Colorado bail bond laws are under attack by a pre-trial services initiative, in violation of the 2nd, 5th and 14th amendments to the United States Constitution. People and groups in support of this new bail-reform project include George Soros, philanthropist, and Mark Zuckerberg of Facebook fame.

What they claim is they don’t fully understand how the bail system works or why, but they want to do what we do as bonding agents. They have no idea how to do pretrial work. They simply want the revenue generated by civilian licensed and compensated sureties (bondsmen). So they will use whatever lies or misleading facts to support their business model and underlying motives.

Bear in mind the money-based bail system began some 2,000 years ago under the Roman emperors to deal with the overcrowding among those detained. They accepted either money or property as collateral. This process lasted up to the 17th century in Great Britain, where it was officially established and formalized. It was then transferred, or emulated, by the colonists settling in America.

Critics say the money-based system is flawed and deeply in need of change; that’s simply not so. It may not be perfect, but it has been time-tested as successful for more than 2,000 years, which the new pre-trial movement can never lay claim to.

The pre-trial services movement is not your judge nor jury. So why is it part of their release requirements to include monthly ankle-monitoring charges at a rate of up to$400/month -non-refundable – even if the accused is found innocent)? Monitored sobriety, rehabilitation, detox, mental-health monitoring, anger management (all of which also have separate monthly charges) up to the time of your trial? Again, none of these fees are refundable.

You could theoretically spend up to $500 or $600 every month until your case is resolved or, in some cases, beyond conviction. This is an outrageous financial attack and unnecessary burden on American citizens. A bondsman could not ever charge you those amounts; he charges a one-time-only insurance premium for a bond – at no expense to taxpayers.

The pretrial-service approach is predominately funded by taxpayer dollars. All it will manage to do is do away with commercial bail.

They say their authority to do what they do stems from an algorithm they claim is based on sound empirical data. The data they use is skewed, biased and not quantitative. If you’re going to use data, it must be analytical, not theoretical or empirical as these are oftentimes motivated by hidden agendas.

Now, let’s address the matter of public safety. The pre-trial advocates claim their assessment tool and algorithm can accurately predict if someone is worthy of being released. Someone like Octavio Morales, who was released earlier this year on personal recognizance – on two homicide charges?

Dr. C.M. Schmidt, Jr., Th.D. Board member, Colorado Association of Professional Sureties Centennial