Indicates Matter Stricken
Indicates New Matter

The Senate assembled at 11:00 A.M., the hour to which it stood adjourned and was called to order by the ACTING PRESIDENT, Senator SHEALY.

TO: The Clerk of the Senate
The Clerk of the House
FROM: Thomas H. Pope, III, Chairman

Judicial Screening Committee
DATE: May 5, 1992

In compliance with the provisions of Act No. 119, 1975 S.C. Acts 122, it is respectfully requested that the following information be printed in the Journals of the Senate and the House.

Respectfully submitted,
/s/Senator Thomas H. Pope, III, Chairman
/s/Senator John A. Martin
/s/Senator Isadore E. Lourie
/s/Senator Glenn F. McConnell
/s/Rep. Larry E. Gentry, Vice-Chairman
/s/Rep. B. L. Hendricks, Jr.
/s/Rep. James H. Hodges
/s/Rep. Maggie W. Glover

Pursuant to Act No. 119, 1975 S.C. Acts 122, this Committee met to consider the qualifications of the candidates seeking election to the positions of Judge of the Third Judicial Circuit; Judge of the Thirteenth Judicial Circuit; Judge of the Family Court of the Fourth Judicial Circuit, Seat #2; Judge of the Family Court of the Ninth Judicial Circuit, Seat #1; Judge of the Family Court of the Ninth Judicial Circuit, Seat #3; Judge of the Family Court of the Tenth Judicial Circuit, Seat #2; Judge of the Family Court of the Eleventh Judicial Circuit, Seat #1; Judge of the Family Court of the Twelfth Judicial Circuit, Seat #1; Judge of the Family Court of the Twelfth Judicial Circuit, Seat #3; Judge of the Family Court of the Thirteenth Judicial Circuit, Seat #3; Judge of the Family Court of the Thirteenth Judicial Circuit, Seat #4; Judge of the Family Court of the Fourteenth Judicial Circuit, Seat #2; Judge of the Family Court of the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit, Seat #2; Judge of the Family Court of the Sixteenth Judicial Circuit, Seat #1; and Judge of the Family Court of the Sixteenth Judicial Circuit, Seat #2.

The Judicial Screening Committee is charged by law to consider the qualifications of candidates for the Judiciary. When notice is received that an individual intends to seek election or reelection to the Bench, the Committee conducts such investigation of the candidate as it deems appropriate and reports its Findings to the General Assembly prior to the election. It is not the function of the Committee to recommend one candidate over another or to suggest to the individual legislator for whom to vote. Instead, it is the Committee's role to determine whether a candidate is qualified to sit as a Judge. Under the statute, the Committee's determination in regard to each candidate is not binding on the members of the General Assembly.

Having completed the investigation as required by the act, the Committee by this Report respectfully submits its Findings to the members of the General Assembly for their consideration.

The Report consists of the Transcript of the Proceedings before the Screening Committee, held in the Third Floor Conference Room of the State House on April 23, 1992, and the portions of the documents submitted by the candidates which were made part of the public record. Each candidate's file includes an extensive Personal Data Questionnaire, a Statement of Economic Interests, five letters of reference, including one from the candidate's banker, and the report of a background investigation by SLED. These documents may be viewed in the office of the Judicial Screening Committee in Room 211 of the Gressette Building until the date and time of the election.

The candidates were present at the screening and testified under oath.

CHAIRMAN POPE: I'M GOING TO CALL THE MEETING TO ORDER. MY NAME IS TOM POPE. I'M CHAIRMAN OF THE JUDICIAL SCREENING COMMITTEE. I WELCOME ALL OF YOU. ON THE LEFT HERE, FOR YOUR INFORMATION, IS VICE-CHAIRMAN, REPRESENTATIVE LARRY GENTRY; REPRESENTATIVE MAGGIE GLOVER IS ON HIS LEFT. AND ON THIS SIDE IS REPRESENTATIVE B.L. HENDRICKS, AND SENATOR GLENN MCCONNELL. WE HAVE THREE OTHER MEMBERS WHO ARE NOT HERE. LAST NIGHT, AS YOU MAY OR MAY NOT KNOW, THE HOUSE WAS IN SESSION UNTIL ABOUT 7:00 OR 7:30 AND THE SENATE WAS IN SESSION UNTIL ABOUT 8:15, WHICH IS HIGHLY UNUSUAL, BUT THAT HAS CREATED SOME PROBLEMS FOR THE SUBCOMMITTEE MEETINGS THIS MORNING. SO WE WILL PROCEED, BUT WE WILL EXPECT OUR OTHER MEMBERS TO GET HERE WHEN THEY CAN. WE HAVE PROXIES FOR SENATOR LOURIE AND SENATOR MARTIN. THIS SCREENING COMMITTEE IS PURSUANT TO ACT 119 OF 1975 REQUIRING THE REVIEW OF CANDIDATES FOR JUDICIAL OFFICE. THE FUNCTION OF THE COMMITTEE IS NOT TO CHOSE BETWEEN CANDIDATES BUT, RATHER, TO DECLARE WHETHER OR NOT THE CANDIDATES WHO OFFER FOR POSITIONS ON THE BENCH ARE, IN OUR JUDGEMENT, QUALIFIED TO FILL THE POSITIONS. THE INQUIRY WE UNDERTAKE IS A THOROUGH ONE. IT INVOLVES A COMPLETE PERSONAL AND PROFESSIONAL BACKGROUND CHECK ON EACH CANDIDATE. THE CANDIDATE IS INVESTIGATED BY SLED, INCLUDING COURTROOM RECORDS. A STATEMENT OF ECONOMIC INTERESTS IS REQUIRED. WE RECEIVE A CREDIT REPORT. WE RECEIVE REPORTS FROM THE BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS ON GRIEVANCES AND DISCIPLINE, WITH RESPECT TO ATTORNEYS AND JUDGES WHO ARE OFFERING; AND FROM THE BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS ON JUDICIAL STANDARDS, WITH RESPECT TO SITTING JUDGES. THE CANDIDATE'S PERSONAL DATA QUESTIONNAIRE DETAILS PERSONAL HISTORY, HEALTH, AND PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE, AND CONTAINS FIVE LETTERS OF REFERENCE. TODAY WE ARE HERE FOR THE PURPOSE OF EXAMINING CANDIDATES FOR VACANCIES IN THE THIRTEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT; FAMILY COURT OF THE FOURTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, SEAT #2; FAMILY COURT OF THE TWELFTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, SEAT #1. WE ALSO ARE EXAMINING CANDIDATES FOR TERM EXPIRATIONS IN THE THIRD JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, FAMILY COURT OF THE NINTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, SEAT #1; NINTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, SEAT #3; TENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, SEAT #2; ELEVENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, SEAT #1; TWELFTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, SEAT #3; THIRTEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, SEAT #3; THIRTEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, SEAT #4; FOURTEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, SEAT #2; FIFTEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, SEAT #2; SIXTEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT SEAT #1; AND SIXTEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, SEAT #2. SO YOU CAN SEE WE HAVE A FULL DAY AHEAD OF US. TO AVOID ANY CONFUSION, THE COMMITTEE HAS, IN THE PAST COUPLE OF SCREENINGS, POINTED OUT THE LAW AS TO THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE ETHICS REFORM ACT OF LAST YEAR, AND THAT IS: WITH REGARD TO PLEDGING OR GETTING COMMITMENTS FOR JUDICIAL OFFICE THAT YOU ARE BEING SCREENED ON, THE RULE IS THAT NO PLEDGES CAN BE SOUGHT OR OBTAINED UNTIL AFTER THIS COMMITTEE HAS ISSUED ITS REPORT, WHICH WILL NOT BE TODAY BECAUSE WE WILL BE HERE AS LONG AS IT TAKES TO FINISH THE SCREENING, AND TOMORROW IS NOT A LEGISLATIVE DAY, SO WE WON'T BE HERE TOMORROW, BUT THE REPORT WILL PROBABLY BE SIGNED WITHIN A WEEK. THAT'S AN ESTIMATE. SO AS SOON AS IT'S SIGNED, MS. SATTERWHITE DOES NOTIFY EVERYONE. OF COURSE, MANY OF YOU ARE NOT OPPOSED, AND SO, ARE PROBABLY NOT PARTICULARLY CONCERNED ABOUT IT. BUT SHE WILL NOTIFY, BY TELEPHONE, ALL OF YOU, AS SOON AS THE REPORT HAS BEEN PREPARED, AND I ANTICIPATE IT WILL BE CERTAINLY BY NEXT THURSDAY. AT THIS TIME, WE HAVE A COUPLE OF MATTERS TO TAKE UP WITH REGARD TO AN EXECUTIVE SESSION, BUT I APOLOGIZE FOR ANY INCONVENIENCE. WE SCHEDULED QUITE A FEW SCREENINGS FOR TODAY, AND I KNOW IT'S GOING TO BE AN INCONVENIENCE TO SOME OF YOU WHO ARE AT THE BOTTOM OF THE LIST, SO TO SPEAK, OR AT THE END -- AND WE ARE DOING IT BY NUMBER OF JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, SO IF YOU'RE IN THE FIRST, SECOND, OR THIRD CIRCUIT, YOU LUCKIER THAN THOSE IN THE FIFTEENTH OR SIXTEENTH. WE'RE GOING TO TRY TO ACCOMMODATE ANY PROBLEMS THAT WE ANTICIPATE, BUT IT MAY BE SORT OF A LONG DAY. WE'LL PROCEED AS QUICKLY AS WE CAN.
(REP. HODGES JOINS THE HEARING PROCEEDINGS.)
SINCE THERE ARE SO MANY FOLKS IN THE PROCEEDING, WE WILL HAVE OUR EXECUTIVE SESSION ACROSS THE HALL SO Y'ALL CAN JUST STAY HERE AND WE'LL LEAVE AND JUST BE GONE A FEW MINUTES AND COME RIGHT BACK HERE. DO I HAVE A MOTION?
VICE-CHAIRMAN GENTRY: I SO MOVE.
CHAIRMAN POPE: ALL THOSE IN FAVOR OF EXECUTIVE SESSION, SIGNIFY BY SAYING AYE.
COMMITTEE MEMBERS: AYE.
CHAIRMAN POPE: THOSE OPPOSED, NO?
(NO RESPONSE.)
CHAIRMAN POPE: WE'LL BE IN EXECUTIVE JUST A FEW MINUTES.

CHAIRMAN POPE: WE'RE READY TO PROCEED NOW. I APPRECIATE Y'ALL BEARING WITH US. I WOULD ALSO INVITE YOU, IF YOU WANT A CUP OF COFFEE, DON'T HESITATE TO GET UP AND COME AROUND. THERE'S A COFFEE POT HERE AND IF WE RUN OUT WE'LL FILL IT BACK UP, SO FEEL FREE TO ENJOY THE COFFEE. THE FIRST APPLICANT WILL BE JUDGE THOMAS COOPER. JUDGE, IF YOU WOULD, COME AROUND TO THE CHAIR AT THE END PLEASE.

WHEREUPON, THOMAS W. COOPER, JR., BEING DULY SWORN AND CAUTIONED TO TELL THE TRUTH, THE WHOLE TRUTH, AND NOTHING BUT THE TRUTH, IS EXAMINED AND TESTIFIES AS FOLLOWS:

Q JUDGE, YOU WERE SCREENED ONLY ABOUT THREE MONTHS AGO?
A YES, SIR. SEEMS LIKE ONLY YESTERDAY.
Q IT'S GOOD TO HAVE YOU WITH US AGAIN. ALL RIGHT. YOU'VE HAD A CHANCE TO REVIEW YOUR PERSONAL DATA QUESTIONNAIRE SUMMARY?
A I HAVE.
Q AND DOES IT NEED ANY CLARIFICATION OR MODIFICATION?
A NO, SIR. THE FINAL VERSION, WHICH MS. SATTERWHITE SENT ME LAST WEEK, I THINK IS ACCURATE.
Q YOU HAVE NO OBJECTION TO US MAKING IT A PART OF THE RECORD IN THIS MATTER?
A NO, SIR.
Q ALL RIGHT. WE WILL DO THAT.

1. Thomas W. Cooper, Jr.
Home Address: Business Address:
#9 Hickory Ridge Circle P. O. Drawer 699
P. O. Box 398 Manning, SC 29102
Manning, SC 29102

2. He was born in Sumter, South Carolina, on May 20, 1941. He is presently 50 years old.
Social Security Number: ***-**-****

4. He was married to Margaret Barringer Bland on July 20, 1968. He has two children: Thomas Bland, age 21 (student at the University of South Carolina), and Judith Margaret, age 16 (junior at Laurence Manning Academy).

5. Military Service: None

6. He attended the University of South Carolina, September 1959 - May 1963, B.A., History; Coker College, Clemson University, and the University of South Carolina, summers of 1965-1967, post-graduate work towards Master's Degree; and the University of South Carolina School of Law, September 1970 - May 1973, J.D.

7. His undergraduate days at the University of South Carolina were rather uneventful insofar as honors, activities and offices are concerned. He was an average student who went to USC from a small high school in Sumter County. He attended his first three semesters doing satisfactory work but dropped out of USC during the spring semester of his sophomore year to work. This was a personal decision and was not mandated by any unsatisfactory academic work or other external factors. He worked in a furniture factory in Sumter County during the spring and summer of 1961 and returned to USC that fall. He took extra course work during the regular sessions and attended both sessions of summer school between his junior and senior years in order to graduate on time. He went to school on a National Defense Student Loan and also worked what was then called the Undergraduate Library. (After he graduated, the library was later expanded and renamed the Thomas Cooper Library which he thought was an extremely magnanimous gesture on the part of the University, given the fact that he was simply a student assistant there for two years.)

After graduating from undergraduate school, he taught high school in English in the schools of Clarendon County District #3 for five years, where he also served as a coach. During this period of time, he was elected Teacher of the Year in 1967 from Clarendon County.

He left Clarendon County District #3 in 1968 and was Assistant Principal of Hillcrest High School (Dalzell) for one year, and then was named Principal of Shaw Heights Elementary School for one year before he enrolled in law school. He had made a decision during his year at Hillcrest High School to reactivate his original plans to become a lawyer. He was able to accomplish that with the financial assistance of his wife, who was a school teacher, and by withdrawing his teacher's retirement. He also worked during his law school days and commuted on a daily basis from his home in Sumter County. He continued to be actively involved in church and community activities during his time in law school.

8. Legal/Judicial education during the past five years:

His CLE emphasis during the past five years has been similar to the emphasis in his practice. He has not attended any seminars on Criminal Law with the exception of a single December seminar about 4 years ago which he attended in order to complete his 12-hour requirement for that year. For the most part, he has had "carry over hours" from one year to the next and has focused his CLE attendance on seminars dealing with Health Care Law, Administrative Law, Real Estate and Title Insurance Issues, as well as seminars dealing with recent changes in the law, e.g., Probate Code Seminar, Comparative Negligence Seminar, etc.

12. Legal experience since graduation from law school:

Following his graduation from the University of South Carolina School of Law in May of 1973, and his completion of the Bar examination in July of 1973, he began working for the Law Firm of W. C. Coffey, Jr., P.A., Manning, South Carolina. Mr. Coffey was a sole practitioner in the general practice of law with an emphasis on real estate, probate and commercial practice. He began to assist him in the real estate area of practice and, after his admission to the Bar in November of 1973, began to broaden his areas of practice into Administrative Law, Civil, Criminal and Family Law. Some of his earlier appearances following his admission to the Bar were appearances before the Public Service Commission. His practice gradually expanded into personal injury and contract litigation as well.

He was made a partner in the firm of Coffey and Cooper, P.A., in August of 1974. As his practice expanded, he began representation of institutions (school districts, municipalities and our local hospital) and eventually began to phase out his practice in Family Court and Criminal Court. That transition coincided with the expansion of their firm in 1979 to bring in another partner who handled litigation matters, and virtually all of the family and criminal practice, allowing each of them to compartmentalize their practice as much as possible in a small town. He has done no contested family practice since the mid 80's and has handled no criminal matters since about 1986.

While Criminal Court never was a major emphasis of his practice (approximately 5% to 10% of his practice at the most), he did enjoy a fair degree of success in the Court of General Sessions and voluntarily eliminated that portion of his practice in an effort to focus on other areas. Conversely, his civil practice expanded during the period of time, although a substantial amount of his practice, if not a slight majority of it, has always been in the areas of real estate, probate, close corporations, and institutional law.

In recent years, he has served as a Special Referee to hear contested non-jury matters, both in Clarendon and Sumter Counties, as a result of possible conflicts with standing Masters in those counties. Some of these controversies have been quite involved, one of which consumed some seven days of trial time and several hundred items of evidence. Most recently, he has been appointed as Special Referee in another matter in Sumter County which has thus far taken some three days of trial time and is not yet complete.

20. Judicial Office:
On February 5, 1992, he was elected to fill the unexpired term of Dan F. Laney, Jr. as Judge of the Third Judicial Circuit. He was sworn in on March 12, 1992, and will be training with other Judges for approximately one month. He is scheduled to sit with Judge Anderson in Common Pleas Court in Florence during the week of March 16, with Judge Burnett in Spartanburg for General Sessions Court during the week of March 23, and with Judge Fields in Charleston County for General Sessions Court during the week of April 13. He will be holding a term of non-jury court for the Third Judicial Circuit during the week of April 6. Therefore, as of this time, he has not developed any experience.

22. Public Office:
He has never sought elective office but was appointed to the Clarendon County Election Commission in 1988. He resigned from the Commission effective March 12, 1992.

24. Any Occupation, Business or Profession Other Than the Practice of Law:

Following his graduation from the University of South Carolina in the Spring of 1963, he began teaching school in East Clarendon School District #3 of Clarendon County. He taught high school English there from 1963 through 1968. He also coached baseball and assisted in the coaching of football and basketball.

In the summer of 1968, he left the employment of Clarendon County School District #3 and moved to Sumter County School District #2 where he was the assistant principal of Hillcrest High School and the coordinator of bus transportation for the school. At the time, Hillcrest actually contained grades 1-12, and he was also principal of the junior high school which was located on the same campus. He remained at Hillcrest for the 1968-1969 school year and then was named principal of Shaw Heights Elementary School for 1969-1970 school year. Shaw Heights Elementary School was located immediately adjacent to Shaw Air Force Base and, at the time, contained approximately 1,100 students with 33 teachers. There were no assistants or other staff personnel other than the office secretary.

During the summers of his employment at Sumter County School District #2, he worked in the District Office, either performing maintenance duties for the schools in the district, or assisting in personnel duties.
At the end of the 1969-1970 school year, he enrolled in the USC Law School.

27. Financial Arrangement or Business Relationships:

The value of his equity ownership interest in the real and personal property of his former law firm has been evaluated, and documents are currently being drawn to divest him of any interest in the real or personal property of that firm and for the payment of the amount of his equity to him from the law firm or partners.

He has also made final arrangements concerning on-going contingency fee or hourly billed cases, all of which have been evaluated.

His retirement plan still owns an undivided one-fourth interest in some development property which it holds as tenants-in-common with the retirement plans of his three former law partners. Efforts are currently underway to sell this property, but because of a depressed market, an immediate sale is not anticipated. If it becomes necessary for the retirement plans to develop this property for sale, he will not be involved in the development in any manner whatsoever. At that point, his interest in the property will be appraised and the development will go forward under the direction of, and at the expense of, the retirement plans of the remaining partners. He will simply be paid for his interest as soon thereafter as possible.

31. Sued: Their firm was sued by two clients of Mr. Chandler, one of their partners. This action was subsequently settled prior to trial.

33. His health is excellent. His last physical examination was in May of 1989 by Dr. Vaughn R. Barnick (then of Manning, South Carolina, now of Columbia, South Carolina).

39. Bar Associations and Professional Organizations:
Member, Clarendon County Bar Association; Member, South Carolina Bar; Resolution of Fee Disputes Board for the Third Judicial Circuit, 1984-present, Chairman; Member, Clarendon County Election Commission, 1988-present; Member, South Carolina Federal Advisory Board, 1987-present; Laurence Manning Academy Board of Trustees, 1983-present, Chairman; Member, Laurence Manning Board of Trustees, 1981-present.

40. Civic, charitable, religious, educational, social and fraternal organizations:
Member, Presbyterian Church at Manning, 1975-present; Sunday School Teacher, Presbyterian Church at Manning, 1975-present; Member of Choir, Presbyterian Church at Manning, 1975-present; Member of Session, Presbyterian Church at Manning, 1978-present; Member of Council, Presbytery of New Harmony, 1987-present; Member of Personnel Committee-Presbytery of New Harmony, 1987-present

42. Five (5) letters of recommendation:

(a) A. J. Cutter, Vice President and City Executive
South Carolina Federal
P. O. Drawer B, Manning, SC 29102-0017

(b) R. Ferrell Cothran, Jr., Esquire
P. O. Drawer 700, Manning, SC 29102

(c) W. T. Geddings, Jr., Esquire
P. O. Box 89, Manning, SC 29102

(d) Marion S. Riggs, Esquire
P. O. Box 487, Manning, SC 29102

(e) Nelson R. Parker, Esquire
P. O. Drawer G, Manning, SC 29102

Q THE BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS ON GRIEVANCES AND DISCIPLINE REPORTS NO COMPLAINTS EVER HAVING BEEN FILED AGAINST YOU. THE JUDICIAL STANDARDS COMMISSION HAS NO RECORD OF ANY REPRIMANDS. WE'VE CHECKED THE RECORDS OF THE HIGHWAY DEPARTMENT, CLARENDON COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE, MANNING CITY POLICE DEPARTMENT, SLED AND F.B.I., AND ALL OF THOSE ARE NEGATIVE. THE FEDERAL COURT RECORDS AND JUDGEMENT ROLLS OF CLARENDON COUNTY ARE NEGATIVE. YOUR HEALTH, I ASSUME, IS STILL EXCELLENT, JUDGE?
A YES, SIR.
Q YOUR STATEMENT OF ECONOMIC INTERESTS SHOWS NO CONFLICTS OF INTEREST OR ANY OBLIGATIONS. THE COMMITTEE IS SATISFIED WITH YOUR NET WORTH STATEMENT AND CREDIT REPORTS THAT HAVE BEEN SUBMITTED. NO ONE HAS ASKED TO BE PRESENT, AND NO COMPLAINTS HAVE BEEN RECEIVED AGAINST YOU. JUDGE, HOW HAVE YOUR FIRST FEW MONTHS ON THE BENCH BEEN?
A SENATOR, IT HAS BEEN EVERYTHING I EVER DREAMED AND MORE. IT HAS BEEN A PLEASANT EXPERIENCE, ALL-IN-ALL. I HAVE SPENT THREE WEEKS SITTING WITH OTHER TRIAL JUDGES THROUGHOUT THE STATE, IN COMMON PLEAS AND IN GENERAL SESSIONS COURTS. AND WHOEVER THOUGHT OF THAT KNEW WHAT THEY WERE DOING, BECAUSE IT WAS AN EXCELLENT IDEA, BECAUSE THOSE OF US, REGARDLESS OF OUR PRACTICAL EXPERIENCE AS A PRACTICING ATTORNEY, HAVE LOOKED AT THINGS IN A DIFFERENT PERSPECTIVE; AND WHEN YOU GET ON THE OTHER SIDE OF THE BENCH, IT DOES REQUIRE A DIFFERENT THOUGHT PROCESS AND A DIFFERENT VIEWPOINT TO BE BROUGHT TO BEAR. AND THAT WAS MOST INFORMATIVE, THANKFULLY. AND IN THE MIDST OF MY TRIAL -- OR MY SITTING WITH OTHER JUDGES, I WAS CALLED ON TO POLL A COURT, A TERM OF COMMON PLEAS COURT, IN SUMTER, WHICH WAS IN MY OWN CIRCUIT. AND THAT WAS A GOOD EXPERIENCE FOR ME, BECAUSE IT WAS WITH PEOPLE I KNEW. THE JUDGES THAT I SAT WITH ALSO ALLOWED AND ENCOURAGED ME TO PARTICIPATE AND, TO THE EXTENT POSSIBLE, I DID TRY BOTH CIVIL AND CRIMINAL CASES IN TWO OF THE THREE WEEKS; AND THE THIRD WEEK THAT I SAT WITH JUDGE FIELDS, HE WAS TRYING A COMPLICATED MURDER CASE WHICH LASTED THE WHOLE WEEK, SO I WAS NOT ABLE TO PARTICIPATE, BUT I DID SIT AT HIS ELBOW AND LEARN AS MUCH FROM LISTENING TO HIM AS I WOULD HAVE FROM PARTICIPATING. HE'S AN OUTSTANDING JURIST. I HAVE JUST TODAY, JUST MONDAY OF THIS WEEK, BEGUN MY FIRST SCHEDULED SOLO TERM OF CRIMINAL COURT, ALSO IN SUMTER COUNTY; AND RIGHT NOW, I'M IN THE MIDST OF A RATHER COMPLICATED AND DELICATE TRIAL. THE JURY IS COMING BACK AT 2:30 THIS AFTERNOON, AND I TRUST I WILL BE ABLE TO MEET THEM. AND IT'S A FULFILLING EXPERIENCE. IT IS GRATIFYING; BUT, AT THE SAME TIME, IT IS HUMBLING. I HAVE BEEN COMMISERATING OVER THE SENTENCING PROCESS, WHICH I UNDERSTAND, FROM TALKING WITH OTHER JUDGES, IS THAT ASPECT OF THE PROFESSION THAT CAUSES US ALL THE MOST CONCERN. BUT OTHER THAN THAT, I HAVE BEEN PLEASED WITH IT AND TRUST I HAVE NOT TRAMPLED UNDULY ON ANYONE'S CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS. TO DATE, AT LEAST I HAVEN'T HEARD ABOUT IT. I'LL KNOW ABOUT IT IN ABOUT A YEAR, I SUPPOSE, WHEN I START READING THE ADVANCE SHEETS.
CHAIRMAN POPE: WELL JUDGE, SINCE YOU WERE SCREENED SO RECENTLY, I DON'T HAVE ANY FURTHER QUESTIONS. DOES THE COMMITTEE HAVE ANYTHING?
(NO RESPONSE.)
Q DO YOU HAVE ANY OTHER COMMENTS?
A NO, SIR. THANK YOU, I WILL NOT BELABOR THIS RECORD. YOU ALL HAVE A FULL DAY AND I WILL BE HAPPY TO GET OUT OF YOUR WAY.
Q THANK YOU JUDGE. GOOD LUCK IN COURT, AND YOU'RE CERTAINLY FREE TO LEAVE.
A THANK YOU, SENATOR. THANK YOU ALL.

CHAIRMAN POPE: THE NEXT APPLICANT IS HENRY FLOYD, THIRTEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT.

WHEREUPON, HENRY F. FLOYD, BEING DULY SWORN AND CAUTIONED TO TELL THE TRUTH, THE WHOLE TRUTH, AND NOTHING BUT THE TRUTH, IS EXAMINED AND TESTIFIES AS FOLLOWS:

Q MR. FLOYD, YOU HAVE HAD A CHANCE TO REVIEW THE QUESTIONNAIRE SUMMARY?
A YES, SIR.
Q ANY AMENDMENT YOU WANT TO MAKE, OR MODIFICATION?
A THE ONLY AMENDMENT WOULD BE THE FINANCIAL STATEMENT, WHICH IT'S PROBABLY AS BROAD AS IT IS LONG. I HAVE REDUCED THE CASH ON HAND BY $20,000, TO PAY OFF THE UNSECURED INDEBTEDNESS IN A LIKE AMOUNT.
Q WE WILL NOTE THAT CHANGE. OTHER THAN THAT, YOU'RE SATISFIED WITH MAKING THE SUMMARY A PART OF THE RECORD?
A YES, SIR.
Q ALL RIGHT, SIR. WE WILL DO THAT.

1. Henry Franklin Floyd
Home Address: Business Address:
413 Bethlehem Ridge Road 114 S. Lewis Street
Pickens, SC 29671 P. O. Box 978

Pickens, SC 29671

2. He was born in Brevard, North Carolina, on November 5, 1947. He is presently 44 years old.
Social Security Number: ***-**-****

4. He was married to Ruth Elizabeth Hunt on June 12, 1970. He has two children: Henry F., Jr. "Hank," age 18; and Elizabeth Shearer "Betts," age 13.

5. Military Service: U. S. Army, 1st Lieutenant; ***-**-****; received Honorable Discharge from active duty November 11, 1973, and assigned to inactive reserve until May 21, 1978.

6. He attended Wofford College, 1966-1970, B.A. History; and the University of South Carolina Law School, 1970-1973, J.D.

7. At Wofford College from 1966-1970, he was a member of the Blue Key National Honor Society, Stabbard & Blade National Military Honor Society, and Phi Kappa Alpha social fraternity. He was Wofford College Student Body Treasurer, 1969-1970 and Who's Who in American Colleges & Universities.

8. Legal/Judicial education during the past five years:
His continuing legal education has been varied. He has attended South Carolina Trial Lawyers Auto Torts Seminars, South Carolina Trial Lawyers Convention programs, Legal Ethics seminars, Family Law seminars including joint lawyer/judicial seminars, U. S. Sentencing Guidelines seminar, Radar/DUI criminal law seminars, and many programs sponsored by the legal arm of the National Rural Electric Cooperative Association. Also, he has made it a personal habit of religiously reading the South Carolina Supreme Court advance sheets and the Bureau of National Affairs general Law Week publications.

9. Courses Taught: Legal Education Institute's Family Law Program held on January 16, 1987, in Greenville, South Carolina. He was one of three guest lecturers on family law issues including evidence, procedure and equitable property distribution.

12. Legal experience since graduation from law school:
Since his admission to practice, he has been essentially a general trial lawyer having a substantial criminal and domestic practice. He also has handled a lot of civil matters with no particular leaning toward either Plaintiff or Defendant. Additionally, he maintained a real estate practice with particular emphasis on litigating boundary, easement and title disputes. For the past six years, he has served as County attorney for Pickens County with extensive involvement in local governmental law issues. He has also been substantially involved in litigation concerning electric cooperatives for some 16 years.

14. Frequency of appearances in court:
Federal - infrequent
State - frequent
Other -

15. Percentage of litigation:
Civil - 25%
Criminal - 35%
Domestic - 40%

16. Percentage of cases in trial courts:
Jury - 45%
Non-jury - 55%

95% +, sole or chief counsel

17. Five (5) of the most significant litigated matters in either trial or appellate court:

(a) State v. Cox. This was the first capital murder case tried in Pickens County after the reinstitution of the death penalty. It was a murder-for-hire case. Originally, he was appointed to assist the Public Defender. The case was tried, the Defendant convicted and the jury recommended a life sentence. The case was appealed by the Appellate Defense Commission. On appeal, the conviction was reversed and remanded for a new trial. See 287 S.C. 260, 335 S.E. 2d 809 (Ct. Ap. 1985). Upon retrial, Mr. Cox's family retained him to defend Tim. The jury acquitted Tim Cox. The significance to him is that death penalty cases require extensive preparation, careful trial execution and utmost attention of defense counsel. To go from the death penalty request to an acquittal was an experience he will never forget, and he is not aware of any other like case in South Carolina in recent years.

(b) State v. Crunkleton - 90-GS-37-___. This case was tried in March of 1991, arising out of manslaughter charges against his client, Bud Crunkleton as a result of an attack by Bud's part pit bull/part rottweiller dog upon a 5-year-old child who was mauled and killed by the dog. It was a case of first impression in South Carolina under the Vicious Dog Act. The jury acquitted Mr. Crunkleton. The novelty of the case was that the manslaughter statute could be used to prosecute an individual criminally for having a vicious dog that remained on the owner's property but yet attacked a child who wandered onto the property.

(c) Campbell v. State - 89-CP-39-515 and S. C. Supreme Court Mem. Opn. 91-MO-281 filed October 14, 1991. He represented Mr. Campbell in the trial court upon his application for post conviction relief. He won in the lower court. The Supreme Court affirmed the lower court order. That appeal was handled by the Appellate Defense Commission. In the lower court the issues he handled were the ex post facto nature of the 1985 Omnibus Crime Bill upon parole/earned work credits for people convicted of murder between 1981 and 1985. Mr. Floyd and his client successfully prosecuted the novel question, and the Court held that he was entitled to earned work credits notwithstanding the 1985/86 Omnibus Crime Bill prohibiting same because he was convicted prior to earned work prohibition set forth.

(d) State v. Morgan - 319 S.E. 2d 335, 282 S.C. 409 (1984). He handled this case at trial and appellate level. The significance is that among lawyers who handle DUI cases, the Court clearly established the rules about how and when to raise the issue of corpus delecti vis a vis custodial/non-custodial statements made during a routine traffic accident investigation. It also clarified the application of Miranda warnings as well as the extent a trial judge can charge the jury upon the issue of a statement rendered by an intoxicated person. He lost the case but won a lot of wisdom.

(e) Giles v. Lanford and Gibson, Inc. - 328 S.E. 2d 916, 285 S.C. 285 (Ct. App. 1985). He represented William Giles in this case which involved the use of the theory of constructive fraud in which a Plaintiff does not have to prove intent in order to recover under a cause of action in fraud. The Plaintiff was a homeowner with a builder's risk policy who claimed his agent misled him as to the effect of coverage. The jury gave the Plaintiff $25,000 in damages.

18. Five (5) civil appeals:

(a) Parrish v. Gilstrap, et al., 312 S.E. 2d 4, 280 S.C. 184 (1984).

(b) Blue Ridge Electric Cooperative, Inc. v. Combined Utility System of the City of Easley, 303 S.E. 2d 91, 279 S.C. 135 (1983).

(c) Hayes v. Tompkins, 337 S.E. 2d 888, 287 S.C. 289 (Ct. App. 1985).

(d) Texcon, Inc. v. Anderson Aviation, Inc., 326 S.E. 2d 168, 284 S.C. 307 (Ct. App. 1985).

(e) Bennett v. City of Clemson, 358 S.E. 2d 707, 293 S.C. 64 (1987).

19. Five (5) criminal appeals:

(a) State v. Rothell, 391 S.E. 2d 228, ___ S.C. ___ (1990).

(b) State v. Holcombe, 81-MO-21 [S. C. Supreme Court decision appealed to U. S. Supreme Court, Cert. denied.].

(c) Bay v. SCHD, 221 S.E. 2d 106, 266 S.C. 9 (1975).

(d) State v. Morgan, 319 S.E. 2d 335, 282 S.C. 409 (1984).

22. Public Office:
South Carolina House of Representatives, 1973-1978 (elected)
South Carolina Forestry Commission, 1979-1980 (appointed by governor)

23. Unsuccessful candidate:
In 1981, he ran for the South Carolina Senate and lost in an election to Senator Nell Smith to fill the unexpired term of her late husband, Senator Harris P. Smith.

25. Officer or Director: He serves as a Director on the Board of Directors for the Rocky Bottom Camp for the Blind. His term expires December, 1992. The camp provides educational and recreational opportunities to the visually handicapped.

27. Financial Arrangement or Business Relationships:

Presently he is a partner in the law firm of Acker, Floyd, Welmaker & Johnson by owning a 33% interest in the firm. He has activated the steps necessary to withdraw from the firm upon his election and by agreement the firm will settle with him in full on the day of his withdrawal. Included in that settlement will be a release of his personal guarantee upon the firm's mortgage to American Federal which secures the debt upon the office building. It would be his intention to place at least a 12-month period of time between the date of his withdrawal and the date that he would consider hearing any cases of the firm. Of course, he would not hear any case which was being handled by the firm at the time of his withdrawal and even after the one-year period. He feels it would be appropriate to make sure that opposing counsel was comfortable with his hearing any case for an additional six-month period of time.

The second potential area of conflict has to do with his ownership of stock in First National Bank of Pickens County, Southern Company, and a member of two hobby Investment Clubs that play the stock market. He has made arrangements to withdraw from the two investment clubs and to sell both his First National Bank and Southern Company stock so as to eliminate any possible conflict.

Beyond these two items, he is not aware of any other conflicts, however, should any arise by reason of his prior representation of any litigant appearing before him, he will maintain a list of clients so as to disclose that fact to any parties who might appear before him and a decision whether to hear the case will be made at that time.

33. His health is good. His last physical examination was August 15, 1988, by Dr. Calvin Snipes, 1684 Gentry Memorial Highway, Easley, South Carolina 29640.

35. He wears reading glasses.

39. Bar Associations and Professional Organizations:
South Carolina Trial Lawyers Association, 1974 to present; South Carolina Bar Association, 1973 to present; American Bar Association, 1973 to present; American Judicature Society, 1974 to present; South Carolina Pro Bono Program, 1991 to present; Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline, 1990 to present

40. Civic, charitable, religious, educational, social and fraternal organizations:
Member, First Baptist Church of Pickens; Member, South Carolina Forestry Association; Member, Rocky Bottom Camp for the Blind Board of Directors

41. He is not aware of any additional information that should be disclosed other than as contained in this application including the letters of recommendation, Bar Resolutions, and his personal resume. He has maintained his client files from the beginning of his practice in December of 1973, to the present and should any question arise during screening concerning those files, they are available for inspection.

42. Five (5) letters of recommendation:

(a) Mr. John E. Sparks, Vice President
South Carolina National Bank
P. O. Box 157, Pickens, SC 29671

(b) B. O. Thomason, Jr., Esquire
P. O. Box 10045, Greenville, SC 29603

(c) Joseph J. Watson, Solicitor
Thirteenth Judicial Circuit
Suite 113, Courthouse Annex, Greenville, SC 29601-2192

(d) Earle J. Morris, Jr.
Comptroller General
P. O. Box 11228, Columbia, SC 29211

(e) Honorable Butler Derrick
Congress of the United States
Washington, DC 20515

Q THE BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS ON GRIEVANCES AND DISCIPLINE REPORT NO COMPLAINTS EVER HAVING BEEN FILED AGAINST YOU. THE RECORDS OF THE HIGHWAY DEPARTMENT, PICKENS COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE, PICKENS CITY POLICE DEPARTMENT, SLED, AND THE F.B.I. ARE ALL NEGATIVE. FEDERAL COURT RECORDS AND THE JUDGMENT ROLLS OF PICKENS COUNTY ARE NEGATIVE. YOUR HEALTH IS VERY GOOD?
A YES, SIR.
Q YOUR STATEMENT OF ECONOMIC INTERESTS SHOWS NO CONFLICTS OF INTEREST OR OBLIGATIONS. THE COMMITTEE IS SATISFIED WITH THE NET WORTH STATEMENT AND CREDIT REPORTS THAT YOU HAVE SUBMITTED. NO ONE HAS ASKED TO BE PRESENT AND NO COMPLAINTS HAVE BEEN FILED AGAINST YOU. MR. FLOYD, YOU HAVE, OBVIOUSLY, A VERY ACTIVE AND DIVERSE PRACTICE. HOW DO YOU THINK THE TRANSITION FROM BEING A VIGOROUS ADVOCATE TO A MORE SUBMISSIVE OR PASSIVE ROLE WOULD BE?
A I'M LOOKING FORWARD TO A PEACEFUL TRANSITION. AS YOU POINTED OUT, I HAVE NEVER BEEN IDENTIFIED IN THE CIVIL SIDE AS BEING EITHER PRO-PLAINTIFF OR PRO-DEFENDANT. I'VE HANDLED BOTH SIDES. MY FIRM, OR ONE OF MY PARTNERS, DOES A LOT OF DEFENSE WORK. I HAVE BEEN AN ACTIVE CRIMINAL DEFENSE LAWYER IN A LOT OF DOMESTIC LITIGATION. SO, I'M LOOKING FORWARD TO THE PASSIVE ROLL.
Q WHAT DO YOU THINK ABOUT THE IMPORTANCE OF JUDICIAL TEMPERAMENT AND DEMEANOR IN A CIRCUIT COURT JUDGE?
A WELL, MR. CHAIRMAN, I THINK PROBABLY ONE OF THE REASONS THAT I FEEL STRONGLY ABOUT RUNNING IS THAT I THINK THE GENTILITY AND MANNERS AND DECORUM ARE IMPORTANT IN THE COURTROOM, AND I THINK THE PERSON IT STARTS WITH IS THE JUDGE; AND I'VE ALWAYS TRIED TO DO THAT, EVEN AS A LITIGANT, AND HOPE I HAVE A REPUTATION OF BEING A FAIR-MINDED PERSON EVEN WHEN I'M IN AN ADVERSARIAL SITUATION. SO I THINK THAT'S PROBABLY THE MOST IMPORTANT THING THAT I HOPE TO BRING TO THE BENCH; AND THAT IS, A QUIET, EVEN TEMPERAMENT.
Q YOUR PRACTICE, IT SEEMS, IS SPREAD OUT AND PRETTY WELL, AS YOU HAVE SORT OF INDICATED, BALANCED BETWEEN CIVIL AND CRIMINAL; AND ON THE CIVIL SIDE, IT'S BOTH PLAINTIFF AND DEFENDANT?
A YES, SIR.
Q I THINK YOU WOULD SEE THAT AS, I'M SURE, AN ASSET IN VIEWING ALL TYPES OF MOTIONS AND CASES THAT WOULD BE TRIED BEFORE YOU?
A EXCEPT FOR BANKRUPTCY TYPE THINGS, WHICH THE CIRCUIT COURT DOESN'T DEAL WITH, I DON'T KNOW MUCH THAT I HAVEN'T SEEN IN 19 YEARS.
CHAIRMAN POPE: DO YOU ALL HAVE ANY QUESTIONS, OTHER COMMITTEE MEMBERS?
REPRESENTATIVE HENDRICKS: NO. HENRY AND I SERVED TOGETHER BACK SEVERAL YEARS AGO AND IT SOUNDS LIKE HE'S VERY POPULAR WITH THE GREENVILLE COUNTY BAR.
WITNESS: I WOULD POINT OUT, MR. CHAIRMAN, THAT THE BAR DOES NOT ENDORSE CANDIDATES AS A BAR; THAT'S THE REASON FOR THE INDIVIDUAL PETITIONS. AND I'M VERY APPRECIATIVE OF THE GREENVILLE BAR; I THINK MAYBE 150 OR SO SIGNED INDIVIDUAL PETITIONS EVEN WHEN THERE WAS SOME POTENTIAL CONTEST. SO I LOOK FORWARD TO THAT RELATIONSHIP AND I THINK WE HAVE A GOOD ONE WITH GREENVILLE.
Q WELL, WE CERTAINLY APPRECIATE YOU BEING WITH US. IS THERE ANYTHING ELSE YOU'D LIKE TO ADD, ANY OTHER STATEMENTS?
A NO. LIKE JUDGE COOPER, I AM PLEASED TO GET OUT OF HERE AS QUICKLY AS I CAN.
Q ALL RIGHT, SIR. WELL, WE'LL LET YOU GO THEN.
A THANK YOU.

CHAIRMAN POPE: OUR NEXT CANDIDATE IS ROBERT L. KILGO, JR. THIS IS FOR THE POSITION OF FAMILY COURT FOR THE FOURTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, SEAT #2.

WHEREUPON, ROBERT L. KILGO, JR., BEING DULY SWORN AND CAUTIONED TO TELL THE TRUTH, THE WHOLE TRUTH, AND NOTHING BUT THE TRUTH, IS EXAMINED AND TESTIFIES AS FOLLOWS:

Q MR. KILGO, HAVE YOU HAD A CHANCE TO REVIEW YOUR QUESTIONNAIRE?
A YES, SIR.
Q IS IT ACCURATE? DOES IT NEED ANY MODIFICATION?
A THE ONLY MODIFICATION WOULD BE THAT ONE OF THE CHILDREN, THE MIDDLE ONE, IS NOW SEVEN INSTEAD OF SIX.
Q ALL RIGHT. WITH THAT AMENDMENT, YOU HAVE NO OBJECTION TO US MAKING THAT A PART OF THE RECORD?
A NO, SIR.
Q ALL RIGHT; IT WILL BE DONE.

1. Robert L. Kilgo, Jr.
Home Address: Business Address:
650 James Street P. O. Box 581
Darlington, SC 29532 248 E. Hampton Street

Darlington, SC 29532

2. He was born in Darlington, South Carolina, on October 29, 1949. He is presently 42 years old.
Social Security Number: ***-**-****

4. He was married to Shannon Ruth Kilgo on November 18, 1983. He has three children: Kevin Lawton, age 14 (by previous marriage); Ryan Willson, age 7; and Robert Lawton, III, age 3.

5. Military Service: None

6. He attended Emory University, September, 1967 - August, 1970 (B.A. in Political Science); the University of South Carolina; School of Law, August, 1972 - May, 1975 (Juris Doctor).

7. At the University of South Carolina, he was elected as a Student Senator from the Law School. He was elected Chairman of the Senate Finance Committee for the school year 1974-1975.

8. Legal/Judicial education during the past five years:

1987 Criminal Law Update, Family Law in South Carolina and Health Law Training

1988 Criminal Law Update, South Carolina Public Defender Association Seminar

1989 Criminal Law Update, Dealing with the S.O.B. Litigator, South Carolina Public Defender Association Seminar and Automobile Lemon Law Update

1990 Criminal Law Update

1991 Legal Ethics in Advertising, Criminal Law Update, Handling Child Abuse and Neglect Cases in the Family Court and Christianity and Democracy Past Contributions and Future Challenges

12. Legal experience since graduation from law school:
Since 1975, he has been practicing in Darlington County, South Carolina. Until March 7, 1992, he was a partner with his father, Robert L. Kilgo, who is now deceased. Since 1975, the character of his practice has been mainly family law. From 1975 until 1982, his litigation in Circuit Court was defense in nature. Since 1982, he has been active in the Plaintiffs' practice, Circuit Court. Commencing in 1986 and continuing to date, he has been under contract with the Darlington County Public Defender Corporation, first as an Assistant Public Defender and since 1989, as Chief Public Defender.

14. Frequency of appearances in court:
Federal - 2%
State - 98%
Other -

15. Percentage of litigation:
Civil - 20%
Criminal - 40%
Domestic - 40%

16. Percentage of cases in trial courts:
Jury - 50%
Non-jury - 50%

Sole Counsel - 95%
Chief Counsel - 3%
Associate Counsel - 2%

17. Five (5) of the most significant litigated matters in either trial or appellate court:

(a) The State v. Calvin Hawkins and Calvin McCoy. He was appointed along with Lewis Cook to represent the Defendant Calvin McCoy. The State was seeking the death penalty. Near the end of the trial, he was able to convince the Defendant, Calvin McCoy, that if he did not plead guilty, he stood a substantial chance of being convicted since he was the one pointed out by an eyewitness and would probably be sentenced to death. He was able, after the completion of the trial, to show mitigating circumstances which allowed Judge Harris to sentence him to life instead of death.

(b) The State v. Betty Andrews Baker. Mrs. Baker was charged with driving under the influence. She was found on the side of the road in an automobile. She informed the officer that it was necessary for her to get out, but kept her in the vehicle until another officer could arrive to take her to the detention facilities. While being held in custody, the officer asked her if she was driving the car and she said that she was. The State attempted to put this officer on the stand to testify to her admission of driving. He objected, arguing that this would be in violation of Arizona v. Miranda, since she was in custody and no Miranda rights had been read to her. The Court agreed that by refusing to allow her to get out of the automobile, custody had begun, though the officer had not actually placed her under arrest, and the statement would be in violation of her Constitutional Rights. The Defendant was found not guilty.

(c) The State v. Arthur Wallace. The Defendant was charged with armed robbery. He fled a country store after the robbery, crossed a field and later appeared at the Probation Office in Darlington as scheduled for that afternoon. A hat was found by the officers investigating the crime. It was sent to SLED and a determination was made that the hair found in the cap could have been that of Arthur Wallace. He was able by cross examination of the SLED official to determine that this was not like a fingerprint and that more than one individual may have the same type of hair follicle. He also was able to show by lack of evidence, that no fingerprints were attempted to be extracted from Mr. Wallace's clothing or from the place of business he was alleged to have robbed, though they could have been. Mr. Wallace was found not guilty.

(d) John N. Howle, IV v. Kim M. Howle. He represented the husband in this action. It was a divorce action in which the Plaintiff asked for custody of his two minor children, both girls under the age of seven. Through substantial investigation, they were able to determine and show to the trial court that the Defendant had been having a lengthy adulterous relationship sometimes even in her own home with one of the children present. Because of the investigation and the uncovering of letters written by the Defendant to her paramour, the Court was convinced that the minor girls should live with their father and that this would be in their best interest.

(e) The Darlington County Department of Social Services v. Michael Weatherford, Anita Weatherford and Jean Shake. In Re: Michael Christopher Weatherford.
In this action, he represented the foster mother, Jean Shake. She took into her possession in early January, 1986, the minor Defendant, Michael Christopher Weatherford. This placement was because of failure to thrive with the parents. In May, 1986, a reunion of the child with his natural mother was attempted. It was not successful and the child was returned to Mrs. Shake. The Department of Social Services attempted in June, 1986, to remove the child from the foster parent and place the child in another foster home. The child at that time was not quite six months of age. He moved to intervene for the foster parent, and asked that she be allowed to maintain actual possession of the minor child. This was objected to by the Department. After argument, presentment of affidavits and testimony, the court determined that it was in the best interest of the child that the foster parent be made a party and be allowed to intervene and that custody of the minor child should remain with the Department of Social Services, but placement would be with the foster parent, Jean Shake, and that placement could not be removed from her without prior approval of the Family Court.

18. Five (5) civil appeals:

(a) Thelma M. Baird v. Alva N. Baird, 90-DR-16-12, Court of Appeals.
Settled prior to argument.

(b) Kenneth A. Morse v. G. Kaye Ledford, 89-DR-16-317, Court of Appeals.
Settled prior to argument.

22. Public Office:
Darlington County Council elected January 1, 1981 - January 1, 1989 (8 years); Chairman 1983-1987
23. Unsuccessful candidate:
He ran unsuccessfully for Solicitor of the Fourth Judicial Circuit, 1988.

24. Any Occupation, Business or Profession Other Than the Practice of Law:
He was an elementary school teacher, Darlington County School District, 1970 to 1972.

27. Financial Arrangement or Business Relationships:
If elected, he would have to resign as Chief Public Defender for Darlington County and also close his law firm.

31. Sued:

(a) 86-2958-6(b), United States District of South Carolina, Calvin McCoy v. John Doe, et al. He was sued in his capacity of appointed counsel for the Plaintiff. Mr. McCoy was not satisfied with the sentence handed down at the time of his trial for murder. The case was dismissed on motion for Summary Judgment. The Plaintiff appealed, but the appeal was also dismissed.

(b) He was a party in a divorce action in 1983. He was granted a divorce on the ground of one year's separation.

33. His health is excellent. His last physical examination was in 1982, by Dr. Josiah S. Matthews, III, 265 Cashua Street, Darlington, South Carolina 29532.

35. He is required to wear eyeglasses or contact lenses. His vision is not impaired to any great extent.

39. Bar Associations and Professional Organizations:
South Carolina Bar; The Association of Trial Lawyers of America; South Carolina Trial Lawyers Association; The American Judicature Society

40. Civic, charitable, religious, educational, social and fraternal organizations:
Darlington Kiwanis Club; Darlington County Chamber of Commerce, President 1986; Greater Hartsville Chamber of Commerce; St. Matthews Episcopal Church, Warden 1989-90; Diocesan Lay Coordinator, Cursillo in Christianity Movement, Diocese of South Carolina (1992-present); The Lord Cares Ministry, Board of Directors (1990-present); Kairos Prison Ministry; Central Correctional Institution; Evans Correctional Institution; Who's Who in American Law, 1990-92; Kiwanis Citizenship Award (1967); Darlington County Chamber of Commerce Leadership Award (1986); Outstanding Young Men in America (1983); Outstanding Personalities of the South (1983)

41. He has a very deep feeling for children involved in Family Court matters. Having one child by a previous marriage has made him keenly aware of how separation and divorce affects children. Also having been adopted at infancy has given him a deep concern for the rights of children and their protection.

42. Five (5) letters of recommendation:

(a) W. B. McCown, III, President and CEO
Darlington County Bank
P. O. Box 502, Darlington, SC 29532

(b) Evander G. Jeffords, Esquire
P. O. Box 1770, Florence, SC 29503

(c) Albert L. James, III, Esquire
P. O. Box 507, Darlington, SC 29532

(d) Elise S. Moore
552 West Home Avenue, Hartsville, SC 29550

(e) Daniel B. Causey, III, Esquire
P. O. Box 293, Darlington, SC 29532

Q THE BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS ON GRIEVANCES AND DISCIPLINE REPORTS NO COMPLAINTS EVER HAVING BEEN FILED AGAINST YOU. THE HIGHWAY DEPARTMENT RECORDS ARE NEGATIVE, AS ARE THE RECORDS FROM THE DARLINGTON COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE AND DARLINGTON CITY POLICE DEPARTMENT, SLED, AND F.B.I. THE JUDGMENT ROLLS OF DARLINGTON COUNTY ARE ALSO NEGATIVE. IN YOUR QUESTIONNAIRE, NUMBER 31, YOU MENTIONED A SUIT THAT YOU WERE A PARTY TO.
A YES, SIR.
Q WOULD YOU TELL US ABOUT THAT?
A YES, SIR. I REPRESENTED MR. MCCOY IN A DEATH PENALTY CASE. HE, DURING THE MIDDLE OF THE TRIAL, PLED AND WAS SENTENCED TO LIFE IMPRISONMENT. HE LATER SUED MYSELF AS ONE OF HIS ATTORNEYS; HE SUED THE OTHER ATTORNEY; HE SUED THE SHERIFF OF DARLINGTON COUNTY; HE SUED THE JAILER; ALLEGING THAT -- AND HE MAY HAVE ENDED UP SUING THE SOLICITOR; I CAN'T REMEMBER IF THE SOLICITOR WAS IN THAT SUIT -- HE ALLEGED HE HAD BEEN PROMISED A FIVE-YEAR SENTENCE. IT WAS DISMISSED BY DISTRICT COURT AND ALSO BY FOURTH CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS.
Q MR. KILGO, WHAT WOULD YOU DO TO INSURE THAT YOU DIDN'T DEVELOP THE SYNDROME REFERRED TO AS ROBITIS, ON THE BENCH? WHEN THE TEDIUM OF THE JOB GETS TO THE POINT THAT YOU BECOME INTEMPERATE, WHAT WOULD YOU DO TO AVOID THAT?
A WELL, I THINK YOU HAVE TO LOOK AT ALL ASPECTS OF LIFE AND NOT LET THAT BE THE ONLY THING THAT YOU HAVE IN LIFE; TO INCLUDE A WELL-ROUNDEDNESS OF YOURSELF. IF YOU DO THAT, THEN YOU WILL NOT FOCUS JUST ON THAT. THAT CERTAINLY IS A JOB, AND IT'S AN IMPORTANT PART, BUT THAT IS NOT ALL THAT LIFE IS.
Q WHAT DO YOU THINK ABOUT MAKING THE TRANSITION FROM BEING AN ADVOCATE AND AN ACTIVE PRIVATE PRACTITIONER, TO BECOMING MORE PASSIVE AND HAVING TO SIT AND MAYBE LISTEN TO A LOT OF BORING LAWYERS AND LAW QUESTIONS AND IRRELEVANT TESTIMONY, AND THAT SORT OF THING? HOW WILL YOU ADAPT TO THAT?
A WELL, I THINK IT, YOU KNOW, IT'S A MATTER OF LEARNING TO LISTEN. AND I HAVE TRIED IN MY PRACTICE TO LISTEN TO MY CLIENTS, AND NOT JUST IN-AND-OUT, BUT TO LISTEN TO THEIR STORIES, FIND OUT WHAT THEIR PROBLEMS ARE. AND I THINK THAT ASPECT ALSO, OF COURSE, COMES OVER WHEN YOU SIT ON THE BENCH. IT'S TO LISTEN; NOT MAKE DECISIONS, UNTIL YOU'VE HEARD EVERYTHING.
Q MR. KILGO, YOU'RE AWARE OF THE NO-PLEDGE RULE. I ASSUME YOU HAVE ABIDED BY IT, AND THAT YOU HAVE NO PLEDGES --
A THAT'S RIGHT.
Q -- AND HAVE SOUGHT NO COMMITMENTS?
A THAT'S RIGHT.
Q AT THE PRESENT TIME, WHAT PERCENT OF YOUR WORK IS IN THE FAMILY COURT?
A APPROXIMATELY -- WELL, IN THE LAST COUPLE OF MONTHS A LOT OF THINGS HAVE CHANGED; BUT UP UNTIL THAT TIME, ABOUT 50 PERCENT.
CHAIRMAN POPE: DOES THE COMMITTEE HAVE SOME QUESTIONS?
REPRESENTATIVE HODGES: I DO.
CHAIRMAN POPE: MR. HODGES.
REPRESENTATIVE HODGES: I JUST HAVE ONE.

Q THERE ARE TWO CANDIDATES IN THIS RACE. WHAT PARTICULAR STRENGTHS DO YOU THINK YOU OFFER TO A FAMILY COURT POSITION?
A WELL, ONE, I HAVE DONE A LOT OF FAMILY COURT WORK. ABOUT HALF OF MY PRACTICE -- BEFORE MY FATHER DIED, WE WERE FAIRLY WELL DEPARTMENTALIZED. I DID FAMILY COURT WORK AND THE PUBLIC DEFENDER WORK ON THE CRIMINAL SIDE. HE DID PRIVATE CRIMINAL WORK AND CIVIL WORK. I DID SOME CIVIL WORK, BUT NOT A GREAT DEAL. SO I SPENT A LOT OF TIME IN FAMILY COURT OVER THE LAST 17 YEARS; AND AS PUBLIC DEFENDER, SPENT A LOT OF TIME IN JUVENILE FAMILY COURT, WHICH A LOT OF PEOPLE DON'T HAVE EXPERIENCE IN. AND THAT HAS BEEN A REAL EYE-OPENING EXPERIENCE DEALING WITH JUVENILES AND TRYING TO WORK WITH CHILDREN TO SAVE THEM BEFORE IT'S TOO LATE.
Q FOR A FAMILY COURT JUDGE, WHAT DO YOU THINK IS THE MOST IMPORTANT ASPECT YOU SAW, FOR THAT POSITION, SAY AS AGAINST A CIRCUIT COURT JUDGE?
A WELL, I THINK CERTAINLY THE ABILITY OF PATIENCE TO SIT THERE AND LISTEN TO, SOMETIMES, VERY VIOLENT -- YOU KNOW, IN FAMILY COURT, THINGS CAN GET VERY HEATED. YOU'VE GOT TO BE ABLE TO BE COOL, TO LISTEN, AND TO BE OBJECTIVE.
CHAIRMAN POPE: ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? REPRESENTATIVE GLOVER?

Q SOUTH CAROLINA, RIGHT NOW, LEADS THE WORLD IN THE INCARCERATION RATE OF ITS CHILDREN. IN THIS POSITION, HOW DO YOU THINK YOU MIGHT BE ABLE TO HELP, OR WHAT DO YOU SEE AS SOME OF THE THINGS THAT SHOULD BE CHANGED, TO CHANGE THAT RATE?
A ONE THING, AS PUBLIC DEFENDER, I'VE WORKED AT FOR THE LAST SIX YEARS, IS TRYING TO DO SOMETHING OTHER THAN JUST SIMPLY TO JOHN G. RICHARDS OR TO WILLOW LANE. THERE ARE GROUP HOMES ACROSS THE STATE. THERE'S THE MARINE INSTITUTE. TO LOOK AT PLACES OTHER THAN JUST SIMPLY INCARCERATION IN COLUMBIA. JUDGE JOHANSEN'S ORDER IS GOING TO CHANGE THE WHOLE ASPECT OF JUVENILE COURTS IN THIS STATE. AND WE'VE GOT TO LOOK AT THAT; WE'VE GOT TO SEE WHAT WE'RE GOING TO DO WITH CHILDREN, BEFORE THEY REALLY BECOME CRIMINALS. RIGHT NOW, UNFORTUNATELY, WE DON'T HAVE A MARINE INSTITUTE FOR GIRLS. AND A GIRL, IF SHE'S GOING TO BE INCARCERATED, UNLESS YOU CAN FIND HER A GROUP HOME, IS GOING TO GO TO THE DEPARTMENT OF YOUTH SERVICES.
CHAIRMAN POPE: ANY OTHER QUESTIONS BY THE COMMITTEE?

CHAIRMAN POPE: MR. KILGO, DO YOU HAVE ANY OTHER COMMENTS YOU WOULD LIKE TO MAKE?
WITNESS: NO, SIR, YOUR HONOR. IT'S A PLEASURE TO BE HERE AND I FEEL LIKE I CAN SERVE THE PEOPLE.
CHAIRMAN POPE: THANK YOU, SIR.
WITNESS: THANK YOU.

CHAIRMAN POPE: NEXT IS MR. JAMIE LEE MURDOCK, JR.

WHEREUPON, JAMIE LEE MURDOCK, JR., BEING DULY SWORN AND CAUTIONED TO TELL THE TRUTH, THE WHOLE TRUTH, AND NOTHING BUT THE TRUTH, IS EXAMINED AND TESTIFIES AS FOLLOWS:

Q MR. MURDOCK, YOU'VE REVIEWED THE PERSONAL DATA QUESTIONNAIRE SUMMARY?
A YES, SIR.
Q DOES IT NEED ANY AMENDMENT?
A NO, SIR.
Q YOU HAVE NO OBJECTION TO US MAKING IT A PART OF THE RECORD?
A NO, SIR.
Q WE WILL DO THAT.

1. Jamie Lee Murdock, Jr.
Home Address: Business Address:
1020 Edgewood Drive P. O. Drawer 70
Hartsville, SC 29550 954 West Carolina Avenue

Hartsville, SC 29550

2. He was born in Augusta, Georgia, on November 6, 1952. He is presently 39 years old.
Social Security Number: ***-**-****

4. She was married to Beverly Lorraine Rector on August 28, 1976. He has two children: Jamie Rector, age 12; and Jason Daniel, age 6.

5. Military Service: None

6. He attended Presbyterian College, 1971-1975, B.S. in Management; Walter F. George School of Law-Mercer University, 1980-1981, first year of Law School-transferred; the University of South Carolina Law School, 1981-1983, J.D.

7. He was on the Freshman Orientation Board at Presbyterian College, 1973; a Freshman Dormitory Counselor at Presbyterian College, 1973-1974; a member of the Sigma Nu Fraternity (Commander 1974-1975), 1972-1975; a member of the Blue Key Honor Society at Presbyterian College, 1974-1975; and he clerked for Ratchford & Cooper Attorneys at Law, 1981-1983.

8. Legal/Judicial education during the past five years:
For the past five years, he has attended continuing legal education classes relating to various areas of practice. He is required, as a City Judge, to obtain 12 hours per year in the area of criminal law or trial advocacy. In addition, he normally attends one or two other courses each year. Those additional courses have been related to various areas of his practice, such as domestic law, tort law and business law.

12. Legal experience since graduation from law school:
Immediately after graduating from law school, he clerked for Ratchford & Cooper, Attorneys at Law until he completed the bar exam. Upon completion of the bar exam, he began practicing with Shand & Stanton in Hartsville, South Carolina. Their practice consisted primarily of debt collection, real estate and family court work with a small amount of personal injury and criminal practice. Over the years, their practice has continued to thrive in those areas of law, but they have increased in their personal injury practice, in their corporate practice, and in their criminal law practice. Because he practiced in a two-person firm, he has not specialized in any one area of practice, but he has had experience in a number of areas of the law.

14. Frequency of appearances in court:
Federal - infrequent, he will handle probably an average of 1 or 2 cases per year.
State - frequent, especially in Criminal and Family Court cases
Other - rare

15. Percentage of litigation:
Civil - 20%
Criminal - 30%
Domestic - 50%

16. Percentage of cases in trial courts:
Jury - 10%
Non-jury - 90%

He was sole counsel in all of his trials. In a statewide grand jury case, he was one of eight attorneys, but they all represented different Defendants. In a federal appeal, he was co-counsel with Lionel Lofton of Charleston.

17. Five (5) of the most significant litigated matters in either trial or appellate court:

(a) State v. John E. Watford, Jr., et al. This was a statewide grand jury drug trial that lasted three weeks and is presently being appealed. He represented 1 of the 11 Defendants who pled not guilty. Including the prosecutors, approximately ten lawyers participated in this trial. He has never tried a case with this number of Defendants and with the problems which are inherent in such a trial.

(b) U. S. v. Anthony McFadden. This was a federal case in which his client was prosecuted for dealing in cocaine. His client pled guilty after the jury was selected, but they later appealed the case and the appeal focused on the sentencing guidelines which had been in use less than one year at the time of the case. He was co-counsel on this case with Lionel Lofton of Charleston.

(c) Marie Banki v. Herman Brown, et al. This involved a dispute in which the Plaintiff claimed that she lacked the mental capacity to enter into a contract when she bought a house for the Defendants and took back a mortgage on the property. The witnesses in this case included a doctor, an attorney, a legal secretary and an insurance agent/adviser. The Plaintiff was an elderly lady who was hospitalized immediately after the closing of the transaction in question. The parties agreed to use a telephone deposition of a witness in this case.

(d) Ronald Windham, et al. v. Timothy M. Tingstad. This was a paternity case. A child was borne by Linda T. Windham during her marriage to Tim Tingstad. After their divorce, she claimed that the child's father was her new husband, Ronnie Windham, and she wished to terminate Tim's parental rights and have paternity of the child determined.

(e) Audrey Gilbert v. Ellebe Gilbert. This was a case in which every issue was contested, especially the issue of custody. Expert testimony was presented in the case. After the Order was signed, there were numerous additional hearings on visitation and contempt matters. Other issues in the case included equitable division, child support (pre-guidelines), attorney fees, and physical cruelty grounds for the divorce.

18. Five (5) civil appeals:

He has been involved as a party's attorney in two Family Court cases that were appealed. Both appeals were dismissed by the opposing party before briefs were filed.

20. Judicial Office:

Hartsville Municipal Judge; January, 1986 - present; criminal jurisdiction of $200 fine or 30 days incarceration

Timmonsville Municipal Judge; January, 1989 - present

He was also selected by Dan Causey of Darlington and Billy Spencer of Chesterfield to act as a special referee in a dispute concerning the ownership of some farm equipment. This was a 1991 case.

21. Five significant Orders or Opinions Written:

Because City Court does not have civil jurisdiction, Orders are not required.

24. Any Occupation, Business or Profession Other Than the Practice of Law:
Teacher-Coach at Wardlaw Academy, Johnston, South Carolina, 1975-1976; insurance agent for South Carolina Farm Bureau in Lexington, South Carolina, 1976-1978 and in Edgefield, South Carolina, 1978-1980

27. Financial Arrangement or Business Relationships:
He owns one piece of rental property with a friend. If the co-owner appeared before him, he would recuse himself. In addition, if the tenant appeared before him, he would recuse himself.

28. Arrested or Charged: When he was 19 years old, he was arrested at the Wave Rider Motel in Myrtle Beach, South Carolina. Some friends asked him to stay an additional night at the beach. They offered to let him sleep on the floor in their room. The manager had him arrested for trespassing. He forfeited bond in the amount of $35.

33. His health is excellent. His last physical examination was in 1980, although he has had his blood pressure and cholesterol checked periodically since then.

35. He wears prescription eyeglasses.

39. Bar Associations and Professional Organizations:
Darlington County Bar Association, 1983-present; South Carolina Bar Association, 1983-present; American Bar Association, 1983-present; South Carolina Trial Lawyers Association, 1983-present; American Trial Lawyers Association, 19 - present; Public Defender Board Member, 1988-present; Legal Services for the Fourth Circuit Board Member, 1990-present

40. Civic, charitable, religious, educational, social and fraternal organizations:
Lions Club, Board Member (1985 to 1990), President (1989); Hartsville Chamber of Commerce, Board Member (1986-present); Hartsville Youth Football League, Vice-Commissioner (1986 and 1987); Hartsville Masonic Lodge; Junior Warden (1992); York Rite Shriner; Wesley United Methodist Church, Board of Trustees (1985-1987), Chairman of Stewardship (1985-1987), Member of Administrative Board and Council on Ministries (1985-present); Director of Methodist Youth Fellowship (1985-1986), Lay Leader (1989-present); Coker College, Member of Board of Visitors (1988-1991); Byerly Hospital, Member of Board of Trustees (1988-1991); Boy Scouts of America, Merit Badge Counselor for Troop 512 (1992)

41. He frequently is selected by attorneys to serve as Guardian ad Litem in contested custody cases. In these cases he almost always visits the homes of the parents, interviews the parties and the children, reviews depositions, interviews expert witnesses, witnesses, submits written reports to the Court, and actively participates in the hearing. On at least two occasions within the last year attorneys selected him to serve in cases that were previously appealed and remanded for a new trial.
42. Five (5) letters of recommendation:

(a) John S. Nichols, Vice President
NCNB
P. O. Box 1836, Hartsville, SC 29550

(b) James D. Daniels, President
Coker College
Hartsville, SC 29550

(c) Rev. James O. Gilliam, Jr.
Wesley United Methodist Church
P. O. Box 836, Hartsville, SC 29550

(d) James C. Cox, Jr., Esquire
P. O. Box 519, Hartsville, SC 29550

(e) H. E. DeLoach, Jr., Vice President-HDFP
Sonoco Products Company
Main Office, Hartsville, SC 29550

Q THE BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS ON GRIEVANCES AND DISCIPLINE REPORT NO FORMAL COMPLAINTS EVER HAVING BEEN FILED AGAINST YOU. THE JUDICIAL STANDARDS COMMISSION HAS NO RECORD OF ANY REPRIMANDS AGAINST YOU. WE HAVE CHECKED THE RECORDS OF THE HIGHWAY DEPARTMENT, DARLINGTON COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE, DARLINGTON CITY POLICE DEPARTMENT, SLED, AND THE F.B.I.; THEY ARE ALL NEGATIVE. THE JUDGMENT ROLLS OF DARLINGTON COUNTY ARE NEGATIVE, AS ARE THE FEDERAL COURT RECORDS. YOUR HEALTH IS GOOD?
A YES, SIR.
Q YOUR STATEMENT OF ECONOMIC INTERESTS SHOWS NO CONFLICTS OF INTEREST OR OBLIGATIONS. THE FINANCIAL NET WORTH STATEMENT AND CREDIT REPORTS THAT HAVE BEEN SUBMITTED ARE SATISFACTORY. NO ONE HAS MADE A COMPLAINT AGAINST YOU. WHAT PERCENT OF YOUR PRACTICE RIGHT NOW IS DOMESTIC, MR. MURDOCK?
A AT THIS TIME, ABOUT 50 PERCENT OF MY PRACTICE IS DOMESTIC WORK. PRIOR TO BEING APPOINTED AS A MEMBER OF THE LEGAL SERVICES BOARD IN DARLINGTON COUNTY, I WOULD SAY PROBABLY 65 PERCENT WAS DOMESTIC WORK. AND THE REASON I WOULD SAY THAT IS, I PRACTICE ALONG WITH ALEX STANTON IN HARTSVILLE; AND IN DARLINGTON COUNTY, LEGAL SERVICES CASES ARE HANDLED BY PRIVATE ATTORNEYS. THEY APPOINT PRIVATE ATTORNEYS. AND I WOULD HANDLE ALL OF THE LEGAL SERVICES CASES THAT WERE APPOINTED IN OUR OFFICE. I NO LONGER CAN HANDLE THOSE CASES BECAUSE I'M A MEMBER OF THAT BOARD, SO IT HAS DECREASED A LITTLE BIT.
Q ALL RIGHT. NOW, YOU ALSO HAVE BEEN MUNICIPAL JUDGE IN HARTSVILLE.
A YES, SIR.
Q AND THAT IS A PART-TIME POSITION?
A YES, SIR.
Q ONCE A WEEK? ONE DAY A WEEK, OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT?
A GENERALLY, I HOLD COURT ONE DAY A WEEK AND I HOLD JURY TRIALS ABOUT ONCE EVERY MONTH AND A HALF, UNLESS IT'S REQUIRED MORE OFTEN.
Q HAVE YOU HAD EXPERIENCE WITH THE JUVENILE ASPECT OF FAMILY COURT, EITHER PROSECUTION OR DEFENSE OF JUVENILES?
A LIMITED EXPERIENCE. I PROBABLY HAVE DEFENDED MAYBE TWO OR THREE JUVENILES IN FAMILY COURT.
Q WHAT DO YOU THINK ABOUT THE ROLE OF DEMEANOR IN A JUDGE, OR JUDICIAL TEMPERAMENT? HOW IMPORTANT IS IT?
A WELL, I THINK IN THE FAMILY COURT, IN PARTICULAR, IT'S VERY IMPORTANT, BECAUSE, AS A FAMILY COURT JUDGE ONCE TOLD ME, THE FAMILY COURT IS THE PEOPLE'S COURT. WE DON'T HAVE INSURANCE COMPANIES COMING IN FAMILY COURT DEFENDING CASES. THESE ARE CASES THAT ARE USUALLY INVOLVING PEOPLE'S CHILDREN AND PEOPLE'S PERSONAL LIVES. THEY'RE VERY EMOTIONAL CASES. ALSO, CASES INVOLVING JUVENILES. SO I THINK THE TEMPERAMENT OF THE JUDGE IS EXTREMELY IMPORTANT IN THOSE CASES. I THINK THESE PEOPLE WHO COME TO FAMILY COURT SHOULD BE ABLE TO AIR THEIR CASES OR THEIR DIFFERENCES IN COURT. I THINK THEY SHOULD BE TREATED IN AN APPROPRIATE FASHION WHEN THEY DO THAT, RATHER THAN BEING TREATED IN AN ABRUPT FASHION.
Q WHAT ROLE DO YOU THINK THE JUDGE OUGHT TO PLAY IN SETTLEMENT? SHOULD THE JUDGE BE AGGRESSIVE ABOUT IT, OR PASSIVE, OR NOT BRING UP THE SUBJECT, OR --
A MY PERSONAL FEELING IS, I THINK A JUDGE SHOULD TRY TO PROMOTE SETTLEMENT IN CASES WHEN IT CAN BE OBTAINED. I KNOW IN FAMILY COURT, SOMETIMES -- I PROBABLY TRY A GREAT MANY MORE FAMILY COURT CASES THAN ANY OTHER KIND OF CASE THAT I'M INVOLVED IN; THE REASON BEING, IT IS A PERSONAL SITUATION. YOU'RE DEALING WITH PEOPLE'S PERSONAL LIVES AND IT'S A LOT HARDER SOMETIMES TO SETTLE THOSE CASES. AND IN ADDITION TO THAT, IF I HAVE A CLIENT WHO'S IN A CUSTODY BATTLE, AND THEY REALLY WANT TO FIGHT FOR THEIR CHILDREN, AS MUCH AS I MAY WANT TO TRY TO PROMOTE A SETTLEMENT, I'M NOT GOING TO TALK ANYBODY OUT OF FIGHTING FOR THEIR CHILDREN IF THEY THINK THAT'S IN THE BEST INTEREST OF THEIR CHILDREN. AS THEIR ATTORNEY, NATURALLY, I WOULD ADVISE THEM ON THAT. BUT AS THE JUDGE, I DON'T THINK THAT I COULD REALLY GET INVOLVED WITH BEING AGGRESSIVE IN TRYING TO FORCE A SETTLEMENT OF A CUSTODY ISSUE. OTHER ISSUES -- DIVISION OF PROPERTY, THINGS LIKE THAT -- I THINK THE JUDGE CAN TAKE A LITTLE MORE AGGRESSIVE ROLE.
CHAIRMAN POPE: DOES THE COMMITTEE HAVE ANY QUESTIONS OF MR. MURDOCK?

Q DO YOU HAVE SUGGESTIONS OR WAYS IN WHICH YOU WOULD HANDLE THE RATE OF JUVENILE INCARCERATION IN THIS STATE?
A BEING A CITY COURT JUDGE, I'VE HAD THE OPPORTUNITY TO DEAL WITH SOME YOUNG PEOPLE, GENERALLY AGE 17 AND ABOVE. MY PRACTICE IN CITY COURT HAS BEEN TO USE ALTERNATIVE MEANS. I RARELY -- AND I UNDERSTAND I ONLY HAVE 30 DAYS' JURISDICTION IN CITY COURT, SO I CAN'T PUT ANYBODY IN JAIL FOR TOO LONG A PERIOD OF TIME -- BUT I RARELY WOULD PUT A JUVENILE IN JAIL, IN MOST CASES. I THINK THERE ARE OTHER ALTERNATIVE MEANS THAT ARE BETTER FOR THOSE CHILDREN, THAT CAN HELP THEM GET THEIR LIVES TURNED AROUND. IN ADDITION, I FRANKLY DON'T LIKE TO FINE A JUVENILE IN CITY COURT AND LET HIS PARENTS PAY THE FINE, BECAUSE I DON'T THINK HE LEARNS ANYTHING FROM THAT. I LIKE FOR HIM TO SUFFER THE CONSEQUENCES -- HIM OR HER TO SUFFER THE CONSEQUENCES OF THEIR ACTIONS. SO I THINK THE ALTERNATIVE RESOLUTIONS, OTHER THAN INCARCERATION, SHOULD ALWAYS BE USED, EXCEPT IN EXTREME CASES; AND THAT'S WHAT I WOULD ATTEMPT TO DO.
CHAIRMAN POPE: DO YOU HAVE ANY OTHER COMMENTS MR. MURDOCK?
WITNESS: NO, SIR.
CHAIRMAN POPE: THANK YOU, VERY MUCH.
WITNESS: THANK YOU.

CHAIRMAN POPE: NEXT IS JUDGE JUDY C. BRIDGES, FAMILY COURT OF THE NINTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, SEAT #3.

WHEREUPON, JUDY C. BRIDGES, BEING DULY SWORN AND CAUTIONED TO TELL THE TRUTH, THE WHOLE TRUTH, AND NOTHING BUT THE TRUTH, IS EXAMINED AND TESTIFIES AS FOLLOWS:

Q JUDGE, YOU WERE SCREENED IN MARCH OF '88, I BELIEVE, LAST TIME?
A YES, SIR.
Q HAVE YOU REVIEWED THE PERSONAL DATA QUESTIONNAIRE SUMMARY?
A I HAVE.
Q DOES IT NEED ANY AMENDMENT OR MODIFICATION?
A NO.
Q DO YOU HAVE ANY OBJECTION TO US MAKING IT A PART OF THE RECORD?
A NO.
Q WE WILL DO THAT.

1. Judy Cone Bridges
Home Address: Business Address
184 Tradd Street #2 Courthouse Square Annex
Charleston, SC 29401 P. O. Box 934
Charleston, SC 29402

2. She was born in McKinney, Texas on March 30, 1945. She is presently 47 years old.
Social Security Number: ***-**-****

4. She was married to James Leland Bridges on September 24, 1977. She has one child: Sarah Leland, age 9 1/2 years.

5. Military Service: None

6. She attended Winthrop College, 1963 to 1966, B.A. History and Asian Studies; Florida State University, 1966 to 1967, M.A. East Asian Studies; the University of South Carolina, 1968 to 1973, 18 graduate hours in addition to Master's Degree: Education; the University of South Carolina Law School, 1974 to 1976, J.D. Law; the University of Notre Dame Law School (London, England) Summer Study, 1975, Family Law, School Law, Jurisprudence; the University of Denver Law School Summer Study, 1976, Trial Tactics and Juvenile Defense Clinic; and the National Judicial College, University of Nevada (completed certificates), 1978 Evidence Seminar (1 week), 1979 Search & Seizure (1 week), 1980 General Jurisdiction (3 weeks), 1981 Criminal Evidence (1 week), 1982 Faculty Advisor: Special Jurisdiction (2 weeks), 1983 Victims' Rights Seminar (1 week) and 1991 Law, Justice, Ethics (1 week).

7. At Winthrop College, 1963 to 1964, she had employment-scholarship; at Winthrop College, 1964 to 1965, she was dorm counselor to freshman students; at Florida State University, Fall 1966, she was a delegate to Asian Studies Conference, McGill University, Quebec, Canada; she worked for the State House of Representatives, January to June 1975, page; at the University of Denver Law School, June to August 1976, she attended a Juvenile Law Clinic at the University of Denver Law School and she participated in the juvenile outward-bound program; and Richland County, September to December 1976, she was a legal assistant to the Richland County Solicitor's Office, assigned to Juvenile Court.

8. Legal/Judicial education during the past five years:

Criminal Law Update; 2/6/87; 6.5 hours

Child Abuse and Neglect & Family Legal Services; 8/21/87; 6.0 hours

A Practical Approach to Complex Issues in Family Court, Statutory Update, and Alimony Perspectives; 11/19-11/20, 1987; 12.0 hours

Guidelines in Using Mental Health Prof. In Custody and Child Abuse Cases; 3/18/88; 6.5 hours

Ethics, Rules and Contemporary Issues in Family Court; 7/15/88; 6.0 hours

Practical Approach to Complex Issues in Evidence and Statutory Law Update; 11/17-11/18, 1988, 12.0 hours

Child Victim in Court; 2/27-2/28, 1989; 10.0 hours

Bits and Pieces; 7/21/89; 5.0 hours

Issues in Family Law; 11/17/89; 5.0 hours

Criminal Law Update; 1/25-1/26, 1990; 10.0 hours

Charleston Seminar; 3/30/90; 5.0 hours

Family Law Issues; 11/9/90; 5.0 hours

The Future and the Courts; 4/4-4/5, 1991; 10.0 hours

Family Law Update (Summer); 7/19/91; 5.0 hours

9. Courses taught or lectures presented:
She participated in JCLE and Trial Lawyers programs on child abuse.
12. Legal experience since graduation from law school:
She graduated from the University of South Carolina Law School in December, 1976, and was admitted to the South Carolina Bar in May, 1977. In September, 1977, she was an associate of Leonard Krawcheck Law Office, engaged in the general practice of law. They represented Seabrook Island Company in real estate transactions and acted as general counsel. Real estate, contracts, and domestic law were the areas in which she specialized. From October, 1977 to October, 1978, she also represented the City of Charleston as Assistant Corporation Council with the responsibility of prosecuting criminal cases in the Municipal Court. Also, it was her responsibility to represent the city in cases involving tort claims, government contracts, zoning issues and tax matters. From October, 1978 to February, 1983, she served as Associate Municipal Court Judge for the City of Charleston. In February, 1983, she was elected as Family Court Judge for the Ninth Judicial Circuit, Seat #3. In February 1984, she was reelected as Family Court Judge for the Ninth Judicial Circuit, Seat #3 and again reelected in February, 1988, and has served continuously since.

20. Judicial Office:
She served as Associate Municipal Court Judge for the City of Charleston from 1978 to 1983. The position is appointed by the Mayor, upon consent from City Council. The Court has a limited jurisdiction of $200 or 30 days in the County Jail, and involved criminal cases only. Also, she was elected as Family Court Judge of the Ninth Judicial Circuit in February, 1983, was reelected in February, 1984, was reelected in February, 1988, and has served continuously since. Jurisdiction is limited to domestic and juvenile criminal actions.

21. Five significant Orders or Opinions Written:

(a) State of South Carolina: In the Interest of Eric Lamont Milligan, a Juvenile, 91-JU-10-1493.
Order represents a culmination of efforts and evaluations on a young juvenile with special needs for both mental retardation and substance abuse.

(b) State of South Carolina: In the Interest of Maurice Tremaine Phoenix, a Juvenile, 91-JU-10-714, 715, 756, 757, 758, 759.
Order finding a juvenile to be a threat to the community and waiving the offenses to the Circuit Court for prosecution where the juvenile will be tried as an adult.

(c) Teresa Elizabeth Hamilton Garton v. George Taylor Brew, 89-DR-10-3502.
Order for child custody to wife; visitation, therapy and alimony to husband in a case involving two foreign nationals where the husband had been a house-husband throughout the marriage.

(d) Cathy Loudermilk Kennedy v. Martin Edward Kennedy, 83-DR-08-078.
Order granting custody of the minor child to the father and setting out appropriate behavior requirements for both parents. Visitation guidelines spelled out to leave little latitude for disagreement between the parties.

(e) South Carolina Department of Social Services v. Beverly O'Banner, et al.,
84-DR-10-4006.
(Court of Appeals decision found at 353 S.E. 2d 151 (S.C. App. 1987).
Order for termination of parental rights based on the mother's mental illness and extreme physical incapacity, in spite of strong parental desire. (Appeal affirmed)

24. Any Occupation, Business or Profession Other Than the Practice of Law:

From 1967 to 1974, she was a public school teacher, instructing high school social studies:
1967 to 1968 Athens, Georgia - World History and Sociology
1968 to 1971 Richland County School District #1 - Social Studies (1968-70, A.C. Flora; 1970-71, Hopkins)
1971 to 1974 Sumter School District #7 - Tenth Grade World History (Lincoln Campus)

27. Financial Arrangements or Business Relationships:
If there were any possibility of a financial, business, or personal conflict, she would recuse herself from hearing the case.

33. Her health is excellent. Her last physical was in 1991 by Dr. S. Sandford Estes, 1364 Ashley River Road, Charleston, South Carolina 29407.

35. She wears bifocals.

39. Bar Associations and Professional Organizations:
Charleston County Bar, Executive Committee (1980), Family Law Committee (1982); South Carolina Bar, Family Law Section Secretary (1981-1983), Family Law Subcommittee of Practice and Procedure Committee (1981-1983), Practice and Procedure Committee (1981-1983), Young Lawyers Executive Committee and District Representative (1981); South Carolina Trial Lawyers Association, Family Law Section Co-Chairman (1981-1983); South Carolina Family Court Judges Association

40. Civic, charitable, religious, educational, social, and fraternal organizations:
Certificate of Appreciation, U. S. Department of Justice, National Institute of Justice (honor only, not a member); Winthrop College Board of Visitors; Lay Eucharistic Minister, Grace Episcopal Church; participant in Preservation Tours in Historic Charleston

41. In addition to her position as a resident Family Court Judge of the Ninth Judicial Circuit, she has also been Chief Administrative Judge of the Fourteenth Judicial Circuit, particularly in Beaufort. She assumed these additional responsibilities in anticipation of being able to assume administrative responsibilities in the Ninth Judicial Circuit. Subsequently, she did assume the additional responsibility as Chief Administrative Judge for the Ninth Judicial Circuit for one year. She has been a Family Court Judge for nine years, and she has endeavored to be fair, impartial, patient and courteous. She considers Family Court cases to be the most important cases in our system, and she considers it an honor to serve in this Court.

42. Five letters of reference:

(a) James A. LaHaise, Assistant Vice President
First Union National Bank of South Carolina
P. O. Box 995, Charleston, SC 29402

(b) Capers G. Barr, III, Esquire
P. O. Box 1037, Charleston, SC 29402

(c) Jan Buvinger, Director
Charleston County Library
404 King Street, Charleston, SC 29403-6466

(d) R. Markley Dennis, Jr., Esquire
P. O. Drawer 1174, Moncks Corner, SC 29461

(e) Leonard Krawcheck, Esquire
P. O. Drawer 1018, Charleston, SC 29402

Q THE BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS ON GRIEVANCES AND DISCIPLINE REPORT NO FORMAL COMPLAINTS EVER HAVING BEEN FILED AGAINST YOU, AND THE JUDICIAL STANDARDS COMMISSION ALSO HAS NO RECORD OF ANY REPRIMAND AGAINST YOU. THE RECORDS OF THE HIGHWAY DEPARTMENT, THE CHARLESTON COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE, AND THE CHARLESTON CITY POLICE DEPARTMENT ARE NEGATIVE, AND THE SLED AND F.B.I. RECORDS ARE NEGATIVE, AS ARE THE JUDGMENT ROLLS OF CHARLESTON COUNTY AND THE FEDERAL COURT RECORDS. AND YOUR HEALTH IS STILL EXCELLENT?
A YES.
Q YOUR STATEMENT OF ECONOMIC INTERESTS SHOWS NO CONFLICTS OF INTEREST OR OBLIGATIONS. THE COMMITTEE IS SATISFIED WITH THE CREDIT REPORTS AND FINANCIAL NET WORTH STATEMENTS THAT HAVE BEEN SUBMITTED. NO ONE HAS COMPLAINED OR ASKED TO BE PRESENT TO TESTIFY IN THIS MATTER AGAINST YOU. JUDGE, WHAT DO YOU THINK ABOUT THE IMPORTANCE OF JUDICIAL TEMPERAMENT, AS YOU HAVE BEEN ON THE BENCH NOW FOR A GOOD WHILE?
A NINE YEARS. THAT'S VERY IMPORTANT. I THINK IT'S ONE OF THE MOST IMPORTANT THINGS IN TERMS OF FAMILY COURT. YOU HAVE PEOPLE WHO ARE COMING IN WHO HAVE GOT -- THEY'RE JUST UNDER TERRIBLE STRESS, AND I THINK IT'S MOST IMPORTANT FOR THE JUDGE TO BE PATIENT AND EMPATHETIC TO THEIR SITUATION, AND TO LET THEM HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY OF CATHARSIS, IF IT IS NECESSARY, TO GIVE TIME AND PATIENCE. AND I TRY TO DO THAT.
Q WHAT IS THE MOST FRUSTRATING PART OF YOUR JOB?
A I THINK, OFTENTIMES, THE JUVENILES. I DON'T FEEL LIKE WE HAVE ENOUGH ALTERNATIVES, PARTICULARLY FOR THE JUVENILE THAT'S IN THAT AGE CATEGORY OF 12 THROUGH 15. WITH 15-YEAR-OLDS WE CAN SEND -- (TO REPRESENTATIVE GLOVER) YOU KNOW, YOU WERE ASKING ABOUT SOME OF THE ALTERNATIVES TO INCARCERATION. THERE ARE VARIOUS MARINE INSTITUTES AND, YOU KNOW, OPPORTUNITY SCHOOLS, AND OTHER THINGS LIKE THAT. IN THAT PARTICULAR AGE GROUP, I FEEL LIKE THE OPPORTUNITIES ARE LIMITED FOR ALTERNATIVES, AND THAT'S OFTENTIMES FRUSTRATING. AND OFTENTIMES YOU GET A JUVENILE WHO'S GOT A LOT OF DIFFERENT PROBLEMS, AND YOU'RE TRYING TO COORDINATE THOSE BETWEEN DIFFERENT AGENCIES IN TERMS OF GETTING SOME SERVICES UNDER A PROBATION ORDER, AND IT BECOMES VERY FRUSTRATING BECAUSE IT SEEMS LIKE EVERYONE IS SAYING "YES, HE'S GOT A PROBLEM, BUT IT'S NOT OUR PROBLEM." TRYING TO WORK THROUGH THAT AND MAKE A PROBATION ORDER REALLY MEAN SOMETHING, SO THAT JUVENILE WON'T BE BACK BEFORE YOU, I THINK IS VERY FRUSTRATING ON THE JUVENILE END.
Q WHAT ROLE DO YOU THINK IS APPROPRIATE FOR A JUDGE IN SETTLEMENT MATTERS?
A WELL, FIRST, I LIKE TO ASK THE PARTIES, "HAVE YOU TALKED WITH EACH OTHER?" AND SOMETIMES THEY HAVEN'T, AND I LIKE TO GIVE THEM THAT OPPORTUNITY. I'VE BEEN AN ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE, AND I THINK WHEN YOU DO PRE-TRIALS AS AN ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE, YOU CAN BECOME SO MUCH MORE INVOLVED IN SETTLEMENT NEGOTIATIONS, BECAUSE WHAT YOU CAN DO IN TERMS OF SETTING THE TRIAL IS MAKE SURE IT DOESN'T GET SET BEFORE THE MEETING, SO I THINK YOU'VE GOT A LITTLE MORE LATITUDE. BUT I ALWAYS TRY TO WALK WHAT I THINK IS A DELICATE LINE BETWEEN -- AND OFTENTIMES, THE ATTORNEYS WILL ASK, "JUDGE, YOU KNOW, WOULD YOU TALK WITH US AND HELP GIVE US SOME DIRECTION." SO PARTICULARLY WHEN THEY ASK, I TRY TO DO THAT; BUT I ALSO KEEP IN MIND THAT AT CERTAIN TIMES, I DON'T WANT TO GO ANY FURTHER, BECAUSE I'M GOING TO BE THE ONE TO TRY THE CASE, WE'RE HERE TODAY, AND IT'S A DELICATE BALANCE THERE.
Q TO AVOID THE APPEARANCE OF HAVING TAINTED YOUR VIEWS OR SOMETHING?
A RIGHT. I ALWAYS SAY, "YOU'VE ASKED FOR SOME INPUT, AND I'VE TALKED WITH YOU, BUT I CAN TELL YOU YOU MAY GO IN THERE AND BE TOTALLY SURPRISED, BECAUSE I MAY DO SOMETHING ENTIRELY DIFFERENT," YOU KNOW. SO WHEN THEY ASK, I TRY TO HELP AND GIVE SOME INPUT TO THEM, TO THE ATTORNEYS.
CHAIRMAN POPE: DO ANY OF THE COMMITTEE MEMBERS HAVE ANY QUESTIONS?
VICE-CHAIRMAN GENTRY: JUDGE BRIDGES, I CAN'T BELIEVE THAT YOU'VE BEEN A FAMILY COURT JUDGE FOR NINE YEARS.
WITNESS: LOOK HOW GREY I AM. I WASN'T GREY WHEN I STARTED. I HOPE IT MEANS WISDOM.
CHAIRMAN POPE: THAT'S RIGHT. JUDGE, THANK YOU FOR BEING WITH US, AND WE APPRECIATE YOUR SERVICE.

CHAIRMAN POPE: NEXT IS JUDGE FRANK ROGERS, FAMILY COURT OF THE ELEVENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, SEAT #1.

WHEREUPON, W. FRANK ROGERS, JR., BEING DULY SWORN AND CAUTIONED TO TELL THE TRUTH, THE WHOLE TRUTH, AND NOTHING BUT THE TRUTH, IS EXAMINED AND TESTIFIES AS FOLLOWS:

Q JUDGE, HAVE YOU HAD A CHANCE TO REVIEW YOUR QUESTIONNAIRE SUMMARY?
A YES, SIR.
Q DOES IT NEED ANY CHANGE, OR IS IT COMPLETE?
A I BELIEVE IT'S ACCURATE, SIR.
Q YOU HAVE NO OBJECTION TO US MAKING IT A PART OF THE RECORD?
A NO, SIR.
Q WE WILL DO THAT.

1. W. Frank Rogers, Jr.
Home Address: Business Address
1217 Cardinal Drive Lexington County Courthouse
West Columbia, SC 29169 Lexington, SC 29072

2. He was born in Columbia, South Carolina on May 4, 1940. He is presently 51 years old.
Social Security Number: ***-**-****

4. He was married to Melinda Sue Coffey on February 18, 1978. He has two children: William Franklin, III, age 13; and Jenny Kathleen, age 6.

5. Military Service: None

6. He attended Clemson University, 1958-1962; and the University of South Carolina Law, 1963-1966.

7. In law school he was a member of the Phi Alpha Delta legal fraternity, 1963-1966.

8. Legal/Judicial education during the past five years:
He has attended all JCLE seminars offered by the State Bar in connection with Family Court. He has also attended some seminars at the State Bar and the Trial Lawyers Conventions.

12. Legal experience since graduation from law school:

1966-1974 Private Practice (General)
1974-1977 Lexington County Family Court
1977-date Family Court, Eleventh Judicial Circuit

20. Judicial Office:

Lexington Municipal Court, 1970-1971 (approximately, appointed)
Cayce Municipal Court, 1971-1974 (approximately, appointed)
Lexington County Family Court, 1974-1977 (appointed)
Family Court, Eleventh Judicial Circuit, 1977-date (elected by

Legislature)

21. Five significant Orders or Opinions Written:

(a) Calvert v. Calvert, 336 S.E. 2d 884, Court of Appeals. This case disallowed alimony reduction applying the principle of res judicata.

(b) Kneese v. Kneese, 370 S.E. 2d 288, Court of Appeals. This case affirmed payment by one party of fair market value of the missing personalty items awarded to the other party.

(c) State v. Craig Layman Good, 89-JU-41-07 and 89-JU-41-30. Waiver hearing on juvenile charged with murder.

(d) Moore v. Sanders, 386 S.E. 2d 456. The Supreme Court reversed the award of custody to a non-parent third party.

(e) Kelly v. Kelly, 91-DR-41-125. The Court determined significant equitable division issues and transmutation issue regarding substantial amount of non-marital property.

23. Unsuccessful Candidate: Lexington County Probate Judge, 1970

25. Officer or Director: He is one of two partners in a real estate investment partnership called New Brookland Associates. He has no regular duties.

27. Financial Arrangements or Business Relationships:
He would resolve any potential conflict of interest as directed by the Judicial Code of Ethics.

33. His health is good. His last physical was in May of 1991 by Dr. V. W. Cate, 103 W. Hospital Drive, West Columbia, South Carolina.

39. Bar Associations and Professional Organizations:
South Carolina State Bar, Lexington County Bar Association, Tri-County Bar Association, and South Carolina Council of Family Court Judges

40. Civic, charitable, religious, educational, social, and fraternal organizations:
Cayce United Methodist Church; Lexington Country Club; Masons; Woodmen of the World; Clemson Alumni Association; IPTAY; PTA-Saluda River Elementary School; PAW Club-Northside Middle School; and Quail Hollow Swim Club

42. Five letters of reference:

(a) Raymond S. Caughman, President
The Lexington State Bank
P. O. Box 8, Lexington, SC 29071-0008

(b) Frontis Clark, Director of Community Programs
S. C. Department of Youth Services
Tri-County Office, 116 West Church Street, Saluda, SC 29138

(c) Archie L. Harman, General Counsel
Mid-Carolina Electric Cooperative, Inc.
P. O. Drawer 669, Lexington, SC 29071-0669

(d) Allen H. Dunn, Clerk of Court
Edgefield, South Carolina 29824

(e) Kathryne P. Butler, Clerk of Court
McCormick County, McCormick, SC 29835

Q THE BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS ON GRIEVANCES AND DISCIPLINE REPORTS NO COMPLAINTS EVER HAVING BEEN FILED AGAINST YOU. THE JUDICIAL STANDARDS COMMISSION HAS NO RECORD OF ANY REPRIMANDS AGAINST YOU. THE FOLLOWING RECORDS HAVE BEEN CHECKED: THE HIGHWAY DEPARTMENT, LEXINGTON COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE, LEXINGTON CITY POLICE DEPARTMENT, SLED, AND F.B.I. THEY'RE ALL NEGATIVE. THE JUDGMENT ROLLS OF LEXINGTON COUNTY AND THE FEDERAL COURT RECORDS ARE ALSO NEGATIVE. YOUR HEALTH IS STILL GOOD, JUDGE?
A YES, SIR. SO FAR AS I KNOW.
Q YOUR STATEMENT OF ECONOMIC INTERESTS SHOWS NO CONFLICTS OF INTEREST. THE COMMITTEE IS SATISFIED WITH THE NET WORTH STATEMENT AND CREDIT REPORTS THAT HAVE BEEN SUBMITTED. LET'S SEE, JUDGE, YOU'VE BEEN ON THE BENCH FOR ABOUT 15 YEARS? HOW LONG?
A IT'S BEEN A LONG TIME NOW, SENATOR. LET'S SEE. I STARTED FULL TIME IN FEBRUARY OF '74. A LITTLE PART TIME BEFORE THAT.
Q HOW IMPORTANT IS DEMEANOR, NOW LOOKING BACK OVER 15-PLUS YEARS ON THE BENCH?
A IS DEMEANOR?
Q DEMEANOR? JUDICIAL TEMPERAMENT?
A WELL, IT OBVIOUSLY IS VERY IMPORTANT. I'VE LISTENED TO SOME OF YOUR QUESTIONS EARLIER, AND I LOOK BACK TO WHEN I WAS PRACTICING, AND I REMEMBER THOSE JUDGES I APPEARED BEFORE. AND I CAN REMEMBER VERY FONDLY THOSE WHO TREATED ME WITH RESPECT AND DIGNITY AS A PRACTICING ATTORNEY -- AND A YOUNG ONE AT THAT; CERTAINLY HAD SOME ROUGH EDGES -- AND THEN I CAN REMEMBER THOSE THAT WERE SOMETIMES A LITTLE CURT, WE'LL SAY, WITH ME -- AND MAYBE I DESERVED IT -- BUT THOSE MEMORIES KEEP ME MINDFUL OF HOW I NEED TO TREAT THE FOLKS WHO APPEAR BEFORE ME AND SORT OF, I HOPE, HELP ME KEEP MY FEET ON THE GROUND.
Q WHAT ADVICE WOULD YOU GIVE TO A BRAND NEW FAMILY COURT JUDGE? I MEAN, OBVIOUSLY YOU'VE HAD TO ENDURE A LOT OF TEDIOUS HEARINGS, A LOT OF HOTLY EMOTIONAL ISSUES, WHETHER CUSTODY OR ALIMONY OR WHATEVER, AND YOU'VE SERVED WELL. WHAT WOULD YOU TELL A NEW JUDGE TO DO, TO HELP?
A I APPRECIATE YOUR CANDID COMMENTS. IT BASICALLY IS A LISTENING PROCESS. IT OBVIOUSLY DOESN'T TAKE A GREAT DEGREE, NECESSARILY, OF INTELLECT AND WISDOM -- OR I DON'T KNOW WHETHER I WOULD HAVE MADE IT PAST '75 -- BUT WE NEED TO LISTEN. WE NEED TO LISTEN AND BE COMPASSIONATE. COMPASSION IS VERY IMPORTANT, I THINK. BUT WE ALSO NEED TO BE FIRM. WE NEED TO TRY TO BE, OF COURSE, FAIR, AND TRY TO BE, IF NOT ALWAYS CORRECT, TRY TO BE RIGHT. IF WE NEED CORRECTING, OF COURSE THE SUPREME COURT AND COURT OF APPEALS WILL CERTAINLY SEE TO THAT.
CHAIRMAN POPE: ANY OTHER COMMITTEE MEMBERS HAVE QUESTIONS OF JUDGE RODGERS?
VICE-CHAIRMAN GENTRY: NO, SIR.
Q DO YOU WANT TO MAKE ANY OTHER COMMENTS, JUDGE?
A NO, SIR. JUST GLAD TO BE HERE AGAIN, AND I APPRECIATE ALL OF THE COURTESIES THAT THE LEGISLATURE AND THIS COMMITTEE HAS SHOWN ME OVER THE YEARS.
Q THANK YOU, JUDGE. WE APPRECIATE YOUR BEING HERE WITH US, AND YOU'RE FREE TO LEAVE ANY TIME YOU LIKE.
A THANK YOU, SIR.

CHAIRMAN POPE: NEXT IS MS. MARY BUCHAN, FAMILY COURT OF THE TWELFTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, SEAT #1.

WHEREUPON, MARY E. BUCHAN, BEING DULY SWORN AND CAUTIONED TO TELL THE TRUTH, THE WHOLE TRUTH, AND NOTHING BUT THE TRUTH, IS EXAMINED AND TESTIFIES AS FOLLOWS:

Q MS. BUCHAN, YOU HAVE REVIEWED YOUR PERSONAL DATA QUESTIONNAIRE SUMMARY?
A YES, SIR.
Q DOES IT NEED ANY AMENDMENTS OR CHANGES?
A WELL, IN SEVERAL LOCATIONS I'M REFERRED TO AS A HE, BUT I ASSUME THAT'S TYPOGRAPHICAL.
Q SORRY ABOUT THAT.
A THAT'S ALL RIGHT. AND I HAVE ACCEPTED THE DIRECTORSHIP OF DAVIS NATIONAL BANK, SO THAT WOULD BE A CHANGE.
Q WITH THAT ONE AMENDMENT THEN, YOU HAVE NO OBJECTION TO US MAKING IT A PART OF THE RECORD?
A NO, SIR.
Q ALL RIGHT, WE WILL DO THAT.

1. Mary E. Buchan
Home Address: Business Address:
Route 1, Box 1047 P. O. Box 653
Country Blue Road 219 S. Main Street
Marion, SC 29571 Mullins, SC 29574

2. She was born in Marion County, South Carolina, on September 26, 1952. She is presently 39 years old.
Social Security Number: ***-**-****

4. She was married to Ernest M. Graham, Jr. on August 15, 1982. She has three children: David Graham (stepson), age 21 (student); Becky Graham (stepdaughter), age 17; and Alison Graham, age 5.

5. Military Service: N/A

6. She attended Presbyterian College, 1969-1973, B.A.; the University of South Carolina, summer session, 1972, for extra credit; the University of South Carolina Graduate School, various dates from 1974 to 1977, attended on part-time basis while teaching, left to attend law school; and the University of South Carolina Law School, 1977-1980, J.D.

7. At Presbyterian College she was President of the Women's Council, Secretary of the Women's Council, Cardinal Key, Whitten Village Volunteers, and Who's Who in American Colleges and Universities.

8. Legal/Judicial education during the past five years:
Her continuing legal education has consisted of attending various seminars offered by the South Carolina Bar and some independent reading.

12. Legal experience since graduation from law school:
From her admission to the Bar until March, 1982, she was employed by Timothy G. Quinn. She was primarily involved in preliminary work and office work in both his Columbia office and his Marion office. In March, 1982, she began practicing with Edward W. Whittington, Jr. in Mullins, South Carolina. Her practice has always been primarily domestic, although she also handles some civil cases, real estate work and commercial work. Over the past five years, her practice has been substantially domestic.

14. Frequency of appearances in court:
Federal - one appearance and second suit filed but settled
State - estimated twice a week in Family Court
Other - in Magistrate's Court, City Court and administrative Courts an estimated five times per year

15. Percentage of litigation:
Civil - .0025%
Criminal - .0025%
Domestic - 99.995%

(estimated)

16. Percentage of cases in trial courts:
Jury - less than one-half of 1%
Non-jury - remainder of cases

She has primarily been sole counsel but has served as associate counsel on a very few cases.

17. Five (5) of the most significant litigated matters in either trial or appellate court:

(a) Prevatte v. Prevatte, 297 S.C. 345, 377 S.E. 2d 114 (Ct. App., 1989).
This case was significant because of the need to prove a common law marriage and the grounds for a divorce so that her client would be entitled to alimony, which she desperately needed.

(b) Marion County DSS v. Maggielene Rowell.
This case, which was one for termination of parental rights, was significant because Ms. Rowell retained her parental rights and was able to get certain assistance to improve her functional skills.

(c) William G. Smith v. Helen Doris Smith.
This case was important because it required determination of alimony and division of the marital estate accumulated over a substantial period.

(d) Herman Douglas Coleman v. Cherry Lynn Sparrow Coleman.
The most significant issue in this case was the custody of a young child who suffers from an extremely rare kidney disease.

(e) Vickie Riad v. Elaine Diamond.
She was appointed as Guardian ad Litem for three minor children, whose father had shot and killed their mother. The parties represented the parents' families, and each of the families wanted custody of the children.

18. Five (5) civil appeals:

(a) Sandra Jean Prevatte v. Harry Prevatte, Memorandum Op. No. 87-MO-08 (Ct. App., filed January 28, 1987).

(b) Prevatte v. Prevatte, 297 S.C. 345, 377 S.E. 2d 114 (Ct. App., 1989).

24. Any Occupation, Business or Profession Other Than the Practice of Law:
From 1973 until 1974, she taught Language Arts in Union, South Carolina in the middle school. From 1974 until 1977, she taught various subjects and grades at Pelion High School in Pelion, South Carolina. While attending law school, she clerked for Kennedy & Price, Attorneys and was a telephone solicitor for Uniway.

25. Officer or Director: She is on the Board of Directors of Davis National Bank, Mullins, South Carolina 29574.

27. Financial Arrangement or Business Relationships:
None known. If it were determined by the Judicial Standards Committee that being a Director of Davis National Bank was a conflict, she would resign as a Director.

33. Her last physical examination was on April 26, 1990, by Dr. Donald S. Wu, P. O. Box 1095, Marion, South Carolina 29571. Except for chronic back strain, which is treated by nonprescription medication, she believes her health is excellent.

34. Hospitalized: From December 24, 1987, until mid-January, 1988, she was hospitalized for complications during her pregnancy. She did not return to work full time until the first of March, 1988.

35. She wears glasses to treat her farsightedness.

39. Bar Associations and Professional Organizations:
South Carolina Bar Association, 1981 to present; Marion County Bar Association, 1982 to present

40. Civic, charitable, religious, educational, social and fraternal organizations:
Member, Marion Presbyterian Church; received recognition for private attorney involvement from Neighborhood Legal Assistance Program, Inc. (1988) and for being on Marion County DSS Board for about four years.

41. She believes that she has the ability and the temperament to be of service as a Family Court Judge.

42. Five (5) letters of recommendation:

(a) W. Frank Jones, Chairman and President
Davis National Bank
P. O. Drawer 843, Mullins, SC 29574-0843

(b) Timothy H. Pogue, Esquire
P. O. Box 790, Marion, SC 29571

(c) James E. Brogdon, Jr., Esquire
P. O. Box 1041, Marion, SC 29571-1041

(d) James R. Carroll, M.D.
P. O. Box 1013, Mullins, SC 29574

(e) Resolution - Marion County Bar Association

Q MS. BUCHAN, THE BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS ON GRIEVANCES AND DISCIPLINE HAVE REPORTED NO COMPLAINTS EVER HAVING BEEN FILED AGAINST YOU.
THE RECORDS OF THE HIGHWAY DEPARTMENT ARE NEGATIVE. THE MARION COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE AND THE MARION CITY POLICE DEPARTMENT, SLED, AND F.B.I. RECORDS ARE ALL NEGATIVE. THE JUDGMENT ROLLS OF MARION COUNTY AND THE FEDERAL COURT RECORDS ARE ALSO NEGATIVE. AND YOUR HEALTH, YOU CLASSIFY YOUR HEALTH AS GOOD?
A YES, SIR.
Q NOW, YOU HAVE BEEN A MEMBER OF THE BAR FOR -- WHAT? -- ABOUT 15 OR SO YEARS.
A NO, SIR, ABOUT 12 YEARS. ABOUT 12.
Q AND RIGHT NOW, I GUESS YOU DO ALMOST EXCLUSIVELY FAMILY COURT WORK?
A I DO.
Q HAS THAT BEEN THE CASE PRETTY MUCH THE WHOLE 12 OR SO YEARS?
A PRIMARILY SINCE PROBABLY THE END OF 1982. I WOULD SAY FOR ABOUT 10 YEARS.
Q DO YOU HAVE MUCH EXPERIENCE IN THE JUVENILE ASPECT OF FAMILY COURT?
A NO, SIR, NOT A LOT. I WOULD ESTIMATE THAT I HAVE PROBABLY HANDLED LESS THAN 15 OR 20 JUVENILE CASES. IN MARION COUNTY, THE PUBLIC DEFENDER'S OFFICE HANDLES THOSE; AND I HAVE SERVED AS APPOINTED COUNSEL, WHEN THEY NEEDED ME.
Q ARE YOU PRESENTLY IN PARTNERSHIP AT THIS TIME, OR A FIRM?
A I PRACTICE WITH EDDIE WHITTINGTON -- EDWARD WHITTINGTON -- IN MULLINS.
Q WHAT DO YOU THINK WOULD BEST QUALIFY YOU FOR THIS POSITION?
A EXPERIENCE IN HANDLING AN AWFUL LOT OF FAMILY COURT CASES, THAT HAVE RUN THE GAMUT FROM WHAT BIG LAWYERS WOULD THINK WERE MONEY CASES, DOWN TO VERY, VERY POOR CASES. I AM A PATIENT PERSON AND I THINK I HAVE A GOOD BIT OF COMMON SENSE. SO I THINK THOSE ARE THE THREE MAIN THINGS.
Q THOSE ARE CERTAINLY A GOOD QUALIFICATION. WHAT WOULD YOU DO TO INSURE -- OBVIOUSLY, HANDLING AS MUCH FAMILY COURT WORK AS YOU DO, THAT'S VERY MUCH AN ADVERSARIAL SITUATION TO FIND YOURSELF IN DAILY. HOW ARE YOU GOING TO ADAPT OR ADOPT A MORE PASSIVE ROLE, WHICH REQUIRES A LOT OF LISTENING TO SOMEWHAT TEDIOUS TESTIMONY SOMETIMES?
A CALL ON MY PATIENCE, THAT'S ALL I KNOW. I WOULD CONSIDER MYSELF TO BE A LOW-KEY LAWYER. MOST -- PROBABLY THE MAJORITY -- OF MY CASES, I HAVE SETTLED; SO I THINK I COULD CONTINUE BEING ABLE TO SEE BOTH SIDES, EVEN IF I HAVE TO ARGUE ONE. AND I DON'T ANTICIPATE ANY PROBLEM WITH LISTENING. I THINK I'M A PRETTY GOOD LISTENER.
CHAIRMAN POPE: DOES THE COMMITTEE HAVE ANY QUESTIONS OF MS. BUCHAN?
VICE-CHAIRMAN GENTRY: NO, SIR.
CHAIRMAN POPE: THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR BEING WITH US.
WITNESS: THANK YOU.

CHAIRMAN POPE: NEXT IS JUDGE WYLIE CALDWELL, FAMILY COURT OF THE TWELFTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, SEAT #3.

WHEREUPON, WYLIE H. CALDWELL, JR., BEING DULY SWORN AND CAUTIONED TO TELL THE TRUTH, THE WHOLE TRUTH, AND NOTHING BUT THE TRUTH, IS EXAMINED AND TESTIFIES AS FOLLOWS:

Q JUDGE, DOES YOUR PERSONAL DATA QUESTIONNAIRE SUMMARY NEED ANY CHANGES?
A NO, SIR.
Q YOU HAVE NO OBJECTION TO US MAKING IT A PART OF THE RECORD?
A NO, SIR.
Q ALL RIGHT, WE'LL DO THAT.

1. Wylie H. Caldwell, Jr.
Home Address: Business Address
1151 Brunwood Drive Box V, City-County Complex
Florence, SC 29501 Florence, SC 29501

2. He was born in Florence, South Carolina on August 29, 1942. He is presently 49 years old.
Social Security Number: ***-**-****

4. He was married to Mary Gwynette McCurley on August 29, 1965. He has two children: Wendy, age 23 (graduate student); and Ben, age 20 (college student).

5. Military Service: U. S. Army Reserve 1965-1971 E 5; Honorably Discharged. He does not remember or have a record of his serial number.

6. He attended the University of South Carolina, 1960-1964, B.A. Degree; and the University of South Carolina School of Law, 1964-1967, J.D. Degree.

7. In college he was a member of the Kappa Alpha Fraternity, 1960-1964. During law school he was employed by a law firm and had no time for other activities.

8. Legal/Judicial education during the past five years:
He has attended every Judicial Continuing Legal Education Seminar for Family Court Judges offered. He has been on the faculty of many of them. He has attended several annual meetings of the National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges at which excellent seminars are offered. He has attended a school sponsored by the National Judicial College. He believes he has kept current with changes in Family Law.

9. Courses taught or lectures presented:

South Carolina Trial Lawyers Convention, speaker
South Carolina Bar CLE, speaker
Judicial CLE Seminar, speaker
New Family Court Judges Seminar, speaker

10. Published Books or Articles:
"The River is Great," Pee Dee Magazine, 1990
"The Mars Bluff Shooters," Pee Dee Magazine, 1992 (scheduled for

publication)
"Rules of Family Court Examined," South Carolina Lawyer, Vol. 9

#1, March, 1989

12. Legal experience since graduation from law school:
He practiced law from 1967 until 1980, when he became a Family Court Judge. His law practice included property, domestic relations, criminal and personal injury work. He served as City Attorney, Assistant Solicitor and in other prosecutorial positions while practicing law.

20. Judicial Office:

Family Court Judge, Twelfth Judicial Circuit, Seat #3; 1980-present; exclusive jurisdiction of juvenile and family law matters

Special Circuit Judge, appointed by the Chief Justice regularly until recent legislation prevented Family Court Judges from being appointed

21. Five significant Orders or Opinions Written:

Every decision he makes is the most significant one to the people involved.

(a) SCDSS obo Gloria Brown v. Karen Gamble, 91-DR-21-616.

(b) James L. Boatwright v. Sallie M. Boatwright, 91-DR-21-2212.

(c) Charles R. Sarrio v. Sharon Smith Cleveland, 91-DR-21-2141.

(d) Carolyn M. Lowe v. Terry O'Neil Lowe, 91-DR-21-1613.

(e) Mary E. Draper v. Chester Leon R. Draper, 91-DR-26-1963.

22. Public Office:
Florence County Council; 1977-1980; elected
Assistant Solicitor; 1974-1976; appointed
City Attorney; 1976-1977; appointed

27. Financial Arrangements or Business Relationships:
In the event a conflict of interest arose, he would disqualify himself from hearing the case.

33. His health is good. His last physical was in 1989 by Dr. Alva M. Whitehead.

35. He wears contacts.

39. Bar Associations and Professional Organizations:
Florence County Bar Association; South Carolina Bar; National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges; South Carolina Conference of Family Court Judges - President 1988; American Judicature Society

40. Civic, charitable, religious, educational, social, and fraternal organizations:
St. Luke's Lutheran Church; Duck's Unlimited; Florence Country Club (no longer a member); and Fitness Forum

41. He has been a Family Court Judge for almost 12 years. During that time he has worked hard at his job and to improve the Family Court system. He is Chairman of the Family Court Judges Advisory Committee which serves as a sounding board for the Supreme Court and Court Administration on Family Court Administrative problems. The present Family Court Rules were prepared in that Committee.

He is Vice Chairman of the Judicial Standards Commission and has served on that Commission for many years.

42. Five letters of reference:

(a) Charles K. Williams, Senior Vice President
South Carolina Federal
P. O. Drawer 4339, Florence, SC 29502-4339

(b) Michael Ballenger, Esquire
P. O. Box 107, Florence, SC 29503

(c) J. M. Rainwater, Jr.
Rainwater's Furniture
1639 West Palmetto Street, Florence, SC 29501

(d) D. M. McEachin, Jr., Esquire
P. O. Box 2527, Florence, SC 29503

(e) George E. Terry, Clerk of Court
Drawer E, City-County Complex, Florence, SC 29501

Q THE BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS ON GRIEVANCES AND DISCIPLINE REPORT NO COMPLAINTS EVER HAVING BEEN FILED AGAINST YOU. THE JUDICIAL STANDARDS COMMISSION HAS NO RECORD OF ANY REPRIMANDS AGAINST YOU. THE FOLLOWING RECORDS HAVE BEEN CHECKED: THE HIGHWAY DEPARTMENT, FLORENCE COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE, FLORENCE CITY POLICE DEPARTMENT, SLED, F.B.I. THEY'RE ALL NEGATIVE. FEDERAL COURT RECORDS SHOW NO JUDGMENTS OR CRIMINAL ACTIONS AGAINST YOU. I THINK YOU WERE NAMED IN ONE CIVIL ACTION?
A YES, SIR.
Q AND THAT HAS BEEN DISPOSED OF, DISMISSED?
A YES, SIR.
Q I THINK THERE WERE SEVERAL OTHER JUDGES NAMED IN THAT ONE?
A YES, SIR, LOTS OF PEOPLE. I DON'T THINK I WAS EVER EVEN SERVED IN THAT LAWSUIT. MY NAME APPEARED IN IT AND THE ATTORNEY GENERAL HANDLED IT. AND I DON'T KNOW MUCH ABOUT IT.
Q BUT IT WAS RESOLVED --
A IT WAS DISMISSED.
Q -- A LONG TIME AGO?
A YES.
Q YOUR HEALTH IS STILL GOOD?
A YES, SIR.
Q YOUR STATEMENT OF ECONOMIC INTERESTS SHOWS NO CONFLICTS OF INTEREST. THE COMMITTEE IS SATISFIED WITH THE NET WORTH STATEMENT AND CREDIT REPORT THAT YOU HAVE FILED. JUDGE, HAVE YOU SEEN MANY CHANGES IN THE FAMILY COURT SYSTEM SINCE YOU HAVE BEEN ON THE BENCH?
A YES, SIR. WE'RE A LOT BUSIER. I STARTED IN 1980, SENATOR, AND AT THAT TIME I MAYBE HEARD ONE CHILD ABUSE OR NEGLECT CASE A MONTH -- MAYBE -- AND NOW I HEAR ONE EVERY DAY. I DON'T MEAN THAT THEY ARE CONTESTED CASES EVERY DAY, BUT I HEAR SOME FORM OF D.S.S. ABUSE OR NEGLECT CASE EVERY DAY. AND IT'S A TRAGIC SITUATION, BUT IT'S A COMMENTARY ON THE FAMILY COURTS. AND THE OTHER THING I'D LIKE TO POINT OUT TO YOU IN RESPONSE TO THAT QUESTION IS THAT I SEE THE FAMILY COURT BEING INUNDATED -- AND I DON'T SAY THIS CRITICALLY; IT'S JUST A FACT OF LIFE -- WITH THE NEEDS OF THE DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES. WHETHER IT BE IN ABUSE AND NEGLECT CASES, SUPPORT CASES, CONTEMPT HEARINGS ON THOSE SUPPORT CASES, WE SOMETIMES SPEND THREE DAYS OUT OF FIVE WITH D.S.S.; AND THAT LEAVES TWO DAYS IN THAT WEEK FOR THE AVERAGE TAXPAYER TO GET INTO THE COURT. AND THAT'S NOT RIGHT. SOMETHING HAS GOT TO BE DONE ABOUT THAT, AND WE --
Q DO YOU SEE A NEED FOR MORE FAMILY COURT JUDGES? I'VE HEARD OTHERS TALK ABOUT THAT.
A WELL, I'M NOT SURE ABOUT THAT, TO BE HONEST WITH YOU. BUT WE HAVE A COMMITTEE CALLED THE FAMILY COURT JUDGES ADVISORY COMMITTEE, THAT THE SUPREME COURT APPOINTS, AND WHEN SOMEBODY HAS A SUGGESTION OR AN IDEA -- WHETHER IT BE JUDGE, LAWYER, LEGISLATOR, OR ANYBODY -- THAT THEY THINK WOULD BE HELPFUL, THAT GENERALLY GETS FUNNELLED THROUGH THAT COMMITTEE. AND WE HAVE A MEETING SCHEDULED NEXT MONTH, AND ONE OF THE ISSUES TO COME BEFORE THAT COMMITTEE IS WHETHER OR NOT THERE SHOULD NOT BE SOME MOVEMENT MADE TO HAVE SOMEBODY BESIDES A JUDGE HEAR SOME OF THESE D.S.S. MATTERS, LIKE THE SETTING OF SUPPORT. I MEAN, IF YOU COME TO FLORENCE -- IF YOU HAD BEEN THERE TUESDAY, I MEAN, THE HALLS WERE LINED. THE NINTH FLOOR, YOU COULDN'T GET TO THE REST ROOM FOR THE PEOPLE. WE CALL IT FATHER'S DAY, AND I MEAN THE HALLS ARE LINED. AND THE JUDGE DOESN'T HAVE TO DO ANYTHING BUT, IN 90 PERCENT OF THE CASES, HEAR AND APPROVE AN AGREEMENT THAT HAS BEEN WORKED OUT BETWEEN AN INVESTIGATOR -- NOT A LAWYER -- AN INVESTIGATOR FOR D.S.S. AND THE FATHER. WELL, I DON'T REALLY SEE WHY YOU OUGHT TO HAVE SOMEBODY THAT COSTS AS MUCH AS A JUDGE COSTS TO SIT THERE AND ASK THE MAN THE QUESTIONS THAT WE HAVE TO ASK HIM, TO BE SURE HE'S SATISFIED WITH THAT. SEEMS TO ME YOU COULD -- IF YOU FEEL LIKE YOU NEED A LEGALLY TRAINED PERSON, THAN MAYBE YOU COULD HAVE A LAWYER AS A HEARING MASTER WHO WOULD WORK ON A PART-TIME BASIS, PAID THROUGH SOME OF THE MONEY THAT IS GENERATED FROM D.S.S. IN COLLECTIONS, TO HEAR THOSE AGREEMENTS AND APPROVE THEM, SIGN THE ORDER, AND THEN LET US JUST DETERMINE CONTEMPT. I FEEL LIKE, WHEN YOU GET READY TO PUT SOMEBODY IN JAIL, A JUDGE MAYBE OUGHT TO MAKE THAT DECISION. BUT AS FAR AS JUST ASKING HIM IF HE'S SATISFIED; IF ANYBODY'S THREATENED HIM; IF ANYBODY'S FORCED HIM TO AGREE TO THIS; CAN HE AFFORD TO PAY WHAT HE'S AGREED TO PAY; IS HIS FINANCIAL STATEMENT ACCURATE -- I'M JUST NOT SURE WE NEED A JUDGE TO DO THAT.
Q THAT'S A GOOD POINT.
A AND RIGHT NOW, WE'RE SPENDING A WHOLE DAY A WEEK, PROBABLY, IN MOST CIRCUITS, DOING THAT. AND WE'RE GOING TO STUDY THAT AND SEE IF WE CAN'T COME UP WITH SOME RECOMMENDATION. AND THE MONEY TO PAY FOR THAT -- IT WOULDN'T BE VERY EXPENSIVE, SINCE WE'RE ONLY TALKING ABOUT ONE DAY A WEEK -- THE MONEY COULD COME FROM THE FUNDS THAT D.S.S. NOW PAYS BACK TO THE COUNTIES IN RETURN FOR THE COUNTIES COLLECTING THE MONEY FOR THEM. I DON'T KNOW IF YOU KNOW WHAT I'M TALKING ABOUT, BUT FOR EVERY DOLLAR --
Q THREE PERCENT OF THE CHILD SUPPORT?
A WELL THAT GOES TO THE COUNTY AS A FEE. Y'ALL HAVE SAID THE COUNTIES CHARGE THREE PERCENT OF WHATEVER THEY COLLECT. BUT D.S.S. PAYS THE COUNTY AN ADDITIONAL KICKBACK -- INCENTIVE THING -- FOR COLLECTING THEIR MONIES AND FOR HANDLING THEIR ACCOUNTS, AND SO THAT MONEY NOW GOES INTO THE GENERAL FUND IN MOST COUNTIES. IT'S SUPPOSED TO BE EARMARKED FOR FAMILY COURT PURPOSES TO IMPROVE THAT OPERATION, FOR THAT PURPOSE. AND I THINK MOST COUNTIES ALLOW THE COURTS TO USE IT TO THE EXTENT NECESSARY, BUT IT'S NOT ALL USED. SO SOME OF IT COULD BE EARMARKED FOR THAT PURPOSE, AND YOU WOULD FREE UP ANOTHER DAY OF COURT.
VICE-CHAIRMAN GENTRY: DO YOU KNOW, IN REGARD TO D.S.S. AND THE CLERK'S OFFICE, WHAT PERCENTAGE IS THAT THAT THEY RECEIVE? IS IT A PERCENTAGE OR --
WITNESS: IT IS SOME KIND OF PERCENTAGE, AND SOME OF THE JUDGES MAY KNOW. I DON'T KNOW. THERE IS A CONTRACT IN EVERY COUNTY THAT D.S.S. ENTERS INTO WITH THE COUNTY, AND THEY AGREE TO PAY THEM SO MUCH FOR ALL THE MONEY THEY COLLECT. IN OTHER WORDS, A PERCENTAGE OF IT.
VICE-CHAIRMAN GENTRY: I SEE.
WITNESS: AND IT'S A SUBSTANTIAL AMOUNT OF MONEY THAT COMES IN.
A AND I KNOW NOW EVERYBODY'S CONSCIOUS OF, "WELL, THAT'S NICE, BUT HOW YOU GOING TO PAY FOR IT?" IT SEEMS TO BE THAT'S ONE POSSIBLE SOURCE. AND IT'S NOT A GREAT EXPENSE THAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT, I DON'T THINK. BUT ANYWAY, THAT'S ONE THING THAT I THINK NEEDS ATTENTION AND PROBABLY OUGHT TO GET ATTENTION BEFORE MORE JUDGES, BUT WE'RE WORKING ON THAT. I SEE THE JUVENILE JUSTICE SYSTEM CHANGING DRASTICALLY. I STARTED AS A FAMILY COURT JUDGE, AND MS. GLOVER WILL REMEMBER THE JUVENILE CASES THAT WE USED TO HEAR -- SHOPLIFTING AND TRUANCIES -- AND NOW WE'RE TRYING ARMED ROBBERIES, STRONG-ARM ROBBERIES, CRIMINAL SEXUAL CONDUCT, MURDER. YOU KNOW --
Q NOT KIDS' CRIMES.
A -- THAT'S A SUBSTANTIAL CHANGE IN 12 YEARS. AND JUDGE MOREHEAD IS HEARING JUVENILES IN FLORENCE TODAY; THERE ARE 45 CASES ON HIS ROSTER. I DON'T KNOW WHAT THE ANSWER IS -- I DON'T PRETEND TO KNOW -- BUT I KNOW WE HAVEN'T FOUND IT YET. WE GET WONDERFUL RECOMMENDATIONS FROM THE DEPARTMENT OF YOUTH SERVICES' RECEPTION AND EVALUATION CENTER. I MEAN, WONDERFUL REPORTS AND GREAT RECOMMENDATIONS. WE DON'T HAVE THE FACILITIES TO CARRY OUT THE RECOMMENDATIONS. IT'S ONE THING TO SAY "I WANT THEM TO HAVE MENTAL HEALTH COUNSELLING." IT'S ANOTHER THING TO FIND OUT THEY CAN'T GET AN APPOINTMENT FOR THREE MONTHS. AND, YOU KNOW, THEY'RE IN TROUBLE AGAIN INSIDE OF THREE MONTHS; I MEAN, THEY'RE BACK BEFORE YOU, BEFORE THEY'VE EVER GOTTEN TO THE COUNSELOR. SO THAT'S THE KIND OF PROBLEM WE'VE GOT TO DEAL WITH AT SOME POINT, AND I THINK THAT HAS PROBABLY GOT TO BE DEALT WITH FROM THE STATE LEVEL. I DON'T BELIEVE YOU'RE GOING TO GET MUCH SUPPORT LOCALLY, OTHER THAN VOLUNTEER EFFORTS, FOR THAT SORT OF HELP. I DIDN'T MEAN TO TALK THAT LONG, BUT YOU ASKED ME.
Q SORRY, YOU PAINTED SUCH A ROSY PICTURE FOR US. NO, BUT I KNEW THAT -- WE'VE HEARD SIMILAR COMMENTS FROM OTHER JUDGES, AND CLEARLY THE REPORTS FROM ALL PARTS OF THE STATE -- THE WORKLOAD HAS CHANGED, IT'S GOTTEN MORE SEVERE; AND THESE JUVENILE STATISTICS ARE QUITE ALARMING. BUT WE APPRECIATE THE GOOD WORK YOU'RE DOING AND THE LEADERSHIP YOU'RE PROVIDING ALL FAMILY COURT JUDGES.
CHAIRMAN POPE: ANY OTHER QUESTIONS?
REPRESENTATIVE GLOVER: I JUST WANTED TO MAKE A COMMENT THAT I WAS, TOO, GOING TO MENTION THAT, PRIOR TO COMING HERE, I SERVED AS THE FIRST AND NOW THE ONLY JUVENILE COUNSELOR IN FLORENCE, AND HAD AN OPPORTUNITY TO APPEAR BEFORE JUDGE CALDWELL ON SEVERAL OCCASIONS. AND IT MAKES ME PROUD TO KNOW THAT -- THIS IS A NEW ASSIGNMENT FOR ME, TOO JUDGE. AND TO HAVE COME THROUGH AND SEEN YOUR SCREENING APPLICATION AND TO HONESTLY KNOW THAT HE HAS DONE MUCH IN OUR COMMUNITY AND HAS ALWAYS SPOKEN OUT AND DID AS HE DID HERE THIS MORNING, TO EXPOUND ON THE ISSUES THAT WERE REALLY IMPORTANT -- THAT'S GOOD, AND I HOPE YOU CONTINUE.
WITNESS: THANK YOU.
CHAIRMAN POPE: DOES ANYONE ELSE HAVE ANY QUESTIONS?

CHAIRMAN POPE: JUDGE, THANK YOU, VERY MUCH.
WITNESS: THANK YOU, SIR.

CHAIRMAN POPE: NEXT IS JUDGE AMY SUTHERLAND, FAMILY COURT OF THE THIRTEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, SEAT #3.

WHEREUPON, AMY S. SUTHERLAND, BEING DULY SWORN AND CAUTIONED TO TELL THE TRUTH, THE WHOLE TRUTH, AND NOTHING BUT THE TRUTH, IS EXAMINED AND TESTIFIES AS FOLLOWS:

Q JUDGE, YOU WERE JUST HERE LESS THAN A YEAR AGO.
A YES, SIR. SEEMS LIKE ONLY YESTERDAY, AS JUDGE COOPER SAID.
Q DOES YOUR PERSONAL DATA QUESTIONNAIRE SUMMARY NEED ANY CHANGES?
A ONLY TWO. I WAS DOWN HERE SO MUCH IN THE LAST YEAR, I MISSED A BIRTHDAY. I AM 37, NOT 36. AND THE LAST ITEM IS REALLY MORE OF AN UPDATE. ON THE QUESTION CONCERNING A PARTY IN A LAWSUIT, I WAS COURT-ORDERED ATTORNEY FEES FROM A FAMILY COURT ACTION AND, APPARENTLY, THE HOME THAT THE PARTIES OWNED HAS GONE INTO FORECLOSURE. I'M LISTED AS A DEFENDANT, AS ANY CREDITOR WOULD BE, BUT -- I'M NOT EVEN SURE I NEED TO TELL Y'ALL THAT, BUT JUST TO BE COMPLETELY HONEST WITH YOU, I AM A PARTY TO A LAWSUIT AT THIS TIME.
Q WITH THOSE TWO MODIFICATIONS, YOU HAVE NO OBJECTION TO US MAKING THAT SUMMARY A PART OF THE RECORD?
A NO, SENATOR.
Q ALL RIGHT. WE WILL DO THAT.

1. Amy C. Sutherland
Home Address: Business Address:
15 Boxwood Lane 301 University Ridge Road
Greenville, SC 29601 P. O. Box 757
Greenville, SC 29602

2. She was born in Greenville, South Carolina, on August 17, 1954. She is presently 37 years old.
Social Security Number: ***-**-****

4. She was married to Joseph Jerrold Watson on February 12, 1983. She has two children: Robert Asher, age 6, and Mary Elizabeth, age 2.

5. Military Service: None

6. She attended Emory University from 1972 through 1976 and was awarded a Bachelor of Science degree in nursing. She attended Cumberland School of Law at Samford University, 1977 through 1980, and was awarded a Juris Doctor degree.

7. At Emory University she was President, Freshman Dorm, 1972-1973; Delta Delta Delta Sorority, 1972-1976; and Secretary of Delta Delta Delta, Alpha Omega Chapter, 1975-1976. At Cumberland School of Law at Samford University, she was on the Moot Court Board, 1978-1980, and in Mock Trial Competition, 1978-1979.

8. Legal/Judicial education during the past five years:
She has consistently maintained 15 to 20 hours in continuing legal education seminars since entering private practice in 1983.

9. Courses Taught or Lectures Given: She has taught courses in Criminal Law, Evidence, Prisons and Criminal Procedure at Greenville Technical College, Greenville, South Carolina. She is scheduled to teach a seminar on Child Custody in Greenville, South Carolina on March 20, 1992.

12. Legal experience since graduation from law school:

May, 1980 - April, 1983 - Assistant Solicitor for the Thirteenth Judicial Circuit, Greenville County. Hired by William W. Wilkins, III, and continued as an Assistant Solicitor under the tenure of William B. Traxler, Jr. Handled a large load of administrative duties in addition to a full criminal case load. Handled Extraditions, Bond Estreatments and functioned as a liaison from the Solicitor's Office to all Magistrates' Offices in the County. In her final year in the Solicitor's Office, she was the Docket Coordinator, handling the flow of all criminal cases disposed of by that office.

April, 1983 - August, 1985 - She was employed as an Associate with the firm of Ashmore, Stilwell and Hunter in Greenville, South Carolina. Handled general civil cases, including Domestic, Real Estate, Contract and Probate work. She also was appointed as a Public Defender Attorney by the County of Greenville for 1983-1984.

August, 1985 - March, 1991 - Sole practitioner handling Domestic Relations cases, Wills, Probate work, Personal Injury and Business Tort matters.

March, 1991 - February, 1992 - Merged her practice with two other attorneys to form the law firm of Ashmore, Sutherland and Rabon. Continued to handle primarily Domestic Relations matters, but also some Probate and Personal Injury actions.

February, 1992 - Elected to Seat #3, Family Court, Thirteenth Judicial Circuit to fill unexpired term of retiring Judge Willie T. Smith, Jr.

20. Judicial Office:

She has served as an Assistant Municipal Judge for the City of Mauldin in Greenville County, South Carolina, since 1983. She was appointed to this position at the time she was employed as an Associate with Ashmore, Stilwell and Hunter inasmuch as one of the senior partners, Randolph Hunter, served as the Municipal Judge for Mauldin. During her tenure as an Associate with Ashmore, Stilwell and Hunter, she presided over regular sessions of Criminal and Traffic Court, and she also had an opportunity to hear occasional jury trials. Since going into sole practice, she fills in for Mr. Hunter approximately 2-3 times per year in Traffic and Criminal Court. The jurisdiction for this Court is 30 days confinement or a fine of up to $200, plus costs.

She has served as an Assistant Municipal Judge for the City of Greenville, Greenville County, South Carolina, since 1988. She presides over Criminal Court and Traffic Court approximately once a month. She was appointed to this position. The jurisdiction of this Court is 30 days imprisonment or up to a $200 fine.

She was recently elected to Seat #3, Family Court, Thirteenth Judicial Circuit. She presides over general domestic relations cases.

21. Five significant Orders or Opinions Written:

She has not had occasion to render any written orders or opinions as a municipal judge.

Having only been on the Family Court bench for one week at the time of this filing, she has not had occasion to render any written opinions.

24. Any Occupation, Business or Profession Other Than the Practice of Law: Prior to attending law school, she was a registered nurse. Upon graduation from college, she was employed as an RN in the Emergency Department of Greenville General Hospital from September, 1976 through August, 1977. In addition, she obtained her nursing license for the State of Alabama and, while attending law school full time, she was employed as a registered nurse through Kelly Services, Inc. She took nursing assignments in critical care areas in various hospitals in Birmingham from September, 1978 through December, 1979.

25. Officer or Director: She served on the Board of Directors of S & S Produce Company, a business owned and operated by her parents. She has no day-to-day management function in this business. The business has two main components: shipping of produce and other commodities and sale of wholesale produce.

31. Sued:
She was court-ordered attorney fees from a Family Court action. The home that the parties owned has gone into foreclosure. She is listed as a Defendant as any creditor would be.

33. Her last physical examination was in April of 1991. Her examining physician was Dr. J. David Smith, Ob-Gyn Associates, 331 Mills Avenue, Greenville, South Carolina 29601.

35. She wears glasses to correct her vision since ten years of age.

39. Bar Associations and Professional Organizations:
South Carolina Bar Association; Greenville County Bar Association; South Carolina Trial Lawyers Association; Greenville Professional Women's Forum
40. Civic, charitable, religious, educational, social and fraternal organizations:
Junior League of Greenville, 1984-1987; Gateway House, 1984-1990, served on the Board of Directors of this organization whose purpose it is to assist the chronically mentally ill of Greenville County to find a means of becoming productive citizens, served as Secretary of the Board for two years, President-Elect for one year, President during 1988, also chaired major fund-raising event for the organization in 1990; Delta Delta Delta Alumni Organization

41. She is married to Joe Watson, Solicitor for the Thirteenth Judicial Circuit. His office handles the prosecution of juveniles in the Family Courts of Greenville and Pickens Counties. His office also represents the Department of Social Services in the same counties in their Family Court proceedings. This relationship could present the appearance of partiality, and thus, she should probably not preside over juvenile cases or cases involving DSS in Greenville and Pickens Counties.

42. Five (5) letters of recommendation:

(a) Donald B. Watson, Vice-President and Marketing Officer
BB&T
P. O. Box 6807, Greenville, SC 29606-6807

(b) G. Maurice Ashmore, Esquire
P. O. Box 10292, Greenville, SC 29603

(c) Rex L. Carter, Esquire
P. O. Box 10828, Greenville, SC 29603

(d) Robert M. Ariail, Esquire
119 Williams Street, Greenville, SC 29601

(e) James H. Price, III, Esquire
644 East Washington Street, Greenville, SC 29601

Q THE BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS ON GRIEVANCES AND DISCIPLINE REPORTS NO FORMAL COMPLAINTS EVER HAVING BEEN FILED AGAINST YOU. NO RECORD OF REPRIMANDS AGAINST YOU BY THE JUDICIAL STANDARDS COMMISSION. THE RECORDS OF THE HIGHWAY DEPARTMENT, GREENVILLE COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE, GREENVILLE CITY POLICE DEPARTMENT, SLED, AND THE F.B.I. ARE ALL NEGATIVE. YOUR HEALTH IS STILL GOOD, I ASSUME?
A YES, SIR.
Q YOUR STATEMENT OF ECONOMIC INTERESTS SHOWS NO CONFLICTS OF INTEREST OR OBLIGATION. THE NET WORTH STATEMENT AND CREDIT REPORTS ARE SATISFACTORY. HOW HAVE YOU FOUND YOUR FIRST YEAR AND A FEW MONTHS OR SO, ON THE BENCH?
A VERY EXCITING. IN SOME RESPECTS, A LOT BUSIER THAN I WAS IN PRIVATE PRACTICE; AND IN OTHER RESPECTS, A LOT LESS OF A LOAD THAN I HAD IN PRIVATE PRACTICE. IT IS NICE TO BE ABLE TO LEAVE THE CONCERNS THAT YOU HAVE ON THE FAMILY COURT BENCH DURING THE DAY, WHEN AT HOME. I WASN'T QUITE AS ABLE TO DO THAT WHEN I ACTUALLY HAD CLIENTS.
Q CALLING YOU AT HOME?
A WELL, IT WAS ALMOST LIKE HAVING JUST ANOTHER LITTLE GROUP OF CHILDREN TO WORRY ABOUT. BUT I HAVE BEEN VERY, VERY FULFILLED IN MY NEW JOB.
Q HAVE YOU NOTICED ANY TEDIUM WHEN YOU HAVE A LONG, PROTRACTED HEARING THAT GOES LATE INTO THE EVENING OR SOMETHING?
A NO REALLY, SENATOR, BECAUSE IF YOU HAVE A LONG CASE, GENERALLY, IT INVOLVES A LOT OF ASSETS, OR IT INVOLVES -- IS GOING TO BE A LOT OF TESTIMONY ABOUT CHILDREN. IF IT INVOLVES A LOT OF ASSETS, YOU'RE USUALLY LISTENING WITH ONE EAR AND YOU'RE WORKING YOUR CALCULATOR WITH YOUR HAND, AND YOUR EYES -- THERE'S A LOT TO CONCENTRATE ON. I WOULD SAY THE ONLY OCCASIONS WHEN THE JOB CAN BE DIFFICULT IS WHEN YOU HEAR -- AND I'VE ONLY HAD A FEW SO FAR, BUT YOU DO HEAR CASES WHERE YOU FEEL LIKE BOTH PARENTS ARE NEGLECTFUL OF THE CHILDREN. NOT IN THE FORMAL LEGAL SENSE THAT WE WOULD DEFINE IT TO BE, OR PHYSICAL SENSE, BUT WHEN YOU HEAR A LOT OF TESTIMONY OF ADULTERY ON BOTH SIDES OF A DOMESTIC RELATIONS CASE AND YOU KNOW THERE'S ABUSE INVOLVED, AND BOTH PARENTS HAVE DONE DRUGS IN THE PAST, AND YOU REALIZE THAT ALL OF THOSE ACTIVITIES THOSE PARENTS HAVE BEEN ENGAGING IN OVER THE COURSE OF A LONG OR SHORT MARRIAGE HAVE NATURALLY HAD A BAD EFFECT ON THEIR CHILDREN, I'VE ONLY FOUND IT DIFFICULT TO BE PATIENT IN THOSE INSTANCES; BUT SO FAR, I'M WEATHERING IT. I HAD OCCASION TO GO TO PICKENS NOT LONG AGO AND JUDGE BOARD HAS A GREAT LITTLE SIGN ON HIS DESK THAT SAYS "PATIENCE" OR "SILENCE" OR "HUSH" OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT. AND I NEED TO DO THE SAME ON MY BENCH, JUST AS A CONSTANT REMINDER, BECAUSE IT'S NOT EASY. IT IS NOT EASY. BUT YOU KNOW THAT YOU'VE GOT TO DEAL WITH IT, AND YOU KNOW THAT THAT'S YOUR JOB, SO YOU DO IT.
CHAIRMAN POPE: DO Y'ALL HAVE ANY QUESTIONS OF JUDGE SUTHERLAND?
REPRESENTATIVE HENDRICKS: I JUST WANT TO MAKE A COMMENT. I SAW AMY RIGHT AFTER SHE WAS ELECTED TO FAMILY COURT. SHE WAS COMING ACROSS LAW ENFORCEMENT AND SHE HAD AN ARMFUL OF BOOKS AND A SATCHEL FULL. SO THEY PUT HER RIGHT TO WORK.
WITNESS: YES, SIR, THEY DID.
CHAIRMAN POPE: THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR BEING WITH US AND FOR YOUR SERVICE.
WITNESS: THANK YOU, SENATOR.

CHAIRMAN POPE: JUDGE JOSEPH W. BOARD.

CHAIRMAN POPE: THIS IS THE FAMILY COURT OF THE THIRTEENTH CIRCUIT, SEAT #4.
WHEREUPON, JOSEPH W. BOARD, BEING DULY SWORN AND CAUTIONED TO TELL THE TRUTH, THE WHOLE TRUTH, AND NOTHING BUT THE TRUTH, IS EXAMINED AND TESTIFIES AS FOLLOWS:

Q JUDGE, IS YOUR QUESTIONNAIRE SUMMARY ACCURATE? DOES IT NEED ANY MODIFICATION?
A NO, SIR.
Q YOU HAVE NO OBJECTION TO US MAKING IT PART OF THE RECORD?
A NO, SIR.
Q WE WILL DO THAT.

1. Joseph W. Board
Home Address: Business Address
176 Morris Road Pickens County Court House
Pickens, SC 29671 Main Street, P. O. Box 777
Pickens, SC 29671

2. He was born in Roanoke, Virginia on October 22, 1939. He is presently 52 years old.
Social Security Number: ***-**-****

4. He was married to Martha Shuler on June 9, 1961. He has three children: Joseph O'Bryan, age 26 (unemployed); Susan Amy, age 25 (Assistant General Manager of Country Club); and Bruce Evans, age 21 (various part-time work).

5. Military Service: US Army Captain, 1965-1967, Honorable Discharge, Serial #05220447

6. He attended the University of Virginia, 1958-1962, B.A. Degree in Political Science; and the University of Virginia Law School, 1962-1965, J.D.

7. He participated in many activities in both college and law school.

8. Legal/Judicial education during the past five years:
He has met and/or exceeded the requirements of the continuing judicial education.

9. Courses taught or lectures presented:
There have been several, to include South Carolina State Bar and the National College of Juvenile and Family Court Judges in Reno, Nevada.

12. Legal experience since graduation from law school:
General Practice in Pickens County; 1967-1977
Special Judge by Supreme Court; January 10, 1977; appointed
Family Court Judge; July 1, 1977, until present; elected
20. Judicial Office:
For Special Judge by appointment of Chief Justice, January, 1977 - July, 1977. He was elected Family Court Judge and served continuously since July, 1977.

21. Five significant Orders or Opinions Written:

In the last 15 years, he has heard over 3,000 cases per year. Fifty-six appeals to the Supreme Court have been returned.

Every case is most significant to each of the participants, and he treats it as such!

31. Sued: Not since last election

33. His health is good. He has an extensive physical yearly by Dr. Calvin Snipes, internist, 1648 Gentry Memorial Highway, Easley, South Carolina 29640.

34. Hospitalized: He had surgery for blockage in left carotid artery on February 11, 1992. It was successful surgery. He was out of work for five weeks.

35. He wears eyeglasses.

36. He has moderate hypertension which is controlled with medication.

39. Bar Associations and Professional Organizations:
South Carolina Bar; Pickens County Bar (numerous offices in years of practice 15 years ago); National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judge, Nominations Committee for officers 1986 and 1987; Planning Committee Annual Meeting 1988; South Carolina Council of Family Court Judges (Secretary/Treasurer, 1981); Vice-President, 1982; President, 1983, 1984

40. Civic, charitable, religious, educational, social, and fraternal organizations:
Appointee to Governor's Committee on Juvenile Justice; Chairman, Permanency Planning Committee for South Carolina; member Substitute Care Advisory Committee; Advisory Board State Guardian ad Litem Program; past Chairman of the Board of Trustees for Epworth Children's Home; Executive Committee of Blue Ridge Council Boy Scouts of America; member Clemson University Engineering Foundation; Mason, member of Grace United Methodist Church; YMCA; Farm Country Club, Mt. Pleasant, South Carolina, 1984-1986; Easley Tennis Club, 1985-1987; recipient of the Silver Beaver Award through the Blue Ridge Council Boy Scouts of America

41. He is a 1987 graduate of the Family Law Fall College, National Judicial College, University of Nevada in Reno. He is an active participant in eight National Conferences on Juvenile Justice and has attended eight Annual Meetings of National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges.

42. Five letters of reference:

(a) John E. Sparks, Vice President
South Carolina National Bank
P. O. Box 157, Pickens, SC 29671

(b) Julia R. Olson
S. C. Guardian ad Litem Program
P. O. Box 414, Pickens, SC 29671

(c) C. Carl Pilgram, Veterans Affairs Officer
Pickens County
P. O. Box 451, Pickens, SC 29671

(d) Jim Grantham, 201 Belvoir Drive, Pickens, SC 29671
Jan Goldsmith, 10-L Poinsett Avenue, Greenville, SC 29601

(e) Oliver A. Nealy, Clerk of Court
Pickens County
P. O. Box 215, Pickens, SC 29671

Q THE BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS ON GRIEVANCES AND DISCIPLINE REPORT NO FORMAL COMPLAINTS EVER HAVING BEEN FILED AGAINST YOU. THE JUDICIAL STANDARDS COMMISSION REPORTS NO RECORD OF ANY REPRIMANDS AGAINST YOU. THE RECORDS OF THE HIGHWAY DEPARTMENT, PICKENS COUNTY SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT, PICKENS CITY POLICE, ARE ALL NEGATIVE. SLED AND F.B.I. RECORDS HAVE BEEN CHECKED; THEY'RE NEGATIVE. THE FEDERAL COURT RECORDS SHOW NO JUDGMENTS OR CRIMINAL ACTIONS AGAINST YOU. YOU WERE NAMED IN A CIVIL SUIT, I THINK, ALONG WITH JUDGE MENDENHALL AT SOME POINT, AND IT WAS REPORTED TO BE DISMISSED, I THINK?
A THAT WAS SO MANY YEARS AGO, I CAN'T REMEMBER, BUT -- THAT WAS ABOUT TWO SCREENINGS AGO.
Q AND IT WAS RESOLVED FAVORABLY TO YOU?
A YES, SIR.
Q YOUR HEALTH IS STILL GOOD?
A YES, SIR.
Q THE NET WORTH STATEMENT AND CREDIT REPORTS YOU'VE SUBMITTED ARE SATISFACTORY. NO ONE HAS ASKED TO BE PRESENT TO TESTIFY AGAINST YOU, JUDGE. LET'S SEE, YOU'VE BEEN ON THE BENCH NOW ALMOST 15 YEARS?
A YES, SIR. I SERVED ABOUT SIX MONTHS BEFORE THE FAMILY COURT, BY SPECIAL APPOINTMENT OF CHIEF JUSTICE LEWIS.
Q AND WHAT DO YOU THINK THE IMPORTANCE OF JUDICIAL TEMPERAMENT AND DEMEANOR ON THE BENCH ARE?
A WELL, OF COURSE, IT'S THE ONLY THING YOU HAVE TO CONTROL, AND IT REQUIRES AN IMMENSE AMOUNT OF CONTROL. I TRY NEVER TO FORGET THAT I USED TO PRACTICE LAW.
Q GOOD RULE TO REMEMBER. WHAT ROLE DO YOU THINK -- OR WHAT ROLE DO YOU PLAY IN SETTLEMENT?
A NONE. I RESPECT THE ATTORNEYS WHEN THEY APPROACH. IF THEY SAY THEY NEED A TRIAL, I GO TO TRIAL; IF THEY SAY THEY THINK THEY'VE GOT IT SETTLED, THEN I GIVE THEM AN OPPORTUNITY TO DISCUSS IT. BUT I NEVER ASK AN ATTORNEY IF HE'S GOT IT SETTLED. I'M READY TO GO; THE DOCKET IS SET, AND I'M READY TO TRY THE CASE. I BELIEVE THAT FAMILY COURT -- TO PRESSURE TO SETTLE A CASE WILL ONLY MEAN MORE WORK FOR ME LATER ON, AFTER, IF IT FORCES SOMEONE INTO A SETTLEMENT THEY DIDN'T WANT TO GET INTO.
CHAIRMAN POPE: DOES THE COMMITTEE HAVE ANY QUESTIONS OF JUDGE BOARD?
VICE-CHAIRMAN GENTRY: NO, SIR.
REPRESENTATIVE HENDRICKS: I'D LIKE TO --
CHAIRMAN POPE: REPRESENTATIVE HENDRICKS?

Q BEING IN THE SAME COUNTY, JOE, I HEAR YOUR NAME MENTIONED A LOT IN CONNECTION WITH D.S.S. THINGS. I WONDER IF YOU WOULD ELABORATE ON THAT. DO YOU HAVE ANY SUGGESTIONS HOW WE COULD CORRECT THAT BOTTLENECK, IF THAT'S WHAT YOU MIGHT REFER TO IT AS?
A WELL, FORTUNATELY, I HAVEN'T HELD COURT IN FLORENCE, BUT JUDGE CALDWELL IS A VERY RESPECTED JURIST ON OUR FAMILY COURT BENCH, AND I'VE HEARD HIM SPEAK FOR YEARS ABOUT THEIR PROBLEMS THERE. WE HAVE NOT HAD THAT PROBLEM IN GREENVILLE OR PICKENS THAT I KNOW OF, THAT IT'S HELD IT UP. WE GENERALLY WILL SET ONE DAY A WEEK FOR THAT, WITH REGARD TO THE SUPPORT ISSUES; WITH REGARD TO THE ABUSE AND NEGLECT ISSUES, IT'S TRUE, WE WILL PROBABLY AVERAGE BETTER THAN ONE A DAY, ALTHOUGH WE HEAR THEM AT SCHEDULED TIMES, WHICH WOULD MEAN MORE THAN ONE A DAY. IF YOU HAVE 25 IN A DAY, THEN OBVIOUSLY THAT WOULD BE TWO OR THREE PER DAY THAT YOU WOULD HEAR -- I MEAN, EXCEPT FOR EMERGENCY CASES. I HAVE NO SUGGESTION AS TO HOW TO DO IT, BUT TO WORK AT IT.
CHAIRMAN POPE: ANY OTHER QUESTIONS?

Q JUDGE YOU HAVE ANY COMMENTS YOU WOULD LIKE TO MAKE?
A OH, SIR. HOW MUCH TIME HAVE I GOT?
Q WE'LL GIVE YOU AN HOUR. GO AHEAD.
A I ECHO ABOUT EVERYTHING THAT JUDGE CALDWELL SAID, WITH THE EXCEPTION, I'VE BEEN MORE ACTIVE WITH REGARD TO ALTERNATIVE PLACEMENT FOR JUVENILES. AND I SAY THIS TO YOU IN ALL FRANKNESS: SOUTH CAROLINA DOES NOT PUT THEIR CHILDREN FIRST. THEY DO NOT PROVIDE THE MONEY THAT IT TAKES TO TAKE CARE OF THESE CHILDREN. WE ARE INCREASINGLY HAVING CHILDREN HAVING CHILDREN. THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA HAD 860-SOME CHILDREN IN 1991 TO GIRLS UNDER 15 YEARS OF AGE. IN 1990 WE HAD TWO 10-YEAR-OLDS THAT HAD BABIES. IF YOU FOLLOW THAT, THEN YOU REALIZE BY THE TIME THAT I GET -- OR OTHER FAMILY COURT JUDGES -- THE MOTHER THAT WAS 15, AND IS NOW 21 WITH A SIX-YEAR-OLD CHILD, IT'S THE SAME THING AS A 15-YEAR-OLD MOTHER. AND ALTERNATIVES TO PLACE CHILDREN ARE JUST NON-EXISTENT. DON DELAHOW -- WHICH I WISH Y'ALL WOULD TAKE THE TIME TO GO SEE SOME OF THESE PLACES -- HAS A WILDERNESS CAMP THERE, THAT JOHN SHIFLETT PICKS UP, TOURED THAT FAIR PLAY WILDERNESS CAMP, THAT'S A PART OF PICKENS COUNTY, OR OCONEE COUNTY OR ANDERSON. GREAT RELIEF FOR CHILDREN. WE HAVE THREE MARINE INSTITUTES THAT ACTIVELY HANDLE THEM, BUT YOU CAN'T GET THEM IN, BECAUSE OF THE OVERCROWDED SITUATION. WE'RE VERY DISTRESSED ABOUT THAT, BECAUSE EVERY CHILD YOU SEND DOWN, YOU SEE -- STATISTICS WILL SHOW YOU -- YOU SEE THEM IN THE ADULT SYSTEM. SOMETHING LIKE 70 PERCENT, I BELIEVE, OF THE ADULTS, YOU SEE OVER. SO I'M MORE THAN DISTRESSED ABOUT THAT. IT'S HARD TO CONVINCE THE PUBLIC BECAUSE THE PRESS IS NOT INTERESTED, UNLESS YOU HAVE A SENSATIONAL CASE. THEY DON'T COVER OUR COURTS. AND WHEN YOU HAVE 14- AND 15-YEAR-OLDS SELLING CRACK COCAINE AND MAKING $9,000, $10,000 A WEEK, IT'S HARD TO CONVINCE THEM TO GET AN EDUCATION. THOSE ARE THE KIND OF THINGS THAT WE WORK ON. AND I COULD GO ON ABOUT THE FAMILY COURT. NECESSARILY, I'M PREJUDICED. BUT I WOULD ECHO WHAT THE OTHER FAMILY COURT JUDGES HAVE SAID ON FRUSTRATION AND ATTEMPTING TO DEAL WITH FAMILIES.
Q THANK YOU JUDGE, WE APPRECIATE YOU BEING WITH US AND SHARING YOUR INSIGHTS, TOO.
A THANK YOU.

VICE-CHAIRMAN GENTRY: MR. CHAIRMAN, I MOVE WE TAKE A 10-MINUTE RECESS.
CHAIRMAN POPE: WE'LL TAKE A SHORT RECESS.

CHAIRMAN POPE: WE'LL GO AHEAD. WE'RE STILL SHORT A COUPLE OF MEMBERS, BUT WE'LL GO AHEAD AND START IN THE HOPES THAT THEY'LL BE HERE SHORTLY. AND SENATOR JOHN MARTIN IS NOW WITH US, FOR THOSE FEW WHO DON'T KNOW SENATOR MARTIN. THE NEXT APPLICANT IS JUDGE ALBERT KLECKLEY, FOURTEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT SEAT, #2. JUDGE, GLAD TO HAVE YOU WITH US.

WHEREUPON, ALBERT L. KLECKLEY, HAVING BEEN DULY SWORN AND CAUTIONED TO SPEAK THE TRUTH, THE WHOLE TRUTH, AND NOTHING BUT THE TRUTH, IS EXAMINED AND TESTIFIES AS FOLLOWS:

Q HAVE YOU REVIEWED YOUR PERSONAL DATA QUESTIONNAIRE SUMMARY?
A YES, SIR.
Q DOES IT NEED ANY CHANGES?
A THE ONLY THING THAT I WOULD CHANGE IS UNDER THE HEALTH SITUATION. I WAS HOSPITALIZED FOR FOUR OR FIVE DAYS A COUPLE OF WEEKS AGO FOR PNEUMONIA. I THINK THAT IS ONE OF THE QUESTIONS THAT WAS ASKED, WHEN THIS QUESTIONNAIRE WAS FILLED OUT. THE ONLY THING THAT I WOULD CHANGE OR CALL YOUR ATTENTION TO IS UNDER "GOVERNMENT CONTRACTS" UNDER NUMBER 20. I HAVE LISTED TWO CORPORATIONS UNDER NUMBER 17 THAT ARE FAMILY-OWNED CORPORATIONS. I TAKE NO PART IN THEM, BUT THEY DO SELL PROPANE GAS TO SOME SCHOOLS AND SOME STATE AND LOCAL ENTITIES. I HAVE NO PART IN IT, AND I DON'T RECEIVE ANY INCOME FROM IT, BUT UNDER "GOVERNMENT CONTRACTS," IT SAYS, "...ANY PUBLIC AGENCY WITH WHICH YOU ARE ASSOCIATED." BUT I'M NOT ASSOCIATED WITH ANY OF THE COUNTY COUNCILS, OR ANYTHING. I DIDN'T KNOW WHERE TO LIST THAT.
Q ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU. WE WILL NOTE THAT YOU HAVE ORALLY AMENDED THE SUMMARY. OTHER THAN THAT, ARE YOU SATISFIED WITH US MAKE THAT A PART OF THE RECORD, AS AMENDED?
A YES, SIR.

Q ALL RIGHT. WE'LL DO THAT.

1. Albert L. Kleckley
Home Address: Business Address
P. O. Drawer X P. O. Drawer X
#1 Minnow Lane 111 West Adams Street
Ridgeland, SC 29936 Ridgeland, SC 29936

2. He was born in Ridgeland, South Carolina on September 26, 1943. He is presently 48 years old.
Social Security Number: ***-**-****

4. He was married to Anne Valentine Sauls Dwyer on November 28, 1974. He was previously divorced on December 7, 1966; Abby Orme Payne; Savannah, Georgia Court; uncontested cruelty. He was previously divorced on December 12, 1972; Linda Faye Hair; Court of Common Pleas; Jasper County, South Carolina; uncontested cruelty. He has one child: Albert L., Jr., age 16.

5. Military Service: None

6. He attended the University of South Carolina, 1961-1965, B.A.; and the University of South Carolina School of Law, 1965-1969, J.D.

8. Legal/Judicial education during the past five years:
He has met all requirements of the Judicial Continuing Legal Education since he was appointed judge in 1977.

12. Legal experience since graduation from law school:
He moved to Ridgeland, South Carolina after admission to the South Carolina Bar on September 10, 1969, and practiced with Walker & McKellar until 1971. He was sole practitioner in Ridgeland, South Carolina from January 1, 1971, until elected Family Court Judge, July 1, 1977, until present. He also has attended seminars sponsored by the South Carolina Bar.

20. Judicial Office:
He was elected Family Court, Seat #2, Fourteenth Judicial Circuit; July 1, 1977, to present; statewide jurisdiction in South Carolina.

21. Five significant Orders or Opinions Written:

(a) Richard Tony White v. Patricia Searles White, Supreme Court Opinion No. 22186, Filed November 16, 1984.

(b) Ruby Kathryn Gay v. Earnest E. Gay, as Administrator of the Estate of Waver J. Gay, Sr., Court of Appeals, Opinion No. 0616, Filed January 22, 1986.

(c) Mary Lou Rogers v. Marvin Rogers, Court of Appeals, Opinion No. 0045, Filed January 16, 1984.

(d) Michael J. Kirylik, Sr. v. Alice M. Kirylik, Supreme Court Opinion No. 22726, Filed May 26, 1987.

(e) Children's Foster Care Review Board v. The South Carolina Department of Social Services and The Hampton County Department of Social Services, Court of Appeals, Opinion No. 0185, Filed May 29, 1984.

22. Public Office:
He was appointed to the Jasper County School Board, 1970-1971. He was elected to the South Carolina House of Representatives, District 122, 1972-1976.

25. Officer or Director: He is a stockholder in Kleckley Gas of Hardeeville, Inc., which is a close family corporation. He receives no compensation and takes no active part in the business. He has just begun Kleckley Used Cars, where he buys and sells vehicles to and from wholesale dealers.

28. Arrested or Charged: He was held for suspicion one night in Savannah, Georgia at the age of about 15 years. He was released the next morning, and charges were never filed.

29. Federal, State or Local Investigation: He was under investigation involving election to the South Carolina House of Representatives in 1974, but the investigation was dismissed.

31. Sued: His opponent in the election to the South Carolina House of Representatives filed several suits in 1974 against him, the Governor of South Carolina, the Election Commission, the Jasper County Election Commission, and probably many others. Also, he had a mechanics lien filed against him on a piece of property, as a subdivision owner, but the action was dismissed. Also, a friendly lawsuit with his present wife in January, 1983, whereby the division of property was agreed upon. He was also sued by a litigant in January, 1983, which was placed on inactive status. He was involved in an administrative procedure with the South Carolina Coastal Council in 1987 over a dock permit which was settled.

33. His health is good. His last physical was in October of 1991 by Dr. J. M. Bennett, Ridgeland, South Carolina 29936.

34. Hospitalized: Ruptured disks were removed in September of 1987 with complications. He returned to work on December 17, 1987. He was also hospitalized for approximately five days in 1992 for pneumonia.

39. Bar Associations and Professional Organizations:
Jasper County Bar Association; South Carolina Bar Association; and South Carolina Council of Family Court Judges

40. Civic, charitable, religious, educational, social, and fraternal organizations:
Ridgeland Little League Baseball and Football Association board member

41. He has been a Family Court Judge since July, 1977, and feels that his service in that position has been acceptable to the public, litigants and the Bar. He has held Court around the state and not just the Fourteenth Judicial Circuit. He underwent investigation by SLED as required prior to becoming a Family Court Judge in 1977.

42. Five letters of reference:

(a) James R. Rhodes, Jr., Vice President
First National Bank
P. O. Box 880, Ridgeland, SC 29936

(b) Gary D. Brown, Esquire
P. O. Box 418, Ridgeland, SC 29936

(c) Cornelius J. Riley, Esquire
702 Second Avenue, Courthouse Square
Ridgeland, SC 29936-1679

(d) Edward A. Fennell, Esquire
P. O. Box 628, Ridgeland, SC 29936

(e) Daniel E. Henderson, Esquire
P. O. Box 1274, Ridgeland, SC 29936

Q THE BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS ON GRIEVANCES AND DISCIPLINE REPORTS NO COMPLAINTS EVER HAVING BEEN FILED AGAINST YOU. THE JUDICIAL STANDARDS COMMISSION HAS NO RECORD OF ANY REPRIMANDS AGAINST YOU. WE'VE CHECKED THE RECORDS OF THE HIGHWAY DEPARTMENT, THE JASPER COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE, RIDGELAND CITY POLICE DEPARTMENT, SLED, AND F.B.I.; ALL THOSE RECORDS ARE NEGATIVE. THE JUDGMENT ROLLS OF JASPER COUNTY ARE NEGATIVE. FEDERAL COURT RECORDS ARE NEGATIVE. YOU MENTIONED IN QUESTION 31 ABOUT SOME LAWSUITS.
A YES, SIR.
Q IT APPEARS A COUPLE OF THEM ARE PRETTY OLD. ONE WAS AGAINST YOU WHEN YOU WERE RUNNING FOR THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES.
A RAN FOR THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, AND IT WAS A VERY CLOSE ELECTION. THERE WAS A PROTEST.
Q THAT WAS ALMOST 20 YEARS AGO.
A YES.
Q THE OTHER, THERE WAS A MECHANIC'S LIEN?
A THAT WAS SOMETHING -- I BOUGHT A PIECE OF PROPERTY BACK IN THE EARLY SEVENTIES, AND THE OWNER OF THE SUBDIVISION DIDN'T PAY SOMETHING, SO THEY FILED A LIEN AGAINST ALL THE LOT OWNERS.
Q THAT HAS BEEN RESOLVED, I ASSUME?
A YES, SIR. THAT WAS IN THE SEVENTIES.
Q AND YOU MENTION ON THE SUMMARY THAT YOU WERE SUED BY A LITIGANT IN JANUARY OF '83, WHICH WAS PLACED IN INACTIVE STATUS. WHAT WAS THAT ALL ABOUT?
A THERE WAS A LADY FROM BEAUFORT COUNTY WHO WAS VERY UPSET ABOUT HER CASE. SHE SUED ME AND ABOUT FIVE OTHER FAMILY COURT JUDGES THAT ALSO HEARD HER CASES, ABOUT THREE OR FOUR CIRCUIT JUDGES, THE GOVERNOR, AND HALF THE CONSTITUTIONAL OFFICERS OF THE STATE, AS I RECALL. IT WAS PLACED IN INACTIVE STATUS. THE ATTORNEY GENERAL HANDLED IT, WROTE ME A LETTER THAT IT WAS PLACED ON INACTIVE STATUS AND THE FEDERAL COURT WOULD DISMISS IT. THAT'S ALL I KNOW ABOUT IT. I HAD ONE LITTLE HEARING WITH HER.
Q ALL RIGHT. IT'S BEEN RESOLVED?
A YES, SIR.
Q THE LAST THING YOU LISTED IN THAT QUESTION WAS SOME TYPE OF ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURES HEARING BEFORE THE COASTAL COUNCIL?
A YES, SIR.
Q YOU HAD A DOCK PERMIT?
A I BUILT -- I HAD A DOCK PERMIT, AND THE ADJOINING LANDOWNERS PROTESTED. AND IT WAS AN ADMINISTRATIVE HEARING, AT WHICH TIME, IT WAS SETTLED AT THAT TIME, AT THE ADMINISTRATIVE HEARING.
Q ALL RIGHT, SIR. YOU MENTION ANOTHER BUSINESS, A USED CAR BUSINESS. I THINK THE SUMMARY SHOWS THAT YOU BUY AND SELL VEHICLES. THAT'S NOT YOU PERSONALLY, I DON'T ASSUME, YOU PERSONALLY GOING OUT --
A NO, SIR, I HAVE SOMEBODY THAT DOES THAT. THAT JUST STARTED UP IN FEBRUARY OF '92.
Q JUDGE, WHAT DO YOU THINK THE APPROPRIATE ROLE FOR THE FAMILY COURT IS IN SETTLEMENT OF CASES?
A I HAVE MANY LAWYERS WHO COME BEFORE ME AND THEY JUST WANT SOME GUIDANCE. I'VE HEARD YOU ASK THAT QUESTION THIS MORNING. I CAN GIVE YOU A FOR-INSTANCE, I HAD SOME LAWYERS COME BEFORE ME AND THEY SAID, "WE JUST NEED TO PRESENT YOU WITH A SET OF FACTS AND SEE WHETHER OR NOT THE ALIMONY SHOULD BE AWARDED," AND THEY PRESENTED A SET OF FACTS. AND I SAID, "YES, IT SOUNDS LIKE AN ITEM IN THE CASE." I SAID, "IF THAT'S YOUR CASE -- YOU KNOW, I DON'T KNOW WHAT MAY HAPPEN WHEN I GO IN THE COURTROOM AND HEAR THE CASE, BUT JUST BASED ON WHAT YOU'VE TOLD ME, IT SOUNDS LIKE ALIMONY SHOULD BE AWARDED." AND THEY SAID, "THAT'S ALL WE NEEDED TO KNOW." AND THEY WENT OUT AND SETTLED THE CASE. SO YOU HAVE A LOT OF GUIDANCE QUESTIONS. I DON'T THINK WE SHOULD STRONG-ARM SETTLEMENTS. I WOULDN'T DO THAT. BUT ANY TIME THAT THE LAWYERS -- I TRY TO PRE-TRY EVERY CASE, AND ANY TIME THE LAWYERS COME IN AND ASK FOR SOME GUIDANCE, I'M HAPPY TO GIVE THAT TO THEM.
CHAIRMAN POPE: DO ANY OTHER COMMITTEE MEMBERS HAVE QUESTIONS FOR JUDGE KLECKLEY?

Q YOU MENTIONED RUNNING FOR THE HOUSE. DID YOU SERVE IN THE HOUSE AT ONE TIME?
A YES, SIR.
Q YOU MUST HAVE, BECAUSE THAT NAME IS SO FAMILIAR.
A THAT WAS IN '71 TO '76. LONGER THAN I CARE TO REMEMBER BACK.
CHAIRMAN POPE: JUDGE, DO YOU HAVE ANYTHING ELSE YOU'D LIKE TO STATE FOR US?
WITNESS: NO, SIR.
CHAIRMAN POPE: ALL RIGHT. WE APPRECIATE YOU BEING WITH US. THANK YOU.
WITNESS: THANK YOU.

CHAIRMAN POPE: NEXT IS JUDGE KAYE GORENFLO HEARN.

WHEREUPON, KAYE GORENFLO HEARN, HAVING BEEN DULY SWORN AND CAUTIONED TO SPEAK THE TRUTH, THE WHOLE TRUTH, AND NOTHING BUT THE TRUTH, IS EXAMINED AND TESTIFIES AS FOLLOWS:

Q JUDGE, YOU'VE REVIEWED YOUR PERSONAL DATA QUESTIONNAIRE SUMMARY?
A I HAVE.
Q DOES IT NEED CHANGING?
A IT IS CORRECT.
Q ALL RIGHT. WE'LL MAKE IT PART OF THE RECORD.

1. Kaye Gorenflo Hearn
Home Address: Business Address
1100 Oak Street P. O. Box 406
Conway, SC 29526 Conway, SC 29526

2. She was born in Delaware, Ohio on January 30, 1950. She is presently 42 years old.
Social Security Number: ***-**-****

4. She was married to George Marshall Hearn, Jr. on February 16, 1980. She has one child: Kathleen Wrenn, age 3.

5. Military Service: None

6. She attended Bethany College, 1968-1972, B.A., History, magna cum laude; Edinboro College, 1973-1974 (left master's degree program to attend law school); the University of South Carolina, 1974-1977, J.D., cum laude.

7. As an undergraduate she was Senior Fellow in the History Department; Who's Who in American Colleges and Universities; Bethany Leadership Honorary Society; History Honorary Society; Resident Assistant; Association of Women Students, Vice-President; Alpha Xi Delta Society Sorority, President; Bethany Cheerleaders, Captain; Recipient of Vira Heinz Traveling Scholarship, awarded to the Junior woman who most distinguishes herself in scholarship, leadership and conduct; Earned Distinction on Senior Comprehensive Exam. In law school she was a member of the Wig and Robe Honorary; recipient, American Jurisprudence Award, Conflict of Laws; recipient, Coleman Karesh Scholarship; member, International Law Moot Court Team which won regional competition in Miami, Florida; and legal writing instructor.

8. Legal/Judicial education during the past five years:
She has attended and participated as a speaker in numerous CLE and JCLE programs in South Carolina. She is a member of the CLE Committee of the South Carolina Bar.

In April of 1989, she attended a National Conference on Aids and the Courts, sponsored by the National Institute of Justice and the State Justice Institute in Miami, Florida. In May of 1990, she attended a conference on The Future and the Courts in San Antonio, Texas, sponsored by the State Justice Institute and the American Judicature Society. In October of 1990, she attended the Rural Court Regional Leadership Development Meeting in Nashville, Tennessee, sponsored by the National Conference of State Trial Judges and the National Conference of Special Court Judges.

9. Courses taught or lectures presented:
"Hearsay Rule in the Family Court," Columbia, South Carolina, July 21, 1979

"Order Writing for Circuit Judges," Columbia, South Carolina, August, 1979

"Order Writing for Family Court Judges," Columbia, South Carolina, November 16, 1979

"Order Writing for Law Clerks," Columbia, South Carolina, August, 1980

"Appellate Court Writs," Columbia, South Carolina, June 19, 1980

"Order Writing for Law Clerks and Staff Attorneys," Columbia, South Carolina, August, 1981

"Rules and Procedures of the Family Court," South Carolina Trial Lawyers Convention, Hilton Head, South Carolina, August 20, 1981

"Appellate Advocacy--Brief Writing," Greenville, South Carolina, April 2, 1982

"Appellate Advocacy--Brief Writing," Charleston, South Carolina, May, 1982

"Appellate Advocacy--Brief Writing," Florence, South Carolina, June 25, 1982

"Appellate Advocacy--Preservation of the Record," Columbia, South Carolina, July 15, 1983

"Opinion Writing for Appellate Judges," Columbia, South Carolina, October, 1983

"Separation and Antenuptial Agreements," Columbia, South Carolina, October 12, 1984

"Effective Order Writing," Columbia, South Carolina, December 6-7, 1984

"Order Writing," New Judges' School, Columbia, South Carolina, February 28, 1985

"Order Writing," Bridge-the-Gap, Columbia, South Carolina, March 7, 1985 and August, 1985

Third Annual Family Law Bench-Bar Conference, September 27, 1985

"Complex Issues in Family Court" and "Statutory Update and Alimony Perspective," Co-Moderator, Columbia, South Carolina, November 19-20, 1987

Panelist, Practical Problems in Legal Ethics, Columbia, South Carolina, December, 1987

"Order Writing," New Judges' School, Columbia, South Carolina, July 21-22, 1988

"Children's Rights," SCDSS Family Violence Conference, Columbia, South Carolina, March 19-20, 1990

"Judge's Perspective on Adoption," Columbia, South Carolina, April 6, 1990

"Domestic Relations," Bridge-the-Gap, Columbia, South Carolina, August, 1990 and March, 1991

"The Future of Families in the Courts," Greenville, South Carolina, April 4, 1991

"Domestic Relations," Bridge-the-Gap, Columbia, South Carolina, August, 1991

"Order Writing," "New Alimony Statute," "Abuse and Neglect," "Contempt," Moderator, New Family Court Judges' School, Columbia, South Carolina, August 27-28, 1991

"Domestic Violence," Magistrates JCLE, Columbia, South Carolina, November 8, 1991

10. Published Books or Articles: None since going on the bench in 1986

12. Legal experience since graduation from law school:

1977-1979 Law clerk to The Honorable J. B. Ness

1979-1986 Associate and partner in the firm of Stevens, Stevens, Thomas, Hearn and Hearn (general civil trial litigation, including appeals)

1986-present Resident Judge of the Family Court of the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit

20. Judicial Office:
She was elected as Family Court Judge of the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit on May 25, 1986. She has been serving continuously in this capacity since being sworn into office on June 20, 1986.

21. Five significant Orders or Opinions Written:

(a) Rattenni v. Grainger, 298 S.C. 276, 379 S.E. 2d 890 (1989).
This involved the question of the set-off of underinsurance proceeds against a jury's damage verdict. It was tried while she was sitting as a Special Circuit Judge, Court of Common Pleas.

(b) Graham, et al. v. Harrelson, et al., Order signed February 7, 1990.
This involved the granting of a motion for a new trial nisi additur. It was tried while she was sitting as a Special Circuit Judge, Court of Common Pleas.

(c) Hernandez v. Boyd, Order signed May 4, 1990.
This involved termination of parental rights.

(d) Rowe v. Miller, Order signed November 20, 1990.
This involved a parent's obligation to provide child support to a mentally unstable daughter over the age of 18.

(e) Key, et al. v. Cloud, et al.
This involved the termination of parental rights brought by the foster parents of Eric Cloud.

24. Any Occupation, Business or Profession Other Than the Practice of Law: None, other than summer employment during college.

31. Sued: She was sued for divorce by her first husband, R. Howard Grubbs, in 1978. The ground for divorce was desertion for a period of one year. She was also sued in her former capacity as Bar Examiner in the case of John V. Crangle v. Board of Law Examiners of S. C., et al. The case was dismissed.

33. She has had no recent physical examination. Her physician is Dr. Charles W. Johnson, Conway Internists, P.A., 8002 Myrtle Trace Drive, Conway, South Carolina 29526.

35. She wears contact lenses.

39. Bar Associations and Professional Organizations:
Horry County Bar Association; South Carolina Bar Association; South Carolina Trial Lawyers Association; and National Conference of Family Court Judges

40. Civic, charitable, religious, educational, social, and fraternal organizations:
Member, South Carolina Board of Bar Examiners, June, 1984 - June, 1986; contributor, Appellate Advocacy Handbook published by South Carolina Bar Association; Treasurer, South Carolina Conference of Family Court Judges, 1990-1991; Vice-President, South Carolina Conference of Family Court Judges, 1991-1992; member of Governor's Committee on Criminal Justice, Governor's Criminal Classification Subcommittee, Governor's Victim of Crime Subcommittee, South Carolina Criminal Justice Academy Domestic Violence Task Force, Family Court Judges Advisory Committee, CLE Committee of South Carolina Bar, and Court Automation Project Committee. She was Outstanding Young Women of America, 1984; Conway's Outstanding Business and Professional Woman of the Year, 1987; member, St. Paul's Episcopal Church, Conway, South Carolina; member, St. Paul's Vestry, 1987-1988; choir director, St. Paul's Episcopal Church, 1990-present; and President-elect, St. Paul's Episcopal Church Women.

42. Five letters of reference:

(a) John C. Griggs, Vice President/City Executive Officer
First Citizens Bank
P. O. Box 706, Conway, SC 29526

(b) Billie G. Richardson, Clerk of Court
Horry County
P. O. Box 677, Conway, SC 29526

(c) Ralph J. Wilson, Solicitor
Fifteenth Judicial Circuit
P. O. Box 1888, Georgetown, SC 29440

(d) The Rev. Greg Prior
St. Paul's Episcopal Church
P. O. Box 1086, Conway, SC 29526

(e) Resolution - Horry County Bar Association

Q THE BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS ON GRIEVANCES AND DISCIPLINE REPORTS NO COMPLAINTS EVER HAVING BEEN FILED AGAINST YOU. THE JUDICIAL STANDARDS COMMISSION HAS NO RECORD OF ANY REPRIMANDS. THE RECORDS OF THE HIGHWAY DEPARTMENT, HORRY COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE, CONWAY CITY POLICE DEPARTMENT, SLED, F.B.I., AND JUDGMENT ROLLS OF HORRY COUNTY ALL ARE NEGATIVE. THE FEDERAL COURT RECORDS SHOW NO JUDGMENTS OR CRIMINAL ACTIONS. YOU'VE BEEN NAMED AS A PARTY IN ONE CIVIL ACTION AS A MEMBER OF THE BOARD OF LAW EXAMINERS, AND THAT WAS THE ONLY SUIT THAT WAS LISTED, I SUPPOSED.
A THAT'S CORRECT.
Q AND THAT ACTION WAS DISMISSED.
A YES, SIR.
Q YOUR HEALTH IS STILL VERY GOOD?
A IT'S FINE.
Q JUDGE, YOU WERE SCREENED, I GUESS, IN '88, THE LAST TIME. WHAT DO YOU THINK ABOUT THE IMPORTANCE OF JUDICIAL TEMPERAMENT BASED ON YOUR EXPERIENCE NOW OF SEVERAL YEARS?
A WELL, OF COURSE, IT'S VERY IMPORTANT. IT'S SOMETHING THAT I CONTINUE TO WORK ON ALL THE TIME, AND SOME DAYS I'M BETTER THAN OTHERS. BUT WHEN I FEEL THAT I'M NOT BEING AS TEMPERATE AS I SHOULD BE, I TAKE A BREAK. AND THAT HELPS, TO COME BACK IN. I TRY TO BE NICE AND FAIR AND POLITE TO EVERYONE.
Q WHAT IS YOUR BIGGEST FRUSTRATION?
A WELL, THERE ARE A LOT OF THEM. I HAVE SOME FRUSTRATIONS WITH THE JUVENILE SYSTEM THAT I THINK HAVE ALREADY BEEN ADDRESSED. I HAVE SOME OTHER FRUSTRATIONS WITH ALL OF THE EMERGENCY MATTERS THAT WE ARE REQUIRED BY STATUTE TO HOLD IN SUCH A SHORT PERIOD OF TIME, SUCH AS DETENTION HEARINGS FOR A JUVENILE WITHIN 48 HOURS, THE TEN-DAY HEARINGS IN D.S.S. I'M NOT SAYING THEY'RE NOT IMPORTANT, BUT IN MY AREA, MYRTLE BEACH, WE HAVE A LOT OF JUVENILES WHO RUN AWAY TO MYRTLE BEACH; AND ON A MONDAY, IT'S NOT UNUSUAL TO HAVE TEN JUVENILES IN JAIL. IT'S JUST VERY DIFFICULT TO WORK ALL THESE HEARINGS IN, TO LOCATE ATTORNEYS FOR ALL THESE JUVENILES, AND TO MAKE THE OTHER LITIGANTS WAIT WHILE I DO THESE JUVENILE MATTERS. THAT'S THE ONLY THING IN SIX YEARS AS BEING ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE THAT I HAVEN'T REALLY BEEN ABLE TO SATISFACTORILY HANDLE, AND IT'S INCREASING. BUT BASICALLY, I LOVE MY JOB.
CHAIRMAN POPE: DOES THE COMMITTEE HAVE QUESTIONS OF THE JUDGE?
VICE-CHAIRMAN GENTRY: I HAVE ONE QUESTION.

Q I WAS LOOKING AT THE FIVE CASES THAT YOU LISTED, OF COURSE, AS BEING SIGNIFICANT, AND I NOTICED TWO OF THEM YOU WERE A SPECIAL CIRCUIT JUDGE. DO YOU DO A LOT OF THAT?
A I DON'T ANYMORE, NOW THAT WE HAVE THE EIGHT NEW CIRCUIT JUDGES; BUT PRIOR TO THAT, I DID A LOT OF IT, AND I BELIEVE I WAS THE FIRST WOMAN TO HOLD COMMON PLEAS JURY COURT IN THE STATE. I DID A LOT OF JURY WORK. I'VE NEVER DONE ANY GENERAL SESSIONS, BUT I DID A LOT OF COMMON PLEAS JURY AND NON-JURY.
CHAIRMAN POPE: ANY OTHER QUESTIONS?

CHAIRMAN POPE: JUDGE, DO YOU HAVE ANY OTHER COMMENTS YOU WOULD LIKE TO MAKE?
WITNESS: JUST TO THANK THE COMMITTEE FOR THEIR TIME.
CHAIRMAN POPE: THANK YOU, JUDGE, FOR BEING WITH US, AND WE APPRECIATE YOUR GOOD SERVICE.

CHAIRMAN POPE: NEXT IS JUDGE LEE ALFORD, APPLICANT FOR FAMILY COURT OF THE SIXTEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, SEAT #2.

WHEREUPON, LEE S. ALFORD, HAVING BEEN DULY SWORN AND CAUTIONED TO SPEAK THE TRUTH, THE WHOLE TRUTH, AND NOTHING BUT THE TRUTH, IS EXAMINED AND TESTIFIES AS FOLLOWS:

Q LET'S SEE, JUDGE, YOU WERE SCREENED ABOUT A YEAR AND A HALF AGO, I BELIEVE.
A YES, THAT'S CORRECT.
Q DOES YOUR QUESTIONNAIRE SUMMARY NEED ANY CHANGES?
A I BELIEVE IT IS CORRECT, SIR.
Q YOU HAVE NO OBJECTION TO US MAKING IT A PART OF THE RECORD, THEN, AS IT STANDS?
A NO, SIR.
Q ALL RIGHT, WE'LL DO THAT.

1. Levy (Lee) S. Alford
Home Address: Business Address:
1048 Estate Drive P. O. Box 219
York, SC 29745 York, SC 29745

2. He was born in York County, South Carolina, on May 16, 1942. He is presently 49 years old.
Social Security Number: ***-**-****

4. He was married to Terri Dean Baker on January 29, 1965. He has two children: Matthew Lee, age 18 (student U.S.C. - Page in South Carolina House of Representatives); Ross Dean, age 10.

5. Military Service: United States Air Force; AF-14716064-A/2C; July 5, 1960 to July 5, 1964; Honorable Discharge

6. He attended Clemson University, January, 1965 to June, 1965, transferred to U.S.C.; University of South Carolina, September, 1965 to August, 1968, AB Degree, History; University of South Carolina Law School, August, 1968 to June, 1971, Juris Doctor Degree; Winthrop College, 1987-1991, 15 semester hours of Accounting, Auditing and Federal Tax, does not plan to seek a degree.

7. He was married throughout his college and law school years and worked part or full time. He did not belong to any organization or club during college. He was a member of the Phi Alpha Delta Legal Fraternity in law school. He worked as a page in the South Carolina Senate in 1970 and 1971. He was on the honor roll or Dean's List six of the eight semesters he was in college. He finished in the top 10% of his college class and in the top 20% of his law school class. He has a 3.80 GPR at Winthrop College.

8. Legal/Judicial education during the past five years:

1992: Family Court Early 1992 Bench/Bar Update; Columbia, South Carolina; March 13, 1992; 6.50 hours

1991: South Carolina Bar - Ethics Seminar; Rock Hill, South Carolina; March 15, 1991; 5.0 hours (Satellite from Columbia)

Domestic Practice; Columbia, South Carolina; May 17, 1991; 6.0 hours

JCLE; Probate Judges; Columbia, South Carolina; July 12, 1991; 6.5 hours

JCLE; Family Law; Summer 1991 Update; Columbia, South Carolina; July 19, 1991; 6.0 hours

Criminal Practice in South Carolina; Columbia, South Carolina; September 27, 1991; 7.17 hours

Estate Planning/Estate, Trust & Gift Tax; Winthrop College; August, 1991/December, 1991; 3 semester hours

1990: Annual Criminal Law Update, CLE; January 25, 1990 and January 26, 1990; U.S.C. Law School; 12 hours

Criminal Practice in South Carolina, CLE; October 19, 1990; U.S.C. Law School; 7 hours

Judicial CLE for Probate Judges; July 13, 1990; U.S.C. Law School

Probate Practice Manual, CLE; August 24, 1990; U.S.C. Law School; 6 hours

Civil Trial Advocacy Bench/Bar Conference, CLE; October 26, 1990; U.S.C. Law School; 6 hours

Family Law Issues, CLE; November 9, 1990; U.S.C. Law School; 6 hours

1989: Judicial CLE for Probate Judges; July 21, 1989; U.S.C. Law School

Federal Income Tax Course; Fall, 1989; Winthrop College; 3 semester hours

Auditing Course; Spring, 1989; Winthrop College; 3 semester hours

1988: Judicial CLE for Probate Judges; July 22, 1988; U.S.C. Law School

Family Court Judicial CLE; November 17, 1988 and November 18, 1988; U.S.C. Law School; 12 hours

Intermediate Accounting Course; Summer, 1988; Winthrop College, 3 semester hours

Intermediate Accounting Course; Spring, 1988; Winthrop College; 3 semester hours

1987: Mastering the Craft of Trial Advocacy, CLE; January 30, 1987 and January 31, 1987; U.S.C. Law School; 12 hours

Uniform Probate Code and U.P.C. Forms, S.C.P.J.A.; Columbia; March 4, 1987; 6 hours

Practical Aspects of the New S.C. Probate Code, CLE; April 24, 1987; U.S.C. Law School; 6.5 hours

Mandatory Training for Probate Judges and Staffs on S.C.P.C., South Carolina Court Administration; May 20, 1987; 6 hours

Judicial CLE for Probate Judges; July 17, 1987; U.S.C. Law School

Practice Under the New S.C.P.C., York County Bar and Winthrop College; August 28, 1987; Winthrop College; 6 hours

Family Court Judicial CLE; November 19, 1987 and November 20, 1987; U.S.C. Law School; 12 hours

9. Courses Taught:

He has served as a speaker for several Judicial CLE's for South Carolina Probate Judges and a three-day training session for new Probate Judges. Topics have included: Conducting a Jury Trial, Probate Court Jurisdiction, Trusts and Annual Update of Supreme Court Decisions Affecting Probate Courts.

He spoke to the South Carolina Bankers' Association about the new South Carolina Probate Court.

He served as a speaker at several South Carolina Bar CLE pertaining to the South Carolina Probate Code. Most recently he spoke at a CLE Seminar on the South Carolina Probate Practice Manual, 1990 Edition, on the subject of legislative changes to claims procedures in probate estates in light of Tulsa Professional Collection Services v. Pope, 108 S. Ct. 1340.

He also served as moderator for a CLE Seminar at Winthrop College for the South Carolina Bar and CPA's on the S.C.P.C.

12. Legal experience since graduation from law school:
He practiced law with an experienced attorney from 1971-1977 in the general practice of law in State and Federal Courts. In 1977, he opened his own office where he practiced until 1979, when he took office as Probate Judge for York County. Throughout this period, his practice consisted of criminal, civil, family and probate practice. He tried murder, rape, forgery, armed robbery, assault, driving under the influence, etc., cases. He also tried tort, contract and other civil cases. In Family Court he handled divorce, custody and child support cases. He also worked on appeals and post-conviction relief proceedings.

14. Frequency of appearances in court:
Federal -
State -
Other -

N/A: He has served as full-time Probate Judge for the past 13 years.

15. Percentage of litigation:
Civil -
Criminal -
Domestic -

N/A: He has served as full-time Probate Judge for the past 13 years.
16. Percentage of cases in trial courts:
Jury -
Non-jury -

N/A: He has served as full-time Probate Judge for the past 13 years.

17. Five (5) of the most significant litigated matters in either trial or appellate court:

(a) Berry B. Jones and Peggy W. Jones v. James Overcash and Snap-On Tools. This case is cited, because it was the first civil trial he handled alone from start to finish. Judge William Rhodes, who later served on the South Carolina Supreme Court, was the trial judge. Judge Rhodes was patient and kind, but a task master. Judge Alford made sure he thoroughly researched certain issues and understood the reasons for his rulings. He learned a lot and his clients got a verdict for actual and punitive damages in this case. A key issue was whether a dirt road with only one home, but scraped by the County, required reduced speed and caution in passing by statute.

(b) State v. Janie Sadler. This case is cited because it was the first murder case he handled alone from start to finish. The key issue in the case was whether self-defense was available to a woman who shot her boyfriend with whom she lived. The boyfriend was legally blind (but had limited vision) and was threatening to hit her with a chair. The jury believed that she acted in self-defense and found her not guilty.

(c) Jo Ann S. Whitworth v. James B. Whitworth. This was the first divorce he handled under the new no-fault (mutual separation for a period of three years) statute. The mutual separation period was later reduced from three years to one year. A bill is currently pending in the Legislature which would further reduce the mutual separation period from one year to six months.

(d) Harry J. Wycoff and Margaret S. Wycoff v. Susan G. Nivens and Anthony Joe Nivens (a minor under one year of age). This case personifies the most enjoyable part of Family Court jurisdiction. A couple in their early forties had never been able to conceive a child. An 18-year-old girl became pregnant but did not know who the father was. She wanted to give up the child for adoption. The Wycoff's took custody of the baby when it was released from the hospital, and this son gave life new meaning for them.

(e) Department of Social Services, Petitioner, In the Interest of Mary Neely, a minor 13 years of age. Mary Neely, a 13-year-old, moderately retarded girl, had been abandoned by her parents and was in the custody of her grandparents, Jerry and Alice Neely. D.S.S. sought to remove the child and place her in a foster home. He was appointed by the Court to represent the grandparents. The child suffered from asthma and was sickly. She missed a good bit of school. D.S.S. made their case for removal of the child on the basis that the small frame house in which the Neelys lived was in the country and had a dirt yard and driveway. There were chickens, dogs and cats in the yard which they said was bad for the child's asthma. They admitted the inside of the house was always clean. The doctor they called to testify could not say with certainty that her asthmatic condition would be better in a foster home. There was a conflict in the testimony as to whether the child received the proper amount of medication.

He became convinced in talking with the parties that it would be a traumatic experience for this moderately retarded child to be removed from the love and security of her grandparents. The Court also came to that conclusion and refused to give custody to D.S.S. for placement in a foster home.

18. Five (5) civil appeals:

He has served as a Probate Judge for the past 13 years and therefore has not practiced law. In the years from 1971-1979, he was involved in a substantial number of divorce, custody, support and adoption cases but did not have occasion to appeal nor did the opposing side appeal any of those cases. Appeals in domestic cases were rare in those years. They did not have a Court of Appeals other than the Supreme Court. The attorney with whom he practiced for five and one-half of those years had a substantial domestic law practice, and he was not involved in an appeal of a domestic case during this period either.

The law has been in a constant state of change the past several years and there have been many appeals of domestic cases, particularly, in the Court of Appeals. He received and read the Advance Sheets (Reports of cases decided by the South Carolina Supreme Court and the South Carolina Court of Appeals) faithfully to keep up with the law and to find out what trial court judges are doing wrong. He has attended 42.5 hours of Family Court CLE Seminars, most of those hours are 15 semester hours of accounting, auditing and federal tax courses at Winthrop College in night school since 1988. To be able to speak and comprehend the language of CPA's will be a tremendous help to him should he be elected to the Family Court bench.

In lieu of Domestic Appeals, he has listed other civil appeals which were significant to him.

(a) Eugene Patterson v. J. R. Bogan and Ernest Kerr, 261 S.C. 87, 198 S.E. 2d 586. This was an action for malicious prosecution tried in Union County. He represented the Plaintiff who prevailed at trial ($20,000 verdict) and on appeal to the South Carolina Supreme Court. He had to levy execution and advertise a sale of property before the judgment was paid.

(b) Lillian Love Nance, Executrix of the Estate of Alice Hardee Love v. S. C. Tax Commission. Cited by S. C. Tax Commission and Attorney General's Opinions. He is not listed as an attorney of record in this case. However, it is the first case he worked on after law school. He did research and helped prepare the appeal. It was a case of novel impression in South Carolina and is the leading case on the inclusion of totten or custodian type trusts in estate and estate tax purposes. The case was tried in York County.

(c) James C. Cloniger v. Lamar W. Cloniger, 261 S.C. 603, 193 S.E. 2d 647. He is not listed as an attorney of record in this case, but he did most of the work in research and preparation of the appeal including the record on appeal and the Brief. They did not prevail at trial in York County nor on appeal. He has never been involved in a case in which he more profoundly disagreed with the reasoning of the opinion and the result.

(d) Margaret Patrick Wright v. W. M. Patrick, 262 S.C. 434, 205 S.E. 2d 175. This case involved an alleged contract to make a will. They got a jury verdict in the Plaintiff's favor after a lengthy trial in York County. One of his favorite judges, Judge William Rhodes, granted judgment in N.O.V. to the Defendants. They appealed and the South Carolina Supreme Court affirmed Judge Rhodes.

(e) The Federal Land Bank of Columbia v. Ida Walker Wood, et al., 334 F Sup. 1124. He is not listed as an attorney of record in this case, but he did most of the research and preparation of Briefs for the attorney with whom he was associated. This case involved the construction of a will. The wife and children of the deceased sought a construction that would close the class of heirs so that they could borrow money to pay debts and keep the real property in the estate out of foreclosure. This was the only chance they had, but the Federal District Court of South Carolina ruled otherwise and the U. S. Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed.

20. Judicial Office:

He took office as Probate Judge for York County in January, 1979. He was reelected in 1982, 1986 and 1990 without opposition.

Probate Courts in South Carolina were created by statute and are courts of record with limited jurisdiction. Probate Courts have exclusive original jurisdiction over all matters pertaining to wills, probate, trusts, protection of minors and incapacitated persons and the involuntary commitment of persons suffering from mental illness, mental retardation, alcoholism, drug addiction, tuberculosis and AIDS.

21. Five significant Orders or Opinions Written:

(a) McKibben v. Estate of Blanche Crenshaw, Case No. 91ES4600344. This case is cited because it was the first jury trial begun and completed in the York County Probate Court. Plaintiffs contested the will alleging mental incapacity and undue influence. A verdict was directed in favor of the Defendant on the issue of mental incapacity. The issue of undue influence was submitted to the jury which rendered a verdict for the Defendant. There was no appeal, and the lawyers involved indicated that they received a fair and impartial trial.

(b) Estate of Hiram Clyde William, Case 803, File 22727. This was a case of novel impression in South Carolina. The Circuit Judge's Order was appealed to the South Carolina Court of Appeals but withdrawn prior to a decision there. The South Carolina Probate Code, since adopted, affirmed by statute his decision.

(c) W. M. Mauldin, Jr., Trustee v. Ann M. Faircloth, et al., Case 87-2 (1987). This case is cited, because it is the first trust matter heard under the new S.C.P.C. Under the 1986 Tax Reform Act a family held business could save approximately $25,000 per year in taxes by changing to Subchapter S Corporation. However, Subchapter S status was not available if any stock held in a trust. The trust was terminated pursuant to a single case precedent decided by the South Carolina Supreme Court. Virtually all of the testimony came from CPA's and actuaries.

(d) Estate of J. H. Chappell, Case 86ES4600194. Three wills were offered for probate in this case. The last dated will was admitted to Probate. It was contested by two of the children of the deceased. The matter was heard by the Court without a jury. After two full days of testimony and evidence, the will was upheld. An appeal was taken to the Court of Common Pleas but dismissed with prejudice.

(e) Estate of James A. Woodruff, Case 88ES4600077. This case involved an unusual will and testamentary trust. The will was contested by the children. The matter was heard by the Court without a jury. The will was upheld. An appeal followed to the Circuit Court but was dismissed with prejudice. An action to construe the will and testamentary trust was then filed. The ruling of the court was appealed to the Circuit Court but later withdrawn.

23. Unsuccessful candidate:
He ran unsuccessfully for the York County Council against a long-time incumbent about 1976. He ran because he said he was retiring but changed his mind after he had filed. He did not campaign and received 42% of the vote. He finished close second in a five-person race for an At-Large Circuit Court seat in 1991.

24. Any Occupation, Business or Profession Other Than the Practice of Law:
In working his way through college and law school, he worked as a boilermaker, pipefitter, carpenter, meat cutter and television camera operator. He worked for Daniel Construction Company in 1964, 1965 and 1966. He worked for WNOK-TV in Columbia in 1967. He worked for the A & P in 1968 and 1969. He worked as a page in the South Carolina Senate in 1970 and 1971.

27. Financial Arrangement or Business Relationships:
If he ever experienced a potential conflict of interest while serving on the bench, he would follow the judicial canons of ethics to the letter. He would recuse himself if there could be even an appearance of conflict of interest.

31. Sued: He was sued as Probate Judge for York County in Federal District Court along with numerous other officials by a man whose last name was Culp. This had something to do with his ancestor's property and the allegations referred to something which allegedly happened 40 or more years ago. He never understood what it was about. The case was dismissed for failure to state a cause of action.

33. His health is excellent. His last physical examination was on May 23, 1991, by Dr. J. A. Patrick, 43 N. Congress Street, York, South Carolina 29745. He runs about 15 miles per week and plays tennis almost every week.

35. He has worn reading glasses for about three years.

39. Bar Associations and Professional Organizations:
York County Bar Association, Past President of the York County Young Lawyers' Association (1975); South Carolina Bar Association; South Carolina Probate Judges' Association, President, 1984-1985; National College of Probate Judges
40. Civic, charitable, religious, educational, social and fraternal organizations:
Past President of the South Carolina United Way; Past President of the Western York County United Way; Community Action Vice President of the South Carolina Jaycees; Past President of the York Jaycees; Past President of the Greater York Chamber of Commerce; Past President of the York Red Cross Chapter; Past Chairman of the York County Boy Scout Council; Executive Board of the Palmetto Council of Boy Scouts; Past President of the York Rotary Club; Past President of the York County Mental Health Association; Past President of the Camp Arc Council which established special olympics and residential camps for the mentally handicapped; Judge Advocate for American Legion Post #34 for a number of years; Trustee and Director of the York County Crescent Shrine Club; Honorary Chairman of March of Dimes Walk-a-thon; Dixie Youth Baseball Council; Mason; Elk

He is an active member of Trinity United Methodist Church. He has taught Sunday School for a number of years; served on the Administrative Board, Council on Ministries, Lay Leader and Chairman of the Pastor Parish Relations Committee; served a Lay Representative to the Annual Conference of the South Carolina United Methodist Church in 1989. He coached basketball in the Rock Hill Church League for several years.

He twice received "Project of the Year" awards from the York Jaycees and was named Key Man and Jaycee of the Year by that organization. He was named outstanding State Vice President of the South Carolina Jaycees. He received the York Jaycees' "Distinguished Service Award" in 1976 and named one of the three Outstanding Young Men in South Carolina in 1977. He received Jaycee's highest award, J.C.I. Senator in 1977. He received Rotary's highest award, Paul Harris Fellow, from the York Rotary Club in 1989. He was named "Shriner of the Year" by the York County Shrine Club in 1989. He is York County's nominee for the "Nine Who Care Award" in 1989.

41. He has worked very hard to upgrade the Probate Court system in South Carolina. With the help of the attorneys who have practiced before him, many contested cases have been amicably resolved. Some cases have, of course, been appealed but as of this time none of his Orders have been reversed. He believes this shows his dedication to the law and his ability to apply the law properly in the cases he has had presented to him.

He would like to have the opportunity to become a legal scholar in areas of the law other than probate. If given the opportunity, he will dedicate himself to giving the time and effort necessary to do an effective job. His goal is to be the best Family Court Judge he can possibly be and to make a contribution to the state as a jurist.

Due to his aspirations to be a Family Court judge, he has attended more than 40 hours of family law CLE's, most of them judicial CLE's. He has also successfully completed 15 semester hours of advanced accounting auditing and federal tax in night school at Winthrop College since 1988. This knowledge is sure to be extremely helpful if he is elected to the Family Court.

42. Five (5) letters of recommendation:

(a) F. M. Clinton, President
Bank of York
P. O. Box 339, York, SC 29745

(b) M. H. Carroll, Jr., Clerk of Court
York County
P. O. Box 649, York, SC 29745

(c) Caldwell A. Barron, Chairman
York County Council
P. O. Box 66, York, SC 29745

(d) Honorable Raymond C. Eubanks, Jr.
Judge, Probate Court, County of Spartanburg
Room 185, Spartanburg County Courthouse
Spartanburg, SC 29301

(e) Larry W. Rodeffer, Pastor
Trinity United Methodist Church
P. O. Box 376, York, SC 29745

Q THE BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS ON GRIEVANCES AND DISCIPLINE REPORTS NO COMPLAINTS EVER HAVING BEEN FILED AGAINST YOU. THE JUDICIAL STANDARDS COMMISSION HAS NO RECORD OF REPRIMANDS AGAINST YOU. THE RECORDS OF THE HIGHWAY DEPARTMENT, YORK COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE, YORK CITY POLICE DEPARTMENT, SLED, AND THE F.B.I. ARE ALL NEGATIVE. THE JUDGMENTS ROLLS OF YORK COUNTY ARE NEGATIVE. THE FEDERAL COURT RECORDS SHOW NO JUDGMENTS OR CRIMINAL ACTIONS AGAINST. YOU WERE NAMED -- IN QUESTION 31 YOU WERE NAMED OR YOU WERE A DEFENDANT IN SOME TYPE OF REAL ESTATE MATTER?
A YES, SIR. THAT INVOLVED -- THERE WAS A MAN FROM PHILADELPHIA WHO BROUGHT A PRO SE ACTION IN FEDERAL DISTRICT COURT, NAMING ME AND SOME OTHER PERSONS, CONCERNING SOME LAND THAT WAS SUPPOSEDLY TAKEN AWAY FROM ONE OF HIS ANCESTORS SOME 40 YEARS AGO, WHEN I WAS A CHILD. I WAS JUST NAMED AS PROBATE JUDGE OF YORK COUNTY, SIMPLY BECAUSE IT WAS SUPPOSEDLY INVOLVING SOME PROBATE MATTER THAT HAPPENED 40 YEARS AGO. I WAS NOT AWARE OF IT, NEVER UNDERSTOOD WHAT IT WAS ALL ABOUT, AND IT WAS DISMISSED AS NOT STATING THE CAUSE OF ACTION, AS I UNDERSTAND.
Q NOW, YOU HAVE BEEN A MEMBER OF THE PROBATE COURT BENCH FOR HOW MANY YEARS, NOW?
A 13 -- A LITTLE OVER 13 YEARS.
Q AND YOU SEE NO PROBLEMS, I'M SURE, IN THE TRANSITION TO THE FAMILY COURT?
A NO, SIR. I'VE HAD ASPIRATIONS TO SERVE AS FAMILY COURT JUDGE OR CIRCUIT COURT JUDGE, AND I HAVE TRIED TO BE PREPARED FOR THAT. IN THE LAST FIVE YEARS, I HAVE ATTENDED OVER 40 HOURS OF C.L.E.'S IN THE FAMILY COURT AREA, AND PARTICULARLY, I'VE ATTENDED THE JUDICIAL C.L.E.'S FOR FAMILY COURT JUDGES DURING THAT PERIOD OF TIME; AND I, OF COURSE, HAVE READ THE ADVANCE SHEETS FAITHFULLY, AND HAVE WATCHED THE CHANGES THAT HAVE COME ABOUT. EVEN NOW I'VE BEEN STUDYING AT NIGHT SOME OF THE CHANGES IN THE LAW AND THE RULES, FAMILY COURT RULES, AND SOME OF THE LAW AND DECISIONS THAT HAVE COME DOWN, AND STUDYING THOSE CASES THAT I THINK ARE INSTRUCTIVE. ALSO, I THINK IT WILL BE HELPFUL THAT I'VE TAKEN, IN THE LAST TWO YEARS, I'VE TAKEN NIGHT COURSES AT WINTHROP COLLEGE, SOME COURSES IN INTERMEDIATE ACCOUNTING, AUDITING, AND FEDERAL TAXATION. AND AS I SEE IT, THAT IS A BIG AREA NOW IN THE FAMILY COURT, PARTICULARLY WITH THE NEW RULES AND MANY CHANGES THAT HAVE TAKEN PLACE IN THE LAST SEVERAL YEARS.
Q WHEN YOU WERE IN PRIVATE PRACTICE, DID YOU DO A FAIR AMOUNT OF DOMESTIC WORK AT THAT TIME?
A YES, SIR, I WOULD ESTIMATE THAT PROBABLY A THIRD OF MY PRACTICE WAS IN THE FAMILY COURT AREA, AND I HANDLED ALL TYPES OF CASES: DIVORCES, SUPPORT, CUSTODY, SOME D.S.S. CASES WHERE A REMOVAL WAS ATTEMPTED, AND THAT SORT OF THING.
CHAIRMAN POPE: DOES THE COMMITTEE HAVE QUESTIONS OF JUDGE ALFORD?
VICE-CHAIRMAN GENTRY: NO, SIR.
Q (BY CHAIRMAN POPE) JUDGE, THANK YOU. DO YOU HAVE ANY OTHER COMMENTS YOU WOULD LIKE TO MAKE AT THIS TIME?
A NO, SIR. I WOULD SAY, IF I HAD THE OPPORTUNITY TO SERVE AS FAMILY COURT JUDGE, I WOULD DO MY BEST TO BE ONE OF THE VERY BEST IN THE STATE. I KNOW THERE ARE SOME GOOD FAMILY COURT JUDGES, AND I WOULD DO MY BEST TO BE ONE OF THE VERY BEST. I WOULD SAY TO YOU THAT I THINK THAT JUDGES -- IN RESPONSE TO YOUR EARLIER QUESTIONS -- I THINK JUDGES ARE PART OF THE SYSTEM. THEY'RE JUDGED BY THE GENERAL PUBLIC. AS JUDGES, WE MUST BE AWARE OF THAT, AT ALL TIMES, AND WE MUST CONDUCT OURSELVES AT ALL TIMES WITH RESPECT TO OTHERS, AND WE SHOULD COMMAND RESPECT IN THE COURTROOM; AT THE SAME TIME, WE SHOULD MAKE SURE IT'S AN EFFICIENT COURT. WE SHOULD DO IT TO THE VERY BEST OF OUR ABILITIES, SO THAT THE GENERAL PUBLIC WILL UNDERSTAND AND KNOW AND HAVE FAITH IN THE SYSTEM.
Q THANK YOU VERY MUCH, JUDGE.
A THANK YOU.
SENATOR MARTIN: MR. CHAIRMAN, YORK COUNTY WILL BE LOSING A VERY COMPETENT PROBATE JUDGE.
WITNESS: THANK YOU, SENATOR.

CHAIRMAN POPE: NEXT IS FAMILY COURT OF THE NINTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, SEAT #1. JUDGE MENDEL RIVERS.

WHEREUPON, L. MENDEL RIVERS, JR., HAVING BEEN DULY SWORN AND CAUTIONED TO SPEAK THE TRUTH, THE WHOLE TRUTH, AND NOTHING BUT THE TRUTH, IS EXAMINED AND TESTIFIES AS FOLLOWS:

Q JUDGE, WE HAVE HEARD FROM ONE PERSON IN THE WAY OF COMPLAINT, AND THE PROCEDURE HAS BEEN, IN THESE KINDS OF MATTERS -- WE'VE HAD A NUMBER OF THEM THIS YEAR -- THAT WE WILL PROCEED TO ASK YOU THE SAME QUESTIONS WE'VE ASKED THE OTHER JUDGES ABOUT THE QUESTIONNAIRE AND WHATNOT, AND WE WON'T REALLY ADDRESS THE COMPLAINT YET. AND THEN, AFTER WE CONCLUDE THAT, WE'LL LET THE COMPLAINANT COME FORWARD AND STATE HIS POSITION, AND THEN YOU WILL COME BACK AGAIN WITH WHATEVER YOU WOULD LIKE TO PRESENT IN RESPONSE TO SPECIFICALLY THAT COMPLAINT.
A ALL RIGHT, SIR.
Q JUST SO YOU WON'T BE NERVOUS, WE WON'T BE TALKING ABOUT THE COMPLAINT YET.
A WE CAN ENJOY THAT TREAT IN A LITTLE WHILE.
Q YES, SIR.
A THANK YOU.
Q JUDGE, HAVE YOU REVIEWED THE QUESTIONNAIRE SUMMARY?
A YES.
Q DOES IT NEED ANY MODIFICATIONS?
A NO, SIR.
Q YOU HAVE NO OBJECTION TO US MAKING IT A PART OF THE RECORD, THEN?
A NO, SIR.

1. L. Mendel Rivers, Jr.
Home Address: Business Address
647 Serotina Court P. O. Box 934
Mt. Pleasant, SC 29464 Charleston, SC 29402

2. He was born in Alexandria, Virginia on October 6, 1947. He is presently 44 years old.
Social Security Number: ***-**-****

4. He was married to Rebecca B. Rivers on March 19, 1989. He has three children: L. Mendel, III, age 15; James A., age 13; and Charles F. M., age 12.

5. Military Service: 1969-1986; U. S. Naval Reserve; Commander; ***-**-****; presently in inactive reserve

6. He attended Princeton University, 1965-1966, left to attend Georgetown University; Georgetown University, 1966-1969, B.S.L.; and Georgetown University Law Center, 1969-1972, J.D.

7. At Georgetown University he was in the summer program at Dijon, France. At Georgetown University Law Center, he was editor of Law and Policy in International Business.

8. Legal/Judicial education during the past five years:
He has participated in nearly all mandatory JCLE's in family law. He has participated as a speaker at several CLE seminars, including malpractice, mediation and military law.

9. Courses taught or lectures presented:
Other than what was stated in Question #8 above, he has also taught business law and legal environment of business at the College of Charleston, 1981-1986.

10. Published Books or Articles:
"The High Price of Low-Cost Justice," South Carolina Family Lawyer, 1981
He is a columnist published weekly in the Charleston Post and Courier.

12. Legal experience since graduation from law school:
1972-1973 Sole practitioner; general practice; Charleston, South Carolina
1973-1974 Litigation Department; Young, Clement & Rivers; Charleston, South Carolina
1974-1975 Sole practitioner; Charleston, South Carolina
1975-1978 Partner; Tillman & Rivers; North Charleston, South Carolina; general practice
1978-present Family Court Judge

20. Judicial Office:
1978-present; Judge of the Family Court of the Ninth Judicial Circuit; elected by the General Assembly; jurisdiction over all domestic relations and juvenile matters

21. Five significant Orders or Opinions Written:

(a) DSS v. Doe - Intervention by a couple who had found abandoned child and sought to adopt. Not reported yet. 91-DR-10-3680.

(b) Page v. Page - Complex custody action involving illegal wiretap and allegation of conspiracy. On appeal. 91-DR-10-1679.

(c) Dobbs v. Adair - Adoption action involving interpretation of the federal Indian Child Welfare Act and intervention by the Creek Nation. Not reported. 91-DR-10-0864.

(d) Cannon v. Cannon - Complex alimony and equitable distribution case involving numerous pretrial and discovery motions. Eventually settled. 91-DR-10-3921.

(e) Hedin v. Hedin - Complex custody action involving motion for directed verdict, attorneys' fees, interstate flight and contempt of court. On appeal. 88-DR-10-2056; 89-DR-10-2655; 89-DR-10-2733; 90-DR-10-2477; 90-DR-10-5217.

22. Public Office:
He was elected to the South Carolina House of Representatives in 1972. He served one term, 1973-1974.

23. Unsuccessful Candidate:
He ran for the South Carolina Court of Appeals in 1983 and the Circuit Court in 1988.

24. Any Occupation, Business or Profession Other Than the Practice of Law:
He is a weekly columnist for the Charleston Post and Courier. He has been writing for them since 1985.

33. His health is excellent. The date of his last physical is unknown.

35. He wears contact lenses.

36. He occasionally sees an acupuncturist for mild shoulder pain.

39. Bar Associations and Professional Organizations:
South Carolina Bar

40. Civic, charitable, religious, educational, social, and fraternal organizations:
Member, Landmark Lodge No. 76 (Masons) and Secretary-Treasurer of the L. Mendel Rivers Boyhood Home and Museum

42. Five letters of reference:

(a) Patricia P. Austin, Assistant Vice-President
Home Federal Savings Bank
P. O. Box 1036, Charleston, SC 29402

(b) Jania Sommers, LBSW
106 Chadwick Drive, Charleston, SC 29407

(c) Robert N. Rosen, Esquire
P. O. Box 893, Charleston, SC 29402

(d) Steven A. James, Esquire
3300 West Montague Avenue, Suite 420
North Charleston, SC 29418

(e) Sarah Lee King
Mediation Associates
108 St. Philip Street, Suite 101
Charleston, SC 29403
Q THE BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS ON GRIEVANCES AND DISCIPLINE REPORTS NO COMPLAINTS EVER HAVING BEEN FILED AGAINST YOU. THE JUDICIAL STANDARDS COMMISSION HAS NO RECORDS OF ANY REPRIMANDS AGAINST YOU. WE HAVE CHECKED THE RECORDS OF THE HIGHWAY DEPARTMENT, THE CHARLESTON COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE, THE CHARLESTON CITY POLICE DEPARTMENT, SLED, F.B.I.; THEY WERE ALL NEGATIVE. FEDERAL COURT RECORDS ARE NEGATIVE. THE JUDGMENT ROLLS OF CHARLESTON COUNTY ARE NEGATIVE. YOUR HEALTH IS STILL EXCELLENT?
A YES, SIR.
Q YOUR STATEMENT OF ECONOMIC INTERESTS SHOWS NO CONFLICTS OF INTEREST OR OBLIGATIONS. THE COMMITTEE IS SATISFIED WITH THE NET WORTH STATEMENT AND CREDIT REPORTS THAT YOU'VE SUBMITTED. JUDGE, WHAT DO YOU DO TO COMBAT THE PROBLEM OF THE ROBITIS, OR DEVELOPING OF BAD JUDICIAL TEMPERAMENT, PERHAPS, OR THAT SORT OF PROBLEM THAT'S BEEN REPORTED ON SOME OCCASIONS? NOT ABOUT YOU NECESSARILY, BUT JUST ABOUT ANYBODY.
A I TRY TO REMEMBER THAT I'M GOING TO BE COMING HERE FROM TIME TO TIME. THE CITIZENS OF THIS STATE ARE BECOMING LESS AND LESS TOLERANT OF ARROGANT, INTEMPERATE, RUDE, UGLY JUDGES, AND THEY OUGHT TO BE. WHEN I FIRST TOOK THE OATH OF ATTORNEY, I HAD NO IDEA I WAS GOING TO HAVE SO MANY JUDGES BE AS TOUGH ON ME AS THEY WERE. I'VE BEEN AT THIS 20 YEARS NOW. BACK IN THOSE DAYS, MANY JUDGES ALMOST TOOK IT AS A MATTER OF PRIDE TO BE AS MEAN TO LAWYERS AS THEY COULD, AND LITIGANTS. AND WHEN I WAS A YOUNG LAWYER, I USED TO LOOK AT THOSE JUDGES AND, FRANKLY, BE ANGRY AT THEM. I MEAN, YOU COULDN'T EXPRESS YOUR ANGER, BECAUSE THEY COULD PUT YOU IN JAIL; BUT YOU COULD FEEL THE ANGER. AND IT WAS WRONG; IT WAS WRONG THEN, AND IT'S WRONG NOW. AND I TRY EVERY DAY ON THE BENCH TO REMEMBER HOW THOSE MEN MADE ME FEEL WITH THEIR ARROGANCE, WITH THEIR PETTINESS, WITH THEIR FOOLISHNESS. I THINK THEY TOOK ALMOST A PERVERSE PRIDE IN HOW BULLYING THEY COULD BE. I'M GLAD THOSE MEN ARE MOSTLY GONE NOW, AND I DON'T MISS THEM. THEY MAY HAVE BEEN BRILLIANT SCHOLARS AND MAY HAVE HAD WONDERFUL VIRTUES, BUT I THINK THEY LOWERED THE SYSTEM THEY SERVED. AND I'VE ALWAYS TRIED TO REMEMBER THOSE PEOPLE AND NOT BE ONE OF THEM. I'VE ALWAYS TRIED TO REMEMBER, FRANKLY, THAT I WASN'T BORN A JUDGE, AND I WON'T BE A JUDGE FOREVER, AND I MIGHT WELL BE A LAWYER PRACTICING IN FRONT OF A LAWYER OVER WHOM I NOW PRESIDE. AND I WOULD WANT TO THINK THAT THAT LAWYER WOULD LEARN FROM ME HOW TO BE A GOOD JUDGE; AND IF I'M A LAWYER IN HIS COURT OR HER COURT, THAT THAT LAWYER-NOW-JUDGE WOULD TREAT ME WITH RESPECT, AND THE RESPECT THAT THAT PERSON LEARNED FROM ME. IT'S HARD NOT TO DEVELOP ROBITIS. YOU KNOW, THE JOB WE HAVE IS A JOB WHERE EVERYBODY IS FOREVER SAYING HOW WONDERFUL YOU ARE. THEY DON'T MEAN IT MOST OF THE TIME, BUT THEY SAY IT. AND THEY ALWAYS LAUGH AT YOUR JOKES. I MEAN, NOBODY IS FUNNIER THAN A JUDGE. I THINK THE EXPRESSION IS THAT A COMMON PLEAS JUDGE AT ROSTER CALL IS THE FUNNIEST MAN IN AMERICA. WE FAMILY COURT JUDGES HAVE ROSTER CALLS, AND I'M JUST HILARIOUS. NO MATTER WHAT I SAY, IT'S HILARIOUS. AND WHEN I'M LATE, I'M NOT LATE, BECAUSE YOU START THE CLOCK WHEN I WALK IN THE COURTROOM. AND AFTER A WHILE, YOU BEGIN TO THINK THAT YOU WERE BORN TO BE THERE. AND DOGGONE IT, YOU WEREN'T. AND YOU NEED TO ACCEPT THE FACT THAT YOU'RE JUST A HUMAN BEING WHO PUTS ON HIS TROUSERS ONE LEG AT A TIME IN THE MORNING, AND YOU HAVE TO ACCEPT THE FACT THAT YOU NEED TO BE HUMBLED, BECAUSE YOU'RE PRONE TO MAKE MISTAKES. AND YOU OWE IT TO PEOPLE TO -- YOU OWE IT TO THEM TO BE THE KIND OF JUDGE THAT EVERYBODY WOULD LOOK AT AND SAY, "THAT PERSON MADE THE SYSTEM A BETTER PLACE WHILE HE WAS THERE," AND THAT'S WHAT I TRY TO DO.
Q WHAT ROLE DO YOU THINK THE FAMILY COURT JUDGES SHOULD PLAY, OR WHAT ROLE DO YOU PLAY IN SETTLEMENT QUESTIONS?
A I TRY TO PLAY A FAIRLY AGGRESSIVE ROLE IN SETTLEMENTS. I'M PROUD OF THE FACT THAT I HAVE BEEN ABLE TO BRING MANY LAWYERS TOGETHER WHO THOUGHT THEY COULDN'T BE BROUGHT TOGETHER IN SETTLING CASES. I HEARD ONE OF THE CANDIDATES STATE THAT SETTLING CUSTODY CASES IS MUCH MORE DIFFICULT. THAT'S CERTAINLY TRUE. BUT IN MONEY CASES, IN CASES WHERE PEOPLE'S PRIDE IS OFTENTIMES ON THE LINE, THESE FOLKS CAN BE BROUGHT TOGETHER. I THINK A JUDGE OWES IT TO THE LITIGANTS TO BRING THE LAWYERS INTO CHAMBERS AND AT LEAST FIND OUT, "WELL, HOW FAR APART ARE YOU LAWYERS?" YOU'D BE AMAZED HOW MANY TIMES I'VE HAD LAWYERS COME RIGHT TO THE BRINK OF A TRIAL. I MEAN, IT'S THE MORNING OF THE TRIAL. WE'RE READY TO GO TO TRIAL, AND THEY COME INTO MY CHAMBERS AND SAY, "WE'VE NEVER REALLY TALKED." THEY'VE NEVER SENT A DEMAND LETTER BACK AND FORTH. THEY'RE REALLY NOT CERTAIN WHAT THE OTHER SIDE TRULY WANTS. OFTENTIMES, I HEAR LAWYERS KIND OF ROLL THEIR EYES AND SIGH A LITTLE BIT AND SAY TO THE OTHER LAWYER, "IF YOU HAD JUST TOLD ME THAT SIX MONTHS AGO, WE WOULDN'T BE HERE THIS MORNING." THEY REALLY HAVEN'T COMMUNICATED. AND IF I CAN MAKE THEM SAY IN NUMBERS WHAT IT IS THEY WANT FROM THE OTHER SIDE, I CAN OFTENTIMES BRING THEM TOGETHER. I THINK ONE OF MY STRENGTHS AS A JUDGE IS THAT I DO HELP TO PROMOTE A LOT OF SETTLEMENTS WHERE, PERHAPS, FOLKS THOUGHT THEY COULDN'T SETTLE. I'M PROUD OF THAT. I THINK IT'S REAL IMPORTANT FOR A JUDGE, ESPECIALLY IN FAMILY COURT WHERE EMOTION IS PREVALENT.
CHAIRMAN POPE: DOES THE COMMITTEE HAVE SOME QUESTIONS?

Q (BY CHAIRMAN POPE) ANYTHING ELSE YOU WOULD LIKE TO ADD, JUDGE?
A NO, SIR. JUST THAT I THINK Y'ALL ARE DOING A FINE JOB, AND I APPRECIATE YOUR ALL'S PATIENCE WITH ALL OF US.
Q JUDGE, WE'LL HEAR FROM YOU, OF COURSE, AGAIN, AFTER WE HEAR FROM THE NEXT WITNESS.
A ALL RIGHT, SIR.

CHAIRMAN POPE: ALL RIGHT. MR. ARTHUR PARKER.

WHEREUPON, ARTHUR M. PARKER, JR., HAVING BEEN DULY SWORN AND CAUTIONED TO SPEAK THE TRUTH, THE WHOLE TRUTH, AND NOTHING BUT THE TRUTH, IS EXAMINED AND TESTIFIES AS FOLLOWS:

Q ALL RIGHT, SIR. YOU CAN GET COMFORTABLE ANY WAY YOU WOULD LIKE, MR. PARKER. BEFORE YOU START, FOR THE RECORD, WE'VE RECEIVED YOUR LETTER OF COMPLAINT CONSISTING OF THREE PAGES, DATED APRIL 20TH --
A RIGHT.
Q -- AND WE'VE GOTTEN A LETTER FROM ATTORNEY SIMMS MCDOWELL, III, DATED APRIL 17TH; WE'VE GOT A LETTER FROM JUDGE RIVERS DATED APRIL 13TH; AND WE'VE GOTTEN TWO AFFIDAVITS THIS MORNING, ONE FROM JUDGE RIVERS AND ONE FROM SIMMS MCDOWELL. AND WE'RE MAKING ALL OF THOSE A PART OF THE RECORD, BUT WE WANT TO HEAR FROM YOU AT THIS TIME AS TO ANYTHING YOU WOULD LIKE TO TELL US ABOUT THIS, MORE SPECIFICALLY, AND WE MAY HAVE SOME QUESTIONS.
A YES, SIR. FIRST OFF, I WISH TO ADDRESS A LETTER FROM ATTORNEY G. SIMMS MCDOWELL, III, WHO SUPPOSEDLY WAS REPRESENTING MY SON, JOHN PARKER, IN JUDGE RIVERS' COURT. MY SON WAS JAILED ON THE ORDER OF JUDGE RIVERS, WITH A SIX MONTHS' TERM. JUDGE RIVERS HAS QUITE AN AFFIDAVIT HERE. ONE THING HE DOESN'T SAY, WHICH IS REALLY PART OF THE WHOLE RECORD, RES ADJUDICATA OR NOT, IS JOHN PARKER AND I HAD PUT OUT A HALF A MILLION DOLLARS IN THIS CASE, AND HE'S TALKING ABOUT NON-SUPPORT. AND HE TALKS ABOUT ME BEING DISTRAUGHT. I'M NOT DISTRAUGHT AT ALL. I'M AN EX-MARINE, A COMBAT BATTALION COMMANDER, AND I AM HARD TO MAKE DISTRAUGHT. I'M ENRAGED AT THE SYSTEM, AND I INTEND TO GO ALL THE WAY TO THE SUPREME COURT AND THE LEGISLATURE TO GET THIS ABUSIVE POWER AWAY FROM THE FAMILY COURTS. WHEN AN UPSTANDING CITIZEN, ONE OF THE TOP BUSINESSMEN IN THE CHARLESTON COMMUNITY WHO WAS THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER OF THE LARGEST PONTIAC DEALERSHIP IN BOTH CAROLINAS, MY SON JOHN -- AND I WAS HALF-OWNER IN THE BUSINESS, AND I WAS HALF-OWNER OF ALL THE MONEY GENERATED BY IT. AND I WENT FORWARD, AND I FAILED TO GET INVOLVED IN THIS DIVORCE PROCEEDING AT FIRST. HAD I AN OPPORTUNITY TO DO IT AGAIN, I WOULD CERTAINLY BE HEAVILY INVOLVED. NOW, WITH A HALF A MILLION DOLLARS IN THE HANDS OF THE EX-WIFE, "NON-SUPPORT" FROM JUDGE RIVERS? MAYBE HE DIDN'T KNOW THAT. MAYBE HE DIDN'T KNOW -- HAD NEVER LOOKED AT THE RECORD OF THIS CASE. BUT WHAT I'M TELLING YOU IS THE TRUTH, THE ABSOLUTE TRUTH, AND NOTHING BUT THE TRUTH. AND I TAKE A DIM VIEW OF AN UPSTANDING CITIZEN LIKE MY SON BEING TREATED LIKE A COMMON CRIMINAL AND THROWN INTO JAIL, AND I DON'T LIKE IT, AND I'M HERE TO GO BEFORE THIS COMMITTEE, AND I INTEND TO GO ALL THE WAY TO THE SUPREME COURT, RIGHT THROUGH THE PROCEDURES, ONE AFTER THE OTHER. AND NOW I WANT TO READ TO YOU, OR CALL YOUR ATTENTION -- YOU HAVE A LETTER FROM G. SIMMS MCDOWELL, ATTORNEY AT LAW, ADDRESSED TO -- AND LOOK AT THIS -- "MR. ARTHUR M. PARKER, JR., 125 SOUTH BATTERY." HE DOES NOT EVEN RECOGNIZE ME AS AN ATTORNEY; HE SENDS IT TO THE WRONG ADDRESS. AND HE'S REPRESENTING MY SON. "DEAR MR. PARKER, I HAVE RECEIVED A COPY OF JUDGE RIVERS' LETTER OF APRIL 13TH, TO YOU. YESTERDAY, I CONTACTED TOM STONEY ABOUT SETTING UP A MEETING AT WHICH THE THREE OF US COULD DISCUSS JOHN'S CASE. IN THE MEANTIME, I WOULD APPRECIATE IT IF YOU WOULD CEASE AND DESIST FROM CONTACTING OR COMMUNICATING WITH ANYONE OTHER THAN TOM STONEY OR ME REGARDING JOHN'S CASE. "I AM INFORMED THAT IT IS YOUR INTENTION TO COMPLAIN ABOUT JUDGE RIVERS, EITHER TO THE SCREENING COMMITTEE, TO TOM POPE, OR TO THE GRIEVANCE COMMITTEE." APPARENTLY, HE DOESN'T EVEN KNOW HOW TO GO ABOUT IT. "ANY ATTEMPT ON YOUR PART TO INTERFERE IN THIS MATTER OR TO SEEK REVENGE" -- THERE HE USES THE WORD "REVENGE." I'VE NEVER USED SUCH A WORD AS THAT -- "TO SEEK REVENGE AGAINST JUDGE RIVERS CAN DO NO GOOD OR SERVE ANY PURPOSE OTHER THAN TO SEVERELY DAMAGE JOHN'S REPUTATION AND ANY FUTURE STANDING HE MAY HAVE BEFORE JUDGE RIVERS OR ANY OTHER FAMILY COURT JUDGE." NOW, WHAT DOES THAT TELL YOU? THAT TELLS YOU THAT BECAUSE I'M HERE TO EXERCISE MY RIGHT TO DEFEND MY SON'S INTERESTS, AS AN ATTORNEY OF RECORD -- IN SPITE OF THE FACT THAT I'M CALLED NOT AN ATTORNEY OF RECORD, I AM. I CANNOT BELIEVE THAT MCDOWELL WOULD CAST AN ASPERSION ON JUDGE RIVERS, OR ANY OTHER FAMILY COURT MEMBER, THAT HE MIGHT RETALIATE AGAINST THIS ACTION. THINK ABOUT IT. THERE IT IS IN BLACK AND WHITE. AN ATTORNEY WROTE IT. NO WONDER JOHN WAS SENT OFF TO JAIL. LISTEN TO THE LAST PART: "I CAN ASSURE YOU THAT JOHN WAS GIVEN A FAIR HEARING, AND IN NO WAY DID JUDGE RIVERS ABUSE HIS POSITION, NOR WAS THERE AN ABUSE OF DISCRETION AT THAT HEARING." I THOROUGHLY DISAGREE WITH HIM, AND I'LL SHOW YOU WHY IN A FEW MINUTES. AND HE ENDS UP, "I KNOW YOU ARE NOT HAPPY WITH THE RESULT, BUT RARELY IS ANYONE HAPPY WITH WHAT HAPPENS IN FAMILY COURT." NOW, IF HE HAD SPIT IN MY FACE, IT WOULDN'T HAVE MADE ME ANY MADDER. HE QUESTIONED MY AUTHORITY. HE QUESTIONED MY REPRESENTING MY SON. HE QUESTIONS, IN HIS AFFIDAVIT NOW, MY ABILITY AS AN ATTORNEY. AND I WANT HIM TO REALIZE THAT IN JANUARY 1990, I APPEARED PERSONALLY BEFORE THE FOURTH CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS IN RICHMOND. I DOUBT IF HE'S EVER BEEN THERE. ANYWAY, HERE'S THE AFFIDAVIT. "1. I AM AN ATTORNEY PRACTICING LAW IN THE CITY AND COUNTY OF CHARLESTON, STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA. ALTHOUGH --" AND I'M LEAVING THE DATES OUT. "ALTHOUGH MY PRACTICE IS ONE OF A GENERAL NATURE, BASICALLY IT CENTERS AROUND REAL ESTATE TRANSACTIONS AND MATTERS INVOLVING THE FAMILY COURT. "I WAS ASKED BY JOHN PARKER TO REPRESENT HIM IN THE MATTER OF PARKER VERSUS PARKER; MORE SPECIFICALLY, REGARDING MRS. PARKER'S MOVE TO HAVE JOHN PARKER HELD IN CONTEMPT OF COURT FOR FAILURE TO MAKE CHILD SUPPORT PAYMENTS." NOW, HE DOESN'T SAY THAT HE ADDRESSED THE COURT. NOW, THE COURT MUST BEAR WITH ME, BECAUSE WHAT I AM TELLING YOU IS WHAT I HAVE BEEN TOLD BY PEOPLE WHO WERE THERE. I WAS DENIED A TRANSCRIPT BY JUDGE RIVERS UNTIL THE TIME FOR APPEAL RAN OUT. ALL OF THIS IS THE WAY IT IS. NOW, I'LL GO FORWARD. THIS IS MCDOWELL AGAIN: "I WAS ASKED BY JOHN PARKER TO REPRESENT HIM IN THE MATTER OF PARKER VERSUS PARKER; MORE SPECIFICALLY, REGARDING MRS. PARKER'S MOVE TO HAVE JOHN PARKER HELD IN CONTEMPT OF COURT FOR FAILURE TO MAKE CHILD SUPPORT PAYMENTS."
Q MR. PARKER, ALL OF US HAVE THIS.
A YOU HAVE IT. THAT'S GOOD.
Q WE ALL HAVE IT. WE'RE FOLLOWING ALONG, BUT I THINK WE'VE ALL READ IT.
A OKAY. WELL, LET ME COMMENT ABOUT CERTAIN PARTS OF IT.
Q MR. PARKER, WE'RE GOING TO HAVE TO TAKE A BRIEF RECESS BECAUSE THEY'VE CALLED US FROM DOWNSTAIRS ABOUT A VOTE IN THE SENATE, SO WE'LL HAVE TO TAKE JUST A MOMENT, IF THAT'S ALL RIGHT.
A ALL RIGHT.
(RECESS, 11:52 A.M. TO 12:07 P.M., DURING WHICH TIME VICE-CHAIRMAN GENTRY AND REP. HODGES DEPART THE HEARING PROCEEDINGS.)
Q MR. PARKER, WE'LL LET YOU PROCEED. I APOLOGIZE FOR THE INTERRUPTION.
A I'VE BEEN INTERRUPTED MANY TIMES IN MY LIFE.
Q ALL RIGHT, SIR. IT MAY HAPPEN AGAIN, BUT WE'LL TRY NOT TO.
A ALL RIGHT. I'D LIKE TO GET BACK TO -- GET THE COMMITTEE'S ATTENTION TO THE AFFIDAVIT OF G. SIMMS MCDOWELL, ATTORNEY AT LAW. HE SAYS HERE, "AT NO TIME HAS JOHN PARKER ADVISED ME THAT ARTHUR PARKER WAS REPRESENTING HIM." WELL, JOHN WAS IN JAIL. AND BEFORE HE WAS TAKEN TO THE JAIL, HE CALLED ME, AND HE SAID, "I'VE BEEN SENTENCED TO SIX MONTHS IN PRISON, AND I WANT YOU TO REPRESENT ME AND GET ME OUT." AND I SAID, "I'LL GET ON IT RIGHT THIS MINUTE," WHICH I DID. I CALLED TOM STONEY, OF THE CHARLESTON BAR, MY SAILING FRIEND OF 20 YEARS, AND I TOLD HIM THAT I WANTED HIM TO DROP WHAT HE WAS DOING AND BE MY ASSOCIATE COUNSEL, AND DO THE LEG WORK TO GET MY SON OUT OF JAIL AS QUICKLY AS POSSIBLE.
(VICE-CHAIRMAN GENTRY REJOINS THE HEARING PROCEEDINGS.)
AND WE DID JUST THAT. IN LESS THAN SIX HOURS, WE RAISED 82,000-PLUS DOLLARS IN CASH -- WHICH IS HARD TO DO WITHOUT A MORTGAGE AND A NOTE AND A WHATEVER -- AND WE PURGED JOHN OF HIS CONTEMPT OF COURT PROCEEDING FOR NON-SUPPORT. ALL THAT DONE IN FIVE HOURS' TIME, FIVE TO SIX HOURS, AND THE SUN WAS SETTING WHEN I TOOK MY SON OUT OF JAIL. DISTRAUGHT, I WAS NOT; ENRAGED, I WAS, AND I STILL AM.
Q NO ONE HAS FILED WITH US OR GIVEN US ANY COPIES OF ANY OF THE COURT PAPERS HERE. I ASSUME YOUR SON WAS UNDER SOME SUPPORT ORDER?
A MR. CHAIRMAN, I BECAME INVOLVED IN THIS FOR THE FIRST TIME -- ASIDE FROM PUTTING IN BIG AMOUNTS OF MONEY TO JOHN'S EX-WIFE, WHICH I DID; AND AS I TOLD YOU, A HALF A MILLION DOLLARS IN MONEY AND PROPERTY WAS TRANSFERRED TO HER. AND NON-SUPPORT? IT DOESN'T MAKE SENSE TO ME. ANYWAY --
Q HAVE YOU SEEN PREVIOUS ORDERS? IN OTHER WORDS, THIS WAS A HEARING HELD THIS MONTH.
A THIS WAS HELD THIS MONTH, AND THERE WAS A PREVIOUS ORDER, AND JUDGE RIVERS JUST GAVE ME -- THE FIRST TIME I EVER HEARD OF ALL THIS, BUT IT'S -- YEAH, AND THIS ORDER ORIGINATED, I THINK, FROM THE FAMILY COURT OF JUDGE JUDY C. BRIDGES. THIS IS WHAT I GOT HANDED TO ME AWHILE AGO BY JUDGE RIVERS. I KNEW NONE OF THIS, AND I HAVE BEEN REFUSED A TRANSCRIPT BY EVERYBODY. I WENT STRAIGHT TO THE FAMILY COURT AS FAST AS I COULD, AND I WENT FROM OFFICE TO OFFICE TO OFFICE, AND I TOLD EVERY ONE OF THE EMPLOYEES THAT I WAS A MEMBER OF THE SOUTH CAROLINA BAR, THAT I WAS REPRESENTING JOHN PARKER, AND I COULDN'T FIND HIM. NOBODY KNEW WHERE HE WAS. NOBODY. TOM STONEY HAD FOUND HIM JUST SHORTLY BEFORE THAT, AND HE WAS MANACLED AND IN A HOLDING ROOM IN THE FAMILY COURT BUILDING.
Q YES, BUT TO GO BACK TO THE INCEPTION OF THIS, I MEAN, EVERY FAMILY COURT JUDGE HAS SOME INHERENT CONTEMPT POWER, PARTICULARLY IF THERE'S BEEN A PRECEDING ORDER. AND THE AFFIDAVIT WE'VE BEEN GIVEN SHOWS THAT IN MARCH OF 1988, FAMILY COURT JUDGE MARING SIGNED A CONSENT ORDER APPROVING AN AGREEMENT WHICH REQUIRED ALIMONY AND CHILD SUPPORT, AND THAT, THEREAFTER -- THIS AFFIDAVIT RECITES -- YOUR SON FELL SERIOUSLY IN ARREARS.
A HE HAD BUSINESS REVERSES THAT YOU WOULDN'T BELIEVE, AND HIS EX-WIFE KNEW ALL ABOUT IT. THEY DISCUSSED IT AMONG THEMSELVES. I KNEW VERY LITTLE ABOUT IT. BUT THEY DID DISCUSS IT, AND THEY HAD SOME KIND OF A RECONCILIATION ATTEMPT, OF SORTS. BUT AGAIN, THIS IS HEARSAY. I WAS NOT THERE. THE ONLY --
Q DID YOU SEE THE ORDER?
A -- TIME I BECAME INVOLVED IN THIS -- OTHER THAN PUTTING UP CONSIDERABLE MONIES WHICH WERE TRANSFERRED TO LINDA L. PARKER, THE EX-WIFE, I KNEW NOTHING ABOUT THIS CASE UNTIL AFTER JOHN WAS IN PRISON. I BECAME HIS COUNSEL THAT MINUTE, WHEN HE CALLED ME ON THE PHONE.

NOW, MR. MCDOWELL SAYS -- JUDGE RIVERS SAYS I WASN'T COUNSEL OF RECORD. I MAINTAIN THAT I WAS BRAND NEW COUNSEL, AND I ASSOCIATED TOM STONEY WITH ME. THIS IS WHAT I MAINTAINED FROM THE BEGINNING. I COULD NOT GET A TRANSCRIPT. AND I NOTICE HERE, FOR THE FIRST TIME, THAT JUDGE RIVERS DID GET IN TOUCH WITH MCDOWELL AND ASKED HIM SHOULD I BE FURNISHED A TRANSCRIPT, AND MCDOWELL SAID NO. I STILL DON'T HAVE IT. I WAS NOT ALLOWED TO EXAMINE A TRANSCRIPT SO I COULD MAKE A PROPER APPEAL. THERE'S NO WAY YOU CAN MAKE AN APPEAL WITHOUT THE TRANSCRIPT. I WAS DENIED THAT. NOW, WHETHER IT WAS DONE ON PURPOSE, I DON'T KNOW, BUT THE DATES ARE ALMOST EXACTLY RIGHT. AND I INTEND TO MOVE BEFORE THE SUPREME COURT ULTIMATELY, AFTER I GO THROUGH THE WHOLE PROCEDURE, TO HAVE THIS HEARING SET ASIDE. THAT'S WHAT I HOPE TO DO. WHETHER I'M SUCCESSFUL, I DON'T KNOW, BUT I WILL TRY. NOW, WE'LL GET BACK TO MR. MCDOWELL'S SLURRING REMARKS ABOUT MY NOT BEING AN ATTORNEY OF RECORD AND NOT BEING A PRACTICING ATTORNEY AND ONLY BEING A LICENSED ATTORNEY. WELL, I TRIED TO STAY OUT OF COURT MANY YEARS AGO, AND I MADE THE STATEMENT MANY TIMES THAT I WOULD GO TO COURT FOR LOVE AND NOT MONEY. I DIDN'T NEED THE MONEY. THAT'S THE WAY IT WAS. BUT WHEN THIS CAME UP, THE LOVE FOR MY REMAINING SON -- MY FIRST SON I LOST IN VIETNAM, A WASTED WEST POINT GRADUATE OF 1966, AIRBORNE RANGER. THAT'S STILL ON MY SHOULDERS, AND I DON'T LIKE PEOPLE LIKE -- YES, THEY SAY I'M EMOTIONAL. I AM. AND I DON'T LIKE PEOPLE LIKE MCDOWELL ATTACKING MY LEGAL LICENSE AND MY LEGAL ABILITY.
Q MR. MCDOWELL IS NOT -- HIS CONDUCT IS NOT CALLED INTO QUESTION HERE.
A NO, HIS CONDUCT -- HIS AFFIDAVIT HERE IS AGAINST ME, AND I'M ONLY SAYING WHAT HE SAYS. HE SAYS IT POINTBLANK. HE SAYS, QUOTE, "I DO NOT BELIEVE THAT THE COMPLAINANT, ARTHUR PARKER, IS A PRACTICING ATTORNEY IN THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA, ALBEIT HE IS A LICENSED ATTORNEY." AND JUST IN JANUARY 1990, I HANDLED A CASE IN THE FOURTH CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS IN RICHMOND. IT'S RIDICULOUS, SAYING SOMETHING LIKE THAT. AND HE SAYS FURTHER, "I DO NOT BELIEVE, AND CERTAINLY HAVE NO INFORMATION OR KNOWLEDGE THAT WOULD MAKE ME THINK THAT ARTHUR PARKER HAS EVER PRACTICED LAW IN THE FAMILY COURTS OF CHARLESTON COUNTY OR FAMILY COURT OF ANY COUNTY OR JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA." HE'S RIGHT. I HAVE NEVER BEFORE BEEN IN FAMILY COURT, AND I HOPE I NEVER GO AGAIN. BUT I WAS THE ACTING SOLICITOR IN THE TWELFTH CIRCUIT ONE TIME. I WAS THE JUDGE ADVOCATE FOR THE FIRST MARINE DIVISION REINFORCED, IN MELBOURNE, AUSTRALIA, IN 1943, AFTER THE GUADALCANAL FIGHT, WHERE I WAS AN INFANTRY COMPANY COMMANDER. I HAVE BEEN ON THE BOARD TO REVIEW COURTS-MARTIAL WHEN THE WAR WAS OVER, WHERE YOUNG MARINES WERE SENT OFF TO PORTSMOUTH NAVAL PRISON FOR FIVE YEARS, DISHONORABLY DISCHARGED, FOR SLEEPING ON WATCH. AND I WENT TO SLEEP STANDING UP, MYSELF. I SAT ON THAT BOARD, AND WE RELEASED EVERY SINGLE ONE OF THEM. THAT IS WHAT I'M TALKING ABOUT, A HARSH SETTLEMENT IN MILITARY LAW. AND WITH MY CONSIDERABLE EXPERIENCE, I HAVE NEVER SEEN A SENTENCE AS HARSH AS THIS. I HAVE NEVER SEEN IT. IT'S WRONG. AND THAT'S WHY I'M HERE.
Q DID YOU GET A COPY OF THE PREVIOUS ORDERS OF THE COURT IN THIS --
A I HAVEN'T BEEN ALLOWED TO GET ANYTHING. THEY HAVE DENIED THAT --
Q I MEAN, DID YOU GO --
A -- I'M COUNSEL IN THIS CASE.
Q DID YOU GO TO THE CLERK'S OFFICE AND GET COPIES, YOU KNOW, THAT YOU CAN GET UNDER THE FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT?
A I WILL DO ALL THAT, STARTING NOW. THIS WAS MY FIRST STEP BEFORE THIS SCREENING COMMITTEE. AND BELIEVE YOU ME, IT ALMOST SNUCK UP ON ME. NOBODY TOLD ME THIS WAS GOING TO HAPPEN. I LEARNED IT JUST FOUR OR FIVE DAYS AGO.
Q AS I UNDERSTAND IT, MR. PARKER, YOU'RE COMPLAINING BECAUSE, ONE, JUDGE RIVERS PUT YOUR SON IN CONTEMPT -- FOUND HIM IN CONTEMPT, AND PLACED HIM IN JAIL.
A THAT'S RIGHT.
Q BUT YOU HAVEN'T REVIEWED THE RECORD UPON WHICH THAT
CONTEMPT --
A ALL I KNOW IS WHAT IS RIGHT HERE. THAT'S ALL I'VE BEEN HANDED. I'VE BEEN GIVEN NO RECORD. I'VE NOT BEEN RECOGNIZED AS AN ATTORNEY OF RECORD BY JUDGE RIVERS OR BY MCDOWELL OR BY ANYBODY ELSE, EXCEPT MY SON. BUT I MAINTAIN THAT THE MINUTE HE CALLED ME, THAT I BECAME HIS ATTORNEY. AND IF YOU HAD BEEN IN JAIL AND YOU HAD CALLED ME, I WOULD HAVE BEEN YOUR ATTORNEY RIGHT THAT MINUTE, NEW. NOT SUBSTITUTED ATTORNEY, BUT NEW ATTORNEY. THE OLD ATTORNEY WAS SOMEPLACE ELSE, AND JOHN WAS IN JAIL, AND HE HAD TO BE RELEASED.
Q HAVE YOU SOUGHT TO BE SUBSTITUTED AS COUNSEL?
A NO. ABSOLUTELY NOT.
Q HASN'T IT BEEN ABOUT A MONTH?
A I'M WAITING TO GET THE TRANSCRIPT. I PUT IN FOR THE TRANSCRIPT TWO DAYS AFTER THE HEARING. IT'S RIGHT THERE FOR YOU TO LOOK AT IN THE RECORD. AND I WAS DENIED THE TRANSCRIPT BY EVERYBODY. AND I AM HERE -- I -- THIS IS NOT A PLEASANT SITUATION. THIS IS THE ONLY TIME I'VE EVER COMPLAINED ABOUT A JUDGE. HAVING BEEN ADMITTED TO THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA BAR IN 1939, I HAVE NEVER COMPLAINED ABOUT A JUDGE. I HAVE NEVER SEEN AN ACTION LIKE THIS. THIS FAMILY COURT NEEDS TO BE EXAMINED, AND THIS IS AN IMPRISONMENT OF AN UPSTANDING CITIZEN WITHOUT A JURY, BECAUSE IT'S A CIVIL CONTEMPT. A MURDERER GETS A CHANCE TO STAND UP -- INCIDENTALLY, JOHN PARKER, THE DEFENDANT, HAD BEEN TOLD -- NOW, JOHN TOLD ME THIS; I DON'T HAVE ANY RECORD OF IT -- TOLD ME THAT MCDOWELL HAD TOLD HIM THAT HE WOULD HAVE A CHANCE TO ADDRESS THE COURT. WELL, WHEN THE HEARING WAS SUBSTANTIALLY COMPLETED, JOHN SAYS HE TOLD MCDOWELL, HE SAYS, "I WANT TO ADDRESS THE COURT." AND JUDGE RIVERS -- AGAIN, I DON'T HAVE A TRANSCRIPT -- JUDGE RIVERS MADE A STATEMENT, SO I'M TOLD, THAT "MR. MCDOWELL HAS DONE A GOOD JOB IN THE DEFENSE, AND I DON'T NEED TO HEAR FROM JOHN PARKER," OR SOME WORDS TO THAT EFFECT. NOW, THIS IS ARROGANCE. I WOULD LET ANYBODY, IF I WAS SITTING ON THE FAMILY COURT, OR CIRCUIT COURT, OR WHATEVER COURT, I WOULD LET A MAN STAND UP AND MAKE A STATEMENT BEFORE I SENT HIM OFF TO JAIL. I SURE WOULD. THAT HAPPENED. NOW, I CAN'T SWEAR TO IT. BUT WHEN I GET THE TRANSCRIPT, NOW, I WILL SWEAR TO IT.
Q MR. MCDOWELL --
A NOW, THE SCREENING --
Q WELL, MR. MCDOWELL HAS SWORN TO IT IN HIS AFFIDAVIT, THAT HE FELT LIKE THE HEARING WAS FAIR. THAT'S WHAT HE'S SAYING.
A OH, I UNDERSTAND THAT.
Q HE WAS HIRED TO REPRESENT --
A BUT GUESS WHAT? THE FIRST LETTER, HE SAYS WHY HE -- HE IS COVERING HIS OWN TRACKS. HE APPEARS BEFORE JUDGE RIVERS, AND HE SAYS THAT JUDGE RIVERS, OR ANY OTHER FAMILY COURT JUDGE, MIGHT RETALIATE AGAINST JOHN. SAYS SO RIGHT IN THAT LETTER.

Q MR. PARKER, HOW DOES YOUR SON FEEL ABOUT THIS MATTER?
A SIR?
Q HOW DOES YOUR SON FEEL ABOUT THIS MATTER?
A MY SON IS ABSOLUTELY EMBARRASSED TO TEARS ABOUT IT.
Q WHY ISN'T HE HERE TODAY?
A SIR?
Q WHY ISN'T HE HERE TODAY? WHY HASN'T HE FILED A COMPLAINT?
A I'M FILING THE COMPLAINT. I'M HIS ATTORNEY. HE DOESN'T HAVE TO COME HERE.
Q I UNDERSTAND --
A I MEAN, THERE'S NO REASON FOR MY SON TO COME HERE. HE'S BEEN EMBARRASSED ENOUGH. I MEAN, AS YOU CAN WELL IMAGINE, HE HAS NO LOVE FOR JUDGE RIVERS AND NEITHER DO I. NOW, I'M GOING ON TO SOMETHING ELSE, IF I MIGHT.
SENATOR MARTIN: MR. PARKER, BEFORE YOU MOVE ON TO THAT. MR. CHAIRMAN, IF I COULD --
CHAIRMAN POPE: YES.

Q YOU'VE MADE NO SHOWING TO US THAT $62,000 WAS NOT IN ARREARS. DO YOU HAVE ANY EVIDENCE TO THAT EFFECT?
A SIR, I --
Q WE NEED TO KNOW THAT, MR. PARKER.
A I DON'T DENY THAT.
Q IF YOU DON'T DENY THAT, I DON'T THINK YOU'VE GOT A LEGITIMATE COMPLAINT.
A I HAVEN'T GOT A LEGITIMATE COMPLAINT? AND I REPRESENT MY SON, AND I'VE POSTED $82,000 IN FIVE HOURS TO GET HIM OUT OF JAIL?
Q WELL, YOU DON'T SAY THAT THAT'S NOT PROPER. IF THAT WAS PROPER, THEN THERE'S NO COMPLAINT. YOU HAVEN'T SAID OR SHOWN US THAT THAT WAS AN IMPROPER AMOUNT.
A I DID TELL YOU THAT THE EX-WIFE HAD RECEIVED A HALF A MILLION DOLLARS.
Q BUT THAT COULD HAVE BEEN PROPERTY DISTRIBUTION, MR. PARKER. WHAT I'M SAYING IS, IF HE VIOLATED AN ORDER OF THE COURT, AND THAT ORDER WAS PROPER AND THE AMOUNT WAS PROPER, THEN THE MAN WAS DOING HIS JOB. NOW, HOW HE DID IT, I DON'T KNOW. BUT NOW YOU CANNOT COMPLAIN IF YOU CAN'T SHOW US IT WAS IMPROPER.
A ALL RIGHT.
Q AND YOU HAVEN'T SHOWN THAT.
A ALL RIGHT. I'LL GO A LITTLE FURTHER, AND MAYBE I CAN EXPLAIN IT A LITTLE BETTER.
Q ALL RIGHT.
A I'VE BEEN TOLD THAT I SHOULD HAVE AN ATTORNEY DO THIS INSTEAD OF ME, BUT I DON'T BELIEVE ANYBODY CAN DO MY JOB BETTER THAN I CAN. NOW, WE GET DOWN TO THE HEARING. AGAIN, I DON'T HAVE THE TRANSCRIPT. YOU PEOPLE DON'T SEEM TO LOOK AT MY NOT BEING ALLOWED A TRANSCRIPT. YOU DON'T LOOK AT THAT. YOU DON'T LOOK AT IT. HOW CAN I MAINTAIN A PROPER DEFENSE WITHOUT A TRANSCRIPT? I CAN'T DO IT.
Q MR. PARKER, YOU'RE AN ATTORNEY. IF YOU HAVE BEEN DENIED A TRANSCRIPT, YOU COULD GET A MANDAMUS FROM A CIRCUIT JUDGE OR A SUPREME COURT JUDGE TO GET THE TRANSCRIPT. THE RECORD IN THE CASE PRIOR TO THIS IS PUBLIC RECORD. ON THE ORDERS FILED WITH THE CLERK OF COURT, ANY CITIZEN -- NOT JUST AN ATTORNEY -- CAN GO THERE AND GET COPIES OF THE PREVIOUS ORDERS. NOW, THE TRANSCRIPT CAN BE GOT.
A SIR, I KNOW THAT, AND I WILL GET IT. I WILL GET IT JUST AS QUICK AS I CAN. IN FACT --
Q WELL, WE CAN'T TAKE SPECULATION HERE.
A WELL, ALL RIGHT. YOU DON'T WANT SPECULATION. I'LL GIVE YOU -- HOW ABOUT A NEWSPAPER ARTICLE?
Q THAT'S --
A HOW ABOUT A NEWSPAPER ARTICLE --
Q THAT'S A CLOSE SECOND TO SPECULATION.
A -- AND JUDGE RIVERS' NAME WRITTEN ON IT. HE WROTE IT, AND THE COURT WON'T TAKE JUDICIAL KNOWLEDGE OF A NEWSPAPER ARTICLE?
Q NO, SIR, I SURE WON'T.
A YOU WON'T? WRITTEN BY JUDGE RIVERS?
CHAIRMAN POPE: IS IT ABOUT THIS CASE? IS IT ABOUT THIS CASE?
WITNESS: ALL RIGHT. LET'S --
Q IS IT ABOUT THIS CASE?
A YOU'D BE SURPRISED HOW MUCH IT'S ABOUT THIS CASE. NOT REALLY. IT'S ABOUT THE PROCEDURE WHICH YOU HAVE TO GO THROUGH, PARTIALLY. BUT THE MAIN THING IS I AM NOW ATTACKING THE MORALITY VIEWS OF JUDGE RIVERS. NOW, I'M ATTACKING THEM WITH HIS OWN WORDS IN THE COMMENTARY FROM THE POST & COURIER HE WRITES EVERY SATURDAY. AND I USED TO THINK HE DID A GOOD JOB OF WRITING, AND I THINK HE STILL DOES A GOOD JOB OF WRITING. AND YOU ARE NOT GOING TO BELIEVE WHAT THIS ARTICLE SAYS UNLESS YOU READ IT. YOU SOUND LIKE MR. RIVERS' DEFENSE ATTORNEY.
Q NO, SIR, I'M HERE TRYING TO GET TO THE TRUTH, AND I BELIEVE WE'LL BE HERE TILL SIX O'CLOCK TONIGHT IF SOMEBODY DOESN'T FOCUS IN ON WHAT WE'RE TRYING TO GET.
A ALL RIGHT. I'LL BE THROUGH VERY QUICKLY.
Q ALL RIGHT.
A WE'RE TALKING ABOUT THIS ARTICLE WRITTEN BY JUDGE RIVERS IN THE POST & COURIER DATED FEBRUARY 22, 1992. HE'S TALKING ABOUT MORALS OF YOUNG PEOPLE, AND HE IS COMPARING -- I HATE TO USE WORDS LIKE THIS IN MIXED COMPANY. I WASN'T BROUGHT UP LIKE THAT. ANYWAY, "THE BEST MESSAGE LIES BETWEEN ABSTINENCE AND CONDOM GIVE-AWAYS." NOW, WE GET DOWN TO THE LAST PART -- AND I WON'T BELABOR IT. I'M GOING TO TURN THIS OVER TO THE CHAIRMAN. "I DO NOT KNOW THE ANSWERS, BUT I HONESTLY DO NOT EXPECT MY OWN CHILDREN TO ABSTAIN. SO WHAT DO I TELL THEM?" NOW, HERE HE'S TALKING ABOUT SEX. "WHAT DO I TELL THEM? THAT THEIR BODIES ARE SACRED TEMPLES NEVER TO BE INVADED BY INTRUDERS FROM WITHOUT, BUT WHOSE DOORS ARE TO BE OPENED LOVINGLY AND REVERENTLY TO A SELECT FEW, THOSE WHO RESPECT THEM, THOSE WHO CARE. SEX IS THE ULTIMATE CELEBRATION OF LIFE. 'CELEBRATE,' I TELL THEM, 'WISELY AND CAREFULLY. YOUR BODY IS TOO MARVELOUS A GIFT TO BE SQUANDERED.' "THAT IS NOT THE MESSAGE OUR PARENTS GAVE TO US. WE CHOSE TO REJECT THEIR MESSAGE. AND NOW THAT WE HAVE CHILDREN OF OUR OWN, WE MUST TRANSMIT SOME MESSAGE TO THEM. WE ARE AN UNCHARTED TERRITORY. SURELY WE OWE THEM MORE THAN PLATITUDES WRAPPED IN IRRATIONALITY OR CONDOMS WRAPPED IN PLASTIC." NOW, IF THAT IS NOT A SLAM ON THE MORAL VIEWS OF JUDGE RIVERS, I DON'T KNOW WHAT IS. NOW, I'M DONE WITH IT, AND I HAVE MANY OTHER ARTICLES HERE THAT I COULD POINT OUT, BUT I SEE A MEMBER OF THE COMMITTEE THINKS I'LL KEEP YOU HERE TILL SIX O'CLOCK. I WILL NOT DO IT. I'VE DONE WHAT I NEED TO DO.

Q MR. PARKER, CAN YOU TELL US WHAT THE JUDGE DID WRONG? WHAT DID HE DO WRONG?
A HE SENT MY SON TO JAIL FOR NON-SUPPORT, AND THE CHILDREN HAD ALL KIND OF SUPPORT IN THE WORLD. ALL KINDS OF SUPPORT. THE JUDGE'S ORDER, $62,000 -- IT TURNED OUT TO BE $82,000 BEFORE I PAID IT THAT SAME DAY. I NEVER HAVE FIGURED OUT HOW IT WENT UP $20,000, BUT IT DID. ANYWAY, YES, THERE WAS AN ARREARAGE. IT HAD BEEN DISCUSSED BY THE PARTIES, AND BOTH PARTIES -- AND I LEARNED THIS TODAY FOR THE FIRST TIME -- BOTH PARTIES HAD APPEARED BEFORE JUDGE BRIDGES, WHO WROTE THE ORIGINAL ORDER, AND THEY ASKED THAT THEY GET A RE-HEARING. BOTH PARTIES. COURT DENIED IT. FAMILY COURT AGAIN. I MEAN, IT'S UNBELIEVABLE. THIS IS SOMETHING SO UNBELIEVABLE TO ME THAT I LOOK AT IT IN UTTER DISGUST. NOW, ONE OTHER THING ABOUT THE NEWSPAPER ARTICLE. THIS IS STRAIGHT FROM THE NEWS & COURIER. IT'S ALL DATED AND NUMBERED. NOW, WE GET A LITTLE STATIC ABOUT THIS, FROM ORAN BALDWIN, JR., AND ALSO FROM R.W. DEGENHART. THE FIRST ONE SAYS: "PRAYING FOR RIVERS. I WAS DISGUSTED WITH THE COLUMN 'ALL OR NOTHING' ON FEBRUARY 22ND BY L. MENDEL RIVERS, THE FAMILY COURT JUDGE. MR. RIVERS SAYS THE REASON FOR THE VALUE OF SEXUAL ABSTINENCE OUTSIDE OF MARRIAGE HAS DISAPPEARED. HE SAYS THERE IS NO LONGER NATIONAL UNDERPINNING FOR SEXUAL ABSTINENCE. HE TELLS HIS CHILDREN TO OPEN THEIR BODIES SEXUALLY TO A SELECT FEW. "I PRAY FOR GOD'S MERCY FOR JUDGE RIVERS WHEN IT IS HIS TURN TO BE JUDGED. THE DECLINE OF MORAL VALUES IS THE BIGGEST PROBLEM IN OUR COUNTRY TODAY. MR. RIVERS IS ABETTING THIS DECLINE WITH HIS ADVICE ON SEX. I SHUDDER FOR OUR COURT SYSTEM WITH SUCH A JUDGE MAKING IMPORTANT DECISIONS ON FAMILY MATTERS." THE OTHER LETTER.
REPRESENTATIVE HENDRICKS: MR. CHAIRMAN?
CHAIRMAN POPE: YES.
REPRESENTATIVE HENDRICKS: I HAVEN'T BEEN ON THIS SCREENING COMMITTEE AS LONG AS MOST OF YOU HAVE, BUT I THOUGHT THE GENTLEMAN WANTED TO APPEAR TO PROTEST THE CERTIFICATION OF THE CANDIDATE FOR REELECTION OR ELECTION.
CHAIRMAN POPE: WE'RE GIVING HIM A LOT OF LATITUDE HERE.
REPRESENTATIVE HENDRICKS: PARDON?
CHAIRMAN POPE: WE'VE GIVEN HIM VERY WIDE LATITUDE.
REPRESENTATIVE HENDRICKS: HE WAS SUPPOSED TO BRING SOME SPECIFIC CHARGE, WHAT HE THOUGHT HE DID WRONG; GIVE THE PERSON ACCUSED A CHANCE TO RESPOND AS TO WHY THAT ACTION WAS TAKEN; AND WE'RE SUPPOSED TO JUDGE WHETHER OR NOT THAT WAS ENOUGH TO DISQUALIFY HIM FROM BEING A JUDGE. IS THAT CORRECT?
CHAIRMAN POPE: THAT'S CORRECT.
REPRESENTATIVE HENDRICKS: I HAVEN'T HEARD THE SPECIFIC CHARGE. MR. GENTRY WAS TALKING ABOUT, AWHILE AGO -- OTHER THAN THE FACT THAT HE PUT THE FELLOW IN JAIL. I'D LIKE TO HEAR MR. RIVERS TELL WHY HE DID THAT AND SEE IF HE'S JUSTIFIED IN IT. I DON'T CARE ABOUT THESE NEWSPAPER ARTICLES. I DON'T WANT TO GET --

Q MR. PARKER, THE NEWSPAPER ARTICLES ARE GETTING PRETTY FAR AFIELD OF THE INQUIRY HERE, UNLESS --
A ISN'T THE INQUIRY HERE ABOUT THE QUALIFICATIONS OF A FAMILY COURT JUDGE? THAT'S WHAT I READ.
Q THAT'S THE ENTIRE INQUIRY, BUT WHEN YOU FILE A COMPLAINT, THE REASON WE REQUIRE IT IS SO WE'LL KNOW WHAT WE'LL BE ADDRESSING, AND WHAT YOU'VE COMPLAINED OF YOU'VE SET OUT IN YOUR AFFIDAVIT. HE PUT YOUR SON IN JAIL; YOU DIDN'T GET A TRANSCRIPT; AND YOU FELT LIKE YOU WEREN'T TREATED FAIRLY, IN THAT RESPECT; AND THAT YOUR SON WAS TREATED WRONGLY, AND WE'RE GOING TO DEAL WITH THAT. WE'LL HEAR FROM THE JUDGE IN A MINUTE. BUT THE NEWSPAPER ARTICLES WERE NOT ALLEGED TO BE A BASIS FOR YOUR COMPLAINT, I DON'T BELIEVE.
A I DIDN'T SAY ANYTHING ABOUT A NEWSPAPER ARTICLE. BUT ANY COURT I'VE EVER BEEN IN, A NEWSPAPER ARTICLE IS ADMISSIBLE BECAUSE THE JUDGE HAS TO LET IT IN. IT'S JUDICIAL KNOWLEDGE.
Q BUT YOU'RE READING A LETTER TO THE EDITOR, THOUGH, FROM SOMEONE ELSE.
A WELL, I READ YOU -- I DON'T NEED TO DO THAT. THE OTHER LETTER IS DAMNING ENOUGH. I MEAN, IF THAT'S THE MORAL -- IF THAT'S THE MORAL INTEGRITY OF THE FAMILY COURT, WE NEED TO ADDRESS IT. AND I'M DONE WITH IT.
REPRESENTATIVE HODGES: LET ME MAKE A RECOMMENDATION, IF I CAN. LET'S ALLOW MR. PARKER TO SUBMIT COPIES OF ANY PERTINENT NEWS ARTICLES.
CHAIRMAN POPE: SURE.
REPRESENTATIVE HODGES: AND WE WILL BE GLAD TO CONSIDER THAT AS PART OF THE RECORD AND LOOK AT IT. IS THAT OKAY?
CHAIRMAN POPE: THAT'S FINE. MR. PARKER, IF YOU WOULD JUST PASS UP THE ARTICLES, WE'LL HAVE SOMEONE MAKE A COPY OF THEM.
WITNESS: I'LL JUST GIVE YOU THE ARTICLES. I DON'T NEED THEM ANYMORE. IT'S REAL INTERESTING.
(DOCUMENTS ARE COLLECTED FROM WITNESS FOR PHOTOCOPYING AND INCLUSION IN RECORD.)
Q (BY CHAIRMAN POPE) WE'LL MAKE THOSE PART OF THE RECORD, MR. PARKER.
A ALL RIGHT. I'M READY TO THROW IT IN, AND I'LL GO TO THE NEXT STEP NOW. AND YOU CAN SEE THAT I MEAN BUSINESS. I ALWAYS HAVE. FIRST TIME I'VE EVER BEEN ACCUSED OF NOT BEING AN ATTORNEY BY SOMEBODY WHO HAD DIAPERS ON -- DIDN'T EVEN HAVE DIAPERS ON WHEN I WAS ADMITTED TO THE BAR.
Q YES, SIR.
A AND HE AND I -- HE SAYS HE TRIED TO GET ME TO RESPOND. I SAY THAT'S NOT SO. I WOULDN'T TALK TO HIM ANYWAY. IF HE HAD HAVE CALLED ME, I WOULDN'T HAVE TALKED TO HIM. I DON'T NEED ANYBODY LIKE THAT REPRESENTING ME.
Q YES, SIR, BUT HE'S NOT HERE.
A I'M READY TO LEAVE IF I MAY.
Q YES, SIR, YOU CAN.
A THAT'S GOOD. THANK YOU, GENTLEMEN.
Q THANK YOU.
A AND IF I BECAME EMOTIONAL, THEN THAT'S THE WAY I AM, AND IT'S A DAMN GOOD THING BECAUSE BATTLE DECORATIONS WOULDN'T BE MINE IF I WASN'T EMOTIONAL. AND ONE OF THE BEST THINGS THAT EVER HAPPENED TO ME JUST HAPPENED RECENTLY. YOU PEOPLE REMEMBER IT. THERE'S A NEW BOOK OUT CALLED "PETTY-LOO, 1944." 15TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, THE BLOODIEST BEACH HEAD IN THE PACIFIC. AND ON PAGE 157, THERE'S AN UNKNOWN MAJOR, AND IT GOES ON AT LENGTH ABOUT WHAT THIS MAN DID. AND IN THE LAST PARAGRAPH IT SAID, "AND HE SAVED OUR LIVES." ADIOS.
Q THANK YOU.
A THAT WAS ME.

CHAIRMAN POPE: JUDGE RIVERS?
MR. PARKER: OH, I WANT TO HEAR THIS. EXCUSE ME. I'M NOT LEAVING TILL I HEAR WHAT YOU'RE GOING TO SAY.
WHEREUPON, L. MENDEL RIVERS, HAVING BEEN PREVIOUSLY DULY SWORN AND CAUTIONED TO SPEAK THE TRUTH, THE WHOLE TRUTH, AND NOTHING BUT THE TRUTH, IS EXAMINED AND TESTIFIES FURTHER AS FOLLOWS:

Q JUDGE, WE'LL JUST LEAVE THE FLOOR OPEN TO YOU FOR YOU TO RESPOND AS YOU SEE FIT. WE'LL ASK YOU SOME QUESTIONS, PERHAPS, AFTER YOU'RE THROUGH.
A THANK YOU. I HAVE SUBMITTED A LENGTHY AFFIDAVIT, THREE PAGES SINGLE-SPACED, EXPLAINING MY RESPONSES IN LABORIOUS DETAIL, TRYING TO REBUT MR. PARKER'S CHARGES POINT BY POINT. I DON'T THINK IT WOULD BE OF ANY BENEFIT TO YOU FOR ME TO SIMPLY REHASH THAT. YOU, OF COURSE, WILL READ THAT AND GIVE IT WHAT JUDGMENT YOU THINK IT DESERVES. I DO COMMEND IT TO YOU.
Q IT'S PART OF THE RECORD.
A ALL RIGHT, SIR.
Q BUT TO SUMMARIZE, JUDGE, AS I TAKE IT, IN PREVIOUS LITIGATION BETWEEN MR. JOHN PARKER AND HIS WIFE, HE WAS UNDER SUPPORT OBLIGATIONS; AND WHEN HE CAME BEFORE YOU A MONTH OR SO AGO, HE WAS IN ARREARAGE. WE DON'T HAVE ANY OF THESE PLEADINGS, BUT I TAKE IT HE WAS AT $62,000 IN ARREARAGE ON EITHER ALIMONY, SUPPORT, OR BOTH?
A HE CERTAINLY WAS, ON BOTH, MR. CHAIRMAN. I BROUGHT WITH ME THE ORIGINAL FAMILY COURT OF CHARLESTON COUNTY FILE, FOR THE RECORD, CASE NO. 90-DR-102373. THE CAPTION IS LINDA L. PARKER, PLAINTIFF, VERSUS JOHN R. PARKER, DEFENDANT. I'LL BE PLEASED TO MAKE THIS FILE AVAILABLE TO YOU TO COPY AS YOU SEE FIT. THE ENTIRE FILE SUPPORTS EXACTLY WHAT I HAVE STATED IN MY AFFIDAVIT. THERE'S AN IMPORTANT POINT TO REMEMBER. NO GOOD DEED GOES UNPUNISHED. I WAS CARRYING OUT JUDGE BRIDGES' ORDER. UNFORTUNATELY, MY OWN JUDGMENT, I GUESS, LEFT ME; I DIDN'T INVITE HER TO HEAR PARKER VERSUS PARKER. I KIND OF WISH I HAD. INSTEAD, I HEARD THE CASE. SHE HAD HEARD THIS MATTER, NOT ONCE BEFORE, BUT TWICE BEFORE. THE MATTER HAD BEEN APPEALED TO SOUTH CAROLINA SUPREME COURT, AND THE APPEAL HAD BEEN ABANDONED. JOHN PARKER, WITH COUNSEL, HAD COME BEFORE A FAMILY COURT JUDGE, JUDGE MARING. HAD PLACED AN AGREEMENT BEFORE JUDGE MARING FOR APPROVAL. JOHN PARKER DID NOT COMPLY WITH THE AGREEMENT AS ADOPTED, AS THE COURT ORDERED. HE CAME BEFORE JUDGE BRIDGES. SHE JUDGED HIM IN CONTEMPT. SHE SENTENCED HIM, AND THEN SHE SUSPENDED SENTENCE FOR A PERIOD OF TIME. JOHN PARKER CAME BACK BEFORE JUDGE BRIDGES AND MOVED FOR RECONSIDERATION. SHE DENIED THAT. HE THEN APPEALED, ABANDONED THE APPEAL. HIS FIFTH BITE AT THE APPLE CAME BEFORE ME ON MARCH 2, 1992. I SIMPLY CARRIED OUT JUDGE BRIDGES' ORDER. I FELT THAT, AFTER OVER A YEAR OF CONSTANT LITIGATION THAT HAD GONE NOWHERE, IT WAS TIME TO SIMPLY DEAL WITH THIS MATTER, AND I DEALT WITH IT. THE RESULT WAS NOT FAVORABLE TO JOHN PARKER, AND I ORDERED THAT JUDGE BRIDGES' PREVIOUS ORDER BE PUT INTO EFFECT: SIX MONTHS' CIVIL CONTEMPT.
Q IS IT FAIR TO SAY, JUDGE, THAT YOU GAVE A HEARING TO THIS MAN AND ALLOWED HIM TO PRESENT ANY REASONS HE COULD PRODUCE ON MITIGATING CIRCUMSTANCES?
A ABSOLUTELY.
Q THAT'S WHAT -- LAWYER MCDOWELL INDICATES THAT IN HIS AFFIDAVIT.
A HE WAS WELL REPRESENTED BY LAWYER MCDOWELL. LAWYER MCDOWELL IS A FINE ATTORNEY. HE SPOKE AT LENGTH REGARDING MR. PARKER, AND, OF COURSE, GEORGE SPEED, WHO WAS MRS. PARKER'S LAWYER, SPOKE AT LENGTH REGARDING HIS POSITION. AFTER HEARING FROM BOTH LAWYERS AT CONSIDERABLE LENGTH, I DETERMINED THAT THERE WERE NO DISPUTED ISSUES OF FACT, AND I ISSUED A RULING, THAT WAS TO -- AS I SAY -- TO ORDER THE SIX-MONTH SENTENCE IMPOSED A YEAR EARLIER TO GO INTO EFFECT. THAT'S ALL THAT I DID. I WANT TO SAY TO MR. PARKER THAT I HAVE A GREAT DEAL OF SYMPATHY FOR HIM. HE DEFINITELY IS A DISTRAUGHT FATHER. HE ADMITS HE'S EMOTIONAL. HE HAS DEMONSTRATED THAT HERE, AND I FEEL VERY MUCH FOR HIM. MR. ARTHUR PARKER IS A GOOD MAN. BUT HE IS HERE SPEAKING ABOUT THE HONOR OF HIS SON. HE'S NOT HERE SPEAKING AS AN ATTORNEY. I HAVE THE ORIGINAL FILE HERE. IT'S FOR YOUR REVIEW, AS MUCH AS YOU WISH TO REVIEW IT. THERE'S NOT ONE WORD IN THIS FILE REGARDING ARTHUR PARKER. THE NAME APPEARS IN HERE NOWHERE. HE NEVER APPEARED WITH MR. JOHN PARKER BEFORE ME. I HAVE NEVER HEARD ONE WORD FROM JOHN PARKER.
Q NEITHER AS A WITNESS NOR HIS LAWYER.
A CORRECT. IT'S IMPORTANT TO NOTE, OF COURSE, THAT JOHN PARKER IS NOT PRESENT. HE'S NOT COMPLAINING. ARTHUR PARKER IS COMPLAINING, CLAIMING TO BE HIS LAWYER. HE SIMPLY ISN'T HIS LAWYER. VERY MUCH TO THE CONTRARY, HE IS HERE -- I THINK THE RECORD AMPLY DEMONSTRATES -- AS HIS SON'S LOVING FATHER, AS A VERY EMOTIONAL, VERY DISTRAUGHT MAN, A VERY ANGRY MAN; BUT HE'S NOT HERE AS AN ATTORNEY, AND I THINK THAT ANY OTHER CONSTRUCTION WOULD BE SIMPLY LUDICROUS, AND IT ISN'T -- IT JUST CAN'T BE JUSTIFIED. IF I COULD MAKE A COUPLE OF OTHER POINTS, PLEASE. WITH REGARD TO THE TRANSCRIPT, IT IS MY UNDERSTANDING OF SOUTH CAROLINA LAW THAT A PARTY MAY REQUEST A TRANSCRIPT OF A FAMILY COURT HEARING. A PARTY ATTORNEY, OF COURSE, MAY REQUEST A TRANSCRIPT OF A FAMILY COURT HEARING. I RECEIVED NOR DID MY COURT REPORTER RECEIVE -- I RECEIVED AND SHE RECEIVED NO REQUEST FROM EITHER OF THOSE PARTIES FOR A TRANSCRIPT OF THAT HEARING. AGAIN, SHE RECEIVED A REQUEST FROM ARTHUR PARKER, BUT HE'S NOT THE LAWYER. AND AFTER REVIEWING THE STATUTES, I DETERMINED THAT HE WAS NOT ENTITLED TO REQUEST A TRANSCRIPT. I, THEREFORE, DENIED THE REQUEST, AND, IN WHAT I THOUGHT WAS A VERY POLITE LETTER, TOLD HIM THAT I MUST DENY THAT, AND I THINK THAT WAS PROPERLY HANDLED. I'M SORRY HE'S UPSET BY THAT, BUT I THINK IT WAS PROPERLY HANDLED.
Q I HAVE JUST ONE OTHER QUESTION.
A YES.
Q YOU SAID THE SENTENCE HAD BEEN IMPOSED A YEAR EARLIER AND WAS HELD IN ABEYANCE, OR SOMETHING?
A NO, SIR. JOHN PARKER GOT SERIOUSLY IN ARREARS. HE WAS BROUGHT BACK BY LINDA PARKER FOR AN ORDINARY CONTEMPT HEARING, ON A RULE TO SHOW CAUSE. JUDGE BRIDGES ADJUDGED HIM TO BE IN CONTEMPT. SHE DID NOT, AT THAT TIME, REMAND HIM TO THE COUNTY JAIL, BUT INSTEAD GAVE HIM I THINK 30 DAYS TO DO CERTAIN THINGS, 60 DAYS TO DO CERTAIN OTHER THINGS, I THINK 90 DAYS FOR OTHER THINGS, AND SO FORTH. THERE WAS A LOT OF MONEY INVOLVED. THE PARKERS ARE NOT POOR PEOPLE. SHE ALSO ORDERED SOME OTHER THINGS; I THINK SHE MODIFIED SOME OF THE SUPPORT AMOUNTS. BOTH JOHN PARKER AND LINDA PARKER MOVED BEFORE JUDGE BRIDGES FOR A RECONSIDERATION OF THAT ORDER. SHE REHEARD THE MATTER AND REFUSED TO RECONSIDER HER ORDER AND REAFFIRMED HER ORDER. THEN I KNOW JOHN APPEALED THAT ORDER, AND I THINK LINDA MAY HAVE AS WELL. NEITHER OF THEM PERFECTED THEIR APPEALS, AND THE APPEALS WERE DISMISSED BY THE SUPREME COURT. ALL OF THAT, OF COURSE, TOOK A LOT OF TIME. IT WAS IN THAT RATHER PECULIAR POSTURE THAT THE MATTER WAS THEN PRESENTED TO ME LAST MONTH. AS YOU CAN IMAGINE, IT TOOK A LONG TIME FOR ME, AS PRESIDING JUDGE, JUST TO FIGURE OUT WHERE IN THE HECK WE WERE. WHEN I FINALLY DID, MY BELIEVE WAS, AND STILL IS, THAT THE ORIGINAL ORDER OF JUDGE BRIDGES ADJUDGING JOHN PARKER TO BE IN CONTEMPT AND SENTENCING HIM TO SIX MONTHS WAS THE LAW OF THE CASE. IT HAD BEEN APPEALED, BUT THE APPEAL HAD BEEN DISMISSED. IT WAS, THEREFORE, THE LAW OF THE CASE, AND HER SENTENCE STOOD. I THEN TOOK STATEMENTS FROM THE ATTORNEYS TO DETERMINE WHETHER THERE WAS ANY SUBSTANTIAL CHANGE IN THE FACTS FROM THE WAY THEY HAD BEEN WHEN THEY CAME BEFORE JUDGE BRIDGES. THERE WERE NO SUCH CHANGES. I, THEREFORE, DIRECTED THAT HER SENTENCE BE CARRIED OUT.
CHAIRMAN POPE: THAT'S ALL I HAVE, JUDGE. DO THE COMMITTEE MEMBERS HAVE ANYTHING?
VICE-CHAIRMAN GENTRY: NO, SIR.
CHAIRMAN POPE: THANK YOU, VERY MUCH.
WITNESS: THANK YOU, SIR.
CHAIRMAN POPE: DO Y'ALL WANT TO COPY ANYTHING IN THE FILE?
REPRESENTATIVE HODGES: NO, I DON'T.
WITNESS: THE ENTIRE FILE IS AVAILABLE TO YOU.
VICE-CHAIRMAN GENTRY: I'D LIKE TO HAVE A COPY OF JUDGE BRIDGES' ORDER.
CHAIRMAN POPE: IF YOU DON'T MIND, WE'D LIKE A COPY OF JUDGE BRIDGES' ORDER AND THE PETITION BRINGING HIM BACK BEFORE YOU.
WITNESS: THERE ARE A LOT OF HER ORDERS. I'LL MAKE THEM ALL AVAILABLE.
CHAIRMAN POPE: WE'LL TRY TO GET HER TO SORT IT OUT AND COPY THOSE THREE OR FOUR THINGS.

Q ONE THING I WOULD LIKE TO CLARIFY. WHEN THEY BOTH CAME UP AND ASKED FOR RECONSIDERATION, WERE THEY ASKING FOR THE SAME RESULT, OR WAS THAT AN ADVERSARIAL RECONSIDERATION REQUEST?
A OH, IT WAS QUITE ADVERSARIAL.
Q SO THEY WEREN'T BOTH ASKING FOR THE SAME THING THAT SHE DENIED?
A OH, NO, SIR.
Q ALL RIGHT.
A HE WAS UPSET BECAUSE OF THE CONTEMPT, AND SHE, I THINK, WAS UPSET BECAUSE OF THE MODIFICATION. AND JUDGE BRIDGES SAID, "I REALLY THINK I'VE DONE THE RIGHT THING IN BOTH CASES," AND DENIED.
Q SHE WAS ASKING IT BE INCREASED, AND HE WAS ASKING THAT IT BE DECREASED?
A THAT'S MY UNDERSTANDING --
Q OKAY.
A -- YES.
Q THAT'S FINE.
A THANK YOU, SIR.
CHAIRMAN POPE: THANK YOU.

(DISCUSSION OFF THE RECORD AMONG COMMITTEE MEMBERS.)
MR. PARKER: MR. CHAIRMAN, BEFORE I LEAVE, COULD I HAVE THOSE NEWSPAPER ARTICLES AFTER YOU'VE HAD THEM COPIED, OR COULD YOU JUST MAIL THEM TO ME?
CHAIRMAN POPE: SHE'LL MAIL THEM TO YOU.
MR. PARKER: ALL RIGHT.
CHAIRMAN POPE: THANK YOU.
MR. PARKER: THANK YOU.
SENATOR MCCONNELL: MR. CHAIRMAN, I WOULD MOVE FOR A BRIEF EXECUTIVE SESSION.
CHAIRMAN POPE: ALL IN FAVOR SIGNIFY BY SAYING AYE.
COMMITTEE MEMBERS: AYE.
CHAIRMAN POPE: WE'RE GOING TO HAVE A VERY BRIEF EXECUTIVE SESSION.

CHAIRMAN POPE: NEXT WE'LL HAVE THE FAMILY COURT OF THE SIXTEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, SEAT #1. JUDGE DAVID WILBURN.

WHEREUPON, DAVID N. WILBURN, JR., HAVING BEEN DULY SWORN AND CAUTIONED TO SPEAK THE TRUTH, THE WHOLE TRUTH, AND NOTHING BUT THE TRUTH, IS EXAMINED AND TESTIFIES AS FOLLOWS:

Q JUDGE, DO YOU NEED TO CLARIFY OR MODIFY ANYTHING IN YOUR QUESTIONNAIRE SUMMARY?
A NO, SIR.
Q YOU HAVE NO OBJECTION TO US MAKING IT A PART OF THE RECORD?
A THAT'S QUITE ALL RIGHT.
Q ALL RIGHT, WE'LL DO THAT.

1. David N. Wilburn, Jr.
Home Address: Business Address
218 Glendale Road Union County Courthouse
Union, SC 29379 P. O. Box 547
Union, SC 29379

2. He was born in Union, South Carolina on July 15, 1929. He is presently 62 years old.
Social Security Number: ***-**-****

4. He was married to Mary Lou Ellis on August 8, 1950. He has three children: David N., III, age 39 (Continuum of Care); Carol Lindsay W. Franken, age 37 (student); and Timothy E., age 35 (engineer).
5. Military Service: U. S. Marine Corps; January, 1951 - November, 1952; Captain; 051226; Honorable Discharge

6. He attended Furman University, 1946-1950, B.A.; and the University of South Carolina Law School, 1953-1955, L.L.B.

8. Legal/Judicial education during the past five years:
He has attended all JCLE's required since July, 1977.

12. Legal experience since graduation from law school:
General practice of law, 1955-1977; Judge, Family Court since 1977

20. Judicial Office:
Judge, Union County Court; January 1, 1973 - July 1, 1977
Concurrent jurisdiction with Circuit Court
Civil jurisdiction limited to $25,000; criminal jurisdiction excluding murder, treason, any other crime exclusively in Circuit Court by State Constitution

21. Five significant Orders or Opinions Written:

(a) Henry v. Henry, 296 S.C. 285, 372 S.E. 2d 104 (Ct. App. 1988). Per Curiam. Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded.

(b) Sealy v. Sealy, 295 S.C. 281, 368 S.E. 2d 85 (Ct. App. 1988). Cureton, Judge. Affirmed.

(c) Lemmon v. Lemmon, 295 S.C. 225, 367 S.E. 2d 706 (Ct. App. 1988). Gardner, Judge. Affirmed.

(d) Croom v. Croom, South Carolina Court of Appeals Opinion No. 1669, filed June 10, 1991. Per Curiam. Affirmed in part, reversed in part.

(e) Sexton v. Sexton, 298 S.C. 359, 380 S.E. 2d 832 (S. Ct. 1989). Toal Justice. Affirmed.

22. Public Office:
Solicitor, Union County Court, elected 1967-1973

23. Unsuccessful Candidate: 1958, South Carolina House of Representatives

30. Tax Lien: Income tax liens in the late 60's or early 70's. All were satisfied prior to the 1977 screening.

31. Sued: Approximately $1,500 default judgment was brought against his former law firm by West Publishing. A judgment was taken after he left the firm. The Judgment was satisfied in 1977 and cleared by the Screening Committee in 1977.

33. His health is good. His last physical was in January of 1992 by Dr. Jeffrey Craft, Piedmont Medical Associates, 110 S. Church Street, Union, South Carolina 29379.

34. Hospitalized: He was hospitalized October 1, 1987 to October 7, 1987, Henrico Hospital, Richmond, Virginia for coronary by-pass operation. He was relieved from his courtroom assignment until December, 1987. He had a full recovery without limitation or activities. In September, 1991, he had carotid artery surgery. He was hospitalized for three days.

35. He wears glasses.

39. Bar Associations and Professional Organizations:
South Carolina Bar Association

40. Civic, charitable, religious, educational, social, and fraternal organizations:
Episcopal Church of Nativity, Union, South Carolina; Union Country Club, Union, South Carolina

42. Five letters of reference:

(a) J. Carlisle Oxner, Jr., Chairman & President
Arthur State Bank
P. O. Drawer 769, Union, SC 29379

(b) Richard M. Steele, Esquire
P. O. Box 651, Union, SC 29379-0651

(c) Thomas H. White, IV, Esquire
P. O. Box 266, Union, SC 29379

(d) Tony M. Jones, Esquire
Jack G. Leader, Esquire
P. O. Drawer 11091, Rock Hill, SC 29731-1091

(e) Peter M. Perrill, Esquire
P. O. Drawer 2530, Rock Hill, SC 29732-2530

Q THE BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS ON GRIEVANCES AND DISCIPLINE REPORTS NO COMPLAINTS EVER HAVING BEEN FILED AGAINST YOU. THE JUDICIAL STANDARDS COMMISSION HAS NO RECORD OF ANY REPRIMANDS. THE RECORDS OF THE HIGHWAY DEPARTMENT, UNION COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE, UNION CITY POLICE DEPARTMENT, SLED, AND THE F.B.I. ARE ALL NEGATIVE. THE JUDGMENT ROLLS OF UNION COUNTY ARE NEGATIVE. THE FEDERAL COURT RECORDS SHOW NO JUDGMENT OR CRIMINAL ACTIONS AGAINST YOU. I BELIEVE YOU LIST THAT YOU WERE A PARTY IN A CIVIL ACTION ALONG WITH A NUMBER OF OTHER FAMILY COURT JUDGES, IN A CASE, AND I BELIEVE THAT WAS DISMISSED?
A (NODS HEAD.)
Q IS THAT CORRECT?
A YES, SIR. THAT WAS AN INTERESTING THING. A DISBARRED A LAWYER FROM MICHIGAN LOST CUSTODY OF HIS KIDS, AND HE DISAPPEARED WITH THE KIDS. HE WAS FOUND AT MYRTLE BEACH SOME THREE OR FOUR YEARS LATER. JUDGE MARING AND I AND SOME OTHER JUDGE, I THINK, COLLECTIVELY ENROLLED THE MICHIGAN ORDER, RETURNED THE CHILDREN TO THE MOTHER, PUT HIM IN JAIL; WHEREUPON, HE BROUGHT A 365-PAGE CIVIL RIGHTS SUIT AGAINST ALL OF US, AND THE GOVERNOR, AND EVERYBODY. IT WAS INTERESTING, BUT IT WENT NOWHERE.
Q THAT HAS BEEN DISMISSED SEVERAL YEARS AGO, I GUESS?
A UH-HUH.
Q JUDGE, WE ARE GOING TO PROCEED TO JUST GO THROUGH THE REST OF THE SCREENING WITH A FEW MORE QUESTIONS, AND THEN THERE HAS BEEN ONE PERSON WHO HAS DESIRED TO BE PRESENT AND HAS FILED A COMPLAINT WITH US, AND WE'LL GIVE HIM AN OPPORTUNITY TO ADDRESS THAT, AND THEN YOU CAN COME BACK, OF COURSE, AND REBUT ANYTHING THAT YOU CHOOSE TO REBUT.
A THAT'S FINE.
Q JUDGE, HOW IMPORTANT DO YOU BELIEVE THE JUDICIAL TEMPERAMENT IS, THAT WE HAVE DISCUSSED PRETTY MUCH TODAY HERE?
A I GO BACK TO CHIEF JUSTICE NESS. HE USED TO TELL US, "BOYS, YOUR ROBES GET HEAVY SOMETIMES." HE CALLED IT ROBITIS. AND HE, IN HIS OWN FORCEFUL WAY, GOT IT ACROSS TO US THAT WEARING THE ROBE TENDS TO IMPRESS YOU WITH YOUR OWN IMPORTANCE. I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT. I DON'T KNOW THAT I'VE EVER HAD A COMPLAINT FOR RUDE TREATMENT OF EITHER A LITIGANT OR A LAWYER. SOMETIMES YOU GET EXTREMELY IMPATIENT WITH TRIVIA. YOU GENTLEMEN ARE SUBJECTED TO SOME OF THAT YOURSELVES. BUT IT MAY BE TRIVIA TO US -- THIS IS WHAT I KEEP TRYING TO REMIND MYSELF -- BUT IT'S THE MOST IMPORTANT MATTER IN THE WORLD TO THE LITIGANT WHO'S BEFORE YOU AT THAT TIME. SO I THINK YOU CAN RULE AGAINST A PARTY WITHOUT MAKING THEM MAD, AND I'VE SEEN THAT HAPPEN ON MANY CASES. IT IS IMPORTANT. I'M NOT GOING TO SIT HERE AND MAKE A STUMP SPEECH ON IT, BUT I THINK WE ALL HAVE TO BE CONSTANTLY AWARE OF THE WEIGHT OF THE ROBE.
Q WHAT HAS BEEN THE MOST FRUSTRATING ASPECT OF THE JUDICIARY FOR YOU?
A I AGREE WITH WYLIE CALDWELL AND THE OTHER JUDGE. I THINK ONE OF THE PROBLEMS IS THAT EVERYTHING SEEMS TO GET DUMPED. WE HAVE TOO MUCH NON-LAWYER STUFF THAT COMES INTO FAMILY COURTS. SEVERAL YEARS AGO IT WAS REQUIRED IN ORDER TO APPEAR IN FAMILY COURT THAT YOU BE REPRESENTED OR THAT THE JUDGE DETERMINE WHY YOU SHOULD REPRESENT YOURSELF. TODAY WE GET THE DOMESTIC ABUSES COME IN. WE GET ALL THE D.S.S. MATTERS. AND THERE IS -- I'M NOT SURE THAT WYLIE CALDWELL IS CORRECT THAT THERE ARE ONLY TWO DAYS LEFT TO DO THE NORMAL LITIGATION OF DIVORCES AND FAMILY MATTERS -- BUT THERE IS A CONSTANT ENCROACHMENT ON THE TIME THAT COULD BE USED FOR PEOPLE, LEGITIMATELY DECIDING THEIR FAMILY MATTERS; IT HAS TO BE DEVOTED TO THE ENFORCEMENT OF D.S.S. CHILD SUPPORT. THIS IS A PROGRAM THAT WENT INTO EFFECT PROBABLY 18 YEARS AGO. THEY USED UNION AS A PILOT COUNTY. THESE PROGRAMS CONTINUE TO CONSTITUTE A SMALL PERCENTAGE OF THE NUMBER OF CASES, BUT A LARGE PERCENTAGE OF THE ENFORCEMENT HOURS OF THE COURT TO ENFORCE THEM. I THINK THE FRUSTRATION IS -- OR IT IS, TO ME -- THAT I'M DEALING CONSTANTLY WITH A PROBLEM THAT I CAN'T SOLVE, AND THAT IS POVERTY, POVERTY AND IGNORANCE. AND THERE'S JUST NO SOLUTION TO IT. AND I AM FRUSTRATED BY IT, BUT I DON'T HAVE ANY SUGGESTIONS AS TO HOW EITHER I OR YOU GENTLEMEN CAN CURE IT.
CHAIRMAN POPE: DOES THE COMMITTEE HAVE ANY QUESTIONS OF JUDGE WILBURN?
VICE-CHAIRMAN GENTRY: NO, SIR.
Q (BY CHAIRMAN POPE) JUDGE, YOU HAVE ANYTHING YOU WANT TO SAY, AND THEN WE'LL LET YOU CAME BACK --
A I'LL SPARE YOU MY PHILOSOPHY.
Q ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU.

CHAIRMAN POPE: OKAY. NEXT WE HAVE JAMES L. POLK.

WHEREUPON, JAMES L. POLK, HAVING BEEN DULY SWORN AND CAUTIONED TO SPEAK THE TRUTH, THE WHOLE TRUTH, AND NOTHING BUT THE TRUTH, IS EXAMINED AND TESTIFIES AS FOLLOWS:
WITNESS: THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN AND MEMBERS OF THE SCREENING COMMITTEE.

Q WOULD YOU GIVE US YOUR ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD?
A MY NAME IS JAMES L. POLK. I LIVE OUT ON JAMES ISLAND, SOUTH CAROLINA.
Q ALL RIGHT. GO AHEAD, MR. POLK.
A WE HAD AN INTERESTING SITUATION TO DEVELOP YESTERDAY MORNING WHICH WOULD BE, I THINK, PERHAPS, OF SOME INTEREST TO THE COMMITTEE. JUDGE WILBURN AND I FOUND EACH OTHER STARING AT EACH OTHER AT 9:30 YESTERDAY MORNING. I HAD BEEN SERVED WITH A SHOW-CAUSE ORDER. AT THE SAME TIME, I HAD BEEN WORKING WITH YOUR COMMITTEE IN PROVIDING INFORMATION. I HAD NO IDEA HE WAS GOING TO BE THE JUDGE OF RECORD YESTERDAY. SO, TO HIS CREDIT, WHEN HE REALIZED WHO I WAS AND HE HAD JUST HEARD FROM THE COMMITTEE THAT I HAD REGISTERED A COMPLAINT AGAINST HIM, TO HIS CREDIT, HE DISMISSED HIMSELF. TO HIS DISCREDIT, HE USED A FEW TERMS OF NON-ENDEARMENT, TO DESCRIBE THE SITUATION. IN ALL FAIRNESS, I USED ONE OF THOSE TERMS OF NON-ENDEARMENT TO DESCRIBE YOU TOO, JUDGE WILBURN. SO I GUESS WE'RE EVEN ON THAT COUNT. I'M HERE TO APPEAR BEFORE THE COMMITTEE TODAY TO EXPRESS MY CONCERN OVER THREE ITEMS THAT OCCURRED AS A PART OF MY SITUATION. IT APPEARS IN MY AFFIDAVIT. VERY QUICKLY I WILL STATE THAT JUDGE WILBURN -- THE FIRST PROBLEM WE ENCOUNTERED, HE RULED THAT ALL PROPERTY, HOWEVER ACCUMULATED BETWEEN MY EX-SPOUSE AND MYSELF DURING THE MARRIAGE, WOULD BE COMMON PROPERTY AND SUBJECT TO EQUAL DIVISION, ALTHOUGH A CLEARLY DESIGNATED LIST OF PERSONAL PROPERTY AND TESTIMONY INDICATED OTHERWISE. THAT IS TO SAY, A RATHER LENGTHY LIST HAD EXISTED FOR OVER A YEAR AS A CARRY-OVER FROM THE SEPARATION HEARING, CLEARLY DEFINING WHERE ALL OF THESE PERSONAL ITEMS CAME FROM. MANY OF THEM WERE IN MY RESIDENCE AT THE TIME SIMPLY BECAUSE OTHER FAMILY MEMBERS HAD NO PLACE TO PUT THEM, BUT THEY HAD ALL BEEN INHERITED FROM MY SIDE OF THE FAMILY. AND SO THERE WAS GREAT CONSTERNATION, BOTH DURING THE TRIAL AND AS A RESULT OF HIS DECISION, AND I HAD TO CONSOLE MY SISTER, WHO IS MY ONLY LIVING RELATIVE; MY GRANDFATHER AND GRANDMOTHER HAVING DIED, MY MOTHER AND FATHER HAVING DIED, AND MY BROTHER HAVING DIED. SO THE CUMULATIVE PROPERTY THAT WAS IN MY POSSESSION AT THE TIME WAS THERE SIMPLY BECAUSE, IN SOME INSTANCES, WE HAD TO PROTECT IT FROM AN AUNT WHO WAS TRYING TO SELL IT FOR A FEW QUARTS OF WHISKEY HERE AND THERE TO SUPPORT HER HABIT. SO I WAS HOLDING IT, REALLY, IN EFFECT, FOR OTHER FAMILY MEMBERS, AND MY CHILDREN, AND NEPHEWS, AND SO FORTH. UNFORTUNATELY, HE VACATED THAT OPTION FOR US, AND IT PROVED TO BE A VERY TRAUMATIC EXPERIENCE FOR MY FAMILY SIMPLY BECAUSE THERE WAS ONLY MY SISTER AND I LEFT AND MUCH OF THIS PERSONAL PROPERTY REPRESENTED A GREAT DEAL OF REMEMBRANCE. THE SECOND WAS THAT, WHEN THE ASSETS ACCUMULATED DURING THE 26 YEARS OF MARRIAGE WERE DIVIDED, THE DEBTS WERE NOT. YOU WILL FIND IN THE PAGES I'VE FURNISHED TO YOU OUT OF THE TRANSCRIPT, WHERE THEY WERE CLEARLY IDENTIFIED AS BEING FAMILY DEBTS ACCUMULATED DURING MANY YEARS OF MARRIAGE. AND I FOUND MYSELF, FOLLOWING THE HEARING AND DIVORCE DECREE -- I HAD GIVEN UP, VOLUNTARILY, 50 PERCENT OF THE ASSETS, BUT I HAD INHERITED 100 PERCENT OF THE DEBTS, AND THAT HAS CREATED A CONSIDERABLE FINANCIAL BURDEN. AND DURING THE LAST THREE YEARS, SOME OF THOSE DEBTS STILL REMAIN. AS A RESULT OF THOSE DEBTS, I HAVE A NET NEGATIVE WORTH AT THIS VERY MOMENT. I HAVE HAD TO BORROW FROM MY SISTER AND MY YOUNGEST SON IN ORDER TO STAY AFLOAT, IF YOU WILL. I HAVE NO CREDIT, NO ABILITY TO PURCHASE ANYTHING ON PAYMENTS, SIMPLY BECAUSE OF THESE ACCUMULATED DEBTS; WHILE MY EX-SPOUSE WAS ABLE TO TAKE HER ASSETS AND PUT THEM INTO C.D.'S WHERE THEY STILL REMAIN TO THIS DAY. THE THIRD ITEM: HE RULED THAT THE ALIMONY WOULD BE FOR LIFE. NOW, UNDERSTAND THAT THIS WAS A MARRIAGE OF LONG TERM, AND THERE WAS NO PROBLEM WITH ALCOHOL, NO ABUSE, NONE OF THE CUSTOMARY THINGS THAT FAMILY COURTS ARE FACED WITH. IN POINT OF FACT, IF YOU WILL GIVE ME A MOMENT, I WOULD LIKE TO READ A DIRECT QUOTATION. ON PAGE 78, THE COURT, JUDGE WILBURN, SAYS: "A DIVORCE CLEARLY WILL BE GRANTED, THE ONE YEAR'S SEPARATION BEING PROVEN AND DULY CORROBORATED. NOW, THE THING THAT HAS IMPRESSED ME ABOUT THIS PARTICULAR CASE IS THAT THIS IS A MARRIAGE OF 25 YEARS BETWEEN TWO WHO ARE -- ALL THE TESTIMONY SHOWS -- TWO NICE PEOPLE WHO HAD A NORMAL MARRIAGE, IF THERE IS ANY SUCH; WHO RAISED THREE CHILDREN; AND WHO EACH CONTRIBUTED IN HIS AND HER OWN WAY TOWARD THE WELFARE OF THE FAMILY. "HE WAS THE PRINCIPAL WAGE-EARNER; SHE WAS THE PRINCIPAL PARENT. HER CONTRIBUTION AND HIS ARE EQUAL BY HIS DECLARATION, ALTHOUGH THE TESTIMONY DID NOT SUPPORT THAT. I THINK THE PARTIES BASICALLY ACKNOWLEDGE THAT, BY AGREEING THAT THE PROPERTY DISTRIBUTION OF ASSETS SHOULD BE RELATIVELY EQUAL. THESE SAME FACTORS," ET CETERA, ET CETERA. THEN HE PROCEEDED TO GRANT ALIMONY FOR LIFE. NOW, IT'S MY UNDERSTANDING THAT THE COURTS OF THIS COUNTRY ARE DESIGNED TO PROTECT US FROM EACH OTHER; IT IS DESIGNED TO PENALIZE THOSE WHO BREAK THE LAW OR WHO VIOLATE THE RIGHTS OF OTHERS; AND TO EXTRACT DAMAGES, WHERE DAMAGES HAVE OCCURRED. I VIEW WHAT HAS HAPPENED IN LIFETIME ALIMONY AS BEING SOMETHING THAT'S INSUPPORTABLE IN PRINCIPLE IN OUR SOCIETY. IT IS A FORM OF HUMAN BONDAGE, INVOLUNTARY SERVITUDE, IF YOU WILL, WHICH, BY HIS EDICT, CAN ONLY BE BROKEN BY HER DEATH, MY DEATH, OR HER MARRIAGE. THOSE ARE THE THREE CONDITIONS. I WOULD LIKE TO SUBMIT FOR YOUR CONSIDERATION A PHILOSOPHICAL QUESTION, IF I MIGHT, THAT RELATES TO THIS, AND THAT IS SOMETHING THAT THE JUDGES, IN THEIR DISCRETION, SHOULD CONSIDER IF THEY'RE GOING TO GRANT ALIMONY FOR LIFE: WHAT IF THE SPOUSE WHO IS RECEIVING THE ALIMONY BECOMES AN AVOWED HOMOSEXUAL AND, THEREFORE, MARRIAGE IS NEVER A POSSIBILITY AGAIN? THEN LIFETIME ALIMONY IN TRUTH BECOMES A HUMAN BONDAGE. IT BECOMES INVOLUNTARILY SERVITUDE. IT IS INTERESTING THAT ONE OF THE TERMS USED THROUGHOUT THE HEARING CONCERNED OUR YOUNGEST SON -- WHO, AT THAT TIME, WAS UNDER 17, WITH ALMOST A YEAR LEFT TO GO IN HIGH SCHOOL -- AND THE WORD "EMANCIPATED" WAS USED SEVERAL TIMES; THAT, UPON HIS EMANCIPATION, THEN CHILD SUPPORT WOULD END. WELL, LADIES AND GENTLEMEN, MY RECOLLECTION OF "EMANCIPATION," BASED ON WHAT HAPPENED IN THE 1860'S IS "EMANCIPATION"' MEANS THAT YOU ARE FREE. I STAND -- OR SIT -- BEFORE YOU TODAY TO TELL YOU, WHEN YOU HAVE ALIMONY FOR LIFE, YOU ARE NOT FREE. AND MY FINANCES WERE REDUCED TO THE POINT WHERE I COULD NO LONGER MAKE PAYMENTS. AND IN A SHOW-CAUSE HEARING, THEY SAY, "WELL, WE'RE GOING TO TAKE IT OUT OF YOUR SALARY." THE NET EFFECT OF IT IS GOING TO BE THAT I WILL HAVE NOTHING LEFT TO LIVE ON. SO NOW I'M TRYING TO DECIDE HOW LONG I CAN SURVIVE TO MAKE A SALARY TO PAY ALIMONY THAT SHOULD BE -- IT'S AN ANNUITY FOR MY EX-SPOUSE, IN EFFECT. IT'S HER RETIREMENT PROGRAM, IF YOU WILL. AND JUDGE WILBURN DID AND SHOULD HAVE KNOWN THAT TO DECREE A LIFETIME ALIMONY WAS GOING -- HAD THE POTENTIAL, AT MY AGE AND FUTURE HEALTH, HAD THE POTENTIAL TO BE EXTREMELY OPPRESSIVE AND EXCESSIVE.
Q WHEN THIS HEARING CONCLUDED -- THIS HEARING WAS IN 1988, IN SEPTEMBER -- DID YOU APPEAL IT?
A I TRIED TO. UNFORTUNATELY, I, AT THAT TIME, WAS IN FLORIDA. AND I TRIED TO WORK WITH THE SUPREME COURT CLERK. HE SENT THE PROPER FORMS. AT THE SAME TIME, I HAD TO MOVE FROM AN APARTMENT THERE BECAUSE I COULD NO LONGER AFFORD TO LIVE THERE, AND THE POST OFFICE, FOR WHATEVER ITS REASONS, ELECTED TO HOLD MY MAIL THREE WEEKS IN MY BOX AT MY OLD APARTMENT BEFORE THEY THOUGHT THAT I HAD MOVED AND WOULD FORWARD IT. AND SO WHEN I TRIED TO EXPLAIN TO THE CLERK OF THE COURT WHY HIS INFORMATION WAS LATE AND WHY MY RESPONSE BACK WAS LATE, THE EXCUSE WAS UNACCEPTABLE, SO I LOST MY OPPORTUNITY TO APPEAL.
Q BUT YOU HAD COUNSEL. YOU HAD MR. TAYLOR.
A WELL, UNFORTUNATELY, IF YOU WILL, THAT'S PART OF MY FALLING THROUGH THE CRACKS, TOO. AT THE TIME MR. TAYLOR REPRESENTED ME, HE GAVE IT HIS BEST EFFORT. HOWEVER, I LEARNED LATER THAT HE WAS SUFFERING FROM TERMINAL CANCER AND DID, IN FACT, EXPIRE NOT TOO LONG AFTER MY TRIAL. SO HE WAS NO LONGER OF SERVICE FOR ME EITHER.
Q BUT WHAT I MEAN, HE WAS ALIVE DURING THE TIME FOR THE APPEAL TO HAVE BEEN PERFECTED, WAS HE NOT?
A YES, BUT HIS RESPONSE TO ME WAS, "HERE'S THE PAPERS. YOU FILL THEM OUT. YOU SEND THEM IN. YOU TAKE CARE OF IT."
Q BECAUSE ALL OF THE COMPLAINTS YOU MAKE, THE THREE COMPLAINTS ARE ALL LEGAL MATTERS. IN OTHER WORDS, YOU'RE SAYING THAT THE JUDGE WAS WRONG BECAUSE HE CONSIDERED ALL THE PROPERTY TO BE MARITAL, HE WAS WRONG BECAUSE HE GAVE YOU ALL THE MARITAL DEBTS, AND HE WAS WRONG BECAUSE HE AWARDED PERMANENT ALIMONY.
A NO, SIR.
Q AND HE MAY OR MAY NOT HAVE BEEN WRONG, BUT ALL OF THOSE MATTERS CAN BE REMEDIED BY AN APPEAL.
A I'M NOT SUGGESTING THAT HE'S WRONG. I'M NOT AN ATTORNEY. I DID HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY RECENTLY TO REVIEW THE FAMILY COURT LAW. I FOUND IT TO BE VERY, VERY BRIEF. AND BASED ON THAT EXAMINATION, WHAT I'VE BEEN TOLD, JUDGES ARE GRANTED PROBABLY THE BROADEST DISCRETION IN FAMILY COURT OF ANY OTHER COURT IN THE COUNTRY. AND WHAT I'M HERE TO SAY TO YOU IS: IF THAT IS THE SYSTEM THAT THIS STATE WANTS, THEN THIS COMMITTEE HAS ONE TOUGH JOB IN CONSIDERING THE APPOINTMENTS FOR THOSE POSITIONS. IF THESE CANDIDATES ARE GOING TO WIND UP BEING SEMI-GOD, THEN THIS COMMITTEE IS GOING TO HAVE TO REVIEW COMPLAINTS LIKE MINE AND OTHERS VERY, VERY CAREFULLY IN THE APPOINTMENT, EACH TIME, OF EACH ONE OF THESE INDIVIDUALS. I SIT BEFORE YOU TO TELL YOU THAT, IN MY LIFETIME, GOD HAS NEVER GIVEN ME MORE LOAD THAN I CAN CARRY. JUDGE WILBURN, SEMI-GOD, GAVE ME MORE LOAD THAN I COULD CARRY, IN HIS DISCRETION.

Q MR. POLK, WHAT IS YOUR OCCUPATION?
A I'M AN ENGINEER.
Q ARE YOU STILL IN FLORIDA, OR -- YOU'RE IN CHARLESTON?
A NO, I MOVED BACK -- OH, LET'S SAY -- NOVEMBER, TO TRY TO REJOIN MY CHILDREN.
Q AND ARE YOU SELF-EMPLOYED OR ARE YOU WITH A FIRM?
A NO, I WORK FOR A CONSULTING FIRM IN CHARLESTON. BY THE WAY, I DON'T KNOW IF THE COPIES I HAVE FURNISHED TO YOU FOLKS TODAY SHOW IT, INDICATE IT, BUT MY EX-SPOUSE HAS TWO COLLEGE DEGREES; AND YET, SHE WAS STILL GRANTED ALIMONY FOR LIFE.
Q AND Y'ALL WERE MARRIED FOR 25 YEAR; IS THAT CORRECT?
A 26.
Q 26?
A YES.

Q IS SHE EMPLOYED IN ANY CAPACITY AT THIS TIME?
A YES, SIR, SHE IS.
Q WHAT DOES SHE DO?
A SHE'S A TEACHING ASSISTANT.
Q IS SHE IN THE STATE OF FLORIDA?
A NO, SHE'S HERE IN SOUTH CAROLINA.
Q IS SHE IN CHARLESTON AS WELL, OR IN SPARTANBURG?
A NO, SHE'S IN SPARTANBURG.

Q DURING THE 25 YEARS OF MARRIAGE, WAS SHE EMPLOYED?
A PART TIME, YES, SIR.
Q PART TIME?
A YES. I TRIED TO ENCOURAGE HER FOR FULL EMPLOYMENT. I TRIED TO ENCOURAGE HER TO CONTINUE ON WITH HER EDUCATION, ET CETERA. SHE HAD NO AMBITION. I WAS THE ONE WITH THE AMBITION. NOW, SHE'S BEING REWARDED, AND I'M BEING PUNISHED. SHE'S BEING REWARDED FOR LACK OF AMBITION; I'M BEING PUNISHED FOR HAVING AMBITION AND, OBVIOUSLY, MAKING MORE MONEY THAN SHE WAS OR IS.

Q WHAT IS SHE CERTIFIED TO DO? DOES SHE HAVE A TEACHING CERTIFICATE?
A YES, SIR. ELEMENTARY TEACHING. YES, SHE IS CERTIFIED TODAY TO TEACH ELEMENTARY EDUCATION.
Q BUT SHE'S ONLY BEING A TEACHER'S ASSISTANT RIGHT NOW?
A YES, SIR. AGAIN, SHE HAS CHOSEN NOT TO MOVE. ALTHOUGH I'VE SOUGHT OPPORTUNITIES THROUGHOUT THE SOUTHEAST TO TRY TO KEEP MY HEAD ABOVE WATER AND LIVE ABOVE JUDGE WILBURN'S FINANCIAL ORDER, SHE HAS CHOSEN TO STAY IN ONE LOCATION AND SAY, "I CAN'T FIND ANYTHING BETTER, AND THEREFORE, HE SHOULD KEEP PAYING ME." AND THAT'S A FALLACY OF THE SYSTEM, I THINK.
Q WHAT ARE HER TWO DEGREES IN?
A SECRETARIAL SCIENCE, AND A BACHELOR OF SCIENCE IN EDUCATION. SHE IS AN EXCELLENT EXECUTIVE SECRETARY.
CHAIRMAN POPE: ANY OTHER QUESTIONS?
REPRESENTATIVE HENDRICKS: I WAS GOING TO ASK MR. POLK --

Q BEFORE THE JUDGE SET THE AMOUNT OF THE ALIMONY, HE MUST HAVE CHECKED INTO SALARY, AND THINGS LIKE THAT. HE DIDN'T JUST IMPOSE AN IMPOSSIBLE BURDEN ON YOU AT THE TIME, DID HE?
A WELL, AGREED. BUT WE ASKED FOR, DURING THE TRIAL, A REHABILITATIVE PERIOD TO ALLOW HER TO COME UP TO SPEED, WHEREBY I WOULD PAY SO MUCH. MY COMPLAINT IS NOT WITH THE ORIGINAL AMOUNT OF THE ALIMONY THAT HE SET. IT WAS A VERY DIFFICULT BURDEN, BUT IT WAS ONE I WAS ABLE TO LIVE WITH AS LONG AS MY YOUNGEST SON WAS STILL HOME, AND ASSETS HADN'T BEEN SOLD, AND ALL THAT KIND OF STUFF; AND SHE HADN'T HAD TIME TO FIND SOMETHING. BUT WHEN HE SET ALIMONY FOR LIFE -- THAT'S WHY I'M HERE BEFORE YOU TODAY. IF HE HAD SET ALIMONY FOR TWO YEARS OR THREE YEARS, THERE NEVER WOULD HAVE BEEN A WORD OF COMPLAINT FROM ME.
CHAIRMAN POPE: ANY OTHER QUESTIONS?
SENATOR MARTIN: YES.

Q MR. POLK, TO MY SORROW, I DO SOME DOMESTIC WORK, AND IT'S VERY UNSATISFYING TO ME THAT THE PROBLEM YOU HAVE IS NOT UNIQUE.
A I KNOW.
Q I FEEL SURE YOUR WIFE PROBABLY WOULD SAY SHE'S NOT ADEQUATELY -- DOESN'T HAVE ENOUGH TO LIVE ON AS WELL AS YOU DON'T HAVE ENOUGH TO LIVE ON. IT VERY SELDOM THERE EVER IS A TIME WHEN TWO PEOPLE CAN LIVE IN TWO HOUSEHOLDS ON THE INCOME THAT THEY USED TO LIVE ON, IN ONE HOUSEHOLD. BUT NEVERTHELESS, NOT GIVING YOU FREE ADVICE, BUT IF THERE HAS BEEN A SIGNIFICANT CHANGE OF CIRCUMSTANCES IN YOUR INCOME OR HER INCOME SINCE THAT DIVORCE DECREE SOME FOUR YEARS AGO, THERE IS PROVISION IN THE LAW FOR YOU TO SEEK SOME REVISION. THESE FAMILY COURT JUDGES HAVE A VERY DIFFICULT SITUATION. I'M REPRESENTING AT LEAST TWO PEOPLE NOW, THAT ARE PAYING TEMPORARY SUPPORT. THEY GET MONEY FROM THEIR PARENTS EVERY WEEK TO MAKE THEIR CHILD SUPPORT PAYMENTS. AND WHEN YOU MENTION ALIMONY FOR LIFE, ACTUALLY, UNDER OUR LAWS, IN ORDER FOR IT TO BE ALIMONY FOR ANYTHING BUT LIFE, IT'S MY UNDERSTANDING OF THE LAW THAT THE COURTS HAVE TO JUSTIFY ANY CHANGE, FOR REHABILITATIVE ALIMONY, AND JUSTIFY THE CIRCUMSTANCES. ALL ALIMONY IS FOR LIFE OR REMARRIAGE, UNLESS THERE IS SOME SPECIFIC -- I DON'T SAY THERE'S NO JUSTIFICATION IN YOUR CASE.
A YES, SIR.
Q I SAY THAT THE LAW REQUIRES A SPECIFIC JUSTIFICATION, AND IT IS THE EXCEPTION RATHER THAN THE RULE, BUT YOU MAY HAVE SOME RELIEF. AND THESE PEOPLE DO HAVE DIFFICULT JOBS, AND QUITE FREQUENTLY THEY ARE VERY BURDENSOME. THE FIRST THING I EVER TELL A MAN, I SAY, "YOU'RE GOING TO BE THE MOST DISGRUNTLED FELLOW AT YOUR JUDGE AND YOUR LAWYER, AND YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE TO CHANGE YOUR LIFESTYLE WHEN THIS IS OVER WITH. AND IF YOU THINK YOU CAN KEEP LIVING THE SAME LIFESTYLE, UNLESS YOU'VE GOT A RICH GRANDDADDY OR RICH DADDY, YOU'RE GOING TO BE DISAPPOINTED, BECAUSE IT'S JUST THE ECONOMICS OF IT ARE NOT THERE. NOW, I DON'T KNOW A THING ABOUT YOUR WIFE, WHETHER SHE COULD BE MORE INDUSTRIOUS OR LESS INDUSTRIOUS, AND I'M SURE YOU HAVE THOUGHTS WHICH YOU'VE RELATED TO US. BUT IT'S A DIFFICULT JOB, AND YOU MAY HAVE SOME AVENUE OF SOME RELIEF, AND YOU MAY NOT. I'M NOT SAYING YOU HAVE TO -- YOU CAN'T JUST KEEP GOING TO COURT EVERY YEAR JUST TO GO TO COURT HOPING YOU'LL FIND A JUDGE WITH A DIFFERENT TEMPERAMENT. YOU HAVE TO SHOW THERE'S BEEN SOME CHANGE IN CIRCUMSTANCES.
A UNFORTUNATELY, SIR, THAT'S EXACTLY WHAT HAS HAPPENED. I DID GO BACK IN FEBRUARY. THERE WAS A HUGE, HUGE CHANGE IN CIRCUMSTANCES. UNFORTUNATELY, THERE WAS NO RELIEF. THE PATTERN, AGAIN -- PLEASE UNDERSTAND -- THE PATTERN WAS SET. JUDGE WILBURN SAID IT WILL BE THIS AMOUNT FOR LIFE. THIS JUDGE, FOR WHATEVER HIS REASONS, APPARENTLY WAS NOT INCLINED TO CHANGE IT. I AM TOLD THAT, WHEN YOU GET TO THE STATE SUPREME COURT, THAT, IN ORDER FOR THEM TO DISCOURAGE BEING PESTERED WITH THESE THINGS, THEY DON'T ALWAYS LOOK AT IT FAVORABLY EITHER. I'M HERE TO SAY TO YOU THAT THERE IS VERY LITTLE RELIEF IN THE FAMILY COURT SYSTEM. AND AGAIN, I'M NOT -- I UNDERSTAND THAT YOU LADIES AND GENTLEMEN HAVE NOTHING, THAT THERE'S NOTHING YOU CAN DO TO CHANGE THE LAW. I UNDERSTAND THAT. BUT WHAT I'M SAYING IS THAT, BECAUSE THE LAW READS THE WAY IT IS, YOUR CONSIDERATION FOR APPOINTMENTS OF THESE OFFICES IS AN ENORMOUS TASK. YOU MUST WEED OUT THOSE WHO CANNOT DEAL WITH THE COURTS AS A JUDGE WITH REASON AND UNDERSTANDING. AND MAYBE AS A PREREQUISITE, MAKE THEM ALL TAKE A COURSE IN ECONOMICS. I DON'T KNOW WHAT THE ANSWER IS, BUT IT'S GOT TO BE BETTER THAN THE SYSTEM IS TODAY. AND I WOULD SUBMIT TO YOU, AGAIN, AS A PHILOSOPHICAL POINT TO CONSIDER: IF MY MOTHER WERE LIVING AND SHE NEEDED A KIDNEY TRANSPLANT AND I WAS THE ONLY DONOR, THE COURTS IN SOUTH CAROLINA CANNOT FORCE ME TO GIVE HER A KIDNEY, TO SAVE HER LIVE. MY OWN BLOOD RELATIVE, MY MOTHER. IF MY SON WERE SEVERELY INJURED IN A TRAFFIC ACCIDENT, OR WHATEVER, AND NEEDED MY FINANCIAL, OR WHATEVER, SUPPORT AND HE WAS ABOVE THE "EMANCIPATED" AGE, THE COURTS OF THIS STATE COULD NOT REQUIRE ME TO DO A LIVING THING TO HELP HIM. MY BLOOD RELATIVE. BUT THE COURTS OF THIS STATE SAY THAT I'VE GOT TO TAKE WHO IS NOW A STRANGER, AND SUPPORT THAT STRANGER FOR THE REST OF THEIR LIFE. THERE IS NO JUSTIFICATION. NONE.
Q WELL, OF COURSE, YOU MARRIED THAT STRANGER.
A OF COURSE.
Q AND SHE DOESN'T REALLY FALL IN THE CATEGORY OF BEING A STRANGER. I WON'T GO ANY FURTHER. I JUST THOUGHT IT MIGHT BE --
A I UNDERSTAND THAT.
Q -- SOME CONSOLATION TO YOU.
A I UNDERSTAND.
CHAIRMAN POPE: ARE THERE ANY OTHER QUESTIONS BY THE COMMITTEE?
(NO RESPONSE.)

Q THANK YOU, MR. POLK. DO YOU HAVE ANYTHING ELSE TO ADD?
A I WOULD ONLY SAY THAT WE ALL KNOW, BECAUSE OF TESTIMONY HERE TODAY, THAT THE FAMILY COURTS IN SOUTH CAROLINA ARE LOADED DOWN. THEY'VE GOT A LOT OF PROBLEMS. THEY NEED A LOT OF HELP, FINANCIAL AND OTHER HELP. THE FAMILY COURTS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, I WOULD SUSPECT, BECAUSE OF THE DIVORCE RATE, WE MAY HAVE FOUR MILLION DIVORCED PEOPLE OUT THERE, CITIZENS OF THIS STATE. IT IS PROBABLY THE SECOND LARGEST DISBURSAL OF FUNDS FOR FAMILY-RELATED MATTERS, PROCEEDED PROBABLY ONLY BY D.S.S. THERE'S A LOT OF MONEY FLOWING THROUGH THESE COURTS BECAUSE OF THESE DECISIONS. THERE'S A LOT OF MISERY OUT THERE BECAUSE OF THESE DECISIONS. AND I ENCOURAGE YOU TO TAKE A LONG, HARD LOOK AT THE QUALIFICATIONS OF EVERY JUDGE EVERY TIME HE COMES UP FOR REAPPOINTMENT OR APPOINTMENT. THANK YOU.
CHAIRMAN POPE: THANK YOU.

CHAIRMAN POPE: WE'LL CALL JUDGE WILBURN BACK TO COMMENT ON THE ALLEGATIONS.
WHEREUPON, DAVID N. WILBURN, JR., HAVING BEEN PREVIOUSLY DULY SWORN AND CAUTIONED TO SPEAK THE TRUTH, THE WHOLE TRUTH, AND NOTHING BUT THE TRUTH, TESTIFIES AND IS EXAMINED FURTHER AS FOLLOWS:
WITNESS: I DON'T HAVE ANY COMMENT, AT LENGTH, EXCEPT TO SAY THAT MR. POLK -- AND I HADN'T SEEN HIM FOR FOUR YEARS UNTIL YESTERDAY MORNING, I BELIEVE IT WAS. I NOTICED IN PART OF THE TRANSCRIPT THAT I MADE A COMMENT -- A GRATUITOUS COMMENT -- FROM THE BENCH, IN MAKING THE RULING ABOUT THE ALIMONY. I RULED OUT REHABILITATIVE ALIMONY. I COMMENTED THAT THIS WAS A TRIAL -- THAT IT WAS A LONG MARRIAGE, A TRIAL BETWEEN TWO NICE PEOPLE. AND HEARING HIS COMMENTS TODAY, HIS COMMENTS ALONE MAKE ME WONDER, DID I MAKE A WRONG DECISION. I'LL NEVER KNOW, BECAUSE THE APPEAL -- AND I MADE THIS NOTATION. I DIDN'T BRING THE RECORD -- THE APPEAL WHICH CLAUDE TAYLOR FILED FOR HIM WAS DISMISSED BY THE SUPREME COURT ON FEBRUARY 16, 1989. IF IT'S OF ANY INTEREST, I HAVE THE ENTIRE -- A PHOTOSTAT OF THE DIVORCE DECREE. MR. POLK IS DISTRAUGHT OR DISTURBED ABOUT THE ULTIMATE EFFECT IT HAS HAD ON HIS LIFE. I CANNOT VISUALIZE MRS. POLK AT THE SAME TIME -- I'VE HEARD SO MANY CASES OVER THE YEARS. BUT I CAN ASSURE YOU THAT BOTH OF THESE PARTIES WERE REPRESENTED; ONE BY NOEL TURNER -- ANY OF YOU WHO ARE LAWYERS -- AND ONE BY CLAUDE TAYLOR, JR., THE FORMER SOLICITOR, AND SON OF THE FORMER CHIEF JUSTICE. THIS GENTLEMAN IS NOW REPRESENTED BY JIM COCKBERN, ANOTHER FINE ATTORNEY IN SPARTANBURG, SOUTH CAROLINA. AT THE TIME I HEARD THIS CASE, IT WAS WELL PRESENTED BY COMPETENT ATTORNEYS, AND I GAVE IT MY BEST SHOT. AND IF I'M WRONG, THEN I'VE DONE THIS MAN A DISSERVICE WHICH COULD HAVE BEEN CORRECTED BY AN APPEAL TO THE SUPREME COURT, AT LEAST IN THEORY. I HAVE NOTHING, REALLY, FURTHER THAT I WANT TO ADD, UNLESS THE COMMITTEE HAS SOME QUESTIONS.
VICE-CHAIRMAN GENTRY: I DON'T HAVE ANY.

Q AS YOU SAY, JUDGE, BOTH PARTIES WERE WELL REPRESENTED. THE REPUTATIONS OF THESE LAWYERS ARE PRETTY WELL KNOWN. AND AS I RECALL IN THE TRANSCRIPT, MR. TAYLOR HAD STIPULATED THAT ALIMONY WAS APPROPRIATE. HE WAS JUST ARGUING FOR SHORT-TERM REHABILITATIVE ALIMONY, AS OPPOSED TO PERMANENT.
A THAT'S RIGHT.
Q WE WOULD LIKE TO GET A COPY, IF YOU DON'T MIND, OF THE DIVORCE DECREE AND THAT REFERENCE TO THE APPEAL BEING DENIED BY THE SUPREME COURT IN FEBRUARY OF 1989.
SENATOR MARTIN: WAS DISMISSED, I THINK, RATHER THAN DENIED. IS THAT RIGHT?
Q OH. WAS IT --
A IT WAS NOT HEARD. IT WAS JUST ONE OF THESE -- AND I DIDN'T BRING IT. I JUST WROTE IT DOWN THAT "APPEAL WAS DISMISSED." ONE OF THE ONE-LINE ORDERS, WHERE AN APPEAL IS NOT PERFECTED.
SENATOR MARTIN: IT WASN'T PERFECTED?
WITNESS: IT WAS NEVER. I BELIEVE THAT WAS HIS TESTIMONY.
CHAIRMAN POPE: WELL, THE NOTICE WAS FILED. IT JUST WASN'T PERFECTED BEYOND THAT.
SENATOR MARTIN: YEAH, RIGHT.
WITNESS: I'LL BE HAPPY TO MAKE COPIES OF CORRESPONDENCE FROM THE CLERK, AND MY CORRESPONDENCE TO HIM, AND THE REJECTION.
CHAIRMAN POPE: DOES THE COMMITTEE HAVE ANY QUESTIONS OF JUDGE WILBURN?
VICE-CHAIRMAN GENTRY: NO, SIR.
WITNESS: THANK YOU.
CHAIRMAN POPE: THANK YOU, VERY MUCH, JUDGE.

VICE-CHAIRMAN GENTRY: I'M GOING TO MOVE WE RECESS FOR 30 MINUTES, FOR LUNCH.
CHAIRMAN POPE: MOTION TO RECESS FOR 30 MINUTES FOR LUNCH. ALL IN FAVOR, SIGNIFY BY SAYING AYE.
COMMITTEE MEMBERS: AYE.
CHAIRMAN POPE: THOSE OPPOSED, NO.
(NO RESPONSE.)
(LUNCH RECESS, 1:30 P.M. TO 2:25 P.M., DURING WHICH TIME REP. GLOVER AND REP. HODGES DEPART THE HEARING PROCEEDINGS.)
CHAIRMAN POPE: WE'RE READY TO RESUME THE HEARING. NEXT IS THE FAMILY COURT OF THE TENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, SEAT #2. JUDGE ROBERT CURETON.

WHEREUPON, ROBERT H. CURETON, HAVING BEEN DULY SWORN AND CAUTIONED TO SPEAK THE TRUTH, THE WHOLE TRUTH, AND NOTHING BUT THE TRUTH, IS EXAMINED AND TESTIFIES AS FOLLOWS:

Q JUDGE, HAVE YOU REVIEWED YOUR QUESTIONNAIRE SUMMARY?
A YES, I HAVE.
Q DOES IT NEED ANY MODIFICATIONS OR CHANGES?
A NO, SIR.
Q YOU HAVE NO OBJECTION TO US MAKING IT A PART OF THE RECORD?
A NONE WHATSOEVER.
Q WE WILL DO SO.

1. Robert H. Cureton
Home Address: Business Address
520 Robin Drive County Courthouse
Seneca, SC 29678 Walhalla, SC 29691

2. He was born in Pickens, South Carolina on September 22, 1937. He is presently 54 years old.
Social Security Number: ***-**-****

4. He is widowed. His wife, Sarah W. Cureton, was deceased on September 21, 1991. He has three children: Denise C. Morgan, age 28 (engineering technology); Patricia C. Terry, age 26 (electrical engineer); and Kimberly A., age 19 (student).

5. Military Service: U. S. Army (Inf), 1959-1960; U. S. Army Reserve (Inf & JAGC), 1960-1970; Honorable Discharge

6. He attended Clemson University, 1955-1959, B.S.; and the University of South Carolina Law School, 1960-1963, L.L.B.

7. In college he was a member of the YMCA Cabinet (1953-1955), Sigma Phi Epsilon (1952-1955), and the Management Society (1954-1955). In law school he was a member of the Phi Alpha Delta Legal Fraternity (1962-1963).

8. Legal/Judicial education during the past five years:

Criminal Law Update, 2/6/87

Child Abuse and Neglect & Family Legal Services, 8/27/87

Practical Approach to Complex Issues in Family Court, Statutory Update & Alimony Perspectives, 11/19-11/20/87

Guidelines in Using Mental Health Professional in Custody and Child Abuse Cases, 3/18/88

Ethics, Rules and Contemporary Issues in Family Court, 7/15/88

Practical Approach to Complex Issues in Evidence and Statutory Law Update, 11/17-11/18/88

Child Victim in Court, 2/27-2/28/89

Bits and Pieces, 7/21/89

Issues in Family Law, 11/17/89

Criminal Law Update, 1/25-1/26/90

Charleston Seminar, 3/30/90

National Family Court Symposium, 10/14-10/16/90

Family Law Issues, 11/9/90

The Future and the Courts, 4/4-4/5/91

Family Law Update (Summer), 7/19/91

Family Law Update (Fall), 11/15/91
9. Courses taught or lectures presented:

Attorneys' Fee - What to Prove, 1/25/80

Family Court Perspective, 10/28/83

Proving Entitlement to Attorneys' Fees, 8/23/85

Rules of Family Court - Problem Areas, 1/21/89

Alimony - New Judges Seminar, 8/90

Alimony - New Judges Seminar, 8/91

12. Legal experience since graduation from law school:

February, 1963-1967 Associate; Holcombe and Bomar; Spartanburg, South Carolina

February, 1967-1975 Partner; Holcombe, Bomar and Cureton; Spartanburg, South Carolina

General Practice

April, 1975-June, 1977 Judge; Civil, Criminal and Family Court of Oconee County

June, 1977-present Family Court Judge, Tenth Judicial Circuit

20. Judicial Office:

April, 1975-June, 1977 Judge; Civil, Criminal and Family Court of Oconee County (10 years and $15,000)

June, 1977-present Family Court Judge, Tenth Judicial Circuit

21. Five significant Orders or Opinions Written:

(a) Janet K. Evans v. David S. Evans, Order signed November 15, 1991. Case involved a determination as to the fairness and voluntariness of an Agreement.

(b) Harold D. Hutchinson v. Sandra W. Hutchinson, signed August 7, 1991. Case involved separate maintenance action, with special emphasis on division of property.

(c) Teresa Diane Bridges v. John Wayne Bridges, signed August 12, 1991.

(d) William Chester Wilbanks v. Angela Hope Wilbanks, signed July 10, 1991. (Custody action)

(e) Daryll Alexander v. Susan R. Garza Alexander, signed March 1, 1990, appealed to Court of Appeals (Opinion 91-UP-188).

31. Sued:
Earl Nash v. Tom Irvin, Gene Taylor, Howard Ballenger, Robert Cureton, et al. (90-CP-04-887). Dismissed by Supreme Court on November 19, 1990.

33. His health is good. His last physical was in January of 1992, by Dr. James R. Hanahan.

35. He wears glasses.

39. Bar Associations and Professional Organizations:
South Carolina Bar (Circuit Vice President-1967); American Bar Association; National Council, Juvenile and Family Court Judges; South Carolina Conference of Family Court Judges (President, 1985-1986); S. C. Judicial Council (1989-present)

40. Civic, charitable, religious, educational, social, and fraternal organizations:
Seneca Presbyterian Church (Elder, Trustee, Clerk of Session); Spartan Lodge #70 (Chancellor); Hejaz Shrine Temple

42. Five letters of reference:

(a) Albert N. Cromer, Jr., Assistant Vice-President
South Carolina National Bank
P. O. Box 729, Seneca, SC 29679

(b) Michael D. Glenn, Esquire
P. O. Box 917, Anderson, SC 29622-0917

(c) Archie I. Barron
401 Waterford Drive, Seneca, SC 29678

(d) John W. Fields, Esquire
P. O. Box 1287, Seneca, SC 29679

(e) R. Daniel Day, Esquire
P. O. Box 1587, Seneca, SC 29679

Q THE BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS ON GRIEVANCES AND DISCIPLINE REPORTS NO COMPLAINTS HAVE EVER BEEN FILED AGAINST YOU. THE JUDICIAL STANDARDS COMMISSION HAS NO RECORD OF ANY REPRIMANDS. THE RECORDS OF THE HIGHWAY DEPARTMENT, OCONEE COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE, SENECA CITY POLICE DEPARTMENT, SLED, AND THE F.B.I. ARE NEGATIVE. THE JUDGMENT ROLLS OF OCONEE COUNTY ARE NEGATIVE. THE FEDERAL COURT RECORDS SHOW NO JUDGMENTS OR CRIMINAL ACTIONS AGAINST YOU. AND I BELIEVE YOU WERE NAMED IN ONE CIVIL ACTION, ALONG WITH JUDGE BALLINGER AND THE SOLICITOR, AND MAYBE SOME OTHER FOLKS? A CIVIL RIGHTS MATTER?
A YES, SIR. IT WAS A P.C.R.-RELATED MATTER. IT WAS DISMISSED ALMOST IMMEDIATELY UPON FILING.
Q IS THERE ANY OTHER SUIT THAT YOU HAVE BEEN INVOLVED IN AS A PARTY?
A I THINK THERE WAS ONE OTHER MENTIONED IN THERE, I THINK -- THAT WAS ALSO DISMISSED -- BY ONE EARL NASH, WHO SUED THE SHERIFF, CLERK OF COURT, ALL FIVE JUDGES IN THE CIRCUIT, THE SOLICITOR, AND NUMEROUS OTHER INDIVIDUALS.
Q AND THAT WAS ALSO DISMISSED?
A YES, SIR.
Q AND YOUR HEALTH, JUDGE, IS STILL GOOD?
A YES, SIR.
Q AND YOUR STATEMENT OF ECONOMIC INTERESTS SHOWS NO CONFLICTS OF INTEREST OR OBLIGATIONS. THE COMMITTEE IS SATISFIED WITH THE NET WORTH STATEMENT AND CREDIT REPORTS THAT YOU'VE SUBMITTED. I SEE YOU'VE BEEN ON THE BENCH
FOR --
A FOR 17 YEARS.
Q -- 17 YEARS NOW. WE'VE HEARD FROM OTHER JUDGES TODAY. I GUESS YOU'VE OBSERVED SOME OF THOSE SAME CHANGES THEY HAVE REFLECTED ON?
A YES, SIR.
Q WHAT IS YOUR PHILOSOPHY ABOUT JUDICIAL TEMPERAMENT AND DEMEANOR ON THE BENCH?
A WELL, IN THAT REGARD, I HAVE, IN THE COURSE OF 17 YEARS, HELD COURT IN 35 OF THE 46 COUNTIES IN THIS STATE, 13 OF THE 16 JUDICIAL CIRCUITS. I'VE BEEN ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE IN THREE CIRCUITS. I SERVED AS SPECIAL CIRCUIT JUDGE PRIOR TO THE ADDITION OF THE NINE ROVING CIRCUIT JUDGES, APPROXIMATELY 400 TERMS OF BOTH GENERAL SESSIONS, COMMON PLEAS, AND NON-JURY COURT. DURING THAT TIME, IF THERE IS ONE ATTRIBUTE THAT PEOPLE HAVE COMMENTED ABOUT, WITH REGARD TO ME, TO ME -- AND OF COURSE, I REALIZE SOME COMMENTS TO JUDGES MIGHT AMOUNT TO STROKING A LITTLE BIT -- IS THAT I HAVE A GREAT DEAL OF PATIENCE. I THINK THAT DEMEANOR IS EXTREMELY IMPORTANT. I DON'T THINK ANYONE'S DEMEANOR IS PERFECT, NOR DO I FEEL MINE IS PERFECT. EACH PERSON HAS CERTAIN PRESSURES, SOMETIMES WITHIN AND SOMETIMES WITHOUT THE COURT, AND REACT TO IT. IN MY OPINION, WE SHOULD CONSCIOUSLY MAKE AN EFFORT NOT TO LET SUCH OUTSIDE PRESSURES INTERVENE IN A JUDGE'S DELIBERATIONS OR HIS CONDUCT OF COURT. WITHOUT TRYING TO INVOKE SYMPATHY, DURING THE PAST YEAR, THE ENTIRE 1991, I WAS UNDER SOME PRESSURE, BUT I CONTINUED TO HOLD COURT. MOST ATTORNEYS AND MOST LITIGANTS WHO CAME BEFORE ME COMMENTED THAT THEY DIDN'T SEE HOW I COULD AND STILL MAINTAIN MY COMPOSURE ON THE BENCH, DUE TO WHAT I WAS GOING THROUGH WITH MY WIFE; BUT I DID, AND AS A MATTER OF FACT, I SCHEDULED EXTRA TERMS OF COURT IN OCONEE COUNTY SPECIFICALLY SO THAT I WOULD STAY IN OCONEE COUNTY, SO THAT OCONEE COUNTY ENDED UP WITH ABOUT EIGHT EXTRA WEEKS OF COURT DURING 1991. BUT IN ANSWER TO YOUR QUESTION -- I DIDN'T MEAN TO GET OFF THE SUBJECT -- JUDICIAL DEMEANOR IS VERY IMPORTANT, AND I HAVE BEEN -- THE MOST RECENT COMPLAINTS ARE THE FIRST COMPLAINTS I HAVE EVER HEARD WITH REGARD TO MY DEMEANOR.
Q WHAT IS YOUR PHILOSOPHY OR PRACTICE WITH REGARD TO YOUR ROLE IN SETTLEMENT NEGOTIATIONS?
A A NUMBER OF YEARS AGO, I WENT TO THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT. AT THAT TIME, IT WAS JUST LEXINGTON, MCCORMICK COUNTY, AND SALUDA. JUDGE GRIFFITH HAD INSTITUTED PRETRIAL CONFERENCES, WHICH HAD NOT BEEN UTILIZED VERY MUCH IN THE STATE, AND I BECAME INTERESTED IN THAT; AND I ADOPTED IT IN THE TENTH CIRCUIT WHERE I WAS, AT THAT TIME, ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE. AT WHICH TIME, IT GIVES THE OPPORTUNITY FOR ATTORNEYS WITH THEIR CLIENTS TO GET TOGETHER AND TRY TO RESOLVE DIFFERENCES. AND SO I AM A STRONG PROPONENT OF SETTLEMENTS. OBVIOUSLY, SOME SETTLEMENTS COME BEFORE ME THAT I DO NOT APPROVE. THE LAW SAYS THAT, IF AN AGREEMENT IS GROSSLY UNFAIR TO EITHER ONE OF THE PARTIES, THE COURT SHOULD NOT APPROVE IT. AND I HAVE, ON OCCASION, WITH -- I FEEL -- PERFECT JUSTIFICATION, DECLINED TO APPROVE AGREEMENTS SUBMITTED TO ME, BECAUSE I FELT THERE WAS SOME OVERREACHING SOMETHING INVOLVED TO MAKE THE AGREEMENT GROSSLY UNFAIR TO ONE PARTY OR THE OTHER. NOW, WHEN IT'S BORDERLINE, I NORMALLY APPROVE IT; BUT ALL JUDGES HAVE A LITANY OF QUESTIONS THEY ASK OF LITIGANTS WHEN THEY COME BEFORE THEM TO MAKE SURE THERE'S NO COERCION, PRESSURE, WHAT HAVE YOU, AND WE ALWAYS GO THROUGH THAT. BUT AS FAR AS AGREEMENTS, I'M A STRONG PROPONENT OF THAT, AND IT GOES HAND-IN-GLOVE WITH MEDIATION, WHICH I'M ALSO A STRONG PROPONENT OF. WE HAVE NOT GOTTEN INTO IT IN OUR CIRCUIT, IN OUR AREA -- THE UPPER PART OF THE STATE -- LIKE THEY HAVE IN CHARLESTON, FOR INSTANCE. IT'S VERY EFFECTIVE IN CHARLESTON IN RESOLVING CUSTODY DISPUTES, ESPECIALLY, WHICH ARE THE MOST TRYING, MOST TAXING TYPE OF PROCEEDING THAT COMES BEFORE THE COURT. SO THERE ARE SEVERAL ATTORNEYS IN THE UPPER PART OF THE STATE THAT ARE NOW BECOMING TRAINED -- AND LAYMEN, TOO -- IN MEDIATION, SO THAT WE'LL HAVE SOME PERSON WHICH ATTORNEYS CAN REFER PEOPLE TO FOR MEDIATION IN CUSTODY DISPUTES.
CHAIRMAN POPE: DOES THE COMMITTEE HAVE QUESTIONS OF JUDGE CURETON?

Q JUDGE, I HOPE MY QUESTIONS AREN'T TOO IMPOSING, BUT I NOTICE THAT YOUR WIFE HAD PASSED. HAD SHE BEEN SICK FOR A LONG TIME?
A MY WIFE DEVELOPED A.L.S. IN JANUARY -- WELL, IT WAS DIAGNOSED IN JANUARY -- OF 1991, AND SHE COULDN'T SPEAK, AND THEN IT PROGRESSED. I DON'T KNOW IF YOU'RE FAMILIAR WITH A.L.S.; IT'S ALSO KNOWN AS LOU GEHRIG DISEASE. SO FROM JANUARY THROUGH UNTIL SHE DIED, SHE WAS COMPLETELY BEDRIDDEN. SHE WAS AMBULATORY, SOMEWHAT, FOR THE FIRST TWO OR THREE MONTHS. SHE COULD GET UP AND WALK A LITTLE BIT WITH SOME HELP. EVENTUALLY, SHE BECAME COMPLETELY IN A VEGETATIVE STATE, WHICH I ALLUDED TO A MOMENT AGO. IT REQUIRED AROUND-THE-CLOCK CARE. AND I TOOK CARE OF HER AT NIGHT, ALL NIGHT, AND THEN I HAD A HIRED LADY TO COME IN AND WORK, AND I HAD FRIENDS WHO CAME IN AND HELPED ALSO.
SENATOR MCCONNELL: OKAY. THANK YOU, SIR.
CHAIRMAN POPE: ANY OTHER QUESTIONS?
VICE-CHAIRMAN GENTRY: NO.

Q JUDGE, WE WOULD PROPOSE TO GO AHEAD AND HEAR FROM THE COMPLAINANTS, AND YOU HAVE THE OPTION OF COMING BACK EACH TIME A COMPLAINING WITNESS FINISHES, OR YOU CAN COME AT THE END AND REBUT ALL AT ONCE, WHICHEVER.
A IF IT'S APPROPRIATE, I WOULD PREFER TO WAIT TILL THEY ALL GET THROUGH. THERE'S A GREAT DEAL OF DUPLICATION IN THE COMPLAINTS. IN FACT, COMPLETE DUPLICATION IN ALL FOUR COMPLAINTS OF SOME AREAS. SO IT WOULD SAVE TIME, I THINK, FOR ME TO RESPOND, IN TOTO, TO ALL OF THEM. I ALSO, AS YOU HAVE NOTICED, HAVE BROUGHT 14 PEOPLE, 12 OF THEM ATTORNEYS, FROM VARIOUS PARTS OF THE STATE TO RESPOND ALSO TO SOME OF THE ALLEGATIONS THAT WERE MADE IN THOSE AFFIDAVITS.
Q WE'LL BE GLAD TO LET YOU CALL --
A I HOPE YOU HAVE THE ENDORSEMENT THAT WAS SENT IN, BECAUSE I RECEIVED THE ENDORSEMENTS OF 91 LAWYERS IN ANDERSON AND 23 IN OCONEE COUNTY, WHICH IS THE VAST MAJORITY IN BOTH COUNTIES.
Q THE RESOLUTIONS FROM THE LAWYERS IN THOSE COUNTIES IS PART OF THE RECORD, OR WILL BE MADE PART OF THE RECORD. AND WE WILL, AFTER THE COMPLAINING WITNESSES TESTIFY, ALLOW YOU TO PROCEED AND TO CALL AS MANY WITNESSES AS YOU WOULD LIKE. AND YOU CAN RESERVE YOUR RIGHT, IF YOU CHOOSE, TO RESPOND EARLIER YOURSELF. YOU CAN DO THAT ALSO. WE CAN PLAY THAT BY HEAR.
A THERE ARE SOME THINGS THAT I WOULD HAVE TO BE THE ONE TO RESPOND TO --
Q YES, SIR.
A -- AND THEN CALL PEOPLE TO TESTIFY.
Q OKAY. DO YOU NEED TO SAY ANYTHING ELSE AT THIS TIME, JUDGE?
A NO, SIR.

CHAIRMAN POPE: OKAY. WE'LL PROCEED. THE FIRST COMPLAINT IS LESLIE SHAYNE. WE'LL TAKE THEM IN THE ORDER THAT, I GUESS, THEY WERE FILED.

WHEREUPON, LESLIE J. SHAYNE, HAVING BEEN DULY SWORN AND CAUTIONED TO SPEAK THE TRUTH, THE WHOLE TRUTH, AND NOTHING BUT THE TRUTH, IS EXAMINED AND TESTIFIES AS FOLLOWS:

Q PLEASE STATE YOUR FULL NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD.
A LESLIE JAY SHAYNE. MY ADDRESS IS 210-A WEST MAIN STREET, WALHALLA, SOUTH CAROLINA.
Q MR. SHAYNE, WE DON'T HAVE A SOUND SYSTEM AND THE COURT REPORTER IS A GOOD WAYS OFF, SO TRY TO SPEAK UP, IF YOU CAN.
A (NODS HEAD.)
REPRESENTATIVE HODGES: MR. SHAYNE IS ALSO ONE OF THE CANDIDATES. ARE WE JUST GOING TO TAKE THE COMPLAINTS, AND THEN SCREEN HIM LATER?
CHAIRMAN POPE: THAT'S THE WAY WE THOUGHT WE WOULD DO IT.
REPRESENTATIVE HODGES: OKAY. JUST WANTED TO BE CLEAR ON THAT.
Q (BY CHAIRMAN POPE) ALL RIGHT, MR. SHAYNE. WE HAVE YOUR WITNESS AFFIDAVIT AS PART OF THE RECORD, BUT WE WOULD LIKE YOU TO EXPLAIN THAT IN AS MUCH DETAIL AS YOU REQUIRE.
A YES, SIR. I THINK MOST OF MY CRITICISM AND COMPLAINTS ARE DETAILED IN THE WITNESS AFFIDAVIT FORM. I WILL REVIEW IT. I THINK THE MAIN CRITICISM I HAVE OF JUDGE CURETON IS THAT HE'S EXTREMELY MOODY. WHEN YOU GO TO THE COURTHOUSE, YOU NEVER KNOW WHAT TO EXPECT, AND THIS IS REFLECTED IN THE TREATMENT OF LITIGANTS AND ATTORNEYS AND ALSO WITNESSES. AS FAR AS SPECIFIC EXAMPLES, OVER THE YEARS, I CAN TELL YOU IT'S HAPPENED MANY, MANY TIMES. IT'S HARD TO GIVE SPECIFIC EXAMPLES. I DO HAVE A COUPLE IN THE SIGNED AFFIDAVIT. WE HAD A TEMPORARY HEARING, AND JUDGE CURETON REMARKED THAT BOTH OF THE PARTIES WERE LYING ON THEIR FINANCIAL DECLARATIONS. THERE WAS NO TESTIMONY, NO EVIDENCE, CONCERNING THIS. IT WAS JUST A COMMENT HE MADE TO THE PARTIES, WHICH ACTUALLY UPSET MY CLIENT A GREAT DEAL, BECAUSE HE, OF COURSE, TOOK THE POSITION THAT HE WAS TELLING THE TRUTH ON THE FINANCIAL DECLARATION. AND THERE WAS NO BASIS WHATSOEVER TO MAKE THAT STATEMENT TO EITHER PARTY. THERE WAS NO TESTIMONY AND NO EVIDENCE OF THAT. I'VE BEEN IN THE COURTHOUSE SEVERAL TIMES AND SAID HELLO TO THE JUDGE, AND HE DIDN'T HAVE THE COURTESY TO EVEN RESPOND AND SAY HELLO BACK. I GUESS I HAVE A PERSONAL PROBLEM SAYING HELLO TO SOMEBODY; I EXPECT A RESPONSE. I DO A LOT OF DOMESTIC WORK, AND I WOULD SAY -- I'VE NEVER TAKEN AN OFFICIAL POLL OR SURVEY, BUT I WOULD SAY THAT FOUR OF THE FIVE PEOPLE WHO COME INTO MY OFFICE, WHEN THEY ASK ME WHO THE JUDGE IS GOING TO BE AND I SAY JUDGE CURETON, THEY HAVE SOME TYPE OF NEGATIVE RESPONSE: "I'D RATHER NOT APPEAR IN FRONT OF HIM. COULD YOU GET ME ANOTHER JUDGE?" "I'VE HAD A BAD EXPERIENCE." "MY FRIEND'S HAD A BAD EXPERIENCE." SOMETHING OF THAT NATURE. IN THE 11 YEARS I'VE BEEN IN OCONEE COUNTY, I'VE RECEIVED NO COMPLAINTS ABOUT JUDGE MCCLAIN, NO COMPLAINTS ABOUT JUDGE EDWARDS, JUST A FEW COMPLAINTS ABOUT JUDGE HALL -- VERY MINIMAL -- AND NO COMPLAINTS ABOUT THE OTHER JUDGES IN OUR CIRCUIT. SO I THINK IT'S UNUSUAL TO HAVE ALL YOUR COMPLAINTS ABOUT ONE SPECIFIC JUDGE. I ALSO SENT IN, AND I WOULD LIKE INCLUDED IN THE RECORD, IF YOU WOULD, A LETTER FROM THE SENECA JOURNAL, FROM REPORTER ROBIN BOYLE, WHO STATED THAT SHE RECEIVED APPROXIMATELY 20 COMPLAINTS IN 1991 CONCERNING JUDGE CURETON. SHE ALSO TOLD ME IN A PHONE CONVERSATION THAT SHE HAD RECEIVED NO COMPLAINTS ABOUT ANY OTHER JUDGE. THERE WAS A CASE I WAS RECENTLY INVOLVED IN -- THIS WAS OWENS VERSUS OWENS -- AND I WAS GUARDIAN AD LITEM, AND THERE WAS SOMETHING THAT BOTHERED ME IN THAT CASE. I WAS THE GUARDIAN AD LITEM, AND WE HAD CONCLUDED A VERY LONG HEARING. THERE WAS LENGTHY TESTIMONY. AFTER THE TESTIMONY, WE HAD PACKED UP OUR THINGS. THERE WERE THREE ATTORNEYS INVOLVED. WE HAD PACKED UP OUR THINGS. WE WERE GETTING READY TO LEAVE. I DON'T KNOW HOW MANY OF YOU DO DOMESTIC WORK, BUT A LOT OF TIMES IN A CONTESTED CASE, WE PACK UP OUR THINGS AND WE LEAVE, AND THE JUDGE RESERVES RULING AND RULES AT A LATER TIME. AND I ASSUMED THAT'S WHAT WE WERE DOING, AND WE ALL PACKED OUR STUFF UP GETTING READY TO LEAVE. AS WE WERE GETTING READY TO LEAVE, THE JUDGE HAD MET IN CAMERA WITH THE TWO CHILDREN INVOLVED IN THE CASE. AND VERY POLITELY I ASKED THE JUDGE, "YOUR HONOR, COULD YOU PLEASE REPORT TO US WHAT THE RESULT OF YOUR IN CAMERA HEARING WAS?" IN RESPONSE TO THAT, JUDGE CURETON, IN A VERY NASTY MANNER, TURNED AROUND TO ME AND SAID, "WHY DON'T YOU DO YOUR JOB AND I'LL DO MINE?" HE LATER APOLOGIZED FOR THAT, BUT I THINK CONDUCT LIKE THAT IS UNCALLED FOR. EVERYBODY'S UNDER PRESSURE, AND THAT'S JUDICIAL DEMEANOR THAT I DON'T THINK IS NECESSARY, AND I DON'T THINK IT SHOULD BE TOLERATED.
(REPRESENTATIVE GLOVER REJOINS THE HEARING PROCEEDINGS.)
AS FAR AS CONSISTENCY, IN A CASE I HAD SEVERAL YEARS AGO, ONE ATTORNEY ASKED FOR TESTIMONY AT A TEMPORARY HEARING. AGAIN, FOR THOSE OF YOU NOT FAMILIAR WITH THE RULES, IF THERE IS TESTIMONY -- TEMPORARY HEARINGS ARE SUPPOSED TO BE DECIDED BY AFFIDAVIT, UNLESS GOOD CAUSE IS SHOWN FOR TESTIMONY. IN THIS ONE CASE, NO GOOD CAUSE WAS SHOWN OR EVEN ARGUED. THE JUDGE ALLOWED TESTIMONY, BUT HE ALLOWED FIVE MINUTES OF DIRECT EXAMINATION AND THREE MINUTES OF CROSS-EXAMINATION. I THOUGHT THAT WAS UNFAIR BECAUSE, IF YOU'RE GOING TO ALLOW TESTIMONY, THEN I DON'T THINK YOU SHOULD ALLOW ONE SIDE MORE TIME THAN THE OTHER, OR EVEN RESTRICT THE TIME. SO I THOUGHT THAT WAS UNFAIR. BUT SEVERAL WEEKS LATER, IN ANOTHER CASE I HAD, TO BE QUITE HONEST, I DID NOT WANT TESTIMONY. MY CLIENT WOULD NOT HAVE MADE A GOOD WITNESS, SO I WORKED WITH THE OTHER ATTORNEY FOR TWO OR THREE HOURS TO SETTLE THE CASE. AND WHILE I WAS WALKING INTO THE COURTROOM, JUDGE CURETON SAID, "I DON'T KNOW WHY YOU JUST DIDN'T COME IN BECAUSE THERE'S NO TESTIMONY AT A TEMPORARY HEARING." AND TWO WEEKS EARLIER HE HAD ALLOWED TESTIMONY, AND I THOUGHT THAT WAS INCONSISTENT. IN ANOTHER CASE I HAD, THE JUDGE TOTALLY EXCLUDED TESTIMONY. IT WAS AN ORDER OF RULE TO SHOW CAUSE ABOUT A MAN PAYING HIS WIFE SOME MONEY AS A RESULT OF A PROPERTY SETTLEMENT. WE NEGOTIATED LONG ON THIS CASE, AND THE ORDER JUST SAID HE WAS TO PAY HER A CERTAIN AMOUNT BY SUCH-AND-SUCH A DATE. THE ONLY DEFENSE WE HAD WAS THIS WAS REALLY BASED ON HIM REFINANCING IT, BUT THAT WAS NOT INCLUDED IN THE ORDER AND THEY HAD AGREED ON THAT. THE ONLY DEFENSE WE HAD WAS TO TRY TO RAISE THAT THAT REALLY WAS THE BASIS OF IT. JUDGE CURETON EXCLUDED THAT TESTIMONY; THEN, AT THE END OF THE CASE, BASED HIS DECISION ON THAT TESTIMONY THAT DID NOT EVEN COME IN. I FIND THAT TERRIBLY INCONSISTENT. IT'S HARD TO ADVISE PEOPLE IF YOU DON'T KNOW WHAT THE LAW IS GOING TO BE FROM TIME TO TIME. IN ANOTHER CASE THAT I HAD, WE HAD A DEFENDANT FATHER WHO HAD PHYSICALLY ABUSED THE WIFE, WHO, WE FEEL, AVOIDED SERVICE. WE ONLY GOT HIM SERVED ABOUT TWO DAYS PRIOR TO THE HEARING. WHEN I WENT IN FOR THE HEARING, JUDGE CURETON TOLD ME WE COULDN'T HAVE THE HEARING BECAUSE IT WAS AN EMERGENCY HEARING, AND I DIDN'T HAVE THE WORD "EMERGENCY" IN THE PLEADINGS. I SAID THE AFFIDAVITS AND THE PLEADINGS, YOU KNOW, SHOWED ALL THE EMERGENCIES IN THERE. I DON'T THINK THERE'S A REQUIREMENT TO HAVE THE WORD EMERGENCY. I THOUGHT THAT WOULD BE HARSH, AND WE DISCUSSED IT FOR ABOUT 15 OR 20 MINUTES, AND HE SPECIFICALLY SAID WE COULDN'T HAVE THE HEARING. FIRST THING THAT HAPPENED WHEN WE WENT IN THE COURTROOM WAS THAT THE DEFENDANT TOLD THE JUDGE THAT HE DIDN'T HAVE ADEQUATE TIME TO GET AN ATTORNEY, THAT HE NEEDED EXTRA TIME, AND JUDGE CURETON TOLD HIM IT WAS AN EMERGENCY HEARING AND WE'LL PROCEED FORWARD. AGAIN, I THINK THAT'S INCONSISTENT. ON ONE OCCASION, I HAD AN ORDER OF RULE TO SHOW CAUSE THE DEFENDANT DID NOT PAY ATTORNEYS' FEES -- I BELIEVE IT WAS ATTORNEYS' FEES AND CHILD SUPPORT. WE PREPARED THE ORDER OF RULE. THE DEFENDANT MOVED TO THE STATE OF GEORGIA. WE COULDN'T FIND HIM. HE WAS OUT-OF-STATE. HE MOVED BACK ABOUT A YEAR AND A HALF LATER. IT'S QUITE COMMON IN FAMILY COURT, WHEN YOU HAVE AN ORDER OF RULE AND YOU'RE UNABLE TO GET IT SERVED, YOU JUST WHITE OUT THE TIME AND DATE AND REPLACE IT. SINCE IT WAS ABOUT A YEAR, YEAR AND A HALF LATER, WE CALLED THE COURT TO JUST TRY TO WHITE IT OUT AND PUT THE NEW DATE SINCE HE HAD MOVED BACK INTO THE COUNTY. WE WERE INFORMED WE WOULD HAVE TO RETYPE THE PAPERS OVER, WORD FOR WORD, WHICH, OF COURSE, IT WASN'T ON A WORD PROCESSOR. I DIDN'T SEE ANY PURPOSE FOR THAT OTHER THAN HASSLING ATTORNEYS. THERE WAS JUST NO POINT IN THAT. I WAS PARTICULARLY BOTHERED BY SOME DECISIONS OF THE COURT, AGAIN, IN CASES I WAS -- SOME CASES I WAS GUARDIAN AD LITEM IN. ONE CASE, OWENS VERSUS OWENS, WAS A RECENT CASE. IN THAT CASE, I MADE A STRONG RECOMMENDATION THAT CUSTODY BE GIVEN TO THE FATHER. JUDGE CURETON AWARDED CUSTODY TO THE MOTHER. IT WAS A CASE WHERE THE MOTHER HAD FOUR DIFFERENT RESIDENCES IN A YEAR AND HALF, HAD RECENTLY REMARRIED A MAN WITH A 14-YEAR HISTORY OF VIOLENCE. AFTER HER REMARRIAGE, THIS NEW HUSBAND HAD HIT HER OVER THE HEAD WITH A PLASTIC TRAY IN THE PRESENCE OF THE CHILDREN. THERE WAS BLOOD COMING DOWN HER EAR. THIS LADY HAD LIED TO ME, ADMITTEDLY LIED TO THE GUARDIAN AD LITEM. THERE WERE 20 FACTORS WHY CUSTODY SHOULD HAVE BEEN AWARDED TO THE FATHER, AND THE MOTHER ADMITTED THE FATHER WAS AN EXCELLENT FATHER. IN THAT CASE, I JUST DON'T UNDERSTAND THE DECISION THAT CUSTODY WAS AWARDED TO THE FATHER -- TO THE MOTHER. I'M SORRY. IN ANOTHER CASE THAT I THOUGHT WAS EXTREMELY HARSH, THIS WAS SEVERAL YEARS AGO, 1985. THE CASE WAS SWINNEY VERSUS SWINNEY. I REPRESENTED MR. SWINNEY. JUDGE CURETON ORDERED HIM TO PAY WHAT AMOUNTED TO 50 PERCENT OF HIS NET INCOME IN ALIMONY, SUPPORT, AND ATTORNEYS' FEES. THE MAN SIMPLY COULD NOT PAY THAT. THIS WAS IN SPITE OF THE FACT THAT HE HAD GIVEN HIS WIFE THE PROPERTY, A PLACE TO LIVE. HE HAD GIVEN HER THE VEHICLE. THIS WAS BY AGREEMENT. HE HAD NO VEHICLE HIMSELF. HE WAS BORROWING A RELATIVE'S VEHICLE TO GET TO AND FROM WORK. HE WAS ORDERED TO PAY 50 PERCENT OF HIS INCOME IN ALIMONY AND SUPPORT AND ATTORNEYS' FEES. HE ALSO WAS IN A CAR ACCIDENT. IT WAS TERRIBLY HARSH, TERRIBLY UNFAIR, TERRIBLY INEQUITABLE. I FELT, IN THAT CASE, THE COURT DID NOT GIVE FULL AND FAIR CONSIDERATION TO ANY ARGUMENTS I MADE. I'M NOT SAYING THIS IS THE REASON, BUT THERE WAS A POLITICALLY POWERFUL ATTORNEY ON THE OTHER SIDE AS OPPOSING COUNSEL. I FELT AS IF ARGUMENTS BY ME WERE NOT EVEN LISTENED TO. AND I THINK THIS BASICALLY SUMMARIZES AND EXPOUNDS ON SOME OF THE THINGS IN THE AFFIDAVIT.
CHAIRMAN POPE: DOES THE COMMITTEE HAVE SOME QUESTIONS FOR MR. SHAYNE?
REPRESENTATIVE HODGES: I'VE GOT A FEW.

Q IS THERE A PERSONALITY CONFLICT BETWEEN YOU AND THE JUDGE?
A NOT AT ALL. AS A MATTER OF FACT, I ALWAYS FELT I GET ALONG VERY WELL WITH JUDGE CURETON, OVER THE YEARS, SOCIALLY AND EVERYTHING. I HAVE NO BONES TO PICK. THERE'S NO PROBLEM BETWEEN US. I JUST THINK THESE ARE THINGS THAT NEED TO BE ADDRESSED THAT I'VE EXPERIENCED OVER THE YEARS.
Q IN TERMS OF TIME FRAME, HOW MUCH OF THIS THAT YOU TALKED ABOUT OCCURRED WITHIN THE LAST YEAR, YEAR AND A HALF?
A THE THINGS I'M TALKING ABOUT HAVE BEEN OCCURRING SINCE I'VE BEEN IN WALHALLA, SINCE 11 YEARS AGO.
Q OKAY, BUT THE SPECIFICS THAT YOU --
A SPECIFIC CASES?
Q YEAH. ARE ANY OF THESE --
A I WOULD SAY THE OWENS CASE WAS PROBABLY THE ONLY ONE I CITED WITHOUT GOING BACK IN.
Q OKAY.
A I DID NOT NOTICE ANY CHANGES OCCURRING OVER THE LAST YEAR. I HAVE NO PROBLEMS WITH HIS CONDUCT OVER THE LAST YEAR COMPARED TO OTHER TIMES. I DIDN'T NOTICE ANY DIFFERENCE.
CHAIRMAN POPE: ANY OF THE OTHER COMMITTEE MEMBERS HAVE QUESTIONS FOR MR. SHAYNE?
(NO RESPONSE.)

Q YOUR COMPLAINT, MR. SHAYNE, RELATES TO DEMEANOR, I SUPPOSE, AND ALSO INCONSISTENCY. YOU SEEM TO BE DWELLING ON THAT, BUT ANY OTHER SPECIFIC INSTANCES OF DEMEANOR? THERE WAS ONE, YOU SAID, IN WHICH HE SNAPPED AT YOU ABOUT YOU DOING YOUR JOB AND HE DOING HIS, FOR WHICH HE LATER APOLOGIZED. ARE THERE ANY OTHER SPECIFICS?
A I'VE HEARD JUDGE CURETON YELL AT A WITNESS BEFORE, YOU KNOW, SCREAM AT HIM, "ANSWER THE QUESTION." IT'S MOSTLY JUST BEING SHORT WITH WITNESSES, NOT TREATING THEM WITH COURTESY. AND AGAIN, I THINK THIS DEPENDS ON WHAT MOOD HE'S IN ON ANY GIVEN DAY.
CHAIRMAN POPE: I DON'T HAVE ANY OTHER QUESTIONS.
REPRESENTATIVE HODGES: JUST ONE QUESTION.

Q IT JUST SEEMS, FROM LOOKING AROUND THE ROOM TODAY, THAT APPARENTLY NOT EVERYBODY IN THE BAR SHARES YOUR OPINION OF JUDGE CURETON'S DEMEANOR. IS THE BAR DIVIDED OVER THIS QUESTION? I MEAN, IT'S A LITTLE UNUSUAL. I'VE NEVER SEEN ANYTHING QUITE LIKE THIS.
A IN MY OPINION, THE BAR IS DIVIDED OVER THIS. NOW, I'M NOT SURE EVERYBODY WILL COME FORWARD IN FRONT OF AN INCUMBENT JUDGE TO EVEN SAY ANYTHING. I'VE HEARD TALK FOR YEARS SINCE I'VE BEEN THERE; GRUMBLINGS IN THE HALLWAYS, THAT KIND OF THING. I KNOW THERE HAVE BEEN SOME LIAISON COMMITTEES. I HAVEN'T BEEN ON THEM, SO I CAN'T TELL YOU WHAT WAS DISCUSSED THERE. THERE HAVE BEEN, YOU KNOW, CRITICISMS, COMPLAINTS I HAVE HEARD FOR YEARS. BUT I THINK, YES, THE BAR IS DIVIDED.
Q BUT THERE ARE SOME MEMBERS HERE FROM THE BAR IN THAT CIRCUIT WHO APPARENTLY DON'T SHARE YOUR PERCEPTION OF JUDGE CURETON.
A I HAVEN'T TALKED TO THEM, BUT THAT'S PROBABLY TRUE.
CHAIRMAN POPE: THANK YOU, MR. SHAYNE.
SENATOR MCCONNELL: I'VE GOT ONE QUESTION.
CHAIRMAN POPE: OKAY.

Q THE INCIDENT YOU GIVE ABOUT THE TEMPORARY HEARINGS; IN THAT PARTICULAR INCIDENT, BEFORE YOU NEGOTIATED SETTLEMENT, YOU HAD NOT CHECKED TO FIND OUT WHETHER OR NOT THERE WAS GOING TO BE ANY TESTIMONY, HAD YOU?
A OKAY. ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT THE CASE WHERE HE ALLOWED TESTIMONY?
Q YES, SIR. YOU INDICATED IN ONE CASE, HE ALLOWED, AND YOU SAID THERE WAS NO GOOD CAUSE SHOWN.
A RIGHT.
Q WAS THERE ANY EXPLANATION OF WHY THE TESTIMONY WAS DESIRED? I MEAN, DID THE PERSON ASK FOR IT?
A THE PERSON ASKED FOR IT AND JUST SAID, "WE'D LIKE TO HAVE TESTIMONY HERE," AND I OBJECTED TO THAT, AND SAID, "THERE'S BEEN NO SHOWING OF GOOD CAUSE, JUST BECAUSE SOMEBODY WANTS TESTIMONY." IT WAS ALLOWED, AND I THINK THAT WAS A WRONG DECISION ALSO.
Q ALL RIGHT. AND IN THE SUBSEQUENT INCIDENT, YOU INDICATED THAT YOU SETTLED A CASE; AND THEN, WHEN YOU WALKED INTO THE COURTROOM, THE JUDGE SAID, "I DON'T KNOW WHY YOU JUST DIDN'T COME IN. THERE'S NO TESTIMONY IN TEMPORARY HEARINGS." BUT NOBODY ASKED FOR IT, DID THEY? OR DID THEY?
A NOBODY ASKED FOR IT. BUT BASED UPON THE FACT THAT TWO WEEKS EARLIER, HE HAD ALLOWED IT, AND I DID NOT WANT TESTIMONY AT THE TEMPORARY HEARING -- THIS TEMPORARY HEARING -- BECAUSE MY CLIENT WOULD NOT HAVE MADE A GOOD WITNESS, I DID SETTLE THE CASE.
Q BUT ISN'T IT THE USUAL PRACTICE THAT THERE IS NOT TESTIMONY, BUT IT IS WITHIN THE DISCRETION OF THE JUDGE?
A THAT'S RIGHT.
CHAIRMAN POPE: ANYTHING ELSE FROM THE COMMITTEE?
(NO RESPONSE.)
CHAIRMAN POPE: THANK YOU, MR. SHAYNE.
WITNESS: THANK YOU.

CHAIRMAN POPE: ROBERT L. SANFORD IS NEXT.

WHEREUPON, ROBERT L. SANFORD, HAVING BEEN DULY SWORN AND CAUTIONED TO SPEAK THE TRUTH, THE WHOLE TRUTH, AND NOTHING BUT THE TRUTH, IS EXAMINED AND TESTIFIES AS FOLLOWS:

Q PLEASE GIVE US YOUR FULL NAME AND ADDRESS.
A MY NAME IS ROBERT L. SANFORD, JR.; 809 EASTWOOD, ANDERSON, SOUTH CAROLINA.
Q WHAT IS YOUR OCCUPATION, MR. SANFORD?
A I'M RETIRED. DISABLED RETIRED.
Q WE HAVE RECEIVED YOUR AFFIDAVIT. WE'D LIKE FOR YOU TO EXPOUND ON IT A LITTLE BIT. IT SAYS HERE THAT YOU DO NOT FEEL THAT THE JUDGE CAN HEAR, AND THAT YOU FEEL THERE ARE UNEQUAL RIGHTS FOR MEN AND WOMEN IN JUDGE CURETON'S COURT. WOULD YOU ELABORATE ON WHAT YOUR COMPLAINT IS?
A YOU DON'T MIND, IF I READ THE ENTIRE --
Q NO, SIR, OR YOU CAN SUMMARIZE IT; YOU CAN EXPOUND ON IT. YOU'RE NOT RESTRICTED TO THESE WORDS.
A OKAY. I DIDN'T TURN IN A LOT OF INFORMATION TO YOU BECAUSE, FRANKLY SPEAKING, IT'S NOT RELATED TO JUDGE CURETON TOTALLY. JUDGE CURETON, IN MY OPINION, I JUST FELT THAT, BASED ON THE MEANING OF FAMILY COURT -- AND I'M A LAYMAN; I'M NOT AN ATTORNEY -- THAT BASED ON THE MEANING OF FAMILY COURT ITSELF, YOU SHOULD HAVE SOMEONE THERE WHO CAN LISTEN TO YOU. AND IF YOU'RE HAVING A PROBLEM AND YOU'RE ASKED TO SHOW CAUSE FOR A PARTICULAR PROBLEM, THAT YOU SHOULD BE ALLOWED TO DO THAT, AND TO BRING THE MATERIALS NECESSARY TO PRESENT TO THE JUDGE; AND NOT FOR THE JUDGE TO MAKE A DECISION AND GIVE YOU AN ORDER BASED ON NOT EVEN LOOKING AT THE MATERIALS. THAT WAS MY MAJOR COMPLAINT. THE OTHER THINGS THAT I HAVE, WHICH I DON'T REALLY -- IT'S NOT RELATED TO HIM. I THINK THAT'S SOMETHING I NEED TO TAKE UP WITH THE COURT ADMINISTRATION OFFICE, AND IT WOULDN'T EVEN HURT, IF YOU DON'T MIND, FOR ME TO GIVE YOU JUST A LITTLE BACKGROUND. I WON'T TAKE LONG BECAUSE I KNOW YOU'VE BEEN HERE ALL DAY TOO. AS I TOLD YOU, I'M ROBERT SANFORD, AND I'M A RETIRED CLEMSON -- I'M RETIRED FROM CLEMSON UNIVERSITY. AND I HAVE THREE SMALLER CHILDREN AND I HAVE TWO OTHER CHILDREN WHO LIVE IN SAVANNAH, GEORGIA. MY WIFE AND MYSELF OCCASIONALLY -- AND THERE ARE SOME ATTORNEYS HERE WHO KNOW US -- WE'VE GONE THROUGH SPLITS, YOU MIGHT SAY, OCCASIONALLY, PRIMARILY BECAUSE SHE WANTS A SALARY ALONG WITH OTHER EXPENSES AND OTHER MONIES. AGAIN, I KNOW THAT'S NOT RELATED TO JUDGE CURETON, BUT I CAN'T AFFORD TO DO ALL THAT. I CAN TAKE CARE OF MY CHILDREN, AND I DO THAT EXCEPTIONALLY WELL. NOT ONLY DO I TAKE CARE OF THEM FINANCIALLY, I TAKE CARE OF THEM PERSONALLY. AND MY CHILDREN NEEDED TO BE AT HOME IN SCHOOL IN ANDERSON. WE HAVE BETTER SCHOOLS THERE THAN THEY DO ON THE COAST. AND SHE'S ORIGINALLY FROM THE COAST. SHE TOOK THEM OUT OF SCHOOL, TOOK THEM DOWN THERE. AND MY LITTLE BOY, WHO HAS A HEART MURMUR, NEEDED TO HAVE GONE TO HIS PHYSICIAN. I APPLIED IN FAMILY COURT FOR A TEMPORARY ORDER, SO THAT I COULD GET MY CHILDREN TO TAKE THEM TO THE DOCTOR AND TAKE THEM TO PUT THEM BACK IN THEIR SCHOOL UNTIL MY WIFE MADE UP HER MIND AS TO WHAT SHE WANTED TO DO. UNDER THE TEMPORARY CUSTODY ORDER, A TEMPORARY CUSTODY ORDER, I ENDED UP WITH A WHOLE CONGLOMERATION OF OTHER ACTIONS BEING FILED UNDER THE CLAIM THAT I FILED FOR, YOU KNOW, FOR CUSTODY. THE ORIGINAL JUDGE IN THE CASE -- AND I HAVE A COPY OF THE TRANSCRIPT -- THE ORIGINAL JUDGE IN THE CASE WANTED ALIMONY, AND SPOUSAL SUPPORT, AND WHAT ELSE? CHILD SUPPORT WAS ASKED FOR. I WAS ALREADY PAYING CHILD SUPPORT. AND THE CHILD SUPPORT WHICH I WAS PAYING, I HAD WORKED AN AGREEMENT BECAUSE I WANTED MY CHILDREN TO BE WATCHED. I WAS PAYING IT TO SOCIAL SERVICES IN THE COUNTY WHERE SHE IS, AND CHECKS WERE MADE OUT TO EACH ONE OF MY INDIVIDUAL CHILDREN. JUDGE MCCLAIN RESERVED THE RIGHT TO MAKE ANY FURTHER CHANGES AND DENIED EVERYTHING THAT HAD BEEN ASKED FOR. BY SOME ERROR, AGAIN -- THIS IS NOT HIS FAULT, IN MY OPINION -- BY SOME ERROR IN THE CLERK'S OFFICE, WE ENDED UP WITH ANOTHER JUDGE. THIS OTHER JUDGE RULED ON EVERYTHING THAT HAD BEEN RESERVED AND DENIED. I BROUGHT A COPY OF THE TRANSCRIPT IN. AND BY THE WAY, MY WIFE AND MYSELF WERE IN THE PROCESS OF TRYING TO WORK THINGS OUT. SO I CALLED SOCIAL SERVICES IN THE COUNTY WHERE SHE WAS, TO EXPLAIN TO THEM WHAT WE WERE DOING. SO I WAS GIVING HER THE MONIES, YOU KNOW, THAT I WAS GIVING THEM, AND I WAS KEEPING RECEIPTS AND STUFF LIKE THAT. AND I WAS SENT THIS THING TO SHOW CAUSE IN COURT. I HAD BEEN ORDERED TO PAY, TO PAY -- NOT BY JUDGE CURETON, BUT BY JUDGE EDWARDS -- I HAD BEEN ORDERED TO PAY MONIES THAT I WAS ALREADY PAYING VOLUNTARILY AND PAY A FEE FOR THE MONIES THAT I WAS ALREADY PAYING. I THOUGHT THAT WAS LUDICROUS. YOU KNOW, THE FATHER IS TAKING CARE OF HIS CHILDREN. WHY ORDER HIM TO DO WHAT HE'S ALREADY DOING? I THOUGHT THAT MADE NO SENSE.
Q JUDGE CURETON ORDERED THIS?
A NO, NO. JUDGE CURETON DIDN'T. AND I READ WHERE, IF AN ORDER FROM A JUDGE HAD BEEN MADE AND NO TESTIMONY HAD BEEN GIVEN -- BECAUSE THIS WAS SOMETHING THAT WAS DICTATED TO ME, AND I DIDN'T AGREE TO IT -- THAT THAT ORDER COULD BE OVERTURNED. ALONG WITH THAT -- SO I BROUGHT ALL MY INFORMATION IN TO JUDGE CURETON WHEN I RECEIVED THIS ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE, AND I ALSO BROUGHT IN INFORMATION, OF COURSE, CONCERNING MY FINANCIAL STATUS, WHICH PART OF MY MONIES WERE BEING HELD. BUT I STILL WAS DOING WHAT I WAS EXPECTED TO DO FOR MY CHILDREN. WELL, WHEN I WENT TO JUDGE CURETON'S COURT, I HAD MY MATERIALS AND I HAD A COPY OF THE ORIGINAL TRANSCRIPT OF THE CASE WHICH WAS RESERVED, WHICH WOULD HAVE SHOWN THAT THE ORDER THAT WAS GIVEN WAS NOT WITHIN THE FRAMEWORK, AS I UNDERSTAND IT -- AGAIN, LIKE I SAY, I'M A LAYMAN -- AS I UNDERSTAND IT OF THE COURT. JUDGE CURETON WOULD NOT LISTEN TO ANYTHING THAT I HAD, LITERALLY, AND MADE A RULING AND CITED ME WITH A FINE. I COULDN'T UNDERSTAND THAT.
Q DID YOU HAVE A LAWYER REPRESENTING YOU?
A NO, I DID NOT. AND AS --
Q DID YOUR WIFE HAVE A LAWYER?
A YES. SHE HIRED ONE AT MY EXPENSE. AND I COULDN'T UNDERSTAND WHY, IF I WAS THE PLAINTIFF IN THIS PARTICULAR CASE, WHY -- AND AGAIN, THIS HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THIS, LIKE I SAY. I WAS HOPING I HAD TIME TO GO BY THE COURT ADMINISTRATOR'S OFFICE TODAY BECAUSE I WAS SUPPOSED TO LEAVE ALL OF THIS INFORMATION WITH THEM. I'M A PLAINTIFF IN THE CASE. ONLY A TEMPORARY CUSTODY ORDER WAS EVER HEARD, THAT I FILED, UNDER THE CLAIM NUMBER THAT I FILED IN THE COURT. ALL OF MY WIFE'S MATERIALS WERE HEARD IN COURT -- WERE HEARD IN COURT -- AND WHEN I CALLED THE CLERK'S OFFICE, THE ONLY THING THEY COULD TELL ME WAS THAT MINE WAS MISPLACED. AND I JUST FELT, BASED ON THE WAY I WAS TREATED IN COURT, THAT I NEEDED SOMEONE TO LISTEN TO WHAT I HAD TO SAY. I DIDN'T REALIZE THAT JUDGE CURETON HIMSELF WAS GOING THROUGH A LOT OF PROBLEMS. I DIDN'T REALIZE THAT, AND I APOLOGIZE IF I -- BUT I'M A DISTRAUGHT PARENT ALSO, AND I'M CONCERNED ABOUT MY CHILDREN. VERY MUCH SO. THEY'RE MY LIFE, AS FAR AS I'M CONCERNED, AND THEIR UPBRINGING AND WELL-BEING IS MY UTMOST CONCERN. AND I JUST WANTED YOU TO LISTEN. THAT WAS ALL.
Q WHAT WAS THE DATE OF THE ORDER?
A WHICH ORDER, YOUR HONOR -- I MEAN, EXCUSE ME.
Q THE ORDER THAT YOU DISAGREED WITH THAT JUDGE CURETON PASSED.
A IT WAS THE FIRST -- IT WAS JANUARY 20TH.
Q OF '92?
A YES, OF '92.
Q DO YOU HAVE A COPY OF IT?
A YES.
Q WHY DON'T YOU PASS THAT TO --
A IF YOU WANT ME TO, I CAN JUST GIVE IT TO --
Q HE'LL MAKE A COPY FOR US.
A OKAY.
(DOCUMENT IS COLLECTED FROM WITNESS FOR PHOTOCOPYING AND INCLUSION IN THE RECORD.)
Q NOW, WHAT OTHER DOCUMENTS DID YOU BRING?
A I DON'T REALLY THINK THAT ANYTHING I HAVE IS RELATED HERE. THERE ARE THINGS, IN MY OPINION, THAT SHOULD BE ENTERED WITH THE COURT ADMINISTRATOR'S OFFICE, BECAUSE I FEEL THEY DEAL MORE WITH THE CLERK WHO DID NOT GET MY PAPERWORK TO THE JUDGE, AS SHE SHOULD HAVE. AND SHE TOTALLY NEGATED, AND SHE JUST DIDN'T CONSIDER MY PAPERWORK AT ALL. AND I DON'T SEE HOW THAT CAN HAPPEN. I REALLY DON'T SEE HOW THAT COULD HAPPEN.
Q WELL, WE DON'T HAVE VERY MUCH IN THE WAY OF RECORDS TO LOOK AT, AND I CERTAINLY DON'T KNOW WHAT WAS TESTIFIED TO. HOW LONG DID THIS HEARING LAST BEFORE JUDGE CURETON?
A IT WAS ONLY -- WHAT? -- THREE OR FOUR MINUTES, JUDGE CURETON? AT THE MOST?
JUDGE CURETON: I'LL RESPOND AT THE APPROPRIATE TIME, MR. SANFORD.
WITNESS: OH, OKAY.
A AND I JUST FEEL THAT, AS MEN WHO ARE WILLING TO TAKE CARE OF THEIR FAMILIES, WE SHOULD NOT BE MADE SUBSERVIENT TO WOMEN. WE SHOULDN'T BE MADE THAT WAY. I DON'T THINK -- NO PARTY SHOULD BE MADE, WHEN YOU'RE DEALING WITH YOUR CHILDREN, SUBSERVIENT; BECAUSE MEN AND WOMEN HAVE CHILDREN, NOT JUST WOMEN. AND I REALLY FEEL THAT WE SHOULD BE TREATED THAT WAY, AND I FEEL THAT THE COURT SHOULD TAKE A POSITION THAT WE MEN ARE FATHERS, AND THAT WE ARE NOT JUST SOMEONE TO FORK OUT SOME CASH, OR FOR THE COURTS TO SEND OUT MONEY TO A FEMALE PERSON TO TAKE CARE OF OUR CHILDREN, AND OUR CHILDREN HAVE NO CONTACT WITH US AT ALL. I FEEL THAT I HAVE A ROLE AS A FATHER.
Q LET ME ASK YOU SOMETHING ABOUT THE PROCEEDING.
A YES, SIR.
Q I'LL PROBABLY BE ABLE TO UNDERSTAND IT BETTER WHEN I GET A COPY OF THAT ORDER BACK. YOU STARTED OFF BY FILING FOR A CHANGE OF CUSTODY, OR TEMPORARY CUSTODY, OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT? YOU WERE THE PLAINTIFF?
A I WAS THE PLAINTIFF, YES.
Q AND YOU WERE DOING THAT ON YOUR OWN?
A YES.
Q WITHOUT A LAWYER?
A WELL, I THINK, IF YOU READ WHAT I HAVE, IT'S APPROPRIATE.
Q AND THEN YOUR WIFE COUNTERCLAIMED AGAINST YOU? OF COURSE, THAT CAN HAPPEN. THAT'S ONE OF THE DANGERS OF ANYBODY FILING ANY TYPE --
A I WASN'T CONCERNED ABOUT THAT.
Q -- PETITION. WELL, THAT'S ONE OF THE HAZARDS OF NOT HAVING A LAWYER ALSO.
A YES.
Q BUT ANYTIME A PETITION IS FILED IN THE FAMILY COURT, OR A COMPLAINT, THERE'S ALWAYS THE POSSIBILITY OF A COUNTERCLAIM --
A YES.
Q -- OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT BEING FILED, AND SOME PEOPLE DON'T FILE COMPLAINTS BECAUSE THEY DON'T WANT TO DEAL WITH THE POSSIBLE HASSLE OR PROTRACTED LITIGATION OF THE RESULT FROM A COUNTERCLAIM. SO WHAT YOU'RE COMPLAINING ABOUT IS THAT YOU DIDN'T REALIZE THIS HAZARD, I SUPPOSE, AND THEN YOU END UP --
A MY COUNTERCLAIMS WERE FILED. THEY WERE FILED. MY COUNTERCLAIMS WERE FILED; THE CLERK IGNORED THEM. SHE SAID SHE OVERLOOKED THEM AND THAT SHE WAS GOING TO DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT, BUT ALL THIS OTHER STUFF HAD ALREADY HAPPENED. IT HAD ALREADY HAPPENED, BUT I HAD THE MATERIALS NECESSARY TO SHOW WHAT WAS GOING ON AND WHAT HAD TAKEN PLACE AND A COPY OF THE PREVIOUS TRANSCRIPT THAT I WAS GOING TO SHOW -- THAT I WANTED TO SHOW JUDGE CURETON WHERE THOSE THINGS HAD BEEN RESERVED BY THE INITIAL JUDGE, BUT THEY HAD BEEN RULED ON BY A SUBSEQUENT JUDGE.
Q THE CLERK IS THE ONE THAT MISPLACED THE DOCUMENTS YOU WANTED TO GET TO JUDGE CURETON?
A NO. I WANTED TO GET -- I HAD FILED FOR A REVIEW OF THE MATERIALS -- A REVIEW OF THE ORDER THAT HAD BEEN FILED BY JUDGE EDWARDS, BECAUSE JUDGE MCCLAIN HAD RESERVED THAT AND DENIED THOSE THINGS. THEY HAD ALREADY BEEN DENIED. AND AN ORDER, A SUBSEQUENT ORDER, WAS RESERVED -- AND IT'S WRITTEN IN THE TRANSCRIPT -- RESERVED BY HIM. JUDGE EDWARDS RULED ON THEM ANYWAY, AND I WANTED TO SHOW JUDGE CURETON WHAT HAD GONE ON. I WASN'T ALLOWED TO DO THAT.
CHAIRMAN POPE: OKAY. IF WE COULD TAKE ONE SECOND HERE, WE'LL GET THE COPY BACK.
(BRIEF PAUSE, DURING WHICH THE COMMITTEE MEMBERS EXAMINE DOCUMENTS.)
Q THE ORDER YOU GAVE US SHOWS YOU'RE THE DEFENDANT, RATHER THAN THE PLAINTIFF.
A THAT'S TRUE, AND I AM THE PLAINTIFF. IF YOU WANT TO SEE THE OTHER PAPERWORK, HERE IT IS, THE WHOLE FILE OF IT (INDICATING).
CHAIRMAN POPE: DOES THE COMMITTEE HAVE SOME QUESTIONS?

Q OF COURSE, THIS ORDER THAT WE HAVE, MR. SANFORD, YOU WERE RULED IN COURT FOR NOT PAYING CHILD SUPPORT?
A YES.
Q OKAY, SIR.
A AND I WAS SENDING CHILD SUPPORT TO SOCIAL SERVICES IN JASPER COUNTY, VOLUNTARILY. THEN IT WAS MADE MANDATORY BY JUDGE EDWARDS, AND HE WAS THE SECOND JUDGE. THE FIRST JUDGE, WHEN IT WAS ASKED FOR IN COURT -- WHO WAS JUDGE MCCLAIN -- DENIED IT BECAUSE IT WAS ALREADY BEING DONE VOLUNTARILY, AND HE RESERVED THE RIGHT TO MAKE ANY CHANGES AT ANY FUTURE DATE.
VICE-CHAIRMAN GENTRY: I DON'T HAVE ANY FURTHER QUESTIONS.
SENATOR MCCONNELL: MR. CHAIRMAN?
CHAIRMAN POPE: YES.

Q MR. SANFORD, AT THE TIME THAT YOU APPEARED BEFORE JUDGE CURETON, THEN, THERE WAS AN ORDER IN EFFECT FOR YOU TO PAY CHILD SUPPORT; EITHER DIRECT OR THROUGH THE COURT, ONE OF THE TWO. IS THAT CORRECT?
A IT WAS AN ORDER TO PAY DIRECTLY THROUGH THE COURT. I WAS PAYING IT TO SOCIAL SERVICES IN JASPER COUNTY.
Q ALL RIGHT. SO WHEN YOU APPEARED, THEN, BEFORE JUDGE CURETON, IT WAS ON A QUESTION OF HAVING VIOLATED THAT COURT ORDER?
A I PRESUME THAT'S WHAT IT WAS, THAT I WASN'T PAYING IT AND PAYING A FEE TO PAY CHILD SUPPORT THROUGH THE COURT SYSTEM IN ANDERSON COUNTY.
Q ALL RIGHT. SO THAT THE MATTER FOR JUDGE CURETON, THEN, WAS WHETHER OR NOT YOU HAD COMPLIED WITH ANOTHER JUDGE'S ORDER; IS THAT CORRECT?
A I THOUGHT ALSO IT WAS HIS RESPONSIBILITY TO SEE THAT THE INITIAL JUDGE IN THE CASE HAD RESERVED THAT RIGHT AND FOR ME TO SHOW HIM THAT, SINCE I WAS THERE TO SHOW CAUSE; AND THAT I WAS, IN FACT, DOING THIS.
Q SO YOUR COMPLAINT, THEN, IS NOT WITH THE FACT OF WHETHER OR NOT HE FOUND YOU IN CONTEMPT, BUT YOU FEEL LIKE HE SHOULD HAVE LOOKED BEHIND THE OTHER JUDGE'S ORDER TO THE FIRST JUDGE, AND UNDONE A PREVIOUS JUDGE'S ORDER?
A OR SENT IT BACK. NOT NECESSARILY UNDO IT, BECAUSE I DIDN'T THINK THAT WAS UP TO HIM. I THOUGHT THAT WAS SOMETHING THAT, SINCE IT WAS DONE IMPROPERLY, FOR IT TO BE SENT BACK. AND, YOU KNOW, IF THE RESPONSIBILITY WAS TO MAKE SURE THE CHILDREN WERE BEING TAKEN CARE OF, A SIMPLE 25-CENT PHONE CALL WOULD HAVE TAKEN CARE OF THAT BY CALLING SOCIAL SERVICES IN THE COUNTY WHERE SHE IS. THAT'S ALL.
Q AND AT THE TIME THAT HE HAD THE CASE BEFORE HIM, THE CLERK HAD NOT PUT YOUR PAPERS IN THE FILE?
A NO. AND THEY HAD BEEN DULY STAMPED, AND EVERYTHING, THERE.
CHAIRMAN POPE: ANYTHING ELSE FROM THE COMMITTEE?
VICE-CHAIRMAN GENTRY: NO, SIR.
CHAIRMAN POPE: OKAY. THANK YOU, MR. SANFORD.
WITNESS: THANK YOU ALL, VERY MUCH. AGAIN, JUDGE CURETON, I'M SORRY ABOUT YOUR WIFE.

CHAIRMAN POPE: LARRY BRANDT.

WHEREUPON, LARRY C. BRANDT, BEING DULY SWORN AND CAUTIONED TO TELL THE TRUTH, THE WHOLE TRUTH, AND NOTHING BUT THE TRUTH, IS EXAMINED AND TESTIFIES AS FOLLOWS:

Q ALL RIGHT, SIR. IF YOU WOULD, JUST GIVE US YOUR FULL NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD.
A MY NAME IS LARRY BRANDT. I'M AN ATTORNEY PRACTICING AT 205 WEST MAIN STREET, IN WALHALLA. I'M HERE, AND I GAVE A BRIEF LETTER WHICH BASICALLY STATES OPINIONS, PRETTY MUCH OPINIONS; THERE ARE NO DETAILS IN THERE. THESE WERE OPINIONS AND CONCLUSIONS THAT I CAME TO BASED UPON MY OWN PERSONAL EXPERIENCES, AND ALSO I GUESS INFLUENCED SOMEWHAT BY SOME OF THE OTHER MEMBERS OF THE BAR AND, MAYBE, THEIR COMPLAINTS. I'VE NOT PRACTICED IN JUDGE CURETON'S COURT FOR THE PAST TWO YEARS. I QUIT PRACTICING FAMILY COURT. I'VE NEVER REALLY PARTICULARLY LIKED IT. AND WHILE I CANNOT TELL YOU THAT JUDGE CURETON RAN ME OUT OF THERE, I CAN TELL YOU THAT THE INCONSISTENCIES, IN MY OPINION, WERE SUCH THAT IT BECAME INCREASINGLY DIFFICULT TO ADVISE CLIENTS ON WHAT THE LAW WOULD BE, FROM CASE TO CASE; SO I JUST DECIDED THAT, BASICALLY, IF I COULD MAKE A LIVING WITHOUT IT, THAT'S WHAT I WOULD DO. JUDGE CURETON CAME TO WALHALLA WHEN I WAS JUST BACK OUT OF THE AIR FORCE -- HADN'T BEEN THERE LONG -- AND JUDGE CURETON BECAME OUR FAMILY COURT JUDGE. FROM THE VERY BEGINNING, I GUESS HE AND I DIFFERED ON INTERPRETATIONS OF THINGS; INTERPRETATIONS OF FACTS AND THE APPLICATION OF THE LAW. FINALLY, THERE WAS A CASE BACK SOMETIME IN '82 WHERE JUDGE CURETON FOUND MY CLIENT IN CONTEMPT OF A COURT ORDER FOR DOING SOMETHING TO A PERSON WHICH BASICALLY I FELT LIKE THERE WAS ABSOLUTELY NOTHING IN THAT COURT ORDER TO RESTRAIN THAT PERSON FROM THAT CONDUCT, ALTHOUGH THAT CONDUCT PROBABLY -- WASN'T "PROBABLY" -- WAS UNACCEPTABLE IN SOCIETY, BUT THERE WERE OTHER WAYS OF HANDLING IT. ALSO, IT INVOLVED AN ASSAULT, AND THE PARTY THAT HAD BEEN ASSAULTED HAD TAKEN A WARRANT IN THE MAGISTRATE'S COURT AND A FINE HAD BEEN PAID. I APPEARED AT THAT HEARING AND MADE AN OBJECTION TO THE JURISDICTION OF THE COURT, STATING DOUBLE-JEOPARDY. I THINK THERE'S BEEN A DECISION SINCE THIS TIME. IN FAIRNESS TO THE JUDGE, THERE HAD BEEN NO CASE LAW IN SOUTH CAROLINA ADDRESSING THAT POINT AT THAT TIME, PER SE; BUT THERE WAS A LOT OF LAW OUT THERE INDICATING THE CORRECTNESS OF THAT POSITION. JUDGE CURETON LISTENED TO THE EVIDENCE AND DISREGARDED THE DOUBLE-JEOPARDY ARGUMENT, ISSUING HIS ORDER AND BASICALLY STATING IN THE COURTROOM THAT IT MAY NOT BE A VIOLATION OF THE STRICT LANGUAGE OF THE RESTRAINING ORDER, BUT IT VIOLATED THE SPIRIT AND INTENT OF THAT ORDER, AND HE SENTENCED MY LADY TO SOME JAIL TIME AND TO PAY SOME HOSPITAL BILLS, BUT SUSPENDED -- I THINK SUSPENDED THE JAIL TIME UPON PAYMENT OF THE FINE. NATURALLY, I WAS UPSET, AND I WALKED OUT. MY CLIENT DID MAKE A COMMENT TO ME AFTER THAT, SAID, "HE DOESN'T LIKE YOU VERY WELL, DOES HE?" AND I PASSED THAT ALONG AS, WELL, YOU KNOW, NATURALLY WE DON'T SEE EYE-TO-EYE ON A LOT OF THINGS. BUT ANYWAY, WE STARTED THE APPELLATE PROCESS AND ANOTHER ATTORNEY GOT INVOLVED ON THE OTHER SIDE OF THE CASE, AND ONE DAY I SAW JUDGE CURETON DOWN IN THE CANTEEN AT THE COURTHOUSE, AND I THINK JUDGE CURETON ASKED ME WHAT I'D BEEN DOING THAT MORNING, AND I MADE A COMMENT TO THE EFFECT THAT I'D BEEN WORKING TRYING TO STRAIGHTEN OUT THE MESS HE HAD CAUSED IN THE HARDEN CASE. I WALKED AWAY. A LITTLE BIT LATER, HIS SECRETARY CALLED AND SAID JUDGE CURETON WISHED TO SEE ME IN CHAMBERS. I WENT BACK UP THERE, AND AT THAT POINT IN TIME, JUDGE CURETON, AGAIN, WAS VERY CORDIAL AND NICE -- I HAVE NO COMPLAINT ABOUT THE WAY I WAS TREATED -- AND HE BASICALLY STATED THAT IN OUR DISAGREEMENTS BEFORE, HE HAD NEVER THOUGHT IT WAS PERSONAL; HE ALWAYS THOUGHT IT WAS A PROFESSIONAL DIFFERENCE OF OPINION. BUT BECAUSE OF THE COMMENT, THE WAY I HAD MADE IT, THAT HE THOUGHT IT WAS PERSONAL IN THIS CASE. HE AND I THEN HAD A TALK, AND I WAS VERY FORWARD WITH THE JUDGE, AND I HOPE HE WAS OPEN AND HONEST WITH ME; BUT I TOLD HIM, AT THAT TIME, THAT I THOUGHT HE WAS VERY INCONSISTENT IN APPLYING THE RULES OF LAW, AND IT WAS GETTING INCREASINGLY DIFFICULT FOR ME TO KNOW WHAT TO TELL CLIENTS AND TO KNOW WHAT WAS GOING TO BE THE RULE FROM DAY TO DAY. I THEN TOLD HIM I THOUGHT THERE WERE CERTAIN ATTORNEYS HE WAS A LITTLE BIT FAVORED TO, AND THAT THERE WERE OTHER COMPLAINTS OF THAT NATURE, AND THAT IN THE CASE -- THAT I ALSO THOUGHT HE MIGHT EVEN BE INTIMIDATED BY SOME, BECAUSE, TO ME, IT APPEARED THAT THE SCREAMERS AND YELLERS GOT ALL THE CLOSE CALLS ON ALL THE OBJECTIONS OR EVIDENTIARY MATTERS IN HIS COURT. AND I EXPLAINED TO HIM THAT I FELT LIKE THE JUDICIARY, THAT THEY COULD NOT JUST IGNORE THE BOUNDS OF THE LAW AND RULE IN ANY CASE WHATEVER THEY WISHED TO DO; THAT WE NEEDED SOME STRUCTURE; AND THE PEOPLE, THE LITIGANTS, EVEN, NEEDED THE MESSAGE CARRIED FROM THE FAMILY COURT THAT THERE WERE RULES OF CONDUCT THAT WOULD BE TOLERATED OR NOT TOLERATED, AND THOSE RULES THEN -- WE GO BY THOSE RULES, AND YOU DON'T KEEP CHANGING UP ON PEOPLE. WE HAD A PRETTY GOOD DISCUSSION. I DON'T KNOW HOW LONG IT LASTED, BUT AT LEAST I MADE THOSE CRITICISMS AND WE TALKED IN DETAIL ABOUT THAT, FACE-TO-FACE. WE PARTED. I CONTINUED TO GO IN HIS COURT. I CANNOT TELL YOU THAT -- I'M NOT HERE TO TRY TO TELL YOU THAT HE PUNISHED ME FOR THAT CONVERSATION, BECAUSE I DON'T THINK HE DID. BUT I STILL CONTINUED TO HAVE PROBLEMS WITH WHAT I PERCEIVED AS INCONSISTENCIES IN HIS RULINGS AND HIS APPLICATION OF THE RULES. WITHOUT GOING AND TRYING TO RETRY CASES, IN THREE AREAS, THE BEST INTERESTS OF THE CHILDREN -- IN THE 14 YEARS I PRACTICED IN HIS COURT, I NEVER FIGURED OUT WHAT HE MEANT BY THAT, BECAUSE IT SEEMS TO CHANGE. THE AFFIDAVIT RULE WAS A NEW RULE THAT CAME IN NOT TOO LONG BEFORE I QUIT, IN FAMILY COURT, AND I NEVER HAVE FIGURED OUT EXACTLY WHAT THEY WANT IN AFFIDAVITS. I CAN ONLY TELL YOU ON ONE OCCASION, HE FUSSED AT ME AND ANOTHER ATTORNEY BECAUSE OF OUR AFFIDAVITS, AND HE MADE THE CRITICISM IN FRONT OF OUR CLIENTS ABOUT THE LENGTH, ABOUT THE -- I GUESS ALL OF US WERE GUILTY PRACTITIONERS OF PACKING IT WITH HEARSAY AND EVERYTHING ELSE, ON THE TEMPORARIES, AND I NEVER REALLY UNDERSTOOD -- I GUESS THE AFFIDAVIT RULE IS AN EXCEPTION TO THE HEARSAY RULE. BUT HE SEEMED TO WANT THOSE THINGS TO BE A PAGE OR SO LONG, AND NOT -- ON TEMPORARIES -- NOT VERY LENGTHY. I ATTEMPTED TO COMPLY, AND CONTINUED TO GO UP THERE AND MEET OTHER AFFIDAVITS THAT WERE SEVERAL PAGES LONG. BASICALLY, WHAT HE HAD CRITICIZED ME FOR DOING AND TOLD ME HE DIDN'T WANT IN THERE, HE WAS ACCEPTING. WELL, I SLIPPED BACK INTO DOING IT THE OLD WAY, TOO, AND HE NEVER SAID ANYTHING ELSE TO ME ABOUT THAT. BUT I FOUND THAT WAS A LITTLE BIT INCONSISTENT; IF HE WAS GOING TO MAKE THE RULE CONSISTENT, THEN HE OUGHT TO LET EVERYBODY KNOW WHAT HE EXPECTED, LET THEM KNOW THE STANDARD, SO THAT WE COULD COMPLY. ANOTHER ISSUE THAT I ALWAYS FOUND -- THAT I COULDN'T FIGURE OUT WHAT HE WANTED FROM CASE TO CASE WAS THE CORROBORATION RULE. "CORROBORATION RULE" MEANING WHAT IT TAKES TO CORROBORATE A DIVORCE ON THE GROUNDS OF ADULTERY OR ANY OTHER GROUNDS. I HAD A CASE ONCE UPON A TIME WHERE MY CLIENT HAD DENIED ADULTERY, CONTESTED THE CASE. AND THE ONLY CORROBORATION, AS I RECALL, IN THAT CASE, WAS THAT THE WIFE SUSPECTED HIM; HE TOLD HER HE HAD A GIRLFRIEND, BASICALLY; AND THEY PRODUCED TESTIMONY THAT MY CLIENT WAS SEEN RIDING DOWN THE RODE WITH A LADY IN THE CAR, BUT THE TESTIMONY WAS THAT SHE WAS ON HER SIDE AND THERE WASN'T ANY AFFECTION GOING ON. NOT TOO LONG AFTER THAT, I GO UP THERE ON AN UNCONTESTED MATTER, AND MY CORROBORATION WAS BASICALLY THAT THERE WAS AN ADMISSION OF "A FRIEND." NO ADMISSION OF SEXUAL INTERCOURSE, OR ANYTHING; BUT ADMISSION OF "A FRIEND," AND SAW THEM DANCING AND HAD A WITNESS SAY THEY HAD SEEN THEM DANCING IN A NIGHTCLUB. JUDGE CURETON BASICALLY TOLD ME -- CALLED A TIME-OUT AND TOLD ME I HAD TO HAVE MORE THAN THAT; THAT THAT WAS NOT SUFFICIENT CORROBORATION. I DIDN'T SEE THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE TWO, AND DIDN'T UNDERSTAND WHY, IN A CONTESTED CASE, THE CORROBORATION RULE SEEMED TO ME TO BE VERY RELAXED; IN AN UNCONTESTED CASE WHERE EVERYTHING WAS ADMITTED, THAT ALL OF A SUDDEN, I HAD TO JUMP THROUGH ALL KINDS OF HOOPS TO PROVE CORROBORATION. INCONSISTENCY. WHICHEVER WAY HE WANTED TO PLAY IT, ALL I WANTED WAS A CONSISTENT AND LEVEL PLAYING FIELD. I HAD ANOTHER INCIDENCE, WHEN WE TALK ABOUT A LEVEL PLAYING FIELD -- AND I DON'T KNOW WHETHER THIS HAS TO DO WITH PERSONALITIES INVOLVED, OR NOT. OTHER OF THE ATTORNEYS INVOLVED IN THESE CASES I'M ABOUT TO RELATE WERE MUCH CLOSER FRIENDS TO JUDGE CURETON THAN I; SOCIALIZED A LOT MORE WITH HIM, FISHED WITH HIM, WHATEVER. BUT I HAD A SITUATION WHERE I REPRESENTED A LADY WHOSE HUSBAND HAD BEEN ORDERED TO PAY CHILD SUPPORT, AND HE HAD A PRETTY GOOD-PAYING JOB AT THE TIME, BUT VOLUNTARILY QUIT HIS EMPLOYMENT AND TOOK A MUCH LESSER-PAYING JOB; IT WAS A VOLUNTARY TERMINATION OF EMPLOYMENT. I HAD ANOTHER CASE GOING AT THE SAME TIME WHERE THE FACTS WERE SORT OF REVERSED, WHERE IT WAS MY CLIENT THAT HAD VOLUNTARILY QUIT EMPLOYMENT AND TOOK A LESSER-PAYING JOB AND BEEN ORDERED TO PAY CHILD SUPPORT BASED UPON A FINANCIAL SITUATION AT THE TIME OF THE INITIAL CASE. I HAD NOT BEEN INVOLVED IN THE INITIAL TRIALS OF EITHER ONE OF THESE CLIENTS. THESE WERE NOT ORIGINAL DOMESTIC CASES, BUT THEY HAD COME TO ME LATER ON, AFTER AN ORDER WAS IN PLACE. THE FIRST CASE WAS, I WENT UP WITH THE MALE WHO HAD QUIT HIS EMPLOYMENT AND WAS SEEKING A REDUCTION IN CHILD SUPPORT -- AND I THINK WAS BEHIND ON CHILD SUPPORT -- AND THE JUDGE WAS HAVING TO HOLD HIM IN CONTEMPT. AND HE WAS IN CONTEMPT; NO DOUBT ABOUT THAT. BUT I FELT LIKE THERE WAS A SHOWING OF A SUBSTANTIAL CHANGE IN CONDITIONS AND HE WAS ENTITLED TO A REDUCTION. JUDGE CURETON DENIED THE REDUCTION AND MADE SOME COMMENT ABOUT WE HAD OBLIGATIONS THAT WE HAD TO DO, AND ONCE WE UNDERSTOOD THE OBLIGATION, SECOND FAMILIES AND ALL THAT WE HAD -- THAT LITIGANTS HAD THE OBLIGATION TO GO OUT AND FULFILL THOSE ORDERS. I UNDERSTOOD THAT RULE, AND I DID NOT NECESSARILY AGREE WITH THAT RULE AND WHAT HE RULED IN THAT CASE. SHORTLY THEREAFTER, I CAME BEFORE HIS COURT IN THE NEXT CASE, WHERE THE SITUATION WAS TURNED, AND I REPRESENTED THE FEMALE. JUDGE CURETON SUBSTANTIALLY REDUCED THE CHILD SUPPORT. I FOUND THAT THAT WAS VERY INCONSISTENT IN THE TWO CASES. JUDGE CURETON HAD, SEVERAL YEARS PRIOR, CALLED ME IN AND SAID HE WANTED TO KNOW IF IT WAS PERSONAL; SO WHEN THE SECOND CASE WAS OVER AND I GOT MY CLIENT OUT OF THE COURTROOM, I WALKED BACK IN AND SAID, "JUDGE, DO YOU HAVE A MINUTE?" AND HE SAID YES. I SAID, "MAY I TALK TO YOU?" AND HE STATED HE WOULD SPEAK WITH ME. I THEN ASKED HIM, "AT ONE TIME YOU ASKED ME IF IT WAS PERSONAL. I TOLD YOU NO. WE HAD A GOOD CHAT. I'M GOING TO ASK YOU: IS IT PERSONAL?" AND HE SAID, "WHAT DO YOU MEAN?" AND I TALKED TO HIM ABOUT THOSE CASES, AND I TALKED TO HIM AGAIN ABOUT THE INCONSISTENCIES THAT WERE CAUSING ME DIFFICULTY IN PRACTICING FAMILY COURT LAW. JUDGE CURETON TOLD ME THAT AS FAR AS INCONSISTENCIES BETWEEN CASES, THAT HE NEVER WORRIED ABOUT THAT; THAT WHEN ONE CASE WAS OVER, IT WAS OVER. HE CLOSED THAT DOOR, AND HE TOOK THE NEW FACTS, AND HE NEVER WORRIED ABOUT WHAT HE DID FROM CASE TO CASE. SO HE, IN ESSENCE, SAID TO ME -- AND WE DISCUSSED IT A LITTLE FURTHER -- THAT HE DID NOT WORRY ABOUT THE PERCEPTIONS OF PEOPLE OR ATTORNEYS; THAT, IF YOU TAKE ONE CASE OF A SIMILAR FACT SITUATION, HE DID NOT FEEL THAT HE WAS BOUND, BY ANY MEANS, BY WHAT HE HAD DONE IN THE CASE THAT HE HAD JUST LEFT, EVEN UNDER A SIMILAR FACT SITUATION. HE TOLD ME THAT. SO WE THEN HAD ANOTHER GOOD CONVERSATION, AND I LEFT, AND I CONTINUED TO PRACTICE LAW FOR A COUPLE MORE YEARS IN HIS COURT. AND I'M NOT HERE TODAY TO TELL YOU THAT I HAVE EVER FELT THAT JUDGE CURETON HAS TRIED TO PUNISH ME FOR MY CRITICISMS OF HIM; I DO NOT FEEL THAT HE HAS. BUT I WILL TELL YOU THAT THE CRITICISMS OF INCONSISTENCY AND THE CRITICISMS THAT MR. SHAYNE HAS STATED ABOUT DEMEANOR, OR THE JUDICIAL DEMEANOR -- AND I DON'T RECALL EVER SPECIFICALLY DISCUSSING -- THE COMPLAINT, I PUT IN THERE ABOUT HIS DEMEANOR. HE IS MOODY. I'VE GONE UP THERE FROM TIME TO TIME AND I DIDN'T KNOW WHICH JUDGE CURETON I WAS GOING TO GET; THE ONE -- AND I'VE HAD VERY PLEASANT EXPERIENCES IN HIS COURT, BUT I NEVER KNEW WHETHER I WAS GOING TO GET THE PLEASANT JUDGE CURETON, OR THE ONE THAT WAS A LITTLE BIT CROSS AND TERSE AND CRITICAL OF ATTORNEYS BEFORE THE CLIENT. I JUST DIDN'T KNOW WHICH ONE I WAS GOING TO GET. YOU'RE BASICALLY OFF BALANCE THE WHOLE WAY THROUGH. BUT I'M HERE TO TELL YOU THAT IN 14 YEARS OF PRACTICING LAW, THESE ARE OPINIONS I CAME TO IN JUDGE CURETON'S COURT. AND MY MAIN THING IS INCONSISTENCY. WHEN JUDGE CURETON HAS FUSSED AT ME -- HE SAID HE HAD PATIENCE, AND I LOOK AT IT AT TIMES AND THINK "WELL, HE HAS HAD PATIENCE," BECAUSE A LOT OF JUDGES WOULDN'T LET LAWYERS DO WHAT THEY DID IN FRONT OF HIM. BUT I'VE LOOKED AT SOME OF THE LAWYERS, AND I WONDER IF IT'S PATIENCE OR INTIMIDATION. I DON'T KNOW. JUDGE CURETON KNOWS. AND I'M SURE THAT I'VE NOT EVER BEEN PERFECT, AND THERE HAVE BEEN TIMES WHEN HE PROBABLY SHOULD HAVE CALLED ME DOWN, AND HE PROBABLY BENT THE OTHER WAY AND LET ME GO TOO. BUT REALLY, I GUESS MY PROBLEMS ARE THE INCONSISTENCIES, AND I STILL HAVE A PROBLEM WITH HIS VIEW THAT A JUDGE, FIRST OF ALL, IS NOT BOUND BY WHAT HE DOES, THAT HE DOESN'T HAVE TO BE CONSISTENT, AND I FIND THAT DIFFICULT TO DEAL WITH. MY LAW PRACTICE IN FAMILY COURT, THE LAST TWO YEARS, HAS ONLY BEEN WHEN I HAVE BEEN FORCED IN THERE BY A COURT APPOINTMENT. I STILL GO WHEN I GET APPOINTED. I'VE ALWAYS BEEN TREATED, IN THE LAST TWO YEARS, VERY NICELY; SO MY STATEMENT THERE IS BASED ON APPROXIMATELY 14 YEARS IN HIS COURT PRIOR TO 1990, AND NOTHING -- I'M NOT VOICING ANY OPINION AS TO HOW HE HAS RUN HIS COURT IN THE LAST TWO YEARS, EXCEPT TO SAY THAT ALL I KNOW IS MY BRETHREN ON THE BAR HAVE VOICED SOME OF THESE SAME COMPLAINTS TO ME, SOME OF THEM. AND I'VE NOT SEEN HIS LIST OF ENDORSEMENTS AND DO NOT KNOW WHO IS ON THAT LIST, BUT I DARE TO SAY THAT SOME OF THE VERY ATTORNEYS WHO ARE ENDORSING HIM AND SUPPORTING HIM HERE TODAY HAVE LEVELED SOME OF THE SAME CRITICISMS, IF THEY WOULD BE HONEST AND WOULD TELL YOU THAT. BUT I'M NOT SAYING ANYTHING HERE TODAY THAT I'VE NOT TALKED TO JUDGE CURETON FACE-TO-FACE ABOUT. I MERELY GIVE YOU THIS INFORMATION BECAUSE THIS, IN MY OPINION, IS A WAY THAT I THINK THIS SCREENING HAS BEEN GOOD, BECAUSE I THINK IT PUTS MORE HONESTY, MORE RESPONSIVENESS ON THE BENCH, IF YOU WILL. SO I THINK IT'S A VERY POSITIVE THING, AND I THINK THIS IS THE PLACE THAT, IF I HAVE THESE COMPLAINTS, THAT I SHOULD VOICE THEM; AND NOT RUN UP AND DOWN THE STREET AND CRITICIZE. SO I'M HERE TODAY TO GIVE YOU THAT INFORMATION, TO DO WITH AS YOU WILL; AND I'M NOT HERE TO SCREAM AND HOLLER AND TELL YOU THAT YOU SHOULDN'T QUALIFY HIM. I'M HERE TO GIVE YOU INFORMATION. THANK YOU.
Q MR. BRANDT, HAVE YOU BEEN EXPOSED TO JUDGE CURETON IN HIS CAPACITY AS CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE, BEFORE YOU STOPPED PRACTICING FAMILY LAW?
A YES.
Q HOW DID HE HANDLE THE ADMINISTRATIVE POSITION?
A YOU KNOW, IT GOES BACK, I NEVER KEPT BOOK AT THE TIME, AND I NEVER FILED THOSE THINGS AWAY, AND I HAVEN'T GONE BACK AND DUG THROUGH MY FILES TO TRY TO PICK OUT SPECIFICS OF DIRT OR ANYTHING LIKE THAT. HE WAS -- I CAN'T SAY THAT -- I HAD NO REAL PROBLEMS WITH THE WAY HE ADMINISTERED THINGS, EXCEPT HE WAS PRETTY TOUGH ON THE SIX-MONTH RULE; BUT PROBABLY SOME OF US NEEDED THAT. I DON'T HAVE ANY REAL CRITICISMS. NATURALLY, I FOUND MYSELF, BECAUSE PROBABLY OF SOME OF THE THINGS I DID, IN AN UNCOMFORTABLE POSITION OF SOMETIMES HAVING TO RUSH TO GET THE CASE DECIDED OR GET KICKED OUT OF COURT, BUT I CAN'T BLAME THE JUDGE FOR THAT. I DON'T HAVE ANY REAL CRITICISMS OF HIM, IN AN ADMINISTRATIVE CAPACITY.
Q MR. BRANDT, YOU'VE BEEN VERY CANDID WITH US. IN FACT, YOU'VE TOLD US THAT THE SAME THINGS YOU'RE TELLING US TODAY, YOU'VE BASICALLY SHARED WITH JUDGE CURETON PRIVATELY.
A OTHER THAN PROBABLY HITTING THE WORD "DEMEANOR." I PROBABLY DIDN'T -- WE DIDN'T DISCUSS -- PROBABLY I DIDN'T SAY, "YOU'RE MOODY AND YOU COME IN HERE AND SCREAM AND HOLLER AT ME ONE DAY, AND YOU SEEM TO BE REAL PLEASANT AND NICE THE NEXT." I DON'T RECALL GOING INTO THAT, NO, SIR.
Q AND YOU HAVEN'T TOLD US YOU FELT HE IS DISQUALIFIED TO HOLD JUDICIAL OFFICE. HAVE YOU ADDRESSED THAT? I MEAN, THAT'S --
A I'M HERE TO GIVE YOU INFORMATION. I THINK THAT THE THING THAT BOTHERS ME THE MOST ABOUT ANYBODY IS BEING INCONSISTENT, AND THAT INCONSISTENCY IS SOMETHING I THINK YOU OUGHT TO CONSIDER. NOW, IF YOU HEAR THESE COMPLAINTS AND QUALIFY HIM, THAT'S GOING TO BE IT. I THINK, CERTAINLY -- I HOPE THAT IF JUDGE CURETON IS QUALIFIED AND REELECTED, THAT HE WILL TAKE THE CRITICISMS CONSTRUCTIVELY AND WOULD ATTEMPT TO BE MORE CONSISTENT, BECAUSE I THINK THAT'S A PROBLEM IN COURT, AND THE REASON THAT WE'RE GETTING -- AS THEY REPORTED -- 21 OR SOMETHING COMPLAINTS OR LETTERS FROM PEOPLE ON THE STREET WHO COME IN AND SAY THEY DON'T WANT JUDGE CURETON AS THE JUDGE. THEY GO OUT AND TALK. LITIGANTS TALK. AND IF YOU'VE GOT FACT SITUATIONS SEEMINGLY SIMILAR, THEY CAN'T RECONCILE THEM, BECAUSE I'M HAVING TROUBLE RECONCILING WHY HE DID WHAT HE DID IN DIFFERENT CASES. AND THERE'S GOING TO BE A CERTAIN AMOUNT OF THAT, YOU KNOW, IF YOU GO OUT AND TALK TO FRIENDS UNDER THE SHADE OF THE TREE; AND TWO CASES MAY NOT EVEN BE SIMILAR. SO YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE SOME OF THAT ANYWAY. BUT I WOULD SAY, TOO, THAT I HAVE HAD CLIENTS MAKE THOSE SAME KIND OF REMARKS THAT HAVE BEEN RELATED EARLIER BY MR. SHAYNE ABOUT JUDGE CURETON, BUT I'VE NEVER HAD THEM TO SAY THOSE THINGS ABOUT THE OTHER JUDGES IN THE CIRCUIT. NOW, WHATEVER THAT INDICATES, THAT'S UP TO Y'ALL.
CHAIRMAN POPE: DOES THE COMMITTEE HAVE ANY QUESTIONS OF MR. BRANDT? ANY ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS?
VICE-CHAIRMAN GENTRY: NOTHING FURTHER.
CHAIRMAN POPE: THANK YOU, MR. BRANDT.

CHAIRMAN POPE: MR. ROBERT K. WHITNEY.

WHEREUPON, ROBERT K. WHITNEY, BEING DULY SWORN AND CAUTIONED TO TELL THE TRUTH, THE WHOLE TRUTH, AND NOTHING BUT THE TRUTH, IS EXAMINED AND TESTIFIES AS FOLLOWS:

Q WOULD YOU PLEASE GIVE US YOUR ADDRESS, MR. WHITNEY?
A MY NAME IS ROBERT KREHL WHITNEY. I LIVE AT 561 BEARWOODS BOULEVARD, WESTMINSTER, SOUTH CAROLINA.
Q YOU'RE A PRACTICING ATTORNEY IN SENECA; IS THAT RIGHT?
A MY OFFICE IS OUTSIDE SENECA, YES.
Q GO AHEAD AND TELL US WHAT YOU WOULD LIKE TO SAY TODAY, MR. WHITNEY. WE DO HAVE YOUR LETTER, BUT WE WOULD LIKE YOU TO EXPAND ON IT, OR AMPLIFY IT, OR EXPLAIN IT.
A WHAT I HAVE SAY IS SIMILAR TO WHAT LARRY BRANDT JUST SAID. HE'S DRIVING A GREAT MANY OF US CRAZY.
Q DRIVING YOU CRAZY? THAT'S A LITTLE STRONG. GO AHEAD AND TELL US WHAT YOU MEAN BY THAT.
A I DON'T KNOW WHETHER WE'RE GOING TO HEAR TESTIMONY AT TEMPORARY HEARINGS, WHETHER WE'RE GOING TO USE AFFIDAVITS. I DON'T KNOW WHETHER MY ONE-PAGE AFFIDAVIT IS GOING TO BE ACCEPTED, OR A TEN-PAGE AFFIDAVIT FROM ANOTHER ATTORNEY WILL BE ACCEPTED. I CAN'T TELL HOW I'M GOING TO BE TREATED BECAUSE ADVERSE COUNSEL IS SOMETIMES TREATED DIFFERENTLY THAN I AM. THERE'S NO QUESTION AMONG MEMBERS OF THE BAR THAT HIS FRIENDS, IN SOCIAL SETTINGS, SOMETIMES APPEAR TO GET BETTER TREATMENT THAN ATTORNEYS WHO ARE NOT HIS, QUOTE, "FRIENDS." THIS IS SOMETHING THAT GOES UP AND DOWN THE HALLS WHEN LAWYERS TALK, BUT IF 23 PEOPLE ENDORSED HIM, THEN AT LEAST HALF THE PEOPLE TALKING BEHIND HIS BACK ARE NOT WILLING TO DO IT IN FRONT OF HIM. THE CRITICISMS I'VE GIVEN YOU ARE VERY GENERAL. LARRY BRANDT, HE SPENT 25 MINUTES EXPLAINING EVERYTHING TO YOU THAT WE ALL HAVE PROBLEMS WITH. WE DON'T KNOW HOW WE'RE GOING TO BE TREATED.
Q HAVE YOU EVER HAD A HEART-TO-HEART TALK WITH THE JUDGE, SUCH AS THE ONE, OR THE TWO THAT MR. BRANDT HAD, THAT HE DESCRIBED FOR US?
A I'VE NEVER HAD A LONG-TERM HEART-TO-HEART TALK. WE'VE HAD NUMEROUS BRIEF DISCUSSIONS. I'VE SAID I DIDN'T UNDERSTAND WHY SOMETHING HAPPENED, AND JUDGE CURETON WANTS TO AVOID ANY APPEARANCE OF IMPROPRIETY OR PARTIALITY TO ME, SO WE'VE NEVER HAD MUCH OF A DISCUSSION. IF I GO TRY TO TALK ABOUT A PARTICULAR CASE WITHOUT OTHER COUNSEL, I'M NOT GOING TO GET A RESPONSE THAT'S VERY INFORMATIVE. I ALSO DON'T WANT TO GO LOOK LIKE I'M TRYING TO EX PARTE THE JUDGE AND TALK TO HIM PRIVATELY ABOUT A CASE, BECAUSE IT'S INAPPROPRIATE AND WE ALL KNOW THAT.
Q THE KIND OF TALKS MR. BRANDT WAS REFERRING TO SEEMED TO ME TO BE ONES THAT WERE AFTER THE CASE WAS DECIDED, AND MORE OF A PERSONAL NATURE, RATHER THAN ABOUT ANY CASE SPECIFICALLY.
A YES.
Q YOU'VE BEEN PRACTICING IN THE COUNTY THERE FOR HOW LONG?
A SINCE NOVEMBER 1977.
Q AND WHAT PERCENT OF YOUR PRACTICE IS FAMILY COURT?
A MY TRIAL PRACTICE IS 95 PERCENT FAMILY COURT. I DO REAL ESTATE, WHICH DOESN'T INVOLVE TRIAL WORK.
Q YOU DON'T CITE ANY CASES IN YOUR AFFIDAVIT. DID YOU HAVE ANY IN MIND?
A I HAD A CASE WITH A GREENVILLE LAWYER, WHO GOT SEVERAL THINGS THAT WEREN'T REQUESTED. JUDGE CURETON JUST SEEMED TO GIVE THEM THE BARN, THE HORSE, THE PIG, THE COW, AND EVERYTHING ELSE. I OBJECTED TO TWO PARTICULAR ITEMS WHICH WERE OFFENSIVE TO MY CLIENT, WHICH WEREN'T REQUESTED, AND THE OTHER LAWYER SAID, "WE DIDN'T ASK FOR THOSE, AND WE DON'T REALLY NEED THEM." THAT'S THE ONLY -- THAT'S THE CASE THAT HAS ALWAYS BURNED IN MY HEART, AS JUST SHOWING HOW WE OCONEE ATTORNEYS SOMETIMES ARE TREATED LESS APPROPRIATELY THAN GREENVILLE OR ANDERSON LAWYERS. THERE'S NO QUESTION THAT CERTAIN LAW FIRMS GET BETTER TREATMENT. AND JUDGE CURETON WILL, TO THIS DAY AND FOREVER, TELL YOU THAT'S NOT TRUE; I DON'T THINK HE HAS EVER REALIZED IT.
Q OUT-OF-COUNTY LAWYERS GET TREATED BETTER THAN IN-COUNTY LAWYERS?
A UH-HUH. AND WITHIN THE COUNTY, THE LAWYERS WHO SCREECH AND HOLLER -- AS HE SAID -- APPEAR TO GET ALL THE CLOSE CALLS. EVERYTHING LARRY SAID. WE'VE NEVER EVEN TALKED ABOUT THIS, AND EVERYTHING HE SAYS SOUNDS LIKE THE SAME THING. I DON'T NEED TO REPEAT IT TO YOU AGAIN. I'LL TELL YOU THAT WHAT HE SAID IS MY EXPERIENCE, OVER 14 OR 15 YEARS.
CHAIRMAN POPE: ANY QUESTIONS FROM MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE?

Q MR. WHITNEY, IN YOUR LETTER, YOUR AFFIDAVIT, YOU MENTION SOMETHING ABOUT A RULE IN REGARD TO ATTORNEYS' FEES. WHAT DO YOU MEAN BY THAT?
A IT'S BEEN MY EXPERIENCE OVER THE YEARS THAT TESTIMONY IS OFFERED AS TO HOW MUCH TIME WE SPENT ON IT, HOW MANY PHONE CALLS, HOW MANY LETTERS, WHAT WAS GENERATED. I WAS HIT WITH A RULE BY JUDGE CURETON SEVERAL MONTHS AGO THAT WE HAD TO SUBMIT A SPECIFIC TYPE OF AFFIDAVIT TO GET ATTORNEY FEES. AND THAT'S NOT THE RULE. TESTIMONY ALWAYS USED TO BE PERFECTLY PROPER FOR THAT. AND GENE SATTERWHITE TOLD ME HE FOUND OUT ABOUT THE RULE A WEEK BEFORE THAT, WHEN HE WAS DENIED ATTORNEY FEES. OF COURSE, GENE DIDN'T TELL ME THEN BECAUSE HE WAS ON THE OTHER SIDE; HE TOLD ME AFTER. I WAS JUST MADE A FOOL OF BECAUSE I DIDN'T KNOW ABOUT THIS NEW RULE, WHICH I DON'T THINK IS THE RULE STATEWIDE. THE INCONSISTENCIES NEVER CEASE TO CAUSE ME PROBLEMS.

Q DO YOU FEEL LIKE YOU'RE CONSISTENTLY RULED AGAINST?
A NO.
Q YOUR CLIENTS?
A ABSOLUTELY NOT. I NEVER KNOW WHICH JUDGE I'M GOING TO SEE WHEN I GO BEFORE JUDGE CURETON. WE HAD A PERIOD WHERE JUDGE CURETON WAS GOING THROUGH PROBLEMS WITH HIS WIFE, WHICH WAS A DEVASTATING SITUATION, AND HE WAS THERE ALMOST EVERY WEEK, ALL YEAR, BECAUSE THERE WAS NO TRAVELING MONEY OR WHATEVER. AND HE WAS THE ONLY JUDGE WE KEPT SEEING, AND I FELT LIKE, FOR ABOUT MOST OF 1991, I GOT AN ABNORMALLY HIGH NUMBER OF NEGATIVE DECISIONS, BUT THIS IS NOT SOMETHING THAT HAPPENED IN THE LAST YEAR. THE LAST YEAR WAS ESPECIALLY HARD FOR EVERYBODY. JUDGE CURETON, AS HE SAID, STAYED UP ALL NIGHT WITH HIS WIFE, AND THEN HE WOULD GO TO COURT THE NEXT DAY, AND HE WAS TIRED, AND IT SHOWED. IT SHOWS WHEN ANY OF US WORK TOO LATE TO GO TO WORK THE NEXT DAY. AND OVER A PERIOD OF TIME, IT CAUSED EVEN MORE -- IT MADE INCONSISTENCIES MORE APPARENT.
CHAIRMAN POPE: ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FROM THE COMMITTEE?

Q HAS THERE EVER BEEN ANY FORMAL OR INFORMAL MEETING AMONG THE MEMBERS OF THE BAR, TO TALK WITH JUDGE CURETON ABOUT THESE PROBLEMS; OR OF THE BAR, WITHOUT JUDGE CURETON BEING PRESENT, TO TALK ABOUT SOME OF THE CONCERNS YOU'VE GOT?
A LAWYERS HAVE CONVERSATIONS ALL THE TIME. WE'VE HAD MEETINGS WITH JUDGE CURETON. HE'S TOLD US THAT HE'S NOT PARTIAL WITH ANYBODY. HE'S TOLD US ALL KINDS OF THINGS LIKE THAT. AND I'M NOT SURE THAT, WHEN WE'VE TALKED, THAT IT'S COMMUNICATED THE PROBLEMS THAT I'VE JUST TOLD YOU ABOUT. WHEN I'VE EXPRESSED THINGS LIKE THAT, I'VE GOTTEN NO RESPONSE, LIKE "I'M NOT DOING THAT. I'M NOT LIKE THAT"; IT'S THAT ALL MY PERCEPTIONS ARE INCORRECT.
Q WELL, I GUESS THE POINT I WANT TO MAKE, OR THE QUESTION I WANT TO ASK IS: YOU'VE INDICATED THAT YOU AND MR. BRANDT, OBVIOUSLY, AND OTHER MEMBERS OF THE BAR SHARED -- MR. SHAYNE -- SHARED THIS FEELING. AND I'M CURIOUS ABOUT WHETHER ANY FORMAL METHOD OR ANY FORMAL MEETING HAS BEEN HELD TO TRY TO RESOLVE SOME OF THESE CONCERNS, OR HAS IT JUST SORT OF BEEN AMONG SOME MEMBERS OF THE BAR, SOMETHING YOU'VE TALKED ABOUT FROM TIME TO TIME ABOUT YOUR CONCERNS? HAS HE BEEN APPROACHED?
A I THINK HE'S BEEN APPROACHED BY EVERYBODY THAT HAD A PROBLEM WITH HIM, ANYBODY WHO HAS EVER FELT LIKE THEY COULD COMMUNICATE FAVORABLY -- ANY OF US, INDIVIDUALLY. I DON'T THINK THERE HAS BEEN A GROUP MEETING TO DO THAT, NO. WE'VE HAD GROUP MEETINGS FROM TIME TO TIME, BUT IT'S NEVER BEEN A CLOSED-DOOR BITCH SESSION.
Q OKAY.
A I DON'T THINK ANYTHING LIKE THAT HAS HAPPENED.
CHAIRMAN POPE: THANK YOU, MR. WHITNEY.

CHAIRMAN POPE: JOHN J. MCDONOUGH, III.

WHEREUPON, JOHN J. MCDONOUGH, III, BEING DULY SWORN AND CAUTIONED TO TELL THE TRUTH, THE WHOLE TRUTH, AND NOTHING BUT THE TRUTH, IS EXAMINED AND TESTIFIES AS FOLLOWS:

Q WOULD YOU PLEASE GIVE US YOUR FULL NAME AND ADDRESS?
A I AM JOHN JOSEPH MCDONOUGH, III. I PRACTICE IN SENECA, SOUTH CAROLINA, AND I LIVE IN THE CITY OF SENECA. DO YOU NEED THE STREET ADDRESS?
Q SIR?
A DO YOU NEED THE STREET ADDRESS?
Q NO, SIR. I THINK YOUR AFFIDAVIT HAS THAT ADDRESS. YOU'VE BEEN PRACTICING IN SENECA FOR HOW LONG?
A I MOVED TO SENECA IN MARCH OF 1986, ON THE 18TH DAY THEREOF.
Q WE HAVE YOUR AFFIDAVIT, MR. MCDONOUGH, AND IT WILL BE PART OF THE RECORD. WE WOULD LIKE FOR YOU TO TESTIFY, IF YOU WOULD, ABOUT THE SPECIFICS.
A LET ME FIRST APOLOGIZE FOR THE TYPOGRAPHICAL ERROR ON PAGE FOUR, IN THE MIDDLE OF PARAGRAPH TEN, BEGINNING, "THE TWO CORVETTES," AND IT SHOULD BE THE POSSESSIVE PRONOUN "THEIR," NOT "THERE FIGHTING TOOK PLACE."
Q OKAY.
A FIRST, LET ME ADDRESS THIS LAST ISSUE. OUR BAR HAS MET AT LEAST ON TWO OCCASIONS -- I BELIEVE I'VE COVERED THAT IN MY AFFIDAVIT -- WITH JUDGE CURETON, TO ADDRESS CONCERNS THE BAR HAD WITH VARIOUS MATTERS. THE BAR DESIGNATED A LIAISON COMMITTEE, AND I KNOW I WAS A MEMBER OF THAT COMMITTEE ON AT LEAST ONE OCCASION. I THINK JUDGE CURETON, AT LEAST ONE OF THOSE TIMES, INSISTED THAT THE OTHER MEMBERS OF THE BENCH BE THERE FOR THE MEETING. I'M NOT POSITIVE ABOUT THAT. WE'RE GOING BACK A NUMBER OF YEARS. I THINK THE LAST TIME WE MET WAS PROBABLY IN '88, '87; I'M NOT SURE.
Q WHAT WAS THE PURPOSE OF THE MEETING, AND WHO SET THEM UP?
A WELL, ONE OF THEM WAS ABOUT SCHEDULING. JUDGE CURETON, AS CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE, HAD INSTITUTED A RULE THAT ONCE A CASE WAS SET, THAT THERE WOULD BE NO CHANGING OF THE DATE AND TIME OF THAT CASE; WE WERE NOT IN CONTROL OF THE DOCKET, THAT THE COURT WAS IN CONTROL OF THE DOCKET; AND THAT HIS SECRETARY, MS. MARY ALICE PALMER -- WHO IS A FRIEND OF US ALL -- COULD NOT SET TIMES FOR THOSE CASES, BECAUSE IT WAS INAPPROPRIATE IN SOME FASHION FOR THAT TO BE DONE. THIS CAUSED TREMENDOUS TROUBLE WITHIN THE WORKING BAR, FOR THE SCHEDULING OF CASES, BOTH FOR LITIGANTS AND FOR LAWYERS. THERE WOULD BE SPECIAL TERMS OF GENERAL SESSIONS SET, OR SOMETHING WOULD COME UP, AND THE WORLD WOULD FALL APART FOR THOSE OF US WHO WERE SOLE PRACTITIONERS. THAT WAS PUT BACK -- AS I UNDERSTAND IT -- AS IT HAD BEEN BEFORE, WITH MS. PALMER TAKING PART IN THE SCHEDULING, HERSELF. SHE DOES THAT FOR US NOW, INSTEAD OF US HAVING TO HAVE IT DONE IN SOME OTHER FASHION, AND THINGS CAN BE CHANGED AND MOVED AS NEEDED. THE OTHER MATTER WAS A CONCERN THAT THE BAR HAD, THAT TOO MANY OF THE SENIOR MEMBERS OF THE BAR HAD BEEN -- AND I BELIEVE THE PHRASE WAS USED, A COLLOQUIALISM -- IN THE FISH BARREL TOO LONG. A VERY COLORFUL COLLOQUIALISM WHICH MAY BE TAKEN SEVERAL WAYS, BUT THE GENERAL MANNER THAT THEY MEANT IT IN WAS THAT THEY HAD BEEN ATTACKED TOO LONG AND EATEN UP BY HAVING TO SERVE AS COURT-APPOINTED ATTORNEYS FOR INDIGENT LITIGANTS, AND THEY DID NOT DESIRE THAT THAT CONTINUE TO OCCUR. THEY DIDN'T LIKE BEING APPOINTED IN GENERAL SESSIONS AND BEING APPOINTED IN PROBATE COURT AND BEING APPOINTED IN FAMILY COURT; AND THEY FELT THEY WERE TAKING TOO MANY HITS ON THEIR TIME. ALL OF US HAD THAT PROBLEM, I THINK. FOR THOSE OF US AT THE TIME -- I WAS AN ASSOCIATE FOR A FIRM, AND I GOT ALL OF THE APPOINTMENTS FOR THE FIRM. I THINK IT HAPPENED TWO WAYS. IF YOU WERE JUNIOR LEVEL, YOU GOT HIT ALL THE TIME; AND IF YOU WERE SENIOR LEVEL, YOU HATED IT IF YOU GOT HIT ONCE. THAT APPOINTMENT MECHANISM WAS ADDRESSED IN THAT MEETING, AND WAS CHANGED. I'M NOT SURE EVERYBODY WAS EVER SATISFIED THAT IT WAS CHANGED PERMANENTLY AND FOR ALL MEMBERS OF THE BAR, BUT AT LEAST A LOT OF THE CRITICISM DIED DOWN. I HAVEN'T HEARD NEAR AS MUCH OF IT, OF LATE. BUT PART OF THAT WAS BECAUSE THEY -- I'M CONTRACT PUBLIC DEFENDER FOR OCONEE COUNTY, AND MR. SIRES IS THE PUBLIC DEFENDER. THEY SPLIT OUR OFFICE AND MADE ME CONTRACT, SO I COULD HANDLE HIS CONFLICTS AND HE COULD HANDLE MINE, AND THAT TOOK AWAY A LOT OF IT. AND THEN THEY ASKED US TO START HANDLING P.C.R.'S., SO I HANDLED HIS P.C.R.'S AND HE HANDLED MINE; SO THAT TOOK AWAY A LOT OF IT. AND THEN WE HAVE ONE YOUNG LADY WHO HAS COME TO THE BAR, WHO WAS THE JUDGE'S CLERK, WHO HANDLES MOST OF THE GUARDIAN AD LITEM REPRESENTATION IN FAMILY COURT, AND THAT TOOK AWAY A LOT OF IT. I IMAGINE THERE IS PROBABLY STILL SOME GRUMBLING AROUND, BUT I DON'T HEAR AS MUCH AS I DID. NOW, THAT WAS RESOLVED AS A PART OF -- PARTIALLY THROUGH THE BAR WORKING, AND PARTIALLY THROUGH WORKING WITH JUDGE CURETON. THE OTHER CONCERNS THAT YOU HEAR AND I CAN ONLY TELL YOU, ONCE AGAIN, THAT -- YOU'VE HEARD THIS ALREADY. MR. BRANDT HAS ADDRESSED RATHER SUCCINCTLY THE CONCERNS THAT I HAVE HEARD SINCE BEING AT THE BAR IN OCONEE COUNTY WITH JUDGE CURETON. AND I RECOGNIZE THAT MAY NOT BE SUFFICIENT FOR ME TO SAY THAT, BUT IT HAS BEEN A VERY SUCCINCT ADDRESSMENT OF THOSE MATTERS. LET ME SEE IF I CAN ADD TO IT SOMEWHAT. I RECOGNIZE THAT SOMEONE SOMEWHERE -- I'M SURE I SHOULD KNOW WHO -- SAID "CONSISTENCY IS THE HOBGOBLIN OF SMALL MINDS," BUT WHEN WE'RE TALKING ABOUT THE JUDICIARY, WE HAVE A GOVERNMENT OF LAWS AND NOT OF MEN, AND SO CONSISTENCY IS A WAY ONE MAY -- I HEARD SOMEONE SAY "KEEP BOOK" -- CONSISTENCY IS HOW WE KEEP BOOK ON WHETHER OR NOT WE STILL HAVE A GOVERNMENT OF LAWS AND NOT OF MEN. IT'S THE ONLY WAY WE CAN ADVISE CLIENTS WITH RESPECT TO WHETHER THEY ARE TAKING AN ILL-ADVISED COURSE OF ACTION, WHEN THEY COME TO SEE US, OR WHETHER THEY SHOULD DEFER FROM TAKING SOME ACTION IN FAMILY COURT. I REPRESENT A LOT OF MALE LITIGANTS SEEKING CUSTODY OF CHILDREN. I ALSO -- AND I WOULD BE VERY INTERESTED TO HEAR FROM WITNESSES -- REPRESENT A LOT OF PRO BONO CLIENTS. I'M A MEMBER OF THE PRO BONO PROGRAM. MR. WHITNEY IS A MEMBER OF THE PRO BONO PROGRAM, AND MR. SHAYNE IS. I'M NOT POSITIVE AND CANNOT SAY WHETHER ANY OTHER MEMBER OF THIS ROOM IS A MEMBER OF THAT PROGRAM, BUT I CERTAINLY KNOW THAT THERE ARE ONLY THREE OF US IN OCONEE COUNTY, OTHER THAN MR. MORGAN -- WHICH I THINK MAKES THE FOURTH -- AND THE OTHER TWO MEMBERS OF MY FIRM, WHO ARE PRO BONO LAWYERS. SO I REPRESENT A LOT OF INDIGENT DEFENDANTS, BOTH AS CONTRACT PUBLIC DEFENDER AND AS A PRO BONO ATTORNEY. INDIGENT DEFENDANTS IN JUDGE CURETON'S COURTROOM ARE NOT TREATED THE SAME AS OTHER DEFENDANTS. MALE DEFENDANTS IN JUDGE CURETON'S COURTROOM, COMING TO SEEK CUSTODY, ARE NOT TREATED THE SAME AS OTHER DEFENDANTS. MALE PLAINTIFFS COMING TO SEEK CUSTODY, IN JUDGE CURETON'S COURTROOM, ARE TREATED SOMEWHAT BETTER, BUT I CANNOT SAY THAT THEY ARE TREATED EQUALLY. WHY THAT IS, I'M NOT SURE. I THINK OBVIOUSLY, JUDGE CURETON IS A WHITE MALE. THERE ARE GOING TO BE SOME BIASES THAT HE IS GOING TO HAVE, THAT HE CAN DO VERY LITTLE ABOUT. WE ALL HAVE THEM, BASED UPON HOW WE ARE LOOKING AND WHAT WE SEE IN THE MIRROR WHEN WE LOOK BACK. I THINK THAT, OF COURSE, FOR JUDGES, THAT'S PARTICULARLY A PROBLEM THAT MUST BE ADDRESSED, I GUESS, ON A REGULAR BASIS BY THEM. JUST AS YOU'VE HEARD THAT SOME OF THE JUDGES PUT A LITTLE SIGN BEHIND THE BENCH TELLING THEM TO SHUT UP, TELLING THEM TO WAIT, HEAR BOTH SIDES, I THINK PROBABLY SOME OF THEM HAVE TO TELL THEMSELVES, "I CAN'T LOOK AT THIS PERSON AS BEING AN 'OTHER.' I CANNOT DECIDE THIS CASE BASED UPON THIS PERSON BEING AN 'OTHER.'" AND I THINK THAT'S PROBABLY VERY DIFFICULT. I DON'T KEEP BOOK ON THIS. I DON'T HAVE A LITTLE SCORE SHEET, BUT I'M FAIRLY CONFIDENT THAT IF I WERE REQUIRED TO BY THIS COMMITTEE, I COULD GO BACK TO MY VAULT AND BEGIN PULLING CASES OUT, AND BACK UP WHAT I HAVE SAID TO YOU. ANOTHER THING THAT I THINK IS IMPORTANT FOR YOU TO REMEMBER AS YOU MAKE YOUR DECISIONS HERE TODAY: A LOT OF THESE COMPLAINTS THAT YOU'RE HEARING MAY SOUND VERY PETTY, AND THEY COME ACROSS -- AS I LISTEN TO THEM, THEY SOUND PETTY TO ME IN A LOT OF WAYS. AND A LOT OF THAT COMES FROM THE FEELING THAT YOU HAVE, "WELL, WHY DIDN'T THEY APPEAL THAT? IF THEY HAD A PROBLEM, WHY DIDN'T THEY APPEAL IT?"
(REP. HENDRICKS DEPARTS THE HEARING PROCEEDINGS.)
LADY, GENTLEMEN, THEY DON'T HAVE THE MONEY TO APPEAL IT. IT'S VERY EXPENSIVE TO RUN AN APPEAL. YOU CANNOT TELL A CLIENT TO SPEND $5,000 OR $6,000 OF THEIR MONEY TO ADDRESS THIS CONCERN; AND AT THE SAME TIME, NOT BE ABLE TO TELL THEM WHAT WILL HAPPEN ON A REMAND, BECAUSE YOU DON'T KNOW WHETHER YOU'LL HAVE A CONSISTENT APPLICATION OF THE LAW TO THESE FILES. IT'S JUST VERY DIFFICULT TO DO. FAMILY COURT CASES ARE NOT APPEALED IN OCONEE COUNTY VERY OFTEN AT ALL. TAKE A LOOK, IF YOU CAN, OR HAVE ONE OF YOUR PEOPLE TAKE A LOOK AT IT. IT JUST DOESN'T HAPPEN. AND WHY? BECAUSE WE HAVE LITIGANTS IN FAMILY COURT, IN OCONEE COUNTY, THAT ARE VERY PENURIOUS, SO THEY DON'T HAVE THE FUNDS TO DO THAT. I'M SURE WE HAVE RICH LITIGANTS IN OCONEE COUNTY, AND I'M SURE YOU'RE AWARE THAT THERE ARE RICH PEOPLE EVERYWHERE; BUT THE LITIGANTS THAT ARE IN THERE FOR THE MOST PART DON'T HAVE THE MONEY TO RUN AN APPEAL. SO WHEN A DECISION FROM THE JUDGE IS GIVEN, AT BEST, WE CAN ASK, BY WAY OF MOTION, FOR RECONSIDERATION, THAT THEY THINK ABOUT IT AGAIN. AND IF THAT'S NOT SUFFICIENT, THEN GENERALLY THAT DECISION STANDS. THE OTHER PEOPLE -- THE OTHER CLASS OF PEOPLE -- THAT THE JUDGES IN OCONEE COUNTY SEE, AND JUDGE CURETON OF COURSE IS WHO WE ARE HERE TO TALK ABOUT, ARE ALL THE CHILDREN. NOW, THOSE ARE EITHER CHILDREN THAT I REPRESENT AS CONTRACT PUBLIC DEFENDER -- AND I DON'T MEAN TO TELL YOU I REPRESENT -- I USED THE WORD "ALL" IN THERE. I THINK THERE PROBABLY HAVE BEEN FIVE OR SIX CHILDREN, MAYBE TEN, IN THE LAST FIVE YEARS, THAT HAVE BEEN REPRESENTED BY OTHER ATTORNEYS. BUT I HAVE REPRESENTED THE BULK OF CHILDREN IN OCONEE COUNTY THAT COME UP ON JUVENILE CASES. AND THEY DON'T HAVE TO PAY FOR AN APPEAL, BUT YOU DON'T HAVE AN APPEAL UNTIL YOU HAVE A DECISION FROM THE COURT AS TO WHAT THE DISPOSITION IS, AFTER THEY'VE BEEN TO R&E. ONCE THEY'VE BEEN TO R&E, MOST OF THE TIME, THEY DON'T GO BACK. VERY FEW CASES WHERE THAT HAPPENS. THEY DON'T WANT TO STIR THAT THING UP AGAIN BY APPEALING IT; THEY WANT TO GO ON WITH THEIR LIVES AND GET IT OVER WITH. THE OTHER CHILDREN THAT ARE AFFECTED ARE CHILDREN IN CUSTODY CASES. YOU'VE ALREADY HEARD OF THE OWENS CASE. OBVIOUSLY, IF YOU READ MY AFFIDAVIT, YOU'LL FIGURE OUT THAT ONE OF THE MATTERS BEING DISCUSSED IN THERE IS THE OWENS CASE. I DID NOT PUT CASE NAMES IN MY AFFIDAVIT; I WAS UNSURE AS TO WHETHER OR NOT THIS BODY WOULD WANT TO HEAR CASE NAMES IN THE AFFIDAVIT, SO I LEFT THEM OUT. THAT CASE TROUBLED ME A GREAT DEAL, AND I STILL DON'T UNDERSTAND THE DECISION. I HAVE SAT IN THE RECONSIDERATION HEARING THAT THE GUARDIAN AD LITEM RAN AND ASKED FOR A RECONSIDERATION. AFTER THE RECONSIDERATION WAS OVER, I STILL DON'T THINK I UNDERSTAND HOW THE DECISION WAS REACHED. MY CLIENT DIDN'T HAVE THE MONEY TO APPEAL IT, AND THAT JUST IS THE WAY IT IS SOMETIMES.
Q IS THAT CASE THE ONE THAT MR. SHAYNE WAS THE GUARDIAN AD LITEM?
A THAT'S CORRECT.
Q AND JUDGE CURETON DECLINED TO FOLLOW HIS RECOMMENDATION?
A NOT ONLY HIS RECOMMENDATION, SIR, BUT THE RECOMMENDATION OF THE MOTHER AND THE SISTER OF THE WOMAN TO WHOM HE GAVE CUSTODY. NOW, WHEN YOUR MOM AND YOUR SISTER COME FROM 110 MILES AWAY TO TESTIFY THAT YOUR HUSBAND SHOULD GET CUSTODY OF YOUR CHILDREN, SOME BELL SOMEWHERE IN SOMEBODY'S HEAD SHOULD BE GOING OFF. I DON'T KNOW WHAT BELL THAT IS, BUT OBVIOUSLY, JUDGE CURETON DIDN'T ANSWER IT. THE OTHER MATTER IS THAT APPEAL, AS I WAS SAYING TO YOU, ARE FOR THE WEALTHY OR THE CRIMINALLY INDIGENT, BUT NOT FOR THE BULK OF LOSING LITIGANTS. SO I WANT YOU TO THINK ABOUT THAT, WHEN YOU THINK ABOUT, OH, THIS AS PETTY OR JUST SOUR GRAPES OR WHATEVER. TRY TO KEEP THAT IN YOUR MIND, THAT WE CAN'T APPEAL ALL THE CASES THAT WE WOULD LIKE TO. AFFIDAVITS, YOU HEARD ABOUT AFFIDAVITS FROM THESE OTHER PEOPLE. I CAN TELL YOU THAT JUDGE CURETON TOLD ME THAT HE WILL NOT READ ANY AFFIDAVITS THAT ARE MORE THAN TWO PAGES LONG. NOW, I DON'T KNOW WHAT THAT MEANS, NECESSARILY, EXCEPT THAT I NOW TRY TO LIMIT MINE TO UNDER TWO PAGES. IT MEANS SOMETIMES THAT I HAVE TO REWRITE MY AFFIDAVITS FOR MY CLIENTS. I UNDERSTAND SOME LAWYERS DO THAT ALL THE TIME, BUT I KIND OF FEEL THAT A CLIENT IN AN AFFIDAVIT IS SWEARING THEIR TRUTH. THEY ARE SWEARING TO TELL THE TRUTH. THEY ARE SWEARING BEFORE A NOTARY. AND WHAT THEY WANT TO SAY IS WHAT SHOULD BE IN THAT AFFIDAVIT. NOW, I HAVE A PLACE ON MY GENERAL INFORMATION FORM WHEN A DOMESTIC CLIENT COMES IN, AND IT'S ABOUT THE LAST QUESTION I ASK, AND IT SAYS IN THERE -- AFTER ALL THESE QUESTIONS ABOUT YOU AND YOUR MARRIAGE AND HOW OLD YOU ARE, HOW OLD YOUR CHILDREN ARE, AND ALL THESE OTHER THINGS ABOUT YOUR PERSONAL DOMESTIC SITUATION -- THE LAST THING IT SAYS IS, "WHAT ARE YOUR MOST IMPORTANT PRIORITIES?" AND I KNOW IF I SEE, THERE, "BASKET WEAVING," THAT I HAVE A PROBLEM. AND I KNOW IF I SEE, THERE, "MY CHILDREN," THAT I HAVE A CLIENT THAT IS PERCEPTIVE AT LEAST ENOUGH FOR ME TO GO FORWARD AND UNDERSTAND THAT THEY KNOW WHAT I'M TALKING ABOUT. AND I THINK WHEN YOU HAVE AN AFFIDAVIT, YOU'VE REALLY GOT A BIG INFORMATION BLOCK FOR "WHAT ARE MY PRIORITIES," AND I DO NOT LIKE EDITING THOSE AFFIDAVITS, FROM THAT PERSPECTIVE. I FEEL IT'S IMPORTANT -- IF I WERE THE JUDGE, I WOULD WANT TO KNOW WHAT THAT AFFIDAVIT SAID BEFORE THE LAWYER SANITIZED IT. I WOULD PREFER THAT. I WOULD HAVE, I THINK, A STRONGER FEEL FOR WHAT WAS NECESSARILY DONE BEFORE THAT CASE CAME TO ME, AND WHAT I SHOULD THEN DO. BUT NOW, I CAN'T DO THAT IN THE CASES THAT I KNOW WILL COME BEFORE JUDGE CURETON. ANOTHER CASE -- EXAMPLES -- AND THIS ONE, I DIDN'T PUT IN MY AFFIDAVIT, BUT IT INVOLVED A FAMILY THAT HAD SPLIT UP AND MY CLIENT FILED A MOTION FOR TEMPORARY RELIEF AND A SUMMONS AND COMPLAINT, WHICH IS THE WAY I USUALLY START THINGS IF WE DON'T HAVE A CUSTODY ORDER AND THERE'S A NEED FOR CHILD SUPPORT. MY CLIENT WAS THE FATHER, HAD THE CHILDREN WITH HIM. THE MOTHER HAD LEFT. AND THE RESULT WAS, ULTIMATELY, THAT THE MOTHER CAME AND SNATCHED THE CHILDREN BEFORE WE HAD THE HEARING. THE NEXT THING I KNOW, WE GET AN ORDER, AFTER THE HEARING, THAT PUTS CUSTODY WITH THE MOTHER -- REWARDING HER FOR SNATCHING THE CHILDREN. I JUST DON'T UNDERSTAND THAT. ANOTHER CASE WAS WITH ONE OF THE LAWYERS HERE IN THE ROOM, WHERE MY CLIENT WAS THE FATHER AND DID NOT GET CUSTODY. IT WAS A CLOSE CASE, I BELIEVE, AND I DON'T HAVE ANY COMPLAINT ABOUT THAT CASE. THERE HAVE BEEN CASES OVER THE YEARS THAT I DON'T HAVE COMPLAINTS ABOUT, WITH JUDGE CURETON, AND THERE'S NO PERSONALITY CONFLICT THAT I'M AWARE OF WITH THE JUDGE. I'VE BEEN IN HIS HOME. I DON'T RECALL THAT THERE'S ANY GREAT PROBLEM. HE IS MOODY. I THINK WE'RE ALL MOODY. FOR A JUDGE, THAT MAY BE MORE OF A PROBLEM, ESPECIALLY FROM THE PERSPECTIVE OF LITIGANTS WHO DON'T RECOGNIZE THAT JUDGES SHOULD BE MOODY, OR COULD BE MOODY. I GUESS THEY FAIL TO REMEMBER THAT THEY ARE HUMAN. THE INCONSISTENCIES ARE A PROBLEM, AND I THINK YOU'VE HEARD ENOUGH ABOUT THAT. I THINK THAT SOMETIMES ONE GETS COMMENTS FROM LITIGANTS AFTER CASES THAT ONE SHOULD DISCOUNT. ADRENALIN IS RUNNING, AND THE WOUNDED FEELINGS ARE THERE, AND ONE SHOULD DISCOUNT THEM. BUT WHEN ONE CONSISTENTLY GETS STATEMENTS FROM LITIGANTS ABOUT A PARTICULAR JUDGE, AND THOSE STATEMENTS RUN ALONG THE LINE OF "WHAT WAS WRONG WITH HIM? DID HE HATE BOTH OF Y'ALL?" REFERRING TO THE TWO LAWYERS; OR, "WHAT WAS WRONG WITH HIM? DID HE HATE ME?" YOU TEND TO FEEL THAT, WELL, I HAVEN'T HEARD THIS FROM ANY OF THE LITIGANTS IN OTHER CASES WITH OTHER JUDGES, SO THERE MUST BE SOMETHING THERE. AND I GOT THAT A LOT, AND I DO GET THAT A LOT.
(REP. HENDRICKS REJOINS THE HEARING PROCEEDINGS.)
JUDGE CURETON WAS UNDER TREMENDOUS STRESS LAST YEAR, AND MY HEART WENT OUT TO HIM FOR IT. AND I DON'T WANT YOU TO THINK THAT THE STATEMENTS YOU HEAR TODAY HAVE TO DO WITH THINGS FROM LAST YEAR. THE OWENS CASE HAPPENED LAST YEAR, YES. I CAN'T DO ANYTHING ABOUT THAT. IT HAPPENED LAST YEAR. HOWEVER, I MUST SAY THIS: IF THERE WAS A PROBLEM WITH LAST YEAR, AND IF YOU FIND THERE WAS A PROBLEM WITH THE LAST YEAR, I THINK IT IS INCUMBENT UPON YOU TO THEN ASK YOURSELF, "SHOULD HE HAVE BEEN ON THE BENCH LAST YEAR, AND WAS HE NOT THE ONE BEST SITUATED TO DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT?" NOW, I DON'T HAPPEN TO KNOW. I'M NOT HIM, AND I DIDN'T APPEAR IN FRONT OF HIM EVERY DAY. I JUST DON'T KNOW. I ONLY KNOW WHAT I HEARD FROM BROTHERS ON THE BAR AND FROM LITIGANTS, AND MOST OF THEM SAID THAT "I DON'T KNOW HOW IT COULD BE DONE. I DON'T KNOW HOW HE DOES IT." AND I THINK THE NEXT STEP IS, WHICH THEY PROBABLY DIDN'T WANT TO SAY, "MAYBE HE SHOULDN'T." AND SOME OF THEM DID SAY THAT. AND I THINK, ONCE AGAIN, IF THE PEOPLE IN THIS ROOM WERE HONEST WITH YOU, THERE WOULD BE A NUMBER OF THEM TO SAY THAT THEY'VE HAD A FEW THINGS TO SAY ABOUT JUDGE CURETON AND HIS MOODS AND INCONSISTENCIES. THERE ARE SEVERAL WHO ARE NOT HERE, AND I THINK YOU HAVE TO TAKE INTO MIND AS YOU GO THROUGH THIS PROCESS THAT THOSE OF US WILLING TO SPEAK OUT ARE INTERESTED VERY MUCH IN IMPROVEMENT OF THE QUALITY OF JUSTICE IN OCONEE COUNTY; AND I THINK THAT CAN BE SAID OF PEOPLE SPEAKING ON BOTH SIDES. BUT IT'S VERY DIFFICULT TO COME AND SPEAK ABOUT A SITTING JUDGE, WITHOUT FEELING THAT YOU'RE AFFECTING YOUR PRACTICE, YOUR CLIENTS; AND IN MY CASE, YOUR ASSOCIATES. AND I KNOW FOR A FACT THAT THIS OCCURRED: THERE HAVE BEEN CALLS MADE TO MY ASSOCIATES. AND FORTUNATELY, I GUESS, FOR THEM AND ME, WE HAVE A GOOD RELATIONSHIP, AND I JUST TELL THEM "I WOULD NEVER DREAM OF TELLING YOU HOW TO VOTE IN A PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION; I CAN'T DREAM OF TELLING YOU WHAT TO DO IN THIS ONE." AND THEY DON'T HAVE A VOTE. SO REMEMBER THAT, AS YOU GO THROUGH THIS. THE PEOPLE MOST INVOLVED IN THIS DON'T HAVE A VOTE. ONLY YOU DO. THANK YOU.
CHAIRMAN POPE: THANK YOU, MR. MCDONOUGH. DOES THE COMMITTEE HAVE ANY QUESTIONS?

Q I HAVE ONE. WHAT KIND OF CALLS WERE MADE TO YOUR ASSOCIATES? I DON'T KNOW IF I COMPLETELY UNDERSTOOD THAT COMMENT. WAS IT SUGGESTING THAT YOU SHOULDN'T COME HERE TO TESTIFY?
A SUGGESTING THEY SHOULD SIGN UP ON THIS PETITION THAT WENT AROUND.
Q OKAY.
A THAT'S ABOUT THE EXTENT OF IT.
CHAIRMAN POPE: ANYTHING ELSE?

CHAIRMAN POPE: THANK YOU, MR. MCDONOUGH.

CHAIRMAN POPE: I THINK WE'LL TAKE ABOUT A FIVE-MINUTE RECESS.
(RECESS, 4:01 P.M. TO 4:15 P.M., DURING WHICH TIME REP. HENDRICKS AND REP. HODGES DEPART THE HEARING PROCEEDINGS.)
WHEREUPON, ROBERT H. CURETON, BEING DULY SWORN AND CAUTIONED TO TELL THE TRUTH, THE WHOLE TRUTH, AND NOTHING BUT THE TRUTH, IS EXAMINED AND TESTIFIES AS FOLLOWS:

Q JUDGE, WE'LL LET YOU PROCEED AS YOU WISH IN RESPONSE TO THE TESTIMONY WE'VE HAD FROM THE FIVE WITNESSES.
A I'LL BE AS BRIEF AS I CAN, BECAUSE I'VE GOT SEVERAL INDIVIDUALS WHO CAN MORE ADEQUATELY, I THINK, ADDRESS SOME OF THE ALLEGATIONS WITH REGARD TO INCONSISTENCIES AND DEMEANOR AND SO FORTH; OTHER ATTORNEYS, SOME OF WHOM HAVE APPEARED BEFORE ME MORE THAN THE ATTORNEYS WHO HAVE SPOKEN. ONE ATTORNEY IN PARTICULAR, I THINK, WHO IS GOING TO SPEAK, I KNOW HE HAS APPEARED BEFORE ME MORE THAN ANY ONE ATTORNEY IN THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA, AND I THINK IF ANYBODY CAN MAKE A JUDGMENT, I THINK HE CAN. AND I WAS UNDER SOMEWHAT OF A MISAPPREHENSION, AND, FRANKLY, I STARTED TO ASK THAT, ABOUT THE AFFIDAVITS. SOME OF THE THINGS THAT WERE ALLUDED TO IN THE TESTIMONY TODAY, VERBAL TESTIMONY, WAS NOT MENTIONED IN THE AFFIDAVITS. A GREAT DEAL OF MR. BRANDT'S TESTIMONY REFERRED TO SPECIFIC INSTANCES WHICH WERE NOT MENTIONED IN HIS AFFIDAVIT; THEREFORE, I WAS NOT AND AM NOT PREPARED TO RESPOND. I WAS UNDER THE IMPRESSION THAT THE AFFIDAVITS WERE SUPPOSED TO CONTAIN MORE DETAIL AS TO WHAT THE PARTIES INTENDED TO TESTIFY TO, BUT I WILL RESPOND AS BEST I CAN. AS I SAID, THE ATTORNEYS WHO ARE GOING TO SPEAK WILL GO INTO MORE DETAIL ABOUT THESE MATTERS, AND I'M JUST GOING TO SORT OF HIT THE HIGH SPOTS. AT THE OUTSET, I WOULD SAY THAT -- FOR LACK OF A BETTER TERM -- I DO RUN A TIGHT SHIP. WHEN YOU COME INTO MY COURTROOM, YOU KNOW YOU ARE IN A COURTROOM. NOW, I HAVE BEEN ON THE FAMILY COURT JUDGES ADVISORY COMMITTEE SINCE ITS INCEPTION. I WAS ON THE COMMITTEE THAT ORIGINALLY WROTE THE RULES OF FAMILY COURT, WHICH WE PRESENTLY OPERATE UNDER. I HAVE BEEN ON THAT COMMITTEE SINCE THAT TIME, FOR 15 YEARS. IT'S THE COMMITTEE'S PROCEDURE, NOW, OF COURSE, AS YOU KNOW, TO SUBMIT TO THE SUPREME COURT; THE SUPREME COURT REFERS THEM TO THE LEGISLATURE; AND IF THE LEGISLATURE DOES ENACT THEM, THEY BECOME THE RULE IN A CERTAIN PERIOD OF TIME. I'VE BEEN ON THAT COMMITTEE. BY VIRTUE OF THAT, I'M VERY CONSCIOUS OF THE RULES, AND PERHAPS -- I WON'T SAY "PERHAPS" -- I THINK I PROBABLY AM A MORE STRICT ADHERENT TO THEM THAN MAYBE SOME OTHER JUDGES. AND I DON'T APOLOGIZE FOR THAT, BECAUSE THAT'S WHAT THE RULES ARE WRITTEN FOR, SO THAT THE SO-CALLED INCONSISTENCIES WILL BE LIMITED, SO THAT EVERYONE OPERATES UNDER THE SAME RULES. AS AN EXAMPLE, FINANCIAL STATEMENTS. I AM A STRICT STICKLER FOR FINANCIAL STATEMENTS. AS A MATTER OF FACT, I AM THE ONE THAT DEVISED THE PRESENT FINANCIAL STATEMENT ON THAT COMMITTEE IN 1978, WHEN IT WAS ORIGINALLY ADOPTED, AND THE BASIC STRUCTURE OF IT IS THE SAME AS IT WAS AT THAT TIME. THE ALLEGATIONS ABOUT TREATMENT OF ATTORNEYS AND THE ALLEGATION THAT I ACCUSED SOMEONE OF LYING, I DO NOT DOUBT THAT I HAVE QUESTIONED -- I QUESTION THAT I EVER USED THE WORD "LYING" -- ON OCCASION, AND WILL ON OCCASION IN THE FUTURE, WHERE THE TESTIMONY INDICATES SO, THAT PEOPLE HAVE PROPERLY COMPLETED THE FINANCIAL DECLARATIONS. UNDERSTATED INCOME IS A GOOD EXAMPLE. WHEN A PERSON KNOWS, FOR INSTANCE, CHILD SUPPORT IS GOING TO BE BASED ON WHAT IS PLACED ON THE FINANCIAL DECLARATION, SOMETIMES PEOPLE UNDERSTATE IT, AND I CAN'T DENY WE'VE HAD A PROBLEM WITH THAT. AND WHERE THE TESTIMONY HAS POINTED OUT, WHERE THE FACTS WARRANTED, I HAVE ADMONISHED THE PARTIES THAT THE STATEMENTS ON THE FINANCIAL DECLARATION SHOULD BE AND ARE EXPECTED TO BE CORRECT, IN ORDER FOR THE COURT TO MAKE AN INTELLIGENT JUDGMENT. WITH REGARD TO THE SPECIFIC CASES THAT WERE MENTIONED, I THINK TWO ATTORNEYS HAVE MENTIONED THE OWENS CASE, WHICH WAS A CUSTODY CASE. A VERY, VERY HOTLY CONTESTED CUSTODY CASE. AND A VERY, VERY DIFFICULT DECISION. IT WAS DIFFICULT FOR THE PARTIES; IT WAS DIFFICULT FOR THE GUARDIAN AD LITEM, MR. SHAYNE; AND IT WAS DIFFICULT, I'M SURE, FOR MR. MCDONOUGH, THE ATTORNEY FOR THE FATHER; AS IT WAS FOR THE ATTORNEYS FOR THE MOTHER. THE ATTORNEY FOR THE MOTHER WAS COMING TODAY, BUT WAS UNABLE TO DO SO BECAUSE OF OUT-OF-TOWN DEPOSITIONS, TO RESPOND, FOR WHATEVER IT'S WORTH. BUT MY ANSWER TO THAT IS THAT, AS I ALWAYS DO IN CONTESTED CUSTODY CASES, I VERY CAREFULLY CONSIDER AND WEIGH THE EVIDENCE -- AND THERE WAS ADVERSE EVIDENCE, BOTH WAYS -- AND DETERMINED WHAT I THOUGHT WAS IN THE BEST INTEREST AND WELFARE OF THE CHILDREN, COUPLED WITH THE CHANGE-IN-CONDITIONS FACTOR WHICH WAS INVOLVED IN THAT CASE, AND MADE WHAT I THOUGHT WAS THE APPROPRIATE DECISION. I RESPECT THE RIGHT OF AN ATTORNEY AND/OR LITIGANT TO DISAGREE WITH MY DECISION. AND OF COURSE, PROPER RECOURSE IS APPEAL. IT'S UNFORTUNATE, AS ONE OF THE ATTORNEYS SAID IN THIS CASE, THE PARTIES' FINANCIAL CIRCUMSTANCES DIDN'T PERMIT THAT. BUT THAT'S MY ANSWER TO THAT CASE. I DID WHAT I THOUGHT WAS RIGHT, BASED ON THE FACTS AND APPLYING THE LAW TO THOSE FACTS. IN ANOTHER CASE THAT WAS MENTIONED -- AND INCIDENTALLY, I HAVE THOSE CASES HERE (INDICATING). YOU ARE WELCOME TO REVIEW THEM. BOTH THE OWENS CASE AND THE SWINNEY CASE ARE HERE FOR YOUR REVIEW, IF YOU SO DESIRE. THE SWINNEY CASE WAS THE SECOND CASE -- AND THIS IS GOING BACK PRETTY FAR, TO 1985. THERE WAS A SUBSEQUENT ACTION IN WHICH THE ATTORNEY -- MR. SHAYNE WAS ON THE SWINNEY CASE ORIGINALLY. ANOTHER ATTORNEY BROUGHT AN ACTION IN 1990 ON BEHALF OF HIM, AND IT WAS RESOLVED BY AGREEMENT AND SETTLED, AND AN ORDER WAS ISSUED. WITH REGARD TO MR. SANFORD, I THINK MR. SANFORD WAS VERY RESPECTFUL TO ME, AND I THINK I WAS TO HIM, IN HIS ACTION, WHICH WAS A CONTEMPT RULE. AS ATTORNEYS IN THE ROOM KNOW, ON CONTEMPT RULE DAYS, YOU CAN HAVE -- AND ON THAT PARTICULAR DAY, I HAD 45 HEARINGS THAT MORNING, AND MR. SANFORD'S WAS ONE OF THEM. AND I'M SURE HE VERY LIKELY HAD TO WAIT A LONG TIME --
MR. SANFORD: I WAS THE LAST PERSON.
A -- TO EVEN GET IN THE COURTROOM. NOW, MY MODUS OPERANDI FOR RULE HEARINGS, CONTEMPT RULE HEARINGS, IS: I STATE THE AMOUNT THAT'S DUE, AND I SWEAR THE DEFENDANT AND ASK HIM OR HER IF THEY HAVE ANYTHING THEY WISH TO SAY, WHICH I DID IN MR. SANFORD'S CASE; AND HE DID, IN FACT, RESPECTFULLY PROCEED TO SPEAK IN HIS DEFENSE. IT BECAME EVIDENT TO ME THAT WHAT HIS COMPLAINT WAS, WAS ABOUT JUDGE EDWARDS' ORDER, AND I DID INTERRUPT HIM AND TOLD HIM THAT, UNFORTUNATELY, THERE WAS NOTHING I COULD DO. I WAS SYMPATHETIC WITH HIM, AND I STILL AM. AND I SUGGESTED -- AND I THINK HE WOULD ADMIT THAT I SUGGESTED STRONGLY -- THAT HE TRY TO CONSULT WITH AN ATTORNEY; IF HE COULD NOT AFFORD AN ATTORNEY, THAT HE EITHER TRY THE LEGAL SERVICES OR THE PRO BONO PROGRAM, OR SOME SERVICE WHICH PROVIDES LEGAL SERVICES FREE OF CHARGE. I DON'T KNOW WHETHER HE DID THAT, OR NOT, BUT I DID STRONGLY URGE HIM TO DO THAT, BECAUSE I FELT, BASED ON WHAT LIMITED INFORMATION HE GAVE ME, THAT HE MAY HAVE A LEGITIMATE COMPLAINT. I DIDN'T KNOW. BUT I TOLD HIM THAT I COULD NOT SECOND-GUESS A PREVIOUS JUDGE, COULD NOT CHANGE THE ORDER AT THIS CONTEMPT HEARING. AND I BELIEVE -- I CAN REFER YOU TO A COPY OF THE ORDER -- I WAS VERY LIBERAL TO HIM IN WHAT I DID. I GAVE HIM AN OPPORTUNITY TO PURGE HIMSELF BY PAYMENT OF SO MUCH MONEY PER MONTH, I BELIEVE IT WAS, AND THE ORDER IS HERE (INDICATING). BUT AS I SAID, I WAS SYMPATHETIC WITH MR. SANFORD, AND AS I SAID, HE WAS VERY NICE TO ME; HE WAS VERY RESPECTFUL IN THE COURTROOM, AND I HOPE I WAS TO HIM LIKEWISE. I'VE ALREADY ADDRESSED -- AS I SAY, MR. BRANDT MENTIONED MANY, MANY CASES THAT I AM NOT AWARE OF. IN FAIRNESS TO MR. BRANDT, I WILL SAY HE AND I DID IN THE LONG PAST HAVE HAD SEVERAL TALKS, AND I THINK THAT'S AN ATTRIBUTE OF HIS, THAT HE WAS WILLING TO DO THAT. UNFORTUNATELY, SOME OF THESE OTHER COMPLAINTS THAT YOU'VE HEARD, THE FIRST TIME I'VE HEARD THEM IS THROUGH THIS PROCESS. BUT I HAVE -- MR. BRANDT AND I HAVE HAD DISCUSSIONS IN THE PAST. BECAUSE MY SECRETARY HAPPENS TO BE PRESENT, SHE WILL TELL YOU THAT I'VE NEVER REFUSED TO TALK TO AN ATTORNEY, UNLESS HE OR SHE WANTED TO TALK ABOUT A CASE; AND I WILL ABSOLUTELY REFUSE TO TALK TO AN ATTORNEY EX PARTE ABOUT ANYTHING, BUT MY DOOR IS OPEN. IN FACT, IT STAYS OPEN MOST OF THE TIME; I DON'T EVEN CLOSE THE DOOR BETWEEN MY SECRETARY AND MYSELF. THEY HAVE READY ACCESS, THE WAY OUR SITUATION IS ARRANGED. DUE TO THE ARRANGEMENT -- THERE WAS VERY CAREFULLY OMITTED FROM THE VERBAL TESTIMONY TODAY, BUT THERE WAS ALLUSION TO LOCKING THE DOOR. I DON'T KNOW THAT ANY OF YOU ALL READ THAT, OR NOT. LOCKING THE DOOR. BECAUSE OF OUR PECULIAR ARRANGEMENT, YOU WALK THROUGH THE SECRETARY'S OFFICE AND THE COURT REPORTER'S OFFICE -- WHICH IS ALL TOGETHER. MR. GENTRY WILL APPRECIATE A SMALL COUNTY LIKE LAURENS, WHERE THE COURTROOM IS SORT OF SMALL. YOU GO THROUGH THAT AREA TO GET TO THE COURTROOM, WHICH HAPPENS TO HAVE THE SOUTHEASTERN REPORTER, TO WHICH ACCESS -- WHICH IS OWNED BY THE COUNTY, NOT BY THE BAR ASSOCIATION. IT'S OWNED BY THE COUNTY, FURNISHED TO ME AND MADE AVAILABLE TO THE ATTORNEYS. NO ATTORNEY HAS EVER BEEN DENIED ACCESS TO THOSE BOOKS. IT IS TRUE THAT WE NOW LOCK THOSE DOORS; THE REASON BEING, BECAUSE ON SEVERAL OCCASIONS, MY SECRETARY WOULD LEAVE THE OFFICE AND WOULD GO BACK -- AND ON SEVERAL OCCASIONS, SHE FOUND AN ATTORNEY SITTING AT A DESK, READING PAPERS ON THE DESK. HER DESK, THE COURT REPORTER'S DESK. DRAWERS OPEN AND SO FORTH. AND BOOKS BECAME MISSING. SO IT WAS NECESSARY, AND SHE WAS INSTRUCTED -- NOT BY ME. NOT BY ME. A LOT OF THESE THINGS, AS WILL BE BROUGHT OUT LATER, THEY'VE GOT ME CONFUSED WITH ANOTHER ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE. I DID NOT DIRECT THE LOCK BE CHANGED. I HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH IT. THAT WAS DONE BY ANOTHER ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE WHO PRECIPITATED THAT, AND MY SECRETARY IS HERE TO VERIFY THAT I HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH THAT LOCKING THE DOOR. BUT THEY ARE LOCKED, AND I'M JUST TELLING YOU THE REASONS THEY ARE LOCKED. MINOR THING, BUT -- IT WAS OMITTED IN THE VERBAL TESTIMONY, BUT IT WAS IN THE WRITTEN STATEMENTS THAT YOU MIGHT CONSIDER. SEVERAL OF THE ATTORNEYS HAVE MENTIONED THE AFFIDAVIT RULE. THAT IS ONE OF THE MOST TROUBLING RULES THAT THERE IS, AND ATTORNEYS THAT DO ANY WORK IN FAMILY COURT KNOW THAT IT IS. YOU GET 20-PAGE AFFIDAVITS AND YOU GET TWO-PAGE AFFIDAVITS. I DO NOT RECALL -- I DON'T KNOW WHICH SAID I TOLD HIM -- WELL, MR. MCDONOUGH SAID IT COULDN'T BE MORE THAN TWO PAGES. I DON'T RECALL EVER TELLING HIM THAT, BUT I CERTAINLY DON'T DENY HAVING ALLUDED TO THAT, THAT IT SHOULD BE SUCCINCT. SOME ATTORNEYS ALLOW PEOPLE TO JUST RECITE HEARSAY -- RANK HEARSAY -- AND SO FORTH, THROUGHOUT THE STATEMENT, AND I JUST TELL THEM TO BE AS SUCCINCT AS THEY POSSIBLY CAN, IN THE AFFIDAVIT. THERE'S A COMMITTEE WORKING ON THAT, AS A MATTER OF FACT, AT THIS VERY MOMENT, TO TRY TO STANDARDIZE THE PROCEDURE FOR HANDLING THAT. AND IT IS A PROBLEM, AND I WILL READILY CONCEDE THAT IT IS. HE SAID I WOULD DENY BEING PARTIAL TO OUT-OF-TOWN ATTORNEYS, AND I DO DENY IT. WE LIVE IN A SMALL COUNTY, OCONEE COUNTY, AND I WILL NOT TOLERATE ATTORNEYS FROM OCONEE COUNTY OR ANDERSON COUNTY, IN MY PRESENCE, BEING RUDE TO ATTORNEYS FROM OUT OF TOWN. AND I'VE HAD THEM STANDING RIGHT BESIDE ME AND AN ATTORNEY FROM OUT OF TOWN WALK IN THE DOOR AND SOME, "WELL, WHAT ARE YOU DOING HERE?" OR "WHY ARE YOU HERE FROM THE BIG CITY" OR "ACROSS THE RIVER?" AND I THINK THAT'S HIGHLY IMPROPER. I CERTAINLY TREAT THEM THE SAME, AND THAT WILL BE ADDRESSED LATER. LASTLY, MR. MCDONOUGH ALLUDED TO SEVERAL THINGS. COURT-APPOINTED ATTORNEYS IN THE INDIGENT CASES. ANOTHER SPEAKER WILL ADDRESS THAT. HE'S GOT THE WRONG JUDGE AND THE WRONG TIME, BUT THAT WILL BE SPECIFICALLY ADDRESSED BY A PERSON WHO WILL KNOW FIRSTHAND ABOUT THAT. MEETINGS WITH ME? THERE HAVE BEEN NONE, EXCEPT WHAT I CALLED. AND NUMBERS OF YEARS AGO, I CALLED A MEETING -- AND MR. BRANDT WAS INVOLVED IN THAT MEETING -- AND THAT WAS THE MEETING THAT I CALLED WITH REGARD TO CERTAIN MATTERS, BUT THAT HAS BEEN AT LEAST SEVEN YEARS AGO. ALSO OMITTED WAS A PART OF THE AFFIDAVIT THAT ALLUDED TO BOTH PARTIES FOUND TO BE AT FAULT. THERE WAS A CASE ON THAT CLEARLY ON POINT, ALTHOUGH HE CONCEDES AT THE END OF THE PARAGRAPH THAT I WAS RIGHT LEGALLY, BUT I SHOULDN'T HAVE RULED THAT WAY. BUT AS YOU WELL KNOW, I DON'T MAKE THE LAWS. THE LEGISLATURE MAKES THE LAWS AND THE SUPREME COURT INTERPRETS THEM, AND I AM BOUND BY THOSE LAWS AND THAT INTERPRETATION. I DON'T HAVE MUCH CHOICE ABOUT THAT, UNLESS I WANT TO BE REPRIMANDED BY THE SUPREME COURT. WITH REGARD TO CUSTODY, THERE'S BEEN AN ALLUSION -- AND I BELIEVE TWO COMPLAINTS -- ABOUT MY PARTIALITY TO WOMEN. IT'S INTERESTING BECAUSE IN THE COURSE OF 17 YEARS, I'VE SERVED ON UNTOLD NUMBERS OF STATE COMMISSIONS, AND I SERVED ON ONE WHEN THE CHILD SUPPORT GUIDELINES WERE FIRST PROMULGATED. AND THE COMMISSION -- I'M NOT SURE WHO ALL WAS INVOLVED, BUT I KNOW THE PRESIDENT OF THE DIVORCED MEN'S ASSOCIATION FOR SOUTH CAROLINA WAS ON IT, AND HE SAT BESIDE ME AT EVERY MEETING. HE SAID, "JUDGE CURETON, I WANT TO TELL YOU SOMETHING." HE SAID, "WE KEEP A CARD INDEX, A ROSTER OF JUDGES, AND OF HOW WE RATE JUDGES." I DON'T KNOW HOW THEY DO IT, BUT THEY RATE STATE JUDGES. "I WANT TO TELL YOU, YOU'RE RIGHT AT THE TOP OF OUR RATING ON JUDGES WHO ARE WILLING TO AWARD CUSTODY TO MALES." SO THAT'S SORT OF CONTRADICTORY TO WHAT WAS JUST STATED. INDIGENT DEFENDANTS, THE COURT, YOU KNOW, HAS NO ALTERNATIVE BUT TO APPOINT ATTORNEYS FOR PEOPLE IN CHILD ABUSE AND NEGLECT CASES. AND ANOTHER ATTORNEY WILL ADDRESS THIS LATER, BUT MY SECRETARY HAS A LIST SHE GOES BY ALPHABETICALLY. NOW, I DON'T KNOW OF ANY BETTER WAY TO DO IT. WHETHER SOME PEOPLE GET PICKED ON OR NOT, I DON'T HAVE ANY CONTROL -- I DON'T CONTROL THAT. IT'S DONE PURELY BY A LIST. UNLESS YOU HAVE SOME SPECIFIC QUESTIONS YOU WANT TO ASK ME ABOUT SOMETHING THAT HAS BEEN SAID, I WILL DEFER TO SOME OF THE OTHER PEOPLE TO SPEAK IN RESPONSE TO SOME OF THESE ALLEGATIONS.
CHAIRMAN POPE: DOES THE COMMITTEE HAVE ANY QUESTIONS AT THIS POINT?

CHAIRMAN POPE: WHY DON'T WE HEAR FROM THEM, JUDGE, AND WE MAY HAVE SOME QUESTIONS LATER.
WITNESS: ALL RIGHT.

WHEREUPON, MICHAEL D. GLENN, BEING DULY SWORN AND CAUTIONED TO TELL THE TRUTH, THE WHOLE TRUTH, AND NOTHING BUT THE TRUTH, TESTIFIES AND IS EXAMINED AS FOLLOWS:
WITNESS: MY NAME IS MICHAEL GLENN. I PRACTICE LAW IN ANDERSON, SO I'M FROM OUT OF TOWN, I GUESS. I'VE PRACTICED LAW SINCE 1965, AND HAD A SIX-YEAR ABSENCE FROM THE PRACTICE OF LAW WHILE I SERVED AS COUNTY JUDGE AND FAMILY COURT JUDGE IN ANDERSON, AND THEN ONE YEAR ON THE STATEWIDE FAMILY COURT AFTER THAT. I THEN RESIGNED AND HAVE BEEN IN PRIVATE PRACTICE SINCE THAT TIME, SO I SPEAK AS A FORMER COLLEAGUE OF JUDGE CURETON. I THINK WE WERE ON COURT TOGETHER FOR ABOUT THREE YEARS BEFORE I RESIGNED, AND I'VE TRIED A GOOD NUMBER OF CASES BEFORE HIM SINCE THAT TIME. I MIGHT ALSO SAY, FOR YOUR BENEFIT, I CONSIDER HIM A FRIEND. THE OPPONENTS OR THE COMPLAINANTS THAT HAVE COMPLAINED ABOUT JUDGE CURETON TODAY, AMAZINGLY TO ME, HAVE COMPLAINED ABOUT SEVERAL THINGS THAT I JUST FIND IMPOSSIBLE TO BELIEVE, FROM FAILING TO SPEAK TO AN ATTORNEY IN THE HALL, REQUIRING A LAWYER TO RETYPE YEAR-OLD PLEADINGS, AND ACTUALLY ACCUSED HIM OF FOLLOWING THE LAW ON A CASE; AND SOME OF THOSE THINGS, I DO FIND TO BE PETTY, AND IT SURPRISES ME THAT THEY ARE INCLUDED IN THESE ALLEGATIONS. AND I CAN TELL YOU THAT I CAN SIT HERE UNTIL DARK, OR LATER THAN THAT, TELLING YOU ABOUT CASES THAT I HAVE LOST BEFORE JUDGE CURETON -- AND I HAVE LOST CASES BEFORE JUDGE CURETON -- AND THE OTHER JUDGES OF OUR CIRCUIT, AND I CAN TELL YOU WHY THEY WERE DEAD WRONG, AND WHY I SHOULD HAVE WON THAT CASE. AND THOSE OF YOU WHO TRY CASES KNOW, PARTICULARLY IN FAMILY COURT, EVERY CASE THAT'S TRIED, SOMEBODY LOSES; AND USUALLY, YOU HAVE AN ANGRY LITIGANT, AND A LAWYER WHO'S EITHER ANGRY OR NOT TOO HAPPY, AND THAT INCLUDES ME. AND WE ALL KNOW THE OLD RULE ABOUT YOU'VE GOT 24 HOURS TO CUSS THE JUDGE, AND I'VE PROBABLY INVOKED THAT RULE A NUMBER OF TIMES, AND I PROBABLY INVOKED IT ABOUT JUDGE CURETON AND THE OTHER JUDGES OF OUR CIRCUIT; AND WHEN I WAS JUDGE, THEY INVOKED IT ABOUT ME, BECAUSE I HEARD IT. SOME OF THESE THINGS, I CONSIDER PETTY; SOME OF THEM, I CONSIDER QUITE SERIOUS, AND I'LL ADDRESS THOSE. THE CRITICISM ABOUT JUDGE CURETON'S DEMEANOR IN THE COURTROOM. HE TOLD YOU IN HIS OPENING STATEMENT THAT HE IS NOT A PERFECT PERSON, NOR A PERFECT JUDGE, AND HE IS SOMETIMES MOODY, AND I HAVE WITNESSED THAT. AND HE SOMETIMES BARKS AT ME, AND I DON'T LIKE THAT. I HEARD JUDGE HEARN TELL YOU THE SAME THING, THAT SHE TRIES HER BEST TO NOT DO THAT, BUT SOMETIMES YOU REACT TO THINGS AND YOU DO THAT SORT OF THING. AND I CAN ALSO TELL YOU THAT I'VE BEEN TREATED MORE HARSHLY IN EVERY COURT OF THIS STATE SINCE I BEGAN PRACTICING LAW -- IN THE MAGISTRATE'S COURT, THE FAMILY COURT, CIRCUIT COURT, COURT OF APPEALS, SUPREME COURT, AND EVEN IN THE FOURTH CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS AND ON FEDERAL DISTRICT COURT -- I'VE BEEN TREATED MORE HARSHLY THAN I EVER HAVE BEEN BY JUDGE CURETON. TO TELL YOU HE NEVER IS HARSH? NO, I'M NOT GOING TO TELL YOU THAT. HE'S A VERY STRICT JUDGE. SOMETIMES WHEN YOU DO SOMETHING THAT'S OUT OF ORDER OR SOMETHING, HE CALLS YOU DOWN, AND HE DOES IT HARSHLY. AND ONE OF THE JUDGES WHO TESTIFIED EARLIER TODAY SAID HE REMEMBERED WHEN HE WAS A LAWYER AND HE WAS CALLED DOWN, AND HE SAID PROBABLY JUSTIFIABLY. AND AS I LOOK BACK ON THE TIMES THAT I'VE BEEN CALLED DOWN, THE GREAT MAJORITY OF THEM, IT WAS JUSTIFIED. THE THINGS, HOWEVER, THAT TROUBLE ME MORE ARE THE CHARGES OF INCONSISTENCY AND FAVORITISM AMONG CERTAIN LAWYERS. FOR A YEAR, I HELD COURT IN OCONEE COUNTY; AND PRIOR TO THAT, I HELD FAMILY COURT, AND I HELD SEVERAL TERMS OF CIRCUIT COURT AS A SPECIAL JUDGE THERE. AND THERE'S NO PLACE I LIKE BETTER IN THE WORLD THAN OCONEE COUNTY; AND I EVEN, A NUMBER OF TIMES, CONSIDERED MOVING THERE. AND SOME OF MY BEST FRIENDS ARE LAWYERS IN OCONEE, INCLUDING LARRY BRANDT, WHO HAS A DIFFERING OPINION FROM ME HERE TODAY. BUT THERE IS ALWAYS AN ATMOSPHERE AMONG CERTAIN LAWYERS IN OCONEE THAT MADE IT VERY DIFFICULT TO FUNCTION AS A JUDGE THERE, AND IT WAS AN ATMOSPHERE OF ONE-UPMANSHIP, OF "WHY DID YOU OVERRULE ME? YOU MUST LIKE HIM BETTER." AND IT WAS DIFFICULT TO FUNCTION IN THAT KIND OF SITUATION, AND I THINK THAT'S WHERE THIS PARTIALITY THING COMES FROM. SOME OF THEM MAY CONSIDER THAT THE JUDGE IS PARTIAL TO ME. IF YOU TALK TO SOME OF MY CLIENTS WHO LOST IN HIS COURT, THEY'D PROBABLY DISAGREE; AND THERE'S BEEN A CONSIDERABLE NUMBER. BUT I HAVE NOT WITNESSED THAT AT ALL. I HAVE NOT WITNESSED THE INCONSISTENCY THAT LARRY TALKS ABOUT, AND THESE OTHER LAWYERS. LAST YEAR -- I BELIEVE IT WAS LAST YEAR -- I GOT A CALL FROM A LAWYER DOWN IN THE LOWER PART OF THE STATE WHO HAD A CASE WORTH MILLIONS OF DOLLARS THAT WAS SCHEDULED FOR TWO MONTHS, OR SOMETHING. THEY CALLED ME; I DIDN'T KNOW ANYTHING ABOUT THE CASE. HE SAYS, "JUDGE CURETON'S GOING TO HEAR THIS CASE, AND YOU KNOW HIM, AND I WANT TO KNOW ABOUT HIM, AND I WANT TO KNOW WHAT TO DO TO PREPARE FOR THIS CASE. "WELL, I KNEW EXACTLY WHAT TO TELL HIM. I TOLD HIM EXACTLY WHAT TO DO. I SAID, "HE'S A VERY STRICT JUDGE AND HE GOES BY THE RULES, AND YOU'D BETTER BE READY. YOU'D BETTER HAVE YOUR WORK READY; YOU'D BETTER BE READY ON THE RULES. AND YOU'D BETTER NOT TRY TO BLOW SMOKE AT HIM, BECAUSE IF YOU DO, IT'S GOING TO HURT YOU ALL THE WAY THROUGH THE TRIAL. "GET YOUR WITNESSES TO TELL THE TRUTH, AND IF YOU'VE GOT WEAKNESSES IN YOUR CASE, MEET THEM HEAD-ON. BE SUCCINCT AND GET TO THE POINT, AND YOU'LL DO OKAY BEFORE JUDGE CURETON." AND I KNEW EXACTLY WHAT TO EXPECT FROM HIM, AND THAT'S THE WAY I FOUND HIM IN MY PRACTICE, AND I BELIEVE THAT THE OTHER LAWYERS -- MOST OF THE OTHER LAWYERS -- WHO PRACTICE BEFORE HIM FIND THAT. ONE OF THE MOST AMAZING THINGS I'VE HEARD TODAY IS THAT HE'S PARTIAL TO WOMEN. I'VE HAD A LOT OF CASES BEFORE THIS COURT, AND EVERY TIME I'M GETTING READY AND I'M REPRESENTING THE MAN AND THEY SAY "WHICH JUDGE DO WE WANT?" -- YOU KNOW, THAT'S A NORMAL QUESTION -- I SAY, "WELL, IF WE GET JUDGE CURETON, IT'D BE GOOD. I'D LIKE TO GET JUDGE CURETON." I CONSIDER HIM MORE -- I HATE FOR HIM TO KNOW THIS, IF HE DIDN'T KNOW IT TILL TODAY, BUT I WANT HIM WHEN I'VE GOT THE MAN. AND IF HE'S PARTIAL TO WOMEN, THEN MAYBE HE CHANGES WHEN HE CROSSES THE COUNTY LINE OR SOMETHING, BUT I JUST HAVEN'T SEEN THAT AT ALL IN MY PRACTICE. I WANT TO GIVE YOU ONE PERSONAL EXPERIENCE ON THE IDEA OF WHETHER JUDGE CURETON IS PARTIAL TO LAWYERS -- AND REALLY, I HAD FORGOTTEN ABOUT THIS CASE, BECAUSE I WANTED TO. I HATED THE CASE. BUT ABOUT SEVEN OR EIGHT YEARS AGO, I TRIED A HOTLY CONTESTED CUSTODY CASE BEFORE JUDGE CURETON, AND IT TURNED OUT THE LAWYER ON THE OTHER SIDE WAS MY NEW PARTNER, KENNETH MATTISON, SEATED OVER HERE (INDICATING). HE HAD JUST STARTED PRACTICING LAW; I HAD ALL THESE YEARS OF EXPERIENCE, FORMER JUDGE, FORMER COLLEAGUE OF JUDGE CURETON. AND I LOST THE CASE. LOST CUSTODY. AND I WAS REPRESENTING THE WOMAN, AND IT WAS A SMALL CHILD ABOUT A YEAR OLD. AND I HEARD MR. MCDONOUGH TALK ABOUT HOW THAT CASE HURT HIM. AND THAT CASE HURT ME, AND IT STILL HURTS ME TO THIS DAY. AND TO THIS DAY, I DON'T KNOW WHY JUDGE CURETON RULED AGAINST MY CLIENT IN THAT CASE. BUT MATT TOLD ME A COUPLE OF NIGHTS AGO, WHEN I WAS SITTING IN THERE MUMBLING ABOUT SOME OF THESE AFFIDAVITS AND ALL, HE SAID -- HE REMINDED ME OF THAT CASE, AND HE SAID, "YOU KNOW, WHEN WE STARTED THAT CASE, I DIDN'T THINK I HAD A PRAYER. I DIDN'T HAVE A CHANCE IN THAT CASE." LAST WEEK, AS WE CIRCULATED THE PETITIONS THAT YOU HAVE, AND I PARTICIPATED IN THE CIRCULATION IN ANDERSON COUNTY -- AND BY THE WAY, NO PRESSURE WAS PUT ON -- MY SECRETARY DID IT WHILE I WAS OUT OF TOWN. WHILE I DID THAT, THE MORNING THAT I SENT IT TO THE CHAIRMAN, I HAD A CASE BEFORE JUDGE CURETON AGAINST ANOTHER LAWYER, AND JUDGE CURETON RULED AGAINST MY CLIENT THAT DAY. OF ALL THE YEARS I HAVE KNOWN THIS MAN, HE HAS NEVER SAID ONE WORD TO ME, NOR HAVE I SAID ONE WORD TO HIM OUTSIDE THE COURTROOM ABOUT A CASE. AND I CAN ASSURE YOU, I HAVE LOST MY SHARE OF CASES. I WANT YOU TO CONSIDER THE FACT THAT IN ANDERSON COUNTY, 91 -- I BELIEVE -- LAWYERS SIGNED THE PETITION FAVORING JUDGE CURETON. THOSE 91 INCLUDE THE PRESIDENT OF THE SOUTH CAROLINA BAR ASSOCIATION, ANOTHER MEMBER OF THE SOUTH CAROLINA BAR BOARD OF GOVERNORS, I BELIEVE ALL OF THE MEMBERS OF THE HOUSE OF DELEGATES FROM OUR CIRCUIT. NOT ONE ANDERSON LAWYER SHOWED UP TODAY TO TELL YOU THAT JUDGE CURETON IS NOT QUALIFIED TO SERVE ON THIS COURT. HE HAS SERVED IN COURT A LOT MORE IN ANDERSON COUNTY IN THE PAST -- SINCE 1978 -- THAN HE HAS IN OCONEE COUNTY. I THINK THAT'S EXTREMELY SIGNIFICANT. OF THE 91 THAT SIGNED -- A FEW DIDN'T; SOME WERE OUT OF TOWN, A FEW PUBLIC OFFICIALS FELT THEY COULDN'T, AND I BELIEVE LESS THAN FOUR DIDN'T SIGN BECAUSE THEY DIDN'T CARE FOR JUDGE CURETON -- BUT OVERWHELMINGLY, THE LAWYERS OVER THERE THINK THAT HE'S A GOOD JUDGE. HE'S DONE A GOOD JOB, AND HE CONTINUES TO DO A GOOD JOB. AND I GUESS THAT'S ALL I HAVE TO SAY. I'D BE HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS YOU HAVE.
CHAIRMAN POPE: DOES THE COMMITTEE HAVE ANY QUESTIONS?
REPRESENTATIVE GLOVER: I DO.

Q JUST FOR CLARIFICATION, ON YOUR CASE, YOU'RE STATING THAT YOU DON'T KNOW WHY THE JUDGE -- AND YOU MEANT JUDGE CURETON?
A THAT'S CORRECT.
Q -- YOU DON'T KNOW WHY HE RULED AGAINST YOU AND THE OTHER ATTORNEY STATED HE DIDN'T THINK HE HAD A PRAYER?
A HE DIDN'T THINK HE HAD A PRAYER, BECAUSE HE THOUGHT THE POLITICAL SITUATION WAS GOING TO GET HIM. HE THOUGHT HIS OLD FRIEND, JUDGE CURETON, WAS GOING TO BEAT HIM IN THE CASE.
Q BUT THIS IS NOT -- WHO ARE THE TWO --
A I'M SORRY, IF I TOLD YOU THAT IN THE WRONG WAY.
Q NO, I JUST WANTED TO KNOW: WERE YOU THE TWO? THE OTHER ATTORNEY --
A WE WERE ADVERSARIES AT THAT TIME. WE BECAME PARTNERS ABOUT A MONTH AGO.
Q AND YOU DON'T KNOW WHY YOU LOST AND THE OTHER GUY DIDN'T KNOW WHY HE WON?
A JUDGE CURETON PUT IN THE ORDER WHY I LOST; I JUST DISAGREED WITH HIM VERY STRONGLY, AND I STILL DO.
Q ALL RIGHT. I JUST WANTED TO CLARIFY THAT.
A AND THAT'S NOT THE ONLY CASE HE RULED AGAINST ME THAT I DON'T AGREE WITH HIM ON.

Q WHAT IS YOUR EXPERIENCE WITH HIM ON THE TEMPORARY HEARINGS? HAVE YOU EXPERIENCED INCONSISTENCY, OR --
A NO, NOT AT ALL.
Q -- ON THE AFFIDAVIT RULE?
A MINE ARE ALWAYS -- IF I'VE GOT AN AFFIDAVIT -- I TOLD SOMEBODY YESTERDAY, ONE THING THAT I ALWAYS -- WHEN I'M HEADED OUT THE DOOR, YOU KNOW, AND THE SECRETARY IS GIVING ME THE FILE, IF I'M GOING TO JUDGE CURETON, I CHECK THAT FILE MIGHTY QUICK TO MAKE SURE THAT I'VE GOT MY ATTORNEY FEE AFFIDAVIT AND THE PLAINTIFF'S AFFIDAVIT AND EVERYTHING RIGHT, BECAUSE I KNOW HE GOES BY THE RULES, AND HE DOES IT EVERY TIME. I'VE NEVER HAD ANY PROBLEM WITH THAT.
Q THE ATTORNEY FEE AFFIDAVIT, IS IT JUST ONE YOU MAKE UP, OR IS IT ONE THAT HE SPECIFICALLY PRESCRIBES?
A IT'S ONE I'VE USED SINCE THEY INSTITUTED IT. I CHANGE IT FOR EACH CASE, BUT I PUT THE BACKGROUND INFORMATION IN THE SAME.

Q HOW LONG HAVE YOU BEEN A PRACTITIONER SINCE YOU RESIGNED AS FAMILY COURT JUDGE?
A I RESIGNED FROM THE FAMILY COURT IN 1978.
Q '78?
A YES, SIR.
VICE-CHAIRMAN GENTRY: THANK YOU.
CHAIRMAN POPE: THANK YOU.

WHEREUPON, KEN LESTER, BEING DULY SWORN AND CAUTIONED TO TELL THE TRUTH, THE WHOLE TRUTH, AND NOTHING BUT THE TRUTH, IS EXAMINED AND TESTIFIES AS FOLLOWS:

Q JUST FOR THE RECORD, PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS.
A KEN LESTER. 1712 MAIN STREET, COLUMBIA, SOUTH CAROLINA. FIRST OF ALL, I WOULD LIKE TO SAY THAT I'M PROBABLY UNIQUE TO ALL OF THE OTHER LAWYERS THAT I'VE MET TODAY FOR THE FIRST TIME -- AND MY GOOD FRIEND OVER HERE, LARRY BRANDT, WHO WAS A FRATERNITY BROTHER OF MINE IN LAW SCHOOL -- IN THAT I HAVE A STATEWIDE PRACTICE. I PRACTICE WITH HARVEY GOLDEN, AND WE TRAVEL TO EVERY CITY IN THIS STATE. BEFORE THIS NEW WAVE OF FAMILY COURT JUDGES CAME ON THE BENCH, I LOOKED THROUGH THE LIST, AND I HAVE APPEARED -- OR, AT THAT TIME, HAD APPEARED -- IN FRONT OF 44 OF THE FAMILY COURT JUDGES, OUT OF THE 46 THAT WERE ON THE BENCH; AND ALL OF THE ONES THAT HAD RECENTLY RETIRED. WHAT AMAZES ME IN LISTENING TO THESE GENTLEMEN TALK OVER HERE IS, A LOT OF THE COMPLAINTS I HEAR ARE LAWYERING COMPLAINTS. THEY ARE COMPLAINTS ABOUT THE WAY THEY WOULD RATHER DO THINGS THAN THE WAY THE RULES OF OUR SYSTEM -- THE FAMILY COURT, THE CIRCUIT COURT RULES, THE RULES OF OUR SUPREME COURT -- TELL US WE HAVE TO DO THINGS. ANYBODY THAT'S A LAWYER THAT'S GOING TO GO INTO A TEMPORARY HEARING, THAT A JUDGE HAS 15 MINUTES TO READ THE AFFIDAVITS AND THE PETITIONS AND THE COMPLAINTS AND EVERYTHING, AND INTRODUCES A 25-PAGE AFFIDAVIT IN THAT 15-MINUTE TIME PERIOD, IS NOT GOING TO GET IT READ. AND THAT'S WHY JUDGE CURETON HAS TOLD THEM THAT IF THEY WANT THEM READ, THEY NEED TO BE SHORTER AND TO THE POINT, AND POINT OUT THE THINGS THAT ARE IMPORTANT. A LOT OF THE OTHER THINGS THEY TALKED ABOUT ARE DEALING WITH LAWYERING, AND DEALING WITH LAWYERING BY THE RULES. AND I'LL SAY THE SAME THING THAT MIKE JUST SAID: JUST CURETON -- I APPEARED IN FRONT OF HIM LONG BEFORE HE CAME TO LEXINGTON COUNTY AS CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE, AND I DIDN'T KNOW HIM VERY WELL; BUT AFTER A COUPLE OF APPEARANCES IN FRONT OF HIM, I KNEW ONE THING. YOU'D BETTER HAVE YOUR STUFF IN LINE, YOU'D BETTER COMPLY WITH THE RULES, AND YOU'D BETTER BE READY; BECAUSE THERE'S NO QUESTION, HE RUNS A TYPE SHIP. AND TALKING ABOUT HIS DEMEANOR IN THE COURTROOM? IT'S ALL PROFESSIONAL. IT IS ALL TO THE POINT. AND THAT IS THE WAY YOU HAVE TO DO IT. NOW, WHAT WE ARE TALKING ABOUT IS, WE ARE TALKING ABOUT THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN A GOOD JUDGE -- A GOOD JUDGE THAT HAS TO MAKE TOUGH, HARD DECISIONS; A GOOD JUDGE THAT KNOWS WHAT THE LAW IS; A GOOD JUDGE THAT HOLDS THE ATTORNEYS' FEET TO THE FIRE AND MAKES THEM DO WHAT THE RULES SAY THEY HAVE TO DO. WE'RE NOT TALKING ABOUT A NICE JUDGE. JUDGE CURETON, IN MY EXPERIENCE, IN TRAVELING THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA, IS, WITHOUT A DOUBT, IN THE TOP TEN OF THE FAMILY COURT JUDGES IN THIS STATE. I WOULD LIKE FOR MY FRIENDS THAT JUST TESTIFIED ABOUT SOME OF THE THINGS THEY DIDN'T LIKE ABOUT HIM TO GET IN MY VAN AND TRAVEL WITH ME FOR TWO MONTHS, AND I THINK THEY WOULD HAVE A DIFFERENT PERSPECTIVE ON WHAT KIND OF JUDGE THEY HAVE AT OCONEE COUNTY. NOW, WHEN HE WAS IN LEXINGTON COUNTY, WHEN HE BECAME CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE, THE FIRST THING WE GOT WAS A PACK OF PAPER IN THE MAIL TELLING US "THIS IS THE WAY THAT I WOULD LIKE FOR YOU TO FIX THINGS AND DO THINGS, WHEN YOU COME INTO COURT." AND THERE WAS NO QUESTION IN ANYBODY'S MIND WHAT YOU WERE SUPPOSED TO DO ABOUT FINANCIAL DECLARATIONS AND AFFIDAVITS AND THE RULES AND REGULATIONS THAT HE WENT BY. NOW, MR. BRANDT WAS TALKING ABOUT INCONSISTENCIES IN FAMILY COURT. ALL YOU HAVE TO DO IS TAKE YOUR LAW BOOKS OUT AND READ THEM. THERE IS INCONSISTENCY IN LAW ALL THROUGH THE FAMILY COURT. THERE IS INCONSISTENCY IN STANDARDS THAT HAVE TO BE MET. MR. BRANDT SAYS "I DON'T UNDERSTAND THE INCONSISTENCY ABOUT TWO DIFFERENT STANDARDS WHEN SOMEBODY IS IN A CONTESTED DIVORCE, AND SOMEBODY'S IN A NON-CONTESTED DIVORCE, WHEN IT'S DEALING WITH HOW LENIENT YOU CAN BE WHEN ALLOWING TESTIMONY IN." IT'S IN THE BOOK. IT TELLS YOU WHAT STANDARDS YOU HAVE TO PROVE WHEN YOU HAVE A NON-CONTESTED DIVORCE VERSUS A CONTESTED DIVORCE. THE CASE LAW TELLS YOU WHAT THE STANDARD IS. IT'S INCONSISTENT, BUT IT'S SPECIFICALLY SPELLED OUT, SO THAT YOU KNOW WHAT THAT INCONSISTENCY IS, SO A LOT OF THE INCONSISTENCIES ARE BUILT INTO THE SYSTEM. I JUST RECENTLY HAD A CASE THAT WAS DECIDED, THAT WAS IN FRONT OF JUDGE CURETON -- A COUPLE OF YEARS AGO, NOW, I THINK -- THAT HAD HARD FACTS, TOUGH LAW. WHEN I SAY "HARD FACTS," I MEAN A WOMAN WHO HAD CONSPIRED -- MY CLIENT -- TO HAVE HER HUSBAND KILLED; A WOMAN WHO HAD SICKNESS, THAT HAD A LIFE EXPECTANCY OF LESS THAN FOUR YEARS; A HUSBAND WHO HAD COMMITTED ADULTERY. I'M JUST TELLING YOU SOME OF THE FACTS. THINK ABOUT THE COMPLICATED LEGAL PRINCIPLES AND HARD FACTUAL SITUATIONS THAT HAVE TO BE DECIDED. AND HE DECIDED IT, AND THE OTHER SIDE APPEALED IT AND I APPEALED IT -- BECAUSE NEITHER ONE OF US WERE HAPPY -- AND THE DECISION CAME DOWN LAST WEEK, AND GUESS WHAT THE COURT OF APPEALS DID. THEY CONFIRMED EVERYTHING HE DID. NOW, WHY DO I TELL YOU THAT? I TELL YOU THAT FOR THE SAME REASON YOU'VE HEARD OTHER PEOPLE SAY TODAY, ANYTIME YOU ARE INVOLVED IN FAMILY COURT, THERE'S VERY LITTLE GRATITUDE. THERE'S VERY LITTLE GRATITUDE FROM THE OTHER SIDE, BECAUSE THEY'VE LOST, IF THEY'VE LOST. THERE'S VERY LITTLE GRATITUDE FROM YOUR SIDE, BECAUSE THEY DON'T THINK YOU'VE DONE A GOOD JOB, OR THE JUDGE DIDN'T DO A GOOD JOB. BUT IN THAT PARTICULAR CASE, IT WAS A COMPLICATED CASE. BOTH ATTORNEYS AGREED -- MARK TAYLOR AND I -- THAT WE WERE VERY, VERY PLEASED WITH IT. WE HAD JUDGE CURETON AS OUR JUDGE, BECAUSE WE KNEW HE WOULD MAKE THE HARD DECISIONS; AND HE KNEW WHAT THE LAW WAS. IT'S NOT MUCH FUN WHEN YOU GO TO SOME OF THESE SMALL COUNTIES AND YOU HAVE WHAT I CALL "THE NICE JUDGE," WHO DOESN'T GO BY THE RULES, AND EVERYBODY GETS TO TALK TO HIM, AND HE TALKS ABOUT THE GOLF GAME, AND HE TALKS ABOUT WHAT THEY DID THE NIGHT BEFORE, AND SO FORTH. YOU DON'T DO THAT IN JUDGE CURETON'S COURTROOM DURING COURT TIME. HE REQUIRES YOU STRICTLY TO ABIDE BY THE RULES AND PROCEDURES, AND HE KNOWS THE RULES AND PROCEDURES. AND JUST LIKE MIKE SAID, I DON'T AGREE WITH ALL THE DECISIONS HE'S MADE, ON A TEMPORARY BASIS OR ON A PERMANENT BASIS OR ON ANY BASIS, BUT I TELL YOU ONE THING, I HAVE NEVER BEEN IN HIS COURTROOM WHERE I FELT LIKE I DIDN'T GET AN OPPORTUNITY TO PRESENT MY CASE PROPERLY, AND MY CLIENT DIDN'T GET THE OPPORTUNITY TO PRESENT THEIR CASE PROPERLY, AND THAT A FAIR DECISION WAS HANDED DOWN. I DIDN'T SAY I AGREED WITH HIM, BUT A FAIR DECISION WAS HANDED DOWN. IT INTRIGUES ME THAT WE TALK ABOUT GIVING PREFERENTIAL TREATMENT TO PEOPLE, AND I HAVE BEEN IN CASES WHERE THERE HAVE BEEN POLITICIANS INVOLVED, WHERE THERE'S BEEN LOCAL PEOPLE IN THE BAR AND EVERYTHING. IF ANY PREFERENCE WAS GOING TO BE GIVEN, IT WOULD BE GIVEN, AND IT HAS NOT BEEN. I FEEL VERY CONFIDENT, ANYTIME I GO IN FRONT OF JUDGE CURETON, THAT I'M GOING TO GET A FAIR SHAKE, THAT EVERYBODY'S GOING TO GET A FAIR SHAKE. AND MANY TIMES, WHENEVER I HAVE A GOOD, COMPETENT ATTORNEY ON THE OTHER SIDE, WE ASK FOR HIM TO BE OUR JUDGE IN THOSE CASES. WE WANT HIM TO BE OUR JUDGE, BECAUSE WE KNOW ABOUT THE TYPES OF RULINGS HE'S GOING TO MAKE, AND WITHIN THAT RANGE OF DISCRETION THAT THE FAMILY COURT JUDGE HAS. NOW, WHAT'S HAPPENED IS THAT WHEN I FIRST STARTED PRACTICING IN FRONT OF HIM -- BECAUSE OF THE STATEWIDE PRACTICE, I DIDN'T KNOW JUDGE CURETON -- AND BECAUSE I MAKE MY LIVING PRACTICING FAMILY LAW, AND THAT'S THE ONLY THING THAT I DO, AND I'M VERY INTERESTED IN FAMILY LAW, I FIND MYSELF BEFORE THIS COMMITTEE TODAY FEELING LIKE THESE PEOPLE WHO HAVE SHOWN UP TODAY AND EXPRESSED THEIR CONCERNS AND EVERYTHING -- I THINK IT'S HEALTHY FOR THE FAMILY COURT SYSTEM. I THINK IT HELPS US TO LOOK AT OURSELVES, AND I'M SURE THAT JUDGE CURETON IS GOING TO LOOK AT HIMSELF AND TAKE SOME OF THESE THINGS THESE PEOPLE HAVE SAID AND TAKE THEM INTO CONSIDERATION WHENEVER HE GOES BACK ON THE BENCH, IF HE IS REELECTED. AND I THINK IT'S HEALTHY FOR OUR SYSTEM TO GO THROUGH THIS. BUT I FIND IT VERY DIFFICULT TO BELIEVE THAT THIS MAN, WHO I HAVE SAT ON MANY COMMITTEES WITH -- HIS DOOR -- AND WHEN HE SAYS HIS DOOR IS OPEN, HIS DOOR IS OPEN ALL THE TIME. AND WHAT I FIND INTRIGUING ABOUT IT IS THAT WHENEVER HIS DOOR IS OPEN, IF THERE ARE SOME THINGS I DON'T LIKE ABOUT THE WAY HE'S DONE SOMETHING, I FEEL VERY CONFIDENT TO WALK IN HIS CHAMBERS AND SIT DOWN IN FRONT OF HIM AND LOOK AT HIM, EYEBALL-TO-EYEBALL -- JUST LIKE MY FRIEND, LARRY, DID -- AND SAY, "I DON'T APPRECIATE THE WAY YOU DID THIS," OR, "I WOULD LIKE YOU TO CHANGE THIS," OR, "HAVE YOU CONSIDERED THIS," KNOWING THAT THE NEXT TIME I APPEAR IN FRONT OF HIM, THAT HE'S NOT GOING TO BE VINDICTIVE; HE'S NOT GOING TO TAKE THAT OUT ON ME; HE'S NOT GOING TO MAKE MY CLIENT HAVE TO SUFFER BECAUSE HE AND I DO NOT AGREE ON SOMETHING. YOU'VE HEARD A FEW OF THE THINGS -- HE'S A VERY MODEST PERSON -- WHEN HE STARTED TALKING ABOUT SOME OF THE THINGS THAT HE'S DONE FOR THE FAMILY COURT. THE FAMILY COURT IS A MUCH BETTER PLACE BECAUSE HE'S BEEN ON THE BENCH, AND BECAUSE HE IS A GOOD JUDGE, AND BECAUSE HE SPENDS THE TIME ON THESE COMMITTEES AND EVERYTHING THAT GO TO AND MAKE OUR SYSTEM A BETTER SYSTEM. I CAN HONESTLY SAY, THE NUMBER OF TIMES THAT I'VE BEEN IN FRONT OF HIM, EITHER ON A LEGAL BASIS OR IN THE COURTROOM, THAT HE HAS NEVER SHOWN FAVORITISM TO ME OR TO THE OTHER ATTORNEY. SOMETIMES I FEEL LIKE -- AND I'M SURE SOME OF THE OTHER ATTORNEYS THAT KNOW HIM WELL DO -- I FEEL LIKE MAYBE HE'S BENDING OVER BACKWARDS A LITTLE BIT NOT TO SHOW FAVORITISM, BECAUSE WE ARE FRIENDS. BUT WHEN IT'S ALL SAID AND DONE, I DON'T FEEL THAT WAY. I REALIZE THAT HE'S HANDLING THE THING, AND TREATING BOTH OF US IN THAT COURTROOM EQUALLY. AND IT MAKES YOU FEEL GOOD; IT MAKES YOUR CLIENTS FEEL GOOD. AND IT'S TRUE, I'VE WALKED OUT OF HIS COURTROOM AFTER A CASE MANY A TIME, AND MY CLIENT HAS SAID, "BOY, THAT JUDGE HATED YOU. THAT JUDGE REALLY TOOK IT OUT ON THE OTHER ATTORNEY," OR "TOOK IT OUT ON THE OTHER PARTY," AND THAT'S RIGHT, BECAUSE WE WERE NOT COMPLYING WITH THE RULES OR SOMETHING WENT WRONG, AND HE RUNS A TIGHT SHIP. WHAT DO I SAY WHEN I HAVE A CLIENT THAT I'M GOING INTO THE COURTROOM WITH? AGAIN, IT GOES BACK TO LAWYERING. I TELL THEM, "THIS JUDGE IS STRICT, GOES BY THE RULES, AND NO B.S. IT'S GOT TO BE DONE RIGHT." AND THAT'S THE WAY HE RUNS HIS COURTROOM, BUT YOU HAVE TO TELL YOUR CLIENT THAT SO HE REALIZES THAT, SO YOU DON'T COME OUT OF THE COURTROOM AFTER IT'S OVER, IN SHOCK. WE NEED MORE STRONG JUDGES. WE NEED PEOPLE OF INTEGRITY. WE NEED PEOPLE WHO TAKE TIME OUT OF THEIR PERSONAL AND PRIVATE LIFE TO SPEND THE TIME THAT THIS MAN HAS SPENT, MAKING OUR FAMILY COURT SYSTEM A BETTER SYSTEM, MAKING OUR FAMILY COURT SYSTEM THE -- AND I GO ALL OVER THE UNITED STATES, LECTURING AND MEETING OTHER LAWYERS, BECAUSE I'M A MEMBER OF THE ACADEMY OF FAMILY LAWYERS. WE HAVE A GREAT FAMILY COURT SYSTEM IN SOUTH CAROLINA. IT NEEDS IMPROVEMENT; OF COURSE, IT DOES. BUT YOU NEED TO TALK TO SOME OF THESE OTHER PEOPLE THAT IT TAKES TWO YEARS, THREE YEARS TO HAVE A SIMPLE DIVORCE HEARING HEARD. YOU NEED TO TALK TO THESE PEOPLE WHO CAN'T GET AN EMERGENCY HEARING FOR THREE MONTHS. JUDGE CURETON HAS HELPED OUR SYSTEM AND MADE IT A MUCH BETTER SYSTEM. HE'S JUST BEEN TOO MODEST TO TELL YOU ALL OF THE THINGS HE'S DONE AND ALL THE INPUT HE'S HAD. HASSLING ATTORNEYS? I THINK I READ THOSE WORDS IN ONE OF THESE AFFIDAVITS. YOU ARE RIGHT. HE'S NOT ONLY HASSLED ME; HE'S HASSLED MIKE, AND HE'S PROBABLY HASSLED EVERYBODY. IF YOU DON'T DO IT RIGHT, AND YOU DON'T GO BY THE RULES, THEN HE'S GOING TO HOLD YOUR FOOT TO THE FIRE. NOW, LET'S TALK A LITTLE BIT ABOUT CUSTODY, BECAUSE I FOUND IT INTERESTING WHEN HE SAID HE WAS RATED HIGHEST WITH THE MEN IN THIS STATE'S ORGANIZATION, TRYING TO GET THEIR RIGHTS HEARD IN COURT. THAT'S WHAT MY SUBSPECIALTY IS, CUSTODY. I TRAVEL THIS WHOLE STATE AND DO CUSTODY CASES. AND IF I HAD MY CHOICE TODAY TO PICK THE JUDGE THAT I WANTED TO HEAR A CUSTODY CASE, HE WOULD BE ONE OF THE TWO JUDGES I WOULD PICK, OUT OF THE TEN JUDGES I TOLD YOU ABOUT THAT I THINK HE'S IN THE TOP TEN WITH. THERE ARE TWO OF THEM THAT I'M NOT FRIENDS WITH AT ALL, AND DON'T CARE TO BE FRIENDS WITH THEM. I DON'T LIKE THEM, THEY DON'T LIKE ME; BUT WHEN I GO IN THAT COURTROOM, THEY TREAT ME WITH DIGNITY AND RESPECT AND THEY HAND DOWN A GOOD DECISION. AND REGARDLESS OF HOW PEOPLE THINK ABOUT HIM, OR THEY DON'T LIKE HIS DEMEANOR, YOU'RE GOING TO GET A GOOD DECISION FROM THE VIEWPOINT OF KNOWING THE LAW AND KNOWING THE RULES. IT CONCERNS ME VERY MUCH -- AND I DON'T APPEAR BEFORE THIS COMMITTEE VERY OFTEN, AND THE REASON I DON'T APPEAR IS BECAUSE I DON'T BELIEVE IT'S MY PLACE AS A FAMILY LAW PRACTITIONER WHO TRAVELS THIS STATE TO APPEAR IN BEHALF OF EVERY FAMILY COURT JUDGE THAT'S ASKED ME TO, OR WANTS ME TO COME IN AND SAY GOOD THINGS ABOUT HIM. THE REASON FOR THAT IS BECAUSE I CAN'T SAY GOOD THINGS ABOUT A LOT OF THEM. THEY'RE NICE PEOPLE; THEY'RE NICE, AND THEY DO A PRETTY GOOD JOB IN JUDGING, BUT THEY'RE NOT THE TOP, GOOD JUDGES THAT THIS STATE NEEDS. NOW, I'M NOT SAYING THIS IN A CRITICAL MANNER. WE COULD TAKE THE BOTTOM 50 PERCENT OF THE FAMILY COURT JUDGES OF THE STATE AND ELECT ANOTHER 50 PERCENT OF THEM, AND YOU'RE STILL GOING TO HAVE TO RANK THEM, SO SOME OF THEM ARE GOING TO BE BETTER THAN OTHERS. IT'S JUST THE WAY THE SYSTEM WORKS. I THINK THAT MIKE POINTED OUT -- HE HIT ON TWO POINTS THAT I THOUGHT WERE IMPORTANT. AND THAT WAS, IF WE'RE GOING TO CRITICIZE PEOPLE BECAUSE THEY DON'T SPEAK TO US EVERY TIME WE SEE THEM AND SAY THAT MAKES THEM NOT QUALIFIED FOR JUDGE, THEN THERE'S A LOT OF US NOT QUALIFIED FOR ANYTHING. IF WE'RE GOING TO SAY PEOPLE ARE MOODY A LITTLE BIT FROM TIME TO TIME, THEN THAT'S THE WAY WE ALL ARE. BUT I THINK THAT I CAN SAY, WITHOUT ANY RESERVATION, THAT WHEN YOU HAVE SOMEONE THAT MAKES THE HARD DECISIONS, WHEN THEY'VE GOT INTEGRITY, AND WHEN THEY MAKE YOU GO BY THE RULES, THAT THERE ARE GOING TO BE SOME PEOPLE WHO ARE GOING TO BE UNHAPPY. NOW, I DON'T KNOW ANYTHING ABOUT SPECIFIC CASES EXCEPT THE ONES I'VE BEEN INVOLVED IN, BUT IF ANYBODY WANTS TO KNOW ABOUT THE ONES I LOST WHEN HE WAS THE JUDGE, I'LL BE HAPPY TO TELL YOU ABOUT THOSE. THERE'S ALSO SOME THAT I WON, WHERE HE WAS THE JUDGE. BUT BY AND LARGE, I DON'T BELIEVE YOU WIN AND LOSE IN FAMILY COURT. I JUST DON'T THINK YOU CAN SAY YOU WIN OR LOSE IN FAMILY COURT. WHAT YOU END UP DOING IS YOU TRY TO TAKE TWO PEOPLE WHO ARE HAVING PROBLEMS, AND WORK OUT A SOLUTION SO THAT BOTH OF THEM CAN SURVIVE. AND THAT'S BASICALLY WHAT WE DO FOR A LIVING. AND I JUST FEEL THAT WHEN YOU CONSIDER ALL THE AFFIDAVITS AND EVERYTHING THAT ARE IN FRONT OF YOU, LOOK AT THEM, AND SEE WHAT CRITICISMS HAS BEEN LEVELED AT HIM THAT SAY HE'S NOT QUALIFIED TO BE A FAMILY COURT JUDGE, AND WHAT CRITICISMS ARE LEVELED AT HIM WHICH DEAL WITH LAWYERING AND THE DIFFERENCE OF OPINION ON HOW LAWYERING SHOULD BE DONE VERSUS WHAT THE RULES ARE AND WHAT THE LAW IS IN THIS STATE; I THINK THAT YOU WILL AGREE WITH ME, AFTER YOU TAKE ALL OF THIS INFORMATION, THAT YOU'RE VERY FORTUNATE TO HAVE SOMEONE WITH THE INTEGRITY AND THE SKILLS THAT THIS MAN HAS. AND WE NEED PEOPLE LIKE HIM ON THE FAMILY COURT. AND I'M NOT SAYING ANYTHING ABOUT THE OTHER TWO PEOPLE THAT ARE IN THE RACE, BECAUSE I DON'T KNOW THEM. I JUST MET ONE OF THEM TODAY, AND HAD A BRIEF CONVERSATION WITH HIM, BUT I'M JUST SAYING IF THEY ARE OF THAT SAME CLOTH, THEN THAT'S THE TYPE OF PEOPLE WE NEED ON THIS COURT. I FEEL LIKE I'VE TALKED TOO MUCH, AND I'M GOING TO LEAVE YOU GUYS ALONE.
SENATOR MCCONNELL: I'VE GOT A QUESTION.
CHAIRMAN POPE: YES.

Q YOU USED THE WORDS HE HASSLED YOU. WHAT DID YOU MEAN BY THAT?
A WELL, WHEN I SAY "HASSLE," WHAT I MEAN IS, IF SOMEBODY IS JUST DELAYING AND DELAYING AND DELAYING, HE GETS ON THEM. HE SAYS, "LET'S GET ON WITH THE CASE." NOW, THAT MAY BE HASSLING TO ONE PERSON BECAUSE THEY'VE GOT SOME REASON THAT THEY WANTED IT -- SO WHEN I USE THE WORD "HASSLE," I DON'T MEAN -- I MEAN, I DON'T KNOW WHAT THE DEFINITION IS. WHAT I MEAN IS, HE DOESN'T MIND GETTING ON YOU AND SAYING "LET'S GET BACK ON TRACK ON THIS CASE, AND LET'S GET IT DONE THE WAY IT SHOULD BE DONE." WHEN I SAY "HASSLE," THAT'S WHAT I MEAN ABOUT THE DEFINITION OF HASSLE. WHAT I WANT TO DO, WHEN I GO IN THE COURTROOM, IS, I WANT TO RUN THE COURTROOM THE WAY I THINK IT SHOULD BE RUN. I WANT TO GET CHARGE OF THAT COURTROOM, AND I WANT TO BE THE ONE THAT MAKES THE DECISIONS IN IT. AND ANY JUDGE THAT WILL GIVE ME THAT OPPORTUNITY, I'LL TAKE AS MUCH AS I POSSIBLY CAN. BUT WHEN SOMEBODY GOES BY THE RULES AND WHEN SOMEBODY -- AND YOU KNOW THEY'RE GOING BY THE RULES, AND YOU TRY TO GO IN AND TAKE OVER THE COURTROOM, TO ME THAT'S A HASSLE. WHAT HE'S DOING, HE'S JUST PUTTING ME IN MY PLACE.
Q WAS HE RUDE TO YOU, OR --
A HE'S NOT -- NOT -- NOT -- HE'S NOT GOING TO BE THE TYPE OF PERSON WHO'S GOING TO BE NICE AND SWEET TO YOU. AFTER HE'S WARNED YOU A COUPLE OF TIMES NOT TO DO SOMETHING, HE'S GOING TO BE FORCEFUL IN HIS COURTROOM AND EXPECT YOU TO GO BY THE RULES. BUT AS FAR AS BEING RUDE TO ME, HE'S NEVER BEEN RUDE TO ME. HE'S NEVER BEEN -- AS FAR AS JUDICIAL TEMPERAMENT, I THINK, IN SOME OF THE CASES I'VE BEEN IN, HE HAS BEEN IN BETTER TEMPERAMENT THAN OTHERS, BUT NEVER BAD. SOME OF THEM, HE'S HAD TO BE A STRONGER JUDGE IN BECAUSE OF THE ATTORNEYS. NOW, THE CASE I TOLD YOU ABOUT, SHARBA VERSUS SHARBA, IT SO HAPPENED THAT WE HAD A REAL EXCELLENT ATTORNEY ON THE OTHER SIDE -- FROM MY PERSPECTIVE -- AND WE HAD NO PROBLEMS IN THE WHOLE CASE. HE NEVER HAD TO CALL ANYBODY DOWN, NEVER HAD TO DO ANYTHING. SO IT JUST DEPENDS ON WHO THE ATTORNEYS ARE YOU'RE DEALING WITH, WHAT THEY'RE TRYING TO DO AND WHAT THEY'RE TRYING TO -- WHAT TYPE OF EVIDENCE THEY'RE TRYING TO GET IN, OR WHAT PROCEDURE OR METHOD THEY'RE USING. IF THEY'RE NOT USING THE ONES THAT ARE APPROPRIATE, HE'S GOING TO TELL THEM THEY'RE NOT USING THE APPROPRIATE METHODS. "HASSLE" WAS THE WRONG WORD.
CHAIRMAN POPE: THANK YOU.

WHEREUPON, GRUBER SIRES, BEING DULY SWORN AND CAUTIONED TO TELL THE TRUTH, THE WHOLE TRUTH, AND NOTHING BUT THE TRUTH, IS EXAMINED AND TESTIFIES AS FOLLOWS:

Q PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS.
A MY NAME IS GROVER SIRES, S-I-R-E-S. I LIVE AT 181 WEST SHEPHERD'S WAY, SENECA, SOUTH CAROLINA. MR. CHAIRMAN, I STATED TO YOU MY NAME. I HAVE THREE POSITIONS PRESENTLY. I'VE BEEN THE ONLY PUBLIC DEFENDER THAT OCONEE COUNTY HAS EVER HAD. I PRESENTLY, I THINK, AM THE LONGEST-SERVING PUBLIC DEFENDER IN THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA, SINCE PETE MARQUIS RETIRED. I TOOK OVER PUBLIC DEFENDER SERVICE IN OCONEE COUNTY IN SEPTEMBER OF 1972. I ALSO AM CITY ATTORNEY FOR THE CITY OF CLEMSON, SOUTH CAROLINA, SINCE 1981. I HAVE A PRIVATE PRACTICE IN SENECA. I DO REAL ESTATE; I DO DOMESTIC WORK, AS WELL. I'M ALSO A MEMBER OF THE HOUSE OF DELEGATES FOR THE STATE BAR; THIS IS MY THIRD TERM THAT I'VE SERVED. I HAD QUOTED TO ME ONE TIME, BY PROFESSOR COLEMAN GARRIS AT THE LAW SCHOOL: "DO NOT BE INTOXICATED WITH THE EXUBERANCE OF YOUR OWN VERBOSITY." AND I AM NOT. PEOPLE THAT KNOW ME SAY THAT I AM NOT. I DON'T KNOW WHERE TO START. I'VE BEEN ON NUMEROUS COMMITTEES OF THE LOCAL BAR. OF COURSE, I THINK EVERYBODY HERE WAS PRESIDENT OF THE BAR, BECAUSE WE USE A ROTATION SYSTEM IN OCONEE COUNTY, SO EVERYBODY IS PRESIDENT AT ONE TIME OR ANOTHER. BUT BECAUSE I WAS PUBLIC DEFENDER AND HAD BEEN THE ONLY PUBLIC DEFENDER -- UP UNTIL JUST, I FEEL LIKE, RECENTLY, I WAS THE ONLY ONE -- THAT DID BOTH JUVENILE AS WELL AS GENERAL SESSIONS COURT CASES, I WAS ALWAYS APPOINTED WHEN WE HAD PROBLEMS WITH JUDGES. WHEN I FIRST WENT TO OCONEE IN 1971, WE HAD A VERY DISTINGUISHED GENTLEMAN BY THE NAME OF ED NEISTOCK, IT WAS A COUNTY COURT JUDGE SYSTEM BACK THEN. WE HAD A SMALL BAR, PERHAPS EIGHT TO TEN PEOPLE AT THE MOST. SINCE THEN, OF COURSE, WE'VE GONE THROUGH JUDICIAL REFORM; WE'VE HAD A PROBLEM WITH ONE JUDGE, IN PARTICULAR. A BRILLIANT LAWYER, KENDALL FEW. I WAS APPOINTED ON THE COMMITTEE TO GO TALK TO JUDGE FEW, AND SEE IF HE COULDN'T FIND SOME OTHER LINE OF WORK -- WHICH HE DID. WE WORKED IT OUT WITH HIM. I DON'T RECALL SPECIFICALLY BEING ON A COMMITTEE WHEN WE, QUOTE, UNQUOTE, "SEARCHED" FOR A REPLACEMENT FOR JUDGE FEW, BUT WHEN JUDGE FEW LEFT, JUDGE CURETON CAME ON-BOARD. I HAVE A VERY SHORT MEMORY WHEN IT COMES TO CASES THAT I HAVE WON AND LOST. I THINK THAT'S PART OF BEING A PUBLIC DEFENDER. IF YOU DWELL ON ALL THE CASES AND ALL THE BAD PLEAS YOU'VE DONE AND ALL THESE OTHER THINGS, YOU WON'T LIVE TO BE A VERY RIPE OLD AGE -- NOT SANE, ANYWAY. SO I CAN'T SIT HERE AND CITE ANY SPECIFICS. I, LIKE MY GOOD FRIEND, MR. GLENN, FORMER JUDGE, AND MR. LESTER, HAVE HAD CASES WHERE I CUSSED THE JUDGE FOR MORE THAN 24 HOURS, BUT IT HASN'T ONLY BEEN JUDGE CURETON. I HAVE HAD THE PLEASURE OF APPEARING BEFORE JUDGE BUBBA NESS WHEN HE WAS ON THE CIRCUIT, ALL THE WAY UP TO JUDGE SHULER WHO HAS JUST GONE ON THE CIRCUIT. I PROBABLY HAVE APPEARED BEFORE MORE CIRCUIT JUDGES THAN I HAVE FAMILY COURT JUDGES, OBVIOUSLY. I TRY PROBABLY THREE OR FOUR DOMESTIC CASES A YEAR; NOT THAT MANY. USED TO BE JUVENILES -- I THINK MR. MCDONOUGH'S RECORD FROM LAST YEAR WAS SOMETHING LIKE HE REPRESENTED 100, SO THAT'S PROBABLY WHAT I DID FOR SEVERAL YEARS, UP UNTIL I THINK APPROXIMATELY 1980. GOING TO SPECIFICS AGAIN, AND THE FACT THAT I WAS APPOINTED ON THESE COMMITTEES -- AND THIS IS WHAT I WANTED TO ADDRESS YOU ON -- MR. BRANDT POINTED OUT HE HAS MET WITH JUDGE CURETON. MR. LESTER HAS POINTED OUT HE HAS MET WITH HIM. AND I THINK ANYONE HERE WOULD HAVE TO CANDIDLY ADMIT TO YOU THAT HIS DOOR IS OPEN. YOU DON'T TALK TO HIM ABOUT CASES PENDING BEFORE HIM, BUT YOU CAN GO AND TALK TO HIM ABOUT PROBLEMS. SEVERAL YEARS AGO, THERE IS AN ALLEGATION ABOUT A MEETING WITH JUDGE CURETON. THAT DID NOT HAPPEN, GENTLEMEN, LADY. THERE WAS A JOINT OR A BAR COMMITTEE APPOINTED, CONSISTING OF MYSELF, KAY SNYDER, AND TIM CAIN, TO TALK ABOUT SCHEDULING PROBLEMS THAT WE WERE HAVING. HERE WE ARE IN A SMALL COUNTY WITH A SMALL BAR. THEY WERE SCHEDULING GENERAL SESSIONS COURT AND FAMILY COURT AT THE SAME TIME. IT WAS RUINING ME, AND IT WAS RUINING A LOT OF MEMBERS OF THE BAR. WE COULD NOT BE IN TWO COURTROOMS AT THE SAME TIME. WE WENT TO -- AT THAT TIME, IT WAS JUDGE DEAN HALL, I THINK IT WAS PROBABLY HIS FIRST TIME AS ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE. WE MET WITH HIM IN ANDERSON, WENT OUT TO LUNCH ONE DAY AND MET WITH HIM IN ANDERSON. WE MET WITH HIM AGAIN IN OCONEE, WHETHER HE WAS UP THERE AT COURT OR WHATEVER, BUT WE DID MEET WITH HIM. I DON'T KNOW WHAT HAPPENED, BUT I KNOW THE PROBLEM WAS CURED, AND WE HAVE NOT HAD -- IN THE LAST SEVERAL YEARS -- TERMS OF GENERAL SESSIONS AND FAMILY COURT TOGETHER. THAT PROBLEM WAS CURED. JUDGE CURETON TOLD YOU THAT IT WAS SEVEN YEARS AGO. I JUST CAN'T BELIEVE THAT; I CAN REMEMBER IT LIKE IT WAS YESTERDAY. THERE WAS GRUMBLING AMONG THE BAR. PETTY THINGS, LIKE YOU'VE GOT BEFORE YOU. PETTY THINGS. AND ON HIS OWN MOTION, HE CALLED A MEETING OF THE BAR AND, SO FAR AS I KNOW, ALL MEMBERS OF THE BAR WERE PRESENT. AND AT THAT MEETING, HE PASSED OUT RULES; HE PASSED OUT COPIES OF FINANCIAL DECLARATIONS AND VARIOUS THINGS. SAID HE HAD AVAILABLE COPIES OF ORDERS, HOW THEY SHOULD BE DONE. IN OTHER WORDS, HE PUT US BACK TO SCHOOL, AND I DON'T FIND ANY FAULT WITH THAT. HE ALSO, IN FRONT OF EVERYONE THERE, TOLD US THAT "IF YOU HAVE SOME PROBLEM, LET'S HEAR IT." AND IF THERE WAS ANY REMARKS AT THAT TIME, I SIMPLY DON'T RECALL. I'M SURE THERE WERE, BECAUSE YOU CAN'T GET A ROOMFUL OF LAWYERS TOGETHER AND THEY NOT ARGUE ABOUT SOMETHING, BUT THAT WAS IT, YOU KNOW. WE TALK ABOUT DISCIPLINE; WE TALK ABOUT THE WAY HE RUNS HIS COURTROOM. GENTLEMEN, THOSE OF YOU WHO ARE LAWYERS KNOW THAT A STRICT JUDGE IS GOING TO MAKE A BETTER LAWYER OUT OF YOU. AND I'M AS LAZY AS THEY COME, BUT I KNOW WHEN I GO IN TO JUDGE CURETON THAT WE'RE GOING TO HAVE TO HAVE AN AFFIDAVIT ON A TEMPORARY HEARING. THAT'S A FOREGONE CONCLUSION. IF WE'RE GOING TO ASK ABOUT ANY KIND OF MONEY, WE'RE GOING TO HAVE TO HAVE A FINANCIAL DECLARATION. IT'S A FOREGONE CONCLUSION. AND HE SAYS THIS HAS TO BE DONE. NOW, I DON'T SEE ANY PROBLEM WITH THAT. MR. BRANDT SAYS HE CAN'T PREDICT HOW HE'LL BE. WELL, MR. BRANDT IS A GOOD LAWYER; IN FACT, HE REPRESENTED ME ON A CASE. GOOD LAWYER. I HAVE NO PROBLEM WITH HIM. BUT THE LAW IS THE LAW. THE FACTS OF EACH CASE ARE DIFFERENT. THE DEMEANOR OF THE WITNESSES ARE DIFFERENT. AND THE JUDGE HAS TO BE BOTH FACT-FINDER AND APPLY THAT LAW. AND THIS MAN IS THE ONLY ONE IN THIS ROOM, WHO'S APPLIED FOR THIS JOB, WHO'S QUALIFIED TO DO THAT. I'VE KNOWN HIM NOW SINCE HE CAME TO OCONEE COUNTY. I'VE KNOWN THE OTHER INDIVIDUALS AS THEY HAVE COME TO OCONEE COUNTY. AND I'M NOT HERE TO THROW ASPERSIONS ON ANYONE, BUT YOU CAN TELL FROM THE TESTIMONY THAT YOU'VE ALREADY HEARD AND THAT YOU WILL HEAR, THAT THERE'S NOT ANOTHER FAMILY COURT JUDGE I KNOW OF THAT KEEPS THE LAWYERS IN LINE, KEEPS THE LITIGANTS IN LINE, AND ARRIVES AT A FAIR DECISION BASED ON THE WAY HE SEES IT. AND IF WE HAVE A PROBLEM WITH THAT, WE ASK FOR A RE-HEARING, OR WE TAKE IT DOWN TO THE WISE MEN IN COLUMBIA. THAT'S THE WAY IT'S DONE, AND I'VE GOT NO OTHER PROBLEM. I'D BE GLAD TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS.
Q HOW HAVE YOU OBSERVED JUDGE CURETON TO TREAT PRO SE LITIGANTS? WE'VE HEARD AN AWFUL LOT OF TALK ABOUT THE LAWYERS. WHAT ABOUT THE LITIGANTS WHO DON'T HAVE LAWYERS?
A HE BENDS OVER BACKWARDS. IN FACT, I HAVE LOST CASES WHERE PEOPLE HAVE COME IN RIGHT OFF THE MILL HILL OR WHEREVER, REPRESENTING THEMSELVES, AND COME OUT BETTER THAN IF THEY HAD HAD MR. GLENN OR ANYONE ELSE, BY THEMSELVES, AND I BE ON THE OTHER SIDE. AND IT'S KIND OF EMBARRASSING, BUT I UNDERSTOOD WHAT HAPPENED AND MY CLIENTS, I THINK, UNDERSTOOD WHAT HAPPENED. OF COURSE, THEY GIVE ME A LITTLE TROUBLE ABOUT IT. BUT, YES, HE HAS BEEN MORE THAN FAIR WITH PRO SE LITIGANTS.
CHAIRMAN POPE: DOES THE COMMITTEE HAVE ANY OTHER QUESTIONS?
VICE-CHAIRMAN GENTRY: NO, SIR.
SENATOR MCCONNELL: NO.
CHAIRMAN POPE: THANK YOU.
WITNESS: THANK YOU.

WHEREUPON, HAROLD LOWERY, BEING DULY SWORN AND CAUTIONED TO TELL THE TRUTH, THE WHOLE TRUTH, AND NOTHING BUT THE TRUTH, IS EXAMINED AND TESTIFIES AS FOLLOWS:

Q PLEASE GIVE US YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS.
A MR. CHAIRMAN AND MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE, MY NAME IS HAROLD LOWERY. I PRACTICE LAW IN ANDERSON, SOUTH CAROLINA. I'M THE SENIOR PARTNER OF LOWERY, THOMPSON & KING. MY OFFICE IS AT 110 EAST BENSON STREET, ANDERSON, SOUTH CAROLINA. I HAVE BEEN PRACTICING LAW FOR 31 YEARS, SINCE 1961, BOTH IN CORPORATE LAW AND PRIVATE PRACTICE. I HAVE PROBABLY TRIED AS MANY, IF NOT MORE, CASES IN JUDGE CURETON'S COURT AS ANY LAWYER, AND MAYBE MOST LAWYERS, IN THIS ROOM. I KNOW, WHEN MR. GLENN WAS JUDGE, I TRIED MANY, MANY CASES IN HIS COURT. I CAN'T TELL YOU THAT, IN EVERY CASE I HAVE EVER TRIED, THAT JUDGE CURETON RULED THE WAY I WANTED HIM TO RULE OR THE WAY I THOUGHT HE SHOULD HAVE RULED, BUT I HAVE ONE STANDING WARNING, AND ONE STANDING ADMONITION THAT I GIVE EVERY CLIENT WHO COMES IN MY OFFICE INVOLVED IN A DOMESTIC CASE: NOBODY WINS A DOMESTIC CASE. ALL YOU EVER DO IS DIVIDE UP WHAT BOTH OF YOU HAVE. YOU CANNOT RUN TWO HOUSEHOLDS ON THE PRICE OF ONE. NO TWO PEOPLE CAN HAVE BOTH CHILDREN AT THE SAME TIME. KING SOLOMON COULDN'T DO IT, AND NO ONE ELSE CAN DO IT. I TELL YOU, NOW, LADIES AND GENTLEMEN OF THE COMMITTEE, THE COMPLAINTS AGAINST JUDGE CURETON IN THIS CASE ARE PETTY COMPLAINTS ABOUT RUNNING A COURTROOM CORRECTLY; ABOUT MAKING YOU HAVE ACCURATE INFORMATION. GENTLEMEN, I'VE SEEN A JUDGE FROM LEXINGTON COME TO ANDERSON AND HOLD COURT -- AND I WON'T CALL HIS NAME -- BUT HE CAME TO ANDERSON TO HOLD COURT ON ONE OCCASION, AND A LAWYER THERE THOUGHT HE HAD A GOOD GRASP ON HIM AND TOOK IN A CLIENT WHO WORKED FOR MICHELIN TIRE, SHOWING THAT HE MADE MINIMUM WAGES. WELL, THERE'S NOBODY IN THE WHOLE COUNTRY WHO BELIEVES THAT SOMEBODY FROM MICHELIN TIRE MAKES MINIMUM WAGES, AND THIS JUDGE FROM LEXINGTON HAPPENED TO KNOW, BECAUSE THIS LAWYER DIDN'T REALIZE THAT THEY HAVE A MICHELIN PLANT AT LEXINGTON. NOW, THE JUDGE GOT UPSET ABOUT LYING ON THE FINANCIAL DECLARATION -- AND THAT'S WHAT IT WAS; IT WAS LYING -- IN ORDER TO GET OUT OF PAYING A PROPER AMOUNT OF SUPPORT. MOST FATHERS DON'T WANT TO PAY SUPPORT. THE MOTHERS DON'T WANT TO PAY SUPPORT. THEY THINK THEY'RE GIVING THE MONEY TO THE OTHER PARTY. THESE ARE VERY COMPLICATED CASES. I THINK THAT THE QUESTIONS, AS MR. LESTER HAS SAID, THAT HAVE COME UP ARE QUESTIONS OF LAWYERING. YOU HAVE TO PREPARE YOUR CASE. YOU HAVE TO PREPARE YOUR CASE TO GET IT BEFORE THE COURT. BASICALLY, IN THE FAMILY COURT, BESIDES THE CUSTODY QUESTIONS AND THE ABUSE QUESTIONS AND THE OTHER QUESTIONS THAT COME UP IN A REGULAR DOMESTIC CASE, YOU HAVE THE GROUNDS WHICH ARE LITIGATED, ON OCCASION; CUSTODY, WHICH IS LITIGATED ON OCCASION; MAYBE DIVISION OF PROPERTY, OR ALIMONY. BUT THE REST OF IT IS PRETTY WELL CUT AND DRY. THE RULE IS CUT AND DRY. THE GUIDELINES FOR SUPPORT ARE CUT AND DRY. YOU PREPARE YOUR CASE SO THAT THE JUDGE CAN RULE ON THE QUESTION. YOU PREPARE YOUR FILE. I WENT TO COURT THE OTHER DAY -- AND THIS IS A GOOD EXAMPLE OF JUDGE CURETON. JUDGE CURETON TAKES CARE OF THE LITIGANTS. THAT IS WHO IS IN THAT COURTROOM TO BE TAKEN CARE OF, NOT THE LAWYERS. HE'S NOT IN THERE TO MAKE BUDDIES OUT OF ME OR SOMEBODY ELSE. HE'S IN THERE TO TAKE CARE OF THE LITIGANTS. NOT LONG AGO, I WAS IN A CASE -- AND HE'S WRONG IN THE CASE, BECAUSE I BEAT THE OTHER LAWYER'S PANTS OFF AND HE KNOWS I DID. BUT THE OTHER LAWYER WASN'T PREPARED, AND HIS CLIENT WAS GETTING THE HORNS. AND JUDGE CURETON TOOK CARE OF IT AND EVENED IT OUT, EVEN AT MY EXPENSE. BUT HE WAS RIGHT IN DOING WHAT HE DID, BECAUSE HE EVENED IT OUT, BECAUSE THE OTHER LITIGANT WASN'T GETTING ADEQUATE REPRESENTATION. NOW, THAT'S A COURT OF EQUITY, AND THAT'S WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT. WE'RE TALKING ABOUT A JUDGE DOING JUSTICE; BEING FAIR TO THE LITIGANTS, NOT THE LAWYERS. WHETHER HE'S FAIR TO ME, OR KIND TO ME, OR NICE TO ME, DOESN'T MATTER. I'VE APPEARED IN EVERY COURT; AND EVERY SITTING JUDGE THAT YOU'VE HAD IN THIS ROOM TODAY, I'VE APPEARED BEFORE. I HAVE APPEARED IN GEORGIA, FLORIDA, NORTH CAROLINA, AND IN WASHINGTON, D.C., AND I'M A MEMBER OF THE COURT OF CLAIMS IN WASHINGTON, AND I'VE HANDLED SEVERAL CLAIMS INVOLVING CHILDREN WITH D.P.T. -- SWELLING OF THE BRAIN -- AND OTHER SYNDROMES. AND IN ALL OF THE COURTS THAT I'VE APPEARED BEFORE, THERE IS NO JUDGE THAT IS MORE KNOWLEDGEABLE IN HIS JOB, MORE PROFESSIONAL IN HIS DEMEANOR, MORE ACCURATE IN HIS RULINGS, THAN JUDGE CURETON. NOW, THERE ARE SOME COMPLAINTS ABOUT HOW ALL LITIGANTS CAN'T APPEAL. THAT'S NOT A CORRECT STATEMENT. THERE'S A METHOD OF APPEALING ANY CASE. AND I WOULD NOT HAVE A CLIENT OF MINE WALK OUT, INJURED -- IF I THOUGHT A JUDGE HAD INJURED HIM -- WITHOUT GIVING HIM SOME REDRESS, IF I HAD TO DO IT ON MY OWN MONEY, OUT OF MY OWN POCKET. THAT'S ONE OF THE THINGS THAT I THINK IS WRONG WITH THE MEDICAL PROFESSION TODAY, IS THAT EVERYTHING THEY DO, THEY HAVE TO GET PAID FOR IT BEFORE THEY DO IT. AND IF LAWYERING STARTS TO BE LIKE THAT, AND THAT'S WHAT WE'RE IN THIS BUSINESS FOR IS HOW MUCH MONEY WE CAN MAKE OUT OF IT, RATHER THAN HOW MUCH GOOD WE CAN DO, YOU'RE NOT GOING TO HAVE A JUDGE, BECAUSE THIS JUDGE CAN MAKE MORE MONEY OUT THERE IN THE BUSINESS WORLD AND OUT THERE GETTING LITIGANTS INTO HIS OFFICE THAN HE CAN SITTING ON THE BENCH. YOU'RE NOT GOING TO HAVE LAWYERS ON PRO BONO PROGRAMS -- AND I'VE BEEN ON THE PRO BONO PROGRAM SINCE IT STARTED, AND I HAVE NEVER REFUSED A CLIENT'S CASE BECAUSE HE DIDN'T HAVE ANY MONEY. I'VE REFUSED THEM BECAUSE HE DIDN'T HAVE A CASE. AND I TELL YOU NOW THAT JUDGE CURETON WILL GIVE YOU A HEARING ON A TEMPORARY, IF YOU DO IT RIGHT. AND THE RIGHT WAY TO DO IT IS, YOU FILE A MOTION. "I NEED TO TAKE SOME TESTIMONY IN THIS TEMPORARY HEARING. PLEASE SET ME ASIDE A SUFFICIENT AMOUNT OF TIME," AND THE JUDGE AT THAT TIME WILL SEND YOU BACK A NOTE AND GIVE YOU SUFFICIENT TIME TO TAKE TESTIMONY ON A TEMPORARY. AND I AGREE, SOMETIMES YOU NEED TESTIMONY IN A TEMPORARY HEARING, AND I HAVE DONE IT. I KNOW HE'S DONE IT. I KNOW HE WILL DO IT. BUT YOU'VE GOT TO DO IT RIGHT; YOU CAN'T RUN OVER THERE, WITH 40 OTHER LAWYERS WAITING FOR THEIR CASES TO BE HEARD, AND ALL OF A SUDDEN, WANT A 45-MINUTE HEARING. IT ISN'T FAIR TO THE REST OF THE PEOPLE. NOW, I WOULD TELL YOU THAT OUT OF ALL OF THE JUDGES THAT I HAVE EVER APPEARED BEFORE, JUDGE CURETON IS AS STRICT AS ANY JUDGE THAT I HAVE EVER APPEARED BEFORE, BUT I WILL ALSO TELL YOU THAT IT HAS MADE A BETTER LAWYER OUT OF ME. IT HAS MADE A BETTER LAWYER OUT OF THE LAWYERS I APPEARED AGAINST. I THINK IT HAS BETTERED THE JUSTICE SYSTEM IN ANDERSON COUNTY; AND I THINK PEOPLE ARE IN BETTER CONDITION, FOR HIS BEING A JUDGE. TO TAKE PETTY THINGS LIKE "HE WON'T SPEAK TO ME IN THE HALL," -- I MAY NOT SPEAK TO SOMEBODY SOMETIMES. I CERTAINLY WOULDN'T WANT THEM TO TAKE IT THAT I DON'T LIKE THEM BECAUSE I DIDN'T SPEAK TO THEM. I MAY BE THINKING ABOUT SOMETHING ELSE. BUT I'VE TRIED AS MANY CASES WITH JUDGE CURETON AS ANY OTHER LAWYER, AND I'VE PROBABLY TRIED AS PETTY A CASE WITH JUDGE CURETON AS ANY OTHER LAWYER. I'VE LOST CASES THAT I DIDN'T THINK I SHOULD HAVE LOST. I WOULDN'T HAVE TOOK IT TO BEGIN WITH, IF I THOUGHT I WOULD LOSE IT. I GENERALLY TAKE THEM, THAT I THINK I SHOULD WIN, AND I ALWAYS WANT TO WIN. BUT AS I TOLD YOU BEFORE, YOU HAVE TO CHANGE ATTITUDES TOWARD DOMESTIC CASES; THERE IS NO WINNING AND LOSING. YOU HAVE TWO PEOPLE'S LIVES THAT YOU'RE TRYING TO RESTRUCTURE. AND WHEN YOU TAKE THE POSITION AND YOU GO OUT THERE ANGRY AT THE JUDGE AND ANGRY AT THE SYSTEM, AND YOU INGRAIN THAT IN YOUR CLIENT THAT THIS SYSTEM IS WRONG, THAT THIS SYSTEM IS A SYSTEM WHERE HE SHOULD HAVE EVERYTHING AND SHE WOULD HAVE NOTHING, OR VICE VERSA, THEN YOU ARE GOING TO HAVE A PROBLEM EVERY TIME YOU TURN AROUND, BECAUSE THOSE PEOPLE ARE NEVER GOING TO LEVEL OFF. THEY'RE ALWAYS GOING TO BE MAD AT THE COURT AND MAD AT THE JUDGE AND MAD AT THEIR LAWYER. BUT IF YOU'RE HONEST WITH THEM WHEN YOU START, AND YOU'RE HONEST WITH THEM WHEN THEY END, AND YOU DON'T PIT ONE LAWYER AGAINST THE OTHER, OR ONE CLIENT -- ONE LITIGANT AGAINST THE OTHER, THEN YOU CAN GENERALLY COME OUT OF COURT WITH AN ORDER AND YOU CAN GENERALLY HAVE A HAPPY CLIENT WHEN YOU GET IT, WHO IS SATISFIED WITH THE SYSTEM AND SATISFIED WITH THE COURT. THANK YOU. IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS --
CHAIRMAN POPE: THANK YOU, MR. LOWERY. ANY QUESTIONS FROM THE COMMITTEE?

CHAIRMAN POPE: THANK YOU.

WHEREUPON, JOHN FIELDS, BEING DULY SWORN AND CAUTIONED TO TELL THE TRUTH, THE WHOLE TRUTH, AND NOTHING BUT THE TRUTH, IS EXAMINED AND TESTIFIES AS FOLLOWS:

Q PLEASE GIVE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS.
A MY NAME IS JOHN FIELDS, AND I PRACTICE LAW IN SENECA. MY ADDRESS IS IN SENECA, SOUTH CAROLINA. I APPRECIATE THE OPPORTUNITY TO SPEAK. I'M GOING TO BE AS BRIEF AS I CAN. I'VE KNOWN JUDGE CURETON AN AWFUL LONG TIME. I REMEMBER THE DAY HE CAME TO TOWN. I KNEW HIS WIFE, SARAH, VERY WELL; SHE WAS A CLOSE PERSONAL FRIEND OF MINE. I KNOW THE CHILDREN. THE JUDGE AND I GO TO CHURCH TOGETHER, SERVE ON BOARDS TOGETHER. I'VE BEEN IN HIS COURT MANY, MANY, MANY, MANY TIMES. I WON'T GO THROUGH ALL THAT. I WAS THE ASSISTANT SOLICITOR WHEN WE FIRST STARTED AT THE SOLICITOR'S OFFICE HANDLING JUVENILE MATTERS, HANDLING D.S.S. MATTERS. SO, MANY, MANY TIMES. REPRESENTING PEOPLE, REPRESENTING REAL FOLKS BEFORE HIS COURT; IN VERY SMALL MATTERS, IMPORTANT TO THEM. LARGER MATTERS, CUSTODY CASES, DOMESTIC CASES, POOR CASES. ALL SORTS OF THINGS. EVEN NOW, EVEN THOUGH I DON'T PRACTICE AS MUCH DOMESTIC LAW AS I ONCE DID, I STILL GET APPOINTED FROM TIME TO TIME TO REPRESENT PEOPLE; TO REPRESENT THE GUARDIAN AD LITEM PROGRAM, WHICH JUDGE CURETON WAS VERY HELPFUL IN INNOVATING IN OUR AREA; REPRESENTING FOLKS THAT COULDN'T AFFORD LAWYERS THAT WERE APPOINTED BY A COURT -- WELL, I DIDN'T LIKE TO BE APPOINTED. I GOT OTHER THINGS I PREFER DOING, BUT THAT'S A RESPONSIBILITY THAT WE HAVE. I HAVE ALWAYS, ALWAYS FELT LIKE JUDGE CURETON WOULD LISTEN TO THESE PEOPLE, AND CARED ABOUT THEM, AND TRIED VERY HARD TO COME TO A REASONABLE SOLUTION OF THE CASE, BASED ON WHAT HE HAD HEARD, BASED ON THE TESTIMONY, BASED ON HIS EXPERIENCE, AND BASED ON THE LAW IN A PARTICULAR CASE. JUDGE CURETON -- MANY PEOPLE HAVE TALKED TODAY, AND Y'ALL ASKED OTHER PEOPLE ABOUT SETTLEMENT. IT'S AMAZING TO ME SOMETIMES WHEN WE GO IN, AND I CAN'T AGREE WITH THE OTHER LAWYERS, AND WE TALK -- JUDGE CURETON SET FORTH AND REQUIRES IN OUR CIRCUIT PRETRIAL CONFERENCES FOR THAT REASON, TO TRY TO MINIMIZE THE ISSUES AND TRY TO GET THE FOLKS TOGETHER. LAWYERS ARE ADVOCATES, AND WE DON'T ALWAYS AGREE WITH ONE ANOTHER. WE DON'T, SOMETIMES, GET ALONG WITH ONE ANOTHER. BUT JUDGE CURETON ALWAYS IS THERE TO HELP US. HE MAKES SUGGESTIONS ABOUT SETTLEMENT OF CASES, AND WAYS THAT WE MIGHT GET BACK TOGETHER, AND WAYS THAT WE MIGHT TRY TO PUT OUR OWN DIFFERENCES, POSSIBLY, ASIDE AND GET ON BACK DOWN TO THE ISSUE. WHY ARE RULES SO IMPORTANT? WHY DOES THAT MAKE JUDGE CURETON A GOOD JUDGE? WHY ARE THEY IMPORTANT? I TRY CASES SOMETIMES, AND I TELL THE JURIES IN MAGISTRATE COURT CASES AND IN CIRCUIT COURT CASES, THERE ARE REASONS THIS COURT, IN EVERY COURT, THAT YOU HAVE TO -- SOMETIMES WE GET TECHNICAL ABOUT TRYING TO SUBSTANTIATE THE RULES AND MAKE SURE WE CAN COMPLY, BUT THERE ARE REASONS FOR THAT. AND WHAT ARE THE REASONS? THE REASONS ARE BECAUSE IT MAKES A LEVEL PLAYING FIELD, IF WE FOLLOW THE RULES AS SET FORTH. JUDGE CURETON, SOME YEARS AGO -- HE'S THE ONE THAT ASKED FOR A MEETING WITH US. ASKED FOR A MEETING WITH THE BAR. AS KEN LESTER SAID, HE HANDED OUT INFORMATION. "THIS IS THE WAY AFFIDAVITS SHOULD BE. THIS IS THE WAY THE FINANCIAL DECLARATIONS SHOULD BE." THINGS OF THAT NATURE, THAT WERE IMPORTANT TO THE COURT AND IMPORTANT TO THE JUDICIAL SYSTEM, BUT MORE IMPORTANT THAN ALL THAT, IMPORTANT TO THE FOLKS THAT COME IN THERE -- BECAUSE THAT'S WHAT IT'S ALL ABOUT, IS THE PEOPLE THAT COME INTO COURT BEFORE JUDGE CURETON. I'VE TALKED TO HIM PROBABLY, OH, HUNDREDS AND HUNDREDS OF TIMES, IN ALL KIND OF SETTINGS -- SOCIALLY AND PROFESSIONALLY AND OTHERWISE -- AND I KNOW HIS BELIEFS ABOUT A LOT OF THINGS. I KNOW HE'S NOT PREJUDICED AGAINST ANYONE. HE'S NOT PREJUDICED AGAINST LADIES OR MEN OR YOUNG PEOPLE OR WEALTHY PEOPLE OR POOR PEOPLE OR -- EVERYBODY IS THE SAME, WHEN THEY COME IN THERE. IT DOESN'T MAKE ANY DIFFERENCE. AND I HAVE SEEN ALL SIDES OF THAT WITH JUDGE CURETON. WHEN WE CAME DOWN TODAY -- I DIDN'T THINK ABOUT IT, BUT ONE OF THE LADIES WHO PRACTICES IN OUR AREA, AN EXCELLENT LAWYER, SHE AND I HAD A CASE TOGETHER. AND I DIDN'T REALIZE THAT UNTIL JUST A FEW MINUTES AGO; WE WERE TALKING ABOUT IT. IT WAS A CUSTODY CASE. WHY DOES EVERYBODY ALWAYS COME BACK TO CUSTODY CASES? BECAUSE THEY'RE THE MOST DIFFICULT. THEY'RE THE MOST DIFFICULT BECAUSE THEY'RE HARDEST TO DO. GOTTA' MAKE DECISIONS FOR THESE CHILDREN, AND YOU GOTTA' DO IT BASED ON EVERY FIBER YOU CAN COME UP WITH, EVERY THOUGHT YOU CAN COME UP WITH; ALL YOUR KNOWLEDGE OF THE LAW, YOUR INTERPRETATION OF THE FACTS, YOUR LISTENING TO PEOPLE, YOUR JUDGING OF THEM. IT'S A VERY DIFFICULT AND HARD THING TO DO. BUT I ASKED THE QUESTION -- WHEN YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT CONSISTENCY AND PEOPLE TALK ABOUT THAT JUDGE CURETON INCONSISTENT, I HONESTLY SEE IT THE REVERSE. WE'RE RIDING DOWN THE ROAD TODAY, FIVE OF US IN THE CAR, AND I ASKED THE QUESTION: IF YOU HAD A CUSTODY CASE BEFORE JUDGE CURETON, WHAT WOULD YOU ADVISE YOUR CLIENT AND HOW WOULD YOU -- WHAT WOULD BE THE STRATEGY YOU WOULD USE? ALL OF THOSE PEOPLE -- THEY MIGHT HAVE SAID THE WORDS A FRACTION DIFFERENTLY -- BUT THEY SAID, "YOU'VE GOT TO LOOK AT --" JUDGE CURETON IN A CUSTODY CASE IS SO CONSISTENT, BECAUSE WHAT HE LOOKS AT IS AS FOLLOWS: HE LOOKS FOR RELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN THE PARENT AND THE CHILD. WHY? BECAUSE THAT'S THE CRUX OF THE MATTER, IS WHAT IS IN THE BEST INTEREST OF THAT CHILD. HE WANTS TO ALWAYS -- AND I TELL PEOPLE ALL THE TIME IN CASES -- IRONICALLY, PAM, THE ONE THAT I SPOKE OF, I REPRESENTED A MAN, AND I USE THAT CASE OVER AND OVER AND OVER AGAIN. BECAUSE EVERY TIME, IN CUSTODY CASES, I BELIEVE THAT'S THE CONSISTENCY OF HOW JUDGE CURETON RULES. HE LOOKS AT -- AND I'VE HEARD HIM SAY, IN CASES, WHEN I'VE BEEN INVOLVED WITH HIM. AND HE WILL SAY, "I WANT TO SEE SOMETHING THAT'S POSITIVE. I WANT TO LOOK AT SOMETHING THAT'S POSITIVE ABOUT THE RELATIONSHIP OF THE PEOPLE, NOT SO ALWAYS 'HE'S NOT ANY GOOD,' 'SHE'S NOT ANY GOOD.' MY GOODNESS." THE WORLD IS FULL OF PEOPLE COMPLAINING ABOUT OTHER FOLKS. BUT I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT AND CONSISTENT, WHEN JUDGE CURETON TRIES TO LOOK FOR RELATIONSHIPS. AND THAT PARTICULAR CASE, I'LL NEVER FORGET. THE YOUNG FELLOW, THE DAD, GOT CUSTODY IN THAT CASE. I DON'T KNOW WHETHER THAT MAKES ANY DIFFERENCE; I NEVER NOTICED THAT IT MADE ANY DIFFERENCE, ONE WAY OR THE OTHER, WITH JUDGE CURETON, OR FOR THAT MATTER ANY OTHER JUDGE I EVER APPEARED BEFORE, ESPECIALLY NOT JUDGE CURETON. BUT ANYWAY, IN THAT PARTICULAR CASE, IT WAS A YOUNG CHILD. I WANT TO GIVE YOU AN EXAMPLE. THERE WAS A YOUNG CHILD, AND JUDGE CURETON COMMENTED IN THAT CASE -- BECAUSE THERE WERE THREE -- THERE WERE THREE, AND THE YOUNGEST ONE WAS A SPECIAL CHILD, IN THAT SHE WAS A BIT BRIGHTER THAN THE OTHER TWO. THERE WERE THREE LITTLE GIRLS IN THAT CASE. AND WHAT THIS DADDY SAID, AND WHAT JUDGE CURETON COMMENTED, AND I THINK IT TURNED THE CASE, WAS THAT THIS DADDY TOOK THIS YOUNGEST LITTLE GIRL -- THE DADDY WASN'T VERY BRIGHT, BUT HE TOOK THAT LITTLE GIRL TO THE LIBRARY. THAT WAS THE RELATIONSHIP THAT JUDGE -- A POSITIVE RELATIONSHIP THAT JUDGE CURETON LOOKED FOR, AND FOUND. AND ANY CUSTODY CASE, ALMOST ANY CASE THAT YOU DEAL WITH WITH THIS MAN -- AND I THINK SHOULD BE WITH ALL -- BUT IT'S TO LOOK FOR POSITIVE THINGS, NOT SO ALWAYS THE NEGATIVE. HE IS A MAN WHO HAS -- AND PEOPLE SAY -- IT'S AMAZING HOW PEOPLE INTERPRET FOLKS A LITTLE BIT DIFFERENTLY. SOME PEOPLE SAY THAT HE'S SO STERN AND SO STRONG. HE'S THE JUDGE I'VE GROWN UP WITH, AND HE'S ABOUT THE ONLY FAMILY COURT JUDGE THAT WE'VE EVER HAD, CERTAINLY SINCE THE STATE SYSTEM CAME IN. WE HAD SOME OTHERS THAT COME IN FROM TIME TO TIME, BUT WE LEARN FROM BEING WITH HIM; HE'S HELPED US AND TAUGHT US TO BE BETTER LAWYERS. BECAUSE I BELIEVE ONE THING: HE CARES, GENUINELY, ABOUT OTHER PEOPLE. HE'S A COMPASSIONATE MAN. HE FACES HIS WORK WITH A GOOD ATTITUDE. NOW, HOW IN THE WORLD CAN YOU SAY HE'S A COMPASSIONATE PERSON WHEN, AT THE SAME TIME, HE'S A STICKLER FOR THE RULES? WELL, I DON'T SEE THAT THAT'S INCONSISTENT AT ALL, TO ME. TO ME, THAT'S CONSISTENT, AND THAT'S EASY TO CARE ABOUT PEOPLE SO MUCH, BECAUSE THAT PUTS THE PLAYING FIELD LEVEL AND PUTS THE PLAYING FIELD FAIR. I HAVE NEVER, EVER, WHEN SOMEBODY SAYS JUDGE CURETON IS GOING TO BE THE JUDGE, I HAVE NEVER -- I PROMISE YOU, I HAVE NEVER -- HAD ANYBODY TO ASK ME, SAID, "LET'S DON'T GET CURETON." THE CONTRARY IS -- THE CONTRARY HAS BEEN, "LET'S TRY TO GET -- CAN WE GET JUDGE CURETON TO TRY THE CASE?" HOW DO YOU DO THAT? THE WAY YOU DO IS, YOU FILE THE CASE, YOU ASK FOR A PARTICULAR DATE, AND HIS SECRETARY AND THE CLERK SETS IT; SO, THEN, YOU THINK YOU'RE GOING TO GET A PARTICULAR JUDGE, AND ALL OF A SUDDEN THEY CHANGE HIM OUT AND HE'S GONE SOMEWHERE ELSE FOR SOME OTHER REASON. SO YOU REALLY CAN'T DO THAT. BUT TO THE CONTRARY, I'VE HEARD MANY PEOPLE IN MY OFFICE SAY "I HOPE WE GET JUDGE CURETON," OR, "CAN WE GET JUDGE CURETON, BECAUSE I THINK HE'S A FAIR MAN." YOU KNOW, WE LIVE IN A SMALL COMMUNITY, AND PEOPLE THAT WE KNOW -- AND I'VE HEARD COMMENTS ABOUT JUDGE CURETON, AND THEY HAVE SAID THIS, AND I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT. NOT NECESSARILY LITIGANTS, BUT I'VE HEARD LITIGANTS, AS WELL, SAY THAT, IF I HAD TO BE JUDGED -- IF I HAD TO BE IN A SITUATION -- I'D WANT SOMEBODY LIKE JUDGE CURETON TO DO THAT. AND I'M GOING TO LEAVE WITH THIS LAST THOUGHT. JUDGE CURETON MAKES, IN MY JUDGMENT -- AS HAROLD JUST SAID -- HE TRIES VERY HARD TO MAKE THINGS FAIR. LARRY BRANDT FREQUENTLY IS A MUCH BETTER LAWYER THAN I AM; SO IS MIKE GLENN; SO IS KEN LESTER; SO, PROBABLY, ARE OTHERS. AND I TELL PEOPLE THAT SOMETIMES, BECAUSE I'M NOT THE BEST IN THE WEST; BUT I TELL FOLKS THAT I THINK THAT JUDGE CURETON WILL TRY TO MAKE IT A LEVEL PLAYING FIELD, AND I THINK THAT'S WHAT IT'S ALL ABOUT. HE'S A VERY NICE PERSON, IN SPITE OF THE PERSON WHO REQUIRES TO GO BY THE RULE. YOU CAN BE NICE AT THE SAME TIME. LIKE THIS GENTLEMAN WHO TESTIFIED; HE SAID "JUDGE CURETON TREATED ME WITH DIGNITY." HE SAID HE HAD NO PROBLEMS WITH JUDGE CURETON. HE WAS JUST A PERSON, A LITIGANT, A HUMAN BEING WHO CAME IN THE COURT; AND I THINK THAT THAT IS EXACTLY WHAT THIS MAN IS ALL ABOUT. WHY? NOT ONLY IS HE BRIGHT; NOT ONLY DOES HE KNOW THE RULES AND REQUIRE US TO ABIDE BY THEM; BUT HE ALSO TREATS PEOPLE WITH RESPECT, AND I THINK THAT'S VERY IMPORTANT. HE'S A GOOD JUDGE, A NICE MAN. HE DESERVES YOUR FAVORABLE SCREENING IN THIS MATTER. WHETHER WE'VE HAD MEETINGS WITH HIM AND ALL THAT KIND OF STUFF -- YOU KNOW, PEOPLE DON'T REMEMBER EXACTLY ALL OF THE REASONS. SOME OF THE LAST THINGS THAT WE TALKED ABOUT WAS THE SCHEDULING AND, OH, ONE OF THE LAWYERS WAS AT THE BOILING POINT AND ALL THAT. THAT HAD NOTHING TO DO -- THAT WAS SO SUCH SMALL TO DO WITH FAMILY COURT. I WAS ON THE COMMITTEE -- I WAS ON THE COMMITTEE, AND THE FACT OF THE MATTER IS, I WAS THE ONE AT THE BAR ASSOCIATION THAT SUGGESTED WE HAVE A COMMITTEE. THE REASONS FOR THE COMMITTEE WERE THAT WE WERE GETTING APPOINTED SO MUCH, WE WERE ROTATING AROUND AND WE WERE GETTING APPOINTED SO MUCH, AND I WANTED -- NOT ONLY IN THE FAMILY COURT, BUT ALSO IN THE CIRCUIT COURT. AND WHAT I WAS TRYING TO DO, AND THE PURPOSE OF ALL THAT, WAS TO COME UP WITH A FAIR WAY TO DEAL WITH THE PUBLIC DEFENDERS. AND WE MET, AND JUDGE CURETON'S OFFICE, MARY ALICE AND JUDGE CURETON SUPPLIED INFORMATION, AS WELL AS JUDGE BALLINGER OFFICE AND THE CLERK OF COURT. WE HAD ALL KINDS OF INFORMATION THAT WE GOT, TO -- AND EVERYONE COOPERATED. WE CAME UP WITH A GREAT PLAN, EXCEPT WHAT HAPPENS A LOT OF TIMES; IT WAS THE FUNDING. WE NEEDED MORE MONEY FROM THE COUNTY COUNCIL IN ORDER TO DO THAT, AND WE WERE NOT ABLE TO GET THAT. LARRY BRANDT WAS COUNTY ATTORNEY; HE WAS WILLING TO HELP US DO THAT, AND THE MEETING WAS CANCELED, AND I UNDERSTAND SOME GROUP OR SOMETHING APPEARED. THE MAN HAS A LOT OF ABILITY -- JUDGE CURETON. HE'S EFFICIENT. HE TRIES VERY HARD. AND IF I OR MY FAMILY OR PEOPLE THAT I KNOW WERE IN A SERIOUS MATTER LIKE THE FAMILY COURT, JUDGE CURETON WOULD DO THE BEST JOB HE COULD POSSIBLY DO FOR THE PEOPLE OF SOUTH CAROLINA, AND I FIRMLY BELIEVE THAT. I FIRMLY BELIEVE THAT. I KNOW HIM VERY WELL. I KNOW A LOT OF HIS ATTITUDES. AND I'M PROUD TO SAY HE'S MY FRIEND. I'VE LOST A LOT OF CASES -- SPEAKING OF CASES, IN MOST CUSTODY CASES, AND MANY FAMILY COURT CASES ARE VERY, VERY, VERY, CLOSE. YOU HAVE TO -- WHY ARE THEY CLOSE? WELL, YOU HAVE TO LISTEN TO THE PEOPLE. YOU LISTEN TO THE LITIGANTS. YOU OBSERVE THE WITNESSES. JUDGE CURETON TAKES NOTES. YOU WATCH HIM, HE'S TAKING NOTES. HE COMES BACK, IRONICALLY, SOMETIMES WEEKS AND WEEKS LATER WITH A DECISION; AND IT'S ALL THE FACTS THAT WENT RIGHT IN THE CASE BECAUSE HE TRIES SO HARD TO DETERMINE WHAT IS THE RIGHT THING TO DO IN A CASE. LARRY, IN HIS STATEMENT, MADE A NICE COMMENT, THAT JUDGE CURETON -- JUDGE CURETON, SOMETIMES -- HE SAID, AND I THINK HE'S CORRECT, THAT THERE ARE NOT ALWAYS SOLUTIONS. BUT JUDGE CURETON FREQUENTLY TRIES SO HARD TO HELP THE LITIGANTS AND HELP THE PEOPLE THAT ARE BEFORE HIM -- AND THAT'S WHAT IT'S ALL ABOUT. IT'S NOT FOR LAWYERS. IT'S FOR THE FOLKS. AND I'M PROUD TO BE A PART OF SAYING A FEW GOOD THINGS ABOUT JUDGE CURETON. I FIRMLY BELIEVE THAT HE'S A GOOD JUDGE. THANK YOU.
Q THANK YOU.
A I'VE GOT HIM UNDER APPEAL, ALSO, THAT I RAN IN THAT LAST CASE. I DID. IT WAS A VERY CLOSE CASE. AND THAT'S NOT SILLY; IT WAS A VERY, VERY CLOSE CASE, TRIED FOR SEVERAL DAYS. I WISH I'D HAVE WON. I UNDERSTOOD THAT IT WAS A CLOSE CASE GOING IN. JUDGE CURETON DID NOT SEE OR INTERPRET AND PLACE THE CREDIBILITY IN THE VARIOUS WITNESSES THAT MAYBE I WOULD HAVE LIKED HIM TO HAVE, BUT I DON'T HAVE ANY FAULT IN THAT. I DON'T HAVE ANY FAULT IN HIM FOR DOING THAT, AND LES, BY THE WAY, WAS THE GUARDIAN AD LITEM IN THAT CASE, AND HE DID A CREDITABLE JOB AS WELL. BUT THAT DOESN'T MAKE ANY DIFFERENCE, JUST BECAUSE I'M HIS FRIEND, IN THAT I DON'T THINK -- HE RULES WITH ME SOMETIMES, AGAINST ME SOMETIMES. AND I THINK HE'S A GOOD PERSON. I KNOW HE'S A GOOD PERSON. AND HE'S A GOOD JUDGE; HE'S A CREDIT TO SOUTH CAROLINA, I THINK, AND THE PEOPLE. THANK YOU, VERY MUCH. I'LL ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS THAT YOU HAVE.
VICE-CHAIRMAN GENTRY: NO QUESTIONS.
WITNESS: THANK YOU.

JUDGE CURETON: THANK YOU, VERY MUCH, MR. CHAIRMAN. I THINK THAT'S ALL WHO WANT TO SPEAK. I APPRECIATE YOUR LISTENING.
CHAIRMAN POPE: DOES THE COMMITTEE HAVE ANY QUESTIONS OF JUDGE CURETON, THAT Y'ALL CAN THINK OF?
VICE-CHAIRMAN GENTRY: I DON'T HAVE ANY.
CHAIRMAN POPE: JUDGE, THANK YOU. WE DON'T HAVE ANYTHING FURTHER. WE'RE NOT QUITE THROUGH; WE WILL BE SHORTLY. Y'ALL MIND TAKING ABOUT A THREE-MINUTE BREAK?

CHAIRMAN POPE: ALL RIGHT. MR. SHAYNE.

WHEREUPON, LESLIE JAY SHAYNE, BEING DULY SWORN AND CAUTIONED TO TELL THE TRUTH, THE WHOLE TRUTH, AND NOTHING BUT THE TRUTH, IS EXAMINED AND TESTIFIES AS FOLLOWS:

Q OF COURSE, ACTUALLY, YOU'VE ALREADY BEEN SWORN ONCE, BUT YOU ARE NOW TESTIFYING AS AN APPLICANT FOR FAMILY COURT, TENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, SEAT #2. HAVE YOU REVIEWED YOUR QUESTIONNAIRE SUMMARY?
A YES, I HAVE.
Q IS IT CORRECT?
A THERE IS ONE SLIGHT MODIFICATION. ON NUMBER 15, CIVIL SHOULD BE TEN PERCENT, INSTEAD OF ONE PERCENT; AND DOMESTIC, 90 PERCENT INSTEAD OF 99. THAT IS THE ONLY CORRECTION.
Q WE WILL NOTE THOSE AMENDMENTS. DO YOU HAVE ANY OBJECTION TO US MAKING THE SUMMARY, AS AMENDED, A PART OF THE RECORD?
A NOT AT ALL.
Q OKAY, WE'LL MAKE IT A PART OF THE RECORD, THEN.

1. Leslie Jay Shayne
Home Address: Business Address
307 Shadybrook Drive 210-A West Main Street
Walhalla, SC 29691 Walhalla, SC 29691

2. He was born in New York City, New York on October 12, 1955. He is presently 36 years old.
Social Security Number: ***-**-****

4. He was married to Birgitte Moltke on May 19, 1984.

5. Military Service: None

6. He attended the State University of New York at Binghamton (Harpur College), August 1973 - May 1977, awarded B.A. Degree in Political Science; and the University of South Carolina School of Law, August 1978 - January 1981, awarded J.D. Degree.

7. At the State University of New York at Binghamton (Harpur College), he was a member of the college tennis team (1973-1977); participated in various intramural sports (1973-1977); and was a member of Pi Sigma Alpha (Political Science Honor Society). He was selected for and participated in the 1976 State University Overseas Study Program in Copenhagen, Denmark. He studied Danish and American prison systems and completed an Honors Thesis entitled "Comparative Study of the Danish and American Prison Systems or It is Faengsel Time," enabling him to graduate with honors in Political Science. He was also a student intern at the New York Public Interest Research Group, Binghamton, New York, 1975.

At the University of South Carolina School of Law, he worked as a law clerk for the Palmetto Legal Services, Columbia, South Carolina, May 1980 - August 1980, (volunteer worker, February - April, 1980). He worked as a law clerk for James L. Mann, III, Esquire, Columbia, South Carolina, February 1979 - May 1980. He was also employed as a Teaching Tennis Professional, April 1978 - August 1980, Columbia Country Club, Columbia, South Carolina. He completed numerous supervised legal research papers.
8. Legal/Judicial education during the past five years:
He has fully complied with continuing legal education requirements, primarily attending seminars in areas of domestic, workers' compensation, and Social Security and SSI Disability law.

10. Published Books or Articles:
None except Honors Thesis entitled "Comparative Study of the Danish and American Prison Systems or It is Faengsel Time" which was bound and placed in the college library in 1977.

12. Legal experience since graduation from law school:

January 1981 - January 1982: Staff Attorney, Palmetto Legal Services, Post Office Box 1646, Orangeburg, South Carolina 29115 -Handled civil non-fee generating cases and provided free legal assistance to the indigent, primarily in the areas of domestic, consumer, housing and administrative law, such as unemployment insurance and Social Security and SSI Disability

January 1982 - January 1985: Associate Attorney at Law, Larry C. Brandt, P.A., Attorney at Law, Post Office Box 5830, Walhalla, South Carolina 29691 - Handled cases involving general practice of law and handling domestic, Social Security and SSI Disability, workers' compensation, criminal and general civil litigation

February 1985 - Present: Sole Practitioner - Involved in general practice of law, handling domestic, Social Security and SSI Disability, workers' compensation, criminal and general civil litigation

14. Frequency of appearances in court:
Federal - none
State - approximately 50-75 cases per year
Other - administrative hearings - Social Security Administration; Workers' Compensation - 5 per year

15. Percentage of litigation:
Civil - 10%
Criminal - 0%
Domestic - 90%

16. Percentage of cases in trial courts:
Jury - 1%
Non-jury - 99%

He was sole counsel for all cases.

17. Five (5) of the most significant litigated matters in either trial or appellate court:

(a) South Carolina Department of Social Services and Oconee County Department of Social Services v. Charles Ivester, et al. Served as Guardian ad Litem for five minor children involved in this case. This was a case in which they were successful in terminating parental rights of both of the parents of the minor children. This case involved allegations and eventual findings of fact of repeated sexual abuse towards two of the minor female children, unstable environment, unsanitary and unhealthy living conditions and instances of physical abuse and neglect. The case was significant in these respects and the fact that the mother had not perpetrated any acts of sexual abuse. It was her position and testimony that she had no knowledge of the sexual acts, but it was their position that she had knowledge of the acts, and that both of the parents' parental rights should be terminated. The Court agreed and terminated both parents' parental rights. According to the trial judge, it was the first case in which she terminated the parental rights of natural parents.

(b) State v. Ronnie Howard. A criminal case in which he represented one Co-Defendant, Ronnie Howard, who was charged with murder. This was a case in which three males residing in Charlotte, North Carolina, struck a female over the head with a blackjack and transported her from Charlotte to Atlanta, Georgia, and then put a plastic bag over her head until the bag stopped going in and out, and then dumped her naked body out in Oconee County. He served as co-counsel in this case. On behalf of Mr. Howard, they filed and argued a Motion that South Carolina lacked jurisdiction and the case should be heard in North Carolina. After an extensive Motion hearing, which they introduced approximately 20 exhibits, the trial judge agreed and held that South Carolina lacked jurisdiction. However, prior to issuing a written Order, the judge allowed the State to file a Motion for Reconsideration. The Court eventually reversed its oral ruling, and the case was eventually litigated in a lengthy four-day trial.

(c) Melter v. Hudson. This was a child custody case involving the custody of three children, in which he represented the father. This case involved serious allegations against the mother for public benefits fraud, exposure of the children to immoral acts and pornographic movies, and involved a situation in which the mother, under previous Court Orders, was granted custody of all three children. The parties had voluntarily agreed that the father maintained physical custody for two of the children, and the father was seeking custody of all three children. The Court, after hearing all the testimony, granted the father custody of all three children.

(d) Lula J. Ridley Wood v. Dunlop Sports Corporation. This was a Worker's Compensation case. The case was significant in that the Claimant suffered an injury on the job and was initially treated for that injury. Because she concentrated on treatment of another injury, she did not receive additional treatment for approximately one year and nine months from the initial treatment. At that time, a diagnosis of carpal tunnel syndrome was made. The carrier/employer disputed compensability and the causal connection. This disputed case was litigated in front of a Commissioner who ordered that there was a causal connection between the original injury and her symptoms being treated one year and nine months after the initial treatment, and ruled that she was entitled to future treatment and compensation. She received an operation and Workers' Compensation benefits. The case was eventually settled after the initial hearing on compensability.

(e) Robert J. Cantrell v. Pam C. Carr. He served as Guardian ad Litem in this two-day contested custody case between the father and mother of a minor child. This case was significant in that it involved serious allegations concerning physical and verbal abuse of the mother by her husband at the time of trial, at least some of which occurred in the presence of the minor child. It also involved the instability of the mother, amongst other allegations against the mother, and the father moving to the State of Virginia. A strong recommendation was made by Mr. Shayne to grant custody to the father, and the Court granted such.

18. Five (5) civil appeals:

He was involved in no domestic appeals, but handled a civil appeal (Robbie Sue Winchester v. State Farm) involving stacking of automobile insurance coverages.

19. Five (5) criminal appeals:

(a) State v. Guy Smith. Magistrate's Court case of DUI. Appealed Magistrate's Court conviction to the Tenth Judicial Circuit Court, and the case was reversed and remanded.

23. Unsuccessful candidate:
He ran unsuccessfully for Walhalla City Council in or about 1983.

24. Any Occupation, Business or Profession Other Than the Practice of Law:

He was employed as a Clinical Counselor in the Psychiatric Unit of Kirkland Correctional Institution, Columbia, South Carolina, October 1977 through May 1978.

He instructed tennis professionally for various employers, including Camp Wildwood, Bridgeton, Maine (Tennis Director), Summer, 1977; Columbia Country Club (April 1978 - August 1980); City of Orangeburg, Orangeburg, South Carolina (April 1981 - January 1982); Ron Holmberg Tennis Camp, Connecticut (1974), City of Walhalla, South Carolina, and City of Seneca, South Carolina, various times between 1981 and present.

27. Financial Arrangement or Business Relationships:
The only possible conflicts he is aware of would be in any cases involving his rental property tenants or his employees (he has two secretaries), and he would recuse himself from any cases involving these individuals.

33. His health is excellent. His last physical examination was on June 29, 1990, with Dr. Julius Earle, R.F.D. #2, Box 275, Walhalla, South Carolina 29691.

39. Bar Associations and Professional Organizations:
Member of South Carolina Bar Association since 1981; member of Oconee County Bar Association since 1982, acting as Secretary-Treasurer 1982-1983, and acting as current President beginning in 1992; member of South Carolina Pro Bono Panel; member of Legal Services Corporation Monitoring and Evaluation Team, participating in several monitoring trips.

40. Civic, charitable, religious, educational, social and fraternal organizations:
Member of Legal Services Agency of Western Carolina, Inc., Board of Directors, 1983-1987; Member of City of Walhalla Planning Commission, 1989-present (currently Chairman); Member of City of Walhalla Recreation Commission, 1990; Member of Oconee Defender Corporation Board of Directors, 1985-1987, 1989-1992; appeared in numerous Who's Who publications

41. The answers to Questions 14 through 16 merit further discussion so that the Screening Committee can get an accurate picture of the law practice which he has had in the past and which he presently has. Since he opened his own law office in 1985, he has handled approximately 2,000 cases. Prior to that time, while working as an Associate at Larry C. Brandt, P.A., Walhalla, South Carolina, he also handled a significant amount of cases, as well as during his first year of practice at Palmetto Legal Services in Orangeburg, South Carolina.

With regard to jury versus non-jury cases, he has tried approximately 15 jury cases in his career. These span from Magistrate's Court jury cases to a jury murder trial in Oconee County.

In addition, the number of appearances may be deceptive in that, as anyone who practices law knows, many cases result in settlements and do not result in actual litigation, so they would not be reflected in the figures which are requested. In addition, he practiced criminal law both at the office of Larry C. Brandt, P.A. and during the first several years his office was open, but he has not practiced criminal law within approximately the past five years.

Many of the cases which he has handled in the three separate law-related jobs which he has had since graduation from law school have been in the domestic area, and he feels confident in saying that he has tried hundreds and hundreds of domestic cases.

He felt this explanation was necessary because the figures appearing in Question 14 through 16 maybe somewhat deceptive in that he feels he has substantial trial experience, especially in the area of domestic law.

42. Five (5) letters of recommendation:

(a) Denise Sudderth, Vice President
American Federal
P. O. Box 1268, Greenville, SC 29602-1268

(b) Larry C. Brandt, Esquire
P. O. Box 5830, Walhalla, SC 29691

(c) Steve Friedland, Professor of Law
Nova University, Shepard Broad Law Center
3100 S.W. 9th Avenue, Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33315

(d) Kelvin R. Kearse, Esquire
P. O. Box 1504, Easley, SC 29641-1504

(e) Lindsey O. Graham, Esquire
P. O. Box 5830, Walhalla, SC 29691

Q THE BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS ON GRIEVANCES AND DISCIPLINE REPORTS NO FORMAL COMPLAINTS HAVE EVER BEEN FILED AGAINST YOU. THE RECORDS OF THE HIGHWAY DEPARTMENT, OCONEE COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE, WALHALLA CITY POLICE DEPARTMENT, SLED, AND F.B.I. ARE ALL NEGATIVE. THE JUDGMENT ROLLS OF OCONEE COUNTY ARE NEGATIVE. FEDERAL COURT RECORDS ARE NEGATIVE. YOUR HEALTH IS SHOWN TO BE EXCELLENT. IS THAT STILL THE CASE?
A THAT'S CORRECT.
Q AND THERE ARE NO CONFLICTS OF INTEREST SHOWN ON YOUR INTERESTS STATEMENT. YOUR FINANCIAL NET WORTH STATEMENT AND THE CREDIT REPORTS YOU'VE SUBMITTED ARE SATISFACTORY. AND YOU HAVE JUST TOLD US THAT 90 PERCENT OF YOUR PRACTICE IS DOMESTIC.
A THAT IS CORRECT.
Q AND YOU'VE PRACTICED IN OCONEE, SINCE WHEN?
A SINCE 1982.
Q SO ABOUT TEN YEARS NOW?
A YEAH.
Q WHAT IS YOUR VIEW OF THE PROPER ROLE OF THE JUDGE, IN TERMS OF DEMEANOR IN COURT?
A I THINK DEMEANOR, OF COURSE, IS VERY, VERY IMPORTANT. I THINK A JUDGE SHOULD BE FAIR AND EQUITABLE, AND I THINK THE HIGHEST COMPLIMENT YOU CAN PAY A JUDGE WOULD BE THAT HE GAVE EVERYBODY IN THE COURTROOM -- REGARDLESS OF SEX, RACE, RELIGION, NATIONAL ORIGIN -- A FAIR SHAKE. I THINK SPECIFICALLY IN FAMILY COURT, YOU HAVE A LOT OF PEOPLE WHO COME INTO COURT, IN TERRIBLE SITUATIONS, WHERE YOU HAVE ABUSED CHILDREN, DIVORCES, CONTESTED CUSTODY; THEY'RE UNDER A LOT OF STRESS, AND I THINK IT GOES A LONG WAY TO GO OUT OF YOUR WAY TO BE PARTICULARLY COURTEOUS TO ALL THE LITIGANTS AND WITNESSES. IT SAYS, AT ONE TIME, YOU STUDIED DANISH AND AMERICAN PRISON SYSTEMS?
A THAT'S CORRECT.
Q THAT WAS IN CONNECTION WITH UNDERGRADUATE WORK, OR GRADUATE WORK?
A RIGHT. I LIVED IN DENMARK FOR SIX MONTHS AND STUDIED THE PRISON SYSTEMS OVER THERE, AND TRAVELED THROUGHOUT THE COUNTRY.
Q DO THEY HAVE OVERCROWDING OVER THERE?
A THEY HAVE A LOT OF OPEN PRISONS. SOME OF THEM ARE ACTUALLY CASTLES MADE INTO PRISONS. THEY DON'T HAVE A BAD CRIME PROBLEM IN DENMARK.
CHAIRMAN POPE: DOES THE COMMITTEE HAVE SOME QUESTIONS OF MR. SHAYNE?
VICE-CHAIRMAN GENTRY: I DON'T HAVE ANY.
Q (BY CHAIRMAN POPE) MR. SHAYNE, YOUR QUESTIONNAIRE ALSO SHOWS YOU WORKED AT KIRKLAND CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION?
A THAT'S CORRECT.
Q AS A COUNSELOR?
A AS A CLINICAL COUNSELOR IN THE PSYCHIATRIC UNIT. I WORKED THERE IN 1976, PRIOR TO LAW SCHOOL.
Q IF THERE ARE NO OTHER QUESTIONS, THEN, DO YOU HAVE ANY OTHER COMMENTS YOU WOULD LIKE TO MAKE TODAY?
A THE ONLY THING I WOULD LIKE TO SAY IS THAT I ALSO DO HAVE A SHEET SIGNED BY MEMBERS OF OUR BAR. I'VE NOT PREVIOUSLY SUBMITTED IT. WHEN I FIRST CONSIDERED RUNNING IN 1991, I WENT AROUND TO THE BAR MEMBERS AND ASKED THEM IF THEY WOULD SUPPORT ME. OUT OF 23 PAID MEMBERS OF THE BAR, IN 1991, TEN OF THEM SIGNED MY PETITION. I WOULD LIKE TO POINT OUT, THE REASON I DISCONTINUED -- ONE OF THE REASONS I DISCONTINUED DOING THAT WAS BECAUSE I GOT A VERY DISTURBING CALL FROM ONE OF THE BAR MEMBERS, SAYING THAT JUDGE CURETON HAD CONTACTED HIM AND MADE THE STATEMENT TO HIM, "I'M HURT AND DISAPPOINTED YOU SIGNED LES' PETITION. I THOUGHT WE WERE FRIENDS, AND I HOPE WE CAN BE FRIENDS SIX OR 12 MONTHS FROM NOW, BUT I DON'T THINK WE CAN." AND THAT CONCERNED ME, THE FACT THAT THERE COULD BE VINDICTIVENESS AGAINST OTHER BAR MEMBERS, AND THAT WAS ONE OF THE REASONS I DISCONTINUED; BUT I DO HAVE A PETITION AND I WOULD LIKE TO PASS THAT UP AND SUBMIT IT.
(WITNESS PROFFERS DOCUMENT FOR INCLUSION IN THE RECORD.)

Q I'M NOT SURE IF I QUITE UNDERSTOOD WHAT YOU SAID, THERE, MR. SHAYNE. TELL US THAT AGAIN, NOW, ABOUT THIS DOCUMENT.
A I WAS CIRCULATING A PETITION AND APPARENTLY, WORD GOT BACK TO JUDGE CURETON THAT PEOPLE HAD SIGNED IT AND WHO THEY WERE. I GOT A CALL AT 6:15 ON FRIDAY NIGHT THAT JUDGE CURETON HAD CALLED HIM AT SIX O'CLOCK THAT NIGHT, AND THE CONVERSATION, AS I WAS TOLD, WAS THAT JUDGE CURETON SAID, "I'M HURT AND DISAPPOINTED THAT YOU SIGNED LES' PETITION. I THOUGHT WE WERE FRIENDS, AND I HOPE WE CAN BE FRIENDS SIX OR 12 MONTHS FROM NOW, BUT I DON'T THINK SO." AND TO ME -- MY INTERPRETATION WAS THAT THAT WAS A THREAT. THERE APPEARED TO BE A THREAT OF VINDICTIVENESS, AND I WAS CONCERNED BECAUSE I DIDN'T INTEND TO PLACE THE BAR MEMBERS THAT SUPPORTED ME IN THAT POSITION.

Q THE ONLY PROBLEM WITH THAT IS THAT, YOU KNOW, NOBODY IS HERE TO OBJECT, BUT IT IS -- YOU KNOW, IT'S HEARSAY, AS WE ALL KNOW.
A THAT'S CORRECT. AND THE ATTORNEY WHO WAS INVOLVED IN THAT DID NOT DESIRE TO TESTIFY, AND OF COURSE I PLACED NO PRESSURE ON HIM TO TESTIFY. I UNDERSTAND THAT.
CHAIRMAN POPE: DO YOU HAVE ANY OTHER QUESTIONS?
VICE-CHAIRMAN GENTRY: NO.
CHAIRMAN POPE: SENATOR, YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS?
SENATOR MCCONNELL: NO.
CHAIRMAN POPE: THANKS A LOT, MR. SHAYNE.
WITNESS: THANKS. I APPRECIATE IT.

CHAIRMAN POPE: ROBERT K. WHITNEY. THIS IS AGAIN FOR THE TENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, FAMILY COURT, SEAT #2.

WHEREUPON, ROBERT K. WHITNEY, BEING DULY SWORN AND CAUTIONED TO TELL THE TRUTH, THE WHOLE TRUTH, AND NOTHING BUT THE TRUTH, IS EXAMINED AND TESTIFIES AS FOLLOWS:

Q YOU HAVE REVIEWED YOUR QUESTIONNAIRE SUMMARY?
A YES, SIR.
Q DOES IT NEED ANY AMENDMENT OR CHANGE?
A IN QUESTION 32, I'M REFERRED TO AS "HER" AND I THINK IT SHOULD BE A "HIS."
Q YEAH, I THINK YOU'RE RIGHT.
A AND ON MY FINANCIAL STATEMENT, I RECENTLY SOLD AN ACRE OF TWO ACRES THAT ENCOMPASS MY OFFICE, AND TOOK CARE OF THE SECOND MORTGAGE. THE ASSET SITUATION IS THAT THE MONEY -- THE LAND IS REPLACED BY MONEY.
Q WE WILL NOTE THAT ALSO. ANY OTHER CHANGES?
A NO, SIR.
Q YOU HAVE NO OBJECTION TO US MAKING YOUR PERSONAL DATA SUMMARY PART OF THE RECORD, AS AMENDED?
A THAT'S CORRECT.
Q ALL RIGHT, SIR, WE'LL DO THAT.

1. Robert Krehl Whitney
Home Address: Business Address:
561 Bearwoods Boulevard P. O. Box 14
Westminster, SC 29693 1743 Blue Ridge Boulevard

Seneca, SC 29678

2. He was born in Anderson, South Carolina, on January 22, 1949. He is presently 43 years old.
Social Security Number: ***-**-****

4. He was married to Barbara Jane Brown on June 10, 1978. He has two children: Ola Krehl, age 10; and Robert Krehl, age 7.

5. Military Service: None

6. He attended Clemson University, 1966-1970, B.A.; Miami-Dade Community College, 1972 and 1973 (took courses for teaching certificate); Florida International University, 1973 and 1974 (took courses for teaching certificate); and the University of South Carolina Law School, 1974-1977, J.D.

7. At Clemson University he was a member of the newspaper and magazine staff, the student senate, and the writer's fraternity. At the University of South Carolina Law School, he was a member of the Honor Council and the Minority Student Affairs Committee.

8. Legal/Judicial education during the past five years:
He has attended seminars as required, usually JCLE, and he has attended more than the required hours. He reads the advance sheets weekly, and he has an active practice of law.
9. Courses Taught: He taught Business Law for Limestone College for one term.

10. Published Books or Articles: He has written numerous newspaper articles.

12. Legal experience since graduation from law school:

11/77 - 12/78 Sole practitioner, general practice

1/79 - 6/83 Sires & Whitney partnership, general law and Public Defender work

7/83 - present Sole practitioner, general law

14. Frequency of appearances in court:

In 1991, he appeared in Family Court 182 times, Magistrate Court 21 times, City Court 3 times, Probate Court 11 Times, Common Pleas/General Sessions 21 times and Social Security Hearings 2 times. These figures are representative of his general practice for the past five years.

15. Percentage of litigation:
Civil - 19%
Criminal - 5%
Domestic - 76%

16. Percentage of cases in trial courts:
Jury - 5%
Non-jury - 95%

Sole counsel

17. Five (5) of the most significant litigated matters in either trial or appellate court:

(a) Frank A. Lathrop v. Myra L. Stowers, 85-MO-300, Supreme Court.
He tried the case and handled the appeal by himself. The case involved a great deal of research.
(b) State v. Jerry Nathan Dial. This was a murder case he tried by himself. The Defendant was found not guilty of murder.

(c) State v. Dana Hamm. This was his first General Sessions jury trial. He handled the case by himself. The jury came back in six minutes with a finding of not guilty.

(d) State v. Hansell Ellers. This was a grand larceny case. Mr. Ellers had to stay nine days in court waiting for his trial. He was found not guilty, and several of the state's witnesses later retained him as their attorney.

(e) Doyle Arthur Cannon v. The State. This was a post-conviction relief case. The illiterate Defendant was granted a new trial on the murder case after spending 12 years in prison.

18. Five (5) civil appeals:

(a) Frank A. Lathrop v. Myra L. Stowers, South Carolina Supreme Court, Memorandum Opinion 85-MO-300, filed December 16, 1985.

19. Five (5) criminal appeals:

None

24. Any Occupation, Business or Profession Other Than the Practice of Law:

He is a partner in a real estate development. His partner and he borrowed money to build a lake and then sell the land around it.

After he graduated from Clemson University in 1970, he served two years as a VISTA (Volunteers in Service to America) volunteer in Dade County, Florida. He worked as a counselor for two years after that with a federal job training program called New Careers in Miami, Florida. He started law school after that and worked for campus security at Carolina while he was a law student.

25. Officer or Director: He is co-owner and partner in a real estate development in Oconee County. The project is called Fiddler's Cove.

28. Arrested:
He was arrested in December of 1970. He pleaded guilty to possession of marijuana in January of 1971 in Pickens County. He paid a fine. He received a full pardon on September 9, 1981. He received a Relief from Disability from the U. S. Department of the Treasury Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms in 1982 so that he could purchase firearms.

29. Federal, State or Local Investigation:
See answer to Question #28 above.

31. Sued:
He was sued by Samuel and Billie Leonard, Judgment 27,406. The case was dismissed with prejudice with no finding of fault against him.

He was named as a Defendant in Household Finance Corporation II v. David and Pamela Marcengill and Robert K. Whitney. He had a judgment against the other Defendants and Household Finance Corporation II foreclosed and paid off the judgment.

He is being sued by Oren J. Heffner and Billy P. Shadrick, 91-CP-37-709. The pleadings were dated May 1, 1990, and filed December 17, 1991. He was served February 6, 1992. He expects to be released as a Defendant on a summary judgment motion in the near future.

He is being sued by Marshall Reese, et al. in case 91-CP-37-459. This involves the level of a lake on some property being developed. They are in discovery and are working to settle the matter.

33. His health is good. His last physical examination was by Dr. Jimmie Carpenter, Grace Medical Practice, 1243 Blue Ridge Boulevard, Seneca, South Carolina. He has had no recent medical problems or exams.

35. He wears reading glasses.

39. Bar Associations and Professional Organizations:
South Carolina Bar Association; Oconee County Bar Association, currently Secretary/Treasurer, past President 1988, past Secretary/Treasurer 1980-1982; Pro Bono program, 1991 Pro Bono Service Award

40. Civic, charitable, religious, educational, social and fraternal organizations:
Holy Trinity Episcopal Church Lay Reader; Westminster Lodge #200 Ancient Free Masons, Junior Warden 1992; Clemson Lions Club; Hejaz Shrine Temple; Blue Ridge Shrine Club, Sergeant-at-Arms 1992

41. He was raised in the area, and his wife is from Royston, Georgia. She is an active Guardian ad Litem.

42. Five (5) letters of recommendation:

(a) Bruce E. Whiteside
First Federal of South Carolina
1007 123 Bypass, Seneca, SC 29678-2147

(b) Bill E. Duncan
P. O. Box 544, Walhalla, SC 29691

(c) John M. Powell
Powell Real Estate
P. O. Box 5847, Walhalla, SC 29691

(d) Jerry M. Powell
Powell Bros. Tractor & Equip. Co., Inc.
P. O. Box 1095, Seneca, SC 29678

(e) Thomas R. McCall
Bountyland Supply
1510 Blue Ridge Boulevard, Seneca, SC 29678

Q THE BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS ON GRIEVANCES AND DISCIPLINE REPORTS NO COMPLAINTS HAVE EVER BEEN FILED AGAINST YOU. THE RECORDS OF THE HIGHWAY DEPARTMENT, OCONEE COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE, WESTMINSTER CITY POLICE DEPARTMENT, SLED, AND THE F.B.I. ARE NEGATIVE. THE JUDGMENT ROLLS OF OCONEE COUNTY ARE NEGATIVE. FEDERAL COURT RECORDS ARE NEGATIVE. IN QUESTION 31, YOU LIST FOUR SUITS IN WHICH YOU'VE BEEN A PARTY. TELL US ABOUT THOSE.
A ADVERSE COUNSEL IS HERE IN ONE OF THOSE CASES -- I'M NOT SURE HOW FAR YOU WANT ME TO GO INTO THAT.
Q WELL, THE QUESTIONNAIRE SUMMARY SHOWS YOU WERE SUED BY SAMUEL AND BILLIE LEONARD.
A RIGHT. YES, SIR. YOU WANT ME TO TELL YOU ABOUT IT?
Q JUST BRIEFLY, YES, SIR.
A MR. AND MRS. LEONARD TOLD THE REAL ESTATE AGENT THEY WANTED TO PURCHASE PROPERTY WITHIN A SUBDIVISION. THEY NEVER TOLD ME THAT. THEY SUED THE REAL ESTATE AGENT AND ADDED ME AS A PARTY LATER. AND THE JUDGMENT WAS SEALED, BUT THE REAL ESTATE AGENT'S INSURANCE COMPANY PAID SOMETHING LIKE $10,000 TO MAKE THE PEOPLE HAPPY.
Q BUT THE CASE AGAINST YOU WAS DISMISSED?
A IT WAS RESOLVED WITHOUT ANY FINDING OF LIABILITY. IT WASN'T DISMISSED; IT WAS DETERMINED THAT THE INSURANCE COMPANY FROM THE REAL ESTATE AGENCY WOULD PAY THE JUDGMENT TO THE PLAINTIFF.
Q BUT IS THAT ACTUALLY STILL OPEN?
A NO, SIR, IT'S FINISHED. IT WAS RESOLVED WITH NO FINDING AGAINST ME. I'M NOT SURE HOW THAT'S --
Q BUT AN ORDER OF DISMISSAL WAS ENTERED, WITH PREJUDICE?
A YES, SIR, I THINK THAT'S ACCURATE. THE SECOND CASE, I HAD A JUDGMENT AGAINST DAVID AND PAMELA MARCENGILL, SO I WAS NAMED AS A DEFENDANT, AND HOUSEHOLD FINANCE PAID OFF THE JUDGMENT ON MY BEHALF.
Q IN THAT INSTANCE, YOU WERE NAMED AS A DEFENDANT BECAUSE YOU HELD A JUDGMENT?
A YES.
Q YOU WERE NOT NAMED AS A DEFENDANT BECAUSE OF ANYTHING YOU DID WRONG.
A THAT'S CORRECT.
Q AND YOU'VE BEEN PAID OFF?
A YES, SIR.
Q THE NEXT ONE SAYS YOU WERE BEING SUED BY OREN HEFFNER AND BILLY SHADRICK?
A YES, SIR. THEIR ATTORNEY'S HERE TODAY, BUT MINE'S NOT.
Q SIR?
A THEIR ATTORNEY'S HERE TODAY, BUT MINE'S NOT.
Q WHAT'S IT ABOUT? WHAT'S THE ALLEGATION?
A IT INVOLVED A GUARANTEE ON A DEBT. I SIGNED A DOCUMENT AS GUARANTOR. IT'S STILL PENDING; IT HASN'T BEEN RESOLVED.
Q HOW MUCH IS INVOLVED IN THAT CONTROVERSY?
A PROBABLY AROUND $65,000 RIGHT NOW.
Q BUT YOU'RE NOT THE ONLY DEFENDANT, I ASSUME? YOU'RE --
A I'M THE ONLY VIABLE DEFENDANT.
Q THAT'S WHAT HAPPENS WHEN YOU GET TO BE GUARANTOR, I GUESS.
A THE LAST CASE, MARSHALL REESE, THERE'S COUNSEL HERE ALSO REPRESENTING HIM. A FORMER FRIEND OF MINE TALKED ME INTO DOING A REAL ESTATE DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, AND WE BUILT A LARGE DAM AND BACKED THE WATERS OF THE CREEK UP, AND UPSTREAM OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD WAS MARSHALL REESE AND HIS FAMILY. MARSHALL REESE HAD TOLD US WE COULD BACK THE WATER UP TO A CERTAIN POINT ON A TREE. WE BACKED THE WATER UP TO THAT POINT. THEN HE SUED AND SAID WE SHOULDN'T BE BACKING WATER UP ANYMORE. AND IN HIS DEPOSITION, HE ACKNOWLEDGED THE FACT THAT HE AUTHORIZED US TO BACK THE WATER UP TO THAT POINT. THAT CASE SHOULD COME TO TRIAL FAIRLY QUICKLY. IT'S NEAR THE TOP, ANYWAY. BUT IT HAS TO DO WITH THE LEVEL OF THE LAKE.
Q HOW MANY DEFENDANTS ARE THERE IN THAT ONE?
A MY WIFE AND I, AND THE PARTNERSHIP WHICH WE BOTH OWN, AND IT HAS TO DO WITH THE LAKE LEVEL.

Q MR. WHITNEY, IN REGARD TO THE NOTE THAT YOU SIGNED AS GUARANTOR, IS A BANK BRINGING THE ACTION, OR --
A IT'S TWO INDIVIDUALS WHO ARE OWED MONEY BY AN INDIVIDUAL AND HIS CORPORATION.
SENATOR MCCONNELL: COULD YOU REPEAT THAT?
WITNESS: IT WAS TWO INDIVIDUALS, WERE OWED MONEY BY -- I DON'T KNOW -- AN INDIVIDUAL AND HIS WIFE, MAYBE, AND HIS CORPORATION. AND THE INDIVIDUAL HAS GONE TO FLORIDA AND THE CORPORATION IS WORTHLESS.
Q (BY VICE-CHAIRMAN GENTRY) WHAT'S THE STATUS OF THE CASE NOW? IS IT JUST PENDING --
A YES, SIR.
Q -- IN COMMON PLEAS?
A YES, SIR.

Q YOUR HEALTH IS GOOD, MR. WHITNEY?
A YES.
Q YOUR STATEMENT OF ECONOMIC INTERESTS SHOWS NO CONFLICTS OF INTEREST. YOUR FINANCIAL NET WORTH STATEMENT AND CREDIT REPORTS THAT HAVE BEEN SUBMITTED ARE SATISFACTORY.
A SENATOR, I HAVE A PROBLEM WITH WHAT THE SLED REPORT SAID THAT I DON'T HAVE A RECORD, BECAUSE I DO, AND I TOLD YOU ABOUT IT IN MY FORM. I DON'T KNOW WHY SLED DIDN'T FIND THAT.
Q I COULDN'T UNDERSTAND WHAT YOU SAID.
A I DON'T UNDERSTAND WHY THE SLED REPORT SAID I WAS CLEAR, BECAUSE I'M NOT. I HAVE A RECORD. I TOLD THE LAW SCHOOL WHEN I APPLIED TO LAW SCHOOL; I TOLD THE COMMITTEE AND WENT THROUGH THAT PROCESS, AND I CERTAINLY REPORTED IT TO YOU ALSO.
Q YES, SIR. I THINK THAT WAS A SITUATION OF A PARDON, WASN'T IT?
A IT WAS PARDONED, BUT THERE'S CERTAINLY A RECORD. IT WASN'T EXPUNGED.
Q WELL, WE'RE SATISFIED WITH THE FACT THAT YOU REPORTED IT.
A OKAY.
Q YOU DID REPORT IT ON THE REPORT. I DIDN'T QUESTION YOU ABOUT IT, BUT YOU WERE --

Q WOULD YOU PLEASE TELL US ABOUT IT?
A I WAS ARRESTED IN 1970 FOR A MARIJUANA CHARGE. I PLED GUILTY IN 1971 TO POSSESSION OF MARIJUANA, PAID A FINE, AND WENT BACK TO WORK IN FLORIDA.

Q AND YOU LISTED THAT ON THE FORM.
A YES, SIR.
Q WHAT PERCENTAGE OF YOUR PRACTICE RIGHT NOW IS DOMESTIC?
A 60 PERCENT OF IT. THE QUESTION THAT YOU ASKED, AS I UNDERSTAND IT, IS TRIAL WORK. OKAY, THE ANSWER IS THAT MOST OF MY TRIAL WORK IS IN FAMILY COURT. MY TOTAL PRACTICE INVOLVES REAL ESTATE, WHICH DOESN'T APPEAR AS A TRIAL SITUATION.
Q WHAT IS YOUR VIEW ABOUT THE IMPORTANCE OF DEMEANOR AND JUDICIAL TEMPERAMENT?
A I THINK THE ONE THING THAT JUDGES FAIL TO DO IS TO TRY TO MAKE A WITNESS COMFORTABLE. MOST PEOPLE WALK IN, NERVOUS AS A CAT. AND JUDGES BASICALLY SIT THERE VERY NEUTRALLY AND NEVER EVEN TELL THE PEOPLE IT'S OKAY TO BE NERVOUS. I THINK THE JUDGE'S JOB IS OBVIOUSLY TO BE FAIR, LISTEN TO LITIGANTS, AND RULE REASONABLY. AND THE QUESTION IS FAIRNESS. THERE'S NO QUESTION THAT WE ALL GO THROUGH DIFFERENT MOOD PERIODS; THE OBJECT IS TO TRY TO KEEP THAT FROM THE CLIENTS OR FROM THE WITNESS. THE IMPARTIALITY, YOU CAN TELL SOMEBODY YOU'RE IMPARTIAL; BUT YOU SHOW IT BY YOUR DEMEANOR, WHICH I THINK IS THE MOST IMPORTANT THING YOU CAN DO.
CHAIRMAN POPE: DOES THE COMMITTEE HAVE SOME MORE QUESTIONS?
VICE-CHAIRMAN GENTRY: I DON'T HAVE ANY.
Q (BY CHAIRMAN POPE) I SEE YOU HANDLED A CASE ON DOYLE ARTHUR CANNON. WASN'T HE THE --
A YES, SIR. IT WAS A POST-CONVICTION RELIEF CASE, AND WE GOT HIM BACK UP IN OCONEE COUNTY, WHICH HE ESCAPED. HE GOT INTO NEWSWEEK. THE LAST TWO P.C.R.'S I'VE HAD, I'VE GOTTEN MURDERERS BACK UP TO OCONEE COUNTY AND RELEASED. THE ODDS AGAINST THAT ARE AT LEAST 2,000-TO-1. YOU'RE NOT SUPPOSED TO WIN P.C.R.'S, MUCH LESS TWO IN A ROW ON MURDER. AND I DIDN'T ASK FOR EITHER ONE OF THEM.
Q COURT APPOINTED, I'M SURE.
A YES, SIR, FOR $10.00 AN HOUR.
CHAIRMAN POPE: WELL, IT'S BEEN A LONG DAY. I THINK WE'VE ASKED EVERYTHING WE CAN. MS. GLOVER, DO YOU HAVE ANYTHING YOU WANT TO FOLLOW UP WITH MR. WHITNEY?
REPRESENTATIVE GLOVER: NO.
WITNESS: MS. GLOVER, I WANT YOU TO KNOW, WE NEED MORE ALTERNATIVE PLACEMENTS FOR JUVENILES. THERE'S NO QUESTION OF IT. I THINK EVERYBODY IN THE ROOM AGREES WITH THAT. NO QUESTION, THE COMMUNITIES SHOULD PROVIDE MORE, INSTEAD OF THE LEGISLATURE. JAIL IS NOT THE RIGHT PLACE FOR MOST CHILDREN; WE ALL UNDERSTAND THAT.
Q (BY CHAIRMAN POPE) DO YOU WANT TO MAKE ANY MORE STATEMENTS OR COMMENTS?
A NO, SIR. I REALIZE IT'S AFTER SIX O'CLOCK, BUT I'VE BEEN SITTING HERE ALL DAY.
Q OKAY. THANK YOU, VERY MUCH.
A YES, SIR.

VICE-CHAIRMAN GENTRY: I MOVE WE GO INTO EXECUTIVE SESSION FOR JUST A FEW MINUTES.

(WHEREUPON, AT 6:35 P.M., THE HEARING PROCEEDINGS ARE CONCLUDED.)

The Judicial Screening Committee has reviewed and investigated the qualifications of the following candidates and makes certain findings of fact.

The following persons were unanimously found by the Committee to be qualified to serve:

The Honorable Thomas W. Cooper, Jr., candidate for Judge of the
Third Judicial Circuit;

Henry F. Floyd, candidate for Judge of the Thirteenth Judicial Circuit;

Robert L. Kilgo, Jr., candidate for Judge of the Family Court of the
Fourth Judicial Circuit, Seat #2;

J. L. Murdock, Jr., candidate for Judge of the Family Court of the
Fourth Judicial Circuit, Seat #2;

The Honorable Judy C. Bridges, candidate for Judge of the Family

Court of the Ninth Judicial Circuit, Seat #3;

Leslie Jay Shayne, candidate for Judge of the Family Court of the
Tenth Judicial Circuit, Seat #2;

Robert K. Whitney, candidate for Judge of the Family Court of the

Tenth Judicial Circuit, Seat #2;

The Honorable W. Frank Rogers, Jr., candidate for Judge of the

Family Court of the Eleventh Judicial Circuit, Seat #1;

Mary E. Buchan, candidate for Judge of the Family Court of the

Twelfth Judicial Circuit, Seat #1;

The Honorable Wylie H. Caldwell, Jr., candidate for Judge of the

Family Court of the Twelfth Judicial Circuit, Seat #3;

The Honorable Amy S. Sutherland, candidate for Judge of the

Family Court of the Thirteenth Judicial Circuit, Seat #3;

The Honorable Joseph W. Board, candidate for Judge of the Family

Court of the Thirteenth Judicial Circuit, Seat #4;

The Honorable Albert L. Kleckley, candidate for Judge of the Family

Court of the Fourteenth Judicial Circuit, Seat #2;

The Honorable Kaye Gorenflo Hearn, candidate for Judge of the

Family Court of the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit, Seat #2;

The Honorable Lee S. Alford, candidate for Judge of the Family

Court of the Sixteenth Judicial Circuit, Seat #2.

In the screening of The Honorable L. Mendel Rivers, a candidate for reelection as Judge of the Family Court of the Ninth Judicial Circuit, Seat #1, Mr. Arthur M. Parker, Jr. testified against Judge Rivers. Documents were also submitted for the Committee's consideration which included a letter from G. Simms McDowell, III, Esquire; a letter of Judge Rivers dated April 13, 1992, to Mr. Arthur M. Parker, Jr.; a letter of Mr. Parker dated April 20, 1992; an Affidavit of G. Simms McDowell, III; and an Affidavit of Judge Rivers.

Mr. Parker testified in connection with a Family Court hearing in which his son, John R. Parker, was the Defendant. In a hearing held on March 2, 1992, the Plaintiff, Linda L. Parker, with the assistance of counsel, presented evidence on the issue of holding John R. Parker in contempt for failure to pay child support. Both Linda Parker and John Parker were represented at the hearing by counsel. At the conclusion of the hearing, Judge Rivers found John Parker in contempt and sentenced him to 6 months in jail, conditioned upon his payment of approximately $62,000 in arrearage. After learning of Judge Rivers' Order, Arthur M. Parker, Jr., Esquire, father of John R. Parker, set about to raise funds to free his son from jail. He also contacted Thomas P. Stoney, II, Esquire, to assist him as counsel for his son. Mr. Parker stated he paid approximately $82,000 to the Clerk for his son's release. The record indicates that at no time did Arthur M. Parker, Jr., Esquire, petition or seek to be appointed counsel of record for his son as of the time of the screening hearing. The response of Judge Rivers and the Affidavit and letter of Attorney McDowell, counsel for John Parker, indicate that Judge Rivers handled the hearing on March 2, 1992, appropriately and gave John Parker and his attorney ample opportunity to respond to Mrs. Parker's motion to have him held in contempt of court for failure to make child support payments. This Committee has not attempted to evaluate the merits of John Parker's position, nor have we attempted to obtain a transcript of the court hearing, since Mr. McDowell, as counsel for John Parker, stated that the hearing was conducted fairly and made no complaint about Judge Rivers' conduct.

Mr. Parker also complains about his inability to obtain a transcript of the March 2, 1992, hearing, but there was no evidence presented that Judge Rivers has had any role to play in Mr. Parker's inability to obtain the transcript. The matter is one between Mr. Parker, his son (who has chosen not to appear before this Committee), and the court reporter. It is clear that, based upon policy, if Mr. Parker is substituted as counsel of record for his son, John Parker, he will be furnished with a copy of the transcript of said hearing.

This Committee finds and concludes that Judge Rivers acted appropriately in all respects in this case. His Affidavit and testimony indicate that he was temperate and fair at all times during the proceedings. Based upon all the testimony and evidence presented, the Committee finds and concludes unanimously that the case of Linda L. Parker v. John R. Parker was handled appropriately by Judge Rivers in all respects and in no way diminishes his qualifications. We unanimously find that The Honorable L. Mendel Rivers, Jr. is qualified as a candidate for reelection as Judge of the Family Court of the Ninth Judicial Circuit, Seat #1.

In the screening of The Honorable David N. Wilburn, Jr., candidate for reelection as Judge of the Family Court of the Sixteenth Judicial Circuit, Seat #1, Mr. James L. Polk testified against Judge Wilburn. Mr. Polk testified that Judge Wilburn presided in Spartanburg County Family Court on September 29, 1988, in the case of Gayle D. Polk v. James Lemual Polk (88-DR-42-1633). Mr. Polk specifically complains that Judge Wilburn committed three errors in his ruling, namely: (1) The Judge ruled that all property, however accumulated in the marriage, would be common property and subject to equal division; (2) Judge Wilburn did not provide for equal division of accumulated family debts, although the assets were allegedly divided evenly; and (3) Judge Wilburn ruled that alimony would be "for life or until Petitioner remarries." Mr. Polk contends that the affect of Judge Wilburn's Order in the above case was to impose extreme financial hardship on Mr. Polk. Mr. Polk further asserted that the ruling on alimony was excessive and punitive and had the affect of placing him in "indentured servitude."

The Committee considered the Affidavit and testimony of Mr. Polk, together with the documents and a partial transcript in the Family Court case. The Committee also considered Judge Wilburn's testimony. Mr. Polk also submitted to the Committee, subsequent to the hearing, copies of documents from the Supreme Court and a letter Mr. Polk wrote to the Supreme Court in February, 1989, which related to the appeal. Mr. Polk claimed that he had difficulties appealing the Order of Judge Wilburn due to the fact that he changed addresses and his mail was not forwarded to him properly. The Supreme Court records show that the appeal was dismissed on February 16, 1989, for the reason that no Petition for Reinstatement had been filed since the Supreme Court Order of February 2, 1989.

Mr. Polk did not make any complaint about Judge Wilburn's temperament or demeanor during the hearing. Both Mr. Polk and his wife, Gayle Polk, were represented by competent counsel. It appears from the transcript that Mr. Polk's attorney conceded that alimony was appropriate, although he asked the Court for temporary, rehabilitative alimony rather than permanent alimony. It is clear to this Committee that Mr. Polk's complaints with Judge Wilburn relate to legal issues which were resolved by the Judge which, unfortunately for Mr. Polk, were adverse to him in the litigation. This Committee cannot remedy legal errors, if any are committed. Mr. Polk has made a convincing case for why he had difficulties perfecting his appeal, but his personal circumstances at that time were not caused by any wrongdoing by Judge Wilburn. It is clear that the affect of Judge Wilburn's Order on Mr. Polk was substantial in the financial sense and that it diminished his standard of living. It is also the case in Family Court proceedings that both parties' standard of living is usually diminished after the breakup of a marriage.

This Committee finds and concludes that Judge Wilburn handled the case of Gayle D. Polk v. James Lemual Polk in an appropriate fashion. He performed his duties impartially and fairly in all respects. Judge Wilburn's handling of this matter in no way diminishes his qualifications, and the Committee unanimously finds that The Honorable David N. Wilburn, Jr. is qualified as a candidate for reelection as Judge of the Family Court of the Sixteenth Judicial Circuit, Seat #1.

In the screening of The Honorable Robert H. Cureton, candidate for reelection as Judge of the Family Court of the Tenth Judicial Circuit, Seat #2, 5 persons filed complaints and testified against Judge Cureton: (1) Leslie Jay Shayne, Esquire; (2) Robert L. Sanford; (3) Larry C. Brandt, Esquire; (4) Robert K. Whitney, Esquire; and (5) John J. McDonough, III, Esquire. This report will address each complaint separately.

Leslie Jay Shayne, Esquire, an attorney in Walhalla, South Carolina, testified that Judge Cureton was extremely moody toward litigants and attorneys and on occasions displayed a demeaning attitude toward attorneys and litigants. Mr. Shayne also testified that Judge Cureton was inconsistent, specifically with regard to his policy as to temporary hearings. Mr. Shayne stated that Judge Cureton on some occasions would not allow any testimony at temporary hearings and on other occasions would allow testimony, seemingly without any reason. Finally, Mr. Shayne asserted that Judge Cureton on occasion "hassled" attorneys, and he specifically cited that on one occasion Judge Cureton had required certain pleadings to be retyped rather than allowing manual corrections for the time and date of a Rule hearing.

Mr. Robert L. Sanford testified that he was a Defendant in the case brought by his wife for alleged nonpayment of child support and that he came before Judge Cureton in January, 1992. Mr. Sanford contended that he was current in his payments but that he had misplaced his child support payment records. Mr. Sanford expressed the opinion that Judge Cureton should have been more attentive to his concerns and should have consulted the record which Mr. Sanford asserts showed that he was current in child support. Mr. Sanford's complaint, in essence, was that Judge Cureton showed poor judicial demeanor and a lack of concern when he was before him on January 29, 1992.

Larry C. Brandt, Esquire, a practicing attorney in Walhalla, South Carolina, testified that Judge Cureton's inconsistencies made it impossible for him to advise clients. Mr. Brandt stated that he had discontinued practicing in Family Court approximately two years ago, but he had been before Judge Cureton on numerous occasions prior to then. Mr. Brandt advised the Committee that he had two candid discussions with the Judge in which he expressed his concern and complaints about Judge Cureton's inconsistencies. Mr. Brandt testified that he observed Judge Cureton to be inconsistent in his rulings as to the definition of "best interest of the children" and as to the corroboration rule in divorces. Mr. Brandt also stated that in his opinion Judge Cureton, based upon his 14 years of practicing before him, was very moody, in that on one day he may be a very good judge and on other days he would be intemperate. Mr. Brandt advised the Committee that he had made all of these complaints directly to Judge Cureton in his candid conversations with him which are referenced above. Mr. Brandt also testified that Judge Cureton was partial to certain attorneys and intimidated by others to the point that it affects his decision in cases in which those attorneys are involved.

Robert K. Whitney, Esquire, an attorney practicing in Seneca, South Carolina, testified in opposition to Judge Cureton and stated that he believed that Judge Cureton had shown favoritism to certain attorneys and had been inconsistent in his decisions and treatment of persons before him. The final witness to complain about Judge Cureton was John J. McDonough, III, Esquire, a practicing attorney of Seneca, South Carolina, who testified about Judge Cureton's inconsistencies on the bench and the fact that he was on occasion moody. Mr. McDonough stated that some litigants have commented on his moodiness. Finally, Mr. McDonough asserted that Judge Cureton was on occasion disdainful and sarcastic toward attorneys and litigants during the course of hearings.

The Committee heard from the following witnesses who spoke in favor of Judge Cureton: (1) Michael D. Glenn, Esquire; (2) Kenneth H. Lester, Esquire; (3) N. Gruber Sires, Jr., Esquire; (4) Harold R. Lowery, Esquire; and (5) John W. Fields, Esquire. All these witnesses were practicing attorneys and had appeared before Judge Cureton on a regular basis. They each testified to their high regard for Judge Cureton.

Mr. Glenn, who had practiced law for more than 25 years, testified that Judge Cureton was generally considered to be a very strict judge, insisting that all parties abide by the rules. Mr. Glenn specifically addressed the complaints expressed about Judge Cureton's inconsistency and favoritism. Mr. Glenn stated that in his opinion Judge Cureton had not been inconsistent, nor had he shown favoritism. Mr. Glenn went on to relate that he had lost cases before Judge Cureton on numerous occasions but that he believed the judge was fair and impartial in the conduct of his court.

Mr. Lester elaborated on Judge Cureton's being the type judge who runs a "tight ship." Mr. Lester opined that he believed that Judge Cureton knew the rules and applied them fairly, without preferential treatment to any parties or their attorneys. Mr. Lester acknowledged that Judge Cureton was forceful and abrupt in Court, but he believed the judge to be one of the best Family Court judges in the State.

Mr. Sires, another longstanding practitioner in Oconee County, reiterated that Judge Cureton is a stickler for the rules. Mr. Sires believed that his doing so kept the lawyers and litigants "in line." He regarded Judge Cureton as a fair-minded, hard-working judge who was a credit to the bench.

Mr. Lowery, with over 30 years experience as a trial lawyer, related his experience before Judge Cureton as being very professional. He testified that Judge Cureton is one of the strictest judges in the State and that this had made him (Mr. Lowery) a better lawyer. Mr. Lowery believed that litigants got fair treatment at all times in Judge Cureton's court.

The final witness in favor of Judge Cureton was John Fields, Esquire, of Seneca. Mr. Fields acknowledged that he was a good friend of Judge Cureton. Mr. Fields believes that Judge Cureton was not prejudiced towards parties or litigants and that he was not inconsistent in his rulings. He elaborated that he believed that Judge Cureton always looked for something positive before he made his findings in a child custody dispute. Mr. Fields acknowledged that Judge Cureton had ruled both in favor of his clients and against them in the various cases he has tried in Judge Cureton's Court. He also acknowledges that Judge Cureton was very strict in running his Court, but he regarded him as an excellent judge.

Almost all of the above witnesses acknowledged that Judge Cureton had been through a very difficult personal period during the last two years in which his wife had been extremely ill, and Judge Cureton had to spend his out-of-court hours tending to his wife. It is clear that Judge Cureton, during the last one and one-half to two years, has been under much stress.

To summarize the nature of the complaints expressed before this Committee, it is clear that they fall into one of three categories: (a) favoritism or lack of impartiality; (b) inconsistency in judicial rulings; and (c) judicial demeanor or temperament.

This Committee finds and concludes that no clear evidence has been presented to show that Judge Cureton has shown favoritism towards any particular lawyer or any particular litigant, and we do not believe this charge is well founded. Likewise, the Committee acknowledges that in many areas of the law of domestic relations, there are gray areas such that some parties or their attorneys may think that a judge is inconsistent if he rules in favor of a husband in one case and in favor of the wife in another case involving similar but not identical facts. For this reason, the Committee does not believe the evidence suggests that Judge Cureton has been unduly inconsistent.

With regard to Mr. Sanford's complaint, Judge Cureton testified that he held 45 contempt hearings the same day that Mr. Sanford appeared before him and that he gave Mr. Sanford liberal treatment even though he held him in contempt, in that he allowed Mr. Sanford to purge himself of the contempt sentence by paying a certain amount per week. The Committee finds that part of Mr. Sanford's complaint was due to an Order by a previous Family Court Judge, which was not attributable to Judge Cureton in any way.

The Committee is troubled by the allegations that Judge Cureton has been lacking in proper judicial demeanor. There is some question as to the degree and the frequency of Judge Cureton's intemperateness, but a number of witnesses admitted that at one time or another Judge Cureton had been moody, gruff, demeaning or short-fused with lawyers or litigants. This Committee finds and concludes that Judge Cureton on occasion has shown lapses in judicial temperament and has been moody towards lawyers or litigants in Court proceedings. This Committee believes that judicial temperament is one of the most important attributes for a judge to possess. It is important for litigants and lawyers to leave Court proceedings with the feeling that, win or lose, the judge presiding over their case gave them a fair hearing and dispensed justice with the proper demeanor. We are also aware that there are unusual stresses on a person serving on the Family Court bench, due to the emotional nature of the litigation which is handled in the Family Courts. We find that Judge Cureton's wife's illness (over the last two years) would certainly be a mitigating circumstance to excuse moodiness; however, we do find that instances of Judge Cureton's intemperate behavior on the bench preceded his wife's serious illness.

Many Family Court practitioners in the Tenth Judicial Circuit have a high regard for Judge Cureton as a strict, fair and no-nonsense judge. Other attorneys practicing before Judge Cureton believe that his demeanor is unduly gruff and that he lacks proper judicial temperament.

This Committee specifically finds that Judge Cureton has not displayed any bias or favoritism in court proceedings and that his rulings have not been unduly inconsistent. However, he has been intemperate and on occasion his courtroom demeanor has been short-fused towards litigants and attorneys. We find that Judge Cureton is a hard-worker and a judge who understands and applies the rules in a very strict fashion. His knowledge of, and adherence to, court rules is commendable, but his moodiness is not. The Committee does not feel that Judge Cureton's intemperateness is an everyday occurrence or even a frequent occurrence. While it is prevalent enough to warrant serious concern, this Committee, based on Judge Cureton's 17-year career on the bench, finds and believes that he has served well, that his scholarship is unquestioned, and that he has a strong work ethic. The allegations concerning his judicial demeanor are not extensive enough to warrant disqualification. Therefore, the Committee unanimously finds that The Honorable Robert H. Cureton is qualified as a candidate for reelection as Judge of the Family Court for the Tenth Judicial Circuit, Seat #2.

Respectfully submitted,
/s/Senator Thomas H. Pope, III, Chairman
/s/Senator John A. Martin
/s/Senator Isadore E. Lourie
/s/Senator Glenn F. McConnell
/s/Rep. Larry E. Gentry, Vice-Chairman
/s/Rep. B. L. Hendricks, Jr.
/s/Rep. James H. Hodges
/s/Rep. Maggie W. Glover

(On motion on Senator POPE, ordered printed in the Journal.)

TO: CLERK OF THE SENATE

CLERK OF THE HOUSE
FROM: THE JOINT LEGISLATIVE SCREENING COMMITTEE TO REVIEW CANDIDATES FOR THE SOUTH CAROLINA HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES FINANCE COMMISSION
DATE: MAY 14, 1992

In compliance with the provisions of Act 119, of 1975, and Act 167 of 1979, it is respectfully requested that the following information be printed in the Journals of the Senate and the House.

Respectfully submitted,
/s/Senator Alexander S. Macaulay, Chairman /s/Rep. W.S. Houck, Jr.
/s/Senator Robert L. Helmly /s/Rep. Joe E. Brown
/s/Senator McKinley Washington, Jr. /s/Rep. C.D. Chamblee
/s/Senator Harvey S. Peeler, Jr. /s/Rep. John Rama

Pursuant to Act 119 of 1975, this committee was organized to consider the qualifications of candidates seeking election to the South Carolina Health and Human Services Finance Commission for the Second, Fourth and Sixth Congressional Districts. The committee conducts such investigation of each candidate as it deems appropriate and reports its findings to the General Assembly prior to election. It is not the function of the committee to recommend one candidate over another or suggest to the individual legislator for whom to vote. Our role is instead that of determining whether a candidate is qualified and under the statute our determination in that regard is not binding upon the General Assembly.

Four candidates who were under consideration at the time of the hearings are discussed in this report. The candidates who appeared before the Joint Legislative Screening Committee for its consideration are as follows:

SECOND CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT
Nettie Dickerson
West Columbia, S.C.

Sherrill Hampton
Orangeburg, S.C.

FOURTH CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT
Frederick Furman Carpenter
Greenville, S.C.

SIXTH CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT
Ralph W. Garrison, Sr.
Florence, S.C.

COMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT:
Senator Alex Macaulay, Chairman
Senator McKinley Washington, Jr.
Senator Robert L. Helmly
Senator Harvey S. Peeler, Jr.
Representative William S. Houck, Jr.
Representative Joe E. Brown
Representative John C. Rama

STAFF PRESENT:
Hogan Brown, Counsel
Susan Coleman
Leila Isgett

CANDIDATES FOR SCREENING:
SECOND CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT
Nettie Dickerson
West Columbia, S.C.

Sherrill Hampton
Orangeburg, S.C.

FOURTH CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT
Frederick Furman Carpenter
Greenville, S.C.

SIXTH CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT
Ralph W. Garrison, Sr.
Florence, S.C.

CHAIRMAN MACAULAY: I move that we come to order. There are a few things that I need to take up. We'll wait and see about the other members. I understand that Senator Peeler from the Senate will not be able to be here, but, Representative Brown, we're checking on Representatives Chamblee, Houck, and Rama to see if they might be able to attend. Do you know anything about ...
REPRESENTATIVE BROWN: No. I have not spoken to them.
CHAIRMAN MACAULAY: All right, sir. We would like to check on that. In the meantime, also, we have some things that I would like to take up if we could in Executive Session, to clarify some things in my own mind. Do I hear a motion or ...
SENATOR WASHINGTON: So moved.
CHAIRMAN MACAULAY: All right, we'll go into Executive Session. All those in favor, stipulate by saying I.
SENATOR WASHINGTON: I.
SENATOR HELMLY: I.
REPRESENTATIVE BROWN: I.
CHAIRMAN MACAULAY: The I's have it. So ordered. If you don't mind, wait right outside. Down the hall, in 305 there is coffee. If you would like to wait there it might be a little bit more comfortable. We'll get right back to you. Thank you very much.

CHAIRMAN MACAULAY: Ladies and gentlemen, on behalf of the
Screening Panel, I want to thank you for coming this morning and also apologize for the inconvenience for having to wait in the hall. This is our first meeting this year, as well as, some of us have had a rather long way to come, and so it's a little difficult in all gathering at one time and trying to catch up, so, as I said, I do appreciate your indulgence. If we could, we would ask the candidates from the Second Congressional District, Ms. Dickerson, if you would, please, take the chair there at the desk. All right. If you would, raise your right hand, please. Do you swear or affirm that the testimony that you will give this morning will be the whole truth and nothing but the truth, so help you?
MS. DICKERSON: I do.
CHAIRMAN MACAULAY: Ms. Dickerson, for the record, if you
would, please, give us your full name.
MS. DICKERSON: Nettie Durant Dickerson.
CHAIRMAN MACAULAY: Ms. Dickerson, I'm going to ask you some questions, rather perfunctory, if you would. These are the questions we ask all candidates. First, now that you're under oath, do you affirm that the responses to your Personnel Data Questionnaire are true and complete?
MS. DICKERSON: I do.

1. Nettie R. Dickerson

Home Address: Business Address:
1441 Old Chapin Road, Unit 911 2406 Edmund Road
Lexington, S.C. 29072 West Columbia, S.C. 29169

2. Mrs. Dickerson was born in Ridgeland, South Carolina, on November 29, 1923.

3. Mrs. Dickerson is widowed. She has three children - Jeanne Cook (Chief Pilot, Bankair, Inc.); John Dickerson (President, Bankair, Inc.); and Charles Dickerson (President, Bankair Carrier).

4. Mrs. Dickerson graduated from the University of South Carolina School of Nursing in 1964.

5. Mrs. Dickerson is in good health.

6. Mrs. Dickerson is a member of: Transfiguration Lutheran Church; Public Relations Board of Hall Institute; American Association of University Women; Volunteer-Sister Care; and Cancer Board of S.C. Baptist Hospital (1990-91).

7. Mrs. Dickerson is a director and involved in the management of the following businesses: Bankair, Inc; Columbia Aviation; and Bankair Courier.

8. References:

Senator Joe Wilson, District #23
West Columbia, S.C.

Senator Nikki Setzler, District #26
West Columbia, S.C.

Representative Jarvis Klapman, District #89
West Columbia, S.C.

James R. Lientz, Jr., President
C&S National Bank
Columbia, S.C.

Ms. Attie C. May, President
American Association of University Women, Columbia Branch

Columbia, S.C.

Mr. Charles Beaman, President
S.C. Baptist Medical Center
Columbia, S.C.

CHAIRMAN MACAULAY: That takes care of those. We don't have to go back through them.
MS. DICKERSON: Yes.
CHAIRMAN MACAULAY: Do you have any health related problems that the Screening Committee should be made aware of that would prevent you from serving on the board in a full capacity?
MS. DICKERSON: No, I do not.
CHAIRMAN MACAULAY: What is your occupation?
MS. DICKERSON: I'm an executive with Bankair and it's affiliate
companies.
CHAIRMAN MACAULAY: Have you ever been discharged from any employment?
MS. DICKERSON: No, I haven't.
CHAIRMAN MACAULAY: Considering your present occupation and other activities, would you be able to attend board meetings on a regular basis?
MS. DICKERSON: Yes.
CHAIRMAN MACAULAY: Do any of your businesses have contracts with the state or federal government?
MS. DICKERSON: Yes.
CHAIRMAN MACAULAY: Well, again, I think that applies to are
there any businesses that you have any controlling interests or at least five percent (5%) interest in. As an employee, no, but do you have any businesses that you might have a ...
MS. DICKERSON: No conflict in interest. Something like the
Federal Reserve Bank and the Department of Defense, Fueling, but I don't think, you know, I don't think that has any conflict with this.
CHAIRMAN MACAULAY: Thank you very much. Do you have any interests professionally and personally that would present a conflict of interest because of your service on the board, and that's beyond your business interests, do you have any ...
MS. DICKERSON: No.
CHAIRMAN MACAULAY: Would you be able to put in the time
necessary to serve on the board, considering your other interests?
MS. DICKERSON: Yes.
CHAIRMAN MACAULAY: Do you or any member of your family have any business interests that would present a conflict of interest in your holding this position?
MS. DICKERSON: No.
CHAIRMAN MACAULAY: Are you or any member of your immediate family related to anyone affiliated with the Health and Human Services Finance Commission?
MS. DICKERSON: Not ... according to ethics rules, the answer
is, no.
CHAIRMAN MACAULAY: Do you now hold any public office of
honor or trust that your service to the board would cause you to violate the Dual Officeholding Clause under the Constitution?
MS. DICKERSON: No.
CHAIRMAN DICKERSON: As far as the Committee, are there any
other questions of Ms. Dickerson?
SENATOR WASHINGTON: Ms. Dickerson ...
MS. DICKERSON: Yes.
SENATOR WASHINGTON: I'm Senator Washington. Why do you
really want to serve on this board?
MS. DICKERSON: Well, I'm of an age that I felt like I should
volunteer and give back something to society. I looked at the various commissions and felt the best qualified for this particular one because of my background in healthcare delivery services as well as in business. We do have, as groups of women, we have wanted women to fulfill their responsibility more readily in these areas, and with all this in mind, I became interested in this particular Commission.
CHAIRMAN MACAULAY: By the way, and I do thank Senator
Washington for doing this, but please forgive me, again, for my lack of hospitality. The members of the Screening Panel are, Senator Washington, Senator Helmly, Representative Chamblee, Representative Brown and Representative Houck, and I'm Alex Macaulay. Are there any other questions from the Committee?
SENATOR WASHINGTON: One other question.
CHAIRMAN MACAULAY: Senator Washington.
SENATOR WASHINGTON: As you look at the problem of healthcare in this state, how do you feel the Health and Human Services Finance Commission fits in in helping to solve some of the problems, or do you agree with the philosophy of what the Health and Human Services Finance Commission is all about?
MS. DICKERSON: I'm not sure that I'm fully informed. I did
observe the Commission in action before I became a candidate. The staff and the Executive Director seem to have a very efficient way of handling things. I've looked at some of their problems. Of course they have budgeting problems and other problems. Senator Washington, I don't mean to be evasive, however, in all honesty, I must say I have a lot to learn about the philosophy and about the Commission.
SENATOR WASHINGTON: One other question and I'm going to quit. How do you feel about childcare, welfare, et cetera? This is one of the major concerns the Health and Human Services Finance Commission deals with.
MS. DICKERSON: I feel that it's very important. In the fields
in which I've had experience, by the way I was the founder of the Social Service Department at the Baptist Hospital, however, I'm not a social worker, but I would see these needs and I think that the welfare of the children is the most important thing that we have entrusted to us. But there are many other areas, such as the healthcare, and, yes, I feel that welfare is a very necessary service.
CHAIRMAN MACAULAY: Are there any other questions of Ms.
Dickerson? If not, thank you very much for being here, and if you would wait, we might have some other questions, so, if you would remain available until we finish.
MS. DICKERSON: Thank you, Senator.
CHAIRMAN MACAULAY: Thank you. Our next candidate is Ms.
Sherrill Hampton. Ms. Hampton, if you would, too, come around. Ms. Hampton, if you would raise your right hand, please. Do you swear or affirm that the testimony that you give this morning will be the whole truth and nothing but the truth?
MS. HAMPTON: I do.
CHAIRMAN MACAULAY: Thank you. Ms. Hampton, I'm going to ask you the same questions. Now that you're under oath, do you affirm that the responses to the Personnel Data Questionnaire are true and complete?
MS. HAMPTON: I do.

1. Sherrill A. Hampton

Home Address: Business Address:
Route 2, Box 2600 Hampton & Associates
Bowman, S.C. 29018 222 Middleton St., S.E.

Orangeburg, S.C. 29115

2. Ms. Hampton was born in Yorkers, New York, on June 16, 1958.

3. Ms. Hampton is single.

4. Ms. Hampton received a B.S. degree in Social Science from Claflin College in Orangeburg in 1979; attended the Lutheran Theological Seminary in Columbia, 1979-80 and attended the University of South Carolina, 1982-84 to pursue a Masters in Public Administration.

5. Ms. Hampton is in good health.

6. Ms. Hampton is a member of: District 94 Concerned Citizens; NAACP-Bowman Chapter; S.C. Community Development Association; American Planning Association; S.C. Low Income Housing Coalition; National Rural Development & Finance Corporation (Board member); and United Methodist Church Board of Church & Society Housing Subcommittee.

7. Ms. Hampton is the owner and manager of Hampton & Associates, a local government consulting firm.

8. References:

Pat Gross, Executive Director

United Methodist Church in South Carolina
Mt. Pleasant, S.C.

Claudine Williams, Business Education teacher
Bowman High School
Bowman, S.C.

Harris Davis
N&H Enterprises, Inc.
Real Estate Management-Real Estate Development
Orangeburg, S.C.

A. Clark Jenkins, Minister
Emmanual United Methodist Church
Sumter, S.C.

Sybil R. Dukes, Vice-President
Farmers & Merchants Bank
Bowman, S.C.

CHAIRMAN MACAULAY: Do you have any health related problems that the Screening Committee should be made aware of that would prevent you from serving on the board in full capacity?
MS. HAMPTON: I do not.
CHAIRMAN MACAULAY: What is your occupation?
MS. HAMPTON: I'm a private consultant.
CHAIRMAN MACAULAY: Have you ever been discharged from any employment?
MS. HAMPTON: I left the City of Orangeburg.
CHAIRMAN MACAULAY: Considering your present occupation and other activities, would you be able to attend board meetings on a regular basis?
MS. HAMPTON: Yes.
CHAIRMAN MACAULAY: Do any of your businesses have contracts with the state or federal government?
MS. HAMPTON: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN MACAULAY: By the way, any questions that you ...
MS. HAMPTON: Would you like me to elaborate on that?
CHAIRMAN MACAULAY: Well, if you want to, fine, and if the
Committee would like to. These questions really are just to sort of give a basis for any testimony that might be made, so, do not hesitate, if you want to elaborate feel free to do so.
MS. HAMPTON: Okay.
CHAIRMAN MACAULAY: All right. We can come back to it. Do
you have any interests professionally or personally that would present a conflict of interest because of your service on the board?
MS. HAMPTON: I do not believe so, no.
CHAIRMAN MACAULAY: Would you be able to put in the time
necessary to serve on the board?
MS. HAMPTON: I believe so, yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN MACAULAY: Do you or any member of your family have any business interests that would present a conflict of interest in your holding this position?
MS. HAMPTON: No, sir.
CHAIRMAN MACAULAY: Are you or any member of your immediate family related to anyone affiliated with the Health and Human Services Finance Commission?
MS. HAMPTON: No, sir.
CHAIRMAN MACAULAY: Do you now hold any public position of
honor or trust that if elected to the Board would cause you to violate the Dual Officeholding Clause of the Constitution?
MS. HAMPTON: No, sir.
CHAIRMAN MACAULAY: Now, Ms. Hampton, also members of the Committee, first of all, if any of the members of the Committee would have any particular questions at this point?
SENATOR WASHINGTON: Ms. Hampton ...
CHAIRMAN MACAULAY: Senator Washington.
SENATOR WASHINGTON: Since this board does not pay anything that I know of, why would you want to serve on the Health and Human Services Finance Commission?
MS. HAMPTON: Well, I've watched it for a long time, and as you
say, it's certainly not for the money. Being a rural advocate and a community planner, I have always been interested, since the formation of the Commission, and wanted to give my insight and my expertise as a grassroots person who has ... I know what poverty is about. I know the problems of the elderly because I have an elderly mother. I have worked with a lot of Medicaid and Social Services people, so, I've seen the problems of the agency. I've also worked in state government and I know the constraints that agencies have to function under. So, I've watched it for a long time and it's just an interest that is very close and very dear to my heart. That's why would like to serve.
SENATOR WASHINGTON: One other question. You indicated that
you might have some clients who might do business with the Health and Human Service Finance Commission. Would you sort of explain that?
MS. HAMPTON: Okay. I guess it's true, folks, if you're
elaborating to my employment, it is with ... my contracts are with units of local government or either counties. I do planning for them and grants assistance, so, I don't know how that would come in. I have an elderly mother who is on ... that gets Medicaid and Medicare and who is a person in the Community Longterm Care Program. For a long time, we paid for that service, until she became eligible and they raised the income level and she was eligible to come in. So, she does receive and I hope a sitter is at my house right now with her. She does receive services through Community Longterm Care.
CHAIRMAN MACAULAY: Are there any other questions from the
Committee for Ms. Hampton?
REPRESENTATIVE BROWN: Mr. Chairman, just one, please.
CHAIRMAN MACAULAY: Representative Brown.
REPRESENTATIVE BROWN: You asked a question earlier, and the question was stated, have you ever been discharged from any employment. Ms. Hampton indicated she left the City of Orangeburg. My question, was she discharged or did she just resign?
MS. HAMPTON: I was discharged.
CHAIRMAN MACAULAY: Doctor Houck.
REPRESENTATIVE HOUCK: What was your position in Orangeburg, what was the job description in Orangeburg?
MS. HAMPTON: I was Director of Planning for the City.
REPRESENTATIVE HOUCK: You were the Supervisor or the top dog in Planning for Orangeburg?
MS. HAMPTON: They had just instituted the Planning Department.
I was the Planning Department. I had no secretarial help, no other assistance, so, I did everything.
REPRESENTATIVE HOUCK: Would you or could you elaborate as to why you were discharged?
MS. HAMPTON: At the same time, I still had my business and they
thought it was a conflict of interest ... not so much a conflict of interest as trying to run my business on some of their time.
REPRESENTATIVE HOUCK: Let me ask you something, and you
may have already answered the question of Senator Washington. You implied or said that there was some conflict of interest in your business and the Health and Human Services Finance Commission. Is that what you told Senator Washington?
MS. HAMPTON: Well, he asked if there might would be and I said
that I didn't feel so but that I contract with units of local government ...
REPRESENTATIVE HOUCK: Okay. Well, you have already answered it, okay.
CHAIRMAN MACAULAY: Are there any other ... Senator Helmly.
SENATOR HELMLY: Just a point I would like to have cleared up.
At some points of your ... you indicated that you are a care provider. I understood you to say that you are a care provider for your elderly mother, is that the care provider you were talking about?
MS. HAMPTON: Right.
SENATOR HELMLY: You are not a care provider, like a member of a board or something like that?
MS. HAMPTON: Oh, no, sir.
SENATOR HELMLY: That's all, Mr. Chairman.
CHAIRMAN MACAULAY: Are there any other questions from the
members of the Committee. If not, Ms. Hampton, thank you very much for being here this morning, and if you, too, will wait until we're finished and we've interviewed all the candidates.
MS. HAMPTON: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN MACAULAY: Thank you very much.
MS. DICKERSON: Senator Macaulay.
CHAIRMAN MACAULAY: Yes, ma'am.
MS. DICKERSON: Before you leave the Second Congressional
District, there is something I would like to share that I hesitated because I worked it through and I'm unfamiliar with the structure, as you well realized when I asked you if you had been elected. I thought the Chair was a part of the staff, I apologize for that. It only occurred to me several days later and I've been embarrassed about it and ... but when you asked about conflicts of interests, I hesitated about a relative. After I picked a Commission and said this may be where I can serve, I discovered that my ex-son-in-law, of whom I'm still very fond but I seldom see, was on the Commission. Well, I inquired of the Ethics Committee and they sent me the form, they said, no. I sent Dr. Laurent a letter saying if it would be awkward in any way, please say so and I'll withdraw. I had a very nice call back, in fact, saying, no, it would not be awkward. So, that ... I didn't go into it to save your time but, then, there was another area which I contacted the Ethics Commission and what not. I leased some property to Lexington County Mental Health at a sacrifice to myself, actually. In fact, after they prevailed on me with one project, and my heart was soft, they asked me to please buy another one and I did. At my age I didn't really need that, you know. But, no matter, I do lease them two buildings on #1 Highway. I understand that if there were any ... there was any funding that affected that that I would withdraw from voting as a Commissioner and that it is not a conflict of interest, but I feel at this point, maybe that the time is worth it to share this with you.
CHAIRMAN MACAULAY: Ms. Dickerson, I thank you very much. I might note, it is my understanding that all of this was included in your Personnel Information Data Questionnaire.
MS. DICKERSON: I wasn't sure and I wanted ... I didn't want any
questions about it.
CHAIRMAN MACAULAY: Very good. Thank you very much. All
right, if there is none other for the candidates from the Second Congressional District, if you would, wait just a moment while we look at the Sixth Congressional District. Mr. Garrison, if you would, please, come around. If you would raise your right hand. Do you swear or affirm that the testimony you will give this morning will be the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth?
MR. GARRISON: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN MACAULAY: Thank you very much. Again, I'll ask you the same questions. Now that you're under oath, do you affirm that the responses to the Personnel Data Questionnaire are true and complete?
MR. GARRISON: Yes, sir.

1. Ralph W. Garrison

Home Address: Business Address:
2601 Claussen Road 1359 S. Irby St.
Florence, S.C. 29505 Florence, S.C. 29505

2. Mr. Garrison was born in Pamplico, South Carolina, on May 10, 1933.

3. Mr. Garrison married Mary Anderson Garrison on July 23, 1953. They have two children: Ralph W. Garrison, Jr., age 33 (Owner & Manager of the Baby Place); and John J. Garrison, age 30 (attorney).

4. Mr. Garrison graduated from Pamplico High School in 1951.

5. Mr. Garrison is in good health.

6. Mr. Garrison is a member of: S.C. Pest Control Association; Flintville Masonic Lodge #158; Farm Bureau; and Florence County Planning Commission.

7. Mr. Garrison served as Florence County Magistrate for twenty-four years and retired in April, 1990.

8. Mr. Garrison is President of Garrison Pest Control, Inc.

9. References:

Michael Ballenger
Attorney
Florence, S.C.

Ashpy Lowrimore
Southern National Bank
Florence, S.C.

Richard Knight
Stuckey Bros. and Knight Furniture
Florence, S.C.

Ken Eaton
Attorney
Florence, S.C.

John Campbell
Service Motor Co.
Pamplico, S.C.

CHAIRMAN MACAULAY: Do you have any health related problems that the Screening Committee should be made aware of that would prevent you from serving on the board in a full capacity?
MR. GARRISON: None whatsoever. I just had a physical.
CHAIRMAN MACAULAY: What is your occupation?
MR. GARRISON: I'm President of Garrison Pest Control and a
retired county magistrate, after twenty-four years.
CHAIRMAN MACAULAY: Have you ever been discharged from any employment?
MR. GARRISON: No, sir.
CHAIRMAN MACAULAY: Considering your present occupation and other activities, would you be able to attend board meetings on a regular basis?
MR. GARRISON: Yes, sir, I plan to attend all of them.
CHAIRMAN MACAULAY: Do any of your businesses have contracts with the state or federal government?
MR. GARRISON: Yes, sir, on an open bid to Francis Marion
College.
CHAIRMAN MACAULAY: Do you have any interests professionally or personally that would present a conflict of interest because of your service on the board?
MR. GARRISON: No, sir.
CHAIRMAN MACAULAY: Would you be able to put in the time
necessary to serve on the board?
MR. GARRISON: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN MACAULAY: Do you or any member of your family have any business interests that would present a conflict of interest in your holding this position?
MR. GARRISON: No, sir.
CHAIRMAN MACAULAY: Are you or any member of your immediate family related to anyone affiliated with the Health and Human Services Finance Commission?
MR. GARRISON: No, sir.
CHAIRMAN MACAULAY: Do you now hold any public position of honor or trust that if elected to the board would cause you to violate the Dual Officeholding Clause of the Constitution?
MR. GARRISON: I'm on the County Planning Commission, but I'm
planning to resign from that.
CHAIRMAN MACAULAY: All right. Thank you very much, Mr.
Garrison. Are there any questions from the members of the Committee?
SENATOR WASHINGTON: Yes, Mr. Chairman.
CHAIRMAN MACAULAY: Senator Washington.
SENATOR WASHINGTON: Mr. Garrison ...
MR. GARRISON: Yes, sir.
SENATOR WASHINGTON: You said you were a magistrate?
MR. GARRISON: Yes, sir.
SENATOR WASHINGTON: Sir, do you have any kind of experience or working relationship with healthcare services or Head Start, daycare or Medicare or those programs that Health and Human Services Finance Commission is responsible for through DSS and all the other State agencies? What kind of experience have you had in working relationships with those types of programs?
MR. GARRISON: I've listened to people's problems for forty-four
years, from family problems ... as a country magistrate we handled it all.
SENATOR WASHINGTON: That's a little different when you start
talking about listening to their legal problems or ...
MR. GARRISON: Well, you had to try to give them some advice
on where to go and try to help them get services. I had a good working relationship with different parties.
SENATOR WASHINGTON: What's your philosophy as it relates to the antipoverty programs or the healthcare program or welfare program or the food stamp program or ... can you tell us a little bit of how you feel about those programs?
MR. GARRISON: I feel like we should help, but I feel like we
should make services where the people can kind of help themselves, make them more independent. I don't think we do enough for the citizens in this area.
SENATOR WASHINGTON: I don't have any more questions.
CHAIRMAN MACAULAY: Thank you Senator. Are there any other questions from members of the Committee?
REPRESENTATIVE HOUCK: Let me ask you, isn't your brother ...
CHAIRMAN MACAULAY: Representative Houck.
REPRESENTATIVE HOUCK: Your brother is the Captain of the
Highway Department?
MR. GARRISON: First cousin.
REPRESENTATIVE HOUCK: He's your first cousin, okay.
MR. GARRISON: He's retired.
REPRESENTATIVE HOUCK: He's retired?
MR. GARRISON: Yes, sir.
REPRESENTATIVE HOUCK: Is he retired?
MR. GARRISON: Yes, sir.
REPRESENTATIVE HOUCK: I didn't realize ...
MR. GARRISON: He's still drawing a check, but he hasn't ...
he's still doing vacation.
CHAIRMAN MACAULAY: Are there any further questions of Mr.
Garrison? Again, Mr. Garrison, if you would, wait for a few moments to see if we have anything else from the Committee, then we will be through with you all.
MR. GARRISON: Thank you.
SENATOR HELMLY: Mr. Chairman, may I ask a question that will
show a little of my ignorance?
CHAIRMAN MACAULAY: All right. Senator Helmly.
SENATOR HELMLY: In the case of the at-large district, Mr.
Simpson, is his ... I should have researched this prior to this morning. Has his term expired, because according to the manual he's a 1992 person? He's the at-large person, but his term expires ...
MS. COLEMAN: He's the Chairman.
SENATOR HELMLY: He's the Chairman?
CHAIRMAN MACAULAY: I think he's appointed by the Governor.
SENATOR HELMLY: So, his term would not be in this decision ...
MS. DICKERSON: I have inquired since I was a candidate, before
I became a candidate, I inquired when I saw, too, his term expires in '92. He's a very good Chair and I wanted to serve on a Commission that worked smoothly. So, I understand that he's going to be reappointed by the Governor and will probably continue to Chair the Commission. But, you're right, his term is out, but he is supposed to be reappointed.
CHAIRMAN MACAULAY: I believe that point is settled. All right,
the Chair will entertain a motion, I think, unless we have - does the Committee have any further questions or any action at this time - that the Committee stand in recess until we can meet again. I think we are about to get a full compliment, but I would like to, since we had to meet early in the morning, maybe just to have a meeting later where we can see if we can't get a full membership. I think that would be Representative Rama and Senator Peeler, so, if we could ... or is there anything else that the Committee would like to hear at this point?
SENATOR HELMLY: Mr. Chairman, I would like to ...
CHAIRMAN MACAULAY: Senator Helmly.
SENATOR HELMLY: One remark to these people who ... I have a
fondness of this Commission, since I was one of the one's who helped create it and I want to compliment you on your willingness to come forward and serve on a Committee that is not the easiest thing you could have asked to serve on. There are many others where there are more glamour and probably more reward, but there are a number of rewards in serving people who are in need. I would like to congratulate you for being willing to submit yourself to that and coming this morning.
CHAIRMAN MACAULAY: If there aren't any matters that ... the
Chair would also entertain a motion for Executive Session If there's no motion for Executive Session, then a motion ...
SENATOR WASHINGTON: I so motion.
CHAIRMAN MACAULAY: Oh. Motion for Executive Session. All
those in favor indicate by saying I.
SENATOR WASHINGTON: I.
SENATOR HELMLY: I.
REPRESENTATIVE CHAMBLEE: I.
REPRESENTATIVE BROWN: I.
REPRESENTATIVE HOUCK: I.
CHAIRMAN MACAULAY: The I's have it. So ordered. If we could ask you to please excuse us one more time.

CHAIRMAN MACAULAY: Ladies and Gentlemen, again, I appreciate you all bearing with us this morning. We will recess until the other two members of the Committee have the opportunity to join us before we take any action on the screening. However, we would like to ask Mr. Brown, our attorney, to give some instructions on what you need to be aware of as far as filings that will be necessary.
MR. BROWN: There's a new provision of the Ethics Act I just
wanted to point out to the candidates. It says, "A person running for office elected by the General Assembly must file a report with the Chairman of the Senate Ethics Committee and the Chairman of the House Ethics Committee of money in excess of $100.00 spent by him or on his behalf in seeking the office." And excluded from that are certain lodging and other things, but there's no set form for that but I just ... it's 8-13-920, and if you call, Ms. Coleman will be happy to provide you with any assistance we can in that regard. The only other item, since the Committee has not formally put the question of qualification and made that determination, there is a prohibition against seeking pledges or commitments prior to that time and I'm sure you probably are already aware of that, but I just wanted to put it on the record. Since that hasn't happened you might want to take that into consideration in whatever contacts you make.
CHAIRMAN MACAULAY: You are not to receive or seek any
commitments at this time. I apologize for the delay but it's something I think that's important that we have the full Committee an opportunity to consider before we do make our decision. All right. Entertain the motion to recess.
SENATOR WASHINGTON: I so motion.
CHAIRMAN MACAULAY: All those in favor indicate by saying I.
SENATOR WASHINGTON: I.
SENATOR HELMLY: I.
REPRESENTATIVE CHAMBLEE: I.
REPRESENTATIVE BROWN: I.
REPRESENTATIVE HOUCK: I.
CHAIRMAN MACAULAY: The I's have it. So ordered.
(There being no further questions or motions, the hearing concluded at 11:10 a.m.)

Continuation of Hearing to review candidates for the South Carolina Health and Human Services Finance Commission, taken on the 14th day of May, 1992 in Room 307 of the Gressette Building, Columbia, South Carolina, before Patricia Hall, Court Reporter and Notary Public, in and for the State of South Carolina.

COMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT:

Senator Alex Macaulay, Chairman

Senator McKinley Washington, Jr.

Senator Robert L. Helmly

Senator Harvey S. Peeler, Jr.

Representative William S. Houck, Jr.

Representative Joe E. Brown

Representative John C. Rama

STAFF PRESENT:
Hogan Brown, Counsel
Susan Coleman

CANDIDATES FOR SCREENING:
SECOND CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT
Nettie Dickerson
West Columbia, S.C.

Sherrill Hampton
Orangeburg, S.C.

FOURTH CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT
Frederick Furman Carpenter
Greenville, S.C.

SIXTH CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT
Ralph W. Garrison, Sr.
Florence, S.C.

CHAIRMAN MACAULAY: We are about even, we have three House members and three Senators. This should be a fairly short meeting, except we have some things that we do need to consider. In talking to the Court Reporter, I would ask you to use your microphones, and in order to avoid any confusion with more than one person talking at one time, if you would, address the Chair if you have any questions for someone or for discussion. The first thing I think that we should take up is really one of the problems that we have with the process that we're going through right now with Congressional Reapportionment. I have asked Mr. Brown, if he would, just to kind of briefly explain what the situation is to see if the Committee in any way wants to address it or at least see if there is any consideration the Committee would like to give to it. Mr. Brown.
MR. BROWN: Mr. Chairman, just to summarize briefly, there is
not a whole lot of law that exists as to what has happened in the past or what should happen relative to the new Congressional districts adopted by the Court a couple of weeks ago. The first comment I think I would make would be simply that new Congressional districts would not go into effect until November. My personal opinion is that the uncertainties relating to these Congressional districts would argue in favor of maintaining the current districts in terms of selecting Representatives for a number of reasons, first of which, the time for the appeal has not run. There could conceivably be appeal up to June 1st. Even after the election in November, there is nothing to prevent the General Assembly from changing the districts for the subsequent election. There's even a bill still pending before the Conferees, if the Conferees reported out something and it was adopted, it could be changed. Not that I believe that any of those are likely events, but just to point out that it is far from certain what may or may not happen through November and even if the elections were to be held pursuant to those districts, pending the outcome of an appeal, there could be a change sometime in the next year. Also, since this could affect several different boards and commissions, it would seem to me that the General Assembly would be well advised to deal with it collectively, as opposed to each individual screening committee having different outcomes depending upon the circumstances. At the time these notifications went out, everyone knew the districts from which they were going to be seeking to seat. To change and go back, or go to the new districts, there may well be someone in a district now that wasn't before that might want to seek a candidacy, and so that might, particularly given the time that we have left in the session, might create a problem. And sort of the last uncertainty is if a Cabinet form of government is adopted. This Board may no longer be in existence if that were to happen, so, the whole thing may be moot for that reason. There is nothing that I've seen - there's one case from 1937 -which in any way limits the ability of the General Assembly to change, modify terms, or address this in any way. There's no property right vested by virtue of being elected to any seat. So, the General Assembly's power is essentially preliminary and for that reason, I don't think you would have problems with even terms to change; to go to a two year term for one person and stagger or to balloon up or to address it in any way the General Assembly may feel appropriate in the next Legislative Session.
REPRESENTATIVE RAMA: Mr. Chairman.
CHAIRMAN MACAULAY: Mr. Rama.
REPRESENTATIVE RAMA: Based on the candidates that are before us right now, which Congressional Plans are they within? Are there problems where someone may be in a Congressional Plan that may change, and if there are problems, could you tell us which candidates those are and what Congressional Plan they would be in?
MR. BROWN: Ms. Sherrill Hampton, who submitted her notice and
intent for Congressional Seat Number Two is now in the Sixth Congressional District, which would actually make her a candidate for the seat that Mr. Garrison is seeking. So, it would definitely affect in this instance how the candidates would ...
REPRESENTATIVE RAMA: But it only affects one candidate?
CHAIRMAN MACAULAY: Well, two candidates.
REPRESENTATIVE RAMA: Two candidates. Mr. Garrison would still be in the Sixth Congressional District.
MR. BROWN: He's still in the Sixth. It would just affect who's
in which race.
REPRESENTATIVE RAMA: As for your point on the Cabinet form of government, I think we're a little premature in that in the sense that I think we're at least a year or two off from ... at least two years off from a Cabinet form of government, so, I don't know if that's as valid or as much of a problem as ... but I appreciate you making us aware of that.
MR. BROWN: I only mentioned it really in terms of there are
many uncertainties that impact this and it will be impossible for anyone to know right now what may or may not happen.
REPRESENTATIVE RAMA: Is there no precedence for the last time Reapportionment occurred, ten years ago?
MR. BROWN: There is no Attorney General's opinions, there are
no court cases as a result of that that I was able to find. The General Assembly, in at least one instance with a PSC from a number of years ago chose to stay with seven congressional seats even when South Carolina no longer had seven congressional seats. So, what you're really dealing with in my opinion is a fictional concept anyway in the sense that you're just deciding to spread representation more across the State than any sort of equal protection or apportionment of seats as such, et cetera. To spread out and not have them concentrated, not that you're deciding that you should be represented by 581,000 people or some specific number.
CHAIRMAN MACAULAY: Mr. Rama, if I might sort of reflect for a moment. This year we abolished a whole board, DSS. So, I think that really, and perhaps this is what we should perceive here, this is not anything this Committee could do that would be binding on anyone else, other than just our procedure here. But I think that it is something we should be aware of and the candidates, obviously, would have to be aware of it, too, that sometime in the future by general law something could occur, whether it involves both Houses of the General Assembly or whether it's the Governor.
SENATOR HELMLY: Mr. Chairman.
CHAIRMAN MACAULAY: Senator Helmly.
SENATOR HELMLY: I believe that it is our assigned
responsibility to be able to screen as advertised and under the existing statutes.
CHAIRMAN MACAULAY: So, that would be a motion to accept the information we have received for that purpose. All those in favor, indicate by saying, I. The I's have it. All right. Representative Rama asked me what was going to be involved. I did not realize or did not think at the time, we have ... as all things, the best laid plans, all sorts of things at any time can go astray. When the notices closed, the time for filing intents closed, we had no candidate from the Fourth Congressional District. Since that time, a candidate has come forward and submitted his ... is the filing now complete as far as the paperwork?
MR. BROWN: Yes, Mr. Chairman, it is.
CHAIRMAN MACAULAY: All right. So, then we do have a complete filing for the Fourth District, however, it came after the notice times and I would ask one of you, I guess, Mr. Brown, have you had an opportunity to look at this question to see if we have any limitations or restrictions as to what we can do or what our options might be?
MR. BROWN: Mr. Chairman, in the packaging material, the first
page in the Code Sections that were copied for the Committee, Title 44-6-10 provides that, "Any person desiring to offer as a candidate for a position as a member of a commission shall be screened and reviewed by the Joint Legislative Screening Committee pursuant to Chapter Nineteen, Title Two." So, clearly, within the Health and Human Services Finance Commission provision, screening was contemplated and specifically provided for even though there was a general statute. The only timeframe, the only two time considerations are really the time at which the testimony and findings of this Committee would have to be submitted to the Journal to be published so that the other members will have the opportunity to review it. That's one and that can easily and clearly be met by what the Committee is doing and intends to do. The other consideration in the new Ethics law, a provision that really mirrors the old law and I brought forward, which says on the last page of the materials which were copied for you, a Statement of Economic Interest must be filed ten days prior to the election of someone who seeks an office filled by election of the General Assembly or that's merely on the advice and consent of the Senate. That's 8-13-910 and it says in relevant part, "No person who is a candidate for public office which is filled by election by the General Assembly may be voted upon by the General Assembly or either House thereof until at least ten days following the date on which the candidate filed the Statement of Economic Interest as to find in that chapter with the Senate Ethics and House Ethics Committee." And as a matter of standard practice, when Statements of Economic Interest are forwarded to the Committee, we in turn file on behalf of the candidate with the respective committee. And we did even in the case of Mr. Carpenter just because that was standard, not that it would prejudice anyone's rights or ability to do anything, and leave it open for the Committee to decide whether it felt like it was appropriate. There have actually been in the past, people who have been nominated from the floor who have been found not to be qualified, so, I think there is some question as to whether a candidate who was nominated from the floor, whether that would be appropriate, but that's really a decision for Joint Assembly and ultimately the presiding officer, not for the Committee to decide.
REPRESENTATIVE RAMA: Mr. Chairman.
CHAIRMAN MACAULAY: Mr. Rama.
REPRESENTATIVE RAMA: I would like to make a motion that we
accept the application of Mr. Carpenter.
CHAIRMAN MACAULAY: The motion has been made that we accept the application of Mr. Carpenter. I believe he's present this morning and we can conduct his screening at this time.
SENATOR HELMLY: Second.
CHAIRMAN MACAULAY: Senator Helmly seconds the motion. All those in favor indicate by saying, I. Opposed, no. The I's have it, so let's move with that if we could. Mr. Carpenter, would you come around to the desk and have a seat? Raise your right hand, please. Do you swear or affirm the testimony you will give this morning will be the truth and nothing but the truth?
MR. CARPENTER: I do.
CHAIRMAN MACAULAY: Thank you. Mr. Carpenter, now that you are under oath and we have a copy of your Personnel Data Questionnaire, do you affirm the answers to the Personnel Data Questionnaire are true and complete?
MR. CARPENTER: I do.

1. Frederick Furman Carpenter

Home Address: Business Address:
235 Meyers Drive P.O. Box 1268
Greenville, S.C. 29605 Greenville, S.C. 29602

2. Mr. Carpenter was born in Greenville, South Carolina on November 5, 1950.

3. Mr. Carpenter was married to Marian McGinty Carpenter on January 18, 1975. They have two children: Thomas H. (age 13) and William Neal (age 9).

4. Mr. Carpenter received a B.S. Degree from the University of South Carolina in 1973.

5. Mr. Carpenter is in excellent health.

6. Mr. Carpenter is a member of: Downtown Sertoma Club; August Road Sertoma Club - former President; Board Member and Treasurer - Greenville's Child Inc.;* President and Board Member - Mental Health Association of Greenville County;* Former Board Member - Meals on Wheels for Senior Citizens, Inc.; Communications Cabinet - United Way of Greenville County; Division Chairman, United Way of Greenville County; former President and Board Member - Senior Action, Inc.;* Ruling Elder - Westminister Presbyterian Church; Membership Board of Directors - Greater Greenville Chamber of Commerce; The Pointsett Club - Greenville, S.C.; and Green Valley Country Club, Greenville, S.C.

*United Way Agencies

7. Mr. Carpenter is Vice-President and Senior Commercial Loan Officer at American Federal Bank in Greenville. He has been employed here for the past twelve years.

8. References:

Mr. Robert T. Thompson, Jr., Chairman
S.C. Commission - Alcohol & Drug Abuse

Mr. Mack Hixon, President and Executive Director
United Way of Greenville County

Mr. Richard H. Furman, Senior Vice-President
Greater Greenville Chamber of Commerce

Mr. Les Gardener, Vice-President and General Manager
Greater Greenville Chamber of Commerce

Dr. Willis H. Crosby, Jr., Executive Director
SHARE, Inc.

CHAIRMAN MACAULAY: Do you have any health related problems that the Screening Committee should be made aware of that would prevent you from serving on the Board in a full capacity?
MR. CARPENTER: No, sir, I do not.
CHAIRMAN MACAULAY: What is your occupation?
MR. CARPENTER: I am Vice President and Senior Commercial
Lending Officer with American Federal Bank in Greenville.
CHAIRMAN MACAULAY: Have you ever been discharged from any employment?
MR. CARPENTER: No, sir, I have not.
CHAIRMAN MACAULAY: Considering your present occupation and other activities, would you be able to attend board meetings on a regular basis?
MR. CARPENTER: Yes, sir, I have the support of my employer to
do so.
CHAIRMAN MACAULAY: Do any of your businesses have contracts with the state or federal government?
MR. CARPENTER: No, sir, they do not.
CHAIRMAN MACAULAY: Do you have any interests professionally or personally that would present a conflict of interest because of your service on the Board?
MR. CARPENTER: No, sir.
CHAIRMAN MACAULAY: Would you be able to put in the time
necessary to serve on the Board?
MR. CARPENTER: Yes, I would.
CHAIRMAN MACAULAY: Do you or any member of your family have any business interests that would present a conflict of interest in your holding this position?
MR. CARPENTER: No, sir.
CHAIRMAN MACAULAY: Are you or any member of your immediate family related to anyone affiliated with the Health and Human Services Finance Commission?
MR. CARPENTER: Not to my knowledge.
CHAIRMAN MACAULAY: Do you now hold any public position of
honor or trust that if elected to the Board would cause you to violate the Dual Officeholding Clause of the Constitution?
MR. CARPENTER: I do not think I do.
CHAIRMAN MACAULAY: Do you hold any sort of public office?
MR. CARPENTER: Not public elected office, no, sir. I'm on a
couple of social service boards that are United Way agencies.
CHAIRMAN MACAULAY: All right. Are there any questions from the Committee? Representative Rama.
REPRESENTATIVE RAMA: Mr. Carpenter, tell me briefly what your interests are in this Commission, why you want to serve.
MR. CARPENTER: Well, for the nineteen years since I graduated
from the University of South Carolina and entered the business community, most of my volunteer roles in the Greenville area have been related to things that have to do with human services. My Resume of Activities on my application summarizes a lot of those kinds of things. And I feel like my experience as a banker, my financial experience and as a businessman, coupled with the experience that I've gain in serving in a number of volunteer roles and capacities and on board seats and as president of agencies, local United Way type agencies, gives me a unique qualification to serve on this Commission.
REPRESENTATIVE RAMA: Do you have knowledge of the workings of this Commission?
MR. CARPENTER: Yes, sir, I do. I'm aware of the fact that one
of the primary tasks of this Commission is, for lack of a better word, the distribution of federal dollars and matching state dollars for such purposes as Medicaid.
REPRESENTATIVE RAMA: How long have you been interested in
serving on this Commission? You are a late filer and I just ...
MR. CARPENTER: I've been aware that the Commission exists for
a number of years, and knowledge, I guess, coming mostly from some of the things I do involved here as well as business dealings in the healthcare industry and knowledge that this Commission administers the funding for a number of those.
REPRESENTATIVE RAMA: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN MACAULAY: Are there any other questions from
members of the Committee? All right. Very good. Thank you, Mr. Carpenter.
MR. CARPENTER: Thank you, sir.
CHAIRMAN MACAULAY: Before we get to the final consideration of the members, there was one question that seemed to come up on a candidate and I think that a letter has been placed in our file in response to a question, just about circumstances. Is there any further information or questions now at this time that needs to be addressed as to any of the candidates?
REPRESENTATIVE BROWN: Mr. Chairman.
CHAIRMAN MACAULAY: Representative Brown.
REPRESENTATIVE BROWN: This is my question, I noticed the
Statement of Economic Interest Form was not signed. Is there any reason for not having a signature?
CHAIRMAN MACAULAY: Is that Mr. Carpenter's?
REPRESENTATIVE BROWN: Yes.
MS. COLEMAN: That could have been due to my error. I picked
up a copy at the last minute when we were making copies. I do have the original in my office. I can certainly get you a copy of the signed copy.
REPRESENTATIVE RAMA: Mr. Chairman.
CHAIRMAN MACAULAY: Representative Rama.
REPRESENTATIVE RAMA: This letter that we have here from Ms.
Hampton, I believe it was Dr. Houck that asked the question of her reasons that she was terminated. I have this letter, all of us have this letter before us. Did she answer the question to everyone's satisfaction?
REPRESENTATIVE HOUCK: I don't have the letter.
REPRESENTATIVE RAMA: I still have questions. I don't know that she's answered the question directly in this letter. Did she? Am I reading it wrong?
CHAIRMAN MACAULAY: I think when we have something like this, the response has to speak for itself. Obviously, this is the reply that has been made. I don't know if any later question was directly addressed to her. I think this was something that she ...
REPRESENTATIVE HOUCK: She volunteered it.
CHAIRMAN MACAULAY: ... volunteered on her own.
REPRESENTATIVE RAMA: Well, I read the transcript and that's
where I had the question. When I looked at that letter it just looked like there was a hole in her statement. I was just wondering if it was filled in in the Executive Session or ...
CHAIRMAN MACAULAY: No, I don't believe we had any candidates back in Executive Session. Executive Session was used just for the members of the Committee to discuss various matters. Any further discussion?
REPRESENTATIVE BROWN: Just one question.
CHAIRMAN MACAULAY: Representative Brown.
REPRESENTATIVE BROWN: I know that we've accepted the
application, but I just want to find out, do we have a person who is in this particular position at the present time, running for re-election?
CHAIRMAN MACAULAY: Representative Brown, it is my
understanding and I stand to be corrected, but that, yes, there is somebody who is presently serving but they have not opted for reappointment.
MS. COLEMAN: I think they've served two terms.
CHAIRMAN MACAULAY: Oh, they have served two terms and would be ineligible for reappointment. As I mentioned earlier, though, nobody filed until we had Mr. Carpenter to file late. We have no other application. Of course, I understand that until a candidate is elected and duly qualified, that of course, the incumbent continues to serve, but cannot be reappointed by the law that limits them to serve only two terms. Any further questions?
SENATOR PEELER: Mr. Chairman.
CHAIRMAN MACAULAY: Senator Peeler.
SENATOR PEELER: I apologize that I wasn't able to attend the
Tuesday morning meeting. I have a couple of questions that I would like to ask the Committee, but I would like to ask those questions in Executive Session when we complete our work, our open work. I would move the we have an Executive Session before we adjourn.
CHAIRMAN MACAULAY: Senator Peeler, as far as I know and the
agenda I had intended to follow this morning, the next thing would be the final consideration of the qualification of candidates. Would you would like to move that we go into Executive Session ...
SENATOR PEELER: Prior to that.
CHAIRMAN MACAULAY: ... prior to that time?
SENATOR PEELER: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN MACAULAY: Senator Peeler moves that we go into
Executive Session. All those in favor, indicate by saying, I. Opposed, no. The I's have it, so, if we could, clear the room, please.

SENATOR HELMLY: Mr. Chairman.
CHAIRMAN MACAULAY: Senator Helmly.
SENATOR HELMLY: I would move that all of the candidates that
we have screened, since there is nothing significant to prevent them from being qualified, I would move that it's proper that we order that these candidates are qualified, duly qualified.
CHAIRMAN MACAULAY: The motion is that each of the candidates that we have screened, which are Ms. Sherrill Hampton and Ms. Nettie Dickerson from the Second Congressional District, Mr. Fredrick Carpenter from the Fourth Congressional District, and Mr. Ralph Garrison from the Sixth Congressional District be favorably reported as being qualified to be candidates for the Health and Human Services Finance Commission.
REPRESENTATIVE RAMA: Second.
CHAIRMAN MACAULAY: Second by Representative Rama. All those in favor of the motion, indicate by saying, I.
CHAIRMAN MACAULAY: Opposed, no. The I's have it.
SENATOR HELMLY: I think we should at least reflect that Mr.
Carpenter's screening process was a little late. I don't think we should make a big issue out of it, but we don't want somebody to say, did you do something, we have at least the record reflecting that. I think we're doing the right thing ...
CHAIRMAN MACAULAY: I think that when we file the transcript
that it will indicate the proceedings that we had this morning in order to ultimately ...
SENATOR HELMLY: I think we did the right thing.
CHAIRMAN MACAULAY: It will be included in the transcript for
the members of the General Assembly. Do I hear a motion that we now adjourn?
SENATOR PEELER: So moved.
CHAIRMAN MACAULAY: Motion by Senator Peeler. All those in
favor, indicate by saying I.
CHAIRMAN MACAULAY: Thank you very much.
(There being no further matters, the hearing was adjourned at 10:10 a.m.)

Having completed the investigation as required by the Act, the committee, by this report, respectfully submits its findings to the members of the General Assembly for their consideration.

This committee has investigated each of the applicants, conducted a public hearing on May 12, 1992, and duly considered the legal qualifications of each of the applicants. Based thereon, the committee finds all of the nominees to be legally qualified as candidates for the South Carolina Health and Human Services Finance Commission.

Respectfully submitted,
/s/Senator Alexander S. Macaulay, Chairman /s/Rep. W.S. Houck, Jr.
/s/Senator Robert L. Helmly /s/Rep. Joe E. Brown
/s/Senator McKinley Washington, Jr. /s/Rep. C.D. Chamblee
/s/Senator Harvey S. Peeler, Jr. /s/Rep. John Rama

(On motion of Senator MACAULAY, ordered printed in the Journal.)

The following Bills and Joint Resolutions were read the third time and having received three readings in both Houses, it was ordered that the titles thereof be changed to that of Acts and same enrolled for Ratification:

H. 4781 -- Reps. Keyserling and White: A BILL TO AMEND ACT 589 OF 1986, AS AMENDED, RELATING TO THE BOARD OF EDUCATION FOR BEAUFORT COUNTY, SO AS TO REVISE THE MANNER IN WHICH AND DISTRICTS FROM WHICH THE MEMBERS OF THE BOARD ARE ELECTED BEGINNING WITH THE 1992 ELECTION.

(By prior motion of Senator CORK)

H. 4804 -- Rep. Clyborne: A JOINT RESOLUTION TO PROVIDE THAT THE SCHOOL DAYS MISSED ON NOVEMBER 25, 26, AND 27, 1991, BY THE STUDENTS OF THE SEVIER MIDDLE SCHOOL IN GREENVILLE COUNTY BECAUSE OF A FIRE ON SCHOOL PROPERTY ARE EXEMPT FROM THE MAKE-UP REQUIREMENT OF THE DEFINED MINIMUM PLAN THAT FULL SCHOOL DAYS MISSED DUE TO EXTREME WEATHER OR OTHER CIRCUMSTANCES BE MADE UP.

(By prior motion of Senator STILWELL)

H. 4426 -- Reps. Manly, Fair, Cato, Mattos, Anderson, Vaughn, M.O. Alexander, Haskins, Wilkins, Jaskwhich and Clyborne: A BILL TO AUTHORIZE A POLITICAL SUBDIVISION WHICH OPERATES A SEWER SYSTEM AUTHORIZED BY LAW TO PROVIDE FOR THE EXPENDITURE OF FUNDS COLLECTED BY WAY OF FRONT-FOOT ASSESSMENTS OR PER-PARCEL ASSESSMENTS FOR SEWER IMPROVEMENTS IN ACCORDANCE WITH THIS ACT.

(By prior motion of Senator MITCHELL, with unanimous consent)

H. 4617 -- Medical, Military, Public and Municipal Affairs Committee: A JOINT RESOLUTION TO APPROVE REGULATIONS OF THE SOUTH CAROLINA LAW ENFORCEMENT TRAINING COUNCIL, RELATING TO CERTIFICATION AND RECERTIFICATION, DESIGNATED AS REGULATION DOCUMENT NUMBER 1404, PURSUANT TO THE PROVISIONS OF ARTICLE 1, CHAPTER 23, TITLE 1 OF THE 1976 CODE.

(By prior motion of Senator WILLIAMS, with unanimous consent)

H. 4618 -- Medical, Military, Public and Municipal Affairs Committee: A JOINT RESOLUTION TO APPROVE REGULATIONS OF THE LAW ENFORCEMENT TRAINING COUNCIL, RELATING TO CONDUCT, DESIGNATED AS REGULATION DOCUMENT NUMBER 1447, PURSUANT TO THE PROVISIONS OF ARTICLE 1, CHAPTER 23, TITLE 1 OF THE 1976 CODE.

(By prior motion of Senator MITCHELL, with unanimous consent)

H. 4203 -- Rep. Altman: A BILL TO AMEND SECTION 56-9-550, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO PROOF OF FINANCIAL RESPONSIBILITY, SO AS TO PROVIDE ADDITIONAL MEANS OF PROVIDING THE CERTIFICATE TO THE SOUTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF HIGHWAYS AND PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION.

(By prior motion of Senator LOURIE, with unanimous consent)

H. 4204 -- Rep. Altman: A BILL TO AMEND SECTION 12-37-2740, AS AMENDED, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO SUSPENSION OF DRIVER'S LICENSE AND REGISTRATION FOR FAILURE TO PAY PROPERTY TAX ON A MOTOR VEHICLE, SO AS TO PROVIDE THAT THE DEPARTMENT OF HIGHWAYS AND PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION SHALL DETERMINE THE MANNER OF NOTIFICATION.

(By prior motion of Senator LOURIE, with unanimous consent)

The following House Bills were read the third time, passed and ordered returned to the House with amendments:

H. 4649 -- Reps. G. Bailey, A. Young and Wofford: A BILL TO AMEND ACT 536 OF 1986, AS AMENDED, RELATING TO DORCHESTER COUNTY SCHOOL DISTRICT 4 AND OTHER SCHOOL MATTERS OF THE COUNTY, SO AS TO ESTABLISH FIVE SINGLE-MEMBER DISTRICTS FROM WHICH MEMBERS OF THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF DORCHESTER COUNTY SCHOOL DISTRICT 4 MUST BE ELECTED IN 1992, DELETE REFERENCES TO THE DORCHESTER COUNTY LEGISLATIVE DELEGATION APPOINTING MEMBERS OF THE BOARD, PROVIDE A PROCEDURE FOR THE FILLING OF VACANCIES ON THE BOARD, DELETE THE REQUIREMENT FOR A CANDIDATE TO FILE A STATEMENT OF CANDIDACY AND INSTEAD REQUIRE A NOMINATING PETITION; AND DELETE PROVISIONS WHICH ESTABLISHED SINGLE-MEMBER DISTRICTS FOR MEMBERS OF THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES ELECTED IN 1988.

(By prior motion of Senator MATTHEWS)

H. 4257 -- Rep. Cromer: A BILL TO AMEND SECTION 47-1-40, AS AMENDED, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO CRUELTY TO ANIMALS, ILL-TREATMENT OF ANIMALS GENERALLY, AND CERTAIN PENALTIES, SO AS TO EXTEND APPLICATION OF CERTAIN PROVISIONS OF THE SECTION TO ALL OFFENDING PERSONS, INCREASE THE PENALTIES, AND PROVIDE THAT A FIRST OFFENSE VIOLATION SHALL BE TRIED IN MAGISTRATE'S COURT, TO INCREASE THE PENALTY FOR A PERSON WHO TORTURES, TORMENTS, NEEDLESSLY MUTILATES, CRUELLY KILLS, OR INFLICTS EXCESSIVE OR REPEATED UNNECESSARY PAIN OR SUFFERING UPON ANY ANIMAL, OR CAUSES THESE ACTS TO BE DONE, INCLUDING MANDATING BOTH FINE AND IMPRISONMENT FOR COMMITTING THE CRIME, RATHER THAN MERELY ALLOWING THE IMPOSITION OF FINE AND IMPRISONMENT, AND TO ELIMINATE THE EXCEPTION PROVIDING THAT THE PROVISIONS OF THIS SECTION DO NOT APPLY TO FOWL.

(By prior motion of Senator WILLIAMS, with unanimous consent)

The following Bill was severally read the third time, passed and ordered sent to the House of Representatives:

S. 1552 -- Senator Hinson: A BILL TO AMEND ACT 777 OF 1988, AS AMENDED, RELATING TO THE ESTABLISHMENT OF THE LANCASTER COUNTY SCHOOL DISTRICT, SO AS TO DECREASE FROM NINE TO SEVEN THE NUMBER OF MEMBERS OF THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES, PROVIDE THAT EACH MEMBER OF THE BOARD MUST BE ELECTED FROM SINGLE-MEMBER ELECTION DISTRICTS FROM WHICH MEMBERS OF THE LANCASTER COUNTY COUNCIL ARE ELECTED, DELETE TRANSITIONAL PROVISIONS, PROVIDE FOR THE STAGGERING OF TERMS OF THE NEWLY ELECTED MEMBERS, PROVIDE THAT MEMBERS SERVING ON THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF THIS ACT SHALL SERVE THE REMAINDER OF THE TERM FOR WHICH THEY WERE ELECTED, TO PROVIDE THAT A VACANCY OCCURRING AT LEAST ONE HUNDRED TWENTY DAYS BEFORE A GENERAL ELECTION MUST BE FILLED BY A SPECIAL ELECTION, AND DELETE THE PROVISIONS RELATING TO THE ESTABLISHMENT OF SINGLE-MEMBER ELECTION DISTRICTS.

(By prior motion of Senator HINSON)

The following Joint Resolution having been read the second time was passed and ordered to a third reading:

S. 1556 -- Senators Passailaigue, Bryan, Carmichael, Cork, Courson, Courtney, Drummond, Fielding, Giese, Gilbert, Robert W. Hayes, Jr., Helmly, Hinds, Hinson, Holland, Land, Leatherman, Leventis, Lourie, Macaulay, Martin, Martschink, Matthews, McGill, Mitchell, Moore, Mullinax, O'Dell, Patterson, Peeler, Pope, Reese, Rose, Russell, Saleeby, Setzler, Shealy, J. Verne Smith, Nell W. Smith, Stilwell, Thomas, Washington, Williams and Wilson: A JOINT RESOLUTION TO DESIGNATE SOUTH CAROLINA HIGHWAY 61 EXPRESSWAY IN CHARLESTON COUNTY AS THE "GLENN F. McCONNELL HIGHWAY".

(By prior motion of Senator PASSAILAIGUE, with unanimous consent)

At 11:52 A.M., on motion of Senator GIESE, the Senate adjourned to meet next Tuesday, May 19, 1992, at 12:00 Noon.

* * *

This web page was last updated on Tuesday, June 30, 2009 at 8:56 A.M.