.comment-link {margin-left:.6em;}

Thursday, September 29, 2005

 
READER RESPONSE TO JUSTICE TOAL'S COMMENTS AND OUR QUERY

Is the problem the lack of judges or is it the lack of competent judges willing to apply the law coupled with procedural and substantive flaws in the system?
=============================
The number and quality of judges is irrelevant until you first look at the system used to clear judges for appointment to the bench. This is done through the Judicial Merit Selection Commission (JMSC). Who are the people on the JMSC and more importantly how were they selected to be there. Any judge who demonstrates an unwillingness to ‘apply the law’ is in direct violation of their oath of office and has ceased to be a judge. They have abandoned all authority granted to their position, and by their own deeds have become TRESPASSERS.What measures are our legislators willing to take to remove these unauthorized TRESPASSERS from 'our' public property.

# posted by McLaren583 : 5:19 AM

Tuesday, September 27, 2005

 
COMMENTS FROM A READER ON NEWSPAPER ARTICLE

The following comments were sent to us by a reader regarding an article recently appearing in the Post and Courier. The comments were slightly edited for clarity.

_________________________________________________________________

Well -- if [the trial judge and opposing counsel] can't figure out the rules on expungement of criminal records stemming from civil contempt maybe they can address "Relief Under Civil Propcedures.'' (hahahahaha).

SECTION 20-7-420. Jurisdiction of family court in domestic matters.

The family court shall have exclusive jurisdiction:
(25) To modify or vacate any order issued by the court.

DECLARATORY JUDGMENTS SECTION 15-53-20. Courts of record may declare rights, status and other legal relations.

Courts of record within their respective jurisdictions shall have power to declare rights, status and other legal relations whether or not further relief is or could be claimed. No action or proceeding shall be open to objection on the ground that a declaratory judgment or decree is prayed for. The declaration may be either affirmative or negative in form and effect. Such declarations shall have the force and effect of a final judgment or decree.

SECTION 15-53-30. Determination of questions under deed, will, written contract, statute, municipal ordinance, contract or franchise.

Any person interested under a deed, will, written contract or other writings constituting a contract or whose rights, status or other legal relations are affected by a statute, municipal ordinance, contract or franchise may have determined any question of construction or validity arising under the instrument, statute, ordinance, contract or franchise and obtain a declaration of rights, status or other legal relations thereunder.

SECTION 15-53-60. Enumeration is no restriction on general powers.

The enumeration in Sections 15-53-30 to 15-53-50 does not limit or restrict the exercise of the general powers conferred in Section 15-53-20 in any proceeding when declaratory relief is sought in which a judgment or decree will terminate the controversy or remove an uncertainty.
SECTION 15-53-70. Declaratory judgment may be refused.

The court may refuse to render or enter a declaratory judgment or decree when such judgment or decree, if rendered or entered, would not terminate the uncertainty or controversy giving rise to the proceeding.

SECTION 15-53-120. Granting of further relief based on declaratory judgment.

Further relief based on a declaratory judgment or decree may be granted whenever necessary or proper. The application therefore shall be by petition to a court having jurisdiction to grant the relief. If the application be deemed sufficient the court shall, on reasonable notice, require any adverse party whose rights have been adjudicated by the declaratory judgment or decree to show cause why further relief should not be granted forthwith.

SECTION 15-53-130. Chapter shall be construed liberally.

This chapter is declared to be remedial. Its purpose is to settle and to afford relief from uncertainty and insecurity with respect to rights, status and other legal relations. It is to be liberally construed and administered.

RULE 8. (a) Claims for Relief.

A pleading which sets forth a cause of action, whether an original claim, counterclaim, cross-claim, or third-party claim, shall contain (1) a short and plain statement of the grounds including facts and statutes upon which the court's jurisdiction depends, unless the court already has jurisdiction to support it, (2) a short and plain statement of the facts showing that the pleader is entitled to relief, and (3) a prayer or demand for judgment for the relief to which he deems himself entitled. Relief in the alternative or of several different types may be demanded.Why didn't that nincompoop (the trial judge) just refer it over to the solicitor's office for expungement procedures? The solicitor's office is in charge of all criminal proceedings in family court.
SECTION 20-7-8525. Petition for destruction of records. (re.: juvenile records)

YOU MAY ALSO WANT TO LOOK AT THE FOLLOWING:

SECTION 20-7-900. Proceedings where an arrest is made when court is not in session.

If a respondent is arrested under a warrant of the court at a time when the court is not in session, he shall be taken to the most accessible magistrate and arraigned before him. The production of the warrant shall be evidence of the filing of proper information, and the magistrate shall thereupon hold the respondent, admit him to bond, or parole him for trial before the court. All subsequent proceedings shall be had in the court.
SECTION 20-7-910. Bond for support in lieu of punishment.

If the defendant in any proceeding brought under the provisions of Section 20-7-90, either before or after conviction, shall give bond, with one or more sureties approved by the clerk of the court, in the sum of not less than one hundred dollars nor more than three thousand dollars under such terms and conditions as the court in its discretion may deem wise and proper for the maintenance and support of the defendant's wife or minor unmarried child or children, he shall not be imprisoned or the fine imposed unless the condition of such bond is broken.The whole dog and pony show is about VIOLATION OF DUE PROCESS. Violating the due process of everyone that comes within the evil reach of that court IS THEIR BREAD AND BUTTER. It's how they GRAB THE MONEY AND RUN. I have no intention of getting involved in protracted pseudo-diplomatic diatribes about the idiotic possibilities that these criminals may have misunderstood the violations they were engaging in. THEY KNEW. "They are no more than a legislatively created sleazy criminal element," qoute me, please.

 
FAMILY COURT BOGGED DOWN CHIEF JUSTICE SAYS

The following article was in today's Post and Courier. Chief Justice Toal has suggested that part of the problem stems from the need for more Family Court Judges. But, many people maintain that the problem is not a lack of judges, but is a lack of competent judges willing to apply the law coupled with procedural and substantive flaws in the system.

From our perspective, much of the Family Court caseload would dissipate if the Trial Judges both understood and applied the law consistently and fairly.
___________________________________________________________________

Family court bogged down, Toal says

Associated Press

COLUMBIA--South Carolina Chief Justice Jean Toal says the state's family court system is overloaded and too time-consuming for judges.

Toal told a Senate subcommittee considering major reforms in the state's system that the number of judges would have to double to "reasonably process" family court cases that include divorces and child support issues. Lawmakers previously rejected Toal's request for three additional family court judges.

During a recent subcommittee hearing, Barry Knobel, a family court judge in Anderson, said each of the state's 52 family court judges typically hears 4,000 to 5,000 cases a year.

The chief justice said family court judges spend about an average of 20 minutes on any case during a year, and much of the caseload is child support cases brought by the state Department of Social Services.

A committee of family court judges headed by Knobel recently found that South Carolina should use special hearing officers to better process DSS cases, which is done in other states.

Sen. Glenn McConnell, R-Charleston, chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, appointed a subcommittee to study the issues and draft legislation.

Labels:


Friday, September 16, 2005

 
CONSENT ORDER? AGREEMENT? NEITHER!

The South Carolina Court of Appeals has just rendered an Opinion in the case of Widdicombe v. Rachel P. Tucker-Cales f/k/a DuPree. The underlying facts are in dispute and the case is somewhat complex. However, the Opinion has the effect of advancing the "Lawyer's Protection Act;" essentially all lawyers get paid no matter what and the Court protects lawyers from screw-ups and bad backroom deals.

Although the Appellant Mother did not execute a Temporary Consent Order changing custody and claimed not to have authorized its execution, the Court held that she was bound by the Order on a permanent basis because her attorney had executed it. Additionally, she was ordered to pay her ex-husband's attorneys fees despite the fact that no evidence was submitted to the Court regarding her ability to pay those fees.

We are of the opinion that in order to be binding on the parties Consent Orders should be required to be executed by all parties and properly witnessed, just as any other contract. Additionally, no Temporary Consent Order of Custody should become a Final Order unless all parties appear before the Court and testify that the Agreement is fair and entered into voluntarily and the Court concludes that the Agreement is in the best interests of the child. And unless Financial Declarations are filed by both parties as required by the Family Court Rules, Attorneys Fees should not be awarded.

In this case, both the Trial Court and the Court of Appeals were so intent on enforcing the procedural rules of the Family Court and upholding "settled principles of the law of Agency" that they completely ignored their primary duties, which were to advance the best interests of the child and to insure that the parties "Agreement" was fair and equitable.

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?