PARENT'S RIGHTS NOW!

STATUS OF BARDES V. MAGERA, ET. AL.

Click here for an update on Bardes v. Magera et al. Readers may recall "DAVID BARDES: ANOTHER FATHER WHO IS MAD AND NOT GOING TO TAKE IT ANYMORE." While this outcome was predictable, particularly in view of the fact that Mr. Bardes elected to represent himself, Mr. Bardes appears to have raised some legitimate issues that were never addressed by the Court.

According to "11 inmates sue over jail conditions," "Eleven inmates have filed lawsuits against the Orangeburg-Calhoun Regional Detention Center in U.S. District Court over living conditions. Inmates claim they’ve suffered malfunctioning toilets and showers, don’t receive prescription medication in a timely manner and have no emergency call system in their cells, among other things." The article goes on to say:

Last July, the Regional Detention Center was cited for housing sentenced and pre-trial inmates together. Other violations cited were the lack of two-way emergency intercom systems in individual cells and failure to give inmates required outdoor exercise time due to staffing shortages.

The state fire marshal’s office also cited the detention center for potential fire hazard violations, including the storage of combustible materials in rooms with electrical equipment. S.C. Department of Labor, Licensing and Regulation spokesman Jim Knight said Monday the fire marshal’s office is scheduled to re-inspect the facility.

Many of the inmates who sued in federal court are being held for non-payment of child support.

Child support inmates usually make up half or more of the total population, which averages about 400 inmates.

One complains he is in jail for child support, “and they got me lock down like a hard criminal for 18 hours a day. Do you think that’s fair to a person that don’t have no charge just in here for child support? Can’t go out to work because the jail charge you $5 dollars a day when you go out if you go out. Child support still running when you in jail it never stops ...

The way that things are headed, South Carolina could lock up half its population and still not reduce its child support arrearage. Maybe it is time to rethink the way the State is doing things and to revisit the question "Who is Benefiting from the Incarceration of 'Deadbeats'?"

MORE USER FEES MAY BE ON THE WAY IN SOUTH CAROLINA

We call the readers' attention to "SC Fee Hike Alert: Court Cost Increases." We also call the readers' attention to "DAVID BARDES: ANOTHER FATHER WHO IS MAD AND NOT GOING TO TAKE IT ANYMORE."

As readers may recall, Mr. Bardes takes exception to what he considers to be unlawful fee assessments by the South Carolina Family Courts. And while, as we have said before, we do not necessarily agree with either some of his methods or some of his conclusions, we think that Mr. Bardes has raised some interesting questions about unmonitored slush funds and hidden taxes in the form of Family Court "user fees." And, we also think that he has raised some interesting questions about the legality of some of the "fees" being levied in South Carolina Family Court.

Patrick Waller, a Texas man whose conviction was recently overturned is now suing his attorney seeking a reduction in attorneys fees, claiming that his lawyer is overcharging him. The attorney in question both successfully lobbied the Texas Legislature to increase the fund to compensate victims of wrongful convictions and obtained the settlement without having to file suit. Additionally, Waller executed a contract approving the arrangement. Even so, Waller contends that he "hired a lawyer, not a lobbyist" and, therefore, the fee of one half of the recovery is too high.

Open season on lawyers is spreading.

In Clean Slates for Youths Sentenced Fraudulently, The New York Times revealed that "The Supreme Court of Pennsylvania on Thursday ordered the slate cleaned for hundreds of youths who had been sentenced by a corrupt judge." The newspaper also reported that "The exact number of records to be expunged was not stated in the court’s order; a special master is investigating the cases."

This is welcome news. Maybe it will inspire South Carolina to pass both a Civil Contempt Expungement Act and a UNIFORM PROCEDURE FOR EXPUNGING CRIMINAL RECORDS.

We predict that as operating budgets become more stressed, more and more local governments will attempt to impose unlawful taxes masquerading as "user fees."* We also predict that more successful lawsuits will be pursued against local governments who try to raise revenues in this manner.

*See also, An Excise Tax is not a User Fee.

We previously reported OHIO CHILD SUPPORT DIRECTOR FIRED. And in SCAMS, FRAUDS, AND WASTE AT DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES, we linked to an old newspaper article about a fraud perpetrated in New Mexico that was successful only because the New Mexico Human Services Department employees "processed [litigants] as paperwork, not people." We do not know the final outcome of the New Mexico case, but we do know that "Joe the Plumber" has now initiated suit against three former Ohio state officials, including the former Ohio Child Support Director, for illegally accessing information in a state database about him.

DAVID BARDES: ANOTHER FATHER WHO IS MAD AND NOT GOING TO TAKE IT ANYMORE

Those readers who have electronic access to Federal Court documents may want to review the Complaint David Bardes filed against the South Carolina Department of Social Services and the Charleston County Council. We are somewhat familiar with both Mr. Bardes and his grievances with the Family Court and DSS. Click here to read an old letter he sent to DSS and click here and scan down to review his comment to one of our posts.

We do not agree with Mr. Bardes 100%, however, we think he has some legitimate complaints, particularly given some of the recent problems exposed at DSS. Among other things, he objects to the imposition of the 5% child support payment processing fee which, according to this post, is not supposed to go into effect until "implementation of the State wide Child Support System," presumably whenever this Legislation is enacted. And as the comment to "IS THERE UNMONITORED TAXATION IN SC FAMILY COURT?" demonstrates, Mr. Bardes is not alone in his dissatisfaction.

We are at a loss as to how the Family Courts have apparently managed to ignore Court Orders and prematurely increase the child support processing fees. If not authorized either in the Final Support Orders or by Statute, from where does the authority to impose "Court Costs" of 5% come? As $67 Million and counting of fines demonstrates, South Carolina is nowhere close to "implementation of the State wide Child Support System."

If (the editorial) we were members of the South Carolina General Assembly we would take a good, long, hard look at not only this 5% "Court Cost" assessment, but at all the fees and fines that are running through the Family Court accounts. We would also give some serious consideration to passing this legislation.

Check out the comment to SC CHILD SUPPORT ENFORCEMENT SYSTEM REPORT & "STIMULUS" LEGISLATION. Does this sound familiar?

We believe that the lack of a computerized child support system in South Carolina not only negatively affects the payees,* but results in miscalculations of child support arrearages and virtually amounts to harassment of many people who are meeting their obligations on a consistent basis--it is too much trouble to find the guy who owes $30,000 (for example) so the Clerks Rule in the guy who owes $400 (for example)--after all, they know where he lives and can sock him with penalties that they do not have to explain to anyone and keep him in jail until he pays whatever the Court tells him to pay without regard to how much it costs the taxpayers of the county to house, guard, and feed him.

*For related posts see, GIRL REUNITED WITH FATHER SUES COUNTY FOR FAILURE TO LOCATE HIM, DELAYS IN CHILD SUPPORT DISTRIBUTIONS, and INADEQUATE CHILD SUPPORT COLLECTION SYSTEM?

We concede that the little nickel dime stuff that former Dorchester County Sheriff Nash strong-armed from detainees appears mild in comparison to the scheme reported in Judges Plead Guilty in Scheme to Jail Youths for Profit. Still, in our opinion, Mr. Nash should both provide a full accounting and return the money. It is an issue of quantity not quality. Whether a theft or a wrong is accomplished by brute force rahter than by deception makes it no less a theft or a wrong. More important, perhaps, Sheriff Nash should want to avoid lawsuits like the ones referenced in Suit Names 2 Judges Accused in a Kickback Case.