Close Menu
Fund Focus News
    Facebook X (Twitter) Instagram
    Trending
    • Freetrade looks to shake up the mutual funds market
    • Reps move to protect private investments from ‘adversarial unionism’ after Dangote Refinery strike
    • Investors pull cash from CLO ETFs in biggest outflow since April
    • Dynamic announces October 2025 cash distributions for Dynamic Active ETFs and ETF Series
    • The Celebrity Traitors cast closest bonds and secret connections outside of castle
    • Special Situation Funds rise as India’s next growth driver, turning stressed assets into opportunity
    • How One Board Sparked A Fundraising Shift
    • Bitcoin investors flee ETFs to the tune of $1bn as volatility spikes
    Facebook X (Twitter) Instagram
    Fund Focus News
    • Home
    • Bonds
    • ETFs
    • Funds
    • Investments
    • Mutual Funds
    • Property Investments
    • SIP
    Fund Focus News
    Home»Bonds»Federal judge orders Bozeman municipal court to take disputed bonds • Daily Montanan
    Bonds

    Federal judge orders Bozeman municipal court to take disputed bonds • Daily Montanan

    October 29, 2024


    A federal judge has issued a preliminary injunction and order that will force the Bozeman Municipal Court to accept the bail bonds of Helena-based Bad Boy Bail Bonds after two judges refused to honor them.

    John J. Looney, Sr., the owner of Bad Boy Bail Bonds, had originally taken his case to several district courts in the state, hoping to resolve the conflict, before moving on to federal court where district court Judge Donald W. Molloy has signed off on a preliminary injunction that orders two Bozeman municipal court judges, Carolina Tierney and Colleen Herrington, to accept Looney’s bonds, or resolve any objections within 48 hours.

    The case began more than four years ago when another business by the same name issued a $1,585 bond which was forfeited. Looney had since bought the rights to the company name, but not the bonding business. However, the Municipal court demanded payment from Looney, who protested that his business was not responsible for issuing the bond.

    Looney later filed a complaint with the Judicial Standards Commission, the state board that oversees judges’ conduct, alleging the judges were unfairly harming his business. In an effort to salvage his business in Gallatin County, Looney paid the bond, but emails records show that Tierney and Herrington would not lift the sanction unless he removed the complaint, something he was unwilling to do, which led to a flurry of filings in state and federal court.

    Looney has continued to push for vindication at the Judicial Standards Commission, although that process is confidential pending a final ruling by the board.

    The stipulated injunction was signed by Molloy last Friday, just days before a preliminary hearing in which the two municipal court judges could have been called to testify about their actions on the bench, an exceedingly rare event.

    In the stipulated order, which will stay in place pending the final outcome of the federal court case, Looney and Bad Boy Bail Bonds will be allowed to file bonds in Bozeman and Gallatin County. Looney will follow all state laws, but if there is a problem with any bond he issues, the judges must raise those within two business days and they will be resolved by the attorneys representing Tierney and Herrington, and lawyer Matthew Monforton, who represents Looney.

    As of Tuesday, Monforton said he wasn’t sure if Looney or his agents had issued any bail bonds in Gallatin County, but Monforton said he’s sent a copy of the federal court’s order to the Gallatin County Attorney and the Gallatin County Detention facility. Monforton said he also sent the same to Yellowstone County because there was a question whether other counties were beginning to reject Looney’s bonds because of problems in Gallatin County.

    The case also raises interesting questions of control of bail bonds. The Montana Constitution says that in most cases, defendants should have the right to bail. Bail bonding companies are overseen by the Montana Auditor and Commissioner of Securities and Insurance. Though the judges had originally filed a complaint with the Auditor’s office about Looney, that complaint was dismissed, and Bad Boy Bail Bonds has remained both active and in good standing, raising the question about whether a judge can reject a bond from a company licensed and in good standing.

    For now, Monforton told the Daily Montanan that Looney is back in business, but that doesn’t necessarily end the court case.

    Because the federal lawsuit alleges that the judges interfered with Looney’s federal constitutional rights, including the freedom of speech when he filed a complaint at the Judicial Standards Commission, the case will continue as he has ask for both compensatory and punitive damages. However, the injunction forcing the municipal court to accept the bonds will remain in place until the conclusion of the case or unless Molloy issues a different order.

    “This is unqualified good news,” Monforton said. “It was clearly a sign that the municipal court judges knew they were wrong.”

    241025 (28) Stipulated Preliminary Injunction



    Source link

    Share. Facebook Twitter Pinterest LinkedIn Tumblr Telegram Email

    Related Posts

    The Celebrity Traitors cast closest bonds and secret connections outside of castle

    October 21, 2025

    ‘Juiced out’ bonds pushing money elsewhere? – Academia

    October 20, 2025

    Bonds rebound as government announces debt buyback

    October 20, 2025
    Leave A Reply Cancel Reply

    Top Posts

    Reps move to protect private investments from ‘adversarial unionism’ after Dangote Refinery strike

    October 21, 2025

    The Shifting Landscape of Art Investment and the Rise of Accessibility: The London Art Exchange

    September 11, 2023

    Charlie Cobham: The Art Broker Extraordinaire Maximizing Returns for High Net Worth Clients

    February 12, 2024

    The Unyielding Resilience of the Art Market: A Historical and Contemporary Perspective

    November 19, 2023
    Don't Miss
    Mutual Funds

    Freetrade looks to shake up the mutual funds market

    October 21, 2025

    Thursday 02 October 2025 8:00 am  |  Updated:  Thursday 02 October 2025 8:09 am Share Facebook…

    Reps move to protect private investments from ‘adversarial unionism’ after Dangote Refinery strike

    October 21, 2025

    Investors pull cash from CLO ETFs in biggest outflow since April

    October 21, 2025

    Dynamic announces October 2025 cash distributions for Dynamic Active ETFs and ETF Series

    October 21, 2025
    Stay In Touch
    • Facebook
    • Twitter
    • Pinterest
    • Instagram
    • YouTube
    • Vimeo
    EDITOR'S PICK

    What if Boeing still becomes the junk bond market’s biggest ‘fallen angel’?

    October 30, 2024

    5 Affordable Places To Buy Property Abroad In 2024

    November 30, 2023

    Exclusive | AIIB to expand global footprint with 20-member office in Hong Kong

    June 26, 2025
    Our Picks

    Freetrade looks to shake up the mutual funds market

    October 21, 2025

    Reps move to protect private investments from ‘adversarial unionism’ after Dangote Refinery strike

    October 21, 2025

    Investors pull cash from CLO ETFs in biggest outflow since April

    October 21, 2025
    Most Popular

    🔥Juve target Chukwuemeka, Inter raise funds, Elmas bid in play 🤑

    August 20, 2025

    💵 Libra responds after Flamengo takes legal action and ‘freezes’ funds

    September 26, 2025

    ₹10,000 monthly SIP in this mutual fund has grown to ₹1.52 crore in 22 years

    September 17, 2025
    © 2025 Fund Focus News
    • Get In Touch
    • Privacy Policy
    • Terms and Conditions

    Type above and press Enter to search. Press Esc to cancel.