News (Media Awareness Project) - US NC: Bail Bondsman Sues Union Sheriff |
Title: | US NC: Bail Bondsman Sues Union Sheriff |
Published On: | 2002-09-21 |
Source: | Charlotte Observer (NC) |
Fetched On: | 2008-01-22 00:55:22 |
BAIL BONDSMAN SUES UNION SHERIFF
Charles Mathis Says Years of Harassment Has Damaged His Business
MONROE - A bail bondsman has sued the Union County Sheriff's Office
for more than $50 million, alleging seven years of harassment has
damaged his bond business.
The 195-page suit, filed in Charlotte's U.S. District Court in late
August, outlines 208 counts arising from more than 30 alleged
incidents beginning in 1995 and culminating in a July raid of the
bondsman's home to search for drugs.
Charles Timothy Mathis, 37, of Monroe names Sheriff Frank McGuirt, 30
other members of the Sheriff's Office, plus 18 unnamed deputies, two
insurance companies and another local bondsman. He alleges that their
actions range from trespassing and slander to civil rights violations,
assault and racketeering.
McGuirt said he cannot discuss the details of any pending legal action
but rejects the case's claims. "It is totally without merit ...
totally malicious and certainly nothing we are concerned about because
there's nothing to it," he said.
His office plans to counter-sue to recover the county's expenses in
defending the case, he said. He added that lawsuits come with the job
of being sheriff: "I've had numerous cases and I've never lost one."
"They can call it frivolous," Mathis responded. "I can back up
everything I have on paper. Everything else I have on tape." The
former private investigator said he has been taping all his
conversations with sheriff's officials to document what he calls
systematic attempts to reduce his business.
Mathis said he wrote 1,341 bail bonds in 2000. He estimates that 90
percent were in Union County. In 2001, he wrote 614 bonds, and said
only half originated in his home county. He blames the drop in
business on McGuirt.
Although most of the charges arise from Mathis' business interactions
with the Sheriff's Office, the recent drug raid forms a large part of
the case.
Mathis said he and his lawyer, Aaron Michel, had worked on the suit
for months before the drug raid. The plaintiffs list now includes his
wife, two kids and the families of three children, who were sleeping
over at the Mathis home that night.
The suit says deputies stormed the home to search for drugs,
handcuffed his wife, and pointed guns at the five children, ages 7 to
11.
A judge authorized the raid based on tips from a confidential
informant that marijuana was sold at the Mathis home, the arrest
warrant said. The warrant also said deputies set up a drug buy on July
10 in which an informant allegedly drove to Mathis' home and bought a
bag of marijuana from him.
Mathis denies there was a drug purchase.
The search warrant indicates that deputies did not find drugs at the
residence in the raid. No drug charges have been filed against Mathis,
District Attorney Kenneth Honeycutt said. McGuirt said he could not
comment on the raid, nor why charges have not been filed.
Parents of the three visiting children, Michelle Barnette and Jodi
Livengood, both of Concord, said their children are still upset by the
raid. "My daughter's been scared to death since this happened,"
Barnette said. "This should never have happened to her."
Other allegations accuse the Sheriff's Office of targeting Mathis'
bond business. The suit says the office filed false complaints against
him, refused to release inmates to his custody and banned him from the
secure area of the Union County Jail, where bondsmen can interact with
inmates.
A sign posted in the county jail states that Mathis cannot enter the
secure area of the facility, McGuirt said. It reads that Mathis may
conduct business in the public area of the jail, speak to inmates over
the phone and then receive inmates who are released.
"I did direct that to be posted because he violated numerous rules and
regulations of bondsmen," McGuirt said. "I can't permit that. The
security of the jail and the security of the public was at stake ...
Mr. Mathis does not play by the rules."
McGuirt added: "He hasn't been denied his rights. He hasn't been yet
and certainly won't be in the future."
Charles Mathis Says Years of Harassment Has Damaged His Business
MONROE - A bail bondsman has sued the Union County Sheriff's Office
for more than $50 million, alleging seven years of harassment has
damaged his bond business.
The 195-page suit, filed in Charlotte's U.S. District Court in late
August, outlines 208 counts arising from more than 30 alleged
incidents beginning in 1995 and culminating in a July raid of the
bondsman's home to search for drugs.
Charles Timothy Mathis, 37, of Monroe names Sheriff Frank McGuirt, 30
other members of the Sheriff's Office, plus 18 unnamed deputies, two
insurance companies and another local bondsman. He alleges that their
actions range from trespassing and slander to civil rights violations,
assault and racketeering.
McGuirt said he cannot discuss the details of any pending legal action
but rejects the case's claims. "It is totally without merit ...
totally malicious and certainly nothing we are concerned about because
there's nothing to it," he said.
His office plans to counter-sue to recover the county's expenses in
defending the case, he said. He added that lawsuits come with the job
of being sheriff: "I've had numerous cases and I've never lost one."
"They can call it frivolous," Mathis responded. "I can back up
everything I have on paper. Everything else I have on tape." The
former private investigator said he has been taping all his
conversations with sheriff's officials to document what he calls
systematic attempts to reduce his business.
Mathis said he wrote 1,341 bail bonds in 2000. He estimates that 90
percent were in Union County. In 2001, he wrote 614 bonds, and said
only half originated in his home county. He blames the drop in
business on McGuirt.
Although most of the charges arise from Mathis' business interactions
with the Sheriff's Office, the recent drug raid forms a large part of
the case.
Mathis said he and his lawyer, Aaron Michel, had worked on the suit
for months before the drug raid. The plaintiffs list now includes his
wife, two kids and the families of three children, who were sleeping
over at the Mathis home that night.
The suit says deputies stormed the home to search for drugs,
handcuffed his wife, and pointed guns at the five children, ages 7 to
11.
A judge authorized the raid based on tips from a confidential
informant that marijuana was sold at the Mathis home, the arrest
warrant said. The warrant also said deputies set up a drug buy on July
10 in which an informant allegedly drove to Mathis' home and bought a
bag of marijuana from him.
Mathis denies there was a drug purchase.
The search warrant indicates that deputies did not find drugs at the
residence in the raid. No drug charges have been filed against Mathis,
District Attorney Kenneth Honeycutt said. McGuirt said he could not
comment on the raid, nor why charges have not been filed.
Parents of the three visiting children, Michelle Barnette and Jodi
Livengood, both of Concord, said their children are still upset by the
raid. "My daughter's been scared to death since this happened,"
Barnette said. "This should never have happened to her."
Other allegations accuse the Sheriff's Office of targeting Mathis'
bond business. The suit says the office filed false complaints against
him, refused to release inmates to his custody and banned him from the
secure area of the Union County Jail, where bondsmen can interact with
inmates.
A sign posted in the county jail states that Mathis cannot enter the
secure area of the facility, McGuirt said. It reads that Mathis may
conduct business in the public area of the jail, speak to inmates over
the phone and then receive inmates who are released.
"I did direct that to be posted because he violated numerous rules and
regulations of bondsmen," McGuirt said. "I can't permit that. The
security of the jail and the security of the public was at stake ...
Mr. Mathis does not play by the rules."
McGuirt added: "He hasn't been denied his rights. He hasn't been yet
and certainly won't be in the future."
Member Comments |
No member comments available...