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.
Saturday, January 23, 2010
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.
Thursday, July 30, 2009
Pretrial Wants to Abolish Private Bail
Below is a video clip taken from the NAPSA (National Association of Pretrial Services Agencies) website advertising its annual conference this year called “Game Plan for Change.” The video reviews key speakers at last year’s conference. Rep. Fred Kessler of Wisconsin was applauded when he said, “We can abolish professional bail bonding in the United States.”
PBUS (Professional Bail Agents of the United States) recently alerted its members saying: “…The National Association of Counties (NACo) and the Pre-Trial Justice Institute (PJI) have formed an alliance, funded by the Bureau of Justice Assistance, the U.S. Department of Justice to complete a no-cost technical analysis of current jail population. You know that they will find or create issues of jail overcrowding and that will lead them to recommend the creation of or expansion of a PTR program. (PBUS interpretation: GET RID OF THE BAIL AGENT!)”
PBUS (Professional Bail Agents of the United States) recently alerted its members saying: “…The National Association of Counties (NACo) and the Pre-Trial Justice Institute (PJI) have formed an alliance, funded by the Bureau of Justice Assistance, the U.S. Department of Justice to complete a no-cost technical analysis of current jail population. You know that they will find or create issues of jail overcrowding and that will lead them to recommend the creation of or expansion of a PTR program. (PBUS interpretation: GET RID OF THE BAIL AGENT!)”
Wednesday, July 29, 2009
Out of State Bounty Hunters Arrested in MO
Two bounty hunters from Mississippi are scheduled to be arraigned today in Scott County, Missouri, after being charged with engaging in fugitive recovery without a license. Timothy Fugate (pictured at right) and Jeremy McNeil are both featured on their website, http://www.fugitiveapprehensionteam.com/, advertising their services for fugitive recovery. Both also claim to be law enforcement officers.
According to this report on KFVS-TV, the men hit the wrong house in Sikeston, Mo, in the middle of the night, searching for a fugitive. Weapons were drawn and the two men were later arrested by local authorities after the home owners called 911.
Fugate and McNeil posted $1,000 bonds for unlawful acts under RSMO 374.789, a class D felony.
According to this report on KFVS-TV, the men hit the wrong house in Sikeston, Mo, in the middle of the night, searching for a fugitive. Weapons were drawn and the two men were later arrested by local authorities after the home owners called 911.
Fugate and McNeil posted $1,000 bonds for unlawful acts under RSMO 374.789, a class D felony.
Saturday, July 25, 2009
KC Bondsman Charged
According to this report at KCTV-5, bondsman Michael Knight, of Kansas City, faces a felony charge of unlawful use of a weapon and a misdemeanor charge of assault 3rd degree. The report states that Knight had a concealed weapon, although his conceal permit was expired. The charges were filed after Knight allegedly assaulted a 19 year old man while trying to repossess his vehicle. Additionally, the article stated that Knight was repossessing the wrong vehicle as the VIN did not match.
Knight posted a $15,000 surety bond through his general agent, Frank Kincaid.
Knight posted a $15,000 surety bond through his general agent, Frank Kincaid.
Tuesday, June 23, 2009
AR-Judges Ban Credit Bonds, Use 10% Bonds
The issue of credit bonding has been ongoing discussion in Arkansas for several years. Yesterday, the Arkansas Democrat Gazette reported that the issue has now prompted a federal lawsuit and crippled the Saline County bail bond businesses.
Every judge in Saline County signed a court order earlier this year banning credit bonding. Then earlier this month, the sheriff's office began collecting 10% cash-bonds, (called sheriff’s bonds). The 10% bonds provide a new revenue source for the county because Arkansas law allows the county to keep 10% of the amount collected as a processing fee.
Bondsman John Chism has filed the federal lawsuit against every judge in the county, the prosecutor, the sheriff and the jail chief, saying the ban and the use of sheriff's bonds on felony cases have effectively stripped his company of its license without due process, resulting in a civil-rights violation.
Financing the bail bond premium has long divided bail-bond companies and the legal community. Judges, lawmen and prosecutors often argue that suspects charged with serious crimes are sprung from jail after paying too little. There is also debate about whether state law forbids credit bonding. Arkansas law says the "premium or compensation for giving bond or depositing money or real property as bail on any bond shall be ten percent (10%), except that the amount may be rounded up to the nearest five dollar amount." The law is silent on when the premium is required to be collected.
Upset by financed premium, Pulaski County deputy prosecutor Barbara Mariani subpoenaed records to find out how three particular defendants got out of jail despite hefty bails. In 2006, a convicted killer awaiting trial on a new murder charge was freed on a $250,000 bond. She wondered how Armon Houston, who was assigned a public defender after claiming he was indigent, came up with $25,000 - the 10 percent premium. Mariani learned Houston was freed after someone posted just $3,000 bond. Records didn't indicate that the remaining $22,000 was ever paid, Mariani said. "There's no contract, no monthly payments," she said about the bail-bond records she's reviewed. So even though some companies say they are arranging financing, they appear to be just discounting the bond. That's illegal, Mariani said. This issue has prompted Mariani to ask judges on more serious cases to require the full 10 percent premium upfront.
Every judge in Saline County signed a court order earlier this year banning credit bonding. Then earlier this month, the sheriff's office began collecting 10% cash-bonds, (called sheriff’s bonds). The 10% bonds provide a new revenue source for the county because Arkansas law allows the county to keep 10% of the amount collected as a processing fee.
Bondsman John Chism has filed the federal lawsuit against every judge in the county, the prosecutor, the sheriff and the jail chief, saying the ban and the use of sheriff's bonds on felony cases have effectively stripped his company of its license without due process, resulting in a civil-rights violation.
Financing the bail bond premium has long divided bail-bond companies and the legal community. Judges, lawmen and prosecutors often argue that suspects charged with serious crimes are sprung from jail after paying too little. There is also debate about whether state law forbids credit bonding. Arkansas law says the "premium or compensation for giving bond or depositing money or real property as bail on any bond shall be ten percent (10%), except that the amount may be rounded up to the nearest five dollar amount." The law is silent on when the premium is required to be collected.
Upset by financed premium, Pulaski County deputy prosecutor Barbara Mariani subpoenaed records to find out how three particular defendants got out of jail despite hefty bails. In 2006, a convicted killer awaiting trial on a new murder charge was freed on a $250,000 bond. She wondered how Armon Houston, who was assigned a public defender after claiming he was indigent, came up with $25,000 - the 10 percent premium. Mariani learned Houston was freed after someone posted just $3,000 bond. Records didn't indicate that the remaining $22,000 was ever paid, Mariani said. "There's no contract, no monthly payments," she said about the bail-bond records she's reviewed. So even though some companies say they are arranging financing, they appear to be just discounting the bond. That's illegal, Mariani said. This issue has prompted Mariani to ask judges on more serious cases to require the full 10 percent premium upfront.
Monday, June 22, 2009
Services for Glenn Beazley
Our friend and colleague, Glenn Edward Beazley, 51, of Jefferson City, passed away Sunday, June 21, 2009, at St. Mary’s Health Center.
Glenn was an agent and supervisor for Peak Bail Bonds. Glenn previously worked in law enforcement. He was the youngest police officer in Missouri history. He started as a police officer in Bland and Hermann, Missouri in 1976. He also worked for the Jefferson City Police Department and the Cole County Sheriffs Department. He was a Lieutenant in charge of the Cole County Narcotics Task Force. Glenn taught a concealed weapons course and was a specialized instructor for law enforcement and various agencies. He owned Monitored Release House Arrest. He enjoyed hunting, fishing and looking for arrowheads. Most of all, Glenn enjoyed spending time with his family.
He is survived by his wife Janet and four children: Katlyn, Kelly, Austin, and Haylee. He is also survived by his father: William Beazley of Jefferson City; one brother: Terry Beazley of Wardsville; one sister: Jan Shields (husband Eddie) of Alton, Missouri; two brother-in-laws: Nathan Ament and Matthew Ament both of Jefferson City.
Friends will be received from 4:00 p.m. to 8:00 p.m. Thursday at the Houser-Millard Funeral Home. Funeral Services will be held at 11:00 a.m. Friday, June 26, 2009, at the Houser-Millard Funeral Home, with Joe Bonchonski officiating. Interment will follow in Hawthorn Memorial Gardens. Expressions of sympathy may be made to the Glenn Beazley Children’s Educational Fund. Arrangements are under the direction of HOUSER-MILLARD Funeral Directors, 2613 West Main Street; Jefferson City, Missouri 65109. (573) 636-3838.
Glenn was an agent and supervisor for Peak Bail Bonds. Glenn previously worked in law enforcement. He was the youngest police officer in Missouri history. He started as a police officer in Bland and Hermann, Missouri in 1976. He also worked for the Jefferson City Police Department and the Cole County Sheriffs Department. He was a Lieutenant in charge of the Cole County Narcotics Task Force. Glenn taught a concealed weapons course and was a specialized instructor for law enforcement and various agencies. He owned Monitored Release House Arrest. He enjoyed hunting, fishing and looking for arrowheads. Most of all, Glenn enjoyed spending time with his family.
He is survived by his wife Janet and four children: Katlyn, Kelly, Austin, and Haylee. He is also survived by his father: William Beazley of Jefferson City; one brother: Terry Beazley of Wardsville; one sister: Jan Shields (husband Eddie) of Alton, Missouri; two brother-in-laws: Nathan Ament and Matthew Ament both of Jefferson City.
Friends will be received from 4:00 p.m. to 8:00 p.m. Thursday at the Houser-Millard Funeral Home. Funeral Services will be held at 11:00 a.m. Friday, June 26, 2009, at the Houser-Millard Funeral Home, with Joe Bonchonski officiating. Interment will follow in Hawthorn Memorial Gardens. Expressions of sympathy may be made to the Glenn Beazley Children’s Educational Fund. Arrangements are under the direction of HOUSER-MILLARD Funeral Directors, 2613 West Main Street; Jefferson City, Missouri 65109. (573) 636-3838.
Tuesday, June 16, 2009
Redburn Guilty of Theft
Bondsman Jackie Covey Redburn entered two guilty pleas to possession of burglary tools and Class B stealing. Redburn and her husband, Aaron Redburn, were arrested last year in Dade County for trying to steal ATVs from S&H Farm Supply. Redburn was given five years supervised probation, with a suspended imposition of sentence.
Just a few weeks before the plea, Redburn renewed her bail bond license. The DIFP and Redburn entered into a consent agreement that if Redburn was found guilty in any of the charges against her, she would voluntarily surrender her license within five days. Redburn’s license is now listed as cancelled.
Just a few weeks before the plea, Redburn renewed her bail bond license. The DIFP and Redburn entered into a consent agreement that if Redburn was found guilty in any of the charges against her, she would voluntarily surrender her license within five days. Redburn’s license is now listed as cancelled.
Fox 2 Airs Story on Felons in the Industry
Fox 2 , St. Louis, recently aired another story concerning the bail bond industry in Missouri. The reporter interviewed Jerry Cox and former MO Representative Bob Behnen about their roles in passing the Lee Clause, which allows felons who have been convicted more than 15 years ago to be licensed as bail bond agents.
Cox and Lee Jackson were both members of MPBBA, the organization who lobbied for the felon provision. Ten months after the bill became law, Jackson tried to murder Cox. The reporter asked Cox, "The fact that somebody who sat on the board with you ended up trying to kill you - doesn't that prove these guys have no business in the industry?" Gerald Cox answered, "That's kind of the exception of the of the - the exception if you will. I did oppose that, the particular section of the bill. I was out voted."
Regarding the licensing of convicted felons, Behnen said, "We have a lot of people in prisons and when these people get out do we want to create another obstacle for them to get a job to get a good paying job, where they can provide for their families and hopefully stay away from a life of crime."
Cox and Lee Jackson were both members of MPBBA, the organization who lobbied for the felon provision. Ten months after the bill became law, Jackson tried to murder Cox. The reporter asked Cox, "The fact that somebody who sat on the board with you ended up trying to kill you - doesn't that prove these guys have no business in the industry?" Gerald Cox answered, "That's kind of the exception of the of the - the exception if you will. I did oppose that, the particular section of the bill. I was out voted."
Regarding the licensing of convicted felons, Behnen said, "We have a lot of people in prisons and when these people get out do we want to create another obstacle for them to get a job to get a good paying job, where they can provide for their families and hopefully stay away from a life of crime."
Saturday, June 6, 2009
Bondsman Files Suit Against Police Department
General bail bond agent Gerald Cox, and his son, James Cox, have filed a federal lawsuit against the City of Maryland Heights, its police chief, and two of its officers. The 12 count complaint alleges defamation, slander, malicious prosecution, violation of civil rights, and tortuous interference. The lawsuit was filed in US District Court, St Louis.
The Cox men were investigated and arrested last fall by the Maryland Heights Police Department after four bounty hunters apprehended a fugitive, Leah Pinion, and her cosignor and boyfriend, Lance Peabody. The two were apprehended in a hotel and were transported to Cox’s office. Peabody’s car was also transported to the office. Several months later, the police charged Jim and Jerry Cox with burglary, kidnapping, tampering with a motor vehicle, and stealing. James Cox was additionally charged with unlawful conduct as a surety recovery agent, and Jerry Cox was additionally charged with fail to inform law enforcement of apprehension. The charges against both men were dropped earlier this year.
After their arrests, Gerald Cox and Cox Bail Bonds was suspended from writing bonds in the City of St. Louis and several other jurisdictions. The lawsuit alleges a loss of income of $174,000.
The complaint states that neither James nor Jerry Cox had instructed the bounty hunters to apprehend Lance Peabody and that neither were aware that it was occurring until after it happened, and that a valid contract existed for the payment of the bond fees charged to Lance Peabody, and paid by Peabody’s mother, Arlene Taylor. A separate written contract explaining the relationship between the bounty hunter and Cox, Inc. was also shown and explained to the detectives. The complaint also alleges that Maryland Heights Police Department further discovered that the bounty hunter and those assisting him were indeed independent contractors, and that neither Gerald nor James Cox had known what was occurring at the LaQuinta Hotel until after it had happened. The complaint further alleges that no factual basis or legal probable cause existed to seek or obtain criminal charges against Gerald or James Cox for the events which occurred at the LaQuinta Hotel, nor was there a factual basis or legal probable cause to seek or obtain criminal charges regarding the contract between Peabody and Cox, Inc.
New Coverage:
Riverfront Times
STL Post Dispatch
Previous Posts:
Charges Dropped Against Cox 5/1/2009
Cox Case in RFT 12/10/2008
Cox Case in STL Post Dispatch 11/27/2008
Bondsman Charged 11/26/2008
The Cox men were investigated and arrested last fall by the Maryland Heights Police Department after four bounty hunters apprehended a fugitive, Leah Pinion, and her cosignor and boyfriend, Lance Peabody. The two were apprehended in a hotel and were transported to Cox’s office. Peabody’s car was also transported to the office. Several months later, the police charged Jim and Jerry Cox with burglary, kidnapping, tampering with a motor vehicle, and stealing. James Cox was additionally charged with unlawful conduct as a surety recovery agent, and Jerry Cox was additionally charged with fail to inform law enforcement of apprehension. The charges against both men were dropped earlier this year.
After their arrests, Gerald Cox and Cox Bail Bonds was suspended from writing bonds in the City of St. Louis and several other jurisdictions. The lawsuit alleges a loss of income of $174,000.
The complaint states that neither James nor Jerry Cox had instructed the bounty hunters to apprehend Lance Peabody and that neither were aware that it was occurring until after it happened, and that a valid contract existed for the payment of the bond fees charged to Lance Peabody, and paid by Peabody’s mother, Arlene Taylor. A separate written contract explaining the relationship between the bounty hunter and Cox, Inc. was also shown and explained to the detectives. The complaint also alleges that Maryland Heights Police Department further discovered that the bounty hunter and those assisting him were indeed independent contractors, and that neither Gerald nor James Cox had known what was occurring at the LaQuinta Hotel until after it had happened. The complaint further alleges that no factual basis or legal probable cause existed to seek or obtain criminal charges against Gerald or James Cox for the events which occurred at the LaQuinta Hotel, nor was there a factual basis or legal probable cause to seek or obtain criminal charges regarding the contract between Peabody and Cox, Inc.
New Coverage:
Riverfront Times
STL Post Dispatch
Previous Posts:
Charges Dropped Against Cox 5/1/2009
Cox Case in RFT 12/10/2008
Cox Case in STL Post Dispatch 11/27/2008
Bondsman Charged 11/26/2008
Sunday, May 17, 2009
FBI Charges Bondsmen & Clerk
According to this press release from the FBI, two bondsmen and a municipal court clerk have been indicted in federal court for altering court records. The indictment alleges that Wichita, Kansas Municipal Court employee, Kaylene Pottorff took bribes to change court records for the benefit of bonding agents Alicia Bell and Jessie Garland.
According to the indictment:
Pottorff worked as a collections officer for the Wichita Municipal Court. During a period from March 2004 through April 2008, she changed and removed data from the court’s computerized records system for the benefit of co-defendants Alicia Bell and Jessie Garland.
Pottorff accepted bribes from Bell and Garland, both of whom worked as bondsman agents, for falsifying the court’s computerized records.
On multiple occasions, Bell used fraudulently altered lists of active bonds from court records, together with false and fraudulent jail booking forms she created, to defraud her mother, Pearl Neal, AAA Bonding Company, and others.
On multiple occasions, Garland used fraudulently altered lists of active bonds from court records to defraud B&J Enterprises and Larry Hiebert, the bondsman and surety company on Garland’s bonds.
The investigation, which is ongoing, is being conducted by the FBI, the Wichita Police Department and the U.S. Attorney. Assistant U.S. Attorney Brent Anderson and U.S. Attorney Lanny Welch are prosecuting.
According to the indictment:
Pottorff worked as a collections officer for the Wichita Municipal Court. During a period from March 2004 through April 2008, she changed and removed data from the court’s computerized records system for the benefit of co-defendants Alicia Bell and Jessie Garland.
Pottorff accepted bribes from Bell and Garland, both of whom worked as bondsman agents, for falsifying the court’s computerized records.
On multiple occasions, Bell used fraudulently altered lists of active bonds from court records, together with false and fraudulent jail booking forms she created, to defraud her mother, Pearl Neal, AAA Bonding Company, and others.
On multiple occasions, Garland used fraudulently altered lists of active bonds from court records to defraud B&J Enterprises and Larry Hiebert, the bondsman and surety company on Garland’s bonds.
The investigation, which is ongoing, is being conducted by the FBI, the Wichita Police Department and the U.S. Attorney. Assistant U.S. Attorney Brent Anderson and U.S. Attorney Lanny Welch are prosecuting.
Wednesday, May 13, 2009
SB464 Substitute Passed
A conference committee substitute for SB464 was passed by both the Missouri Senate and House of Representatives. A late night negotiation last Monday between committee chairs Senator Bill Stouffer and Representative Brian Yates resulted in a compromise which stripped all of the bail bond language from the bill and instead inserted language directing the DIFP to conduct a study on the bail bond industry.
The language says:
During the legislative interim between the first regular session and the second regular session of the ninety-fifth general assembly, the Missouri DIFP shall conduct a study regarding its licensing rules and other policies and procedures governing the bail bond industry within the State of Missouri. The department, in its discretion, may hold public hearings within the state and permit testimony and input from surety insurance companies, general bail bond agents, bail bond agents, legislators, law enforcement agencies, officials from the department, and other interested parties. If public hearings are held, the director shall provide notice to all licensees licensed under sections 374.695 to 374.789 of the date, time, and location of such public hearings. The department shall submit a report of its findings and recommendations to the house representatives and senate insurance committees no later than January 6, 2010.
Previous Posts
House Passes SB464
The language says:
During the legislative interim between the first regular session and the second regular session of the ninety-fifth general assembly, the Missouri DIFP shall conduct a study regarding its licensing rules and other policies and procedures governing the bail bond industry within the State of Missouri. The department, in its discretion, may hold public hearings within the state and permit testimony and input from surety insurance companies, general bail bond agents, bail bond agents, legislators, law enforcement agencies, officials from the department, and other interested parties. If public hearings are held, the director shall provide notice to all licensees licensed under sections 374.695 to 374.789 of the date, time, and location of such public hearings. The department shall submit a report of its findings and recommendations to the house representatives and senate insurance committees no later than January 6, 2010.
Previous Posts
House Passes SB464
Friday, May 8, 2009
Vinson Tells About Fugitive Incident
Bondsman Dave Vinson granted an interview with the Lake Sun Leader. After being found guilty of two misdemeanor offenses involving a fugitive recovery incident, Vinson told his side of the story.
Vinson told the Lake Sun Leader that he and another bondsman, Jason Dampier, had located fugitive Ronald Brown in a vehicle in Versailles. Brown turned onto a dead end street. Vinson said Dampier got out of the car and walked up to Brown’s vehicle, asking him to get out. Instead Brown threw the car into reverse and attempted to back over Dampier. Vinson said Dampier told him he heard the gears shifting and because of that was able to narrowly escape being struck by diving behind their own vehicle. Vinson had his Glock 22 .40 caliber pistol drawn. Brown pulled the car forward, this time over lawns, attempting to find a way out of the dead-end. Vinson said he fired off one round, shattering the back window of the SUV. “I fired at a location where I knew I wasn’t going to hit him. I hoped the sound of the gun, of the bullet, would scare him into stopping before someone got hurt,” Vinson said. With at least 20-feet now between them, Brown attempted to back up over Vinson and Dampier again, Vinson said. It was enough room to do real damage if Brown managed to strike his targets. This time, he managed to drive away.
Previous Posts
Vinson Found Guilty of Misdemeanors
Lake Sun-New Info on Fugitive Case
Bondsman Held After Shots Fired
Vinson told the Lake Sun Leader that he and another bondsman, Jason Dampier, had located fugitive Ronald Brown in a vehicle in Versailles. Brown turned onto a dead end street. Vinson said Dampier got out of the car and walked up to Brown’s vehicle, asking him to get out. Instead Brown threw the car into reverse and attempted to back over Dampier. Vinson said Dampier told him he heard the gears shifting and because of that was able to narrowly escape being struck by diving behind their own vehicle. Vinson had his Glock 22 .40 caliber pistol drawn. Brown pulled the car forward, this time over lawns, attempting to find a way out of the dead-end. Vinson said he fired off one round, shattering the back window of the SUV. “I fired at a location where I knew I wasn’t going to hit him. I hoped the sound of the gun, of the bullet, would scare him into stopping before someone got hurt,” Vinson said. With at least 20-feet now between them, Brown attempted to back up over Vinson and Dampier again, Vinson said. It was enough room to do real damage if Brown managed to strike his targets. This time, he managed to drive away.
Previous Posts
Vinson Found Guilty of Misdemeanors
Lake Sun-New Info on Fugitive Case
Bondsman Held After Shots Fired
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Sitemeter
