AIA Surety, the nation’s leading bail bond surety company, recently released the results of a survey of it’s agents. One question stood out for me. It said “What is the biggest challenge facing bail agents today?” Fifty-five percent of those responding said that unethical competitors presented the biggest challenge.

Interestingly, several recent news stories support this belief. Earlier this month, a Louisiana Bail Agent was arrested and charged with insurance fraud and felony theft. He was accepting premium payments on bonds and not submitting documentation in support of the bonds. He kept the money for himself and there was no record of the bonds being written.

In California, bail agents are reported to have paid kick-backs to jail inmates for referring other inmates to their bail agencies. Inmates in the booking area of the Orange County Jail were reported to be dominating the phone, offering to arrange bail with a specific agency in order to receive a kick-back and not letting anyone else use the phone. Referral fees of this nature are clearly illegal and authorities are conducting an investigation. However, finding the necessary evidence has be difficult.

In Texas, a bail agency has declared bankruptcy and is refusing to refund money that is due it’s clients. The clients completed their court appearances and are seeking refunds that are due them. However, the bail agency has filed for Chapter 11 reorganization and nothing is being repaid. The owner says that they will have to wait for a court order before refunding any money. In the meantime, the bail agent is reported to be doing business under another company name.

These three examples occurred this month. Clearly, unethical competitors are a problem and the person seeking to bail someone out of jail needs to exercise a “buyer beware” mentality. I would offer the following tips when selecting a bail agent.

Evaluate how you are treated on the phone. Is the agent pleasant? Easy to talk to? Does he seek to understand your situation and answer all of you questions? If you are not treated well before you pay him your money, imagine how you will be treated after he has it.

Bail Bond transactions require documentation. Everything must be put in writing and you should receive copies of all documents. You should expect to see an application, indemnity agreement, disclosure statement, collateral receipt and premium receipt. Failure to provide copies of these documents should be a red flag that something is wrong.

You get what you pay for. The better bail agents provide a higher level of professional service and expect to be compensated accordingly, within the limits of the law. They are in business for the long run and understand the costs involved in running a successful operation. Beware of the bargain basement price as you may be dealing with someone who is cutting corners that you cannot see. It may cost you more in the long run.

I grew up on the east coast, not far from New York City. It was common knowledge that there were men on the street who loaned money at exorbitant interest rates to desperate individuals willing to pay them. These men were called “loan sharks” or “Shylocks”. The loans were illegal and the men involved were frequently associated with organized crime.

Loan Shark clearly indicated a predator but, I didn’t grasp the meaning of “Shylock” until I studied The Merchant of Venice in high school. “Shylock” now made sense to me. In addition, I took a class in business law and learned all about usury. States had enacted laws to protect it citizens from paying exorbitant interest rates on loans.

My question now is “What happened to the Usury Laws?” An unintended consequence of the recent federal law, the Credit Card Act of 2009, is that credit card companies are raising their rates to levels that exceed the usury limits of most states.

Having received a notice that my credit card was going to charge me 29.99% interest on outstanding balances and a 25.99% on new purchases, I eliminated the card and decided to research what was going on. Isn’t this Usury?

No, it isn’t usury. President Obama’s Credit Card Accountability, Responsibility and Disclosure (CARD) Act of 2009 may improve consumer disclosures and end some questionable practices of the credit card companies. But it does not cap interest rates.

I decided to do some research and learned the following. A 1978 Supreme Court decision permitted national banks to charge the highest interest rate permitted in it’s home state to all of it’s customers across the country. This led the banks to establish themselves in states with very liberal usury laws. Hence, the move to Delaware and South Dakota. In 1980, state-chartered banks were given the same power in charging interest rates. Thus, banks (ie credit cards) are exempt from usury laws. That consumer protection has vanished.

It wasn’t too long ago that it was common for credit card companies to woo consumers with balance transfer offers. “Transfer your high interest balances to our card and pay a lower rate until you pay it off” was everywhere. No longer, folks. Now you’re going to pay 29.99%.

Say goodbye to the usury laws and hello to the Law of Unintended Consequences.

Stupid Criminal Season, that is.

Here is another stupid criminal story out of Boston as reported by the Associated Press and Denver Post

Police: Mass. suspect mutilated fingers to hide ID

BOSTON—Police say a Boston man wanted for drug trafficking tried to conceal his identity by cutting the tips of his fingers to hide the prints. State Police spokesman David Procopio said Monday that Francis Viliar admitted to police that he paid someone $400 to slice off the fleshy pads at the ends of his fingers.

The 36-year-old was arrested Friday after state police pulled him over for speeding in Brockton. He was charged with giving a false name and carrying a dangerous weapon.

During booking, officers discovered that his fingertips were covered in scar tissue. FBI specialists were still able to identify Viliar, who had 13 warrants, using ridges from the prints.

Viliar’s attorney, Lawrence Perlmutter, declined to comment late Monday.

I’ve previously written about my belief that marijuana use contributes to stupidity. Here is a story out of Wichita, KS that supports my contention. The text of the article in the Wichita Eagle is copied below.

Couple arrested after reporting theft of marijuana

BY STAN FINGER

The Wichita Eagle

WICHITA — A man and woman notified police that robbers had stolen something from them at their Planeview apartment Monday night, and ended up being arrested themselves.

What had been stolen? Marijuana.

The 32-year-old man and 29-year-old woman said five armed men came to their place in the 3800 block of East Ross Parkway at about 9 p.m. and took marijuana. One of the suspects accidentally fired his gun, spooking the rest of the suspects, police said.

They ran from the apartment and fled in a white Cadillac, dropping marijuana as they ran.

More marijuana was found inside the apartment, police said, so the man and woman were booked on suspicion of various drug charges, including selling drugs within 1,000 feet of a school.

Domestic Violence is a wide-spread problem that endangers family members as well as the law enforcement officers responding to calls for help. Men initiate aggression about as often as do women and, in about half of the reported cases, there is no clear-cut initiator. Women are more likely to be harmed, however.

Prior to the mid 1980′s, law enforcement could only make an arrest in a misdemeanor case if it occurred in their presence.If they responded to a domestic violence case, their approach would have been to mediate the dispute or separate the parties for a cooling-off period. The police were able to exercise judgment and discretion in how to handle the incident.

If the victim wished to prosecute, the police would file a report for follow-up investigation. The Victim would have to provide a statement and express their desire to prosecute. The police would file the case, obtain a warrant and arrest the initiator. Frequently, time passed and the victim no longer wanted to do anything…until the next time it happened. Police became frustrated in having to repeatedly deal with people who couldn’t get along and wouldn’t do anything to change their circumstances.

During the mid 1980′s, advocacy groups began to apply pressure for arrests in domestic violence cases stating that the police were being too lenient and that arrests should be made. The Federal Violence Against Women Act was passed in 1994 which led to states initiating legislation requiring an arrest in domestic violence cases where probable cause existed.

We have gone from requiring warrants to make misdemeanor arrests, to permitting warrantless misdemeanor arrests  and finally to requiring warrantless misdemeanor arrests in domestic violence cases.

Attorney Philip Howard, in his book The Death of Common Sense: How Laws are Suffocating America, theorizes that we have moved away from the common law approach of applying general legal principles to specific cases and using common sense solutions toward a rationalistic legal philosophy that seeks to write laws of such perfect clarity and detail that no exercise of individual judgment is required in their enforcement. However, the result is that we have laws that go too far and do too little. The excessive rigidity of law makes it unable to adapt to individual cases and it becomes ineffective or counter-productive.

The framers of the U.S. Constitution understood the need for adaptation to circumstances that they couldn’t anticipate at the time the wrote it. It was looked at as a model document for its elasticity and adaptability over time. The Declaration of Independence was written using about 1300 words. The U.S. Constitution about 4400. The Colorado Domestic Violence Statute uses about 6600. Our country was founded using fewer words than are used by one state to enforce one law.

We now have a law that requires the police to make an arrest if probable cause exists. They are not permitted to use their individual judgment regarding the circumstances and the appropriateness of the arrest beyond the determination of probable cause. The decision to arrest is made by the state legislature and not by the police on the scene. Who is in a better position to assess the circumstances? The law is such that the police can get into trouble if they don’t make an arrest. The decision is easy; ” If I’m going to make a mistake, I will err on the side of making an arrest and staying out of trouble.”

Along with the arrest comes a mandatory protection order and a lengthy criminal process. The protection order will mean that the parties will have to separate and have no contact with each other until such time as the system says they can begin to relate to each other again. Thy may not see each other, talk in person or on the phone, no text messages, letters or email…nothing until the system says it’s ok.

This process can be very disruptive and counter-productive. Court calendars are very full and an inappropriate level of no contact may remain in effect due to court scheduling.

Recently, a man contacted me regarding a pending domestic violence charge that he was facing. He expected to be arrested and wanted to arrange to turn himself in and post bond. He explained the circumstances which hardly seemed to justify a criminal charge. He did turn himself in and was released on a PR bond. There was also a protection order in place prohibiting contact with his spouse.

I’ve learned that this man has committed suicide. No doubt he had some issues due to the loss of his job and the need to live apart from his spouse. He had few friends and was prohibited from contacting the most significant person in his life. In this case, I believe that the law was counter-productive and contributed to his depression.

I believe that the pendulum need to swing back in the direction of permitting arrest rather than requiring arrest. In addition, the police should be trained to assess the behaviors of the individuals in their home environments. This will allow the police on the scene to utilize their judgment as they view the circumstances of specific cases and act accordingly. Let’s resurrect common sense.

Everybody’s got an opinion about the war in Afghanistan. Here is an article written by an intelligent, former Marine Sergeant who’s been there. Read it.

Don’t Ever Call Me A Hero » Obama to send 30,000 to Afghanistan