Let me tell the reader little about myself first of all. My name is Ricky Gurley, and I have been a Recovery Agent (read carefully Leslie Hogue). I occasionally consult to Bail Bonding Companies when these bonding companies when they are in need of an expert in "Risk Management Matters" that the average Recovery Agent is not equipped to handle. I am called in when matters go well beyond what a Recovery Agent can handle for a Bail Bonds Company. Most of what I do is never read about or seen in the media. I don't chase fugitives for $500.00, nor am I interested in action, adventure, and/or excitement. Often times what I do does not even require me to leave my home. It is not glamorous, nor is it fun. But it does pay well and that is why I do it. A small example (certain details omitted), four years ago a married couple skipped out on on a Bail Bondsman and went to Mexico on a bond that would have put the Bail Bondsman out of business if he would have had to pay it. They were thought to be "unfindable". Their Bail Bondsman asked a very well known, and highly respected Professional Recovery Agent if he could find them (this Recovery Agent is now deceased). After a few months, this Recovery Agent could not put a location on them, but did have some information that they had left the country. He referred the Bail Bondsman to me and told the Bail Bondsman this: "I know a man that can find them, and if he can't then nobody can; but he is not cheap". The Bondsman called me and we talked for a while. I took my notes, and gave the Bail Bondsman a quote. It took the Bail Bondsman 3 days to get the money together to pay me, but he did. In 48 hours I had the exact address of the couple in Mexico. In 30 days I had pictures of the couple sitting at the table in their new home in Mexico. In 1 year the couple were sitting in a jail in Los Angeles, California after having been extradited from Mexico. In 1 year and 3 months they were back in the jail that they had been bonded out of. The Bail Bondsman did not have to pay one dime to the courts, and my reports got him all of the continuances he needed to get them back in the jail they were bonded out of. And..... I never had to leave my home to get this done; other than to go to the bank.... That is what I do. You did not read about this in the Newspaper, or if you did you never knew that I was behind this. You never heard my name on television or radio about this; because in this world publicity can kill....
I have recovered fugitives out of 43 states in the USA, and 4 countries in the world. Often times I have recovered fugitives with phone calls, I have made a good percentage of them turn their-selves in just by talking to them on the phone. I once made a fugitive drive up from San Padre Island, Texas to Columbia, Missouri to turn himself in just by talking to him on the phone. Negotiation is a skill, and if you are using it as a tool to protect a half a million dollars of your client's money and earn a living, you'd better know it well.
I have a lot to say about Bail Bonding in Missouri, since it seems to be one of the most unfairly managed, poorly organized, and corrupt businesses that I have ever seen.
First, I want to talk a little about a friend of mine that is having a terrible time getting his Bail Bonding License. I want to try to put his case in perspective by showing how easily a person got their bonding license that did not deserve them, and is not of moral character to have them and how my friend can't gt his Bail Bonding License and he has demonstrated that he is deserving of them.
Paul Berry is just a businessman, a family man, and a real "go-getter" in the Bail Bonds Business. There is nothing "bad" about Paul Berry, other than the fact that if he is licensed to write bail and working in your city you'd better step up your game and hustle, or he will be taking your business because he does "bring in the paper". Paul Berry was licensed as a Bail Bonds Agent for a few years, and he was a pretty good Bail Bonds Agent by various accounts. He did incur a few complaints, but none of these complaints were ever substantiated. More than likely these complaints derived from bad Bail Bondsmen that did not like seeing a good Bail Bondsman take their business. On September 10, 2010, the Director issued an order refusing to issue a bail bond agent license to Berry, and Paul has had to fight and pay attorneys to fight for him and he still does not have a license to write bail in Missouri. The only substantiated complaint against Paul Berry was that he did not submit a change of address form when he moved, which the statues only set a prescribed punishment at a fine of $10.00 a month for each month that the address of the bail bondsman is not up to date. Here is where you can find the ruling from the AHC: Paul Berry AHC Ruling
Look at the very first ruling at the top of the page and you will see this:
Case No.: #10-1931 DIJust download the link at the top or just click the link right here: #10-1931 DI. Read the ruling and pay particular attention to the last part of the ruling:
Title: Paul Lawrence Berry III vs. Director of Department of Insurance, Financial Institutions and Professional Registration
Description:
Suffix: DI Department of Insurance
Date: 8/01/2011
Berry says that Regulation 20 CSR 700-6.170(3) limits the Director’s authority in punishing violations of 20 CSR 700-6.170(1), because it provides that failure to timely inform the Director of changes of address may result in a forfeiture of up to $10 a month. We agree that the provision, if read in isolation, might seem to limit the range of sanction for this offense to a forfeiture of up to $10 a month.
But the provision cannot be read in isolation. The statutory basis for this proceeding is § 374.750, which states the grounds for refusal to renew Berry’s license. One of those grounds is set out in § 374.755.1(6) – “violation of any . . . department of insurance, financial institutions and professional registration rules and regulations.” 20 CSR 700-6.170(1) is a regulation of the Department, and Berry violated it. “When there is a direct conflict or inconsistency between a statute and a regulation, the statute which represents the true legislative intent must necessarily prevail.”[1]
But we also perceive that the lesser sanction imposed by 20 CSR 700-6.170(3) must, at some point, have reflected the Department’s policy that failure to keep one’s address updated with the Department was a lesser offense than, say, fraud,[2] bribery,[3] misappropriation of funds,[4] or the commission of a felony or a crime of moral turpitude[5]—as common sense dictates it must be. Compared to these other grounds for discipline, failure to notify the Department of one’s change of address while couch surfing[6] and living in hotels, in order to keep one’s children (including a special needs child) in their school district, fails to qualify as grounds for draconian punishment. We acknowledge that there were adverse consequences, at the time, to the miscommunication between the parties regarding the consumer complaints leveled against Berry. But considering that, since at least October 30, 2010, the Director has known where to reach Berry for purposes of investigating the two consumer complaints that precipitated this action. We cannot see, and the Director has not shown, any prejudice still existing as a result of failure to communicate during the period September 2009-February 2010.
Thus, the case comes back to the discretion vested in the Director by § 374.051.1. Where there is discretion to be exercised, it follows that there are factual considerations to be taken into account.[7] Also, discretion does not mean caprice. A discretion measured by a capriciously elastic yardstick presents a false measure of equitable right.[8] Berry impressed as a credible witness who had a stretch of bad luck and who is trying to get his life back on track. We trust that the Director’s discretion will be exercised commensurate with the facts we have found and the conclusions of law we have reached.
Notice the high-lit terms in the paragraph above. Seems to me that the Commissioner in this case is giving the Director of The Department of Insurance some awfully powerful hints as to what would be reasonable here, and denying Paul Berry an opportunity to pursue his livelihood is NOT it.
Tomorrow I will contrast a Licensed Bail Agent here in Missouri against Paul Berry's case, and I think that you will find this contrast very interesting and even complaint worthy. For now, here is the information on the person we will be discussing tomorrow:
For now, just do a CaseNet search on Marilyn Lydia Tufts (her maiden name prior to marrying Arlie Nole Jr.). Do a CaseNet search on Marilyn Lydia Tufts and Paul Lawrence Berry and make a comparison of criminal convictions and charges between them.
I think you will find tomorrow night's post even more interesting than tonight's post.
Ricky B. Gurley
No comments:
Post a Comment