I'm Going To Teach You Guys Something: How To Get A Lawmaker Out Of Office Legally

bottom line, if they have a surety bond, you can put in a claim against it, if the lawmaker/official has violated his oath of office. complete a foia/rtk form (freedom of information act & right to know) requesting this info. they have to provide it. once you have this info put in a claim with their surety bond comp. when they pay out they go after lawmaker for the money. personally held accountable. then they drop him. is hes dropped he cant serve he wont get bonded again. lawmaker doesnt need to be fired, or tried in court. and yes its been done and it is that simple







when you read thru this --it gets complicated. a lot of states moved to a blanket insurance policy.

surety bond holds them personally accountable.
insurance blanket depends on how its written -- in most cases doesnt. <--and thats on purpose. <--if the lawmaker is covered under the insurance blanket, you cant put in a claim, unless the policy coverage allows it which if im not mistaken some 15 states you cant. ask 'why'??? uh huh. that protects their criminal asses.

been looking for a loop hole to slip thru bc i believe in PA we cant put in claims against them bc the insurance policy excludes 33rd party claims. been waiting near 30 days for this policy.

bc as you all know - ive been auditing the states unemployment re senator mastriano, and the funds not only insolvent - they STOLE the covid money too.

if you have a corrupt pollie in your state/county/muni - find out if theyre bonded. you can remove them if they violated their oath of office. need proof. if you out in a claim, the surety pays out. if lawmaker is bonded say 400k & surety pays out they go after lawmaker for that money. theyu will DROP HIM FROM COVERAGE. if hes not bonded he cannot serve!!

school boards shit when we do this. sheriffs, constables, treasurers - et al etc.

if you need help just holler and i can guide you. but read thru this stuff. you need to know how the govt pollie system works. you just dont have to vote them out, or impeach them or recall them you can pull their bond.

this includes school board, muni's, sheriff, constable
state representatives, senators
check out who is bonded.

i want you'se to understand the terminology and differences between the bond + insurance. thats important

**pdf is long - within 50% of each link**

The Public Officials Bond—A Statutory Obligation
Requiring “Faithful Performance,” “Fidelity,”
and Flexibility

This relatively generic term relates to bonds that
are issued by the public official and the surety jointly in favor of the governmental entity that the public official serves. These bonds are commonly required by statute and create a three-party relationship more common in the context of surety bonds. Also frequently discussed in the context of public officials are public employee dishonesty coverages and ,similar fidelity policies. These instruments typically include the traditional two-party relationship where the insurer issues a policy or bond agreeing with the insured to indemnify the insured for certain losses arising from the dishonesty or other enumerated conduct of its employees. The distinctions in terminology and coverages are important when considering and addressing the issues that arise upon the insured or assured public entity’s loss arising from the conduct of a covered public official or employee.

A public officials bond refers to an instrument “by which a
public officer and a secondary obligor undertake to pay up to a fixed sum of money if the officer does not faithfully discharge the duties of his or her office.”

1. A statutory public officials bond is thus a public officials bond mandated by statute. Black’s Law Dictionary defines “official bond” as “a bond given by a public officer, conditioned on the faithful performance of the duties of office.”
2. In the three-party surety structure,
the public official is the principal, the bonding company is the surety (sometimes called the secondary obligor), and the government or, in many cases, the public being served by the official is the obligee.

Statutory bond requirements are found within the individual state codes.
3. They are typically interspersed throughout the code, although there is typically a “Public Officials” or “Public Office” chapter that has the general bond requirements and procedures as well as the authority for
the issuance of such bonds.

4. there are a multitude of bonds that are
either required or authorized under the various state statutes. In general, bonds for public officials that are required by statute (hereinafter, “Official Bond” or “Public Officials bond”) are mandatory for all elected and most public officials. This can range from the governor to local school board members. Statutes may require an
Official Bond for an individual public official or may allow a blanket bond for a group of officials, such as the members of the board of directors. Depending on the statutory language, an Official Bond may be a “faithful performance bond,” “fidelity bond,” “public employees blanket bond,” or “public employee dishonesty policy.” While “faithful performance” bonds are by far the most common Official Bonds, the others may also be statutorily required.

What Does the Bond Protect Against?
The Public Officials bond is commonly issued to protect against conduct or omissions by the named public official that constitutes a breach of the public official’s duties of office. As is discussed in more detail below, these bonds guarantee against more than the public official’s fraud or dishonesty and, in certain cases, can cover loss arising from neglect or omissions.

Who Does the Bond Protect?
A Public Officials bond may be issued for the benefit of the
governmental unit in which the principal holds office, but also it can provide coverage to the general public. 12 The Bond is “in the nature of an Indemnity Bond rather than a Penal or Forfeiture Bond; it is, in effect, a contract between the officer and the government, binding the officer to discharge the duties of his or her office.” 13 The Official Bond is not intended to protect the principal or the public official himself but rather is intended to protect the city or the entire citizenship served by the
official. The Official Bond indemnifies those who have suffered a loss as a result of the official’s misconduct, and in many cases the state statute will include a provision specifically allowing a member of the public to
bring suit against the bond, if that individual has suffered a loss resulting from the official’s misconduct.

almost all satisfy the general purpose of requiring an official to issue a bond for the faithful performance of his or her duties.16 An Official Bond is taken “as assurance of compliance with the law.” 17 It is designed to ensure that the official or employee will faithfully perform his or her duties while in office

A fidelity bond is one designed to guarantee honesty. It typically consists of a contract “whereby one agrees, for consideration, to indemnify another against a loss arising from the want of honesty, integrity, or fidelity of an employee or other person holding a position of
trust.

Bonding companies typically define “fidelity bonds” as guaranteeing the honesty of employees and any losses arising from the dishonest actions of its employees

It can be issued as an individual bond for a specific public official, or, if the statutes so allow, it can come in the form of an employee blanket bond, covering all employees of a designated office or department. Although the states
often use “fidelity bond” and “faithful performance bond”
interchangeably, there is in fact a distinction between providing fidelity coverage and providing faithful performance coverage.

Simply put, a fidelity bond indemnifies a loss whereas a faithful performance bond guarantees the faithful performance of duties

even tho this is TN its definitions are applicable
[link to www.tn.gov (secure)]

i just want to introduce the terms and definitions.

The choice among risk management tools can be seen as a decision about who will be liable for losses
resulting from the actions of public officials, the official or the taxpayer. Surety bonds make the public
official personally liable for losses. The various forms of insurance do not. A public official surety bond
is a contract between three parties in which one party (the surety, a bond or insurance company)
guarantees a second party (the obligee, a city or county) that a third party (the principal, a public
official) will successfully perform his or her legal obligations. These bonds hold the principal personally
liable for not faithfully performing the duties of office. There are two main types of public official surety
bonds, individual surety bonds and blanket surety bonds. As the names suggest, individual surety
bonds provide coverage for a single officer, while blanket surety bonds cover a group of officers. With
both types, the official owes a duty of indemnification to the surety if the surety makes payment under the bond

Most states require individual surety bonds for their county officials, and several allow for some form of
blanket bond coverage in place of individual bond requirements. States’ laws rarely define the term
“blanket surety bond” or “blanket bond,” and the phrase “blanket bond” is sometimes confusingly used
to refer to a two-party contract that does not create an obligation on the part of the principal. When
used in this manner, the contract is not a surety bond; it is insurance

A handful of states allow for some form of insurance to be used in place of an official bond requirement.
Insurance transfers the risk of loss from one party (e.g., a city or county) to another (e.g., an insurance
company) in exchange for payment (premium). Insurance itself does not hold the official personally
liable but transfers liability to the insurance company or insurance pool and, if the specific act is not
covered, ultimately the taxpayer. Further, with insurance, taxpayers cover the cost of deductibles as
well as premium payments. While surety bonds hold public officials personally responsible, and
therefore provide an incentive to properly perform the duties of office, insurance policies do not

^^^^pennsylvania is one of these states. lawmakers are covered under a blanket bond.

Blanket Surety Bonds
Blanket surety bonds establish a three-party relationship with personal liability remaining with
the official for any claims against the bond. Unfortunately, confusion is often created because the phrase “blanket bond” is sometimes used to refer to a two-party insurance contract, which does not create an obligation on the part of the official. For example, Tennessee Code Annotated, Section 4-4-108, requires a “blanket surety bond” to cover certain state-level officers and employees, but an insurance policy is used

Twenty-three states allow some form of blanket coverage instead of individual surety bonds.
Two states, New Hampshire and Virginia, require only blanket coverage.23 Of these, only Virginia and Georgia appear to require surety bonds. Virginia buys a blanket surety bond that covers multiple state and local officers, conditioned on faithful performance of their duties,
and holds them individually accountable by allowing the company selling the bond to recover any claim paid to the state because of the failure of any office holder to faithfully perform his or her duties.

Several counties in Georgia have taken advantage of the opportunity to use blanket surety bonds to meet their individual surety bond requirements. Georgia law makes clear that blanket bonds must be in surety form with the official personally liable for claims against the bond. The Augusta-Richmond County director explained their blanket surety bond is in surety form with the official held liable for repayment of anything the surety company pays out on claims and that coverage remains the same as with the individual
surety bond. Coverage is limited to those acts that the
official (1) personally benefits financially from the act complained of; or (2) was personally aware of and had actual knowledge of the act complained of; had actual knowledge that the act was illegal, contrary to law, or the breach of a duty imposed by law; and either acted to cause or failed to prevent the act complained of

Insurance as an Alternative to Surety Bonds
The use of other forms of risk management in place of individual public official surety bonds is not entirely novel. Other states have had alternative methods of risk management in place for years. The use of insurance to cover this risk, . In addition to insurance, alternative methods include insurance pools and self-insurance.

Comparison to Surety Bonds
Insurance policies that cover a group of officials would be easier to acquire than individual
surety bonds for each official. The application process for surety bonds requires an investigation into the financial background of the official being bonded, typically with more
investigation for larger bonds. The public official being bonded must complete a surety bond form at the statutorily defined dollar amount and file it with the appropriate office. An insurance policy covering a group of those officials would likely be easier to acquire because
insurance companies do not typically investigate the individuals. With insurance, individuals
are not investigated; the experience of the entire organization is considered instead. The insurance premium is based on that experience and the amount of coverage desired or required. Unlike individual surety bonds, insurance assumes losses will occur and is a mechanism to set money aside through premiums to cover them.

While surety bonds are written in favor
of the governmental entity, insurance is written in favor of the insurance company with many exclusions and exemptions.

The biggest concern with allowing the use of insurance in place of individual surety bonds is
the difference in how they assign risk. With insurance coverage, risk is transferred from the individual and the official would no longer have any “skin in the game.” In general, surety bonds make people individually accountable, while insurance does not. A surety bond will not be issued until the individual has been investigated, and the price of the bond will depend on what the investigation reveals. In fact, the bonding company may refuse to issue a bond if they
consider the risk too great. In other words, everything depends on the individual.

There are a number of other general differences between surety bonds and insurance policies.
\
i wantcha's to see this
the government as well as the public can file a claim against the official’s surety bond. By contrast, under an insurance policy, unless third-party recoveries are specifically allowed by the policy, only the insured will be able to recover for a loss

[link to imgur.com (secure)]

https://imgur.com/a/mSCXspL

[link to imgur.com (secure)]

https://imgur.com/a/iaCB6sp

[link to imgur.com (secure)]

https://imgur.com/a/ehxYceE

Crime or Dishonesty Insurance
The first two options offered by the bill are similar. Crime insurance, commonly referred to as
fidelity insurance, typically protects organizations from loss of money, securities, or inventory
resulting from crime. Claims often allege employee dishonesty, embezzlement, forgery, robbery, safe burglary, computer fraud, wire transfer fraud, counterfeiting, and other criminal acts. Employee dishonesty insurance typically covers theft of money, securities, or property,
and is usually written with a per loss limit, a per employee limit, or a per position limit.

Obviously, there is considerable overlap in what these two types of insurance cover, and the phrases are sometimes used interchangeably. Individuals cannot insure themselves against their own intentional unlawful acts. Consequently, with a crime or dishonesty policy, the governmental entity would be the insured and not the official. The cost of crime or dishonesty insurance would likely be less than that of a bond; however, the coverage would also be less. For example, the typical crime- or dishonesty-type policy would not provide coverage for negligence or faithful performance of duties unless specific endorsements for those types of coverage were added to the policy, which could increase the price. Even if those endorsements were included, there would be exemptions and exclusions,
thus limiting overall coverage.

Six states allow some form of crime insurance to be used in place of an official bond requirement. Four of the states—California, Colorado, Idaho, and Indiana—specifically require crime insurance to be used. Indiana requires that the crime insurance include an endorsement for “faithful performance.” Pennsylvania allows “crime-fidelity” insurance endorsed for “faithful performance” to be used in place of the individual bond. Utah allows a “fidelity bond or theft and crime insurance” to be used in instead of the individual bond requirements

Insurance Equivalent to Surety Bond Coverage
The third option offered by the bill, “equivalent coverage that insures the faithful performance by officials and their employees of their fiduciary duties and responsibilities,” would appear to make insurance equivalent to surety bonds. It does not, because the public official is not made
accountable by it. In order to recover losses by the public official, the insurance carrier or the governmental entity would have to press charges or take him to court. That issue aside, to provide equal coverage, multiple endorsements for various types of coverage would have to be
included in the policy and, like a surety bond, it would have to have no deductible. Since this specific type of insurance coverage has not been used in Tennessee, at best, only an estimate could be made on the cost of initial premiums. Insurance agents and state officials
interviewed have indicated that the initial premiums could be high because there is no market experience in Tennessee with this particular type of insurance product and that, even if such a policy could be written and found in the marketplace, it would probably be prohibitively
expensive.

Insurance Pools
was created to allow governmental entities to enter into “pooling” agreements to manage their liability exposure Governmental Tort Liability Act. Pooling
agreements allow the member entities to transfer their exposure for financial losses to the group as a whole in return for payments to the pool. In effect, they are privately held insurance companies, owned by the members, and not regulated by the state. The services related to the transfer of that risk are provided by the new entity, the pool, or by third parties (underwriters, excess carriers, etc.) retained by the pool. The governmental entity and
taxpayers become liable for any losses not covered by the pool, and the public official no longer has any “skin in the game.

Pools are created and regulated differently from state-to-state, with some states regulating pools like insurance. State insurance regulation typically has four objectives: (1) ensuring that consumers are charged fair and reasonable prices for insurance products; (2) protecting the
solvency of insurers; (3) preventing unfair practices and overreaching by insurers; and (4) guaranteeing the availability of coverage to the public. Using pools to provide coverage creates additional risks. The members of a pool have joint and several liability, meaning responsibility for each other’s claims in proportion to the payments made to the pool or as the pooling agreement states.

Pools are allowed to provide coverage in place of surety bonds for officials in six states.
Arkansas established a state-run, statewide pool that provides coverage for all state and local officials in place of the previously required surety bonds. Their pool covers only losses up to $250,000 caused by fraudulent or dishonest acts, and not the faithful performance of duties.
North Dakota’s State Bonding Fund operates as a pool to provide coverage for public officials. Idaho allows counties and cities to provide coverage through an insurance pool instead of using individual surety bonds. The Idaho County Risk Management Program is a member-owned local-government insurance pool that includes endorsements for faithful performance, which is broader than Arkansas’s coverage. Georgia, Maine, and New Jersey all allow different types
of insurance pools to provide coverage as a substitute for official bond

Self-insurance—an Option Offered in Other States
Self-insurance, setting aside funds to cover potential future losses, is another risk management
tool—while not specifically mentioned in the bill—that is used in other states. Four states allow
self-insurance as a substitute for individual bonds for county officials. California, Illinois,
Louisiana, and Texas allow local governments to use self-insurance in place of surety bonds
[link to www.tn.gov (secure)]


Insurance as an Alternative to Surety Bonds for Public Officials

the consensus of the Commission is that Senate Bill 624 is not needed, at least not in its current form. It is not clear that it would provide the
same safeguards as Tennessee’s individual surety bond requirements, particularly as they relate to holding individual office-holders accountable.
The Commission would, however, endorse a provision allowing blanket coverage that is the equivalent of the individual surety bonds currently required, which could be less expensive and easier to administer. For
example, the State of Virginia buys a bond that covers multiple officers, is conditioned on faithful performance of their duties, and holds them
individually accountable by allowing the company selling the bond to recover any claim paid to the state because of the failure of any office holder to faithfully perform his or her duties. Appendix D includes a copy
of Virginia’s blanket surety bond. Georgia authorizes county governments to purchase similar bonds. Appendix E includes an example of how this might be done.
[link to www.tn.gov (secure)]

Last Edited by Phennommennonn on 08/04/2022 05:29 PM