Bail Bondsman Criticizes Billings Muni Court
John McFadden, a Billings bail bondsman, has begun what has the makings of a campaign to reform the way muni court judge Mary Jane Knisely sets bail and other pre-trial conditions of release. Last November, McFadden first wrote a letter to the editor of the Billings Gazette criticizing pre-trial supervision as more or less a form of blackmail that encourages defendants to plead guilty in order to avoid or end the onerous fees involved. McFadden is equally critical of the fact that private companies are making substantial profit from the misery of these defendants, as well as what appears to be the “I’ll scratch your back” way Judge Knisely doles out the business to these companies.
Last week McFadden wrote another letter to the editor listing eight flaws in the way Billings’ municipal court operates, including:
- Ordering citizens to pay to be “supervised” by supervisors who have committed fraud (DV 05-1199).
- Collecting “bond” payments and then converting these “bonds” into “fines” without a hearing.
- Leaving citizens in jail for hours, days and even weeks after posting bond.
- Jailing minorities because they are unable to pay “supervision” fees while waiting for their day in court.
- Forcing citizens to submit to 24-hour unannounced searches and urine analysis before trial.
- Routinely employing individuals who are not elected to act in Judge Knisley’s stead, at taxpayers’ expense.
- Giving citizens no choice in determining from which company they must purchase court-ordered services.
- Responding with an adversarial attitude toward complaints.
McFadden’s letters have produced a vocal response in the newspaper’s comments section, and he is following up on his own website by asking for stories and comments from concerned citizens.
A few critics have questioned McFadden’s motives, suggesting he is bitter about something and is therefore attempting to strike back at the court. They may be right: many of the things McFadden criticizes (pre-trial supervision, time-pay bonds rather than secured bonds, etc.) probably do not help a bondsman’s bottom line. On the other hand, the problems McFadden identifies remain problems, regardless of his motives for speaking out.
How are things in your jurisdiction? Does your misdemeanor court routinely set bonds at 5-10 times the amount of the largest fine allowed by statute for the alleged crime? Are your misdemeanor bonds frequently higher than the bonds set in your felony courts? Are people accused of misdemeanors in your jurisdiction coerced into pleading guilty by onerous pre-trial “supervision” fees (for electronic monitoring, drug testing, etc)? Do the cost of those fees vary as much as 100% depending on which “supervision” company you’re assigned? Is Billings municipal court the source of the problems, or is this sort of thing pervasive statewide?
8 comments »
Copy link for RSS feed for comments on this post or for TrackBack URI
Leave a comment
Line and paragraph breaks automatic, e-mail address never displayed, HTML allowed: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>
A wave of “Black Robe Fever” is sweeping across the U.S. Court system, not just in Billings, Montana. Bail Agents have nothing to do with it. When you have a non regulated judiciary, the sky is the limit when it comes to gross abuses of our laws. Why do we elect Legislators to enact statutes for the State when Courts rewrite the laws routinely? Consistency in adjudicating law,imposing fines, fees and conditions are the only way to control bias/prejudice in the court. These Judges are people, not gods, drunk with their own power.
Comment by vicki donoho — February 1, 2007 @ 2:10 am
I reward Mr. Mc Fadden on his courage to speak out; while so many are afraid.
Comment by robert — February 2, 2007 @ 6:58 pm
Check this article out; Judge Mary Jane Knisely…her goose is cooked….
BILLINGS MUNICIPAL COURT, JUDGE MARY JANE KNISELY COURT PRACTICES QUESTIONED AND BEING LOOKED INTO BY STATE ATTORNEY GENERALS OFFICE AND STATE SENATOR AMONG OTHER COUNTY, CITY OFFICIALS
by MONTANA NEWS ASSOCIATION
billings Montana., March 15, 2007–/MNA PRESS/–Billings Municipal Court Judge Mary Jane Knisely is being questioned by Montana State senators and the Montana State Attorney General’s office regarding disturbing information that is coming to light regarding the Billings Municipal Court. At issue, specifically, are the court’s practices that relate to Misdemeanor Probation and Misdemeanor Pre-Trial Supervision.
Currently, three privately owned agencies – Alternatives, Inc., Community Solutions, Inc. and Mountain Peaks, Inc. provide misdemeanor probation and pre-trial supervision services for the City of Billings. Alternatives and CSI have signed contracts with the City, but the City has been unable to produce a signed professional services agreement with Mountain Peaks. Yet, Judge Knisely continues to assign clients to MPI, regardless.
That, however, is not the core issue. John McFadden, local bondsman and owner of A-Bail, smelled a rat months ago. John posted bond for several clients, who should have been released from the Yellowstone County Detention Facility but weren’t, because nobody from the assigned probation supervision agency would come down to the jail to process them out. John also was receiving phone calls from clients, calling him in tears, telling him they were being told by their misdemeanor probation agency probation officers that if they didn’t come up with money for their supervision, they would be thrown back in jail.
John McFadden contacted one of the misdemeanor probation agencies to request that clients be given the terms of their supervision, in writing. The agency told McFadden to contact the municipal court with that request. When McFadden tried to contact Municipal Court Judge Mary Jane Knisely, he was told by Municipal Court Administrator Nikki Schaubel that Judge Knisely’s e-mail address was confidential and that he would have to deal with her. Nikki Schaubel subsequently made herself unavailable to John McFadden, giving the repeated excuse of being “too busy.” (When the Montana News requested an interview with Nikki Schaubel, she was unable to set a time for that interview, once again under the pretext of being “too busy.”)
John McFadden, fed up with getting the run around from Judge Knisely, as well as the misdemeanor probation agencies, started to write letters. He wrote to local media; he wrote to Tina Volek, Billings City Administrator; he wrote to the Montana State Public Defender’s Office; and, finally, he wrote to State Senator Roy Brown, who notified Montana State Attorney General Mike McGrath of his concerns.
In a letter to A.G. Mike McGrath, dated January 30, 2007, Senator Roy Brown outlined five issues that John McFadden brought to his attention: 1) court-required supervision of accused that requires payment for supervision prior to conviction; 2) jailing of citizens who fall behind on supervision payments, as well as subjecting them to 22.5% interest; 3) jailing citizens who are unable to pay for supervision; 4) collecting bond payments prior to convictions and then, upon conviction, converting bonds into fines without a hearing; and 5) forcing citizens to submit to 24-hour unannounced searches and urine analysis before conviction.
The Attorney General’s office tried to contact Judge Knisely three times, who consistently avoided talking with them, but ultimately responded to Senator Roy Brown, in a seven-page letter, dated March 6, 2007. Judge Knisely compliments Senator Brown for taking his constituent’s concerns seriously and assures him that she is “proud of this Court’s record and ensure(s) that all matters which come before it are open to public scrutiny.” If that were true, why did Judge Knisely’s court administrator refuse an interview with the Montana News? Is the very opposite of what Judge Knisely says true?
Then, much like her good friend, the esteemed mayor of Billings, Ron Tussing, Judge Knisely sought to discredit the complainer, calling John McFadden “inaccurate” and “far from objective.” Judge Knisely accuses John McFadden of being focused on issues uniquely related to furthering his business interests. Judge Knisely completely missed the point that it would have been in John McFadden’s financial interest to keep silent regarding this situation. In John McFadden’s own words, “Obviously the more people who get thrown in jail for fines, fees, and violating Pretrial Supervision, the more business for everyone. But I think what is happening here is illegal, unethical, and results in a serious loss of everyone’s civil rights.”
Judge Knisely then grandiosely promised Senator Brown that she will respond with a comprehensive legal perspective, from which she will provide a detailed response to each of the concerns delineated in Senator Brown’s inquiry. However, Judge Knisely responded in non-sequential order (deliberately designed to confuse?), with answers that do not specifically address the concerns originally laid out by John McFadden. Rather, Judge Knisely’s answers are broad, general and lead the reader into a labyrinth of legalese, from which it is nearly impossible to emerge.
Senator Brown’s first concern has to do with pretrial supervision. Judge Mary Jane Knisely responds with a citation of Montana Code Annotated 46-9-108(1): “The court may impose any condition that will reasonably ensure the appearance of the defendant as required or that will ensure the safety of any person or the community…” She then lists points (a) through (k), emphasizing point (f), “the defendant shall report on a regular basis to a designated agency or individual, pretrial services agency, or other appropriate individual.” What Billings Municipal Court Judge Mary Jane Knisely deliberately omits is the full heading for MCA 46-9-108. “Conditions upon defendant’s release — notice to victim of stalker’s release.” Has Judge Knisely deliberately been misquoting MCA, not only to Senator Brown but to other city and state officials as well, and abusing her own position of power by wrongfully ordering pretrial supervision, in cases where it does not statutorily apply?
Does pretrial supervision only apply in the context of Partner/Family Member Assault or stalking cases?
Judge Knisely writes that pretrial supervision is not included as a condition of bond in the majority of cases filed in Billings municipal Court. “In fact,” she writes, “of the 10,739 cases filed in Billings Municipal Court from the fiscal year beginning July 1, 2006 to date, only 411, or 3.83% were referred to a pretrial services agency.” Of those 411, how many had nothing to do with PFMA or stalking?
This also reveals another inconsistency with Judge Knisely’s truthfulness. Last fall, Judge Knisely testified in a court trial between Mountain Peaks, Inc. and Community Solutions, Inc. that the Billings Municipal Court sees 30,000 cases per year. If that number is true and accurate and the municipal court is two-thirds the way through its fiscal year, why is the number of cases Judge Knisely quotes to Senator Roy Brown only 10,739? Shouldn’t it rather be closer to 20,000 cases, which is two-thirds of 30,000? Did Judge Knisely lie about the number of cases seen in Billings Municipal Court while under oath, when she testified before District Court Judge Gregory Todd, or did she lie to Senator Roy Brown?
Did Billings Municipal Court Judge Mary Jane Knisely OUTRIGHT LIE, or deliberately mislead, Senator Roy Brown on his other referenced points of concern? The Montana News will answer that question, as well as many others that are beginning to surface about Billings Municipal Court Judge Mary Jane Knisely, in the next article in this series.
Comment by Mike B. — March 16, 2007 @ 9:46 am
Comment by Stacie — August 30, 2007 @ 8:21 am
In the summer of 2002, I ran a yellow and was pulled over and immediately attacked by a police officer. The video proved that I did nothing to be attacked. The officer charged me with obstruction, even though the video showed absolutely no obstruction. My attorney filed a civil rights violation suit against the officer MMIA and the City of Billings. After six months (Tussig’s and St. John’s reign) of being harassed by police officers and Brent Brooks, and an hour before my obstruction hearing, the City offered a Mutual Release–they would drop the obstruction charge if I dropped the civil rights suit against them and if the officer ever again attacked someone, my case could be used against them.
This (false) obstruction charge has been the only charge in my 46 years of living and I just found out the City never carried out their part to change the disposition of it to dismissed. I have left 2 voicemails for the municipal court with no response.
My attorney, Don Harris, forwarded me a copy of the release so I could legally request the City comply. After making copies, on 11/15/07, my car was broken into, my dog apparently maced and only the folder was taken with those copies. Not even my purse or wallet was stolen.
I have read your website. How can the City of Billings get away with this?
I purchased my fingerprint background check from the FBI and the only thing on it was the obstruction charge the City never dropped. They coerced me into dropping my suit an hour before my hearing. I was ready to go.
Anyway, thank you for your time.
Comment by Ellen King — November 25, 2007 @ 4:05 pm
thank you for someone taking into account the fraud that is going on!!keep on it people
Comment by robert — September 1, 2009 @ 9:33 pm
Pretrial is at it here in Colorado. It’s a case of where government wants to grow. Bondsmen are the ONLY part of the court system that works properly and they want to do away with us. The courts here have just passed a law in legislation where they can use cash bonds to pay expenses whether you’re guilty or not. It seems to me that it violates a person’s rights to have to submit to UAs, ankle braclets, pretrial supervision, etc before you’re convicted.
Comment by Michael Gray — May 9, 2010 @ 4:40 pm
I too think that Judge Knisely has some things that are not fully disclosed as they should be… mayhaps there should be more scrutiny here Just sayin
Comment by andrew norstrum — June 19, 2010 @ 9:34 am