Leadership In Law Podcast

12 The Correlation Between Crime Rates and Bail Reform with Ken W. Good

• Marilyn Jenkins • Season 1 • Episode 12

Share episode

Can bail reform be both fair and effective? Join us as we sit down with Ken Good, a veteran Texas bail attorney and board member of the Professional Bondsman of Texas, who offers an unparalleled look into the complexities of modern bail issues. Ken takes us through his illustrious career, from law school competitions to becoming an expert in appellate work and bail reform. Discover the significant challenges posed by the COVID-19 pandemic and the ongoing efforts to ensure court attendance while safeguarding public safety.

Ever wondered how technological limitations affect justice? Ken sheds light on Texas' central database system and its current capabilities in accessing data from other states. Through the heart-wrenching case of Caitlin Guajardo, we explore the dire consequences of inadequate bail practices in domestic violence cases, particularly in urban areas. Ken underscores the urgent need for reliable protection for victims and elaborates on the complexities faced by those in abusive relationships, especially when children are involved.

What role does political funding play in shaping crime policies? Our discussion ventures into the political landscape, examining how groups like those associated with George Soros influence district attorney elections and crime policies. With Harris County as a case study, Ken discusses the unintended rise in crime rates due to progressive policies. We also touch on the broader political ramifications, including the role of media in shaping public perception and the contentious nature of upcoming elections. Stay connected with the Leadership in Law podcast community for valuable insights and resources to help you grow your law firm.

Ken W. Good, a noted Texas bail attorney and a board member of the Professional Bondsmen of Texas, has worked closely with lawmakers and other individuals on bail matters. Bail reform advocates have long claimed that it is fundamentally unfair to incarcerate individuals charged with a crime simply because they lack the financial means to “buy” their freedom. Throughout the Greater Houston area, the state of Texas and the nation at large, reform efforts have gained momentum in recent years, despite increasing pushback from those equally concerned about public safety. Ken is well-versed in all arguments on the topic and is able to address all angles.

Reach Ken Here: https://pbtx.com/


Get a FREE copy of "The Ultimate Online Marketing Checklist for Law Firms" at
https://lawmarketingzone.com/ultimate-checklist

Ready to level up your law firm marketing? Book a FREE Discovery Call with Marilyn Here: https://lawmarketingzone.com/bookacall

Leadership In Law Podcast with host, Marilyn Jenkins
Powered by Law Marketing Zone®
https://lawmarketingzone.com
A full-service Digital Marketing Agency helping clients increase leads, cases and Profit through digital marketing.

Subscribe on your favorite Podcast listening platform!
Like, Share, and Review us!

#leadershipinlawpodcast #leadershipinlaw
#marilynjenkins

Speaker 1:

Welcome to the Leadership in Law podcast with host Marilyn Jenkins. Cut through the noise, get actionable insights and inspiring stories delivered straight to your ears your ultimate podcast for navigating the ever-changing world of law firm ownership. In each episode, we dive deep into the critical topics that matter most to you, from unlocking explosive growth to building a thriving team. We connect you with successful firm leaders and industry experts who share their proven strategies and hard-won wisdom. So, whether you're a seasoned leader or just starting your journey as a law firm owner, the Leadership in Law podcast is here to equip you with the knowledge and tools you need to build a successful and fulfilling legal practice.

Speaker 2:

Welcome to another episode of the Leadership in Law podcast. I'm your host, Marilyn Jenkins. Please join me in welcoming my guest, Ken Good, to the show today. In 1989, Ken received his law degree from a Texas Tech School of Law where he was a member of the Texas Tech Law Review. Mr Good has argued cases before the Supreme Court of Texas and the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals, along with numerous courts of appeals, including the United States Court of Texas and the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals, along with numerous courts of appeals, including the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. Ken is a noted Texas bail attorney and a board member of the Professional Bondsman of Texas and has worked closely with lawmakers and other individuals on bail matters. He's the author of Good on Bail, a practice guide created for the bail industry professionals. Mr Good is married and has two daughters. I'm excited to have you here, Ken, Welcome.

Speaker 3:

Well, thank you very much for having me. I think the most important thing you just said was that I have two daughters and I'm married.

Speaker 2:

You're a girl, dad.

Speaker 3:

Absolutely.

Speaker 2:

All right, well, excellent. So tell us a little bit about I'm excited to get into the bail story and how that's working, but tell me a little bit about how you got started.

Speaker 3:

Yes, ma'am, let's see I've been doing this for over 30 something years. That's kind of scary. I have been. You know, I started out in law school kind of looking in competitions, doing a lot of legal type issues. When I graduated from law school I started working with a team of attorneys that we represent doctors and hospitals when they got sued and that's kind of. I carried on with my interest in doing appellate work from law school and so I started doing a lot of appeals so I had to do all of our appellate work from our little office. We went to this little seminar on medical malpractice and they were like they had a section on important new cases and three of the five were from were mine, and so I just have been really lucky about arguing cases and looking at issues, and so I somehow then got started.

Speaker 3:

a bondsman had a problem and they asked who do you hire for this type of issue? And they said, oh well, you need an appellate attorney.

Speaker 3:

And so that's kind of what started me down, this little world and I continued on and I have word of mouth has spread and I've just now it's gained, and then you know these legal issues have kind of caught on about. We need to have bail reform and you know I was concerned about whether people were really doing a correct analysis of the issues and I went to a case and sitting on a hearing I just thought the judge was wrong and I thought she was going in the wrong direction. So I set off the alarm bells. I said we have to become experts on these issues and as a result, I've written a bunch of articles on these types of issues and I think I've been ultimately proven right because the judge in that case has been reversed seven or eight times, even though it's probably one of the most seminal cases, and they get cited or was cited at the time, and so I don't think if we were not telling this side of the story, I don't think anybody would be.

Speaker 2:

Okay, Okay. So then give us, bring us up to speed. I know many of our listeners know what is the purpose of bail.

Speaker 3:

Well, you know, you hear in the news that the purpose of bail is, you know, you have a presumption of innocence and that's, I mean, actually been rejected by the courts. The purpose of bail is what assurance are you going to give the court that you're going to return to answer the charges that have been filed against you? Because if you're not going to give the court any assurance, then they can just hold you. But our compromise is as long as you give the assurance you'll return, and then the courts will let you go, and under a lot of state constitutions they're required to, unless you have really serious charges filed. And so that's kind of what the concept is.

Speaker 3:

And you know what we the whole kind of argument about bail reform is. Well, we don't really need to give any anything other than our promise, because everybody really wants to go to court, everybody really wants to resolve their cases, and what we've learned during COVID is that's just not true. I mean people will not come to court if you don't make them. I mean they will not come and it causes chaos, and chaos causes de facto decriminalization. De facto decriminalization creates a green light, or criminals see that as a green light to commit more crime.

Speaker 2:

And that's where you know we previously talked about all that the inherent shoplifting that's just blatant going on in California.

Speaker 3:

And that's why you have Prop 47 back on the ballot in November to repeal. Well, repeal it or modify it greatly, because shoplifting has done such substantial damage to the economy in California and to businesses and to public safety.

Speaker 2:

And public safety, exactly. I mean just blatantly in the middle of a store, just go in and walk out with things, Absolutely. And so why are there efforts to reform bail?

Speaker 3:

Ooh, I think that there's been a well okay. Periodically there's always a push to reform bail. I think bail is something that's been around for over 200 years and it's been around for a reason it does one thing. It does it very well, and because there's not an alternative to bail. That's the biggest problem is, you know, we've been told we have all these alternatives.

Speaker 3:

They don't work and they're you know if you have one system that has less than a 10% failure to period, and then you have all these other systems that have a 50% or 80% failure to period. Those are not alternatives. That's just chaos, and so I think. But I think the reason why you have people pushing for change is, I think, the criminal justice system is under attack.

Speaker 3:

We're kind of repeating the same cycles that we went through in the 60s. You know, we felt safe in the 60s, so we were more forgiving on our criminal law. We started having more crime as a result. So then we started having a fight among our politicians over what to do about it. We had one party that refused to do anything kind of like we are now, and so we ended up having a backlash. We had the war on crime. We had Reagan elected president. So we're kind of going through the same thing again today, where we were feeling safe and so we were more forgiving on our criminal laws, and what we're seeing now is a result of that.

Speaker 3:

We're seeing more crime in our urban areas, and we're making it worse this time because we've got a group that's helping to elect DAs, who are then going to them almost like a quid pro quo, and saying we got you elected so you will no longer seek enhancements on drugs or any other crimes, you will not seek long sentences, you will not prosecute certain people, and I mean we're going to have less people in prison. And you know, as the Supreme Court has said, when you have fewer people in prison or you release more criminals, you're going to have more crime. And they're arguing, for some reason, that fewer people in prison will make us safer. That doesn't even make common sense and they know it. But they know the public won't support it unless they give lip service to it. And so that's what they're doing.

Speaker 2:

So the enhancements you're talking about. So if someone was caught with an amount of drugs and it would be enough to say dealing, what would be an enhancement that they're not allowed to add to that? Is that a good example.

Speaker 3:

It's a great example. So you would be arrested and charged with possession of drugs. They would not enhance it with the weight, and so you would get two weeks in jail instead of 20 years. And you know drug dealers would see that as a cost of doing business. They don't care, I mean they don't want to go to jail for 20 years, but they don't have any problem going to jail for two weeks.

Speaker 2:

Yeah, right. And then we've got the big drug problems, especially coming over the borders.

Speaker 3:

Yeah, you've got worse problems now with, you know, the decriminalization of marijuana in, like California. That's a great example, because the legal market has collapsed and it's being taken over by the cartels, by the illegal markets, and they're not just shipping their drugs, they're moving their whole operations into the United States and so, like, they're going to places where we've set aside wilderness though you know for, like, when you go hiking and they're just setting up shop there, and they're with our open borders, they're bringing the people that they need to work there into the United States and they're not even scared of law enforcement. What are you going to do to me? You decriminalized marijuana, so what? We're growing marijuana.

Speaker 2:

Right. So well, I didn't even think about that part of it. As far as them just coming over and just setting up their own operations because now it's legal, well, they're doing it all over the country wherever they're decriminalizing marijuana and they're taking over the legal market.

Speaker 3:

And so all this tax money that they're praising that they're getting, they're spending a large part of it on trying to attack the illegal trade to keep them out of the market, and they're failing. They're failing miserably.

Speaker 2:

And what would be a good example of good bail reform that might address some of these issues?

Speaker 3:

Well, there's been several states now that have enacted good bail reform.

Speaker 3:

Texas is probably the leader and probably the best thing that they can do is to put teeth in the accountability. And then another thing they can do is limit the use of free bonds so if you're charged with a violent offense, you don't get out of jail on one of these simple release mechanisms. Taxes limit the use we call them personal bonds, so they limit the use of personal bonds for violent offenses. And then if you're charged, if you're out on bond and you commit a new crime, then there are additional consequences for that. That. If you're going to be a risk to public safety, well then you need to have more scrutiny, you need to have fewer options on getting out of jail. And then I think probably the most important thing Texas did was requiring the review of criminal history in setting bail. It defies common sense that you would think that judges would not review the criminal history before setting bail, but Texas was one of those states that didn't have a central database where you could review the criminal history.

Speaker 3:

So they had to set up one, and that's what they've done, and they now require judges to review the criminal history, and I think that's probably your number one best indicator on whether you're going to commit crime in the future is whether you've committed crime in the past.

Speaker 2:

Right and Texas didn't have a centralized database with that information in it.

Speaker 3:

No, and they were only looking at, you know, when they were looking at criminal history by and large. They were looking at your history in the county, maybe a couple of surrounding counties, you know the DPS records are very, I mean, I like to compare their system to like the old DOS system. It's probably worse than that. It's probably a cobalt system now, which is probably the same level these days and you have to have special training to access it and people you know. So what they did was pull from that data, but they set up a much easier way of doing that and the judges can actually do that. Still too much training, it's not applicable. But still, the most important thing I think that Texas has done on strengthening good bail reform is to require the review of criminal histories and setting bail. I mean, and that can be done everywhere, Because, like, look at New York, California, If you're charged, a charge-based release system just looks at the.

Speaker 3:

What are you charged with? You're charged with theft. You're going to be released on no bond. You're going to be released without bond. You're going to be released on one of these simple release mechanism systems and okay, so what? You've committed that crime 20 times. So what? It's still a charge-based system. When you look at their criminal history and you require the judge to do that when they see that they've been arrested 20 times for theft, well obviously they're at risk to public safety, and just releasing them on simple release is not going to be a work. It's not going to work, it's not going to be a deterrent, and so either they need to have a surety bond or they need to be held in jail. If they're not going to, if they're just going to keep violating the law.

Speaker 2:

Right, right. Well, I do know that I do have some experience in law enforcement. It was very difficult across jurisdictions to get the records, you know, for everybody to share their information. It was very much close to the chest. You know this is ours, we own that. So it's interesting to know that now Texas has a central database where across the state. And does that go across borders, like, can you see if someone's done a crime in Louisiana or Oklahoma or another state, or is it just what's?

Speaker 3:

happening in Texas. I think they would say, oh no, we can see everything. I don't buy that right at the moment, because everything would mean, you know, every state is its own system, the federal government's its own system. I think you can see everything in Texas and everything in the feds.

Speaker 2:

I don't think it would be accurate to say you can see anything in every other state on this database system.

Speaker 3:

I mean it just seems technologically not feasible at this time. System. I mean it just seems technologically not feasible at this time. I mean to go from we couldn't even see taxes to now we can see everything in two years, nah, that doesn't make sense.

Speaker 2:

Now that's a that sounds like a corporate line. Yeah, exactly.

Speaker 3:

Yeah, I mean, and I'm not critical of them and they're just I mean they may not even know, but I just think it's. It would be fanciful to say that we're going from one extreme to the next in two years. No, that's not right.

Speaker 2:

No, exactly. So let's jump over to what are the effects of bail reform on domestic violence? Oh you know growing and new. So, tell us a bit about that, because it's the first thing that came to mind when you said that this thief has been, has done 20 thefts, but he's got the same. He keeps doing the same crime over again. Let's talk about domestic violence, how it just continues or escalates.

Speaker 3:

You know, king Lear is a tragedy. It's kind of, you know, shakespearean tragedy. And I think this whole domestic violence, especially in light of bail reform in our urban areas this bad bail reform is just a modern day King Lear, shakespearean tragedy, really had a difficult time going to law enforcement because the law enforcement could get them a protective order but they would take a violation of the protective order. But you know, before all this reform, you know if someone got arrested they would be in jail for a few days at least. There would be a cooling off period, somebody in their family would have to go bond them out and they would have to think twice before they acted in anger.

Speaker 3:

Now in our urban areas where we've done this bad bail reform, where we just simply release people I mean victims of domestic violence can no longer even rely on our criminal justice system.

Speaker 3:

They have to first run, get their system set up for how they're going to live, who's going to help them. All of that has to be done and then law enforcement has to be an afterthought, because we have too many examples now where somebody was released, arrested, released and go back and immediately kill them. I mean you can look at Harris County to Houston, texas, to Caitlin Guajardo, where her husband was already out on simple release for, you know, having an accident and leaving the scene. And he got arrested for domestic violence and, you know, got released on another simple release, even though that would have been a violation of his first simple release, and within hours after release he stabbed her 30-something times in her stomach and killed her. And he stabbed her 30-something times because he said to the investigating officer I don't, I didn't want another man to help raise my child, because she was pregnant with their second child.

Speaker 3:

And we have too many examples of that. So in these areas where they've done this really bad bailout form, especially domestic violence, where if it's a first-time offender they're going to classify it as a misdemeanor and we don't hold misdemeanors in these urban areas anymore, it's just quickly release them and it's simple release. We don't hold misdemeanors in these urban areas anymore, it's just quickly release them and it's simple release. We don't care how many times they've been charged, it's just a misdemeanor. I mean, it's ridiculous. And so there's no cooling off, they're mad. As soon as they get out they're looking to make a point and many times the making of a point comes with great consequences comes with great consequences.

Speaker 2:

Wow, and yeah, you're right about the woman or the victim definitely has to have all of everything organized and, of course, quietly, so that the offender doesn't know what's going on until she can safely leave, and that's a very big ask. I've got family that works in domestic violence shelters just to be that piece that can help them and their children get away and not be found. It's a sad state of affairs when it comes to being able to not being able to get away.

Speaker 3:

Oh well, and it's. It's one where I just understand you can feel so helpless. I mean, I just feel helpless thinking about it because I mean, like you said, I'm I'm the father of daughters and you know, I've been buried 20 something years and I'm like I can't imagine my wife being in a situation where she was so, I mean where she couldn't trust me, where she feared me, where she, I mean, wouldn't know how to get away from me. I mean I'm like, oh my god, I mean, and anyone that lives in that situation, I mean you need, I mean there's so much planning that is needed.

Speaker 3:

You, you have to plan everything out, you have to get away, you have to run and you know if there's children involved, I mean it just becomes so difficult because do you have this right to prevent this abuser from seeing their children? I mean, the courts would say no, and then you have to get all those issues involved, and so it's very, very difficult, and this bad bail reform across the country, in our urban areas especially, have made it so you can't rely on law enforcement and the police will even tell you run first, set up your system, set up all the people that are going to help you and then think about law enforcement. That's the point we're at with bad bail reform.

Speaker 2:

That's incredibly sad. What do you see as the next step to fix what's going on?

Speaker 3:

Well, you're seeing rollbacks, like in New York. They've rolled back their bad reform three or four times now. So you're seeing recognition that it's not working. I'm very hopeful because what is going on is not sustainable. Crime is increasing. Look at shoplifting in California Businesses are closing. They can't withstand $25, increasing. Look at shoplifting in California Businesses are closing. They can't withstand $25,000 a day in shoplifting. Look at the value of commercial properties San Francisco properties were selling for 30% 50% of what they were worth four years ago, two years ago. I mean the default rate on commercial properties in San Francisco has gone from 5% to 40%. That's not sustainable.

Speaker 3:

I mean you've already seen mayors calling for change. I think there will be a push for change eventually. The problem we have is this identity politics, and politics has just overcome or overtaken the whole issue of law enforcement and criminal justice. And we have to get I mean I know there's to a certain extent, there's always politics in it, but we have to this hyper-political atmosphere that we live in. We have to get it out of the system.

Speaker 3:

You know, and the problem is, you know we are using racial language, but the minority groups they say they're wanting to help are the ones that are getting hurt the most Because when crime goes up it goes up much faster in a minority community and we've seen that. I mean there's some statistics that out of Minnesota and you know the Minnesota governors, the vice presidential candidate on one of the parties there's an article about where he's failed black lives, you know black communities by like 80% is the number that crime has increased in their communities as a result of policies that he set in place on, you know, bad bail reform versus, you know, the rest of the racial groups 20 percent or other areas 20 percent.

Speaker 3:

So you know he's he's doing things in the name of helping and it and he won't even acknowledge that it's actually hurting the very groups that he's claiming he wants to help.

Speaker 2:

Wow, and that's so when you come down to talking about, you know the DAs that are getting in with the, you know strings being pulled. Is this the political parties that are pulling those strings to not do the enhancements, not put people in jail when they need to be put in jail?

Speaker 3:

We have one group that is kind of funding district attorney candidates nationwide and they're still going into these areas and they're selecting them and you know George Soros is behind it and he has another group where. So you, he goes like I mean, there's a really good example in Harris County. So the sitting DA in Harris County is a Democrat. She was initially supported with his support and then she, when she got elected, she was invited to some seminars that another group that he supports puts on and it's presented to them as really is a quid pro quo. We've elected you, here's what we want. You will not do enhancements, you will not seek long sentences, you will not prosecute minors, you will not do this, you will not do that, and it's a big, long list. Well, when she came up for reelection four years ago, she said I can't do this and so they're okay, you're not progressive enough for us. So they didn't support her and gave some money to her opponent. She still got reelected.

Speaker 3:

This time they put $4 million in her primary to her opponent and she lost. And you know the opponent says you know, I just think this George Soros guy, he gets a bad rap. He's a really good guy and I'm like, okay, well, if you get elected, she's saying she's not going to follow those policies because they're bad and they cause crime to increase. He's saying he's absolutely I mean he's been elected by them or he's been elected to the primary by them he's probably the most likely person to get arrested in the general unless things change. Arrested in the general unless things change. And so if he gets reelected, you would just say crime's going to increase in Harris County because he's going to follow these quid pro quos from George Soros.

Speaker 2:

So wow and there's. Without changing how the funding happens. We're stuck in a cycle, like we were, like you said, from the 60s to the 80s. So we're destined to repeat history.

Speaker 3:

We are, and you know we've seen this already just in a short period of time. We've got DAs in California that were arrested under this. You know plan Gascon only got you know he's on the board of this group that's on these seminars he only got 25 percent of the vote when he ran for reelection. In his primary he still made it to the general, but he only got 25 percent of the vote. So you would not expect him to win in the general election. And there's been one or two, a couple of DAs that have been supported by this group that have been removed from office. There's another one that's got a petition for removal pending move from office. There's another one that's got a petition for removal pending. So I mean, these policies are not supported by the public. But you know, with money come strings and so far they've been working.

Speaker 2:

Wow Well, is there anything? What would be like that individuals would do? Would you just watch for the reforms to come up and vote for the reform would do.

Speaker 3:

Will you just watch for the reforms to come up and vote for the reform? Well, I think what you do right now is you vote solely on crime. I mean, you can't vote for a party that is going to agree to policies that are going to increase crime. The problem that we have right now is they realize that these are really bad issues for them, so they've now they'll misrepresent them. And look at the national election. Right now You've got one party that has changed their candidate for president and now she has attempted to go and completely change every policy position she's ever set out since the last time she ran for election, I mean just in the last two days. You know she's not saying it, but her staff are saying she now supports a border wall, but when you look at it, she's not in support of any additional funding. She's now in approval to use the funding that Trump approved for it to actually build. I mean it's just crazy. It's an attempt to co-opt all of the issues of the other party and then run on personality.

Speaker 3:

So they want to make this a personality election and they think they win and they might, they might, but it's going to be very difficult to govern under that strategy and so if she were to win and then reverse herself on those policies, go back to her old policy, it would be ungovernable. I mean, the people will never forgive her, and so it'll be interesting to see what happens the next two months, but I think it's going to be very ugly. I mean, I read an article saying it's going to get really, really ugly between now and the election.

Speaker 3:

What did you see? Yesterday Trump got re-indicted and so, yeah, we don't want indictments to influence elections. So two months, three months, four months before an election, we did an indictment. So that kind of shows you whether somebody is trying to influence an election or not.

Speaker 2:

Right, yeah, it's an absolute mess. But you know, like 20 years ago in elections you could go to New Hampshire and say something and then go to Georgia and say something different. You have, you know, craft your message to whatever the locals want to hear and we didn't have social media to catch up. You know, immediately on it and fact check.

Speaker 3:

But we did have the national media that would be pushing both sides, be pushing both sides. What's difficult to understand now is it looks like we have a national media that is in bed with one party. They don't care. I mean they don't care that one candidate running for president has not had an interview and has not been pushed on the issues at all. They haven't had one interview. I mean, they've just got to give speeches. They give prepared speeches and the reason you know the speculation on the reason why is because she's terrible at that and so they're trying to protect her and run out the clock. And so I don't know. I mean, you know they have looked at all the numbers and they've tried to figure out the best way they can win and they look like this is what their strategy is.

Speaker 3:

So we'll see, we'll see. I don't know if that will work. I mean, this strategy assumes that the American people are very dumb and that we're so much into identity politics that that overcomes everything else.

Speaker 3:

I don't think that. I don't think that works. I don't think that's true. I don't believe the American public is dumb. It may work today, but I don't think it works long term. And if you get elected by light and then the public thinks that you're lying, you're not, you're not going to have any support and how is anybody ever going to believe you again?

Speaker 1:

So but I don't think they care.

Speaker 3:

I mean, I think whoever is making the decision to think, well, if she won't work, we'll just get us another one that we think will.

Speaker 1:

So I mean, is that where?

Speaker 3:

we are. If you listen to RFK, you know the Kennedy that just dropped out of the election. He would say that is what they think and that's the reason why he has endorsed Trump. So I don't know.

Speaker 2:

Yeah, it is a messy time to be involved in all that. It's crazy and the news being completely separate, it's difficult. I think you're right. I think we, as American people, have to pay attention and if an opportunity comes up to see not necessarily in the hot button issues, but on crime and you know educate ourselves on what is causing it to increase. Is it bail reform? Are they repealing that? Can we vote on that, like the? What do you call it? Prop 47 in California? Be aware of those things, because we're the ones that are going to get a pay in the long run with the increased crime.

Speaker 3:

That's exactly right. I mean, you know, the crime issue and the immigration issue are very similar because the policy of the federal government is the same on both. They want less criminal laws, fewer criminal laws, they want more simple release. They don't want people held accountable, and the same thing they want open borders. I don't know, I think they're for pretty similar reasons, but neither of those are sustainable. And so we've got one party that I think they both realize that it's not sustainable, but one party. We used to live in a time where it was country above all else, and so the parties would give us a candidate that was at least competent. I don't think we have that right now we have. Getting elected is over and above everything else, yeah.

Speaker 2:

I have friends that used to say it's all about choosing the lesser of two evils. It's not really good choices anymore, I agree with that.

Speaker 3:

I mean, I think that's the way the politicians are casting the elections now, and part of that is we've gotten rid of the middle of our country.

Speaker 3:

So you know, anytime somebody's elected, the first thing that they do for the first year is get rid of or undo all the policies of their predecessor. We've never had that before until we got I think until after Obama that we started. Oh, we've got to take apart what they did, and it's because we got rid of the middle of the country. We now are ruling on the extremes, and we need to. I mean, the problem is the money's on the extremes, and so we need there's. I don't know how we draw the money back to the middle.

Speaker 2:

Yeah, true, we shall see. This has been incredibly interesting. I'm I especially about the domestic violence. I love, I love what you're talking about and I'll definitely be watching, you know, and I hope the listeners will be watching, to see if you have an opportunity to fight and vote against this. You're repealing the mail reforms. Definitely do that. What would be okay? We want to make sure that we promote your book, and then where can my listeners reach out to you and connect with you?

Speaker 3:

Well, if people want more information about our group, you can go to pbtxcom, which is the Professional Bondsman of Texas. That is our website. We have a blog where we highlight important news in the criminal justice arena. We also have our own podcast. There's a link to it on our menu, but you can also go just to thebellpostcom, and all we talk about there are criminal justice issues. Our goal is to educate lawmakers and also to educate the public, so, like if you want to know what the New Jersey plan is, if your state's talking about adopting the New Jersey plan, we have an episode on what is the New Jersey plan and you know what are charitable bail funds, why are they, why are legislatures starting to take actions against them and why is this happening? And in many, many more topics we're in the middle of season two.

Speaker 2:

Okay, excellent, I'll definitely include that. We'll include that link in the show notes so you guys can catch up with him and Goshkin. Thank you so much for your time. This has been so enlightening. I appreciate your time today.

Speaker 3:

Sure. Thank you very much for having me.

Speaker 4:

Thanks for joining me today for this episode. As we wrap up, I'd love for you to do two things. First, subscribe to this podcast so you don't miss an episode, and if you find value here, I'd love it if you would rate it and review it. That really does make a difference in helping other people to discover this podcast. Second, you can connect with me on LinkedIn to keep up with what I'm currently learning and thinking about. And if you're ready to take the next step with a digital strategist to help you grow your law firm, I'd be honored to help you. Just go to lawmarketingzonecom to book a call with me. Stay tuned for our next episode next week. Until then, as always, thanks for listening to Leadership in Law podcast and be sure to subscribe wherever you listen to podcasts so you don't miss the next episode.

Speaker 1:

Thanks for joining us on another episode of the Leadership in Law podcast. Remember you're not alone on this journey. There's a whole community of law firm owners out there facing similar challenges and striving for the same success. Head over to our website at lawmarketingzonecom. From there, connect with other listeners, access valuable resources and stay up to date on the latest episodes. Don't forget to subscribe and leave us a review on your favorite podcast platform. Until next time, keep leading with vision and keep growing your firm.