The Impact of Bail Reform: Exploring the Consequences with Expert Ken Good

Send us a text

What happens when the left calls to remove bail and bondsmen from the criminal justice system? Join us today as we uncover the serious effects of bail reform with our special guest, expert Ken Good. With extensive knowledge in the bail and bond industry, Ken shares insights on how these misunderstood aspects of the legal system can impact crime rates, public trust, and regional inconsistencies in law enforcement.

In this eye-opening discussion, we explore the role of bail bondsmen in easing the burden on law enforcement and keeping the criminal justice system running smoothly. Ken highlights the importance of the private shirty system in maintaining law and order, and how family involvement plays a key role in the reform process. We also discuss the controversial topic of eliminating cash bail and the potential consequences on the criminal justice system as a whole.

As we delve into the left's attack on the bail industry, we examine the legal challenges and battles faced by those in the bail and bond field. Ken shares his views on the importance of maintaining the bail industry and how it prevents backlogs in the justice system. Don't miss this informative and thought-provoking episode with bail and bond reform expert, Mr. Ken Good.

Support the show

Episode Transcript

Speaker 1 (00:00):
Breaking down the bail reform BS.
My guest today is Mr Ken Good,a lawyer from Texas who's an
expert on all things bail, bailreform and bonds.
You're listening to The LastGay Conservative.
I'm your host, chad Law.
Hello America, welcome toanother episode of The Last Gay

(00:45):
Conservative.
It's me, chad Law, your host,america's binary brother, the
holiest and most hated homo inAmerica and the gayest
conservative of all time,sending truth and common sense,
conservative politics throughthe airwaves on our red, white
and blue rainbow, the onlyrainbow that matters.

(01:07):
Folks, looking forward to yourtexts and calls today, don't
forget our phone number 866 LastGay.
That's 866, last Gay Text.
Leave a message And more thanlikely I'll bring it up on air.
Today's episode is sponsored byFactor Meals.
As you know, i've struggled withmy weight my entire life.

(01:30):
I'm finally on the right track.
I'm almost down 80 pounds, mostof it thanks to Factor Meals.
I tried all the meal servicesbefore the weird freeze dried
stuff, the boxes that come withall the loose ingredients that
they want you to cook yourself.
It all either tasted reallycrappy or took too much time.
Factor Meals taste so good Icrave my dinners and my lunches

(01:56):
and they're healthy Keto, paleohowever you eat.
They can be customized for you.
Right now, you can get 50% offyour first order and then 20%
off the next shipment after that.
There's no excuse.
Do yourselves a favor Go tofactor75.com, fill out the quick
questionnaire and they willdeliver a meal specific for your

(02:20):
needs that will help you loseweight.
Don't forget factor75.com 50%off your first order and then an
additional 20% off the orderafter that.
All right, folks, i've got agreat interview lined up for you
all today, talking about balereform, an issue that I'm

(02:43):
extremely passionate about,because the lefts calls to
eliminate bale, eliminatebondsmen and to vilify
everything in between, just tocreate chaos, is now having a
serious effect on crime ratesaround the country.
So I wanted to talk to anexpert and I found Mr Ken Good.

(03:07):
He's an incredibly successfulattorney.
He's argued cases before theSupreme Court of Texas and the
Texas Criminal Court of Appeals,as well as the United States
Court of Appeals, which is theFifth Circuit which represents
Texas.
It's also the author of Goodson Bale, a practice guide
created to bale industryprofessionals to help fight some

(03:30):
of this constant nonsense.
He's written hundreds ofarticles around what successful
bale looks like and he stillrepresents multiple bondsmen and
private assurant insurancecompanies.
There is no one better to talkabout the issues.
Let's head over to the interview.
All right, folks, i'm here.

(03:51):
I'm joined with Mr Ken Good,who is an expert on all things
bale bond and bond and balereform.
Ken, i hear you're from Abilene.

Speaker 2 (04:02):
Oh my gosh.
Yes, i grew up around Abilenein Eastland County, texas.
I went to college atHardin-Simons University.
My brother was at McMurrayUniversity.
I was born in Anson, which isjust a little bit north of
Abilene, so yeah, that's kind ofa blast from the past And your
parents were public schoolteachers.
They were My mom taught 31 years, 30 of them all in the same

(04:25):
school.
We probably moved to Gorman,texas, which is Eastland County,
when I was in sixth grade Andthey just passed away three or
four years ago after a caraccident.
So they were retired and stillliving in Gorman.
Wow.

Speaker 1 (04:44):
Let me just ask you we'll get back to this later,
but I have a fun question tointro with which is unless you
guys had some major big oilinheritance or something I'm
assuming, growing up with twopublic school teachers, you had
limited means.

Speaker 2 (04:59):
Absolutely.
I always tell the story that myparents came to us when we
moved to Gorman And as publicschool teachers we qualified for
free lunches And we decided asa family that we'd rather come
home for lunch than take a freelunch, and I don't know why that
is.
I think that was my parentsmindset and they encouraged us.
But I grew up coming home forlunch from school because we

(05:21):
preferred to do that thanqualify for the free lunch, and
I'm not being critical of peoplethat take free lunches.
That's just that's.
We qualified for it.
That's the way we were growingup.

Speaker 1 (05:31):
I get it.
So let me ask you this kind ofsilly question.
But if you were in high schooland you went and wanted some
beer with your buddies and youwent and robbed the local 7-11
or Circle K or whatever and yougot arrested, would your parents
be able to afford to put bailup for you?

Speaker 2 (05:49):
So first of all, I would be dead after I got out
Because, you know, my dad wasdiabetic, So he was pointed to
the very first class of the AirForce Academy and did not get in
because he was.
They discovered he was diabeticAnd so we just never had
alcohol in our house.
I don't really drink.
I have a very strong religiousbackground, So I was never a

(06:10):
drinker And so.
But you know, stupid kids cando stupid things, And so if I
did something like that, yeah,they would have bonded me out,
but then they would have killedme.

Speaker 1 (06:22):
Exactly Now, and the reason why I asked that is
because, sadly, the bond, bailreform situation that we're
hearing about has been, first ofall, i think it's all mucked up
together, which I really wantto focus on the bail and bond
side with you.
I don't think criminal justicereform is, i think it's they're

(06:42):
casting too wide of a net.
But the reason why I ask youthat is because here you are,
from a blue collar family inTexas.
You make a mistake.
Your parents, more than likelyyou know, correct me if I'm
wrong did not have the means topay 100% cash, so they'd have to
go to the local bondsman andput up 5, 10, 15%, whatever the

(07:05):
down is, or the premium, and thebondsman would empower them to
be able to get you out of jailwithout them having to, you know
, put up 10 grand or whateverthey wouldn't have.

Speaker 2 (07:16):
That's right.
That's right, That's exactlyAnd that's what our system is
based on, Like here in Texas theonly constitutionally protected
type of release is the privateshirty system.
So I mean we date back all theway to the Magna Carta.
That's the first limitations onthe sovereign, on the king's
right to just hold somebody, Andif he decides never to have

(07:37):
their case go before a judge,then he can hold them forever.
So that's the first limitationon that right to hold, So the
limits on the right of the stateto hold you without granting or
releasing you.
The only constitutionally rightto release you have is through
the private system.
Everything else is just bystatute and what the statute
gives or the legislature givesthey can take away.

(07:58):
So I think we what we getattacked.
But I'm kind of wondering ifone of the reasons why we're
being attacked is we're the onlyconstitutionally protected type
of release.
You get rid of us, but they canstart limiting release in
general right For politicalenemies.

Speaker 1 (08:15):
Yeah, exactly That's.
I mean, that's the whole point.
So it looks like you graduatedlaw school and you really worked
your way up.
You've fought cases in theFifth Circuit and focused a
significant amount of your timein the appellate courts and de
facto became the bondsman lawyer.
Are you still representingbondsman?

Speaker 2 (08:37):
Yes, now I'll say you know, i've always worked since
I was 16.
The only time, the only time Ididn't work was when I was in
law school because I had been apublic school teacher for a
couple of years.
I had, you know, i didn't getinto law school the first time I
applied because I was alwaysworking.
I graduated from undergrad inthree years instead of four, and

(08:59):
but we worked full time almost.
I think I was 38 hours a weekthe first year and a half in
college And so my grades werenot what they needed to be to
get into law school.
So I got a master's degree andapplied to law school again and
got in, and so law school wasthe first time.
I never worked and justconcentrated on school and
excelled in law school And thenapplied that coming out of law

(09:21):
school.
And so I started working with anattorney who taught me really
how to be a really good attorney.
I look at him as probably oneof the best attorneys in East
Texas at the time And had alwayshad an interest of appellate
issues, and so whatever I wasdoing, i would do the appellate
issues on those.
And so we started out doingmedical malpractice defense,

(09:43):
representing doctors andhospitals, so I would do appeals
on those issues.
I argued my first case at theSupreme Court of Texas as a four
year lawyer.
I mean, my client met me inAustin when we met He's like you
are not arguing my case, youare too young to be arguing my
case at the Supreme Court ofTexas And, and you know, i've
always looked younger than I amAnd it's kind of catching up

(10:05):
with me now.
But you know, I laughed and Isaid, well, you've got a problem
because I'm the only one herethat's prepared to argue your
case tomorrow.
And of course the argument wentwell because we were prepared.
But then I had someone call meand they had a.
They were a bondsman, they had45 default judgments and they
had asked somebody who do youhire for default judgments And

(10:25):
they said we need appellateattorney.
So and they recommended theycall me.
And so that's kind of whatstarted me down the road of
representing bondsman.
And so I did some litigationwith bondsman representing their
interests And I've argued twoof the most important cases in
the bail industry at the Courtof Criminal Appeals which we won
.
And then I am State TexasCounsel for several insurance

(10:48):
companies And I representbondsman across the state.

Speaker 1 (10:52):
And you also sit as a board of director, or I don't
know if I have the titles right,but you have some additional
credentials as it pertains tobondsman, association and or
bail.
Can you walk me through those?

Speaker 2 (11:06):
Sure, i'm on the board of directors of the
professional bondsman of Texas,which we like to say is the
voice of the bail industry inTexas, but I'm also on their
legislative committee And wepropose bills to the legislature
.
We are a resource tolegislatures, to the state,

(11:27):
about bail issues.
We testify.
I testify for and againstwhat's good, what's bad about
bills And I think we've kind ofhad to become experts on these
issues when we probably neverplan to be, as these bell reform
movement began to take offBecause no one seemed to be

(11:48):
looking at the issues from thecriminal justice perspective.
I mean the proposition 49, ibelieve from California, is the
best example.
It starts out if, hey, we'rejust going to change some
felonies felony theft of $950 orless to a misdemeanor.
These people need jobs, it justmakes sense.
And then they do it And all theright wing people you know TPPS

(12:09):
, right on crime, supported that.
The problem is.
Then you got the urban air DAsdecriminalizing theft under $950
and stores closing because theycan't withstand $25,000 a day
Absolutely In shoplifting.
And so you know, it just seemslike the right side of the
argument is coming to the sameconclusion as the left side,
without looking at the potentialconsequences of doing this, and

(12:33):
so we've really kind of jumpedinto the fray And from that
perspective of let's make surewe're educating people on what
the really downside could be,and so far we've had a really
good track record of beingcorrect.

Speaker 1 (12:48):
One of the things that I would love for you to do,
because I believe that there isa huge amount of cultural
misinformation as it pertains tobondsmen.
You see these reality shows,but what's the real history of
bonding, actual bail?

Speaker 2 (13:09):
Ooh, we know bail has been around for 200 years and
there's one iteration of itwhere if you bonded somebody out
of jail and they didn't show up, you had to take their place.
We changed quickly after thatlittle phase where we replaced
it with a financial componentinstead of a one-for-one life.

(13:29):
I think the misconception is wecan't afford the federal system
.
The federal system is catcherand lease.
They either detain them or theyrelease them.
But they detain over 70 orclose to 75% of the people they
arrest.
Well, there's not a state inthe state of Texas that can

(13:50):
afford to detain 75% of thepeople that are arrested.
We have to have some type ofsystem in place.
That's a compromise.
I talked to somebody who isdescribing the DC system for
release, which is really thegovernment takeover of the
private sector and it's just soexpensive.

(14:10):
We've got a system where we'vegot the private industry that
gets them out of jail andprovides supervision and ensures
that they'll show up for court,which is that all the purpose
of bail is is we're going to getthem out of jail and we promise
that they'll show up to answerto their charges.
The presumption of innocencedoesn't apply there.
It applies when they go totrial.

(14:31):
That doesn't, because bail is.
What assurance are you givingthat you're going to show up for
court?
Well, the bail reform movementis changing that and taking away
the assurance.
It's changing it to a promise.
I don't have any problem withthat for poor people.
You got to have that as anoption, but it's not the
solution because it has such ahigher failure to appear rate.

(14:52):
All this is about failure toappear rates, when the best
failure to appear rate, thelowest failure to appear rate,
is the private sector.
That means cases will getresolved quicker, victims will
get adjusted quicker and yourbacklogs which is the huge thing
we have now that we'readdressing is backlogs.
After COVID, your backlogs willdecrease instead of increase.

Speaker 1 (15:10):
Well, not to mention that your bail hearing can
happen before your plea, correct?
Yes, yes, they don't have toplea innocent or guilty in order
to be released on bond.

Speaker 2 (15:23):
That's right.
The plea is not even a factorthat you look at in setting bail
.
In Texas there's a list of Idon't know right now because we
just amended a couple of yearsago probably seven factors in 17
, 15 of the code of criminalprocedure.
What was the crime there?
What's their criminal history?
That's new.
I think that's the mostimportant thing.

(15:43):
That we've added is arequirement that we review their
criminal histories, because Ithink that tells you the most
information about what they'regoing to be like, because
someone goes through thespectrum of being a first-time
offender to career criminal andyou need to know where they are.
We're going to treat first-timeoffenders one way, but if
you're a career criminal or ifyou have a long criminal history

(16:04):
which indicates you're a careercriminal, you need to be
treated a very different way.

Speaker 1 (16:08):
Yeah, exactly As you say that.
I think it's very important forthe audience to understand that
there's a big differencebetween criminal justice reform
and bail reform.
Bail and bondsmen have nothingto do with the application of
the law, the charges, thesentencing and, for whatever

(16:28):
reason, it seems that they'vebeen vilified as if the same way
the left treats police, as ifthey're the ones that are the
shackles holding these peoplefrom being able to live free
lives, free trial, and it's justnot true.

Speaker 2 (16:46):
Yeah, but the bail industry is the low-hanging
fruit in the criminal justicereform discussion, because
nobody trusts bondsmen.
I talk to bondsmen all the timeand I say, look, you work 20
years to get the greatreputation you have.
It takes one thing, one badthing, or one thing that causes
people to question you, to beall of a sudden you're the bad

(17:08):
bondsman that we all thought youwere.
And so I had a bondsman give mea really nice compliment.
They were like, oh, but no, Ken, you would be there and you
would make sure they understoodit.
And I'm like, no, by then Iwould be the bad bondsman's bad
bail attorney.
And so I think that's part ofthe problem with the bail reform

(17:28):
movement.
And then the other thing Iwould add on, that is, I think
the bail reform movement or thecriminal justice reform movement
is not really about reform.
I think we're really coming tothe conclusion that it's really
about decriminalization.
And if the public was voting onthat, they would say no, no,
clearly, but that's not thechoice they're being given.

Speaker 1 (17:48):
It's all hidden within.
It's a trifecta They want lesscharges and less sentencing, no
bail and they hate cops.
Yes, all three of those things.
And what other people don'trealize.
and again, we have such a copshortage in the country because

(18:09):
how they've been vilified.
Now, i'm under the opinion thatbail bondsmen actually play a
crucial role in easing theburden of law enforcement.
who, let's say people, hadankle bracelets or some other
form cops would then beresponsible for those warrants
to go out and search for peopleand do that.

(18:29):
where there are practices inplay with bondsmen, where there
are check-ins and certain thingsthat are actually like a civil
arm of law enforcement, it's notlaw enforcement.
Do you understand what I'mtrying to say?

Speaker 2 (18:45):
Absolutely, because this is the way I describe it.
There's a conveyor belt thatgoes through the criminal
justice system And by and large,every year, on average, the
same number of cases are addedto the conveyor belt as last
year.
And the problem is, if you canget the cases you need to get
the same number of cases throughthe system that get added to
the system, or your backlog isincreased, and so the goal is to

(19:08):
get more through, so thebacklog decreases And the
problem that we have with what'sgoing on is anything that slows
down that conveyor belt,because anytime you have a
failure to appear, then thatcase has to be put on hold.
So they come back, whether it'sa day, an hour or months,
because they get scared and theygo hiding.
So what I think the public doesnot realize is if they're on a

(19:33):
personal bond or a no bond fromNew York, where they're released
without bond, or in California,where they're released on a
zero bail.
That's just a simple releasemechanism where nobody is
overseeing them, nobody issupervising them, and so if they
fail to appear, a warrant getsissued, it goes down to the
warrant division and joins allthe other thousands upon
thousands of warrants waiting tobe served, and that usually

(19:57):
means they have to commitanother crime to come back into
the system.
Sometimes it's a small crime,sometimes it's a huge crime, but
if they're out on a surety bond, a bond by the private industry
, then we have incentives to gofind them.
Now we may have to hire somebodyto do the arrest, because we
can't do it ourselves.
Depending on what state you arein in Texas, we can't do the
arrest But we go look for themand we have a deadline to bring

(20:21):
them back, or we're paying thefull amount of the bond And so
we're out there right awaylooking for them, trying to
figure out if this was just astupid failure to appear or a
willful failure to appear Idon't really care which one it
is.
They both cause the same amountof damage to the criminal
justice system and then figureout a way.
Are they going to be willing tocome back And that's where our

(20:41):
personal relationships with themcome into play or do we need to
go hire somebody that's goingto do the recovery?
You mentioned Dog the BountyHunter.
He's not a bondsman, he is arecovery agent, and so that
would be somebody that possiblywe would call to do a recovery
on a very large bond.
He's not going to go getsomebody on a $1,500 bond.

(21:03):
But our big job is just go findthem and then usually we call
the police and they come pickthem up.

Speaker 1 (21:09):
Yeah, it's interesting because as I look at
that conveyor belt, which is agreat metaphor, it just often
seems like there's so manymultiple steps And the more we
muddy the waters and puteverything together, the more
confusing it gets.
And so people think, well, bailis for people can afford it and

(21:33):
this and that, And it's likewell, do you understand that a
bond is a very small percentageof the overall bail?
and they're empowering peoplewho can't afford it to be able
to get out.

Speaker 2 (21:48):
Well, the whole premise is misleading, because
there was a professor in Floridathat did a study on why are
people languishing in jail, andhis conclusion was not because
of ability to pay.
It was because of theircriminal history.
The longer their criminalhistory is, the more they would
languish in jail before theywere released on bail, because

(22:10):
there's a correlation there.
Also, what gets lost in thedebate is the involvement of
family.
You know the secret sauce onwhy the bail system is so
effective.
The private industry is becauseof the involvement of family,
and I mean you just can'tdiscount that.
That is so important Forsomeone who is on the path to

(22:31):
become a career criminal theability of the family to turn
them around and becomeproductive citizens.
I mean we're losing that inthis debate because we're saying
, oh, it's not fair, it's notright.
I mean we have to treateverybody the same.
You know, at the beginning ofthis debate it was we have to
change what we're doing becausebail is going to be held

(22:52):
unconstitutional.
Well then, bail was heldconstitutional And so then it
was all about fairness, and so Iagree we need to have it as an
option to protect the poor, butit's not the solution, because
the failure to appear rate is somuch higher.
There's nothing that has thesame failure to appear rate as
the private industry And there'sonly two states that have

(23:13):
anything that gets to the levelof supervision that the private
industry provides, And both ofthem New Jersey just did it in
the last five years and they hadto do a tax increase because it
went around money And I thinkthat's run out of money since
then.
The DC system I just did apodcast on somebody about the DC
system and it's so expensiveEven agreed that if they had it

(23:35):
to do over again today theywould never enact it because it
was so expensive.
So in all these bail reforms,what we're talking about is
trying to get a cost savings andwe're doing reforms that have
no chance of working better andhave 100% chance of being a lot
worse because we can't afford orwe're not willing to spend the
money for the supervision toreplace the private industry.

Speaker 1 (23:58):
Exactly, it's the typical liberal left mob
narrative, which is I just hadthis conversation about fossil
fuels They want to destroysegments of our either our
culture or industry or criminaljustice system, without any
replacement or decent numbers.

(24:20):
I mean, we already see inChicago, for example, is one of
the first states that statewideissued I think it's called the
SAFE-T Act, which includescashless bail, and we're already
seeing the numbers of offensesbeing repeated when people are
out on cashless bail increasingsignificantly And they don't

(24:41):
want you to know that, but ithas a direct correlation with
crime rates.
Do you see that happening inother places?

Speaker 2 (24:50):
Oh, absolutely.
In fact there is, as a resultof COVID, there's a DA in
California, yolo County, who hasno, no, no I guess.
But there's a DA in Yolo County, california, that released two
studies or two reports, thefirst one showing, hey, the
increase in crime because ofzero bail, so simple release

(25:12):
without any accountability, hascaused crime to increase.
And then the criticism on himwas hey, you didn't, there's no
comparison with the privateindustry.
So he went back and I think inFebruary this year he released a
second report doing thatcomparison And he found a 200%
greater risk that a personreleased on zero bail would

(25:33):
commit a violent offense, justbecause they were released on
zero bail.
And I mean that was aneye-opening number, a report,
and it's been reported probablyacross the country.

Speaker 1 (25:46):
Yeah, it's just pure insanity.
And what are your figures andyour opinions as far as when
people say well, we can put themon house arrest.
We have these ankle monitors,all these other, do they
actually work?

Speaker 2 (26:02):
I would say they work to a degree.
But look, we're trying toautomate stuff.
I mean everything that we'retalking about on bail reform.
We're trying to automate itbecause we recognize that the
government doesn't do a goodsystem, so the government's
never going to provide goodsupervision, so we're not even
trying to, so we're going to dohouse arrest.
But then we had counties wherethey don't have anybody even

(26:23):
monitoring them on the weekendbecause they don't have anybody
working then.
So what if they just cut offtheir ankle monitor on Friday
night?
Do they have all weekend toplay?
Well, some counties, that'sexactly what was happening.
And so I think that you just no, they're not going to ever
provide as good as supervision.

(26:43):
And the big problem with whenyou do that oh, we're going to
do house arrest, we're going todo it with a GPS monitor is
nobody's reminding them of theircourt dates.
And we've got people advocatingfor a bail reform that says,
well, we shouldn't be worriedabout the willful I mean the
stupid failure to appear.
We should only be concernedabout the willful failure to
appear, only about those peoplewho are dead set about they're

(27:05):
going to miss court.
But the problem that what thatmisses is we already have
overloaded courts.
The stupid failure to appearwhere their case has to be put
on hold for a couple months hasever been of the great damage to
the system as the willfulfailure to appear where they
have to go and get him andarrest him two months later.
They both do the same damage tothe criminal justice system.

Speaker 1 (27:27):
Well, ken and you and I both know that a stupid
failure to appear and a willfulfailure to appear is just a
silly separation that doesn'teven matter.
I get like oh, you got aparking ticket, you get a
speeding ticket, it goes in themail.
You don't check your mail, okay, you get a failure to appear.
On that You go to the judge andthey release the fines or

(27:48):
whatever.
That's one thing.
But if you rob a store, if youhave a gun conviction where it's
not registered, if you have asignificant amount of drugs,
anything like that, and youdon't appear, it's not because
you're stupid, it's because youdon't want to get sentenced.

Speaker 2 (28:05):
Well, you know the the variance to you know has met
with judges for the lastseveral years and they argue
that well, any reform to thecriminal criminal justice system
for pre-trial bail is going tocarry with it a 40% failure to
appear rate.
Now compare that to the privateindustry, which has less than a
10% failure to appear rate.
Wow, so you're seeing thecriminal justice system by 300%

(28:29):
And they're saying that shouldbe okay.
And I'm like you are justshowing that you can't.
You do not understand thecriminal justice system, because
a 300% delay of cases orincrease of the failure to
appear rate shuts down thecriminal justice system.

Speaker 1 (28:43):
Oh, it's a grinding halt.

Speaker 2 (28:45):
A grinding halt, yeah , because they have so many
cases being added to theconveyor belt that it pushes
them to just dismiss cases,especially on the misdemeanor
level.
So you know, last August Ilooked at the report that's
issued every month for thedispositions for that month for
the misdemeanor court.
Over 90% of them were dismissed.

Speaker 1 (29:04):
Yeah, don't you think that's intentional?

Speaker 2 (29:07):
Well, yeah, i think that is part of this push is to
push for decriminalization, butI think there's other elements
to it as well.
I mean, you know, there'speople making money hand over
fist out of these reforms Andthat's part of the problem I
have with these.
You know, i think there's partof this coalition that is very
good intent, intention or has agood intention of saying we want

(29:28):
to help the poor, we want toprotect first time offenders,
but the problem is we're settingup systems that tie the hands
of judges And then we've gotorganized crime, gang members,
career criminals that arestepping into that void and just
making money hand over fist.
And I don't think peoplerealize that when they're doing
these things, because there'sanother part of the coalition

(29:50):
that that's exactly what theywant, Because this is new.
I mean, this is cyclical.
We've gone through this sameperiod in the sixties.
We're just repeating themistakes that we made in the
sixties.

Speaker 1 (30:00):
Now, yeah, One of the things that you know.
I'll tell a story.
For example, i have a goodfriend and she got into some
trouble in Yuma, arizona.
She was got addicted topainkillers because she had back
surgery And so I had to.
You know, she asked me if Icould bail her out.
So I went down and I met withthis bondsman, one of the most

(30:21):
wonderful people.
He's actually a huge fan of theshow, so I hope he's listening
But one of the most wonderfulpeople I've ever met and I had
this realization that you know,it's not a direct relationship
and it could have been justbecause it's a smaller county,
but generally the decentbondsman in an area that are,
you know, working a certaincourtroom, know the DA's, they

(30:45):
know the judges and they can notofficially offer advice, but
they can really help theirclient or their bailee I don't
exactly know how you refer tothem, but they can really kind
of help them navigate the systemas well.

Speaker 2 (30:58):
Well, i consider the bail industry, you know, a
personal relationship industry.
You know, just like a lot ofwhat you do is personal
relationships.
What your you know yourproducer does is personal
relationships.
And what I do has a lot to dowith personal relationships.
And you know, and I knowthere's some people that would
say Ken's a jerk, but there's alot of people that say you know

(31:20):
Ken's good, you can trust whathe would say, he's not going to
lie to you.
And I think that is so importantin this, in this area, where
the judge says, okay, thisbondsman, we know they take care
of business, we know they'regoing to provide supervision, we
know that they're.
If the defendant gets off track, starts doing drugs, that
they're going to report that tothe court.

(31:40):
And you know they're surethere's going to be some
bondsmen that they're they'renot, they're thinking, are not
taking care of business as well,just like we know attorneys
that are not going to do as gooda job as others.
So we can always improve.
But by and large, the privatesurety bail system is a personal
relationship business.
Everybody is trying.
I mean, everybody knows yourbusiness, everybody knows you

(32:02):
and you know them, and that'swhat allows the people to do a
great job, to continue to dothat.

Speaker 1 (32:09):
What is this misnomer ?
You know, i read some of thesearticles and I have something
sitting on my desk here, opinionpiece why bail bondsmen are
getting rich off of the justicesystem.
When I had my encounter withthis guy in Yuma, i mean he was
a family man, super nice, youknow I.

(32:29):
you could just tell he's notmaking printing cash hand over
fist.
What is the average sort ofincome for these people?
Is it a multi-multi-milliondollar profiting situation for
these guys?
You know?

Speaker 2 (32:45):
okay, first of all, that is a hit piece and it's
targeted, you know, to theprejudice of people.
It's trying to undermine peopleand undermine bondsmen.
It goes right to where bondsmenare vulnerable is not being
trustworthy.
All the different things that,all the stereotypes that you can
think of.
That's where that is going, forI kind of agree with you, i

(33:07):
think bondsmen are.
You know, the reason why Ithink I've hit it off with the
bail industry in Texas isbecause they're just like me,
they are blue collar and theyare hard workers.
And you know, i've I knowpeople who've been in the
industry for two generations.
I know people have been inthere for three generations And
you know, when I started out asan attorney representing

(33:29):
bondsmen, that wasn't true.
When you died, your bail bondbusiness died with you because
nobody else knew how to run itRight.
And so what I mean are bondsmengetting rich off of it.
I mean, they're a business justlike any other business.
They can be a mom and popbusiness or they can operate in
multiple counties and they canbe, more like, you know, a
successful business.
But I mean I would say the vastmajority of bondsmen in Texas

(33:53):
are mom and pop shops And you'reyou know, just like your mom
and pop shops across the UnitedStates.
I don't think anybody's gettingrich quick in these days.

Speaker 1 (34:02):
Yeah, i mean, it's similar to fast food And when I
look at, like, you know, peoplevilify oh Chick-fil-A makes all
this money.
Well, you've got Chick-fil-A,the corporate, and then you've
got the franchisees right, andthe franchisees aren't raking
hand over fist.
They might make you know, acouple million a year or
whatever it is, but it's thiswhole notion that people are

(34:24):
profiting off of inequities oroff of, you know, food and these
you know things that are musthaves And like to your point.
When I met this gentleman inYuma it was, you know, it was
very eye-opening to me that thisis just a regular guy who runs
a regular business, no differentthan a small town attorney that

(34:46):
has, you know, maybe oneparalegal, or a small town
doctor with a couple of nurses.
I mean, it's, you know, it's aprofessional business, but it's
not a you know billion dollarplay, but you know what argument
I would make to the people thatare making that argument.

Speaker 2 (35:02):
You know, because you know to the the reason.
with people you'd say exactlywhat you said, but to those
people that are throwing out thestereotypes, you know the
argument that I would make tothem is look, bail's been around
for 200 years.
This isn't the first time we'vetried to get rid of it.
I mean it's in the second, it'snot even the third.
I mean we've had pushes to getrid of bail over the years.
We have them periodically.

(35:23):
The problem is there is noreplacement that does a
comparable job.
Even today, every replacementdoes a substantially worse job,
and substantially worse meansyou need more courts, and if you
need double the courts to doexactly what you're doing with
the private sector, then it'snot an option, and so we are a

(35:45):
necessary evil in the even in.
it should be in the minds ofthe people that don't like the
bail industry until we get tothe point where we can have
something that is comparable.
And the problem is we're nevergoing to get to that point
because nobody knows what we doand how we do it and they don't
care to learn.
They just want to talk instereotypes.

Speaker 1 (36:05):
And I don't know how much you know about me I had a
pretty successful marketingagency before I sold it and
started my podcast.
So, from a marketingperspective, what kind of press
efforts do you guys do to kindof reshape and remold people's
impression of the industry andthese people?

Speaker 2 (36:22):
Oh, you know we've gone through a debate on that
for a long time And you know, atone point in time I was
adamantly opposed to it, and soyou can see I've gone a long way
, from adamantly opposed toanything to here I am talking to
you about it, and what?
because my position has alwaysbeen nobody's going to know
about like we do.
We can't hire PR people thatare going to be able to explain

(36:46):
our issues because they don'tunderstand it.
And so we've kind of done ahybrid.
We've become experts on theissue and we kind of develop
ourselves as resources And so wesell ourselves as we want to
tell you what the differentpossibilities are.
If you do this, or if you'retalking about switching over to
the New Jersey plan, let us tellyou what the New Jersey plan is

(37:07):
.
Or if you want to talk aboutwhat's going on in California,
we will provide you with theresources.
You want to talk about riskassessments?
Here we'll tell you aboutmultiple states that have had
good or bad and mostly bad, ifnot all bad experiences with
risk assessments, and we'llprovide you with the documents.
So we have kind of we have a PRcommittee and I'm the chair of

(37:28):
it and we provide resources topeople.

Speaker 1 (37:33):
Well, part of this Marxist revolution and part of
the left's, you know, attack onthe criminal justice system is
really about trying to vilifypeople who can make money
through, through whatever it is,even because they're so
anti-capitalist.
My question there is is thatbecause majority of people never

(37:56):
go to jail, never have to fleea case and don't have these
issues they might know someonewho does, but they don't have
these issues They immediatelytake on the impression of what
they see in the media, and whatthey've seen in the media is
that these bail bondsmen becausethey have to see in order to

(38:16):
implement cashless bail, theyhave to vilify something else
and make it look worse right Andthen to the public.
So there has been a huge efforton the left's behalf to
discredit and remove or evenshut down the bond industry

(38:39):
because they've claimed thatit's this big profit machine.

Speaker 2 (38:43):
Their system or their reforms do not get rid of the
private shirty bail industry.
But immediately after it wasenacted the Attorney General
issued an opinion that said youhave to try everything else
before you can try a shirty bond.
And so the whole state of NewJersey.
For the first 60, 90 days therewas only three shirty bonds
granted in the whole state.

Speaker 1 (39:04):
Oh, wow.

Speaker 2 (39:05):
And in fact they put the private shirty bail industry
out of business there.
And so I think that is I mean,I've already said that this is
kind of a coalition of groups,but there is a very left part of
that coalition that that's whatthey want.
They want to create chaos,because if there's so much chaos
that you can't resolve criminalcases, then that puts pressure

(39:27):
on dismissal And so that pushedpressure on decriminalization
And then that undermines thetrust in the public, because if
you're going to be punished inone county, then the next county
over they're not even going toprosecute that crime.
Well, then we undermine thefaith in the criminal justice
system.

Speaker 1 (39:42):
Yeah, i mean, i think the regional issue is a big
issue going from the county, theregional issue going from
county to county, and judgeshave assigned themselves
political stance, so some judgeswill release, some judges were
stricter on bail, and becausethere's no consistency and I
don't think there should befederal consistency, but I think

(40:05):
state consistency, with just afew check boxes as to who
qualifies, who doesn't to removethe personal opinions or
politics that are within theseDAs and within the judges, i
think that would help a lotbecause it isn't fair for
someone who is in Dallas versusin Austin and with the same

(40:27):
exact drug offense, and the guyin Dallas is rotting in a cell
and the guy in Austin is outfree, just because of the judge
and the DA have decided to applythe law unequally.

Speaker 2 (40:39):
Well, i'm going to tell you I disagree with that,
and I'm going to tell you why.
Because I think the criminaljustice system is that one place
where everything is individual,and so you're so, so me and
Dallas is completely differentthan me and Harris County, and
so I think the judges need tohave the ability to apply their
discretion.
But I do agree with you thatpolitics has taken the place of

(41:01):
discretion, and it's just now.
You know, you're bad, you're,this is what party you're with,
and so this has to be yourposition on release.
And you know, and it's based onthe assumption that, well,
we're going to release morecriminals and we're going to be
safer, and that, you know, youknow we always heard, if it
sounds too good to be true, it'stoo good to be true.
Well, it is too good to be trueto say we can release a third

(41:23):
of the criminals that we areholding in jail and say we're
going to be safer.
That it's not only not too goodto be true, it's a lie.

Speaker 1 (41:31):
Yeah, a lot of people forget.
You know, in Clinton's firstterm in the early 90s, the drug
violence and the killing and thedrug and the gangs were so
crazy And they enacted thestrictest gang violence and drug
reform ever out of Congress Andsix months later it just

(41:53):
plummeted.
The rates just plummeted.
Oh yeah, and my point here isthat there is a very clear
connection between the law andthe application of punishment.

Speaker 2 (42:06):
And you know what needs to be quick, and that's
one of the things that thischaos is doing is slowing it
down.
And what is that?
That has an impact on thevictims.
They have less and lessincentive.
And then you have this defundthe police movement, which means
we can't trust the police.
So you don't report crimes tothe police.
So you know you have left winggroups saying, oh, crimes down.
No, crime is not down.

(42:27):
Crime is up and it's upsubstantially, but you're
beating it into everybody thatyou can't report it.

Speaker 1 (42:32):
Right.
So what do you say to thesepeople who say, oh there was.
I just read a case recentlyabout a.
Might've been a while ago, buta woman hung herself in her cell
because she couldn't affordbail and she was there on a
traffic stop or something.
It's like.
These are the cases that arefocused on, but I would have to
say that there are not a hugepopulation of people sitting in

(42:56):
jail who are first offenders onmisdemeanor or even below, you
know, misdemeanor or infractionsthat are just sitting there
being held.
I mean right, Or is it massive?

Speaker 2 (43:09):
No, i mean, I'm gonna tell you there are no first
time offenders in jail anymorethat are just sitting there
because they can't afford bail.
I've never believed that to betrue And you know what?
What's proven me correct onthat is the charitable bail
funds, because they raised allthis money as a result of the
Floyd incident.

(43:30):
You know, when they startedbailing people out of jail, they
found that there's nobody injail on first time offenders.
So they've been getting kind ofcross ways with people for
bailing out very dangerouspeople, because that's the ones
that are left.
I mean, they're actually bailingout people with no family
involvement, and those are thecareer criminals that need to
stay in jail.

Speaker 1 (43:49):
Absolutely, and just kind of making the very strange
argument that affluent whitepeople are, you know, committing
tax law and they're not goingto jail.
I mean, first thing I wannajust say about that is we don't
have debtors jail in the UnitedStates.
It is very, very difficult toget prosecuted criminally for

(44:10):
tax issues, unless you blatantlylie and steal other people's
refunds or, you know, just doabsolutely criminal things.
It's very, very hard.
I would think the same appliesthan a brown or a black person
who has a drug crime.

Speaker 2 (44:27):
Yeah, i mean, look, let me come at this a different
way.
I think one of the problemsthat we have is we have an urban
crime problem.
I mean, that's where we havehigh population numbers, the
courts are more overburdened Andwhat we have is people trying
to make this all about race, andwhat we have is we have
stacking of problems in our bigcities.

(44:50):
We have, you know, failingfamilies, failing school.
The dropout rates are highthere.
We have drug issues, justenormous drug issues in our
urban cities.
And you know, look at Portland,where they're decriminalized
all heavy crimes.
So it's like they're just put agreen light on overdoses, just
you know, and they have a recordnumber every month almost of

(45:12):
the number of people overdosing.
So it's like, i mean, theydecriminalize crime to clear out
the drug problems by slowlyletting everybody just overdose.
And then you've got no economicopportunity And, especially
after George Floyd is, we'vejust burned down our tax base
and with the politicians sayingit's okay And then just shocked

(45:33):
that they're not coming back.
And so when we're making thisdistinction between white collar
crime and, you know, bluecollar crime or we've got, you
know, minorities and that have ahigher proportion, we have an
urban crime problem that we arejust turning our back on.
Or we're saying the criminaljustice system needs to now do

(45:54):
what we have failed to do toprotect families, to keep them
together, to protect schools, tokeep people in schools, to keep
people off of drugs and givepeople economic opportunity
where we failed in every one ofthose things.
And now we're gonna say, oh,but we're gonna be successful in
the criminal justice system, sowe're gonna get rid of
everything that works andreplace it without you.
In other words, it's not acriminal justice issue.

Speaker 1 (46:16):
It's a cultural issue .

Speaker 2 (46:17):
Oh, I think that's a good way to say it.

Speaker 1 (46:18):
Yes, You know it is.

Speaker 2 (46:20):
It is a cultural issue, And you know we can't
blame the criminal justicesystem on cultural issues.

Speaker 1 (46:26):
I tell everyone all the time look, our criminal
justice system isn't perfect,but it's the best we have and
it's the best in the world.

Speaker 2 (46:32):
I say that too.
We may not think we may get madat it.
Sometimes it's the best in theworld, Do you?

Speaker 1 (46:37):
have stats or just in your industry experience that
you know.
I think we kind of lean to knowthat the crime rates are going
up.
But how bad does it get after asignificant period of time
where bond has been basicallyeliminated?

Speaker 2 (46:54):
Well, chicago and Illinois is a very interesting
place right now because you knowwe talk about cash bail,
cashless bail we talk about, butwhat gets lost in the debate or
the discussion is Illinois gotrid of the private shirty bail
system a long time ago.
So when they're talking aboutcash bail, they're talking about
cash bonds, and you know thestates that rely heavily on cash

(47:18):
bonds.
They're funding a portion oftheir court system with that
money when they fail to appearAnd so they're relying.
So when they get rid of cashbail in Illinois or Chicago,
what they're talking about isthey're getting rid of the cash
bonds, which is all they haveleft, which is going to then
create even more chaos becauseit will have I mean, it will

(47:40):
cause a higher failure to appearrate.
I mean cash bonds have a higherfailure to appear rate over the
private industry, so they'realready dealing with a higher
failure to appear rate.
To start with.
That they've just decided oh,that's acceptable to us And it's
been acceptable for years, andso now we're talking about
cutting their funding becausethey've been relying upon the

(48:00):
failure to appear money from thecash bonds to fund the courts,
and so there is no way thatdoesn't create just absolute
chaos because they have lessmoney for the courts and they
have higher failure to appearrates.
And that I mean, and for themto be arguing the opposite, is
just what we see across thecountry.
And you're going to see, ithink, this Supreme Court of

(48:25):
Illinois step in and say theirstatute, that they passed to get
rid of cash bail, isunconstitutional, but it doesn't
fix their problem.
They're still going to have thesame problems they had before,
because they've already gottenrid of the private surety system
And so they've already gottenrid of the best system with the
lowest failure to appear rate.

Speaker 1 (48:42):
You just mentioned something in the industry that I
had no idea.
You talk about how the privateassurity system that was
eliminated in Illinois and thecash bonds that are going into
the court and being used forfailure to appear Is that a
reason for a push for the?
Is it a significant amount ofmoney that's helping support

(49:03):
parking tickets and stuff likethat?
that's helping support thegovernment function?

Speaker 2 (49:08):
It can be.
I mean, there are some statesthat authorize you to pay 10% to
the bondsman or 10% to thecourt, and that money then gets
used to fund the courts and sothey become reliant upon it.
But the problem is that's kindof the worst of both worlds when
you pay 10% to the courtbecause nobody's providing you
notice, nobody's providingsupervision, and so you've got,

(49:31):
you're paying the fee that wouldhave gone to a private surety
bondsman, but you have none ofthe benefits of the private
surety bail system.
So you've got a worse system.
and then you're making it asystem that the court Courts
absolutely rely upon the money,and so it becomes a place where
they're just going off the edgeof the cliff slowly.
It's like slow motion.

(49:52):
destruction of the criminaljustice system.

Speaker 1 (49:54):
Yeah, that makes so much sense When it comes to.
There's another story that Irecently read about a certain
percentage of bail bondsmen takeliens out on the equity of
families, homes and property.
Is that something that you seeall the time and is that
effective?
or people losing their houses?

Speaker 2 (50:15):
Well, i live in Texas and Texas has homesteads under
the Texas Constitution.
So if a bondsman was to take adeed of trust or a lien against
a homestead, it would beimproper, it would be the
equivalent of nothing.
So do I see that?
No, i don't see it in Texas atall.
I've been doing this over 30years and I've never seen anyone

(50:38):
even try to foreclose on a homethat is someone's homestead.
Now, taking a deed of trust onreal estate would be on a large
bond.
A $500,000 bond would be asmart business decision and also
it would give an incentive forthe person whose property.
That is to help you toencourage the defendant.

(51:01):
That's kind of the familyinvolvement to encourage the
defendant to turn around and doright.
And so I think that there is apractice of taking collateral on
large risks, and that is partof the secret sauce of why the
bail industry is so successful.

(51:21):
And I think that's one of thereasons why we get attacked is
family should not be heldaccountable for standing up for
defendants who are familymembers and then they sign
contracts And you can't have itboth ways.
I mean that's just kind of thewhole.
We can't hold anybodyaccountable for anything anymore
in our criminal justice system.

Speaker 1 (51:40):
That's interesting.
Are you seeing any like truebacklash against people in your
industry?
where are there legalchallenges and battles?
you guys are in right now tohelp preserve the system that
you have.

Speaker 2 (51:54):
Well, i would probably say we're under attack
everywhere we go.
You know, at the TexasLegislative Session that just
ended, there was a bill proposedthat would require a personal
bond for all misdemeanors.
They amended it to kind of makeit sound like oh, except for
violent misdemeanors, but thatwas.
You know, there was just acamouflage on that.

(52:14):
And so we're under attack there, even though the yellow study
says that's the worst thing youcould do, and that's just from
February.
You've got the Harris County DAissuing a report saying that's
a terrible thing to do And westill are facing that.
Then you've got court caseswhich I think you're coming to
the end of the court cases, orin the Texas you are, because we
have the O'Donnell case fromfour or five years ago And then

(52:37):
that was expanded to the Dallascourt case called Davis versus
Dallas County.
That went up to the FifthCircuit multiple times And
they've kind of just blown ahole in the plaintiff's
arguments and really just said,as of March, that these cases
should not be filed in federalcourt.
There's going to be a petitionfor cert on it, filed at the end
of July.

(52:57):
I probably expect it to bedenied, but that would be a case
to watch.
I just see you, so I see usunder attack everywhere, but I
see that come into an endbecause the changes that we've
seen we now have the benefit oftime and they're disastrous and
not sustainable, and so if whatwe're doing is not sustainable,

(53:19):
then you're going to go back towhat works, and what works is
the private shirty bail system.
The reason why we work isbecause no one else can do what
we do or what it does, and untilwe find something that does,
you're always going to come backto it.

Speaker 1 (53:31):
Yeah, and I don't think there is anything that
does it.
There's a reason why it's worked.
There's things that stay andthey do well And, like the
Constitution, it's timeless.
It's there.
There are certain aspects ofour criminal justice system that
are there.
They're the fundamentals, andwe're also in a capitalist
system that's under attack.

(53:52):
But part of having cash bond orproperty bond or using the
insurance or whatever, people inthis country are motivated by
money.
If they're going to lose asignificant amount of money,
they're going to make sure thatthey're checking all the boxes,
whereas if there's no motivation, there's no accountability,

(54:16):
then there's no incentive forthem to stop committing crime.

Speaker 2 (54:19):
I would argue that we're already under a civil war
in our society because we haveone group that's being
encouraged to.
If you don't like something,then you need to.
The nice way to say it isprotest.
Probably another way of sayingit is burn down businesses and
without consequences, and we'veseen that.
And then on the other side ofthe spectrum, if they do

(54:40):
anything even close, then youhave to be prosecuted, and you
have to be prosecuted to thefull extent of the law, and
we've seen that in our history.
I mean, this is a really bad,probably, analogy, but we've
seen a history where a countryhad brown shirts that just
attacked people when they didn'tagree with them, and that's
kind of.
I would argue that we have alittle bit of that going on.

(55:01):
Where you can see it at theSupreme Court, we don't agree
with the results you're comingto, so we're going to attack you
personally and we're going toattack the court as a whole
until you get in line.
It doesn't have anything to dowith whether what you're doing
is right or wrong.
It has everything to do with wedisagree with your opinion And
until you turn around, we'regoing to keep attacking you, and
that I mean.

(55:22):
What else is that other than acivil war without guns?
until we you know, until we goback into a time where we have
the ACLU defending someone'sfree speech, no matter what
speech it was, you had the rightto make the speech.
We don't have that anymore.
Everything is based upon whatspeech you're going to make, and
if you are making the speechthat we don't agree with, then
we can.
we agree that people should doanything they want to you until

(55:44):
you quiet down.
We can't, we are.
that is not sustainable as asociety And we have to get
through this period so that wecan get to to recover from it,
and we will.
it's just going to take a while.

Speaker 1 (55:55):
Yeah, I mean.
My buddy, Mark Levin, calls itAmerican Marxism, And that's
exactly what it is.
And poor justice?
Thomas, you're right, We are.
And then we're on the brink ofa civil war.
And I just said on my show acouple of days ago you know if,
if, if they go through with thisindictment of Trump and they
assign him time to spend time injail there, a civil war will
break out in this country.

Speaker 2 (56:16):
If the Democrats lose , or the far left of the party,
they will not consent to begoverned and they will do
everything in anything they canto pressure their allies to do
what they've done to Trump.

Speaker 1 (56:28):
Yeah, yeah it's, it's frightening, so hopefully Trump
has a good bondsman.

Speaker 2 (56:36):
Hopefully he won't need one.
But the criminal justice system, as you said, the reforms
defund the police.
All these other things are justpushes for chaos And you know
where it impacts the bail systemis cases that used to take six
months to a year to resolve arenow taking two years, three
years with COVID, four years.
So we've got people on bail forfour years And you know I mean

(56:57):
a lot of these people are nomads.
You know they're problemchildren to begin with.
They haven't found their nicheRight And you know keeping up
with them for four years.
If it wasn't for the bailindustry, the state would have
no way of keeping up with themat all.

Speaker 1 (57:13):
Yeah, i agree.
And are you guys?
do you do a lot of lobbying?

Speaker 2 (57:18):
Well, we do have a lobby team, which is, you know,
our legislative committee.
So we do in Texas.
You know one of the people thatyou know, senator Whitmire in
the Texas legislature, who's theoldest sitting senator in the
Texas Senate, has said that wehave a very powerful lobby in
Texas, and you know whether thatis a true statement or not, i

(57:40):
mean, but I always tell our teamwe want to highlight that
because we want people to thinkwe have a very powerful lobby or
whether he's just putting a bigtarget on our back to just say
it was us that killed his bill.
But yeah, i would say that wehave a good team and we do a lot
of education on issues, and Ithink that's our job is to

(58:00):
educate people on issues.

Speaker 1 (58:01):
Before I let you go, put everything in a nutshell for
us.
If my audience had to take awayone thing from this interview,
what do you think the mostimportant thing is within bail
reform and how it's impactingthe private bond industry?

Speaker 2 (58:14):
On the bail reform debate we have a division.
Parts of the country are stillpushing for it.
Other parts have tried it andhave realized that it was a
failure and have been rolling itback.
New York has now rolled it backthree times, and we also have
the benefit of science or time,and we were coming out with
reports showing how all thethings the bail industry has
said are true When you releasemore criminals, you will get

(58:37):
more crime, not less crime, andso you need the private surety
bail system to get people tocourt, to get cases resolved, to
get victims their resolution.
The private surety bail systemhas been around for 200 years.
They've been around becausethey do one thing.
They do it really good They getpeople to court with the lowest
failure to appear rate.
Anything else else has.

(58:58):
A substantial failure to appearrate creates chaos, creates
pressure to dismiss criminalcases, which just creates a void
for organized crime, gangmembers and career criminals to
step into and make millions,maybe even billions of dollars,
and that's what you see in thebail reform movement.
I mean, i would argue.

(59:18):
The last thing I would say isthere are parts of this country
where the bail reform changeshave been so drastic and so
awful that you can't look atthem and say what would they
have done differently, theelected officials, if they were
in the pockets of organizedcrime?
that's where we are The changesthat are being made and are now
being rolled back becausethey're not sustainable.

(59:40):
And they will be rolled backone way or the other because
what we have in place right now,or what's being pushed, cannot
work, will not work and willcreate chaos.
So we do So.
There is hope.
We just have to get throughthis period of time.

Speaker 1 (59:56):
You have your own podcast and your social channels
.
How can my audience find youread more of your stuff?
listen?

Speaker 2 (01:00:02):
more to you.
Thank you so much formentioning that, but the
professional bottom of the textis it has a website that you can
go to, the pbtxcom.
They have a blog where we postthings on their important news
in the bail industry across thecountry periodically And then we
have our own podcast.
Or I have my own podcast calledthe Bell Post and you can find
it by going to thebellpostcom,where we try to educate a

(01:00:26):
legislator public on thedifferent issues in bail reform.
If you want to know what theNew Jersey plan is, we have a
podcast on the issue.
Through our podcast is toeducate people on the issues and
to be a resource tolegislatures.

Speaker 1 (01:00:39):
Last question Do you guys, do you take donations for
the legal fees to fight theselaws?
We really don't?

Speaker 2 (01:00:47):
I mean?
I mean we have a, we have abail pack which I guess people
could contribute to, but we, youknow, we are a self-funded
industry and our pbt is fundedthrough our state group of
membership.
And then we have support of ourinsurance companies And but you
know, we would love to havepeople join us in, just saying

(01:01:10):
they stand with us on theseissues.

Speaker 1 (01:01:12):
All right, Well, hey, this was great.
Thank you so much.
I have a personal passion forcriminal justice reform and how
it is playing into this biggerpicture.
You know, again, it's likeeverything under the guise of
equity, you know, bail isinequitable for people who are
poor and people of color.
It's all just an excuse tocreate, like you said, the chaos

(01:01:35):
that people are profiting onand getting elected on.

Speaker 2 (01:01:38):
Well, thank you for having me.
I'd like to talk about ourissues, but it's so much fun to
have a discussion with somebodywho is fully briefed on our
issues And you know it's been agreat conversation from from
from my part.

Speaker 1 (01:01:53):
Well, on that note, folks, i'll let you enjoy your
weekend.
This is Chad Law, reminding youof what Reagan once said for us
, but verify, and there are nobetter words today, especially
as it pertains to the new God.
bless you, president Reagan,and make God save America.

Speaker 2 (01:02:31):
You just listened to the last gay conservative
podcast hosted by Chad Law.