study" and enter your email address.
Thursday, August 13, 2009
Bondsman Injured in Hit and Run
Bondsman Brenda Dischbein, of Farmington, was injured last week when she tried to apprehend Norman Forrester. According to the Daily Journal, Forrester has been charged with first degree assault for striking Dischbein with his vehicle.
Forrester stopped his vehicle on a roadway near his residence. Dischbein approached his vehicle to speak to him. Forrester opened the driver’s side door to his vehicle knocking her back. Forrester then put his vehicle in reverse and struck her with the driver’s front fender as he was backing up. Dischbein sustained injuries to the arm and wrist, left ankle and a strained lower back.
Forrester bond is set at $75,000 cash only. At this time, he remains a fugitive.
Forrester stopped his vehicle on a roadway near his residence. Dischbein approached his vehicle to speak to him. Forrester opened the driver’s side door to his vehicle knocking her back. Forrester then put his vehicle in reverse and struck her with the driver’s front fender as he was backing up. Dischbein sustained injuries to the arm and wrist, left ankle and a strained lower back.
Forrester bond is set at $75,000 cash only. At this time, he remains a fugitive.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Sitemeter
