Fugitive Recovery Network (FRN) :: View topic - Kentucky Bringing Back Bondsmen?

Talk Of Bail Returning To Kentucky

Frankfurt, Kentucky- There is talk among certain insurance companies that surety bail can come back in this state. Commercial Bail was abolished there in 1974. Surety bail was never a factor there. All it took then was a $25,000 deposit with the state and you were turned loose to "write them all". There were many skips and much abuse of the system, but it still survived.

In 1974, the new governor, Julian Carroll, had a personal dislike for a certain bondsman. Previous to this, he had been a state senator. One of his first acts after taking the reins of government was to abolish the commercial bail system. He did this through the legislature and the law was written in no uncertain terms. They now have tens of thousands of skips which their bureaucracy cannot handle. Our industry is aware and some think we can restore third party bail. There are thousands of jobs that depend on this government run operations and they are not about to abolish their pork barrell control. For over three generations they have had their own program and would be a monumental costly affair to attempt legislation to turn it around.

There are many other areas of the nation where our energies could be put to better use.

Theres also an article in here about a BEA using Taylor vs Taintor to win a case in NM that could be fantastic case law, if its true. If yall want, Ill start another thread and copy it.
(At least it says its a law on the federal books since 1873 that was used, Im assuming thats the law.)

Author:	AndyL [ Tue 20 Feb 2007 11:23 ]
Post subject:	Kentucky Bringing Back Bondsmen?
Does anyone else get "The Bailbond Chronicals"? There is an article in there that Im not sure what it says. The wording is a bit misleading. It states that some insurance companies think they can bring bondsmen back to Kentucky. Which I think would be fantastic since they border our state and we get alot of problems there. But it goes on to say that it would cost too many government jobs and wouldnt be worth the effort? If Im reading this correctly? I dont understand that. I would think any bail bond related publication would support it? Just wondering if anyone else had comments on this. I know there was alot of talk a couple years back about Illiinois bringing us back too. I guess it never went anywhere?

Author:	Kathy [ Wed 21 Feb 2007 01:20 ]
Post subject:
I don't get it, but this could be good news if it goes through. Keep us posted, Andy.

Author:	jlsmith [ Wed 21 Feb 2007 17:09 ]
Post subject:	Re: Kentucky Bringing Back Bondsmen?
Bail Mo wrote: But it goes on to say that it would cost too many government jobs and wouldnt be worth the effort? If Im reading this correctly? I dont understand that. I would think any bail bond related publication would support it? Andy: It could be where they are laying out both sides of the story. If you could post a copy of that article, I'll give you my take on it. LJS

Author:	Mdbtyhtr [ Wed 21 Feb 2007 19:12 ]
Post subject:
The Bail Bond Chronicles is distributed by Harvey Childs of Bail USA/Senaca Insurance. My only beef is that it colates all negative information about our industry for the minions against us. Scott

Author:	AndyL [ Thu 22 Feb 2007 05:40 ]
Post subject:
I agree with that Scott. It is a Childs publication and it does tend to print alot of the bad stuff that happens. But, it does have some good things once in a while and I cant understand why Childs wouldnt want to bring back a state that has been outlawed. My scanner has been actin up. Ill try and scan it in. If not, its a short article and I type fairly quick, Ill type it in.

Fugitive Recovery Network (FRN) http://fugitiverecovery.com/forum/

Kentucky Bringing Back Bondsmen? http://fugitiverecovery.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=26&t=3223	Page 1 of 2

Author:	AndyL [ Thu 22 Feb 2007 07:12 ]
Post subject:
My scanners on the fritz, so Ill type it in. Talk Of Bail Returning To Kentucky Frankfurt, Kentucky- There is talk among certain insurance companies that surety bail can come back in this state. Commercial Bail was abolished there in 1974. Surety bail was never a factor there. All it took then was a $25,000 deposit with the state and you were turned loose to "write them all". There were many skips and much abuse of the system, but it still survived. In 1974, the new governor, Julian Carroll, had a personal dislike for a certain bondsman. Previous to this, he had been a state senator. One of his first acts after taking the reins of government was to abolish the commercial bail system. He did this through the legislature and the law was written in no uncertain terms. They now have tens of thousands of skips which their bureaucracy cannot handle. Our industry is aware and some think we can restore third party bail. There are thousands of jobs that depend on this government run operations and they are not about to abolish their pork barrell control. For over three generations they have had their own program and would be a monumental costly affair to attempt legislation to turn it around. There are many other areas of the nation where our energies could be put to better use. End of transcription. Thats it, word for word. Clerical mistakes, poor choices of words and all. I just copied it. What do yall think? Theres also an article in here about a BEA using Taylor vs Taintor to win a case in NM that could be fantastic case law, if its true. If yall want, Ill start another thread and copy it. (At least it says its a law on the federal books since 1873 that was used, Im assuming thats the law.)

Author:	Mdbtyhtr [ Thu 22 Feb 2007 12:43 ]
Post subject:
Andy, I believe that Harvey is opining that it will never be voted in and therefore a waste of money to persue. The Governor that abolished commercial bail is now dead. That bastard came to MD to testify how successful his system is and the bill was defeated in committee. I have made numerous "Legal" recoveries in Kentucky and have spoken to numerous Sheriff's. I was even offered a job by one of them, stating that none of his Detectives were capable of assembling a case file such as was presented to him upon my arrival. I had the level of extradition increased to include Kentucky and had in my position a letter from the Sate AG authorizing me to transport on behalf of the State of Maryland. None of the Sheriffs that I spoke with were proud of the fact that they "Harbor Fugitives". One was so mad at me when I accused the state od such behaviour, we rode in his car to the trailer where the skip was located. He was taken into custody by the Sheriff without incident and we drove back to his station. In the parking lot, he asked me how much gas I had. I responded a full tank. He said take your MD trash back to MD, do not pass go and do not collect $200.00! Go on, git! Scott

Author:	AndyL [ Thu 22 Feb 2007 15:32 ]
Post subject:
Yeah Scott, I could see that too. However, if the insurance companies with the big bucks want in, I think they can do it. They seem to have alot of clout. Here in MO they are taking baby steps in legislation each year to try and sqeeze companies like us that write on property out and force us to go with an insurance company. We actually are fighting a judge right now in one district that blatantly disobeyed state supreme court rule not allowing anyone to write in "his" district unless they work for an insurance company. Even though we have more than enough security, been in business for 24 yrs with never an unsatisfied judgement or even a small mark on our record. Its total BS!! I talked with one of the major insurance companies the other day to see how it worked so when the day comes and they win, I would know what we have to do. He told me he was coming to MO to a legislative meet and greet for the new legislators and wanted to meet me there. Then, with a over the phone deer in the headlights tone assured me they were in no way trying to push anything thru to affect us. BS!! Needless to say, I didnt go meet him. Anyway, thats another story. I asked the troops if they wanted a quick fix and hook up with an insurance company to put a band aid on the situation just for that district so we could write bonds there until it was resolved correctly. They unanimously said hell no. Take the SOB to the Supreme Court, the only court that can correct a Circuit judge, tell him hes wrong and slap his hands and tarnish his record. We have already been told by the Department of Insurance lead investigator the judge is blatantly wrong and will be reprimanded if we file the motion. So thats what were currently doing. They would rather give up a few bonds in that district than to give other judges the idea they can do whatever they want. They do enough of that the way it is. I said all that, and got kinda on a soapbox, to say, these insurance companies are powerful and have deep pockets and tons of lawyers and lobbyists on staff. I see no reason why they cant bring it back to KY and IL. Again, all this is just my humble opinion.

Author:	jlsmith [ Fri 23 Feb 2007 13:42 ]
Post subject:
Bail Mo wrote: Talk Of Bail Returning To Kentucky Frankfurt, Kentucky- There is talk among certain insurance companies that surety bail can come back in this state. Commercial Bail was abolished there in 1974. Surety bail was never a factor there. All it took then was a $25,000 deposit with the state and you were turned loose to "write them all". There were many skips and much abuse of the system, but it still survived. In 1974, the new governor, Julian Carroll, had a personal dislike for a certain bondsman. Previous to this, he had been a state senator. One of his first acts after taking the reins of government was to abolish the commercial bail system. He did this through the legislature and the law was written in no uncertain terms. They now have tens of thousands of skips which their bureaucracy cannot handle. Our industry is aware and some think we can restore third party bail. There are thousands of jobs that depend on this government run operations and they are not about to abolish their pork barrell control. For over three generations they have had their own program and would be a monumental costly affair to attempt legislation to turn it around. There are many other areas of the nation where our energies could be put to better use. Andy: Like with many company newsletters, this article is part information and part opinion. In effect, he's saying "Here's something you should know about, but given the political climate, let's not bother to attempt to change anything." You're right in that if they wanted to, the insurance companies could lobby to change the law. I'd certainly like to know specifically the "many other areas of the nation where our energies could be put to better use." What better use of energy is there than finding a new market for your product or service? The mere fact that the outlawing of commerical bail was a political vendetta by the former governor works in the insurance companies' favor. The consequence (intended or not) of a state-run system of bail, as stated in the article, is hundreds of fugitives running loose, thus denying some of their victims the inability to receive timely justice. Since you said many of Kentucky's bail "problems" (fugitives, I presume) spill over into Missouri, perhaps you should approach an investigative news reporter about the matter (the St. Louis Times-Dispatch has a reputation for that sort of thing). The resulting publicity might give the insurance companies a good sift kick in the pants to take action there and in Illinois (which I assume gives Missouri "problems", too). Bail Mo wrote: Theres also an article in here about a BEA using Taylor vs Taintor to win a case in NM that could be fantastic case law, if its true. If yall want, Ill start another thread and copy it. (At least it says its a law on the federal books since 1873 that was used, Im assuming thats the law.) Yes, please post that article. You're right that it could provide an important precedent for BEAs in other state facing similar circumstances. Too bad the New Mexico judge who ruled in that case doesn't live in Missouri. It sounds like he or she understands the dynamics of bail and bail enforcement. JLS

Author:	AndyL [ Fri 23 Feb 2007 14:05 ]
Post subject:
JLS, What I was meaning was MO is connected to IL and KY. The problems arise when a misdemeanor skip, state wide extradition only, decides to hide in one of these states. We have hell getting them back. Felonies arent much problem, but they will harbour misdemeanors on us. Heres the other article: Bounty Hunter Charges Dropped Albuquerque, New Mexico A city bounty hunter will not have to face breaking and entering charges after a Bernalillo County grand jury refused to indict him. Robert Turner, 27, was arrested for breaking and entering when he went to an Albuquerque Police Departments officers' home on Jan. 14 to pick up the officers sister-in-law, Debra Valdez, on a failure to appear warrant. Court records show the charges were dropped Wednesday. Turner said Wednesday a U.S. Supreme Court ruling gave him the right to enter a home without a warrant in search of a woman who failed to appear in court. In the warrant for Turners' arrest, the officer said his two children were alone in the home and frightened when Turner arrived. Valdez was not there. Valdez also showed that address as her home when she was re-arrested on Jan. 20 by another bounty hunter. "Finally justice was done," Turner said. "The law may need to be changed, but not at my expense." District Attorney Kari Brandenburg said Wednesday that her office pursued the case, but the grand jury didn't indict Turner. "There are other avenues that can be pursued," she said. The home Turner entered is owned by a APD officer, although it had been owned by Valdez's father before 2004, according to Bernalillo County Assessor's Office records. The Supreme Court ruling cited by Turner has been on the books since 1873. It says, among other things, that a bail bondsman may enter the house of a wanted person without a warrant, as well as the house of a third person, if he believes that the suspect is there. Turner said he would like laws to be clarified so they state what bounty hunters are allowed to do. He said after he was arrested the APD officer had said Valdez had not lived there in 25 years. He said all of Valdez's documentation provided to the bonding company, and the information the court provided, gave the officer's address as hers. Turner said he had no reason to believe she did not live there. In addition, Turner said, when people sign the bail bond contract, they waive their constitutional protection from the bondsmen entering their listed residences without a warrant. Valdez's court record shows the officer's address on a bench warrant, traffic tickets and her Motor Vehicle Division records. At the time, Turner said there was no returned mail in the court file indicating Valdez did not live at the address. End of Article I hope I didnt mislead, maybe I read it wrong. The grand jury wouldnt indict him, not a judges ruling. My bad. Still good though. JLS, what difference would it have made if the ruling were in MO or NM? Just curious as to what you meant by that?

Page 1 of 2	All times are UTC - 8 hours [ DST ]
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group http://www.phpbb.com/